PROGRAM ELEMENTS FOR SPECIAL NEEDS STUDENTS IN A HYBRID

SCHOOL SETTING

by

Edd Clayton Bond

A Dissertation Presented to the

FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2012

Copyright 2012 Edd Clayton Bond

 UMI Number: 3513722

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3513722
Copyright 2012 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
 UMI Number: 3513722

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3513722
Copyright 2012 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
 ii

Table of Contents

List of Tables iv

Abstract v

Chapter One: Introduction 1

Background 1
Statement of the Problem 5
Purpose of the Study 7
Research questions 8
Definitions of Key Terms 8
Summary 9

Chapter Two: Literature Review 12

Charter Schools and Special Education 12
Virtual Learning and Special Education 19
Student Outcomes at Charter and Virtual Schools 26
Blended/Hybrid School Models 35

Chapter Three: Research Design and Methodology 39

Research Questions 39
Population and Sample 40
Data Collection and Instrumentation 42
Data Analysis 45
Areas of analysis 46
Limitations of the Study 49
Significance 50
 iii

Chapter Four: Analysis of Data 52

Introduction 52
Organization of Data Analysis 53
Presentation of Descriptive Characteristics of Participants 53
Research Questions and Associated Hypotheses 59
Analysis of Data – Quantitative 60
Delivery of Instruction 61
Culture/Climate 63
Curriculum/Materials 66
Rigor/Overall Program Effectiveness 68
Analysis of Data – Qualitative 73
Individualized/Differentiated Instruction 73
Presence of Highly Qualified Teachers 79
System of Monitoring and Accountability 81
Opportunities to Demonstrate Learning in Various Ways 84
Opportunities to Interact with Peers and Staff 85
Admission Barriers to Special Education Students 90
Summary 91

Chapter Five: Findings, Conclusions, and Implications 93

Introduction 93
Summary of the Study 93
Findings – Research Question One 94
Findings – Research Question Two 96
Differentiated/Individualized Instruction 97
Presence of Experienced, Highly Qualified Teachers 98
System of Monitoring and Accountability 100
Opportunities to Demonstrate Learning in Various Ways 101
Opportunities to Interact with Peers and Staff 103
Admission Barriers to Special Education Students 105
Implications 106
Future Research 109
Conclusions 111
Summary 112

References 114

Appendices 120
Appendix A: Hybrid School Profile 120
Appendix B: Student Survey 121
Appendix C: Administrator/Staff/Parent Survey 126
Appendix D: Interview Protocol 131
Appendix E: Observation Protocol 133
Appendix F: Hybrid Program Comparison 135
 iv

List of Tables

Table 1: Question One 62

Table 2: Question Two 62

Table 3: Question Three 62

Table 4: Question Four 63

Table 5: Question Five 64

Table 6: Question Six 64

Table 7: Question Seven 65

Table 8: Question Eight 65

Table 9: Question Nine 66

Table 10: Question Ten 67

Table 11: Question Eleven 67

Table 12: Question Twelve 68

Table 13: Question Thirteen 69

Table 14: Question Fourteen 69

Table 15: Question Fifteen 70

Table 16: Question Sixteen 70

Table 17: Question Seventeen 71

Table 18: Question Eighteen 71

Table 19: Question Nineteen 72

Table 20: Question Twenty 72

Table 21: Percentage of Time Spent in Face-to-Face Interactions with Peers and Staff 90
 v

Abstract

Public charter schools have become a bigger and bigger part of the public school

landscape. Online education has also grown exponentially over the past decade. In recent

years a new instructional model has emerged within the charter school community. This

model is known as blended or hybrid instruction. Blended instruction involves some

combination of online and face-to-face instruction.

Public hybrid charter schools must allow access to all students including special

education students. They are subject to the same regulations and laws as all public

agencies with regard to students with disabilities. Hybrid schools also have to look at

technology access issues that may be associated with students with disabilities.

This study examined perceptions of how special education students are served at

public charter hybrid and online schools. It asked about and compared and contrasted

perceptions of satisfaction levels among various stakeholders affiliated with hybrid and

online schools. Those stakeholders included special education students, parents, and staff.

The study also analyzed program elements for special education students at hybrid and

online charter schools. Data was gathered through online surveys, interviews, and

observations at online and hybrid schools chosen from an Innosight Institute database and

other sources. The Innosight Institute is a research organization dedicated to

organizational improvements in education and health care. Stakeholder data was

collected from five schools. Interviews and observations were collected at two of those

schools.
 vi

The surveys found that the vast majority of stakeholders, both general and special

education, were satisfied with the overall program and preferred the online or hybrid

instructional model to a traditional school. This was an expected outcome since these are

schools of choice and students wouldn’t attend them if they didn’t perceive an advantage

with the instructional model there.

The two schools selected for case study yielded a great deal of information about

several program options. The schools utilized five different instructional program

models. Each of the models was analyzed in five key areas associated with high student

achievement. The areas of analysis were the existence of differentiated instruction, the

presence of highly qualified, experienced teachers, the presence of a system of constant

monitoring and accountability, providing students with opportunities to demonstrate

learning in various ways, and opportunities for students to interact with peers and staff.

The goal of this study was to paint a picture of perceptions of the current state of

special education services within the hybrid and online schools that form the study

sample. Ideally, the data collected and the conclusions drawn can be used by similar

schools to develop or improve their special education service delivery. The study also

attempted to determine if there were explanations for the low enrollment rate of special

education students in the public charter schools studied. It also attempted to identify

program elements to explain why the subjects of this study seemed to be relatively

satisfied with their education.

 1

Chapter One: Introduction

Charter schools, including virtual schools, are becoming more significant in the

landscape of public education. Enrollment in K-12 charter schools has increased

dramatically over the past fifteen years and that trend is expected to continue (Snell,

2005; Miron, Urchel, Mathis, & Tornquist, 2010). The school choice movement along

with the increased accountability for public schools established by the Elementary and

Secondary Schools Act of 2001 (Also known as No Child Left Behind) have contributed

to the growth in public charter schools (Snell, 2005).

Background

Public schools, whether charter or traditional, are now a part of a competitive

market and are subject to the pressures of that market. In order to remain viable, public

schools must produce results that satisfy their customers, specifically students and the

community. While this change has evolved slowly over time, the reality for public

schools has become much different than in the past. As the United States has lost ground

in the global economic market, the urgency for these changes has increased greatly. One

manifestation of the new look of public schooling is in the area of technology and how it

is integrated into public education. As technology has evolved, more and more of the

curriculum in charter and traditional schools is being offered through web-based learning

programs (Clark, 2001).

Because they are public schools, charter schools must accommodate special

education students, just like traditional schools (Fierros & Blomberg, 2005). Charter

schools are required to include the process through which they will service special needs
 2

students in their charter school plan (Fierros & Blomberg, 2005). However, data show

that special needs students enroll in charter schools at a much lower rate than in

traditional schools (Riley, 2000). This may be due to a variety of factors including the

fact that charter schools do not always have the resources necessary to provide the proper

level of service to these students (Riley, 2000). Charter school special education students

tend to enroll for the same reasons that regular education students do, primarily,

dissatisfaction and negative experiences associated with the traditional public school

system (Ahearn, Lange, Rhim, & McLaughlin, 2001). In general, charter schools are

funded at a lower per pupil rate than traditional schools (Riley, 2000). In addition,

because they serve fewer students, charter schools often do not have the same economies

of scale as traditional schools when it relates to funding programs and personnel. This

results in a number of challenges which are outlined below.

The reality of how charter schools actually accommodate special education

students can be in stark contrast to the regulations and requirements under the law.

Charter schools face many challenges when attempting to comply with mandates related

to special education students including “lack of adequate funding, strained relationships

with local districts, lack of extracurricular activities, and the high costs of transportation”

(Ahearn, Lange, Rhim, & McLaughlin, 2001, p. 4).

Another charter school issue that affects special education students is the fact that

charter schools tend to segregate students by race and class (Frankenberg, Siegel-

Hawley, & Wang, 2010). Charter schools enroll proportionately more low-income

students and more students of color than traditional schools. In spite of that and the fact

that special needs students are disproportionately from minority groups, the enrollment of
 3

special needs students in charter schools is at a lower rate than in traditional public

schools (Riley, 2000). Charter schools, by definition, are free from many restrictions that

affect traditional schools. However, they must comply with legislation and policy

involving disabilities and civil rights (Frankenberg, Siegel-Hawley, & Wang, 2010).

Essentially, although charter schools provide much needed competition and creativity,

they cannot disregard issues of race, class, and disability. Because charter schools

generally market to students that they wish to attract, it is possible that students with

disabilities are generally not recruited for the reasons listed above.

Within the charter school movement and in traditional schools, online and virtual

learning are becoming a greater proportion of the curriculum. Online or virtual learning

involves web-based curriculum, generally delivered remotely (Diaz & Entonado, 2009).

This type of curriculum has several advantages and disadvantages with respect to special

education students (Clark, 2001). Online learning generally allows students to progress at

their own pace and adjusts to students’ needs. Online learning also creates expanded

opportunities for access to curriculum that may not be available in a traditional public

school setting (Barbour & Reeves, 2008). However, there can be access issues as well as

issues related to the monitoring of student progress with online programs (Schmetzke,

2001). Effort has been made to accommodate obvious access issues associated with

physical disabilities like blindness or orthopedic impairments. Adaptive technology can

be a part of a disabled student’s individualized educational plan (IEP). However, it is

much more difficult to ensure access for students who have processing disabilities. A

student with an auditory processing disability does not have issues hearing. Rather, he or
 4

she has trouble making sense out of what is heard. This creates another level of

consideration when developing computer driven programs for K-12 education.

In recent years a new model for the delivery of instruction has been developed in

some charter schools. This model combines online and face-to-face instruction in what is

known as a hybrid or blended instructional model (Staker, 2011). For purposes of this

study, a hybrid instructional model delivers some combination of face-to-face instruction

in a brick and mortar building and online instruction (Staker, 2011). The hybrid model

charter school has all of the flexibility with budgeting and personnel as other charter

schools as well as the individualized programming and programming flexibility of online

schools. And, just like all charter schools, special education students must be included in

the student populations of hybrid charter schools. Many charter schools are found in

areas with a high at-risk population, which often includes a significant special education

population. Unfortunately, many charter schools are operated by organizations that are

not particularly knowledgeable about the nuances of providing special education services

(Mulholland, 1999). While special education services must be part of any public charter,

many charter schools do not provide much support for their special needs students (Fiore,

Harwell, Blackorby, & Finnigan, 2000). The vast majority of public charters are issued

by local school districts who then partner with the charter school to provide certain

services for special needs students (Ahearn et al., 2001). Often the working relationships

between the charter schools and the local district are not very effective in the delivery of

these services (Mulholland, 1999).

There is a considerable amount of literature exploring student outcomes at charter

and virtual schools. These studies have shown mixed results but have generally found
 5

that charter schools produce slightly higher student outcomes than traditional schools

(Greene, Forster, & Winters, 2003). This is due to a variety of factors including the fact

that special needs students enroll in charter schools at a significantly lower rate than

traditional schools (Fiore, et al., 2000). Flexibility in budgeting and staffing are two other

significant reasons for the slight performance advantage currently held by public charter

schools. However, very little research has looked at the student outcomes for special

needs students attending these schools. Even less research has been done on hybrid

charter schools and student outcomes in that setting. This study looked at special

education services in public charter schools using the hybrid model. In a hybrid model,

some percentage of instruction is delivered online. Depending on the hybrid model, this

instruction can take place in a brick and mortar school or other facility or remotely

(Staker, 2011).

Statement of the Problem

While a great deal of research has looked at student outcomes in charter schools

(Mullholland, 1999; Horn & Miron, 2000; Greene, Forster, & Winters, 2003), the

conclusions about the effectiveness of charter schools have been mixed. There have been

extensive studies that show that charter schools produce higher student achievement than

traditional schools (Booker, Gilpatric, Gronberg, & Jansen, 2004). Other studies have

shown that charter school students do better at the elementary level, level off at the

middle school level, and under perform at the high school level when compared to

regular public schools (Zimmer & Buddin, 2005). Still other studies show that some

charter schools outperform traditional public schools and some underperform when
 6

compared to traditional public schools (Hill, Angel, & Christensen, 2006). One reason for

the large disparity in student outcomes is the fact that charter schools take many forms

and follow very different organizational structures. Another reason for the disparity is

that standards and regulations vary from state to state. Charter schools look different in

different places and operate under different sets of guidelines and restrictions. These

studies do not disaggregate data for special needs students, so no conclusion can be made

about how charter schools serve them or even how they are perceived to serve them.

There has also been a great deal of literature about student performance in online

or distance learning programs (Cavanaugh, Gillan, Kromrey, Hess, & Blomeyer, 2004;

Dickson, 2005). Access for special education students in an online learning environment

has also been investigated (Burgstahler, Corrigan, & McCarter, 2004; Rose & Blomeyer,

2007). Instructional techniques and learning styles that work in a traditional face-to-face

classroom are also necessary for the successful delivery of online instruction (Diaz &

Entonado, 2009). Specific to special education students, online instruction allows for

differentiation in instruction and course pacing, which can be a learning advantage (Rhim

& Kowal, 2007). However, access to special education students to online programs can

be a concern (Schmetzke, 2001). As previously mentioned, access issues are not just

limited to physical disabilities but to processing difficulties as well.

While the body of literature addressing charter schools and online learning is

extensive, there is little information on the blended or hybrid charter school model

(Watson, 2009). There is limited information available about the performance of special

education students in charter and online programs and almost no information about these

students’ performance at hybrid or blended schools. The hybrid charter school is

 7

relatively new although some form has been in existence since the 1990s (Watson, 2009).

There is very little information available on special needs programs in hybrid or blended

schools and the effect of these programs on student achievement. There is also little in

the literature about the structure of special education programs in hybrid schools and the

relative satisfaction of special education stakeholders within those schools.

Purpose of the Study

The study took place in two phases. The first phase was in the form of

quantitative data collection at five public hybrid or online high schools. The second phase

was in the form of qualitative data collection at two of the schools initially surveyed.

Only two schools were selected for case studies due to time and resource constraints.

Even with these constraints it is important to triangulate findings and gather sufficient

data to make comparisons. This is why the study didn’t just look at one hybrid site. This

study sought to address two issues related to special education students at hybrid and

online charter schools. First, how do key stakeholders assess the strengths and

weaknesses of the program, internally and in comparison to traditional public schools?

Second, what program elements and challenges exist within the charter hybrid model

with regard to the provision of special education services? The hybrid high school

concept is relatively new. Defining what special education services look like in this

model is key to improving practice as the use of the hybrid model expands. The first goal

of the study was to determine the strengths and weaknesses of special needs services at

public hybrid and online charter schools according to key stakeholders at the schools.

The study gathered data from teachers, students, parents, staff, and administrators in
 8

order to determine what aspects of the special needs program are working and what

aspects need to improve according to the respondents. This was done using quantitative

data gathered through an online survey. The second goal of this study was to create a

picture of what special education looks like among a sample of hybrid charter schools.

How is the special needs program the same and different from the regular education

hybrid program? This question was answered using qualitative data gathered at two sites

through interviews, observations, and document analysis.

Research questions

1) What do key stakeholders (students, parents, teachers, administrators, special

education personnel) see as the strengths and weaknesses of a hybrid or online

high school, both internally and in comparison with traditional public

schools?

2) In what ways are the needs of special education students met in ways that are

different and similar than regular education students within the hybrid charter

high school structure?

Definitions of Key Terms

The following definitions will be used for key terms used throughout this project.

Computer Assisted Learning. Curriculum delivered via computer program that has six

characteristics. It is interactive, adaptive, learner controlled, inexhaustible and unlimited

in time, space, and manageability (Zhu & Chang, 1998).

Hybrid/ blended instruction. Any time a student learns at least in part at a supervised

brick-and-mortar location away from home and at least in part through online delivery
 9

with some elements of student control over time, place, path, and/or pace (Staker, 2011,

p. 5).

Individual education plan (IEP). A legal document that defines the scope of services and

accommodations that will be provided for a special needs student (Palmaffy, 2001).

Online learning. Curriculum that is delivered via computer or other media through web-

based curriculum (Diaz & Entonado, 2009).

Special education/special needs student. A student who qualifies for services due to a

federally recognized disability (Palmaffy, 2001).

Traditional instruction. Curriculum that is delivered face-to-face by a teacher or other

instructor (Diaz & Entonado, 2009).

Virtual learning. A term used interchangeably with distance learning, online learning, e-

learning, and web-based learning. It encompasses distance and online learning

(McFarlane, 2011).

Summary

Public charter schools are rapidly increasing in the United States both in number

of schools and student enrollment. The erosion of the United States’ economic and

educational dominance in the world has prompted movement towards the reform and

transformation of traditional public schools. Charter schools, along with other forms of

school choice, have been one of the key players driving this transformation. Public

charter schools of any type must create a plan for addressing the needs of special

education students. All public entities, including public schools, fall under the

requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). As the types of
 10

charter schools evolve, the needs of these students should remain an important part of the

structure and function, especially for charter schools who aim to serve at-risk students.

Hybrid or blended instruction charter schools represent just one model that is increasing

in number. More information will be shared in the next chapter about the variation in

hybrid school models that are currently developing. While the method for delivering

instruction continues to change, the legal and moral obligations to provide access to all

students remains. This study represents an attempt to identify the current state of special

education services at public charter schools using the hybrid or online model and to

evaluate their effectiveness in terms of perceived strengths and weaknesses. This was

done through an online survey instrument that focused on the satisfaction or

dissatisfaction of a variety of stakeholders at hybrid and online high schools. The survey

gathered data to address the first research question: What do key stakeholders (students,

parents, teachers, administrators, special education personnel) see as the strengths and

weaknesses of a hybrid or online high school for special needs students, both internally

and in comparison with traditional public schools?

Two schools were selected from the initial set of sample schools for further study.

Time constraints and limited resources were the reasons for only conducting fieldwork at

two schools. However, it was important to gather as much data as possible at these sites.

These two schools were examined to determine the structure of their special education

programs and to identify how those programs are similar and different than the regular

education program within the hybrid model. The unit of analysis for this part of the study

is the school or educational organization with particular attention paid to the program

elements and resources directed toward special education students. During this part of the
 11

study data were gathered using interviews with staff and administration as well as

program observations and document analysis. These qualitative data focused on

addressing the second research question: How are the needs of special education students

met in ways that are different and similar to regular education students within the public

hybrid charter high school structure?

The intent of these efforts was to paint a detailed picture of the state of special

education within the hybrid and online high school models for schools similar to those in

the research sample. This information could be used to modify and improve programs

currently in existence. It could also be used by organizations forming hybrid or online

model schools to assist in program development.

 12

Chapter Two: Literature Review

Charter schools have been in existence for almost two decades. Each state that

issues charters has different regulations regarding their establishment and operation.

However, charter schools in general have more flexibility than traditional public schools

with regard to budgeting and personnel. This section will attempt to find some common

elements within charter schools related to special education. It will discuss student

outcomes in public charter and online schools. It will also provide some sense of

structure for public charter hybrid high schools.

Charter Schools and Special Education

The charter school movement began when the first charter was authorized in 1992

(Booker, Zimmer, & Buddin, 2005). Public charter schools were created as a response to

public dissatisfaction with the performance of traditional public schools as an alternative

to private schools (Fiore et al., 2000). Charter schools are part of the larger movement

towards public school choice. The idea behind charter schools and school choice was that

students should not be doomed by the geography of their neighborhood school. If that

school was not producing the results that the community demands, alternatives should be

available. Charter schools are public but do not have the same restrictions as traditional

schools with regard to budget and personnel. They have more control over their finances

and often have more authority to hire and remove teachers as they see fit. They have the

same accountability requirements as traditional public schools (Riley, 2000; Ryan, 2009).

