Michigan Charter School Evaluation - Homepages at...

An Evaluation of the Michigan Charter School Initiative:Performance, Accountability, and Impact

Jerry Horn and Gary Miron

The Evaluation Center

Western Michigan University

July 2000

Evaluation of the Michigan Charter Schools The Evaluation Center, WMU1

Chapter OneIntroduction and Methodological Frame

of the Evaluation

1.1 Background of the Study

The Evaluation Center at Western MichiganUniversity has been engaged in evaluating thecharter school movement for a number of yearsnow.1 In 1995, evaluators at the Center beganinformal discussions with a small group of personsfrom the private and public sectors about evaluationand accountability of this new type of publiclysupported school in Michigan. At that time,concerns were being expressed about the legality ofthe Michigan initiative; the title of the schools, i.e.,Public School Academies (PSAs) vs. the commonlyknown title of charter schools;2 competition withthe regular/other public schools; impact on privateand parochial schools; the profit motive;educational and financial accountability; and a hostof other issues and concerns. Some of these issueshave been addressed through regulation or legalaction, others have diminished over time, and stillothers of importance and concern remain today.Through contractual arrangements with TheEvaluation Center (and with a firm from the privatesector) and the Michigan Department of Education,parallel evaluation studies of the Michigan PublicSchool Academy initiative were completed in 1998with reports dated January 1999.

Clearly, there is widespread interest in the charterschool initiative in Michigan and across the country.With this new chapter in American education thathas school choice and the use of market forces as itscenterpiece, there is both hope and concern amongwell-meaning people.

There are a wide variety of anticipated outcomes ofcharter schools. Among the commonly expected

outcomes, proponents suggest that charter schoolswill accomplish the following:

F Increase diversity of school options andpromote choice among public schools

F Provide opportunities for educators and othersto create new schools

F Demonstrate accountability to oversightagencies

F Induce traditional public schools to be moreaccountable as a result of competition

F Improve schools and instructional practices asa result of innovations developed in charterschools

F Assume explicit responsibility for improvedachievement, as measured by standardized andother measures

Opponents of charter schools are concerned aboutsuch matters as the following:

F The creation of unnecessary and destructivecompetition among traditional public schools,charter schools, and private and parochialschools

F A reduction in the public funds available forschools serving students with the greatesteducational needs

F Curricula that are based on religious beliefs orvalues of specific elements of society

F The profit motive of various businesses andorganizations operating charter schools and thepotential privatization of K-12 education

F Accountability or the perceived lack ofaccountability to oversight agencies and thegeneral public


Summary of Key Findings From Our FirstStudy

Listed below are selected highlights and findingsfrom the Western Michigan University (WMU)study (Horn & Miron, 1999):

F Considerable diversity exists among charterschools, but they are generally characterized byexceptional commitment on the part offounders, teachers, parents, and students whoare generally satisfied and convinced theacademic climate is or can be superior to thatin the public schools.

F While charter school teachers and parents aregenerally positive in their perceptions of charterschools, their initial expectations weresignificantly higher than what they are currentlyexperiencing.

F Charter schools are clearly drawing studentsaway from the state’s public schools, pullingmore than two-thirds of their students frompublic schools, resulting in financial setbacksfor some districts with a high concentration ofcharter schools. Those same districts alsoexperience some positive results from theexistence of charter schools. Among thosepositive effects are increased emphasis oncustomer satisfaction and marketing, increasedefforts to involve parents, and more emphasison such programs as foreign languageinstruction and before- and after-schoolprograms.

F While there may be claims of innovativepractices and procedures in some charterschools, many of the practices and curriculafound in these schools are commonly found inlocal public schools or have been known amongprofessional educators for some time.

F Attempts have been made in a number of waysto increase parental involvement, but withmixed success.

F Because of the lack of start-up monies, thelimited ability to obtain loans for schoolconstruction/renovation, and the inability toform taxing authorities to raise capital funds forconstruction, independently operated charterschools have struggled to remain financiallysolvent or have sought outside assistance fromnewly emerging management companies forremedies for financial problems. Most schoolshave, however, been able to work within thefinancial parameters of their per-student stateallocation.

F Teacher salaries in charter schools lag farbehind the salaries of the local school districtsin which they are located.

F While the number of students enrolled incharter schools increased dramatically in theyears preceding the evaluation, the percentagesof minority students in these schools declined.This was due to the establishment of newcharter schools that enroll fewer minorities.

F A surprisingly large number of conflicts wereevident between charter school founder-leadersand school boards, between teachers and schooladministrators, or between parents and theschool personnel. Most often, the conflictsresulted from differences in educationalphilosophies, goals, leadership/administrativestyles, or differences in understanding aboutareas of responsibility. In some cases, theconflicts were due to individuals or groupsvying for control and power. Oftentimes, thesesituations result in broad-based turnover ofboard members, school staff, and students.

F The role, responsibilities, and authority foroversight and monitoring are not consistentlyunderstood and practiced among the variousauthorizers. In some cases, charter schoolauthorizers attempt to conceal rather than revealweaknesses and problems at their schools.

F Charter school administration was found to bean area of significant difficulty, withadministrative boards being generally weak,


charter authorizing agencies' role and authoritybeing poorly defined, and managementcompanies rapidly emerging as a major powerin the charter school movement.

F Many individuals or small groups of parentswho founded charter schools with the intent tooperate them locally have sought outsideassistance in the form of contracted servicesfrom management companies and otherproviders of such services. During the 1997/98school year, just under 50 percent of the schoolswere contracting out services to EMOs, and thiswas expected to grow to more than 70 percentbefore 2000.

F Although student and teacher perceptions ofacademic achievement is high, the MEAPresults indicated that the charter schools, as agroup, had lower test scores than their hostdistricts3 and that in terms of gains over time, aslightly larger number of host districts wereincreasing their MEAP scores more that thecharter schools within their district boundaries.Nevertheless, the study indicated that it wasstill too early in the charter reform process toattribute high or low test scores to the influenceof the charter schools.

Independent and parallel to our own evaluation, theMichigan Department of Education commissionedanother evaluation that was to be conducted by aprivate sector firm. As it turned out the findingsfrom this other evaluation matched–in manyrespects–our own findings. The final report for theother study is entitled Michigan’s Charter SchoolInitiative: From Theory to Practice (Public SectorConsultants, 1999).

1.2 Objectives of the Evaluation

The list of selected key findings outlined in theprevious section are only representatives of a muchlonger list of findings. A number of unansweredquestions or issues surfaced from the evaluationreports submitted in January 1999 or were raisedafter the study was completed. These were framed

in the form of the following questions that theMichigan Department of Education asked us toaddress in this follow-up evaluation.

1. What is the impact (negative and positive) ofselected types of charter schools on localschools and communities?

2. To what extent do students leave charterschools and for what reasons?

3. What is the current and potential role andimpact of management companies in the charterschools initiative?

4. What is the impact of charter schools on studentachievement, and what would be an effectiveprocedure/methodology for determining futureprogress in comparison with traditional publicschools?

In addition to these evaluation questions, we alsoexamined the following questions and issues in thisfollow-up study:

The scope and nature of innovations in thecharter schools. This was addressed in the initialstudy, but given the emphasis placed on this issue inthe legislation and given that we were able to collectlimited data on innovations in our first study, werequested further documentation from the schoolsregarding innovative or unique practices in thefollowing three areas: curriculum, instruction, andoperation and governance of the school.

Provision of special education in Michigan’scharter schools. During the course of our datacollection, it became apparent that one of the mainreasons for students leaving charter schools was thelack of special educational services. Likewise,public school districts were reporting that one of thekey areas where they were being negativelyimpacted concerned special education. For thesereasons we examined the overall legislativeframework for special education, then examined thenature and number of students with specialeducational needs in the charter schools comparedwith host districts, and–finally–we considered the


implications of the shifts and concentrations ofstudents with special education needs.

Trends in the revenues and spending of charterschools. Even though we were not required toexamine issues regarding finance, we thought itwas necessary to look more closely at the spendingpatterns of the charter schools over time in order toobtain more information regarding the impactcharter schools were having on traditional publicschools as well as the impact that educationalmanagement organizations (EMOs) were having onthe charter schools. Therefore, comparisons weremade over time between the revenues and spendingof charter schools and their host districts andbetween independent charter schools and thoseoperated by EMOs.

For a complete evaluation of the Michigan charterschool initiative, it is important to review theoriginal intent of the charter school initiative, asdescribed in the authorizing legislation in the stateof Michigan Public Act 416 of 1994 and more fullydefined in the school code as a part of Public Act289 of 1995. The purposes and objectives of thislegislation and initiative are described in Section511(1) of the School Code.

Sec. 511(1) To improve the public elementaryand secondary schools of this state, publicschool academies may be established withinthis state’s system of public schools, asprovided under this part, as a means ofachieving the following purposes.

(a) To improve pupil achievement for allpupils, including, but not limited to,educationally disadvantaged pupils, byimproving the learning environment.

(b) To stimulate innovative teachingmethods.

(c) To create new professional opportunitiesfor teachers in a new type of public school inwhich the school structure and educationalprogram can be innovatively designed andmanaged by teachers at the school site level.

(d) To achieve school accountability forpupil educational performance by placingfull responsibility at the school site level.

(e) To provide parents and pupils withgreater choices among public schools, bothwithin and outside their existing schooldistricts.

(f) To determine whether state educationalfunds can be more effectively, efficiently,and equitably utilized by allocating funds ona per pupil basis directly to the school ratherthan through school district administration.

In the initial evaluation we were asked to addressmost of these specified objectives of the Michigancharter school initiative. Although it is not withinthe scope of the current study and this report toaddress the extent to which this legislation has beenfulfilled, we have made an attempt in this report torelate our findings to these purposes and identifyand provide information that will contribute to thelong-term evaluation of this initiative.

1.3 Recent Studies on Michigan’sCharter School Initiative

In Michigan, there have been an increasing numberof studies and reports on charter schools. Somehave been authorized by the Michigan Departmentof Education (MDE) in fulfilling its responsibilities,and others have been conducted by universityresearchers, private individuals, and organizationswith a professed interest in this movement. Whilethere have been some differences in theinterpretation of the findings, there seem to havebeen remarkable similarities in most of theconclusions. The parallel but independent studiesin 1998-99 by The Evaluation Center at WesternMichigan University and Public Sector Consultants,Inc. produced almost identical results, although theystudied schools in different (and defined)geographic sections of the state. At the end of1999, a group of Michigan State Universityprofessors reported on independent studies they areconducting (Arsen, Plank, & Sykes, 1999) in which


they drew similar conclusions to MDE-commissioned evaluations. Other studies,conducted by individuals and groups, have focusedon specific schools and specific elements of thecharter schools. In this section, a summary of someof the most noteworthy academic studies isincluded.

Leveraging Local Innovation: The Case ofMichigan’s Charter Schools (Mintrom,2000)

Mintrom’s report examines innovation occurring inMichigan charter schools by comparing charter andtraditional public schools. To make this comparisonMintrom conducted a two part study. In the firstpart, 100 of the 138 principals of the charter schoolsthat existed in Michigan in 1999 were interviewed.Likewise, a group of principals from traditionalpublic schools were interviewed (105 from urbandistricts and 66 from suburban districts). Theprincipals were asked about various schoolpractices, how they spend their time, who theyinteract with, and perceived barriers to change intheir schools. In the second part of the study, all theprincipals who were interviewed received a mailsurvey and were asked to rate the “innovativeness”of more than 60 different practices that were earliersuggested by the same principals. Unfortunately,there was only a 33 percent response rate on thissurvey.

Mintrom defines the term innovative as ideas orpractices that are perceived to be new within thecontext of the school. He commends and criticizescharter schools for being both slightly innovativeand not innovative enough, claiming that overall,charter schools in Michigan are not innovative. Butthroughout his report he defines redeeminginnovative qualities that charter schools possess.According to Mintrom, some charter schoolsexemplify innovations, but for the most part theyare more traditional than they are innovative.Mintrom highlights three innovations that aredistinctive from traditional public schools:nontraditional scheduling (such as block schedulingor all day kindergarten), a required foreign

language, and school uniforms. He sees littleinnovation with regard to instructional practices andconcludes that charter schools are stuck with atraditional school mentality and cannot or do not seebeyond that framework.

With regard to the diffusion or sharing ofinnovations, Mintrom found that not much sharingis occurring between charter schools and traditionalpublic schools. With the two paired against oneanother in competition, he does not foresee a timewhen sharing will occur until an informationsharing lever is put in place—a mechanism bothparties can work through in order to share ideas.Mintrom sees a future where positive changes canoccur, spurred by both charter schools andtraditional public schools, since both have thatpotential. But Mintrom concludes that charterschools, as they are organized currently, do not havethe potential to transform public schooling.

School Choice Policies in Michigan: TheRules Matter (Arsen, Plank, & Sykes,1999)

This report was prepared by members of theWorking Group on School Choice at Michigan StateUniversity. It draws upon existing data obtainedfrom the Michigan Department of Education,databases developed by members of the WorkingGroup, and a review of other studies in the field. Inaddition to the quantitative data, the authorsconducted interviews with a wide variety ofstakeholders (e.g., superintendents; principals frompublic, private, and charter schools; teacher unionrepresentatives; representatives charteringauthorities; management companies; etc.) and madesite visits to a large number of schools. The reportfocuses on the impact of charter schools as well asinterdistrict schools of choice.

Some of the key findings from this study include thefollowing:

F The rise of education managementorganizations is a prominent feature ofMichigan’s charter school movement. This

4 It should be noted that the Prince study indicated community education is included as “other instruction.” Within most public schools such programs are properly classified as “community services,” since they are usuallyrecreational in nature. See Michigan School Accounting Manual, Appendix II-Definitions, page 31.


needs more study because it has the potential towork some good and some harm on schools,students, families, and communities.

