Modify PA HB 97 & Senate Bill 766 (An Open Letter to the Pennsylvania Senate)

Modify HB 97 & Senate Bill 766

The current Senate Bill 766 sponsored by Senator Argall and HB 97 by Representative Reese need some adjustments. Here is the core of the Senate bill. A task force will be appointed to determine minimum standards of academic achievement for students of cyber charter schools. Students who are determined as having failing grades will be removed from the cyber charter school system. Here is an excerpt from the bill.

(4) annually conduct an assessment of the student's achievement to determine whether the level of achievement satisfies the minimum achievement requirements established by the task force under section 1704-A to continue enrollment in the cyber charter school. (2) A student who fails, after being assessed in accordance with section 1743-A(e)(4), to satisfy the minimum achievement requirements established by the task force under section 1704-A shall withdraw from the cyber charter school at the end of the semester in which the assessment occurs and may not re-enroll in the cyber charter school or enroll in another cyber charter school unless the student satisfies the minimum achievement requirements at least one school year thereafter.

Here are some adjustments that I would recommend.

Stanford Study: 

The Stanford study has stimulated the desire to hold cyber charter schools accountable due to inadequate student achievement. While I applaud the concern for failing students in the cyber charter setting, the cyber charter school movement will not benefit from a one-size-fits-all policy. Some cyber schools are doing a better job of remediating student achievement and should be differentiated by the task force.

The Need for Differentiation:

The cyber charter schools are using different platforms and pedagogy to deliver instruction. In addition to differences in instructional platforms, there are also synchronous, asynchronous and blended learning models that are being beta tested. These innovations all have an implementation timeline for effectiveness. Many of these implementations are new. Cyber education changes as technology advances to deliver the best possible individual learning experience. A one-size-fits-all funding formula will punish innovation and reward the status quo. The loser in this formula is technological innovation which continues to change and increase in the proving grounds of cyber education.

Proving Ground or Dumping Ground

Cyber charter schools have become the dumping grounds for students seeking a second chance for success. There are legitimate reasons that many students choose a cyber educational setting. I call them the four B's. 

1. Bullying is a common reason students leave brick and mortar schools because they gain an individual setting apart from bullies. 
2. Bad or divergent behavior also provides a valid reason to minimize student interaction. Antisocial behaviors on the spectrum of autism can ostracize students causing them to withdraw. Cyber school provides students with a way to ease into a social setting with instant messages, multi-media classrooms, and field trips. 
3. Bad grades is the third reason for students leaving the traditional setting. Brick and mortar schools lose students because parents choose to send their children somewhere else. Many of these students suffer with poor grades and are looking for a different fresh start. Cyber schools provide a different alternative that provides individual instruction which allows for the possibility of success.
4. Breaking Boundaries is a different reason students choose cyber education. They embrace technological change to allow the time to reach other goals within their lives. They are leaders. They are also single mothers, gifted students, musicians, athletes, politically active, and young entrepreneurs.

Cyber charter schools are likely to have poorer graduation rates for the first three reasons, and traditional schools graduation rates should go up. Using student drop out averages across all schools to access effectiveness punishes cyber charter schools for accepting these students. 

Accountability:

The Task Force should take the average failing scores of students in the top cyber charter school when developing standards to determine "minimum achievement". This should be written into the bill to direct the task force to determine a benchmark. This will promote innovation without punishing systemic achievement.

Relationships:

The student teacher relationship is a foundation marker for student achievement. Students will never care how much you know until they know how much you care. The most at risk students are the students most deserving of a mentor relationship with their teacher. As a teacher of cyber charter students for fourteen years I have had the distinct privilege of making life long relationships with many of my students. As they have graduated and become Linkedin, Facebook and Instagram connections I have watched them succeed and flounder. The students who I have had the strongest relationship with seem to have found their way better in the world of work and family. 

Conclusion:

One size does not fit all in education or in cyber charter education. In my educational experiences over the past 14 years I have seen the need for greater differentiation in education. Technology provides a path to this. I do however understand the need for accountability. I welcome it when it comes with measures that reward innovation while punishing the lack of student achievement. 

"Whatever Sprinkles your Donut" and Tap the break lights on change.

