United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

September 1998 ELEMENTARY AND

SECONDARY

EDUCATION

Flexibility Initiatives Do

Not Address Districts’ Key

Concerns About Federal

Requirements

GAO/HEHS-98-232

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Health, Education, and

Human Services Division

B-278819 

September 30, 1998

The Honorable William Goodling

Chairman, Committee on Education

 and the Workforce

The Honorable John Kasich

Chairman, Committee on the Budget

The Honorable Christopher Shays

Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources

Committee on Government Reform

 and Oversight

House of Representatives

As you requested, this report presents information on (1) the major federal requirements that

affect school districts, (2) the issues that school districts face in implementing these

requirements, and (3) the impact of the Department of Education’s flexibility initiatives on

school districts’ ability to address these implementation issues.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Education, the Secretary of Agriculture,

the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and other interested committees

and parties. We will also make copies available to others on request.

This report was prepared under the direction of Harriet C. Ganson, Assistant Director,

Education and Employment Issues, who may be reached at (202) 512-9045, if you or your staffs

have any questions. Major contributors to this report are listed in app. IV.

Carlotta C. Joyner

Director, Education and

 Employment Issues
Executive Summary

As dissatisfaction with America’s educational system has grown, efforts to

implement broad, systematic education reform have accelerated. In calling

for new initiatives to improve teaching and learning, some education

experts and local administrators have advocated loosening federal

requirements that are thought to potentially impede new or innovative

instructional approaches. As this view has found increasing acceptance

over the past 5 years, the Congress and the Department of Education have

put in place several initiatives to promote flexibility. Some observers have

welcomed these provisions, but others have expressed concern that

important objectives—such as promoting equal educational

opportunity—may be compromised if federal requirements are loosened.

To obtain more information on these issues, the Chairman of the House

Committee on Education and the Workforce, the Chairman of the House

Committee on the Budget, and the Chairman of the House Subcommittee

on Human Resources, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,

asked GAO to (1) describe the major federal requirements that affect school

districts, (2) identify the key issues that school districts face in

implementing these requirements, and (3) analyze the impact of the

Department of Education’s flexibility initiatives on school districts’ ability

to address these implementation issues.

Background Because the approximately 15,000 U.S. school districts vary greatly in size

and scope, school districts’ involvement with the federal government can

also vary. Reflecting their large and diverse populations, some districts

offer an array of specialized programs, such as magnet schools, vocational

programs, and programs for students with limited English proficiency. As

a result, these districts may receive federal assistance from funding

streams that target these specific areas, and may also be subject to a

greater number of federal program requirements. Other (often smaller)

districts may be involved with the federal government through a smaller

number of broadly targeted programs and widely applicable regulations.

As a whole, however, federal funds account for only a small share of total

education spending—about 7 percent in school year 1995-96, compared

with state and local contributions of 47 and 46 percent, respectively.

Results in Brief The wide range of federal requirements that affect school districts reflects

many different policy goals and program objectives—including ensuring

equal educational opportunity, promoting high-quality instruction,

guarding against safety and health hazards, and protecting the integrity of

Page 2 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Executive Summary

federal funds. Many of these federal requirements—especially those that

most directly affect teaching—come with federal dollars, but others do

not. Federal laws and regulations affect school districts in all their varied

activities, including the food they serve in the cafeteria, the special

education programs for students with disabilities, the employment of

school and district staff, and the construction and maintenance of school

buildings. Federal requirements are augmented by state and local

requirements and court decisions.

District officials generally expressed support for federal programs and

mandates, recognizing the importance of goals such as ensuring school

safety and promoting equal educational opportunity. At the same time they

noted their concerns with implementation issues that made achieving

these goals more difficult. Rather than focusing on a single federal

program or requirement, these implementation issues extend across

several broad areas, including

• the difficulty in obtaining accurate, timely, and sufficiently detailed

information about federal requirements and federal funding;

• the limited funds available to meet program and administrative costs; and

• the logistical and management challenges presented by certain

requirements, such as those that specify timelines to complete procedural

tasks or require specialized personnel.

In the past 5 years, several initiatives have been designed and implemented

to provide more flexibility to school districts. For example, districts may

be able to obtain waivers (temporary exemptions from certain specific

federal requirements) and can sometimes combine or transfer certain

federal program funds. However, some of these initiatives have not been

widely used by the districts. In addition, because they are narrowly

structured, these flexibility initiatives generally do not address school

districts’ major concerns. Although information-related issues are very

important to school district officials, the recent flexibility initiatives

increase the amount of information districts need, rather than simplifying

or streamlining information on federal requirements. Federal flexibility

efforts neither reduce districts’ financial obligations nor provide additional

federal dollars. Because the flexibility initiatives are limited to specific

programs, their ability to reduce administrative effort and streamline

procedures is also limited. Broadening the scope of federal flexibility

efforts, however, raises concerns about whether the underlying goals of

federal programs can be achieved without the guidance of specific

regulatory provisions.

Page 3 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Executive Summary

Principal Findings

Federal Requirements and

Financial Assistance

Reflect Desire for Safe and

Effective Schools for All

Students

The body of federal requirements that affect school districts reflects a

variety of purposes and objectives. To help ensure equal educational

opportunity for students with various types of disadvantages, the federal

government has passed antidiscrimination laws and funded special

programs targeted at (among others) children with disabilities, homeless

children, and children with limited English proficiency. To improve

instructional quality in key subject areas, the federal government has

sponsored special programs directed at subject areas such as math and

science, vocational education, and information technology. To support

education by ensuring a safe environment for students and teachers,

federal environmental requirements (such as those concerning asbestos)

are intended to guard against particular health hazards. To protect the

integrity of federal funds, federal requirements include financial provisions

such as spending restrictions and carryover limits.

In addition to their sizable financial contributions to the schools, states

also play a key role in administering federal programs and distributing

federal funds. As part of their monitoring and oversight activities, states

often impose additional requirements on school districts. For example, in

one state GAO visited, the state requires school districts to submit more

documentation on certain purchases made with federal funds than

required by federal regulations. For many districts, it can be difficult to

distinguish between state and federal requirements, especially in cases

where a state requirement arises from the implementation of a federal

program or regulation.

Implementation Issues

Relating to Federal

Requirements Affect How

Districts Plan, Fund, and

Operate Educational

Programs

For school district officials, implementing this array of federal

requirements can be a challenging task. School district officials generally

supported the goals and purposes of the associated programs and

mandates, recognizing the value in such objectives as ensuring student

safety. However, they also identified implementation issues that

sometimes made meeting these requirements difficult. First, school district

officials need—and many lack—accurate, timely, and detailed information

on federal requirements and funding allocations to ensure compliance,

plan educational programs, and conduct long- and short-term financial

planning. The number and complexity of federal requirements make it

hard to keep informed, even considering the technical assistance provided

Page 4 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Executive Summary

by state and federal agencies. With incomplete information, district

officials may make only conservative and narrow interpretations of federal

requirements, believing they have less flexibility than they actually do. As

a result, districts may lose the opportunity to structure programs as they

would like. In addition, misunderstandings about the scope of federal

requirements may lead some districts to spend more than necessary to

comply with federal regulations, particularly in environmental areas.

Second, staff from the majority of districts GAO visited expressed concern

about the cost of administering federal programs and providing mandated

services, especially in light of limited federal support. District officials

generally recognized the value of federal mandates in areas such as special

education, environmental requirements, and building accessibility, but

they said these are often costly to implement. In addition, program

directors and superintendents identified two key areas—eligibility

determination for certain targeted federal programs and accounting and

reporting requirements—as major contributors to their administrative

costs. For example, district officials told us that the process for

determining students’ eligibility for free and reduced-price lunches

remains paper-intensive and challenging, although efforts to streamline the

process have been helpful. Staff from a few districts expressed

dissatisfaction with restrictions on raising and spending funds; however,

these issues were raised less frequently.

Third, district officials identified several types of logistical and

management challenges associated with certain federal requirements, such

as meeting mandated timelines, finding qualified and capable staff or

suppliers to provide required services, and balancing competing goals or

needs. For example, to ensure that special education students receive the

help they need in a timely manner, school districts are required to

complete certain tasks within a set number of days. Special education

directors said that meeting these timelines sometimes created logistical

problems for them—for example, when staff or service providers were

unable to complete their tasks because of illness or emergency.

Recent Flexibility

Initiatives Are Generally

Not Structured to Address

School Districts’ Major

Implementation Issues

Recent efforts to provide additional flexibility to school districts include

waivers, financial flexibility mechanisms, and consolidated planning.

Waivers—temporary exemptions from certain specific federal

requirements—can allow districts to suspend some federal program rules.

Several new financial flexibility mechanisms allow school districts

additional flexibility in the use of certain federal program funds; for

Page 5 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Executive Summary

example, one provision can allow districts to shift a limited amount of

funds from one covered program to another. Finally, a consolidated

planning process allows school districts to submit one plan or funding

application that covers several federal programs, rather than prepare

separate documents for each program.

These initiatives are generally not structured to address the information,

funding, and management issues that school districts identified as their

primary concerns. First, rather than simplifying the necessary information

on federal requirements, these flexibility initiatives actually expand the

amount of information school district officials need. To take advantage of

these provisions, district staff must know that they exist and learn how to

use them. Because these initiatives are program-specific, and each applies

to a different set of programs, district officials need detailed information

on each provision—information that is often difficult to find.

Second, flexibility initiatives do not address school districts’ funding

concerns; by design, they cannot increase the flow of funds to school

districts nor can they relieve districts of their major financial obligations.

The areas covered by the flexibility initiatives are not those that school

districts cited as especially costly: special education, environmental, and

building accessibility requirements. Similarly, the flexibility initiatives can

have only a limited impact on school districts’ administrative costs

because they do not cover several key program areas such as food service

and special education. However, waivers and consolidated planning can

help some districts streamline processes in other administrative areas,

including the process of applying for federal funds.

Third, the limited coverage of flexibility initiatives also precludes them

from addressing several of the logistical and management issues that

school districts identified as key issues, such as meeting timelines for

evaluating special education students and finding qualified personnel

(such as bilingual teachers) to implement key federal programs. For

example, because the flexibility initiatives do not extend to special

education requirements, districts cannot use these provisions to address

their concern with timelines.

Agency Comments GAO provided a draft of this report to the Department of Agriculture, the

Department of Education, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

for their review and comment.

Page 6 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Executive Summary

In its comments, the Department of Agriculture suggested that because the

report was based on information collected from a limited number of

school districts, GAO should add information to the report putting issues

related to school nutrition programs into context. For example, it

suggested adding material to the report explaining that the administrative

process associated with determining school nutrition program eligibility is

part of an effort to achieve a balance between accessibility for participants

and accountability for public funds. GAO has included such contextual

information in the report. The Department also expressed concern that the

draft report indicated the cost of running school nutrition programs is

prohibitive due to administration burdens. Relatedly, it said the reader

may be left with the impression that the cost of implementing the updated

nutrition standards in the school nutrition programs, issued in response to

the Healthy Meals for Healthy Americans Act, is prohibitive. Although

district officials expressed concern about administrative issues and the

potential cost of implementing the updated nutrition standards, they did

not state that these costs are prohibitive. GAO added language to the report

to clarify this point. Other Department of Agriculture officials also made

technical comments that GAO incorporated as appropriate. The

Department’s comments appear in appendix III.

Program directors and other officials from the Department of Education’s

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education and Office of Special

Education Programs provided oral comments on the report. These

officials told GAO that they believe that flexibility has had a positive impact

in addressing local concerns. They cited the granting of waivers, the

approval of 12 states to participate in the Ed-Flex project, state acceptance

of consolidated planning, and a growth in the number of schoolwide

projects as examples of positive results. GAO agrees that the

implementation of flexibility provisions such as schoolwide programs and

consolidated planning has provided benefits to some state and local

officials. However, by design these provisions do not address the key

implementation issues identified by local school districts. In addition,

Department officials stated that they do not believe the waiver provisions

are very burdensome or complicated and that, as a result, GAO may have

overstated districts’ and states’ information needs in using flexibility

provisions. GAO agrees that the process of applying for waivers does not

appear to be overly burdensome or complicated. However, districts do

need to know which programs and requirements are covered by flexibility

provisions and how those provisions may be used, and this information

can be difficult to find. GAO revised the report to clarify that gathering

Page 7 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Executive Summary

information on these provisions can be difficult, even if the provisions are

relatively simple to use once this information has been obtained.

Department officials also emphasized that the Department provides

considerable technical assistance to grantees on flexibility provisions and

the flexibility within federal programs. For example, Department officials

cited guidance on federal programs that included information on flexibility

provisions. This guidance was sent to all states, which were requested to

share it with local school districts and with auditors. GAO recognizes the

Department’s extensive efforts in this area. However, GAO’s interviews with

Department officials, state officials, and school districts indicate that

school districts face information gaps that can affect their ability to

successfully implement federal programs and take advantage of flexibility

initiatives.

EPA officials, including program managers in the areas of asbestos and

underground storage tanks, said the report was fair and accurate and had

no additional comments.

