T
he Supreme Court’s long-awaited ruling on an Ohio voucher pro-gram came on June 27, 2002. The same morning, the High Court approved broad drug testing of stu-dents involved in cocurricular activi-ties. The day before, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals essentially deemed the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. With all of that happening, a Pennsylvania court’s dis-missal of a legal challenge against cyber charter schools went largely unnoticed. That’s unfortunate because, like other controversial issues in education, cyber charter schools raise important questions for school leaders and the community at large.A Virtual Alternative
The website welcomes visitors with the slogan, “Using tomorrow’s education today: Putting today’s educational alternatives in the palm of your hand; For grades kindergarten through 12.” When you enter the site, the homepage looks like most school web-sites that contain links about programs, administration, and academics.
But this particular school website is different from most because it
describes the mission and methods of a cyber charter school. In addition to typical information for parents and students, there are links contain-ing antivirus updates and PC-warranty information. There is also a link called “Senate Testimony” and a pop-up window that opens to reveal
to which I refer belongs to the West-ern Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School (WPCCS) in the Midland School District in Beaver County, PA (www.midlandpa.org /wpccs).
Midland closed its high school in the mid 1980s, in part because of a depressed area economy, and entered into an agreement with an Ohio district to bus Midland students out-of-state. But by the late 1990s, only one out-of-state district had accepted Midland students and no conventional school facility in Midland or surrounding counties was reportedly able or willing to enroll the students. Enter WPCCS and a load of controversy. WPCCS was authorized by the superintend-ent of the Midland District in sum-mer 2000 and was intended as a means for Midland students to receive a public education within Pennsylvania’s borders.
When WPCCS opened, hundreds of students enrolled. This might not
The Other School-Choice
Debate
BY KELLEY R. TAYLOR, ESQ.
A recent ruling upholding the legality of
Pennsylvania cyber charter schools raises the
questions of how educators can provide an
adequate education in cyberspace and how
the public will pay for it.
PHOTO ILLUSTRA
have been problematic except for the fact that Pennsylvania law requires districts to pay per-student monetary allocations to charter schools. As a result, parent school districts began receiving invoices for each student residing within their districts who had enrolled in WPCCS. That, in and of itself, might not have been a problem except that most of these districts did not have advance notice of WPCCS student enrollment. For example, many of the students who enrolled in the cyber charter school had been homeschooled and had not previously attended a traditional pub-lic school. In addition, the average per-student allocation in Pennsylvania was between $5,000 and $7,000 per student. With more than a thousand students from across the Common-wealth opting to attend WPCCS the first year, various Pennsylvania districts soon owed the cyber charter school a combined total of nearly $900,000.
After the districts refused to pay the invoices, the Pennsylvania Board of Education withheld a com-parable amount in monetary subsidies from those districts. In April 2001, the Pennsylvania School Boards Asso-ciation (PBSA) along with some Penn-sylvania school districts filed suit challenging the legality of cyber char-ter schools in Pennsylvania. The plain-tiffs argued that the cyber charters were not lawful under Pennsylvania’s 1997 charter school law and therefore the districts should not be legally obligated to pay the per-student allocations. On the basis of that contention, plaintiffs sought to enjoin the state board of education from withholding funds from the districts that had refused to pay allocations to the Cyber School. On June 17, 2002, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court dismissed the legal challenge, ruling that state law did not prohibit cyber charter schools and finding that the plaintiffs did not have the standing
to challenge the schools. Since then, more than 30 Pennsylvania school districts have joined a class-action lawsuit challenging WPCCS.
The Pennsylvania cyber charter school litigation illustrates the notable controversy about public cyber educa-tion. If these schools are charter schools, it seems fair that laws and regulations that govern conventional charter schools should also govern cyber charter schools. However, in many ways, the singular characteris-tics of cyber education are incongru-ent with laws and regulations designed for traditional brick-and-mortar public schools and established charter schools.
