A Charter School's Journey Toward Serving All Learners: A Case Study

Urban Education46(1) 55 –75

© The Author(s) 2011Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0042085910377859

http://uex.sagepub.com

1University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA

Corresponding Author:Elizabeth R. Drame, Exceptional Education Department, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, P.O. Box 413, 2200 E. Kenwood Blvd., Milwaukee, WI 53201, USAEmail: [email protected]

A Charter School’s Journey Toward Serving All Learners: A Case Study

Elizabeth R. Drame1 and Elise Frattura1

Abstract

Public charter schools across the country are struggling to better serve a range of students with disabilities. Using the approach of a participatory evaluation, a K-8 college preparatory school community of teachers, administrators, parents, and students were better able to define those practices that impeded or supported a high-quality proactive integrated comprehensive service delivery model for all learners. In so doing, they were empowered to take their research findings and move to action through adapting their mission statement aligned with policy and procedures that would better enable the creation and implementation of a collaborative comprehensive integrated service delivery model.

Keywords

charter schools, special education, service delivery, participatory research

Charter schools continue to multiply, even in today’s economy. State caps on charter schools across the country are being lifted in spite of the high-stake testing, academic accountability, and the continued need to self-market and fund-raise to stay in business (National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, 2007). As the literature grows in regard to the academic success of students

56 Urban Education 46(1)

within charter schools compared with their public school counterparts, little empirical data substantiates or confirms that students within charter schools are performing “better” than children in noncharter schools (Berends, Watral, Teasley, & Nicotera, 2006). Moreover, increased attention is being focused on special education and charter schools and the number of children with a range of disabilities accepted and proactively supported in such schools, espe-cially as comparisons with public schools serving a range of different learn-ers continues to be used as a measure of success.

According to Rhim, Ahearn, Lange, and McLaughlin (2006),

. . . multiple states documented that charter schools frequently struggle to understand their roles and responsibilities as they relate to special education. . . . struggle to meet the special needs of students with dis-abilities within the context of their mission and philosophy. . . . often find that the greatest differences in enrollments between charter and non-charter schools are evident for students having mental retardation and specific learning disabilities. . . . and find that families that choose charter schools are different from families that don’t make that choice according to race, socioeconomic status, and disability. (pp. 3-39)

The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools completed a study of 70 schools (2007) with varying results but found that above all accountability is a cornerstone for charter schools and authorizers. Yet most charter schools and authorizers have not been able to focus on how to better serve a range of differ-ent students as they are mired in accountability and financial standards.

In particular, concerns regarding how many students with disabilities are counseled out or when the mission of the particular charter school is used as a passive mechanism to narrow the type of student accepted to better meet accountability initiatives is significant in the overall education of each and every learner in cities of choice (charters, public, private). We know that such practices typically increase the number of students in need academically within urban public school districts. Even if the poverty and student racial demo-graphics are similar across charter and traditional public schools, the skewed proportions of students with disabilities resulting from such practices make comparing achievement of charter school and public school students a prob-lematic exercise.

In the face of all of these specific questions, charter school leaders are under significant pressure to provide evidence to justify the renewal of their charter contract. They struggle to meet two primary requirements to receive a posi-tive nod for renewal: (a) high student achievement and (b) financial stability/

Drame and Frattura 57

viability. Many charter school leaders know the importance of mirroring the demographic pool but struggle with a range of students with learning and behavioral needs, including those with more significant cognitive and physical disabilities while attending to accountability and financial requirements (Rhim, Faukner, & McLaughlin, 2006).

Concomitantly, charter authorizers play a significant role in supporting and providing technical assistance to charter operators as they work to meet fed-eral accountability standards (Rhim, 2007). Charter authorizers are required to clarify for their school operators, the intersection between state charter statute requirements and federal special education regulations (Rhim, Ahearn, Lange, & McLaughlin, 2006). It is critical to provide schools and their operators with relevant and coordinated technical assistance regarding all aspects of special education. This is an enormous responsibility for charter authorizers, yet it is not clear that all charter authorizers, particularly authorizers that are not con-sidered a local education agency (LEA), are aware of the need to integrate special education compliance and high-quality integrated service indicators in authorization, oversight, and renewal processes. In a national review of char-ter school authorizers, Rhim, Ahearn, Lange, and McLaughlin (2006) found that “. . . non-LEA authorizers reported having less responsibility and less involvement with special education in the schools they authorize than their LEA peers” (p. 28). Thus, often unintentionally, supporting a skewed demo-graphic pool of students in need served within charter schools.

