Background States operate and administer several types of private school choice  programs. This report focuses exclusively on vouchers and ESAs. Vouchers: These programs generally provide interested parents with  funds for tuition at a participating private school. The first voucher  program began in 1990. ESAs: These programs are typically designed to fund a broader set of  educational expenses, such as online learning programs, private  tutoring, or education therapies. The first ESA program began in  2011. The size of voucher and ESA programs varies widely (see fig. 1 and  appendix II for more details). In school year 2016-17, student participation  in individual programs ranged from fewer than 10 to more than 34,000, for  a total of 181,624 students across all programs. Design of Private School  Choice Programs States establish the eligibility criteria for students to participate in choice  programs as well as any accountability requirements for participating  private schools. As noted in our prior work, these requirements can vary  considerably across states. Eligibility criteria: Almost all private school choice programs use a  student’s disability status or family income as eligibility criteria (see  table 1). Accountability mechanisms: For purposes of this report, we define  accountability mechanisms as requirements that private school choice  programs place on private schools as a condition for participation.  These mechanisms act as minimum participation requirements for  private schools (see fig. 2). See appendix II for more details on  accountability mechanisms by program. Individuals with Disabilities  Education Act IDEA Part B requires each state to ensure that a free appropriate public  education (FAPE) is made available to all eligible children with  disabilities. An eligible child with a disability in a public school setting, or  placed in a private school by a public agency as a means of providing  special education and related services, is entitled to FAPE. FAPE  means special education and related services that (1) have been  provided at public expense, under public supervision, and without charge;  (2) meet the standards of the state educational agency, including the  requirements of IDEA; (3) include an appropriate preschool, elementary  school, or secondary school education in the state involved; and (4) are  provided in conformity with an individualized education program (IEP). When a parent of a child with a disability chooses to enroll their child in a  private elementary or secondary school, whether or not through a private  school choice program, that child is considered a “parentally placed”  private school child under IDEA. A school district’s obligations to  parentally placed private school children with disabilities are not as  extensive as those for children enrolled in public schools or for children  with disabilities placed in a private school by a public agency, according  to Education documents. Under IDEA, a child with a disability who is  parentally placed in a private school does not have a right to FAPE, or an  individual right to receive some or all of the special education and related  services that the child would be entitled to receive if enrolled in a public  school. However, parentally placed children must be included in the  population whose needs are considered for services under IDEA’s  “equitable services” provisions. See table 2 for a summary of key  differences in rights under IDEA for children with disabilities in public  school and private school. The Role of the U.S.  Department of Education Education has two offices that can address questions and provide  information related to parentally placed private school children with  disabilities, including those in private school choice programs. Education’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services  (OSERS) administers IDEA in all of its aspects. It also supports  programs that help educate children and youth with disabilities,  including developing and distributing evidence-based products,  publications, and resources to help states, local school district  personnel, and families improve results for children with disabilities. Education’s Office of Non-Public Education (ONPE) fosters maximum  participation of nonpublic school students and teachers in federal  education programs and initiatives. ONPE’s activities include  providing parents with information regarding education options for  their children, and providing technical assistance, workshops, and  publications to states, school districts, private schools, and other  education stakeholders. State Private School  Choice Programs  Emphasize Different  Accountability  Mechanisms and  Approaches to  Monitoring Most Programs Have  Academic and  Administrative  Accountability  Mechanisms; Fewer Have  Financial Accountability  Mechanisms Academic Accountability  Mechanisms Most private school choice programs have academic accountability  mechanisms, which can include requirements for participating private  schools to administer tests, report testing results, obtain accreditation,  and teach core subjects, according to our analysis of information from  program documents and officials. (See fig. 3.) We found that testing is the most common academic accountability  mechanism in private choice programs, and that programs design this  requirement in different ways. Academic testing and reporting  requirements can help the public compare the academic achievement of  private school choice students with students in public schools. Two-thirds  of private choice programs (18 of 27)—which represented 78 percent of  all students participating in voucher and ESA programs in school year  2016-17—require private schools to test voucher or ESA students. Of  the 18 programs that require testing, nine programs require participating  schools to administer their state’s standardized test and six require  schools to administer some type of norm-referenced test. See appendix  II for more information on testing requirements by program. Private schools appeared to have mixed experiences implementing the  testing requirements in private school choice programs. For example,  officials from four of the six programs we examined in depth noted that  most private schools in their programs did not experience challenges  administering the testing requirements, and said that many private  schools had testing practices in place before joining the programs.  However, officials in two programs also said that some private schools  were unfamiliar with or unequipped to administer standardized tests.  