Action point for all cyber charter school supporters:

Needed are individuals who will call their Pennsylvania State Legislators and PA Senators to invite them to either visit their school or to visit their home to see how cyber charter schooling works.

Background:

Over the last year and 1/2 the PA House Legislature Education Committee hosted 6 public hearings throughout the state. These first five hearings allowed supporters and opponents of cyber charter schools to present their opinion(s) concerning the anti-cyber legislation sponsored by State Representative Karen Beyer (R). As long as both sides could be heard, her legislation went nowhere.

In December of 2007, she presented “amendments” to her bill at a hearing where only her side was allowed to speak. These “amendments” structurally changed the bill and added provisions that had not previously been discussed. The overall strategy of the bill was to confuse the issue by offering 31 provisions that were designed to hold Cyber Charter Schools more accountable. In fact, all but two of the provisions were already encoded in law, or were not necessary, or were counterproductive to the purpose proposed. These provisions were designed to mask the true intent of the new legislation – that is to dramatically reduce the funding for Cyber Charter Schools. This one objective has been the goal of the PA School Boards Association and the PA Teacher’s Union(s) from the beginning.

In anticipation of that hearing, the PA Coalition of Charter Schools asked supporters of Cyber Charter Schools to send faxes to their state legislators on the Education Committee. Over a period of 62+ hours over 13,000 (thirteen thousand) faxes were sent to the 33 members of this committee. This deluge caused the Committee to hold their meeting at a time and place that shut out the press and caused the Committee to limit debate from supportive state legislators.

The new anti-cyber Beyer bill passed the Education Committee with much browbeating from the Governor’s office who promoted this bill as a payback for the ½ million dollar contribution from the teacher’s union.

What will make a difference? There are plenty of reasons for the Appropriations Committee to allow this bill to die in Committee. We know from private meetings with state legislators on the House Appropriations Committee that they understand the underhanded way in which this bill was passed. We would like for every member of the House Appropriations Committee to have an opportunity to visit a Cyber Charter School or to visit the home of a Cyber Charter School family and to learn the truth about Cyber Charter Schools.

Will you join us in this effort?

You may discover which one is yours at the PA Coalition of Charter Schools CLICK HERE.

Use the address (vs. the zipcode) process for more accurate results.

You may learn more about your legislator at the PA Coalition of Charter Schools website or visit: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/ for a listing of all state legislators and senators with links to their personal websites.

After you make contact with your state representative(s), please contact us at ilovemycyberschool@yahoo.com to allow us to follow up with additional information and to keep track of what is happening.

Sincerely,

Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School CEO’s

Lancaster Intelligencer Journal 12-06-07

Bill Would Limit Cybercharter Schools

By BRIAN WALLACE, Staff
Dec 06, 2007 1:12 AM EST

HARRISBURG, Pa. - A state House committee has approved legislation that would establish a statewide cybercharter school tuition and impose new restrictions on how the online schools operate.

The House Education Committee Wednesday approved House Bill 446, which deals with the concerns of public school officials who have complained for years about the high cost of cybercharter school tuition.

Districts pay cybercharter school tuition equal to their average annual per-pupil cost.

The bill, first proposed nearly a year ago, now heads to the full House for consideration.

HB 446 would establish an annual tuition rate of about $6,500 beginning in 2008-09 and would limit cybercharter school fund balances to 12 percent or less of the schools' operating budgets.

The legislation also would give the state Department of Education increased oversight of the schools and their teachers and force cybercharter schools to follow the same budgeting requirements as traditional public schools.

"It's definitely a step forward, no question about that," Robert Frick, Lampeter-Strasburg School district superintendent, said of the legislation.

"Some control (over cybercharter schools) is better than none, and I think none is where we were previously — or very little anyway."

Proponents of cybercharter schools say the bill is designed to drive the schools out of business. Cybercharter schools enroll a large number of homeschooled students and pupils who have failed in traditional public schools.

"Pennsylvania is a leader in education choice, and a bill like this is a step backwards," Joe Lyons, spokesman for Pennsylvania Virtual Charter School, said.

"If we're not funded properly, and you take away our teachers, we're not going to be able to operate."

Lyons said the most objectionable provision of the bill would give the Department of Education the discretion to determine whether cybercharter school teaching experience qualifies a teacher for advanced certification.

Currently, cybercharter teachers earn credit toward certification for their experience, just as teachers in traditional public schools do.

