Connect with us

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania charter schools hit hard in proposed funding formula

Published

on

Pennsylvania charter schools hit hard in proposed funding formula


A bill altering the state’s public school funding formula passed the lower chamber Monday, spawning both fanfare and consternation among lawmakers.

While supporters call the plan a victory for students held back by economic disparities, critics point out that 64 of the bill’s 87 pages focus on cutting financial support and tightening regulations for charter schools to save money.

Dr. Anne Clark, CEO of the Pennsylvania Coalition for Public Charter Schools, scoffed at a provision that caps tuition paid by districts to $8,000 per student and stringent regulations that she deems misleading and unnecessary.

The new provision caps tuition paid by districts to $8,000 per student. Gorodenkoff – stock.adobe.com

“Contrary to the blanket assertion that cyber charter schools operate at lower costs, these schools face unique and often higher expenses,” she said Monday. “Faculty salaries remain comparable to traditional schools, but cyber charters incur significant costs for technical infrastructure, cybersecurity, and individualized student support services.”

Advertisement

The cap would save schools a collective $530 million, which, according to the bill’s fiscal note, represents about 49% of districts’ reported tuition costs.

Tuition for online charters fluctuates between $9,000 and $23,000 per student. In 2023, 179 charter schools, 14 of which are exclusively online, served 164,000 students.

Dr. Anne Clark, CEO of the Pennsylvania Coalition for Public Charter Schools. PA Charters

Clark said the proposal ignores the financial realities of running cyber charter schools, which are often respite for vulnerable students with medical conditions, special learning needs or bullying trauma.

“The long-term impact on Pennsylvania’s educational and economic future could be detrimental, as limiting school choice undermines efforts to create a diverse and dynamic educational ecosystem,” she said.

Many school board officials, however, say the cap updates the 27-year-old law that first established cyber charters, which costs districts $455 million each year in overpayments.

Advertisement
Clark says the effects of the provision could be “detrimental” to the future of Pennsylvania’s educational system. Syda Productions – stock.adobe.com

Kevin Busher, chief advocacy officer for the Pennsylvania School Boards Association, said during an April press conference that a funding imbalance for special education students – which often require less expensive learning supports than their brick-and-mortar counterparts –further exacerbates the issue.

“School boards are forced to choose between raising property taxes on their neighbors, cutting programs and services provided to their students, or postponing critical building, technology, or curriculum upgrades in order to pay their mandatory cyber charter tuition bills,” he said. “That’s just not fair to our taxpayers and to our students.”

The bill also limits fund balances charter schools can carry to shield against budget troubles and tax increases: a sliding scale of 8% to 12% depending on a school’s expenses.

Legislators and education leaders gather to call for cyber charter reform. PSBA

No such restrictions exist for traditional schools, according to Elizabeth Stelle, director of policy analysis for the Commonwealth Foundation.

In an op-ed published Saturday, Stelle said some districts, including Highlands and Allegheny Valley in western Pennsylvania, have more than 50% saved.

Advertisement

The foundation says districts already subtract certain operational expenses from tuition upfront, like transportation and facilities maintenance, which realizes a 27% cost savings.



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania falls short in Penn-Ohio Football Classic, 28-10

Published

on

Pennsylvania falls short in Penn-Ohio Football Classic, 28-10


BEAVER FALLS — In the recent history of the Penn-Ohio Football Classic, the games have tended to be close battles. Although Pennsylvania had a 29-14 series lead going into the 45th annual game, five of the previous seven had been decided by a touchdown or less.

Ohio bucked that trend Thursday night at Geneva College’s Reeves Field, though, taking the opening kickoff and driving the length of the field before missing a field goal… but then scored touchdowns on its next two possessions. In the end, Ohio prevailed 28-10.

“We had our chances but we were always playing from behind,” said Central Valley coach Mark Lyons, the Pennsylvania coach. “They had some athletes and played better than us but we had a great bunch of kids.

Advertisement

“It was a great couple of weeks and I’d do it again.”

After Ohio’s initial scoring flurry, the locals did come back. Western Beaver’s Tyson Florence scored on a 4-yard run in the second quarter and Mohawk’s Josh Wilkins kicked a 30-yard field goal on the opening drive of the second half but that 14-10 gap was as close as it got.

