Key Takeaways:
- Cyber charter schools in Pennsylvania are criticized for having a $365 million surplus.
- Traditional schools hold $6.8 billion in reserves but are raising property taxes.
- The governor’s budget cuts cyber charter funding by $378 million.
- Cyber charters serve many low-income and special-needs students.
- Enrollment in cyber charters is growing while traditional schools lose students.
- Proposed funding model would follow students instead of schools.
Introduction
Pennsylvania’s cyber charter schools are facing criticism for efficiently managing their funds, while traditional schools hold much larger reserves. As budget negotiations begin, there’s a push to reduce cyber charter funding, which could harm vulnerable students who depend on them.
The Problem with Surpluses
Cyber charters are under attack for having a $365 million surplus, despite this being a fraction of what traditional schools hold. Critics argue this money could be better used elsewhere, but cyber charters need reserves to operate without local tax income.
The State of Traditional Schools’ Funding
Traditional schools have $6.8 billion in reserves, yet some are raising taxes. This decision highlights their preference to maintain reserves rather than use them, even as they demand more funding.
The Governor’s Budget and Its Implications
Governor Shapiro’s budget proposes a significant cut to cyber charters, allocating only $8,000 per student, far less than traditional schools. This reduction could threaten the existence of these schools and the students they serve.
Who Depends on Cyber Charters?
Half of cyber charter students are low-income, with some schools serving up to 95% of such students. Special-needs students are 27 times more likely to enroll in cyber charters, which offer individualized attention they might not find elsewhere.
Enrollment Trends and the Future
Cyber charter enrollment has grown 12% in five years, serving 60,000 students. If these students were a district, they’d be the second-largest. Meanwhile, traditional schools face declining enrollment, forecast to drop by 60,000 by 2028.
A Possible Solution: Funding Students, Not Schools
Instead of debating which schools deserve funds, shifting dollars to follow students could ensure education money is used where it’s needed most. This approach aligns funding with student choices and incentivizes schools to improve.
Conclusion
Punishing cyber charters for fiscal responsibility is unfair. Lawmakers should ensure these schools remain an option for vulnerable students. Considering a student-centric funding model could offer a balanced solution for Pennsylvania’s education future.