According to the results from a national survey of charter school operators (Rhim, Lange, Ahearn, & McLaughlin, 2007), most often charter schools required technical assistance and training to address all of the complexities of designing and implementing a special education program as they build the capacity needed to provide high-quality services. Charter schools are legally required to support all students, including those with individualized educa-tion plans (IEP; Mead, 2002) and the courts have supported the notion that flawed advice or lack of resources does not negate the responsibility of the charter school to service every learner. From our work in charter schools across the country, it is clear that many charter school leaders and teachers have the will to support a range of different learners but may not have the know-how to be successful. Therefore, given the evidence suggesting that charter school authorizers are often unequipped to support their charter school operators in the planning of schools that include proactive services for all learners from the outset, other strategies are required to assist these schools in “retool-ing” their programs after initial implementation of the school. Given the will-ingness to serve the mirrored demographics, including those students with significant cognitive and physical disabilities, as well as meeting and


exceeding accountability and financial requirements, charter schools often require additional support that allows educators and communities to better understand how their practices impede or support their progress.

Participatory evaluation (Ryan, 2004) is a viable method for addressing many of the disparities created within charter schools when proactive sup-ports to address the needs of struggling learners are not included in the initial planning and implementation process. Through participatory evalua-tion, charter schools are better able to actively engage their school communi-ties in identifying the critical questions they have regarding barriers and opportunities to serving diverse learners. Participatory evaluation, where key stakeholders work collaboratively with researchers to design and execute a site-based evaluation, is grounded in giving voice to those who have been minimized at best or marginalized to the periphery. As Tilankarantna (1990) stated,

People who have been researched are in general not the beneficiaries of this process. The knowledge is not returned to the people. Moreover, the knowledge that is generated is of doubtful value for practical pur-poses because it has been collected through mechanical means which often fail to capture the perceptions of the people and their living realities.

Participatory evaluations assist in moving beyond objectifying those in the situation studied to functioning as equal partners (Garaway, 2004). Participant identification and selection becomes critical to the process because empow-erment goals of justice and democratization requires that participants who are viewed as low status/low power stakeholders be identified and successfully included in the process throughout. In fact, one aspect of participatory research is evaluating the level of empowerment and balance of voice in participation that is experienced by the participants. The role of the researcher(s) is to facilitate a process that empowers the participants, to inform the research design, methodology, assist the parties in data collection and analyses, and help clari-fying themes and areas for focus, or action.

The overall purpose of this participatory qualitative study was to encour-age instructors, administrators, students, and families to participate in mutual inquiry, analysis, decision making, and action planning to improve the nature and workings of special education at Lincoln Charter School (LCS, a pseud-onym). Attitudes toward inclusion in general, perceptions of special educa-tion, the nature of the special education service delivery system, and potential solutions to address concerns with special education service delivery were


addressed through interviews and focus groups with administrators, teachers, parents, and students. Themes that emerged from the qualitative data were verified and validated by the findings from a survey tapping attitudes toward inclusion. The agreed on goals of the interviews, focus groups, and survey from all participants were

1. to investigate attitudes and perceptions toward special education at LCS;

2. to explore perceptions of the viability of inclusive education at LCS;

3. to explore challenges and strengths in the current service delivery model at LCS; and

4. to surface potential solutions to identified challenges with the deliv-ery of special education services in an inclusive charter school setting.

MethodCase Study School Characteristics

LCS is an independent charter (public) school authorized by a local institu-tion of higher education who asked to be part of a participatory analysis to assist in better meeting the needs of each and every learner, especially those with disabilities. Any child living in this Midwest urban city limits is eligible to attend at no cost and is accepted through a blind lottery. The school has a total enrollment of 469 students and 21 staff members. For the past 3 years, LCS has had 2.6 full-time special education staff. Almost 75% of the stu-dents qualify for free and reduced lunch and 70% of the students come from single-parent households. LCS’s focus includes an emphasis on high academic standards, a college preparatory curriculum, and character and leadership development.

Students with disabilities are supported in the general education environ-ment for 80% or more of the day and LCS reported no expulsions. LCS sends a clear message to students that they can be successful, that school policies must be adhered to, and that each child should be proud to attend LCS. There has been a substantial increase in students identified as other health impaired (OHI) without a similar increase in the number of students attending the school. That is, OHI has almost doubled, whereas the population of students with dis-abilities has remained consistent. Referrals resulting in initial eligibility are high compared with the state rate of 65%. In addition, LCS is doing well to


retain their students and provide appropriate supports for timely arrival and attendance patterns, as evidenced by only an average of 6 students out of 469 being truant within any one year in a city where truancy is severely high.

ParticipantsA total of 22 individuals were interviewed either individually or in small groups of up to 3 individuals. Due to the small number of student and parent participants, the results primarily focused on the teacher and administrative interview/focus group data.

