The recent passage of state House Bill 618 is devastating for Pennsylvania public cyber school children. HB 618 would cut the funding for our public cyber schools by as much as 10 to 15 percent. This loss would be devastating for our schools.
A dramatic cut like this would mean that all schools would have to cut staff, increase class size and reduce services. Smaller cyber schools have indicated that this cut will close their doors.
Once again, our children are being treated like second-class students because they attend a public cyber school. We support the accountability measures in this bill, but why do people want to cut funding for our children? Our schools already receive 30 percent less.
Our children are public school children and they deserve a quality education. Passing a bill such as HB 618 without any research or real facts does nothing but harm our children.
The writer is president of Pennsylvania Families for Public Cyber Schools (pacyberfamilies.org).
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.
- Back to ‘Mad Men’?
- ‘Change’ promise kept
- Election in review II
- Right on Promise
- Election in review I
- EPA impoverishing seniors
- Hypocrisy & B’nai B’rith
- Double standard? II
- Ford City police