Page 8 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Page 9 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Contents

Executive Summary 2

Chapter 1 

Introduction

14

School Districts Vary in Size, Programs Offered, and Federal

Involvement

14

Some Major Education Reform Efforts Reduce School Districts’

Role, While Others Maintain District-Level Focus

16

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 18

Chapter 2 

Federal Requirements

and Financial

Assistance Reflect

Desire for Safe and

Effective Schools for

All Students

23

Federal Requirements Are Designed to Promote Equity and

Excellence in Education

23

Federal Requirements Affect School Districts in Their Roles as

Educators, Food Service Providers, Employers, and Facilities

Managers

25

Federal Funding Accompanies Many Major Federal Requirements

but Does Not Fully Support Most Program Activities

29

States Often Play a Key Role in Requirements Affecting School

Districts

31

Chapter 3 

Implementation

Issues Relating to

Federal Requirements

Affect How School

Districts Plan, Fund,

and Operate

Educational Programs

33

Information on Federal Requirements and Funding Is Essential

for Program and Financial Planning

33

School Districts Support Program Purposes but Cite Limited

Funds to Administer Programs and Implement Federal

Requirements

37

Certain Federal Requirements Can Create Logistical and

Management Challenges for School Districts

47

Page 10 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Contents

Chapter 4 

Recent Flexibility

Initiatives Are

Generally Not

Structured to Address

the Major

Implementation

Issues Affecting

School Districts

52

Recent Initiatives Were Designed to Provide Greater Flexibility to

School Districts

52

Federal Flexibility Initiatives Have Limited Applicability to the

Key Issues Affecting School Districts

57

Chapter 5 

Conclusions

61

Appendixes Appendix I: Descriptive Information on Major Federal Laws and

Programs

64

Appendix II: Information on Funding for Major Federal Laws and

Programs

72

Appendix III: Comments From the Department of Agriculture 78

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 81

Bibliography 82

Education Finance 82

Environmental Requirements 85

Food and Nutrition Programs 85

Limited English Proficiency 85

Special Education 86

Related GAO Products 92

Tables Table 1.1: Characteristics of the Districts We Visited 21

Table 2.1: Program Objectives and Examples of Federal Programs

and Requirements

24

Table 4.1: Number of State Education Agencies Providing

Information on Their Internet Web Sites

58

Page 11 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Contents

Figure Figure 1.1: Number of U.S. School Districts, by Enrollment Size 15

Abbreviations

ADA Americans With Disabilities Act

AHERA Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act

CAROI Cooperative Audit Resolution and Oversight Initiative

EDGAR Education Department General Administrative Regulations

EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESEA Elementary and Secondary Education Act

ESL English as a Second Language

GEPA General Education Provisions Act

IASA Improving America’s Schools Act

IDEA Individuals With Disabilities Education Act

IEP Individualized Education Program

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

UST underground storage tank

Page 12 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Page 13 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Because U.S. school districts differ a great deal in size and scope, their

involvement with the federal government can also vary. Districts that offer

a wide variety of educational choices—such as magnet schools, vocational

programs, and programs for students with limited English

proficiency—may receive federal assistance from a large number of

sources and be subject to additional program requirements. Other (often

smaller) districts may be involved with the federal government through a

smaller number of more broadly targeted programs and requirements,

such as those that provide funding for teacher training.

Although there has been widespread agreement on the need to improve

the educational system, school districts are central to some education

reform efforts and more peripheral to others. Certain education reform

movements, like charter schools, have minimized the role of the school

district. In contrast, in other reform efforts the district plays a central role

in improving curriculum, instructional methods, student assessment, and

professional development. Many proponents of all varieties of education

reform—regardless of their view of school districts—regard flexibility as a

key element in efforts to improve teaching and learning. However, little

information is currently available about what types of flexibility are

thought to be needed and how federal flexibility initiatives have been

used.

School Districts Vary

in Size, Programs

Offered, and Federal

Involvement

U.S. school districts vary greatly in size, from rural districts with only one

school to citywide systems encompassing hundreds of schools and

hundreds of thousands of students. In enrollment, school districts range

from some with only a few students to New York City with over 1 million.

As shown in figure 1.1, while only a few districts had enrollments of over

100,000 students in school year 1995-96, a much larger number of districts

reported serving fewer than 150 students. These small districts, although

numerous, accounted for less than one-half of 1 percent of total student

enrollment. Some districts (usually smaller ones) served only younger

children or only secondary students. Although about 74 percent of school

districts provided instruction from the beginning of school through 12th

grade, 22 percent of school districts provide instruction only through

grade 8, and the remaining 4 percent have a low grade of 7 or higher and a

high grade of 12. Districts with more than 100,000 students accounted for

about 12 percent of student enrollment but made up less than 1 percent of

all school districts. Similarly, while more school districts were located in

rural areas, urban districts served a greater proportion of students.

Page 14 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Figure 1.1: Number of U.S. School Districts, by Enrollment Size

100,000 or

 More

10,000-

99,999

2,500-9,999 1,000-2,499 450-999 150-449 1-149

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

23

746

3,040

3,554

2,729

2,576

1,699

Number of School Districts

Differences in the composition of the student population are sometimes

reflected in the specialized programs found in many districts and schools.

In 1993-94 (the most recent school year for which data are available),

43 percent of public schools provided English as a Second Language (ESL)

programs, and 18 percent of public schools provided bilingual programs,

for students with limited English proficiency. Many districts offer

vocational-technical programs, which provide skill training in specialized

areas as well as academic instruction.1

 Some districts offer “magnet”

programs, which focus on a special subject theme. Some districts have

established alternative schools; in 1993-94 there were approximately 2,600

of these schools in the country.2

Districts that have a wide variety of specialized programs may receive

federal assistance from separate funding streams that target these specific

1

Some districts that offer vocational programs do not operate these programs themselves, but send

their students to vocational programs operated by another district.

2

This total includes some schools that were classified as “other.”

Page 15 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 1 

Introduction

areas. For example, in 1997, 64 districts that were implementing

desegregation plans received federal funds for magnet school programs,

and, in 1996, 509 school districts received federal funds to support

programs for children with limited English proficiency. As a result, larger

districts and districts with a wider variety of programs and populations

may receive federal assistance from a larger number of sources and also

be subject to a greater number of federal program requirements. One large

urban district we visited received a total of 27 federal grants, from

agencies as diverse as the Department of Education, the Department of

Housing and Urban Development, and the Department of Agriculture.

Many of these programs targeted specific areas or specific groups of

students, such as students with limited English proficiency, neglected and

delinquent youth, and Native Americans. Another, smaller district received

only four federal grants, all from the Department of Education and all

targeted fairly broadly.

Some Major

Education Reform

Efforts Reduce School

Districts’ Role, While

Others Maintain

District-Level Focus

Many Americans see the nation’s public elementary and secondary schools

as average at best. With American students’ achievement in mathematics

and science lagging behind that of their peers in other industrial nations,

dissatisfaction with the educational system has fueled calls for widespread

systematic reform. Various education reform efforts have adopted

differing approaches toward the role of the school district. Some

initiatives view school district organizations as part of the problem, while

others are designed to rely strongly on district leadership.

Two education reform strategies—charter schools and school-based

management—have attempted to expand the role of principals and other

school administrators, reducing or even eliminating the role of the school

district in making key decisions on educational programs. Charter schools

are schools formed by parents, teachers, and/or community members who

collectively determine the school’s structure, mission, and curricular

focus. Charter school laws essentially allow entities other than school

districts to start and operate public schools. Charter schools therefore are

generally not required to follow all policies, procedures, and requirements

of the local school district. In addition, although they receive public funds

and must comply with federal requirements, charter schools are generally

designed to operate with more autonomy from state and local regulations.

Charter schools are responsible for meeting the terms of their charters,

however, and these charters may include specific educational outcomes.3

3

For more information about charter schools, see Charter Schools: Federal Funding Available but

Barriers Exist (GAO/HEHS-98-84, Apr. 30, 1998).

Page 16 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Proponents of charter schools believe that this freedom from district-level

and state-level requirements will lead to better academic outcomes both at

charter schools and at the surrounding district schools.

Another type of reform initiative—school-based management—has also

focused on freeing building-level administrators from some of the

restrictions imposed by district-level management. Initiatives in

school-based management have become common, particularly in light of

perceptions that district bureaucracies and school boards are

unresponsive and impose restrictive requirements that hinder the ability of

individual schools to meet their unique needs. Under school-based

management, the school district typically delegates some control over

decisionmaking on budgets, personnel, and/or instructional programs to

school administrators, teachers, parents, or other members of the

community. For example, school-based management could allow

individual schools to choose to offer either half-day or full-day

kindergarten, instead of following a uniform policy that was decided at the

district level. Similarly, school-based management could allow individual

schools to hire fewer staff and buy more computers (or vice versa), rather

than have those decisions made by the district office. Proponents of

school-based management believe that allowing the people most closely

associated with children to make decisions about a school will make the

school more responsive to children’s needs.4

Although charter schools and school-based management primarily focus

on administration at the school level, other reform efforts involve changes

in curriculum, instructional strategies, professional development, and

student assessment that are implemented on a districtwide basis. For

example, one school district we visited established new standards,

curricula, and assessments at the district level aimed at increasing

accountability for student learning. Similarly, in our 1993 report on

education reform efforts, we reviewed another school district that had

developed its own school improvement model, which was subsequently

adopted by other districts. Another district in this study had adopted a

policy of testing students frequently and evaluating teachers on the basis

of student performance on certain tests that related specifically to the

district’s standard curriculum.5

4

For more information about school-based management, see Education Reform: School-Based

Management Results in Changes in Instruction and Budgeting (GAO/HEHS-94-135, Aug. 23, 1994).

5

For more information on district-level reform efforts, see Systemwide Education Reform: Federal

Leadership Could Facilitate District-Level Efforts (GAO/HRD-93-97, Apr. 30, 1993).

Page 17 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Whether reforms are initiated outside of the school district (as in charter

schools) or at the school or district level, many proponents of education

reform believe that efforts to improve teaching and learning will be more

successful if local school districts have more flexibility to adapt federal

programs to local needs. The National Governors Association, along with

several major education associations, has advocated increased flexibility

for school districts, including a loosening of federal and state requirements

that are thought to potentially impede new or innovative reform

approaches. Over the past 5 years, the Congress has enacted several

provisions designed to provide schools and districts with more flexibility

in how they use federal funds. In addition, for certain areas the Congress

has given the Department of Education the authority to grant

waivers—temporary exceptions to certain federal requirements—to states

and school districts. While some experts have welcomed these provisions,

other observers have urged caution. Because many federal and state

restrictions were established to protect students, they fear that important

social purposes—such as protecting civil rights—may be compromised if

federal restrictions are loosened or lifted. Despite the importance of this

debate, little information has been available about the issues school

districts face in implementing various federal requirements, what

flexibility they would find most useful, and how existing flexibility has

been used.

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

The Chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce,

the Chairman of the House Committee on the Budget, and the Chairman of

the House Subcommittee on Human Resources, Committee on

Government Reform and Oversight, asked us to report on how federal

requirements affect local school districts. Specifically, the objectives of

this study were to

• describe the major federal requirements that affect school districts;

• describe the issues that local school districts face in implementing these

requirements; and

• analyze the impact of the Department of Education’s flexibility initiatives

on school districts’ ability to address these implementation issues.

Our approach relied on data from a variety of sources. We interviewed

officials from 87 school districts using a variety of methods—telephone

interviews, group interviews, and site visits. We also interviewed

representatives from 15 major education associations and federal and

state program officials. We surveyed officials from all 50 states to obtain

Page 18 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 1 

Introduction

information on the use of financial flexibility mechanisms by states and

local school districts. We reviewed the education finance literature and

analyzed federal laws and regulations applying to school districts. In

addition, we analyzed data from the Department of Education on school

district characteristics and the use of federal waivers. We did not verify

the data we obtained from the Department of Education.

We focused our review on 36 federal programs or mandates that education

experts, school district staff, state and federal officials, and the literature

identified as having a major impact on school districts. We reviewed the

relevant legislation (and, in some cases, the regulations and/or agency

guidance) to obtain descriptive information about the programs or

mandates. These 36 requirements were defined according to their impact

on school districts, not necessarily by law or by program. For example, the

Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) contains provisions regarding the

accessibility of public buildings and also regulates the employment

protections extended to persons with disabilities. These provisions clearly

have separate and distinct implications for school districts, although they

are contained in the same piece of legislation. Therefore, we elected to

treat these requirements separately. Similarly, the Elementary and

Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the Improving America’s Schools Act

(IASA), which reauthorized ESEA in 1994, deal with many programs in a

single legislative act. In other cases, multiple pieces of legislation may

provide a vehicle for very similar requirements. For example, the Asbestos

School Hazard Abatement Act and the Asbestos Hazard Emergency

Response Act (AHERA) established regulations for the management of

asbestos in schools. Because both laws affect how schools and districts

manage asbestos, we considered these requirements together. Although

our list of major requirements is not comprehensive, it does capture the

requirements that education experts and district officials viewed as having

a significant impact on school districts’ administration and operations.

We used several methods to gather information on school districts’ views

of the issues that affect their implementation of federal requirements.

Early in our study, we conducted two group interviews of school district

personnel at major education conferences. The district officials who

participated in these group interviews represented 15 states from across

the country. From these group interviews, and from our interviews with

associations and federal officials, we learned that state requirements—and

differing state interpretations of federal requirements—can play a crucial

role in the implementation of federal laws and regulations. Because school

district officials could not, in general, distinguish between state and

Page 19 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 1 

Introduction

federal requirements, obtaining the views of district officials nationwide

would be problematic because district staff in different states would be

responding to different sets of requirements. For this reason, we

conducted the majority of our interviews with school district officials in a

few states. As a result, when we discussed particular requirements with

officials from different districts, we could adequately account for variation

across states, although we cannot generalize our results to all states.

We selected three states—Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and

Louisiana—as the major focus of our study. We chose these states because

each had a diverse student population in terms of income, disability status,

and urban and rural areas, and because they differed in other

characteristics, including the mix of state and local funding for education,

the relative amount of state funding provided to poorer and wealthier

districts, the number of federal waivers granted to districts in the state,

and whether the state had been designated as an “Ed-Flex” state.6

In each of these three selected states, we obtained detailed information

from site visits and from a telephone survey of school district

superintendents and other officials. We visited two districts (one relatively

large and one relatively small) in each of the three states. (Characteristics

of the districts we visited are shown in table 1.1.) The districts we visited

ranged from a large inner-city district with 257 schools and over 200,000

students to a rural district with 2 adjacent schools and an enrollment of

just over 1,000. We selected these districts primarily on the basis of

enrollment size, geographic location, and urban/rural mix; where more

than one district met our requirements we made a random selection from

these districts. During our site visits, we interviewed the district’s

superintendent;7

 the food service director; the assistant superintendent,

business manager, or facilities manager; the Title I and special education

directors;8

 and directors of other programs (such as vocational education)

where applicable. We also visited state officials with responsibility for

special education, Title I, and other major programs in each state.

6

Under the Education Flexibility Partnership Demonstration Program (Ed-Flex), the Department of

Education has delegated to selected states a portion of its authority to waive certain federal

requirements.

7

The superintendent in one of these districts refused our request for an interview.

8

One district we visited did not receive Title I funds.

