ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Special thanks to the following:

Network for Public Education (NPE) Executive Director, Carol Burris who
authored this report and Darcie Cimarusti who provided research support.
Cimarusti is also responsible for the report’s layout and design.

We would also like to thank:

Leigh Dingerson for her skilled and careful editing of the report, as well as her
advice regarding structure and content.

Public Funds Public Schools, a national campaign that strives to ensure that
all public funds for education are used to maintain and support public schools.
Their research base on traditional and non-traditional voucher programs helped
to inform our ratings.

This report would not have been possible without the effort and commitment of
the NPE Board of Directors, with special thanks to Diane Ravitch, President
of NPE. Diane generously gave her support, guidance, editing and advice
throughout the writing of this report.

Finally, thank you to all of our generous donors who make our work in support
of public education possible. No outside organization contributed to, reviewed or
influenced the findings of this report.

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION...............................................................4

OUR STATE BY STATE RATINGS ......................................6

OVERVIEW: VOUCHERS AND CHARTER SCHOOLS.......... 8

SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS ............................................... 10

CATEGORICAL FINDINGS...............................................13

CONCLUSION ................................................................21

APPENDIX A...................................................................23

APPENDIX B..................................................................30

ENDNOTES.....................................................................31

3
 INTRODUCTION
In 2018, the Network for Public Education and charity schools for the poor. Other children were
the Schott Foundation issued a report entitled either home-schooled or not schooled at all. This
Grading the States.1 That report examined was not a network. It was an uncoordinated, free-
America’s commitment to democracy by grading for-all that left most children undereducated.3
each state and the District of Columbia on
the number of publicly-funded but privately- After Brown v Board declared school segregation
governed educational “choice” programs it had laws unconstitutional, Libertarians saw the
and whether those programs had sufficient opportunity to further their cause by taking
safeguards to protect students’ well-being and advantage of racism to promote vouchers.
civil rights. Since then, the march to privatize According to Duke University historian Nancy
one of our country’s most precious institutions— MacClean, “key conservative and libertarian
our public schools—has continued. Indeed, it has thinkers and foundations, including economists
intensified. Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, Human
Events editor Felix Morley and publisher Henry
During the dark days of the Covid-19 epidemic, Regnery, backed the White Southern cause. They
state legislatures bowed to the pressure of right- recognized that White Southerners’ push for
wing think tanks and foundations, pushing “freedom of choice” presented an opportunity to
through charter expansion and voucher advance their goal of privatizing government
legislation with little opportunity for public services and resources, starting with primary
input. Couched in the language of school choice, and secondary education. They barely, if ever,
new voucher programs were crammed into addressed racism and segregation; instead, they
budget bills or resurrected and passed even after spoke of freedom (implicitly, White freedom).”
initial defeat. Few included necessary safeguards
for taxpayers or families. If school privatizers get their way, education
would again descend into a scramble with
While using the rhetoric of parental freedom, different levels of quality and different price tags.
the school choice movement has always been Public funding would be gradually withdrawn.
no more than a façade for a radical right-wing Schooling would revert to a parental, not state,
movement to privatize public education. The responsibility.
ultimate goal of Libertarians and the radical right
is the “back to the future” dream of American Today, though, the vast majority of families
schooling before Horace Mann. send their children to public schools, even when
government-subsidized alternatives are available.
That dream is described in the Origins of The term “public school” is generally not viewed
Government Education in the United States.2 as a pejorative, which is why those who oppose
Its author, Matthew Brouillette, describes public schools are anxious to either blur the
early American education as a successful definition (“public charter schools”), refer to
“de-centralized network of schools.” That public schools as “government schools,” or hijack
description, of course, is false. According to the term to describe privatized systems. During
education historian Diane Ravitch, prior to the her 2019 appearance at the Education Writers
mid-1800s, there were elite private schools for Association, then-Secretary of Education Betsy
the rich, church schools for congregants, and DeVos attempted to re-define the very definition

4
 PUBLIC SCHOOLING IN AMERICA
of public education: “But if every student is part of voucher programs across 31 states and the
‘the public,’ then every way and every place a student District of Columbia, with a few others passed by
learns is ultimately of benefit to ‘the public.’ That legislatures but struck down by the courts.
should be the new definition of public education.”4
In 1996, charter schools enrolled fewer than
The campaign to denigrate one of our country’s 1,000 students. By the end of 2021, fueled in
most important and beloved institutions did significant part by growth in for-profit online
not happen overnight. The strategy was put in schools, the number had increased to 3.3
motion during the last century. Joseph P. Overton million.7
was senior vice-president of the right-wing
Mackinac Center for Public Policy in the 1990s The battle to save a cornerstone of our
until he died in 2003. He is most known for what’s democracy, public education, is not lost. But
now called the Overton Window—the idea that the privatization movement is no longer in its
there is an identifiable span of policy positions infancy. The Overton Window has shifted. The
deemed acceptable by the general public at any privatization of public education is now in its
given moment. One can analyze and rebrand adolescence. It has achieved the full-throated
extreme policies by slowly shifting this “window.” support of the right-wing, which now controls
According to Mackinac,5 the example Overton many state legislatures. Conserving public
often used to illustrate the gradual manipulation schools and local control is no longer part of
of the window is the changed public perception a conservative platform: destroying locally
of school choice. In the 1980s, advocating for controlled public schools via privatized choice is.
charter schools was politically dangerous. As
charters became more acceptable, so did school
choice, which in turn allowed conservative “There is no compromising with school
politicians to advocate for home schooling, privatization advocates. Decades ago,
private school tax credits, Education Savings public education advocates felt they could
Accounts, and charter expansion. compromise with privatizers by making
accommodations for charter schools, with
While many, including those on the left, were both sides giving a little. Rather than satis-
enamored with charter schools in their early fy privatization advocates, this concession
days, others saw what was coming down the
pike. In 1996, then (Detroit) Metro Times reporter simply ratcheted up their new starting
Curt Guyette referred to charters as a “trojan position.
horse” in an expose entitled, “Born Again
Schools: The Right’s Vision for Public Education That’s because to privatization advocates,
in Michigan.” Republished in the Metro Times in there is no compromise. As long as there
2016,6 the article explains that four foundations is publicly-funded education in America,
(the Richard & Helen DeVos Foundation, there will be well-funded, radical special
the Prince Foundation, the Orville and Ruth interests pushing lawmakers to end that
Merillat Foundation, and the Cook Charitable support.”
Foundation) mounted what Guyette described
as a “relentless attack on the state’s education
system” while using charter schools to “blur the
lines between public and private education.”
Two of those foundations (the Richard & Helen
DeVos Foundation and the Prince Foundation)
are funded by the family of former Secretary of Charles Siler, for-
Education Betsy DeVos. mer school choice
lobbyist
The strategy has worked, not just in Michigan,
but nationally.

At first, Wisconsin was the only state that had

a voucher program. Today, there are 60 active
5
 OUR STATE BY STATE
RATINGS
The first step in stopping the privatization achieved a grade of A-.
movement is to understand it. This report
takes up where our 2018 report left off. Not Fifteen states achieved a grade in the B or C
only do we grade the states based on their range, seven fewer than in 2018. The number of
willingness to commit exclusively or primarily states receiving a D doubled from six to twelve.
to democratically governed public schools open The number of states with failing scores of F
to all, but their willingness to put sufficient (scores below 60) increased from 17 to 21.
guardrails and limits on publicly-funded The following table lists the states and the
alternatives to ensure that taxpayers, students, District of Columbia in rank order by overall
and families are protected from discrimination, score along with their voucher an d charter
corruption and fraud in the programs they have. school ratings. Tables with letter grades can be
found on pages 19-20.
In analyzing a state’s resistance to the
privatization of public education through school
choice, we look at the following five major
categories, each composed of multiple sub-
components:

» Expansion of Privatization
» Educational Quality
» Student Rights and Protections
» Accountability and Transparency
» Safeguards for Taxpayer Dollars
Using the lack of any laws allowing privatization
as the baseline, each state was assigned a starting
value of 100 points. Points were then deducted
based on components. Points were evenly
divided between charter (50 points) and voucher
(50 points) programs. We then converted overall
scores to letter grades. Further information
regarding the individual areas of assessment,
sources used, and assigned points can be found
in Appendix A of this report.