"That means the Department of Education can determine that we're not a school," Lyons said. "They're insulting our teachers, and they're not really giving them an incentive to stay with us."

HB 446 would establish a "real cost" of cyberschool tuition based on the lowest average per-pupil expenditures of cybercharter schools that achieved PSSA academic standards in 2006-07.

That figure is not yet available, but in 2005-06, it was slightly more than $5,800, Chris Wakely, executive director of the House Education Committee, said.

Wakely said he expects the per-pupil cost for 2006-07 to be about $6,500.

School districts across the state, no matter how much they spend to educate their own pupils, would pay that amount for each student enrolled in a cybercharter school.

An earlier version of HB 446 would have made the state, not school districts, pay cybercharter school tuition, but that provision was struck from the amended bill approved Wednesday.

Special-education costs also would be based on the lowest per-pupil average costs for 2006-07 for high-achieving cybercharter schools.

That average cost would then be added to the base tuition for special-education students.

Cybercharter schools would have the option of being paid based on the current formula, minus the cost of transportation services, building construction and other costs not incurred by online schools.

Tuition would be increased each year based on the inflationary index set by the state under Act 1.

For 2008-09, the base index — the amount by which school districts may increase taxes — is 4.4 percent.

Currently, Lancaster County districts pay cybercharter school tuition ranging from about $8,500 to $13,500 per pupil. The state then reimburses them about 25 percent of that total.

For special-education students, districts also currently pay their average per-pupil cost, which can be twice as high as the average cost for other students.

School districts in Lancaster County are expected to spend more than $6.5 million this year on cybercharter school tuition.

Statewide, 11 cybercharter schools enroll about 20,000 students, a number that has grown rapidly in recent years.

As enrollments have grown, public school officials have complained more loudly about tuition rates they consider excessive, given that cybercharter schools lack school buildings, buses, cafeterias and other expensive services of traditional schools.

Officials also have complained that cyber schools have amassed fund balances averaging 26 percent, while schools are limited to reserve funds of 12 percent.

House Bill 446 would cap cyber school fund balances at 8 percent to 12 percent, based on a school's annual budget.

Schools that exceed that amount could use up to $1 million for professional development and school improvements. The remainder would have to be reimbursed to school districts. The legislation also would empower the Department of Education to regulate the number of hours of instruction cybercharter school students must complete to meet attendance requirements.

Lyons complained that many of the provisions in the final version of the bill were added without input from cybercharter school educators or students.

E-mail: bwallace@lnpnews.com

Harrisburg Patriot News 12-06-07

House Panel OKs Cyberschool Funding Change

Thursday, December 06, 2007

BY JAN MURPHY

Of The Patriot-News

Legislation changing the way cyberschools are funded has some parents concerned.

"I worry it's going to do irreparable damage to the system," said Tammie Kretchman of Rye Twp., Perry County, who came to the state Capitol on Wednesday to attend a House Education Committee meeting on the legislation.

Despite her concerns, shared by Republican and Democratic lawmakers, the 21/2-hour session ended with a 22-6 vote to approve the bill. The legislation would establish a uniform base tuition for the state's 11 cyberschools, which educate 16,000 students.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Karen Beyer, R-Lehigh, now goes to the House. She agreed to consider revisions before it reaches the House floor.

Beyer said her bill is not intended to kill the Web-based form of public education, but to bring "accountability" and "cost controls in cyberschools."

Her bill touches on several issues, but the new method of financing cyberschools was among the key concerns raised by committee members.

The cyberschools charge tuition to school districts in which their students reside. The amount varies, based on 80 percent of what it costs that district to educate its own students.

Beyer's proposal would establish a statewide tuition rate for regular education students and another for special education students, regardless of which cyberschool they attend.

The rates, which have yet to be determined, would be based on the lowest tuition rate charged last year by a successful cyberschool, defined as one that met its adequate yearly progress goals. The uniformity would disappear in subsequent years, when cyberschool rate increases would match the sending school district's increase in state aid.

Rep. John Pallone, D-Westmoreland, an opponent of charter schools, said that could create a windfall for wealthy school districts that pay a higher rate to cyberschools, while poorer districts might have to pay more.

Cyberschool proponents faulted the proposed funding method for failing to take into account that cyberschools are in different areas of the state and have different costs.