Officials from several state and national private school choice  organizations also told us that smaller private schools sometimes lack the  staff and budgets to administer standardized tests. One-third (9 of 27) of programs require that schools publicly report test  results, including three of the four largest voucher programs—Wisconsin’s  Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, Indiana’s Choice Scholarship  Program, and Ohio’s EdChoice Scholarship Program—which publicly  report test results via online systems. However, in our interviews,  officials from two voucher programs noted some private schools  experienced challenges administering standardized tests or providing the  program offices with data. For example, according to officials in one  program, most private schools did not have systems for administering the  state’s standardized tests electronically. Officials in another program also  noted that protecting student privacy in small private schools can be  challenging. Few of the 15 choice programs that are designed specifically for students  with disabilities have accountability mechanisms related to special  education and related services. For example, Arkansas’s Succeed  Scholarship Program requires schools to meet accreditation requirements  for providing services to severely disabled individuals. Mississippi’s  Dyslexia Therapy Scholarship for Students with Dyslexia Program  requires schools to provide a specific learning environment for dyslexia  therapy; and Louisiana’s School Choice Program for Certain Students  with Exceptionalities requires schools to provide special education  services for at least 2 years prior to joining the program. Administrative Accountability  Mechanisms Most private school choice programs have some administrative  accountability mechanisms, and these varied across programs, according  to our analysis of information from program documents and officials.  Administrative accountability mechanisms include requirements that  participating private schools employ teachers, paraprofessionals, and/or  specialists who have minimum qualifications, conduct background checks  on employees, comply with state and local health and safety standards,  and comply with site visits by program officials. (See fig. 4.) Most programs (25 of 27) require participating private schools to comply  with state and local health and safety standards. Eight of the 25 programs  rely on other state agencies to oversee the safety of school facilities  rather than impose separate health and safety requirements on  participating schools. In addition, about half of all voucher and ESA  programs (17 of 27)—including three of the largest programs, which  represented 73 percent of all students participating in voucher and ESA  programs in school year 2016-17—require participating private schools to  conduct background checks on all employees, or all employees with  direct and unsupervised contact with children. About two-thirds (19 of 27) of programs require participating private  schools to employ teachers and other staff with specific qualifications or  credentials. For example, 13 programs require teachers to have a degree  and/or state teaching license. Other programs, such as Florida’s John M.  McKay Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Program, require  private schools to employ teachers with either a bachelor’s degree, three  years of experience, or specific credentials or special skills, knowledge, or  expertise to provide instruction in certain subjects. Similarly, about half  (14 of 27) of programs require schools to hire paraprofessionals and/or  specialists with specific qualifications or credentials. More than half (15 of 27) of programs require site visits to participating  private schools, and program officials we interviewed described various  ways of implementing this requirement. For example, officials in three  programs told us they conduct site visits to verify information submitted by  participating private schools. Officials in one program noted that site visits  are routine for entities that receive state funds; officials coordinate with  the school beforehand, meet with the principal and staff, and perform spot  checks on student files. Some program officials told us they also monitor  participating schools using risk-based school reviews, requesting  graduation rates, or by requiring schools to meet an attendance rate  benchmark. Financial Accountability  Mechanisms Although financial accountability mechanisms are the least common  mechanisms used by private choice programs, more than half of  programs had at least one such requirement. (See fig. 5.) Just over half (15 of 27) of programs require private schools to provide  proof of fiscal soundness in order to participate. Most of these programs  give private schools two options: schools must either submit proof they  have been in operation for a specified length of time (ranging from 1 to 5  years) or provide a surety bond to the state to insure against any losses.  For example, in Florida’s John M. McKay Scholarships for Students with  Disabilities Program, schools must have been operating for at least 3  years or provide the Florida Department of Education with a surety bond  or letter of credit equal to the amount of voucher funds the private school  receives quarterly. Less than a third (8 of 27) of programs—which represented fewer than a  quarter of all students participating in voucher and ESA programs in  school year 2016-17—require participating schools to provide annual  audits. Officials in two programs we examined in depth described  concerns about the limited financial accountability provisions in their  programs’ statutes. In one program with no financial accountability  mechanisms, program officials said they would prefer to have the  authority to remove private schools with financial issues from the  program. Similarly, officials in the other program stated that they had  some concerns about the financial stability of some of their participating  schools but do not have authority to deny participation in the program  based on financial criteria. In addition, all ESA programs, which generally provide funds directly to  eligible individuals, have financial accountability mechanisms for parents.  