School Quality Matters Most, Whether District or Charter

When it comes to serving students who learn differently or have other special educational needs, we should be most concerned with whether or not the they attend have the ability to serve them well. This is what the Individuals with Disabilities Education (IDEA) Act requires, this is what the legally binding Individualized Educational Plans (IEPs) specify, and this is what most parents want for their children. Of course, many parents also want to ensure that their child is not marginalized, isolated, or separated from other children. Rather than insisting that a school accept a student, however, we should first seek to ensure that school has the resources and staff to meet the child's needs. This is not what is occurring in several cities where school districts have developed choice systems. The data suggest that in many districts, school choice has increased the likelihood that the neediest children--special education students, English language learners, homeless children, and others who are typically low-achieving--will be concentrated in a small number of schools. Under existing policies that judge based on student test scores, that serve a disproportionate number of such high need students are also more likely to be labeled as failing. Many such are more likely to fail not only because they are overwhelmed by their students' needs, but because in many cases they lack resources to meet their students' needs and are often staffed by the least-prepared personnel. This is what has happened over the last 10 years in New York City. A 2009 report by Parthenon Group, a private consulting firm commissioned by the NYC Department of Education, showed that the city's failing schools had enrolled a disproportionate number of high need students. Though vague on how the city's choice system had contributed to the problem, the report implied that because a small number of were serving a disproportionate share of high need' students, their likelihood of failure had increased. The report also suggested that the problem was related to the fact that many selective public and charter were allowed to screen out or counsel out the most disadvantaged children. In explaining why some were outperforming others, the report found, Nearly 804 of variance among individual performance can be explained by a few factors, amongst which, enrollment size and concentration of low level students (both ELA and Math) are the most important. This report reminds us that it is not only charter that may have found ways to avoid serving significant numbers of special education students. Many high-performing public employ strategies to screen out such students as well, either by not providing the services needed for special education students, or by employing admissions policies that make it difficult or unlikely for such students to gain access. Charter frequently point to the fact that they admit students based on a lottery to defend themselves against accusations of bias in admissions. Anecdotal evidence obtained from the parents of special education students, however, suggests that in some cases, parents are counseled to take their children out of a school due to a lack of fit, or told explicitly that their school of choice lacks the resources to meet the learning needs of their child. While the extent of such practices is difficult to document, there is evidence that the lottery process itself is unlikely to include parents of some of the most disadvantaged children. …