Page 20 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Table 1.1: Characteristics of the Districts We Visited

Characteristic Boston Wachusett

Berlin

Brothersvalley Philadelphia East Feliciana St. Landry

Student enrollment 62,980 6,285 1,073 208,973 2,682 16,694

Number of schools 125 11 2 257 4 35

Total staff 7,828.4 728.4 132 25,528 Not available Not available

Total budgeta $491,500,000 $39,357,831 $8,066,368 $1,500,000,000 $11,592,049 $63,462,166

Per pupil spending $7,804.06 $6,262.18 $7,517.58 $7,177.96 $4,322.17 $3,801.50

aThe time period for the budget figures varies somewhat due to the differences in the fiscal year

for different states and school districts.

In addition, we conducted a telephone survey with officials from school

districts in each of these three states. We selected a random sample of

school districts in each state, stratified by size. We drew this sample from

the Department of Education’s Common Core of Data database, which

contains information on the approximately 15,000 school districts in the

United States as reported by states and school districts for the 1993-94

school year. In drawing the sample, we eliminated districts that reported

no schools for the 1993-94 school year. We verified our data through the

current school district listing provided on each state’s Internet site. We

eliminated a few districts from the sample because they were no longer

operating or had already participated in a site visit or group interview. For

each of the 83 districts selected, we sent a letter to the district

superintendent asking the superintendent or assistant superintendent to

participate in a 1-hour telephone interview with us regarding the

implementation of federal requirements. Superintendents were invited to

include key staff members in the interview (many of them did) or to solicit

comments from staff prior to the interview. A total of 59 school districts

(71 percent) participated in the survey. In each state, at least 5 percent of

the districts in the state participated in the survey. However, due to the

small number of total participants and the qualitative nature of many of

the questions, the survey was not designed to enable us to project

quantitative estimates at the state level. In these interviews, we asked

districts about the information and technical assistance they received on

federal requirements, the eligibility determination process, federal

funding, application processes, accounting and reporting requirements,

and other areas. All data were self-reported.

Our group interviews, site visits to states and school districts, and

telephone survey results also provided important information on how

Page 21 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 1 

Introduction

federal flexibility efforts have affected local school districts. We obtained

additional information on waivers of state requirements, consolidated

planning and reporting initiatives, and financial flexibility mechanisms by

surveying education officials in the 50 states. In this survey, we asked state

officials about the number and types of waivers granted for state

requirements, the extent to which school districts in their state submitted

consolidated applications and reports, and the extent to which school

districts in their state used certain financial flexibility mechanisms. In

addition, we reviewed the Department of Education’s data on waivers and

interviewed federal and state officials to discuss their views on flexibility

initiatives. We also reviewed the legislation, regulations, and guidance

associated with these efforts.

Our work was done between September 1997 and August 1998 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Page 22 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 2 

Federal Requirements and Financial

Assistance Reflect Desire for Safe and

Effective Schools for All Students

School districts serve their communities in several key roles—not only as

educators but also as food service providers, employers, and managers of

public facilities. In each of these roles, the school district is faced with

federal requirements designed to ensure equal educational opportunity,

protect the integrity of federal funds, improve quality in key educational

areas, and ensure students’ and employees’ safety and health. Many of

these requirements are accompanied by federal dollars, although federal

funding seldom provides complete support. States play a key role in

administering federal programs and also impose their own restrictions on

school district activities.

Federal Requirements

Are Designed to

Promote Equity and

Excellence in

Education

School districts must comply with federal requirements in several areas,

including not only education but also environmental, employment, and

food services. This range of programs and mandates reflects a variety of

purposes and objectives. Federal programs and mandates are designed to

ensure equal educational opportunity, improve educational quality

(especially in certain targeted areas), guard against safety and health

hazards, and protect financial integrity.

Two of these goals—equal educational opportunity and improving

quality—concern how the district provides instruction. Many federal

education programs (including some of the largest federal efforts) are

intended to ensure equal educational opportunity for children with various

types of disadvantages. For example, the federal government funds

programs specifically targeted to children with disabilities, poor children,

homeless children, and children with limited English proficiency. Other

federal education programs are directed not at particular children but at

particular topics or subject areas that are thought to have special national

or economic importance. Federal teacher training programs, for example,

give priority to math and science instruction. Through targeted programs,

the federal government also earmarks funds for vocational education and

for integrating technology into the classroom.

Other federal programs and requirements are designed to indirectly

facilitate high-quality education by ensuring that students and teachers

work and learn in a safe environment. A number of federal requirements,

including environmental mandates and nutrition requirements for school

meals, aim to ensure or improve students’ safety and health. In addition,

those programs that distribute federal dollars carry a concern with

ensuring the integrity of those funds. Documentation, spending, and

auditing requirements address these concerns. Table 2.1 summarizes the

Page 23 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 2 

Federal Requirements and Financial

Assistance Reflect Desire for Safe and

Effective Schools for All Students

types of objectives for federal programs or mandates and provides

examples in each category.

Table 2.1: Program Objectives and

Examples of Federal Programs and

Requirements

Objective Example of program or requirement

Ensuring equal educational

opportunity

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act provides

financial assistance to school districts and establishes

procedures to ensure that students with disabilities

receive a free, appropriate public education.

The Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act

provides funding to help states and districts ensure that

homeless children have access to public schools.

The Bilingual Education program provides funds for

school districts to assist students with limited English

proficiency, using instructional approaches chosen by the

district (including, but not limited to, bilingual education).

Improving quality in

educational areas with

special importance

The Technology for Education program provides funding

for schools to upgrade their technology, including

purchasing computers and educational software.

The Eisenhower Professional Development program

provides money for teacher training, with a special

emphasis on math and science.

Guarding against safety and

health hazards

The Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act requires

school districts to manage asbestos to guard against

exposure to harmful asbestos fibers.

The Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Act

provides funding for local school districts’ programs to

prevent violence and substance abuse.

Protecting the integrity of

funds

Federal education programs, including Title I, include

financial accountability measures that restrict how

districts spend federal funds and limit the amount school

districts can carry over from one year to the next.

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 limited school districts’ ability

to earn higher rates of interest on the proceeds of bonds

they issue under their tax-exempt status.

Page 24 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 2 

Federal Requirements and Financial

Assistance Reflect Desire for Safe and

Effective Schools for All Students

Federal Requirements

Affect School

Districts in Their

Roles as Educators,

Food Service

Providers, Employers,

and Facilities

Managers

Many people think of school districts only as educators, because teaching

children is their fundamental mission. However, in addition to their

primary function as educators, school districts also serve in other roles,

many of which are resource-intensive and of great importance to the

community. For example, in addition to operating classrooms, schools

operate restaurants—most serving lunch and many serving breakfast. In

one rural school district we visited, the single school cafeteria served

lunch to about 1,000 students each day—probably more than any other

restaurant in the local area. School districts are also employers of

teachers, aides, administrators, and custodians. School districts manage

one or more public buildings, which may be used by the community for

voting, adult education, or recreational activities. In each of these roles the

school district is subject to a variety of federal requirements.

Federal Programs

Influence How Districts

Provide Educational

Services

As educators, districts receive funding from the federal government and in

return must follow program requirements. The largest federal education

programs provide financial assistance to many school districts, although

the programs target specific student populations. For example, in school

year 1997-98 about 89 percent of the school districts in the United States

received funding from the Title I program, which helps school districts

finance programs to assist disadvantaged students, particularly in reading

and math. Along with financial assistance, federal programs come with

requirements concerning which students or what subject areas are to be

targeted, what records must be kept, and how school districts are allowed

to spend federal dollars. Title I requirements specify a formula for how

funds must be distributed to schools within a district. Similarly, Perkins

Act programs, which support vocational education, require school districts

to give priority in allocating funds to sites or programs that have higher

concentrations of students with disabilities, economically or educationally

disadvantaged students, and students with limited English proficiency.

Federal regulations also require school districts (and other recipients of

federal funds) to keep records of equipment purchased with federal funds

and to submit to an annual financial audit in accordance with the Single

Audit Act.

The different education programs vary in the extent to which they

prescribe and restrict school districts’ use of federal funds. For example,

the Safe and Drug Free Schools program is often considered a flexible

program; within the broad guidelines established by the statute, school

districts are free to develop their own programs. In contrast, the

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) specifies several

Page 25 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 2 

Federal Requirements and Financial

Assistance Reflect Desire for Safe and

Effective Schools for All Students

procedures school districts must follow in providing educational services

to children with disabilities. Under IDEA, districts must assess a student’s

need for additional services; for each student, create an Individualized

Education Program (IEP) that details the support services the student will

receive; offer services in accordance with the IEP; review each child’s IEP

annually and revise it as appropriate; and reevaluate the child’s need for

special education services as appropriate, but at least once every 3 years.9

Other federal requirements also affect how school districts provide

educational services, even though they are not associated with any

specific federal program. For example, even if a school district does not

receive funds under federal bilingual education programs, the district is

still required by federal civil rights law to provide meaningful access to

education for students with limited English proficiency.

School Districts Receive

Federal Assistance Under

Food Service Programs

School districts also receive federal assistance in their role as food service

providers. In fiscal year 1997, nearly 94,000 schools—including almost 99

percent of public schools—chose to participate in the National School

Lunch program, serving an average of more than 26 million lunches daily.

Nearly 68,000 schools participated in the National School Breakfast

program, serving an average of 6.9 million breakfasts every day in fiscal

year 1997. Under these federally funded child nutrition programs, school

districts receive cash assistance based on the number of meals they serve

and the number of low-income children who are served free or

reduced-price meals.10 Schools also receive additional federal support in

the form of agricultural commodities such as meats, fruits and vegetables,

and dairy products. About 17 percent of the total dollar value of the food

served in the school lunch program is provided through commodities.

In return for this federal support, schools must provide free and

reduced-price meals to children from low-income families and ensure that

the meals meet federal nutrition standards. Children from families with

incomes at or below 130 percent of the poverty level are eligible for free

meals. Children from families with incomes between 130 and 185 percent

9

For more information about the varying degrees of flexibility within grant programs, see Grant

Programs: Design Features Shape Flexibility, Accountability, and Performance Information

(GAO/GGD-98-137, June 22, 1998).

10In school year 1997-98, the federal reimbursement rates were: $1.89 for each free lunch served; $1.49

for each reduced-price lunch; $0.18 for each full-price lunch; $1.045 for each free breakfast; $0.745 for

each reduced-price breakfast; and $0.20 for each full-price breakfast. Some schools in the school

breakfast program may qualify for a higher reimbursement rate (the “severe need” rate) if a specified

percentage of their breakfasts are served free or at a reduced price. Higher rates for both breakfast

and lunch are also paid to schools in Alaska and Hawaii.

Page 26 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 2 

Federal Requirements and Financial

Assistance Reflect Desire for Safe and

Effective Schools for All Students

of the poverty level are eligible for reduced-price meals.11 In addition, as of

school year 1996-97,12 schools must serve meals which meet several

nutrition requirements established in the 1990 Dietary Guidelines for

Americans, including limiting total fat to 30 percent of calories and

limiting saturated fat to less than 10 percent of calories. School lunches

must also provide at least one-third of the Recommended Dietary

Allowances of protein, calcium, iron, vitamin A, and vitamin C; school

breakfasts must provide at least one-quarter of these levels.13

Like Other Employers,

School Districts Are

Subject to Worker

Protection Legislation

School districts are generally subject to the same workplace regulations as

other employers. For example, antidiscrimination laws generally apply to

school districts as well as to private businesses. Like other employers,

school districts are generally prohibited from discriminating against

employees because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin by Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act; similarly, the Age Discrimination in

Employment Act prohibits discrimination against workers aged 40 and

over. In addition, under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and

section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, school districts are prohibited from

discriminating on the basis of disability and required to provide reasonable

accommodation to an employee with a disability.14

Other worker protection legislation also applies to teachers and other

school district workers. Although school districts are specifically exempt

from the Occupational Safety and Health Act, some states require school

districts to adhere to certain workplace safety standards. In addition,

school districts are generally required to provide unpaid leave under the

Family and Medical Leave Act,15 and to follow the minimum wage, child

11Schools may charge no more than $0.30 for a reduced-price breakfast and up to $0.40 for a

reduced-price lunch.

12State agencies may authorize some schools to delay implementation to a later date, but not later than

school year 1998-99.

13Compliance with the nutrition standards and the calorie levels is determined by averaging lunches or

breakfasts over a school week.

14A reasonable accommodation is one that will enable the individual with a disability to perform the

necessary work without imposing an undue hardship on the employer. For example, a reasonable

accommodation for an individual in a wheelchair might be to raise his or her desk so that the

wheelchair can fit comfortably beneath it. For more information, see People With Disabilities: Federal

Programs Could Work Together More Efficiently to Promote Employment (GAO/HEHS-96-126, Sept. 3,

1996); and Persons With Disabilities: Reports on Costs of Accommodations (GAO/HRD-90-44BR,

Jan. 4, 1990).

15Special provisions in the law allow school districts to play a role in scheduling unpaid leave for

teachers and other instructional staff.

Page 27 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 2 

Federal Requirements and Financial

Assistance Reflect Desire for Safe and

Effective Schools for All Students

labor, and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.16 In

addition to these federal requirements, many school districts are governed

by collective bargaining agreements that may also establish policies

affecting compensation, overtime, and workplace conditions. In school

year 1993-94, an estimated 64 percent of all public school districts had a

collective bargaining agreement with a teachers’ union or organization.17

In Managing Their

Facilities, School Districts

Must Comply With

Accessibility and

Environmental

Requirements

As managers of public facilities, school districts are responsible for

ensuring that these facilities are accessible to people with disabilities.

Under ADA and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, school districts face

accessibility requirements that differ for new and existing buildings. For

existing buildings, school districts must operate their programs so that,

when viewed in their entirety, the programs are accessible to individuals

with disabilities. The law does not require a school district to retrofit each

of its existing facilities to make them fully accessible to individuals with

disabilities. However, a more stringent standard applies to new

construction and to certain renovations of existing facilities; these

buildings must be readily accessible and useable by individuals with

disabilities and must comply with design standards.18

School districts also must comply with certain environmental standards

where they are applicable. For example, AHERA required school districts to

inspect schools for asbestos, to draw up an asbestos management plan

that identifies where asbestos is located in the schools, and to reinspect

schools every 3 years to ensure that asbestos materials have not become

damaged.19 Similarly, to protect groundwater from contamination, school

districts that operate underground storage tanks (UST) must comply with

federal and state safety requirements. Certain USTs are required to meet

EPA requirements for spill protection and corrosion prevention; owners of

affected USTs must upgrade their tanks to meet these standards by

16For more information about workplace regulation, see Workplace Regulation: Information on

Selected Employer and Union Experiences (GAO/HEHS-94-138, vols. I and II, June 30, 1994).