Tim Daniels, executive director of the Pennsylvania Coalition of Charter Schools, opposed a provision in the bill that he called "insulting" to cyberschool teachers. It would leave it up to the state Department of Education's discretion as to whether a teacher's time in a "cyber" classroom would count toward a required teaching certificate.

Beyers said that is necessary to ensure "we have professional teachers teaching."

JAN MURPHY: 232-0668 or jmurphy@patriot-news.com

HB 446 Analysis

House Bill 446 and December 2007 “Amendment” Creates “Second Class” Citizens.

Summary: House Bill 446, introduced to the Pennsylvania House Education Committee in 2006 by House Representative Karen Beyer, was drafted in concert with the Pennsylvania School Boards Association (PSBA) and the Pennsylvania teachers union (PSEA) without any input from the cyber charter school community or the public. This bill will effectively destroy the growing movement of Pennsylvania cyber charter schools.

After over a year of hearings on House Bill 446, the Pennsylvania House Education Committee had not acted on this anti-cyber charter school bill; however, on December 5, 2007, the Committee passed this bill out of committee.

The bill’s supporters claim that it is intended to make cyber charter schools more accountable. In fact, cyber charter schools are already accountable, and all provisions in the amended bill are not needed because they are already set in law or because they were developed without a proper understanding of how cyber charter schools function.

It is evident that provisions were placed in this bill to disguise its true intent. This intent is twofold: (1) to create a second class of public school students by drastically cutting and limiting funding for cyber charter schools and (2) to create a second class of public school teachers by failing to give them credit for years of experience in a cyber charter school. Furthermore, the bill purports to create a “real cost” for all schools based on the lowest expenditures of one school during one school year and then reduces the funding to cyber charter schools significantly below this “real cost,” based on the ability of poorer school districts to pay this “real cost.”

In other words, the true intent of this amended bill is to cripple cyber charter schools because anti-charter groups, (PSBA and PSEA), oppose parental choice in public education and because all Pennsylvania cyber teachers are non-union workers by choice.

In addition to creating “second class” students and teachers, this proposed legislation as a whole would be “death by a thousand cuts” for Pennsylvania’s cyber charter schools. One reason for the success of these schools has been a trade-off of more accountability (higher student interest leading to better educational outcomes) for deregulation (innovative practices fostering educational advances). This trade-off adds up to more freedom to accomplish goals specific to the unique mission of each particular cyber charter school. So, the overarching effect of this major attempt to re-regulate and over-regulate cyber charter schools (legislative redundancy of some provisions of the law) would ultimately be the destruction of Pennsylvania’s cyber charter schools.

The chart that follows summarizes the bill and provides an explanation of each of its provisions, demonstrating that these provisions are not necessary and demonstrating that the new funding structure is irrational and impossible to implement.

Section 1703-A (Definitions)
Adds definitions for “Cyber charter school fund balance limit,” “Cyber education real cost level,” “Cyber special education real cost level,” “Employment cost index,” “Statewide average weekly wage”	The amendment defines “real cost” by not including actual expenses that cyber charter schools have for marketing, facilities and recruitment. This amendment further establishes a “real cost level,” based on the costs of the one cyber charter school that spent the least in the 2006-2007 school year and then makes all cyber charter schools function with a significantly lower level of funding, resulting in fiscal savings for wealthier school districts.
Section 1724-A (School staff)
Requires criminal history checks for cyber charter school employees who will have electronic/Internet contact with students;	Currently, cyber charter schools are required to conduct criminal history checks and child abuse clearances on all school employees who have electronic/Internet contact with students. All cyber charter schools comply with this requirement, and DOE monitors compliance with yearly audits.

Section 1725-A (Funding for charter schools)

Creates a new single statewide cyber charter tuition “cap” rate based on the most efficient and effective cyber charter school’s actual expenditures;

