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

Executive Summary

Jerry Horn and Gary Miron

The Evaluation Center

Western Michigan University

July 2000

Foreword

This is the final report of the 1999-2000 evaluation of the Michigan Public School Academy/CharterSchool initiative. On behalf of The Evaluation Center at Western Michigan University, we appreciatedthe opportunity to be a part of this continuing and important initiative in the state of Michigan. Over thepast several years, we have been involved in the study of charter schools in Michigan and other states,and we are impressed with the diversity of the individual schools and quite interested in the impact ofthe regulations and accountability oversight that differs from state to state.

For this study, we attempted to address questions about the Michigan initiative that have emerged fromthe evolution of the schools and some perplexing and continuing issues that are of interest to decisionmakers as well as the general public. In this process, we recognize the burden experienced by the charterschools as a result of the various authorized and nonauthorized studies; but at the same time, we sharethe concerns of the public as well as the profession with regard to effectiveness and accountability ofall schools, including the newly created charter schools.

To reduce the time and resources that normally would be required by charter schools to respond torequests for information, we chose to use existing documentation provided by charter schools as muchas possible and to utilize the growing body of data on charter schools that is collected by the MichiganDepartment of Education. In terms of methodology, we chose to use a mixed-methods approach, whichmakes use of multiple types, methods, and sources of information. While the qualitative data collectionin our first evaluation largely focused on charter schools, in this second evaluation we devoted much ofour time in the field visiting traditional public schools. We fully recognize the emotional involvementof many persons we met with and interviewed, both from charter schools and from the traditional publicschools. Therefore, we made every reasonable effort to corroborate information and findings throughmethods of triangulation and confirmation. Clearly, there are different perspectives; each must beevaluated on its merit, worth, and contribution to the understanding of the question/issue.

Because we were asked to address different questions in this follow-up evaluation, we think it isimportant for readers to consider the results from the first evaluation as well. Together, these two studiesprovide a more complete picture of Michigan charter schools.

We welcome the readers of this report to supply us with feedback in the form of comments, corrections,and compliments.

Jerry Horn Gary MironProject Director Project Manager

The Evaluation CenterWestern Michigan UniversityKalamazoo, MI 49008-5237 e-mail gary.miron@wmich.eduTel. (616) 387-5895 jhorneval@aol.comFax. (616) 387-5923 http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr

i

Executive Summary

Background and Methodology

This evaluation was one of two follow-upevaluations commissioned by the MichiganDepartment of Education to examine theMichigan public school academies/charter schoolinitiative. The evaluation questions we addressedin this study complement the issues addressed inour initial evaluation. Specifically, we were askedto address the following four evaluation questions:

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 thecharter schools initiative?

4. What is the impact of charter schools onstudent achievement, and what would be aneffective procedure/methodology fordetermining future progress in comparisonwith traditional public schools?

In addition to these questions, we also examinedthe scope and nature of innovations and theprovision of special education in Michigan’scharter schools. We added the latter questionbecause we found that special education was anissue that related to questions 1 and 2 and to someextent to question 3.

Methods used for the study include developmentof case studies for school districts, collection andsecondary analysis of documentation receivedfrom charter schools (about 75 percent of thecharter schools submitted descriptive information

regarding the evaluation questions), analysis of 5years of MEAP results as well as demographicand financial data available from the MichiganDepartment of Education, and interview datafrom representatives of the key stakeholdergroups. Most of the data for the study wascollected in the late autumn of 1999 and thespring of 2000.

While this executive summary contains arecapitulation of the key findings and some of ourrecommendations regarding the evaluationquestions, the text of the report contains moreelaborate explanations of the findings andrationales for the recommendations.Additionally, we prepared two other descriptivereports to supplement and support the findingsdescribed in this final report. One contains thecase studies we prepared for a number of schooldistricts in western and central Michigan, and theother describes and discusses what charter schoolsreported to be innovative or unique about theirschools.

