Pennsylvania cyber charter schools are under attack for – of all things — not wastefully spending taxpayer money.

The Pennsylvania Department of the Auditor General recently audited a sample of cyber charter schools. After examining five of the state’s 14 cyber charter schools, the auditor general released its findings. Opponents of cyber charters repeatedly point to their operating surplus of $365 million, claiming these schools hoard public dollars. As lawmakers prepare to negotiate the 2025–26 state budget, calls to defund cyber charters have reached a fevered pitch.

But if you think cyber charter reserves warrant scrutiny, so do traditional brick-and-mortar institutions. Public school districts currently hold about $6.8 billion in reserves. Despite their sizable reserves, Pennsylvania public schools still demand more. Several districts among them, Central Bucks, Easton and three in Centre County, plan to raise property taxes in June rather than tap into reserves. The Independent Fiscal Office projected property tax revenue — the primary funding source for school districts — to double in growth from previous years.

In addition to property taxes, Pennsylvania public schools can expect more statewide spending, too.

During his recent budget address, Gov. Josh Shapiro promised $17.7 billion in public education spending — about $800 million more than last year’s historic increase. Despite claims of underfunding, Pennsylvania ranks seventh nationally in per-pupil funding, already spending nearly $22,000 per student — about $4,000 more than the national average.

But the governor’s advocacy for public education is, at best, selective. Cyber charters, which are public schools, would get the short end of Shapiro’s stick. As he did last year, Shapiro proposes an $8,000 standard tuition rate for all cyber charter students — about one-third of state spending for students attending traditional public schools. All told, the governor’s proposal would cut $378 million to cyber charters statewide.

Like brick-and-mortar schools, cyber charters cannot turn students away; however, the financial situation for cyber charters is far more precarious. Unlike traditional district schools, cyber charters cannot raise local taxes to balance budgets. In lieu of this taxing authority, cyber charters must maintain reliable fund balances. These funds permit cyber charters to explore, innovate, and provide educational environments that cater to each’s unique student body — all without fear of a fiscal shortfall.

Cuts to cyber charter schools would only hurt Pennsylvania’s most vulnerable students. The Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) designates half of cyber students as low-income. For some cyber charters, like Esperanza, 95% of their students live in low-income households. For many impoverished students, a cyber charter is the only viable alternative to their failing neighborhood schools. This is especially true of special- needs students. Pennsylvania cyber charters serve a significant and increasing number of students with intellectual, emotional, and physical limitations. Students requiring Individual Education Plans (IEPs) are 27 times more likely to enroll in a cyber charter than a traditional in-person school. Without the individualized attention their school provides, many cyber students would struggle in an in-person setting.

Students have flocked to the cyber charter model in recent years. In the current 2024–25 school year, cyber charters serve 60,000 students. In the past five years, charter school enrollment grew 12%. If cyber charter students were their own school district, they would be second only to the Philadelphia school district in size.

Meanwhile, statewide enrollment at traditional district schools continues to shrink. Pennsylvania public schools educate fewer students than in 2000. PDE forecasts enrollment to drop by another 60,000 students by 2028.

Lawmakers must not punish cyber charters for their fiscal responsibility. Instead, lawmakers must strive to maintain the funding that keeps this dynamic educational option widely available. A fully funded public education system must include cyber charter schools.

Better yet, lawmakers should rethink education funding from an even more fundamental level. Rather than endlessly debating which schools “deserve” funding, why not shift funding directly to students? Who knows better about which school “deserves” funding than the students attending them?

Moreover, when students vote with their feet and transfer to a better educational alternative, the money will follow them to their preferred schools. By allowing educational dollars to follow students, funding will better align with the needs of Pennsylvanian families and incentivize schools to better serve their students.

(Rachel Langan is the senior education policy analyst at the Commonwealth Foundation.)