17This overall percentage masks sharp differences by region—in the Northeast, 98 percent of districts

had a collective bargaining agreement, compared with only 12 percent in the South.

18For more information on school districts and accessibility requirements, see School Facilities:

Accessibility for the Disabled Still an Issue (GAO/HEHS-96-73, Dec. 29, 1995).

19Asbestos-containing material is generally safe as long as it is intact or encapsulated. However, when

asbestos-containing materials become worn or damaged, they may discharge dangerous asbestos

fibers into the surrounding air.

Page 28 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 2 

Federal Requirements and Financial

Assistance Reflect Desire for Safe and

Effective Schools for All Students

December 22, 1998.20 If a UST is found to have a leak, the owner may also

be required to take action to prevent further contamination of the soil.

Additional requirements may govern school districts’ disposal of

hazardous materials (for example, chemicals from a high school science

lab). Other environmental requirements may also apply to school districts.

For example, one district we visited found that the well used by one

school violated EPA standards, and a new well was dug to replace it.

Federal Funding

Accompanies Many

Major Federal

Requirements but

Does Not Fully

Support Most

Program Activities

Of the 36 major federal programs or legislative mandates in our review,21

over half carry some federal funding. Programs that directly support

instructional activity (such as Title I and Safe and Drug Free Schools)

carry some federal dollars, as do the child nutrition programs that support

school food service programs. Programs and requirements less directly

related to the educational role of the school district, however, are less

likely to provide direct financial assistance. Employment-related

requirements, for example, do not provide financial support; and

environmental requirements generally come without financial assistance.

Indirect federal support—especially in the form of information and

technical assistance—is often provided for many federal programs and

mandates, whether or not direct financial assistance is also provided. For

example, EPA has published documents to provide information on UST

requirements, and the federal Department of Education provides support

for technical assistance, mainly through state agencies.

For many major programs, federal financial contributions do not fully fund

the activities these programs support. Federal dollars account for a

relatively low share of total education spending (about 7 percent in school

year 1995-96), while state and local funds account for about 47 and 46

percent, respectively.22,23 Although reliable information on local

expenditures for specific program areas is scarce, the available figures

show similar results. For example, the Department of Education has

estimated that in the early 1990s, in 24 states, about $13.9 billion was spent

annually to provide services to children with disabilities under IDEA, yet

20These standards generally apply to USTs over 110 gallons in capacity that contain petroleum

products. Tanks used to store heating oil that is used on the premises of the tank are exempt.

Residential USTs are also exempt.

21For a complete list of these programs and mandates, see app. I.

22Figures for local funds also include revenues contributed by intermediate units.

23Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education: School Year 1995-96,

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for

Education Statistics, NCES 98-205 (Apr. 1998).

Page 29 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 2 

Federal Requirements and Financial

Assistance Reflect Desire for Safe and

Effective Schools for All Students

federal funds accounted for only 7 percent of these costs. In our 1993-94

survey of school districts, the average amount of federal funding school

districts reported receiving for vocational education equaled only 11

percent of the average amount of funding districts reported receiving from

state and local sources.24 Similarly, one of the large districts we visited

received $695,242 in federal bilingual education funds but budgeted about

$30 million for bilingual education instruction. Food service programs

appear to be an exception to this overall pattern, being fully or nearly fully

funded by federal dollars; a research study found that in school year

1992-93, the federal reimbursement rate for a free lunch under the National

School Lunch program was approximately equal to the median cost of

producing a school lunch.25

Although it is clear that the cost of many education activities exceeds the

overall federal contribution, the precise size of this gap is difficult to

determine for specific areas or requirements. Little information is available

on the true cost of many education and education-related activities that

are supported with federal funds. Even at the level of the local school

district, it is usually difficult to determine exactly how much has been

spent on different educational activities such as “regular” classroom

instruction, special education, dropout prevention, assistance to students

with limited English proficiency, and so forth. Some of the districts we

visited set up their budgets to provide such program-specific information,

but others did not. When districts do generate their budgets on a

program-specific basis, their definitions and methods of classifying

expenses may be inconsistent with those of other districts, making

comparisons across districts often difficult and sometimes impossible.

These difficulties are further complicated by the wide variation in per

pupil spending across school districts. For example, for the six districts

we visited, the highest-spending district spent over twice as much per

student ($7,804.06) as the lowest-spending district ($3,801.50). Factors

such as district size, geographic differences in salaries and other expenses,

the age and condition of school facilities, and the composition of the

student body (such as the number of students with disabilities or with

limited English proficiency) can contribute to such differences and make

24Vocational Education: Changes at High School Level After Amendments to Perkins Act

(GAO/HEHS-95-144, July 12, 1995).

25Abt Associates, School Lunch and Breakfast Cost Study, prepared under contract to the Food and

Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Oct. 1994.

Page 30 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 2 

Federal Requirements and Financial

Assistance Reflect Desire for Safe and

Effective Schools for All Students

it difficult to say what level of expenditure is adequate or appropriate for a

particular program.26

States Often Play a

Key Role in

Requirements

Affecting School

Districts

Several programs provide funding directly from the federal government to

school districts. These programs include Impact Aid, which provides

general financial assistance to school districts adversely affected by

federal property or by large numbers of federally connected children, and

Head Start, which provides a broad array of educational and social

services to low-income children through local agencies (some of which are

school districts). However, 17 of the 23 programs we reviewed that

provide federal funding distribute these dollars through the states. The

largest federal education programs—Title I and IDEA, which provided

$8 billion and $4.8 billion in fiscal year 1998, respectively—distribute their

funds through state education agencies.

The role played by the state agency differs substantially across various

federal programs. For example, under the Adult Education program, states

have considerable discretion in distributing federal funds because each

state can determine the criteria it will use to award competitive grants. In

contrast, Eisenhower Professional Development program funds (which

finance teacher training) are merely passed through the state, with district

allocations already determined by the formula set out in the federal

statute. The role of the state in program administration also varies. In the

National School Lunch program, the state plays a key role in selecting and

distributing federal commodities. For many programs, states play a key

oversight role as well. Under IDEA, for example, the states assume a major

part of the responsibility for ensuring that school districts comply with the

law’s requirements.

For most of the programs we reviewed that provide federal funds, school

districts must submit plans or applications to either the state or the federal

government.27 These plans or applications generally contain information

on how the funds will be used, certifications that federally prescribed

procedures will be followed, and assurances that federal funds will be

expended in accordance with the purpose of the program. For certain

26For more information on differences in spending across school districts, see Wayne Riddle and Liane

White, “Expenditures in Public School Districts: Estimates of Disparities and Analysis of Their

Causes,” Developments in School Finance 1996, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational

Research and Improvement, the National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 97-535 (July 1997); and

Disparities in Public School District Spending, 1989-90, U.S. Department of Education, Office of

Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 95-300R

(Feb. 1995).

27For specific information on which federal programs require plans or applications, see app. II.

Page 31 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 2 

Federal Requirements and Financial

Assistance Reflect Desire for Safe and

Effective Schools for All Students

programs in some states, school districts must also request and receive

reimbursement from the state, rather than receiving grant funds up front.

In fulfilling their role as administrators of federal programs, state

governments sometimes place additional requirements on school districts.

For example, federal requirements allow districts to purchase equipment

costing under $5,000 without separate documentation; however, in one

state we visited, a lower threshold of $500 had been set by the state

government.28 In cases where a state requirement arises from the

implementation of a federal program or regulation, it becomes especially

hard to distinguish a state requirement from a federal one. From the point

of view of the local school district, it may not be important where the

requirement originated because the district must comply in any case. Staff

in most of the school districts we visited told us that they could not tell or

did not know which requirements were state and which were federal, and

education experts told us that this was probably true of most districts

nationwide.

States have also imposed many requirements on educational programs in

areas unregulated by the federal government, such as curriculum and

teacher certification. For example, by 1996, 44 states had set minimum

curriculum requirements for high school graduation, 43 states required

districts to offer a half-day or full-day kindergarten, and 46 states

established professional development requirements or continuing

education requirements for teachers. States also specify a required number

of days or hours for the school year.29

In addition to federal and state requirements, school districts are also

affected by requirements imposed by local governments and by the courts.

Local requirements such as building codes can affect school district

operations. Some school districts are also affected by judicial decisions.

For example, one district we visited had been required by a court order to

fund several programs as a result of a long-standing desegregation lawsuit.

In the area of special education, judicial decisions can affect what services

the district provides and which students receive them.

28For more information on state requirements and on three states’ efforts to provide more flexibility

with respect to state-imposed requirements, see Regulatory Flexibility in Schools: What Happens

When Schools Are Allowed to Change the Rules? (GAO/HEHS-94-102, Apr. 29, 1994).

29For more information on state requirements, see Council of Chief State School Officers, Key State

Education Policies on K-12 Education: Content Standards, Graduation, Teacher Licensure, Time and

Attendance (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 1996).

Page 32 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 3 

Implementation Issues Relating to Federal

Requirements Affect How School Districts

Plan, Fund, and Operate Educational

Programs

School district officials generally expressed support for federal initiatives,

recognizing the importance of such goals as ensuring equal educational

opportunity and protecting children’s health and safety. At the same time

they noted their concerns with implementation issues that make achieving

these goals more difficult. Rather than focusing on a single federal

program or requirement, these concerns extend to a wide variety of

implementation issues that affect all phases of program and service

delivery. School districts’ key implementation issues include: (1) the lack

of adequate information on federal requirements and federal funding,

which can make school districts less efficient and less innovative in

implementing federal requirements; (2) program and facilities costs

associated with federal requirements, as well as the administrative costs

associated with federal programs; and (3) the logistical and management

challenges presented by certain federal requirements, which can make it

difficult to meet federally prescribed timelines and to find the qualified

staff or providers to successfully implement federal requirements. In

confronting this wide variety of implementation issues, school district

officials expressed a desire for more information, additional funding, and

greater procedural flexibility.

Information on

Federal Requirements

and Funding Is

Essential for Program

and Financial

Planning

School district staff need extensive information about federal

requirements and funding allocations. To do their jobs well, district

administrators need to know the requirements associated with the various

programs, as well as the more broadly applicable environmental and

employment regulations. Although state agencies provide technical

assistance, district officials reported crucial information gaps. The number

and complexity of federal requirements, combined with the challenges

posed by staff turnover, make keeping up with the requirements a

challenge for both district and state staff. Without sufficient information

about federal requirements and funding, school districts may spend funds

unnecessarily, lose opportunities to structure programs to meet local

needs, and face uncertainty that limits their ability to conduct financial

planning.

School Districts Often

Lack Crucial Information,

Despite State Technical

Assistance Efforts

School district officials need to have detailed knowledge of federal

requirements in order to design educational programs in compliance with

federal laws and regulations and to conduct long- and short-term financial

planning. However, education experts, school district staff, and state

officials agreed that districts often have incomplete information about

federal requirements. Because district officials must comply with

Page 33 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 3 

Implementation Issues Relating to Federal

Requirements Affect How School Districts

Plan, Fund, and Operate Educational

Programs

numerous federal laws and regulations in a variety of complex

areas—such as special education, nutrition standards for school meals,

and environmental requirements—maintaining detailed knowledge can be

difficult. District and state officials told us that the large number of federal

laws and regulations often makes it hard to keep informed, especially as

requirements and personnel change. In addition, the complexity of certain

federal requirements can prove to be a challenge to district program

directors. For example, one special education director told us that “you

need a law degree and an MBA to understand the special ed regulations.”30

Although the Department of Education also provides technical assistance,

Department officials told us that it is primarily the states that face the

challenging task of keeping school districts informed. Our telephone

interviews confirmed that states are the school districts’ primary source of

information and technical assistance; when we asked district officials

whom they called first when they had a question on the Title I or IDEA

programs, about 80 percent said that they contacted their state

Department of Education.

Staff from 88 percent of the districts we interviewed by telephone said that

the assistance they received from the state Department of Education was

“helpful” or “very helpful.” However, school district officials still faced

information gaps that may limit their ability to implement innovative and

cost-effective education and support programs. For example, one program

director we interviewed told us that her contact at the state was prompt

and accurate in responding to questions but did not move proactively to

provide information, leaving her unaware of key regulatory provisions and

of potential grant opportunities. Another program director expressed a

similar concern, and said that it was especially difficult to keep up with

changes in the law without added clarification from state or federal

officials.

State and federal agencies face several challenges in using technical

assistance to address districts’ need for additional information. For

example, turnover of key administrative personnel at both the state and

the district level can have a negative impact on the effectiveness of

technical assistance. A survey conducted by the Council of the Great City

30Our results here are consistent with the results of our previous studies of business’s reaction to

federal requirements. In 1996, we found that companies had difficulty developing a list of regulations

that were applicable to them and that misunderstandings and misinterpretations may have led

companies to incur unnecessary expenses in complying with federal requirements. In 1994, we found

that many employers exhibited a lack of awareness and knowledge of many federal workplace

requirements. For more information, see Regulatory Burden: Measurement Challenges and Concerns

Raised by Selected Companies (GAO/GGD-97-2, Nov. 18, 1996), and GAO/HEHS-94-138, June 30, 1994.

Page 34 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 3 

Implementation Issues Relating to Federal

Requirements Affect How School Districts

Plan, Fund, and Operate Educational

Programs

Schools31 of 49 large urban school districts found that the average tenure

of district superintendents in these large districts was less than 3 years.

Several education experts and district officials told us that states also

experience personnel turnover, and as a result some states may face

shortages of knowledgeable staff to provide technical assistance. In

addition, federal and state officials told us that they sometimes find their

efforts to use information technology (such as the Internet and e-mail)

frustrated by a lack of such technology at the local level.