The primary purpose of the amended HB 446 is the reduction of funding to cyber charter schools, and the purpose of this section is the requirement that all cyber charter schools be run with the budget of the lowest cost, “most “efficient” cyber charter school that is making Annual Yearly Progress (AYP). The problems with this approach are: 1. This bill assumes that all cyber charter schools can function with substantially less funding than the cyber charter school that is currently spending the least on its students. Because some school districts will pay less than the supposed “actual cost” to educate students, cyber charter schools will actually receive funding below the “actual cost” of educating their students. 2. This bill further assumes that cyber charter schools can function with less funding than a traditional “brick and mortar” school. This assumption is wrong. Cyber charter schools incur greater costs with technology that the school must provide to each student to enable the student to “connect” to the cyber charter school. 3. This policy is an absurd way to run a school system and would be analogous to requiring the wealthiest school district to run its schools based on the income of the poorest school district that is meeting federal standards in education. 4. The amendment ignores the varied approaches that the 11 cyber charter schools take. One school has no teachers hired by the school. The school, which is run by a school district’s intermediate unit, passes all its students through to various outside support organizations. Another school has one teacher for every 20 students. These costs could differ significantly as cyber charter schools attempt to offer different programs to their students. 5. Cyber charter schools have expanding and retracting budgets depending upon year-by-year needs. The bill does not address the possibility that funding for all cyber charter school students will be based on an anomalous year at one cyber charter school. 6. Approximately one-half of all cyber charter schools are run by school districts through school district intermediate units. These schools receive benefits that cannot easily be quantified.

Section 1725-A (Funding for charter schools)

7. Cyber charter schools already receive less, approximately 75% of the money used to educate the student in the home school district. In addition, the home school district is reimbursed from the state approximately 30% for every charter school student. In other words, cyber charter schools already save school districts money. Choking cyber charter schools will ultimately cost taxpayers more. 8. One criticism of cyber charter schools is that they provide less opportunity for “socialization” than in a traditional “brick and mortar” school. While cyber charter operators believe this criticism is overstated, cyber charter schools have developed many unique opportunities for students to interact in live settings. These opportunities will be the first to be eliminated if the school’s funding is cut. Critics may not have it both ways. Critics cannot criticize cyber charter schools for “lack of socialization” and at the same time cut their funding opportunities so that socialization opportunities must be eliminated. 9. Parts of Pennsylvania are more expensive for living, working and running schools. It is patently unfair to force a school headquartered in a high-cost, urban or suburban area to run on the budget of a school in a less expensive area. 10. A flat rate for all cyber charter schools would benefit more affluent school districts. Less affluent districts would pay a relatively higher amount per student. This policy is counter to the prevailing movement to provide more equity between school districts. 11. In response to this bill, cyber charter schools may have to provide fewer and older books, outdated technology, fewer IT support staff, larger student-to-teacher ratios and lower pay to all staff, thus creating a larger turnover in staffing each year. Of course, the students would be the ones who would ultimately suffer from cuts that the bill would make necessary. Approximately ½ of all school districts never pay their monthly bill for students enrolled in cyber charter schools. Every cyber charter school must spend conservatively to account for this 2-8 month delay of funding. Some cyber charter schools make up for this deficit by developing significant lines of credit from local banks. Should some cyber charter schools be penalized because they have not yet developed banking relationships that enable them to borrow against their receivables?

