Charter filing at Sarasota’s Oak Park raises questions about special-needs services – Suncoast Searchlight

Report on Charter School Expansion and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: The Case of Mater Academy in Sarasota County

A recent initiative by Mater Academy, a major Florida charter school network, to establish a presence on the campus of Oak Park School—Sarasota County’s sole K-12 facility for students with disabilities—has brought state educational policy into direct conflict with principles of inclusive and equitable education. This action, taken under Florida’s expanded “Schools of Hope” law, highlights significant challenges to achieving key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). The proposed co-location raises critical questions about the capacity and commitment of charter schools to serve students with complex needs, a core tenet of ensuring education for all.

Legislative Framework and Institutional Accountability

Florida’s “Schools of Hope” Law

The “Schools of Hope” program, initiated in 2017 and significantly expanded, facilitates the rapid growth of charter schools. The law’s evolution presents challenges to the development of strong and accountable institutions as outlined in SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

• Initially designed to serve low-performing school zones, the law now permits charter operators to co-locate within any public school campus with underutilized space, regardless of the host school’s performance.
• Under this framework, the school district must provide the charter operator with access to facilities and cover operational expenses such as utilities, custodial services, and transportation at no cost to the charter school.
• This policy allows charter networks like Mater Academy to file notices to occupy space on traditional public school campuses, including those dedicated to specialized student populations.

Analysis of Alignment with SDG 4: Quality Education

Legal Mandates for Inclusive Education

The central objective of SDG 4 is to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education for all. Both federal and state laws mandate that charter schools, as public institutions, adhere to these principles.

1. State Law: Florida statutes stipulate that charter schools must operate as part of the state’s public education system, with the sponsoring school district providing administrative services for exceptional student education.
2. Federal Law (Section 504): The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 guarantees students with disabilities the right to a “free appropriate public education” (FAPE), a protection that extends equally to charter schools.
3. Federal Law (IDEA): The Individuals with Disabilities Act requires that eligible students receive an Individualized Education Program (IEP) in the least restrictive environment, a non-negotiable requirement for all public schools, including charters.

Disparities in Service Delivery and Practice

Despite legal requirements, a significant gap exists between policy and practice, undermining progress toward Target 4.5 of the SDGs, which calls for equal access to education for persons with disabilities.

• Infrastructure Deficiencies: Many charter schools lack the robust infrastructure of traditional districts, such as full-time special-education coordinators and in-house therapists, which can impede the consistent delivery of services.
• Enrollment Discrepancies: Research consistently shows that charter schools enroll fewer students with disabilities compared to traditional public schools. Furthermore, enrolled students often have less severe needs.
• Accountability Gaps: Experts note that charter schools may not be held accountable as frequently or rigorously as traditional public schools, potentially allowing them to use their autonomy in ways that do not serve the best interests of students with disabilities.

Implications for SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

Risk of Increased Educational Disparity

The expansion of charter schools without sufficient oversight threatens to widen educational disparities, directly opposing the mission of SDG 10 to reduce inequality within and among countries. The core issue is whether the push for “parental choice” creates a system that inadvertently marginalizes students with the greatest needs, thereby increasing inequalities of outcome for a vulnerable population.

Oversight and Institutional Responsibility

Ensuring equal opportunity as mandated by SDG 10.3 requires effective and accountable institutions. For charter schools, this responsibility falls primarily on the charter authorizer.

• The charter authorizer is the key oversight body responsible for ensuring compliance with academic and operational standards, including the legal requirements for serving students with disabilities.
• Effective oversight by the authorizer is critical to “hold the line on quality” and prevent discriminatory practices that contribute to educational inequality.
• Without robust accountability mechanisms, the operational flexibility granted to charter schools can lead to systemic failures in providing equitable education for all students.