Lack of Information Can

Impede Districts’ Ability to

Plan and Implement

Federal Programs and

Local Initiatives

School districts’ lack of knowledge may have a major effect not only on

their ability to administer federal programs, but also on their ability to

implement local initiatives to improve teaching and learning. School

district officials need to know what is required of them—both financially

and programmatically—and what assistance they will receive. Without

sufficient information on federal requirements and funding, districts may

spend funds unnecessarily, lose opportunities to structure programs as

they desire, and face uncertainty that limits their financial planning.

Misunderstandings about the scope of requirements may lead school

districts to spend more money than necessary in complying with federal

requirements, particularly in environmental areas. As a result, districts

may lose the opportunity to use these funds for other programs designed

to achieve key local objectives. For example, the superintendent in one

district we visited told us that district officials did not know what to do

about asbestos in the schools; in retrospect he believed that the district

might have been able to save some money if they had had more detailed

knowledge about the asbestos requirements at the time. An official from

another district told us that officials had not fully understood all the

requirements they had to follow when renovating their gymnasium; if they

had known about all the regulations before issuing the bond to pay for the

renovation, they would have tried to raise more money, she added.

Similarly, an EPA official told us that a lack of knowledge may lead some

districts to spend more than necessary to comply with the requirements on

USTs.

With incomplete information, district officials may interpret federal

requirements in very conservative and narrow ways, believing they have

less flexibility than they actually do. Limited knowledge may lead some

district officials to mistake long-standing practice for legal requirement,

making them more reluctant to adopt new educational initiatives. As a

31The Council of the Great City Schools is an association of large urban school districts.

Page 35 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 3 

Implementation Issues Relating to Federal

Requirements Affect How School Districts

Plan, Fund, and Operate Educational

Programs

result, districts may lose the opportunity to structure programs as they

would like. One district program coordinator told us that when she is not

absolutely sure of the requirements, she tends to be cautious “even if

somebody at the Department of Education told me it’s OK.” Similarly, a

state official said that “lots of mandates are perceived, not actual” because

often local school districts do not understand what is required or how

much flexibility they actually have.

In addition to needing information on what is required, district staff also

need to know how to use available flexibility mechanisms (such as

waivers) to assist them in improving educational programs. According to

district staff, federal officials, and other education experts, some districts

are not fully aware of the flexibility provisions available to them.

Moreover, in 1997 the Department of Education’s Inspector General

reported that many districts had insufficient information to take advantage

of flexibility provisions such as waivers and consolidated planning.32 The

Inspector General’s results are consistent with some districts’ responses to

our questions. For example, one district superintendent responded to our

question about federal waivers by saying, “I just never thought it was

possible.”

Finally, even when district staff have a good understanding of federal

requirements, they also need accurate and timely information on the

funding they will receive. District superintendents and program directors

expressed frustration with the lack of timely information on federal

funding allocations. According to these officials, by the time the Congress

appropriates the funds, the federal agencies allocate the money to the

states, the states allocate money to the districts, and the funds are made

available to the district, the district staff have only a brief window of

opportunity to plan their programs and make their purchases. For

example, in one district we visited, the district budget that was distributed

to school and central office staff carried a warning that changes were

possible because information on the coming year’s federal allocations was

not available. An official from this district told us that some federal grant

funds are sometimes received very late, causing the district to cut

purchases of textbooks and other supplies. Several district-level program

directors we interviewed advocated multiyear funding as a way of

reducing the uncertainty of the funding process.

32See U.S. Department of Education, Office of Inspector General, State and Local Education Agencies

Need More Technical Assistance to Take Full Advantage of the Flexibility Provisions of Title XIV of

the Improving America’s Schools Act, No. 04-70001 (Aug. 1997).

Page 36 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 3 

Implementation Issues Relating to Federal

Requirements Affect How School Districts

Plan, Fund, and Operate Educational

Programs

School Districts

Support Program

Purposes but Cite

Limited Funds to

Administer Programs

and Implement

Federal Requirements

School district officials generally agreed with the purposes and goals

associated with many federal programs and requirements, including

special education and environmental requirements. However, they also

expressed concern about both the program costs and the administrative

costs of implementing federal laws and regulations. Program costs in areas

such as special education, environmental requirements, accessibility, and

nutrition standards greatly exceed federal assistance, according to school

district officials. In addition, district staff told us that the eligibility

determination processes and accounting and reporting requirements

associated with federal programs can contribute to a heavy administrative

load. To a lesser extent, some district officials viewed federal restrictions

on raising or spending funds as an issue.

District Officials

Expressed Support for

Goals of Federal

Requirements

Many school district officials we interviewed expressed their support for

the purposes underlying certain federal requirements. This widespread

support extended to all types of program objectives, including equal

educational opportunity and improving instructional quality as well as

safety and financial integrity. District staff’s support for federal objectives

included not only programs with substantial funding but also requirements

where funding is not provided. Special education directors told us that

students with disabilities had benefited a great deal from special

education. Officials from several districts also said that they believe

restrictions on how districts spend federal funds were appropriate and

necessary to prevent fraud and abuse. One district official, explaining why

he believes targeting and spending restrictions are necessary, told us,

“When $11 billion is left on a tree stump I know what happens.” In another

district, the facilities manager told us that various environmental

requirements (such as those related to asbestos and other chemical

hazards) were necessary to protect health and safety. Some district staff

also agreed with the goal of promoting better nutrition in school meals.

Although Districts Support

Special Education, They

Report That Program Costs

Greatly Exceed Federal

Assistance

Although district officials generally agreed with the need to provide a

quality education to children with disabilities, they also expressed concern

about the cost of providing these services, especially in the context of

limited federal support. District superintendents and special education

directors identified a variety of factors as major contributors to the higher

costs of special education: (1) the large number of students who require

special education, (2) a few students whose very severe conditions require

extensive care and support, (3) a lack of assistance from other parties

(such as insurers and other public agencies) in providing related services,

Page 37 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 3 

Implementation Issues Relating to Federal

Requirements Affect How School Districts

Plan, Fund, and Operate Educational

Programs

and (4) the costs of litigation and procedural issues. These same elements

are frequently mentioned in the special education literature,33 although

research to measure the impact of each of these factors has not yet been

conducted.

First, in many districts a large number of students require special

education and related services. In the 50 states and the District of

Columbia, about 4.8 million students aged 6 to 17 were served under IDEA

in the 1995-96 school year. This amounts to approximately 10.6 percent of

all students in that age group. However, this percentage can vary

considerably across school districts and across states. For example,

across states the percentage of students aged 6 to 17 served under IDEA

ranged from 7.6 percent in Hawaii to 14.85 percent in Massachusetts. In

one district we visited, over 20 percent of students were receiving special

education.

Second, although many students with disabilities are fully integrated into

regular classrooms and require little additional support, a few children

with severe disabilities require more extensive—and more

expensive—support and care. For example, in one district we visited, the

special education director told us that the annual cost of caring for two

autistic children in the district amounted to approximately $150,000, and

four other students with psychiatric disorders were being served at a cost

of about $38,000 each. State officials and staff from other districts also

pointed to similar high-cost cases as an important factor in the cost of

special education.

Third, some district staff told us—and state officials confirmed—that

districts sometimes had difficulty obtaining financial assistance from

public agencies and private insurers for related services (especially health

services) they provided to a student with a disability. Under IDEA, the

school district is obligated to provide a “free appropriate public

education” to any student with a disability, including both special

education and “related services.” “Related services” are defined under

IDEA as services that may be required to help a child with a disability

benefit from special education, including transportation, speech-language

pathology and audiology services, physical and occupational therapy,

social work, counseling, and medical services. Similarly, assistive

technology (such as special computer software, a plastic device to assist in

33For a summary of this literature, see Nineteenth Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of

IDEA, U.S. Department of Education (1997); and Stephen Chaikind, Louis C. Danielson, and Marsha L.

Brauen, “What Do We Know About the Costs of Special Education? A Selected Review,” The Journal

of Special Education, 26 (4) (1993), pp. 344-70.

Page 38 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 3 

Implementation Issues Relating to Federal

Requirements Affect How School Districts

Plan, Fund, and Operate Educational

Programs

holding a pencil, or other items) may be needed to help the student

participate in school. Because many related services are health-related or

medical in nature, they may be covered under private health insurance

policies or under Medicaid, the government insurance program that

provides health care to poor families. In addition, other related services

(such as counseling or mental health care) may fall within the purview of

other state agencies such as the Department of Mental Health or Social

Services. However, some school district officials reported that they had

difficulty obtaining assistance or reimbursement from these other sources.

Even when assistance could be obtained, we were told, it was ofetn

insufficient to meet the costs. One district official told us that obtaining

funds from Medicaid and other health insurers was “an unbelievable

nightmare.” In its 1997 reauthorization of IDEA, the Congress specified that

other public agencies should provide services within their purviews and

required states to establish an interagency agreement or other mechanism

to establish which agency is financially responsible for which services and

to otherwise coordinate between agencies. However, it is too soon to

determine the impact of this provision on local school districts.

Finally, school district and state officials identified dispute

resolution—especially litigation—as a contributing factor to special

education costs. According to district officials, the possibility of litigation

not only creates legal costs, but also can make school districts more

cautious and less innovative in dealing with special education issues. As

one district official told us, “You always call the lawyer first on any

special education-related issue.” The superintendent in another district

said that a single due process hearing could cost his district around $8,000

to $10,000 in legal fees and salary costs, regardless of the outcome. The

special education director in that district also expressed concern about

legal costs. He added that because of the high cost of litigation, he does

not believe that he can refuse parents’ requests, even when he believes

they are unreasonable. Despite these anecdotal reports of high costs,

however, disability advocates often view litigation as necessary to prod

some school districts into providing necessary and required services. One

disability advocate we interviewed said that some school districts simply

will not provide services “until they are called on it.”

Environmental and

Facilities Requirements

Are Often Viewed as Both

Beneficial and Costly

District staff expressed support for environmental requirements designed

to ensure the safety of students and staff; however, some also worried

about the cost of making these needed improvements. When discussing

funding issues, many district officials mentioned the need to abate or

Page 39 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 3 

Implementation Issues Relating to Federal

Requirements Affect How School Districts

Plan, Fund, and Operate Educational

Programs

remove asbestos when renovating, remodeling, or repairing school

buildings. Asbestos abatement can be costly, even in the context of a

remodeling project. For example, when one district we visited remodeled

two buildings in 1991, asbestos removal cost the district a total of

$174,376. In another district we visited, district staff told us that they had

to postpone repairs to one school’s roof because they could not afford the

cost of removing the current roof, which contains asbestos. In our 1994

survey on school facilities, schools reported having spent an average of

$43,000 on asbestos in the previous 3 years; furthermore, schools reported

needing to spend an average of $71,000 over the next 3 years on asbestos.34

Asbestos abatement issues will continue to present school districts with

difficult and often expensive financial choices, as more schools are

remodeled or modernized. School enrollments are growing; at the same

time, many of America’s schools are in poor condition, needing not only

repair but additional space to accommodate modern instructional

techniques like alternative student assessments.35 Finally, as we reported

in 1995,36 many schools need to put in place the building infrastructure

needed to support information technology, including electrical wiring,

conduits/raceways for computer cables, and additional electrical outlets.

As a result, many school districts will be faced with asbestos abatement

expenses as they prepare to modernize their aging buildings.

Incomplete implementation of existing requirements may also compound

schools’ difficulties with asbestos. For example, an EPA study estimated

that only 16 percent of the original AHERA inspections were “thorough

inspections”; the remaining 84 percent of inspections failed to either

accurately identify, quantify, or record the location of asbestos-containing

material in the school.37 As a result, a school or district that relied on its

AHERA plan to avoid disturbing asbestos might experience asbestos

problems in areas it could not or did not anticipate. In addition, federal

officials expressed concern that because of lack of communication,

turnover in personnel, or other reasons, school or district officials might

fail to adequately review their AHERA plan before beginning remodeling

work, and as a result they might encounter asbestos-related problems.

34The median figures for asbestos spending were considerably lower: $5,500 for spending in previous

years and $10,000 for needed spending in the next 3 years. For more information, see School Facilities:

America’s Schools Report Differing Conditions (GAO/HEHS-96-103, June 14, 1996).

35One special education director told us that the growing number of students in special

education—and smaller class sizes in special education classes—also created a need for more space.

36See School Facilities: America’s Schools Not Designed or Equipped for 21st Century

(GAO/HEHS-95-95, Apr. 4, 1995).

37See Asbestos in Schools: Evaluation of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA): A

Summary Report, EPA, Office of Toxic Substances, EPA 560/4-91-012 (June 1991).

Page 40 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 3 

Implementation Issues Relating to Federal

Requirements Affect How School Districts

Plan, Fund, and Operate Educational

Programs

In some districts, staff also mentioned the difficulty in absorbing the cost

of upgrading or removing USTs. Representatives from education

associations also cited USTs as an expense that poses problems for some

school districts. The cost of upgrading USTs can vary considerably

depending on a number of factors, including the condition of the soil,

labor costs in the area, type of upgrade, length of downtime, and when the

upgrade is done (upgrades done closer to the December 22, 1998, deadline

for compliance are expected to be more expensive). EPA has estimated that

upgrading a three-tank system may cost from about $13,000 to $20,000,

while permanently closing a UST may cost roughly $5,000 to $11,000.

Staff in five of the six districts we visited, as well as some of the districts

in our phone survey, told us that making buildings accessible for people

with disabilities was a major expense. Staff from one urban district told us

that the cost of making all facilities fully accessible would be

“astronomical,” and it had been “a strain” to find funds to meet the

current accessibility requirements (which do not require making all

buildings accessible). The business manager in another district told us that

not only were the accessibility renovations costly, but that maintaining

equipment such as wheelchair lifts was also expensive. Their comments

are consistent with the results of our December 1995 study on school

accessibility.38 About 56 percent of the schools we surveyed for that study

believed that they would need to spend some money in the coming 3 years

(1995-1998) to improve accessibility. In addition, 53 percent of schools in

the survey reported having incurred expenditures in the previous 3 years

(1991-1994) to improve accessibility. According to the survey results,

schools across the country could have been expected to spend about

$5.2 billion on accessibility in the 1995 to 1998 period. Like the district

staff we interviewed, school officials in that study reported that many

schools were not made accessible because of a lack of funding.

Some Food Service

Directors Concerned

About Cost of

Implementing Nutrition

Standards

Despite their general support for the goal of improving the nutritional

value of school meals, some district staff also told us that they believe the

new nutrition standards have increased or will increase their costs.

