CHARTER SCHOOLS

Additional Federal 

Attention Needed to 

Help Protect Access 

for Students with 

Disabilities

Report to Congressional Requesters

June 2012

GAO-12-543

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-543, a report to 

congressional requesters

June 2012

CHARTER SCHOOLS

Additional Federal Attention Needed to Help 

Protect Access for Students with Disabilities

Why GAO Did This Study

While the number of charter schools is 

growing rapidly, questions have been 

raised about whether charter schools 

are appropriately serving students with 

disabilities. GAO was asked: (1) How 

do enrollment levels of students with 

disabilities in charter schools and 

traditional public schools compare, and 

what is known about the factors that 

may contribute to any differences? (2) 

How do charter schools reach out to 

students with disabilities and what 

special education services do charter 

schools provide? (3) What role do 

Education, state educational agencies, 

and other entities that oversee charter 

schools play in ensuring students with 

disabilities have access to charter 

schools? GAO analyzed federal data 

on the number and characteristics of

students with disabilities; visited 

charter schools and school districts in

three states selected on the basis of 

the number of charter schools in the 

state, among other things; and 

interviewed representatives of federal, 

state, and other agencies that oversee 

charter schools.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Secretary 

of Education take measures to help 

charter schools recognize practices 

that may affect enrollment of students 

with disabilities by updating existing

guidance and conducting additional 

fact finding and research to identify 

factors affecting enrollment levels of 

these students in charter schools.

Education agreed with our

recommendations.

What GAO Found

Charter schools enrolled a lower percentage of students with disabilities than 

traditional public schools, but little is known about the factors contributing to 

these differences. In school year 2009-2010, which was the most recent data 

available at the time of our review, approximately 11 percent of students enrolled 

in traditional public schools were students with disabilities compared to about 8 

percent of students enrolled in charter schools. 

GAO also found that, relative to traditional public schools, the proportion of 

charter schools that enrolled high percentages of students with disabilities was 

lower overall. Specifically, students with disabilities represented 8 to 12 percent 

of all students at 23 percent of charter schools compared to 34 percent of 

traditional public schools. However, when compared to traditional public schools, 

a higher percentage of charter schools enrolled more than 20 percent of students 

with disabilities. Several factors may help explain why enrollment levels of 

students with disabilities in charter schools and traditional public schools differ, 

but the information is anecdotal. For example, charter schools are schools of 

choice, so enrollment levels may differ because fewer parents of students with 

disabilities choose to enroll their children in charter schools. In addition, some 

charter schools may be discouraging students with disabilities from enrolling. 

Further, in certain instances, traditional public school districts play a role in the 

placement of students with disabilities in charter schools. In these instances, 

while charter schools participate in the placement process, they do not always 

make the final placement decisions for students with disabilities. Finally, charter 

schools’ resources may be constrained, making it difficult to meet the needs of 

students with more severe disabilities.

Most of the 13 charter schools GAO visited publicized and offered special 

education services, but faced challenges serving students with severe 

disabilities. Most charter school officials said they publicized the availability of 

special education services in several ways, including fliers and placing ads in the 

local newspaper. Many charter schools GAO visited also reported tailoring 

special education services to individuals’ needs, but faced challenges serving 

students with severe disabilities due to insufficient resources. About half of the 

charter school officials GAO interviewed cited insufficient resources, including 

limited space, as a challenge. 

The U.S. Department of Education’s (Education) Office for Civil Rights has 

undertaken two compliance reviews related to charter schools’ recruitment and 

admission of students with disabilities in three states, but has not issued recent 

guidance covering admission practices in detail, nor has Education conducted 

recent research about factors affecting lower enrollment in charter schools. The 

three states GAO visited already have taken steps to monitor charter schools’ 

admission practices. In addition, officials in these three states reported 

prohibiting disability-related questions on charter school admission forms, in part 

to protect students with disabilities’ access.

View GAO-12-543. For more information, 

contact George Scott at (202) 512-7215 or

scottg@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-12-543 Serving Special Populations

Letter 1 

Background 3

Enrollment Levels of Students with Disabilities in Traditional 

Public Schools and Charter Schools Differed, but Little Is Known 

about Factors Contributing to Differences 6

Charter Schools We Visited Offer Special Education Services, but 

Faced Challenges with Severe Disabilities 14

Education Is Reviewing Admission Practices, and Some States 

Have Implemented Preventive Measures 17

Conclusions 21

Recommendations for Executive Action 22

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 22

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 24

Appendix II Additional Analysis 32

Appendix III Additional Data 35

Appendix IV Comments from the U.S. Department of Education 37

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 40

Tables

Table 1: Percent of Traditional Public Schools and Charter Schools 

Serving Students with Disabilities in School Year 2009-

2010 9

Table 2: Site Visit Characteristics 30

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-543 Serving Special Populations

Figures

Figure1: Differences in Charter Schools’ LEA Status for Purposes 

of Special Education 4

Figure 2: Percent of Students in Charter Schools and Traditional 

Public Schools Who Had Disabilities Compared to 

Students with Disabilities’ Overall Representation in 

Public Schools 7

Figure 3: Differences in the Percentage of Students with 

Disabilities Enrolled in Traditional Public Schools and 

Charter Schools for States with Operating Charter 

Schools in School Year 2009-2010 8

Figure 4: Percent of Students with Disabilities Enrolled in 

Traditional Public Schools and Charter Schools by 

Disability Type for School Year 2009-2010 10

Figure 5: Amount of Time Spent inside Regular Class by Students 

with Disabilities, School Year 2009-2010 11

Figure 6: Selected Factors That May Contribute to Differences in 

Enrollment Levels of Students with Disabilities in 

Traditional Public Schools and Charter Schools 12

Figure 7: Distributions of Students’ Disability Types for Students 

with Disabilities Enrolled in Traditional Public Schools 

and Charter Schools for School Year 2009-2010 36
Page iii GAO-12-543 Serving Special Populations

Abbreviations

CCD Common Core of Data

CSP Charter Schools Program, U.S. Department of 

 Education

Education U.S. Department of Education 

ESEA Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965

FAPE free appropriate public education

IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

IEP Individualized Education Program

Justice U.S. Department of Justice

LEA local educational agency

OCR Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education

OESE Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. 

 Department of Education 

OII Office of Innovation and Improvement, U.S. Department of 

 Education

OSEP Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of 

 Education

OSERS Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 

 U.S. Department of Education

Section 504 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

SEA state education agency

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-12-543 Serving Special Populations

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

June 7, 2012

The Honorable George Miller

Ranking Member

Committee on Education and the Workforce

House of Representatives

The Honorable Raúl Grijalva

House of Representatives

As the number of charter schools in the United States continues to grow, 

questions have been raised about whether charter schools, a relatively 

new phenomenon in public education that began in the early 1990s, are 

appropriately serving students with disabilities and providing access to 

students with more severe disabilities. Actions at both the state and local 

levels have shed light on this issue and brought it to the attention of the 

public. For example, a class-action lawsuit filed against the Louisiana 

Department of Education in October 2010 alleges that students with 

disabilities were denied access to New Orleans public schools, most of 

which are charter schools, and cites lower percentages of students with 

disabilities in charter schools compared to traditional public schools.1

Charter schools provide students and parents with increased educational 

options, and all students, including students with disabilities, generally 

enroll in charter schools on the basis of their parents’ choice. States grant 

charter schools increased autonomy in school management in exchange 

for agreeing to improve student achievement, but charter schools do not 

have the authority to waive federal statutory requirements related to 

education.

In response to questions about enrollment levels of students with 

disabilities in charter schools, we addressed the following questions: (1) 

how do enrollment levels of students with disabilities in charter schools 

and traditional public schools compare, and what is known about the 

factors that may contribute to any differences; (2) how do charter schools 

reach out to students with disabilities and what special education services 

 

1

This lawsuit is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of 

Louisiana and was filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center. P.B. v. Pastorek, No. 2:10-

cv-04049.

