Alternet cites a policy brief on this topic recently written by UW–Madison’s Julie Mead and Indiana University’s Susan Eckes. Mead is the School of Education’s associate dean for education and a professor with the Department of Educational Policy and Leadership Analysis.

The Alternet article describes the case of Krystl Newton, who enrolled her daughter in a charter school in her community and expected the same for her younger son. Newton’s daughter had a mild form of disability when she enrolled, leading Newton to believe her son, who had a more severe developmental disability, would be enrolled and accommodated as well. However, when she communicated her concerns and even developed an Individualized Education Program (IEP), the charter administrators would not provide the necessary accommodations and resources. Newton found a public school in her community that did offer these, and enrolled her son there instead.

Mead argues that “when public funds are tied to programs, there’s and expectation that the programs are then accessible to the entire community.” Voucher and charter schools, although not technically a part of the public school system, receive public funds and are subject to federal laws, which ensure appropriate education to students with disabilities.

Mead and Eckes wrote a policy brief in attempt to help resolve this issue, in which they warn against “redirecting public funds to charter schools and voucher programs to pay for private school tuition” in a way that allows for discrimination. The brief cites multiple reports that find private schools participating in voucher programs discriminate against students and families due to things like race, sexual identity, religious identity, learning ability, or fluency in English.

Their report concludes that discrimination is more common in voucher programs than in charter schools, because private school are not subject to the same laws as public schools. Charter schools, however, are not clearly defined as public or private, and therefore “inhabit a murky legal ground.” Charter schools do have freedom to design their instruction services to certain populations, which can mean the exclusion of certain populations, although it might not necessarily be a discriminatory action. Still, Mead argues, the result is all the same, and there are significant trade-offs between choice options and parent and student rights.

Mead recalls that the argument of parent choice was once used before, when, after the ruling of Brown v. Board, schools in the southern U.S. created segregated academies for white students and justified the action with arguments for parent choice. The arguments today, however, are much more complex. Mead recognizes this, saying “It’s certainly difficult to create systems that are non-discriminatory.”

But, she adds, “if you get a system that departs from those guarantees of access and excludes large parts of the public, it’s no longer politically defensible.”

Read Mead and Eckes’ policy brief here.