In other words, public charter schools must participate in state testing in the same way

that traditional public schools do. Charter schools are also more capable of adjusting to
 13

market demands since they can only sustain operations if they are able to attract enough

students to keep their funding (Snell, 2005). Most successful charter schools have many

more applicants than student spaces and must determine admission through some type of

randomized lottery. The number of charter schools has increased considerably over the

past fifteen years. Charter schools now represent a more significant proportion of the

public school population and now educate over 1.6 million students previously served by

the traditional public school system (Dynarski et al., 2010). There are more public

charters in existence now than at any time in history. In California, the number of charter

schools grew from 85 in 1993 to 459 in 2004 (Edwards, Perry, Brazil, & Studier, 2004).

The number of students served by those charters has increased significantly as well.

Charter schools, like all public schools, must allow access to special needs

students (Fierros & Blomberg, 2005). However, charter schools enroll special needs

students at a lower rate than their regular public school counterparts (Horn & Miron,

2000; Rhim & Kowal, 2007). The vast majority of special needs students that do attend

public charter schools are very mildly disabled. This may be true for several reasons.

First, providing special needs services can be very costly. Special needs students can

require smaller classes as well as other supplemental services and materials. There are

also additional administrative costs associated with special education services. Finance

reform has been undertaken to attempt to provide adequate support for students with

special needs (Lipscomb, 2009). While students with special needs are given additional

funding, charter schools often service so few special needs students that the funding is far

from sufficient to provide the services mandated (Fierros & Blomberg, 2005). In fact,

charter schools tend to be funded at a lower per pupil rate than traditional public schools
 14

(Dynarski et. al, 2010). While all schools suffer from inadequate funding for special

needs students (Palmaffy, 2001), charter schools, because of their size, find it particularly

difficult to absorb the costs.

Second, special needs students are protected under a series of laws and policies

and compliance can be an issue. While special education laws vary from state to state, all

special needs students fall under the authority of the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act at the federal level (Rhim & Kowal, 2007). Hybrid model charter schools,

which have both online and face-to-face components, are required to abide by all of the

facilities requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act as well (Rhim & Kowal,

2007). These laws involve everything from access to facilities to the specific provision of

educational and supplemental services for students who have been identified with a

disability. Special needs students are also required to be included in the accountability

systems now being used to evaluate school performance. Those accountability systems

apply to charter schools as well (Fuhrman & Elmore, 2004).

Finally, there has been a great deal of information gathered that shows that

students with disabilities needs are not being adequately met in most charter school

settings. In fact, because of the high stakes accountability now in place because of No

Child Left Behind, there is a bias against special needs students in traditional and charter

schools (Allbritten, Mainzer, & Ziegler, 2004). A study of Arizona’s charter schools and

their special needs programs found that parent complaints to the state office for special

education came from charter schools at a much higher rate than from traditional public

schools (Mulholland, 1999). That same study found that many charter school operators

lacked the knowledge and experience in dealing with special education students and laws
 15

that traditional public school operators had. This lack of knowledge and experience may

have contributed to the high rate of complaints from Arizona charter schools.

Previous studies have addressed how special needs students are serviced within

the charter school structure (Fiore et al., 2000: Ahearn, et al., 2001). At the time of this

meta-analysis (Fiore et al., 2000), only one of thirty-two charter schools studied had

disaggregated data for special education students. However, those data were determined

through the course of the study. The primary reason for parents placing their children in

charter schools was dissatisfaction with the traditional public school system. The study

also found that the vast majority of special needs students in charter schools had mild

disabilities. One possible reason for this is that the costs of educating a low-incidence

special needs student can be extremely high so charter schools, which recruit their

students, do not generally target these students (Duff, 2001). A low-incidence special

needs student is one who has high cost requirements not generally found in a school.

These can include assistive technology, medical assistance, or high cost instructional

materials, like Braille books for visually impaired students.

Charter schools were identified that catered specifically to special needs and at-

risk students (Fiore et al., 2000). But again, these tended to focus on students with mild

disabilities. There are logistical issues for charter schools dealing with more severely

disabled students. When the charter school cannot provide the services required, they

must coordinate with the local district or special education service area to ensure that all

mandated services are provided (Ahearn et al., 2000). This is most often the case. In fact,

many smaller charter schools use the local district exclusively for the provision of special
 16

education services. These services can be extremely costly. Those heavy costs can

negatively impact the overall instructional program at the charter school.

Charter school students always have their traditional public schools in which to

re-enroll if the charter school does not meet their needs. Because of that, many special

education students opt out of charter schools for a variety of reasons including lack of

services and lack of special needs expertise at the charter school. Estes (2006) studied

special education programs in charter schools in Texas. All 192 schools studied reported

having special needs students. Eighty percent of those schools opted for a pull-out

program rather than the inclusion model for these students. Interviews conducted as part

of the study confirmed that charter schools continue to reject students with disabilities

and behavioral problems. The charter schools in the study also tended to send these

students back to their traditional schools at a high rate as well (Estes, 2006). However, a

study of special needs programs within charter schools in California and Michigan found

that the inclusion model was more prevalent in those states (Glomm, Harris, & Lo, 2001).

Special education students were underrepresented as a percentage of the charter school

population in those states as well.

Charter schools can have a negative impact on surrounding traditional schools in

terms of funding, enrollment, and student population. Horn and Miron (2000) looked at

special needs students in Michigan and made several key conclusions. They found that

charter schools enrolled special needs students at a much lower rate than traditional

public schools (3.74% to 12.33%). The fact that charter schools tended to have fewer

special needs and disruptive students than traditional public schools was mentioned as a

factor for many parents when deciding to enroll their children in a charter school. The
 17

system became a sort of self fulfilling prophecy. Charter schools did not recruit special

needs students or serve them particularly well. In turn, few special needs students

enrolled in charter schools and those who did left when their needs were not met. Of

course, these factors negatively impacted the surrounding traditional schools as the

students who were less fit to function in the charter model returned to their traditional

schools (Estes, 2006).

From the perspective of charter school operators, lack of awareness of the

intricacies of special education laws and policies was listed as a significant issue (Ahearn

et al., 2001). Many charter school operators are not familiar with the challenges

associated with serving special education students. Most charter schools in California are

chartered by their local districts and contract with them for some of their special

education services but there is a great deal of variation in terms of the types of

arrangements made between charter schools and outside organizations (Ahearn et al.,

2001). This lack of awareness and knowledge can result in compliance issues and

complaints (Mulholland, 1999).

There are examples of fully inclusive charter schools that not only serve special

needs students but actively recruit them (Downing, Spencer, & Cavallaro, 2004). This

model was found to have several positive outcomes along with some negative ones.

Stakeholders reported that an inclusive charter school promoted an acceptance of

diversity, improved student achievement for special needs students, and created an

environment where special needs students could form valuable friendships (Downing,

Spencer, & Cavallaro, 2004). Negative outcomes included high costs and lack of
 18

adequate special needs personnel to meet student needs. Of course, these negative factors

exist in traditional schools as well.

There are charter schools that specialize in at-risk students, including special

education students. In fact, in contrast to most of the literature, one study found that

charter schools enroll special needs students at approximately the same rate as traditional

schools (Fiore, Warren, & Cashman, 1999). The review of data also did not find evidence

to support the contention that the cost of delivering special needs services was a

significant barrier for charter schools. However, even the report’s authors concede that

their review was far from conclusive. The study’s sample was relatively limited (Fiore,

Warren, & Cashman, 1999). Again, the vast majority of special needs students in this

study had mild disabilities, predominantly speech and language impairments, specific

learning disabilities, and autism.

The literature is relatively clear about several aspects of special needs students in

charter schools. First, in most instances special needs students do not enroll in charter

schools at nearly the rate of their regular education classmates. When they do enroll, they

do so for many of the same reasons as the regular education students in charter school.

However, lack of appropriate services and lack of expertise by charter school operators

keep special needs enrollment down in most public charter schools. In fact, in most

states, special needs students enroll in charter schools at less than half the rate of

traditional schools (Horn & Miron, 2000; Rhim & Kowal, 2007). Special needs and at-

risk students also exit charter schools at a relatively high rate (Estes, 2006). Many leave

for the reasons listed above. Benefits to special needs students in charter schools included
 19

higher achievement and an increased ability to differentiate instruction (Downing,

Spencer, & Cavallaro, 2004).

The evidence that is available indicates that charter schools, as a whole, do not do

a superior job when it comes to educating special needs students when compared to

traditional public schools. They enroll these students at a lower rate (Riley, 2000) and

tend to have significant issues around special education compliance and programming

(Mulholland, 1999; Ahearn et al., 2001). There are cost issues but there are also many

issues related to special education expertise that many charter organizations simply do

not possess. There are isolated examples of public charter schools that cater specifically

to special needs students (Downing, Spencer, & Cavallero, 2004). These represent the

exception rather than the rule.

Virtual Learning and Special Education

Online learning, where curriculum is delivered online (Diaz & Entonado, 2009),

and hybrid model schools, where students learn in part on campus and in part remotely

through online curriculum (Staker, 2011), are a rapidly growing sector of the charter

school community (Clark, 2001). There is already a system, called Advanced Distributed

Learning, which is being utilized in government and business to provide training. This

system allows customization and access for all users within a framework. This system

may soon be adapted to K-12 and higher education and completely change the landscape

of education as it is currently configured (Fletcher, Tobias, & Wisher, 2010). Virtual or

online schools for K-12 students are a rapidly growing sector of the education field.

Virtual curriculum providers like K12, incorporated are producing more and more of the
 20

materials that the market demands. Virtual or online charter schools provide flexibility

while still allowing students access to standards-based curriculum (Revenaugh, 2005).

The Sloan Consortium found that there were at least one million K-12 students receiving

some type of virtual or online education in 2009 (Glass, 2009). The Sloan survey also

found that three out of four responding school districts offered some form of hybrid

instructional delivery and that about 40% of the districts had students enrolled in at least

one hybrid course (Glass, 2009).

Access to an expanded curriculum and the ability to provide instruction at the

learner’s level are two of the advantages of virtual learning courses (Clark, 2005).

Potential for high program capacity and school choice alternatives are additional benefits

that virtual or online programs offer (Hassel & Terrell, 2004). While online learning has

been around for at least two decades, much of its potential has yet to be tapped. Online

learning’s biggest benefit is in its ability to expand students’ choices and increase

opportunities for students to complete or continue their education (Clark, 2008). These

increased opportunities exist in the flexibility in pacing and access that cannot be

achieved through a traditional school setting.

Online instruction and face-to-face instruction are both attempting to improve

student learning and student achievement. Johnson, Aragon, Shaik, and Palma-Rivas

(2000) found that students tended to be slightly more satisfied with face-to-face

interaction rather than online instruction. Their study involved a college course with two

sections taught by the same instructor, one online and one in a traditional face-to-face

classroom. Student outcomes for students in the online course were virtually identical to

students receiving face-to-face instruction. However, the skills needed to be a successful

 21

instructor are the same whether the class is face-to-face or online (Diaz & Entonado,

2009). If the goal of public education is to improve student outcomes, the method of

instructional delivery does not appear to be as crucial as the pedagogical skill of the

instructor. However, online instruction does provide options that traditional instruction

does not. Increased capacity and flexibility are two of those options.

The question of how online or virtual schools address the needs of at-risk students

is an important one. These students have special circumstances and challenges that must

be considered if they are going to find success in an online program. As with charter

schools, a successful program aimed at at-risk students has many of the same elements as

successful programs in traditional schools. Individualized instruction, the need for face-

to-face or one-on-one support, schedule flexibility, and practical applications of lessons

were listed as key elements that more successful online learning programs offered

(Archambault et. al, 2010). Purely online or virtual schools do not always provide enough

of those elements to support special education students.

Again, there are issues specific to special needs students that have been investigated.

Online and hybrid charter schools must meet all of the accountability and staffing

requirements of No Child Left Behind that traditional public schools must meet (Rhim &

Kowal, 2007). Schmetzke (2001) found that many of the programs used for the delivery

of online education were not easily accessible by students with certain disabilities. Blind

students and students with certain orthopedic impairments are often unable to access

programs and technology (Schmetzke, 2001). Adaptive technology has addressed many

of those issues. More difficult to address are the access issues associated with students

who possess processing disabilities. These students have no physical limitations but
 22

encounter difficulty processing audio or visual input. Burgstahler, Corrigan, and

McCarter (2004) conducted a case study and also found significant technological barriers

to certain populations. They looked at the distance learning program at the University of

Washington and determined that having a system in place to allow students with access

problems to work with technology personnel to address their specific needs was helpful

in improving student outcomes. Many K-12 virtual schools, including Virtual High

School, Inc. and the Florida Virtual School, have provided services for special needs

students since their inception (Rose & Blomeyer, 2007). Once again, the model of

delivering instruction (traditional, online, hybrid) is much less crucial than the

pedagogical manner with which that instruction is delivered. However, many special

needs students have requirements beyond simple access in order to achieve success in a

virtual environment.

Virtual or online schools and charter schools face the same issue finding qualified

teachers as traditional public schools. There has been some discussion since the passage

of No Child Left Behind that special education teachers, even those with self-contained

classes, need certification in all subjects that they teach. While this has not yet been

implemented, it would add to the shortage of special education teachers that already

exists (Billingsley & McLeskey, 2004). Again, this issue affects all public schools but is

just another factor impacting special needs students in charter and virtual schools.

Virtual or online schools are becoming a larger proportion of the charter school

segment. Clark (2001) studied the state of virtual schools and found trends that are

continuing to this day. First, online and virtual schools are growing at a tremendous pace.

Second, course offerings have also been growing over time (Clark, 2001). Finally, more
 23

and more states are sponsoring virtual schools and more research is being done to

determine the effectiveness of these schools. While there are cost issues around providing

access to all students in a virtual school, Tucker (2007) stresses the importance of

ensuring that access. “Without efforts to ensure equal access among all students, virtual

learning’s potential to serve students at all learning levels – especially those who are

unsuccessful in traditional schools – will be lost” (Tucker, 2007, p. 7).

Virtual charter schools present some unique challenges when delivering services

to special education students. Rhim and Kowal (2007) conducted a study to address

issues related to special education services in the context of virtual charter schools. They

developed a primer that addresses many questions that virtual charter school developers

may have with regard to servicing special needs students. Essentially, charter schools and

virtual schools must meet the same standard of service delivery for special needs students

that any public school must meet. However, there needs to be some level of innovation

allowed in delivering those services. If assistive technology is needed for students to

access curriculum it must be provided. If transportation is needed for students to attend

classes at a hybrid school it must be provided (Rhim & Kowal, 2007). However, some of

the notions about special education services need to be challenged and adapted in order

for the virtual model to be viable. For example, many special education students have

specific time requirements relative to numbers of hours of weekly instruction. Online

interaction, texting, blogging, and video conferencing must be considered valid activities

that apply towards that time if special education services are to ever truly become virtual.

Another factor to consider when looking at virtual or hybrid schools is the issue

of student engagement. This is especially critical for special needs students. At-risk
 24

students, especially in a more independent setting, need to feel connected and motivated

in order to succeed. Delailioglu (2003) found that student motivation was extremely

important to student outcomes in the hybrid school model. Feeling a sense of relatedness

was found to be a key factor in academic performance (Furrer & Skinner, 2003). Wentzel

and Caldwell (1997) studied student relationships and found that they had mixed results

when it came to student achievement. Goodenow (1992) found a sense of belonging to be

important for the motivation of at-risk students, including students with disabilities.

However, a sense of school belonging was much more closely correlated with student

achievement. Student-teacher relationships were found to be a predictor of success for at

risk students (Lessard, 2008). Students who felt acknowledged and valued tended to stay

in school and students who experienced negative interactions with teachers did not.

Obviously, online schools do not provide the same level of interaction and relational

activity as a traditional school. This issue must be addressed if at-risk students in general

and special education students in particular are going to succeed academically and

socially using this instructional model.

Many factors have been shown to contribute to increased student achievement

and should be examined for all students, including special education students. Lee (2010)

found several factors that contributed to student achievement. Personal factors, such as

engagement and the possession of learning strategies, were the most important when it

came to student achievement. Socio-contextual factors, like school climate and socio-

familial influences, also had an impact on student achievement. Mentoring programs can

also have a positive impact on the achievement of at-risk students, as long as the mentors
 25

have the proper training (Balcazar, 2006). All of these factors need to be considered

when designing a hybrid or online program for at-risk and special needs students.

Online and hybrid schools offer several benefits to special needs students

including the possibility for differentiation and the ability for students to progress at their

own pace (Clark, 2005). However, there are several issues that need to be considered

when creating hybrid or online schools that will service special education students. First,

program elements need to be analyzed to ensure that there are no issues with access

based on student disabilities (Tucker, 2007). This access can be based on a physical

and/or mental disability or impairment. Second, student engagement and motivation need

to be considered when developing a program as these factors are keys to student

academic success (Goodenow, 1992; Lee, 2010). At-risk students need to feel a sense of

connectedness with their school in order to succeed (Delailioglu, 2003; Furrer & Skinner,

2003). Virtual and hybrid charter schools can improve student outcomes but only if they

contain the program elements found in successful traditional school including quality

teachers, creation of a positive, supportive environment, and a standards based

curriculum (Diaz & Entonado, 2009).

There are a number of misconceptions about virtual or online schools. One such

misconception is that there is no real teacher in a virtual school. The reality is that

reputable online schools have qualified instructors who interact with students in a variety

of ways including in person assistance (Clark, 2008). Another misconception is that

online courses are easy. Most state sponsored or accredited online schools have

extremely rigorous standards. Online schools even offer Advanced Placement classes for

high school students (Clark, 2008). In fact, the individualized and objective nature of
 26

online assessments can actually raise student outcomes or at least provide an accurate

measure of student performance levels. A final misconception is that online students do

not interact with others and are isolated. However, the majority of online programs have

an on-campus component that allows a great deal of social interaction (Clark, 2008).

Most virtual schools also utilize social media and interactive technology that allows and

even requires student interaction with peers, teachers, and others. Student interaction

needs to be developed for all online and hybrid schools.

Student Outcomes at Charter and Virtual Schools

As the charter school movement has expanded, research has been done to

determine if the charter school structure provides an advantage to students who attend

charter schools. This research is ongoing and constantly changing. Parents whose

children attend charter schools report a higher satisfaction with those schools than the

traditional public school that their child left (Riley, 2000). Booker, Gilpatric, Gronberg,

& Jansen (2004) looked at the performance of charter schools in Texas and found that

students in these schools consistently performed better in reading and math. However,

they also found that many students experience an initial dip in performance when first

transferring to a charter school.

Charter school student outcomes have been looked at from a variety of

perspectives. Greene, Forster, & Winters (2003) looked at charter schools in comparison

to similar neighborhood schools. They found schools that did not target particular

populations and compared their student outcomes to the geographically closest similar

school. The study found that charter schools outperform regular public schools 0.08
 27

standard deviations in math and 0.04 standard deviations in reading nationwide. This

translates to three percentage points in math and two percentage points in reading on a

norm referenced test. Several states, including Texas and Florida, showed even better

student outcomes in charter schools. However, a 2004 study using data from the National

Assessment of Educational Progress found that students in fourth grade charter schools

actually performed at a lower level than students in regular public schools (Carnoy,

Jacobsen, Mishel, & Rothstein, 2006). Charter school proponents claimed that the study’s

findings were deceptive because the sample was limited and the charter students studied

were from an extremely disadvantaged population. Charter schools in Idaho were found

to produce higher student outcomes in math (Ballou, Teasley, & Zeidner, 2006). Unlike

many states, charter school students in Idaho tended to be higher achieving prior to

entering a charter school.

Within the charter school movement there are non-profit and for-profit charter

school operators. A study of Arizona charter schools found that non-profit and for-profit

both slightly outperformed traditional public schools on standardized assessments.