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-543 Serving Special Populations

do charter schools provide; and (3) what roles do the Department of 

Education (Education), state educational agencies (SEA), and other 

entities that oversee charter schools play in ensuring students with 

disabilities’ access to charter schools?

To compare enrollment levels of students with disabilities in charter 

schools and traditional public schools,2

This study was not intended to determine charter schools’ compliance 

with applicable federal requirements for educating students with 

disabilities.

we analyzed school-level data for 

school years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, the most recent data available at 

the time, from a custom data file provided by Education. The data include 

counts of students with disabilities in traditional public schools and charter 

schools, students’ age and disability type, the educational environment, 

and whether each school is its own local educational agency (LEA) or 

part of a larger LEA. To examine how charter schools reach out to 

students with disabilities and the types of services charter schools 

provide, we visited a major metropolitan area in three states and 

interviewed officials in 13 charter schools as well as several school 

districts, selected to include states with a large number of charter schools, 

a mix in LEA status, and geographic diversity. To determine the role 

Education and other organizations play in ensuring students with 

disabilities’ access to charter schools, we reviewed relevant federal laws 

and regulations and interviewed representatives of Education, the 

Department of Justice, selected SEAs, and other entities, such as charter 

school authorizers that oversee charter schools. We also interviewed 

representatives of state and local charter school organizations and 

organizations representing parents of students with disabilities about their 

perspective on students with disabilities’ access to charter schools. 

Appendix I provides a detailed description of our methodology and its 

limitations, as well as the scope.

We conducted this performance audit from February 2011 to May 2012, 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

 

2

We use the term “traditional public school” to distinguish charter schools from other types 

of public schools. For more information on the different types of public schools, see app. I.
 

Page 3 GAO-12-543 Serving Special Populations

findings and conclusions based on the audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. We assessed the reliability of 

the data file that Education provided by (1) performing electronic data 

testing for obvious errors in accuracy and completeness, (2) reviewing 

existing information about the data and the system that produced the 

data, and (3) interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about these 

data. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the 

purposes of this report.

Charter schools are public schools created to achieve a number of goals, 

including encouraging innovation in public education and addressing 

failing schools. Charter schools operate with more autonomy than 

traditional public schools in exchange for agreeing to improve student 

achievement, an agreement that is formalized in a contract or charter with 

the school’s authorizing body. From about 3,000 charter schools in school 

year 2003-2004 to almost 5,000 in school year 2009-20010, the number 

of charter schools in the United States continues to grow. Spurring this 

growth are parents’ and others’ desire for schools that reflect their vision 

of public education, and federal incentives, such as the recent $4 billion 

Race to the Top (RTT) competitive grant fund, which among other things, 

encourages the growth of high performing charter schools, and the 

Charter Schools Program Grants for Replication and Expansion of High 

Quality Charter Schools.

States specify which entities within the state can authorize the 

establishment of a charter school, including state departments of 

education, state boards of education, school districts or local educational 

agencies (LEA), institutions of higher education, and municipal 

governments. Some states have also created independent charter school 

boards that can authorize charter schools in the state. Once charter 

schools are in operation, the authorizer is generally responsible for 

monitoring school performance and has authority to close the school or 

take other actions if academic goals or state financial requirements are 

not met.

States also define how charter schools will be structured and they do so 

in different ways (see fig. 1). For example, unlike traditional public schools 

that are part of a larger LEA, some states establish charter schools as 

their own LEA. Other states require them to be part of a larger LEA, while 

still other states allow charter schools the option to choose between being 

a distinct LEA or part of a larger LEA. Further, some states allow charter 

Background 
 

Page 4 GAO-12-543 Serving Special Populations

schools to be their own LEA for some purposes and part of a larger LEA 

for others, including for purposes of special education. With respect to 

special education, two common practices are that (1) in states that define 

a charter school to be a part of a larger LEA, the responsibility for 

providing special education services to charter school students with 

disabilities remains with that LEA and (2) in states where charter schools 

are their own LEA, the state makes charter schools responsible for 

providing the services themselves.

Figure1: Differences in Charter Schools’ LEA Status for Purposes of Special 

Education

Like traditional public schools, charter schools are subject to a number of 

federal requirements. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 19733 and 

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act4

• IDEA was enacted in 1975 and authorizes federal funding for special 

education and related services. For states that accept IDEA funding, 

the statute sets out detailed requirements regarding the provision of 

special education, including the requirement that children with 

disabilities receive a free appropriate public education.

(IDEA), as amended, are 

the two primary laws that address the rights of students with disabilities to 

education.

5

 

3

Codified at 29 U.S.C. § 794.

In addition, 

4

Codified at 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.

5

20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1).
 

Page 5 GAO-12-543 Serving Special Populations

under IDEA, states must ensure that an Individualized Education 

Program (IEP) is developed and implemented for each student with a 

disability. The IEP process creates an opportunity for teachers, 

parents, school administrators, related services personnel, and 

students (when appropriate) to work together to improve educational 

results for children with disabilities. These requirements apply in 

public charter schools just as they do in traditional public schools. 

IDEA provides funding and assigns responsibility for complying with 

requirements to states, and through them, to LEAs. In ensuring that 

IDEA requirements are met for students with disabilities attending 

charter schools, states may retain that responsibility or assign it to the 

charter school LEA, the larger LEA to which the charter school

belongs, or some other public entity.6

• Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, enacted in 1973, is a civil rights 

statute that prohibits discrimination against an otherwise qualified 

individual with a disability solely by reason of disability in any program 

or activity receiving federal financial assistance or under any program 

or activity conducted by an executive agency. Education’s Section 

504 regulation states that no qualified person with a disability shall, on 

the basis of disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the 

benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any 

program or activities which receives federal financial assistance.7

Subpart D of Education’s regulation contains specific requirements 

regarding elementary and secondary education, including the 

provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to each 

qualified person with a disability in the recipient’s (recipient of federal 

financial assistance) jurisdiction, regardless of the nature or severity 

of the person’s disability.8

• Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, 

prohibits discrimination based on disability in public entities, including 

Even if a state declines IDEA funds, the 

state must comply with Section 504 if it receives other federal financial 

assistance. Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) enforces Section 

504 for the department’s programs through investigation of complaints 

and compliance reviews that are initiated by the department.

 

6

34 C.F.R. § 300.209.

7

34 C.F.R. § 104.4(a).

8

34 C.F.R. §§ 104.33-104.36.
 

Page 6 GAO-12-543 Serving Special Populations

schools.9 The Department of Justice and OCR both have jurisdiction 

to investigate complaints under this title.10

Charter schools enrolled11 a lower percentage of students with disabilities 

than traditional public schools in both school years 2008-2009 and 2009-

2010 (see fig. 2).12

 

9

42 U.S.C. § 12132. Public entities include any state or local government and any of its 

departments, agencies, or other instrumentalities. 

For example, in school year 2009-2010, there was 

about a 3 percentage point difference between the percentage of 

students with disabilities enrolled in traditional public schools and charter 

schools. As shown in figure 2, the percentage of students with disabilities 

in charter schools increased slightly between the 2 school years we 

examined, while the percentage of students with disabilities in traditional 

public schools stayed about the same.

10Pursuant to a delegation by the Attorney General of the United States, OCR shares in 

the enforcement of Title II for all program, services, and regulatory activities related to the 

operation of public elementary and secondary education programs, institutions of higher 

education and vocational education (other than schools of medicine, dentistry, nursing, 

and other health-related schools), and libraries. The Department of Justice (Justice) 

amended its regulations in 2010 to allow Justice to exercise its discretion to retain a Title II 

complaint that may fall within another agency’s jurisdiction. Justice stated that it would 

consult with the other agency if it does plan to retain the complaint. 28 C.F.R. § 35.190(e) 

and Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services, 

75 Fed. Reg. 56, 164, 56, 229 (Sept. 15, 2010).

11For purposes of our analysis, the term “enrolled” includes students with disabilities who 

received special education and related services under IDEA in a regular classroom as well 

as students in other educational environments whose services were provided through a 

traditional public school district or charter school LEA. For more information on the 

different educational environments for students with disabilities, see app. I.