While it was feared that the uncharacteristically high temperatures might have an affect on the game, it didn’t seem to be major. The crowd was again near-capacity, although it was exclusively on the shady side of the field – no one sat in the sun.

The players also seemed to adjust, although they did notice the heat. The heat wave had been here for most of the practice time and they practiced on the turf at Central Valley, so it wasn’t all new.

Advertisement

“It was really hot out there,” said New Brighton’s Hunter Lewis, chosen as Pennsylvania Defensive MVP. “It’s always hotter on turf and we really only had two full practices in pads.

“Ohio was a tough group and they really came to play.”

For Lewis, like many others, this game will be their last one in equipment, making the experience even more meaningful.

“I’m going to the electrical workers union so this is it for me,” said Lewis. “I was surprised to get the MVP but I had a good time with a great group of guys. I’d do it again.”

Advertisement

Ironically, the Pennsylvania Offensive MVP was also playing his last game. He is the first time recipient of the newly named Jim Wilson Award, commemorating the years of service of the former Freedom head coach and longtime Blackhawk assistant, along with other schools.

“I was just here to have fun and play some ball,” said Blackhawk graduate Maurice Watson-Trent, who rushed for 73 yards on 13 carries. “This was my last game – I’m not going to college, I’m working on my own clothing line – A Maverick.

“It was definitely fun playing with guys I’ve been playing against for years.”

For another Blackhawk graduate playing his final game, Donta Campagna, the game was also special but not for an award he received – he got to be on the field to see his grandfather, Karl Florie, get inducted in the inaugural class of the MAC Coaches Hall of Fame.   

Advertisement

“That was a great experience for me and I was glad I was here,” said Campagna. “This was definitely the hottest game I’ve ever played in though.”

Joining Florie in that class on the field were Joe Hamilton, Tom Marsilio and Joe Savage (as a contributor) along with family representing four posthumous inductees Tom Alexander, Rich Niedbala, Larry Bruno, and Pat Tarquinio.

Many of those men were instrumental in setting up the game as a means to give players a chance to play and the coaches association a means to award scholarships.

Awarded scholarships at halftime were Central Valley’s Tyler Costanza, Riverside’s Josh Guenther, Beaver’s Marco Gutierrez, West Allegheny’s A.J. Hughes, Central Valley’s Donte Newton, Rochester’s Michael Norman, Freedom’s Cody Patterson, Laurel’s Braydon Smith, and Ambridge’s Grant Uvodich.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Pennsylvania

After 5-year battle, Pa. probation reforms pushed by Meek Mill go into effect

Published

on

After 5-year battle, Pa. probation reforms pushed by Meek Mill go into effect


Redefining technical violations and reducing penalties

Theoretically, probation serves as an alternative to incarceration — offenders are allowed to go free but are placed under supervision, which includes certain conditions or rules that must be followed. Technical violations refer to a failure to comply with those conditions.

Conditions vary based on an offender’s crimes and background, but common ones include reporting to a probation officer, drug testing, counseling, maintaining steady employment, performing community service and paying restitution to victims.

But other conditions, Erin Haney said, are “tragically ridiculous and damaging,” resulting in frequent incarceration.

“In Pennsylvania, 54% of prison admissions are for supervision violations,” Haney said. “So there are more prison admissions for supervision violations than there are for people just committing new crimes.”

Advertisement

Haney cited the case of a man whose probation prohibited him from crossing county lines, making it difficult for him to find steady, well-paying work. Although he eventually did secure a job, he struggled to find affordable housing due to another condition that prevented him from living with his family since they also had a criminal record. On top of that, the man was required to pay fines and fees associated with his supervision.

“So what happened was they said, ‘Look, I have to choose between rent and paying my fines and fees.’ And the reality of it is, if I lose my housing, I’m not gonna be able to continue to abide by any of these conditions that you want me to abide by on supervision,” Haney said. “And unfortunately, instead of understanding that that was the situation, this individual’s probation officer found him in violation and incarcerated him.”

When the man was released, he had to look for a new job and housing, was given a longer probationary period with more stringent conditions and had higher penalties he was required to pay.

“And so each month, if he couldn’t pay, if they didn’t violate him, instead what they would do is extend his probation even longer, which meant he had that many more months of having to pay those fines and fees,” Haney said.

