Cyber Charter Schools and Students With Dis/Abilities: Rebooting the IDEA to Address Equity, Access, and Compliance

Abstract

This article takes up the question of equity, access, and cyber charter schools from the perspective of disability studies in education (DSE). DSE positions inclusion and educational access as social justice concerns. In doing so, we assert the importance of making visible the social justice implications of the current laws that impact cyber charter schools and students with disabilities. To this end we focus in particular on the Individual with Disabilities Act (IDEA) because it is the central piece of federal legislation that provides for the public education of students with disabilities. Our analysis suggests several changes in the IDEA and state level legislation in order for cyber charter schools to be an available and equitable option for students with disabilities.

Notes

¹In this article we use the term “cyber charter schools” to refer to full-time, online, K-12 charter schools. In the literature these schools are also called “virtual charter schools,” “virtual charters,” and “cyber schools” (Brady, Umpstead, & Eckes, 2010; Glass & Welner, 2011; Marsh, Carr-Chellman, & Sockman, 2009).

²Disability studies scholars often represent disability as “dis/ability” to call attention to the mutable and socially constructed nature of perceptions of “ability.”

³See, for example, the discussion of K¹² Inc. in Marsh, Carr-Chellman, and Sockman (2009) and Glass and Wellner's (2011) overview of the involvement of private and for-profit enterprise in public charter schools.

⁴For discussion of meta-analyses comparing face-to-face and online instruction see Glass and Wellner (2011).

⁵An analysis of evidence and argument presented in P.B. et al. v. Paul Pastorek et al. (2010) illustrates that corporate school reform and the school privatization movement, which have led to the creation of a tiered school system in New Orleans, are the most recent examples of resistance to educational integration of students based on perceived race, ethnicity, and dis/ability (Collins, 2014).

⁶The Roncker Test was first adopted by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeal in Roncker v. Walter (1983).

⁷The R. R. Test was first advanced by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeal in Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Education (1989).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Kathleen M. Collins

Kathleen M. Collins is an assistant professor of Language, Culture, and Society and Co-Director of the Center for Disability Studies in the College of Education at Pennsylvania State University, University Park, and the reward recipient of the 2012 Ellen Brantlinger Junior Scholar Award for outstanding work within Disability Studies in Education. Through analysis of the processes and consequences of dis/ability identification, her program of research aims to disrupt patterns of inequitable educational opportunities for students so identified.

Preston C. Green

Preston C. Green, III, is the John and Carla Klein Professor of Urban Education at the University of Connecticut. He is also a professor of educational leadership and law. He holds a J.D. from Columbia Law School and an Ed.D. from Teachers College, Columbia University.

Steven L. Nelson

Steven L. Nelson is a Visiting Assistant Professor of Educational Administration at the University of New Orleans, where he researches school choice law and policy’ impact(s) on minority and special education populations. He holds a J.D. from the University of Iowa College of Law and a Ph.D. from the Pennsylvania State University.

Santosh Madahar

Santosh Madahar is a Ph.D candidate in Education Theory and Policy at the Pennsylvania State University, University Park. Santosh holds a JD and a Masters of Science in Special Education and her research focuses on the intersection of law and policy.