West Virginia’s latest Hope Scholarship Parent Satisfaction Survey offers a useful example. Ninety-six percent of responding families were satisfied with the program. Four out of five reported no difficulty with the application process, 95% were satisfied with program communications, and 93% of families whose child attends a private school or microschool said it was easy to select and pay their school through the program’s online portal.

These results matter. They show families can easily navigate the program, select schools and education experiences, and direct their child’s education without the government making those decisions for them.

The survey should not be treated as proof that every family has the same experience, or that every education provider is equally effective. It’s more practical because it demonstrates how a family-directed program can give parents both choice and the ability to respond when a choice is not working.

Hope Scholarship families are not all looking for the same thing. Some want an education aligned with their values. Others need greater flexibility, a smaller learning environment, additional academic support, relief from bullying, or a setting where their child feels safe. Families reported using their accounts for private-school tuition, curriculum, technology, digital courses, tutoring, microschools, and therapy.

An approach that works well for one child may be a poor fit for another. The right approach today may not be the right one the following year, as a child’s needs change. That’s not a flaw in an education freedom program. It’s the reason the program matters.

In conventional education, where children are assigned to a school based on their address, families can feel stuck when something isn’t working. In a family-directed system, they can change course and choose something better.

With education freedom, a family can change schools. Hire a different tutor. Choose a new curriculum. Add specialized therapy. Move from a traditional classroom to a microschool, hybrid model, or home-based arrangement. A school or service doesn’t keep receiving funding simply because it was cleared or approved. It must continue to meet the child’s needs and earn the family’s trust.

That’s accountability with consequences.

And it happens in real time. A family experiences the quality of a provider every day. Parents see whether their child is learning, growing in confidence, receiving needed support, and wanting to engage.

For accountability to work, families have meaningful transparency. They should be able to see their account balances and transactions, understand program rules, compare their options, and if dissatisfied, easily take their remaining education dollars elsewhere. 

Transparency should give families the information they need to make informed decisions. It should not become a pretext for recreating a centralized system that decides in advance which schools, tutors, or services families are permitted to trust.

Educational freedom does not eliminate the need for accountability. It puts accountability with the families who see every day whether a child is learning, growing in confidence, receiving needed support, and engaged in school.

OUR INNER-CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS SUCK, AND THE DEMOCRATS DON’T CARE

Our policymakers should protect that power. Programs should provide clear information, transparent accounts, strong safeguards, and the freedom to make changes to meet the needs of the child. Families should not have to wait for a distant bureaucracy to determine that a school is failing their child.

When parents can choose, evaluate, and change course, schools and education providers must continually earn their trust. That is not accountability in theory. It is accountability in practice.

Heidie Nesset is the vice president of implementation for yes. every kid. foundation.