I am the adviser for our Student Government Organization. Recently, our students organized a fundraiser to sell wrist bands to students and members of our cyber community of students. They gathered imprint ideas for the bracelets, and "Whatever Sprinkles your Donut" (Purposely grammatically incorrect) came up the winner. As I began to think about this trite saying it struck me that it reflects our current political environment. I recently watched a video from Thomas Friedman, New York Times columnist, and author of, The World is Flat". In this video he discussed globalism and its resulting acceleration of change. It was his premise that the election of Donald Trump was a response to that change. He felt that the consequences of this election could be very serious even leading to nuclear war. I am more of an optimist. Although I agree that there could be serious consequences for choosing a path of stagnation versus change, I feel that the current election is just a tap on the brakes as people feel threatened by too much change.

The choice by my students of "whatever sprinkles your donut" is a subconscious reaction to the stress my students are currently experiencing. They are living and studying in a global world where the jobs that they will be preparing for will be gone by the time that they graduate. My advice to my students is to embrace technology. Our students are currently learning in a cyber blended model of education. We have students who have formed life long relationships from all over the Commonwealth because of cyber learning. When students are considering the next step after high school they should also consider how technology interacts with that field. Technology is moving at a rapid pace, and embracing it in the field of their choice will guarantee their success after high school.

Our students in Student Government have written a legislative bill this year. The have formed a committee called The Student Legislative Initiative (SLIC). Four years ago. our students got the idea for the bill by interviewing former state Senator Lloyd Smucker. He felt that many students were not receiving the skills necessary to be successful after high school. Our students have interacted with a computer program that aligns several inventories with thier interest, skills and job or scholarship availability into an electronic portfolio. Since we originally wrote this bill several other legislators ie Dan Tuitt, Scott Wagner, Ryan Aument and Andy Dinniman,  and their staffs have helped us. In addition many of my students have graduated and are still involved in the process. You can read the bill here. This bill is designed to ease the transition from high school into the world of work by assigning every student in the Commonwealth with an electronic portfolio, that is interactive with their teacher. It is a technological solution to a traditional guidance problem.

I am currently teaching US History. In my opinion, our country had worse presidents than Donald Trump. The Warren Harding and Grant presidencies were filled with corruption and led to The Great Depression and flawed reconstruction. While Donald Trump's presidency may have a scandal similar to Nixon's Watergate, Clinton's Lewinsky or Reagan's Iran Contra he may also accomplish fair trade with China, or paid parental leave. The point here is that Trump with a more parliamentary congress may be able to end the grid lock and bring back governance to Washington. In the meantime, there may be a scandal or two, but if progressive reforms can ease the transition of the pace of change, then our students will benefit. What makes Trump an interesting politician is that he has shown signs of compromising with conservative goals in the interest of establishing pragmatic reform. In the primary season when he campaigned against Hillary Clinton, he would frequently poise Bernie Sanders against her by taking the Bernie's side. For example, Trump would talk about how unfair competition was robbing Americans of jobs, and he used similar rhetoric about Sanders in his campaign. Both Sanders and Trump were populist candidates who veered from traditional party rhetoric for pragmatic progressive reform. The Republican Party was able to realign to these populist reforms because Trump was running unopposed.

In conclusion, the pace of change has been dramatic in recent years. Our students at Pennsylvania Leadership Charter School are in a unique position to embrace technological change because they learn in a cyber and asynchronous setting. Students like Vinh Li, Josh Marzak, Ben Byler, and Hannah Nguyen have worked on our government bill project before and after graduation. They have gathered data from school districts, vendors, legislators, business and executives in education. They have faced the strain of change by embracing technology. "Whatever Sprinkles Your Donut" is a mantra that may relieve the stress that many young people feel. Change is happening too rapidly and is complicating our lives. The temptation is to give in and take the easy path. Students want to learn the skills necessary to acquire a job like our parents have. The jobs that our parents have may still be around whenever students graduate, however technology will have changed them into a description using more technological skills. If students acquire those skills they will be positioned to take change into the next generation and beyond. So go ahead and tap the breaks to slow down, "Whatever Sprinkles your Donut". I have no doubt we will catch up and even pass the rest of pack with good old Yankee ingenuity.

