Kristen Graham of the Philadelphia Inquirer begins her reportage about the city’s experiences with private operators of public schools with this sentence: “In a blow to the Philadelphia School District’s historic privatization experiment, the School Reform Commission voted yesterday to seize six schools from outside managers and warned them that they are in danger of losing 20 others if progress is not made.” A blow to the experiment? Nay, Ms. Graham–the revocation of several management contracts is an indication that the experiment is in fact working as intended. Thirty-eight Philly schools are currently run by private companies, and under the current initiative 16 percent of these, those that have been chronically failing, will return to district control. Thirty-two percent had their contracts extended (boffo for them) and the remainder were told that they have another year to demonstrate significant performance gains or face possible loss of contract. Such a policy “puts providers on notice that we consider they have made just limited progress for children, and that’s not good enough,” the district’s new chief executive, Arlene Ackerman, said. Doesn’t sound to us like a blow to the experiment. Though it would be better if she were also adding some low-performing district schools to the “outsourcing” list.

Indeed, the private operators are much like charter schools, in that they can be penalized, or shut down, for failure to perform (though unlike charters, they are dependent on parents choosing them).  Unfortunately, as Fordham touches on, traditional public schools rarely face this same kind of accountability measure, but rather get reward for failure (with more money) and continue to get students assigned there, based on zip code, with few opportunities to find a better school.

Prior to Beyer’s amendment, the sole purpose of HB 2479 was to increase reimbursements to school districts for charter school students from 30% to 32.45% of their costs. Beyer’s amendment super-sized the bill from four to 19 pages.

Beyer’s proposal, supported by Governor Rendell and Education Secretary Zahorchak, would limit payments to cyber schools to that of the cyber school with the lowest expenditures per-pupil that achieved AYP in the 2006-07 school year. This comes out to approximately $7,000 per-pupil for non-special education students.

Proponents of the cyber school legislation claim that the bill would save money and drastically reduce district spending. But the proposal does not promise hefty savings to taxpayers. The average savings to a home-owner would be only $3.79, but there is no legislation to return even that to the taxpayers. In fact, it would most likely be absorbed into the districts’ spending.

When compared to total educational expenditures, cyber schools represent a fraction of total public school spending. In 2006-07, cyber schools received about $150 million in total funding—0.66% of public school spending. In contrast, school districts spent seventeen times that amount just on construction and debt alone.

Cyber schools already operate with less funding than school districts, as they receive no funding for buildings, transportation, and the like. In 2006-07, cyber schools spent an average of $9,503 per-pupil, compared to the statewide average of $12,028.

Ironically, proponents of cyber funding cutbacks also favor statewide increases in per-pupil spending. Governor Rendell has proposed a new funding formula, which will substantially increase spending, based on a “costing-out” study that suggests Pennsylvania must spend over $4 billion more to provide an adequate education for every student (excluding non-instructional, fixed costs). This formula also provides additional resources for smaller districts and those with more low-income students.

Regardless of the merits of this formula, it is hypocritical for the Rendell administration, and those who support the new spending plan, to support reducing cyber school opportunities for children. First, the administration claims that cyber school funding—already less than traditional public schools—is too expensive, while school district spending is too low. Second, all cyber schools would qualify as small districts and serve a high percentage of students from low-income families (and districts failing to meet AYP), exactly the types of schools Governor Rendell thinks need more money.

Cyber school critics such as the Pennsylvania School Boards Association blame cyber schools for the increases in the cost of education over the last 15 years. The figures seem to indicate otherwise. From 1996-97 to 2005-06, overall public school spending increased 59%—a 51% increase in instructional expenditures, a 62% increase in administration and support services, and a startling 103% increase in spending on construction and debt. During this time, school district construction spending increased from 8.7% to 11.3% of total expenditures, while the proportion spent on instruction declined. Cyber schools serve many students who have been failed by the traditional public school system, and they should not be punished for districts’ runaway spending.

Pennsylvania ranks 12th in per-pupil spending nationwide. If public school spending were reduced to the national average, taxpayers could save about $2 billion. Advocates of school funding reform who want to save money should look for ways to cut back on rampant public school expenditures rather than tighten the belts of the already efficient cyber school budgets.

Instead of trying to target cyber schools and reduce their funding, school reformers should apply the principles and accountability measures that guide cyber and other charter schools to all public schools. Parents should be able to choose the school to which they send their children, public school funding should follow the child, and all under-performing public schools—cyber or traditional district—should face sanctions when they fail to meet their performance contract measures.

Cyber schools have become a viable, cost-efficient, and quality educational option for tens of thousands of students and their families. Instead of seeking to hinder their progress, Pennsylvania public school officials and policymakers should embrace these innovative and effective public school alternatives.

# # #

Jessica Runk is a research associate with the Commonwealth Foundation (www.CommonwealthFoundation.org), an independent, nonprofit public policy research and educational institute based in Harrisburg.