Guidance for Stakeholders

Navigating Educational Choices for Children with Special Needs

Parents and guardians must be empowered to advocate for their children’s right to an inclusive education. The following steps are recommended:

• Engage with trusted professionals to conduct a thorough review of legal documents, such as an Individualized Education Program (IEP) or a 504 plan.
• Initiate direct dialogue with school officials to confirm that the necessary infrastructure and personnel are in place to meet the specific requirements outlined in these legal documents.
• Research the track record of any potential school to determine its commitment and capacity to serve students with disabilities effectively.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article primarily addresses issues related to two Sustainable Development Goals:

• SDG 4: Quality Education – The core of the article revolves around the provision of education, specifically focusing on the quality, equity, and accessibility of educational services for students with disabilities within the context of charter schools versus traditional public schools.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities – The article explores the potential for inequality in educational access and outcomes for a vulnerable group—students with disabilities. It questions whether the expansion of charter schools under Florida’s “Schools of Hope” law ensures equal opportunity or creates disparities compared to the traditional public school system.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the article’s discussion, the following specific targets are relevant:

1. Under SDG 4 (Quality Education):
   • Target 4.5: “By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities…” The entire article is centered on the debate over whether charter schools provide “equal access” for students with disabilities, a key vulnerable group mentioned in this target. The central question raised is whether charters “are equipped, or even willing, to meet the same legal obligations as traditional public schools” for these students.
   • Target 4.a: “Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all.” The article discusses the co-location of a charter school at Oak Park School, a campus “dedicated to students with disabilities.” This raises questions about whether the resulting environment will remain “disability sensitive” and “inclusive,” and whether the charter will have the infrastructure to provide an “effective learning environment” for students with complex needs. The article notes that “Many charter schools lack the same infrastructure as large district systems — from full-time special-education coordinators to in-house therapists.”
2. Under SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities):
   • Target 10.2: “By 2030, empower and promote the social… inclusion of all, irrespective of… disability…” The potential for charter schools to enroll fewer students with disabilities, as suggested by research cited in the article, directly challenges the goal of social inclusion within the public education system. An equitable education is a fundamental component of social inclusion for children.
   • Target 10.3: “Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory… policies and practices…” The article discusses federal laws like the “Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA-Part B)” and “Section 504,” which are designed to ensure equal opportunity. It questions whether the practices of some charter schools, such as potentially offering fewer specialized services or having less accountability, lead to “inequalities of outcome” for students with disabilities. The article cites research suggesting “charter schools may not be held as accountable as they should be.”

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article mentions or implies several indicators that can be used to measure progress:

• Enrollment rates of students with disabilities in different school types: The article explicitly states that “research shows that, on the whole, charters tend to enroll fewer such students and offer fewer specialized services than traditional public schools.” It also notes that the Center for Learner Equity “analyzes federal data yearly to look for trends among students with disabilities, and one of the clear consistencies revealed is that charter schools enroll fewer students with disabilities than public schools.” This disparity in enrollment rates serves as a direct indicator for measuring equal access (Target 4.5) and equal opportunity (Target 10.3).
• Provision of specialized educational services: The article discusses the legal requirement for schools to provide an “Individualized Education Program (IEP)” or a “Section 504 plan.” Whether a school has the infrastructure and personnel (e.g., “in-house therapists,” “special-education coordinators”) to develop and implement these plans is a key indicator of its capacity to provide an inclusive and effective learning environment (Target 4.a). The article questions if charters can “deliver consistent services.”
• Compliance with legal frameworks for disability rights: The article references federal laws such as the “Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA-Part B)” and “Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.” The degree to which charter schools and their authorizers ensure compliance with these laws is a critical indicator of progress towards eliminating discriminatory practices and ensuring equal opportunity (Target 10.3).
• Effectiveness of oversight and accountability mechanisms: The article highlights the role of the “charter authorizer” as the “key oversight body for ensuring that the charter is complying with academic and operational standards.” The effectiveness and rigor of this oversight process is an implied indicator of whether policies designed to ensure equity are being successfully implemented. The article notes that “there are fewer mechanisms to hold them accountable compared with traditional public schools.”

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: suncoastsearchlight.org