Updated Education, Unions, School boards, Vested interests and Cyber School Reform

How do you change education in an environment with so many entrenched organizations, like unions, school boards, and vested interests? 

Schools are educational institutions that validate and reinforce parenting. As a parent and grandparent myself, I want to validate their efforts because it reflects on my own parenting skills. This provides a motivation to look the other way even if our school deserves some questioning. The school system that is meant to bring about security and stability can produce apathetic and bureaucratic stagnation. 

Unions want stability because it is what their membership wants. Change is something that organized labor is not quick to respond to. They can handle change, but incrementally, and over a long period of time. Unions take the lowest common denominator in schools and lay a working standard to protect their employees. Unions do what the NCLB does for students. They pull all low performers up because no teacher should be left behind. The goal of pulling low performers up differs from a goal to maximally advance student achievement. Unfortunately, some of the brightest students and teachers are left behind in bureaucratic molasses.

 
School boards want fiscal constraint. They want educated children in exchange for tax dollars from their constituents. School boards can make decisions that produce short term results to please their constituents. The real goal beneath fiscal accountability is self preservation. School boards can cut short solutions without sustainable answers. There are bills pending that could hurt cyber schools in Pennsylvania. School boards across the Commonwealth seem to be very interested in sacrificing innovation for budget cuts. Online education is in a growth trend right now. They may regret these cuts when the long term results will be less effective tools developed for on line learning.

There are vested interest that would like to keep the educational institution the same. Sometimes a school district may be the largest employer and service provider in a community. Book publishing companies, building contractors, architects, and maintenance companies shudder to understand how they will be able to bill school districts when they build fewer buildings because education is being shifted to the home and away from text books. Some of these people are sitting on our school boards today. Bus companies wonder how they will transport students from their home to their dining room. Fortunately for them, we will never eliminate face to face education. Blended programs are the wave of the future which will combine online learning at home with part time interaction at a facility. This part time strategy is likely to lead to less demand for text books, facilities and transportation services.

 
Charter schools are schools of choice. The parent chooses a charter school, and in turn rejects a compulsory option. The fear that lulls parents into an apathetic bliss of optimism can also empower them when options are presented to them. Traditional schools resist change. Advances in technology have leveled the playing field. (Or should we say playground.) In order for our children to compete we must change the way we teach, and the way that students learn. Schools resist change because it means more work and rethinking the systems that have worked for them in the past. Parents are the hope and future of education. They are the rogue element that trumps the schools with the oldest institution of them all, the family. For this reason we should be promoting cyber charter schools to finish what they started. To pull the plug after a short term gain will only mean a long term delay on our competition in the global educational race.

Parental choice is the rogue element in education that can bring change. Finland has been successful in tapping this resource in a directive way by creating a national visioning exercise. The movement of education from the classroom to the home may be a key ingredient in American education reform. The American education system started in the home. Computers can empower parent facilitators to deliver interaction with professional educators online. A blended model that is part time traditional school and part time home school will bring about the kind of reform to makes sense of global competition and professional development.

If this short essay made an impression on you, then please consider writing your state representative at this link. http://savemycharterschool.com/ 

<

Pennsylvania's education debate must focus on kids, parents

Senator Mike Fulmer's  opinion is correct. Who decides what's "equal in scope and content?" District cyber schools will take Cyber Charter funding at the expense of those students enrolled in cyber charter schools.

 By SEN. MIKE FOLMER

Updated:   04/15/2013 11:49:07 AM EDT

Article III, Section 14 of Pennsylvania's Constitution, "Public School System" requires that: "The General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of public education to serve the needs of the Commonwealth." Through the generosity of taxpayers, we spend nearly $27 billion in federal, state and local tax dollars in pursuit of a "thorough and efficient" public education system.
This amount is more than 70 other nations' Gross National Products, and spread out evenly among Pennsylvania's 500 school districts, equals $54 million per district. The catch - and an issue surrounding the state's school funding formulas - is that districts receive widely varying amounts of state dollars.
When I became chairman of the Senate Education Committee, I was surprised to learn there are numerous school funding formulas: basic education funding; English language learner high incidence supplement; charter and cyber charter school extraordinary enrollment supplement; second class county school district supplements; increasing aid ratio supplement; personal income supplement; small district increasing aid ratio supplement; and small district supplement. These various formulas result in about one-third ($10 billion out of the $27 billion) of state money going toward education.

Nearly 40 percent of the state budget is spent on basic and higher education. Taxpayers need to know that these investments in education truly "serve the needs of the Commonwealth." However, like public perceptions of Congress, many citizens believe schools as a whole need to do better while thinking their local school is a model of affordable and quality education. In an effort to objectively assess individual schools, federal and state measurements have been attempted through the years, and many question the wisdom and effectiveness of initiatives such as No Child Left Behind and Common Core Standards. As a side note, "education" is not part of the United States Constitution.