Conflict of Laws
Although a majority of states now have charter school laws, most did not contemplate cyber charter schools. For that reason, related litiga-tion has focused on whether cyber charter schools are legal and whether the schools are in other ways contrary to regulations originally designed to accommodate more-traditional public education. In the Pennsylvania case,
the PSBA contended that cyber char-ter schools were not legal charchar-ters under the state’s 1997 charter school law. The law defined charter schools as “independent schools established and operated under a charter from the local board of school directors and in which students are enrolled or attend.” As for references to technol-ogy or possible Internet education, a single clause in the law provided that “nothing [in this clause] shall preclude the use of computer and satellite linkages for delivering instruction to students.” This combined with other statutory requirements to which charter schools were subject, (none of which explic-itly or implicexplic-itly included or excluded cyber charter schools) made it difficult to unequivocally state that cyber charters fell under existing Pennsylvania law.
Aside from problems of definition in existing charter school laws, other statutory requirements related to attendance, teacher certification, and the like are difficult to reconcile with the nature of cyber charter schools. For example, the Pennsylvania charter school law mandated that charter schools provide a certain number of hours of instruction. How would such a requirement be monitored in a cyber school context? In addition, students who attend traditional pub-lic schools and charter schools are subject to compulsory attendance laws in most states and are required to meet standards related to enrollment, teacher certification, transportation, and meaningful par-ent and community involvempar-ent.
Some of these requirements seem out-of-step with the character and methods of cyber charter schools. For example, students attending cyber schools do not have transportation needs as such—most cyber school students receive education in their homes. In addition, much of the edu-cational support and guidance for Aside from problems
of definition in existing charter school laws, other statutory requirements related to attendance, teacher certification, and the like are difficult to reconcile with the nature of cyber charter schools.
“
cyber school students comes from a parent or guardian who resides in the home. This circumstance makes it dif-ficult to ascertain exactly how signifi-cant certain requirements (e.g., teacher certification) are in the cyber school context.
Other than discord with laws designed for traditional public schools, it is difficult to square laws and policies designed for nontraditional education (e.g., home schooling) with cyber charter schools. Like charter schools, homeschooling gained popu-larity in recent years despite a contro-versial entrance into the education arena. Interestingly, most of the aspects of homeschooling that have been difficult to reconcile with tradi-tional public education mirror contro-versial aspects of cyber education. For example, although homeschooling is, in some form or another, legal in all 50 states, the laws that govern home-school standards in terms of parent and state accountability did not include public cyber schools that enroll homeschoolers. Also, charter school laws in most states are distinct from homeschool laws. How, then, will states that already face challenges related to determining public education services for homeschoolers differentiate cyber schools from home schools and delineate when and whether homeschoolers can cross the line between the two?
Crunching the Numbers
As is often the case in education, issues of statutory accountability are linked to funding. The Pennsylvania cyber school case serves as illustration because litigation ensued after school
districts were asked to pay mandatory per-student allocations to WPCCS. But if there were legitimate questions about whether cyber charters schools were legal in Pennsylvania, was it fair to ask parent districts to pay money to the schools? In response to that ques-tion, opponents of cyber charter schools in Pennsylvania say that controls are needed for districts to reasonably anticipate cyber charter enrollment and to have input in approving or monitoring the schools. This is especially the case if parent dis-tricts would be expected to ante
those allocations, which are based on traditional brick-and-mortar school expenses, are relevant to cyber schools. What are the real per-student costs of operating a cyber charter school? If those costs can be determined, should the allocations be reduced accordingly? Still others contend that such
allocations should not necessarily fol-low the student out of the traditional public education system and into the realm of cyber education. As if those questions were not considerable enough, many homeschool laws stipu-late that public moneys cannot be used to fund homeschoolers. Again, concerns about how to differentiate homeschoolers from students who attend cyber charter schools are para-mount from a financial perspective. important issue may be the quality and degree
of parental supervision and guidance.