Two states received an overall grade of A+:

Nebraska and North Dakota. Nebraska and
North Dakota have neither voucher programs
nor charter school laws. One state, Vermont,
6
 STATE RANK OVERALL SCORE VOUCHER SCORE CHARTER SCORE
1. Nebraska 100 50 50
2. North Dakota 100 50 50
3. Vermont 90 40 50
4. Kentucky 84 49 35
5. South Dakota 84 34 50
6. Connecticut 82.5 50 32.5
7. Washington 82 50 32
8. Montana 81 31 50
9. Massachusetts 80.5 50 30.5
10. Kansas 79.5 35 44.5
11. Wyoming 79 50 29
12. New Mexico 78 50 28
13. New Jersey 77.5 50 27.5
14. Virginia 75 33 42
15. Delaware 74 50 24
16. Alaska 73 50 23
17. Maine 73 42 31
18. New York 71 50 21
19. Minnesota 67.5 48 19.5
20. Texas 67.5 50 17.5
21. Oregon 67 50 17
22. Hawaii 66 50 16
23. Illinois 66 38 28
24. Maryland 66 41 25
25. Colorado 65 50 15
26. Rhode Island 65 32 33
27. Idaho 64.5 50 14.5
28. California 61 50 11
29. Michigan 61 50 11
30. Alabama 60 34 26
31. District of Columbia 58 40 18
32. Iowa 58 34 26
33. West Virginia 58 28 30
34. Tennessee 55 33 22
35. Missouri 53 31 22
36. Mississippi 52 23 29
37. Wisconsin 50 31 19
38. Pennsylvania 49.5 29 20.5
39. South Carolina 46 32 14
40. Oklahoma 45 23 22
41. Louisiana 40.5 23 17.5
42. Nevada 40 30 10
43. Arkansas 39 21 18
44. Utah 37 21 16
45. New Hampshire 36.5 11 25.5
46. North Carolina 32 16 16
47. Georgia 31.5 19 12.5
48. Indiana 26 9 17
49. Ohio 23.5 8 15.5
50. Florida 18 6 12
51. Arizona 10 5 5

7
 OVERVIEW: VOUCHERS AND
CHARTER SCHOOLS
Traditional Vouchers Non-traditional Voucher Programs
The school voucher movement has its roots in Many state constitutions have clauses that
racism. It began in the last century with publicly disallow taxpayer funding of religious schools. To
funded vouchers that were designed to allow evade these restrictions, state legislatures have
white children to escape integration in the years devised programs that give money to individual
following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision parents or scholarship organizations, rather
in Brown vs Board of Education.9 State-funded than directly to schools. These indirect voucher
vouchers allowed the creation of so-called programs include Education Savings Accounts
“segregation academies” throughout the south. (ESA) and Tuition Tax-Credit Scholarship
Today, voucher programs continue to increase Programs. A few of the new programs use tax
segregation in our schools.10 credits to fund ESAs.

Traditional vouchers are grants of public school Education Savings Accounts or Education
funds to support a student’s tuition at private Scholarship Accounts (ESAs) are perhaps the
elementary or secondary schools. As of January most damaging and irresponsible of all voucher
1, 2022, there were 24 traditional voucher programs. They have become the favored
programs across fourteen states and the District program of the Libertarian far-right, whose
of Columbia. Ohio alone has five programs. In ultimate goal is for tax dollars to follow the child
the states with traditional voucher programs, with the burden of educating children placed on
vouchers may be used in either religious or non- their parents. These programs allow tax dollars
sectarian schools. (typically 90 percent of what the public school
would have spent) to be used toward educational
Three states (New Hampshire, Maine, and expenses including tuition and fees at private
Vermont) have programs similar to traditional elementary and secondary schools, online
vouchers, called town tuitioning programs. Town programs, support and therapy services, home
tuitioning allows families who do not have a schooling, and college tuition.
public school in their town to receive a per-pupil
allotment to pay tuition at either a neighboring Typically, accounts are established in the
public school or a private school. Although the student’s name and funds are deposited, often on
laws in each of these states prohibit taxpayer a debit card, for use by the family on approved
dollars from being used at religious schools, that educational expenses. ESA programs are
restriction is presently being challenged in the minimally regulated, with no built-in structures
courts.11 to measure their impact on academic progress.
Without significant oversight, they are ripe for
For purposes of this report, we included town fraud and abuse.
tuitioning programs as vouchers because these
states did not limit the program exclusively to As of January 1, 2022, nine ESA programs exist in
public schools. the following states: Arizona, Florida, Indiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North
Overall, we found 27 voucher programs across 17 Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia.
states.
8
 PUBLIC SCHOOLING IN AMERICA

Arizona created the nation’s first ESA voucher program to circumvent prohibitions on public
funding of religious institutions, which would violate the state’s constitution. Under the law,
parents can receive a debit card, loaded with funds approximating 90 percent of the tax
dollars it would cost to educate their child in a public school. Some parents soon figured out
they could buy things for themselves with the money. An audit of the program found the
purchase of beauty supplies, sports apparel, TVs, iPads, and laptops. Others withdrew funds
and then sent their children to public schools. One family allegedly paid for an abortion
using their ESA debit card.

Neither the department administering the program nor the Attorney General’s Office could
do much about the fraud as they were hampered by enthusiastic lawmakers, unwilling to
intervene. Both agencies repeatedly noted that with a lack of state oversight, they could only
see so much fraud, and rarely could recover any of it. Eventually, Arizona hired a private
third party to administer the program. There is mounting political pressure to scrap the
vendor arrangement and return the program to one that is less shackled by oversight.

Tuition Tax-Credit Scholarship Programs (TTCs) Most charters are brick and mortar schools.
grant businesses and individual taxpayers credits However, there is a growing sector of online
against their state income taxes for contributions charter schools, often run for profit. These
to School Tuition Organizations (STOs). STOs include full-time virtual charters, blended
then award tuition grants to families for private schools (part in-person, part online), and home
schools. The size of the tax credit varies from schools that a charter school sponsors. This new
state to state, with some states awarding a 100 home-school charter model provides curriculum
percent, dollar-for-dollar credit. In some cases, and sometimes cash to families to create a fully
the person who donates can also recommend funded home school program, even in states
who receives the scholarship. As of January 1, where there are no ESA vouchers.13
2022, 21 states have TTCs. Because some have
multiple programs, there are 26 programs Forty-five states and the District of Columbia
overall. have charter school laws. Forty-three of those
states have operating charter schools. The states
without charter laws are Montana, Nebraska,
Charter Schools North Dakota, South Dakota, and Vermont.
During the 2020-2021 school year, charter schools
Nearly all charter schools are governed by enrolled 10 percent or more of the share of total
private, unelected boards that serve without term public and charter students in 12 states. In the
limits or accountability to the community where District of Columbia, enrollment is nearly split
their school is located. Most, but not all states between public and charter schools. However,
require the charter organization to be a non- in eight states, the proportion of students in
profit entity. But, again depending on the state, charters is less than one percent.
even these non-profit schools can be managed
by a for-profit parent organization. There are Like voucher schools, charter schools enjoy
independent charter schools, as well as national fewer regulations, and less oversight than district
chains of schools under both non-profit and public schools. And, as with voucher schools,
for-profit management. In the case of Arizona, this has resulted in significant concerns when
charter schools may be a for-profit entity without it comes to accountability, accessibility and
a non-profit facade. For a comprehensive academic quality.
understanding of the for-profit charter sector, we
recommend our 2021 report, Chartered For Profit:
The Hidden World of Charter Schools Operated For
Financial Gain.12