However, non-profit schools outperformed the for-profit organizations (Garcia, Barber,

& Molnar, 2009). The study concluded that the primary reason for this discrepancy is that

for-profit charter schools are looking for ways to lower costs and increase profits. This

drive to maximize returns can often be at odds with educational goals. The study also

found that for-profit charter schools tended to focus efforts on developing basic skills at

the cost of higher order thinking skills (Garcia, Barber, & Molnar, 2009). The for-profit

charter schools in Arizona studied also had several other qualities that may have

contributed to their lower performance levels. These qualities included larger schools and
 28

less experienced teachers. However, these schools also had an underrepresentation of

special needs students, which might lead to increased student achievement. With this

study, as with many others, the conclusions are mixed and the achievement gains at

charter schools minimal (Garcia, Barber, & Molnar, 2009).

Charter schools can take a number of forms and those forms have an impact on

student achievement. Milwaukee Public Schools have two types of public charters,

instrumentality and non-instrumentality (Nisar, 2010). Instrumentality schools fall under

many of the same provisions as the regular public schools but with more flexibility over

their budgets and curriculum. They do employ unionized teachers. Non-instrumentality

schools do not employ unionized teachers. A longitudinal study done in 2010 found that

charter students tended to outperform their traditional school counterparts but that

students in the non-instrumentality schools significantly outperformed other schools

(Nisar, 2010). These findings reinforce the concept that charter schools can thrive when

layers of bureaucracy are removed without removing the level of accountability.

There is also evidence that charter schools face a significant achievement dip

during the initial stage of their existence. The dip is in student performance when

compared to their performance prior to entering the newly established charter school.

When using a value-added model for determining student outcomes, a study of Texas

charter schools found that charter school students had an initial drop in performance

during the first few years of operation (Hanushek, Kain, Rivkin, & Branch, 2006). The

authors of the study attributed the initial drop to operational and organizational factors

associated with a new school. This study found that charter schools perform at the same

level as similar public schools in the long term. A second study of Texas charter schools
 29

found the same initial drop in student performance at start up schools but attributed it to

adjustments that students made to the new structure rather than the school itself (Booker,

Gilpatric, Gronberg, & Jansen, 2004).

As previously stated one of the primary reasons that parents remove their children

from traditional public schools is dissatisfaction with student outcomes and perceived

education quality (Mulholland, 1999). However, Henushek, Kain, Rivkin, and Branch

(2006) found that parents tend not to remove their children from charter schools for those

same reasons. In other words, parents will keep their child in an underperforming charter

school when they may have removed their child from their traditional school because it

was underperforming. This speaks to perceived quality as opposed to actual quality in

terms of student outcomes. Many parents perceive that the charter school is superior even

when data can show that it is not.

Virtual schools have been found to have strengths and weaknesses as well. A

study was conducted at the Michigan Virtual High School, which serves students

throughout the state, to look at student outcomes in comparison to traditional public

schools in Michigan (Dickson, 2005). The study highlighted some shortcomings found

with the start up of a virtual high school including the lack of organized data and the need

to consider data management when designing a virtual school program. The study also

found that students attending Michigan Virtual High School generally fell into two

categories with regard to course completion. There was a cluster of students who fell into

the 70 to 100 percent range in terms of their final grades. The majority of the rest of the

students performed at a very low level, generally below 40 percent. In other words,

looking at the mean as a way to determine student success was not the most accurate
 30

measure (Dickson, 2005). Finally, the study recognized the importance of including

stakeholders when designing programs and data management systems rather than using a

standardized program. This ensures that the program meets the needs of the users. The

study also illustrated the need to provide safety nets within virtual schools in the same

way that they are provided in traditional schools. Failure to do so can result in lack of

student success.

Student outcomes in virtual schools have been compared to traditional schools on

a large scale. Cavanaugh et. al (2004) conducted a meta-analysis to determine how

student outcomes in online learning programs compared to outcomes in traditional public

schools. They looked at various features of online education programs to determine

which factors had an impact on student outcomes. The study looked at 14 studies

involving over 7,500 students in online learning whose learning outcomes were

compared to those of control students who attended traditional public schools. All of the

online learning students were also in public programs. Results varied but the consensus

was that online learning programs are as effective as traditional programs when

technology used was recent and changed rapidly. Essentially, online schools can be

effective or ineffective, just like traditional schools, based on a number of factors

including teacher quality, the presence of individualized instruction, the use of data to

drive teaching and learning, and the quality and alignment of instructional materials.

Where charter schools are prevalent in a large urban district, detailed data can be

mined. A study of the Chicago charter school system looked at student outcomes in

charter schools and traditional public schools (Hoxby & Rockoff, 2004). This study

tracked the academic progress of students who were admitted to Chicago charter schools
 31

and used the students who applied for charter school admission and were not randomly

selected to attend as a control group. The study concluded that students who were

admitted to Chicago charter schools achieved at a higher level than students who

attempted to attend a charter school but did not secure a spot via the lottery. However,

students did experience an initial drop in achievement when starting at a charter school

(Hoxby & Rockoff, 2004). These findings were consistent with the study of Texas

charter schools discussed earlier (Booker et al., 2004). When the student performance of

the Chicago district as a whole was examined, achievement levels were fairly flat. In

other words, the gains of the students in the charter schools were offset by similar losses

at the traditional public schools.

A Rand Corporation study of charter school outcomes in eight states found

evidence that charter schools are having an overall positive effect on achievement (Li,

2009). This study found that charter schools do not draw top students from traditional

public schools or substantially affect student achievement at nearby schools. Secondary

charter school students (grades 6-12) achieved at levels comparable to traditional public

schools. However, charter school students were more likely to attend college than

students in traditional public schools (Li, 2009).

The data on the effectiveness of charter schools compared to traditional schools

have been mixed. Hill, Angel, and Christensen (2006) looked at 35 charter school studies

done between 2000 and 2006 and found very contradictory conclusions about the

achievement of students in charter schools. Of those studies, fifteen showed that charter

schools had a positive impact on student achievement, ten showed no statistically

significant difference, and ten showed a negative impact on student achievement. This
 32

was partially due to the great variation in the types of schools studied, the methodologies

used, and the type of student comparison. Even when the five most sophisticated studies

were analyzed, no clear conclusion could be drawn about the effectiveness of charters. Of

those five studies, two found a positive effect, two found no significant effect, and one

found a negative effect (Hill, Angel, & Christensen, 2006).

Charter schools in impoverished urban areas face additional challenges. Zimmer

and Buddin (2005) conducted a large scale study comparing student outcomes for charter

schools and traditional schools in Los Angeles and San Diego. The study looked at all

public charters in the two large urban districts and compared their outcomes to those of

traditional public schools. Elementary level charter schools kept pace with traditional

schools in Los Angeles but fell behind traditional schools in San Diego (Zimmer &

Buddin, 2005). At the secondary level, charter schools in Los Angeles performed slightly

higher in reading but slightly lower in math than traditional schools. In San Diego, the

secondary findings were reversed. Essentially, when all charter schools, not just the

highest performing ones, were analyzed, they showed almost no difference in student

outcomes when compared to traditional public schools. These findings seem to indicate

that in urban areas with a high at-risk student population charter schools face many of the

same challenges as traditional schools and deliver similar results in terms of student

achievement.

When looking at charter schools serving all demographic groups, outcomes were

examined and similar results were found. A statewide study was done to evaluate student

outcomes for charter schools in Arizona (Mulholland, 1999). In terms of student

achievement, the study found that charters outperformed traditional schools at the
 33

elementary level, performed at about the same level in middle school, and fell behind

traditional schools at the high school level. In terms of issues related to special needs

students, the Center for Disability Law, which advocates for special needs students in

Arizona, reported that 20 percent of their complaints were directed at charter schools.

This number is extremely high considering that the percentage of students in charter

schools was less than five percent. The Center reported that the reasons for the

complaints fell into three main categories. The first was a lack of awareness by charter

school administrators about their obligations to special needs students. The second was

an unwillingness or inability to provide services that were required by law. The final

category of complaints involved charter schools discouraging special needs students from

applying and enrolling (Mulholland, 1999). This study echoes some of the charter school

issues surrounding special education services found elsewhere (Rhim & Kowal, 2007).

Charter and virtual schools have shown mixed results in terms of student

outcomes. Some of the reasons for the contradictory information are the variety of charter

schools and regulations which are dependent on location. Essentially, charter and virtual

schools are successful when they have the same characteristics as successful traditional

schools. A 2005 study of traditional public schools and public charter schools in New

Jersey found that there were pockets of excellence and mediocrity in both types of

schools (Barr, Sadovnik, & Visconti, 2006). There were traits found in successful schools

of both types. However, charters and virtual schools have some advantages that

traditional schools do not have and those advantages need to be utilized to produce gains

in student achievement. Those advantages include local control of budgets and personnel
 34

decisions. But, again, the amount of control varies from state to state and charter to

charter.

In terms of general conclusions about the impact of charter and virtual schools on

student achievement, it is difficult to draw universal conclusions. Instead, researchers and

practitioners need to find data drawn from studies done on populations similar to the

students of particular interest to the practitioners and researchers. New York City’s

charter schools have a disproportionate number of African-American students (Hoxby &

Murarka, 2009) while Idaho’s charter school students are predominantly white (Ballou,

Teasley, & Zeidner, 2006). In 2005, 17 of Idaho’s 28 charter schools were district

controlled and the rest were independent. Five of the 28 schools used some type of

distance learning as part of their curriculum (Ballau, Teasley, & Zeidner, 2006). All of

these variables play into the student outcome formula. Classifying schools as simply

charter or virtual or traditional does not provide enough of a distinction to provide useful

conclusions.

There is a lack of significant disaggregated information about the performance of

special education students within the charter school system. While there is some

information about charter school satisfaction from the standpoint of a variety of

stakeholders, special education students are not specifically mentioned. It is difficult,

from the current literature, to determine whether or not these students feel that the charter

school experience, whether virtual, blended or otherwise, is working for them. That leads

to the first question that this study will address. What do key stakeholders see as the

strengths and weaknesses of a public charter hybrid or blended high school for special

needs students, both internally and in comparison with traditional public schools? This
 35

will involve asking parents, teachers, students, and administrators their perceptions of

program quality and satisfaction in a number of areas including school culture, program

effectiveness, and resource allocation.

Blended/Hybrid School Models

As previously mentioned, blended or hybrid schools are a recent development in

public education. The structure and definition of these schools is constantly evolving.

Allen and Seaman (2008) define a hybrid school as one in which 30 to 79 percent of

instruction is delivered online. Staker (2011) has a much broader definition which

involves some combination of face-to-face and online instruction with some student

control over time, place, path, and/or pace. Staker’s definition is the one which will guide

this research.

Staker (2011) developed six blended instruction models that fall within a blended

learning matrix. The matrix plots instruction in terms of geographic location from

supervised brick and mortar location to remote access. The other axis plots content

delivery on a continuum from completely offline to completely online. Blended schools

must involve some component of online and face to face instruction. However, the online

instruction can be provided at a brick-and-mortar location. Thus, it is possible for a

blended school to have no remote component.

The first blended instruction model defined by Staker (2011) is the face-to-face

driver model. This model involves primarily face-to-face interaction in the delivery of

instruction. The students using this model often complete the majority of their work

online but at a brick-and-mortar facility in a technology lab or on classroom computers.

 36

This model also includes programs where students are taught in a traditional classroom

setting and online supplemental instruction occurs when needed.

The second blended instruction model defined by Staker (2011) is the rotation model. In

this model coursework alternates between face-to-face and online using a predetermined

schedule. While the online and face-to-face time is on a fixed schedule, the pacing of

instruction is usually individualized, based on student need. The online portion of the

rotation can be delivered on site or remotely. With this model the classroom teacher

generally oversees the online portion as well as the traditional classroom portion of

instruction.

The third blended instruction model is the flex model (Staker, 2011). In this

model the majority of the curriculum is delivered online. Face-to-face support is provided

as needed through individual tutoring and/or small group instruction. This model is often

used with at-risk students in credit recovery programs.

The fourth blended instruction model is the online lab (Staker, 2011). The online

lab delivers all instruction through online instruction. However, delivery is exclusively

provided in a brick-and-mortar school. Oftentimes, paraprofessionals provide the support

in the classroom while teachers provide support online. Online labs in the survey often

worked in conjunction with traditional schools to provide additional educational services

for students.

The fifth type of blended instruction is known as self-blend (Staker, 2011). This

model is similar in structure and content to the online lab. Students take full courses

through online delivery exclusively. The major distinction between the two models is that

self-blend courses are delivered remotely and online lab courses are delivered in a brick-
 37

and-mortar building. Both models are often used for students looking to supplement core

instruction.

The final blended instruction model as defined by Staker (2011) is the online

driver model. This model also delivers all curricula online. As with the online lab, the

teacher is generally online along with all instruction. In this model there are periodic

face-to-face check-ins. These are sometimes optional and sometimes required. “Some of

these programs offer brick-and-mortar components as well, such as extracurricular

activities,” (Staker, 2011, p. 8).

While these models help to provide some structure to the blended model

definition, there is a great deal of gray area in existing blended programs. In fact, most of

the schools profiled in the study did not fit any of these definitions precisely (Staker,

2011). While these definitions will be used to guide this study, they are far from

comprehensive and all inclusive.

There is a growing body of information about blended charter schools. This

literature does not give specific program data related to special education services.

Special needs students are attending hybrid schools and the schools are somehow

accommodating these students. More research needs to be done to determine what

structures and systems exist in hybrid charter schools to provide support for special

education students. This leads to the second question that this study will address. How

are the needs of special education students met in ways that are different and similar to

regular education students in a public charter hybrid school? The study will look at

human and material resources allocated for special needs students. It will also look at
 38

program elements that exist exclusively for special needs students at a public charter

hybrid school.
 39

Chapter Three: Research Design and Methodology

The previous chapter outlined much of what is known in the area of charter and

online schools with regard to providing services to special education students. While the

blended or hybrid instructional model was not specifically investigated, both face-to-face

and online instruction were examined. This chapter will discuss the specific details of this

study and provide information on instrumentation and data analysis as well.

Research Questions

There is a good deal of research in the area of special education student

performance at charter schools (Fiore, Harwell, Blackorby, & Finnigan 2000; Riley,

2000; Downing, Spencer, & Cavallero, 2004; Fierros & Blomberg, 2005). There is also a

fairly extensive body of literature surrounding access and special education students in

virtual or online schools (Burgstahler, Corrigan, & McCarter, 2004; Rhim & Kowal,

2007; Rose & Blomeyer, 2007). There is a substantial amount of research about issues

specific to charter and online schools and student performance in those schools as well

(Mulholland, 1999; Zimmer & Buddin, 2005; Hill, Angel, & Christensen, 2006).

However, very little information is available about special education students in hybrid

schools. This instructional model is relatively new and is constantly evolving, so the

definition of a hybrid charter is not absolute.

This chapter discusses the research design and methods that will be used to gather

information about special needs students attending hybrid and online charter schools.

Triangulation of data strengthens the results of a study (Patton, 2002). Using both

qualitative and quantitative data is one way to triangulate data collection. Using a variety
 40

of instruments aimed at answering the same research question is another. Gathering data

from a variety of stakeholders is a third way to triangulate data and strengthen study

findings. This section will explain the research design and methodology that will be used

to answer the following research questions.

1) What do key stakeholders (students, parents, teachers, administrators, special

education personnel) see as the strengths and weaknesses of a hybrid or online

high school for special needs students, both internally and in comparison with

traditional public schools?

2) In what ways are the needs of special education students met in ways that are

different and similar to regular education students in a public charter hybrid

school structure?

Population and Sample

While there are a number of K-12 schools nationally and internationally that

classify themselves as hybrid or blended, this study focused specifically on public hybrid

or online charter high schools. These schools also take a variety of forms but all offer

some sort of combination of online and face-to-face instruction. For the purpose of this

study, the hybrid high schools are those where learning takes place at least partially at a

supervised brick-and-mortar location away from home and at least partially through

online delivery with some elements of student control over time, place, path, and/or pace

(Staker, 2011). Online schools provide curriculum that is delivered via computer or other

media (Diaz & Entonado, 2009).

 41

Additionally, all public charters are subject to the similar restrictions and

requirements with regard to offering services to special education services. While the

focus of the study was on special needs services, all school site personnel as well as

students and parents affiliated with public hybrid charter high schools comprise the

population.

An online questionnaire with quantitative ratings about the perceived quality of

the hybrid or online school program was conducted. The school administrator initially

provided some basic demographic data about the school and its history. The

questionnaire allowed respondents the opportunity to elaborate in any area that they liked

but did not require any elaboration. The sample for the initial mixed methods

questionnaire was composed of key stakeholders at five hybrid or online high schools.

Those stakeholders consisted of students, special education teachers, regular education

teachers, parents, staff, and administrators at the school and district levels. This phase of

the study gathered data to address the advantages and disadvantages, as well as

satisfaction or dissatisfaction, with the delivery of special education services through the

public charter hybrid or online model. Data were collected about program satisfaction

within the hybrid school and in comparison to traditional schools with which the

stakeholders were previously associated. The results for regular education students, staff,

and parents were also determined for comparison to the special needs stakeholders.

Once the large scale quantitative sampling was done, more in depth data was

gathered at two of the sites in the initial sample. This phase of the study involved

interviews with administrators and staff members as well as observations of the delivery

of special needs services at these schools. The focus of this phase of the study was to
 42

identify and describe the program elements that exist for special needs students in

comparison with regular education students in a hybrid high school setting. This phase

also asked respondents how the special education program at the hybrid school compares

to special education programs at traditional schools where the respondents previously

worked. Since the questionnaires and interviews had some questions asking respondents

to compare the hybrid model school to a traditional school, demographic information was

collected to determine the respondents’ experience with both school models. Sites

selected for the interviews and observations had to provide some instruction in a face-to-

face setting. That instruction could have been provided using traditional instruction or

supervised online instruction.

Data Collection and Instrumentation

A large scale online survey was administered and consisted of a series of

questions using a four point Likert scale. The survey collected data to answer the

question, “What do key stakeholders (students, parents, teachers, administrators, special

education personnel) see as the strengths and weaknesses of a hybrid or online high

school for special needs students, both internally and in comparison with traditional

public schools?”

After each topic, space was provided to allow respondents to elaborate on any of

their answers. The survey was distributed to administrators at a number of hybrid and

online high schools in California and other states. Administrators who agreed to

participate were given an initial questionnaire to provide some basic demographic

information about their schools (Appendix A). The administrator was provided
 43

instructions on how to facilitate the participation of stakeholders in the online survey.

There were two surveys utilized, one for general and special education students

(Appendix B) and one for administrators, staff, and parents (Appendix C). Ideally, an

equal number of general education students, special education students, parents, and

teachers would have participated from each school, with a minimum of five from each

group per school. This was not possible due to study limitations, which will be discussed

in a following section. As previously mentioned, the purpose of the online surveys was to

determine the perceived advantages and disadvantages, as well as satisfaction or

dissatisfaction, with the delivery of special education services at public charter hybrid or

online high schools. There were also questions comparing the online/hybrid school to

traditional schools, so participants were asked to provide their years of experience with

both types of schools.

Once the quantitative portion of the study was conducted, two of the participating

sites were selected for more in depth study examining program elements related to

special education services. Administrators and special education staff were interviewed

to define what elements the program for special education students had that were

different from the regular education program within the hybrid instructional model. The

purpose of this phase of the study was to answer the question, “How are the needs of

special education students met in ways that are different and similar to regular education

students in a public charter hybrid school?”

An interview protocol was used to gather data (Appendix D). The interviews were

structured using standardized open-ended questions (Patton, 2002). Patton (2002)

discussed several types of interviewing techniques, both formal and informal. These
 44

interviews used the formal style of a standardized open-ended interview. The advantages

to this format include interview focus and a greater likelihood of gathering key data.

Observations were also conducted at these sites to identify what program

elements exist for special education students that did not exist for regular education

students. These data were compared to the information gathered during the interviews.

For this part of the data collection an observation protocol was utilized (Appendix E).