12The student population for our analysis includes students aged 6 to 21 in those 40 

states with operating charter schools and the District of Columbia during school years 

2008-2009 and 2009-2010 only. Data for students in traditional public schools in those 10 

states without operating charter schools during school years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 

are omitted from our analysis. We also excluded schools categorized as closed, inactive, 

or future schools as well as charter schools with an enrollment level of zero. School-level 

data on students with disabilities were not available for the District of Columbia, 

Mississippi, Rhode Island, and Tennessee for school year 2008-2009 and for Tennessee 

and Utah for school year 2009-2010. See app. I for more information.

Enrollment Levels of 

Students with 

Disabilities in 

Traditional Public 

Schools and Charter 

Schools Differed, but 

Little Is Known about 

Factors Contributing 

to Differences 
 

Page 7 GAO-12-543 Serving Special Populations

Figure 2: Percent of Students in Charter Schools and Traditional Public Schools 

Who Had Disabilities Compared to Students with Disabilities’ Overall

Representation in Public Schools

Note: The student population for our analysis includes students aged 6-21 in those 40 states with 

operating charter schools and the District of Columbia during school years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 

only. School-level data on students with disabilities were not available for District of Columbia, 

Mississippi, Rhode Island, and Tennessee for school year 2008-2009 and for Tennessee and Utah 

for school year 2009-2010. Therefore, students in those states were excluded from our denominator 

when calculating the percentages shown above. See app. I for more information.

When examining enrollment levels of students with disabilities in 

traditional public schools and charter schools for individual states, a more 

varied picture emerges. In most states, charter schools enrolled a lower 

percentage of students with disabilities when compared to traditional 

public schools. For example, in the state of New Hampshire, about 6 

percent of students in charter schools were students with disabilities 

compared to about 13 percent of students in traditional public schools. 

However, in eight states—Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wyoming—charter schools enrolled the same 

percentage or a higher percentage of students with disabilities than 

traditional public schools in the state (see fig. 3). For example, in 

Wyoming, the enrollment level of students with disabilities in charter 

schools was about 4 percentage points greater than in traditional public 

schools.
 

Page 8 GAO-12-543 Serving Special Populations

Figure 3: Differences in the Percentage of Students with Disabilities Enrolled in Traditional Public Schools and Charter 

Schools for States with Operating Charter Schools in School Year 2009-2010

a

We also found that, relative to traditional public schools, the proportion of 

charter schools that enrolled high percentages of students with disabilities 

was lower overall and generally tapered off the greater the enrollment of 

students with disabilities. Specifically, the enrollment of students with 

disabilities was 8 to 12 percent at 23 percent of charter schools and 34 

percent of traditional public schools. Further, when the enrollment of 

students with disabilities reached 12 to16 percent, about 13 percent of 

charter schools compared to 25 percent of traditional public schools had 

these enrollment levels. However, when compared to traditional public 

schools, a higher percentage of charter schools enrolled more than 20 

percent of students with disabilities. During an interview with Education, 

an official noted that there has been an increase in charter schools for 

School-level data on students with disabilities were not available for Tennessee and Utah for school 

year 2009-2010. Data on students with disabilities in charter schools were missing for the state of 

New York. See app. I for more information on state-level data.
 

Page 9 GAO-12-543 Serving Special Populations

students with disabilities, such as schools for students with autism, for 

example, which may help explain this difference.

Table 1: Percent of Traditional Public Schools and Charter Schools Serving 

Students with Disabilities in School Year 2009-2010 

Percentage of students with 

disabilities out of each school’s 

total enrollment

Percent of traditional 

public schools

(N=74,673)

Percent of charter 

schools

(N=4,111)

less than 4 3.4 16.8

4 to less than 8 19.3 29.7

8 to less than 12 34.2 23.1

12 to less than 16 24.7 12.5

16 to less than 20 10.4 6.1

>=20 8.0 11.7

Source: GAO analysis of EDFacts data and the Common Core of Data.

Note: See app. I for more information on how we arrived at the total number of traditional public 

schools and charter schools in order to calculate the percentages shown and for information on 

missing data.

A more detailed look at aggregate enrollment data of students with 

disabilities in traditional public schools and charter schools shows that 

compared to traditional public schools, charter schools enrolled a lower 

percentage of students in each of the 13 disability categories13

 

13The 13 categories defined by IDEA are: (1) autism, (2) deaf-blindness, (3) 

developmental delay, (4) emotional disturbance, (5) hearing impairment, (6) intellectual 

disabilities, (7) multiple disabilities, (8) orthopedic impairment, (9) specific learning 

disability, (10) speech or language impairment, (11) traumatic brain injury, (12) visual 

impairment, and (13) other health impairment. Some states do not use all of these 

disability categories.

in school 

year 2009-2010 (see fig. 4). For example, of all students enrolled in 

traditional public schools, about 5 percent of students had a specific 

learning disability, compared to about 4 percent of all students enrolled in 

charter schools. For information about the distribution of students’ 

disability types, see appendix III.
 

Page 10 GAO-12-543 Serving Special Populations

Figure 4: Percent of Students with Disabilities Enrolled in Traditional Public Schools and Charter Schools by Disability Type 

for School Year 2009-2010

Note: Missing data are not shown.

Of those students with disabilities who spent time in regular class, a 

higher percentage of students with disabilities in charter schools spent 80 

percent or more of the day in a regular classroom compared to those 
 

Page 11 GAO-12-543 Serving Special Populations

students in traditional public schools (see fig. 5). For example, about 80 

percent of students with disabilities in charter schools spent 80 percent or 

more of the day inside regular class compared to about 62 percent of 

students with disabilities in traditional public schools.

Figure 5: Amount of Time Spent inside Regular Class by Students with Disabilities, 

School Year 2009-2010 

Although there are differences in enrollment levels, the reasons for these 

differences are not entirely clear. During the course of our work, we 

learned about several factors such as parental preference and school 

capacity that may help explain why charter schools enroll a lower 

percentage of students with disabilities when compared to traditional 

public schools (see fig. 6). However, information about these factors is 

often based on anecdotal information, and little is known about how each 

of the factors actually contributes to differences in enrollment levels, if at 

all.

Little Is Known about 

Factors Contributing to 

Differences in Enrollment 

Patterns
 

Page 12 GAO-12-543 Serving Special Populations

Figure 6: Selected Factors That May Contribute to Differences in Enrollment Levels of Students with Disabilities in Traditional 

Public Schools and Charter Schools

Parents’ preferences and students’ needs may play a role in contributing 

to differences in enrollment levels. For example, according to a national 

organization representing special educators and parents of students with 

disabilities, parents often weigh their options and take many things into 

consideration when deciding whether or not to enroll their child in a 

charter school. Parents may consider whether or not a charter school’s 

mission—such as that of a single-language immersion charter school—is 

philosophically aligned with their goals for their child. Parents also may 

consider the availability of transportation, what grades the charter school 

serves, and whether the charter school’s special education services 

would meet their child’s needs.

Anecdotal accounts also suggest that some charter schools may be 

discouraging students with disabilities from enrolling and denying 

admission to students with more severe disabilities because services are

too costly. Representatives of a parent organization we spoke with said 
 

Page 13 GAO-12-543 Serving Special Populations

that some charter schools do not identify disabilities or document special 

education services, but rather provide the interventions “informally,” 

without including them on students’ IEPs. The representatives expressed 

concern about this practice, because if a student transfers to another 

school, the school may not be aware of the types of services the student 

had previously been receiving. Furthermore, some charter schools give 

“placement exams,” which schools say are designed to provide baseline 

information on students’ knowledge, but representatives of this 

organization said that these types of exams can be frustrating to some 

students with disabilities and may discourage them from enrolling. 

However, there are no comprehensive data to determine the extent to 

which charter schools may be discouraging students with disabilities from 

enrolling or the extent to which such practices actually contribute to 

differences in enrollment levels.