9
 SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS
The following are key findings from our analysis. follow state health and safety regulations that
A component-by-component description of apply to public schools.
our findings by category is included in the next » More than half of states with vouchers
section. Appendix A at the end of this report have at least one program that pays out
identifies the components under each of our more than 50 percent of what would have
five categories and explains how points were been spent to educate the child in a public
deducted from states based on their voucher and school. This is especially concerning since
charter school policies. most programs now give tax dollars to
students who have never enrolled in a public
Vouchers: Traditional and Non-traditional school. For example, New Hampshire had
Programs $8 million drained from its coffers after the
first year of its ESA program, as the majority
» Seven states publicly fund home schooling of families already enrolling their child or
with few if any checks on the quality of children at a private school signed up for the
instruction or monitoring of student progress. program, resulting in much higher costs than
» Nineteen states do not require teachers in predicted.14
voucher schools to be certified. » ESA programs are especially ripe for fraud.
» Twenty-six states do not require that voucher An audit of the Arizona program showed that
students take the same state tests as their parents spent over $700,000 in unallowable
public and charter school counterparts. purchases.15
» Even though some legislatures have enacted
voucher programs designed for special
education students, only two states and the
District of Columbia ensure that all voucher
students with disabilities retain their full
rights under IDEA when they move from
a public school to a private one. The other
94 percent of states with voucher programs
are either silent regarding student rights or
require families to sign away their rights
under IDEA to get a voucher.
» Eighty-one percent of states allow voucher
schools to discriminate in entrance
requirements based on religion. Under the
guise of religious freedom, 74 percent allow
discrimination based on student and/or parent
LGBTQ status.
» Near half (15) of all states with one or more
voucher programs do not require background
checks for the teachers of voucher-funded
students.
» Seven states do not require voucher schools to

10
 PUBLIC SCHOOLING IN AMERICA

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was passed into federal law to protect
students with disabilities from discrimination. But some schools that accept vouchers don’t
want to accommodate students whose disabilities require special, and often expensive
additional services. One way to keep costs low is to require students and families to sign away
their rights under IDEA.

Another way is to exclude them altogether. One Phoenix-area mother, Pamela Lang whose
child has disabilities, qualified for $40,000 a year in school vouchers, which would more than
cover the costs of even the most expensive private schools in the state. But none of them
would take her money or her son. Even schools that marketed themselves as catering to
special education students found reasons to turn them away.

Secular schools, religious schools, church-affiliated schools, schools run by therapists, big
schools, and small schools all turned them away, with one even kicking them out of a tour of
the campus. Even charter schools that were required to accept her son by law made it clear
they wouldn’t do anything to meet his needs if she pressed enrollment.

She wrote about her experience for a local paper, saying, “...choosing private school means
signing away your child’s right to federal anti-discrimination protections. There are no
reliable or consistent standards. Private schools can and do reject or remove a child for any
reason, any time. For large parts of the last three years on an ESA, my 12-year old son has
sat at home because I couldn’t find a willing school. No one mentions this when they glorify
ESAs and school choice.”

Legislators and policymakers in Arizona are well aware of this issue, and multiple bills have
been introduced to ensure students with disabilities can maintain their legal protections
when using voucher programs, but none of those bills have ever had more than a hearing.

You can read more of Pamela’s story here.

Charter Schools online schools; 32 of those enable for-profit

corporations to run them. This is despite the
» Although charters claim to be open to preponderance of the evidence that shows
everyone via a lottery, 40 states give students in such schools make poor academic
enrollment preferences to students beyond progress and have extremely low (under 50
disadvantaged students. Four states allow percent) graduation rates.16 A recent report
charter schools to shape enrollment using by the Government Accountability Office
academic and talent screening. And as the (GAO) entitled “The Department of Education
infographic in Appendix B shows, additional Should Help States Address Student Testing
“creaming” strategies are utilized outside of Issues and Financial Risks Associated with
any regulatory oversight or language. Virtual Schools, Particularly Virtual Charter
» In 31 states, charter school students do not Schools,” found that 56 percent of virtual
have the same rights and protections as schools are run by CMOs, of which 75 percent
public school students in disciplinary and are for-profit.17 According to the report,
expulsion proceedings. for-profit operations increase financial
» Thirty-three states either do not require that risk because the profit interest of the
charter school students be taught by certified management corporation may supersede the
and licensed teachers or allow so many school’s provision of high-quality education
exceptions that any existing regulations are to its students. The report also noted that
meaningless. online schools, regardless of profit status,
» Thirty-seven states allow entirely virtual, educate substantially fewer students who
11
 PUBLIC SCHOOLING IN AMERICA
receive free or reduced-priced lunch, have down. Whether cooking the books on atten-
lower participation rates in state assessments dance or outright theft, fraudulent practices
compared to brick-and-mortar schools, and result in schools being shuttered, sometimes
have inconsistent and questionable methods with little warning.18 Since January 2019, we
of taking attendance. have been logging stories of charter scan-
» Thirty-seven states and D.C. allow for-profit dals that appear in local and national media.
corporations to run non-profit charter Twenty states have accrued at least 25 sto-
schools, including via “sweeps” contracts ries in the press that have described charter
that allow tax dollars and control to be school malfeasance and abrupt closures.
funneled to the for-profit that runs the day- Topping the list was the state of California,
to-day operation of the school. In five states with 141 such reports. In second place was
(Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Nevada, and Pennsylvania with 96, followed by Florida (88)
Ohio), for-profits run over 30 percent of the and Louisiana (83).
charter schools in the state.
» Forty-one states allow schools to contract Wagma Mommandi and Kevin Welner of
with businesses owned by charter school the National Education Policy Center and
board members, and in 19 states those related the University of Colorado co-authored
party transactions are not required to be School’s Choice: How Charter Schools
disclosed. Control Access and Shape Enrollment
» Under the guise of “innovation,” the lack (Teachers College Press, September
of public transparency is well documented 10, 2021) The book was based on their
and appalling. Only one state, Ohio, makes careful research into how policies
the contracts between charter schools and and practices adopted by charter
their management companies accessible on schools work to shape enrollment, thus
the state department of education website. dispelling the claim of charter advocates
The lack of transparency also extends to the that enrollment is randomly determined
management corporations, known as Charter by lottery.
Management Organizations (CMOs) or Edu-
cation Management Organizations (EMOs) The authors identified numerous factors
that in some cases run virtually every aspect that influence who enrolls and remains
of the school. Forty-one states have no re- in charter schools. These factors tend to
quirement that for-profit or nonprofit man- shape student bodies with children who
agement corporations open their books—even are easier to teach and families who are
to the administrators and board of the char- more involved. The graphic in Appendix
ter school it is running, and 37 states do not B, included with the authors’ permission,
require that the CMO annually report to the identifies some of the ways that charter
charter school, or to the state, how it spends schools are able to legally influence who
public funding. attends their school before, during, and
» Fraud and mismanagement are one of the after enrollment.
common reasons that charter schools shut

12
 CATEGORICAL FINDINGS
What follows are brief descriptions of how the the number of programs enacted, the proportion
states fared under our research and analysis of of students who participated in such programs,
policies and practices for both voucher programs eligibility constraints, family income restrictions,
and charter schools in five key areas. Appendix A programs pending court challenges, programs
at the end of this report reviews the components that gave families tax credits for home-schooling
under each of our five categories and explains or private school tuition, and whether vouchers
how points were deducted from states based on could be used at religious institutions.
their traditional and non-traditional voucher and
charter school programs. For states with charter schools, points were lost
based on high proportions of students in charter
Category #1: Expansion of Privatization schools. Points were also lost due to irresponsible
laws regarding charter authorization. State laws
Some states have taken a measured approach assign the role of licensing charter schools to
when expanding privatized choice. Others have one or more agencies, which may include public
been more reckless, indicating a clear and school districts, private or government agencies,
purposeful intent to all but eliminate public universities, nonprofits, or private corporations
schooling. We included components to measure established solely for the purpose of authorizing
if the state was engaging in a full-throated charters. Authorizers are also tasked with
attempt to move to a fully privatized market- oversight of the schools they license, for which
based system of publicly funded education. they generally receive a substantial fee, giving
For voucher programs, points were lost based on them a vested interest in authorizing schools and

“
​​
For the first time I really began to think about the
impact of the decision I’d made on everybody else.
By pulling away from the public system, I was
leaving less for the kids who’d been left behind,
including the ones who couldn’t get into private
schools, or who got kicked out because they didn’t
conform to what the schools wanted. The more I
saw, the more it bothered me. I was using public
dollars to perpetuate discrimination in the name
of school choice. I decided that I could no longer
accept school vouchers for my children because it
was unethical.

Dountonia Batts, former voucher parent

Read Dountonia’s story on the Public Voices for

Public Schools website, here.

