Presentation to Commonwealth Foundation Luncheon April 29, 2008
In the beginning of Time Magazine’s report, “How to Bring our Schools Out of the 20th Century”, Rip Van Winkle awakens in the 21st century after a “hundred-year snooze” utterly bewildered by the technology and rapid paced society surrounding him. Yet, when he walks into a school room he knows exactly where he is, “This is a school he declares. We used to have these back in 1906. Only now the blackboards are green.”
Cyber charter schools represent a 21st century educational delivery model. The curriculum is personalized and available 24/7, able to meet the needs of diverse students and parents. Education is not confined within school buildings under the rigid strictures of regular class periods and the hours of the school day. Data on student achievement is available on a real time basis – for those in the audience from the private sector, I do not need to tell you how important that is. Traditional public schools do not offer this customer service.
Cyber charter schools have been given flexibility from outdated, restrictive requirements and mandates, thereby enabling the delivery of this model. Education must not be confined to time and space.
Charter schools, particularly cyber charter schools, were never intended to mimic traditional public schools in either their operations or the delivery of instruction. The Time magazine report noted that considering the pace of change in our lives, “public schools tend to feel like throwbacks.” The 2007 report of the new Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce, “Tough Choices or Tough Times,” stated the “governance, organizational and management scheme” of the American educational system reflects the early 20th century model familiar to Rip Van Winkle. According to the report, this system “tolerates an enormous amount of waste” and that “this inherently inefficient system has gotten progressively more inefficient over time.” In short, the report concludes that the system is the problem.
This panel of education, labor and business leaders argued that the role of school boards should change. Instead of owning and operating the schools, they should be operated by independent contractors, many of them limited-liability corporations owned and operated by teachers. The schools would have complete discretion over spending, staffing, scheduling and instruction as long as they met state testing and accountability standards.
Cyber charters schools are entrepreneurial creating new models for the practice of teaching, instruction and assessment. According to the report: “Laboratories of reform: virtual high schools and innovation in public education” (June 2007). The data that is available for the staff “ensure a level of quality control that is too often lacking in traditional public schools.” PA cyber charter schools are already implementing the Commission’s recommendation - they are a leap forward in public education.
Let’s look at a few facts regarding Pennsylvania’s cyber charter schools:
The current year enrollment survey of the PA Coalition of Charter Schools found there are over 64,000 students in 126 charter schools, with over 21,000 in 11 cyber charter schools (almost 1/3, with this percentage increasing each year over the last few years). The cyber charter students are less than 1.2% of the students in Pennsylvania.
In 2005-06 School district expenditures for cyber charter schools were .52% of total district expenditures of $20.8 billion. The median percentage for school districts was .50%, with an average of .61% of total Expenditures. 443 districts (86.6%) spend less than 1% of their expenditures for cyber charter schools.
As these numbers reveal, the financial impact on school districts is minimal. Districts often fail to acknowledge the approximate 25% per pupil savings they receive under the charter school funding provisions and then they receive a 30 or 32.45% reimbursement for prior year expenditures for charter schools - costing the state $161 million in 2007-08, with the administration requesting an additional $36.3 million more for 2008-09. On average school districts receive almost 50% in savings and additional reimbursement for students attending charter schools -- how much more money do school districts need for students fleeing their programs?
Many students enrolling in cyber charter schools are one or more grade levels behind in their academic performance. Cyber charter schools have to make up this deficiency.
Cyber charter schools are spending over 80% of their funds on instruction because they do not need to support large facilities and have lean staffing arrangements. The average for instructional spending for PA school districts is 57.4%. Our school districts spend 45% more than the national average for administration with these expenses rising at almost twice the rate of inflation.
In 2006-07 the eleven cyber charter schools met 90% of their AYP targets. 802 traditional public schools did not make AYP – 156 more schools, a 6%increase; 138 more schools were in warning status, a 57% increase; 63 more schools fell to the lowest status (Corrective Action II), an 80% increase than in the prior year.
Public cyber schools are fiscally and academically accountable to the federal government, the state of Pennsylvania, the taxpayers and their families. They are as accountable as every public school, and in many cases, more so. PDE has established the PA system for cyber charter review and charters are renewed by the department. We have school districts that can not pass these reviews.
Let’s examine how the administration and legislative critics are discriminating against cyber charter schools and trying to make them second class schools:
Rep. Karen Beyer and the administration want to impose a single funding level for cyber charter schools based on the lowest cost for a school meeting AYP ($7,020/student). This is $800 below the actual per pupil expenditure level for 21st century cyber charter school and only 61% of the average district/pupil expenditure in that year.
Secretary Zahorchak talks about the recent costing-out study (COS) as if it is the Holy Grail for education spending – saying we know the cost to educate different students in each school district. The COS very specifically rejects a one-size-fits-all approach to funding education - noting the unique characteristics and needs in school populations. These same unique characteristics and needs are present in cyber charter schools. Indeed, the one-size-fits-all prescription is inappropriate for any school or school district.
The same firm that did the costing our study also completed a study for the Bell South foundation that states that ‘the cost of on-line programs are about the same as the operating costs of a regular brick and mortar school’ when subtracting out capital and transportation costs, which PA’s formula does.
