What’s an EMO? What’s a Non-profit?

Public education is supported by taxpayer dollars. This is something we can all agree on, right? Well, sort of. Noting this fact and fully understanding its implications are two very different things. How do tax dollars support public education? How does spending occur?

To answer those questions, let’s first try to gain a little insight into the types of public school in existence today.

The public school landscape has grown. Public schools used to be only those brick-and-mortar institutions set up to serve individual districts across the state. Depending on the district in which you live, your child/children attend school for free because your taxes are paying for it. Today, public education is still provided through traditional brick-and-mortar school districts. But the School Choice Movement has added charter schools and cyber charter schools to the equation.

Now, let’s examine organizational structure.

Public schools are organized to operate as non-profit organizations, serving a population of students at no additional cost to the student (or student’s parents). In addition to receiving tax dollars, the state allocates additional funds to help schools deliver educational needs.

The designation as a “non-profit organization” implies that the organization will use surplus revenues to support and drive operations, instead of distributing profits out to shareholders or other groups (Wikipedia, 2013). This is because non-profit organizations are structured specifically to benefit some group of constituents. Spending, budgeting, and accountability are all outlined and justified to serve the public domain.

On the other hand, a for-profit organization is built to trade goods and/or services for the sole purpose of generating profit. These organizations are privately run and have less limiting restrictions in place to define operating procedures and expectations. Their missions and visions are simply constructed in a very different way, aimed at building a brand and making money, rather than serving.

So, what does this have to do with education?

All of the public schools in the state of Pennsylvania are considered non-profit organizations. As such, they receive public dollars to fund and support their efforts.

Across the political landscape right now, there are plenty of discussions about how schools spend their money, since their money is our money (public funds). But, cyber charter schools operate a little differently.

Being a charter school means that a charter was drafted and approved by the state of Pennsylvania. A charter consists of an outline, which defines and organizes all operations for the school. The charter defines levels of accountability for things such as school operations, budgetary expectations, management, human resources, curriculum, policies, and more. These restrictions and definitions match many of the expectations delineated for traditional public schools.

Once a charter is accepted and approved, a charter school may begin operations. But, in recent years, an additional entity has come on the field. Since the mid-2000s, organizations called Educational Management Organizations (EMOs) have operated to provide additional services for educational institutions. In a recent article, Education Week reporter, Debra Viadero reported that, “Over the 2008-09 school year, these [educational management] groups operated 609 public schools in 25 states.” These EMOs are quickly gaining greater traction and becoming more prevalent. But what are they?

EMOSs are for-profit organizations that can work in conjunction with whatever efforts a non-profit school has already initiated. They provide services, which can include school performance evaluations and analyses, accountability initiatives, curricular development and enhancement, and marketing expansion.

Some EMOs work on a large scale, providing services to multiple schools across the country. This means that some schools that operate as a single cyber charter school in one state may receive similar services to those provided to other cyber charter schools in other states.

The benefit of EMOs is that they represent a body of innovation and growth in education. They have the time, money, and resources to help schools in ways that a traditionally operating non-profit school district simply cannot. These efforts cost time and money that were out of reach for a traditional non-profit organization. EMOs are bringing a huge service to the educational field that is not only needed, but imperative to help student development.

So, why are EMOs problematic?

The presence of EMOs is a good thing. Make no mistake. What has not been ideal is the development of assumptions and misunderstandings about school funding that has followed the EMO movement. Larger cyber charter schools, especially those serving upwards of 12,000 students, are supported by large EMOs that represent many schools across the nation. These for-profit organizations are able to contribute massive dollars toward marketing efforts. This means that while a cyber charter school is supported by public dollars, it can also be supported by EMO efforts, which are not supported by public dollars. So, when various sources tout public dollars are being spent on massive marketing ad campaigns, that’s not entirely true. Dollars are flowing from an EMO, which is supported by shareholders and other contributing investors.

The confusion occurs because not everyone recognizes that some cyber charter schools are enhanced by an EMO. Additionally, not all cyber charter schools operate in the same way. For example, 21CCCS is not affiliated with an EMO. Our curriculum is developed in-house. Our budget is very different, and our marketing efforts are drastically dissimilar. But we are all being lumped into the same category.

Are schools spending money to market their learning environments? Sure. But are millions of public dollars going toward it? Millions of EMO dollars are.

Help us to send the message that public dollars are not necessarily going toward wasteful marketing ads. We are not all the same, and we are not all operating similarly. Cyber charter schools continue to provide services and meet alternative educational learning needs for students across the state!