F Choice is accelerating white- and middle-classflight from the cities to the suburbs, whichcontinues to increase divisions along race andclass lines. Because charter schools cannotchoose their student populations specifically,there should be little discrimination; however,with niche-centered curriculums, the programsoffered will shape the clientele and thecomposition of the schools. The authorsreported that charter schools also recruit andenroll the students who are less costly toeducate.

F There is evidence that some districts areresponding positively to competition. Whilemost districts are not affected by the choicepolicies, others are impacted minimally, andsome are severely impacted and are losing theability to compete because they are losingdollars and students.

Follow the Money: An Initial Review ofElementary Charter School Spending inMichigan (Prince, 1999)

The study focused on fiscal areas of general fundspending patterns, comparing charters with localdistricts with only elementary grade levels.Comparison of spending patterns was also madebetween charter schools in their second year ofexistence and elementary charter schools in theirfirst year of operation. This latter comparisonhelped to understand the impact of start-up costs,their duration, and classification in financial terms.

The source data used in the report were gatheredfrom the Michigan Department of Education (MDE)

annual Form B Report, which is compiled fromyear-end financial data of each local andintermediate school district and from each charterschool. The report has two major categories,instruction and support services, which are furthersubcategorized. Instructional expenditures includebasic instruction, added needs (which includesspecial education and compensatory educationservices), and adult and other instruction.4 Supportservices expenditures include instructional staffsupport (improvement of instruction), studentsupport (library, guidance, attendance, etc.), schooladministration (office of the building principal),general administration (board of education,superintendent, central offices), business office,maintenance and operations, transportation, andother support services.

The per pupil weighted mean dollar expendituresfor two fiscal years for various subfunctions forboth the charter schools and for each comparisongroup of local elementary districts were separatelyaggregated from the Form B Report data. The studyincluded the 1995/1996 and 1996/97 fiscal year dataas reported on Form B to the MDE. (This periodcover the initial start-up of charter schools andrepresents a very small percentage of the totalstudent population: 398 charter school studentscompared with 1,600,000 local district students).The study focused on elementary spending only,which is traditionally lower than high schoolspending requirements.

Key findings from this study include the following:

F Charter schools spent an average of 57 percentof their general fund resources on instructionand less than 43 percent on support servicescompared with 65 percent and 35 percent forcomparable enrollment in local districts.

F Most charter schools reported no specialeducation students in their population, which


may account for some of the lower costs for“added needs.”

F Charters expended less than 5 percent ofgeneral funds for added needs compared with11 percent by local districts.

F Charters spent an average of 26 percent onsupport services as compared with 17 percentby comparable local districts (includes generaladministration, school administration, andbusiness services).

F Some charter school administrators appear to berelative novices in the use of school accountingcategories; Form B reports from the initial yearscontain some reporting errors.

F Charter schools in their second year ofoperation continued to spend general fundresources on administrative costs and businessoffice expenses at a proportionately higher levelthan comparable local districts (the authorrecommended further research in this area).

F Surprisingly, findings from the second year ofoperation indicate that charter schools spent aneven smaller proportion on instruction than theydid the first year, with increased spending inbusiness office expenses.

In addition to these findings, Prince also discussedthe possible impact of start-up costs and theireffects on budgetary planning and spending in thelong run.

1.4 Methodology and Data Collection

In this section, the various data collection methodsused are outlined, and the process of data collection,analysis, and reporting is summarized. We used avariety of methods and data sources to answer thespecified evaluation questions.

Because we have also drawn upon the findings anddata collected in our first evaluation, it seemsappropriate to sum up the methods we used for that

initial study. School-based data were collected from51 charter schools (approximately half of alloperating schools at the time) during the 1997/98school year. Specific data collection methodsincluded the following: (i) charter school surveysdeveloped at Western Michigan University forteachers/staff, parents, and students; (ii) nationally-normed school climate surveys administered tocharter school teachers/staff, parents, and students;(iii) interviews with the representatives of allstakeholder groups included in the charter schoolsas well as with superintendents and schoolpersonnel from traditional public schools, officialsfrom the Michigan Department of Education,representatives of authorizing agencies,management companies, and communityrepresentatives; (iv) demographic data, financialdata, and test scores from all available years for thecharter schools and their host districts wereanalyzed; and (v) documents, literature, schoolportfolios, and student work samples werereviewed. The first evaluation was both formativeand summative in nature.

To complement the existing data and informationand in order to collect new information thataddresses the new evaluation questions, we used thefollowing data collection methods: documentreview; analysis of existing information from theMichigan Department of Education includingdemographic data, financial data, and MEAP datafor all the charter schools and their host districts.We also visited several charter schools,management companies, and representatives oftraditional public school districts. From these data,we were able to develop case studies of severalschool districts. More details on these methods andthe resulting information are highlighted in theparagraphs that follow.

It should be pointed out that in our first study welargely limited our site visits and data collection tosurveys to the 51 schools outside of Detroit and itssurrounding counties. This division of the statemade generalizations more difficult. However, ouranalysis of the data obtained from MDE was acrossall 106 schools that were operating at that time. Inthis second study, we solicited and collected


documentation from all 171 charter schoolscurrently operating; however, we limited site visitsto charter schools and case studies of schooldistricts in our geographical part of the state.

While authorized studies by MDE and thechartering agencies are both necessary andimportant, it should be pointed out that aconsiderable burden has been placed on the charterschools by the massive number of requests forinformation by researchers, various governmentagencies, the media, and others with an expressedneed for information. Aside from the large numberof requests for information, these new schools areinexperienced in operating in the public eye and notcurrently well staffed for research and evaluation.For these reasons, it was determined that the currentstudy by The Evaluation Center would use existingdocuments and records as primary sources ofinformation, to the extent possible.

Document Review

In January, The Evaluation Center mailed a detailedletter to each charter school requesting descriptiveinformation that would address the evaluationquestions. It was clearly stated in the first sentencethat “The Michigan Department of Education hasasked us to conduct a follow-up study on MichiganPublic School Academies.” This statement waswritten because we knew that many of the schoolsare currently being swamped with requests forinformation and survey data and understood howfrustrating and time-consuming that can be. Manyrequests by researchers are not mandated, and theschools are not required to participate. We wantedto differentiate our legitimate requests from others.

Wishing to be as unobtrusive as possible, werequested documentation already produced by theschools that would likely contain the informationwe wished to collect regarding each individualcharter school. We requested the most recent copyof their School Improvement Reports and/or annualreports required by Public Act 25. We also askedfor descriptive information/evidence about theirschool’s success and its ability to fulfill its missionas well as any innovative or unique aspects of the

school in terms of curriculum, instructionalmethods, or governance/administrative/operationalaspects. The deadline for materials was stated asFebruary 8, 2000. Only a handful of schoolsresponded by the deadline.

Our next step was to do extensive follow-up withtelephone and fax requests to the schools during themonth of February and the first half of March. Thisincreased our collection materials to approximatelyhalf of the charter schools.

We were aware that the Michigan Department ofEducation did not have the materials we needed, soour third endeavor was to request copies of annualreports for charter schools operating within theirborders from Intermediate School Districts (ISDs). During the first few phone contacts, we wererepeatedly told that ISDs were no longer required bylaw to keep them on file. Few ISDs were able torespond. We abandoned this approach.

Our last attempt to obtain materials was to write aletter to the authorizing agencies on March 16. In it,we explained in detail the purpose for our request,the information needed, and a listing of the schoolsfrom which we still needed materials. Thisendeavor increased the percentage of returnedmaterials from approximately 50 to 72.7 percent.None of the state university authorizers sentmaterials to us, but some of them apparently putpressure on the schools to respond to our request.

Several schools reported that they could notremember receiving the original January 24 letter orthe fax of the original letter that was sent later as areminder. Two reasons may account for this fact.First, many school leaders expressed how extremelybusy they were. Secondly, numerous telephone andfax numbers of schools had been changed from therecords we received from the Michigan Departmentof Education. It was extremely difficult to talk todirectors and principals in our follow-up phonecalls. Many schools leaders expressed that theywere “very busy” or “overwhelmed” by all the workinvolved in setting up and/or developing a charterschool. One director shared she was “swamped”and “only doing the most important tasks.” Another


director said he was very busy with lots of requests,but maintained “children come first.” He made nopromises, but said he would see what he could do.We never received the annual report for this school. In visiting with directors and principals via phoneconversations, a few questioned why the samematerials couldn’t be used for both the original andthe follow-up study. Others were confused by therequests sent by other research groups.Administrators from new schools seemed to feel themost overwhelmed. One new principal stated, “Iam new and feel overwhelmed.” When weexplained we were simply requesting existingdocumentation because we were aware of thedemands made on them, some schools responded.Another director/principal expressed greatfrustration in being audited by the MichiganDepartment of Education. He asked, “Are werequired by law to send the materials?”

One director outright stated, “We do not want toparticipate because we receive no studentfoundation money and do not do MEAP testsbecause we are a technical school and don’t offer afull curriculum.”

Although each charter school is supposed to havethe freedom to act alone, several schools werereluctant to send materials without the consent oftheir educational management company (EMO).One director indicated that he had forwarded ouroriginal letter to the EMO. Another director firstsaid he would send the materials, but then added,“I’ll check with my management company to see ifit is OK.” One principal stated that his EMO hadfive schools in Michigan and all five would have the“same materials,” implying we could use one set forall five schools. We were told by many schoolprincipals that we should request suchdocumentation from their EMO. In these cases, weinformed the charter school representatives that wewere authorized to work with the public schoolacademies and that the private managementcompany was accountable to the board and not thestate. In some cases, we did request documentationdirectly from the management company. Forexample, six of the schools operated by National

Heritage Academies refused to respond to our manyrequests. Therefore, during a visit to theirheadquarters, we asked for copies of the annualreports from the company representatives.Unfortunately, we never received them.

Aside from the frustration with this difficult task,we recognized that a majority of schools werepositive about providing materials for the evaluationstudy. They appreciated that we were requestingexisting documentation rather than requiring themto write up lengthy responses to our questions.Another reason that many were positive is that theyrecognized that this was a chance for the schools totell “their” story. We emphasized this point in ourwritten and verbal communications with theschools. One principal called back to say theywould send the materials immediately. Sheenthusiastically added, “We support the work youare doing!”

In the end, we received documentation from 126 ofthe 171 charter schools, a 74 percent response rate.

Case Studies of School Districts

In-depth case studies of several of public schooldistricts were prepared. The case studies werebased on documentation, existing demographic andfinancial data, and interviews. Documentation wascollected from districts and charter schools withinthe district boundaries, as well as from mediasources. Demographic, financial, and other types ofschool- and district-specific data were largelyavailable from MDE, although some districts andintermediate school districts were also able tosupply us with data we could use in our casestudies. A wide range of interviews made in thecase study districts included the followingstakeholders:

F District superintendentsF Representatives of the local public school

districts, particularly persons responsible forstudent records, finance, and special education

F Principals and staff at charter schoolsF Principals and staff at traditional public schoolsF Representatives of intermediate school districts


F Representatives of educational managementcompanies

F A variety of community representatives such asreal estate agents, church/religious leaders,businesses, builders/developers, family/socialservice organizations, and immediate neighborsto the school

Case studies were prepared for the following publicschool districts:

F Grand Rapids Public SchoolsF Holland Public SchoolsF Kalamazoo Public SchoolsF Kentwood Public SchoolsF Lansing Public SchoolsF Northview Public SchoolsF Walker Public SchoolsF Wyoming Public Schools

A separate case study was also prepared for Hollandand Grand Rapids Christian Schools.

The case studies addressed the positive and negativeimpact that charter schools were having on thepublic school district, on private/parochial schools,and on the immediate community. Given thespecific evaluation questions we were addressing,particular attention was given to the mobility ofstudents and special education.

When considering the impact on the community, weattempted to limit the focus of the impact to theimmediate community surrounding charter schools;questions to community representatives weredirected to the impact on the immediateneighborhoods surrounding the schools. Specifictopics addressed include the following:

F Visibility of the neighborhoodF Property valuesF Educational opportunities for children and

youthF Traffic and safetyF General appearance of the areaF Behavior of children and youth in the

neighborhoodF Sales/purchases from businesses in the areaF Employment

A separate report was prepared on the case studies,which were so extensive it was impossible tocontain them in this final report. Chapter 2summarizes the findings from the case studies, andChapter 3 draws heavily from the data reported inthe case studies. Because these cases are so rich indetail, we decided to include them under separatecover and make them available electronically afterthe final report has been received and approved bythe Michigan Department of Education.

Analysis of Data Available from theMichigan Department of Education

From the Michigan Department of Education website we were able to download data pertaining tocharter schools and their host districts. By hostdistrict, we are referring to the traditional publicschool district in which the charter school resides.We downloaded databases pertaining to headcounts, finance, and MEAP test results. We had todownload separate files for the academic yearsranging from 1995-96 to 1998-99. In some cases,we were also able to include data from the 1999-2000 school year. Since most of our comparisonswere made with host districts, we extracted therecords for the charter schools and their matchinghost districts. Next we merged the charter schooland host district data into the same records for eachyear. Finally, we merged records for each schooland year into the same database. The structure ofthese databases allowed us to make longitudinalanalyses of the charter school data relative to thehost district.

Financial data. We used the data from theMichigan Department of Education Bulletin 1014to obtain per pupil costs by expenditure category. The data are compiled by the Department ofEducation from the Form B Reports submitted byeach local school district, intermediate schooldistrict, and charter school. The schools use theyear-end financial data to complete these reports.Further details on how we analyzed this data areavailable in Section 2.3, which addresses thepatterns and impact of charter school revenues andexpenditures.


