Archived Information

The State of Charter Schools Third-Year Report — May 1999

C. Students of Charter Schools

Student Racial/Ethnic Composition
School Racial/Ethnic Distribution
Student Eligibility for Free And Reduced-Price Lunch
Students With Disabilities
Limited English Proficient Students


Student Racial/Ethnic Composition

One fear regarding the charter movement is that charter schools will be elitist schools, serving a lower proportion of students of color than other public schools. Our research suggests that, in fact, most charter schools had about the same percentage of white students as their district average. More than 70 percent of charter schools were within 20 percent of the average district percentage of white students, while about 16 percent had a distinctly higher percentage of students of color than their surrounding district. The remaining 12 percent of schools had a lower percentage of students of color than their surrounding district.


Racial/Ethnic Composition of Charter School Students (1997-98), Compared To All Public School Students In The 24 Charter States (1996-97)
Racial/ethnic categories

Students

Schools

# of students in category

% of students in category

Average of school % of students in racial category

Charter Schools Public Schools Charter Schools Public Schools Charter Schools Public Schools

Total1

138,935

27,886,307

 

 

589

49,316

White, not of Hispanic origin

71,943

16,367,055

51.8%

58.7%

55.0%

62.5%

Black, not of Hispanic origin

26,393

4,680,563

19.0%

16.8%

22.0%

16.0%

Hispanic

28,554

5,395,949

20.6%

19.3%

15.7%

16.6%

Asian or Pacific Islander

5,157

1,164,334

3.7%

4.2%

2.5%

3.3%

American Indian or Alaska Native

5,310

278,392

3.8%

1.0%

4.0%

1.6%

Other2

1,578

NA

1.1%

NA

0.8%

NA

NOTE: These data rely on responses from 589 of 619 open charter schools that responded to the survey. The 589 schools were those with valid racial data; that is, schools where the number of students in the racial/ethnic categories was equal to the total student enrollment reported. Data from 30 schools were considered invalid for this analysis.

1These totals differ somewhat from totals presented earlier. The charter school total relies on 589 open charter schools as indicated above, while other figures utilize different numbers of schools. The total for all public schools differs from that presented in Exhibit 5 because it relies on data from different sources and different years.

2The National Center for Education Statistics does not report an "other" racial category.


Charter School Enrollment By Race/Ethnicity Compared To Public School Enrollment In The 24 Charter States

Enrollment chart


Student Racial/Ethnic Composition of Charter Schools Compared to Their Surrounding Districts

Enrollment chart



School Racial/Ethnic Distribution

The states vary greatly in the racial/ethnic composition of their public school students, and charter schools generally mirror the state's racial composition. However, charter schools in 14 of the 24 charter states enrolled a considerably higher percentage of non-white students than do the other public schools. In some cases, this focus results from provisions in state law that target charter schools toward serving disadvantaged students.


Estimated Average of School Percentages of White Students Across Charter Schools and All Public Schools in States With More Than Than 20 Charter Schools

Enrollment chart


Estimated Average School Racial/Ethnic Percentages Across Charter Schools And All Public Schools
State # of schools % White % Black % Hispanic % Asian/
Pac. Is.
% Am.Indian
Alaska Ntv.
% Other1
Alaska charter 10 81.6% 2.3% 1.1% 3.2% 11.6% 0.2%
all public 482 63.1% 4.7% 2.9% 4.5% 24.8%  
Arizona charter 118 56.1% 9.8% 18.6% 1.3% 13.8% 0.4%
all public 1,281 56.7% 4.3% 30.1% 1.8% 7.1%  
California charter 115 48.1% 10.2% 31.7% 6.5% 1.8% 1.7%
all public 7,980 39.5% 8.7% 39.7% 11.2% 0.9%  
Colorado charter 46 77.9% 5.7% 13.0% 2.2% 1.2% 0.0%
all public 1,468 72.0% 5.5% 18.8% 2.6% 1.1%  
Connecticut charter 11 27.0% 49.7% 22.9% 0.1% 0.3% 0.0%
all public 1,023 71.7% 13.5% 11.9% 2.6% 0.3%  
Florida charter 29 51.8% 41.3% 4.9% 1.2% 0.7% 0.1%
all public 2,789 56.7% 25.4% 15.9% 1.8% 0.2%  
Georgia charter 17 72.6% 18.8% 4.9% 2.4% 0.2% 1.1%
all public 1,798 57.9% 37.7% 2.6% 1.7% 0.1%  
Illinois charter 6 16.6% 60.5% 22.5% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0%
all public 4,171 63.0% 21.1% 12.7% 3.1% 0.1%  
Louisiana charter 6 32.2% 64.8% 1.1% 0.6% 0.9% 0.4%
all public 1,468 50.5% 46.4% 1.2% 1.3% 0.6%  
Massachusetts charter 19 47.2% 27.1% 19.3% 1.1% 0.4% 4.9%
all public 1,810 77.9% 8.5% 9.4% 0.4% 0.2%  
Michigan charter 92 49.9% 42.8% 3.8% 0.9% 2.4% 0.2%
all public 3,002 83.3% 11.1% 2.9% 1.7%> 1.0%  
Minnesota charter 25 52.6% 23.6% 2.0% 13.0% 7.9% 0.9%
all public 1,785 86.4% 5.2% 2.2% 4.2% 2.0%  
New Jersey charter 4 29.3% 30.1% 35.5% 5.1% 0.0% 0.0%
all public 2,278 62.5% 18.5% 13.5% 5.3% 0.2%  
New Mexico charter 4 39.8% 3.9% 43.9% 2.5% 9.9% 0.0%
all public 729 38.6% 2.4% 47.5% 1.06% 10.5%  
North Carolina charter 27 42.6% 53.1% 1.4% 0.3% 1.8% 0.8%
all public 1,997 63.9% 30.8% 2.3% 1.5% 1.5%  
Pennsylvania charter 4 27.1% 67.7% 3.8% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0%
all public 3,110 80.2% 14.2% 3.7% 1.8% 0.1%  
Texas charter 28 12.9% 26.9% 58.1% 1.2% 0.0% 0.9%
all public 6,875 45.6% 14.3% 37.4% 2.4% 0.3%  
Wisconsin charter 17 73.6% 19.4% 3.1% 3.1% 0.7% 0.1%
all public 2,092 82.7% 9.6% 3.5% 2.9% 1.3%  

