Special Education & School Choice

Abstract

This article begins to unpack the complex effects of the policies of both the small schools and choice on students with special needs. Drawing on qualitative data collected throughout the 2008-2009 academic year and a range of quantitative data from New York City's public high schools, the author shows that while small schools and choice are intended to expand schooling options for all, students with special needs often find that when entering the public high school choice process, their selection set is narrowed. For families of students with special needs, the lack of adequate special needs resources can preclude schools from being considered as viable options. In addition, schools of choice engage in practices to deter higher need students from applying. The combined influences of parent decision and school choice processes result in betweenschool sorting, with larger institutions receiving the bulk of the higher need population of students, which is reflected in the city's enrollment data. The findings raise questions about not only the effects of the small school reforms, but also about the role of choice policies in the public educational system.

Choice, Mobility, and Classification: Disaggregating the Charter School Special Education Gap

“…Some prior research found that charter school administrators did not respond to parents’ requests for information if the parent signaled that their child might have more significant needs (Bergman & McFarlin, 2020), thus passively dissuading them from applying. In qualitative studies of school choice in New York City, administrators explicitly told parents of SWD that the services their child needed were not available at their school (Jennings, 2010; Jessen, 2013). Other times administrators and recruitment materials suggested that students not fitting a specific profile would be unsuccessful at their school (Jabbar, 2016; Jessen, 2013).…”

“…In qualitative studies of school choice in New York City, administrators explicitly told parents of SWD that the services their child needed were not available at their school (Jennings, 2010; Jessen, 2013). Other times administrators and recruitment materials suggested that students not fitting a specific profile would be unsuccessful at their school (Jabbar, 2016; Jessen, 2013). Parents of children with more substantial support needs are unlikely to choose a school that explicitly states, or implicitly suggests, they cannot provide more intensive special education services, although under IDEA all schools must provide the services on a student’s IEP.…”

“…Parents of SWD may less often choose to enroll their children in charter schools because of concerns that their child’s needs could not be met by the school. Within school choice systems, school administrators may engage in practices that signal to parents of SWD that their child will be unsuccessful or not have their needs met in a particular school environment (Bergman & McFarlin, 2020; Jabbar, 2016; Jennings, 2010; Jessen, 2013). Existing quantitative studies are limited in that the researchers did not directly observe parental schooling preferences but rather only enrollments, which are in part determined by other factors such as the number of seats available within the school.…”

The Boundaries of Competition: Examining Charter Schools’ Impact on Traditional Schools

“…In an analysis of market-oriented schools in both England and the United States, West et al (2006) conclude that both skimming and cropping appear to occur when choice and selection are involved. Several studies have found that charter schools are significantly less likely to serve students with disabilities relative to traditional schools (Dudley-Marling & Baker, 2012; Frankenberg et al, 2010; Jessen, 2013; Miron et al, 2010). Bergman and McFarlin (2018) conducted an audit experiment of over 6,000 public schools.…”

Preference Compromise and Parent Satisfaction With Schools in Choice Markets: Evidence From Kansas City, Missouri

“…They may also choose not to act on their desire for interracial/ethnic contact (and better resources) if they anticipate racial/ethnic bias in disciplinary practices, ability classification, and academic tracking in predominantly White schools (see Edwards, 2016; Elder et al, 2021). On the flipside of this dynamic, unfair overidentification of marginalized minority students for mild disabilities (see Skiba et al, 2008) can narrow parents’ choices and motivate them to compromise on various preferences for special education services (Jessen, 2012). In relation to this, they may be less satisfied with the schools in terms of their children’s learning and development.…”