According to a study conducted by the Department of Agriculture, the

nutrition standards can be implemented without increasing the cost of the

meals.39 However, several food service directors we interviewed

disagreed. They told us that training staff in new methods of food

38See GAO/HEHS-96-73, Dec. 29, 1995.

39See Federal Register, June 10, 1994, vol. 59, no. 111, pp. 30218-30251, and Federal Register, Jan. 27,

1995, vol. 60, no. 18, pp. 5514-5528.

Page 41 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 3 

Implementation Issues Relating to Federal

Requirements Affect How School Districts

Plan, Fund, and Operate Educational

Programs

preparation has been time-consuming and challenging. Additionally, we

were told that some items that used to be made in-house (like salad

dressing) were replaced with more expensive commercial versions to

meet the new federal standards that limit the fat content of school meals.

The potential magnitude of this issue is still unclear, however, as many

districts are still in the relatively early stages of implementing these

requirements.

For Certain Targeted

Programs, Eligibility

Determination Can Be

Resource-Intensive for

Many Districts

Several of the largest federal programs for school districts are targeted to

a particular group, such as students with disabilities or students from

low-income families. Although this program design allows federal dollars

to be directed to those students most in need, it also requires school

district staff to determine which students are eligible for assistance.

School district staff described eligibility determination under two of these

federal programs as particularly challenging, but for very different

reasons. District officials viewed eligibility determination for school lunch

and breakfast programs as challenging (despite efforts to help streamline

the process), mainly because of the volume of paperwork that must be

processed within a short period of time. For special education, the

challenge in determining eligibility rests with the individualized nature of

an eligibility process that often requires detailed reviews by various

professionals.

School Lunch and Breakfast

Programs

A major challenge in administering federally funded food service programs

comes at the beginning of the school year, when school and district staff

must identify which students are eligible for free and reduced-price meals.

In five of the six districts we visited, more than 25 percent of district

children are eligible for free and reduced-price meals. Every one of the

food service directors in these districts identified eligibility determination

as a major challenge. Superintendents and other officials from school

districts in our telephone interviews also commented on the difficulty and

expense involved in determining eligibility for free and reduced-price

meals, although they continued to participate in the child nutrition

programs.

Students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches and/or breakfasts

on the basis of income and family size. This program structure, while

allowing federal dollars to be targeted to those students most in need,

requires school district staff to determine which students are eligible for

assistance. At the beginning of the year, school districts generally

distribute applications to school children and their families. Once

Page 42 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 3 

Implementation Issues Relating to Federal

Requirements Affect How School Districts

Plan, Fund, and Operate Educational

Programs

applications are returned by the parents, district staff process the

applications to determine a child’s eligibility. Some district officials told us

that because of pride or privacy concerns, some students and parents

(particularly at the high school level) do not return applications even if

they know they are eligible. To ensure that only eligible students receive

benefits, the school district is also required to verify income information

for a sample of applications. Once eligibility determinations have been

made, district officials must notify the parents and then incorporate the

eligibility information into the district’s food service system. All of this

processing takes place at the beginning of the school year, a very busy

period for all school staff.

Food service staff at the districts we interviewed used two strategies to try

to limit the work created by this application process. First, districts used a

process called “direct certification” to quickly identify and enroll a

portion of eligible students. Under direct certification, students from

families that receive food stamps or public assistance can be certified as

eligible for free or reduced-price meals. Data from public assistance

records is matched with school files, obviating the need for parents to fill

out applications and for district staff to process the forms.

All of the districts we visited used direct certification, and the food service

directors were grateful for the opportunity to use this streamlined process.

However, district officials added that while direct certification was

helpful, they still faced an administrative challenge in processing

applications. Because many families who qualify for free or reduced-price

meals do not receive public assistance or food stamps, district officials

must gather and process data on a large number of families who cannot be

enrolled through direct certification. For example, in one district we

visited, district officials could use direct certification to enroll only about

31 percent of eligible students; for the remaining 69 percent, the district

had to distribute, collect, and process applications.

Second, some districts have also used a more sweeping strategy to reduce

the costs associated with eligibility determination—a universal service or

no-fee option. Under these options, schools serve lunches and/or

breakfasts to all students at no charge, regardless of whether their family

income would qualify them for a free meal. Districts are reimbursed based

on the number of qualifying students for the year before they began

serving no-fee meals. At the end of the 3-to-5-year program period, districts

must generally redetermine students’ eligibility to provide a new,

up-to-date basis for reimbursement.

Page 43 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 3 

Implementation Issues Relating to Federal

Requirements Affect How School Districts

Plan, Fund, and Operate Educational

Programs

Under universal or no-fee service, districts reduce the administrative costs

associated with determining eligibility and with counting and claiming

meals by reimbursement category. However, the cost of the meals

increases as the district pays for meals served to students who would not

otherwise be eligible for free meals. In addition, with all meals served for

free, more students may eat in the cafeteria rather than bring lunch from

home, further increasing the cost of the food service program. For any one

district, total costs may increase or decrease depending on the strength of

these factors. Two of the districts we visited had one or more schools

participating in these programs recently, and they reported different

experiences. In one district we visited, the no-fee approach was in place at

several schools, and district officials told us that universal feeding had

lowered their total costs while allowing them to serve more children. In

contrast, the food service director in another district reported that they

had experimented with universal programs in two schools but

discontinued the initiative because the total costs of operating the

programs increased at both schools.40

Special Education Programs Eligibility determination for special education can also be a

resource-intensive process, according to school district officials. Staff in

over half (53 percent) of the districts we surveyed by telephone said that

eligibility determination for special education posed challenges for the

district. According to district officials, the individualized nature of

determining eligibility for special education allows students with

disabilities to have educational programs tailored to their specific needs.

However, precisely because eligibility and program decisions must

consider each child’s unique situation, it is difficult for school districts to

streamline the process.

Under IDEA, a child is eligible for special education services if he or she is

“a child with a disability”—that is, a child who needs special education

and related services because of mental retardation, hearing impairments,

speech or language impairments, visual impairments, emotional

disturbance, orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic brain injury,

learning disabilities, or other health impairments.41 To help determine

40In both these districts, schools in the universal program had at least 80 percent of students eligible

for free and reduced-price meals. As we noted in our testimony on the pilot program that preceded the

current universal options, for the program to be cost effective a school needs to have a large number

of students who qualify for free and reduced-price meals. See Food Assistance: Early Results of

USDA’s No-Fee School Meal Pilot Program (GAO/T-RCED-94-184, Apr. 14, 1994).

41States and school districts are allowed (but not required) to also consider a child eligible for special

education if that child is 3 to 9 years of age and experiencing developmental delays in physical,

cognitive, communication, social or emotional, or adaptive development and therefore is judged to

need special education and related services.

Page 44 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 3 

Implementation Issues Relating to Federal

Requirements Affect How School Districts

Plan, Fund, and Operate Educational

Programs

eligibility, school districts may obtain expert opinions from various

professionals, including doctors, child psychologists, social workers, and

others. These professionals may either be on the school district staff or

work as independent contractors, but in any case are paid by the school

district. If a child’s parents are not satisfied with the school district’s

evaluation, they have the legal right to have another evaluation done by

independent professionals, at the school district’s expense.

Once a child is determined eligible for special education, a decision must

be made about what services and supports the child needs. Each child

must have an Individualized Education Program (IEP) that describes the

child’s educational performance, the goals for the child in the coming year,

and the special educational and support services the child will receive to

help meet these goals. The IEP is developed—and must be agreed to—by

an “IEP team.” By federal law, the IEP team must include the parents of

the child; at least one of the child’s regular education teachers, if the child

is or may be participating in a regular classroom; at least one special

education provider; and a representative of the school district. The parents

or district staff may also invite other individuals to participate. States may

impose additional requirements on the composition of the IEP team. For

example, Massachusetts requires that, for an older student who may need

continuing services outside the school system, a representative from an

agency that provides adult services be invited to the IEP meetings at least 2

years before the anticipated exit date. The IEP must be reviewed each year

and revised as appropriate by the IEP team, and students must be

reevaluated for eligibility at least once every 3 years.

This highly individualized process allows students with disabilities to have

educational programs tailored to their specific and unique needs.

However, school district superintendents and special education directors

told us that this process comes at a high price in terms of time and money.

For example, prior to the 1997 amendments to IDEA, school districts were

not required by federal law to have a regular classroom teacher participate

in the development of the IEP. Many district officials told us that

implementing this new requirement would be difficult and costly,

primarily because substitute teachers must be hired to take over

classroom duties when regular teachers are attending IEP meetings during

normal school hours.

Staff from some school districts also told us that, in their opinions, the

IDEA definition of eligibility is unclear or too subjective, making eligibility

determination more difficult. For example, one special education director

Page 45 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 3 

Implementation Issues Relating to Federal

Requirements Affect How School Districts

Plan, Fund, and Operate Educational

Programs

told us that in his experience, almost any child who is referred for an

evaluation concerning emotional disturbance is given that diagnosis.

Officials from other districts echoed this concern with respect to

emotional disturbance and disability in general, especially when possible

disability diagnoses are raised in the context of a student’s inappropriate

conduct.

The definition of disability in general, and the subcategories of emotional

disturbance and learning disability in particular, have been controversial.

Some have advocated a relatively narrow definition that would emphasize

well-understood conditions, while others have recommended a wider

definition to encompass less prevalent and less well-defined, but also

potentially debilitating, conditions. Researchers and other experts in

varying disciplines often disagree on definitions of disability and related

conditions, and the prevalence of certain conditions varies.42 The

ambiguity and subjectivity surrounding this process is a source of

confusion and frustration for some district officials.

For Some Districts,

Accounting and Reporting

Requirements Add to

Administrative Load

Districts’ administrative resources must also be used to meet federal

accounting and reporting requirements. Officials from 49 percent of the

districts in our telephone interviews identified at least one program’s

accounting and reporting requirements as problematic or challenging, as

did staff in three of the districts we visited. Many of the comments

reflected a general dissatisfaction with having to do the paperwork to

comply; however, some school district staff also raised other issues. Some

staff members were frustrated by duplication and inconsistency in

accounting and reporting requirements across programs. Others expressed

the opinion that existing accounting and reporting requirements were not

sufficiently focused on program results.

Staff at the districts we visited provided specific examples of accounting

and reporting requirements they found particularly difficult. Many of these

requirements originated at the state level, not from federal laws or

regulations. For example, officials from districts in one state mentioned a

requirement that equipment purchases over $500 be documented

separately when paid for with federal funds. Federal regulations allow for

42For more information on these controversies, see G. Reid Lyon, “Learning Disabilities,” in “Special

Education for Students with Disabilities,” The Future of Children, 6 (1) (Spring 1996), pp. 54-76; Equal

Educational Opportunity and Non-Discrimination for Students with Disabilities: Federal Enforcement

of Section 504, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Equal Educational Opportunity Project Series, Vol. II

(Sept. 1997); and Judith D. Singer and others, “Variation in Special Education Classification Across

School Districts: How Does Where You Live Affect What You Are Labeled?” American Educational

Research Journal, 26 (2) (Summer 1989), pp. 261-81.

Page 46 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 3 

Implementation Issues Relating to Federal

Requirements Affect How School Districts

Plan, Fund, and Operate Educational

Programs

equipment purchases up to $5,000 without additional documentation, but

states can impose more stringent requirements (as this state did). A

finance director in a district in another state told us that his state had once

had the same requirement but had recently raised the threshold to the

federal limit of $5,000. This one change, he said, saved the district a great

deal of time and trouble.

In addition, both state and school district officials told us that auditing and

reporting requirements sometimes lag behind federal and state initiatives

to provide additional flexibility to school districts. For example, one

school district official told us that although the law allows a school to

combine federal funds and apply these funds to the entire school under

the “schoolwide program” provisions of Title I, state auditors still

required separate accounting of funds.

Staff From a Few Districts

Were Dissatisfied With

Restrictions on Raising and

Spending Funds

Staff in a few districts identified issues related to spending and raising

funds as a concern. For example, officials from several districts criticized

certain provisions of the Tax Reform Act of 1986. These provisions are

designed to prevent state and local governments from selling tax-exempt

bonds at a low interest rate and then investing the money to earn a higher

interest rate rather than spending it on local projects. One district official

told us that the tax provisions not only decrease revenues but may also

cause districts to spend the funds more hastily, leading to poorer project

decisions. Other district staff talked about restrictions on spending funds;

they told us they would like more flexibility in how they could use federal

dollars. However, not all district officials we interviewed felt this way. One

Title I director, for example, said that he supports the provision in Title I

that earmarks funds for parental involvement activities because this

requirement is “a spur that makes things happen.”

Certain Federal

Requirements Can

Create Logistical and

Management

Challenges for School

Districts

In addition to the direct financial impact of federal requirements, district

officials also identified several other types of challenges associated with

operational requirements. These nonfinancial issues include logistical

challenges in meeting federal timelines, challenges in finding qualified and

capable staff or providers to implement programs or requirements, and

management challenges in balancing competing goals or needs.

Page 47 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 3 

Implementation Issues Relating to Federal

Requirements Affect How School Districts

Plan, Fund, and Operate Educational

Programs

Procedural Timelines

Designed to Ensure

Compliance Can Also

Complicate Program

Logistics

To ensure that special education students receive the help they need in a

timely manner, school districts are subject to procedural timelines. For

example, districts are required to hold the IEP meeting within 30 days after

the student’s eligibility has been established. After the IEP meeting, the

district must provide the agreed-upon services “within a reasonable

period of time.” (The Department of Education has stated that it views a

period of 60 days from the date of evaluation as “reasonable” in most

cases, although this interpretation does not have the force of law.)

Districts are also required to review each student’s IEP annually and to

reassess each student’s eligibility once every 3 years. Other procedural

timelines govern the district in disciplining special education students and

in changing the student’s placement (whether for disciplinary or other

reasons).43

These timelines can protect students with disabilities by ensuring that they

receive the services they are promised. A representative from a disability

advocacy group told us that some school districts resort to “stalling”

rather than provide agreed-upon services. Similarly, one school district

official stated that in the past, not enough had been done to ensure that

evaluations were done in a timely manner.

