Access & Opportunities:

1. Access & Opportunities: Educating Children with Disabilities in Charter Schools

2. OSEP Disclaimer 2019 OSEP Leadership Conference DISCLAIMER: The contents of this presentation were developed by the presenters for the 2019 OSEP Leadership Conference. However, these contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government. (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)

3. Introductions Moderator: Jamie Wong Director of Special Education Louisiana Department of Education

4. Charter Schools 101 Lauren Morando Rhim, PhD Executive Director and Co-Founder National Center for Special Education in Charter Schools

5. Charter School Primer I • Publicly funded, autonomous, schools of choice created under authority articulated by a state charter law • 44 states and Washington, DC (2018-19) • ~7,000 charter schools • ~3+ million students • Charter bargain: autonomy for accountability via parental choice and renewable charter contracts

6. Charter Primer II • Charter School Authorizers: Entities granted legal authority by state statute to “authorize” or “sponsor” charter schools • Types of Charter School Authorizers: • State Education Agencies • Local Education Agencies • Autonomous authorizing entities • Non-profits • Municipalities • Institutions of Higher Education

7. Legal Context • Multiple layers of authorities apply: • Federal special education law • State charter school and special education law • District requirements (where applicable) • Authorizer rules • Charter contract requirements

8. Special Education in Charters

9. Applying Special Ed. Law to Charters • States are responsible for provision of special education services under IDEA and must create appropriate statutes and regulations to guide its implementation. • Charter schools, however, did not exist at the time IDEA and most of the related state laws and regulations were passed; there has been very little state-level legislation addressing how policies affect public charter schools. • The result is that many of these laws do not take the complicated nature of the relationship between a charter school and the entity that authorizes it into account.

10. LEA Status • Core Consideration: Who is the LEA? • LEA = Local Education Agency • LEA = the entity primarily responsible for special education • Could be school • Could be district • Could be authorizer

11. LEAs & Charter Schools • In many states, charter schools are independent LEAs; in others they are part of an LEA (district or authorizer) • States that give charter schools legal autonomy by giving them status as independent LEAs treat such schools like their own district • They enjoy more freedom in areas such as curriculum design, hiring, and program implementation, but are responsible for the full continuum of services for students with disabilities analogous to a multi-school district • Charter LEAs typically receive state and federal funds directly and have control over how those funds are distributed • Charters that are part an LEA have less responsibility but also less control

12. Special Education in Charter Schools Opportunities Challenges Inherent tension between IDEA team decision-making and parental choice Legal status ambiguity Lack of technical expertise Providing a full continuum absent economies of scale Funding disparities • Provide parents and students an opportunity to exercise choice in how they will be educated in alignment with their strengths and preferences • Create mission-driven schools that include students with disabilities by design • Develop innovative service provision models in a time-compressed manner absent having to overcome existing policies and practices • Provide online and hybrid/blended learning environments that support highly individualized instruction

13. How Can Challenges Manifest in Practice? • Counseling out • Noncompliance with credentialing requirements • Rigid discipline • Not spending adequate time on special education • Failing to provide mandated services • Poor educational outcomes for students with disabilities

14. What do we Know? Civil Rights Data Collection

15. Overall Enrollment of Students with Disabilities (2008-14)

16. Enrollment of Students with Disabilities by Legal Status (2013-14)

17. Enrollment of Students with Disabilities by Disability Type (2013-14)

18. Enrollment of Students with Disabilities by Educational Environment (2013-14)

19. Discipline: Suspensions of Students with Disabilities (2013-14)

20. Discipline: Expulsions of Students with Disabilities (2013-14)

21. State-Level Dynamics Gina Plate Vice President, Special Education California Charter School Association

22. Charters by Special Ed Option Over 50% of charter schools are schools of their authorizing LEA for special education purposes.

23. Slide 23 Special Ed Enrollment Trends Pending analysis

24. SWDs in Charters

25. Political & Policy Challenges in 2019 • For all California charter schools – Strong anti-charter shift, as shown through legislation aimed at restricting charter growth, strengthening district authorizers’ ability to deny charter petitions, and questioning of appeal options; • Spotlight on ability of SWD to equitably access charter schools – Calls for equity for SWD in charters have focused on enrollment percentages for SWD, enrollment procedures for SWD, and retention of SWD in charter schools. • Growing push for special education funding reform across districts and charters – Under current census-based funding formula, funding is based on total student enrollment, not number of SWD or level of SWD need. State also has no high-cost pool/reimbursement for non-NPS programs. As total enrollment decreases in CA while SWD (especially AUT) numbers go up, all LEAs are feeling increased budget pressure. • Missing from the public debate: a focus on student outcomes.

26. Accountability Implications • Accountability under IDEA ultimately rests with the LEA responsible for FAPE. However, CA’s approach to SPP/APR and SSIP disregards this intent and requires charters to develop action plans even if they do not carry responsibility for service delivery. • The State’s accountability system currently holds all charter schools accountable for the performance of SWD enrolled at that school, regardless of whether it is the authorizer or the charter that holds ultimate legal responsibility for FAPE. • Both the charter school and its authorizer should be held accountable if they share responsibility for FAPE.

27. Equity Considerations • Any comparison of charter and traditional SWD enrollment must take into account the entity responsible for FAPE. • A lower % identified may not be a sign that SWD are not being served well, but rather that more emphasis is placed on early intervention and MTSS.  • Rather than pegging SWD enrollment to a specific number, state policy should focus on ensuring that students have equitable access to all public schools, and to create funding policies that help funds follow students and their needs, regardless of the type of school they attend.

28. Parental Choice in Charters Courtney Salzer, J.D. Executive Director Wisconsin Family Assistance Center for Education, Training, & Supports

29. Evidence from Parent Centers Nationwide • Why do parents make the choice to send their child with a disability to a charter school? • What challenges might parents face? • What opportunities for parental choice in charters exist?

30. Critical Transitions: Early Childhood Special Education Allison Trentman, PhD Director of Student Support Services AppleTree Early Learning Public Charter Schools

31. Part C to Part B Transition in Washington, DC • Students may enroll when already in eligibility process • Charter network is responsible for referrals and evaluations once a child has enrolled • Students may enroll prior to transition to Part B • Charter network receives IFSP that may not translate to a school setting • Students may enroll after transitioning to Part B • Charter network receives IEP that may not translate to a school setting

32. Early Access to Data • Office of State Superintendent of Education (OSSE; Washington, DC) houses database for access to newly enrolling students, including Part C information • Supports staffing, training needs, and resource allocation • Timeframe and accuracy of enrollment? • Separate entity (with close ties to public school district) working with families of birth to 3  newly formed partnership with OSSE

33. Provision of Continuum of Services • Inclusion setting • Push in and Pull out support across providers • Multiple models across sites • Access to Dedicated Aides • Self-Contained classroom with step down opportunity within 30 days • Low-incidence and high-incidence disabilities

34. Complete Scope of Services • Special Education Teachers and Coordinators on staff • Related Service Providers on staff • Related Service Providers on contract • Many vendors can support the full scope of services prescribed on students’ IEPs

35. Obstacles & Solutions • Multi-site network • Staffing for programs and services • Programmatic plans/shifts • Enrollment shifts, student mobility • Newly identified students during school year

36. Question & Answer

37. OSEP Disclaimer 2019 OSEP Leadership Conference DISCLAIMER: The contents of this presentation were developed by the presenters for the 2019 OSEP Leadership Conference. However, these contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government. (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)