The General Accounting Office, which is the federal government’s watchdog agency, just issued a report concluding that charter schools are failing to enroll a fair share of students with disabilities. Advocates of students with special needs have complained about this for the past few years, and it is now confirmed.
The report showed that special-education students—those with diagnosed disabilities from Down Syndrome to attention-deficit disorder—made up 8.2% of charter school students during the 2009-2010 school year. While that was up from 7.7% the year before, it was below the average at traditional public schools of 11.2% in 2009-2010, and 11.3% the previous year.
“These are differences that cannot remain. They are not acceptable,” said Rep. George Miller (D., Calif), a charter-school proponent who asked the GAO to look into the issue. The House passed a bill last year that would make it easier for charter schools to expand, and “we want to make sure that all children—including those who are special ed—have a chance to participate in this revolutionary education reform,” he said. The Senate hasn’t yet voted on the bill.
Congressman George Miller of California, who requested the study, is the leading Democrat on education in the House of Representatives. Miller is a big proponent of testing (he was one of the prime sponsors of NCLB) and now of charters. He is also a favorite of Democrats for Education Reform, the organization of Wall Street hedge fund managers that promotes charters everywhere. DFER has raised large sums of money for Miller.
Eva Moskowitz, a charter founder in New York City, says in the article that the reason the numbers of special education students are low is because her schools are able to move students out of special education because of her schools’ superior methods. But this claim demonstrates that her schools take students with the mildest disabilities, and leaves those with high needs to the public schools, a complaint often lodged against charters.
The most disturbing comment in the article about the study comes at the very end.
Jim Shelton, who oversees charter school initiatives for the Department of Education, said the enrollment gaps between charters and traditional schools are a “relatively small difference,” and that it was difficult to draw conclusions based on the information provided. But he said his office would takes steps to address the issue.
Shelton, formerly of McKinsey, formerly of the Gates Foundation, formerly part of Race to the Top, formerly in charge of innovation grants, now runs the U.S. Department of Education’s charter school initiatives. He sees only a “relatively small difference” in the data presented by GAO. In other words, no problem here. Move on, look the other way. He finds it difficult to draw conclusions. He sees nothing of importance. But his office will “take steps” to address this unimportant issue.
In a story about this report in Huffington Post, Shelton says, “The report puts a fine point on issues we were concerned about,” demonstrating his lack of interest in the issue. Expecting Shelton to monitor charter school violations of the rights of students with special needs or of any other wrong committed by these private sector schools is putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.
Diane
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Moskowitz moves them out is code for have a PPT, convince the parents services are no longer needed and declassify them. That is a PPT decision, which I bet they primarily control and the parent is bamboozled.
Linda,
What is a PPT? We in public education need to spell these things out, even to other educators as acronyms and terms are different from district to district, state to state.
Thanks,
Duane
A planning and placement team meeting for the parents and professionals to plan a program for a special Ed. Student, write an IEP, request testing and sometimes to declassify. I am suspicious of charters that say they have less sped. because they “move them out” so now they don’t have to provide services. Some parents know their rights and are great advocates for their children. Others may be intimidated or they may happy with joy that their child has progressed and doesn’t need services anymore, but this may be a manipulation of data and we know how good charters are at that.
Linda,
Thanks for the explanation!
Duane
“He is also a favorite of Democrats for Education Reform, the organization of Wall Street hedge fund managers that promotes charters everywhere. DFER has raised large sums of money for Miller.” What’s the old saying “Follow the money” or quid pro quo.
“Shelton, formerly of McKinsey, formerly of the Gates Foundation, formerly part of Race to the Top, formerly in charge of innovation grants, now runs the U.S. Department of Education’s charter school initiatives.” Finishing that thought, “Shelton being a fox that guards the hen house or maybe a wolf in sheep’s clothing, eh??”
“He sees only a “relatively small difference” in the data presented by GAO”. Let’s see a roughly 30% smaller special education population is insignificant. And I would bet that the percent of charters that have students, who need a constant aide, who wear diapers, who have a tracheotomy or had multiple surgeries, who need multiple doses of multiple medications daily, who are quadra/paraplegic, or who, in middle or high school have a mental capacity of a two year old is less than 1%. These are the “high cost” students. These charters need to prove that they do indeed serve ANY and ALL students. And yes we should be providing these students with all the necessary services that they may need for their education.
