NEPC Resources on Special Education
NEPC Review: Charter School Funding: Support for Students with Disabilities (University of Arkansas Department of Education Reform, July 2021)
A report from the University of Arkansas Department of Education Reform asserts that charter schools, despite serving only marginally fewer children with disabilities than traditional public schools, are significantly shortchanged of funding for those children, in addition to being significantly shortchanged on funding in general. This assertion is erroneous because the report ignores substantial differences in the classifications, needs, and costs of children with disabilities in district-operated versus charter schools. To reach its incorrect conclusions, the report exclusively self-cites deeply flawed, self-published evidence of a general charter school funding gap, ignoring more rigorous studies yielding contradictory findings. The report adds no value to legitimate debate over the comparability or adequacy of general or special education funding of charter schools.
NEPC Review: Special Education and Distance Learning: Supporting Students through the Pandemic (ExcelinEd, June 2020)
A brief published by ExcelinED provides recommendations to education policy leaders for the delivery of special education services during the COVID-19 school closures. The recommendations, however, assume that current knowledge among school professionals is sufficient to make the desired special education and technological leaps. In fact, the necessary knowledge and capacity are barely emerging. Meanwhile, the recommendations do little to address the unequal distribution of resources in schools, which include access to well-prepared teachers and related services personnel qualified to teach students with disabilities, particularly using distance learning approaches. Given these concerns, coupled with the lack of research anchoring its recommendations, the brief offers little to policymakers or practitioners currently struggling to make distance learning work during the pandemic.
NEPC Review: Fairness in Facilities: Why Idaho Public Charter Schools Need More Facilities Funding (Bellwether Education Partners, January 2019)
A report from Bellwether Education Partners contends that more funding should be given for charter school facilities. Focusing on a series of case studies in Idaho, the report argues that charter schools are unfairly denied funding for the construction and renovation of their school buildings. The examples the report relies on, however, are not “apples-to-apples” comparisons, and this makes any statewide generalizations suspect. Further, the report’s calculation of “costs-per-seat” ignores the reality that different students have different needs. Consequently, public district schools, which enroll proportionally more English language learners and students with disabilities, will likely have greater facilities expenses per pupil than charter schools. The report bemoans the fact that charter school facilities are not part of local school districts’ bonds and tax levies, yet it does not acknowledge that charter facilities are often owned by private entities. Mandating that local taxpayers support charter facilities would, therefore, force them to pay for buildings they would not own. Given these limitations, the report provides little guidance for policymakers and other stakeholders at a time when Idaho is working to overhaul its school funding system.
The Education Debt
Are Four-Day Weeks Bad for Students?
NEPC Review: Differences by Design? Student Composition in Charter Schools with Different Academic Models (American Enterprise Institute, February 2017)
A report by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Differences by Design?, compares differences in approaches and demographics between and among charter school models and local “traditional public schools.” Using three national data sets, the report effectively captures the national universe of charter schools. It empirically demonstrates that cream-skimming occurs and that charters segregate by income, special education, race and ethnicity, in that different demographic groups attend different types of charter schools. Charter schools, the authors contend, provide differentiated and “innovative schooling options” through varied academic models that cater to, and ultimately reflect, parental choices for their children. The resulting de facto segregation is presented as a benign byproduct of beneficial choices differentially associated with different racial and ethnic groups. They contend this is “in line with a properly functioning charter sector.” Unfortunately, the report does not demonstrate familiarity with the research on parent decision-making or with the extensive research suggesting that charter schools are not particularly innovative in the curricular or instructional options. Despite what the report claims, traditional public schools do, in fact, offer various academic model specializations like the ones offered by the charter schools. Ultimately, the report’s dismissive characterization of de facto segregation in charters, as a benign byproduct of parental choice, is at odds with the purpose and aims of equitable public education.
Review of Special Education and English Language Learner Students in Boston Charter Schools
A report investigates the enrollment and achievement of students with disabilities and students with English language learning (ELL) needs in oversubscribed charter schools in Boston. The report concludes that Boston charters and Boston Public Schools enroll similar numbers of both special populations and that charter attendance has a positive statistically significant effect for those who enter Boston’s charter school lottery and then enroll after being offered a seat. This review finds that econometric models used to estimate the effects are appropriate, but also more limited than the report would suggest. The report finds some interesting patterns that deserve further study; however the effects cannot be generalized to charter schools outside Boston or even to most students inside Boston. The study also offers no context to compare the size of reported gains and it does not adequately examine how or why the reported test score gains are realized; for example, it does not account for peer effects or spending differences. Ultimately, while this report takes an important step in studying how oversubscribed charters may affect the academic achievement of special needs students, a closer examination is needed in order to accurately inform those making education policy.