NOTE: These data rely on response from 578 out of the 619 open charter schools that responded to our survey. Of the 578 schools, 11 schools in six states (Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Kansas, Rhode Island, and South Carolina) have been omitted from this exhibit because each state has fewer than three charter schools and therefore numbers are small and percentages are not meaningful. All schools in this chart have valid racial data; that is, schools where the number of students in the racial/ethnic categories was equal to the total student enrollment reported.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data Survey 1996­97 Early Release Files.

1 The National Center for Education Statistics does not report an "other" racial category.



Student Eligibility for Free And Reduced-Price Lunch

Do charter schools serve the same proportion of economically disadvantaged students as other public schools? Students' eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch under the National School Lunch program is one measure of economic disadvantage that allows us to compare students in charter schools to those in all public schools. Charter schools serve a significantly higher proportion of economically disadvantaged students compared to all public schools in eight states. In some of those states, charter legislation targets low-income or at-risk students. Charter schools serve a distinctly lower proportion of economically disadvantaged students in three states.


Estimated Number of Students Eligible for Free And Reduced-Price Lunch
Charter schools (1997-98) All public schools (1994-95)
  # eligible students % of all students # eligible students % of all students
Total 53,970 36.7% 10,146,087 37.6%
Alaska 60 7.0% 32,340 25.7%
Arizona 9,640 39.4% 284,357 40.1%
California 17,820 35.4% 2,257,008 42.4%
Colorado 1,967 18.1% 174,023 27.8%
Connecticut 521 49.6% 113,221 22.8%
Florida 1,080 37.7% 895,510 43.9%
Georgia 3,803 29.4% 501,824 40.6%
Illinois 1,396 88.5% 583,238 30.8%
Louisiana 344 74.3% 474,608 59.3%
Massachusetts 2,490 45.1% 225,110 25.6%
Michigan 5,540 34.1% 459747 28.7%
Minnesota 1,502 52.5% 217,376 26.8%
New Jersey 201 43.1% 326,022 28.3%
New Mexico 1,167 30.1% 159,740 49.6%
North Carolina 1,465 40.1% 413,729 36.5%
Pennsylvania 399 69.3% 541,793 31.1%
Texas 3,456 68.7% 1,662,900 46.1%
Wisconsin 438 27.6% 210,011 24.9%

NOTE: The total number of students eligible for free and reduced-price lunch is based on 566 of the 619 open charter schools that responded to the survey. Of the 566 schools, nine schools in six states (DE, DC, HI, KS, RI, and SC) are not displayed in the table because each state has three or fewer charter schools and percentages are not meaningful. The "Total" row includes data from all 24 charter states, including the six states not included in the table. For each state, the percentage of students eligible for free and reduced-price lunch is computed by dividing the number of eligible students by the total number of students enrolled in schools in that state.

SOURCE: The percentage of students in all public schools eligible for free and reduced-price lunch was computed using two sources. The source for the numerator (eligibility counts by state) were the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, Program Information Division, for the 1994-95 school year. The data for the denominator (total student enrollment) were derived from the 1997 Digest of Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (Fall, 1993).


