Advocates and superintendents tell committee IEPs and attendance often fail students in cyber charters

Witnesses at a House Education Committee hearing presented anecdotal and data-based concerns that some students with disabilities do not receive required services in cyber charter settings and that attendance and churn complicate academic oversight.

"Based on intakes to the Education Law Center, we receive a high percentage of cases from cyber charter specifically with regard to students with disabilities who are not having their needs met," Maura McInerney said, describing cases where Individualized Education Program (IEP) services were not implemented or were dropped while a student was enrolled in a cyber charter.

Why it matters: Several witnesses said students with disabilities and those who are behind academically can be disproportionately represented in cyber enrollment, and that returning students sometimes require remedial services after rejoining their home districts.

Key points from testimony

- IEP implementation: McInerney testified that attorneys at ELC have handled many matters where students' IEPs were not implemented in cyber charters, or where services were reduced or discontinued. "In many instances, IEPs are not being implemented," she said, adding that the Education Law Center sees this pattern in their case intakes rather than as a comprehensive statewide audit.

- Special-education counts and costs: McInerney said roughly 20% of students in cyber charters receive special-education funding compared with roughly 17% in school districts, and that charter special-education payments are currently flat (not tiered), producing widely varying per-pupil special-education tuition amounts.

- Attendance and churn: Superintendent Cosmos Curry described attendance rules for his district'run cyber program, including daily log-in and assignment requirements and limits on falling behind. Curry and others said churn'students moving between cyber and home districts'creates reimbursement and service complications because districts may continue to be billed for students who left or whose residency changed.

- Residency and extracurricular billing: Curry told the committee his district sometimes discovers students attending cyber programs who do not live in the district; he said districts are legally obligated to bill cyber programs for prorated extracurricular costs but often receive no payment.

Committee questions and concerns

- Several legislators asked whether students who return from cyber settings were already behind academically, and witnesses said both situations occur: some students struggle before enrollment; others fall behind while enrolled in cyber programs. McInerney said ELC's intakes more often come from former cyber enrollments.

- Lawmakers pressed for better data. Representative Mary Isaacson and others asked whether PDE or Penn Data can track first-identification of special-education status; witnesses said PDE could obtain that information but it was not available in the public Penn Data dashboard.

Ending and next steps

Witnesses urged the committee to require more detailed annual reporting by PDE on special-education enrollment by disability category, churn rates and attendance measures, and to consider aligning special-education funding between cyber charters and districts so dollars follow student needs. Committee members asked staff to compile specific data requests for PDE.