PA Budget passes but the devil is in the funding for Cyber Charter Schools @PAGOP

I am watching #PCN today and hoping they do not cut Cyber Charter School funding. @PAGOP, The PA Budget is passed, but the devil is in the funding. Please write a letter to your legislator with this simple message today. NO CUTS TO CYBER CHARTER SCHOOLS. We do support the transparency, accountability and reconciliation language provisions but NO CUTS !!! Pennsylvania Leadership Charter School (PALCS) PALCS Student Government

Link to “find your House Legislator”: http://www.house.state.pa.us/

Link to “find your Senator”: http://www.pasen.gov/

Senate Republican Leadership:

Joe Scarnati - jscarnati@pasen.gov

Jake Corman - jcorman@pasen.gov

Pat Browne - pbrowne@pasen.gov

Senate Ed Committee Chair: Lloyd Smucker - lsmucker@pasen.gov

Senate Democrat Leadership:

Anthony Williams - williams@pasenate.com

House R Leadership:
Mike Turzai - mturzai@pahousegop.com

Dave Reed- dreed@pahousegop.com

Bryan Cutler- bcutler@pahousegop.com

Bill Adolph- wadolph@pahousegop.com

Kerry Benninghoff- kbenning@pahousegop.com

House D Leadership:
Tom Dermody- fdermody@pahouse.net

Joe Markosek- JMarkose@pahouse.net

Mike Hanna- mhanna@pahouse.net

House Ed Committee Chair: Stan Saylor- ssaylor@pahousegop.com

jscarnati@pasen.gov

jcorman@pasen.gov

pbrowne@pasen.gov

lsmucker@pasen.gov

williams@pasenate.com

mturzai@pahousegop.com

dreed@pahousegop.com

bcutler@pahousegop.com

wadolph@pahousegop.com

kbenning@pahousegop.com

fdermody@pahouse.net

JMarkose@pahouse.net

mhanna@pahouse.net

ssaylor@pahousegop.com

pagov@palcs.org

Defending cyber charter schools

 

Another View: Defending cyber charter schools

By Dr. James Hanak

Posted: 02/26/15, 7:57 PM EST

Dr. Hanak is a mentor, friend and colleague of mine at Pennsylvania Leadership Charter School. :)

For years, Pennsylvania’s cyber charter schools have been criticized for under-performing on the state’s standardized tests (PSSAs). This is in part because cyber charter schools attract many students from struggling school districts that have failed to give these students a proper education.

So, this month, on their website, the PA Department of Education released the statewide SAT scores for 653 Pennsylvania high schools/charter high schools. Of the 189 charter schools in the state, three of the top six charter schools were cyber charter Schools. 

The top charter school was 21st Century Cyber Charter School in 63rd place with the next charter school placing at number 116! This happened even though there are only 14 cyber charter schools among the 189 statewide PA charter schools.

The most amazing part of this report is that all top eight charter schools accomplished their scores with 27 percent less money than their traditional counterparts!

 

So, what do cyber charter schools get as a reward?

Currently in Harrisburg, the House of Representatives is considering a bill, sponsored by Rep. Mike Reese, (HB 530) that, if passed by the Senate and signed by the governor, would cut funding for cyber charter schools by more than 5 percent across the board and by as much as 8 percent for students from Philadelphia and as much as 15 percent from students from Chester.

The biggest problem with this bill is that it does not address the other inequities in the cyber charter school funding formula that punish the schools. All charter schools begin with only 75 cents on the dollar from the home sending school district. Along with this, charter schools are held to higher standards than traditional counterparts and cyber charter schools are graded with more stringent requirements than their equal brick-and-mortar counterparts.

The PA Association of School Business Officials, (PASBO.org) is the prime mover of this bill and has only one agenda. All the members of the PASBO board are top administrators in local school districts. They see students leaving their districts and taking tax dollars with them to the only charter schools that reach statewide – cyber charter schools. PASBO must do whatever it can to stop cyber charter schools from being successful. Forget the needs of the students. It is the needs of the budget that are paramount. 

Unfortunately, money talks and the little guy often gets crushed. Cyber schools were cut before because they were not making the grade. Now that they are successful, they most certainly must be cut. The education monopoly establishment must never allow a better innovative idea to catch hold. After all, it might force everyone else to rethink how they are delivering education. 