Analysis of MEAP results. Because the charterschools are all so unique and diverse, we think thatthe best comparisons should be done on a school-by-school basis. In our technical report thataccompanies the final report, we include all testdata for all 171 schools organized by grade, subject,and year. The layout of our data facilitatescomparison over time. In completing our analysisof the MEAP results, we undertook the followingcomparisons:

� Compare absolute scores for each charterschool with its host district for each year ofoperation for which test data is available

� Compare 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-year gain scoresbetween charter schools and their host districts

� Compare overall performance of all charterschools versus host districts for each year

� Compare the performance of charter schools(percentage meeting state standards) over timewith state average

� Compare groups of EMO schools with charterschools as a whole

� Compare groups of charter schools based onfirst year of operation

Chapter 5 contains the charts that depict the MEAPanalyses by grade, subject, and year. Appendix Ccontains the tables depicting the school by schoolMEAP results. This chapter also contains furtherdetails on the methods we used to analyze theMEAP results.

5 The report is entitled: The Impact of Charter Schools on Public and Parochial Schools: Case Studies of SchoolDistricts in Western and Central Michigan (Evaluation Center, 2000), and can be downloaded from the EvaluationCenter’s website <www.wmich.edu/evalctr/>.


Chapter TwoImpact of Charter Schools

and the Mobility of Students

2.1 Impact of Charter Schools onTraditional Public Schools

In order to address the evaluation questions dealingwith the mobility of students and the impact thatcharter schools were having on other schools, wedecided to develop case studies on a number ofschool districts. Information sources for these casesincluded interviews with representatives fromdistrict and charter schools, document review andreview of relevant documentation and mediaarticles. The cases that were developed were rich indetail and supporting documentation. Because thecases were so large, we have decided to disseminatethem in a separate report. The sections that followsummarize the main findings from the case studiesthat address the specific evaluation questions.5

As one examines the distribution of charter schoolsacross the state, it is clear that charter schools tendto be concentrated in and around more populatedareas (see Appendix A, which contains mapshighlighting the location of schools over time).Some charter schools are located in the more urbansections of these cities and have unique missions; asa result of the unique missions and attraction of anarrow segment of school-age children and youth,there is little impact on the local schools with largeenrollments and more generalized missions.However, others have been founded and areoperating in suburban areas and serve simply asanother neighborhood school choice for manyfamilies. Certainly, other variables influence the

impact of a charter school on a local school orschool district, such as length of time the charterschool has been operating, stability of theorganization, official relationship with the localdistrict, etc. At the same time, other factors, such asmission of the school, recruitment practices, gradelevels, location of the school, enrollment sizes,reputation of the charter school and the local school,etc., make many responses to this question subjectto caveats or conditions as well as exceptions togeneral findings.

In discussions with administrators and other schoolpersonnel, there is a range of estimated impact from“zero” to a “major impact” in particular ways.Overall, most of the positive impacts that we coulddetect are related to improved accountability,marketing, and communications. Below we havelisted a number of the “positive” impacts on localschools that summarize the findings from ourinterviews, document review, and case studies.

F Caused a need to review and more carefullydefine the mission, goals, and curricula forpublic understanding. While many of theseareas/issues had been thought to be commonlyunderstood among educators and boardmembers, it was recognized that the localschools needed to be more focused indescriptive materials and explanations toparents and others about the schools, theirprograms, and operating practices.


F Created a need to be more responsive to parentconcerns and in some cases demonstrate agreater concern about the importance ofparental understanding and support for theschools. Greater responsiveness is evident innewly initiated practices of follow-up contactwith parents regarding a variety of issues,including school attendance, requests fortransfers to other schools, need for additionalservices, etc.

F Established the need for more before and afterschool programs to address both educationaland custodial needs of students. Parents insome working class neighborhoods mustarrange before and after school care for theirchildren when adults of the home are at work;when this need was recognized by a charterschool, the local school responded in a similarway. Special programs that provide tutorialtype assistance to students beyond the schoolday are one example of after school academicassistance that has been presented as a factor inschool choice. Academic offerings that havebeen added to some local school programs inresponse to charter schools in the communityare foreign languages at the elementary schoollevel, magnet school programs, environmentaleducation, and writing programs.

F Created options for parents and students thatmay better fit the social and educationalrequirements of students. In addition, somethink that parents are giving or have thepotential for giving more serious thought towhat setting, program emphasis, and otherlearning conditions (whether in a charter schoolor a local public school) would be best for theirchild.

F Heightened awareness about communicationand relationships between parents and teachersand/or administrators. Also, the initiative hasresulted in teachers, administrators, and otherswith responsibilities for local public schools todevelop a more consensual understanding ofwhat the school is attempting to accomplish andto focus on improvements in areas of identified

weaknesses. While some of these efforts relateto achievement test scores, other areas havereceived attention, such as student attendanceand behavior, inviting parents to schoolfunctions and activities, receptivity andfriendliness of all employees, communicationswith parents and the general public, etc.

While some local school officials report that thereis little contact with and impact from thedevelopment of one or more charter schools in theircommunities, others are in general agreement thatthere have been some negative effects. While thefollowing list is not inclusive of all comments orperceived to be true for all schools, it identifiesthose most relevant to the purposes and theaudience of this report.

F An unnecessary atmosphere of competition wascreated between two publicly funded entities(public school academies and local publicschools). Since there is money tied to eachenrolled student, there is competition to attractstudents, which forces parents to make choicesfor which they are unprepared or evensometimes falsely informed about importantissues related to the education of their children.

F Monies that could be used for instruction andother direct student services were diverted topublic relations and promotion of the schools.One school district reported spending $65,000on marketing “which is the number one way forus to stay competitive with charter schools.”The school official indicated that they wouldrather spend this money on students, but theysee marketing as a necessity in order to keep thepublic informed. At the same time, there isconcern about whether parents are able to makegood decisions with regard to claims of “newand improved” promoted by emerging charterschools.

F Students and thus budget were lost, with aresulting reduction in personnel and servicescritical to other students in the public schools.For example, Holland Public Schools reportedthat it has lost about $2 million per year as a


result of the establishment of three charterschools in or around its district. Without thepotential for growth and housing, with the shiftof funding for schools as defined by the passageof Proposal A in 1994, and with theestablishment of three charter schools in thecommunity, there is little hope of turningaround a declining enrollment and shrinkingbudget. While some small changes inprocedures and expenditures have occurred inthis district, major cuts in staffing,supplemental educational services, professionaldevelopment for teachers, and specializedequipment and personnel are being made nowand will be made to an even greater extent inthe future.

F The Lansing School District is another districtin which the impact of charter schools deservesspecial attention. In the last five years, sincethe advent of charter schools, the LansingSchool District has lost approximately 3,000students. One-half to two-thirds of thosestudents have transferred to charter schools,which equates to a loss of $9 million or moreper year. These losses have resulted in theconsolidation of four elementary schools whoseenrollments are projected to be fewer than 202students in 2000-2001. In spite of thesefinancial losses, few employees have lost theirjobs, but there are fewer opportunities for newemployees in the district. According to districtofficials, it is perceived that the charter schoolsin the Lansing area are contributing to asegregation problem by creating elitist schoolsand others that tend to attract a particularracial/ethnic group of students.

F Because budgets are developed and approvedlong before the “official” count day, localpublic schools are unable to develop budgetsthat could best reflect real needs for thefollowing school year. Since charter schoolsactively recruit students up to and even into theschool year, traditional public schools anddistricts report an inability to do properplanning. Additionally, the traditional publicschools must accept all students who return

from charter schools or others who qualify forenrollment in the local district at any time of theyear without compensation after the designated“count” day. This impact is felt in terms of theavailability of classroom space, curricularmaterials, transportation, special educationassistance, and other specialized goods andservices.

F While most shifts of students to charter schoolsin grades 1 and above occur in the first year ortwo following the opening of a charter school ina community, there is an indeterminate numberof new kindergarten students, homeschooledstudents, and private/parochial school studentswho have not attended the local schools andwho began in or transferred to charter schools.Enrolling these students in the charter schoolsresults in cuts in resources to the traditionalpublic schools. Local districts typically basemuch of their long-term planning on the numberof students enrolled in the lower grades andwho, in future years, will be requiring space andservices in the middle/junior high schools andhigh schools. Since most Michigan charterschools are pre-high school (86 percent of allcharter school students are enrolled in gradesK-8), there is potential for a major enrollmentand resource impact in the next 4-8 years whena large number of charter school students willbe returning to the traditional public schools forhigh school instruction, which costssubstantially more per student than instructionat the elementary and middle school levels.

F The loss of only a few students to a charterschool does not influence the number ofteachers or the number of classrooms that willbe required, but each student represents a lossof about $6,000 to the district. The loss of thisrevenue must be absorbed by the local districtin some way, and the areas that seem to be themajor targets for these budget reductions are thearts, music, and extracurricular programs andsupport staff and services.

F Since the per capita funding for schools doesnot differentiate among the various levels


(primary, upper elementary, middle/junior high,and high schools), there is a predominance ofcharter schools authorized to operate at the pre-secondary school level. Some have estimated adifferential of $2,000/student between the lowercosts of elementary school and the moreexpensive cost for educating a high schoolstudent. As a result, the traditional publicschools are left with a greater proportion of themost expensive students to educate, i.e., highschool students and students with identifiedspecial needs.

F Budget officers of local school districts arewary of the potential closing of some specificcharter schools with large debts and/or unstableadministration and governance. For example,one charter school is reported to have close to600 students and a debt of some $500,000. Weare aware of a few other charter schools, thoughsmaller in size, that are in precarious financialsituations because they could not attract/retainthe number of students for which they werereceiving funding. With the blending countformula, they will receive less money in autumn2000 although they intend to increaseenrollments. Since these schools already havedeficits, this situation is likely to exacerbatetheir financial viability and could result inuntimely closure of the schools. When charterschools are closed during the school year, thesestudents return to the local school district,which is required to provide instruction forthem. Such an event would have major impacton the educational programming and financialplanning of the local district. As a result,business and other educational planners find itnecessary to have contingency plans in placewhere there are precarious situationssurrounding a charter school.

F While net gains or losses between charterschools and local schools have stabilized inmost cases, there is still a substantial movementof students between the two entities. Thisgenerates a substantial amount of paperwork toaccommodate these moves, as well asdisruption of the students’ educational

experiences. In the following section, studentmobility will be discussed in greater detail.

F In a number of districts, it was reported thatstudents returning to the local school district areoften in need of special education services orhave records of disciplinary problems. Onedistrict official reported that 48 specialeducation students returned to the local publicschools from charter schools shortly after thefourth Friday counts in October and February. Further, it has been reported that students withsevere special education problems or uniqueeducational/custodial needs are “counseledaway” from charter schools during therecruitment and enrollment periods. In ourinitial evaluation we interviewed parents withdisabled children who were counseled out ofcharter schools because the charter schoolscould not guarantee that they would providespecial education services. In the case studieswe conducted in this second evaluation, a fewparents and special education teachersconfirmed that this was occurring in theircharter schools. While this information is stillanecdotal in nature, the enrollmentfigures/patterns of special education students incharter schools, which are outlined in Chapter3, confirm that this is a serious problem area forcharter schools. Both the shift of specialeducation students and the disproportionatenature of the students with disabilities intraditional public schools and charter schoolshave a financial and programmatic impact onthe local school districts.

F Missions of charter schools that promote aparticular emphasis or profile, such as collegeprep, African-American-centered curriculum,etc., attract a select element of society and thushave the potential for impacting the balance ofdiversity that may exist in a selected school.While this may seem to be a small issue, thissituation, combined with the location of aschool in a particular neighborhood andselective recruitment, could have a majorimpact on the types of students that remain thepublic schools. For example, a number of the


educational management organizations use anumber of strategies to recruit particularstudents (these strategies are outlined inChapter 4). In Grand Rapids, several publicschool representatives pointed out that NationalHeritage Academies use the location of theirschools and the selective dissemination ofinformation advertising the school to limit thediversity of students who register to enroll. Inat least one case, the selective advertising andlocation of the proposed school away fromwhere the needs are the highest backfired, sincean insufficient number of students expressedinterest. This resulted in the EMO notbuilding/opening the already approved school.

F There is a loss of community among studentsfrom the same neighborhood, since they mayattend different schools with different schedulesand may transfer between schools during theschool year. Social as well as recreationalactivities are often arranged aroundneighborhood schools; therefore, students maynot be notified of opportunities or simplycannot participate with neighborhood childrenbecause of different school schedules, locations,and/or peer pressure.

From the findings in the case studies, it appears thatprivate schools are viewed by traditional publicschools as less competitive, while many charterschools are perceived as aggressive in studentrecruitment practices. These conditions haveresulted in an atmosphere of competition,negativism, and animosity between the traditionalpublic schools and charter schools. As one localschool administrator indicated, “The charter schoolsare critical of public schools, which instills a spiritof competition and alienation rather thancooperation and collaboration.” In some cases, wehave seen that the relationship between traditionalpublic schools and charter schools normalized overtime. Part of the fear on the part of the traditionalpublic schools is likely to be due to the fact that thecharter schools are new and no one really knowshow they will impact the traditional public schools.After a few years, the enrollment patterns at thecharter school stabilize, and the traditional public

schools have a sense about the impact they willhave. In a few cases, charter schools have extendedoffers to the local school district to cooperate inprogramming on an annual basis. After three orfour years, we have seen a few cases of cooperationin terms of opening arts and athletic activities foreach others’ students.

2.2 Impact of Charter Schools onPrivate/Parochial Schools

While this study was not specifically designed toinvestigate the impact of charter schools on privateor parochial education, these schools are animportant component of several communities, so wedecided to talk with representatives of these schoolsin order to determine how private schools areimpacted and to determine if the presence of charterschools affects the existing relationships amongpublic and private schools.

Interviews with private school and traditionalpublic school officials indicated that theymaintained ongoing and generally positiverelationships with one another but had very limitedcontact with the charter schools except for requiredcommunications with regard to student transfers.Since charter schools are a new form of publicschool, one might imagine that relations betweentraditional public schools and charter schools wouldbe better than between traditional public schoolsand private/parochial schools. This is not the case,however. Some reasons to explain this include thefollowing:

F A number of traditional public school districtsprovide transportation and selected services forstudents attending private/parochial schools, butdo not provide these services for charter schoolssince the charter schools receive funding forthese services and districts say the charterschools should therefore pay for them.