Data Collection and Analysis ProceduresA series of three meetings were held with a task force of general and special education teachers, the school administrator, curriculum specialists, and par-ents to determine the purpose of the participatory evaluation, research objec-tives, and data collection methods to be employed. The task force decided on focus groups, interviews, and a survey. They identified a representative subset of the teachers to be included in the qualitative study, as well as opening it up to parents and students.

The interview protocol was drafted by the researchers and revised by the task force. The interview questions were semistructured, allowing for a broad range of responses. Deviations from the interview protocol were made to explore specific comments made about special education that were not initially captured by the interview questions. Confidentiality of interview respondents was assured to enable respondents to share their thoughts, feel-ings, and concerns as openly as possible. Interviews were conducted in person between September 2006 and April 2007. In-person interviews were audiotaped and transcribed prior to analysis. Results were summarized and presented to the entire school staff, which included several parents of LCS students, through a collaborative debriefing session facilitated by the research-ers during an all-day in-service held in August 2007. Staff was divided into six heterogeneous groups of general and special educators, educational assis-tants, curriculum specialists, and administrators. Each group was asked to identify a prioritized list of action items based on one of the three themes. Results of prioritized action items were shared with the large group and dis-cussed at length, with consensus being obtained across the staff on a 3-year action plan incorporating the recommendations from each group. Quarterly meetings were held during the 2007-2008 school year between the researchers


and a core school team to support implementation of priority action items and ongoing reflection.

Data were analyzed using the constant comparative method (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Using this method, segments of data are compared and catego-rized. The categories are then integrated. These integrations are refined over time. This process allows for the development of recurring themes as they emerge from the data. Initially, a series of descriptive codes were generated after the initial review of the transcripts. These descriptive codes were inte-grated into the broad themes.

ResultsThe following broad themes emerged from the analysis: (a) philosophy and vision, (b) infrastructure, and (c) teaching and learning. Within each of these broad themes, several categories or subthemes were identified. In addition, each broad theme includes references to specific supports or solutions sur-faced by respondents that speak directly to strategies to resolve challenges regarding special education (see Table 1 for a delineation of themes and subthemes).

Theme 1: Philosophy and VisionThe philosophy and vision theme encompassed specific values, philosophies, and attitudes described by respondents. The following subthemes emerged: (a) school culture, (b) perception of general education teachers, and (c) percep-tion of special education support services.

Table 1. Themes and Subthemes

Theme 1: Philosophy and vision Theme 2: Infrastructure

Theme 3: Teaching and learning

School culture Caseloads Inclusion challengesPerceptions of general

education teachersCommunication barriers Teachers’ collaboration

and supportPerception of special

education teachersService delivery

SchedulingReferral


School culture. A strong subtheme emerged regarding the culture of the school. Respondents indicated that high expectations for students, families, and teachers permeate the school, “. . . our school has high expectations and we typically work a year ahead or better in regards to the curriculum.” These high expectations are evident in the drive to encourage high levels of achieve-ment in all students, particularly advanced students. Respondents made it clear that everyone is accountable for student learning. School practices sup-port these high expectations, such as (a) a structured and organized environ-ment, (b) accessibility to administrative support for academic and behavioral concerns, (c) staffing of educational assistants in elementary classrooms to support small group interventions, and (d) committed, dedicated teachers who put in extra time and effort into supporting student learning. The school was described as a “family” and active parental engagement and involvement was viewed as a real positive school element.

In addition to characterizing the “culture of high expectations and account-ability,” respondents recognized the value of having an inclusive environment. Inclusion is viewed as aiding the socialization of students with disabilities and encouraging peer-to-peer helping behaviors. This was also evident in state-ments made by respondents regarding their efforts to reduce the stigmatization of having a disability, evident in the statement made by one general educator, “I think we do a good job of including them and making them feel like they are a part class and not ostracizing them and making them feel like they are not as bright.”

Perhaps, as a result of the high expectations for teachers and students, some respondents felt that students who had tremendous difficulties with the school’s academic expectations had “no way out.” Despite the recently dissolving affiliation with a national charter school group in the 2003-04 school year, the philosophy permeates the school culture and is referenced numerous times across multiple respondents. A clear tension between want-ing to live up to the national charter school philosophy and a recognition that the school’s current practices often work against the needs of significantly struggling learners were evident in many responses. This tension is captured in the following quote.

