The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has released a new report that examines private school choice programs—specifically, vouchers and educational savings accounts (ESAs)—and how they interact with U.S. Department of Education (DOE) grants. The report shows that state and district leaders are confused about how the programs affect one another, and that the DOE has failed to provide specific guidance.
Voucher programs and ESAs provide eligible students with funds towards private schooling: vouchers cover tuition expenses, and ESAs typically provide funding for a broader set of educational expenses. Many of the same students who participate in private school choice programs also benefit from two federal grant programs: one for students from disadvantaged areas (Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act) and another for students with disabilities (Title I, Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act).
There were twenty voucher and two ESA programs operating in the United States as of fall 2015. Between June 2015 and August 2016, the authors studied web-based surveys of all of them, as well as relevant federal laws, regulations, and guidance. In addition, they conducted interviews with DOE, state, public, and private school officials, as well as other stakeholders. Site visits took place for ten private school choice programs in four states: Arizona, Indiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin—comprising half of all such U.S. programs and around two thirds of participating students.
GAO found that between 2010 and 2015, student participation in private school choice programs nationwide expanded from 70,000 to 147,000. Yet this growth did not coincide with stronger guidance from the DOE about how federal grant programs were supposed to work in the context of private school choice, confusing state and district leaders and complicating the provision of much needed services for students.
State and public school officials did not, for example, know whether federal grant guidelines applied to participants in private school choice, or whether the role and responsibility of public school districts to provide these services had changed. District officials were unsure if students’ placement in private school choice programs disqualified them from federal funding (in the case of IDEA) or services (under ESEA). Such concerns were widespread on district and state levels.
Another issue was that resources for private schools were stretched quite thin. Because most voucher programs and ESAs cater to students with disabilities or who are disadvantaged, a rise in student participation in these programs led to a larger amount of private school students being eligible for federal funds. This increased the time and financial burden on districts that are required by federal regulations to provide certain “equitable services”—like reading tutors or speech therapists—to both public and private school students.
Despite all this, the DOE claims that it has been quite clear that eligible participants in private school choice programs could still draw from certain federal grant programs. Still, it promised to provide more guidance soon.
GAO’s report suggests that all levels of government could do a better job of facilitating private school choice programs in the context of state and federal legislation. As the DOE grapples with transition to the Every Student Succeeds Act, this is all the more pertinent if we are to sufficiently serve students—particularly disadvantaged ones.
SOURCE: United States Government Accountability Office, “School Choice: Private School Choice Programs Are Growing and Can Complicate Providing Certain Federally Funded Services to Eligible Students,” United States Government Accountability Office (August 2016).
