This report examines our nation’s commitment to
democracy by assessing the privatization programs in the 50 states and
the District of Columbia with the goal of not only highlighting the
benefits of a public school education, but comparing the accountability,
transparency and civil rights protections offered students in the
public school setting versus the private school setting.
States are
rated on the extent to which they have instituted policies and practices
that lead toward fewer democratic opportunities and more privatization,
as well as the guardrails they have (or have not) put into place to
protect the rights of students, communities and taxpayers. This is not
an assessment of the overall quality of the public education system in
the state — rather it is an analysis of the laws that support privatized
alternatives to public schools.
Significant Findings:
PRIVATIZATION
• Twenty-eight states plus the District
of Columbia have some form of voucher pro-gram—traditional, ESA or tax-credit
scholarships. The vast majority have multiple programs—Wisconsin, Ohio and
Arizona have five different programs each.
• All but three states have either a
voucher program, charter program or both.
• Thirty-three states and the
District of Columbia allow for-profit companies to manage their charter
schools and four states also allow for-profit charter schools.
OVERALL CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTIONS
• Nineteen states fail to include
additional state and local civil rights protections for voucher students beyond
race, ethnicity and national origin. Only one state protects LGBTQ students in
voucher receiving private schools.
• Among the states with voucher/neo-voucher
programs, only one mandates providing services for ELL students, and eighteen
states do not mandate services for students with disabilities in the program.
•
Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia fail to specifically protect
students in voucher/neo-voucher programs against religious discrimination.
TRADITIONAL VOUCHER AND NEO-VOUCHER
(TUITION TAX-CREDIT AND ESA) PROGRAMS
• Fifteen states with voucher/neo-voucher pro-grams fail to
require background checks for teachers and employees in schools receiving vouchers.
• Eighteen states with voucher/neo-voucher programs have no mandate for
transparen-cy in student performance in one or more of their programs, and the
majority do not require students to take state tests.
• Nine states have at
least one program that does not require the private school receiving the voucher
to be accredited or even registered.
CHARTER SCHOOLS
• Of the forty-four states with charter laws, twenty-eight
of these states and the District of Columbia fail to require the same teacher certification
as public schools.
• Thirty states and the District of Columbia allow
enrollment advantage for children of board members, employees, and/or other groups.
•
Thirteen states have no conflict of interest requirements between charter board
mem-bers and service providers.
• Charter school students with disabilities are disadvantaged
in thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia, which do not clearly and
completely establish their provision of services.
No comments:
Post a Comment