So let’s see, the administration, PSBA and legislative critics reject the one-size recommendation in the holy grail and conveniently ignore the confirmation of cyber education costs by the same firm in “the cost and funding of virtual schools” for the bell south foundation. It is also interesting that in a study of York county school districts the APA firm recommended the districts create an interdistrict cyber charter school.
The COS stated the average adequate expenditure per student needed is $11,925. The $7,020 funding level is only 59% of that level. The report recommends increasing expenditures for public schools by $4.6 billion, yet advocates for the report recommend substantial reductions for public school students attending cyber charter schools.
The state does not fund any school district based on attaining AYP. If it did, Philadelphia, Chester-Upland and Harrisburg (Corrective Action II) would be refunding subsidies to the state. Yet, Rep. Beyer’s bill uses it for funding cyber charter schools. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, 70 schools in the Philadelphia school district failed to make AYP. The district has failed for the last five years. The lowest spending districts making AYP spent $2,800 PER pupil more than the $7,020 level (40% more) in HB 446 during 2005-06.
The administration and cyber charter critics believe students in public cyber charter schools are not entitled to comparable resources as other public school students. This is blatant discrimination. Cyber schools accept students who have not succeeded in traditional public schools, but they are expected to educate these students for substantially less than school districts and what the administration claims is needed for public school students. In the Agora Cyber Charter School nearly, 40% of the students came from districts that did not make AYP -1/2 from districts in Corrective Action II for five consecutive years. If we added nearly 900 students, who are one or more years academically behind to a school district’s enrollment; few, if any would make AYP.
Comparing the AYP performance of cyber charter schools and school districts is unfair. It is easier for a district to meet AYP. Districts can meet AYP even if one or more of their schools fail to meet standards. If students in grades 3-5 score above the math cutoff, but not in reading, the district can meet AYP if students in another grade span (6-8 or 9-12) score above in reading. This is not the case for a cyber charter school since it is treated as a single. Many cybers are larger than most school districts. If districts were held to the same standard, many more would not make AYP.
HB 446 makes teachers and administrators in cyber charter schools second class educators by requiring them to petition the department to have their years of service applied toward the length of service requirements for earning permanent certification. PDE can severely restrict the recruitment of staff by superimposing brick and mortar standards on Cyber charter schools. Online teaching is a different method of instruction - it is not inferior - and for many students it is a superior way to learn.
The fund balances of cyber charters have been criticized. The balances exist because districts violate the law and fail to pay cyber charter schools. In this school year, the Agora cyber charter school had not received nearly one-third of its budget – over $3.2 million. The reserve funds ensure the day-to-day operations of the schools are not interrupted. School districts cause these conditions, but they could not operate under them. Imagine their reaction if taxpayers withheld one-third of their property taxes.
Nearly one-half of the school districts (245) actual undesignated reserves exceeded the undesignated fund limits established in the law, based on their fund balances as a percentage of total expenditures. Yet, Representative Beyer and PDE want to impose the limits on cyber charter schools while districts exceed them.
“Back to the Future” is a catchy title for a clever movie - it is not a prescription for effective public policy for our education and workforce needs in the 21st Century. In our society our music can be personalized through iTunes software. In fact, almost anything can be customized – even fast food. Every aspect of business and services, including the non-profit sector, has learned to personalize their work for their customers.
The U.S Chamber of Commerce has developed a different state-by-state report card focusing on the “performance measures vital to competently operate and improve complex organizations in any sector.” Instead of focusing on inputs in terms of spending or regulations, it emphasizes accountability, rigor, innovation and achievement - focusing on each state’s return on investment. It concludes that “we need to fundamentally rethink how we provide education in this country. That will require nothing less than restructuring the bureaucratic apparatus of American education.” School districts in PA have added tech coaches and coordinators to be “tech savvy” – this is ingrained in the operations and staff of cyber charter schools.
The report also noted that forward-looking states are fostering innovation through aggressive promotion of comprehensive charter school legislation and enabling virtual schooling, establishing “the infrastructure for 21st century educational reinvention.” The report ranked Pennsylvania 44th out of 50 states in flexibility in management and policy – a D grade. Cyber charter critics seem determined to continue earning this grade instead of providing us with the agile, flexible and lean education system that we need.
Parents and students must be allowed to choose an educational option that is not confined to an outdated and restrictive system that often fails to meet their needs. Cyber charter schools are a key element in expanding educational opportunity, as well as improving public education. Remember, if a public cyber charter school is not succeeding, its charter can be revoked by PDE and the school closed - the ultimate level of accountability, one that school districts never face.
Cyber charter schools have more diversity in their student populations than most school districts. Educators like to celebrate diversity, yet the current administration and legislative proposals punish diversity in learning. There is no mistaking the true issue in this debate – it is about control and power over students and parents – not the quality of education. The research to date indicates that student achievement in virtual programs is at least equal to traditional face-to-face education programs (“laboratories of reform; virtual high schools and innovation in public education”).
Pennsylvania needs policy leaders in education who follow the advice of the Colorado commissioner of education, Dwight Jones, who in addressing the Colorado league of charter schools said, ‘we ought to be partners, not adversaries … I believe quality choice is good for public education.’ This attitude would be a welcomed change to the direction of many policy makers in Pennsylvania. It would also benefit students and parents across the commonwealth – which should be the real focus of public education.
# # #
Greg White is president of Greg White Consulting and former Education Policy Director under Governor Tom Ridge.