Some proponents of cyber schools point out that the schools alleviate pressure for traditional public schools (e.g., construction costs). In addition, cyber charter schools sometimes attract corporations that invest start-up money. This kind of corporate collaboration can be a double-edged sword because “schoolhouse
commer-cialism” is a major source of contro-versy. Schools require money, and lucrative contracts with for-profit entities can provide it—however, in many circumstances, such financial support comes with a price tag (e.g., exclusive use of certain products in schools). Many believe that such financial support and its associated consequences come at the expense of
students. Consequently, although corporate collaboration can have an effect on education in terms of finan-cial and other resources, public awareness of the need for certain controls for corporate involvement with schools is important. In the end, despite the potential positive financial aspects of cyber charter schools, many view cyber charters as funnels—siphoning money away from traditional public schools. Accordingly, determining who pays will likely remain in contention.
Public Policy Issues
As if definitional and financial issues were not sufficient problems for cyber charter schools, public policy issues related to accountability, accommoda-tion, and community involvement abound in this context. Interestingly, although uncertainty remains for cyber charter schools in some of these areas of concerns, the schools offer noteworthy benefits in others.
In terms of educational accounta-bility, questions about how cyber charter schools will ensure learning and monitor enrollment remain, as do questions about how states will effectively monitor and track the activities of cyber charter schools. However, proponents for cyber charter schools claim that traditional public schools face similar challenges. Some opponents wonder how the quality of cyber education can be measured, although supporters point to the flexibility of offering multiple curricula—facilitating success through educational choice.
Nevertheless, cyber charter schools present an interesting benefit in terms of student accommodation. Specifically, the nature of cyber schools is such that a particular student’s geographical, physical, or similar chal-lenges are not salient in the same way as they may be with a brick-and-mor-tar school. For example, a student with a severe physical disability may find it
L E A D I N G Q U E S T I O N S
difficult to be transported to a brick-and-mortar school and might find it easier to obtain a public education from home under the auspices of a cyber charter school. Although the policy merits and drawbacks of cyber education can be debated ad nauseum, the most important issue may be the quality and degree of parental supervi-sion and guidance. Notably, as is the case with any form of education, establishing and nurturing solid school-parent-community interaction is necessary to the success of student and schools alike.
Choice and Change
When all is said and done, cyber schools are not and will not be for everyone. Some students do not pos-sess the independent motivation such education requires and others seek benefits that brick-and-mortar schools can offer. However, Pennsylvania, and other states (e.g., Alaska, Arizona, Cal-ifornia, Colorado, Florida, Kansas, Montana, New Mexico, Ohio, Texas, and Wisconsin) have in some ways embraced the potential benefits and innovation that cyber charter schools can impart. A Pennsylvania house budget bill that passed in June carves out a legislative niche for cyber charter schools in the Pennsylvania, addressing key issues of funding, oversight, and accountability.
Under new provisions, cyber schools are specifically defined as “independent schools established and operated under Department of Edu-cation charters and which utilize technology to provide a significant portion of its curriculum and instruc-tion via the Internet or other
electronic means.” The law attempts to better outline residency,
application processes, record keeping, enrollment reporting, attendance, special education services, and other applicable requirements (e.g., those regarding student safety, drug and alcohol abuse, academic standards and assessment, civil rights, and so on) to which Pennsylvania cyber charter schools are explicitly subject. In addition, the Pennsylvania bill speaks to funding, providing that the state reimburse a certain percentage of costs charged to parent districts for students attending charter schools.
does not adequately address concerns related to providing cyber education within a charter school framework. However, it is a beginning in a state where cyber charter schools have taken hold. Meanwhile, as school leaders, state legislators, and commu-nities debate issues related to these schools, an important truth is that this approach may present a positive educational option for some students. Even so, only time and probably additional litigation will tell whether cyber charter schools become an integral and constructive part of on an evolving public educa-tion landscape.PL
Kelley R. Taylor, Esq. (taylor_kr@msn .com) is a corporate attorney and freelance writer based in Virginia.
community interaction is necessary to the success of student and schools alike.