Section 1725-A (Funding for charter schools)
	12. Cyber charter schools already receive less, approximately 75% of the money used to educate the student in the home school district. In addition, the home school district is reimbursed from the state approximately 30% for every charter school student. In other words, cyber charter schools already save school districts money. Choking cyber charter schools will ultimately cost taxpayers more. 13. This provision will provide incentive for cyber charter schools to sue in order to obtain “equity” in funding. Cyber charter schools thus far have been funded under the current law that provides only 75% funding for their students. The Maryland Supreme Court recently ruled that all public schools must be equally funded. If the Pennsylvania Supreme Court were to hand down the same ruling, this potential law would be nullified, and school districts would be required to pay an additional 25% over current rates for students attending cyber charter schools. No other types of public schools in the state are limited by one artificially determined lowest number based on the “most thorough and efficient”(Congresswoman Beyer’s term) school or school district.
Caps the amount of money a cyber charter school may spend on special education based on, “the lowest 2006-2007 expenditures for special education per special education student of all cyber charter schools that achieved adequate yearly progress in the 2006-2007 school year.”	This provision discriminates against special education students by failing to provide cyber charter schools with adequate funds to provide their special education students with a Free and Appropriate Education (FAPE) as required by federal law. In other words, the cyber charter school that spent the least on special education is the standard that all other cyber charter schools must meet. This provision discriminates against special education students in numerous ways. 1. Many cyber charter schools are new and are just beginning to develop their special education departments. Making all schools spend only what a developing school is spending is not fair. 2. Special education students’ needs vary greatly. One school may be required to spend significantly more than another because the needs of the students are greater. If all schools are capped in their spending by the programs of schools with less significant needs, cyber charter schools with more disadvantaged special education students will suffer. Imagine the outcry and law suits that would occur if the state passed a law that required all school districts to pay no more for special education students than the school district that is currently spending the least per student on special education. This, however, is the exact policy that Bill 446 proposes for a class of public schools that are cyber charter schools. The bill, if passed, may be challenged in court as a violation of FAPE for special education students in cyber charter schools.
Requires school districts to pay a 3% penalty if the school district fails to make a payment and causes the cyber charter school to seek its monthly payment from the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE); however, this requirement does not apply to students whose residency is being disputed by the school district; the Secretary must rescind any penalty paid to the cyber charter on behalf of a student in the case where billing was inaccurate;	The proposed penalty is toothless. Currently, approximately ½ of all school districts illegally withhold the funding for cyber charter schools. These school districts leave it to DOE to fund the cyber charter schools and withhold the cyber charter school’s money from the local school district’s state subsidy. In so doing, local school districts may still draw 1+% interest on the money. Also no penalty is incurred if there is a “dispute.” All students could be placed in “dispute” to avoid the 3% penalty. Without also making an allocation to staff a department in PDE in the Division of Subsidy Data and Administration to implement this provision, this legislation cannot be implemented. A 3% fine requires individual verification of each student (more than 10,000 cyber charter school students from 250 school districts who are currently unfunded by their districts). Additionally, the proposed small, per-student fines would have to be calculated individually and deducted from each school district’s state subsidy unipa--a manpower intensive prospect. The Pennsylvania Coalition of Charter Schools (PCCS) suggests simply that districts who do not pay in a timely manner will simply not receive the current 30 %state reimbursement.
Requires any unreserved, undesignated fund balances in place on June 30, 2008, that exceed the limits, be distributed by the cyber charter school towards professional development, student supplies, technology, instructional activities to increase student performance, provision of discounts to school districts of tuition rates for enrolled students, or other approved activities by the Secretary; funds cannot be used for bonuses;	The application of tuition rate discounts to sending school districts based on undesignated fund balances in place on June 30, 2008 is currently illegal under Act 88. Cyber charter schools are not allowed to receive a “selected expenditure” per student that is less or more than that determined by the formula stated by law in Act 22 of 1997. This provision falsely assumes that cyber charter schools are withholding funds that should benefit students. The provision also falsely assumes that inappropriate “bonuses” are being given to staff out of this “fund balance.”
Requires any remaining funds to be refunded on a pro rata basis within 90 days of the effective date to all school districts that paid tuition to the cyber charter school in the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 school years;	If there were any “remaining funds” left over for the 07-08 school year, it makes no sense to give that money to a school district whose student may have been in the cyber charter school for only a short period of time two years ago. During that relevant time, the cyber charter school may not have had any “remaining funds.” In fact, during that time (06-07) the cyber charter school may have had to borrow funds to keep from running a deficit. This provision actually encourages cyber charter schools to engage in inefficient fiscal practice, i.e., “Spend the money or lose it.”
Requires any unreserved, undesignated fund balance in excess of the cyber charter fund balance limit for the 2008-2009 school year and each school year thereafter to be refunded on a pro rata basis to all school districts that paid tuition to the cyber charter school in the prior school year;	Even if there were any legitimate excess “fund balances,” it is patently absurd to demand that a cyber charter school “refund” to the home school district any of this money within 90 days. The “reconciliation” process that makes a cyber charter school financially whole can take up to seven months. This proposal requires that a cyber charter school give back to the home school district money that the cyber charter school will not receive for yet an additional four months! This and other provisions on fund balances falsely assume that the funds "belong" to the school districts, rather than being funds provided by taxpayers to educate students. A further false assumption is that the fund balances are excessive rather than prudent and necessary because of cash flow problems caused by non-paying districts under the present system.
Does not require school districts to pay for students who enroll in a cyber charter school if they are younger than the entry age for students in the district of residence;	This provision violates the provision of Act 22, which allows all charter schools to determine their own entry age within the range allowed by law (must be five by a date between Sept. 1 and Jan. 15 of the school year in which they enter). This provision and the following provision also assume that a charter school is not a Local Education Agency (LEA) and as such does not have the authority to establish its own requirements for attendance to the school.
Does not require a school district to pay for full-day kindergarten in a cyber charter school if the district of residence offers only half-day kindergarten (in that case, payment would be ½ the standard rate);	This provision also detracts from a charter school's ability to be an LEA and make its own program decision on half-day or full-day kindergarten. All school districts which are LEA’s have this power. If these provisions stand, the door is open for local school districts to demand control over aspects of the cyber charter school's operations.