Charter proponents need to answer the following two questions: “If private and charter schools are so successful why do they need vouchers and subsidies at the expense of the public system? Can’t they drum up enough business based on their own performance.” from gardenernorcal post on commondreams.org
There was an article on this study in the Cincinnati paper this morning. It noted that Ohio’s charters have slightly more spec ed students than many other states — but I wonder if that’s because we have a charter chain that serves only children on the higher-functioning end of the autism spectrum. Average their 100% enrollment percentages in, and all the charters would look bettter.
Thank you to Rep. George Miller for pushing on this and holding charter schools accountable for enrolling students with disabilities.
As for the cause of the enrollment gap between charter schools and traditional schools, the article says:
“The GAO report said the reasons for the enrollment disparity weren’t clear. It said “anecdotal accounts suggest” that some charter schools discourage disabled students from enrolling or deny admission to students with more severe disabilities. But it also said that traditional public schools tend to be larger and often have more resources for special-needs kids.”
I suspect that both of these are likely causes but it really doesn’t matter. If any charter school is discouraging disabled students from enrolling they should be shut down. It would send a great message to all schools that might attempt to discourage disabled students from enrolling.
For those charter schools who just aren’t getting the same share of disabled students trying to enroll in their schools, they need to do more outreach.
For Jim Shelton and anyone else who thinks the 3 percentage point gap in disabled student enrollment is small, it equates to an almost 40% difference. Not acceptable, not acceptable at all.
“If any charter school is discouraging disabled students….they should be shut down”…uh, mmm, Ed, that would be most of them. The refomers only have high standards, the ones used to close a school, for the public schools.
By law Charters can not discourage anyone from attending. Many parents choose public school because it is familiar, they are happy with the results and they don’t want to change. You can’t force families to choose charter and since it is a choice it will have a different population.
Yes, it will have a different population. A population with very few children with disabilities and very few children who don’t speak or read English. And in some charters, very few children who have learning problems. They will be “encouraged” to go elsewhere.
The special education gap is probably actually much higher than the 3% reported, if one does an apples to apples comparison of communities served. Charter schools are usually located in poor neighborhoods. This is because the public schools in those neighborhoods usually have lower test scores, and it is therefore easier to label them as “failing” and convert them to private charter schools. One would expect the charter school special education enrollment rate to be significantly higher than the national public school average, given the neighborhoods in which they are typically located. It would be interesting to evaluate the special education enrollment gap, when comparing schools in similar communities.
Ted, you are right. Last year, I spoke at an event in the Bronx, the poorest borough in New York City. The charter schools are clustered in the South Bronx, which is the poorest section of the poorest borough. The local public schools enroll 19% students who are special education, including many with profound disabilities. The charter schools in the same area are 11% special education. When I looked at the figure for English-language learners, the gap was even larger between charters and public schools.
Diane
I feel like it needs to be said that this really depends on the state — both on the parameters of the charter school legislation and how they are advertising. In Baltimore City, for instance, many charter schools have a higher than average rate of children with IEPs: parents who believe that their children are not succeeding in the conventional public schools are attracted to alternatives. And it is written into our legislation that we cannot turn away special needs students (or behavior problems, or anyone else); charters are purely by lottery and are subject to all of the same rules for suspension/expulsion as public schools (including strong protections for students with IEPs).
Then again, Baltimore City is a bit different in that the majority of the charter schools are genuine non-profits, not chains under the thumb of corporate management.
A couple of friends in Indianapolis and Chicago tell me that charters around there seem to be running a scheme. They enroll comparable or greater numbers of special needs students, receive the funding to support their education, then later on decide that their program is not suitable. The child goes to the local public school and the charter keeps the extra money. I don’t have first hand knowledge of this – maybe another commenter can confirm or deny?
Gates is in charge all across this nation.
I’ve collected data on LAUSD Charters for years “Enrollment by Disability TYPE” and “Services Provided”. Guess what? The recent study and other articles related to it do not mention the percentages of special education “disability TYPES”. Just because their percentages are slightly below doesn’t mean they’re also taking the moderate/severely disabled (data shows they’re not), nor are they providing the types of services that a more moderate/severely disabled student would need (another proof these students aren’t being enrolled).
I recently stumbled across a Green Dot “Special Education Handbook” that was written without LAUSD Charter Division Office oversight. For some reason they utilized the “expertise” of a different school district, Southwest SELPA (Special Education Local Planning Area – a CA specific entity that families would love to blow up – LAUSD is so large it is its own SELPA and doesn’t “share” special ed therapists/services as smaller districts do by consolidating what they have to share – thus forming SELPAs).
