PA school districts, cyber charters deserve equal scrutiny | Opinion

Jesse Barlow’s recent op-ed raises important questions about education funding, special education costs and the commonwealth’s responsibility to adequately fund public schools. Those are conversations worth having.

Unfortunately, his article tells only one side of the story.

If we are going to discuss financial accountability and cite reports about cyber charter schools, fairness requires that we apply the same level of scrutiny to traditional school districts.

For years, cyber charter schools have been analyzed, audited, criticized and dissected. Every expenditure, reserve balance and financial decision becomes a headline. Yet when similar questions arise regarding traditional school districts, many of those same voices suddenly become silent.

Let’s look at Centre County using the exact same research criteria.

According to publicly available Pennsylvania Department of Education records and independent district audits, Penns Valley Area School District experienced a 9% decline in enrollment over the last five years. During that same period, total spending increased 18%, rising from approximately $28 million to $34 million. Administrative costs increased 13%, growing from approximately $1.5 million to $1.7 million. Fund balances increased 87% to $23.6 million, and taxes were increased twice. Meanwhile, cyber charter costs represented just 3.5% of total district expenditures.

State College Area School District tells a similar story. Enrollment declined 2%, yet total spending increased 22%, rising from approximately $158 million to $193 million. Administrative costs increased 29%, growing from approximately $8 million to $10.3 million. The district’s fund balance grew to $131 million, taxes were increased twice, and cyber charter costs represented just 0.7% of total expenditures — less than one penny of every dollar spent.

That raises an obvious question.

If cyber charter costs are truly the financial crisis some claim they are, why did spending continue increasing at a much faster rate than enrollment declined? Why are reserves growing? Why are administrative costs increasing? Those questions deserve the same level of public discussion that cyber charter schools receive.

Mr. Barlow also praises the recent cyber charter funding reforms and notes that State College Area School District will save approximately $366,000. What he fails to mention is where those dollars came from.

Under Pennsylvania law, public cyber charter schools are public schools. They are not private schools, voucher programs or alternative educational providers. They are public school entities serving nearly 70,000 students across the commonwealth.

Yet the recent funding changes redirected millions of dollars away from public cyber charter schools and toward traditional brick-and-mortar districts.

That raises another important question. If the goal is to follow students and adequately fund public education, why are dollars being shifted away from public schools that are serving growing numbers of students and toward districts that, in many cases, have experienced flat or declining enrollment over the same period?

Funding should reflect where students are actually enrolling — not simply where they used to attend.

The op-ed also references concerns regarding cyber charter reserves and spending. If reserve growth is a concern, taxpayers should be equally interested in learning why Pennsylvania school districts collectively now hold more than $13.3 billion in fund balances while many continue raising taxes on residents.

Even Auditor General Tim DeFoor raised concerns in 2023 after reviewing school district finances, describing what appeared to be a “shell game” with taxpayer dollars as funds were shifted between accounts while taxes continued to rise.

The larger issue is not cyber schools versus traditional schools.

The larger issue is transparency.

Taxpayers deserve to know why so many districts are serving fewer students while spending continues to increase. They deserve to understand why reserves continue to grow. They deserve to know that cyber charter tuition is calculated using a district’s own spending through the PDE-363 formula and that districts themselves determine the tuition rates they later criticize.

Most importantly, taxpayers deserve the entire story.

Mr. Barlow asks lawmakers to adequately fund public education. On that point, most people would agree. But adequate funding should also come with adequate transparency and accountability.

If cyber charter schools are expected to answer questions about reserves, spending, facilities and outcomes, then traditional school districts should be held to that same standard.

The taxpayers of Centre County deserve nothing less.

Marcus Hite is the executive director of the Pennsylvania Association of Public Cyber Charter Schools.