Cyber schools are utilizing tomorrow’s technology: iPads, video conferencing, multiple screens, touch screens, smart boards, interactive technology, educational gaming, avatars, MOODLE open source learning environments. Cyber schools can create virtual classrooms that pull students together from across the state and across cultural divides. Cyber schools provide state-of-the-art computers, a high-speed Internet and a full educational experience to all their students. A cyber school can provide a high school student any course he or she would ever want to take in a high school setting – including AP and honors courses and increasingly, university level courses.

This is why the education establishment must at all costs cut the funding to these already underfunded schools. The establishment fears the charter school movement, if left unfettered, will, in a couple of generations, take over as it already has in Washington, D.C. where now over 60 percent of the students attend a charter school.

If this bill passes, who are the winners? The well-paid administrators who won’t have to give up their perks and benefits. Who will lose? The thousands of students that are stuck in schools from which they cannot escape. Reported in “Chalk and Talk” ... written by Philadelphia public school teachers, in the Philadelphia Schools: 2005-2010 there were 19,752 assaults. During that same time there were zero assaults in all the cyber charter schools combined. Safe education with high SAT scores. Hard combo to beat.

Dr. James Hanak is CEO of the PA Leadership Charter School.

Cyber School PA, The right choice!

 

Dear Legislator, 

I have been a distance-learning educator for over ten years. During this time, I have seen many students who have been genuinely helped by this form of education. 

One thing that makes our learning platform different is access to quick responses from a teacher. Our students benefit most from this individual attention that we are able to reassure them with. They use the Open Source Moodle platform, and we communicate with many of them each day.  Our Moodle Platform is equipped with an instant messenger to help students at formative times when they begin to struggle. This access to a learning coach will be greatly diminished by a funding cut. 

I meet with students in groups every day in a multi-media classroom. My students have formed life long friendship with other students through this setting as well as looking to their teachers as mentors. I have been able to conduct these classroom sessions while in Panama, China and Quebec. The opportunity to tutor students in this setting will be greatly diminished. Teachers will have less time for synchronous instruction if funding is cut. 

Over time we get to know our students through their writing and responses in the classroom. We can access their group interaction, as well as their knowledge and skill in academics with the technological tools of multi-media classrooms, internal email, instant messaging and highly interactive lessons.  

If our students use distance education as a form of correspondence school, then they could have been doing this in the early 20^th century. While it is true that we could still develop a relationship with them through their writing, it is not a reason to spend this kind of money on learning though the Internet. There is nothing new about correspondence based learning. The Cyber Charter Schools of today use technology to rapidly reach students at critical times of learning. We can catch them at thresholds of learning to ease the transition from one concept to another. We can foster a mentoring relationship with them when we celebrate milestones of accomplishment together, and can correct or redirect them when they need it. Most importantly, we can prepare them for the 21^st century in a way that could have never been accomplished in the 1900’s. 

Our students are learning to reason with technological change. This is quite different from traditional education that clings to a process that is based upon rewarding compliant behavior. In a global world of change, someone needs to be testing new methods of learning that will eventually become mainstream. As other countries catch up with our standard of living, the process of preparation for the real world of work must change with it. 

Will we regret the cuts in this funding when other countries do a better job of preparing students to interact in a world where computers are the universal language? Pennsylvania will be rewarded for their leadership in connecting real world change with the skills necessary to face it. Our legislators in Pennsylvania should follow in the footsteps of our forefathers and do the right thing. Our Commonwealth has a stellar record of advocating for woman’s suffrage, homeschooling, equal rights, and family values when they were not popular. Over time our citizens will embrace the principles of educational choice and funding which follow the student instead of the system. Who is to say that this is not the next great revolution in education, and Pennsylvania is leading the way. 

For another point of view, please read this article. http://www.dailylocal.com/opinion/20150226/another-view-defending-cyber-charter-schools

Cyber School Choice

Cyber schools are public charter schools that offer education to students Online. Students who received the bulk of their education online have varying reasons for making this choice. These reasons could justify the creation of an individualized education program (IEP) for each student. For example some students travel because of their passion for an extra curricular activity. Some students feel unsafe, or are bullied in the traditional setting. Some students just need extra time to work at their own pace. There are about as many reasons as there are students to choose an Online option for education. Today 15 of my students are traveling to Harrisburg to meet with legislators to tell their story to legislators. I hope legislators will open their doors and listen to these students.