Percentage of Students Eligible for Free and Reduced-Price Lunch in Charter Schools and All Public Schools

Enrollment chart



Students With Disabilities

Although charter schools are freed from many of the state regulations that govern schools, they are still subject to laws requiring them to provide access to students with disabilities. Our previous reports have documented that some charter schools are specifically designed to serve students with disabilities.


Estimated Number And Percentage of Students With Disabilities
  Charter schools (1997-98)    All public schools (1996-97)
# of students % of students # of students % of students
Total 12,243 8.3% 3,185,443 11.2%
Alaska 43 5.0% 157,44 12.1%
Arizona 1,730 7.1% 71,742 0.9%
California 3,576 7.1% 528,273 9.4%
Colorado 857 7.9% 64,275 9.5%
Connecticut 84 0.8% 73,578 1.4%
Florida 720 25.1% 295,762 13.2%
Georgia 1,122 8.7% 126,856 9.4%
Illinois 172 10.9% 239,415 12.1%
Louisiana 30 6.5% 83,277 10.5%
Massachusetts 546 9.9% 144,488 15.5%
Michigan 853 5.3% 175,219 10.5%
Minnesota 491 17.2% 90,353 11.4%
New Jersey 10 2.1% 185,635 15.5%
New Mexico 673 17.4% 44,440 13.5%
North Carolina 523 14.3% 137,013 11.3%
Pennsylvania 77 13.4% 94,953 10.8%
Texas 362 7.2% 428,859 11.2%
Wisconsin 137 8.6% 96,489 11.0%

NOTE: The total number of students with disabilities is based on 554 of the 619 open charter schools that responded to the survey, although the exhibit does not show breakdowns for states with three or fewer charter schools. The percentage of students with disabilities in Florida is inflated by one school that reported large numbers of charter students with disabilities. The total number of students with disabilities is based on 554 of the 619 open charter schools that responded to the survey. Of the 554 schools, an additional ten schools in six states (Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Kansas, Rhode Island, and South Carolina) are not displayed in the table because each state still has three or fewer charter schools and percentages are not meaningful. The "Total" row includes data from all 24 charter states, including the six states not included in the table.

SOURCE: The national figures rely on two sources. The source for the numerator (the number of students served under IDEA) was: Twentieth Annual Report to Congress of the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, U.S. Department of Education, (forthcoming). The source for the denominator (enrollment in the 24 charter states) was U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data Survey, 1996­97 Early Release Files.


Estimated Percentage of Students With Disabilities in Charter Schools and All Public Schools

Enrollment chart



Limited English Proficient Students

Limited English Proficient (LEP) students are concentrated in a few states in both charter and all public schools. Across the 24 charter states, the percentage of LEP students in charter schools is similar to that of all public schools, but the state-by-state picture reveals great variation.

State Estimated LEP students
  Charter schools (1997-98) All public schools (1994-95)
  # of students % of students # of students % of students
Total1 14,856 10.1% 2,814,982 10.7%
Alaska 6 0.7% 34,942 27.7%
Arizona 1,643 6.7% 93,528 11.9%
California 9,208 18.3% 1,381,393 24.6%
Colorado 120 1.1% 24,675 7.4%
Connecticut 8 0.8% 19,819 3.8%
Florida 7 0.2% 288,603 12.2%
Georgia 382 0.3% 14,339 1.1%
Illinois 54 3.4% 118,246 0.6%
Louisiana 2 0.4% 6,494 0.9%
Massachusetts 339 6.1% 44,394 4.7%
Michigan 407 2.5% 25,988 1.6%
Minnesota 321 11.2% 28,237 3.4%
New Jersey 3 0.6% 49,300 0.4%
New Mexico 954 24.6% 78,107 2.4%
North Carolina 90 2.5% 24,771 0.2%
Pennsylvania 20 3.5% NA NA
Texas 1,140 22.7% 513,634 13.4%
Wisconsin 22 1.4% 23,270 2.6%

NOTE: The total number of LEP students is based on 611 of the 619 open charter schools that responded to the survey, although the exhibit does not show breakdowns for states with three or fewer charter schools. For each state, the percentage of LEP charter school students is computed by dividing the number of LEP students by the total number of enrolled students. The total number of LEP students is based on 611 of the 619 open charter schools that responded to the survey. Of the 611 schools, an additional nine schools in six states (Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Kansas, Rhode Island, and South Carolina) are not displayed in the table because each states has three or fewer charter schools and the percentages are not meaningful. . The "Total" row includes data from all 24 charter states, including the six states not included in the table.

SOURCE: Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs, Summary Report of the Survey of the States Limited English Proficient Students and Available Educational Programs and Services 1996­1997: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1998.

1 The total excludes data from the state of Pennsylvania, which did not report information on LEP students for all public schools.


Estimated Number and Percentage of LEP Students in Charter Schools and in All Public Schools

Enrollment chart


-###-
[B. Basic Characteristics of Charter Schools] [Table of Contents] [D. Starting, Implementing, and Being Accountable]