Because I would say that 33% of my class really it [high expectations] is great for them. It pushes them, it’s great for them. We are giving them a lot of opportunities. But then there is an amount of my class that maybe developmentally they may not be ready for it. And they may catch up at some point sometime. . . . But there are also some I fear are always feeling disappointment. Or are always feeling that they are


hanging on from a thread. I feel for those who this might be too advanced for and that they should at that early of an age there should be an achievement feeling and that happiness about school and success. So I get nervous about that. . . . Kids can do great if they have that parent involvement, which we ask at our school to have that parent involvement. If it’s not there and the kid isn’t high level wise at first, it can be a very big struggle to the kid. Sometimes it can be disappoint-ing. We have been taught a lot about the [specific approach] way of praise. A lot of positivity. But I still think kids underneath know that even though my teacher says I’m smart. I know that I am not reading like everybody else. And it has to be heartbreaking after a while.

Perception of general education teachers. Respondents had definite perspec-tives on the attitudes and practices of the general education teachers. One clear subtheme was that some general educators were viewed as lacking a sense of “ownership” of all students. Such a lack of ownership is often related to gen-eral educators’ sense of overwhelm and frustration with meeting high expecta-tions. At LCS, general educators were perceived as having limited skills and preparation for working with students with special needs, particularly in the area of making curricular adaptations and accommodations. Based on our experience, we often see such a phenomenon commonly occurring in many urban schools across the country. Respondents’ perception of general educa-tors, as described by one respondent, is as follows:

It can be challenging for teachers to do that [making adaptations] in their classrooms and to know what accommodations . . . how can they modify the work slightly so that it more meets their needs and students can see growth and progress instead of just being overwhelmed.

In addition, a lack of understanding of special and general education teacher roles in an inclusive school emerged as a subtheme. This was evident in the perception that general educators had limited understanding of the complexity of special education service delivery. Some of the perceived conflict stems from differences in the value assigned to certain types of service delivery models. For example, the general educators were perceived as valuing ser-vices delivered in the general education environment via collaborative teach-ing arrangements, whereas special educators valued more diagnostic, remedial approaches in a separate environment.

Perception of special education support services. The special education staff is viewed positively by students with special needs and their parents. General


educators and administrators view the special education staff as being hard-working and committed individuals. Many respondents believed that due to being overloaded and understaffed, the special education staff was unable to support teachers and students in a variety of ways, including (a) staff acces-sibility to special educators for specific support and professional training, (b) consistent service delivery and follow through, and (c) active engagement of general educators in the IEP process.

In addition, there was a philosophical divide between the special educator’s desires to exit students after a period of receiving services versus the general educator’s perspective that students’ needed ongoing access to services over a longer period of time. As one respondent stated, “Students are dismissed too early out of special education and there is no evidence backing up the state-ment that students have made enough progress to move out of special education.”

Theme 2: InfrastructureThe theme of infrastructure describes the operations, procedures, and practices regarding special education service delivery. Several subthemes or categories were evident within this broad theme. Subcategories include (a) caseload, (b) communication barriers, (c) service delivery, including specific supports for struggling and students with special needs, (d) scheduling, and (e) referral.

Caseload. The consensus across the majority of respondents was that the special education caseload was too high. As one respondent indicated, “I felt that going into this year that we needed more special education staff. I think we are understaffed.” Increasing numbers, due to parent referrals, blind admis-sions, and increased identification has resulted in an unmanageable number of students with special needs requiring services. The problems with caseload were related to other categories described below, such as scheduling, referral, and communication barriers. Several respondents indicated that additional special education staff and educational assistants was one possible solution to resolving problems resulting from the high caseload.

Communication barriers. The significant caseload results in a lack of time for much needed communication between general and special educators. The minimal communication prevents ongoing communication around specific student needs and supports.

There is not good communication. They don’t really know what the expectations are, the teachers. Because I feel that that gap is there, I am not just saying it is a special education problem or it is their issue. But


it’s a school issue. Because of the lack of communication from the spe-cial education to the teachers . . . I do think the teachers are not holding up their end either.In addition, teachers had specific ideas about the types of communication

exchanges that would be more helpful, as described below:

I would say . . . the special education director has attempted via email this year, kind of sending out a quick note. But it’s not, it’s usually more of what she did versus how to incorporate it in the classroom. It’s more like, “I worked on these words this week,” FYI kind of thing, which is good knowledge for me, but I would like more contact as far as, “Here is a technique we do, let me sit down and show it to you, let me train your EA in this technique,” or “Here is a way to work with this.”

Service delivery. Currently, pullout or resource services in reading and math are available to students with special needs. A substantial tension regarding the best method for delivering special education services existed. Some teach-ers expressed a preference for group pull-out services versus the primarily individual pull-out model. One respondent stated,

The one way it [special education services] would be beneficial would be to pull students out in a small group. . . . We can meet their needs a lot more. They are going to learn from being with other kids. And we are going to make sure that all their time happens, because we are not going to run short on time. It’s just kind of a common sense thing.

Others indicated a preference for in-class instruction and support provided to students within the general education environment, whereas still others indicated a preference for a more blended “pull-out, push-in” approach. One respondent described specific views on such a blended approach in the fol-lowing quote.