For example, Florida’s Gardiner Scholarship Program is administered by  two organizations that review parents’ expenditures for compliance with  program requirements and reimburse parents accordingly. Certain  categories of purchases are pre-approved, but generally approvals are  made on a case-by-case basis. In contrast, Arizona’s ESA program  provides parents with a debit card for educational purchases. Parents are  expected to use the debit card appropriately and retroactively submit  itemized expense reports to the program each quarter. If program staff  reviewing expenditures find any that do not meet statutory requirements,  families are directed to reimburse the program. Private Choice Programs  Described Various  Approaches to Monitoring  Participating Schools The six private choice programs we examined in depth took various  approaches to monitoring participating schools’ compliance with their  programs’ academic, administrative, and financial accountability  requirements. Officials from several of these programs also described  coordinating with accrediting agencies, other state departments, and  independent auditors to help monitor private schools and ensure quality  and safety. For example, officials in one program told us they received a  number of complaints about a lack of adult supervision at a participating  private school and asked local Child Protective Services to intervene.  Program officials in two states said they use their state’s private school  accreditation process to help enforce program accountability  requirements because private schools must be accredited to participate. Programs often require participating schools to attest to meeting  accountability requirements, although some program officials said they  have limited resources to independently verify this information. For  example, program officials in one state said they have limited resources  to independently verify the information submitted by schools in their  annual applications because processing voucher payments takes priority. Program officials in another state said financial constraints prevented  them from visiting all of the schools that were flagged for not complying  with program requirements last year. Finally, some program officials we spoke to told us that their states  provide programs with limited authority to intervene with participating  private schools when there are concerns. For example, officials in one  program described being concerned that a particular school’s buildings  were unsafe. However, they said that the choice program’s statute does  not contain requirements related to the safety of participating schools,  and the city must issue a safety notice before program staff could remove  the school from the program. Private School  Choice Programs and  Participating Schools  Provide a Range of  Information to the  Public and  Prospective Families Most Private School  Choice Programs Provide  Directories of Participating  Schools, Which Include  Varying Information Almost all private school choice programs provide a directory of  participating private schools for the public and prospective families,  although the information included—and the way it is provided—varies.  For example, 21 of 27 programs provide contact information, and 20  programs provide information on grades served. Far fewer programs  provide information on school accreditation status (6 programs), student  race and ethnicity data (5 programs), and graduation rates (4 programs).  (See fig. 6.) Parents we interviewed had mixed responses about the information  provided by private school choice programs and reported using other  sources of information as well. Some parents mentioned using private  choice program websites as key sources of information to identify and  narrow their school choice options, while other parents said they wished  that the programs would provide more information to help them consider  potential schools. Parents also reported consulting family, friends, and  other trusted community members or advisers and conducting internet  searches when making school decisions. Along with directories, some private school choice programs provide  additional guidance for parents on their websites. Just over one-third (10  of 27) of private school choice programs—serving 65 percent of students  in choice programs—provide guidance to parents on how to choose a  school. For example, the Ohio Department of Education Scholarship  program office and Indiana Department of Education provide a checklist  of questions parents might ask potential schools. These suggested  questions include admission requirements, tuition and other costs, and  discipline policies. We also found that one state—Florida—provides a link on its website to a  federally-created decision tool on choosing schools. This tool,  developed by Education, is designed to help families navigate the  process of choosing a school, and includes questions that parents may  want to ask as well as a discussion of school choice options. However,  the document was last updated in 2007 and does not reference the  Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the  Every Student Succeeds Act. It also has few questions tailored to  parents of students with disabilities or about special education/disability  services and accommodations in educational settings. During the course  of our review, Education officials said they were in the process of  reviewing and determining whether to update existing guidance, including  this document. As part of this review, Education officials said they plan to  issue an updated version of the document in 2018 and may consider  including additional questions for parents of students with disabilities. We found that only 3 of the 15 programs designed for students with  disabilities provide guidance on their websites on making informed school  choice decisions that is specifically tailored to these families. For  example, Georgia’s guidance recommends families ask how a school will  accommodate their child’s needs and Tennessee’s guidance advises  parents to consider whether the school provides inclusive educational  settings. Private Schools  Participating in Voucher  Programs Provide Varying  Information on Their  Websites; Most Websites  Do Not Have Information  Related to Special  Education Services Much like the private school choice programs in which they participate,  private schools vary in the information they provide to the public and  prospective families on their websites. In our review of a nationally  representative sample of 344 websites of private schools participating in  the 23 voucher programs operating as of January 2017, we found notable  differences in the type and amount of information on the sites (see fig.  7). For example, we estimate that 85 percent of participating private  schools describe their curriculum or teaching philosophy on their  websites; 68 percent indicate how long the school has been in operation;  27 percent provide information