Online school to open office

"Those charter schools, which are public and charge no tuition, have created competition with public school districts for students in kindergarten through high school".

This is such balony! The 'tuition' is roughly $8.000 per student paid for by the taxpayers of the school district where the student resides. We're talking about hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars diverted from school district to these ridiculous charters. This means millage increases and more taxes to make up the difference.

You fail to mention that the students are diverted as well as the dollars...and maybe we should discuss how private and parochial schools "divert" students as well providing at a substantial savings to the taxpaying public.

Of course, no monopoly likes competition.

Oxy Moron wrote:

"Those charter schools, which are public and charge no tuition, have created competition with public school districts for students in kindergarten through high school".
This is such balony! The 'tuition' is roughly $8.000 per student paid for by the taxpayers of the school district where the student resides. We're talking about hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars diverted from school district to these ridiculous charters. This means millage increases and more taxes to make up the difference.

The taxpayers would pay for it whether the student was in public school or charter. Actually less when you consider how much it costs to fund sports, extracuricular etc.

Competition is a good thing. Everyone should have a choice if the standard educational situation isn't cutting it or if is just not a fit for the student and especially if the student is special needs. Think of how much money that saves a district having the option of charter.

I also hear this charter has increased 20+ times the number of students from last year. They must be doing something right. I hear it only requires three hours of time. I imagine that allows for lots of extra time for extra things that parents want to have their children join. I guess when you figure recess, lunch, study halls, goofing off in class and all that you probably have about three hours learning in a day anyway. Plus now they have their own proms and sports too.

What a high-tech world it is becoming. Soon being able to take classes with kids in other countries I imagine.

PeoplesRepublic of Carbon wrote:

You fail to mention that the students are diverted as well as the dollars...and maybe we should discuss how private and parochial schools "divert" students as well providing at a substantial savings to the taxpaying public.
Of course, no monopoly likes competition.

Programs in public schools are not eliminated neither is personnel so where is the savings? If a medium or small school district loses just 20 students across the K to 12 grade levels, that's a loss of $160,000.

Charter wrote:

<quoted text>
The taxpayers would pay for it whether the student was in public school or charter. Actually less when you consider how much it costs to fund sports, extracuricular etc.

Such nonsense! Students in Charter Schools are invited and sometimes even encouraged to participate in activities and athletics in the school where they might normally attend. So where is the savings?

Oxy Moron wrote:

<quoted text>
Programs in public schools are not eliminated neither is personnel so where is the savings? If a medium or small school district loses just 20 students across the K to 12 grade levels, that's a loss of $160,000.

...Neither are additional costs incurred. Your argument looks at one side only. And what about the students not in gov't schools? Tax revenues are collected regardless.

I agree with Oxy. The $8,000 fee for every student attending a cyber-charter is outrageous. If parents are looking for alternatives, let their tax dollars go to the alternative and not mine. Find a formula that calculates fees based on the amount of school tax paid. If a family paying $4,000/year in school tax has two children attending cyber-charters, then their $4,000 should follow their kids. $2,000 per child with the difference made up by the parents and not by me.

PeoplesRepublic of Carbon wrote:

<quoted text>
...Neither are additional costs incurred. Your argument looks at one side only. And what about the students not in gov't schools? Tax revenues are collected regardless.

Maybe you would have been better off attending a cyber-charter. Do the math. If you remove $160,000 from a school district's budget with the rather insignificant loss of 20 students, a loss is incurred. This is made up by addition taxation.

Rex wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe you would have been better off attending a cyber-charter. Do the math. If you remove $160,000 from a school district's budget with the rather insignificant loss of 20 students, a loss is incurred. This is made up by addition taxation.

If you remove 20 students you remove a teaching position or the pressure to add one, plus the instructional materials costs, transportation costs, etc...

Only in your distorted, monopolistic economic world could less demand require the same supply.

PeoplesRepublic of Carbon wrote:

<quoted text>
If you remove 20 students you remove a teaching position or the pressure to add one, plus the instructional materials costs, transportation costs, etc...
Only in your distorted, monopolistic economic world could less demand require the same supply.

Well, in your simplistic, linear, one-track mind, I can see how you would arrive at that conclusion. However, the world is not as simple as you make it out to be. If you spread 20 students over 13 grade levels, you would not lose any faculty or any program, but you would lose $160,000 to a cyber-charter. Even if you spread 40 students over 13 grade levels the same would apply. Don't take my word, just ask any school board member or any Superintendent.

Its about safety, not money. These bandana wearing yo-yos are even in the middle schools now with the stupid shiny shirts and overly large caps. My children switch to home school after elementary. That's how I keep 'em from falling off roofs.