Courts were also able to revoke probation in favor of incarceration for squishier reasons — including indications that the defendant exhibited behavior that demonstrated it was likely they would commit a crime in the future, or in order to “vindicate the authority of the court.”

Advertisement

“The idea that a judge had indiscriminate authority to re-incarcerate someone simply to ‘vindicate the authority of the court’ was one of the most troubling aspects of the Commonwealth’s probation system,” Haney said. “This essentially allowed people to be deprived of their liberty not for committing a new crime, but merely for disappointing or disobeying the court in some way.”

Act 44 attempts to address these issues by prohibiting incarceration for minor technical violations, instead reserving imprisonment for more serious breaches like the commission of another crime, failure to complete court-mandated treatment or actions that pose a threat to public safety.

When technical violations lead to incarceration, the law limits confinement to 14 days for a first technical violation, 30 days for a second, and whatever “sentencing alternatives available at the time of initial sentencing” for third and subsequent violations.

Overall, the law mandates that probation conditions be as least restrictive as possible, and tailored to the individual’s personal needs and circumstances.

“So given the option between something that is incredibly invasive and intrusive or something that accomplishes the same goals with re-entry and rehabilitation and accountability and public safety, you have to go with the one that’s least restrictive,” Haney said.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Pennsylvania

California Blue takes men’s Greco-Roman title with last match heroics over Pennsylvania at AFSW Junior National Duals

Published

on

California Blue takes men’s Greco-Roman title with last match heroics over Pennsylvania at AFSW Junior National Duals


Air Force Special Warfare Junior National Duals | June 19-22, Tulsa, Okla.

 

Quick Links

 

Advertisement

Men’s Greco-Roman Gold/Silver Results

1st Place – California Blue

2nd Place – Pennsylvania

3rd Place – Illinois

4th Place – Idaho

5th Place – Minnesota Blue

Advertisement

6th Place – Oklahoma Blue

7th Place – Iowa

8th Place – Colorado

 

Advertisement
1st Place Match – California Blue defeated Pennsylvania, 32-30

285 – Nicholas Sahakian (California Blue) tech. fall Mark Effendian (Pennsylvania), 9-0

100 – Niko Selianitis (California Blue) dec. Grady Moore (Pennsylvania), 13-8

106 – Kole Davidheiser (Pennsylvania) tech. fall Jayren Chan (California Blue), 8-0

113 – Gabriel Dela Rosa (California Blue) fall Max Tancini (Pennsylvania)

120 – Kavin Muyleart (Pennsylvania) dec. Elijah Almarinez (California Blue), 11-7

Advertisement

126 – Lincoln Sledzianowski (Pennsylvania) tech. fall Edwin Sierra (California Blue), 9-0

132 – Isaiah Cortez (California Blue) dec. Aaron Seidel (Pennsylvania), 4-0

138 – Elijah Cortez (California Blue) dec. Sam Herring (Pennsylvania), 8-6

144 – Pierson Manville (Pennsylvania) tech. fall Daniel Zepeda (California Blue), 9-0

150 – Luis Alberto-Desilva (Pennsylvania) tech. fall Jagger French (California Blue), 8-0

Advertisement

157 – Vince Bouzakis (Pennsylvania) tech. fall Tigran Greyan (California Blue), 10-0

165 – Noah Daniels (California Blue) fall Greyson Catlow-Sidler (Pennsylvania), 1:37

175 – Adam Waters (Pennsylvania) fall Dylan Pile (California Blue), 1:16

190 – Thomas Sandoval (California Blue) tech. fall Mason Hartung (Pennsylvania), 9-0

215 – Angelo Posada (California Blue) tech. fall Jason Singer (Pennsylvania), 8-0

Advertisement

 

3rd Place Match – Illinois defeated Idaho, 40-27

285 – Shilo Jones (Idaho) tech. fall Wyatt Schmitt (Illinois), 8-0

100 – Michael Rundell (Illinois) tech. fall Brand`n Edstrom (Idaho), 15-6

106 – Caden Correll (Illinois) tech. fall Ryan Hirchert (Idaho), 8-0

Advertisement

113 – Caleb Noble (Illinois) fall Hunter Anderson (Idaho)