Section 1729-A (Causes for nonrenewal)

Requires student records to be forwarded to the district of residence within 10 days after a charter is revoked or not renewed (current law does not specify a time frame);

This provision is not practical. All charters that are revoked are automatically referred to the Charter Appeals Board (CAB). When a revocation is upheld, the CAB determines when the school closes. Records should be required to be returned to the school districts of residence within a reasonable timeframe of the ending date of the school set by the CAB Also, this provision does not take into account the appeal process for revocation or non-renewal during which time the cyber charter school may continue to operate, a process that can take up to two years to complete. A cyber charter school does not need to release the records of its students until the appeal process is completed. In addition, every student (parent) that leaves a charter school may require that the charter school forward the records of that student to the new school.

Section 1741-A (Powers and duties of department)

Provides PDE the power and duty and requires them to promulgate regulations to ensure that cyber charter students are receiving the appropriate number of hours of education, and cyber charter schools must demonstrate in their annual report, due August 1 of each year to PDE, that the minimum number of online and offline hours have been attained by each student;

This provision of the amendment demonstrates a lack of understanding of how cyber charter schools work. Cyber charter schools track attendance through computer logins. Tracking “online and offline hours” is an exercise in futility. Students may log into their school and be doing nothing of educational value while the computer is logging hours of seat time. The only way to record “offline hours attained by each student,” is through an honor system of reporting. This system is open to abuse. For this reason, cyber charter schools measure a student’s “seat time” by the amount and quality of work accomplished. Experience confirms that this is a much more accurate assessment of the amount and value of education that is taking place. Parents bring their students to cyber charter schools because of the freedom and flexibility that cyber charter schools offer their children. Requiring students to have seat time penalizes those students who can work fast and efficiently and limits students that require additional time to accomplish their work. This provision, while well meaning, is an attempt to apply a “brick and mortar” solution to a “cyber” environment. Also, this provision was created by individuals who do not understand cyber charter schools and was written without any input from or interaction with any cyber charter school operators.

Section 1742-A (Assessment and evaluation)

Provides a timeline for PDE’s annual assessment of whether each cyber charter school is meeting the goals of its charter (current law lacks a date for the assessment to be issued) and requires that it be posted online no later than October 1 of each year; PDE must provide each cyber charter school with a written report of the results no later than November 1 of each year;

This provision is burdensome to both the schools and PDE in that staffing levels in PDE are currently not adequate to review the annual reports (where all the information is contained that can be found by any school visit). PDE should review these extremely comprehensive reports and follow up with suggestions. Also, an annual assessment is irrelevant because, cyber charter schools can be revoked only for six specified causes listed in Act 22 and cannot be non-renewed unless there is cause for a revocation. This provision also fails to understand the complexities of an annual assessment. Parts of a school’s assessment are based on the PSSA scores that may not be released until August. Other portions of the assessment are based on the reports that the cyber charter school presents to PDE. In order for PDE to present its annual assessment by October 1, PDE would have to be fully staffed throughout the summer. Currently, cyber charter schools are not fully staffed for such reporting even throughout the school year. Summer staffing is often bare bones. In addition, it makes no sense to require PDE to have the assessment finished by October 1 but not to require it to be sent to the cyber charter school until November 1.