The Heartland Institute has some responses, and Adam Schaeffer notes on Cato-at-Liberty that while opponents decry “the cost” of the program, that in reality, School Choice Saves money.

Note that the both the math ($13,000 is 73% more than $7,500) and the figure used for the cost of DC public schools (it is really about $24,000 per pupil in total expenditures) grossly underestimated the savings to taxpayers. The DC schools cost about 220% more per pupil than the value of the scholarship.  

The budget for the experimental program is $18 million, or about what the U.S. Department of Education spends every hour and a half.

The $7,500 voucher is a bargain for taxpayers because it costs the public schools about 50% more, or $13,000 a year, to educate a child in the public schools. And we use the word “educate” advisedly because D.C. schools are among the worst in the nation. In 2007, D.C. public schools ranked last in math scores and second-to-last in reading scores for all urban public school systems on the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

This fight has nothing to do with saving money. But it has a lot to do with election-year politics. Kevin Chavis, the former D.C. City Council member who sits on the oversight board of the scholarship program, says, “If we were going to do what was best for the kids, then continuing it is a no-brainer. Those kids are thriving.” More than 90% of the families express high satisfaction with the program, according to researchers at Georgetown University.

Many of the parents we interviewed describe the vouchers as a “Godsend” or a “lifeline” for their sons and daughters. “Most of the politicians have choices on where to send their kids to school,” says William Rush, Jr., who has two boys in the program. “Why do they want to take our choices away?”

Good question. These are families in heavily Democratic neighborhoods. More than 80% of the recipients are black and most of the rest Hispanic. Their average income is about $23,000 a year. But the teachers unions have put out the word to Congress that they want all vouchers for private schools that compete with their monopoly system shut down.

This explains why that self-styled champion of children’s causes, Eleanor Holmes Norton, the Congressional delegate from the District of Columbia, is leading the charge to kill the program. Ms. Norton contends that vouchers undermine support and funding for public schools. But the $18 million allocated to the program does not come out of the District school budget; Congress appropriates extra money for the vouchers.

• The bill would save $18 million ($13 million when you deduct reimbursements to districts, or, $3.76 per homeowner).
• Cyber schools have “large surpluses.” This ignores that cybers need fund surpluses when districts refuse to pay and that many school districts have large surpluses - some are even raising property taxes in spite of large surpluses.
• Cybers don’t have buildings, so they need less money.  Of course, cyber schools already receive about 30% less funding, since they don’t get money for buildings (though their technology cost are significantly higher than school districts)

The most astonishing quote is when Rep. Beyer says “Any parochial school will tell you they can more than educate a child for $7,000.”   While this is true (parochial schools’ tuition is in the $2,500-$5,000 range, and their total costs are likely around $4,000-$7,000 per pupil) it says less about cyber schools than it does about the overspending and Edifice Complex of school districts.

Consider that cyber schools educate 20,000 students at about $9,000 per-pupil, compared with school districts with 1,800,000 students @ $12,000 per-pupil.  Where is the real taxpayer savings?  Representative Beyer should either push for caps on school district spending, or push for more school choice programs - since school choice saves taxpayers.

~~~

In related news, Bob Maranto has an editorial in the Philadelphia Daily News on the reporting on charter school scandals. He notes that charter schools are more accountable - in that they depend on parents choosing them, and that they can be shut down,

But more importantly, charter schools in Philadelphia are - get this - educating their students:

Philadelphia charter schools have a 94 percent graduation rate
compared with barely 50 percent for traditional public schools, despite the charters’ spending 31 percent less per pupil. Academically, the charters reach 90 percent of their academic Adequate Yearly Progress goals under No Child Left Behind, compared with 84 percent for traditional schools.

The Danville School Board voted to renovate three elementary schools, rather than save costs by consolidating them, to the tune of $22 to $37 million.

Central Bucks taxpayers will face a property tax increase – which basically wipes out any “relief” from gaming revenue for the median valued homeowner – despite the fact the district has $30 million in reserve funds.

And in Kutzown, the school board unveiled a plan for an addition to the high school, for the price of $27.6 million.

Families cite common reasons for choosing to homeschool their children, such as concern about the environment at other schools, dissatisfaction with the academic instruction at other schools, and a preference for providing religious and moral instruction not provided in traditional school.

The decentralized nature of the homeschooling population limits researchers’ ability to draw conclusions about the specific effect of homeschooling on various outcome measures such as academic achievement. However, evaluations of homeschooled students have reported that homeschool students perform well in that academic environment. Moreover, a survey of adults who were homeschooled suggests that homeschooling leads to positive life outcomes, such as higher college attendance and enrollment.

The growing number of students being educated at home is also influencing the American education system and saving taxpayers between $4.4 billion and $9.9 billion in instructional costs each year.

Get the full report here.

The 50-state ranking is available here. The full report is available for purchase.

Greg Forster offers a quick synopsis.