on the number of students attending the  school; and 13 percent provide information on student performance on  standardized tests. (See fig. 7.) schools in voucher programs for students with disabilities mention  students with disabilities or special education services anywhere on their  websites. In addition, we estimate that no more than 21 percent of  private schools participating in a voucher program specifically designed  for students with disabilities provide certain types of special  education/disability-related information on their websites that might be of  interest to prospective families choosing a school for their student with a  disability. (See fig. 8.) of disabilities schools served as well as the disability-related services  schools offer. Parents described attempts to enroll their student with  disabilities in multiple schools before finding one that would admit their  child or that was the right fit for their child’s needs. Several parents  described the process of finding the right school for their children as trial  and error. Lack of information can result in parents discovering key information  about a school only after enrolling their child. For example, a family who  has a student currently enrolled in a private school choice program told us  they wished they had known that they would be charged for some of the  special education services the private school was providing to their child.  One family told us they were surprised to learn that teachers providing  special education services to their child were not trained to provide those  services, and another parent described changing schools because they  learned aspects of their child’s disability could not be accommodated only  after enrolling their child in a school. Private Choice  Programs Do Not  Provide Consistent  Information about  Changes in IDEA  Rights When a Parent  Moves a Child from  Public to Private  School, and IDEA  Does Not Require  That Parents Be  Notified Parents of Students with  Disabilities May Not Be  Consistently or Correctly  Notified about IDEA Rights  upon Enrolling in Choice  Programs When a parent moves a child with a disability from public school to a  private school, the child’s rights under IDEA change. Specifically, when a  child with a disability is enrolled in a private school by his or her parents  or guardians (i.e., a parentally placed private school student), regardless  of participation in a private school choice program, the child is no longer  entitled to FAPE and other key rights and protections under IDEA.  There is no requirement under IDEA or in Education’s regulations that  parents be told about this change in rights to services when enrolling their  children in private schools. Private school choice programs are not consistently providing information  on changes in rights under IDEA when a child with a disability moves  from public to private school, and some programs are providing incorrect  information. Specifically, in our review of information provided by all 27  private school choice programs in operation as of January 2017, we  found that 9 of the 27 programs did not provide any information about  these changes in rights. Moreover, among the 15 programs specifically  for students with disabilities, we found that 4 programs provided no  information about changes in rights under IDEA when a child with a  disability moves from public to private school. As shown in figure 9, these  4 programs enrolled the majority of students participating in disability  choice programs in school year 2016-17 (73 percent). Another 5 of these  programs—which enrolled 10 percent of students participating in disability  choice programs in school year 2016-17—provided information that  included inaccurate statements about rights under IDEA, as confirmed by  Education officials. Some of these inaccuracies were related to IDEA’s  “equitable services” provisions, under which parentally placed private  school students with disabilities may be eligible to receive federally  funded equitable services. Education officials reiterated that IDEA does not require states to provide  notification about changes in disability rights when a parent moves a child  from a public school to a private school. However, federal internal control  standards state that agencies should provide quality information to  external stakeholders. In addition, Education officials stated that, in the  past, when the agency has been aware of cases where states are  providing inconsistent or inaccurate information, the agency has worked  with states to correct the information in order to avoid further  dissemination of inaccurate information. Education Recommends  but Does Not Require That  Parents Be Notified of  Changes in Rights Education does not require states or districts to notify parents of key  changes in disability rights when a parent moves their child from public  to private school, but the agency has recommended that states and  districts notify parents of these changes. Specifically, in 2001, Education  issued a document—which Education refers to as a policy letter—stating  that “in order to avoid parental misunderstanding, the Department  strongly recommends that the state and local educational agency notify  parents who choose private school placement under [a private school  choice program] that the students may retain certain rights under Section  504 and Title II of the ADA, although the student will not be entitled to a  free appropriate public education under IDEA, while enrolled in the private  school.” In addition, while Education has issued guidance documents explaining  the obligations of states and school districts under IDEA to ensure the  equitable participation of parentally placed private school children with  disabilities, Education has not developed guidance or other documents  that could serve as specific notification to parents of changes in IDEA  rights when a parent moves a child with a disability from public to private  school. When we asked Education officials about this issue, they  reiterated that IDEA does not require such notification, and referred us to  two publications by ONPE and OSERS regarding the equitable  participation requirements in IDEA that apply to parentally placed private  school children. The first is a 2011 ONPE document, titled The Individuals  with Disabilities Education Act: Provisions Related to Children with  Disabilities Enrolled by Their Parents in Private Schools. The second is  a 2011 OSERS document, titled Questions and Answers on Serving  Children with Disabilities Placed by Their Parents in Private Schools  (revised