13
 PUBLIC SCHOOLING IN AMERICA
later keeping them open. Multiple authorizers Category #2: Educational Quality
often result in schools “authorizer shopping,”
that is, having their applications rejected by Unfortunately, there are states that in the name
one authorizer and then bringing the same of flexibility and innovation have charter and
application to another. States lost points voucher laws and policies associated with lower
based on the number of authorizers allowed quality opportunities for students. In the name of
to approve charter schools, whether school choice, these states are willing to let noncertified
districts have the power to authorize charters teachers and unregulated schools educate
(points were lost if they did not) and whether children with taxpayer dollars. We penalized
authorization decisions by school districts can states with voucher programs that do not require
be overturned on appeal. Points were also lost voucher schools to be accredited and allow
for mandates that charters be co-located in voucher students to be taught by uncertified
public school buildings thus squeezing public teachers. Points were also lost if vouchers are
school space, and an absence of a cap that allowed for home schools. Finally, points were
effectively limits charter growth. lost if voucher students are not required to take
the same tests as their counterparts in public and
Based on our analysis, five states stood out as charter schools, precluding a fair assessment
having laws and policies apparently designed of student progress in voucher programs.
to spread privatized school choice at the While advocates in test-free voucher states will
expense of public schooling. These are Arizona quickly label public schools as failing based
and Florida (each lost 38 points), Indiana and on test scores, they deliberately obscure the
Ohio (each lost 32 points), and Georgia (26 performance of their own voucher programs.
points).
States with charter programs lost points if
At the other end of the spectrum, are the teacher certification is not required or if
states that lost five or fewer points, which exemptions make their certification requirement
demonstrate a more cautious approach. meaningless. Points were also lost if the states
They are Connecticut, Kansas, South Dakota, allow full-time virtual charter schools, due to the
Vermont, Washington, and Wyoming. proven ineffectiveness of these schools.19
Nebraska and North Dakota do not allow either
vouchers or charter schools. The state with the least apparent interest
in ensuring their students receive a quality
education in their privatized alternatives is

“
I’d been working as a parent advocate for a group
pushing for education equity, and when I had a
chance to talk to one of our funders, the CEO of
the Opportunity Trust, Eric Scroggins, I rattled off
a list of ideas I had for turning the district around.
Things like smaller class sizes, wrap-around
services, highly-certified teachers, and literacy
initiatives.

“That won’t work,” he responded. “We have to burn

it down.” I didn’t want to burn it down. My kids
were in those schools.

Gloria Evans Nolan, former school choice advocate

Read Gloria’s story on the Public Voices for Public

Schools website, here.
14
 PUBLIC SCHOOLING IN AMERICA
New Hampshire, which lost 11 points in areas safeguards in this area. And despite the
including no required background checks for ubiquitous rhetoric of welcoming all students, we
teachers, not requiring voucher schools to found that in most states with charter schools,
adhere to state health and safety codes that apply state laws allow charters, through policies and
to public schools, not requiring voucher students practices, to cull their student body, resulting in
to take state assessments, and others. States that access for some at the expense of others.
followed closely behind were Arizona, Florida,
and North Carolina (10 points), and Indiana (9) We penalized voucher states that do not ensure
points. that all students with disabilities retain their
rights under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) in one or more of their
Category #3: Student Rights and Protections voucher programs. We also penalized states that
allow discrimination based on religion or LGBTQ
One historic advantage of publicly funded and status of students and/or parents. States that do
democratically controlled K-12 schools is that not require background checks for teachers,
they are required to actively protect students do not require random selection entrance
from discrimination and protect the rights of requirements, and do not require schools that
students with disabilities. We found that most enroll voucher students to follow state health and
state voucher programs do not have responsible safety guidelines lost points.

One of the major issues with voucher programs is that they place children in risky and harmful
situations with little to no oversight.

That lack of oversight is by design, as these programs are meant to simply be siphons for public
education funding, not high-quality educational programs that protect all students. Some states don’t
require background checks for private school operators and staff, and some online charter programs
have exploited loopholes to create micro-charter and micro-private schools that don’t have statutory
background check requirements.

Even when states do have some minimum laws on the books, they aren’t interested or able to
effectively oversee the programs. That’s how a Florida private school principal who was under
investigation for molesting a student at his school was able to simply open another school under
a different name to keep collecting state voucher money. And when he was charged with felony
molestation and forced to close his second school? He simply opened a third and was approved to
collect voucher funds again.

15
 PUBLIC SCHOOLING IN AMERICA

“
Since I first attended KIPP as a student nearly two
decades ago, the number of charter schools across
the country has exploded. There are 326 operating
in New York alone. And while these schools receive
state and federal money, they are mostly run
like private schools. This structure has made it
virtually impossible to hold schools accountable
for misconduct. Despite research on the harmful
effects of no excuses policies like what I endured,
major charter school networks have not evolved.
What changes have been made have been cosmetic.

Frances Scarlen Martinez, former KIPP student,

parent and teacher

Read Frances’ story on the Public Voices for Public

Charter states lost points if they do not require The state that did the worst job overall of
charter schools to follow the same disciplinary protecting students’ rights and safety was
and expulsion guidelines as public schools. States North Carolina, which lost fifteen points. It
also lost points if they give enrollment privileges was followed by Arkansas (14 points), New
to groups other than returning students, district Hampshire (13.5 points), Georgia (12.5 points),
students, and disadvantaged students. Points and Arizona, Indiana, and South Carolina, which
were lost if the state does not fund student each lost twelve points.
transportation to the charter school, similar to
their public school counterparts.

“
In 2016, Great Hearts Academies, a chain of
charter schools, rolled out a new policy targeting
transgender kids. Written with the help of Alliance
Defending Freedom, an anti-LGBTQ law foundation
with close ties to the charter network’s founder,
Great Hearts’ “Biological Sex and Gender Policy”
was the most anti-trans student policy in the
country. The ignorance of the new policy was
striking, but for me, the issue was personal. My
youngest daughter is transgender. Thanks to this
policy, it would be impossible for her to go to this
school, be successful, and be herself.

Robert Chevaleau, former charter school parent

Read Robert’s story on the Public Voices for Public

Schools website, here.

16
 PUBLIC SCHOOLING IN AMERICA
Category #4: Accountability and Transparency Category #5: Safeguards for Taxpayer Dollars
Voucher states were penalized if any of their School choice programs divert tax dollars
programs have limited or no public financial ordinarily directed to public schools to privately-
transparency and if student achievement results operated ones. The presence of these alternative
are not made public. Charter school states lost programs increases the burden on the taxpayer,
points for charter renewal periods that exceed who must now fund two, three, or even more
five years, if there is no requirement that an parallel schooling systems. But they also raise the
educational service provider report to the charter burden on the state for ensuring that taxpayer
board on how it spends the public funds it funds are used responsibly. Without dramatically
receives from the charter school, if the Education increased funding in state education budgets,
or Charter Management company’s contracts the added costs of these alternative systems
with its schools are not readily available to the strain the capacity of public schools to provide
public, and if there is no requirement that the adequate educational resources to their
charter school have access to its operator’s students—still the majority of students in every
records. state.

The states with both vouchers and charters Non-traditional voucher programs (ESAs and
that lost the most points on accountability and Tuition Tax-Credits) create even more challenges
transparency were Arizona and Georgia, which because these alternative voucher programs
each lost 11 points, followed by Arkansas, often send taxpayer dollars to private schools on
Indiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Utah. a larger scale than traditional voucher programs.
Each of these states lost ten points. ESAs allow funds to go for advantages such as
horseback riding “therapy” and even college
The maximum number of points states with tuition. And when every tax dollar you give to a
charters, but no vouchers, could lose was seven. private school scholarship fund is given back to
There are 16 states that lost full points for you, that is not charitable giving by an individual;
their charter program alone—Alaska, Arizona, but rather a gift of public funds paid for by all
Arkansas, California, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, taxpayers in the state.
Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina,
Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and In our analysis, voucher states lost points
Utah. for providing voucher dollars to all students

“
In 2020, as my first child entered kindergarten,
with Arizona already ranked near the bottom in
education, I watched the governor promoting
private schools. I saw funds going to schools that
not every student could access. I worried about
AZ education. How far could it fall? What would
happen to my kids? Would they be able to compete
with the rest of the nation? Would they be able
to stay in the public schools? Or would they be
pushed into schools that only accepted certain
demographics? What more could “school choice” do
to hurt us? It kept me awake at night.