Rex wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, in your simplistic, linear, one-track mind, I can see how you would arrive at that conclusion. However, the world is not as simple as you make it out to be. If you spread 20 students over 13 grade levels, you would not lose any faculty or any program, but you would lose $160,000 to a cyber-charter. Even if you spread 40 students over 13 grade levels the same would apply. Don't take my word, just ask any school board member or any Superintendent.

Monopolies don't understand how lots of things work.

Explain to us why the cybercharter school doesn't deserve the funds to teach the students you no longer have. It's all about the kids, isn't it? Or is it all about the competition, or better still, the continuation of the lack of it?

Generalizing to make a point doesn't even seem to spark enough brainpower in you to rationally analyze so I'll try some facts from public data.

From the article,$1.3 million divided by the 168 students who chose cyberschool is $7738 per student. So 20 fewer kids would account for $154,760 "lost" as you put it, somehow without incurring any decrease in expenses.

Pleasant Valley (the district cited in the article) had an expense budget last year of $84,548,964. That's $84 million+, folks!

$154,760 works out to 18 one-hundredths of 1 percent of the budget...Insignificant, and reasonable reforms are all that are needed but the union parrots don't want you to know this. ANYTHING less is deemed as anathema to their agenda.

PeoplesRepublic of Carbon wrote:

<quoted text>
Monopolies don't understand how lots of things work.
Explain to us why the cybercharter school doesn't deserve the funds to teach the students you no longer have. It's all about the kids, isn't it? Or is it all about the competition, or better still, the continuation of the lack of it?
Generalizing to make a point doesn't even seem to spark enough brainpower in you to rationally analyze so I'll try some facts from public data.
From the article,$1.3 million divided by the 168 students who chose cyberschool is $7738 per student. So 20 fewer kids would account for $154,760 "lost" as you put it, somehow without incurring any decrease in expenses.
Pleasant Valley (the district cited in the article) had an expense budget last year of $84,548,964. That's $84 million+, folks!
$154,760 works out to 18 one-hundredths of 1 percent of the budget...Insignificant, and reasonable reforms are all that are needed but the union parrots don't want you to know this. ANYTHING less is deemed as anathema to their agenda.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Perhaps if some of these schools addressed many of the, ever increasing problems they have, then just maybe these kids/families would not feel the need to go elsewhere.

They should stop complaining about their loses, and get their act together!!'Certain' school boards should start doing their job!

Done With B and M School wrote:

Perhaps if some of these schools addressed many of the, ever increasing problems they have, then just maybe these kids/families would not feel the need to go elsewhere.
They should stop complaining about their loses, and get their act together!!'Certain' school boards should start doing their job!

Just like certain people who complain about the school board should run to be on the school board if they don't like the way it is being run. Just remember the government dictates almost everything. PV is going to do what they think is best.

Chalk it up wrote:

<quoted text>
Just like certain people who complain about the school board should run to be on the school board if they don't like the way it is being run. Just remember the government dictates almost everything. PV is going to do what they think is best.

LOL ... So when did the 'existing board' start letting people 'they didn't want' voted on to 'their board'... LOL
By the way, I was not taking about PV.

The US as a whole is falling behind many other countries in educating our children. Any alternatives that can improve our children's chances of getting what they need are welcome competition. These charter schools should have a positive effect on the public school systems, in that they force them to improve their own standards and better meet the needs of the children. It is not all about the money. Let's put the children before the almighty $ as the main issue here. .

PeoplesRepublic of Carbon wrote:

<quoted text>
Monopolies don't understand how lots of things work.

I am not a school teacher so your argument about my losing students does not apply. Have you even read my previous posts? What concerns me is the cost to the citizens of Pennsylvania. What makes you think that cyber-charter schools are not part of this monopoly you speak of? They are public schools and tuition is paid for by Pennsylvania taxpayers. The money is simply diverted from one public school to another within the same monopoly. The only difference being cyber-charters are schools for profit. My grievance is not with the idea of a charter, but with the expense on taxpayers, namely you and me. I’m all for vouchers. Let the tax dollars follow the student, but no more than that which is paid by the individual taxpayer, in this case, the parents of the student. Any addition tuition due or transportation, or whatever should be picked up by the parents. Pleasant Valley lost over $1,300,000.00 to charters, but was there any reduction in programs or loss of faculty? My guess would be ‘no’. So where does the money come from to make up the difference? Most likely an increase in millage and higher taxes.
If it is real competition you’re looking for then you’d realize that $8,000/student way too pricey for taxpayers when the same monopoly can and does increase tax rates to maintain the status quo of the school district. As long as cyber-charter schools can charge any tuition they want and school districts are obligated to pay, there is no free market. Some cybers charge well over $10,000/student.