Travel is one reason students choose cyber school. For example, one student, a gymnast, has a rigorous travel schedule that keeps her on the road 60% of the time. Six of my students just returned from China where they were able to log into lessons in Pennsylvania while traveling to the other side of the world. Another six of my students went to Panama earlier in the month. These students were able to complete service learning projects while they traveled and stay current on their lessons back home. Travel is one reason that students choose cyber education.

Unfortunately, many of our students who choose a cyber education option have been bullied in the past. Bullying is a growing problem in traditional schools. Cyber Bulling is also a problem, but in Cyber School students are taught to be responsible cyber citizens. In brick and mortar schools social media is avoided or ignored. Cyber education has provided a safe refuge from bullying for many of our students. Whether it is more familiar face to face intimidation or cyber bullying, most students engaged in online education do not find predatory behavior in this setting.

Flexibility is a key component for many of our students. Many of our students like to work at their own pace. With asynchronous lessons that have realistic deadlines; students can choose to schedule tasks that are more difficult over a longer period of time. This helps our students to budget tasks in a way where they can succeed. Mastery is a goal of modern education, and online learning is a process of learning that maximizes this goal. Schedules in traditional schools are not flexible. They do not accommodate snow days or differentiated instructions well. Cyber school does a good job accommodating differentiated instruction and even snow days. When the traditional schools close, cyber students can continue to work on asynchronous lessons.

In conclusion flexibility and safety are cornerstones of online learning. In addition not every cyber school is the same. There are large cyber charter schools and much smaller ones. I work for one of the smaller schools. A cut of 5-15% in the funding of our school will have a much bigger impact than the same cuts on a school five times larger. If the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania cuts funding for cyber schools, then they must realize that different schools that are providing a different innovative emphasis may be significantly affected by these cuts. Cyber charter schools are providing a flexible and safe alternative for many students in Pennsylvania. If funding is cut then the results may be unpredictable for different sized cyber schools across the state. The State's investment in cyber education is a commitment to the innovation necessary, to provide differentiation, flexibility and a safe education to the students who choose to pioneer this style of learning.

The latest threat on Cyber Schools.

I read an interesting article today on Cyber School in the State of Indiana. They have recently followed the lead of Pennsylvania and began to roll out internet based learning in their state. After I read the article I realized that all internet based learning is not equal.This cyber charter school was significantly underfunded at $5000 per student.

I am a teacher of Leadership electives at the Pennsylvania Leadership Charter School. I can see significant differences between our school and other state wide cyber charter schools in Pennsylvania. Our lessons are different from the other cyber schools in the state. Our teachers have embraced the mission of pioneering a new education platform and have designed their own lessons. Many of our sister schools in the state have opted for a different system. K-12 and Commonwealth Connections have created a school based curriculum that can be transferred easily from school to school. This model works very well to recreate their learning in other schools; however, it does not follow what is happening using the best practices available. The best educational practices follow models where students can apply their learning to the real world. When I went to a traditional schools in the 1960’s and 70’s we had independent instructional approaches where students could work at their own pace, and it worked great for independent learners. It was called SRA. My wife, the visual learner excelled at this. She reached the ultimate color achievements while I was stuck at the lower level because my learning style was more social and auditory. “Hey at least I wasn’t aqua,” would be in the back of my mind. Many of the systems that are transferable follow this SRA independent instruction style. There are now off the shelf lessons that you can plug into online schools to get you up and running quickly, and less expensively. These independent instruction learning models are targeted to raise achievement test scores, but they generally do not teach how to think critically or solve problems. When I was in China on our annual international exchange the students complained to me that they memorize much information, but do not know how to apply it. Is this were our educational system is heading? The school that we exchange with had us complete a mock peace conference at the Chinese school. I saw much critical thinking and problem solving happening in the classroom that day. Students came up to me at the end of class and asked, “What is this new method of teaching called?" I told them we call it role play. 

The Charter school movement is being is being attacked by special interest groups right now. Charter schools are facing funding cuts by as much as 20%. If these funding cuts happen, then many innovative practices will be stripped from schools. The Charter School movement has its enemies. The School Board Association and Teacher’s Union of Pennsylvania feel threatened because they have little input into the way charter schools are governed. The proposed cuts will cause all charter schools to be reduced to the common denominator of independent instruction. The opponents of charter school education are calling the “per student” funding that is being transferred to charter schools an unfunded mandate. Is it an unfunded mandate, or is it the cost of innovating education? Everyone knows that we must compete on a global level.  This is driving change. Innovation is the process of change, and if we are going to have it, then we must fund it.

