Cyber Charter Schools Face Funding Scrutiny Amid Enrollment Growth

Cyber charter schools in Pennsylvania are spending more on educating students than traditional public schools when excluding costs associated with maintaining physical buildings and student transportation. This insight comes from an analysis by PennLive, which highlights the financial dynamics of cyber education in the state. Cyber school leaders are urging political representatives to understand the unique financial burdens they face, including costs for internet access, specialized software, and curriculum.

The financial landscape is complex. While cyber schools are reportedly saving money more quickly than their public counterparts, the growth in savings has sometimes been exaggerated. Traditional brick-and-mortar charter schools, as well as local districts, have also seen increases in their savings, partly fueled by additional pandemic funding. The implications of these financial conditions could influence future local tax bills and the overall quality of education in the region.

One prominent proposal under consideration by legislators in Harrisburg aims to reform the funding structure for cyber charter schools. Proponents argue this change could save local school districts approximately $250 million currently perceived as misallocated. Critics warn, however, that such reforms could jeopardize the existence of cyber charter schools, leaving nearly 70,000 students without educational options.

Each cyber charter operates under different financial models. The Commonwealth Charter Academy, Pennsylvania’s largest cyber charter, has invested hundreds of millions in building and acquiring facilities to serve its staff and families across the state. This strategy allows CCA to spend less per student in various educational areas. The rapid growth in enrollment at CCA has placed additional financial strain on local districts, contributing to their instability.

Local district leaders contend that cyber charter schools should not receive as much funding since they do not incur expenses related to physical infrastructure or transportation. Cyber school advocates counter that they invest more in curriculum and technology, which traditional schools may overlook. Both sides acknowledge that a significant portion of their spending goes towards direct instructional costs, particularly teacher salaries and benefits.

The financial disparities between the two systems become less pronounced when accounting for enrollment increases in cyber schools. Cyber charter schools experienced notable savings during the pandemic, a trend that Republican Auditor General Tim DeFoor highlighted in an audit of five major institutions. The audit indicated a substantial rise in governmental fund balances due to revenue surpluses, which some officials deemed “excessive” for public education entities.

Despite these findings, some local school districts assert that their own cyber programs can educate students for less than the statewide average for cyber charters. Representative Peter Schweyer, chair of the Democratic House Education Committee, stated, “There are additional costs to school districts that aren’t being added into those district costs.” In June, Schweyer and other Democrats voted in favor of limiting cyber charter tuition to $8,000 per regular education student, citing the accumulated savings of these schools.

As federal COVID funding wanes, experts predict that the rapid accumulation of financial reserves at cyber schools will stabilize. Jonathon Shiota, business manager at 21st Century Cyber Charter, explained that their surpluses were partly a result of accommodating a surge in student enrollment without the need for physical expansion. “Creating temporary surpluses that have since stabilized,” he noted.

Advocates for education reform, including the Education Law Center’s legal director Maura McKinnery, argue that the costs associated with running physical school buildings outweigh the unique expenses of cyber charters. Nonetheless, Representative Marc Anderson of York County challenged this view, stating that some cyber schools do maintain physical facilities, including classrooms and laboratories.

The Commonwealth Charter Academy’s extensive investment in real estate has drawn scrutiny, with local leaders questioning the need for such a large physical footprint when the essence of cyber education is to minimize physical infrastructure. Rob Gleason, a local school board president, expressed surprise at the scale of CCA’s assets, stating, “I didn’t know cyber schools had buildings. Why do they have buildings?”

CCA representatives assert that their physical spaces are essential for staff operations and student support services. Tim Eller, a spokesperson for CCA, highlighted that families desire a high-quality online education complemented by local, in-person support, which includes resources for tutoring and state testing.

A coalition of twelve educational advocacy organizations has urged Harrisburg lawmakers to address the funding formula for cyber charter schools in their budget negotiations. They argue that the current system forces school districts to pay cyber charter tuition bills that exceed what these schools spend to educate their students.

Changes to funding could redirect more resources to local districts, but it is unlikely to resolve their broader financial challenges. The number of students enrolling in cyber charter schools nearly doubled during the pandemic, and while growth has slowed, it continues. This trend has been particularly pronounced at CCA, which had seen its enrollment more than triple in the past five years.

Local district leaders are concerned about the unpredictability of costs associated with cyber school enrollment. Michael Dadey, assistant to the superintendent in Greater Johnstown, noted that fluctuations in student numbers hinder planning for essential services and staffing.

Legislators are currently debating proposals that could limit future enrollment growth at cyber schools, particularly those under improvement plans. Such measures would require these institutions to improve testing and graduation rates before admitting additional students beyond a set cap.

While proponents of these caps argue they are necessary for educational quality, cyber advocates warn that such restrictions could leave some families without viable education options. As the debate continues, the question remains: what will be the impact on the future of cyber education in Pennsylvania?