District officials also told us, however, that these timelines sometimes

create logistical problems for them. For example, some district staff

viewed the 60-day time frame for conducting evaluations as unrealistic or

difficult. The complex nature of the evaluation process and limited staff

(especially in small districts and in rural areas) may contribute to the

difficulty. For example, one special education director in a small rural

district told us that there was only one child psychologist in the area.

When this person became ill, the district was unable to meet its timelines.

Staff from several districts we visited (and others we interviewed by

telephone) told us that the fixed time periods were too rigid and that they

would prefer to have more flexibility.

43Many special education directors and district superintendents also mentioned a particular one-time

deadline: the time frame given to update students’ IEPs in accordance with the 1997 IDEA

amendments. The Department of Education’s proposed regulations would have required school

districts to have completed updating all students’ IEPs in compliance with the 1997 amendments by

July 1, 1998. Several school districts we visited, and others we interviewed by phone, viewed this

deadline as unreasonable; and the Department of Education has decided to allow a longer

implementation time frame. For more information, see Individuals With Disabilities Education Act:

School Districts’ Response to Regulatory Deadline (GAO/HEHS-98-156, Apr. 22, 1998).

Page 48 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 3 

Implementation Issues Relating to Federal

Requirements Affect How School Districts

Plan, Fund, and Operate Educational

Programs

Personnel Shortages Can

Make Compliance More

Difficult and More Costly

Successfully implementing federal programs can be more difficult when a

school district faces a shortage of qualified personnel. For example, in one

state, staff from several school districts, especially in rural areas, told us

that they had a difficult time finding certified special education teachers.

In some states (including Colorado, New York, and Louisiana) 15 to

28 percent of special education teachers are not fully certified. Some rural

districts may also have difficulty finding providers of certain related

services such as physical therapy and speech pathology, according to

district and state officials. Similarly, in a Department of Education study,

over one-quarter of schools reported that it was very difficult or

impossible to fill vacancies for bilingual or ESL teachers.44

Several district officials and association representatives also cited

difficulties in obtaining qualified environmental contractors, again

particularly in rural or outlying areas. The facilities manager in one district

we visited told us that because there are few qualified asbestos

contractors in the area, these contractors have little competition and can

charge high prices. Similarly, EPA has warned owners and operators of USTs

that the number of qualified contractors is limited.

District Officials

Concerned About Other

Operational Requirements

Some district officials expressed concern that certain federal requirements

do not match the needs of their communities. These superintendents and

district program directors stated that certain federal requirements

sometimes supersede established local practices; as a result, they believe

they are less able to balance competing educational goals.

Disciplining Special Education

Students Poses Special

Challenges

The most frequently cited example of such a requirement concerns certain

provisions of IDEA that limit districts’ ability to discipline special education

students by removing them from the classroom. These provisions are

designed to prevent districts from denying a free and appropriate public

education to a student because of behavior that is related to the student’s

disability. As stated in the proposed regulations implementing the 1997

amendments to IDEA, school districts may freely remove a student with a

disability from the classroom for up to a total of 10 days in a school year. If

a school district wants to remove a child with a disability from the

classroom for a cumulative total of more than 10 days in a school year, the

44See Schools and Staffing in the United States: A Statistical Profile, 1993-94, U.S. Department of

Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics

(July 1996).

Page 49 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 3 

Implementation Issues Relating to Federal

Requirements Affect How School Districts

Plan, Fund, and Operate Educational

Programs

district generally must reconvene the IEP team.45 The district has

somewhat more latitude in cases involving weapons or illegal drugs. If a

student with a disability carries a weapon or illegal drugs to school, the

district may move the student outside the school to an alternative

educational setting (such as a special program for troubled youth) for up

to 45 days. However, if the district invokes this rule, it must also

reconvene the IEP team. In addition, if the student’s parents object to the

district’s action, the parents have the right to take the district to a due

process hearing.

These procedural protections may apply not only to students who have an

IEP in place but also to some students who have not yet been declared

eligible for special education. A student who has not been determined

eligible for special education may be entitled to IDEA’s procedural

protections if the school district had knowledge of the child’s potential

eligibility. If the child’s parents have expressed concern in writing, the

behavior or performance of the child demonstrates the need for special

education, or district personnel have expressed concern about the child’s

performance or behavior, then the district is presumed to have had

knowledge of the child’s potential eligibility.

School district officials told us that they find discipline issues to be very

challenging because of the need to carefully balance the rights and needs

of the child with a disability against the rights and the needs of the other

children for a safe and disciplined environment. Some superintendents

and special education directors stated that they believe the federal rules

are too rigid, reducing their ability to strike this delicate balance. The

expense, time, and trouble of going through hearings could deter district

officials from disciplining students with disabilities, we were told. One

special education director told us that, in effect, “you cannot discipline

these kids, period.” As a result, staff from several districts told us that the

IDEA rules created a double standard because students with disabilities are

treated differently from students who are not labeled as disabled.

For these reasons, district officials expressed concern that the

requirements are potentially unfair, could lead to morale problems among

staff, and could send the wrong message to both students with disabilities

and their peers. For example, one special education director told us that it

is very hard for him to explain to parents of other students that students

with disabilities have procedural rights that their children do not, even for

45The district can also ask a hearing officer for permission to place the child in an alternative setting

for 45 days.

Page 50 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 3 

Implementation Issues Relating to Federal

Requirements Affect How School Districts

Plan, Fund, and Operate Educational

Programs

identical offenses. In another district, the superintendent told us about an

incident where a student attacked and injured another child and also

threatened the classroom teachers, an aide, and the superintendent.

Finally, the school called the police. The police and the district attorney

recommended that the student be kept off campus. To implement that

recommendation, the district had to have an administrative hearing,

rewrite the student’s IEP, and provide homebound instruction for the

student.

Food Service Directors

Concerned About Student

Acceptance of Meals Under

Nutrition Standards

Some food service directors told us that they were concerned about their

ability to balance the goal of serving nutritious meals with the goal of

serving meals that children will eat and enjoy. Staff told us that they feared

the new nutrition requirements would result in less food being consumed

by students—because either more students would bring lunch from home

or (more commonly) larger amounts of food would be discarded (plate

waste). One food service director stated that “we’re supposed to

implement something here that they [the students] don’t get at home.”

Although it is too soon in the implementation process to determine if these

effects are occurring on a wide scale, the concern may be well founded. In

our 1996 survey of school cafeteria managers, the foods with the highest

percentage of plate waste were fruits and vegetables. More than half of the

middle and high school cafeteria managers believed that increasing the

amounts of fruits and vegetables in school meals—as many districts would

do to meet the nutrition requirements—would increase plate waste.

Similarly, cafeteria managers reported that increasing the number of

servings for bread and grains would increase plate waste.46,47

46Regulations published in 1995 modified the meal pattern requirements by increasing the portion sizes

for fruits/vegetables and for breads/grains according to grade level. The Healthy Meals for Children Act

(P.L. 104-149, May 29, 1996) modified the National School Lunch Act to allow school food authorities

to use the meal pattern in effect for the 1994-95 school year. The use of this meal pattern allows

schools to continue to use serving sizes for fruits/vegetables and for breads/grains that were in effect

prior to the 1995 regulations.

47See School Lunch Program: Cafeteria Managers’ Views on Food Wasted by Students

(GAO/RCED-96-191, July 18, 1996).

Page 51 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 4 

Recent Flexibility Initiatives Are Generally

Not Structured to Address the Major

Implementation Issues Affecting School

Districts

Responding to calls for greater flexibility in education programs, the

Congress and the Department of Education have implemented several

initiatives to give school districts more freedom in designing programs and

using federal funds. These efforts—waivers, schoolwide programs,

financial flexibility provisions, and consolidated planning—have expanded

districts’ options within covered programs and requirements. However, the

narrow scope of these initiatives precludes them from addressing the key

information, financial, and operational issues identified by school district

officials.

Recent Initiatives

Were Designed to

Provide Greater

Flexibility to School

Districts

Since 1994, the Congress and the Department of Education have

implemented several efforts to provide additional flexibility to school

districts. Waivers—temporary exemptions from certain specific federal

requirements—can allow districts to suspend some program rules. Several

provisions allow school districts additional flexibility in the use of federal

funds. Under a consolidated planning process, school districts can submit

one plan or funding application that covers several federal programs,

rather than prepare separate documents for each program. Some of these

flexibility initiatives have been used infrequently, and their use varies

considerably across states.

Waivers Available for Some

Federal Programs and

Requirements

In an attempt to provide states and local school districts increased

flexibility, the Congress authorized the Department of Education to grant

waivers —temporary exceptions to a limited number of federal

requirements. States and school districts can ask the Department to waive

certain specific federal requirements when necessary to support local

efforts to raise student achievement. The Department can waive certain

requirements of (1) ESEA, which contains several key education programs,

including Title I; (2) the Perkins Act, which funds vocational education;

and (3) the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) and the Education

Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR), which contain

regulations (such as recordkeeping standards) that apply to education

programs in general. In requesting a waiver, school districts are required

to describe how a waiver would allow them to improve students’ academic

performance.

Under the Education Flexibility Partnership Program (Ed-Flex), the

Department of Education has delegated to 12 states48 a portion of its

48The 12 Ed-Flex states are Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New

Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, and Vermont.

Page 52 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 4 

Recent Flexibility Initiatives Are Generally

Not Structured to Address the Major

Implementation Issues Affecting School

Districts

authority to waive certain federal requirements. In these states, school

districts generally apply to their state education agency for waivers of

federal requirements instead of to the U.S. Department of Education.

However, states and school districts in non-Ed-Flex states may also

request similar waivers. Instead of these waivers being approved at the

state level, the waivers are approved at the federal level through the

Department of Education.49

The authority to grant waivers is limited to specific education programs.

Although these include several of the major education programs (including

Title I), other important programs are omitted. For example, although the

Department can waive some requirements of the Safe and Drug Free

Schools program, it cannot waive any of the requirements of IDEA.

Similarly, while the Department can grant waivers under the Eisenhower

Professional Development program, programs such as Adult Education

and Goals 2000 are excluded. In addition, the Department cannot waive

any of the requirements that lie within the purviews of other federal

agencies. As a result, these waivers do not cover environmental

requirements, employment requirements, or the requirements of the food

service programs.

Even within covered programs, many of the requirements that relate to

key federal objectives cannot be waived. For example, waivers are not

permitted for any federal education requirement relating to (1) health and

safety, (2) civil rights, (3) maintenance of effort, (4) comparability of

services, (5) the equitable participation of students in private schools,

(6) parental participation and involvement, or (7) the distribution of funds

to state and local education agencies. In addition, waivers are not

permitted if granting a waiver would undermine the purposes of the

federal legislation; and for many programs, certain restrictions might be

considered an integral part of the program’s purpose.

In its September 30, 1997, report to the Congress, the Department of

Education reported that it had received relatively few waiver requests

from school districts. According to the report, the Department received

375 waiver requests from school districts from school year 1994-95 until

just before school year 1997-98. This represents less than 3 percent of

school districts in the nation. Similarly, Ed-Flex states granted relatively

few waivers during the first 2 years of the project.

49For more information on the Ed-Flex program, see Education Programs: Information on the Ed-Flex

Demonstration Project (GAO/HEHS-98-61R, Dec. 15, 1997).

Page 53 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 4 

Recent Flexibility Initiatives Are Generally

Not Structured to Address the Major

Implementation Issues Affecting School

Districts

Of the waivers that have been granted, nearly two-thirds (64 percent) have

concerned two Title I issues. The most frequent use of waivers

(43 percent) has been to allow school districts to change the way they

distribute Title I dollars to schools within the district.50 Waivers of these

targeting restrictions have allowed some districts to provide extra funding

for efforts to improve poor-performing schools; waivers of targeting

provisions have also allowed districts to continuously fund schools in

cases where poverty rates are relatively similar, rather than shifting funds

from school to school from year to year. Districts have also used waivers

to expand school eligibility for schoolwide programs (21 percent).

Schoolwide programs allow individual schools to combine their Title I

funds with other federal dollars (such as funds from IDEA and Perkins Act

vocational education programs) to implement a plan to improve

instruction in the whole school, rather than targeting Title I funds to

specific children who are thought to be at risk.

Several Initiatives Are

Designed to Increase

Financial Flexibility

In recent years, several provisions have been undertaken to provide school

districts with more flexibility in using federal funds: (1) increased use of

schoolwide programs, (2) consolidation of administrative funds, (3) the

“unneeded funds” provision, and (4) the Cooperative Audit Resolution and

Oversight Initiative (CAROI). Each of these provisions is designed to give

school districts more freedom to apply federal funds according to their

needs, within a limited set of federal programs.

Some district and state officials told us that schoolwide programs can

offer greater flexibility and have helped improve schools. However, not all

schools are eligible to participate in schoolwide programs, and some

eligible schools choose not to. According to Department of Education

estimates, of the approximately 53,000 Title I schools in the United States,

about 22,000 are eligible for schoolwide programs, and about 15,000 of

these have chosen to participate. Under current law, a Title I school is

eligible for schoolwide status only if at least 50 percent of the children

enrolled in the school or residing in the school attendance area are from

low-income families, or if it has received a waiver. Not all eligible local

schools and districts endorse or use schoolwide programs; some prefer to

target their Title I funds to those children they believe are at greatest risk.

For example, one Title I director told us that in his district many schools

do not use schoolwide programs because they believe their programs are

working well as currently structured.

50Title I specifies a complex formula for how funds must be distributed to schools within a school

district. For example, districts are generally required to provide funding to all schools with a poverty

rate of above 75 percent before the district funds any school with a poverty rate below 75 percent.

Page 54 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 4 

Recent Flexibility Initiatives Are Generally

Not Structured to Address the Major

Implementation Issues Affecting School

Districts

Other financial flexibility provisions are more narrowly designed and less

frequently used. For example, for certain federal programs school districts

are allowed (with the approval of the state education agency) to

consolidate the administrative funds available to the district under certain

federal programs. School districts using this provision can combine the

funds set aside for district administration under separate federal programs

and apply them to the district’s cost of administering this group of

programs, rather than applying each funding source only to the

administrative costs for that one program. This provision applies to only

six programs: Title I, Migrant Education, Eisenhower Professional

Development grants, Technology for Education, Safe and Drug Free

Schools, and Innovative Education Program Strategies (Title VI). Other

programs, such as Even Start, IDEA, and Goals 2000, are not included. In

practice, this provision is frequently unavailable and seldom used. In our

survey of state education agencies, about one-third reported that they did

not allow local school districts to consolidate administrative funds.