There are some students, and I feel this as well, that there are some students who are so behind that they may need more pull-out. The social part is so important. That is part of growing and learning. And to have more inclusion for kids who can handle that. My motto is, it’s fine to take history, but if you cannot read at all we need to focus on the things that are most important. Reading, writing, and math are most important. I feel somehow dividing them and keeping them in the room. Focus on the ones in the room. And have those people in the room more


often. All of them are not at that level, but the ones who are really struggling, who need the one on one, do that. . . . So I think for some children the pull-out is needed. I think some children, a majority of them, will get more from being in their room getting history and the history project is adjusted at their level.

General educators expressed a desire to see that content addressed during pullout session’s mirror the academic content during which the students are pulled. The implications of this for grading and reporting student progress are described in the Teaching and Learning section. They also indicated the need for more frequent pullout, if that was the prevailing model, for students with more significant needs. In an effort to support student learning in the absence of more frequent pull-out services, classroom teachers employed a number of strategies, such as (a) a variety of grouping strategies, including ability group-ing, heterogeneous grouping, and peer partnering, (b) strategic use of educational assistants for reading intervention and reteaching of concepts, (c) tutoring, and (d) parent volunteers.

Scheduling. Respondents acknowledged the difficulty with implementing a consistent pull-out schedule for delivering services due to the caseload of students, particularly for reading. However, they expressed frustration due to the inconsistency in the pull-out schedule. As one respondent stated, “I think the student needs a consistent schedule, knowing when they are going to be pulled, what time. Every day, two days a week, three days a week, what-ever it is. It needs to be consistent, it’s not consistent.” Consistent schedules for service delivery and better time management were expressed as possible solutions.

Referral. According to respondents, several concerns exist with the special education referral process. Respondents indicated that the school culture made making referrals for special education difficult. This perspective is repre-sented in the following statement:

I think it [referral] is perceived in a kind of negative light, as far as we have this whole philosophy that the students don’t fail, the teachers fail, or the school fails. I know when we were a [specific approach] school, we kind of had to hide it under the carpet because she was a believer that all children can learn, they don’t have dis-abilities or special needs . . . [specific approach] philosophy was against labeling. She believed we can teach all kids and can reach all kids, gifted and with disabilities. . . . In her schools I don’t think there is any—I don’t know, personally, but I think it was kind of pushed


under the carpet. I think it is kind of viewed like in . . . the teacher is failing the student more, if you refer a child. I am always afraid to give a referral. Because again, I feel like I am failing as a teacher or I fear giving them [special education teachers] another student to be working with.

Some respondents indicated that referrals were discouraged for a variety of reasons. One said, “We are not recognizing students with difficulties early on. We need to identify students earlier. If a teacher refers a student, don’t put them off because the teacher is a new teacher. . . . They shouldn’t wait too late to identify.” When referrals were made, there were concerns with a lack of follow-through on the referral, as one respondent stated, “I question the refer-ral process. The follow-through on that. . . . I don’t want a parent coming back to me saying I referred by kid in November and it’s February.”

In addition, respondents indicated that there was no formal prereferral pro-cess for addressing the concerns of nonidentified students with disabilities. Several respondents indicated that there was a real need for preventative ser-vices to resolve student difficulties and to reduce the need for a referral. If struggling learners are identified early and receive specific interventions and services, the hope is that there will be a reduced need for future referrals. Establishing an interdisciplinary prereferral team where teachers receive sup-port for problem-solving strategies for addressing student difficulties was sug-gested as a possible solution.

Theme 3: Teaching and LearningThe theme of teaching and learning encompassed aspects of instruction and curriculum in relation to special education. Specific subthemes included (a) inclusion challenges and (b) teacher collaboration and support for a wide variety of learners.

Inclusion challenges. Students who are identified as having special needs were reported to have low reading and writing levels, be diagnosed with milder disabilities, and tend to experience frustration due to the pace and advanced nature of the curriculum. In particular, students who were new to the school struggled significantly to assimilate to the structure, routine, and advanced curriculum. It was clear that what was considered a school strength, the high expectations and rigorous curriculum, was also considered a challenge. In many instances, respondents considered the curriculum to be too advanced and rigid for struggling learners. The current curriculum is viewed as not meeting the needs of students with difficulties. One of the challenges with the


curriculum was the lack of incorporation of hands-on activities. This may be due (in part) to the conflict between the [specific approach] curricular approach and student needs, evident in the following quote:

And a lot of curriculum is [auditory lecture], Saxton is not huge on manipulatives. In the early primary we do teach a supplement with investigations, not very often, it’s done, but not very often. So, it’s inher-ent to our curriculum. If you look at [specific approach] and her meth-ods, it is in one way you have a lot of chorals. Which in good, but if you are always at that step behind and you are never right on it you kind of are not quite there and you are never going to get there. And I think that can be frustrating for students who really want to be there.