Impact and Mobility

F Charter schools have made districts moreaware of the need to sharpen their missionstatements and goals in order to give parentsa fuller understanding of what they provide.This has led districts to attempt tocommunicate better with parents. Some suchcommunication involves marketing andadvertising; at times this has been done atgreat expense. Some districts, however, arefearful that parents will be lured by falseadvertising or misleading information aboutwhat the charter schools have to offer.

ii

F Competition from charter schools appears tohave spurred districts to offer new services,including (a) before and after schoolprograms, (b) all day kindergarten classes (c)language classes in elementary schools, (d)more open and receptive relationships withparents, and (e) and clearer school missions.

F Districts including Kalamazoo, Grand Rapids,Holland, and Lansing report a large loss ofstudents and subsequent loss of funds due tostudent mobility out of the district. However,the net annual movement between charterschools and local school districts isapproaching zero at this time, with most of thecharter school growth coming fromkindergarten students who have neverattended a public school.

F Smaller districts and schools serving areaswithout the potential for growth are impactedthe most. To compensate for loss of revenues,support services are being reduced.Infrequently we found substantial reduction inclass sizes, loss of teachers, or schoolclosures.

F Several districts report that charter schoolsretain students until the “fourth Friday” countsand send them back at a later date withoutfunds. Thus, charters receive funding forstudents to whom districts actually provideservices.

F The continuous nature of charter schoolrecruitment and enrollment has hampereddistricts’ ability to plan effectively. Amongthe uncertainties districts face is thepossibility that a charter school will close andthat the district will have to absorb largenumbers of students.

F Many charter schools cater to certain cultures,ethnic backgrounds, or academic programs(i.e., accelerated or “college prep”). Whileproviding variation across schools, this also

diminishes student diversity within schoolsand classrooms.

F The charter school initiative has providedadditional choices and options for parents andtheir children. However, many of theseoptions are not fully available since mostcharter schools do not provide transportation,a n d s o m e s c h o o l s s e l e c t i v e l yannounce/advertise openings at their school.

F There is little evidence that the charterschools are having a noticeable (positive ornegative) impact on the immediatecommunities in which they are located.

F In response to concerns raised by schooldistricts regarding student mobility and theconcentration of charter schools in the lowerelementary grades where costs are the lowest,we recommend differentiated foundationgrants, which have been used in othercountries. Michigan should considerreimbursing the charter schools according tothe number of students enrolled and the levelat which they are enrolled. The size of thefoundation grant should be based on averageper pupil costs for each of the three schoollevels (i.e., K-5, 6-8, and 9-12) rather thanaverage costs for grades K-12.

Special Education

F Large differences exist between district andcharter schools in the number of special needsstudents enrolled. Indeed, the proportion ofcharter school students in typically highincidence categories (e.g., learning disabilityand speech and language impairments) issurprisingly low when compared withtraditional public schools. There is also anoticeably low number of special needsstudents who require programs outside theregular education classroom and those whorequire costly services and equipment (e.g.,mental, sensory, and physical/health

iii

impairment). This raises serious concernsabout charter school recruitment andcounseling practices for students withdisabilities. This also raises questions aboutthe success/willingness of charter schools toobtain and utilize special education funds andpersonnel to support services for students withdisabilities.

F Students receiving special education servicesaccounted for 12.5 percent of Michigan’s K-12 public school enrollment. Only 3.7 percentof charter school students require suchservices. Possible explanations for thisdisparity include (a) higher costs for specialeducation; (b) the requirement for specializedand certified staff, which are in short supply;(c) the complex nature of special educationservices; (d) parents’ failure to inform charterschool officials of preexisting IndividualEducational Plans (IEPs); and (e) inadequatescreening in the early grades and/or lack ofteacher knowledge of disability character-istics. Substantial anecdotal informationcollected during both our initial study and inthis follow-up evaluation suggests that this isalso due to selectivity on the part of charterschools.

F Approximately half of all charter schoolsreport that they have no students receivingspecial educational services. On the otherhand, “niche” charter schools cater only tostudents with disabilities and a few otherschools have higher proportions of studentswith special educational needs than the stateaverage.