F Private schools have been in existence longerthan charter schools, and there is a tendency tofear new things that may threaten resources forpublic schools.


F Private school environments are rather stable,and the quality of the private schools is moreconsistent. Thus, fewer families move back andforth between private and traditional publicschools. This has not been the case with charterschools.

F Charter schools and traditional public schoolscompete for the same funding

Interviews with representatives of Christian schoolsproduced some interesting findings in regard to theirattitudes toward charter schools. First, they seem tohave a limited but somewhat mixed relationshipwith the charter schools in their area.

One Christian school administrator suggests thatcharter schools be defined as a “public school withpublic funding” or a “private school with publicfunding” and that the appropriate accountability andreporting procedures should then be applied. Atpresent, this person thinks there is “noaccountability for charter schools” and that they“seem to be doing what they think is best accordingto their own ideas, which is unfair to the traditionalpublic schools.” Overall, the impact that charterschools were having on this particular privateschool has been quite small, since it largelyattracted students who were homeschooled.According to another Christian schoolrepresentative, National Heritage Academies(NHA), which is one of the largest EMOs startingand operating charter schools in the state, wouldlike to “see their schools as quasi-Christian, whichis illegal. If public money is used, it should be usedin the same way by all schools.”

In some communities, it has been reported that thecharter schools are attracting a large number ofstudents from private Christian schools, which hasnegatively affected them. From a Wall StreetJournal article on 9-15-99, it was reported that

About one-tenth of the nation’s 4,000,000plus charter-school students come fromprivate schools. But at National Heritage,19.7% are private-school transfers. Andthat doesn’t count any of the 17% or so of

the student body who started at NationalHeritage in kindergarten, and mightotherwise have opted for private school.

In our interviews with representatives fromChristian school associations and Christian schools,this was confirmed. In the case of the Grand RapidsChristian Schools, it seems that NHA is now upfront with them about future development plans fornew schools and targeted neighborhoods. Also, itwas reported that National Heritage Academies hasnow gone out of its way to purge Christian schoolstudents from its mailing list when it does directmailings in Grand Rapids. This was not always thecase, however. Some Christian schoolrepresentatives were apprehensive when talkingabout National Heritage Academies; and whilethings seems to be better since The Wall StreetJournal article highlighted problem areas, there arestill areas of contention between National HeritageAcademies and Christian schools in Grand Rapidsand Holland.

Since the charter schools began operating in 1995,there has been a “small siphoning of students,” butno major reduction in enrollment. Grand RapidsChristian Schools have lost around 100 studentssince 1995. Since tuition to their schools isapproximately $4,000, this represents a loss of$400,000. This loss of students is also reflected instaff reductions in the past five years. However, theschool-age population in Grand Rapids appears tobe declining, so the reduction in numbers may notbe completely attributable to the impact of charterschools.

In Holland, close to 20 students from Christianschools (grades 1-8) have left for charter schoolsover the past 4 years. The number of studentsreturning to the Holland Christian Schools hasexceeded the number leaving for charter schools inthe 1999-2000 school year. This was largely due tostudents enrolling in the Christian high school sincethe charter schools in this city do not have highschool instruction.

The largest number of students entering the charterschools enter at the kindergarten level, before they


are actually enrolled in a Christian school. This isbecause charter schools have the most openings atthe kindergarten level, and because families aremore likely to make a choice for a student enteringkindergarten than for a child already enrolled in aschool. The Christian schools in both Grand Rapidsand Holland have seen a reduced number ofincoming kindergarten students since 1995-96 whenthe charter schools began operating in theircommunities. This has caused smaller than averageelementary school classes during the past four years. Both the Grand Rapids Christian Schools (GRCS)and the Holland Public Schools conduct interviewswith parents leaving their schools for charterschools as well as those parents returning fromcharter schools. Currently, more students betweenGrades 1 and 12 are returning to the Christianschools than are leaving (this does not includekindergarten students just entering the charterschools).

There are a number of likely reasons for students tobe returning to the Christian schools from charterschools, some of which are highlighted below:

F The two most common reasons cited by parentsreturning to Christian schools in Grand Rapidswere that the charter school was “not what wethought it was going to be” and “the programdescribed to us by the charter school is not whatwe got.”

F According to representatives of the HollandChristian Schools (HCS), 99 percent of studentsleaving HCS for a charter school left due tocost. Those returning from the charter schoolscite three main reasons. First, they said thecharter schools did not offer enough programs,and they were discouraged that there wasn’tmore assistance in such areas as specialeducation. The second reason given is a desirefor more academic rigor in the curriculum. Thethird reason is that they want the Christian pointof view taught and agree with the mission of theChristian schools.

F The Christian schools offer high schoolinstruction, and few charter schools offerinstruction at the high school level.

In terms of impact, the charter schools havepressured GRCS to have a much sharper focus.GRCS representatives stated that they now have aclearer understanding of their mission. Thissharpened focus, the Christian schools believe, willresult in a stronger institution. GRCS has engagedin more advertising and now uses a much morestrategic sales technique, something that wasunnecessary before the advent of charter schools. Inthe classroom, teachers make sure the studentsunderstand the connection between faith andlearning and the purpose of GRCS. Reportedly,Holland Christian Schools also has become moreconscious of marketing since the charter schoolsbegan. “Charter schools have made education amore competitive arena.”

2.3 Impact of Charter Schools onSurrounding Communities

Other information related to the impact on the largercommunity was gathered through interviews with avariety of persons in the neighborhoods of thecharter schools in Grand Rapids, Holland,Kalamazoo-Portage, and Muskegon. Among thosetargeted for interviews were representatives andemployees of real estate companies; churches orother religious groups; family, youth, or otherfamily/social service organizations; restaurants andnearby food centers frequented by students;police/firefighters; local businesses; homebuildersor developers; and immediate neighbors to thecharter schools.

While one might expect that a charter school wouldincrease the value of homes in a neighborhood, wefound no evidence to support this idea. However,this situation may change over the years, as theschools become better known and established.Some charter schools are located in urban, built-upareas, and there is little chance for much change inthe housing pattern. However, some charter schools


Table 2:1 Movement of Students (Grades 1-12) To and From Grand Rapids Public Schools

Number of students

Students leaving GRPS for a charter school 1998/1999 420

Students leaving GRPS for a charter school 1999/2000 282

Students returning/reentering GRPS from charters between 8/24/99- 10/11/99 94

Students returning/reentering GRPS from charter schools after thecount day for 1999/2000 24

Total returning students for 1999/2000 118

Note: The figures do not include kindergarten students whose families are most likely to choose a charter school.

are located in suburban or undeveloped areas, andthe potential for housing development is quite large.

Most businesses located near charter schools reportlittle impact or involvement with the school,employees, or the students. The most prevalentcriticism relates to increased traffic–particularlyaround NHA schools–and unsupervised students offthe school grounds. A few convenience stores,dairy bars, or other businesses that sell food reportsome sales to students.

As is true in most situations, each charter schooland its neighborhood must be considered on a case-by-case basis. Some neighbors are critical of theincreased activity in their area, while others seempleased about having a school so close at hand.While there are no general complaints aboutstudents, some persons cited instances of unruly orotherwise disruptive students. In regard to someschools, community representatives and neighborswere dissatisfied with unsightly and poorlymaintained school facilities and school grounds.

Overall, the impact of the charter schools on thelarger community at this time in their evolution isslight. The most prevalent negative impact relatesto increased traffic and parking problems, whichshould be an important consideration whenlocations for charter schools are being considered.

2.4 Student Mobility To and FromCharter Schools

Student mobility has been a significant factorimpacting traditional public schools. Overall,mobility in some areas is high and in other areasthere is little or no movement of students betweenschools. Based on our case studies of schooldistricts, we found that there are a few main reasonswhy students are leaving and returning to thetraditional public schools, some of which have beensummarized in the previous section. In theparagraphs that follow, we will provide a morespecific analysis of the movement of students to andfrom charter schools. Where data and results areavailable, we will provide some more detailedexplanations for the mobility. While there are manysimilarities and reasons for mobility across thedistricts, it is important and necessary to treat eachcase individually.

Grand Rapids Public Schools

The Grand Rapids Public Schools district (GRPS)loses 1 percent of its students each year to charterschools. In the fall of 1997, 161 students left GRPSto attend charter schools. In the fall of 1998, 141students left GRPS for the charter schools. Morestudents left during the year as the total numbers inFigure 2:1 indicate.


Table 2:2 Movement of Students (Grades 1-12) To and From Holland Public Schools

School Year Number of Students Returnedfrom Charter Schools

Number of StudentsTransferred to Charter Schools

Net Gain or Loss byLocal School District

1996-97 31 229 -198

1997-98 23 69 -46

1998-99 32 58 -26

1999-00 (1st Sem.) 57 61 -4

1999-00 (2nd Sem.) 66 59 +7

Total 209 476 -266Note: The figures do not include kindergarten students whose families are most likely to choose a charter school.

There were four major reasons why families leftGRPS for charter schools: the quality of theacademic program and curriculum at charter schoolsis better than at GRPS; safety issues and the desirefor a more structured and disciplined environment;smaller schools and smaller class sizes; and staff-related issues influenced their decision to leave.

Other reasons parents give for leaving GRPS for acharter school include the location or neighborhoodof the charter school; emphasis on moral focus atcharter schools; busing issues; negative feelingstoward split classes; and acting on recommendationof parents already at the charter schools.There werefour main reasons that parents/students returned toGRPS: charters did not meet parents’ expectations;charters did not provide services for students withspecial needs; charter did not providetransportation; and charter did not offer high schoolprograms (GRPS, 1999).

Holland Public Schools

Holland Public Schools (HPS) conducts interviewswith returning parents who have left the charterschools. Reasons parents cite for returning theirchild(ren) to the public schools include a broaderrange of programming at the secondary level: morestructure, higher expectations, and desire fordiversity in teaching techniques. Of the 66 studentswho returned to HPS from the charter schools thisyear, 48 percent were minorities and 52 percentwere white, 39 percent were males and 61 percent

were females. Initially, charter schools had anegative impact on Holland Public Schools (HPS).Since 1996, HPS has had 476 students transfer tothe 3 local charter schools, and 209 students havereturned.. The total number of students in these 3charter schools is around 1,000; so nearly one-thirdof their students have switched from HPS and notreturned. Most of the others entered directly intothe charter schools at the kindergarten level. Theloss in funds to HPS is reported to be about $2million a year. The district has had to makesubstantial cuts in its programs and staff.Representatives of the district indicated that theythinks HPS can adjust and maintain a high qualityof education despite systemwide budget cuts.

The district superintendent shared her concernsabout the negative impact the charter schools werehaving on her school district in a 1999 letter to thePresident of Grand Valley State University. Thisuniversity has authorized most of the charterschools in western Michigan, and 2 of the 3 charterschools in Holland. As a result of this letter, GrandValley State University decided that it would notcharter any more schools in the Holland schooldistrict.

According to the district’s superintendent, thecharter schools recruit assiduously before the fourthFriday count, then begin recommending otheroptions to parents whose children are poor studentsor special needs students after the count. Thesuperintendent said that charter schools are “side-


Table 2:3 Movement of Students To and From Kalamazoo Public Schools (August 1999-January 2000)

Months Entering KPS Leaving KPS

From Advantage Academy

From OtherCharter Schools

Total To AdvantageAcademy

To OtherCharter Schools

Total

August 73 25 98 96 34 130

September 17 3 20 18 12 30

October 13 5 18 0 4 4

November 11 7 18 8 0 8

December 7 4 11 1 4 5

January 16 5 21 7 3 10

Total 197 49 186 130 57 187Note: The figures do not include kindergarten students whose families are most likely to choose a charter school.

stepping their responsibilities to special educationstudents” (Letter to Representative Damain, Sept.1997). District officials are concerned that the localcharter schools are being selective in the studentsthey enroll and that misleading information is beingcirculated about charter schools and the servicesstudents will receive.

Kalamazoo Public Schools

According to representatives of the KalamazooPublic School (KPS) district, charter schools haveheld students until the official Friday count day andthen sent them back to the district without funds.This phenomenon has been particularly evident withspecial needs students. From October 1999 toFebruary 2000, 48 students with special needsreturned to KPS without funding. Since studentswith learning disabilities and emotionalimpairments tend to have greater behaviorproblems, KPS says the charter schools are notknowledgeable enough about the needs of thestudents with disabilities and are not fulfilling theplans outlined in their individual education plans(IEPs). IEPs are provided to students with specialneeds by the schools. Each plan is different and canfacilitate each student’s learning according tohis/her needs. It appears that some of the charterschools do not have adequate staff who can handlethese students or the disruptions. Table 2:3 includesfigures on student mobility to and from charter

schools during fall semester 1999. The largest student population transferred to Kalamazoo’sAdvantage Academy.

Note that most movement occurred to and from theAdvantage Academy. This school is run by the for-profit EMO, Advantage Schools Inc., based inBoston. During the autumn more students returnedto KPS than left for Advantage, and over the courseof the next 6 months, more students returned toKPS.

KPS officials reported that a number of parentschoose charter schools because of the disciplineproblems that may be occurring at their child’scurrent school. “Frequently, it is the parents ofstudents who are contacted by the school forbehavior and/or discipline problems who choosecharter schools with the notion that charter schoolswill take care of the problems the child may beexperiencing.”

Although KPS does not currently survey studentswho leave or come back to the charter schools, thestudents who do return have done so, according tothe district, because of lack of programs (specialeducation, speech pathology) and somebehavior/discipline problems. The students mayhave been “counseled out” because of a lack ofspecial education services.


Lansing School District

Since the advent of charter schools in the last fiveyears, LSD has lost 3,000 students, from 20,337 in1995 to an estimated 17,288 in 2000/2001.Approximately 1,500-2,000 students have gone tocharter schools, while approximately 25 percentmoved to suburban areas. A 25 percent decline inbirth rate has also impacted LSD.