Hayley Stenger, public education advocate

Read Hayley’s story on the Public Voices for Public

Schools website, here.

17
 PUBLIC SCHOOLING IN AMERICA
regardless of income, including students are published on a near-daily basis. In addition,
currently enrolled in private schools. With such some states have grossly mismanaged federal
a policy, the states are making a gift of taxpayer dollars received through the Federal Charter
dollars to wealthier families well able to afford Schools Program by giving large sums to schools
private school tuition costs. States also lost points that never opened or that shut down a few years
for any program that provided more than 50 after receiving the funds.20
percent of public school education costs on a
voucher. If the state’s tax credit program gave a Charter states lost points if they gave federal
100 percent tax credit, meaning that every dollar Charter School Program (CSP) grants to
donated reduced the tax bill of the individual or unauthorized schools, had a five-year charter
corporation by the same amount, points were failure rate of over 20 percent, and if there were
lost, and points were lost if there was no tax 25 or more published accounts of charter school
credit cap or if it exceeded $2,000 a year. scandals in the state between 2017 and January
2022.
Public schools are obliged by law to be
responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars. Overall, Arizona and Ohio had the worst records
State laws and regulations around transparent when it came to fiscal irresponsibility. Both
public reporting, regulations on related party states lost eleven points. Florida followed, losing
transactions, auditing requirements, bidding nine points. Missouri lost seven points, followed
requirements, budget referendums, and FOIA by Indiana, Montana, and Utah, which lost six
laws help ensure that the public can monitor points each.
how their tax dollars are spent, thus reducing
the opportunity for mismanagement, theft, and States with the worst records of scandal, charter
scandal. churn, and wasted federal Charter Schools
Program dollars include California, Florida,
News reports on the misappropriation of Minnesota, Ohio, and Texas. These states lost the
taxpayer funds by charter operators and vendors, maximum number of points.
as well as fraud, mismanagement, and theft,

18
 PUBLIC SCHOOLING IN AMERICA

OVERALL GRADES
State Grade State Grade State Grade State Grade
Alabama D- Illinois D Montana B- Rhode Island D
Alaska C- Indiana F Nebraska A+ South Carolina F
Arizona F Iowa F Nevada F South Dakota B
Arkansas F Kansas C+ New Hampshire F Tennessee F
California D- Kentucky B New Jersey C+ Texas D+
Colorado D Louisiana F New Mexico C+ Utah F
Connecticut B- Maine C- New York C- Vermont A-
Delaware C Maryland D North Carolina F Virginia C
District of Columbia F Massachusetts B- North Dakota A+ Washington B-
Florida F Michigan D- Ohio F West Virginia F
Georgia F Minnesota D+ Oklahoma F Wisconsin F
Hawaii D Mississippi F Oregon D+ Wyoming C+
Idaho D Missouri F Pennsylvania F

19
 PUBLIC SCHOOLING IN AMERICA

CHARTER GRADES
Alabama F Kentucky C- North Dakota A
Alaska F Louisiana F Ohio F
Arizona F Maine D- Oklahoma F
Arkansas F Maryland F Oregon F
California F Massachusetts D- Pennsylvania F
Colorado F Michigan F Rhode Island D
Connecticut D Minnesota F South Carolina F
Delaware F Mississippi F South Dakota A
District of Columbia F Missouri F Tennessee F
Florida F Montana A Texas F
Georgia F Nebraska A Utah F
Hawaii F Nevada F Vermont A
Idaho F New Hampshire F Virginia B
Illinois F New Jersey F Washington D
Indiana F New Mexico F West Virginia D-
Iowa F New York F Wisconsin F
Kansas B+ North Carolina F Wyoming F

VOUCHER GRADES
Alabama D Kentucky A+ North Dakota A+
Alaska A+ Louisiana F Ohio F
Arizona F Maine B Oklahoma F
Arkansas F Maryland B- Oregon A+
California A+ Massachusetts A+ Pennsylvania F
Colorado A+ Michigan A+ Rhode Island D
Connecticut A+ Minnesota A South Carolina D
Delaware A+ Mississippi F South Dakota D+
District of Columbia B- Missouri D- Tennessee D
Florida F Montana D- Texas A+
Georgia F Nebraska A+ Utah F
Hawaii A+ Nevada D- Vermont B-
Idaho A+ New Hampshire F Virginia D
Illinois C New Jersey A+ Washington A+
Indiana F New Mexico A+ West Virginia F
Iowa D+ New York A+ Wisconsin D-
Kansas C- North Carolina F Wyoming A+

20
 CONCLUSION
In 2012, the Cato Institute, a think tank that from academics and the arts to questions of morality
promotes Libertarian policies, published a Public and religion. No single school can possibly reflect
Schooling Battle Map, which logs disagreements the wide range of mutually exclusive views on these
in communities on matters such as curriculum fundamental subjects.
and book banning, as well as school policies
regarding personal identities based on race In a market-based education system, parents can
and gender. Cato, which calls public schools select the school most closely aligned with their
“government-run schools” believes they should priorities. By contrast, when these questions are
be replaced by a patchwork marketplace so that decided through a political system, such as elected
every parent can find a school whose values most school boards, parents with differing views must
align with their own. Democratically elected struggle against each other to have the school reflect
governing boards, and community debates their views. Inevitably, some parents will lose that
around local education policy seem particularly struggle. To add insult to injury, all citizens are
odious to them. What most Americans view as forced to pay for the government-run schools through
democracy in action, Cato views as cacophony their taxes, even when those schools are antagonistic
and strife—or at least that is the excuse they use toward their most deeply held values.22
to justify their disdain for public programs.
It is a dark view of humanity, one that rejects
The director of Cato’s Education Policy Center, the ability of members of a pluralistic society to
Neal McClusky, describes the debate that enter into a common enterprise. Each parent,
occurs when school boards are democratically according to Cato, should take their child to a
elected with emotionally loaded terms such as corner protected from hearing ideas with which
“pugilistic,” “combat” and “strife.”21 Community they disagree.
disagreements are not viewed as healthy
discourse during which compromises are often The claim that such a policy would bring peace
found, but rather as “political combat.” and harmony is without basis. Take a look at
today’s media wars: the education of our nation
The following statement is taken from the Cato via cable news and online services that cater to
website: audiences based on their political values has not
brought harmony. As citizens flock to the news
The prevailing narrative about government-run station that best represents their point of view,
schools is that they are the linchpin of democracy. emotions are inflamed as rhetoric has escalated.
These “common schools,” the argument goes, If value-driven education were to begin in
harmoniously bring together people from various kindergarten, tolerance would plummet, and our
racial, ethnic, and religious backgrounds and instill democracy would crumble.
in their children the civic values necessary for
a pluralist democracy.  Despite Cato’s posturing, proponents of school
choice have no interest in promoting tolerance
In reality, however, government schooling often and peace. The destruction of public education
forces citizens into political combat. Different is the end they seek. Right-wing organizations
families have different priorities on topics ranging like The Heritage Foundation have seized upon