Another perception is the notion that inclusion actually “hurts” general and special education students, particularly as a result of the challenging cur-riculum and difficulties with adapting and differentiating the curriculum for students at different levels. A number of teachers indicated the need for cur-riculum that allowed for differentiation particularly in the area of reading. As one teacher noted, “. . . I would say my main needs are reading . . . definitely reading . . . because I feel that the books we read are so high level . . . all I know is students are reading something that’s at their level the most during the day that’s what’s going to help them progress to the level they want them to be at . . .”

Teachers struggle to include instruction in content areas that allow for more hands-on learning, such as science. In addition, they expressed a need for special education expertise in working with students with significant behavior challenges.

Teachers are reported in the elementary grades with a full-time educational assistant. Though educators are encouraged to use assistants to support students with special needs, conflicts exist because neither are assistants always viewed as skilled nor are they a consistent support to be depended on across all grade levels. They acknowledged that full-time educational assistants in the elemen-tary grades were expected to meet the need for preventative instruction through the reteaching of concepts in small groups and corrective reading strategies. However, some respondents expressed discomfort with relying solely on nonde-greed, uncertified, untrained educational assistants to address struggling stu-dents’ significant needs, as described below:

I do appreciate the fact that we do have educational assistants in every room in elementary, and I think, “O.K., maybe we don’t have to expand


special education,” but then we need to have requirements for educa-tional assistants to take some special education courses at the univer-sity, or just some extra training. If that is their role, then we need to train them in that role, because they are not . . . I think when we hire someone there is so much to learn at this school that they are kind of just thrown in, and some teachers don’t know how to use their educa-tional assistants effectively

and

They don’t have teaching degrees. I can’t expect them to be able to decode and have that so perfectly and to recognize some reading prob-lems. They are great assets, but I can’t put that total responsibility on them. They are support staff and they do a good job.

Teacher collaboration and support of a wide range of learners. Teachers would like to have additional time to access special educators, share knowledge, resources, feedback, and support. Both special and general educators expressed the need for a true partnership between general and special education. The quotes below capture this desire for a collaborative relationship between spe-cial and general education:

There needs to be something that says this is the responsibility, this is the partnership. You are required, because I think the teachers will sit back and say he is special educated and not try to find strategies. I think it should be collaboration. There needs to be a weekly meeting at grade level with the special education teacher and say what’s going on. What can we do differently?

and

It needs to be a partnership, not just this is a student struggling in my class so we will ship them off to the special education department, so they can get them caught up, so that they can function in my class-room. I mean it needs to be a joint effort. I mean some teachers are very great about that. You talk to them in their classroom every day. And you ask them how it is going. The teacher lets you know that this is what we are working on today. Can you incorporate this? I don’t quite get this. And there are other teachers who just shove their students


out the door and expect us to teach them what they are not getting in class.

This need for collaborative interactions and what the collaborative rela-tionships might look like in practice is evident in the following quote:

And occasionally they are in the classroom. For the most severe students they will actually come and sit through a class. And even when they are in the class, I don’t think there is a lot of coteaching that goes on. I believe that the special education teacher shows up, sits through class, explains what the teacher says. There is not a lot of let’s sit down and look at this plan together. Not a lot of that team planning or even giving feedback. In my mind I would like the special education team to also see the lesson plans each week from the teachers. Where they have kids, I know that’s a lot of work to do. But as a special education teacher you can say this is absolutely not going to work for my student, or this is.

In addition, classroom teachers indicated the need for additional training in special education, disability areas, effective use of grouping strategies, individualizing instruction, use of hands-on learning activities, behavior man-agement, strategies for addressing reading difficulties, and effective use of educational assistants.

Related to the desire to plan and deliver more differentiated curriculum with the special educators’ support, classroom teachers expressed a need for consistent assessment, monitoring, and collaborative reporting of student prog-ress. Current practices involve either general and special educators giving separate grades for a particular content area or the general educator giving grades based on the amount of time and work completed in a specific subject area. Both practices are viewed as problematic because neither grade is viewed as a true assessment of a student’s skill in a particular content area. One teacher stated, “Teachers not knowing exactly how to grade her because she’s pulled. And the special education department gives her a separate report card.” This conflict is evident in the following quote:

And that [grading] has been an issue because on the report card it says their classes. On the bottom we put these grades are based on adjust-ment. The struggle for me is if I am a teacher and I have kids and they are pulled out. Then on the report card I’m going to say I have only seen them for 15 out of 45 minutes because they were pulled out. There is confusion. I’m supposed to grade this kid? If I tutor for 15 minutes,


I am still responsible to give them a history project or a math test. And I know they go down for math and reading is what they work on in special education. Why am I responsible for something that I am not even teaching them? . . . Who grades whom? And when you are pulled out are you working on that subject or are you working on reading or math? Because then they are held responsible for giving a kid a grade . . . I feel that anything in writing with what the expectations are . . . if they are pulled during history we are working on history. If they are not working on history then their grades should come from whatever you are working on.