April 2011). While these documents explain how children’s  rights under IDEA are affected when parents place their child in a private  school, they do not specifically address key IDEA rights and protections— such as discipline procedures and the least restrictive environment  requirements—that do not apply when a student with a disability is moved  from a public school to a private school by their parent. Further, these  documents do not include the agency’s prior recommendation on parental  notification, or provide sample language that stakeholders could use to  notify parents of these changes in rights. Education also noted that under  IDEA and its regulations, a notice of IDEA procedural safeguards must be  provided to parents at least once a year and at other specified times, but  also is not required to notify parents that if a child is parentally placed in a  private school, the child is not entitled to FAPE and that these key rights  and protections no longer apply. A wide variety of stakeholders, including officials from national school  choice and disability organizations, private school choice programs, and  Education told us that parents in private choice programs do not always  understand that they will not have all of the same IDEA rights and  protections when moving their children from public to private school. For  example, some stakeholders said that confusion arises because parents  are under the impression that since school choice programs are operated  and funded by the state, and are often designed for students with  disabilities, their children will have similar protections to those ensured to  public school children under IDEA. Other stakeholders told us that  because private schools sometimes request a copy of a student’s IEP,  parents can mistakenly assume that the private school will provide the  services and accommodations outlined in the document. Among the 17 families we interviewed, their views ranged from not being  concerned about possible changes in rights—because they felt their  students were not being served well in public schools—to echoing the  stakeholder concerns described above. These 17 families also had  differing understandings of the change in disability rights when enrolling  their students in private school choice programs. For example, some  families we interviewed said they were not aware that some of the  disability services and therapies provided at private schools came at  additional costs, because these services at public schools were provided  free of charge. Parents of children with physical disabilities said they were  surprised that some private schools, including schools for students with  disabilities, were not accessible for children with physical disabilities. Education officials told us that IDEA does not provide it with statutory  authority to require states and school districts to give parents notice that  IDEA rights and protections—such as discipline procedures and least  restrictive environment requirements—do not apply when a student with a  disability is moved from public to private school by a parent. Absent a  requirement that states notify parents about changes in key federal  special education rights when a child is moved from public to private  school by their parents, states may inconsistently provide information,  contributing to confusion about the change in key federal disability rights  and protections. Conclusions In the past decade, school choice options, including private school choice  programs, have expanded across the country, providing more education  alternatives for students and families, and this trend is expected to  continue. School choice places more responsibility and decision making  in the hands of parents, increasing the importance of high quality  information to help parents make informed decisions. As more than half of  the current private school choice programs are designed specifically for  students with disabilities, it is critical that parents have access to quality  information about changes in special education rights when they are  considering moving their child from public to private school. Although  Education has strongly recommended that states and districts notify  parents that IDEA rights change when they move their parentally placed  child from public to private school, in 2016-17, more than 80 percent of  students in private choice programs designed for students with disabilities  were enrolled in a program that either provided no information about  changes in IDEA rights or provided some inaccurate information about  these changes. Absent a requirement in IDEA that states notify parents of  such changes, states are unlikely to begin providing parents with  consistent and accurate information about changes that affect some of  our nation’s most vulnerable children. Matter for  Congressional  Consideration Congress should consider requiring that states notify parents/guardians of  changes in students’ federal special education rights when a student with  a disability is moved from public to private school by their parent. Recommendation for  Executive Action The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services  should review information provided by states related to changes in federal  special education rights when a parent places a student with a disability in  a private school and work with states to correct inaccurate information. Agency Comments  and Our Evaluation We provided a draft of this report to Education for review and comment.  Education’s comments are reproduced in appendix III. Education also  provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. Education generally agreed with our recommendation to correct  inaccurate information provided by states related to changes in federal  special education rights when a parent places a student with a disability in  a private school. During the course of our review, Education confirmed  that five private school choice programs provided information that  included inaccurate statements about rights under IDEA. However,  Education stated that the department believes it is necessary to review  the full documents containing information provided by states, so that it  can determine the context in which the information was presented. We  will coordinate with Education as appropriate to facilitate such a review.  