I believe decision-making is best done at the local level, where elected officials are closest to the people. What works in one school may not work in another, and what works in one certainly not will work in all 500 Pennsylvania school districts. Balancing these interests is challenging - especially when you also chair the Senate Education Committee.

Although I have served on the Education Committee since I have been in General Assembly, the issues are more complex and deeper when you are the chairman of the committee. Acronyms and abbreviations abound, and to my surprise, in most meetings, adults debate issues and rarely mention the needs and interests of children.

If education is about children, then adults need to focus on them - and their parents. I'm committed to this.
An example of this dilemma was seen recently on the possible consideration of a bill to address the funding of cyber charter schools. Touted by supporters as "an all-inclusive and comprehensive bill," it basically makes just one change: "If a public school district offers a cyber-based program equal in scope and content to an existing publicly charted cyber school and a student in that district attends a cyber charter school instead of the district's cyber-based program, the school district shall not be required to provide funding for a student's attendance at a cyber charter school."

Who decides what's "equal in scope and content?" Presently, it is parents who decide to enroll their children in cyber schools (or other schools). Parents should make such decisions: They know best what's best for their children. I don't think government - any government - should interfere with these rights - ever.
This will be my guiding principle whenever the General Assembly deliberates education issues: How does it help the education of children?

Folmer represents Pennsylvania's 48th Senatorial District, which encompasses all of Lebanon County.

A letter from Dr. Hanak,

Dear Joel,

I appreciate your effort to treat the charter school / traditional school debate fairly on Sunday April 7.

http://articles.philly.com/2013-04-08/business/38348740_1_traditional-public-school-cyber-schools-charter-school

May I offer some perspectives you may not know?

I am the founder and CEO of PA Leadership Charter School, one of 15 PA Cyber Charter Schools.  We started in 2004 and have grown to over 2,400 students state wide.

You stated in your article:

"Pennsylvania's revised method of evaluating charter schools reported that only 28 percent of the more traditional charter schools and none of the state's Cyber Schools (another outsource) met the standards for "adequate yearly progress... Unfortunately, we have no way of determining whether this massive educational experiment is succeeding."

Several observations:

1. Charter schools in Philadelphia are performing better than their counterparts in the traditional public school arena.

• 9 public charter schools have made AYP every year since their inception.
• 54% of public charter schools in Philadelphia County made AYP in 2012
  
• 13% of traditional public schools in Philadelphia County made AYP in 2012
• 29 public charter schools are classified as either Making Progress or School Improvement

2. Cyber Charter Schools are evaluated unfairly.  They are evaluated as individual schools and as Local Educational Agencies (LEA's).  This is the equivalent of a school district.  If a school district has one school that makes AYP, the entire school district may be classified as making AYP.  Not so with a Cyber Charter School.  Cybers must make AYP in all grade levels and all categories.
3. Our cyber charter school (palcs.org) has made AYP in 9 out of 10 categories each year since the inception of the school.  Yet, we are not given a 90% success rate in the press.  Rather we are given the equivalent rate of 12.5% because we made all categories in only one of 8 years of testing.  Cyber Charter Schools have a tough time making AYP because our large size gives us 40 students in numerous categories (28 this last year) including: low income, minorities, English as a Second Language, Special Education, etc."
4. With our students that stay with us for more than three years, we have seen dramatic successes - far exceeding the AYP standards. 
5. We have started, and currently run seven live centers where students come to a local location to connect with their teachers via the Internet.  In these centers, we see great success.  The Philadelphia Tribune reported on one of our Philadelphia Centers that boasted a 100% graduation rate.  http://www.palcs.org/2013/03/charter-school-boosts-full-graduation-rate-philadelphia-tribune/. These centers strain the school's budget, however.  We are experimenting with several different models financially to determine if we can expand this concept.
6. All charter schools begin with at least 30% less in funding than the home school district.  Yet, all charter schools are held to the same AYP standards.
7. There are currently 15 cyber charter schools in Pennsylvania.  Several were started and are run by school districts.  Several are totally independent.  Only two are run by outside management companies (Commonwealth Connections and Agora).  The rest are not as you say "another outsource." 
8. Parents are evaluating charter schools and are moving to charters in record numbers.  For every two students in charter schools, there is one student on the waiting list.
 Charter Facts:

• 105,056 - The number of students enrolled in public charter schools across Pennsylvania representing 6% of the entire K-12 student population.

• 44,000 - The number of children in Pennsylvania who are currently on waiting lists to attend charter schools

• 25% - The percentage of students in Philadelphia School District that attend public charter schools.