21
 PUBLIC SCHOOLING IN AMERICA
current controversies in the public square free or reduced-price lunch or to provide
to openly push the school choice agenda. transportation to and from the school.
They do not want peace; they want anger and » Schools that have no obligation to track the
controversy to further their ends. Their recent progress of students in a standardized way
post, “Time for the School Choice Movement or to share the success (or failure) of their
to Embrace the Culture War,” openly urges the academic strategies with the public.
privatization movement to exploit conservative » Completely unregulated home-based
parents’ fears and misinformation regarding the schooling with few avenues to monitor the
teaching of history in order to push the school quality of instruction or the safety of the
choice agenda.23 As in the last century, school child.
choicers exploit racism in order to further their
cause. And as Professor Maurice Cunningham’s This is neither hyperbole nor fear-mongering.
research shows, dark money from right-wing Taxpayers are already supporting schools as
groups that want to undermine public education described above.
is funding the astro-turf groups that stir up
confusion and controversies.24 Now imagine that such schools were a
community’s only choice. Imagine each parent
What would occur if the proponents of market- got an “allowance” to shop, and as time went
based school choice achieved their goal? This on, that allowance got smaller and smaller as
report card, with its description of the laws and legislatures slashed budgets, forcing parents
practices of existing publicly-funded privatized to supplement tuition to enroll their child in a
systems gives us insight into what parents and better school. Imagine that in some places– poor,
taxpayers might expect if the pushers of so-called rural and remote– the only choices might be
school choice achieve their desired end. an online school or home school. After all, the
market goes where the customers are and where
We could expect a publicly-funded, they have the ability to pay. Imagine the quality
uncoordinated, free-for-all parading as of the schools that would take the children that
an education system with the following no other school wants.
characteristics:
Public education, with all of its flaws, like
» Schools that exclude students based on democracy itself, is the best system for securing
religion and LGBTQ status along with schools our future and the well being of our nation and
that have behavior, talent and academic its children. May this report serve as a wake-up
screens. Schools that are not obliged to give call. We truly are a nation at risk, at risk of losing
students with disabilities full rights under a precious public good, a cornerstone of our
IDEA. democracy, our public schools.
» Schools run by for-profit organizations that
minimize classroom spending to enhance
profits.
» Segregated schools via selection
requirements, behavioral requirements, and
religious and political views.
» Schools without elected boards, governed
with no community input.
» Schools where related corporations are
allowed to freely do business with the school,
without bidding or public oversight.
» Schools with uncertified teachers.
» Schools able to evade health and safety
regulations, including background checks for
employees.
» Schools allowed to discipline and expel
students without due process.
» Schools with no obligation to provide
22
 APPENDIX A
Grading Criteria and Sources loss of three points. The sources consulted were
EdChoice’s ABCs of School Choice, 2021 Edi-
What follows are our five categories with both tion and the American Federation for Children
voucher- and charter-related components under Growth Fund’s 2021 School Choice Guidebook.
each, along with an explanation of how we de-
ducted points from each state, beginning from a Points were deducted as follows:
100-point baseline.
» At least 5 sub-groups eligible for a program —
In conducting our analysis of states’ actions to 3 point deduction
protect and defend public education, we sought » 3-4 sub-groups eligible for a program — 2
the most recent information we could obtain point deduction
from reliable sources. If there was an update to » 1-2 sub-groups eligible for a program — 1
the law that was known to us, it was included. point deduction

Overall eligibility: States lost an additional point

CATEGORY #1: EXPANSION OF PRIVATIZA- for each voucher program type (traditional,
TION tax-credit or ESA) if that type had at least one
program in which the percentage of students in
Traditional and non-traditional voucher programs the state eligible for a given program is 10 per-
cent or more. The source consulted was Ed-
Total number of programs: States lost 1 point Choice’s ABCs of School Choice, 2021 Edition and
for each active voucher program operating in the state databases.
state.
Personal tax credits to families for private and
Participation rate: Two points were deducted home schools: States lost one point if it had a
if the student participation rate in all voucher tax-credit program that gives funds directly to
programs exceeds 5 percent as a proportion of families for private schools and home schools.
the number of students in the state’s public and The source consulted was EdChoice’s ABCs of
charter schools. One point was deducted if that School Choice, 2021 Edition.
proportion is between 1-4 percent. Source doc-
uments were EdChoice’s ABCs of School Choice, Allows funding for religious schools: States lost
2021 Edition and their August, 2021 roundup of 1 point for each voucher program type (tradition-
new and expanded school choice programs. al, tax-credit or ESA) if that type had at least one
program that allowed public funds to be spent on
Eligible students: Additional points were deduct- education in a religious school. The source con-
ed, as explained below, based on the number of sulted was state law.
subgroups eligible to participate in each voucher
program--Vouchers, Tax Credit Scholarships and Charter Schools
Education Savings Accounts. States lost points for
each voucher program type (traditional, tax-cred- Participation rate: States lost 1-8 points based
it or ESA) based on the number of sub-groups on the percentage of students enrolled in char-
allowed to participate. For example, if a state has ter schools as a proportion of students enrolled
three ESA programs, which cumulatively allowed in both public and charter schools. Points were
five sub-groups to participate, that resulted in a deducted as follows:
23
 PUBLIC SCHOOLING IN AMERICA
CATEGORY #2: EDUCATIONAL QUALITY
» Less than 1 percent of all students - 1 point
deduction Traditional and non-traditional voucher programs
» 1 percent-4 percent of all students - 2 point
deduction State accreditation required of private school
» 5 percent-9 percent of all students - 5 point directly or indirectly accepting voucher funds:
deduction States lost 1 point for each voucher program
» 10 percent or more of all students - 8 point type (traditional, tax-credit or ESA) if that type
deduction had at least one program that doesn’t require
state accreditation. State accreditation informa-
The percentage of students enrolled in charter tion was derived from the American Federation
schools was derived from the National Alliance for Children Growth Fund’s 2021 School Choice
for Public Charters School’s Measuring Up To The Guidebook and the U.S. Department of Education
Model: A Ranking Of State Public Charter School Office of Innovation and Improvement Office of
Laws, Twelfth Annual Edition, February 2021 and Non-Public Education’s State Regulation of Pri-
their report, Voting With Their Feet, Table 1. En- vate Schools database.
rollment data was for the 2020-2021 school year.
Requirements for teacher certification: States
Controls on charter school growth: States lost 3 lost 1 point for each voucher type (traditional,
points if there is no cap on the number of char- tax-credit or ESA) if that type had at least one
ters allowed, and 2 points if there is a cap but program that allows students to be taught by
the cap is inconsequential because it allows for uncertified teachers. Teacher certification re-
expansive growth. Growth cap information was quirement information for voucher programs
derived from the National Alliance for Public was derived from EdChoice’s ABCs of School
Charter Schools’ Charter Law Database. Choice, 2021 Edition and the U.S. Department of
Education Office of Innovation and Improvement
Number of charter school authorizers: States Office of Non-Public Education’s State Regulation
lost 1 point if multiple authorizers can approve of Private Schools database.
charter schools, and 4 points if there are 3 or
more authorizers. Multiple authorizer informa- Funding for home schooling: States lost 1 point
tion was derived from the National Alliance for for each voucher type (traditional, tax-credit or
Public Charter Schools’ Charter Law Database. ESA) if that type had at least one program that
States lost an additional 2 points if the school funds loosely regulated home schools. Home
district is not an authorizer, or district authoriza- school funding information was derived from the
tion can be overturned on appeal. District autho- American Federation for Children Growth Fund’s
rizer information was derived from the National 2021 School Choice Guidebook and review of
Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ Charter Law state laws.
Database.
State testing requirements: States lost 1 point
Obligation to give public school space: States for each voucher type (traditional, tax-credit
lost 2 points if districts must provide physical or ESA) if that type had at least one program in
space for charter schools either rent free or via which students are not required to take the same
co-location. We conducted a review of charter tests as their counterparts in public and char-
school laws to determine if districts must provide ter schools. Testing requirement information
space. was derived from the EdChoice ABCs of School
Choice, 2021 Edition Tax-Credit Scholarships
Rules & Regulations table on pgs. 143-144.

24
 PUBLIC SCHOOLING IN AMERICA
Charter Schools States lost 1 point for each voucher type (tradi-
tional, tax-credit or ESA) if that type had at least
Use of uncertified teachers: States lost 3 points one program that does not prohibit discrimina-
if their charter program fails to require teachers tion based on the LGBTQ status of students and/
to be certified. If a state’s charter program allows or parents. Information was obtained from our
exceptions to the certification requirements of prior report, Grading the States, A Report Card
public school teachers to the extent that it makes on our Nation’s Commitment to Public Schools as
the requirement nearly meaningless, the state well as a review of state laws for recently added
lost 2 points. Teacher certification requirements programs.
were derived from the National Alliance for Pub-
lic Charter Schools’ Charter Law Database. Random selection requirement: States lost 1
point for each traditional or tax-credit type that
Allows virtual charters: States lost 2 points if had at least one program that does not have a
they allow full-time virtual charter schools. Vir- random selection requirement. Random selec-
tual charter school information was derived from tion requirement information was derived from
the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ a careful reading of EdChoice’s ABCs of School
Charter Law Database. Choice, 2021 Edition and from the American
Federation for Children Growth Fund’s 2021
CATEGORY #3: STUDENT RIGHTS AND PRO- School Choice Guidebook.

