Cyber charters’ appeal |

Cyber charters’ appeal

According to the news story ” Mandatory cyber learning expands ” (Nov. 7 and, some school districts have finally decided to embrace online instruction as a viable alternative to the classroom. These districts are now subcontracting with intermediate units or unregulated outside providers to provide turnkey “virtual school” solutions to supply online programs.

These district programs are finally validating the efficacy of online instruction.

The problem that many districts face regarding online learning is that the vast majority are locked into a factory-style educational model, reinforced by union contracts with inflexible work rules developed about the same time that Henry Ford built the Model T. Adding online courses to this rigid instructional environment is like adding a GPS to a Model T — it’s still a Model T; it just never gets lost.

With programs driven more by cost containment rather than a strong commitment to virtual learning, districts are unwilling to devote the resources necessary to create a vibrant online learning environment.

Possibly, parents choose to send their children to cyber charter schools because they believe that these schools offer more than just online learning. Perhaps parents believe the public schools serve the special interests rather than their children’s interests.

Maybe the question should not be why are parents and students running to cyber charter schools, but why are they running away from their local public schools?

James P. Hoover

The writer is CEO of Pennsylvania Distance Learning Charter School (

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.