Dear Governor Wolf, We are the student members of the PA Council on Cyber Transition affiliate of the Pennsylvania Youth Leadership Network, and we are writing to you concerning your stance on cyber schooling throughout the state. We understand that you plan on holding cyber schools at a higher level of accountability, largely by reducing funding. We have also read Representative Sonney’s drafted legislation for cyber schools, which would likely go hand in hand with your proposals. We feel that everything that has been proposed is more harmful than beneficial for students statewide, and we hope that after reading this letter, you might reconsider how you plan to approach further legislation and regulation of cyber schools. We are aware that what has encouraged the recent propositions, are revelations on the negative academic results of cyber charter schools. As the Stanford University report from June, and other prior research and data have shown, cyber charter schools across the state have consistently had lower academic ratings and growth in comparison to traditional schools. We understand how this is a grave concern, and reflects a major flaw within the cyber school system that should by no means be ignored. However, these reports generally focus on the raw data, rather than taking an in depth look, and do not always signify that these schools are providing a subpar education. There are multiple cyber charters within the state that employ qualified teachers, and provide informative and comprehensive courses. Cyber school is not for every student; there's a dedication and follow through needed to complete work regularly and to the best of one's ability. Unfortunately, not everyone has the drive or the support system at home to do so. In addition, many students that transition to cyber schools are already lagging academically. A cyber school student displaying slow academic growth or repeating a grade may not stem from the cyber school failing to educate the student properly, but failure on the part of the student’s prior school to aid them as needed. Simply examining one aspect of these schools (however outstanding it may be), and not accounting for staff qualifications, courses, student engagement, or students’ prior records does not give a full view of what a certain cyber school is like, and undermines its educational value. It may not be plausible on a state level or within the context of a broad study to conduct such an examination, but that does not diminish the importance of examining multiple facets of something before reaching conclusions. Beyond the focus of academic scores and qualifications are the reasons some students or their parents choose cyber school in the first place. Many students enroll at a cyber school as a result of issues at their previous schools, ranging from bullying, a demanding or deficient education, or general safety concerns about the area. While some of these issues are a result of inadequate funds or are uncontrollable circumstances, others arise from general negligence on the part of school staff, or the inability to properly handle situations and complaints as they occur (this can, admittedly, occur virtually, but it’s still widely prevalent in traditional schools). And while flexibility in one’s education may seem an insignificant advantage against the overwhelming negative academic data, it can nonetheless be crucial in aiding a student. Some students may have medical issues, busy schedules, or family emergencies that would generally not permit them to complete their education in its entirety, or with efficacy; cyber school can help them to avoid or workaround such adversities. Cyber schools may be deemed problematic, but traditional brick and mortar schools themselves have had long standing issues that have yet to be dealt with or resolved on a wide scale, and cannot provide certain benefits that cyber schools can. How access to alternative education affects special education students is by all means an important factor in this debate, yet it does not seem that it has been discussed heavily. Cyber schools generally teach higher proportions of special education students than traditional schools do. While 15% of the students attending a given brick and mortar school are special education students, for cyber schools, the figure can range as high as 27.5%. Given the higher volume, these statistics serve not only as an additional factor in the overall lower scores received by cyber schools, but also as an indication of the appeal cyber schooling has for students with disabilities. Last year, we conducted a survey of cyber school students with disabilities on how the switch from a brick and mortar school to a cyber school (if they had ever made such a transition) impacted both their education and life in general. Of the 113 responses we received, many cited a host of reasons they had enrolled in their current school, from bullying and safety concerns, to inadequate accommodations and education. Of the respondents, 102 were able to definitely say that enrolling in a cyber school benefited their education and/or lives, and 92 could say that they felt properly represented at their current school. Despite our small sample, our data shows that for students with disabilities, having the ability to transfer to a cyber school can be a positive and necessary change. Practically demolishing an established educational system, as Representative Sonney has outlined in his bill, isn't reform, and reducing funds to these institutions will only damage their ability to improve upon themselves. Whatever good intentions the proposed changes have are destructive in one way or another, and ultimately disregard the rights of students across the state to choose how they complete their education. House Bills 355-358, which are, at the time of writing, in various stages of review and referral, provide a better alternative. Between clarifying how charter schools are to be established, to allowing dual enrollment for charter and cyber charter students, they collectively strengthen guidelines in charter schools and cyber charter schools, while also benefiting the students of these schools. They are attempting to fix and amend issues, rather than trying to annihilate an entire system just because it is deemed as totally and utterly broken. It will take a lot more than these 4 bills to start improving upon cyber charters in a major way, but they provide a more constructive method than what Rep. Sonney has introduced. We, as both former and current students of cyber schools, understand especially how beneficial attending a cyber school can be. As we suggested before, cyber schooling is not for every student, and there are improvements to be made within the system. That being said, reducing funding will only hurt the students who do thrive and excel in these schools. All out closures will displace many students and likely put them in a position where they are forced to attend the schools that had failed them before, or participating in cyber education programs that districts may not even devote enough resources to maintain in the long run. Once more, we ask that you reconsider your stance, and think of students like us when you make any future decisions in regards to this issue. Thank you for your time and consideration,
The Student Members of the PACCT PYLN |