Behavior and discipline problems are the mainreasons that students are leaving LSD for charterschools. Students who have a hard time withdiscipline are those most often going to charterschools, perhaps as an attempt to not have to dealwith these behavior/discipline issues.

There are two main reasons why students return toLansing Public Schools from charter schools:behavior/discipline problems and lack of specialeducation accommodations. Lansing has begun tosurvey students returning to the district so as toadjust for and listen to the needs of students andparents. However, it is obvious that some studentsare in fact “counseled out” by suggesting that thestudents and the charter schools are not a “goodmatch.” The Lansing School District reported casesof charter schools suspending students so often,they are nearly forced to return to the traditionalpublic school out of frustration. And there are thosestudents who are not getting the extra services thatthe charter schools said they would provide.Students have also been expelled from the charterschools and told to return to the district, withoutinforming the district that the students had beenexpelled. Once the Lansing School District learnedthat this was happening, it stopped accepting thestudents back into their schools until the charterschool held the proper hearing for the students andprovided them with alternative schooling during thetime they were suspended. Students under 16 arerequired to go to school, and if expelled, they are tobe provided with an alternative form of schooling.

The information in the previous sections traces themovement of students to and from charter schoolsand sums up and describes some of the impacts thatcharter schools are having on traditional public

schools as well as private/parochial schools. In aseparate report entitled The Impact of CharterSchools on Public and Parochial Schools: CaseStudies of School Districts in Western and CentralMichigan (Evaluation Center, 2000), we included amuch richer and more in-depth description of theimpact charter schools are having on other schoolsand their communities.

2.5 Patterns and Impacts of CharterSchool Revenues & Expenditures

Methodology

We used the data from the Michigan Department ofEducation Bulletin 1014 to obtain per pupil costs byexpenditure category. The data are compiled by theDepartment of Education from the B Reportssubmitted by each local school district, intermediateschool district, and charter school. The schools usethe year-end financial data to complete thesereports. All of the data we used are available fromthe Department of Education web site.

When comparing the charter schools to the hostdistricts (the district in which the charter school isestablished), it was deemed appropriate to list eachhost district only one time. If more than one charterschool was located within a school district the hostdata were listed only once. If a charter school wasnot yet in operation, no host district data wereincluded. Host data are included only when there isa charter school in operation.

Key Findings

Consistent with the Prince report (1999), thereappears to be a significant difference in spendingpatterns between the charter schools and the localpublic schools. Local public schools spend 60 to 65percent of their current operating expenditures(COE) in the instructional category, with chartersspending 50 to 55 percent on COE.

Part of this may be due to low teacher wages.Average teacher salaries in charter schools arelower than in the public schools. This may be


because teachers are inexperienced or less qualifiedor due to a high turnover of staff in the charterschools. In addition to low wages, the charterschools may not be providing benefits at the samelevel as the public schools, which participate with astatewide mandatory retirement system. This couldlead to continued turnover of staff as they search forthe best employment package possible. Suchturnover could negatively impact the consistencyand continuity of education for charter schoolstudents.

Charter schools often need to rent facilities (asupport cost), while public school facilities are builtwith bonded debt money. No information regardingthe debt millage for the host districts was availablein the Bulletin information.

A closer study of the fees that charter schools arepaying to the chartering agencies, managementcompanies, and for rental of facilities should help usunderstand the labeling and categorization of costsand expenditures. If these are beyond market costsfor facilities and market costs for schooladministrator salaries, it is possible that fundsintended to be used to educate the students ofMichigan may be funneled into private businessesinstead.

Charter schools continue to show smallexpenditures for added needs services. If charterschools have a population that is similar to the hostdistrict's, it is reasonable to expect charter schoolsto have a similar population of special educationand other high needs students. Charter schoolsshow few special education students and, in somecases, few free or reduced lunch students.

Further study and accounting for differences in thestudent populations (special education andfree/reduced lunch populations) will likely explaina number of questions left unanswered. It ispossible that the charter schools are not reportingthe populations correctly or that they have apopulation that is not representative of the generalpopulation.

As the data in Chapter 3 highlights, charter schoolsare catering to a much lower proportion of students

with special educational needs than the traditionalpublic schools. Also the nature of the disabilities ofthose special education students enrolled in charterschools is more likely to be mild in nature ratherthan moderate or severe.

If there are special education students in the charterschools who are not receiving special educationservices from those schools, this is of graveconcern. Such services are an obligation of theeducating school, and students’ legal rights could beviolated.

Of even more concern is that special needs studentsmay be in the charter schools for the fourth Fridaycount, which determines where the state funding isto be sent, but may be encouraged to leave thecharter school and return to the public school afterthat date. The funding would stay in the charterschool and the public school would be obligated toprovide the special education services without anyfunding. The special education student count isbased upon the portion of time the student isreceiving special education services in the fall.

Other aspects of finance that suggest or couldexplain how these schools can operate with lessCOE than traditional public schools include thefollowing:

F Few charter schools offer transportationservices to their students. This would lead oneto expect a lower proportion of support servicescompared with the public schools.

F The charter schools primarily cater to lowerelementary grades. Cost of instruction at thislevel is considerably lower than at thesecondary level. This is due to a number offactors, most noteworthy of which are thefollowing: (i) high schools are required to havemany single subject teachers, while it ispossible to have elementary teachers coverseveral subject areas; (ii) no laboratories orvocational education facilities are required forelementary schools; (iii) elementary schoolsoffer limited extracurricular activities; and (iv)teachers’ salaries are typically lower at theelementary level.


Appendix D contains two tables that show financialcomparisons. The first table compares theexpenditures and revenues of charter schools versustheir host districts. Data also examine changes overtime. The second table compares the costs andrevenues for the state’s two largest EMOs: TheLeona Group and National Heritage Academies.

2.6 The Presence and Diffusion ofCharter School Innovations

Among the foreseen objectives of charter schoolswas the development of innovations in the charterschools and the diffusion or sharing of newinnovations with traditional public schools.5 Thethinking behind this was that by freeing up charterschools and providing greater autonomy and self-governance, these new schools could develop or testnew and potentially more effective curricularmodels or materials and instructional methods.Likewise, the charter schools could develop newand more efficient models of operation andgovernance. In our initial evaluation of Michigancharter schools (Horn & Miron, 1999) we visited 51charter schools and asked them about innovation attheir schools. Our assessment of the self-reportedinnovations found much of what was suggested tobe already common in many traditional publicschools. Among the most common self-reportedinnovations were the following:

" Specific focus/theme" Community activity experiences with mentors" Dual enrollment at community colleges" Multiage grouping" Montessori methods" Before and after school programs" Individual Educational Plans for all students

(individualization)" Involvement of parents

Other innovations were reported by the schools:

" Team teaching" Direct instruction

" Cooperative learning" Modular/block scheduling" Uniforms (also found in some cases in

traditional public schools)

We also found that after a year or so many charterschools ended up reverting to “canned” curricularapproaches or models that did not even adhere tothe school’s original mission or vision, even thoughthey had intended to develop new curricularmaterials or instructional approaches.

Considering the original intent of the charter schoollegislation, to create greater diversity in publicschool programs and provide meaningful parentalchoice, we have broadened our interpretation ofinnovations to include both new and uniquecurricular approaches/materials, instructionalpractices, and operational- or governance-relatedpractices or model. Even though some charterschools may not be innovative in the sense ofdeveloping something new, we anticipate that somehave at least developed schools that differ fromsurrounding traditional public schools and offerparents choice in how their children will beeducated.

Methodology

Starting in January 2000, we asked all Michigancharter schools to provide copies of existingmaterials such as annual reports, schoolimprovement reports, parent or student handbooks,etc. In addition, we asked the schools to provide uswith information about innovative or unique aspectsof their schools not covered in existingdocumentation. Specifically, we requestedinformation regarding innovative or unique aspectsof their schools in terms of curriculum, instruction,and operation/governance. Approximately 75percent of the charter schools provided some sort ofdocumentation. Research assistants at TheEvaluation Center perused the provideddocumentation and prepared summaries of theschools. An analysis of these summaries was thenconducted by Kim Reynolds and an in-depth report

6 Reynolds, K. (2000). Innovations in Charter Schools: A Summary of Innovative or Unique Aspects ofMichigan Charter Schools. This report can be downloaded from The Evaluation Center’s web site:<www.wmich.edu/evalctr/>.


prepared.6 This section will summarize the findingsin that report.

Three key areas of innovation were examined:curriculum, instructional practices/methods, andorganization/governance, as reported by [andidentified from information sent by] Michigancharter schools. Below, we include a summary ofinnovative or unique features reported by the charterschools.

Curricular Innovations

Curricular innovations focused primarily ondevelopment of character, citizenship, respect forself, and promotion of a positive school climate.Academic areas primarily focused on a mastery ofbasics through the use of a core knowledgecurriculum where basic factual information ispresented before any abstract concepts.

Specialization is also an integral element of theinnovations in many of the charter school curriculawith focus placed on particular fields includingbusiness/vocational, fine arts, computerizedtechnology, and agricultural or environmental areas.

In addition to particular focus areas, programs thatare commonly used and considered innovations orunique aspects of schools include reading and mathprograms, hands-on science courses that incorporatetechnology, multicultural approach to social studies,foreign language, fine arts integration withacademics, and character development programs.

Many charter schools also chose to followMichigan’s recommended framework, incorporatingthe Michigan Core Curriculum or MichiganStandards and Benchmarks, in addition tospecialized curriculum and focus. Educationalmanagement organizations (EMOs) tend to adoptone specific focus and duplicate the curriculum forall of their schools.

A large number of charter schools focus on creatinga positive child-centered environment by

incorporating the philosophies of outside academicauthorities such as Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence.Citizenship and moral value teachings, considereddistinctive or innovative by charter schools, aremore unique than innovative.

Instructional Practices

Charter schools’ instructional models primarily fallinto two categories: direct instruction practices orteacher-centered approaches, or constructivist orstudent-centered approaches.

A number of EMOs have chosen direct instructionas their main methodology with other constructivisttype approaches supplementing instruction. Directinstruction is considered a more teacher-centeredapproach with students expected to listen andrespond. Advantage Schools Inc. focuses heavilyon direct instruction, and has pushed for thedevelopment of new curricular materials thatsupport this pedagogical approach. Constructivistmodels are student-centered with students taking alarger and more active role in their own learning.The roles of students’ roles differ in various schoolsdepending on the type of instruction. Finally, itshould be pointed out that many of the charterschools have more flexible classrooms andinstructional models that include field trips,community experiences, or utilizing the schools’land for environmental studies.

Academic and instructional accommodations madefor students with special needs include adaptingcourse material, remedial instruction, specialeducation inclusion model, and tutoring. Specialeducation staff is limited or nonexistent in manycharter schools, requiring those services to beobtained from the Intermediate School District orother sources. This outsourcing of special educationservices may result in poor congruence between theinstructional model of the charter school and theinstruction used with students with individualeducation plans (IEPs).


Operation and Governance

Innovations in operating and governing schools areimportant components of the charter schoolinitiative. Charter schools report that financial andmanagement decisions are made on-site or by amanagement company. In the larger schools, or inthe schools operated by the full-service EMOs, theprincipals focus on academic issues, and businessmanagers focus on administrative aspects. Parentsand teachers have input in all major decisionsregarding both the budget and curriculum, andefforts are made to include students in much of thedecision making.

Few traditional public schools contract out servicesbeyond food services, cleaning, maintenance, ortransportation. Many charter schools, however, areoperated by EMOs, which provide oversight in mostareas of school operation from facilities toinstruction and personnel. Charter schools andEMOs have also provided innovations in the area ofmarketing techniques. Contracts to operateindividual schools between Edison Schools Inc. (anEMO) and local school districts in Mt. Clemens,Battle Creek and, more recently, to operate thewhole Inkster Public School District indicate thatcontracting for school operation and administrationis now also occurring within the traditional publicschool sphere.

An topic related to governance and operation that isdeserves attention is parental involvement. Charterschools typically report a higher level of parentalinvolvement than do traditional schools, perhaps aresult of parents making that initial decision to sendtheir children to a charter school. Many charterschools allow parents to visit the school at any timeduring the day and encourage volunteering, oftenasking parents to sign a contract for involvement In some cases teachers are not only required to holdparent teacher conferences, but also to make homevisits throughout the year. Not only are parentsincluded in these meetings, but students are oftenincluded or lead the conference. A parent room isalso found in some charter schools, particularly withthe National Heritage Academies.

Comments/Discussion

We began our study of charter school initiativeswith certain expectations and assumptions thatinnovations would occur in charter schools, thattheir sheer development would be cause forinnovation. Unfortunately, overall innovations arenot occurring in Michigan charter schools. Asidefrom these few examples of innovation, manycharter schools have not taken full advantage of theopportunities that surround them. Innovation is arisk, not only because schools must please theirclientele, but also because the success of innovativepractices may not be readily seen throughaccountability measures such as the MEAP. Ratherthan adopting innovative approaches, many charterschools are using some of the same practices foundin traditional public schools, and some are evenattempting to reach back to the roots of traditionaleducation.

Charter schools represent a broad range of practicefrom alternative, progressive educational designs tomore traditional structures. Schools focusing on areturn to a more traditional approach may beunique, but not innovative. While the charterschools as a whole cannot be perceived asinnovative it is important to point out that a numberof charter schools have been able to packagetogether a number of important aspects of theirschool into a model that is clearly unique fromsurrounding public schools. A number of schoolsstill have an innovative plans and visions, but wewill need to wait a few years to see if these planscan be fulfilled or whether they revert to moretraditional models.

It can be argued that what has happened withcharter schools is exactly what should havehappened: the creation of diverse schools providingparents and students with options from which tochoose. This allows parents and students to find alearning environment that match their interests, ortheir values. Regrettably, one consequence of theheavy involvement of EMOs and the selectiveprofiles of some schools which are based uponcultural or ethnic profiles is less diversity withinschools but greater diversity between schools.