The observations utilized Patton’s (2002) fieldwork dimensions. The observer

was an onlooker with an etic (outsider) perspective. The study utilized a solo observer in

an overt role. Individuals being observed may have been aware of the reason for the

observation. The observations took place for a minimum of two days at each location and

took a holistic view of events in the observation setting. The length of time for each

observation was dependent on the schedule of events at the study sites. At the first site,

Classical Charter School, observations took place over three, eight-hour days broken into

six, four-hour instructional blocks. At Contemporary Charter School observations took

place over two days. Two hours per day were observed which corresponded to an

instructional period.

Teacher, staff, and student behavior was recorded. Specific attention was given to

student-to-student interaction, teacher to student interaction, the organization of

instruction, and the content covered during on campus instruction. All observations were

done on campus so information about the programs’ off campus components were based

solely on interviews and document analysis.

Some organizational documents were analyzed in order to provide an additional

source of data for the quantitative part of the study. Informational brochures were
 45

collected from the two case study sites as well as some internal collaboration forms.

Triangulation through other sources was attempted, when possible, with these

documents.

Because program elements and stakeholder satisfaction were compared to a

traditional school, demographic information was collected from study participants to

determine if they had the prerequisite knowledge of traditional public schools. Only data

from stakeholders with at least one full year of experience in a traditional school setting

and a hybrid or online setting were utilized. In other words, a student needed to have

been enrolled as a student in a traditional school and a hybrid or online school for at least

one year each for their responses to be considered.

Data Analysis

Online surveys were used to collect data from a number of hybrid high school

stakeholders. The study asked for a minimum of five responses per school for each of the

stakeholder groups (general education students, special education students, general

education parents, special education parents, teachers, and other staff). The data from the

online surveys were analyzed quantitatively. Drawing conclusions from the literature, the

assumption was that there would be a difference in perceived program quality and

satisfaction between general education and special education stakeholders. Means from

both groups were calculated and compared. This portion of the study gathered data to

address the first research question about perceived advantages and disadvantages for

special needs students in a hybrid or online charter high school. Comparisons were made
 46

between special education students and general education students. Comparisons were

also made between other groups of stakeholders to determine if differences exist.

The survey also collected qualitative data, analyzed separately, which provided

deeper insight into the points of view of various stakeholders in public charter hybrid and

online high schools and are referenced in the data analysis section and findings section

when relevant. The data gathered from the interviews and observations were compared to

find similarities and differences. The interviews of teachers and administrators were also

compared to find commonalities and differences. The purpose of this phase of data

analysis was to find what common understandings exist between staff members and to

determine whether the perceived program elements matched the observed program

elements for special education programs in public hybrid charter schools. Interview data

were also collected to compare hybrid special education programs with traditional public

school special education programs.

Qualitative data collected through interviews and observations yielded

information in a number of areas. The data were analyzed and patterns were found in

each of the five program models studied. Each program was analyzed in these five areas,

which have been shown to be key areas in effective schools. These areas were not

predetermined and emerged through the course of data collection. The programs were

looked at generally and in terms of the way that special education students are serviced.

Areas of analysis

The first area that was examined for each of the five program models was the

existence of individualized, differentiated instruction. Differentiated instruction is the

 47

modification of content, process, product, and/or the learning environment to adjust for

student readiness (Tomlinson, 1999). Differentiated or individualized instruction is a part

of the individual education plan (IEP) for special education students already. However,

the five program models examined in this study had evidence of differentiated instruction

for all students, including special education students. Differentiated instruction has been

shown to be a factor in increased student achievement (Anderson, 2007; Allen, 1991;

Slavin, 1990).

The second area that was examined for each of the five programs involved the

presence of highly qualified teachers with appropriate training in dealing with special

education students. Program staff members’ qualifications and experience were examined

to determine the level of proficiency in dealing with general education students as well as

special education students. As with differentiated instruction, effective, highly qualified

teachers are a key element for high student achievement. While the definitions of highly

qualified and effective differ in the literature, this study looked at the experience and

certification of teachers involved in the five studied programs. Effective teachers can

have a significant positive impact on student achievement (Darling-Hammond & Young,

2002. Classroom and online teachers were evaluated based on their qualifications and

certifications as well as their years of teaching experience in hybrid and traditional school

models. Administrators were also asked to provide information as to the perceived

effectiveness of the teachers involved with special education students.

The third area that was examined within the five programs was the presence of a

system of constant monitoring and accountability. Computer based programs have this

system in place already in terms of raw data. However, this study looked at how the data
 48

were monitored and utilized to adjust the educational program for individual students. As

with the other areas, monitoring student progress, providing formative feedback and

creating a system of accountability are all elements present in high performing programs.

Providing timely formative feedback has been shown to increase achievement and

increase student self-regulation (Nicol & MacFarlane-Dick, 2006).

The fourth area of analysis within the five programs studied involved

opportunities for students to demonstrate learning in a variety of ways. While the primary

form of demonstrating learning took place through computer-based assignments and

assessments, all five programs had opportunities for students to show learning in other

ways as well. Project based learning and authentic/alternative assessment are two

examples of alternative learning demonstrations that were found at the case study sites.

Project-based learning has been shown to produce more accurate achievement measures

by allowing students to demonstrate learning in a variety of ways (Barron et. al, 1998;

Hmelo-Silver, 2004). Well constructed alternative assessments and assignments allow

students with different strengths and learning styles to demonstrate content mastery

(Lombardi, 2008).

The final area that was identified in each of the five programs involved

opportunities for students to interact with peers and staff as part of the program.

Collaboration creates a higher level learning experience “because learning occurs in a

social context, learners interact with and internalize modes of knowing and thinking

represented and practiced in a community,” (Blumenfeld et. al, 1991, p. 371).

McLoughlin and Luca (2001) cautioned against relying exclusively on online, individual

assignments and assessments when evaluating student progress in online programs. They
 49

stated that students need to interact with others and have alternative assignments in order

to demonstrate learning.

Limitations of the Study

There are several limitations to this study. First, the sample size for the case study

was relatively small (five schools). While a number of different stakeholders were

surveyed, the fact that the study was conducted at a limited number of sites means that

there were characteristics and cultural factors that only existed at those particular schools.

Another limitation was the fact that the hybrid programs being studied are early in their

evolution. Charter school students, in general, experience a dip in performance during the

first few years of operation (Mulholland, 1999). Some of the data gathered may have

been reflective of the fact that the schools were in their infancy and may not be related to

the quality of the services being offered to the special needs students.

There were limitations due to the relatively small population of hybrid schools.

The researcher was only able to identify 112 schools nationwide that met the study’s

definition of hybrid schools. Of these, the vast majority had less than 100 students.

Attempts were made through mail, email, and telephone to obtain participants for the

study. The vast majority (over 80%) did not respond at all. Some of the potential

participant schools did not serve special education students. Several declined to

participate and several others had a lengthy study approval process that extended beyond

the data collection window. Efforts to collect data were undertaken from August 2011 to

January 2012.
 50

Another limitation was that the conclusions drawn are primarily of use at similar

hybrid or online public charters. While the federal regulations that guide special

education are the same from state to state, charter school guidelines and requirements

vary significantly from state to state. So information gathered at a charter school in one

state may or may not be applicable to charter schools in other states. There are also

significant differences in the size, style, and structure of charter schools within any

particular state. All of these differences contribute to limiting the usefulness of the

findings from this study. Even the definition of hybrid being used for this study allows a

great deal of variation as a hybrid school can take a variety of forms. There can be

differences in the structure and programming of online schools studied as well.

Significance

This study looked to identify the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the

special education programs at several public hybrid or online charter schools. It also

attempted to identify program elements that existed for special education students within

hybrid schools. This information can be utilized for program evaluation at these

particular schools and any school which shares similar characteristics. Since all charter

schools must serve special needs students and more and more charter schools are

integrating some form of online learning into their curriculum, the information in this

study could be applicable to more and more schools. The instruments developed for

program evaluation may also be helpful to other hybrid or online charters if they choose

to study their particular site.

 51

This study looked at the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the hybrid or

online model with regard to meeting the needs of special education students. The

opportunity for elaboration at this stage may also provide some insight into the areas of

concern within the special education programs. The study also examined what

differentiated or individualized services were being provided for special education

students at these types of school. A comparison was made between the information

gathered from the stakeholder interviews and the observations to determine what level of

alignment exists between the program design and the program implementation. This

information was only gathered at two sites and was only gathered from special needs

administrators, special needs teachers, and special needs staff.

The goals of gathering these data were twofold. First, the information about

program satisfaction and perceived strengths should provide insight into these programs

from a variety of stakeholders’ viewpoints. The study also hoped to determine if special

needs students, parents, and staff feel that their needs are being met at the same level that

general education stakeholders experience. Comparisons between stakeholder groups

identified areas of concern and areas of success at the schools in the sample. Second, the

data gathered from the interviews and observations painted a picture of the state of

special education programming at two charter hybrid high schools. This information

gathered can be added to the rapidly growing literature on this type of school and

provides a form of formative evaluation that can be utilized to make program adjustments

and improvements.
 52

Chapter Four: Analysis of Data

Introduction

This study involved collecting data in three different forms. A quantitative survey

was conducted with staff, parents, and students in online and blended charter schools.

The purpose of this survey was to collect data from a variety of special education and

general education stakeholders in order to determine satisfaction or dissatisfaction with

various elements in hybrid or online charter schools. Data from these surveys were used

to address research question number one: What do key stakeholders (students, parents,

teachers, administrators, special education personnel) see as the strengths and weaknesses

of a hybrid or online high school for special needs students, both internally and in

comparison with traditional public schools? Data were collected from both online and

hybrid schools in five states. Data from different stakeholders were compared to

determine if significant differences existed between groups. Data from the stakeholder

satisfaction survey came in both quantitative and qualitative form since comments were

allowed for each quantitative answer. Quantitative data will be presented with qualitative

comments included, when appropriate, for support.

Qualitative data in the form of interviews and observations were collected at two

sites to gather information to address research question two: How are the needs of special

education students met in ways that are different and similar to regular education students

in a public charter hybrid school? Various staff members were interviewed at the two

sites using a standardized, open-ended interview protocol (Patton, 2002). Observations of

classrooms and school operations were conducted in order to triangulate information

 53

from the interviews (Appendix E). Some organizational documents were also analyzed to

provide additional triangulation to address research question two. Marketing materials,

planning forms, and collaboration documents made up the documents that were analyzed.

Organization of Data Analysis

Data will be presented by research question after the descriptive characteristics of

the study participants section. Data to answer the research question one, with primarily

quantitative data, will be presented first. Raw quantitative data will be presented then

analyzed. Qualitative responses collected through the online surveys will also be

presented and discussed.

Qualitative data to address research question two will be presented in each of the

five areas of analysis identified in chapter three. Each of the five programs at the two

study sites will be analyzed in the areas of individualized instruction, the presence of

experienced, qualified teachers, systems of monitoring and accountability, opportunities

to demonstrate learning in various ways, and the opportunity to interact with peers and

staff.

Presentation of Descriptive Characteristics of Participants

Quantitative data was collected from administrators, staff, parents, and students

from three online and two hybrid schools from five different states. Respondents

included five administrators, thirteen staff members, primarily teachers, eleven parents,

fourteen general education high school students, and eight special education high school

students. A staff member from each participating school completed a school survey with

some basic demographic information. One participating school had less than 100
 54

students, two had between 101 and 500 students, and two had more than 500 students.

One school was less than two years old, one had been in operation for three years, and

three schools were at least five years old. All five schools delivered between 81 and 100

percent of instruction through online curriculum. Some of that curriculum was completed

on campus for the two hybrid schools.

Qualitative data were collected from two of the schools from the quantitative

study. These data were collected to provide a detailed outline of what the educational

program looked like at these particular hybrid charter schools. Specifically, information

was gathered about the special education program within this model. Data from both sites

were compared and trends were identified to provide a more complete picture of special

education programs at these particular hybrid charter schools.

Classical Charter School was one of the sites selected for qualitative case study.

Classical Charter School is a K-12 school that has been in existence since 1999. Classical

Charter serves 580 students in their K-8 program and 1,010 students in their high school.

At the time of the study there were 87 special education students at the K-8 level and 170

students at the high school level. Special education students represented a percentage of

the total student body of 15 percent at the K-8 level and 16.8 percent at the high school

level. The number and percentage of special education students are two of the reasons

that this site was selected for study. The special education students represent a significant

proportion of the school and the program for these students, which will be described

later, is comprehensive.

Classical Charter School is located in a state adjacent to California. The federal

mandates and regulations regarding students with disabilities are the same in all states.
 55

However, the state accountability system is different than California’s. All states

receiving federal education assistance are under the same mandate to meet adequate

yearly progress (AYP) measures. The final reason that this site was chosen for detailed

study is the fact that they have met the federal AYP requirements for the past three years,

school-wide and with the special education student subgroup. Classical Charter School is

one of only two schools in the state to be identified as a program improvement school

and subsequently be exited from that status.

In terms of program model, Classical Charter uses two structures, one for students

in grades kindergarten through seven and another for students in grades eight through

twelve. The eighth graders use the high school model in order to prepare them for high

school. K-7 students use a model most closely related to the flex model described by

Staker (2011). For purposes of this study, this program will be referred to as the Classical

Flex Model. Students complete the majority of their instruction online with a one-hour

home visit from a teacher once per week. Special education students receive an additional

one hour home visit per week by a special education teacher. Students also come to the

campus once per month for a four hour group learning session with their assigned

teacher. There are 25 teachers for the 580 students for a student to teacher ratio of 23.2.

There are five special education teachers for the 87 special needs students for student to

teacher ratio of 17.4.

While students generally complete online curriculum remotely, there is an on

campus computer lab that students can use any time between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and

4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. There are also face-to-face intervention classes which
 56

are offered whenever students show a knowledge gap. These classes are in addition to the

one hour home lesson and the four hour monthly group lesson.

Eighth grade students and students at the high school level follow a blended

model most closely related to the rotation model (Staker, 2011). For purposes of this

study, this model will be referred to as the Classical Rotation Model. Students are

assigned a four hour block of on campus instruction once per week. There is a block

offered from 8:00 to noon and one offered from noon to 4:00. Those four hour blocks are

broken into hour long segments. There is an hour of instruction in English and math each

week and an hour of science and history in alternate weeks. The final hour is structured

around cooperative learning and hands on activities like project-based learning. There is

additional on campus instruction in the form of skill specific intervention classes (like the

K-7 program) and classes to prepare for the state mandated high school exit exam.

Students using the rotation model also have access to the computer lab to complete online

assignments. There is a credentialed teacher assigned to the lab at all times that it is open.

The computer lab is open from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., like the rest of the campus.

In terms of the special education program, there is a special education teacher

assigned to any class that has special education students. During the three days and six

sets of students that were observed at Classical Charter, four of the six groups of students

had a special education teacher in the room. One of the groups didn’t have any special

education students and the teacher was absent in the other group. Students also receive

additional services if their IEP requires them. These services include speech and

language therapy, counseling, and physical therapy.

 57

The vast majority of special education students at Classical Charter qualify for

services because of autism, speech and language disabilities, or a specific learning

disability. There are a few students at the elementary level with orthopedic impairments

and several students at the school who qualify as emotionally disturbed. All special

education students are fully included in general education classes using a resource

specialist teacher (RSP) model. RSP teachers are full time employees of Classical

Charter. Any additional special education services provided are contracted with outside

organizations. Classical Charter does not contract with the local education agency for

these services.

Contemporary Charter School was the other site selected for case study.

Contemporary Charter School serves 404 students in grades K-12. It has been in

operation since 2009. Contemporary is located in California and serves its students at

three learning centers in different cities. Contemporary Charter serves 31 special

education students out of the 404 for a percentage of 7.7 %. There are twelve on campus

instructors and an additional eight online instructors for a pupil to teacher ratio of 20.1 to

1.

As with Classical Charter School, special education students are classified with

mild to moderate disabilities. The vast majority have speech and language impairments,

other health impairments, and specific learning disabilities. Special education services are

provided by the chartering district. There is one speech and language therapist who

services the 12 students with that disability. The 23 students with specific learning

disabilities or other health impairments are serviced by two district special education

teachers. There are four students with multiple disabilities, which is why the totals for
 58

services do not equal 31. There are also five students enrolled at Contemporary Charter

who receive modified instruction through section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of

1973.These are students have medical or physical limitations that require modifications

to the regular program. These students are serviced by general education teachers. Many

program features for these special education students are similar a traditional special

education program. That is, students’ needs and levels used to create individualized

education plans.

Contemporary Charter uses three instructional models for its students. Student in

grades 7-12 use an exclusively online model most closely aligned to the online driver

structure (Staker, 2011). The vast majority of instruction is delivered online with

instructor support when needed. This program model will be referred to as the

Contemporary Online Driver Model during the study.

Kindergarten through sixth grade students can choose the online driver model but

can also use the Contemporary Center Model, where students receive instruction five

days per week at one of the education centers. This program option is most closely

related to the rotation model (Staker, 2011). This program will be referred to as the

Contemporary Rotation Model for the purposes of this study. Students spend 6 ½ hours

per day at a learning center and rotate in one hour blocks between a traditional classroom

teacher and independent online work in an on campus lab. Kindergarten students do not

rotate to the lab and spend all day with their classroom teacher. However, in all cases

curriculum is delivered primarily online.

The final instructional model at Contemporary Charter is known as the four plus

one model. This model would also fall under the rotation model (Staker, 2011). This
 59

program will be referred to as the Contemporary 4 plus 1 Rotation Model. The difference

between this model and the Contemporary Center model is that students complete four

days per week remotely and attend classes and labs on campus one day per week. The

curriculum offered during the one day at a learning center is a content area driven,

project-based program which gives students opportunities to interact with peers and

demonstrate learning in various ways. This day of project-based learning is also used for

one day per week in the Contemporary Center model. The four plus one option is only

available for students in grades one through six.

In terms of the structure of the special education program, students receive

individualized services that are specified in their individual education plan (IEP).

However, Contemporary Charter can substitute interactive time online with face-to-face

service when appropriate. Most speech and language services are delivered remotely

through an interactive program with voice recognition technology.

Research Questions and Associated Hypotheses

This study sought to address two research questions. The first question involved

program satisfaction among various stakeholders in hybrid and online charter high

schools. The quantitative survey sought to determine the general satisfaction with five

hybrid or online model charter schools as well as satisfaction with special education

stakeholders. Based on the literature, one would hypothesize that special education

stakeholders would be less satisfied with charter schools based on their lower enrollment

in those schools (Horn & Miron, 2000). However, since online and hybrid schools have

the capability to provide individualized instruction, which benefits special education

 60

students, schools using these models may actually be a better fit for these students (Clark,

2005).

Observations, interviews, and document analysis were done to collect data to

address research question two which involved identifying elements within special and

general education programs at two hybrid schools utilizing five program models. Because

of the individualized nature of school using online curriculum one would hypothesize

that the special education program might be very similar to the general education

program at a hybrid charter school. The study sought to identify areas where programs

were the same and areas where programs were different in each of the five program

models studied.

Analysis of Data – Quantitative

Data were collected through online surveys from a variety of stakeholders at five

online and hybrid charter schools. Survey data include stakeholder group, years of

experience at hybrid/online and traditional public schools, and grade level (students

only). Data are presented according to the five topics surveyed. Most questions have five

response options: strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree, and not sure. Due to

the limited responses, raw data are presented by question for three stakeholder groups

(special education students, general education students, and adult stakeholders). All

respondents did not complete all questions. Some marked not sure and others left items

blank. For that reason, the response total does not always match the total number of

surveys completed. There were some comments added to a number of questions. Those

responses were reported if they added to the depth of understanding for each topic.
 61

Then, a mean was found for each general topic area for special education and general

education stakeholders. For purposes of this analysis, a stakeholder was only considered

to be special education if they were a special education student or someone in a position

devoted exclusively to special education students. For example, a teacher or

administrator who services both general and special education students would be

considered a general education stakeholder. Responses were given a value from 1 to 4.

Not sure responses were not included. On the majority of questions, a four corresponded

to strongly agree, a three corresponded to agree, a two corresponded to disagree, and a

one corresponded to strongly disagree. On the two questions with negative satisfaction

associated with strongly agree (questions 8 and 10) the scale was reversed. Question four

was a multiple choice question so data from this was excluded as well.