Reviewing and evaluating the information provided by states are  important first steps. However, we continue to believe that it is critical that  Education take the next step to work with states to correct any inaccurate  information about the rights of students with disabilities under IDEA being  provided by private school choice programs. Our draft report also included a recommendation for Education to require  states to notify parents/guardians of changes in students’ federal special  education rights, including that key IDEA rights and protections do not  apply when a student with a disability is moved from public to private  school by their parent. In response, Education stated that IDEA does not  include statutory authority to require such notice, and suggested that the  department instead encourage states to notify parents. However, as  noted in our draft report, Education already strongly encourages states  and school districts to provide such notice.  Despite these efforts, we  found that in 2016-17, more than 80 percent of students nationwide who  are enrolled in private choice programs designed for students with  disabilities were enrolled in a program that either provided no information  about changes in IDEA rights, or provided some inaccurate information  about these changes. We therefore continue to believe that states should  be required, not merely encouraged, to notify parents/guardians about  key changes in federal special education rights when a parent moves a  child with a disability from public to private school. To this end, we have  converted our recommendation into a Matter for Congressional  Consideration to require such notice. In its comments, Education stated that the draft report title could be  improved. Because, in the final report, we issued the Matter for  Congressional Consideration discussed above, we have revised the title  to reflect that federal actions are needed to ensure parents are notified  about key changes in rights for students with disabilities. Education also inaccurately asserted that statements in the draft report  about the availability of information for parents are based on limited  reviews and small samples. As stated in the draft report, our findings  about the information for parents are derived from two sources: private  school choice programs and private schools participating in these  programs. Our findings about information provided by private school  choice programs are based on a comprehensive review of all 27 voucher  and educational savings account programs operating in the United States  during the 2016-17 school year. In addition, as noted in the draft report,  we verified these findings with officials from each of these programs.  Our  findings about information participating private schools make available  are based on a nationally representative, generalizable sample of  websites from 344 private schools participating in voucher programs  during the 2016-17school year. Finally, contrary to Education’s  assessment that we based findings on a small sample of 17 families, as  stated in the draft report, our discussion groups and interviews with these  families provided illustrative examples of the types of information families  used when making private school choice decisions. These illustrative  examples were not the basis of any findings. We have clarified the  language in the final report as appropriate. Further, Education commented that the draft report did not address  factors that often lead parents to enroll their children in private schools in  state choice programs. These factors were not addressed because they  are beyond the scope of our objectives for this report. Finally, Education  noted that parents may believe that educational benefits or services  provided by private schools to their children with disabilities outweigh any  rights conferred by IDEA or services provided by public schools. This is  an important point, and this perspective was included in the draft  Education reviewed. For example, in the draft Education reviewed, we  stated that some families with whom we spoke were not concerned about  any changes in rights because they felt their students were not being well  served in public schools. As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to interested congressional  committees and to the Department of Education. In addition, the report  will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (617) 788-0580 or nowickij@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report  are listed in appendix IV. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and  Methodology This report examines (1) the academic, administrative, and financial  accountability mechanisms in private school choice programs; (2) the  information available to the public and prospective families on private  school choice programs and participating private schools; and (3) how  families of students with disabilities are informed about any changes in  their rights under federal law when enrolling in private school choice  programs, and how the U.S. Department of Education provides  information to families about these rights. Overall Methodology To obtain information for all three objectives, we reviewed relevant federal  laws, regulations, and guidance. To determine key program  characteristics, including accountability mechanisms these programs had  in place and the type of information they provided publicly, we reviewed  publically available documents from all 23 voucher programs and four  education savings account (ESA) programs, referred to in this report as  private school choice programs, operating in the United States as of  January 2017 to obtain information about program design and  requirements. We confirmed this information with each program. In  addition, we reviewed documents and conducted interviews with program  officials in six private school choice programs in five states (Arizona,  Florida, Indiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin). We also interviewed officials from  the U.S. Department of Education (Education) as well as national  stakeholder groups and private school choice researchers, which we  selected to obtain a range of perspectives on private school choice  initiatives. To describe information that participating private schools make  available to the public, we conducted a review of a nationally  representative stratified random sample of 344 private schools  participating in one of the voucher programs to identify information  provided on school websites to parents and the public. To obtain  information on how parents are informed about changes in their child’s  rights under federal law, we reviewed Education guidance and policy  documents on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and  parentally placed private school students. To provide examples of how  individual schools and programs make information available to the public  and families, we also visited and interviewed officials at two private school  choice programs, three private schools, and one school district in  Florida.  