Chapter ThreeSpecial Education and Michigan’s Charter Schools

Special education is one of the most complicatedand troublesome areas for charter schools toaddress. It is also becoming one of the mostcontroversial issues facing charter schools. In ourcase studies of school districts, we found that one ofthe main reasons parents withdraw their child(ren)from charter schools is that the special needs of thechild are not being addressed. Because of the extracosts related to special education, it appears that thisis one area where the charter schools are negativelyimpacting the traditional public schools in thedistricts in which they reside. For these reasons, wedecided to examine the issue of special educationmore closely.

The topic of special education was not directlyincluded in the evaluation questions that we wereasked to address. After conducting some of thefield research, however, we found that specialeducation related to two of our evalution questions:(i) the extent and reasons for mobility of students toand from charter schools and (ii) the role and impactof educational management companies. In regardto the first question, we were finding that a mainreason for students to return to traditional publicschools was due to the lack of special educationalservices at the charter schools. Incidentally, a largegroup of families choose charter schools becausethey are not happy with the special educationalservices in the traditional public school. In regardto the second question, we found that a number oflegal suits were being filed by parents of studentswith special needs and by special education teachersagainst charter schools operated by managementcompanies. For these reasons, we decided toexamine more closely and in greater detail the issueof special education in Michigan charter schools.

In this section, we first provide an overview ofrelative federal and state laws and regulationsregarding the provision of special education inpublic schools. We also include a section on theorganization, funding, and monitoring of special

education in Michigan. In Section 3.3 we providedata on the number and percentage of students withvarious disabling conditions in Michigan’s charterschools in comparison with state and federal means.Attention is also given to the distribution of studentswith various disabling conditions. Finally, ananalysis of the numbers and breakdown of studentswith various disabilities is provided for thosecharter schools that are operated by EMOs. Section3.4 contains a description of special educationservice delivery in charter schools and a discussionof these services from the vantage point of a numberof the stakeholder groups.

3.1 Federal and State LegislativeRequirements

Although charter schools have evolved out oflegislation passed in individual states, certainfederal rules and regulations are inherent in thoselaws. Primary to these are rules governing civilrights. It is important to remember that the UnitedStates Constitution does not guarantee the right to apublic education. The decision to provide publiceducation is left to each individual state. What theconstitution does guarantee, in the FourteenthAmendment, is equal protection to all citizens.Therefore, if a state’s constitution guarantees theright to a free public education, that guarantee mustbe extended to all of the children who choose toattend publicly funded schools. If a state allows apublicly funded school to exclude some students,that state is in violation of the federal constitution(Turnbull & Turnbull, 1998).

Specific federal legislation establishing theeducational rights of students with disabilities andfederal funding for special education programsoriginated with P.L. 94-142, the Education of AllHandicapped Children Act (1975). The 1997amendments and reauthorization of that act, theIndividuals with Disabilities Education Act


Amendments (IDEA, P.L. 105-17), continue toprovide states with guidelines and financialmotivation for providing appropriate educationalservices to students in publicly funded schools.Specific provisions included in IDEA require statesto assure that charter schools provide the same levelof services and education to students withdisabilities as those students would receive in anyother public school. In addition, civil rightslegislation, such as Section 504 of theRehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of theAmericans with Disabilities Act of 1990, providesspecific penalties for not providing appropriateservices for students identified as having adisability. No exemption from either federal specialeducation or civil rights legislation or regulationscan be granted (Lange, 1997).

The first charter school legislation was passed in1991 by the Minnesota legislature. Since then, 36states and the District of Columbia have enactedlegislation providing for the creation and regulationof public charter schools. Charter school legislationvaries from state to state; however, four primarycomponents are present in most laws: (1)identification of agencies allowed to grant charters;(2) identification of allowable preexisting status ofcharter schools; (3) specification of how manycharters may be granted, either per year or in total;and (4) duration of charter contracts. In addition, allstate charter school legislation stipulates that charterschools must comply with federal and state specialeducation rules and regulations. In most cases,however, state special education regulations havenot been amended to include charter schools.

3.2 Michigan Charter SchoolLegislation and Organization

The original Michigan charter school legislationwas enacted in 1993. Michigan charter schools arechartered under contracts of up to 10 years by localschool boards, intermediate school district boards,community college boards, and state publicuniversity boards. Michigan’s charter schools areindependent school districts and are consideredlocal education agencies (LEAs). Funding forcharter schools is capped at the statewide average,

but the state does offer assistance with start-up coststhrough loans available from the MichiganMunicipal Bond Authority at task-exempt rates(http://www.uscharterschools.org). Michigancurrently has approximately 171 charter schools inoperation.

As states across the country have enacted charterschool legislation, little has been included in theregulations to provide clear guidelines for charterschool compliance with special education and otherfederal disability rights requirements. “In their rushto increase choice within the public educationsystem and free schools from any outsideregulation, state lawmakers appear to haveneglected to address the impact of unavoidablelimitations to their freedom to grant waivers fromfederal laws and regulations to charter schools”(Ahearn, 1999, p. 9). Although Michigan charterschool law does not exclude the charter schoolsfrom responsibility for providing special educationservices, uncertainty exists in the application ofspecial education funding, admission policies, andcompliance monitoring.

Funding. All local education agencies (LEAs)in Michigan receive per pupil funding from the stateof Michigan. Per pupil special education funding isdetermined using a formula that includes thenumber of hours per day (full-time equivalents -FTEs) that a student receives services and thecategory of the identified disability and/or the typeof program providing services. “The cost of specialeducation varies depending on the amount of timeeach pupil spends in a special education classroom,if any, and the pupil’s need for service” (MichiganDepartment of Education, 1999). In addition to theper pupil foundation grant, districts complete a finalcost report at the end of the school year for paymentof unreimbursed costs for special education servicesprovided. Michigan uses a “percentagereimbursement” system that allows for payment ofup to 20 percent of allowable expendituresexceeding the original foundation grant. Indirectcosts of special education, including operation andmaintenance of facilities, are reimbursed at up to 15percent of direct costs and are included in thepercentage reimbursement formula. LEAs also


receive special education assistance from the 57Michigan ISDs that provide direct instructional andrelated services support to the LEAs and programmoney from special education millages that average2.4 mills per ISD.

Admission policies. State regulations regardingadmission and inclusion of students with disabilitiesare based on federal regulations outlined in IDEA.Since charter schools are considered LEAs, theymust provide the same safeguards to assure thatstudents are not discriminated against or deniedadmission based on disability as any other publicschool. Even though charter schools are oftenestablished to provide specific types of curriculaand/or instructional pedagogy, students withdisabilities must be provided with the same accessto the charter schools as students withoutdisabilities, and necessary accommodations must beprovided as specified in state and federal disabilityrules.

Compliance monitoring. IDEA requires thatstates provide specific plans for monitoring thecompliance with rules and regulations pertaining toprograms for students with disabilities. TheMichigan Department of Education Office ofSpecial Education has been working on revisions tothe state monitoring procedures and schedules.These revisions are being developed to comply withthe requirements included in the reauthorization ofIDEA and include charter schools in all aspects ofcompliance monitoring. However, it is not knownto what extent monitoring has been carried out incharter schools and what findings have resulted.

3.3 Numbers of Students ReceivingSpecial Educational Services and theNature of Their DisabilitiesMichigan provides special education services to anychild with a qualifying disability from birth to age26. Children with disabilities qualify for servicesbased on a primary impairment (although secondaryimpairments may also be identified). Children whoare identified as having significant developmentaldelays between birth and age 5 are classified aspreprimary impaired. Although all districts are

responsible for assuring that these children beidentified and receive services, the intermediatedistricts usually take on primary responsibility inthis area. For this reason, when we makecomparisons between the traditional public schoolsand the charter schools we will not include thefigures for preprimary services.

When children enter the K-12 school system,various intellectual and sensory/motor assessmentsare usually completed in order to screen for possibledisabilities that could effect educational outcomes.Children with mental impairments, particularly inthe trainable (TMI) and severely (SMI) mentallyimpaired and autistic impairments (AI) categoriesare normally identified by the time they enterkindergarten. Likewise, students with sensorydisabilities such as hearing (HI) and visual (VI)impairments and those with chronic health ororthopedic disabilities (POHI) usually enter the K-12 system with a specific special educationidentification and program. However, thesedisabilities can occur at later ages as well. Initialkindergarten screening is most likely to identifythose students who qualify for speech and languageimpairments (SLI) due to delays in aural/oralcommunication, which may affect ability to developthe necessary listening and reading skills. Due tothe criteria necessary to determine eligibility forlearning disabilities (LD), students are usually notidentified in this area until 2 or 3 years afterentering the K-12 system. Manifestation ofcharacteristics associated with emotionalimpairments (EI) necessary for determiningeligibility for services are also often difficult toidentify until the student has been in the K-12system for several years. The Individuals withDisabilities Education Act (IDEA) designatesspecific disabilities that are eligible for specialeducation services. The categorical names of thesedisabilities vary somewhat from state to state. Abrief description of the disabilities categories andthe identifying labels used in Michigan are providedin Table 3:1. Also provided are actual numbers ofstudents served under each category and thepercentage of the total special education populationthose numbers represented for the 1998-99 schoolyear.


Table 3:1 Disability Category Definitions and Michigan 1998 Enrollment

CategoryMichigan 1998UnduplicatedChild Count

Michigan1998% of Total Spec.Ed. Enrollment

LearningDisabled(LD)

Refers to a disorder in 1 or more of the basic psychologicalprocesses involved in understanding or in using language,spoken or written, which may manifest itself in an imperfectability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to domathematical calculations.

90,024 42.0%

Speech & LanguageImpaired (SLI)

Based on the manifestation of 1 or more communicationimpairments that adversely affect educational performance

51,264 23.9%

Educable MentallyImpaired (EMI)

Development at a rate approximately 2 to 3 STD below themean. Scores approximately within the lowest 6 percentiles on astandardized test in reading and arithmetic. Impairment ofadaptive behavior.

18,172 8.5%

Trainable MentallyImpaired (TMI)

Development at a rate approximately 3.5 to 4 STD below themean. Impairment of adaptive behavior.

5,669 2.6%

Severely MentallyImpaired (SMI)

Development at 4.5 or more STD below the mean determinedthrough intellectual assessment. Impairment of adaptivebehavior.

1,612 0.8%

EmotionallyImpaired(EI)

Determined based on behavior problems primarily in theaffective domain. Behavior must manifest over an extendedperiod of time and must adversely affect the students’ educationto the extent that they will not benefit from regular educationprograms without special education support.

18,464 8.6%

Physically orOtherwise HealthImpaired (POHI)

Physical or other health impairments that adversely affecteducational outcomes and may require physical adaptationswithin the school environment

13,656 6.3%

Severely MultiplyImpaired (SXI)

Refers to a development rate of a minimum of 2 STDs belowthe mean in addition to 1 or more sensory or health impairments

3,827 1.8%

AutisticImpaired(AI)

Considered a lifelong developmental disability typicallymanifesting before 30 months of age. Autism includesdisturbances in the rates and sequences of cognitive, affective,psychomotor, and speech development.

3,740 1.7%

HearingImpaired(HI)

Includes both deaf and hard of hearing. It refers to students withany level of hearing loss that interferes with development oradversely affects educational performance in a regularclassroom setting.

3,427 1.6%

PreprimaryImpaired(PPI)

Refers to children 0-5 years of age whose primary impairmentcannot be differentiated through the criteria set forth in thecategorical definitions. The child must manifest an impairmentin 1 or more areas of development which is at least ½ of theexpected development for chronological age.

3,394 1.6%

Visually Impaired(VI)

Includes vision that impairs development or adversely affectseducational performance

1,018 0.5%

Total 214,176 100%


Table 3:2 Percentage of Enrolled Students with Disabilities by CategoryLearning

Disabilities(LD)

Speech &LanguageImpaired

(SLI)

MentallyImpaired

(MI) a

EmotionallyImpaired

(EI)

Physicallyand Other-wise Health

Impaired(POHI)

AutisticImpaired

(AI)

SeverelyMultiplyImpaired

(SXI)

HearingImpaired

(HI)

VisuallyImpaired

(VI)

Total b

USA1997/98 5.6% 2.28% 1.15% 0.92% 0.54% 0.08% 0.20% 0.14% 0.05% 10.9%

State ofMichigan1998/99

5.27% 3.00% 1.49% 1.08% 0.79% 0.22% 0.22% 0.20% 0.06% 12.33%

MichiganCharters1998/99

1.52% 1.37% 0.24% 0.32% 0.20% 0.02% 0.0% 0.05% 0.02% 3.74%

Notes: a Mental Impairments (MI) includes Educable (EMI), Trainable (TMI), and Severely (SMI)b Totals do not include children ages 0-5 who qualify for preprimary special education services. This

accounts for 0.02 percent in the traditional public schools and 0 percent for the charter schools. Also wehave not include Macomb Academy in our figures since this charter schools serves only special educationstudents. Had we included the students from this school in our figures, the charter school total wouldhave increased to 3.9 percent.

The total number of students enrolled in theMichigan K-12 public school system was1,709,132at the time of the “Fourth Friday” count in 1998.Students receiving special education servicesaccounted for 214,176, or 12.53 percent, of thattotal enrollment (Nuttall, 1999). Michigan charterschools, as local school agencies (LEAs), areincluded as part of the public school system andstudents enrolled in charter schools are included inthe “Fourth Friday” count. The total enrollment forthe 131 charter schools reporting in 1998 included1,227 students receiving special education services.These students represent 3.74 percent of the totalcharter school enrollment.

Percentage of Enrolled Students withDisabilities

The percentage of enrolled students receivingspecial education services in charter schools isconsiderably lower than that reported by traditionalpublic schools. Table 3:2 provides a comparisonbetween average national enrollment, average stateof Michigan enrollments, and Michigan charterschool enrollments by disability group. As one can

see in Table 3:2, total percent of students withdisabilities in public schools across the nation was10.9 percent in 1997-98; and in 1998-99, 12.3percent of Michigan public schools had studentswith disabilities enrolled. Charter schools inMichigan, however, enroll only a small proportionof students with disabilities (3.74%). These figuresdo not include children with preprimaryimpairments. Intermediate school districts oftentake primary responsibility for providing servicesfor children under the age of 5 with disabilities.

