Evaluating How Charter Schools Identify and Support At-Risk Students

This audit evaluated four of the state’s 17 charter schools from locations across the state. We wanted to see how well they met requirements to identify and serve at-risk students. We also wanted to learn whether any had adopted leading practices that help achieve those goals.

We selected schools based on whether they served at least some of the target populations:

• Homeless students
• English language learners
• Special education students

The requirements in state and federal law are in place to help ensure these student populations are identified and served appropriately.

The leading practices we considered can help augment schools’ success; they ranged from improved data tracking to better communication with students and families.

Audited schools met nearly all of the 13 audited requirements to identify and serve at-risk students but could improve by documenting all processes. For English language learners, schools mostly met requirements, but some lacked required plans. Schools also had practices to serve homeless students and to provide transportation. However, the schools could improve their written guidance for coordinating with service agencies and providing transportation. In addition, schools generally met requirements to help identify and support special education students. Finally, all schools posted a required online complaint process for students and families.

All four charter schools used many leading practices to identify and serve at-risk students. Their purposes range from achieving better data tracking and analysis to improving connections and communication with students and their families. The seven practices were drawn from both government and nonprofit research organizations:

Practice 1: Provide opportunities for effective small group learning settings. All four schools do so.

Practice 2: Offer extended learning opportunities outside regular school hours. Three schools do so.

Practice 3: Promote a culturally responsive learning environment. All four schools do so.

Practice 4: Effectively communicate and engage with parents and families. All four schools do so, but one may benefit from strengthening engagement with non-English-speaking families.

Practice 5: Use early warning data indicators to help identify and serve at-risk students. All four schools do so, but two could improve their processes.

Practice 6: Promote collaboration between general education and specialist teachers. All schools do so.

Practice 7: Implement a model of multi-tiered system of supports. All schools partially implemented a multi-tiered system of supports.

Culturally responsive education “responds to, incorporates, and celebrates students’ cultural references – engaging families as equal partners.” We found all four schools adopted practices to provide such environments. For example:

• Catalyst Public Schools designed its language arts curriculum to offer students multiple perspectives from different cultures. Teachers and staff receive training on the importance of including multiple viewpoints in school and classroom environments.
   
• Innovation High School surveyed students to gather their perspectives on whether the learning environment was culturally relevant. Questions included understanding if students felt their culture and identity were evident in the class environment and considered in class procedures.
   
• Pinnacles Prep reflects the bilingual culture of its community. Because it is located in a neighborhood with many Spanish speakers, the school uses an educational technique that draws on local history and explorations of local cultures known as “place-based education.”
   
• Rainier Prep supports ongoing teacher training that includes topics such as restorative justice and anti-racist practices. The school also sponsors cultural events at the school and engages community members to provide their cultural expertise.

We conducted small focus groups with parents and students at three of the four audited charter schools to gain their perspectives about the effect their schools’ practices had on supporting their children and other at-risk students. One theme the families spoke to was the benefit of their schools’ inclusive environments on all students, not just at-risk students. Families also appreciated that schools made low-intensity supports and accommodations available to all students.

Schools appeared to communicate and connect well with students as well as parents. One student said that his teachers worked closely with students struggling to meet high expectations. In another example, a parent and child expressed appreciation for the level of patience the teachers display with their students.

Overall, these parents described many and varied positive experiences in how their schools supported their children. The concerns they raised were more directly related to resource constraints that they believed stood in the way of even better services.

We made recommendations to all four audited schools to develop more detailed written policies and procedures that would provide greater assurance that school activities will be carried out as intended. These recommendations address both required activities and leading practices.