Additionally, we spoke with 17 families who had recently  interacted with private school choice programs. We conducted this performance audit from August 2016 to November  2017 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Analysis of Private  School Choice  Programs’  Accountability  Mechanisms We defined “accountability mechanisms” as requirements that private  school choice programs place on participating private schools. These  requirements are intended to set minimum standards that private schools  must meet to participate in the choice program. We compiled our list of  mechanisms based on research conducted by national school choice  organizations and other organizations, interviews with private school  choice researchers, and our previous audit work. The list includes  mechanisms likely to be used by multiple programs and is not meant to  be exhaustive. We confirmed the appropriateness of our list of selected  mechanisms during subsequent interviews with private school choice  researchers and national stakeholder groups who confirmed that the  mechanisms were common elements in program statutes, and/or  standard mechanisms for establishing accountability in education. To  identify the presence of each of the mechanisms in a choice program, we  reviewed publicly available documents on the program’s website. We also  reviewed documents linked to the program’s website. To confirm our  assessment of each school choice program, we sent our analysis to the  program’s administrators for verification. All programs responded and any  changes are reflected in the report. We did not independently verify these  requirements in state laws or regulations. Interviews in Selected  Private School  Choice Programs To obtain a richer understanding of accountability and transparency  decisions, and challenges facing private school choice programs, we  selected a non-generalizable sample of six private school choice  programs in five states (Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin)  for a more in-depth review. These selected programs collectively served  the majority of voucher and ESA students in school year 2016-17. In total,  these programs represented about two-thirds of all participating students.  For the selected programs, we reviewed program documents, and  conducted interviews with programs officials and school choice  organizations. In addition, we conducted a site visit to Florida in March 2017.  Florida  has the second largest school voucher program (the John M. McKay  Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Program), and the largest ESA  program (the Gardiner Scholarship Program). Collectively the two  programs served approximately one-fifth (22 percent) of voucher and  ESA students nationwide in school year 2016-17. To gather information  on all three objectives, we interviewed officials from program  administration offices for both programs. To obtain schools’ perspective  on all three objectives, we interviewed officials at three private schools  that participate in both school choice programs, and officials at a public  school district. To obtain information on how families of students with  disabilities are informed about any changes in their rights under federal  law when enrolling in private school choice programs and families’  understanding of these changes, we conducted a series of interviews with  families of students with disabilities. Private Schools’  Websites Review To determine the extent to which participating private schools provided  information to prospective families and the public, we reviewed websites  from a nationally representative sample of 344 private schools eligible to  participate in one of the 23 voucher programs in operation as of January  2017. We limited our review to voucher school programs because we  were unable to determine the universe of schools participating in all of the  four ESA programs operating at the time of our review. Our sampling frame consisted of all schools eligible for participation in a  private school choice voucher program. To create the frame, we  downloaded the most currently available list of eligible schools as of April  3, 2017, from each program’s website. We identified 4,011 schools  eligible to participate in at least one of the private school choice voucher  programs covered by this review. Ohio’s Jon Peterson Special Needs  Scholarship Program and Autism Scholarship Program allow multiple  types of providers to receive voucher funds. As such, the lists for these  programs included public schools, private companies, individual  specialists, chartered private schools, and unchartered private schools. A  chartered private school is a private school that has been approved by  Ohio’s State Board of Education, according to program officials. As  program officials told us, chartering is Ohio’s version of state  accreditation. Because chartered schools were the only readily  identifiable type of provider included in the downloaded lists from the  program’s website, we decided to limit our list to chartered private schools  and drop other providers from our schools list. Because web addresses were not always included in programs’ lists of  schools, we used information provided in the lists to conduct internet  searches to locate school websites. This enabled us to produce an  estimate on the number of participating schools without a website. In  order to review comparable information across the sampled schools’  websites, we developed a standardized web-based data collection  instrument which we used to examine each website for academic,  administrative, and financial information and information related to  students with disabilities. We used a combination of information from our  audit work on identifying accountability mechanisms, Education guidance  on choosing a school, and our interviews to develop the questions  included in the data collection instrument. We reviewed all websites from  April 19 through 27, 2017. An analyst recorded information in the data  collection instrument. The information was then checked for  completeness by another analyst. We then analyzed the information  across schools. We stratified the population using two design variables—one for whether  or not the school participated in programs with eligibility limited to  students with disabilities, and one for whether or not the school  participated in one of the largest four voucher programs. This resulted