According to the 21st Annual Report to Congress onthe Implementation of the Individuals withDisabilities Education Act, the total percentage ofschool-age students with disabilities for the 1997-98school year was 10.9 percent. Michigan reported atotal of 9.9 percent of school-age students identifiedfor special education services for that same year.The 21st Annual Report also indicates that there hasbeen a steady increase in both total numbers ofstudents qualifying for special education servicesand the percentage of students identified in specificcategories. This is reflected by the slight increasesfrom 9.9 percent in 1997/98 to 12.3 percent in 1998-


99. Table 3:2 provides a comparison betweenenrollment of students with specific disabilities inthe State of Michigan and Michigan charter schoolsfor 1998 with the total proportions recorded for theUnited States.

Not only are there large differences betweentraditional pubic schools and charter schools in theoverall number of students enrolled with specialeducational needs, there are also interestingdifferences in the nature of the disabling conditionsof the students receiving special educationalservices between the two school types. Figure 3:1illustrates the percentage of students withdisabilities enrolled by the type of disablingcondition. Students with disabilities in charterschools tend to be experiencing mild disabilities,and very few have moderate or severe disabilities.

Most of the students with disabilities in the charterschools have speech and language impairments(SLI) and learning disabilities (LD). Nevertheless,the proportion of students in these categories, whichare typically high incidence categories, is surprisinglylow when compared with the traditional publicschools. Identification of SLI and LD at thesepercentages might be indicative of inadequatescreening in the early grades and lack of teacherknowledge of disability characteristics for makingreferrals for special education evaluations. Inaddition, percentages of students identified forservices in categorical areas that often requireinstructional programs outside of the regular educationclassroom and/or costly related services and equipment(mental, sensory, and physical/health impairment) arevery low or totally unrepresented in charter schools.This trend raises questions as to enrollment policiesfor students with these types of disabilities.

There are a number of possible explanations/factorsfor the lower proportion of students with disabilitiesin the charter schools. One such reason is thatbecause of the higher costs for special education,and because of the requirement for specialized andcertified staff, which are already in short supply,and because of the complex nature of these services,charter schools avoid enrolling students with specialneeds. Another possible reason is that many

parents choose a charter school for their child withspecial needs because they are dissatisfied with theservices in the traditional public schools andbecause they want their child mainstreamed.Therefore, when they enroll their child in thecharter school, they do not inform the schoolofficials that their child has/had an IEP. Manycharter schools have insisted that this is a commonoccurrence, both for children with specialeducational needs, as well as for children withbehavioral or disciplinary problems.

One final reason we should consider is that thecharter schools are so successful that they help thesechildren reach their goals so they can learn withoutsupport or remedial assistance and therefore nolonger need Individual Education Plans (IEPs) andcan be exited from special education. The MichiganAssociation of Public School Academies (MAPSA)reports that the results of a survey of charter schoolsfound that those charter schools responding reporteda total of 162 students with IEPs had achieved theirgoals and no longer needed the IEP or specialeducational services. This accounts for about 10percent of all the students with IEPs in the schoolsthat reported data (MAPSA, 2000).

MAPSA contends that this finding providesevidence that charter schools are doing a better jobof moving students out of special education andback into full-time regular education. Consideringthat most charter schools serve elementary agestudents and that they report the distribution ofstudents with disabilities to be proportionally higherfor students with SLI and LD, it would be expectedthat the number of students who would be exitedfrom special education to regular education servicesduring the elementary grades should be comparableto the national averages. For example, the averageage of students with SLI is approximately 8.5 years.National statistics indicate that the number ofstudents served under SLI peaks at age 7 and isreduced by more than half by the age of 10, goingfrom 54 percent of the all disabilities at age 7 to 20percent of all disabilities at age 10 and dropping to9 percent by age 12.


The average age of students with LD isapproximately 12.5 years. Statistics indicate thatnumbers of students served under LD areconsiderably lower than those receiving servicesunder SLI until age 8, but continue to rise until theyreach their highest numbers at age 12. From age 12to 17, the students served under LD slowly decline,going from 24 percent of all students withdisabilities at age 8 to 54 percent at age 10 andreaching 61 percent of all students with disabilitiesby age 12. The percentage of students receivingservices under LD remains at approximately 61percent until age 18 (U.S. Department of Education,1999). During the 1997-98 school year in Michigan,37 percent of the students with disabilities wereserved under LD and 36 percent under SLI in the 6to 11 age group. In the 12 to 17 age group duringthat same year, 60 percent of students withdisabilities were served under LD and 5 percentwere served under SLI (U.S. Department ofEducation, 1999).

Distribution of Students with Disabilities

Michigan is fairly typical in the distribution ofstudents with disabilities by categories whencompared to national averages. Figure 3:2examines the distribution of all students withdisabilities across the various categories. It isimportant to remember that Figure 3:2 portrays thedistribution of all special education studentdistributed across the various disabling categoriesand not the percentage of all students. For example,even though the proportion of all special educationstudents identified as having learning disabilities(LD) and emotional impairments (EI) are similar inMichigan traditional public schools and charterschools, the percentage of the total schoolenrollment identified for LD and EI are noticeablydifferent (see Figure 3:1).

When comparing the four highest incident disabilitycategories identified in school-age children–LD,SLI, MI, and EI–it would be expected that stateaverages would be fairly similar to nationalaverages. This expectation holds true for bothMichigan Public Schools and charter schools whencomparing student percentages for LD and EI.

However, there are obvious differences whencomparing distributions of students with SLI and MI.

Michigan charter schools, which predominatelyserve students in grades K-6, report specialeducation services to students in two categories atmuch higher levels than others: speech andlanguage impaired (SLI) and learning disabilities(LD). Nationally, students identified with speechand language impairments (SLI) account forapproximately 18 percent of all students withdisabilities. Michigan public schools reported SLIat 23.9 percent of students with disabilities, whileMichigan charter schools reported SLI at 36.8percent of student with disabilities; a significantlyhigher proportion than the national average. Therewould seem to be two logical reasons for charterschools to report these high proportions of studentswith SLI and LD. First, both disabilities are usuallyidentified during elementary grades, with SLIreaching peak identification by 2nd grade. Second,programming for both disabilities can beaccomplished in fairly cost effective manners withinthe regular education classrooms with the support ofspeech and language teachers and special educationteacher consultants. Speech and language teacherscan legally be responsible for caseloads of up to 60students, while teacher consultants can beresponsible for up to 25 students. These caseloadnumbers are considerably larger than the 15students legally allowable for most other disabilitiescategories. In addition, students with SLI or LDrarely require costly related services that schooldistricts may have to provide students with othertypes of disabilities.

Another disability with noticeable differencesbetween traditional public and charter schools,compared with national proportions, is mentalimpairments (MI). Nationally, students identifiedwith MI (which includes SMI, TMI, and EMI)account for approximately 10 percent of all studentswith disabilities. Michigan public schools reportedMI at 11.9 percent of students with disabilities, asomewhat higer proportion than the national averagewhile, Michigan charter schools reported MI at 6.6percent of students with disabilities, a significantlylower proportion than the national average.

Figure 3:1 Percent of Students with Disabilities in Charter Schools Compared with the State of Michigan (December 1998)

0.0%

1.4%1.5%

0.0% 0.0%

1.1% 1.1%0.8%

3.0%

0.2%0.02%0.05%

0.2% 0.3% 0.2%0.01%

0.2%0.1%

0.2%0.3%

0.1%

5.3%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

5.0%

5.5%

Severe

ly Men

tally

Impa

ired

Traina

ble M

ental

ly Im

paire

d

Educa

ble M

ental

ly Im

paire

dEmoti

onall

y Impa

ired

Hearin

g Impa

ired

Visuall

y Impa

ired

Phy.& O

ther H

ealth

Impa

ired

Speec

h & La

ng. Im

paire

dLe

arning

Disa

bled

Severe

ly Mult

iple I

mpaire

dAuti

stic I

mpaire

d

Charter Schools (3.74%)

State of Michigan (12.53%)

Figure 3:2 Distribution of All Students with Disabilities Across Diagnostic Categories: Charter Schools Compared with the State of Michigan (December 1998)

0.0% 0.3%

36.8%

40.6%

0.0% 0.4%

8.5% 8.6%6.3%

1.8%0.4%1.3%

6.3%8.5%

5.4%

23.9%

1.7%0.5%

1.6%2.6%

0.8%

42.0%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Severe

ly Men

tally

Impa

ired

Traina

ble M

ental

ly Im

paire

d

Educa

ble M

ental

ly Im

paire

dEmoti

onall

y Impa

ired

Hearin

g Impa

ired

Visuall

y Impa

ired

Phy.& O

ther H

ealth

Impa

ired

Speec

h & La

ng. Im

paire

dLe

arning

Disa

bled

Severe

ly Mult

iple I

mpaire

dAuti

stic I

mpaire

d

Charter Schools

State of Michigan


In addition, the students with MI served by thecharter schools were almost exclusively identifiedunder the EMI category. Students identified as EMItend to need more costly related services thanstudents in the TMI or SMI category and havetraditionally been able to have acceptable levels ofsuccess in inclusion settings.

The distribution of school-age students with lowincidence disabilities (POHI, AI, HI, VI, SXI)indicated that Michigan public schools and charterschools had similar percentages of students with HIand VI, but notable differences in proportion ofstudents with POHI, AI, and SXI. Public schoolsindicated POHI at 6.3 percent of all students withdisabilities compared with 5.4 percent reported bycharter schools. Students with AI were reported as1.7 percent of all students with disabilities in publicschools compared with .4 percent for charterschools. Charter schools reported no studentsattending who had been identified as SXI comparedwith 1.8 percent of students with disabilities inpublic schools.

Educational Management Organizationsand Special Education

Special education teachers and some parents ofstudents with disabilities have “loudly” left charterschools operated by educational managementcompanies (EMOs). One teacher has filed suitagainst National Heritage Academies, claiming thatshe was fired because she was not following thecompany’s instructions to counsel away studentswith disabilities and for not working with parents toend the IEPs, which dictate rights to specificsupport services or remedial instruction. Theservices these children were receiving were notwhat was expected by the special educators andwere not what was called for in the IEPs. Thisparticular suit was settled out of court and theteacher received an undisclosed amount of moneyfrom NHA but on the condition that she not discussthis case. Other parents and staff have left withsimilar stories, some of which are covered in ourreport of the school district case studies (TheEvaluation Center, 2000).

Because of the cases/events noted in the precedingparagraph, we expected to find that the schoolsoperated by EMOs would have far fewer studentswith disabilities than the charter schools that do nothave a EMO. What we found was that the EMO-operated charters schools actually had a slightlyhigher proportion of students with disabilities (3.87percent as compared with 3.33 percent for schoolswith no EMO). Nevertheless, the nature of thedisabling conditions for these students variesconsiderably, with over 40 percent of the specialeducation students in the EMO-run charters havingspeech and language impairments, which is theeasiest and least costly group of students withdisabilities. Only 21 percent of the students withdisabilities in the schools without EMOs had speechand language impairments. The reverse is true forstudents receiving learning disability (LD) andemotional impairment (EI) services. Charter schoolswith EMOs have lower proportions of students withLD or EI than do charter school without EMOs andhave lower proportions of students with EMI.Students with low incident categories (POHI, AI,HI, VI, SXI), if enrolled at all, are proportionallymore prevalent in charters with EMOs. In summary,the schools without EMOs were more likely to havestudents whose disabling condition were less mildand required more years of service to address.

The percentage of enrolled students receivingspecial education in charter schools witheducational management organizations (EMOs)compared with charter schools without EMOs isproportionally similar to comparisons found fordistribution of students with disabilities. Charterschools with EMOs enrolled a higher percentage ofstudents with SLI than did charter schools withoutEMOs. All other disability categories enrolled incharter schools, except for HI, recorded higherenrollment percentages for charter schools withoutEMOs (See Figure 3:3)

Table 3:3 includes a detailed listing of the EMOsand detailed information about the students withdisabilities they enroll. About half of the charterschools in the state of Michigan have no studentswith disabilities. Likewise, about half of the EMOsreport that their school(s) have no students receivingspecial educational services.

