Cyber school waste
In reference to the news story “New Florence girl advocates for cyber schools at state hearing” (April 18 and TribLIVE.com): I am very glad that two of our state representatives recognize the inherently unfair cyber school funding formula and are working to amend it.
The story quotes Achievement House cyber charter school spokeswoman Lynn Rodden as saying, “There's just no way cyber schools will be able to continue to exist if more money is eliminated from our budgets.” I have a question for her, the Legislature and the Pennsylvania Department of Education: Just how much money do cyber schools spend on advertising each year? And why are these schools allowed to waste public education dollars to “sell” themselves to parents?
Several times a year, we are inundated with advertisements for cyber schools — in newspapers and magazines, on radio and television, and on the Internet. These ads are not cheap. Isn't the taxpayer money provided to these schools supposed to be spent on educating students?
If our traditional public schools advertised, they would be vilified for wasting taxpayer dollars. Why are cyber schools any different?
As long as these “non-traditional public schools” that advertise themselves as “tuition-free” continue to drain tax money from our local public schools, they must be held to the same accountability standards in spending our money and educating our children.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Animal abuse
- Food for thought
- Poisoned long ago
- Appreciate caregivers
- The real big spenders
- EPA not the problem