Currently, there is an effort in Harrisburg to cut the funding for Cyber Charter Schools as much as 30%, making these schools the least funded schools in the state.  All cyber charter schools are asking is to be treated equally with all other public schools.  Then, we would not mind being compared to our traditional brick and mortar counterparts.

I hope that you find this information helpful.  If I can be of further help to you, please call.

Sincerely,

Jim Hanak, CEO, PA Leadership Charter School

610-399-9876 cell

Dr. James Hanak, CEO

PA Leadership Charter School
1332 Enterprise Drive
West Chester, PA  19380

Phone: 610-701-3333

Fax: 610-701-3393
www.palcs.org

Summary of our China visit!

Here is a summary of my experience...

It has been two days since we have arrived back home from China. I write this post in the fog of some jet lag. Our experience with our hosts in China was wonderful. Hebei International School provided us with experiences that my students and I will cherish for a life time. When we first arrived all of us were struck by a country that is rapidly changing. There are cranes every where that add dust to an already dusty environment. We arrived in a new air port and took a bullet train to a brand new station with 32 platforms. China is a very forward planning country to meet the needs of 1.4 billion people. This is almost 5 times the size of the United States. One of the highlights for me was to visit the planning pavilion where we were able to see the city plan for the city of Shijiazhuang.

The people of China are what continually draws me back to this culture. They are both kind and hospitable. My students and I felt like movie stars. We were constantly eating out and asked for photo opportunities. If any of my students had a low self esteem I think a healthy dose of China for two weeks is likely to cure them. In addition, we all have probably gained a little weight from the amazing food. Our group responded well to this hospitality. I think this is the best group of students I have taken on an international trip. Everywhere I went I received compliments about them. In short, our host families and the school administration overwhelmed us with warmth and generosity. We have seen the great wall and experienced the great hearts of these people. We have made friendships that will last a life time. :) Our two schools will continue to work together to help our students achieve their highest potential. I am reminded of the song that we learned in music class one day on our trip. "Come together, put your hand in mine, you and me from one world, we are family." xin lian xin  永遠一家人。

You can read more about our Chinese Experience on our BLOG. Please check it out and make a comment. There is a translator built into this web site for the benefit of our Mandarin pen pals.

PALCS needs you to call PCN today!

Student Senators and parents!

PALCS needs our help. Tomorrow at 7 PM the minority chairman of the education committee is holding a call in program on his bill HB 934. Please call in and let me know that you are planning to do this. I will be listening. We need at least 3 or 4 of you to volunteer, but the more the merrier.

When you call in be prepared to tell your personal story. How has Cyber School helped you specifically? Many students talk about bullying, flexibility or just an out dated educational model that does not fit your learning needs.

Representative James Roebuck is the Democratic Committee Chairman of the house education committee. This powerful committee chooses which education bills will come to the floor for a vote. Roebuck has made the case that educational cuts can be balanced because charter schools are over funded. His plan is to cut charter school funding by $365,000,000 because he believes that they are overfunded. He makes a case for a uniform funding plan. This uniform plan would cut charter school funding by about 40%. This plan does not make sense because it contradicts the local control of educational funding. This is the way all other schools are funded. The inequality of the measure does not seem to bother him. Why should charter school students receive less for their education than any other students in the commonwealth? He wants to cut charter school funding because he sees charter schools as vulnerable. He does not think that the students and parents of these schools will care enough to fight for a cut in their funding. In addition we already receive 30% less than other schools because we do not receive transportation costs or costs for extracurricular activities.

As you know we have a successful student government at our school. This organization flourishes despite these funding cuts. Why should we reform Charter schools in a way that stifles innovation when our educational system is in dire need of it? If these cuts are passed there will be less creativity, like student government and just teaching to the achievement test. These cuts would require a correspondence model that ignores the collaboration and innovation of our unique educational platforms.

Summary: Comprehensive charter reform legislation that would create or require the following:

·                                      Create a funding commission that is not directed to look at equitable funding for all students, but rather to quantify how much money districts are paying for students in charter schools and how that impacts the districts.

·                                      Defines quality on the single criteria of AYP performance and requires charters to close if they do not meet AYP for three consecutive years.

·                                      Adds additional deductions that districts can take on the PDE Form 363 before paying charters.

·                                      Requires limitations on fund balances without addressing the issue that 70% of charter fund balances are required because districts refuse to pay charter    schools.

·                                      Adds additional reporting and compliance requirements to a point where they would be almost double those required of school districts.

HB 934

Please call into PCN tomorrow!

Representative James Roebuck recently introduced HB 934.  This bill would have devastating effects to both cyber charter and brick and mortar charter schools.  Tomorrow, PCPCS President Lawrence Jones, Jr. and Rep. Roebuck will appear on the PCN program "Call In" at 7:00 pm to debate Rep. Roebuck's legislation.

Please tune in to watch and also call 1-877-726-5001 with questions and comments!