Figure 3:3 Percent of Students with Disabilities in Charter Schools Comparison Between Schools With and Without EMOs (Dec.1998)

0.0% 0.0%

1.6% 1.5%

0.0% 0.0%0.3%

0.5%

0.1%

0.7%

0.0%0.2%0.3%0.2%

0.1% 0.0%

1.7%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

5.0%

5.5%

Educa

ble M

ental

ly Im

paire

dEmoti

onall

y Impa

ired

Hearin

g Impa

ired

Visuall

y Impa

ired

Phy.& O

ther H

ealth

Impa

ired

Speec

h & La

ng. Im

paire

dLe

arning

Disa

bled

Severe

ly Mult

iple I

mpaire

dAuti

stic I

mpaire

dCharter Schools With EMOs (3.87%)

Charter Schools Without EMOs (3.33%)

Table 3:3 Percent of Students Enrolled in Charter Schools, Sorted by Educational Management Organization

EMO or School GroupNumb

erof

Number of

Special

TotalFTE

(12/98)

PercentSpecialEducati

Severely

Mentall

Trainable

Mentall

Educable

Mentall

Emotionally

Impaired

Hearing

Impair

Visually

Impair

Phy.& OtherHealth

Speech &

Languag

Preprimary

Impaired

Learning

Disable

Severely

Multipl

Autistic

ImpairAdvanced Employment 1 1 193 0.52% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.52% -- -- -- --

Advantage Schools 1 29 386 7.51% -- 0.26% 0.52% 0.52% -- 0.26% -- 3.89% -- 2.07% -- --

Alpha-Omega Educational Management1 0 221 0.00% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

American Institutional Management Services1 0 375 0.00% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Beacon Education Management Inc. 10 91 2174 4.19% -- -- 0.14% 0.28% 0.05% -- 0.37% 1.66% -- 1.70% -- --

Black Starr Education Management 1 0 139 0.00% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Charter School Administrative Services 6 0 3661 0.00% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Chatfield Management Foundation 1 0 258 0.00% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Childcare Connections 1 14 89 15.73% -- -- -- 1.12% -- 2.25% -- 8.99% -- 2.25% -- 1.12%

Choice Schools 1 0 61 0.00% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Design Administrative Resources 1 0 34 0.00% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Edison Schools Inc. 3 110 3021 3.64% -- 0.03% 0.40% 0.30% 0.03% -- 0.13% 1.36% -- 1.39% -- --

Educare 7 27 984 2.74% -- -- 0.10% 0.30% -- -- 0.30% 1.02% 0.10% 0.91% -- --

Educational Resources of Michigan 1 8 129 6.19% -- 0.77% 0.77% -- 0.77% -- 0.77% 1.55% -- 1.55% -- --

EightCap Inc. 1 24 143 16.78% -- -- 3.50% 0.70% -- -- 1.40% 9.79% -- 1.40% -- --

Foundation for Behavioral Resources 2 0 52 0.00% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Global Educational Enterprises, L.L.C. 1 0 184 0.00% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Global Learning Associates 1 0 159 0.00% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Hamadeh Educational Services Inc. 1 0 67 0.00% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Helicon Associates Inc. 6 131 1546 8.47% -- 0.06% 0.45% 0.39% 0.32% -- 0.45% 2.52% -- 4.27% -- --

HSEMCO 1 0 351 0.00% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Leona Group 12 167 4140 4.03% -- -- 0.39% 0.48% 0.05% -- 0.22% 1.06% -- 1.84% -- --

Malone Management 1 5 64 7.81% -- -- -- 1.56% -- -- 3.13% -- -- 3.13% -- --

Matrix Human Services 1 0 84 0.00% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Midland Charter Initiative 1 13 176 7.39% -- -- -- -- 0.57% -- -- 6.82% -- -- -- --

Mosaica 1 30 396 7.58% -- -- 0.25% 0.51% -- -- 0.76% 2.78% -- 2.78% -- 0.51%

National Heritage Academies 13 280 4262 6.57% -- -- 0.16% 0.38% 0.07% 0.05% 0.40% 3.10% -- 2.37% -- 0.05%

Northern Educational & Computer Services1 7 85 8.24% -- -- 1.18% 1.18% 1.18% -- 1.18% -- -- 3.53% -- --

PEAK Performance Educat. Management Co.1 0 139 0.00% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Petra Learning Systems 1 0 321 0.00% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Schoolhouse Services and Services 4 36 886 4.06% -- -- 0.11% 0.23% -- -- -- 1.81% -- 1.92% -- --

Smart Schools 1 22 409 5.38% -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.24% 4.89% -- 0.24% -- --

Solid Rock 1 0 336 0.00% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Synergy Training Solutions 2 0 152 0.00% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Charter Schools With EMOs 89 995 25678 3.87% -- 0.02% 0.22% 0.27% 0.06% 0.02% 0.23% 1.56% 0.004% 1.48% -- 0.02%

Charter Schools Without EMOs42 232 6973 3.33% -- -- 0.29% 0.49% 0.01% -- 0.11% 0.72% -- 1.71% -- --

Totals for All Charter Schools in 98131 1227 32782 3.74% -- 0.01% 0.23% 0.32% 0.05% 0.02% 0.20% 1.38% 0.003% 1.52% -- 0.02%

State of Michigan Totals 98 214176 ###### 12.53% 0.09% 0.33% 1.06% 1.08% 0.20% 0.06% 0.79% 3.00% 0.20% 5.27% 0.22% 0.22%


Most of Michigan’s charter schools are eithertotally or partially run by educational managementorganizations. One way that EMOs are able toassure cost-effective operation of charter schools isby consolidating resources to keep per pupil costsdown. Special education has higher per pupil coststhan regular education and requires additionaladministrative support to maintain records andoversee programs. Because EMOs often operatemore than one charter school, they may be able torealize some cost savings by hiring clerical,administrative, and instructional support personnelto provide services to more than one charter school.This may be one explanation why charter schoolswith EMOs have significantly higher proportions ofstudents identified for speech and languageimpairments (SLI) than charter schools withoutEMOs. Since EMOs can assign up to 60 studentswith SLI to a single speech and language teacher,they would be able to use one teacher at severalschools under their management. They would alsobe able to hire teacher consultants to serve studentsidentified as learning disabled, which is the secondlargest identified group in charters with EMOs.Teacher consultants can legally have caseloads ofup to 25 students and can provide both direct andindirect services to students of any disabilitycategory.

3.4 Special Education ServiceDelivery in Charter Schools

Views vary regarding the extent to which charterschools are providing equal access and qualityprograms for students with disabilities. In order tofairly examine special education service availabilityand delivery in Michigan charter schools, the issuesneed to be examined from the perspectives of thecharter schools, the public school districts, and theparents. In this section, we discuss issues related tothe interests and particular perspectives of thecharter schools, traditional public schools, andparents.

In many respects, the special education servicesprovided by Michigan’s charter schools do notdiffer greatly from charter schools in other states.

The “State of Charter Schools: Fourth-Year Report”(U.S. Department of Education, 2000) found thatthe proportion of students with disabilities served incharter schools has been consistently lower thanthose served in all public schools. Variations fromthis trend were noted primarily in states wherecharter schools have been established specificallyfor the purpose of providing an educationalalternative to children with disabilities (Michiganhas only one such school, Macomb Academy, where100 percent of the students qualify for specialeducational services). The difference in the numberof students with disabilities enrolled in charterschools was within 5 percent of students withdisabilities enrolled in all public schools in moststates. However, six states reported charter schoolenrollment of students with disabilities to be morethan 5 percent different than all public schools, withtwo of those states reporting charter schoolenrollment of students with disabilities that was lessthan half of enrollment percentages for all otherpublic schools. Only one state, Ohio, reportedcharter school enrollment of students withdisabilities that was higher (by more than 5 percent)than the enrollment for all other public schools inthe state.

Michigan charter school view of specialeducation. The Michigan Association of PublicSchool Academies (MAPSA) released an article onMay 2, 2000, describing characteristics of specialeducation in charter schools compared withtraditional public schools. The following washighlighted:

F Half of the state’s charter public schools areserving children with designated specialeducation needs.

F Charter schools approach the statewide averagein enrolling special needs children.

F More than 10 percent of students who haveentered charter schools with special educationneeds have achieved their goals and arereceiving regular educational services.

F In contrast, the number of students designatedas special education in traditional publicschools has risen 17 percent statewide.(MAPSA, 2000).


Additional funds are available for special educationstudents, but some charter school leaders haveinformed us that they have not received a singlecent beyond the basic per pupil foundation grantfrom the state for the special education students.

Because special education is so often embroiled inlegal suits when parents fight to secure theappropriate services for their children, charterschools are at a great disadvantage because they aresmall in size and do not have their own lawyers asdo many traditional school districts. One charterschool was reportedly nearly pushed intobankruptcy when a family sued it because theythought the school was not providing theappropriate services for their child who had a severedisability that resulted in a disruptive behavior andwhich required close adult supervision andrestraining throughout the day.

In Michigan all teachers must be certified, and sincethere is already a shortage of special educationpersonnel in the state, many charter schools cannotidentify and employ certified special educators.Many schools have solved this problem by hiringconsultants or contracting out the special educationservices. In many cases, personnel from the ISDshave catered to these children. Finally, largerEMOs have been able to share special educationpersonnel across their schools.

While questions can be raised regarding the absenceof students with special educational needs in manyschools, it is important to remember that the schoolsdiffer greatly and that there are a few schools whichcater to a very high proportion of students withdisabilities. Some of the charter schools have alsoproven to be quite successful in serving thesestudents. Livingston Developmental Academy andMacomb Academy are two such charter schools.Livingston Developmental Academy, although notestablished primarily to serve students with specialneeds, provides specialized instructional techniquesthat have proven successful with certain types oflearning problems. Macomb Academy, on the otherhand, was established specifically to work withstudents with mental impairments.

Livingston Developmental Academy, which isorganized around the interpersonal philosophies ofDr. William Glasser (i.e., Choice Therapy andReality Therapy) and the instructional techniquesknown as Integrated Visual Learning developed byDr. Steven Ingersoll, reports that they have beenvery successful working with students with attentiondeficits. They report that in 1996, during their firstyear of operation, 50 out of 54 students takingRitalin were able to discontinue the medication.Relatedly, in 1999 Livingston reported that 25 outof 30 students with IEPs reached their goals and nolonger needed IEPs (MAPSA, 2000).

Macomb Academy was established to serve specialneeds students in their late teens and early 20s. Allof the students enrolled at Macomb Academy haveIEPs that specify specific goals and objects. Thefocus of the curriculum is development of skillsnecessary for successful transition from school toadult life. Students are taught life skills that willallow them to live as independently as possible.Students also receive job training, with moststudents participating in supported employmentduring the school year.

One other example is Nah Tah Wahsh PSA, whichat the time of our first evaluation, enrolled studentswith disabilities from the local districts. Thisschool, with annual revenues more than twice thatof local schools because of additional resourcesgenerated from the nearby casino and other sources,was more than willing to receive students with IEPsreferred by local school districts.

Traditional public schools’ view of charterschools and special education. Public schooladministrators and board members were interviewedin several districts in western and mid-Michigan todetermine how they viewed the impact of charterschools on their districts and the overall stateeducational system. One area that was discussed bynearly all of the interviewees was the education ofstudents with disabilities. Some common strands ofconcerns were voiced consistently across thedistricts:


F Charter schools are only retaining students withmild disabilities such as mild learningdisabilities (LD) and/or speech and languageimpairments (SLI).

F Students with more severe learning or behaviorproblems are being sent back to the publicschools.

F Charter schools offering special educationservices predominately do so in the form ofspeech therapists, psychologists, social workers,and full- or part-time aides with few, if any,full-time special education teachers.

F Students with disabilities are being “counseledout” of charter schools due to lack of specialeducation services available.

F Charter schools are keeping students, includingthose with disabilities, enrolled until afterFourth Friday counts and then sending themback to public schools without funding.

Holland Public Schools’ staff report that whencharter schools first began they would aggressivelyrecruit students and hold them until the FourthFriday counts, after which they would beginrecommending other options to parents whosechildren are slow learners or special needs studentsand return them to the traditional public school,keeping the state foundation grant money.Kalamazoo and Grand Rapids area public schooladministrators report similar tactics by charterschools affecting their enrollment numbers andfunding. Kalamazoo can document that fromOctober 1999 to February 2000, 48 students withdisabilities came back to the district from charterschools.

Although MAPSA has made an attempt to indicatethat they are doing as well, or better, in servingstudents with disabilities (MAPSA, 2000), thecomments provided by public school staff raisessome concerns. For example, all (not half) of thecharter schools should be serving students withdisabilities, as required by state and federal rules.Given the prevalence across the population of suchhigh and moderate incidence disabilities as learningdisabilities (LD), emotional impairments (EI), andmental impairments (MI), it seems unlikely that halfof the charter schools would have student

populations that didn’t include some of thesedisabilities.

Other areas of concern include the charter schools’staff levels of expertise in educational assessmentand prescription for students with disabilities, aswell as understanding of IDEA requirements, inmaking decisions regarding special educationservice needs. Interviews conducted with specialeducation teaching staff and a former specialeducation supervisor for a charter school thatoperates eight schools in Kent County indicatedproblems in the following areas:

F students were incorrectly identified (EMIstudent labeled LD)

F a continuum of services were not offered(inclusion only with no resource or self-contained program options)

F IEPs were not enforced properly (student notreceiving number of hours of services specified)

F special education teachers’ caseloads weregreater than state and federal rules allow (oneteacher reported 26 students as opposed to thenormal caseload of 18)

F there were forced resignations or terminationsof special education staff who expressedconcern regarding special education procedures

Parents’ views of charter schools and specialeducation. Many of the administrators interviewedalso shared information they had collected related towhy parents have moved their students to charterschools.

F Parents think that charter schools will be able todeal better with behavior problems.

F Parents of students without disabilities thinkthere are too many students with disabilities inthe regular education classrooms in the publicschools and that these students take up toomuch of the teacher’s time.

F Parents said the public school had too manysegregated special education classrooms.

F Parents did not want their child“mainstreamed.”


The administrators also were able to report somereasons parents have decided to move back to thepublic schools.

F Children were “counseled out” by the charterschool because of special learning needs thatthe charter couldn’t provide.

F Special education services and programs werelacking.

F Charter school teachers were teaching to thewhole class rather than providing theindividualized instruction that had been“advertised.”

F Charter school could not provide the expertisein special education offered at the publicschool.

F Charter school offered minimal specialeducation services.

F Charter school didn’t address needs of studentswith ADHD (not a special education category,but covered under section 504).

In the Grand Rapids School District, 30 percent ofthe parents cited their reason for leaving the charterschool as no provision of special education services.

While a lot of this information is anecdotal in natureand should preclude any sweeping statements abouthow the charter schools deal with students withdisabilities, the statewide figures confirm that thecharter schools are being selective in marketing,recruitment, and retention of students with specialneeds. Many of the issues being raised by thetraditional public schools and the families who areleaving charter schools suggest clear violations ofIDEA.

At the same time that these concerns need to beseriously considered, it is also important toremember that a few charter schools have gone outof their way to developed programs and curriculathat either specifically address the needs of studentswith disabilities or that have proven to be verysuccessful with certain types of disabilities.

Michigan Charter School Evaluation - Homepages at...

Documents

Transcript of Michigan Charter School Evaluation - Homepages at...