Adam Schott and James Jack write here about the poor performance of cyber charters in Pennsylvania.
You might even say the abysmal performance of cyber charters.
Pennsylvania has 16, more of them than any state in the nation, and six more want to open. No wonder they want to open. It is a lucrative business.
They write:
If it was viewed as a single school district, Pennsylvania’s expansive cyber charter sector would represent Pennsylvania’s second-largest district, with more than 35,000 students attending 16 schools statewide. Cyber charters received approximately $366 million in taxpayer funds in 2012-13—drawing payments from 498 of the state’s 500 school districts.
Their performance is awful:
In 2011-2012, just one of the state’s then 12 cyber charter schools met state academic thresholds for adequate yearly progress, while eight schools landed in one of several stages of “corrective action”—the lowest level of academic performance.
A 2011 report by Stanford’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes that examined Pennsylvania charter schools found that “performance at cyber charter schools was substantially lower than the performance at brick-and-mortar charters.”
Last week, Research for Action and our colleagues at the Education Law Center weighed new data: School Performance Profile scores, which are at the heart of the state’s new accountability plan under its No Child Left Behind waiver. We examined scores for the 11 cyber charter schools for which complete data were available—together, these schools educate nearly 17,000 students, or roughly half of the statewide cyber charter enrollment.
All 11 cybers scored among the lowest schools in the state. Not one of these cyber schools met or exceeded the average performance of Pennsylvania’s public and charter schools.
In fact, according to the state’s data, the average performance of cyber charters was more than 33 points behind that of traditional public schools, and nearly 23 points behind brick-and-mortar charter schools. Put another way, cyber charters—despite recent expansion—represent less than one half of one percent of the state’s schools, yet account for more than one-third of the state’s lowest-scoring based on that data.
Pennsylvania’s cyber charter schools enroll a student population that broadly reflects the state as a whole in terms of special education identification rates, English language learner status, and other characteristics. Yet the sector’s performance is well below that of the overwhelming majority of public schools, both traditional and brick-and-mortar charter schools.
Pennsylvania policymakers have an obligation to make decisions informed by all available evidence. We urge them to carefully consider the performance data on cyber charters as they consider further expansion of this sector.
Adam Schott is Director of Policy Research at Research for Action and a former Executive Director of the State Board of Education. James Jack is a Senior Research Associate at RFA.
I think that these “entities” should be put out of BIZ via “liability” statute(s). Take the money back when they cannot meet performance requirements. Fraud is a crime; that ought not …
If a contractor to the state does not meet expectations on a building project (for example)–they are liable (I HOPE).
“All 11 cybers scored among the lowest schools in the state. Not one of these cyber schools met or exceeded the average performance of Pennsylvania’s public and charter schools.”
Okay … this is enough information. Aren’t we done with the “charter school experiment”?
Sorry … “Cyber school experiment”!
I do think that a mix of online courses and live courses is likely to be the future of education, at least for high school students in rural areas.
And that’s terrible. Plugging in kids isn’t the answer–whether students are in rural areas or not. And what becomes of the jobs that are taken? Rural areas generally need MORE economic development, not less.
I am not sure why you think it is terrible. There is little hope of a rich curriculum when with a high school graduating class of less than sixty five students.
And there is NO hope of a rich curriculum with cyber “schooling.”
Half of the high schools in my state have fewer than 250 students. How deep a science curriculum, a math curriculum, a foreign language curriculum will a high school of 200 students have?
If a cyber schools are considered a “business” , can they be reported to the “better business bureau”?
What a great question, jaded!
If they were public schools every politician from Arne to JEb/Micheele and the Pa governor would be screaming for blood. What is the response, who are they accountable too. But, more important, why are 36,000 students enrolled. This problem will never end if parents keep supporting these schools.
Why are they beating a dead horse?
Anyone ever stop to think about a few years down the road when all of these kids are adults. Where will all of the EdDeformers be after these undereducated kids are left to find meaningful employment? What will these students have learned after hours of sitting in front of a computer? Who knows??? Will they be college and career ready? Will they be able to work collaboratively, using critical thinking skills to problem solve? What will become of this generation of students who have been subjected to this horrible experiment? Who cares? Not the EdDeformers. Their own children are attending those “other” schools. You know, the ones with the small class sizes, with the credentialed teachers, with the arts and music classes, etc., etc.
How many more children will be harmed before we stop this madness?
College (debt) and (poverty-wage) Career Ready…
Thanks for reposting our op-ed. I wanted to share with you and your readers the issue brief that informed our piece.
Issue Brief: An Analysis of Pennsylvania’s Cyber Charter Schools
http://bit.ly/1dlCmHI
In it we explored both the academic performance as measured by the state’s new school rating system (School Performance Profile-SPP) and student mobility in these schools.
We found:
–For the 11 cyber charters with SPP scores, all scored among the lowest performing schools in the state. No cyber charter with SPP scores attained the state-level average School Performance Profile score.
–The five cyber charter schools with enrollment data had higher average transfer-in and transfer-out rates than all brick and mortar charters with available data (87 schools).
And the move is on in Idaho to do the same…http://www.idahoednews.org/voices/rural-and-charter-schools-could-be-allies/ Could be Allies? Don’t think so. It does not work that way.