ay iHistorian and professor of education Diane Ravitch explained the driving forces
behind the creation of charter schools in her book “Reign of Error”. Ravitch stated, “In
the early years of the twenty first century, a bipartisan consensus arose around
educational policy in the United States. Right and left, Democrats and Republicans, the
leading members of our political class and our media elite seemed to agree Public
education is broken (pg. 1)”. In response to the numerous perceived failings by the
public education system a grassroots movement to change the ways in which education
was provided to the communities of failing schools grew to epic proportions.
A movement to privatize education emerged and entrepreneurs with little or no
experience in the field of education were ready to take the lead in the creation of charter
schools. These individuals portrayed public schools as the ineffective deliverers of
education and charter schools as the liberators of the underserved students who came
from low socioeconomic backgrounds. In the film Waiting For Superman, producer
David Guggenheim examined how the public school system in the United States was
consistently failing students and showed how education reformers attempted to solve this
unsolvable problem by introducing charter schools as the progressive solution. In
the documentary public schools were portrayed as huge warehouses that did not
successfully educate all of the students. Charter schools were represented as an
innovative solution that met all the needs of the all of the students. Charter schools
offered parents an alternative to the dismal local public school. Researcher Mary Estes
defined charter schools as “a publicly sponsored school, one that is organized by groups
of parents, teachers, or entrepreneurs, that is essentially free of direct administrative
control by the government, yet is held accountable for achieving certain levels of student
performance (p. 17).” The government of the United States enforced numerous policies
and procedures upon public schools but has taken a laissez-faire attitude towards charter
schools. Charter schools were and still are free from government regulations with regard
to some state laws, school district policies, special education programs, curriculum, and
hiring of certified teachers however, charter schools must “meet the requirements of
constitutional provisions and federal and state laws enacted for them (Estes).” This paper
will compare and contrast the special education programs offered by public schools and
charter schools to determine which educational system meets the diverse needs of the
special education population within their schools.
Funding in Texas for public schools and charter schools are comparable on the
federal and state levels. However, in the state of Texas charter schools do not receive
local tax money and funds are based on a census formula that takes into account the total
number of students enrolled in the charter school. According to federal law under the
Individual with Disabilities Act or IDEA as it is generally referred to fiscal responsibility
for special education lies with the state education agency or SEA as it is usually referred
to. The SEA delegates that fiscal responsibility or flow of funding for special education
to the local education agency or LEA as it is commonly referred to. Special education
funding for charter schools can vary based on the LEA status of the charter school and
the negotiated agreements with the district. If the charter school is an LEA, federal and
state funding for students with disabilities enrolled in that school come from the state to
the school. Since funding varies and contracts are negotiated locally special education
services can vary from one charter school to another charter school. One major difference
between public schools and charter schools ensues when a charter school functions as an
autonomous LEA then the charter school is solely responsible for providing special
education students with disabilities a complete range of services without the funding
available to public schools.
Over the course of six years social scientist and researcher Marcus Winters
gathered quantitative and qualitative data regarding special education in charter schools.
Mr. Winters ascertained, “The findings confirm that the special education gap does exist:
There is a significant difference in the percentage of students with disabilities in charter
and traditional public schools that begins in kindergarten and grows substantially through
the eighth grade. Importantly, however, the factors that produce the gap are not those that
are most often discussed in the policy conversation. That finding has potentially
important policy implication (p. 234).” Mr. Winters reiterated “charter schools are
subjected to the same federal requirement to provide a free and appropriate public
education to students with disabilities that is imposed on traditional public schools under
the 1975 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. However, it is common for charter
schools to enroll a smaller percentage of special education students than nearby district-
run public schools. A widely cited report by the Federal Government Accountability
Office (GAO; Government Accountability Office, 2012) found that 8.2% of charter
school students across the United States were eligible to receive special education and
related services, compared to 11.2% of students in traditional public schools.(p. 228) ”
Charter advocates argue that the discrepancy in enrollment rates may reflect self-
selection by parents of students with disabilities. Some have even contested the extent to
which students with disabilities are underrepresented. A number of analyses using data
from different cities have found that the difference in enrollment percentage of students
with disabilities is possibly attributable to factors like self- selection and voluntary
attrition. While the "self-selection" explanation would be reasonable if charter schools
had fully developed special education capabilities that parents chose to avoid, it is less
persuasive when there is anecdotal evidence of pre-application disclaimers to parents by
charter schools, a process known as counseling out. p.1174).”
Critics of charter schools along with Diane Ravitch have argued that charter
schools attain these superior academic outcomes by pursuing motivated students who are
high academic achievers and by counseling out students who are low functioning
underachievers. One-method charter schools apply to accomplish the goal of weeding out
detrimental students is by implementing extremely rigid disciplinary policies and
procedures. Charter school district CEO’s who attempt to circumvent the bureaucratic
rules regarding special education have failed to understand that by failing to adhere to
procedural rules they are failing to provide special education students with an appropriate
education (Decker, 2010; Finn, Manno, & Bierlein, 1996). The Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) mandates all schools (public, private and charter)
provide parents with a series of written notifications within specific time frames.
Notifications must be sent when modifications are to be made to an Individualized
Education Plan (IEP), when a change of placement occurs, when initiation of a new
service is implemented, etc. (Estes, 2001). Failure to abide by procedural rules might
result in a court decision that the school has failed to deliver a Free and Appropriate
Public Education (FAPE), one of the key notions of IDEA, which could result in charter
closure or charter revocation (Bulkley & Fisler, 2002; Finn et al., 1996). Charter school
districts may be exempt from some or all of the state laws and regulations regarding
curriculum, instructional practices, budgeting, and the hiring of uncertified personnel, but
they are not exempt from federal laws and guidelines governing the instruction of
students with disabilities in public schools.
n here…