Support cyber charter schools today! Like us on Facebook and follow our handle @21CyberSchool

On Thursday, May 30th the Senate Education Committee held a hearing at North Lebanon High School to discuss the charter and cyber charter funding formula effecting schools across the state. See the agenda for this hearing here. This has been a heated topic for many years, as the funding structure currently employed fails to support learning methods in an equitable way.

The hearing discussed Senate Bill 335, which was recently drafted by Senator Schwank of the 11^th District. Among other things, the most considerable piece of this legislation will allow school districts to retain 100% of student funds should that school district offer an in-house cyber program. This eliminates the concept of school choice for parents and their children, so long as a home school district develops and offers its own cyber program.

The hearings gave voice to several groups, offering opinions and perspectives from opposing sides of this argument. School districts are frustrated. They are losing money because students are opting to attend cyber charter and brick-and-mortar charter schools. As their students leave, they must make cuts. The districts also argue that cyber charter schools have different expenses and costs that do not match those found within a traditional school district. They contest that cyber schools have too much money and that their CEOs and other administrators are winning big in a game that excludes the students.

Charter schools and cyber charters have a different opinion on the matter. They suggest that while the funding formula needs to be tweaked to better represent school cost, revoking the ability of choice from parents and students is damaging to education. Should the state mandate that a school district could maintain funds so long as they offer their own cyber program, students would lose the ability to truly choose which school he/she wishes to attend. Consideration of alternative learning models, instructional methods, and teaching staff go out the window.

The hearing allowed for serious debate and considerations. Discussions came to a close following the testimony of Monica Frank, a 21CCCS parent, regarding the experiences of her son, Stephen. Her words rang true, expressing the need to maintain school choice, as it was the thing that saved her son. Read Monica’s testimony here.

It is the hope of the commonwealth that these issues will be resolved in a timely fashion. We’ve been arguing far too long, distracting ourselves from the real job at hand: educating our students.

Build awareness! Read SB 335 here and voice your own thoughts!

Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @21CyberSchool to stay in the loop!

Nearly every time I open a newspaper, or, more often, click through a news website, I see claims that changes to our educational funding system can save taxpayer dollars. Everyone loves to talk about taxpayer dollars and what should be done with them because all of us are taxpayers (except maybe the lucky few who live on a houseboat).

But the claim that we can save taxpayer dollars by reforming educational funding continues to irk me. While it’s true that millions of taxpayer dollars are flowing from the school district to the 157 charter schools in Pennsylvania (16 of which are cyber charters), I don’t see how any efforts made to adjust educational funding can logistically “save” those millions.

I pay taxes in Chester County, PA. My taxes have never gone down. Not once. My parents, like so many other parents I’m sure, taught me that nothing in life is guaranteed except, of course, for death and taxes. Pretty grim reality, but a reality nonetheless. So, how can we save taxpayer dollars if my taxes will only continue to climb over the years?

The message of potential savings being transmitted feels to me like a problem with semantics. What individuals mean to say is that reorganizing the public school funding formula can stand to shift where money goes and what it is being spent on. In plain English, there is a hope that funding reform can adjust the amount of money flowing from school districts to charter and cyber charter schools.

Currently, when a child elects to learn in a charter or cyber charter school, the monies initially expected to be delivered to a school district are instead sent to the alternative public school a child will attend.

How much money are we talking about?

Every school district in the state pays a different dollar amount to charter and cyber charter schools. This is because transferred funding depends upon (1) how much a school district allots to spend per student per school year, and (2) how many students leave a given school district. With so many numbers floating around, and no set expectation, a lot of money feels a bit up in the air. What’s worse is that calculations will change from year to year! Every single school year will operate with different dollar amounts and a different number of students.

But let’s get back to savings. How can we save taxpayer dollars?

Different groups/sources tout different amounts of expected savings. In 2012, Auditor General Jack Wagner claimed the possibility of $363 million in taxpayer savings if charter school funding was restructured. Organizations like the Pennsylvania School Board Association (PSBA) claim the possibility for savings to reach $510 million by the 2016-17 school year.

So, if we restructure, am I going to see my taxpayer money put back in my pocket?

The simple answer is, NO.

Nowhere in the equation is there a factor of “savings” for the taxpayer. No one is writing you a check.  Instead, restructuring the funding formula will mean reallocating funds so that school districts retain a higher dollar amount for students they no longer serve. This is to say that when a child opts out of a traditional brick-and-mortar school district, that school district may retain the right to keep monies for that child.

That doesn’t sound like savings to me. It’s important to know the facts. Restructuring the funding formula may better organize how monies are flowing to public schools (districts and charter schools alike). But no one is walking away with more money.

It remains your choice and your right to help designate how spending occurs. Stay informed!

Follow us on Twitter @21CyberSchool and “Like” us on Facebook.