House Education committee hears testimony on cyber charter outcomes, funding and accountability

The Pennsylvania House Education Committee held the first of three public hearings on cyber charter school outcomes in Lancaster, drawing testimony on student achievement, attendance and residency verification, tuition and spending practices, and whether state assessments accurately reflect cyber students’ learning.

Dr. Sherry Smith, executive director of the Pennsylvania Association of School Administrators (PASA), told the committee that her members’ top concerns are academic performance, student participation in state assessments, attendance and graduation rates, and accurate residency verification. “Attendance is one of the hardest things for any of our cyber and virtual programs,” Dr. Smith said, and she urged clearer measures of who is truly participating and completing work rather than simply logging in.

Susan Spica, executive director of Education Voters of Pennsylvania, described a report her group published on cyber charter spending and said the group had reviewed two years of check registers. Spica said her organization found what it characterized as extensive noninstructional expenditures and raised the dropout statistic that year: “Cyber charter schools enrolled 5% of the students in grades 7 through 12 and they produced 20% of the high school dropouts in Pennsylvania,” she told the committee.

Rhys Fleury, CEO of Fleury Solutions Group and chair of the Coalition of Public Cyber Charter Schools, defended cyber operators’ work with students and challenged the committee to reconsider the state’s reliance on the current PSSA testing regime. Fleury said the PSSA was not designed for the operating conditions many cyber students face on test day and called for independent validity checks of state assessments: “Can we please modernize it for all students,” he said, arguing that differences in testing venue and student populations can skew results.

Melanie Upton, administrator for nontraditional learning and career readiness at Conestoga Valley School District, presented a district-run model that uses district teachers, learning centers and internet cafés to support virtual learners. Upton said Conestoga Valley keeps teachers “invested in our students” by having district staff teach virtual courses and by providing in-person supports — from week‑by‑week work‑completion monitoring to home visits when families do not respond.

Committee members pressed witnesses on money and metrics. Several representatives referenced Act 55 and House Bill 1422 and asked about an $8,000 tuition figure that has circulated in funding debates. Witnesses and members also discussed a $100 million “cyber transition” line item in the budget and noted divergent tuition amounts charged by school districts when a student leaves for a cyber charter.

Members asked about special education and supports for students with mental‑health needs. Upton described team meetings to design supports for students with IEPs and said counselors and coordinators remain available to virtual students. Dr. Smith and others described district approaches that require initial screening of candidate students and monitored, phased entry to virtual programs when needed.

Witnesses and members also raised residency verification and marketing practices. Dr. Smith and Spica described cases where districts questioned whether out‑of‑district students were being counted as resident for tuition purposes; Spica said her group’s review of financial records showed payments to restaurants, entertainment venues and other expenses that her group questioned as unrelated to instruction.

No formal votes or policy actions were taken at the hearing. The committee announced additional hearings in the Poconos and at Johnstown High School on May 2 to continue gathering testimony.

The hearing transcript and witness packets contain detailed tables and source documents cited by the witnesses; committee staff said those materials are available to members and the public following the session.