Delivery of Instruction

This section of the survey asked four questions meant to determine whether or not

the respondents preferred online instruction with teacher assistance was an effective

method of delivery according to the respondents. The presence of individualized

instruction has been shown to be a key factor in student success (Tomlinson, 1999;

Anderson, 2007). Question one asked if computer assisted classes help students learn

better than regular classes. The responses were as follows.

 62

Table 1: Question One

Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Not sure
agree disagree
Special 3/8 3/8 1/8 1/8
Education
Students
General 5/12 4/12 2/12 1/12
Education
Students
Adult 8/28 10/28 2/28 1/28 7/28
Stakeholders

Question two asked if online classes give students lesson at their instructional

level. The responses were as follows.

Table 2: Question Two

Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Not sure
agree disagree
Special 2/8 3/8 2/8 1/8
Education
Students
General 5/14 5/14 3/14 1/14
Education
Students
Adult 9/28 11/28 2/28 6/28
Stakeholders

Question three asked if teachers and staff are able to assist students when

necessary. The responses were as follows.

Table 3: Question Three

Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Not sure
agree disagree
Special 3/7 2/7 1/7 1/7
Education
Students
General 4/14 3/14 3/14 2/14 2/14
Education
Students
Adult 8/26 7/26 3/26 1/26 7/26
Stakeholders
 63

Question four asked about instructional models. Respondents had to choose

whether they thought that students learned best working with a teacher, working on a

computer, working with textbooks, working on a computer with help from a teacher

when they need it, or not sure. The responses were as follows.

Table 4: Question Four

Working With a On a With On a Not sure
teacher computer textbooks computer
with help
when needed
Special 2/8 3/8 3/8
Education
Students
General 3/13 5/13 4/13 1/13
Education
Students
Adult 2/27 5/27 2/27 11/27 7/27
Stakeholders

There were 41 total numerical responses (excluding question four) in this section

of the survey from special education stakeholders. The mean for these responses was

3.24. There were 78 numerical responses (excluding question four) from general

education stakeholders. The mean for these responses was 3.10.

Culture/Climate

In this section, respondents were asked to answer questions meant to determine

their feelings about the sense of community at their charter school. A sense of

connectedness and community has been shown to increase student achievement (Furrer

& Skinner, 2003). Question five asked about whether or not stakeholders feel that

students feel like part of a community at school. The responses were as follows.
 64

Table 5: Question Five

Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Not sure
agree disagree
Special 2/8 2/8 1/8 2/8 1/8
Education
Students
General 4/14 2/14 3/14 3/14 2/14
Education
Students
Adult 6/27 7/27 5/27 3/27 6/27
Stakeholders

Question six asked if students are able to make friends and engage in social

activities at school. Interaction with peers was found to be a necessary element in

successful programs using computerized curriculum (McLoughlin & Luca, 2001). The

responses were as follows:

Table 6: Question Six

Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Not sure
agree disagree
Special 2/8 3/8 1/8 1/8 1/8
Education
Students
General 3/13 4/13 4/13 2/13
Education
Students
Adult 5/27 7/27 6/27 3/27 6/27
Stakeholders

Question seven asked if teachers care about students’ success. Effective teachers

tend to demonstrate a sense of caring towards their students and their success (Darling-

Hammond & Young, 2002). The responses were as follows.

 65

Table 7: Question Seven

Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Not sure
agree disagree
Special 2/7 2/7 1/7 2/7
Education
Students
General 4/14 3/14 2/14 1/14 3/14
Education
Students
Adult 10/28 9/28 2/28 1/28 6/28
Stakeholders

Question eight was constructed to ensure that respondents were not simply

marking the same answer for each question. The question stated that the school is not an

enjoyable and productive place for students. There did appear to be some confusion in

the responses. When these data were used for the mean, the values of responses were

reversed from the rest of the questions. The responses were as follows.

Table 8: Question Eight

Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Not sure
agree disagree
Special 2/8 1/8 3/8 2/8
Education
Students
General 5/14 2/14 4/14 3/14
Education
Students
Adult 5/28 5/28 10/28 7/28 1/28
Stakeholders

There were 54 total numerical responses in the culture and climate section of the

survey from special education stakeholders. The mean for these responses was 2.85.

There were 112 numerical responses in this section from general education stakeholders.
 66

The mean for these responses was 2.78. For both of the first sections of the survey,

special education stakeholders actually indicated slightly higher program satisfaction.

Curriculum/Materials

The section of the survey looked at the quality and availability of curriculum and

materials. The questions asked about core curriculum as well as supplemental materials

for struggling students. Special effort needs to be made in order for all students, including

special education students, to access the curriculum at a virtual school (Rhim & Kowal,

2007). Question nine was a general statement about students having all of the resources

that they need to be successful at school. The responses were as follows.

Table 9: Question Nine

Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Not sure
agree disagree
Special 2/8 3/8 2/8 1/8
Education
Students
General 4/13 4/13 2/13 1/13
Education
Students
Adult 8/28 6/28 5/28 2/28 7/28
Stakeholders

Question ten was set up like question eight, where disagreement showed program

satisfaction. Just like with question eight, some of the respondents seemed to be confused

by the changed format and the responses reflected that confusion. The question stated

that students were not given extra resources when they need them. The responses were as

follows.
 67

Table 10: Question Ten

Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Not sure
agree disagree
Special 2/7 1/7 2/7 1/7 1/7
Education
Students
General 3/13 3/13 4/13 3/13
Education
Students
Adult 4/26 3/26 8/26 6/26 5/26
Stakeholders

Question eleven asks if teachers provide instruction in a way that is easy to

understand. The responses were as follows.

Table 11: Question Eleven

Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Not sure
agree disagree
Special 1/8 3/8 2/8 2/8
Education
Students
General 4/13 5/13 2/13 1/13 1/13
Education
Students
Adult 7/28 9/28 4/28 2/28 6/28
Stakeholders

Question twelve asks about the pacing of coursework. The question states that

online classes are not too fast or two slow for students. The responses were as follows.
 68

Table 12: Question Twelve

Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Not sure
agree disagree
Special 2/7 2/7 2/7 1/7
Education
Students
General 4/14 5/14 3/14 1/14 1/14
Education
Students
Adult 8/27 8/27 5/27 3/27 3/27
Stakeholders

There were 56 total numerical responses in the curriculum and material section of

the survey from special education stakeholders. The mean for these responses was 2.84.

There were 105 numerical responses in this section from general education stakeholders.

The mean for these responses was 2.84. In this section of the survey both groups of

stakeholders showed similar satisfaction levels.

Rigor/Overall Program Effectiveness

This section of the survey looked at program effectiveness and academic rigor.

Questions asked about stakeholders’ perception of the charter school’s ability to properly

prepare them for success in school and beyond. Public charter schools are subject to the

same monitoring and accountability systems as other public schools (Riley, 2000; Ryan,

2009) so student outcomes in the form of graduation and post secondary success are vital.

Question thirteen asked if students felt like they would graduate on time from their online

or hybrid charter school. The responses were as follows.

 69

Table 13: Question Thirteen

Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Not sure
agree disagree
Special 2/8 3/8 1/8 2/8
Education
Students
General 3/13 4/13 2/13 4/13
Education
Students
Adult 8/29 7/29 3/29 2/29 9/29
Stakeholders

Question fourteen asked respondents if they felt that their charter school would

properly prepare them for college or a trade. The responses were as follows.

Table 14: Question Fourteen

Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Not sure
agree disagree
Special 1/8 4/8 1/8 2/8
Education
Students
General 4/14 5/14 2/14 3/14
Education
Students
Adult 11/29 9/29 4/29 1/29 4/29
Stakeholders

Question fifteen asked about the general satisfaction level at the charter school by

asking if the stakeholder is happy with their experience at the charter school. Responses

were as follows.
 70

Table 15: Question Fifteen

Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Not sure
agree disagree
Special 2/8 3/8 1/8 1/8 1/8
Education
Students
General 5/14 4/14 2/14 2/14 1/14
Education
Students
Adult 8/28 10/28 4/28 3/28 3/28
Stakeholders

Question sixteen asks stakeholders if they feel that the curriculum at their charter

school is significantly difficult to prepare them for success in their future. The responses

were as follows.

Table 16: Question Sixteen

Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Not sure
agree disagree
Special 2/8 4/8 1/8 1/8
Education
Students
General 3/14 5/14 3/14 1/14 2/14
Education
Students
Adult 7/27 12/27 3/27 2/27 3/27
Stakeholders

There were 58 total numerical responses in the rigor/overall program satisfaction

section of the survey from special education stakeholders. The mean for these responses

was 3.00. There were 108 numerical responses in this section from general education

stakeholders. The mean for these responses was 3.04.

The final section of the stakeholder survey looked at how respondents compared their

online or hybrid charter school to traditional schools with which they had been
 71

previously associated. Several respondents did not have sufficient experience with both

models and their responses were excluded. Stakeholder satisfaction was generally high

which is expected since charter schools are schools of choice (Mulholland, 1999;

Henushek, Kain, Rivkin, & Branch, 2006).

Question seventeen asked if respondents felt that schools with online classes were

better than schools without online classes. The responses were as follows.

Table 17: Question Seventeen

Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Not sure
agree disagree
Special 2/5 2/5 1/5
Education
Students
General 3/9 4/9 1/9 1/9
Education
Students
Adult 6/19 4/19 3/19 1/19 5/19
Stakeholders

Question eighteen asked respondents if their virtual or hybrid charter school gave

them more of what they needed than their previous, traditional school. The responses

were as follows.

Table 18: Question Eighteen

Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Not sure
agree disagree
Special 1/5 2/5 1/5 1/5
Education
Students
General 2/9 4/9 1/9 2/9
Education
Students
Adult 4/18 6/18 2/18 1/18 5/18
Stakeholders
 72

Question nineteen asked if respondents felt that students learned better at their

current online or hybrid school than they did at a traditional school with no online

curriculum. The responses were as follows.

Table 19: Question Nineteen

Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Not sure
agree disagree
Special 1/4 2/4 1/4
Education
Students
General 3/9 4/9 1/9 1/9
Education
Students
Adult 7/19 7/19 2/19 1/19 2/19
Stakeholders

The final question asked if respondents felt that students had as many or more

friends at their online or hybrid school then they did at their previous, traditional school

with no online curriculum. The responses were as follows.

Table 20: Question Twenty

Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Not sure
agree disagree
Special 2/5 2/5 1/5
Education
Students
General 1/9 3/9 4/9 1/9
Education
Students
Adult 4/19 6/19 7/19 2/19
Stakeholders

There were 39 total numerical responses in the comparison to traditional schools

section of the survey from special education stakeholders. The mean for these responses

was 2.92. There were 71 numerical responses in this section from general education
 73

stakeholders. The mean for these responses was 3.03. The number of respondents was

lower for this part of the survey because many of the respondents did not have sufficient

experience in both online/hybrid and traditional schools for their data to be considered.

Analysis of Data – Qualitative

Data were collected at two sites utilizing five different models for the delivery of

instruction. Both schools were considered hybrid or blended model charter schools using

the definition previously discussed (Staker, 2011). Each of the five program models was

analyzed based on five program elements: the existence of individualized, differentiated

instruction, the presence of highly qualified teachers with appropriate training in dealing

with special education students, a system of constant monitoring and accountability,

opportunities for students to demonstrate learning in a variety of ways, and giving

students the opportunity for interaction with peers and staff. An outline of the various

elements of each of the five programs studied is found in appendix F.

Individualized/Differentiated Instruction

The presence of individualized or differentiated instruction can be a key factor in

effective instructional programs (Tomlinson, 1999; Anderson, 2007; Allen, 1991; Slavin,

1990). By definition, online curriculum that adjusts to student readiness provides

differentiation. This section will examine how each of the five program models provides

this differentiation though both online and teacher delivered instruction. Since all five

programs utilize online curriculum, this section will examine the differentiated

instruction that occurs in addition to the online component. Specific information related

to special education students will be presented, if applicable.

 74

The Classical Flex model requires students to complete four hours of online

curriculum per day for a total of 20 hours per week. Students using this model receive

one hour of face-to-face instruction per week at home which counts as part of the 20

hours. The face-to-face instruction is differentiated beyond that provided by the online

curriculum. This computes to 5% of the instructional program. The vast majority of

special education students receive an additional hour of one-on-one instruction from a

resource special program (RSP) teacher per week. This equates to 10% of the

instructional program. There are four special education students who receive two hours

per week of RSP services.

Students using the Classical Flex model also come to campus one day per month

for a four hour group lesson. This scheduled time is provided for group interaction and

more traditional lessons. Students using the Classical Flex model can also receive

individualized support on an as needed basis either on campus or through online

interaction. The final element of this model that allows for individualized support is the

targeted intervention program. When teachers notice a group of students with a

knowledge deficit in a particular core area, usually reading, writing, or math, an

intervention class is organized to fill the gap. These intervention classes are held on

campus and are mandatory for students who are identified. The intervention classes use

online curriculum and additional standards-based materials.

The Classical Rotation model also requires students to complete a minimum of 20

instructional hours per week. However, students using this model do not receive home

visits from teachers. Instead, students using the Classical Rotation model must attend a

four hour block of instruction during a designated time each week. There is an 8:00-noon
 75

block and a noon-4:00 block each weekday. This schedule allows staff to see ten groups

of students over the course of a week. Students report to the school at the same time each

week.

During the first three hours of the on-campus block, students receive support for

their computed based curriculum from a content expert teacher. They rotate in one hour

blocks between an English teacher, a math teacher, and either a science or history

teacher. Very little whole group instruction is given as students are at different places in

the curriculum. Students sit at laptops or desktops while the teacher monitors and

provides assistance when necessary.

The final hour of the four hour block involves the completion of extension and

enrichment activities. This hour of instruction most closely resembles a traditional school

setting. Students complete projects, do cooperative learning, and demonstrate learning in

a variety of ways. This will be discussed later in the portion of the analysis that addresses

these areas.

Special education teachers and instructional assistants are assigned to any class

with a special education student. Since there are special education students in each of the

ten instructional blocks, there are support providers in each class. These individuals

provide specific support for their students based on the IEP requirements but also provide

support to any student in the class who needs assistance. It was impossible to distinguish

between special education and general education students during the classes.

Special education students also receive pull out services as required in addition to

the four hour instructional block. These services are primarily in the area of speech and

language therapy and counseling. Classical Charter has a full time psychologist who
 76

serves as a special education evaluator and support provider in the area of counseling.

Speech and language services are provided through a contract with the local district.

Generally, students are able to coordinate this additional support to take place either

immediately before or after their scheduled four hour instructional block.

Just like with the Classical Flex model, students can be required to attend

additional classes when needed for remediation when a skill gap is identified. Also, like

the Classical Flex model, students have access to the on-campus computer lab during

school hours if they prefer to complete online curriculum there. The computer lab is

staffed by a credentialed teacher. In addition, high school students using the Classical

Flex model have the opportunity to take classes to prepare them for their state’s high

school exit examination. Again, these classes are in addition to the required four hour

block per week.

The Contemporary Online Driver model provides instruction entirely online.

Students are expected to complete a minimum of twenty hours of instruction per week.

However, since Contemporary Charter is considered an independent study program,

funding is based on completed work, not hours of participation. Students are given

assistance in pacing and administrators intervene if a student is not progressing

appropriately.

While all instruction is delivered online, students are required to participate in

live sessions with credentialed teachers. In lower grades, these live sessions are daily. As

students progress, the frequency of the sessions reduces to once per week per core subject

area. These interactive sessions allow teachers to provide individualized support. This

part of the program is the same for general education and special education students.
 77

Special education services for Contemporary Charter are provided by the

chartering district. However, many of the services can be provided online. The school

uses programs for intervention as well as programs to address specific disabilities, like

speech and language impairments.

The executive director of Contemporary stated that, “even speech services are

provided remotely. There are voice recognition programs that are very effective.”

There are instances where face-to-face services are required. These can be

provided at the student’s home or at one of Contemporary’s three learning centers.

Special and general education students who require remediation in core subjects are

assigned work with a supplemental online program. This program is in addition to the

online core curriculum.

Unlike Classical Charter, students at Contemporary Charter are assigned a laptop

computer when they enroll. Students are also required to have internet access at home to

enroll. The school has access to an internet service provider grant of $25.00 per month

for any students who qualify for free or reduced lunch. This allows socioeconomically

disadvantaged students to participate in the program. As with Classical Charter,

Contemporary Charter students have the option of completing online curriculum at a

learning center with face-to-face support from a credentialed teacher.

The Contemporary Rotation model requires students to attend classes at a

learning center five days per week. Students attend classes for six hours per day with a

thirty minute lunch. Students share time between a traditional classroom and a computer

lab. Students in grades one through eight spend one hour in a traditional class followed

by an hour in the lab. This rotation occurs three times during the day. Class sizes are
 78

limited to 25 students based on charter school law. The classes that were observed varied

in size from five students to seventeen.

One day per week students participate in a hands-on curriculum that allows

students to work cooperatively and extend learning. On that day, students spend three

hours working in the lab with online curriculum and the other three hours doing project

based learning. This element of the instructional program allows students the opportunity

to interact with peers and demonstrate learning in alternative ways. This will be discussed

later in the analysis when the topic is addressed.

Students in the kindergarten class still utilize online curriculum but do not rotate

to the computer lab. They complete all learning in a self contained class. The

instructional plan at Contemporary is to slowly increase online curriculum from 20% in

kindergarten to 100% in the ninth grade.

In terms of special education services, Contemporary does not employ any special

education teachers but does have two instructional assistants. The assistants provide

support in the lab as well as rotating between the classes. One of the issues mentioned by

one of the instructional assistants is the fact that they must rotate among the three

learning centers which are as far as 40 miles apart. The executive director stated that he

hopes that with growing enrollment each center can be staffed with a full time

instructional assistant.

“We want be able to provide a full time assistant at each center,” he said.

As previously stated, special education services at Contemporary Charter are

contracted through the local district. Students using the Contemporary Rotation model

generally receive their pull out services at their learning center if necessary. There are
 79

instances where services are provided at the student’s home. Remote services, like those

mentioned with the speech and language program, are also sometimes provided for

Contemporary Rotation model special education students.

Finally, the Contemporary Four plus One Rotation model is offered. This model

is a cross between the online driver and rotation models previously discussed.

Essentially, students complete four days of instruction per week remotely and come to a

learning center one day per week. Students participate in the hands-on curriculum that

was discussed in the rotation model for half of the day and work in the lab receiving

support with their online curriculum for the other half of the day.

Special education services for students in the Four plus One Rotation model are

essentially provided in the same way that they are in the rotation model. When

appropriate, services are provided when students are at a learning center or remotely.

There are instances where services are provided at the student’s home as well. The

instructional assistants are available to support students during their one day at the

learning center. As with all students at Contemporary Charter, remediation is provided in

the form of additional curriculum when necessary.

Presence of Highly Qualified Teachers

Public charter schools have the same requirement to employ highly qualified

teachers as other public schools. In that regard, all teachers associated with Classical and

Contemporary Charter schools meet the definition of highly qualified determined by their

state and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002. However, there were differences
 80

between the two schools in terms of years of experience and experience outside of a

hybrid school.

Classical Charter school, being the more established of the two schools studied,

had a much more experienced staff with more experience in traditional school settings.

Classical Charter acts as a district within a district. They have a board of education and a

superintendent. The superintendent and school administration had an average of 12 years

of traditional public school experience prior to working at Classical Charter. While there

were five teachers who had no traditional school experience, the rest of the teaching staff

averaged over four years of traditional school experience prior to coming to work at

Classical. The eight special education teachers had an average of over seven years of

traditional school experience.

When asked about the experience level of the staff at Classical, the special

education program administrator stated that she felt that, “because of our history of

success, we can pick the best of the best when we need a new teacher.”