Moreover, how placement decisions are made for students with 

disabilities may also influence enrollment levels. For example, in some 

instances, charter schools are not ultimately responsible for making the 

final placement decision for students with disabilities. This is the case for 

those charter schools that are part of a larger LEA where final placement 

decisions for students with disabilities are made by the LEA, not the 

charter school. It may be the case that more often than not, LEAs 

determine that traditional public schools, not charter schools, are in a 

better position to commit resources and to ensure that the services 

agreed upon in a student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) can 

adequately be provided. For example, charter schools may not have the 

same capacity, resources (e.g., space), knowledge, or experience 

necessary to serve students with specified disabilities. In addition, charter 

school LEAs may face challenges acquiring special education services or 

providers because charter school LEAs, which are often smaller than 

traditional public school districts, may not have the same resources that 

larger-sized school districts have. Different state funding formulas for 

special education may also drive placement decisions. For example, 

some states provide a higher level of funding for special education based 

on the severity of a student’s disability, making it more feasible financially 

for schools to serve students with more severe disabilities. In contrast, 

other states do not take such factors into consideration when providing 

funding for special education, which may place a heavy financial burden 

on individual schools.

The distribution of grade levels in traditional public schools and charter 

schools differs, which may contribute to differences in enrollment levels of 

students with disabilities as well. Education’s National Center for 
 

Page 14 GAO-12-543 Serving Special Populations

Education Statistics (NCES) reported that elementary schools constituted 

71 percent of traditional public schools compared to 54 percent of charter 

schools during school year 2008-2009.14 Therefore, parents of 

elementary school-aged children with disabilities may find fewer charter 

school options because a lower percentage of charter schools serve this 

age group and because charter schools represent a small percentage of 

all public schools nationwide.15

Further, we heard anecdotally from charter school representatives and 

researchers that, following a reassessment, school officials may 

determine that a student that previously had an IEP no longer needs 

special education, which could account for the lower percentages of 

students with disabilities in charter schools.16 However, there are no 

available data to support this, and an Education official suggested that 

students with disabilities in general do not leave special education in large 

numbers.

Most of the 13 charter schools we visited reported using multiple 

strategies to publicize the availability of special education services in their 

school and the charter school’s presence in the community. For example, 

some charter school officials mentioned word-of-mouth as a way of 

informing parents about their school.17

 

14Secondary and combined schools accounted for 27 and 19 percent of charter schools, 

respectively, and for 24 and 5 percent of traditional public schools, respectively.

Some also reported distributing 

fliers in the community, mailing fliers to parents of every kindergarten 

student or 5th grader, or placing ads in the local newspaper or other 

media. Some schools said that they did not specifically target students 

with disabilities.

15In school year 2008-2009, approximately 45 percent of all school-aged students with 

disabilities were aged 6 to 10; 24 percent of students were aged 11-13; 25 percent 14-18; 

and 6 percent 19-21.

16Education collects data on the number of students with disabilities, ages 14 through 21 

only, who exited special education. Therefore, there are no comprehensive data for all 

school-aged students who leave special education.

17A table describing the characteristics of the charter schools we visited is provided in 

appendix I.

Charter Schools We 

Visited Offer Special 

Education Services, 

but Faced Challenges 

with Severe 

Disabilities
 

Page 15 GAO-12-543 Serving Special Populations

In combination with these more informal strategies, many of the charter 

schools we visited also said that they held an open house or meeting 

during which prospective students and their parents could visit the school, 

ask questions, and tour the school. Some saw the open houses as an 

opportunity to discuss the special education services they offered. 

Officials at one school said that their special education teachers attended 

the open house and discussed their program, including any limitations in 

the school’s special education offerings. Several of the charter schools 

could not accommodate all of the students wishing to enroll and held a 

lottery to determine admission. Some said that they had waiting lists and 

emphasized that they accepted students on a first come, first served 

basis, and thus give no preference to students with disabilities or other 

student subgroup.

Many of the charter school officials we interviewed demonstrated 

awareness that inquiring about a student’s disability status on the charter 

school application might be perceived as an attempt to discourage 

enrollment and took steps to minimize the possibility. For example, in two 

of the states we visited, in charter schools that asked parents to fill out an 

application form, charter school officials said that the form did not ask 

questions about the student’s disability status. Once the child was 

accepted to the school and enrolled, some schools asked parents to fill 

out an enrollment form that asked for information about the child’s health 

history, and, if transferring from another school, about the child’s prior 

academic program, including receipt of special education services. 

Charter school officials emphasized that questions about disability status 

or prior receipt of special education services were not asked on the 

application form and made reference to state requirements that prohibited 

such questions before enrollment. According to state officials, such 

questions were prohibited to prevent charter school officials from using 

the information to identify students that were potentially more costly to 

serve and to attempt to discourage the parents from enrolling such 

students before an assessment of their needs was done.

In contrast, some charter school officials in one of the three states we 

visited did include questions about receipt of special education services 

and whether the child had an IEP on the charter school application form. 

Officials representing the school acknowledged that the application 

includes such questions but said that they look at the application only for 

name, address and telephone number. Officials at another charter school 

reported that the school’s admission application collects information about 

whether a child has special needs, but discounted the accuracy of the 
 

Page 16 GAO-12-543 Serving Special Populations

information, saying that some parents of students with disabilities become 

confused about the services their child has received and the terminology.

Many of the charter school officials we interviewed reported providing 

services specific to each child’s needs. The special education services 

offered by most of the charter schools we visited included speech and 

language therapy, occupational and physical therapy, counseling, and 

academic supports, usually in reading and math. Some charter schools 

visited offered vision, hearing, and behavioral supports and some 

mentioned providing technologies to assist students with more severe 

learning disabilities.

Almost all of the charter schools we visited offered special education 

services to students in the regular classroom for most of the day, with 

“pull-out” sessions in a resource room for more focused services. The 

term “pull-out” sessions refers to the practice of providing special 

education services for students with disabilities in a place that is separate 

from the regular classroom. One school reported using “push-in” 

sessions, in which the special education teacher went into the classroom 

to provide special education services. Officials at three schools reported 

teaching students in a self-contained classroom, but some said they did 

not have the resources to provide that type of educational environment. 

One charter school official said that when a student’s IEP includes a 

service that the school does not offer, such as a self-contained 

classroom, the IEP committee has modified the IEP to accommodate 

facility limitations while still meeting the needs of the child. For example, 

that school offered more intensive services in the general classroom 

staffed by a general education teacher, a special education teacher and a 

teaching assistant, for students whose IEP specifies those services.

When faced with a need for services by a child already enrolled that were 

greater than the charter school could provide, the charter schools we 

visited took different approaches. In charter schools where the district 

was responsible for placement, most of the charter school officials we 

interviewed said that the school district intervened to decide the 

appropriate placement for the child and inform the parents. In contrast, 

charter school LEAs took different approaches. One said that parents 

were told during an IEP meeting that the school could not serve certain 

severe disabilities. Before moving the child, officials reconvened the IEP 

meeting to consider the decision. Two others discussed the issue with the 

parents, but allowed them to make the decision on where to place the 

child, without reference to an IEP placement decision meeting.

Charter Schools Reported 

Tailoring Special 

Education Services to 

Individual Students’ Needs
 

Page 17 GAO-12-543 Serving Special Populations

Officials representing about half of the 13 charter schools we visited said 

that having sufficient resources to serve students with more severe 

disabilities, including providing a self-contained classroom when needed, 

was their greatest challenge. For example, two officials said that their 

school facility could not provide a self-contained classroom. A third official 

explained that providing a self contained classroom is especially 

challenging because of the need to provide separate classrooms for each 

grade grouping as well as teachers. Thus, if a school had 3rd and 4th 

graders requiring self-contained classrooms, they would need to have 

space to accommodate two separate classrooms. The official said that 

the charter school would not have enough teachers to cover those 

different grade levels. According to representatives of charter school 

organizations we interviewed, providing services to students with severe 

disabilities can be very costly and some charter schools could face 

severe financial difficulties serving students with very severe disabilities.