They expressed the desire for joint grading via a single, collaboratively developed official report card, evident in the following statement:

And you report to me and then the teacher and that other person col-laborate and talk about how they are going to adjust it [the grade]. And that grade is given from both of them. And it is one grade and we are not confused on here is your report card and this is your report card. And as a parent I am not confused. I know the official one . . . I think there has to be one report card. It can say whatever. But it needs to be one, official report card.

Specific suggestions for improving on teaching and learning experiences include (a) written documentation of academic expectations, (b) better docu-mentation of academic progress growth in achievement of special education students, (c) connection to classroom content during pull out, (d) increased collaborative planning, instruction, and adaptations, (e) collaborative grading, (f) assistive technology, (g) grade-level meetings attended by the special education teacher, (h) increased use of differentiated instruction strategies, particularly in middle school, (i) reading materials and adaptable reading cur-riculum at students’ reading level across the grades, and (j) flexible ability grouping during block reading times.

Discussion and ImplicationsAccountability and high standards are clearly reflected throughout the results. That being said, often the application and support for the advanced curriculum for students who struggle is significant. The issue is compounded by the absence of a proactive individualized support for students. In addition, incon-sistent and incoherent staff development to assist teachers in understanding


a range of student needs to proactively support students, creates difficulties for both teachers and students. The lack of a philosophical mission in support of a specific program service model for students with disabilities fuels the confusion over role descriptions. This type of disconnect plays into misun-derstandings of how to set in motion appropriate proactive supports for all learners.

According to the data, staff perceptions formed a dichotomy in service delivery. For example, often special education was supportive of a remedial model when general educators were interested in support from special educa-tion within their classrooms, thus, resulting in a disconnect in service deliv-ery. Such a disconnect was reflected within the survey results regarding the fact that inclusive education is valued for students with mild disabilities but not valued for students with cognitive disabilities. Inclusion was valued, according to survey results, based on academic benefit over social benefit. In the area of compliance, supplementary aids and services as well as program modifications were typically blank across student IEPs. Such a practice prevents students from being effectively supported in the general education classrooms. In addition, the development of positive behavior interventions necessary for proactive instruction within general education environments was a challenge for LCS, often leading to an increase in alternative place-ments or counseling out, which in the end fuels the concern regarding natural proportion of students with a range of disabilities balanced throughout all city schools.

Special education teacher caseloads across ten grades were extremely high, which greatly effected service delivery patterns and inhibited appropri-ate proactive communication in support of student success. Best practice often supports a 1 to 10 caseload across all disability areas for a limited num-ber of grades and a 1 to 12 ratio at the middle school level, again across a limited number of grades. What we know from experience and data is that compliance issues ensue when caseloads are excessively high as well as miss-ing significant components that would assist in better communication between special and general education teachers. In addition, there was limited evi-dence of previous intervention strategies and progress monitoring of a stu-dent’s annual goals. Substantiated by the survey results, there was little support for a team process to function in support of problem solving student needs. Consultative support and direct contact were limited, again reinforcing the concerns regarding communication across disciplines.

A fair amount of controversy occurred regarding the appropriate service delivery model for students with disabilities. Such a debate seemed to stem from a dichotomous philosophy for students who struggle. In addition, the


time to offer appropriate proactive supports due to numbers of students on caseloads as well as methodological differences led to a teacher-based ser-vice delivery model, often defined by the special education teacher comfort level. This type of service delivery model perpetuated students with more significant needs being pulled from inclusive classrooms characteristic of a more integrated service delivery model. In addition, scheduling issues were complicated by the inconsistency of such an ill-defined pull-out model. The confusion in this area was reinforced by the poorly and often void descriptors of why a student would not be educated in the general education classroom and the absence of the required modifications necessary for a student with disabilities to be successful as documented in the compliance section of this report. In addition, at first glance, the number of children who had been sus-pended 1 day or those who had been suspended multiple days seemed higher than typical and in total averages about 193 students or almost 50% of the student population at any one time. More inquiry in this area is necessary to determine accuracy and causal behavioral relationships.