120 – Inocencio Garcia (Illinois) tech. fall Dylan Frothinger (Idaho), 12-4

126 – Boden Banta (Idaho) dec. Noah Woods (Illinois), 5-5

132 – Hoyt Hvass (Idaho) dec. Gauge Shipp (Illinois), 8-5

138 – Joseph Knackstedt (Illinois) tech. fall Nathan Gugelman II (Idaho), 8-0

Advertisement

144 – Andres Santiago Chaparro Urrego (Illinois) dec. DJ Neider (Idaho), 7-2

150 – Matthew Martino (Idaho) tech. fall Evan Gosz (Illinois), 9-0

157 – Carlos Valdez (Idaho) tech. fall Julian Slaastad (Illinois), 16-6

165 – Cael Miller (Illinois) tech. fall Xander Zollinger (Idaho), 11-0

175 – Jimmy Mastny (Illinois) forfeit

Advertisement

190 – Hudson Rogers (Idaho) dq. Alihan Bereket (Illinois)

215 – Kaiden Morris (Illinois) tech. fall Carson Gooley (Idaho), 13-3

 

5th Place Match – Minnesota Blue defeated Oklahoma Blue, 34-32

285 – Mason Harris (Oklahoma Blue) fall Logan Bender (Minnesota Blue), 1:25

Advertisement

100 – Landon Thoennes (Minnesota Blue) tech. fall Bobby Lima (Oklahoma Blue), 12-1

106 – Zebediah Tibbles (Oklahoma Blue) tech. fall Jacob Kranz (Minnesota Blue), 8-0

113 – Eric Casula (Oklahoma Blue) dec. Eli Schultz (Minnesota Blue), 3-1

120 – Titan Friederichs (Minnesota Blue) tech. fall Colt Collett (Oklahoma Blue), 10-0

126 – Isaiah Jones (Oklahoma Blue) fall Lawson Eller (Minnesota Blue), 0:30

Advertisement

132 – Hudson Hackbarth (Oklahoma Blue) tech. fall Aiden Graner (Minnesota Blue), 8-0

138 – Garrett Salt (Oklahoma Blue) tech. fall Trey Gunderson (Minnesota Blue), 8-0

144 – Alex Braun (Minnesota Blue) forfeit

150 – Nolan Ambrose (Minnesota Blue) tech. fall Preston Reyna (Oklahoma Blue), 14-6

157 – Conlan Carlson (Minnesota Blue) tech. fall Tharyn Hausler (Oklahoma Blue), 9-0

Advertisement

165 – Griffin Lundeen (Minnesota Blue) tech. fall Daegan Reyes (Oklahoma Blue), 8-0

175 – Jed Wester (Minnesota Blue) tech. fall Deontre Buttram (Oklahoma Blue), 12-4

190 – Peyton Callis (Oklahoma Blue) tech. fall Shane Carlson (Minnesota Blue), 8-0

215 – Ben Schultz (Minnesota Blue) tech. fall Samuel Pritz (Oklahoma Blue), 8-0

 

Advertisement
7th Place Match – Iowa defeated Colorado, 34-33

285 – Trent Warner (Iowa) forfeit

100 – Coy Mehlert (Iowa) forfeit

106 – Urijah Courter (Iowa) dq. Daniel Jordan (Colorado)

113 – Everest Sutton (Colorado) tech. fall Cooper Hinz (Iowa), 8-0

Advertisement

120 – Dustin John Snider (Colorado) tech. fall Tyler Harper (Iowa), 9-0

126 – Jesse Lewis (Iowa) tech. fall Enrique Soto (Colorado), 11-0

132 – Timothy Koester (Iowa) tech. fall Nick Dardanes (Colorado), 12-1

138 – Chancellor Mathews (Colorado) tech. fall Jordan Schmidt (Iowa), 9-0

144 – Otto Black (Colorado) tech. fall Jabari Hinson (Iowa), 14-4

Advertisement

150 – Benjamin Hansen (Iowa) dec. DJ Wince (Colorado), 5-1

157 – Garrett Reece (Colorado) dec. Kyler Knaack (Iowa), 12-7

165 – Brandon Dean (Colorado) fall Lincoln Jipp (Iowa), 2:40

175 – Leister Bowling IV (Colorado) tech. fall Daniel Magayna (Iowa), 12-2

190 – Brody Sampson (Iowa) tech. fall Ira Sittner (Colorado), 10-0

Advertisement

215 – Quinn Funk (Colorado) dec. Henry Christensen (Iowa) Dec 6-3



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending