DN Editorial: CY-BURIED EDUCATION

WITHIN the herd of public-education options, cyber charter schools are clearly the black sheep. From the time they first appeared on the scene soon after Pennsylvania legalized charters in 1997, cyber charters have been subject to lawsuits, pushback from districts that have refused to pay for cyber students and, more recently, federal probes and grand-jury indictments of some cyber operators.

Last week, the Education Law Center, a nonprofit group, called on the state to issue a one-year moratorium on authorizing any more cyber schools. They make a convincing case, with findings from a study by Research For Action, an educational research center. That research shows the state's 16 cyber charters to be on the bottom rung of academic achievement. RFA compared School Performance Profile scores among traditional public schools, bricks-and-mortar charters and cyber charters. Traditional schools scored an average of 77.8, charter schools scored 67.3 and cyber charters, 44.7.

That's not good news for the 35,000 students enrolled in virtual schools around the state - or for the taxpayers who shelled out $366 million for such schools.

The history of cybers in the state is troubled. From the beginning, districts had a hard time recognizing their value; the state took over oversight and authorizing of cybers in 2002, at which time the state also started reimbursing school districts for 30 percent of the cost of charter students. This reimbursement was eliminated by Gov. Tom Corbett, in 2011.

More disturbing are the accounts of two ongoing trials concerning cyber operators: Nick Trombetta, who founded the largest cyber school, Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School, in western Pennsylvania, and who is currently on trial for siphoning at least $1 million from the schools; and Dorothy June Brown, founder of Agora Cyber Charter and other schools, who, along with her co-defendants, is accused of stealing $6.7 million from the schools.

Over the years, the state has tinkered with the charter law, but much has been procedural or bureaucratic changes; little of that tinkering is based on objective research like that from Research for Action, or from a 2010 study from Stanford University. Stanford found that all Pennsylvania cyber charters performed "significantly worse" than the average traditional public school and brick-and-mortar charter.

Reviewing these results, it's a fair question to ask why we have any cyber charters at all. Champions will say that parents like the option of having their children learn at a distance, especially those with special needs. But are we basing educational policy on parents' comfort or providing kids with academic excellence?

We agree about the moratorium, though are heartened by the fact that the state, while reviewing the last batch of eight applicants, rejected all of them.

The department of education doesn't have the authority to issue a moratorium, though; only the legislature can do that. That might be easier if campaign contributions from charter operators were outlawed; Trombetta is accused of directing a firm that he controlled to make $40,000 in campaign contributions, which he then reimbursed. This, on top of his own $40,000 contribution.

This is not the kind of math we should be basing our public education policy on.

Pennsylvania came fast and furious to the charter-school party. But our race to reform public education should not be a race to the bottom.