What Michigan’s Data Suggests for District Leaders

Discussions about charter schools and special education often become polarized. Some argue that charter schools serve students with disabilities well, while others raise concerns about access, inclusion, and whether students with higher needs are fully supported.

New research from Michigan adds an important layer of evidence that district leaders should pay attention to—not because it provides a simple answer, but because it highlights what may actually drive better outcomes for students with disabilities.

Why this matters

A recent study published by the National Center for Research on Educational Access and Choice examined approximately 60,000 Michigan K–8 students who transferred from traditional public schools to charter schools between 2013 and 2018. After switching, students showed improvement in both reading and math performance. Notably, students with disabilities experienced academic gains at similar rates as their peers without disabilities. Attendance improved as well, with absences decreasing in the first year following the move to a charter setting.

These findings challenge the assumption that charter environments are inherently less supportive for students with disabilities. At the same time, the authors are careful not to claim that charter schools outperform traditional schools because of one specific policy or practice. Instead, the results suggest a broader takeaway: school systems that provide
strong structure, consistent expectations, and effective instruction may improve outcomes for all learners, including those receiving special education services.

A closer look at placement patterns

One of the more interesting observations in the Michigan study involved placement patterns. Students with disabilities entering charter schools initially spent more time in general education classrooms. Over time, service levels became more comparable to traditional public schools, but charter students were still less likely to be placed in highly intensive, separate programs.

This does not mean that intensive services are unnecessary. Many students require specialized supports, and districts must maintain a full continuum of services. However, the findings raise an important question for schools: are resources being deployed in ways that maximize student growth, or are schools sometimes relying too heavily on restrictive placements and classifications when embedded supports and stronger systems could be more effective?

The bigger takeaway: quality systems lift outcomes

The study also showed gains among students without disabilities, suggesting that improvements may reflect overall school quality factors such as clearer routines, stronger instruction, improved behavioral consistency, and higher expectations. These are not charter-specific strategies. They are system-level practices that any district can strengthen.

District leader lens

For district leaders, the key implication is not about choosing between charter and traditional models. The question is: what systems are in place that help students with disabilities succeed within the least restrictive environment possible?

Strong outcomes often come down to operational and instructional consistency: staff who respond the same way across classrooms, clear behavior support plans that are easy to implement, BCBA led consultation and coaching, caregiver engagement, and data systems that allow teams to monitor progress and adjust interventions early.

• Consistency across staff so expectations don’t change from room to room.
• Practical behavior plans that are implementable during real classroom routines.
• BCBA-led coaching that supports follow-through, not just paperwork.
• Family partnership that strengthens home–school alignment.
• Simple data routines that trigger early adjustments before needs intensify.

When those structures are in place, schools reduce disruption, increase instructional time, improve attendance, and build more sustainable support models for students with disabilities. The Michigan findings reinforce that student success is often shaped less by the label of the setting and more by the strength of the system surrounding the learner.
Districts that invest in consistent school-based behavioral infrastructure are better positioned to support students effectively, reduce unnecessary intensification of services, and improve outcomes across placements.

As Michigan’s data suggests, the opportunity is not about doing less. It is about building smarter, more coordinated systems of care that help students thrive. For districts, that often looks like strengthening the day-to-day structures that drive outcomes: staff training that sticks, clear behavior support plans that are easy to implement, BCBA-led coaching that supports consistency across classrooms, and simple data routines that help teams intervene early.