Charter schools that cited insufficient resources as a challenge included 

both charter school LEAs and charter schools within a district. Other

resource challenges school officials cited included the cost of specialists’ 

services, and obtaining staff qualified to serve their students’ needs, such 

as a bilingual special education teacher or a specialist to teach an autistic 

child. However, two charter schools within a district said that, because the 

district provided all services needed, the cost of services was not a 

challenge. Both charter schools were located in the same school district.

The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is responsible for ensuring equal access 

to education through enforcement of the civil rights laws, including 

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. OCR has issued regulations 

implementing Section 504 and conducts complaint investigations and 

compliance reviews to determine if entities that receive federal financial 

assistance from Education are in compliance with these regulations. The 

Section 504 regulations prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability by 

recipients and subrecipients of federal financial assistance from 

Education.18

 

1834 C.F.R. Part 104.

The Section 504 regulations also require that entities that 

receive federal financial assistance from Education and that operate 

public elementary or secondary schools provide a free appropriate public 

education to qualified students with disabilities regardless of the nature or 

About Half of the Charter 

Schools We Interviewed 

Cited Insufficient 

Resources to Serve Severe 

Disabilities as a Challenge

Education Is 

Reviewing Admission 

Practices, and Some 

States Have 

Implemented 

Preventive Measures
 

Page 18 GAO-12-543 Serving Special Populations

severity of the disability.19

During fiscal year 2010, OCR told us that it had investigated complaints 

concerning students with disabilities in charter schools. According to 

OCR, more than 50 percent of all the complaints OCR received that year 

concerned disabilities, but of those complaints, about 2 percent were 

made against charter schools.

In addition, OCR issues guidance that explains 

the requirements of the regulations and in 2000 issued “Applying Federal 

Civil Rights Laws to Public Charter Schools, Questions and Answers” 

about the civil rights requirements applicable to charter schools, including 

Section 504 requirements. OCR also provides technical assistance to 

school districts, parents, and other stakeholders regarding the 

requirements of Section 504.

20

OCR officials also said that OCR has several broad compliance reviews 

underway related to students with disabilities and charter schools. Four of 

37 compliance reviews OCR began conducting in fiscal year 2011 focus 

on charter schools. Of these, two pertain to recruitment and admissions 

issues and two address FAPE. Officials said that because all of these 

reviews are currently ongoing, they were unable to share details of what 

they have found thus far. The officials said that their compliance reviews 

involve extensive investigations that may last up to a year and result in 

reports of findings and violations, if any, which are posted on OCR’s 

website. They said they thought that the ongoing reviews were the first 

that had included issues of students with disabilities and charter schools.

OCR could not readily determine from its 

complaint management system how many of those complaints concerned 

admission to charter schools.

Additionally, Justice officials we interviewed said that the department has 

recently amended its regulations to permit it to retain complaints under 

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, as amended, 

 

1934 C.F.R. §§ 104.33-104.36. OCR stated that it recognizes that state charter school 

laws may affect how responsibilities are allocated among varying entities in connection 

with the provision of FAPE for students with disabilities enrolled in charter schools. In 

enforcing Section 504 regulations, OCR stated that its responsibility is to determine 

whether students with disabilities are treated in a nondiscriminatory manner and are 

provided a FAPE. OCR also noted that there is nothing in its regulations or guidance that 

indicates that the obligations of recipients to provide nondiscriminatory admissions and a 

FAPE are limited because of factors such as a lack of resources.

20In school year 2009-2010, approximately 3.6 percent of all students enrolled in public 

schools were enrolled in charter schools. 
 

Page 19 GAO-12-543 Serving Special Populations

which may include complaints of discrimination against students with 

disabilities by public schools, including charter schools. Justice’s Civil 

Rights Division conducts the investigations, and told us that its jurisdiction 

would include complaints related to admissions issues, including the 

types of questions asked by charter schools in applications as well as 

schools’ practices and procedures for serving students with disabilities. 

However, the Civil Rights Division’s data collection system does not 

capture the number of complaints it received by type of disability or type 

of school.

In 2000, Education both issued its guidance on applying federal civil 

rights laws to public charter schools and sponsored an in-depth study 

highlighting issues about students with disabilities’ access to charter 

schools. However, although the number of charter schools has increased 

since the issuance of this guidance and research, Education has not 

updated its guidance, and officials in Education’s Program and Policy 

Studies Service and Institute for Education Sciences are not aware of 

further research that might address the challenges and issues confronting 

charter schools today. Education’s guidance addresses a number of 

issues, including issues related to the education of students with 

disabilities. For example, with respect to outreach and recruitment 

practices, the guidance provides that schools may not discriminate 

against students with disabilities, among others, and that recruiting efforts 

should be directed at all segments of the community served by the 

school, including students with disabilities. Regarding admissions, the 

guidance specifically states that charter schools may not categorically 

deny admission to students on the basis of disability, including a student’s 

need for special education or related aids and services. The guidance 

also notes that when an enrolled student is believed to have a disability, 

the school is required to follow appropriate procedures to identify and 

refer the student for evaluation in a timely manner. While the guidance 

does provide basic information about charter school practices concerning 

students with disabilities, it does not provide more detailed information on 

the acceptability of specific practices, such as asking on a charter school 

application form whether a child has a disability or previously had an IEP.

Education also sponsored an in-depth study of students with disabilities’ 

access to charter schools in 2000. This study, issued by the Office of 

Educational Research and Improvement, examined some of the factors 

that may explain the difference in students with disabilities’ enrollment in 

charter schools and traditional public schools, most prominently 

highlighting a practice where parents of students with disabilities were 

Education’s Guidance and 

Research May Not Address 

the Range of Issues 

Confronting Charter 

Schools Today
 

Page 20 GAO-12-543 Serving Special Populations

being discouraged during the admissions process from enrolling their 

students in charter schools.21 The study, based on site visits to 35 charter 

schools, detailed a lack of fit between the curriculum and the student’s 

needs and insufficient resources as reasons given for discouraging 

enrollment of students with disabilities.22 At the time of this study, the 

charter school population was less than one third its current size, and this 

study may not fully explain the factors underlying lower enrollment levels 

in charter schools.

Among the three state educational agencies (SEA) we visited, all have 

implemented measures addressing admission practices in some capacity. 

One SEA reported that it had developed detailed monitoring and 

guidance for charter schools concerning their responsibilities for serving 

students with disabilities.23 This SEA said that charter schools are 

advised of their IDEA responsibilities in the school’s application to the 

state for federal grant funds and in the state application to become a 

charter school. This SEA also reported that a nondiscrimination clause is 

included in the state’s charter school application, which it said precludes 

charter schools from asking for information about disability status or prior 

receipt of special education services in their applications for admission. 

Admission and enrollment forms are reviewed intensively as part of the 

charter school application and renewal process.24

 

21See Thomas Fiore, Lessley M. Harwell, Jose Blackorby and Kara S. Finnegan, Students 

with Disabilities in Charter Schools: A National Study (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 

of Education, 2000).

22The study employed a purposive sample of schools based on five variables that defined 

key characteristics of charter schools. The variables, identified from a review of research, 

represented factors that may influence charter schools’ capacity to serve students with 

disabilities. The variables were (1) proportion of students with disabilities enrolled, (2) 

federal public charter school grant recipient status, (3) level of operational autonomy 

based on the extent of the schools’ control over admissions and budgets, (4) grade levels 

served, and (5) geographic region.

23At the state level, SEAs oversee compliance with IDEA’s requirements for identification 

and assessment of students with disabilities and the provision of a free appropriate public 

education. In addition, SEAs may assist the state authorizer with its charter school 

oversight responsibilities, including accepting and reviewing applications to become a 

charter school and assessment of the charter school’s performance at charter renewal. 

24However, this SEA monitors only charter school LEAs authorized by the State Board of 

Education. 

All Three of the States We 

Visited Monitored Charter 

Schools’ Admission 

Practices
 

Page 21 GAO-12-543 Serving Special Populations

A second SEA sponsors webinars and works with charter schools prior to 

schools opening so that charter schools have more opportunities to learn 

about the regulations and their responsibilities for educating students with 

disabilities before they open. For example, this SEA is developing a 

webinar on how to implement state charter school law requirements that 

set enrollment targets for students with disabilities for all charter schools. 