Section 1743-A (Cyber Charter school requirement and prohibitions)
Requires approval if a cyber charter school wishes to increase enrollment above the maximum approved in its charter;	This provision imposes caps on cyber charter schools. Caps have never been a part of any Pennsylvania charter school legislation which has placed a premium on family educational choice through charter schools of all types. Currently, cyber charter schools have no enrollment figures “approved.” New schools could inflate their enrollment figures in order to avoid limitation of future growth.
Requires PDE to provide a copy, upon request, of a cyber charter school’s charter, application, and annual reports;	All cyber charter school applications, charters, and annual reports are currently posted online at the PDE website. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has already ruled that a cyber charter school is subject Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Act (RKA) and, therefore, is required to disclose documents that fall within the law’s definition of public records. Zager v. Chester Cnty. Charter Sch., No. J-39-2007 (Pa. Nov. 20, 2007)
Requires cyber charter schools to provide, upon request of a school district, a list of each student enrolled from that school district;	This list is currently being supplied by every cyber charter school every month to each school district whose students of residence attend the cyber charter school. This provision is already part of the regular PDE formulated billing procedure.
Specifies that any hardware/software and internet connections purchased by the cyber charter remain the property of the cyber charter school and must be returned in usable condition upon discontinuance of enrollment in the cyber charter school, or a civil penalty is imposed;	All cyber charter schools are authorized to, “make contracts and leases for the procurement of services, equipment and supplies.” (1714-A (5). Currently, all cyber charter schools recognize that “hardware/software and Internet connections purchased by the cyber charter remain the property of the…school.” Again, this provision demonstrates a lack of understanding as to how cyber charter schools operate. A $1,000 computer at the end of a three-year period is worth less than the shipping costs to send it back to the school. Threatening “civil penalties” for failure to return a computer is counterproductive. Cyber charter schools have developed much better ways to encourage parents to return the equipment. The best way to accomplish this return is a friendly phone call and an offer to have UPS / FedEx pick up the shipment.
Requires cyber charter schools’ boards of trustees to comply with the Public Officials Act (designed to ensure filing of financial interest statements);	This provision is not necessary. All charter schools are public schools and by definition must comply with the Public Officials Act which states: § 1103. Restricted activities. Conflict Of Interest.--No public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. § 1105. Statement of financial interests, This section details the financial interest statement that every public official or employee must submit.
Prohibits conflict of interest (i.e. business dealings) between management and the board of trustees of a cyber charter school;	Again, this provision is not needed as the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act that all cyber charter schools follow sets out the law and provisions that provide public accountability for all such business dealings.
Prohibits any person affiliated with the management of the school from sitting on the board of trustees;	Cyber boards of trustees are not school boards. They are, rather, boards of 501c3 non-profits. So, like all 501c3’s, depending on their bylaws, cyber charter school CEOs, leaders, teachers, or parents may have a place on the board. Placing restrictions on this membership violates a very tenet of being organized as a 501c3. Additionally, this provision is not needed, as the Public Officials Act sets forth guidelines to avoid conflicts of interest? “(j) Voting Conflict.--Where voting conflicts are not otherwise addressed by the constitution of Pennsylvania or by any law, rule, regulation, order or ordinance, the following procedure shall be employed...”
Provides PDE discretion to decide whether teachers’ service in a cyber charter school should give them credit toward earning the next level of certification (current law gives the discretion to the teacher); requires the teacher to petition for such a request and for PDE to establish guidelines governing acceptable criteria for approval of a petition;	This provision of the bill renders cyber charter schools as “less professional” than other public schools, thus relegating public cyber charter schools to second-class schools, incapable of providing educators with valued teaching experiences. Even if this provision were appropriate, why should it apply only to cyber charter schools? How about VoTech, Title One, ESL, teachers, etc., and teachers in alternative schools?
Prohibits cyber charter schools from expending any funds provided by the Commonwealth or by a school district on the education of any non-resident of Pennsylvania;	This provision is not necessary as the Charter School Law states that, “all resident children in this commonwealth qualify for admission to a charter school within the provision of subsection (B).”(1723 A). Cyber charter schools have no other qualifiers for “enrollment.” Thus, all non-residents do not qualify. The DOE has already provided guidelines for out-of-state students. If they are willing to pay tuition, they may attend a Pennsylvania cyber charter school – a great provision for a family that moves to New York during their child’s senior year.

