Perspective is critical

Sharon Sedlar | August 15, 2024

Parents from all educational models come to us for information and support. As of late a focus on cyber charters, homeschooling, and special education has been particularly prominent. Why?  Because those are the parents reaching out, typically because their child’s futures are being jeopardized in some way.

Before we dive in, let me highlight research by James D. Paul and Jay P. Greene named “Investigating the Relationship Between Negative Selection into Online Schooling and Achievement Growth,” in which it finds that “There is empirical evidence that students who were victims of bullying, suffer from depression, or otherwise had poor experiences in a previous school have worse academic outcomes than their peers.”  I would submit that, when more than one negative experience exists, the effect on education and the child’s well-being is compounded.

This week – let’s talk about cyber charters
Parent outcry in the cyber charter community has been in direct response to attacks (yes, attacks) from those who say they are seeking “reform” of the system, when in reality it’s a power-play for control and money. Don’t get me wrong – fair is fair and the system needs to reflect that.  But perspective is required. 

In surveys conducted by PaFEC, we have found that the great majority of families waited at least 2 and as many as 10 years before moving to a cyber option.  Top post-COVID reasons for cyber-charter options were academics, family values, and safety.

Because negative experiences have an academic effect on students, and many students seeking educational refuge have multiple factors (some over the course of years), it stands to reason that the comparisons made between fully-functioning and satisfied district students would be very different from those recovering from adverse circumstances.

Yet, those opposed to cyber charter options point to proficiency rates as a evidence of cyber charter failure, when in reality it’s indicative of obstacles that cyber charter can help to overcome.

Additionally, the “evidence” put forth by those opposed to education options does not directly compare those who reside in the district boundaries and their proficiencies with those same students in the cyber charter program.  For instance, there are district schools with proficiency at zero, or in the single digits.  Cyber charter counterparts typically blow those scores out of the water.  But if you compare, let’s say, cyber charter scores with suburban, well-funded schools, the opposite effect could be observed.

Those critical of cyber charter education and its associated funding attempt to draw attention to the “fact” that cyber charters “don’t need buildings” or “they have fewer costs than district schools.”  It’s an attempt to cherry-pick the information to suit the campaign against cyber charters.

Cyber charters are required by law to have buildings in which to store records.  They also have employee/staff locations, family centers, and increased costs in shipping, technological infrastructure, equipment, software, yearly testing and special education services and related travel, and more.

Districts persistently state that their cyber programs only cost a few thousand dollars, but that amount does not take the above into account, nor the cost of salaries, benefits, pensions, and other employee related expenses.  And when asked, this is admitted, but rarely presented voluntarily.

Families who have sought cyber charter education as a refuge for their children, possibly after years of harm and much of the time seeking an alternative only as a last resort, are understandably upset by the prospect of a 50% cut in funding to their children’s education – especially at a time when district education has been funded at historic levels for the past three years.

Cyber charters play a very important part in the education landscape, and almost 60,000 students depend on it.  Children shouldn’t be harmed because of some “turf war.”  They deserve our support – all students do.