The law also required the SEA to develop a uniform, statewide charter 

school admission form. The SEA official we interviewed told us that the 

state’s admission form does not include questions concerning disability 

status. While parents’ needs and preferences may influence their 

decisions about whether or not to place their child in a charter school, the 

law requires charter schools to demonstrate a good-faith effort to recruit 

them. The third SEA also does not allow charter schools to ask applicants 

about anything related to their need for special education services at the 

time they apply for admission to the school.

In contrast to the SEAs, the school district authorizers interviewed 

reported little monitoring of charter schools’ recruitment or special 

education service delivery plans. 

Against the backdrop of a growing and changing charter school 

landscape, we found that enrollment of students with disabilities in the 

aggregate is lower in charter schools than in traditional public schools. 

Whether these enrollment differences will persist or continue to narrow is 

difficult to predict, given the lack of information about factors underlying 

these differences and how they affect enrollment levels. By issuing 

guidance that raises awareness about the practices that might be 

perceived as an attempt to discourage enrollment, officials in the states 

we visited have already begun to take steps to forestall the possibility that 

charter school admission practices play a role in lower enrollment levels 

in charter schools. However, the guidance Education issued in 2000, 

while important in providing basic information to charter schools with 

respect to students with disabilities, does not provide more detailed 

information on the acceptability of specific admission practices under 

applicable civil rights laws. Moreover, while Education sponsored 

research several years ago that pointed out problems in charter school 

admission practices, we believe that the study’s findings do not 

adequately address the range of possible factors affecting enrollment 

raised in our report.

Conclusions 
 

Page 22 GAO-12-543 Serving Special Populations

To help charter schools recognize practices that may affect enrollment of 

students with disabilities and improve the information available for 

monitoring and oversight, we recommend that the Secretary of Education 

do the following:

1. Update existing guidance to ensure that charter schools have better 

information about their obligations related to the enrollment of 

students with disabilities.

2. Conduct additional fact finding and research to understand the factors 

affecting enrollment of students with disabilities in charter schools and 

act upon that information, as appropriate.

We provided a draft of this report to the U.S. Department of Education for 

review and comment. The comments are reproduced in appendix IV.

Education agreed with our findings and recommendations. Education 

commented that it is committed to providing meaningful updated guidance 

to its stakeholders and that it is actively working with the charter school 

community, parents, civil rights organizations, and other stakeholders to 

determine what additional questions are most pressing and what type of 

revised guidance would be useful. The department also said that it 

anticipates that the knowledge gained from the four compliance reviews 

currently underway will provide additional insights into compliance issues 

specific to charter schools that could inform the development of guidance. 

Further, Education said that based on information they have received to 

date, including information provided in our study, the department is 

considering additional or updated guidance for charter schools related to 

recruitment, admissions, accessibility, and the provision of a free 

appropriate public education (FAPE). With respect to our second 

recommendation, Education said that over the next several years, it 

proposes to examine issues underlying enrollment of students with 

disabilities in several ways. For example, it plans to conduct focus groups 

with parents of students with disabilities in a sample of communities with 

a larger charter school presence, compile a set of case studies of charter 

schools with both high and low enrollment of students with disabilities, 

and review state polices and guidance concerning students with 

disabilities in charter schools. Education also provided technical 

comments, which have been incorporated in the report as appropriate.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 23 GAO-12-543 Serving Special Populations

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the

report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of

Education. 

In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s website at 

http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this 

report, please contact me at (202) 512-7215 or scottg@gao.gov. Contact 

points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs can 

be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major 

contributions to this report are listed in appendix V.

George A. Scott

Director

Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 24 GAO-12-543 Serving Special Populations

This appendix discusses our methodology for examining enrollment levels 

of students with disabilities in charter schools and traditional public 

schools, the types of services charter schools provide, and the U.S. 

Department of Education’s (Education) role in ensuring students with 

disabilities’ access. The work was framed around three questions: (1) 

How do enrollment levels of students with disabilities in charter schools 

and traditional public schools compare, and what is known about the 

factors that may contribute to any differences? (2) How do charter 

schools reach out to students with disabilities and what special education 

services do charter schools provide? (3) What roles do the U.S. 

Department of Education, state educational agencies (SEA), and other 

entities that oversee charter schools play in ensuring students with 

disabilities’ access to charter schools?

To compare enrollment levels of students with disabilities in charter 

schools and traditional public schools, we examined school-level data on 

counts of students with disabilities for those 41 states1

To address the questions, we used several sources of data, including 

data for school years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, the most recent data 

available at the time, from a custom data file provided to us by Education, 

which includes counts of students with disabilities at the school-level; site 

visit interviews with officials from charter schools and school districts in 

three states selected on the basis of states with a large number of charter 

schools, a mix in local educational agency (LEA) status and geographic 

diversity; and interviews with Education, Department of Justice, and SEA 

officials, and charter school authorizers. We also interviewed 

representatives of state and local charter school organizations and

with operating 

charter schools in school years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 only. To 

accurately compare enrollment levels, we did not include data for those 

10 states without operating charter schools in our analysis. We conducted 

an analysis of the data at the aggregate level, as well as at the state level, 

since the aggregate analysis may mask differences in enrollment levels. 

To complement the aggregate analysis, we examined how charter 

schools reach out to students with disabilities and the types of services 

charter schools provide in selected states, and interviewed the relevant 

oversight agencies.

 

1

For purposes of this report, we include the District of Columbia in our analysis of states. 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 25 GAO-12-543 Serving Special Populations

organizations representing parents of students with disabilities about their 

perspective on students with disabilities’ access to charter schools.

Before deciding to use the data provided by Education, we conducted a 

data reliability assessment. We assessed the reliability of the data file that 

Education provided by (1) performing electronic data testing for obvious 

errors in accuracy and completeness, (2) reviewing existing information 

about the data and the system that produced the data, and (3) 

interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about these data. We 

determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this 

report. We discuss our assessment procedures and steps we took to 

mitigate any data limitations in more detail below, as part of the 

methodology for determining enrollment levels of students with disabilities 

in charter schools and traditional public schools. We conducted 

descriptive analyses of the students with disabilities data, a qualitative 

analysis of the site visit data, and a synthesis of the interviews with 

federal officials, SEA officials, and charter school authorizers, in addition 

to reviewing relevant federal laws and regulations. To obtain an 

alternative perspective, we also interviewed organizations representing 

charter schools and parents of students with disabilities in the 

communities of our site visit locations.

This study was not intended to determine charter schools’ compliance 

with applicable federal requirements for educating students with 

disabilities. 

To compare enrollment levels of students with disabilities in charter 

schools and traditional public schools, we analyzed data for school years 

2008-2009 and 2009-2010, the most recent data available at the time, 

from a custom data file provided to us by Education. To prepare the file, 

Education analysts extracted the data elements we specified from the 

department’s large-scale EDFacts data system. The custom data file 

includes counts of students with disabilities at the school-level, which are 

reported to EDFacts by SEAs through Education’s Data Exchange 

Network (EDEN) Submission System. This custom data file also includes 

the number of students with disabilities, aged 6-21, served both in charter 

schools and traditional public schools, disability type, the educational 

environment in which students with disabilities receive services, and 

whether each school is its own local educational agency (LEA) or part of 

a larger LEA. While we received data for school years 2008-2009 and 

2009-2010, we decided to focus our analysis on data from school year 

2009-2010 because states were required to submit more school-level 

Procedures for 

Analyzing Data on 

Students with 

Disabilities
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 26 GAO-12-543 Serving Special Populations

information in 2009-2010 than in 2008-2009, and because we could not 

establish trends or patterns by analyzing only 2 years of data.

We were able to distinguish charter schools from traditional public 

schools using the charter school indicator for each school included in the 

custom data file. We use the term “traditional public school” in order to 

distinguish between charter schools and other types of public schools 

included in the custom data file. For purposes of our analysis, traditional 

public schools include regular schools, special education schools, 

vocational education schools, alternative or other schools, and reportable 

programs. Charter schools may also be vocational schools or special 

education schools, for example, but we did not include school type 

variations as a variable in our analyses.