F There is a need for further examination ofcharter schools’ enrollment and retention ofstudents with disabilities and their compliancewith state and federal regulations regardingthese students.

F In order to assure that Michigan’s charterschools provide appropriate and comprehen-

sive special education services to all eligiblestudents who wish to attend, the StateDepartment of Education and ISDs need toprovide the necessary support. Charterschools may need more assistance from theISDs to understand the state funding formulasand reimbursement procedures. Appropriatelevels of funding are imperative to encourageand support quality special education programs.However, funding must be accompanied bycareful compliance monitoring.

F Charter schools may also need more guidancein developing service delivery options thatmeet IDEA requirements. ISDs could provideformative evaluations of special educationprograms as part of the monitoring process.Many charter school administrators andteachers, which predominately have workedfew years in the field, have little experiencewith special education programs and mayneed assistance in understanding theprocedures involved in the development andimplementation of individual education plans.Many traditional public schools rely either onassistance from support staff from their localISDs or from consortiums with one director ofspecial education who provides oversight forfinancial, service delivery, and personnelrequirements and concerns for several LEAs.Charter schools should be encouraged todevelop similar cooperative relationships inan effort to coordinate services and to assureequal access to quality special educationservices for students at all publicly fundedschools. The establishment of suchcollaborative relationships among ISDs,traditional public schools, and charter schoolsshould help reduce the migration of studentswith disabilities from charter schools and helpcharter schools develop a better under-standing of how to assure appropriate andcomprehensive educational programs forstudents with special needs.

iv

Education ManagementOrganizations

F One of the most striking and perhapssurprising aspects of the Michigan charterschool movement is the growth in and numberof schools operated by education managementorganizations (EMOs).

F In 1999-2000, 71.4 percent of Michigan’sexisting charter schools were operated byEMOs, as compared with 16.7 percent in1995-96. Nationwide, approximately 10percent of charter schools were operated byEMOs in 1999-2000. There are currently 38EMOs in Michigan, many of which arenational companies.

F Because EMOs primarily work with largecharter schools, their schools account forapproximately 80 percent of the charterschool enrollment.

F Most EMOs (61 percent) operate 2 or moreschools on a for-profit basis. Some 34 percentof EMOs are for-profit but operate only 1school each. Only 5 percent of EMOs operateon a nonprofit basis.

F Along with the growth in the number of EMOschools, there has been a qualitative shift inthe range of services they provide. Indeed,many EMOs that started as limited serviceproviders are becoming full service operators.Moreover, many single school operators havebecome multiple school operators.

F Some charter school founders, as well assome conversion charters, are now startingtheir own companies to retain (or gain)financial control over their schools.

F Most state universities in Michigan willauthorize charters only to schools that have acontract with an EMO. In part, this is because

EMOs bring with them more financialresources and acumen that applicants withoutEMOs often lack.

F Several EMOs are heavily involved in therecruitment and selection of board members.

F EMOs tend to implement a single curriculumand instructional approach across all of thecharter schools they operate. This candiminish community input and innovation.

F EMOs often search for communities to hosttheir schools. Hence, charter schools oftenchoose communities rather than communitieschoosing charter schools.

F While charter schools emphasize that they area new form of public schools, they areincreasingly appearing and behaving likeprivate schools. This is particularly the case inMichigan, where most charter schoolemployees are actually private employees(hired and fired by the EMO), where schoolboards contract with a company to providepersonnel and handle payroll and benefits,and where most facilities and a largeproportion of the schools’ equipment andfurniture are privately owned. Selectionmechanisms in an increasing number ofMichigan charter schools, moreover, have ledto changes in the composition of students.Particularly in some EMO-run schools,student populations resemble private schoolsmore closely than public schools asentrepreneurs and management companiesthat wish to increase the profitability of theircharter schools use a number of mechanismsto structure their learning communities. Thisresults in fewer at-risk students and studentswith special needs enrolling in charterschools. These practices, documented in fieldresearch, are also supported by the shiftingdemographics and characteristics of studentsenrolled in charter schools.

v

F Several EMOs utilize a range of mechanismsto “structure” or “shape” their student body.Some represent savings by themselves, whileothers represent savings as well as strategiesto discourage the enrollment of students whomight be deemed more costly to educate.These include the following:

• Restrict maximum enrollment of charterschools to between 250 and 350.