TECTIONS Required background checks for teachers and

employees: States lost 1 point for each voucher
Traditional and non-traditional voucher programs type (traditional, tax-credit or ESA) if that type
had at least one program that fails to require
In one or more programs, parent waives their background checks for teachers and employees.
child’s rights under IDEA, or the law is silent on Background check requirement information was
IDEA protections: States lost 2 points if they have derived from the American Federation for Chil-
a voucher program of any kind that fails to en- dren Growth Fund’s 2021 School Choice Guide-
sure that all students with disabilities retain their book.
rights under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA). States lost 1 point if their Mandate to meet state and/or local health and
program deliberately provides most IDEA rights. safety requirements: States lost 1 point for each
Information was obtained from The National voucher type (traditional, tax-credit or ESA) if
Council on Disability 2018 report as well as a re- that type had at least one program that fails to
view of state laws for recently added programs. meet state and/or local health and safety re-
quirements. Deductions were made based on
In one or more programs, schools may discrim- the American Federation for Children Growth
inate based on religion: States lost 1 point for Fund’s 2021 School Choice Guidebook’s Account-
each voucher program type (traditional, tax-cred- ability Check tables which reported whether
it or ESA) if that type had at least one program programs were required to meet health and safe-
that allows schools to discriminate in enrollment ty requirements.
based on religion. Information was obtained
from our prior report, Grading the States, A Report Charter Schools
Card on our Nation’s Commitment to Public Schools
as well as a review of state laws for recently add- Adherence to state regulations on discipline,
ed programs. which may include refusal of admission: States
lost 1 point if their charter program fails to
In one of more programs, school may discrim- follow state disciplinary regulations. Sources
inate based on LGBTQ student or family status:
25
 PUBLIC SCHOOLING IN AMERICA
consulted were Grading the States, A Report Card each voucher type (traditional, tax-credit or ESA)
on Our Nation’s Commitment to Public Schools; if that type had at least one program that fails
the Education Commission of the States 50-State to provide basic financial reporting. Financial
Comparison, Charter Schools: What rules are transparency information was derived from the
waived for charter schools? as well as the West American Federation for Children Growth Fund’s
Virginia charter school law. 2021 School Choice Guidebook’s Accountability
Check tables. For voucher programs we looked
Enrollment preferences: States lost 1 point if at the Annual Financial Reporting and Proof of
their charter program permits a sibling enroll- Financial Viability columns. If programs require
ment preference, and 2 points if they permit both transparency measures, they did not lose
additional preferences such as preferences for the point. For tax credit programs we looked at
board members’ children. States lost 3 points if the Annual Financial Reporting, Donations and
their charter program allows academic or talent Scholarships Details Reporting and Proof of Fi-
screening. No points were deducted for enroll- nancial Viability columns. If programs require all
ment preference for disadvantaged students. The three measures, they did not lose the point.
source consulted was the Education Commission
of the States 50-State Comparison, Does the state Charter Schools
specify the students who may be given enroll-
ment preference? Renewal period greater than 5 years: States
with charter programs that allow for renewal
Provision of transportation: States lost 1 point periods greater than 5 years lost one point. Re-
if their charter program does not mandate that newal information was derived from the National
charter schools provide transportation for stu- Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ Charter Law
dents. They lost .5 points if transportation is Database.
mandated, but the district must bear the cost.
The source consulted was the Education Com- Transparency on spending and funding by ed-
mission of the States 50-State Comparison, Does ucational service providers (ESP) and charter
the state specify who must provide transporta- boards: States lost 2 points if their charter law
tion to charter school students? fails to require educational service providers to
be fully transparent to the charter school’s board.
CATEGORY #4: ACCOUNTABILITY AND ESP transparency information was derived from
the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’
TRANSPARENCY Charter Law Database.

Traditional and non-traditional voucher programs Transparency on EMO/CMO contracts: States

lost 2 points if their charter school program does
Public transparency on student performance: not require EMO/CMO contracts to be made
States lost 1 point for each voucher type (tra- available to the public. EMO/CMO contract trans-
ditional, tax-credit or ESA) if that type had at parency was derived from our review of state
least one program that had limited to no public education department websites.
transparency on student performance. Mandates
for transparency on student performance were Access to educational service providers (ESP)
derived from the American Federation for Chil- records: States lost 1 point if their charter school
dren Growth Fund’s 2021 School Choice Guide- program does not require ESPs to give charter
book’s Accountability Check tables which report- schools access to their records. ESP record infor-
ed whether programs were required to publicly mation was derived from the National Alliance
report results. for Public Charter Schools’ Charter Law Data-
base.
Financial transparency: States lost 1 point for
26
 PUBLIC SCHOOLING IN AMERICA
CATEGORY #5: SAFEGUARDS FOR TAXPAYER the Network for Public Education report Asleep at
the Wheel; How the Federal Charter Schools Program
DOLLARS Recklessly Takes Taxpayers and Students for a Ride.

Traditional and non-traditional voucher programs Five or fewer year closure rate: States lost 2
points if 20 percent or more of that states’ char-
Family income limits: States lost 1 point for each ter schools have closed within five years or less.
voucher type (traditional, tax-credit or ESA) if Charter closure rates were derived from the Net-
that type had at least one program for which the work for Public Education report Broken Promises:
family income limit for participation exceeds An Analysis of Charter School Closures From 1999
150 percent of the federal poverty level. Family – 2017.
income limits were derived from the American
Federation for Children Growth Fund’s 2021 Charter school scandals during the last five
School Choice Guidebook. years: States lost 1 point if 25 or more charter
school scandals have been published since 2017.
Receives over 50 percent of per pupil fund- The Network for Public Education interactive
ing spent on public school students: States database, Another Day Another Charter Scandal
lost 1 point for each voucher type (traditional, was consulted.
tax-credit or ESA) if that type had at least one
program that receives over 50 percent of pub- Point allowance: The two states that only allow
lic school student per pupil funding. Per pupil districts to authorize charter schools (Kansas
spending amount information was derived from and Virginia) received a 10-point bonus for their
EdChoice’s ABCs of School Choice, 2021 Edition. charter laws. The flaws that exist in their laws are
The “Value as a Percentage of Public School mitigated by the good judgment of the district.
Per-student Spending” amounts were used. For example, no district will allow a for-profit to
run a school, despite no provision in the law to
Tax credit of 100 percent: States lost 1 point if prohibit it.
their tax credit program gives a 100 percent tax
credit, meaning that every dollar donated re-
duced the tax bill of the individual or corporation
by the same amount, because that means that all
state taxpayers, in fact, bear the cost of reduced
state revenue. The amount of tax-credit given was
derived from EdChoice’s ABCs of School Choice,
2021 Edition’s description of each state’s tax cred-
it law.

Tax credit cap exceeds $2,000 per family and/or

corporation: States lost 1 point if their tax credit
program cap exceeds $2,000 a year and 2 points if
there is no cap at all.

Charter Schools
Availability of Federal Charter Schools Program
(CSP) grants to unauthorized schools: States lost
1 point if they give CSP grants to unauthorized
schools. CSP grant information was derived from

27
 PUBLIC SCHOOLING IN AMERICA
SOURCES
American Federation of Children Growth Fund https://afcgrowthfund.org/

» 2021 School Choice Guidebook https://www.federationforchildren.org/wp-content/up-

loads/2021/10/Guidebook-2021-for-Download.pdf

EdChoice https://www.edchoice.org/

» ABC’s of School Choice, 2021 Edition https://www.edchoice.org/wp-content/up-

loads/2021/03/2021-ABCs-of-School-Choice-WEB-2-24.pdf
» BRIEF: School Choice in the States, August 2021 https://www.edchoice.org/engage/
brief-school-choice-in-the-states-august-2021/

Education Commission of the States https://www.ecs.org/

» 50-State Comparison: Charter School Policies https://ww w.ecs.org/char-

ter-school-policies/
(January 2020)
• what rules are waived for charter schools? https://reports.ecs.org/comparisons/
charter-school-policies-14
• does the state specify the students who may be given enrollment preference?
https://reports.ecs.org/comparisons/charter-school-policies-04
• does the state specify who must provide transportation to charter school stu-
dents? https://reports.ecs.org/comparisons/charter-school-policies-05