The custom data file provided by Education includes counts of children 

who received special education and related services under the Individuals 

with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) according to an Individualized 

Education Program (IEP), Individual Family Service Plan, or services 

plan. The data file contains an educational environment variable which 

provides more detail on the setting in which students receive special 

education and related services. The variable includes several response 

categories in addition to a regular classroom setting. For example, a small 

percentage of students with disabilities included in the custom data file 

were placed in settings other than a regular classroom such as a 

correctional facility, a residential facility, or a separate school. In addition, 

a very small percentage of students included in the custom data file were 

not “enrolled” in either a traditional public school or a charter school, but 

were homebound or in hospitals or were parentally placed in private 

schools. However, students in these types of settings may receive special 

education services from a traditional public school district or charter 

school LEA and may be included in a school’s student count. For 

example, in some states, parentally-placed students in private schools 

who are also receiving special education services through a regular public 

school are included in the child count for that public school by the LEA. 

This is done to avoid duplicating counts of students with disabilities who 

may receive special education services from more than one school.

In order to calculate the total number of students enrolled in charter 

schools and traditional public schools, we obtained all schools’ total 

enrollment for school years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 from Education’s 

Common Core of Data (CCD) and matched this information electronically 

to each of the schools in the custom data file, because the custom data 

file provides school-level counts of students with disabilities only, not total 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 27 GAO-12-543 Serving Special Populations

enrollment counts. In those instances where there was no match in CCD 

(697 cases), we excluded those schools from our analysis. Schools 

categorized as closed, inactive, or future schools, as well as charter 

schools with an enrollment level of zero (3,106 cases), were also 

excluded from our analysis.

Matching schools’ total enrollment numbers from CCD to each of the 

schools in the custom data file allowed us to arrive at the total number of 

students enrolled at each individual school included in our analysis, as 

well as the total number of students enrolled in all charter schools and 

traditional public schools for those 41 states with operating charter 

schools. In some states, charter schools that are their own local 

educational agency (LEA) may operate more than one school or campus, 

often serving different grade levels. In our custom data file, some charter 

school LEAs operate more than one charter school, and schools within 

these charter school LEAs share the same LEA identifier. However, each 

school or campus within the LEA possesses a unique school identifier 

(see app. II for more information on charter schools’ LEA status). For 

purposes of our analysis, each campus with a unique school identifier 

counts as one school.

For most of our analyses, the unit of analysis was students, rather than 

schools. We calculated the percentage of students with disabilities 

enrolled in charter schools and traditional public schools by adding the 

school-level counts of students with disabilities in charter schools and 

traditional public schools from the custom data file and by dividing by the 

total number of students enrolled in all charter schools and traditional 

public schools, respectively, using enrollment data from CCD. We also 

conducted additional analyses at the aggregate level based on crosstabulations using the number of students with disabilities and variables 

such as disability type, and educational environment.

In addition to the aggregate analysis on students with disabilities, we also 

analyzed enrollment levels of students with disabilities at the state-level, 

for those 41 states with operating charter schools in school year 2009-

2010. According to technical notes provided by Education, 27 states 

operated less than 100 charter schools. The availability and quality of the 

data in our custom data file vary by state. For example, some states that 

operated charter schools did not submit school-level data to Education on 

students with disabilities. In addition, while the percentages shown in 

figure 2 of the report were calculated using school-level data on students 

with disabilities, aggregations at the school-level do not always equal the 

aggregations at the LEA and state levels. For example, when states 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 28 GAO-12-543 Serving Special Populations

submit annual data on students with disabilities to Education, they are not 

required to submit school-level data for children with disabilities who are 

homebound or in hospitals, or for those students with disabilities who are 

parentally-placed in private schools. Therefore, in the custom data file, for 

those states that did not submit school-level data for children in these 

educational settings, total counts of students with disabilities at the school 

level were less than total counts at the LEA and state levels.

For schools in the 41 states with operating charter schools in school year 

2009-2010, data on counts of students with disabilities at the school-level 

were missing for 784 out of 4,895 charter schools (16 percent) and for 

5,998 out of 80,671 traditional public schools (7 percent). Missing data 

represent both those schools that did not enroll any students with 

disabilities and therefore were not required to report information, as well 

as any schools that may have enrolled students with disabilities, but did 

not report the data. We were not able to distinguish between the two 

types of missing data.

Tennessee and Utah—two states with operating charter schools—

reported data on students with disabilities at the district and state levels, 

but did not report data on counts of students with disabilities at the 

school-level. Because our analysis was based on total counts of schoollevel data, data on students with disabilities in charter schools and 

traditional public schools were missing for these two states. Missing data 

for these two states combined represent 94 of the 784 charter schools 

with missing data, and 2,609 of the 5,998 traditional public schools with 

missing data. Because school-level data on counts of students with 

disabilities were missing for Tennessee and Utah, when calculating the 

percentages of students with disabilities in all charter schools and 

traditional public schools, we excluded total student enrollment numbers 

for charter schools and traditional public schools in these two states from 

our denominator when dividing by the total number of students enrolled in 

charter schools and traditional public schools. Similarly, for school year 

2008-2009, we excluded total enrollment numbers for charter schools and 

traditional public schools in the District of Columbia, Mississippi, Rhode 

Island, and Tennessee because school-level data on counts of students 

with disabilities were missing.

We reported information paying particular attention to tabulations based 

on small cell sizes or cross-tabulations of the same data by other 

variables, in such a way as to prevent direct or indirect disclosure of 

information that would allow the identification of particular students or 

schools. To prevent the potential for identifying personal information from 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 29 GAO-12-543 Serving Special Populations

the EDFacts custom data file, we only present data with categories that 

have a count of 10 or greater. If the number of cases is less than 10, the 

data were either suppressed or collapsed with other categories to create 

a count of 10 or greater.

In addition to analyzing data on students with disabilities in charter 

schools and traditional public schools by disability type and educational 

environment, we also attempted to analyze the data at the metropolitan 

level and to include charter school LEA status as a variable in our crosstabulations. However, data limitations and design issues prevented us 

from including findings at the metropolitan level and on charter schools’ 

LEA status in our report. For more information, see appendix II.

To determine some of the factors that may contribute to differences in 

enrollment levels, we relied on conversations with representatives of 

charter school organizations and researchers, information learned during 

our site visits to charter schools and districts in three states, interviews 

with federal and state officials, and existing research on charter schools. 

We also interviewed individuals familiar with available research on the 

topic of students with disabilities in charter schools and identified 

research through these sources. For several of the factors cited in this 

report, much of the research we reviewed and information we received 

was based on anecdotal information, and information on factors 

contributing to differences in enrollment levels is inconclusive. For those 

studies with quantitative analyses on students with disabilities in charter 

schools, we did not conduct a methodological assessment of each study’s 

methodological quality, and therefore cannot confirm the reliability of 

these data.

To examine how charter schools reach out to students with disabilities, 

the types of services charter schools provide, and any challenges they 

may face in doing so, we conducted site visits to a major metropolitan 

area in three states. We selected these locations on the basis of the 

number of charter schools in the state, a mix in LEA status and 

geographic diversity. Characteristics of the sites visited are summarized 

below.

Site Visit Selection, 

Data Collection, and 

Analysis 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 30 GAO-12-543 Serving Special Populations

Table 2: Site Visit Characteristics 

City and state 

Number of 

charter schools 

visited 

Charter schools’ 

LEA status Authorizer type

No. of charter 

schools in the 

state 

Geographic 

location

City and state 1 4 Own LEA—2 

Part of larger LEA—2 

SEA, State Board of 

Education, LEA

536 South 

City and state 2 5 Own LEA— all State Board of

Education, 

Independent Charter 

School Board, LEA

504 West

City and state 3 4 Part of larger LEA for 

special education—all

State university, State 

education 

department,

LEA 

139 Northeast

Source: GAO. 