The latest challenge to our funding is coming in the form of a Special Education cut. I have included a letter from Representative Daniel Truitt about this problem. Dan has been a real hero in the fight for educational innovation on the state level, and I hope that every PA Legislator will read his note below.

This is the second day in a row (and at least the third time overall) that this organization has distributed bad data to legislators on this issue and I feel compelled to respond.

The $350M figure that they are calling “Charter Special Education Tuition” includes approximately $177M in regular education tuition.  So, the assertion that charter schools are getting a windfall of $200M per year is a lie, just like the assertion that we cut $1B from education is a lie.  We should all be offended by this organization and its representatives for attempting to mislead legislators who are tasked with making very important decisions that will affect the children of this commonwealth.

I have the spreadsheet that is the source of the data provided below and would be happy to provide it to anyone who is interested.  It shows that school districts paid charter schools $917,767,997.07 in non-special education tuition for 100,351 students (student count from a different source).  That’s an average of $9,146.00 per student (much less than school districts spend on their own students).  The spreadsheet also shows that school districts paid charter schools $350,562,878.63 in special education tuition for 19,114 special education students.  That’s an average of $18,341.00 per special education student to cover their regular education expenses AND their special education expenses.

So, the $350M figure below includes only $9,195.00 per student to cover special education expenses.  PASBO distributed a letter on April 29th which stated that charter schools” spent—on average—only $8,500 per student on special education instructional costs”.

Given that PASBO has overstated the revenue that charter schools receive, I would not be surprised if they also understated the costs and I’m looking into the cost-side numbers as well.

Please note that the end result of HB-2138/SB-1316 would be that the “average” charter school would receive only $4,664.46 (51% of $9,146.00) to cover the $8,500.00 expense mentioned above.

The bottom line is that this is a complex mathematical issue.  While the underlying concept behind HB-2138/SB-1316 (3-tiered funding formula) makes sense for the distribution of state funds to school districts, that entire portion of the bills is neutralized by hold harmless provisions that really make these bills nothing more than charter school funding bills.  Unfortunately, the charter school section of the bills is deeply flawed and needs extensive rework.

I realize that this subject is about as fun as watching paint dry, but, I would be happy to sit down with anyone who is interested and go over the math and the spreadsheets.

Remember, we are talking about special education students here.  Getting this wrong could easily lead to lawsuits and a PR nightmare.  Of course, the fact that we’ll be screwing 19,114 special education students should be enough of a reason to go back and get it right.

Regards,


Dan Truit

Unions want to kill cyber schools. Here is one teacher's story.