I’m disturbed by the wording on pdf page numbering 31 (shows in handbook as page 25). The chapter labeled “Special Education Standard Operating Procedures” starts with discussion on what to do at the beginning of the academic school year. I’m bothered by what is titled “By the Second Week”:
“1. Schedule 30-day IEP’s for all students coming from a different district (note: LAUSD, in this case is considered a different district as some of their schools were using Southwest SELPA for services). All incoming 9th graders should have a 30-day IEP except those who are enrolling from another Green Dot School.
2. Contact Special Education Administrator to discuss placement of students whose IEP prescribes a different setting than the one offered at the Ánimo School of attendance. You may not make a recommendation to change SDP placement to RSP placement without consulting with an administrator prior to developing the plan. (note: by law they should not be discussing it AT ALL until an IEP meeting is called – this is against IDEA)
3. Contact your cluster’s Special Education Program Administrator to discuss placement options when your school is not the appropriate placement for the students (same note as before – not to be discussed until the 30 day IEP with parent participation.) and the team will be recommending placement back to an LAUSD school.”
Proper procedure is to call a meeting and have an IEP team decide proper placement. It is NOT to be done BEFORE and IN SECRET among administrators and instructors as outlined in the Green Dot “handbook.”
This is proof, in writing, that Charter Schools and (especially Green Dot) have NO intention of enrolling students with moderate/severe disabilities. These schools receive public funds and as they are violating the rights of students and their families, should be shut down for blatant discrimination policies…but big business has bought our legislators and (with the help of expensive lobbyists that regular families and those who have students with disabilities cannot) force through laws that are charter-friendly without input from academics, educators and those who really care about our public education system.
Business backers of charter orgs create phoney, astro-turf “parent” groups that trick ESL families into signing “petions” in the guise of meeting “sign-in sheets” (this was reported to me at a Special Education Community Advisory Committee meeting when Locke HS was in the process of “take-over”.) Eli Broad’s Administrator Academy has a link to a “toolkit” called “How to Close a School” so it can be “reconverted to a charter. These folks want our public school property – it’s the next big land grab. With all their money and power – they want to steal what the public has for their own personal gain…and those pesky students with moderate/severe disabilities, English Language Learners and Foster youth will be, what?…warehoused in their plan? These students aren’t even INCLUDED in their plans. It’s disgraceful and disgusting.
It’s never been about the kids. It’s a business, plain and simple.
Here’s links to the new world order:
http://thebroadreport.blogspot.com/p/parent-guide.html
http://www.dailycensored.com/2009/10/05/say-you-want-a-revolution-parents-revolution-astro-turf-organizations-and-the-privatization-of-public-schools/
http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2011/11/parent-trigger-charlatan-ben-austin.html
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/10/jeb-bush-digitial-learning-public-schools
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_42/b4005059.htm
As I’ve said in another post, “When business gets involved with education, it’s never about the children – it’s about profit and nothing more. If they cared – they’d convince our leadership to fully fund education, teach ALL children and invest in the teachers we have, the schools we have and support education instead of creating “grants” and “races” for only a few to benefit from. We’re starving our once great educational system at the expense of a few greedy business people and it truly stinks that the general public is so ignorant about this.”
Where is the outcry about “magnet” schools that in many cases have explicit standardized test admissions tests that limit who can enter? One of the reasons the charter movement came about was that some educators and parents were deeply frustrated by the quasi private publicly funded magnet schools.
* Our organization helped the CIncinnati Public Schools eliminate the graduation gap between white and AFrican American students. We found that many of the district (neighborhood) high schools had 28 – 32 % of students who were special needs because most of the “magnet” high schools had virtually no students with special needs.
There are several explanations for this statistic for people who are open minded:
* Some research by Dr. Jim Ysseldyke at the University of Minnesota found that certain students who had been classified as “special needs” – behavior disorder in large traditional schools did not need special education services and behaved far better in smaller alternative public schools and small charter public schools
* Many district schools DON”T staff or facilities for extremely challenged students with special needs. But they have special schools for such students in many cities, or have banded together with others to create special schools.
* As individual schools, most charters don’t have the facilities to deal with the most challenging students with special needs.
* Some charters have apparently encouraged students with significant special needs to consider schools that been developed expressly to meet their needs (same is true of some district schools, by the way. Over 40 years, I’ve talked with many district educators who readily acknowledge they encourage students with certain special needs to attend such schools.
Joe Nathan PhD and Director Center for School Change
Here is Dave Murray’s MLive article about the GAO study:
• GAO report : Charter schools underserve special needs students
It includes the following opposing point of view: