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!

Cyber Charter School Reform

 Dan Truitt has introduced two new bills to reform cyber charter Schools that make sense. HB's 970 and 971. While they would eliminate the double dipping problem in cyber school pensions, they would not cripple the funding of these schools by dictating that their funding will be reduced by local school districts. Instead the cyber schools will demonstrate increased accountability by reporting duplications of funding on a standard reporting form. This form is PDE-363. It will hold cyber schools accountable, and still allow Pennsylvania to lead the nation in  innovation in online education. The opposing bills, HB, 759, 618 and 934 will strip innovation from reform by crippling smaller state wide cyber schools which will allow larger cyber schools to be the only innovators in this type of education reform. Which is better less innovation, or more innovation? I support Dan Truitt's initiative to reform cyber education in a sensible way that reforms funding without stripping innovation or choice. Please contact representatives, Emrick, Reese, Roebuck and their co-sponsors to tell them that we need cyber charter education reform that does not strip innovation or choice from education.  I attended a hearing recently in Harrisburg, and I appreciate how Representative Truitt spoke up for sensible charter school reform. The following summary was given to me by one of my student senators, Matthew Meyerson, in our student government organization. PA Leadership Charter School is one of the schools that would be most effected by the opposing reform bills. As far as I know we are the only cyber charter school that has a virtual student government. Without students like Matthew you would not see the summary below. Without school like Pennsylvania Leadership Charter School there would not be this kind of extra-curricular activity. Matthew asked that I take his summary and get the word out. I am happy to oblige him. Does it make sense to punish smaller cyber schools by giving them the least amount of money to innovate? I am writing this BLOG with my own personal opinions on this subject. I do not represent my school or Representative Truitt. Here is Matthews summary of Mr. Truitt's bill. 

Here are the high lights of house bill #970

The first bill will be the primary vehicle to fix all of the inequities that are built into the PDE-363 and our current charter school funding formula. This bill will make the following changes:

1 – Eliminate the pension reimbursement paid by the state to the charter schools.
2A – Eliminate the lease reimbursement paid by the state to the charter schools.
2B – Delete the category 4000 (facilities) deduction from the PDE-363.
2C – Delete the category 5000 (financing) deduction from the PDE-363.
3A – ADD a deduction to the PDE-363 for money paid to charter schools for basic education only.
3B – Require districts to SUBTRACT charter school students from their “Average Daily Membership” (ADM) on the PDE-363.
4A – ADD a deduction to the PDE-363 for a district’s own cyber programs.
4B – Require districts to SUBTRACT students in their cyber programs from their ADM on the PDE-363.
5A – Allow school districts to deduct ALL pre-K expenses as opposed to just the federal portion.
5B – Require districts to SUBTRACT all pre-K students from their ADM on the PDE-363.
6A – Establish the definition of a “learning center” which is essentially a brick and mortar facility that cyber-charter schools use to enhance the education of cyber school students.
6B – ADD a deduction to the PDE-363 for 30% of category 4000 and category 5000 expenses.This deduction would apply only to payments to cyber-charter schools without learning centers.
6C – ADD a deduction to the PDE-363 for 15% of category 4000 expenses and category 5000 expenses.This deduction would apply only to payments to cyber-charter schools with learning centers.
7 – Require districts to provide transportation for students who attend cyber-charter schools with learning centers.
8 – Prohibit school districts from charging charter schools, including cyber charter schools, for transporting special education students to an IU unit or other facility away from the charter school campus.

This summary is from the Pennsylvania School Boards Web Site

HB 971 includes a direct pay provision, requiring PDE to make deductions from school district subsidies as payments to charter and cyber charter schools instead of allowing the school districts to make the payments directly.  A charter or cyber charter school could decide to have the school district, and not PDE, make the payments.  The bill also caps charter and cyber charter school fund balances at the same limits that apply to school districts.  

The Cybers and the Charters should be Friends.

I attended the Cyber Hearing today in Harrisburg on House Bill 618 (sponsored by Rep. Emrick) and House Bill 759 (sponsored by Rep. Reese).
It was a good experience. The caucus room was filled with cyber school teachers, administrators, parents and students. The capitol rotunda was filled with students, parents, and teachers. They simulcast the meeting on monitors in the rotunda, so cheers of affirmation could be heard in the caucus room from the cavernous rotunda to emphasize our points. :)

First up was Representative Joe Emrick. I was impressed with the first line of his introduction. He said that he was an athlete, believed in "establishing a level playing field," and thought that his bill accomplished this. This caused me to wonder if he had read my BLOG post the night before and borrowed from my words. I apologize to Representative Joe Emrick for misunderstanding this issue in my former BLOG post. Former Auditor General Wagner identified that these funds were in essence paid twice. However, the double dip is more like one and a half times the cost of pensions, instead of twice the amount. This is because of the reimbursements that cyber charters are required to make to schools for facilities and transportation. Sometimes it is not until after legislation is passed that we realize that it is a mistake. Step into my time capsule, and I will explain why this bill is a bad idea. Cyber Charter Schools are already paying their employees less than their brick and mortar counter parts. These lower salaries and even larger cuts will lead to even further cuts in pensions. The end result of this could mean a dis-satisfied faculty that is more likely to seek a union. If a charter school has a union, will it likely be less innovative? If our purpose is innovation and even "a model," then how do we do this with the change-resisting agent of a teacher’s union in education?

Mike Reese gave his presentation next. I am certain that both Mr. Reese and Emrick are sincere in their intentions to reform charter schools. I respectfully suggest that they are sincerely wrong. Representative Dan Truitt did a masterful job of asking questions that got to the root of the issue. “Are cyber charter school students less important than the other students in The Commonwealth”? The Reese bill would cut funding from cyber charter schools by permitting the school districts to determine a formula which will cut up to 50 percent of the costs of any cyber program they offer to their own resident students. The problem with this cost cutting tactic is that it is a classic fox watching the hen house scenario. The tension in the room today testifies of this reality. Dan Tuitt offered two bills that were as Mr. Roebuck said “not discussable in this hearing.” They are HB 970 and 971. They cut cyber charter funding by requiring cyber schools to add line items to the expense report balance sheet that they submit annually. This seems like a more practical solution and also encourages innovation by cutting expenses in a way where these “laboratories of innovation” can cut expenses and still maximize cyber learning.

The school board association spoke in support of the two bills. They perceive themselves as schools of the last resort. They made a valid point that they are unfairly required to incrementally reduce expenses by the amount that their revenues are reduced by cyber charter and charter school reimbursement. It is here that I feel we missed an opportunity today. It seems to me that one of the by products of this hearing is it separated the cyber school movement from the charter school movement. Both types of schools have always supported each other in the fight for education reform. We should emphasize our solidarity with one another, which we successfully did; however, we could have better expressed our brotherhood with our brick and mortar charter schools. I agreed with the business manager of Spring Grove School District when he made the point above. It is not fair for administrators to have an incremental drain in revenues when they have no accompanying cut in expenses. I would also make the point that if this proposed legislation is passed, then the smaller cyber charter schools providing different innovative practices could be bankrupted more easily than the larger cyber schools. Is the goal of charter school reform to cut expenses at the price of cutting innovation in education?

Senator Jeff Piccola and Joanne Barnett did a brilliant job giving testimony on behalf of cyber charter schools. The only thing I would have changed may have been the importance of linking our interests with the charter schools that we became a force of change with in 1997. An unfortunate by product of these hearings could be to divide and conquer our mutual interests. This is the reason for the BLOG title. "The cyber and the charters should be friends." In our fight for education reform, we should not forget our roots.