in  four sampling strata. The resulting sample of 344 schools allowed us to  make national estimates about the availability of school information by  program type. Because we followed a probability procedure based on  random selections, our sample is only one of a large number of samples  that we might have drawn. Since each sample could have provided  different estimates, we express our confidence in the precision of our  particular sample’s results as a 95 percent confidence interval (e.g., plus  or minus 6 percentage points). This is the interval that would contain the  actual population value for 95 percent of the samples we could have  drawn. Confidence intervals are provided along with each sample  estimate in the report. All website review results presented in the body of  this report are generalizable to the estimated population except where  otherwise noted. Parent Interviews and  Questionnaires To obtain information from parents on both our second and third  objectives, we conducted interviews with 17 families who had recent  experiences with private school choice programs. We also created a short  questionnaire that included questions on the type of information families  want and use when making private school choice decisions for their  children. The questionnaire also included questions on how families of  students with disabilities are informed about any changes in their rights  under federal law when enrolling in private school choice programs and  their understanding of those changes. We worked with private school  choice organizations and national stakeholder groups that directly  communicate with parents to contact parents on our behalf to answer the  questionnaire and be interviewed. The questionnaire was given to each  parent we interviewed or who participated in each of the discussion  groups conducted during our Florida site visit. Parents completing the  questionnaire had at least one child with a disability and either  participated or considered participating in a private school choice program  designed for students with disabilities. Appendix II: Key Information about Private  School Choice Programs, School Year 2016- 17 Appendix III: Comments from the U.S.  Department of Education Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff  Acknowledgments GAO Contact Staff  Acknowledgments In addition to the contact named above, Nagla’a El-Hodiri (Assistant  Director), Alison Grantham (Analyst-in-Charge), Kelsey Burdick, Cheryl  Jones, and Alex Squitieri made key contributions to this report. Also  contributing to this report were Susan Aschoff, Carl Barden, James  Bennett, Deborah Bland, Sarah Cornetto, Lawrence Malenich, Shelia  McCoy, Tom Moscovitch, Kelly Rubin, Andrew Stavisky and Barbara  Steel-Lowney.
Growth of voucher and ESA programs has drawn attention to the ways states ensure accountability and transparency to the public and prospective parents. With over half of voucher and ESA programs specifically designed for students with disabilities, there is interest in the information parents receive about special education services and rights when enrolling in a choice program. GAO was asked to examine these topics in more depth. This report examines (1) academic, administrative, and financial accountability mechanisms in private choice programs; (2) information available to the public and families on private choice programs and participating schools; and (3) how parents of students with disabilities are informed about changes in rights when enrolling in private choice programs. GAO analyzed information from all voucher and ESA programs operating in January 2017 and interviewed officials from Education, national groups, and six of the largest private choice programs. GAO reviewed websites of a nationally representative sample of private voucher schools, and worked with private choice groups and national organizations to contact families that recently interacted with a choice program. GAO interviewed all 17 families that responded. States include different academic, administrative, and financial accountability mechanisms in their voucher and education savings account (ESA) programs—programs that use public funds for private school educational expenses (see figure). Of the 27 programs operating in January 2017, most had academic and administrative accountability mechanisms for participating schools, such as academic testing requirements (18 of 27) or health and safety requirements (25 of 27). In addition, 15 of 27 programs required schools to demonstrate financial soundness and 8 of 27 programs required annual financial audits. Almost all of the 27 private school choice program websites provide a directory of participating schools and some provide guidance on selecting schools. However, GAO estimates that no more than half of all schools participating in any type of voucher program mention students with disabilities anywhere on their websites, according to GAO's review of a nationally generalizable sample of websites of private schools in voucher programs. Further, GAO estimates that no more than 53 percent of private schools in voucher programs designed for students with disabilities provide disability-related information on their websites. GAO found private school choice programs inconsistently provide information on changes in rights and protections under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) when parents move a child with a disability from public to private school. In 2001, the U.S. Department of Education (Education) strongly encouraged states and school districts to notify parents of these changes, but according to Education, IDEA does not provide it with statutory authority to require this notification. According to GAO's review of information provided by private school choice programs, and as confirmed by program officials, in school year 2016-17, 83 percent of students enrolled in a program designed specifically for students with disabilities were in a program that provided either no information about changes in IDEA rights or provided information that Education confirmed contained inaccuracies about these changes. Officials from national stakeholder groups, private choice programs, and Education told GAO that some parents do not understand that certain key IDEA rights and protections—such as discipline procedures and least restrictive environment requirements—change when parents move their child from public to private school. Ensuring that quality information is communicated consistently and accurately to parents can help address potential misunderstanding about changes in federal special education rights.