Contemporary Charter, on the other hand, has a limited history and a very

different organizational structure. Contemporary Charter was founded by curriculum

experts from the business side of education. It has a more corporate structure and exists

in several states. While the leadership has educational experience, the majority of that

experience was in an online environment. Contemporary teachers had less experience

than Classical teachers. The average teacher at Contemporary had just over five years of

total experience with less than three years at a traditional public school.

The special education staff members, however, differ from the full time

Contemporary staff. These teachers are contracted through the chartering district. While
 81

exact numbers were not available, the executive director believed that all district special

education teachers had been with the district for at least eight years. However, he was not

aware if any of the special education teachers had any other charter school experience

other than their experience with Contemporary Charter School.

System of Monitoring and Accountability

Classical and Contemporary Charter Schools, like all public charter schools, are

required to participate in their states’ annual testing program. As public schools, they are

subject to the same monitoring and accountability as traditional public schools. They are

subject to the same state and federal sanctions for underperformance as traditional public

schools as well. This study looked specifically at systems of accountability and progress

monitoring that exist at these schools in addition to the state and federally mandated

accountability systems. In this section, the systems of monitoring and accountability for

individual students will be examined within the five programs studied. In terms of

common traits, all programs utilize online curriculum which tracks student progress and

success and adjusts assignments due to student readiness and needs.

In the Classical Charter Flex model students are monitored through completion of

online curriculum. Monitoring is also done through the weekly in-home visitations that

students receive. Teachers use some of that time to conduct formative assessments to

determine skill levels. Special education students are monitored by their special

education teachers during home visits as well. During these visits teachers check progress

in the general curriculum and on the student’s IEP goals. Additional curriculum and

support is given when necessary. This support includes speech and therapy support and
 82

counseling. There are some school-wide monitoring and accountability which will be

discussed later in this section.

Students in the Classical Rotation model also have their progress monitored via

the online curriculum. Since these students have a four hour block of on-campus

instruction every week, assessments and monitoring can take place on campus as well.

Like with the Classical Flex model, general and special education teachers conduct

formative assessments during the face-to-face time. There is also a great deal of informal

monitoring when students are completing online curriculum in classrooms or the

computer lab.

“We keep an eye on students and can usually see when they are struggling,”

stated the computer lab teacher, “We can give them support right when they need it.”

As previously stated, special education students also have the support of special

education teachers and instructional assistants when completing curriculum on campus.

Just as with the Classical Flex model, students are given additional pull out services

when they are on campus if their IEP requires.

With the system of monitoring and accountability at Classical Charter School,

students in both programs are identified for intervention when necessary. In both

programs students who are not progressing satisfactorily or have basic skill gaps are

required to complete additional on campus instruction in classes targeted to their needs.

One the skill gap has been addressed, students are no longer required to attend the

additional class.

The majority of monitoring is done online for students using the Contemporary

Online Driver model. While students do not generally get face-to-face support, they are
 83

able to interact with the teacher online through interactive classes and video chats.

Students using this model have the option of going to a learning center if they need face-

to-face support. Special education students generally get their services and support

remotely as well but several students get face-to-face services at a learning center or their

home. Again, part of the purpose of these services is to monitor and support students in

the achievement of their IEP goals. There are some program elements that exist for all

three models at Contemporary Charter school which will be discussed later in this

section.

Students receiving instruction through the Contemporary Rotation model also

have their progress monitored primarily through the online curriculum. However, as

these students spend the most time in a face-to-face setting, they receive a significant

amount of monitoring while at a Contemporary learning center. Because students are

being monitored by a teacher the entire time that they are completing mandatory

instructional minutes, the opportunities for formative feedback and assessment are higher

than with any of the other models.

“I think that starting the kids with so much support then slowly building

independence is a good formula for us, “stated the executive director at Contemporary

Charter School. His thoughts were echoed by the first/second grade teacher at

Contemporary.

“Students do the online work but I think it is important that we are there to

support them as much as they need us, “she said.

Students receiving instruction through the Contemporary Four plus One Rotation

model also have their instruction primarily monitored through completion of online
 84

curriculum. They receive face-to-face instruction one day per week and receive

additional formative feedback and assessment during that day.

As with all of the programs with face-to-face instruction, special education

students generally receive their pull-out and in-class support during their time at a

learning center. The support given to the students in the Contemporary Rotation model is

part of the assigned time at the learning center not in addition to the assigned time.

Special education students are monitored for their progress in their general education

curriculum as well as progress on their IEP goals.

Opportunities to Demonstrate Learning in Various Ways

Using online curriculum has a variety of advantages including immediate

feedback and a comprehensive monitoring system. The hybrid programs studied also

provided opportunities for students to demonstrate learning in other ways. Those

opportunities differ among the five programs studied. Even the Contemporary Online

Driver model, which has virtually no face-to-face time, has opportunities to demonstrate

learning other than strictly completion of online activities and assessments.

The Classical Flex model provides up to 95% of instruction remotely. However,

students using this model are visited a minimum of one hour per week by their classroom

teacher. Teachers can use this time to assess students in alternative ways, having them

demonstrate learning through demonstrations or explanations. Students are also able to

demonstrate learning in alternative ways during their four hour block of on-campus

instruction every month. During that block, students complete group projects, science

labs, and other cooperative learning activities.

 85

Students using the Classical Rotation model also complete the majority of their

work online. Students receive one hour each of English/language arts, math, and science

or history (in alternate weeks). The final hour is utilized to conduct activities similar to

the students in the Classical Flex model. Students complete group and individual

projects, conduct labs, and participate in cooperative learning activities. Individual

content-based assignments, which allow students choice, can include visual arts, musical

and dramatic performance, as well as various forms of written expression.

All students at Contemporary Charter School participate in the same history

extension curriculum. The program is based around project based learning that is tied to

grade level state history standards. Students complete four to six projects per year.

Students using the Rotation or Four plus One Rotation model work on these projects

during their on-campus instruction time. Students are still expected to complete some of

the project work outside of school hours.

Students in the Contemporary Online Driver model are also expected to complete

projects using the same curriculum as students in the other programs. While students

have the opportunity to go to a learning center for support while completing their

projects, it is not required. When the project is completed students can drop it off at a

learning center or create a demonstration video. This way, students demonstrate learning

through projects without ever having to set foot in a Contemporary learning center.

Opportunities to Interact with Peers and Staff

One of the drawbacks of a purely online instructional model is the lack of face to

face interaction with peers and staff. Cooperative learning and small group instruction
 86

are two forms of learning that have been shown to increase student achievement

(Blumenfeld et. al, 1991; McLoughlin & Luca, 2001). Each of the five programs was

examined to determine the level of face-to-face interaction with other students and adult

staff members. Interactions were analyzed for all students and special education students.

Students receiving service through the Classical Flex model of instruction receive

the vast majority of their instruction and support remotely. Students in kindergarten

receive a minimum of 610 minutes per week of instruction with 60 minutes delivered

through one-on-one home visits. Students also participate in one 240 minute, on-campus

group lesson once per month. Assuming twenty days of instruction per month, these

students receive 2,440 minutes of total instruction with 480 minutes of face-to-face

interaction with peers and staff for a percentage of 19.6% of the program.

As previously noted, special education students receive an additional 60 minutes

of face to face time with a special education teacher each week. These additional 240

minutes are added to the 480 that regular education students receive each month for a

total of 720 minutes. Special education students in the Classical Flex model receive a

minimum of 29.5% of their instructional program through face-to-face interactions with

their peers and teachers. Of course, students who choose to utilize the on-campus support

of the computer lab and those who take intervention classes receive an even higher

percentage of instruction face-to-face.

Students in grades one through six are required to complete a minimum of 1,200

minutes of instruction per week or 4,800 minutes per month, either remotely or in person.

General education students receive the same 480 minutes of in person support as

kindergarten students. This represents 10% of their instructional program. Special

 87

education students receive the same 720 minutes of in person support for 15% of their

instructional program.

Seventh grade students are required to complete 1,650 minutes per week, or 6,600

minutes per month and receive the same number of in person minutes as other students in

the Classical Flex model. General education students receive 480 minutes per month of

face-to-face support (7.3%) and special education students receive 720 minutes per

month (10.9%). As with other students using this model, students who utilize the on-

campus computer lab or take intervention classes receive a larger percentage of face-to-

face support.

In the Classical Flex model, the number of face-to-face minutes stays constant

while the number of instructional minutes increases. This results in students receiving a

smaller and smaller percentage of instruction through face-to-face means as they progress

through the grades. Contemporary Charter also utilizes this philosophy. This will be

discussed later in this section.

The Classical Rotation model, which is utilized for grades eight through twelve,

does not provide face-to-face support at students’ homes. Students are scheduled for one

240 minute block of on-campus instruction per week. Students in these grades are

required to complete a minimum of 1,650 minutes per week or 6,600 minutes per month.

General education students receive 960 or 14.5% of those minutes on campus. Special

education students receive almost all of their services concurrent with the general

education program. In other words, if a student has speech therapy or counseling, it is

generally done during his or her 240 minutes of weekly on-campus instruction. Just like

with the Classical Flex model, students who choose to utilize the computer lab or who
 88

participate in intervention or exit exam courses receive a higher percentage of face-to-

face support.

Contemporary’s Online Driver model delivers 100 % of instruction remotely. So,

for the vast majority of general education students, there is no face-to-face instructional

time. However, students using this model do participate in weekly online live discussion

groups with their classmates and teacher. Students in kindergarten through third grade

participate in two 30 minute discussion groups each week, one for language arts and one

for math. Students in grades four and above participate in four groups, one for each core

subject. However, these online discussion groups do not meet the definition of face-to-

face instruction used in this study. Students using this program option do have the option

of completing online curriculum at one of the school’s three learning centers. The

computer labs at each learning center are staffed by qualified certificated teachers.

Special education students using the Contemporary Online Driver model also

receive all of their instruction online. Almost all of the special education students using

this model also receive their services remotely. Special education students using this

model have very mild disabilities. The majority have speech and language impairments,

autism, or an orthopedic impairment. Teachers provide support through live interaction

with students at least once per week. There is even a program that utilizes voice

recognition and is used to provide customized services for students needing speech

therapy.

“This model really only works well when the kids can work pretty

independently,” stated the executive director of Contemporary Charter, “We don’t

 89

usually recommend the full online program to students performing too low or those who

need more instructional support.”

There are less than ten special education students who receive face-to-face

services using this model. In those cases, the students come to a learning center for an

hour per week for more intensive support from a special education teacher. These

students receive less than 5% of their instruction in a face-to-face setting.

Students receiving instruction using the Contemporary Rotation model attend

classes 30 hours per week at a learning center. The instruction rotates on a pre-

determined schedule between traditional classroom instruction and time in a computer

lab. Kindergarten students do not rotate to the lab. Students in grades one through eight

spend half of their time in the classroom and the other half of their time in the computer

lab. All of the instructional time in this model is face-to-face. Students do complete some

work remotely but this is the equivalent of homework or project based learning.

In terms of interacting with peers, students in the Contemporary Rotation model

participate in collaborative learning as part of their classroom instruction on a daily basis.

These students also participate in the content driven project based program that all

students at Contemporary complete. Students in the rotation model are able to collaborate

with peers while completing their projects, unlike students in the online driver program.

The final program, the Contemporary Four plus One Rotation model, has

elements of the other two Contemporary programs. Students attend classes on campus for

one, six-hour day per week and complete the rest of their instruction remotely. This

represents a split of 20% face-to face instruction and 80% remote instruction. The

instructional day for students in this model is similar to the instructional day for students
 90

in the rotation model. Students rotate on a pre-determined schedule between a traditional

classroom and a computer lab. However, unlike the Rotation model, the focus during the

Rotation Four plus One model is almost exclusively on collaborative and project-based

learning. Table 1 compares the percentage of time spent remotely and in face-to-face

interactions for general education and special education students in each of the five

program options.

Table 21: Percentage of Time Spent in Face-to-Face Interactions with Peers and Staff
Program General Education Students Special Education Students
Classical Flex 7.9 – 19.6% 10.9 – 29.5%

Classical Rotation 14.5% 14.5%

Contemporary Online 0% < 5%

Driver

Contemporary Rotation 100% 100%

Cont. Rotation 4 + 1 20% 20%

Admission Barriers to Special Education Students

While public hybrid charter schools must allow equal access to all students,

including special education students (Furhman & Elmore, 2004), there are processes in

place which filter the students who are accepted into charter hybrid and online schools.

Students are automatically admitted into these schools as long as space is available.

However, for special education students there is a legal requirement to conduct a 30-day

review to determine if their placement is appropriate. Special education administrators at

both hybrid schools emphasized the importance of determining early on if the hybrid

model will work for special education students.

 91

“We try to do it (30-day review) as soon as possible because what we don’t want

is that student to be in our program for thirty days and then it be determined that they’re

not a good fit,” stated the executive director of Contemporary Charter.

Both hybrid programs studied primarily serve higher functioning special

education students. Speech and language disabilities, autism, and specific learning

disabilities made up the vast majority of special education students at the two hybrid

schools studied. While some intervention and support curriculum is available, students in

both schools need to be able to work relatively independently.

“The way our charter works, it’s all general education curriculum so we are able

to provide some accommodations to provide supports… but we cannot modify the

curriculum,” said the special education program specialist at Classical Charter.

Summary

The mixed methods study collected a minimal amount of data to address research

question one, which involved determining program satisfaction levels among various

stakeholders at online and hybrid charter schools. These data showed overall satisfaction

from all stakeholders with the online and hybrid instructional model. This was expected

since charter schools are schools of choice. Dissatisfied parents and students would be

likely to change schools. While an insufficient amount of data was gathered to determine

significance, special education parents and students were similarly satisfied with these

instructional models than the general education stakeholders.

The study did collect a significant amount of data to address research question

two which involved identifying program elements for special education students at public
 92

hybrid charter high schools. Five program models were identified and analyzed at the two

charter schools studied. Those programs were analyzed in five key areas associated with

high performing schools from the point of view of both the general and special education

student. The next chapter will discuss the findings, conclusions, and implications of those

data.
 93

Chapter Five: Findings, Conclusions, and Implications

Introduction

This study sought to give insight into the delivery of services to special education

students within the rapidly evolving online and hybrid instructional models within public

charter schools. It also sought to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the online or

hybrid charter school programs in the areas of delivery of instruction, curriculum,

culture, rigor, and comparison to traditional model schools. The purpose of the study

was to paint a picture of the current state of special education programs and services

within the limitations of the research.

The literature was relatively clear that special education students enroll in charter

schools at a much lower rate than in traditional schools (Horn & Miron, 2000; Rhim &

Kowal, 2007). This study found in the limited sample that special education stakeholders

were generally satisfied with the service that they were receiving in their online or hybrid

charter school. The study looked at various instructional models to determine which

elements existed for general and special education students. It also looked at enrollment

procedures, recruitment policies, and screening of students to determine if there are

entrance barriers that prevent special education students from enrolling at a higher rate.

Summary of the Study

Quantitative data were gathered using a series of online surveys. One survey was

a school profile, which was completed only once for each school that participated

(Appendix A). A second survey was completed by all adult stakeholders including
 94

parents, staff, teachers, and administrators (Appendix C). Two identical surveys were

completed by general education and special education students (Appendix B).

Qualitative data were collected at two charter schools using the hybrid

instructional model. Interview and observation protocols were utilized to collect data

(Appendices D & E). In addition to the interviews and observations, some data were

gathered from internal and external documents that were pertinent. One of the case study

schools was located outside of California and employed two instructional models. The

other school was located in California and employed three instructional models. None of

the models at the two schools were identical so the study collected data on five different

hybrid models of instructional delivery.

Those models were looked at and analyzed in terms of general structure and

program elements specific to their special education programs to identify trends and best

practices. These Trends and best practices were categorized in order to determine the

types of program elements that hybrid charter schools should consider when developing

or modifying special education programs.

Findings – Research Question One

Data were collected from three online and two hybrid public charter schools in

five states through an online survey. Responses were gathered from eight special

education students, fourteen general education students, eleven parents, thirteen staff

members, and five site administrators. Data were collected in five topic areas to

determine stakeholder satisfaction levels and program knowledge. Those areas were the

delivery of instruction, culture and climate, curriculum and materials, rigor and overall
 95

program effectiveness, and comparison with traditional public schools. Data for the

majority of questions were gathered using a four point scale. Quantitative values were

assigned with four points for a strongly positive response to one point for a strongly

negative response. Responses of not sure were not considered except to identify areas

where knowledge gaps may exist within certain stakeholder groups.

Assuming that an average score of 2.5 would indicate neutrality, mean scores for

each topic area were determined for special education and general education

stakeholders. Topic means for special education stakeholders ranged from a low of 2.84

in the area of curriculum and materials to a high of 3.24 in the area of delivery of

instruction. General education topic means ranged from a low of 2.78 in the area of

culture and climate to a high of 3.10 in the area of delivery instruction. These scores

indicate that the majority of stakeholders for both general and special education were

satisfied with the program at their charter school.

The topic mean was highest in the area of the delivery of instruction and lowest in

the area of culture and climate. While the number of respondents was extremely limited,

the data did tend to confirm what is already known. That is, people who select charter

schools tend to be satisfied with the program there. Unfortunately, this study did not

measure student outcomes so the comparison between satisfaction levels and those

outcomes could not be done.

The second finding relative to the survey data was the fact that there were some

areas that students and parents do not appear to have a significant amount of knowledge.

In the five topic areas on the surveys the percentage of not sure responses ranged from a

low of 13.3% in the area of comparison to traditional schools to a high of 19.4% in the
 96

area of delivery of instruction. Administrators and staff may want to develop some type

of parent awareness program in order to address these knowledge gaps. Of course, these

numbers may not be substantial enough to warrant any change.

Findings – Research Question Two

All five programs studied had strengths and weaknesses when considering options

for special education students. Because all special education students, indeed all students,

have unique learning needs and requirements several things need to be considered.

Special education students can have a variety of disabilities. All of the special education

students at the two study sites had mild disabilities. The majority had autism, speech and

language impairments, or a specific learning disability. There were also a few students

with orthopedic impairments. Special education students can be at or above grade level or

far below grade level. Some students have only physical disabilities. Some students have

disabilities that require high cost technology or instructional materials, like deaf or blind

students. For the purpose of this study, only mild to moderate disabilities which don’t

require low incidence costs were considered.

In this section, all five programs will be compared with regard to their

appropriateness for special education students in the five areas of analysis described in

the previous chapter. Each program will be compared based on the individualized

instruction, presence of highly qualified teachers, the system of monitoring and

accountability, the opportunities for students to demonstrate learning in a variety of ways,

and the opportunities to interact with peers and staff. The selection processes and

recruitment processes will also be examined to address the fact that, while the percentage
 97

of special education students tends to be low in charter schools, stakeholders associated

with the schools in this study tended to be satisfied with the program.

Differentiated/Individualized Instruction

Students in the Classical Flex model received an extra hour of one on one

instruction at home compared to regular education students. Students in the Classical

Rotation model received additional on-campus support during their weekly scheduled

instructional block. If services, like speech and language services, could not be delivered

in the classroom, students were pulled out for those services. Students in both programs

benefitted from weekly collaboration between the general and special education teachers.

This collaboration was done via face-to-face staff meetings as well as the completion of a

collaborative form which asked teachers to identify areas where support is needed. The

special education teacher used the data from the collaboration form to adjust his or her

individualized instruction time. Students in both programs can also be assigned

intervention materials or classes to address areas of need. However, this support is

available to general education students as well.

The Contemporary Online Driver model provided instruction entirely online.

However, special education students could still receive support not given to all students.

Interactive online sessions with a special education teacher are provided to meet service

requirements. Speech and language students were able to utilize an online program for

their service requirements.

Special education students who utilized the Contemporary Rotation or 4 plus 1

Rotation models were given on-campus support in the form of instructional assistants in
 98

the classroom and computer lab. Service visits by resource specialist program teachers,

either on campus or at the students’ homes, were also provided when required. All

students at Contemporary are also provided additional intervention curriculum when

necessary to fill in skill gaps.