NEPC Review: ESEA Reauthorization: How We Can Build Upon No Child Left Behind's Progress for Students with Disabilities in a Reauthorized ESEA (Center for American Progress, April 2015)
This report asserts that more stringent accountability measures for schools (i.e., high academic standards for public school students) along with benchmarks for inclusion in state testing have improved the quality of education for students with disabilities. It compares 2000 to 2013 NAEP and NCES national-level data and finds increased test scores, decreased dropout rates, and increased graduation rates for students with disabilities, as well as improved outcomes for Black and Hispanic students with disabilities. While student outcomes have improved for students with disabilities, they cannot be causally connected with NCLB or NCLB-type reforms. This report is based on simple descriptive comparisons and assumes its interpretations and conclusions without any foundation. While an expansive research literature is available, none was used in this report. Further, aggregating data across the nation over 14 years obscures a multitude of possible other interpretations as well as hides regional, temporal, governmental and state variations. Consequently, the report does little to advance public policy for students with disabilities.
NEPC Review: Why the Gap? Special Education and New York City Charter Schools (Center on Reinventing Public Education and Manhattan Institute, September 2013)
This report attempts to shed light on the lower enrollment rates of children with disabilities in charter schools in New York City. It concludes that distinct differences in enrollment patterns can be largely attributed to lower application rates and not active measures by charter school officials to push out or “counsel out” students with special needs. While the report raises interesting issues about application and transfer patterns, it ultimately fails to provide useful results to inform policymakers. It neglects any review of related literature and therefore ignores alternate explanations for the statistical patterns found. Use of a restricted, non-representative data set places severe limitations on the generalizability of the findings and the conclusions that may be drawn. The report asserts but does not provide evidence that “counseling out” is minimal or does not occur, nor does it answer “why” disparities persist. The results do confirm the existence of enrollment disparities between charter and traditional public schools and growth in these disparities over time, and the report draws attention to the need to better understand the influences on parents’ decisions to apply to a charter school or not. The report also provides evidence that further research is necessary and suggests the need to employ student-level data, to track lottery applicants, and to employ a variety of research methods to ascertain both the precise contours of the “gap” and why it occurs in charter schools in New York City.
Review of New York State Special Education Enrollment Analysis
This report asserts that differences in charter and district school special education rates are far smaller than claimed in recent reports. While the report does show that under-enrollment patterns vary by grade level and to some extent by location, it downplays the fact that the largest subset of charter schools in its sample—elementary and K-8 schools, most of which are in New York City—do systematically under-enroll such children. Among traditional public schools, the report excludes special education schools while including selective middle and secondary schools; it retains special-education-focused charter schools, thus stacking the deck in its analyses—albeit still not achieving the authors’ desired result. The authors infer—without evidence or foundation—that charter elementary schools may provide better early intervention and avoid entirely whether variations in disabilities by type and severity exist between charter and district schools. Data from New Jersey and Philadelphia show that charter schools often serve sizeable shares of children with mild specific learning disabilities, but very few children with severe disabilities. The report’s objective seems to be to provide the appearance of an empirical basis for an advocacy goal: convincing policymakers it would be unnecessary to adopt “enrollment target” policies to address a special education under-enrollment problem that may not exist. The report’s own findings do not support this contention.
NEPC Review: Meeting the Needs of English Learners and Other Diverse Learners (May 2010)
The research summary titled Meeting the Needs of English Learners and Other Diverse Learners outlines the administration’s proposals for reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to address the special educational needs of a broad category of students described as "diverse learners." While it purports to address recommendations for three groups (English learners, other diverse learners, and students with disabilities), the report does not in fact include students with disabilities. The research summary provides general recommendations without a systematic review of the research in support of the recommendations and without specific suggestions for how to put them into effect. The research summary highlights challenges but fails to provide solutions or suggest program improvements. For example, it indicates that all prospective teachers should be trained in English-learner teaching but does not address how this could be accomplished. The report introduces topics such as inadequate funding, program flexibility, and the need for data disaggregation, but provides no insights into how to progress in these areas. It says little about the rich research base in English-language learning and in meeting the needs of diverse learners. The research summary is also notable for the challenges and possible recommendations it fails to address, such as content area assessments and instruction.
Suggested Citation: Klingner, J. (2010). Review of "Meeting the Needs of English Learners and Other Diverse Learners." Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved [date] from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/english-learners
Fellows’ Education Letters to the President
NEPC Review: The Effect of Special Education Vouchers on Public School Achievement: Evidence from Florida's McKay Scholarship Program (Manhattan Institute, April 2008)
A new report published by the Manhattan Institute for Education Policy, The Effect of Special Education Vouchers on Public School Achievement: Evidence from Florida’s McKay Scholarship Program, attempts to examine the complex issue of how competition introduced through school vouchers affects student outcomes in public schools. The possible contributions of this report, however, are outweighed by research design problems, failure to take into account alternative explanations, and unsubstantiated assumptions about the direction of possible selection bias. Together, these problems call into question the findings and render the conclusions drawn from those findings highly suspect.
Suggested Citation:
Yun, J. T. (2008). Review of “The Effect of Special Education Vouchers on Public School Achievement: Evidence from Florida’s McKay Scholarship Program.” Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [date] from http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-effect-of-special