During the site visits, we interviewed officials from charter schools to 

obtain information about the special education services the charter school 

provides; the educational environment in which services are provided; 

challenges faced in providing services; and the charter school’s LEA 

status. We compared responses about LEA status and services provided 

to determine if LEA status is related to the types of services charter 

schools offer to students with disabilities. We also asked questions about 

outreach strategies, which provided us with information about whether 

schools are actively seeking to enroll students with disabilities. The 

findings of our analysis cannot be generalized to the charter school 

population or states with operating charter schools.

To determine the role Education and other organizations play in ensuring 

students with disabilities’ access to charter schools, we reviewed relevant 

federal laws and regulations and interviewed Education, Department of 

Justice, and SEA officials, and charter school authorizers. At Education, 

we interviewed representatives from the Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), the 

Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII), and the Office of Elementary 

and Secondary Education (OESE) regarding their responsibilities for 

oversight of states, school districts, and charter schools. Open ended 

questions were used to guide the discussions and the topics included

• policy or guidance concerning enrollment of students with disabilities 

in charter schools

Interviews with 

Charter School 

Authorizers and State 

and Federal Agency 

Officials
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 31 GAO-12-543 Serving Special Populations

• collaboration with other Education offices or Justice’s Civil Rights 

Division in providing guidance to charter schools about enrollment of 

students with disabilities, 

• any assistance provided to charter schools to pool resources for 

serving students with more severe disabilities, 

• any assistance provided to states concerning their monitoring of 

charter schools’ implementation of IDEA, and

• any research sponsored or supported concerning students with 

disabilities and charter schools.

We also interviewed representatives of state and local charter school 

organizations and organizations representing parents of students with 

disabilities about their perspective on students with disabilities’ access to 

charter schools.
Appendix II: Additional Analysis

Page 32 GAO-12-543 Serving Special Populations

In addition to conducting analyses at the aggregate level, we also 

attempted to analyze the data at the metropolitan level and to include 

charter school local educational agency (LEA) status as a variable in our 

cross-tabulations. However, data limitations and design issues prevented 

us from including findings at the metropolitan level and on charter 

schools’ LEA status in our report.

Due to variation in charter school structure and policies across states, 

and because decisions about the placement of students with disabilities in 

charter schools, traditional public schools, or a separate facility of some 

type, are made at the school district level, and placement decisions vary 

according to students’ needs, aggregated data may mask differences in 

enrollment levels of students with disabilities in charter schools and 

traditional public schools at the metropolitan level. Therefore, in addition 

to an aggregate and state-level analysis for the 41 states with operating 

charter schools, we also attempted to analyze counts of students with 

disabilities at the school-level for selected metropolitan areas. However, 

several factors hindered us from conducting this type of analysis. Some of 

the metropolitan areas we considered were missing data on students with 

disabilities, while geographical issues presented challenges in other 

areas. Specifically, in states where charter schools are their own LEA, it 

was not always clear where the charter schools were physically located in 

the metropolitan area, and therefore difficult to determine which traditional 

public school district should serve as the appropriate basis of comparison. 

This is especially true for charter schools located in large metropolitan 

cities with more than one school district. In addition, charter schools’ 

service areas are not always as well defined as the boundaries for 

traditional public school districts, and charter schools may enroll students 

from different school districts across the entire metropolitan area, which 

also complicates designing this type of data analysis.

We did, however, conduct an exploratory analysis of enrollment levels of 

students with disabilities in charter schools and traditional public schools 

for one metropolitan area. For this particular area, all of the charter 

schools are part of a larger LEA. To protect the privacy of students with 

disabilities, we have not disclosed the name of the metropolitan area. 

Results from our analysis showed that the percentage of students with 

disabilities in charter schools was lower than in traditional public schools. 

However, these results cannot be generalized to other metropolitan 

areas, and had we been able to conduct this type of analysis for several 

different locations based on variation in LEA structure and geographic 

location, our analysis may have produced mixed results.

Appendix II: Additional Analysis 

Metropolitan-Level 

Analysis 
Appendix II: Additional Analysis

Page 33 GAO-12-543 Serving Special Populations

Charter school experts we spoke with also indicated that charter schools’ 

LEA status may affect enrollment levels of students with disabilities in 

charter schools because charter schools that are their own LEA have 

different responsibilities for serving students with disabilities than charter 

schools that are part of a traditional public school district. For example, 

traditional public school districts oversee the placement of students with 

disabilities in charter schools that are part of the school district and are 

often responsible for providing special education services for those 

charter schools, whereas charter schools that are their own LEA are 

legally responsible for providing or securing special education services 

themselves. According to an Education official, in addition to satisfying 

any Individualized Education Program eligibility requirements, for those 

charter schools that are their own LEA, the school also assumes the 

responsibility of enforcing least restrictive environment service provision 

requirements for students with disabilities, as well as acting as the 

responsible party during any due process hearings. Therefore, we also 

attempted to conduct an analysis including charter schools’ LEA status as 

a variable in our cross-tabulations to see how enrollment levels of 

students with disabilities may differ within the charter school population. 

However, several limitations prohibited us from analyzing information on 

LEA status in the findings section of this report, which we discuss below.

Using the LEA identifier from the EDFacts custom data file, we were able 

to identify charter schools that are part of a larger, traditional public 

school district, as well as those individual charter schools that are their 

own LEA. However, even though a charter school may be its own LEA, 

depending on state law, the school may be part of a larger district for 

purposes of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).1

Furthermore, some undetermined proportion of charter school LEAs in 

our analysis operated more than one charter school or campus during 

school year 2009-2010. In our EDFacts custom data file, for these 

Therefore, any type of analysis including charter schools’ LEA status may 

not necessarily provide meaningful insight into who is responsible for 

providing special education services or why enrollment levels of students 

with disabilities might differ in charter school LEAs and charter schools 

within a district.

 

1

In addition, in some states, each student’s district of residence LEA may be responsible 

for evaluation and services.

Local Educational 

Agency (LEA) 

Analysis 
Appendix II: Additional Analysis

Page 34 GAO-12-543 Serving Special Populations

multicampus charter school arrangements, in some states multiple 

charter schools or campuses share the same LEA identifier. These 

multicampus charter school arrangements make it difficult to assign LEA 

status to each individual school or campus within a multicampus 

arrangement. While we learned that some states equate one LEA with 

one charter, we were not able to determine from the data whether or not 

these multicampus arrangements operated under one or more charters. 

Therefore, we could not determine whether these arrangements should 

count as one or more than one LEA.
Appendix III: Additional Data

Page 35 GAO-12-543 Serving Special Populations

For the most part, we found that traditional public schools and charter 

schools served a similar distribution of students by disability type. More 

than 70 percent of students with disabilities in traditional public schools 

and charter schools had disabilities such as a specific learning disability, 

a speech or language impairment, or other health impairment, and both 

types of schools enrolled lower percentages of students with hearing, 

orthopedic, or visual impairments, for example (see fig. 7). However, 

when comparing the distribution of students with certain disabilities, such 

as students with an emotional disturbance or a specific learning disability, 

the percent was higher in charter schools than traditional public schools.

Appendix III: Additional Data
Appendix III: Additional Data

Page 36 GAO-12-543 Serving Special Populations

Figure 7: Distributions of Students’ Disability Types for Students with Disabilities Enrolled in Traditional Public Schools and 

Charter Schools for School Year 2009-2010

Note: Missing data are not shown.
Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. 

Department of Education

Page 37 GAO-12-543 Serving Special Populations

Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. 

Department of Education
Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. 

Department of Education

Page 38 GAO-12-543 Serving Special Populations
Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. 

Department of Education

Page 39 GAO-12-543 Serving Special Populations
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 40 GAO-12-543 Serving Special Populations

George A. Scott, (202) 512-7215, scottg@gao.gov

Sherri Doughty, Assistant Director; Sara Edmondson, Analyst-in-Charge; 

Meredith Moore; Jason Palmer, Susannah Compton, Luann Moy, Ying 

Long, Amy Sweet, Sheila McCoy, James Rebbe, and James Bennett also 

made significant contributions to this report.

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(131056)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact: 

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.