Section 1744-A (School district and intermediate unit responsibilities)
Requires, upon request of services, an agreement between the cyber charter school and an IU or school district before the IU or school district is required to provide assistance to the cyber charter school in the delivery of services to cyber charter students with disabilities;	This provision is not necessary because it is already provided in the current Cyber Charter School Law: “Section 1744-A. School District and Intermediate Unit Responsibilities. “An intermediate unit or a school district in which a student enrolled in cyber charter school resides shall do all of the following: (1) Provide the cyber charter school within ten days of receipt of the notice of the admission of the student under Section 1748-A (A) with all records relating to the student, including transcripts, test scores and a copy of any individualized education program for that student. (2) Provide the cyber charter school with reasonable access to its facilities for the administration of standardized tests required under this subdivision. (3) Upon request, provide assistance to the cyber charter school in the delivery of services to a student with disabilities. The school district or intermediate unit shall not charge the cyber charter school more for a service than it charges a school district.”
Section 1747-A (Cyber Charter School Application)
Requires a cyber charter school’s application to include a maximum level of enrollment during each school year of the proposed charter (currently they provide an anticipated enrollment level);	In combination with the proposed Section 1743-A (Cyber charter school requirements and prohibitions), this amendment imposes, for the first time, in statute, “caps” on Pennsylvania charter schools. Such an imposition would drastically limit the choices available to students in Pennsylvania, which is in direct contradiction to the purpose of the Charter School Law. Similar enrollment caps on Chester-Upland School District’s charter schools have recently been struck down by the Commonwealth Court.

Section 1748-A (Enrollment and notification)
Requires the parent and cyber charter school to notify the school district of residence of a student’s enrollment within 10 days of the enrollment in a cyber charter school (current law requires notification by the parent and cyber charter school within 15 days of enrollment);	This provision assumes that there might be some incentive for a parent or cyber charter school to withhold information from the home school district. In fact, just the opposite is the case. Cyber charter schools do not wish to have home school districts calling the home of the cyber student simply because the home district does not know the status of the student. Student billing is by the day. Cyber charter schools should be highly motivated to establish the date of enrollment as soon as possible in order to facilitate billing from the home school district. The only reason for a delay of notification beyond 10 days would be because of an incomplete application that causes the student to be improperly enrolled in a timely manner. Changing the required notification from 15 days to 10 days accomplishes nothing.
Requires school districts to notify cyber charter schools if a student who enrolls in the cyber charter is truant; requires the cyber charter to provide proof on a monthly basis that such student is receiving instruction during the first three months of enrollment; if the cyber charter school fails to provide proof, the school district is not required to make payments for that student during that time; requires the cyber charter school (not the district of residence) to enforce truancy provision in the school code;	Requiring a school district to notify cyber charter schools without deadlines or penalties will not be effective. Currently, one half of all school districts do not pay their bill to a cyber charter school for their home student. Cyber charter schools would like a school district to notify the cyber charter school if a student is currently truant. If the cyber charter school must be punished financially for ongoing truant students, should not school districts be punished as well? No one is recommending that a local school district’s state subsidy be withheld unless they can “prove” that a student is “receiving instruction.” This provision requires that cyber charter schools “enforce truancy provisions in the school code.” For all 11 cyber charter schools, this would mean: 1. developing a relationship with numerous District Court Justices in 501 school districts (over 1,500 courts) 2. duplicating the local structures already established in home school districts 3. developing contacts and hiring support personnel all across the commonwealth as much as eight hours away) to deal with any truant student.

Section 1749-A (Applicability of other provisions of this act and of other acts and Regulations)
Subjects cyber charter schools to the same budget timeline and use of funds provisions as school districts;	The cyber Charter School Law already provides a budget timeline: all charter schools, regardless of type, must adopt their budgets and submit them to PDE on the PDE-2028 by June 30 at the end of the school year calendar.
Subjects cyber charter schools to the same bidding requirements as school districts;	No evidence or finding exists that this requirement is necessary. Cyber charter schools should not be subject to cumbersome and expensive advertising and bidding requirements when no justification is offered, and the provision runs counter to the intent of the legislature when it created charter schools--minimizing expensive and burdensome regulations and restrictions.

Conclusion: In conclusion, the ever increasing enrollment and popularity of charter schools actually demonstrate that the groundbreaking charter school laws in Pennsylvania are a great success and are working well. Perhaps they are working too well for some vested interests who would like to quash thriving innovation and choice in public education.

Virtually every provision proposed in this legislation (HB446 amended) is not needed because the law already covers these provisions, because there are no violations taking place that require legislation or because the provisions seek to impose nonsensical solutions to problems that do not exist.

In a word, this bill lacks merit. Its provisions are built upon the premise that cyber charter schools are acting inappropriately and thus are in need of additional legislative action. This premise is false and contradicts the facts.

In reality, the real agenda of Bill 446 is to decrease funding for cyber charter schools and to cap their growth. If passed, this legislation will result in less choice in public education for students in Pennsylvania and the marginalization of a new class of students and teachers.