Why I Left Teaching: Union Politics

Guest commentary by Bill Frye
I taught science full-time for more than two decades and enjoyed a rewarding career educating a generation of public school students in Westmoreland County. I retired from teaching earlier than I wanted, though, and I’d like to tell you why.
As a union member for most of my teaching career, I never disguised the fact that I disagreed with much of the Pennsylvania State Education Association’s political dogma. The union promoted values and ideals that I not only disagreed with, but also routinely had no relevance to education.
Before you jump to conclusions, let me assure you that I’m not anti-union. I’ve been generally happy with the local union in my old school district. I’ve also been a member of the farmers’ union all my life. Unions have an important place in society.
It is the state and national teachers’ unions—the PSEA and the National Education Association—that I grew to resent. Their use of my union dues to support political causes I disagreed with ultimately led me to leave education.
Case in point: A school year’s first teacher in-service day usually consists of the administration welcoming teachers, introducing new staff and outlining goals for the year. But in the fall of 2012, PSEA sponsored a pep rally and played a video for the entire school staff to encourage us to help re-elect President Barack Obama. Normally, events like this happen after the school workday—when attendance is voluntary, not when teachers are a captive audience.
What’s more, the PSEA’s magazine The Voice—which is sent to 180,000 members and paid for with our dues—regularly featured ads praising President Obama while denigrating and lampooning his opponents. Teachers paid for this political activity no matter which candidate we personally supported—and every other taxpayer paid for it as well.
How? Pennsylvania allows government unions to use taxpayer-funded payroll systems to collect their members’ dues—as well as optional political action committee contributions that can be sent directly to politicians.
But aren’t unions prohibited from using members’ dues for politics? Take it from the PSEA itself: Last year, their magazine featured a notice that 12 percent (which amounts to $7 million) of teachers’ dues would be used for political activity and lobbying. That’s in addition to millions in PAC money.
Unions use teachers’ money to advocate for policies that will leave teachers, students and all of us poorer. The main example is how the PSEA is advocating against reforming our deeply indebted public pension system.
One incentive for me to continue in public education was the pay and working conditions for educators. I looked forward to what, at least in my opinion, is a very generous retirement—which I will credit the unions for helping to achieve. But I’m also a landowner and property tax payer. I’m told the pension systems are $50 billion in debt and will require huge property tax hikes if nothing is done.
I feel sorry for people on fixed incomes—like some of my teacher colleagues who retired years ago—who will have to struggle to pay these rising taxes.
Everyone agrees the pension system, as it currently exists, is not sustainable. There are solutions to bring economic viability to the system. But the PSEA, using members’ dues money, is one of the main roadblocks to reasonable reform. In a recent “alert” email to members, the union called the latest compromise proposal a “pension attack” that “targets women and new employees” while offering no solutions except to raise taxes.
I couldn’t take any more of PSEA’s fear-mongering and divisiveness on political issues, so I spoke out. As a result, the personal attacks I received (from union members!) made me choose to retire and focus on my farm business.
But, as a taxpayer, there’s no escape: I’m still forced to help PSEA collect its political money.
Legislation called paycheck protection would stop PSEA and other government unions from using public payroll systems to siphon their political money from teachers’ pay.
I think if legislators truly support teachers, they should pass this effort to give them a bigger say over how their money is spent in the political world. Government unions might then engage in productive negotiation instead of political lobbying.

# # #

Bill Frye is a retired public school science teacher from Westmoreland County.

Reforming the funding of cyber education in Pennsylvania

I recently read this article in The notebook by Dale Mezzacappa.

According to this article Philadelphia Charter Schools received 175 million for special education, but only spend 77 million for that purpose. State wide charters collect 350 million and spend 156 million.  The article goes on to say that there is a faulty state funding system. For example, Cyber charters schools get paid varied figures based upon where the child lives instead of based upon their needs. Charter schools also contradictorily, get paid an average for special education students within the district instead of the actual funding for each individual special education need.

Pulling the rug out from charters now is changing the rules in the middle of the game. It is simply unfair and punitive to change funding formulas after a charter financial system has been set up. Since charter schools special education students are reimbursed based on averages instead of the actual money following the student, the state is already acknowledging that a tier system of special education payments does not make sense. Charters have more special education students in the less expensive categories because the traditional school district has already developed the resources to care for these extreme needs. Parents can easily see that, and choose the district that provides the best services.

Charles Zogby is a former Cyber School K-12 executive. He is now budget secretary for the Corbett Administration. He is a former state education secretary. SB 2013 has a six year phase in. Philadelphia School Reform refuses to adopt an un-sustainable budget by the end of May. The State Representative Bernie O’Neil and Sen. Patrick Browne in the article complain that cyber schools were invited to discuss these reforms as they were being formulated. It will be interesting to see the kind of funding reforms that Zogby recommends, since he was at one time at the point of the charter reform movement. Which The PA School Board Association considers, Cyber Charter schools the most disruptive.

Perhaps the best way to end this discussion of Senate Bill 1316 is to ask the question that parents are asking in the article. ‘Why do they [the charters] get an art teacher and my school doesn’t?’ The author says... “They get a chunk of special education money that they don’t have to spend on special education services.” Charter schools typically grant more flexibility, and support than traditional schools.  They can do this because of less regulation, and flexible systems.

Here are the questions that are not asked in Dale Mezzacappa’s article …

1. Why to special needs parents choose to place their children in charter schools?
2. Does the district spend its special education funding with less effectiveness?
3. Do school districts spend the dollars they receive for special education funding for their students with severe needs in an efficient way?
4. Do traditional schools ever divert funds?
5. Do the charters use the special education funds with more parent satisfaction than non charters?

When these questions are answered we may have better answers to help us reform the educational funding of our public schools. Traditional schools all over the state have been starting cyber charter schools. I do not believe this would be happening if the charter school movement did not exist. In the mean time it does not make sense to cut funding on innovation before change has taken place.