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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Summary: 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. Congress should consider requiring states to notify parents/guardians about changes in federal special education rights when a parent moves a child from public to private school. In addition, GAO recommends Education review and correct inaccurate IDEA-related information provided by states. Education generally agreed with our recommendation.