At both schools and in all five models, special education students receive a

significant amount of differentiated instruction, which is a key factor in improving

achievement (Tomlinson, 1999; Anderson, 2007). The key to student success seemed to

be making sure that the program model used was appropriate for the student in terms of

his or her abilities and disabilities. This was addressed during the admissions process

which will be discussed later.

Presence of Experienced, Highly Qualified Teachers

Because of the passage of No Child Left Behind, teachers in all public schools

must meet a certain level of certification. Teachers in both schools studied met those

minimum requirements. However, Classical Charter’s teachers had considerably more

experience including experience in a traditional school setting. That seemed to be a factor

in the higher number of special education students at Classical as well as the ways that

services were delivered there. The teachers and administrators, most of whom had a

significant amount of traditional school experience, used their experiences with

inefficient traditional school programs to put things in place to increase the efficiency of

the charter school. The program flexibility and decreased level of bureaucracy afforded

to charter schools make these changes possible. Classical also contracts with its own
 99

service providers, rather than using staff from the chartering district. This also allows for

more program flexibility and innovation.

Contemporary Charter is much newer with a less experienced, though still highly

qualified, staff. Contemporary Charter contracts with the local district for the provision of

certificated special education services. They do employee the instructional assistants

directly. Utilizing district staff has a number of limitations but can be necessary until the

school reaches an enrollment level which allows them to hire more of their own special

education staff.

The first finding in this area is that the data seem to indicate that there is a benefit

to be gained by having staff with traditional school experience. Knowing what barriers to

efficiency exist within traditional schools can provide a great starting point when

designing a special education program. When staff members do not have that prior

experience, there is a higher likelihood that traditional school mistakes may be made as a

program is developed.

The second finding is that charter schools who hire their own special education

staff seem to have an advantage when it comes to being creative and innovative when

developing programs. When staff members are utilized from the local district, limitations

on time, job duties, and influence can affect the quality of services delivered.

Finally, collaboration between parents, general education teachers, and special

education staff is a key to ensuring that special education students’ needs are being met.

This collaboration needs to be regular and part of institutional practice. At Classical

Charter, weekly collaboration during staff meetings is a key part of that process.

Teachers working together during on campus instruction and home visits are also
 100

important. At Classical, parents are an integral part of all phases of their child’s

education. They are included in much of the collaboration process.

System of Monitoring and Accountability

All students receiving online instruction have their progress monitored regularly

via the program monitoring system. Students and schools are also held accountable via

the annual state testing required by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002. This section

will discuss how special education students at the hybrid schools studied receive

additional monitoring as part of their program. Providing students with timely, regular

formative feedback has been shown to increase achievement and improve self-regulation

(Nicol & MacFarlane-Dick, 2006). Students in both of Classical Charter School’s

programs have their progress monitored in similar ways. Students in the Classical Flex

model receive one hour per week of in home instruction from their special education

teacher. Students in the Classical Rotation model receive in class and pull out support

from special education teachers and instructional assistants during their weekly block of

on campus instruction. The system of collaboration and progress monitoring is the same

for both sets of students. Special and general education teachers meet weekly to discuss

areas of strength and concern for every special education student. That meeting is

recorded on a monitoring form which is reviewed by a program specialist. This system

builds collaboration, monitoring, and accountability into the weekly program of all

special education students at Classical Charter School.

The system of monitoring at Contemporary Charter is not as formalized. Special

education instructional assistants collaborate with general education teachers as part of

 101

their duties at the learning centers. Contemporary does administer an internal

performance based assessment for all students four times during the school year.

However, the special education teachers do the majority of their collaborating with

general education teachers remotely or sporadically. While both sets of teachers monitor

the progress of special education students via the online program, there are not regularly

scheduled collaboration sessions at Contemporary. General education teachers are

informed of student goals, accommodations, and modifications by special education

teachers. This information is used during the instructional program on an ongoing basis.

Based on the level of student achievement and the high level of special education

enrollment at Classical Charter, the monitoring system employed there seems to be more

effective in meeting student needs. There are several elements present at Classical

Charter seem to contribute to this effectiveness. First, the fact that collaboration is built

into the weekly routine is important. This allows teachers to identify areas of concern

more quickly. Second, there is accountability built into the system because a program

specialist reviews the collaboration logs weekly. Third, support in the form of

intervention classes targeted at specific students who were deficit in specific areas allows

Classical Charter to address knowledge gaps more quickly. While Contemporary does

provide intervention curriculum, the support level for the programs is much lower, with

less face-to-face interaction.

Opportunities to Demonstrate Learning in Various Ways

Student enrolled in all five program options at the two hybrid schools were

afforded opportunities to demonstrate learning in various ways including projects,

 102

presentations, group activities, and other alternative assessments and assignments. Project

based learning and group activities have been shown to increase student engagement and

achievement (Lombardi, 2008).

Students enrolled in the Classical Flex and Rotation models had opportunities to

demonstrate learning in alternative ways through projects during their on campus

instruction block. This occurred weekly for students in the rotation model and monthly

for students in the flex model. Students also demonstrated learning through

dramatization, oral presentations, and group activities while on campus at Classical.

Students in the flex model also demonstrate learning in alternative ways during their

weekly in home instruction. Special education students also receive the opportunities

listed above. In addition, special education students are given opportunities to

demonstrate learning during their additional in home instruction (flex model) and during

on campus pull out time (rotation model).

Similarly, all students who attend Contemporary Charter participate in the same

project based content area curriculum. This program leads students through various units

which culminate in the creation of a multi-media project. Students can demonstrate

learning in various ways including orally, in writing, and using other creative outlets like

dramatizations, poetry, and through visual art.

The study did not specifically ask about which model might benefit students

more. However, the literature seems to indicate that the use of multiple modalities and

measures benefits students (Barron et. al, 1998; Hmelo-Silver, 2004). Using that as a

guide, those programs that provide the most opportunities to demonstrate learning in

ways other than strictly computer-based curriculum would seem to be preferable.

 103

Classical Charter’s Rotation model provides the most opportunities for students to

demonstrate learning in various ways through the weekly four hour block of on campus

instruction. Students using the Classical Flex model only receive one hour per month of

this same type of instruction. While there is some flexibility in the way that the on

campus time is utilized, the program model is that students spend three of the four hours

using online curriculum in a supervised, supported setting and one hour completing

alternative assignments that do not use the online curriculum.

Contemporary’s programs all utilize the same project-based, content area

program. However, the online driver model does not provide any face-to-face support

when completing the projects. The literature would suggest that the students who are

given more face-to-face support when completing projects (the rotation model) would

achieve at a higher level (Lombardi, 2008).

The overall finding in this area seems to be that face-to-face time is another factor

to consider when discussing demonstrating learning in a variety of ways. All of the

programs studied provided these opportunities. The variables were the amount of time

spent on the activities and the amount of face-to-face support provided. The Classical

Rotation and Contemporary Rotation models seem to provide the better combination of

those factors.

Opportunities to Interact with Peers and Staff

The literature indicates that collaboration with peers and staff is a key factor in

improved student achievement because learning takes place in a social context

(Blumenfeld et. al, 1991). The findings in this area paralleled the findings for students
 104

having opportunities to demonstrate learning in various ways. The Classical Flex model

provided regular education students with one hour per week for three weeks a month and

four hours of interaction one week a month for a total of seven to eight hours of

instructional time when students are interacting with staff and peers. Special education

students received an additional hour of face-to-face instruction on the weeks when they

did not have their on-campus visits. This equates to ten or eleven hours of interaction

with peers and staff per month for students using this model.

Students in the Classical Rotation model received four hours per week for a total

of 16 to 20 hours of instruction interacting with peers and staff. Again, if more time

learning in a social context is beneficial to students as the literature would indicate

(McLoughlin & Luca, 2001), then the Classical Rotation model would seem to benefit

students more. However, this generalization would not necessarily apply to all students.

One of the benefits to offering multiple program models at a single hybrid school is the

ability to choose the best model to meet individual student needs.

Students in the Contemporary Online Driver Model did not have any face-to-face

interactions with peers and staff. They did have online interactions on a weekly basis.

This study did not look at whether or not this type of interaction is a valid substitute for

face-to-face interactions. This would be an opportunity for future research, which will be

discussed in a later section. Students in the Contemporary Rotation model received 30

hours of instruction per week on campus. This model provided the most opportunity for

interaction of the five models studied. The Contemporary Rotation Four plus One model

offered 6 hours per week on campus where students can interact with peers and staff.
 105

This model had the second most number of hours of student interaction with peers and

staff.

While having some face-to-face interactions would seem to be important to

student achievement, this study did not compare student outcomes by program model.

This would be another opportunity for future study. Just like with other areas of this

study, the most important factor would seem to be making sure that a student is a good fit

for a particular program prior to or immediately following admission. Staff at both

charter schools studied made a great deal of effort to do this when students entered their

schools.

Admission Barriers to Special Education Students

While public charter schools, including hybrid schools, cannot discriminate on the

basis of student disability, there are several factors which serve as barriers or filters to

prevent many special education students from attending these schools. Special education

students must have their IEPs reviewed within thirty days of a new placement. In this

way, the staff members at hybrid charter schools have an opportunity to determine if the

hybrid school placement is appropriate. If the IEP team determines that the hybrid model

will not serve the student’s needs, they can recommend another placement option,

generally the traditional school from which the student came.

Charter schools which are funded as independent study programs, like

Contemporary, are authorized to make a placement determination prior to admission of

any student, including special education students. When a special education student

applies to Contemporary, a meeting is held involving the parent, an administrator, a

 106

teacher, and the special education director to review the student’s history and determine

if they would be a good fit for the hybrid model.

“We look at their program, what they’re currently doing, and then look at whether

independent study is a good fit for that student,” stated Contemporary’s executive

director, “They really have to be a student that can be an independent learner and work

with online curriculum.”

The data from the study seemed to indicate that when appropriate placement

decisions are made for special education students those students and their parents seem to

be relatively satisfied with the charter school program. The hybrid models studied

seemed to provide many of the characteristics necessary to provide a quality educational

program for special education programs. However, care needs to be taken place at intake

and during the course of study to ensure that the placement is appropriate and that the

student continues to make sufficient educational progress.

Implications

This study provided a glimpse into public charter schools using online or blended

instructional models. While the sample for the study was extremely limited, the data on

stakeholder satisfaction provided some interesting insights. For the most part both

general and special education stakeholders were generally satisfied with all aspects of the

school that were part of the survey. This could be attributed to the fact that stakeholders

feel that the charter school is actually producing more favorable outcomes for their

students but may be attributed to the fact that charter school students and parents tend to

be more satisfied even without those favorable outcomes (Hanushek, Kain, Rivkin, &
 107

Branch, 2006). However, online and hybrid charter schools do provide a number of

advantages for students, including special education students, which may be the reason

for the high satisfaction levels (Clark, 2005). If charter school founders and

administrators want to provide a quality service for their customers, they would be wise

to measure and monitor stakeholder satisfaction levels in order to remain competitive.

There were a fairly high percentage of adults, primarily parents, who did not have

knowledge of various aspects of the charter schools surveyed. This may be an area that

administrators and other staff members may want to address if their goal is to have a fully

informed group of stakeholders. This finding may be reflective of the general state of

parent program knowledge and not be reflective of online or hybrid schools in particular.

However, as these schools represent cutting edge programming, those who are

developing programs and setting policy may want to change the paradigm for parent

program knowledge as well.

Although the study was very limited, the evaluation tools created including the

surveys and protocols could be used or modified to evaluate other charter schools using

an online or blended curriculum. Like any evaluation tool, anyone using it should adapt it

to measure what is important to that organization. The five areas of analysis that were

used for the case studies can provide a framework for determining program elements at

other charter schools using online or hybrid curriculum. Again, these could be modified

base on organizational focus or need. Hopefully, the protocols and analysis provided a

clearer picture of the structure of both the general and special education programs at the

schools studied.
 108

In addition to providing a framework for studying other programs and presenting

a limited picture of the satisfaction levels at five online and hybrid charter schools, the

study added to the body of knowledge about the five program models at the case study

schools. While Staker (2011) developed six descriptive models of hybrid school

programs, actual programs fall somewhere in her matrix. Each program studied had

unique features that were described in detail. Again, like with the study instruments,

these program descriptions can be used as starting point for organizations looking to start

or evaluate an online or hybrid program.

The most significant implication of this study would be the finding that, when

care is taken to ensure that an incoming special education student is a good fit for the

program, the placement can result in satisfied parents and students and possibly increased

student outcomes. The students in the two charter schools studied did not necessarily

have control over the program that they used. However, schools that have the flexibility

to customize face-to-face and independent study and provide various levels of support

based on student need would likely have a high satisfaction and success rate.

This study found that various program structures have a variety of advantages for

certain students. Ideally, schools could provide program flexibility based on student need.

However, urban schools and large school districts have the resources that could allow

them to offer a number of different hybrid program options within their districts. Because

of their economies of scale, larger, urban districts can determine what program options

are needed by their students, regular or special education, and customize programs to

meet those needs. For example, if a school district determined that there was a population

of 500 students who would benefit from a flex type hybrid program, staff and resources
 109

could be directed to the creation of such a program. If 300 other students were a good fit

for an online driver program, one could also be created.

Since the curriculum for all of these models is similar, there could be year to year

flexibility in the types of programs offered. In fact, a forward thinking urban school

district could develop programs that could even change within the school year. As larger

urban school districts are the ones who traditionally underperform, the customization that

hybrid programming provides represents a tremendous opportunity to address that

underperformance.

Future Research

This study only scratched the surface in the area of special education service

models in the developing field of hybrid and online charter schools. As the numbers and

variations of these schools grow over time, much more research can be done to determine

which elements need to be in place in order to maximize student achievement in these

settings. The regulations associated with special education students also evolve over time

so more study needs to be done as these changes take place. In fact, the study didn’t

really look at student outcomes at all but rather student and stakeholder satisfaction.

Future research that looks at program elements along with student outcomes may yield

more useful data about the pieces that need to be in place with online or hybrid schools

for students to achieve success.

In terms of the data gathered to address program satisfaction among various

stakeholders associated with online or hybrid charter schools, additional study with a

higher participation rate should yield more useful results. A high percentage of online
 110

and hybrid schools are operated by profit seeking organizations who seemed to be

resistant to participation in this particular study. As these organizations grow and seek to

improve their programs, data gleaned from similar stakeholder satisfaction surveys might

prove to be a useful tools. Also, since the number of students in these types of schools is

increasing at a rapid rate, more potential subjects for study should be available over time.

Making some changes to the instruments utilized in this study might also yield

more useful results. For example, the surveys categorized schools based on the

percentage of online curriculum. All of the participating schools delivered 81-100 percent

of their curriculum online, so there was no differentiation between them. Indeed, a hybrid

school that required students to be on campus 30 hours per week but still used primarily

online curriculum would be classified in the same category. Modifying the school profile

to more accurately reflect the balance between on campus, face-to-face instruction and

remote instruction would yield more accurate data and allow for better disaggregation.

One of the aspects of this study that was intriguing was the way that one of the

case study sites was using online discussion groups, online interaction with staff, and

interactive software to provide special education services remotely. Special education

students have mandated services, including service time, as part of their individual

education plan (IEP). As instructional models continue to evolve, the traditional notion of

face-to-face service delivery is being challenged. Additional study about what types of

service delivery alternatives are being developed could provide useful information to

online and hybrid school administrators. A study into the development of policies and

laws affecting these service delivery alternatives could also paint a picture of the current
 111

state of affairs and what legislative changes need to be made to allow maximum

flexibility in serving special education students.

Conclusions

This study reinforced previous findings that the presence of differentiated

instruction (Tomlinson, 1999), experienced, highly qualified teachers (Darling-Hammond

& Young, 2002), a system of monitoring and accountability (Nichol & MacFarlaine-

Dick, 2006), opportunities to demonstrate learning in various ways (Lombardi, 2008),

and opportunities to interact with peers and staff (Blumenfeld et. al, 1991) creates an

educational organization that provides most stakeholders with what they are seeking.

Essentially, when research based best practices are utilized; students and other

stakeholders are satisfied with the school. Since this study did not specifically focus on

student outcomes, no conclusion can be drawn about the effectiveness of the particular

schools studied only whether or not key individuals perceived that the program is

working.

The study attempted to paint a picture of what the special and general education

programs looked like within five programs at two hybrid charter schools. The programs

studied seemed to be doing a decent job of servicing the special education students at the

schools. One reason seemed to be the process that the two hybrid schools used to filter

students, both general and special education, early during their enrollment or prior to

their enrollment. Special education laws exist to protect students with disabilities. In the

case of online and hybrid charter schools those laws also serve to ensure that placement

at those types of schools would be appropriate for the student. The general structure of
 112

online and hybrid schools, with their proliferation of data and extensive monitoring

system, would seem to be ideal for many special education students. However, the ability

to work independently and access online curriculum are two factors that need to be

considered when admitting a special education student.

Summary

The world of charter schools is a relatively new world. The first charter was

issued in 1992, so these schools have only been in existence for twenty years. Online and

hybrid model schools within the charter school community are an even more recent

development with most online schools being less than ten years old and most hybrid

schools being even newer than that. As mentioned throughout this document, special

education students and their unique needs and requirements present another layer of

consideration and challenge to charter school operators.

In spite of the new constructs for the delivery of instruction, there are elements

that appear to be evident in successful programs of all types. These elements include the

existence of individualized, differentiated instruction, the presence of highly qualified

teachers with appropriate training in dealing with special education students, a system of

constant monitoring and accountability, opportunities for students to demonstrate

learning in a variety of ways, and giving students the opportunity for interaction with

peers and staff. Of course, public schools of all types have accountability measures and

special education compliance issues to consider as well when designing or modifying

instructional programs.
 113

As the models for delivery of instruction change, care must be taken to take into

account both the best practices for student achievement and the unique needs presented

by special education students. Schools using online curriculum, by definition, provide

individualized instruction. This is aligned with what special education students need to be

successful. However, these same instructional models generally require students to work

independently much more than a traditional school does. This issue needs to be

considered when designing hybrid or online programs. Hybrid schools represent a

revolution in the way that schools operate and students learn. They have tremendous

potential to create a much more efficient and personalized instructional model. Hybrid

school administrators need to keep student achievement at the center of their efforts if

these schools are going to realize their full potential.