National Alliance for Public Charter Schools https://www.publiccharters.org/

» Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Public Charter School Laws, 2022.
https://www.publiccharters.org/sites/default/files/documents/2022-01/2022-mod-
el-law_rd3.pdf
» Voting With their Feet: A State-Level Analysis of Public Charter School and District
Public School Trends, September 2021 https://www.publiccharters.org/sites/default/
files/documents/2021-09/napcs_voting_feet_rd6.pdf
» Charter School Law Database https://www.publiccharters.org/our-work/char-
ter-law-database

National Council on Disability https://www.ncd.gov/

School Choice Series: Choice & Vouchers—Implications for Students with Disabilities,
November 15, 2018. https://ncd.gov/sites/default/files/NCD_Choice-Vouchers_508_0.pdf

Network for Public Education https://networkforpubliceducation.org/

» Grading the States, A Report Card on our Nation’s Commitment to Public Schools https://
network
forpubliceducation.org/grading-the-states/
» Asleep at the Wheel: How the Federal Charter Schools Program Recklessly Takes Taxpayers
and Students for a Ride https://networkforpubliceducation.org/asleepatthewheel-2/
28
 PUBLIC SCHOOLING IN AMERICA
» Broken Promises: An Analysis of Charter School closures from 1999-2017 https://network-
forpubliceducation.org/brokenpromises/
» Another Day, Another Charter School Scandal https://networkforpubliceducation.
org/charter-scandals/

U.S. Department of Education Office of Innovation and Improvement https://oese.

ed.gov/archived/oii/

State Regulation of Private Schools, Office of Non-Public Education, 2009. https://www2.

ed.gov/admins/comm/choice/regprivschl/regprivschl.pdf

West Virginia Legislature https://www.wvlegislature.gov/

West Virginia Code. Chapter 18: Article 5G—Public Charter Schools http://www.wvlegis-
lature.gov/wvcode/code.cfm?chap=18&art=5G

29
APPENDIX B

30
ENDNOTES
1. House, Tanya Clay. (2018, June). Grading the States: A Report Card on Our Nation’s
Commitment to Public Schools. Network for Public Education, and Schott Foundation
for Public Education. Retrieved on March 8, 2022 from http://schottfoundation.org/
sites/default/files/grading-the-states.pdf
2. Brouillette, Matthew, J. (1999, July 16). “The Origins of Government Education in
the United States.” Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Retrieved on March 9, 2022 from
https://www.mackinac.org/2031
3. These introductory remarks can be found in expanded and referenced form in
the chapter, Public Education at a Crossroads: “Will Horace Mann’s Common School
Survive the Era of Choice?” authored by Carol Corbett Burris in Berliner, David and
Hermanns, Carl (eds), (2021) Public Education: A Cornerstone of Democracy. Teachers
College Press: New York, New York.
4. Jesse, David (2019, May 6). “Betsy DeVos: It’s not about me, it’s about students.” De-
troit Free Press. Retrieved on March 9, 2022 from https://www.freep.com/story/news/
education/2019/05/06/betsy-devos-education-secretary-schools/1118730001/
5. Russell, Nathan J. (2006, January 4). “An Introduction to the Overton Window of
Political Possibilities.” Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Retrieved on March 9, 2022
from https://www.mackinac.org/7504
6. Gross, Allie. (2016, June 8). Embedded in “Detroit school legislation backed by char-
ter advocates was years in the making.” Retrieved on March 9, 2022 from https://www.
metrotimes.com/detroit/detroit-school-legislation-backed-by-charter-advocates-was-
years-in-the-making/Content?oid=2448494
7. “Charter School Data Dashboard.” (n.d.) National Alliance for Public Charter
Schools. Retrieved on March 9, 2022 from https://data.publiccharters.org/
8. Web Staff. (2021, October 8). “New school choice program in Kentucky is unconsti-
tutional, judge rules.” Lex18. Retrieved on March 9, 2022 from https://www.lex18.com/
news/new-school-choice-program-in-kentucky-is-unconstitutional-judge-rules
9. Ford, Chris, Partelow, Lisette, Johnson, Stephenie. (2017, July 12). “The Racist Ori-
gins of Private School Vouchers.” Center for American Progress. https://www.american-
progress.org/article/racist-origins-private-school-vouchers/
10. Bendix, Aria. (2017, March 22). “Do Private School Vouchers Promote Segrega-
tion?” The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/03/do-pri-
vate-school-vouchers-promote-segregation/520392/
11. Walsh, Mark. (2021, December 2). “SCOTUS considers whether public tuition pro-
gram for private schools can exclude religious ones.” ABA Journal. https://www.abajour-
nal.com/web/article/supreme-court-considers-whether-public-tuition-program-for-pri-
vate-schools-can-exclude-religious-ones
12. Burris, Carol and Cimarusti, Darcie. (n.d.) Chartered for Profit: The Hidden World of
Charter Schools Operated for Financial Gain. Network for Public Education. Retrieved on
March 9, 2022 from https://networkforpubliceducation.org/chartered-for-profit/
13. “California Homeschool Charter Schools.” (n.d.) Time 4 Learning. Retrieved on
March 9, 2022 from https://www.time4learning.com/homeschooling/california/char-
ter-schools.html
14. Albertson-Grove, Josie. (2021, November 11). “First report on school choice ac-

31
counts finds program had over 1,600 takers, $8M price-tag.” Union-Leader. Retrieved
on March 9, 2022 from https://www.unionleader.com/news/education/first-report-on-
school-choice-accounts-finds-program-had-over-1-600-takers-8m-price/article_489dc-
5be-e3ee-58a2-98e6-f775dfefae0e.html
15. Sanchez, Yvonne Wingett and Rob O’Dell. (2018, October 30). “Parents spend $700k
in school voucher money on beauty supplies, apparel; attempted cash withdrawals.”
The Republic | azcentral.com. Retrieved on March 9 from https://www.azcentral.com/
story/news/politics/arizona/2018/10/29/misspent-school-voucher-funds-exceed-700-k-lit-
tle-recovered/1780495002/
16. Woodworth, James L. et al. (2015) Online Charter School Study. Center for Research
on Education Outcomes. Retrieved on March 9, 2022 from https://credo.stanford.edu/
wp-content/uploads/2021/08/online_charter_study_final.pdf
17. Nowicki, Jacqueline M., et. al. (2022, January). “Department of Education Should
Help Address Student Testing Issues and Financial Risks Associated with Virtual
Schools, Particularly Virtual Charter Schools.” U.S. Government Accountability Office.
Retrieved on March 10, 2022 from https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-104444.pdf
18. Burris, Carol and Pfleger, Ryan. (n.d.) Broken Promises: An Analysis of Charter School
Closures from 1999-2017. Network for Public Education. Retrieved on March 9, 2022 from
https://networkforpubliceducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Broken-Promis-
es-PDF.pdf
19. Molnar, Alex. (2021, May). “Virtual Schools in the U.S., 2021.” National Education
Policy Center. https://nepc.colorado.edu/sites/default/files/publications/RB%20Virtu-
al%20Schools%202021.pdf
20. Burris, Carol, and Bryant, Jeff. (2019) “Asleep at the Wheel: How the Federal Char-
ter Schools Program Recklessly Takes Taxpayers and Students for a Ride.” Network for
Public Education. https://networkforpubliceducation.org/asleepatthewheel-2/
21. McCluskey, Neal. (2021, December 28). “Our Pugilistic Public School Year.” Cato
Institute. Retrieved on March 9, 2022 from https://www.cato.org/commentary/our-pugi-
listic-public-school-year
22. Cato Institute. (n.d.) Retrieved on March 9, 2022 from https://www.cato.org/educa-
tion-wiki/social-conflict
23. Greene, Jay and Paul, James. (2022, February 9). “Time for the School Choice Move-
ment to Embrace the Culture War.” The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved on March 9,
2022 from https://www.heritage.org/education/report/time-the-school-choice-move-
ment-embrace-the-culture-war
24. Cunningham, Maurice. (2021, April 13). “Koch Connections and Sham Grassroots
of Parents Defending Education.” Network for Public Education. https://networkfor-
publiceducation.org/blog-content/maurice-cunningham-koch-connections-and-sh-
am-grassroots-of-parents-defending-education/

32