• Do not provide transportation.• Provide only elementary grades.• Require parents’ participation, backed by

parent contracts.• Require preapplication interviews.• Do not provide a hot lunch program.• Use information selectively (in terms of

distribution and language of information).

F Below are included a number ofrecommendations regarding safeguards andcontractual arrangements to limit the negativeimpact of for-profit educational managementorganizations:

• Enforce existing federal requirements forcharter schools to recruit students from allsectors of the district.

• Restrict maximum enrollment of charterschools to between 250 and 350.

• Require provision of transportation andother services, or deduct the cost for thesefrom per-pupil grants to charter schools.

• Require full disclosure of how public fundsare used by private companies.

• Require charter school boards to considertwo or more bids from different EMOs.

• Make efforts to ensure that board membersare not personally or professionallyconnected with the EMO.

• Limit the length of contracts betweencharter schools and EMOs to no more thanthe length of the charter, but preferablyless.

• Provide more, not less money for start-up.Less money always favors EMOs in thecompetition.

• Ensure equal access to start-up moneybased on projected enrollments.Competitive applications for start-upmoney favor EMOs with experience andqualified personnel for grant writing.

• Base per-pupil grants on average districtcosts for educating students at the samelevel (elementary, middle, and highschool) rather than on average costs acrossall three levels.

MEAP Results

F Our examination of the MEAP (stateachievement test) results largely focused ontwo types of analysis. The first was anaggregate analysis of charter schools as agroup as compared with the aggregate of theirhost districts (school district in which thecharter is geographically located). Thesecond is a school-level analysis comparingchanges (i.e., increases or decreases in thepercentage of students meeting stateexpectations) over 2, 3, and 4 years.Additionally, we made comparisons betweenEMO and non-EMO charter schools, as wellas comparisons of MEAP results across manyof the larger EMOs.

F On the whole, it is clear that host districtstudents outperform charter school students interms of absolute passing rates. This isconsistent in all subject areas and grade levelsthrough grade 7 in which the MEAP wasadministered. Because of the nature of manycharter high schools (i.e., serving at-riskstudents), a direct comparison with the scoresof students in the host district’s high schoolwas deemed to be inappropriate.

F Examining pass rates in grade 4 math andreading over time, we found that in the

vi

aggregate charter students’ pass rates declinedfrom 1995-1996 to 1996-1997, increased in1997-1998, and declined again in 1999-2000.Overall, there was little net change in charterschool students’ pass rates. Host districtstudents’ pass rates, by contrast, rose from49.4 percent in 1995-1996 to 68 percent in1999-2000, with only a slight decrease in1998-1999 interrupting the positive growthtrend.

F In 7th grade math trends, the charter students’results mirrored that of the host districts, withsome improvement from 1995-1996 to 1999-2000, but the host districts’ passing rate isgreater in each year and the gap or differenceis increasing. A similar pattern is found in thepassing rates for 7th grade reading, except thecharter students’ passing rate declined in1998-1999 and 1999-2000.

F In some subtests of the MEAP, charterschools appear to be holding their own vis-à-vis host districts. Aggregate charter schoolgrowth trends are as good as host districts in5th grade writing and in 8th grade science andwriting. We emphasize, however, that“holding one’s own” might mean simply thatthe charter is declining only as much as thehost district is declining.

F There were bright spots for charter schools.In the 5th grade science portion of the MEAP,the aggregate charter school growth trend wasbetter than that of host districts. Also, wefound schools that opened in 1995-1996 bothoutgained and had a higher trend maximumthan host districts on the 4th grade readingsection of the MEAP. Finally, school-by-school comparisons of individual charterschools and their host districts reveal that agood many charters significantly outgainedtheir host districts.