The perceived culture of the school inhibited referral as it was often a controversy (general or special education) in the absence of student-based problem-solving team. Such a team could function in support of Response to Intervention (RtI) requirements under IDEA04 as well as assist teachers in building capacity. The absence of the review of previous interventions within the compliance data clearly reinforced this void and need for such a problem-solving team. Again, the challenges within teaching and learning stemmed from the basic philosophical differences as well as infrastructure concerns with caseloads. When these two areas go hand-in-hand the impact on teach-ing and learning is significant.

The process of surfacing the complexity of the challenges and the poten-tial opportunities for change in a participatory evaluation with the LCS com-munity has resulted in a fundamental sense of empowerment and move to action. Based on the results of this participatory study, the school has devel-oped an avenue to respond to the results to move forward to better meet the needs of the range of learners they serve. For example, during the debriefing process, the school community modified the school’s mission and vision to make it the driving force for the alignment of policy and procedures that would then result in meaningful communication patterns in support of proac-tive support of student learning. The administrator spearheaded the clarifica-tion of the roles of general and special educators, educational assistants, curriculum specialists, and administrators in support of the inclusive mission and vision. The administrator validated the concern regarding caseloads and added an additional special education teacher to reduce the caseload


inequities and to promote the development of a collaborative service delivery model. A small interdisciplinary team of general educators, special educators, educational assistants, and curriculum specialists collaboratively developed a problem-solving, prereferral team structure with the capacity to suggest, sup-port, and monitor preventative interventions for unidentified students. A final example of the change process engaged in by the school community was the review of literacy curriculum and the adoption of curriculum that allows for differentiation and adaptations for learners across the spectrum.

LCS completed a participatory evaluation as a proactive response to their desire to better serve a range of student needs, especially students with dis-abilities. This study was a result of their desire to investigate attitudes and perceptions toward special education and its viability. In this way, LCS teach-ers and administrators were better able to acknowledge their challenges and strengths documented through this case study and most important, come to agree on solutions as a school community in support of high-quality inclusive education for those students who struggle behaviorally and academically, either significantly or mildly.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

This research was supported in part by a Faculty Diversity Research Award from the University of Wisconsin System Institute on Race and Ethnicity.

References

Berends, M., Watral, C., Teasley, B., & Nicotera, A. (2006). Charter schools: What fosters growth and outcomes? Paper presented at the National Center on School Choice conference, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.

Garaway, G. (2004). Participatory evaluation. In K. deMarrais & S. D. Lapan (Eds.), Foundations for research: Methods of inquiry in education and the social sciences (pp. 249-281). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Mead, J. F. (2002). Determining charter schools’ responsibilities for children with disabilities: A guide through the legal labyrinth. Boston University Public Interest Law Journal, 11, 167-189.

National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. (2007). Charter school achievement: What we know (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.


Rhim, L. M. (2007). Navigating special education in charter schools. Part I: Under-standing legal roles and responsibilities. Chicago: National Association of Charter School Authorizers.

Rhim, L. M., Ahearn, E., Lange, C., & McLaughlin, M. J. (2006). Charter schools’ special education infrastructure (Project Intersect Research Report No. 4). Col-lege Park: Institute for the Study of Exceptional Children and Youth, University of Maryland–College Park.

Rhim, L. M., Faukner, J., & McLaughlin, M. J. (2006). Access and accountability for students with disabilities in California charter schools (Project Intersect Research Report No. 5). College Park: Institute for the Study of Exceptional Children and Youth, University of Maryland–College Park.

Rhim, L. M., Lange, C., Ahearn, E., & McLaughlin, M. J. (2007). Survey of charter school operators (Project Intersect Research Report No. 7). College Park: Insti-tute for the Study of Exceptional Children and Youth, University of Maryland–College Park.

Ryan, K. E. (2004). Serving the public interests in educational accountability. Ameri-can Journal of Evaluation, 25, 443-460.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and pro-cedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tilankarantna, S. (1990). A short note on participatory research. Retrieved March 15, 2008, from http://www.caledonia.org.uk/research.htm

Bios

Elizabeth R. Drame, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Department of Exceptional Education at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. She earned her doctorate at Northwestern University. Her research interests include special education teacher quality, educational outcomes for students with disabilities in charter school settings, and collaborative strategies for educating students with disabilities in inclusive settings.

Elise Frattura, PhD, is an associate professor at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee Department of Exceptional Education and Educational Administration. She earned her doctorate at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Frattura researches and publishes in the area of nondiscrimination law, integrated comprehensive ser-vices for all learners, and the theoretical underpinnings of educational segregation. In addition, Frattura works with school districts across the country to assist in the move-ment from programs to services through a participatory formative analysis approach she has developed and written about.

A Charter School's Journey Toward Serving All Learners: A Case Study

Documents

Transcript of A Charter School's Journey Toward Serving All Learners: A Case Study