 114

References

Ahearn, E., Lange, C., Rhim, L., & McLaughlin, M. (2001). Project SEARCH: Special
Education as Requirements in Charter Schools. Final Report of a Research Study:
Cross-State Analysis of Findings and Summaries of State Case Studies. National
Association of State Directors of Special Education. Alexandria, VA.
Allbritten, D., Mainzer, R., & Ziegler, D. (2004). Will students with disabilities be
scapegoats for school failures? Educational Horizons, 82(2), 153-160.
Allen, I. & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course: Online education in the United States,
2008. The Sloan Consortium, Needham, MA.
Allen, S. (1991). Ability grouping research reviews: What do they say about grouping of
the gifted?. Educational Leadership, May 1991.
Anderson, K. (2007). Differentiating instruction to include all students. Preventing
School Failure, 51 (3), 49-54.
Archambault, L. Diamond, D., Brown, R. Cavanaugh, C., Coffy, M., Foures-Aalbu, D.,
Richardson, J., & Zygouris-Coe, V. (2010). Research Committee Issues Brief: An
Exploration of At-risk Learners & Online Education. Prepared for the
International Association for K-12 Online Learning, Vienna, VA.
Balcazar, F., Bleckman, E., Blinn-Pike, L., Britner, P., & Larose, S. (2006). Mentoring
special youth populations. Journal of Community Psychology, 34(6), 747-763.
Ballou, D., Teasley, B., & Zeidner, T. (2006). Charter Schools in Idaho. Working paper
prepared for the National Conference on Charter School Research. National
Center on School Choice, Vanderbilt University. Nashville, TN.
Barbour, M. & Reeves, T. (2008). The reality of virtual schools: A review of the
literature. Computers & Education, S2 (2009), 403-416.
Barr, J., Sadovnik, A., & Visconti, L. (2006). Charter schools and urban education
improvement: A comparison of Newark’s district and charter schools. The Urban
Review, DOI: 10.1007/s11256-006-0037-3.
Barron, B., Schwartz, D., Vye, N., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., Bransford, J.
(1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem and project
based learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3 & 4), 271-311.
Billingsley, B. &McCloskey, J. (2004). Critical issues in special education teacher supply
and demand: overview. The Journal of Special Education, 38(1), 2-4.
 115

Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R., Krajcik, J., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991).
Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning,
Educational Psychologist, 26 (3 & 4), 369-398.
Booker, K., Gilpatric, S., Gronberg, T., & Jansen, D. (2004). Charter School Performance
in Texas. Private Enterprise Research Center. Texas A & M University. College
Station, TX.
Booker, K., Zimmer, R., & Buddin, R. (2005). The Effect of Charter Schools on School
Peer Composition. Working Paper, WR-306-EDU. Rand Education.
Brown, R., & Cavanaugh, C. (2010). Research Committee Issues Brief: An Exploration
of At-Risk Learners and Online Education. International Association for K-12
Online Learning. Vienna, VA.
Burgstahler, S., Corrigan, B., & McCarter, J. (2004). Making distance learning courses
accessible to students and instructors with disabilities: A case study. Internet and
Higher Education, 7 (2004), 233-246.
Carnoy, M., Jacobsen, R., Mishel, L., & Rothstein, R. (2006). Worth The Price?
Weighing the Evidence on Charter School Achievement. Education Finance and
Policy, 2006, 151-161.
Cavanaugh, C., Gillan, K., Kromrey, J., Hess, M., & Blomeyer, R. (2004). The effects of
distance education on K-12 student outcomes: A meta-analysis. North Central
Regional Educational Laboratory, Jacksonville, FL.
Clark, T. (2001). Virtual Schools: Trends and Issues. A Study of Virtual Schools in the
United Schools. WestEd. Phoenix, AZ and Distance Learning Resource Network,
Western Illinois University.
Clark, T. (2005). Virtual Schooling & Basic Education from Economics of Distance and
Online Learning: Theory, Practice, and Research. (eds. W. Bramble & S. Panda).
pp. 56-69.
Clark, T. (2008). Online learning: Pure potential. Educational Leadership, 65(8), 1-6.
Darling-Hammond, L. & Youngs, P. (2002). Defining highly qualified teachers: What
does scientifically based research actually tell us? Educational Researcher,
December 2002, 31(9), 13-25.
Delialioglu, O. (2003, November 1). Investigation of source of motivation in a hybrid
course. EDUCASE Quarterly. pp. 265-273.
Diaz, L. & Entonado, F. (2009). Are the functions of teachers in e-learning and face-to-
face learning environments really different? Educational Technology & Society,
12(4), 331-343.
 116

Dickson, W. (2005). Toward a deeper understanding of student performance in virtual

high school courses: Using quantitative analyses and data visualization to inform
decision making. Report submitted to Michigan Virtual University. North Central
Regional Laboratory. Naperville, IL.
Downing, J., Spencer, S., & Cavallaro, C. (2004). The development of an inclusive
charter elementary school: Lessons learned. Research & Practice for Persons with
Severe Disabilities, 29(1), 11-24.
Duff, A. (2001). How Special Education Policy Affects Discipline. In C. Finn, A.
Rotherham, C. Hokanson (Eds.), Rethinking Special Education for a New
Century (pp. 135-160). Washington, DC: Policy Institute. Thomas B. Fordham
Foundation.
Dynarski, S., Hoxby, C., Loveless, T., Schneider, M., Whitehurst, G., & Witte, J. (2010).
Charter Schools: A Report of Rethinking the Federal Role in Education. The
Brookings Institution. Washington, D.C.
Edwards, B., Perry, M., Brazil, N., & Studier, C. (2004). Charter Schools in California:
An Experiment Coming of Age. EdSource. Palo Alto, CA.
Estes, M. (2006). Charter schools: Do they work for troubled students? Preventing
School Failure, Fall 2006, 51(1), 55-61.
Fierros, E. & Blomberg, N. (2005). Restrictiveness and race in special education
placement in for-profit and non-profit charter schools in California. Learning
Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 3(1), 1-16.
Fiore, T., Harwell, L., Blackorby, J., & Finnigan, K., (2000). Charter Schools and
Students with Disabilities: A National Study (Final Report). Westat, Inc.
Rockville, MD & SRI International. Menlo Park, CA.
Fiore, T., Warren, S., & Cashman, E. (1999). Charter Schools and Students with
Disabilities: Review of Existing Data. Research Triangle Institute. Washington,
D.C.
Fletcher, J., Tobias, S., & Wisher, R. (2007). Learning anytime, anywhere; Advanced
distributed learning and the changing face of education. Educational Researcher,
30(2), 96-102.
Frankenberg, E., Siegel-Hawley, G., & Wang, J. (2010). Choice without Equity: Charter
School Segregation and the Need for Civil Rights Standards. Los Angeles, CA:
The Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles at UCLA;
www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu.
Fuhrman, S. & Elmore, R.(2004). Redesigning accountability systems for education.
New York: Teachers College Press.
 117

Furrer, C. & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic

engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 148-
162.
Garcia, D., Barber, R, & Molnar, A. (2009). Profiting from public education: Education
management organizations and student achievement. Teachers College Record,
111(5), 1352-1379.
Glass, G. (2009). The Realities of K-12 Virtual Education. The Great Lakes Center for
Education Research and Practice. East Lansing, MI.
Glomm, G., Harris, D., & Lo, T. (2001). Charter School Location. Prepared for the
Department of Economics, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
Goodenow, C. (1992). School Motivation, Engagement, and Sense of Belonging among
Urban Adolescent Students. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Greene, J., Forster, G., & Winters, M. (2003). Apples to Apples: An Evaluation of
Charter Schools Serving General Student Populations. Center for Civic
Innovation at the Manhattan Institute. New York, NY.
Hanushek, E., Kain, J., Rivkin, S., & Branch, G. (2006). Charter School Quality and
Parental Decision Making with School Choice. National Bureau of Economic
Research. Stanford University. Palo Alto, CA.
Hassell, B. & Terrell, M. (2004). How can virtual schools be a vibrant part of meeting the
choice provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act? White paper prepared for
Public Impact and the U.S. Department of Education Secretary’s NCLB
Leadership Summit.
Hill, P, Angel, L, & Christensen, J. (2006). Charter school achievement studies.
Education Finance and Policy, 2006, 139-150.
Hmelo-Silver, C. (2004). Problem based learning: What and how do students learn?
Educational Psychology Review, 16 (3), 235-266.
Horn, J., and Mirion, G. (2000). An evaluation of the Michigan Charter School
Initiative: performance, accountability, and impact. The Evaluation Center,
Western Michigan University.
Hoxby, C., & Murarka, S. (2009). New York City’s Charter Schools Overall Report.
New York City Charter Schools Evaluation Project, June 2007: Cambridge, MA.
Hoxby, C., and Rockoff, J. (2004). The impact of charter schools on student
achievement. Department of Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
 118

Johnson, S., Aragon, S., Shaik, N., & Palma-Rivas, N. (2000). Comparative analysis of
learner satisfaction and learning outcomes in online and face-to-face learning
environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11(1), 29-49.
Lee, J. & Shute, V. (2010). Personal and social-contextual factors in K-12 academic
performance: An integration perspective on student learning. Educational
Psychologist, 45(3), 185-202.
Lessard, A., Butler-Kister, L., Fortin, L., Marcotte, D., Potvin, P., & Roya, E. (2007).
Shades of disengagement: High school dropouts speak up. Social Psychology
Education, 11(1), 25-42.
Li, J. (2009). Are Charter Schools Making a Difference? A Study of Student Outcomes.
Research Brief prepared for the Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA.
Lipscomb, S. (2009). Students with Disabilities and California’s Special Education
Program. Public Policy Institute of California. San Francisco, CA.
Lombardi, M. (2008). Making the grade: The role of assessment in authentic learning.
Educause Learning Initiative, Paper 1, January 2008.
McLoughlin, C. & Luca, J. (2001). Quality online delivery: What does it mean for
assessment in elearning environments? Meeting at the Crossroads, 417-426.
McFarlane, D. (2011). A comparison of organization structure and pedagogical approach:
Online versus face-to-face. Journal of Education Online, 8(1), 1-43.
Miron, G., Urschel, J., Mathis, W., & Tornquist, E. (2010). Schools without Diversity:
Educational Management Organizations, Charter Schools, and the Demographic
Stratification of the American School System. Education and Public Interest
Center and Educational Policy Research Unit; Boulder, CO & Tempe, AZ.
Mulholland, L. (1999). Arizona Charter School Progress Evaluation. Morrison Institute
for Public Policy, Arizona State University. Tempe, AZ.
Nicol, D. & MacFarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated
learning: A model and seven principals of good feedback practice. Studies of
Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218.
Nisar, H. (2010). Do Charter Schools Improve Student Achievement? Wisconsin Center
for Education Research. Madison, WI.
Palmaffy, T. (2001). The Evolution of the Federal Role. In C. Finn, A. Rotherham, & C.
Hokanson (Eds.), Rethinking Special Education for a New Century (pp. 1-22).
Washington, DC: Policy Institute. Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualititaive Research & Evaluation Methods, 3rd Edition. Sage
Publications, Inc. Thousand Oaks, CA.
 119

Revenaugh, M. (2005). K-8 virtual schools: A glimpse into the future. Educational
Leadership, 63(4), 60-64.
Riley, P. (2000). A Charter School Survey: Parents, Teachers, and Principals Speak Out.
Pacific Research Institute. San Francisco, CA.
Rhim, L., & Kowal, J. (2007). Demystifying special education in virtual charter schools.
Primers on Special Education in Charter Schools. Available online at
www.uscharterschools.org/specialedprimers.
Rose, R. & Blomeyer, R. (2007) Access and equity in online classes and virtual schools.
North American Council for Online Learning. Vienna, VA.
Ryan, J. (2009). The big picture. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(10), 720-723.
Schmetzke, A. (2001). Online distance education – “Anytime, anywhere” but not for
everyone. Information Technology & Disabilities, June 2001.
Slavin, R. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A best
evidence synopsis. Review of Educational Research, Fall 1990, 60(3), 471-499.
Snell, L. (2005). Defining the education market: Reconsidering charter schools. Cato
Journal, 25(2), 267-277.
Staker, H. (2011). The Rise of K-12 Blended Learning: Profiles of emerging models.
Prepared for Innosight Institute and the Charter School Growth Fund.
Tomlinson, C. (1999). Mapping a route toward differentiated instruction. Educational
Leadership, September 1999, 51 (1), 12-16.
Tucker, B. (2007). Laboratories of Reform: Virtual High Schools and Innovation in
Public Education. Education Sector Report. June 2007. Washington, DC.
Watson, J. (2009). Blended Learning: The Convergence of Online and Face-to-Face
Education. North American Council for Online Learning. Vienna, VA.
Wentzel, K. & Caldwell, K. (1997). Friendships, peer acceptance, and group
membership: Relations to academic achievement in middle school. Child
Development, 68(6), 1198-1209.
Zimmer, R. & Buddin, R. (2005). Charter School Performance in Urban Districts: Are
They Closing the Achievement Gap? Working Paper WR-282-EDU, July 2005,
Rand Education.
Zhu, Z. & Chang, H. (1998). Teaching Media. Taipai: Wu Nan Publishing Company.
 120

Appendix A

Hybrid School Profile

Please provide the following information about your school.

How many students are currently enrolled at your school?____________

How many special education students are currently enrolled at your

school?____________

How long has your school been in operation?____________

What percentage of your instruction is delivered online (on site or remotely)?

Please circle one.

0-20 % 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%

 121

Appendix B

Student Survey

The purpose of this survey is to determine how satisfied you are with your school. Your

answers will be confidential.

Please circle your gender

Male Female

Please circle your grade level.

9th grade 10th grade 11th grade 12th grade

How many years did you attend a traditional school (no online classes)?

Never 1-3 years 4-6 years 7+ years

How many years have you attended a hybrid school, where you have online instruction

and work with a face-to-face teacher as well?

Never 1-3 years 4-6 years 7+ years

 122

Circle the response that most closely reflects your belief about each topic.

Delivery of instruction

1) Computer assisted classes help me learn better than regular classes.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Not sure

2) My online classes give me lessons based on my ability level.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Not sure

3) Teachers and staff at my school are able to assist me.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Not sure

4) Which describes the best way for you to learn?

Working with a teacher Working on a computer Working with textbooks

Working on a computer with help from a teacher when I need it Not sure

Culture/Climate

5) I feel like part of a community at school.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Not sure

6) I have chances to make friends and enjoy social activities at school.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Not sure

 123

7) I feel that my teachers care about me and my success.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Not sure

8) I do not feel like school is an enjoyable and productive place for me.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Not sure

Curriculum/Materials

9) I have everything that I need so that I can learn at my school.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Not sure

10) If I need extra things to learn, my school does not usually give them to me.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Not sure

11) My teacher teaches so that I can easily understand.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Not sure

12) My online classes are not too fast or too slow for me.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Not sure

Rigor/Overall Program Effectiveness

13) I believe that I will graduate on time from my current school.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Not sure

 124

14) I believe that I will be ready for success at college or in my chosen field when I

finish high school.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Not sure

15) I am happy with my time at my current high school.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Not sure

16) I believe that my classes are difficult but will get me ready for my future.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Not sure

Comparison with Traditional Public Schools

17) I like a school with online classes better than one without online classes.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Not sure

18) I have more of what I need at my school than my old school that didn’t have

online classes.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Not sure

19) I learn better at my school than I did at my old school that didn’t have online

classes.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Not sure

 125

20) I have as many or more friends at my school than I did at my old school that

didn’t have online classes.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Not sure

 126

Appendix C

Administrator/Staff/Parent Survey

The purpose of this survey is to determine perceptions of the quality of service being

delivered through the hybrid or online instructional model. Your responses will be

confidential. You will only be identified by the stakeholder group with which you

associate.

Please circle the group with which you most associate yourself

Special education teacher/staff member Regular education teacher/staff

member

School site administrator District/Organization administrator

Parent of a special education student Parent of a general education student

How many years did you work at or with a traditional school (no online component)?

If you are a parent, how long did your child attend a traditional school?

Never 1-3 years 4-6 years 7+ years

How many years have you worked at or with a hybrid school (online and face-to-face

instruction)?

If you are a parent, how long has your child attended a hybrid school?

Never 1-3 years 4-6 years 7+ years

 127

Circle the response that most closely reflects your belief about each topic.

Delivery of instruction

1) The hybrid instructional model (online and face-to-face) helps students learn

better than a traditional school.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Not sure

2) The online portion of the program provides instruction at the individual

student’s level.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Not sure

3) Teachers and staff at this school are properly prepared to assist students.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Not sure

4) Which describes the best way for students to learn?

Working with a teacher Working on a computer Working with textbooks

Working on a computer with help from a teacher when they need it Not sure

Culture/Climate

5) Students feel like part of a community at this school.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Not sure

 128

6) There are plenty of opportunities for social interaction at this school.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Not sure

7) Teachers and staff at this school care about students and their success.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Not sure

8) This school is not an enjoyable and productive place for students.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Not sure

Curriculum/Materials

9) Students have sufficient materials to support their learning.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Not sure

10) Students do not have access to additional electronic and print resources when

they need them.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Not sure

11) The teacher presents information in a way that students understand.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Not sure

12) Students are comfortable with the pace of the online portion of their classes.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Not sure

 129

Rigor/Overall Program Effectiveness

13) I believe that most students will graduate on time from the current high

school.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Not sure

14) I believe that I will be prepared for success at college or in my chosen field

when I finish my studies.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Not sure

15) I believe that most students are happy with the overall experience at their

current high school.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Not sure

16) I believe that the academic program at my current school is challenging.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Not sure

Comparison with Traditional Public Schools

17) The hybrid school meets student needs through individualized programming

better than a traditional school.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Not sure

 130

18) Students have more materials at their hybrid school than at a traditional

school.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Not sure

19) Students’ educational needs are better met at their hybrid school than at a

traditional school.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Not sure

20) Students feel as connected to their school and classmates at their hybrid

school as at a traditional school.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Not sure

 131

Appendix D

Interview Protocol

Interviews are focused on gathering data to address research question number two:

How are the needs of special education students met in ways that are different and similar

to regular education students in a public charter hybrid high school and in comparison to

a traditional face-to-face special education structure?

1) Briefly describe the history of your school (years in operation, number of

students/staff, number of special education students, curriculum used)?

(administrators only)

2) What types of disabilities do your special education students have?

(administrators only)

3) How does providing special education services impact your organization

fiscally? (administrators only)

4) How long have you worked in a hybrid school?

5) How long did you work in a traditional school and how would you compare

the special education programs at each type of school?

6) What services exist for special education students at your school?

7) In what ways are special education students treated like general education

students in terms of their educational program?

8) In what ways are special education students treated differently than general

education students in terms of their educational program?

 132

9) Are there ways that you think that a hybrid school is more advantageous to

special education students than a traditional school?

10) Are there ways that you think that a hybrid school is less advantageous to

special education students than a traditional school?

11) Do you have any additional comments about the special education program at

your school?
 133

Appendix E

Observation Protocol

Observations will be focused on gathering data to address research question number two:

How are the needs of special education students met in ways that are different and similar

to regular education students in a public charter hybrid high school?

The observations will take place during face-to-face instruction at the hybrid schools.

This can be while students are working online at the campus or doing other academic

activities like labs or project based learning. Special needs students will need to be

identified in advance and their activities will be recorded as well as the activities of

general education students. An attempt will be made to record the majority of activities

taking place in the instructional setting.

The observations will focus on gathering data related to three of the questions asked

during the interviews.

1) What services exist for special education students at your school?

Look for materials and services provided to special education students that are

similar and different than regular education students.

Look at adult interactions with all students.

2) In what ways are special education students treated like general education

students in terms of their educational program?

 134

Look at special needs students in a general education setting and in a special

education setting to determine similarities.

Look at curriculum and academic expectations for both groups of students.

Look at student schedules from both groups of students.

3) In what ways are special education students treated differently than general

education students in terms of their educational program?

Look at all of the items in question two and find differences between special and

general education students in all of those areas.

Data will be gathered at least three times for at least two hours per time at each study site.

Once data are gathered, the observational data will be compared to the interview data as

well as organizational documents.

 135

Appendix F

Hybrid Program Comparison

Program Differentiate Presence System of Opportuniti Opportunities

d of Highly Accountability es to to Interact
Instruction Qualified and Progress Demonstrat with Peers and
Teachers Monitoring e Learning Staff
in Various
Ways
Classical Flex Online Yes Online Monthly Four Hour
Curriculum Monitoring & Project- Monthly On-
& Weekly based campus
Intervention Teacher Learning Instruction
Classes Collaboration 1 hr. in home
instruction/wee
k (general ed.)
2 hrs. In-home
instruction/wee
k (special ed.)
Classical Online Yes Online Weekly Four Hour
Rotation Curriculum Monitoring & Project- Weekly On-
& Weekly based campus
Intervention Teacher Learning instruction/wee
Classes Collaboration k
(Special ed.
Instruction
imbedded)
Contemporary Online Yes Online Continual Weekly Online
Online Driver Curriculum Monitoring Content- Discussion
& Online based Project Groups & One-
Intervention Learning on-one Remote
Classes Support
Contemporary Online Yes Online Continual 30 hours/week
Rotation Curriculum, Monitoring Content- On-campus
Online based Project rotating
Intervention Learning between
Classes, & classroom &
Daily computer lab
Classroom (Special Ed.
Support Instruction
Imbedded)
Contemporary Online Yes Online Continual 6 hours/week
Rotation 4 + 1 Curriculum, Monitoring Content- On-campus
Online based Project rotating
Intervention Learning between
Classes, & classroom &