F Overall, the MEAP results between EMO andnon-EMO charter schools were mixed. Both

groups had similar 4-year pass rates acrossMEAP subject areas. In some tests, theEMO-operated schools gained or lost lessthan the non-EMO charter schools; on othertests, the opposite was the case.

F Across the various elementary school leveltests, National Heritage Academies (NHA)perform exceptionally well. At the sametime, the MEAP results indicate that thestudents coming to the NHA schools arealready performing well. NHA schools aremostly located in suburban areas and cater toa homogeneous group of K-8 students.

F Edison Schools Inc., the Leona Group, andCharter Schools Administrative Services wereconsistently among the poorest performingEMOs in terms of absolute scores as well asin gain scores over time.

F In addition to the MEAP, charter schools alsoassess student achievement usingstandardized tests, curriculum checklists,teacher-made tests, portfolios, student worksamples, student journals, teacherobservations, parent surveys, and anecdotalrecords maintained by teachers. (No attemptwas made to compare the extent to whichsimilar techniques are used in traditionalpublic schools.)

F Commercially prepared standardized testswere the most commonly used type of non-MEAP assessments. Schools reported using29 different commercially available tests. Inaddition, a number of schools reported usingreading diagnostic tests, math assessments,and foreign language tests.

F While the charter schools referred to theseother tests and assessments, they were unableor unwilling to share results from them intheir annual reports, school improvement

vii

reports, or in response to our request aboutevidence of success of their school.

F We make the following recommendations forimproving the state’s charter schoolaccountability system.

• Charter schools–indeed all public schools–should be required to publicize theirmissions and specific goals throughstandardized annual reports.

• An accountability system should employmultiple assessments, including bothstandardized and nonstandardizedvarieties.

• The system should test students each yearin some set of subjects so policymakerscan arrive at more precise estimates ofcharter school impact over time.

• Student-level data should be madeavailable to schools and evaluators.

• Appropriate comparisons of assessmentresults should include the followinggroups: (a) other charter schools, (b)demographically similar traditional publicschools and/or host districts, and (c) ademographically similar mix of charter andtraditional public schools.

• The system should collect and providemore r e l i ab l e and cons i s t en tsocioeconomic data on charter schoolstudents.

• The system should provide incentives fortimely and accurate reporting of data bycharter schools.

• An independent body should conductrandom audits to ensure the accuracy andquality of data provided by charter schools.

Other Findings and Conclusion

Policymakers and charter school proponentsinitially expected that the charter school initiativewould lead to new public schools that would beinnovative, highly accountable, and efficient. It

was also believed that the charter schools wouldlead to increased diversity within the publicschool sector, that teachers and parents would bemajor stakeholders, and that the reform wouldpromote school-based management. After nearlyfive years of operation in Michigan, we concludethat (i) the state’s charter schools are producingfew and limited innovations; (ii) few schools areimplementing comprehensive accountabilityplans; and (iii) the extensive involvement ofEMOs is creating new “pseudo” school districts inwhich decisions are made from great distancesrather than at the school level.

Our experience in evaluating charter schoolreforms in other states suggests that Michigan’sstatewide accountability model lags. We aremindful of the fact that many charter schooladministrators, representatives, and advocates ofthe initiative would argue that they are moreaccountable than the traditional public schools.However, we believe that there is still much roomfor improvement. Both the authorizing agenciesand the state of Michigan have an important roleto play in facilitating the development of a morecoherent plan for accountability. When charterschools can demonstrate and documentaccountability, pressure will be placed ontraditional public schools to do the same. Sincecharter schools in Michigan have not yet donethis, they cannot serve as a lever to change andimprove accountability in the traditional pubicschools.

Evaluation of the Michigan Charter Schools The Evaluation Center, WMU36

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%

Evaluation of the Michigan Charter Schools The Evaluation Center, WMU39

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).

Evaluation of the Michigan Charter Schools The Evaluation Center, WMU40

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:

Evaluation of the Michigan Charter Schools The Evaluation Center, WMU41

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.”

Evaluation of the Michigan Charter Schools The Evaluation Center, WMU42

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.