Aug 24, 2022 4 min read

Since their inception in 2002, public cyber charter schools have been a thorn in the side of school districts and traditional public education establishment organizations across the state.

Suffice it to say that traditional public schools don’t like competition, and many supporters of the status quo abhor the idea that parents and families have the right to choose the public school that best serves their child.

Unfortunately, the divide between traditional public schools and public cyber charter schools continues to grow and has only accelerated over the past decade. Instead of working together to do what is right for students, school districts and their advocates go out of their way to tear down public school choice and mislead and misinform the public about the important role cyber charter schools have in our education system – school choice has overwhelming support in Pennsylvania and across the nation.

Through the use of cherry-picked data and inaccurate information, anti-public school choice advocates are experts at pointing the finger and faulting the competition, when in reality, they need to own their shortcomings and adjust to the needs and demands of students and families.

Let’s be honest: School districts only raise concerns when students leave to attend a public cyber charter school because, under state law, a portion of a district’s tax dollars follow a child to the cyber school – tax dollars parents have paid into the system. Districts and anti-school choice advocates are only worried about money following a student, not why the student left district-run schools.

According to a report issued earlier this year by the Pennsylvania School Boards Association and the Pennsylvania Association of School Administrators, the top source of budget pressure for school districts is charter school tuition payments. Both associations claim that charter school costs are resulting in the reduction of programs and tax increases on property owners.

Let’s assess the veracity of these claims.

Based on data from the 2020-21 school year, which is accessible on the state Department of Education’s website, the state’s 500 school districts combined collected more than $33.6 billion in federal, state, local, and other revenue. Of this amount, $1 billion, or 3%, was paid to cyber charter schools.

Is it possible that districts are facing onerous expenses? Yes, but public cyber charter schools are not the issue. During the same school year, districts spent $15.1 billion, or 45%, on legacy costs – $8.1 billion, or 24%, on employee benefits; $4.2 billion, or 12.4%, on pension costs; and $2.8 billion, or 8.4%, on debt service. Again, compare these to the $1 billion, or 3%, districts paid to cyber charter schools.

Although districts claim the sky is falling, all 500 districts combined have amassed nearly $5.3 billion in reserve funds – an increase of more than $700 million, or 16%, over the past five years; supposedly, districts were spending down their fund balances; however, their own data shows otherwise.

It’s also important to note that school districts received a significant infusion of federal funding during the COVID-19 pandemic – $6.5 billion – on top of the federal, state, and local funds they normally receive each year.

A reasonable person can easily conclude that public cyber charter schools are not a financial drain on school district budgets. In fact, when a student enrolls in a public cyber charter school, school districts, on average, retain 25% of the funding allocated per student.

The saying, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it” rings true. Districts and their supporters will undoubtedly continue to bang the drum of misinformation to intentionally mislead the public, when in fact they have complete control over the number of families shifting to public cyber charter schools.

As long as districts remain entrenched with the status quo and refuse to put students and families first, they have no one to blame but themselves.

A child’s education is not one-sided. It truly is a partnership between the school and family that requires listening, compassion, and flexibility.

Until such time that districts recognize that they are the problem, families will continue seeking alternatives to their local district.

Thomas D. Longenecker is Commonwealth Charter Academy president and CEO.