Further, even when this alternative was allowed, many school districts

elected not to use it. In about two-thirds of the states that offered the

option, less than 10 percent of districts chose to use the provision.

A similar provision, called the “unneeded funds” provision, allows school

districts, with the approval of their state education agency, to shift up to

5 percent of funds across certain federal programs: Migrant Education,

Eisenhower Professional Development grants, Technology for Education,

Safe and Drug Free Schools, and Innovative Education Program Strategies

(Title VI).51 Other programs, such as Perkins Act, IDEA, and Emergency

Immigrant Education, are not included. As with consolidation of

administrative funds, the “unneeded funds” option is often unavailable and

seldom used. In our survey of the 50 state education agencies, only about

half the states reported that they allowed local school districts to take

advantage of the “unneeded funds” provision. Further, even when this

alternative was offered, it was rarely used. In about two-thirds of the states

that offered the option, no school districts used it; of the states where it

was allowed, in only one did more than 10 percent of districts use the

provision.

Finally, the Department of Education created CAROI in response to

concerns from state and district administrators that the manner in which

the Department conducted its audits and other monitoring activities might

conflict with the recent focus on providing additional flexibility. The

51Districts may use the “unneeded funds” provision to shift funds into Title I, but cannot shift funds

from Title I to any of the other covered programs.

Page 55 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 4 

Recent Flexibility Initiatives Are Generally

Not Structured to Address the Major

Implementation Issues Affecting School

Districts

Department’s proposal brief states that CAROI should allow the Department

to conduct its audit process in a more flexible, useful, and cooperative

fashion, and to more efficiently resolve audit findings so as to promote

better program performance. However, because this initiative has not yet

been fully implemented, its impact on school districts is uncertain.

Under Consolidated

Planning Process, Districts

May Submit One Funding

Application for Several

Federal Programs

To obtain funding for certain federal programs, school districts must

submit plans or applications to either the state or the federal government.52

These plans or applications generally contain information on how the

funds will be used, certifications that federally-prescribed procedures will

be followed, and assurances that federal funds will be spent in accordance

with the purpose of the program. However, district officials and education

experts expressed concern that the fragmented nature of the application

process is not only unnecessarily resource-intensive but also might impede

program coordination. In recent years, the Congress, the federal

Department of Education, and the states have attempted to improve the

planning and application process for federal programs. States and school

districts are now allowed (and in some cases required or encouraged) to

submit consolidated plans—that is, to submit one plan that covers two or

more covered federal programs.

In our survey of state education agencies, 24 states said that they require

school districts to submit consolidated plans when applying for federal

education program funds. Consolidated plans were most often required to

include four programs: (1) Title I, (2) the Eisenhower Professional

Development program, (3) Safe and Drug Free Schools, and (4) Innovative

Education Program Strategies (Title VI). In addition, some states also

require school districts to include other programs, such as the Perkins Act

vocational education programs, in the consolidated plan. Where

consolidated plans are not required, states generally give the school

districts the option of choosing consolidated or separate plans.

Districts’ use of consolidated plans varied substantially across states. A

few states told us that all districts submitted only separate plans, while

others reported that all districts submitted consolidated plans. In our

telephone survey, districts expressed varying preferences for consolidated

or separate plans. Staff in 46 percent of districts said they preferred

consolidated plans, 34 percent said they preferred separate plans, and

20 percent had no preference. The reaction was similar in the districts we

52Of the 36 major federal programs that we reviewed, 18 required school districts to submit a plan or

application. For information on the funding process for these programs, see app. II.

Page 56 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 4 

Recent Flexibility Initiatives Are Generally

Not Structured to Address the Major

Implementation Issues Affecting School

Districts

visited. The program directors and superintendents that preferred

consolidated plans often stated that consolidated plans helped promote

program coordination. However, others that favored separate plans said

that they prefer to keep a more detailed focus on individual programs.

Federal Flexibility

Initiatives Have

Limited Applicability

to the Key Issues

Affecting School

Districts

Federal flexibility initiatives are generally not structured to address the

information, funding, and management issues school districts identified as

their primary concerns. Waivers, schoolwide programs and financial

flexibility provisions, and consolidated planning neither provide

information on federal requirements nor reduce districts’ need for such

information. These provisions do not increase federal assistance to school

districts, nor do they relieve districts of any of their major financial

obligations. Several of these efforts may help districts reduce their

administrative costs, but not in those administrative areas that districts

identified as key concerns. Similarly, the major flexibility initiatives do not

extend to the requirements that posed logistical and management

challenges for school districts. As a result, the federal efforts to provide

additional flexibility to school districts have limited applicability to those

areas that concern district officials the most.

Flexibility Initiatives

Increase Districts’

Informational Needs

Although information-related issues are of key concern to school district

officials, the recent flexibility initiatives increase the amount of

information districts need, rather than simplify or streamline information

on federal requirements. Federal flexibility initiatives do not provide

school districts with additional information. Furthermore, because they

are not applicable across the range of federal requirements, flexibility

initiatives cannot streamline or simplify the information on federal

programs. Instead, these efforts actually expand the amount of

information school district officials need. To take advantage of the

flexibility provisions, district officials must know that the provisions exist

and learn how to use them. Gathering this information can be difficult,

even if the provisions are relatively simple to use once this information has

been obtained. Because these initiatives are program-specific, and each

initiative applies to a different set of programs, superintendents and

program directors must contend with a complicated set of legislative

provisions.

Moreover, information on federal flexibility initiatives may be hard to find.

In 1997, the Department of Education’s Inspector General reported that

many states had not provided guidance to school districts on financial

Page 57 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 4 

Recent Flexibility Initiatives Are Generally

Not Structured to Address the Major

Implementation Issues Affecting School

Districts

flexibility provisions. Similarly, we found that information concerning

federal requirements and flexibility initiatives is often missing from state

education agencies’ Internet web sites. As shown in table 4.1, of the 50

web sites maintained by the state Departments of Education, only 7

provided information concerning federal waivers, only 2 provided

information on the “unneeded funds” provision, and only 20 provided

information on consolidated planning. Similarly, many states did not

provide any guidance on the implementation of Title I and IDEA —the

largest federal education programs and the focus of many school district

concerns.

Table 4.1: Number of State Education

Agencies Providing Information on

Their Internet Web Sites

Topic

Number of states that provide

information on the topic on their

Internet web site

Federal waivers 7

State waivers 19

Consolidated planning/application 20

Consolidation of administrative funds 5

“Unneeded funds” provision 2

Title I 24

IDEA 33

A link to the U.S. Department of Education 34

Flexibility Initiatives Can

Do Little to Alleviate

Districts’ Concerns About

Program and

Administrative Costs

Federal flexibility initiatives neither provide more money nor relieve

districts’ major obligations. Although school districts cited the limited

nature of federal financial assistance as a key issue, flexibility initiatives

do not increase the flow of federal funds to school districts. Additional

program funds would have to be appropriated from a Congress that, like

school districts, must allocate scarce funds among competing worthy

objectives. In addition, because these flexibility efforts do not make

fundamental changes in the requirements of federal programs and

mandates, school districts continue to be responsible for providing

required services. None of the requirements that school districts cited as

especially costly—special education, environmental requirements,

accessibility, or nutrition standards—can be reduced or eliminated under

any of the federal flexibility initiatives. For example, waivers cannot be

used to suspend federal requirements relating to health and safety or civil

rights. Similarly, although IDEA and Title I funds can be combined and used

to support a schoolwide program, the school district is still responsible for

providing the appropriate services to disadvantaged and disabled children.

Page 58 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 4 

Recent Flexibility Initiatives Are Generally

Not Structured to Address the Major

Implementation Issues Affecting School

Districts

As a result, flexibility efforts cannot address school districts’ concerns

about substantial program costs in the face of limited resources.

Similarly, flexibility efforts can have only limited impact on school

districts’ administrative costs. District superintendents and program

directors identified two areas—eligibility determination for certain

targeted programs and accounting and reporting requirements—as major

contributors to the administrative cost of implementing federal

requirements. None of the recent initiatives was specifically designed or

intended to address these key concerns. Because federal flexibility efforts

are limited to a few programs, these initiatives are not able to address

problems that arise outside these programs’ parameters. For example,

because neither food service nor IDEA is covered, waivers can do nothing

to assist school districts in streamlining the time-consuming and costly

eligibility determination process for these programs. The narrowness of

the flexibility provisions can also hamper districts’ efforts to address

administrative issues that cut across many federal programs and

requirements. For example, some district officials expressed frustration

with the duplication and inconsistency in accounting and reporting

requirements across federal programs. Waivers would be unable to

address these concerns because no requirements can be waived for many

of these programs (including IDEA, food service, and Goals 2000). Similarly,

the consolidation of administrative funds can take place only under a few

programs.

While they do not address districts’ key concerns, waivers and

consolidated planning may help some districts streamline processes in

other administrative areas. For example, some district staff told us that the

consolidated planning and application process takes less staff time than is

required to file separate applications for each federal program. Similarly,

Texas has granted several statewide waivers under the Ed-Flex program

that are specifically designed to reduce paperwork at the district level. In

addition, the Department’s plans to improve its auditing process may

prove helpful in aligning the auditing process with the current focus on

program flexibility.

Although only a few districts expressed dissatisfaction with restrictions on

spending and raising funds, several flexibility initiatives—schoolwide

programs, the “unneeded funds” provision, and consolidated

administrative funds—are designed (at least in part) to address these

issues. However, these flexibility measures can have only limited impact

because not all districts can participate, and even for those that do,

Page 59 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 4 

Recent Flexibility Initiatives Are Generally

Not Structured to Address the Major

Implementation Issues Affecting School

Districts

sometimes only minor changes are allowed. For example, many states do

not allow districts to use the consolidated administrative funds or

unneeded funds provisions. Even when districts use these flexibility

measures, their impact may be small. For example, the unneeded funds

provision allows districts to shift only 5 percent of federal program funds

across programs. With federal funds generally accounting for a small

percentage (7 percent overall) of total education expenditures, the amount

of funding covered under this provision is likely to be very small. For one

large urban district we visited, the unneeded funds provision could allow

district officials to shift $42,513 from one program to another—this out of

about $54 million in federal funds and a total district budget of

$491.5 million. For smaller districts, the provision may be even less

significant.

Logistical and Management

Challenges Remain Despite

Federal Efforts to Increase

Flexibility

The restricted scope of flexibility initiatives also precludes them from

addressing several of the logistical and management issues that school

districts identified as key issues, such as procedural timelines for

evaluating the needs of special education students and finding qualified

personnel to implement key federal programs. Because the flexibility

initiatives do not extend to IDEA requirements, districts cannot use these

provisions to address their concerns with timelines. In addition, the

federal government is not positioned to reduce the shortages of special

education teachers, bilingual or ESL teachers, or qualified environmental

contractors. Consequently, districts must rely on their own

resourcefulness to overcome the management challenges they face in

these areas.

Page 60 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 5 

Conclusions

For several decades the federal government has provided guidance and

financial support to state and local education systems. This assistance has

frequently taken the form of targeted programs and mandates designed to

advance a variety of federal goals (such as ensuring equal educational

opportunity). Recently, however, teachers, parents, and the Congress have

emphasized education reform initiatives with the broader and more

challenging goal of improving education for all students. Although this

emphasis on overall outcomes has enjoyed widespread support,

controversy has arisen over the role existing federal programs and

mandates will play in achieving this broad purpose. Some

individuals—both educators and legislators—believe that loosening or

eliminating some federal requirements will enable local school districts to

direct more resources to the classroom and to adopt more innovative

instructional approaches. However, others have expressed concern that

the purposes underlying federal programs (such as ensuring equal

educational opportunity) could be compromised if federal requirements

are loosened or eliminated. As the education reform movement has

accelerated, interest in providing additional flexibility has heightened in

both the executive and legislative branches.

Some of school districts’ key concerns—particularly the amount of

financial assistance provided to school districts—lie beyond the scope of

the flexibility initiatives that have been implemented to date. Alleviating

these concerns may require more than providing additional flexibility

within the existing federal program structure. Other key concerns,

including informational and procedural issues, could be partially or fully

addressed in the context of flexibility, although current initiatives are not

targeted toward these issues. Our findings on school districts’ experiences

with federal requirements and regulatory flexibility suggest four lessons to

be considered in refining existing federal initiatives and designing new

ones.

1. School districts’ concerns are wide ranging rather than centered on a

single program or issue. To address these concerns successfully, federal

initiatives must also be multifaceted.

School districts expressed a wide range of concerns, covering numerous

federal programs and reflecting a broad variety of implementation issues.

These issues extend to all facets of providing educational and support

services—from planning educational programs at the beginning of the year

to auditing the accounts at year’s end. Although much of the public debate

on education reform has focused on procedural and financial flexibility,

Page 61 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 5 

Conclusions

such as easing restrictions that govern the use of funds, district

superintendents and program directors identified obtaining better

information, streamlining eligibility determination and other

administrative processes, and obtaining more procedural flexibility as key

issues. Because the implementation issues school districts face cut across

program and agency lines, initiatives that are narrowly focused can at best

provide only limited assistance. Although it may be difficult to design, a

broader flexibility initiative (or set of initiatives) that is simple to

understand and easy to use, extended across related programs, and widely

applicable to many school districts would be better positioned to address

districts’ concerns.

2. School districts need—and many lack—adequate information to

successfully implement federal requirements and take advantage of

flexibility options. Strengthening the knowledge base will be key to the

success of both current and future flexibility efforts.

As complex organizations, school districts face a large and complicated

body of federal requirements that affect many operational areas.

According to district officials, the volume and complexity of federal

requirements make it difficult to keep track of what is needed to comply

and what flexibility is available. With inadequate information, district staff

may be more conservative in their interpretation and less innovative in

their approach. In addition, district officials cannot take advantage of

flexibility mechanisms if they don’t know what flexibility is available or

how to apply it to their programs. Experience with various flexibility

initiatives—from federal and state waivers to consolidated

planning—suggests that increasing awareness among district officials is a

crucial factor in how frequently these provisions are used and how helpful

they are to school districts.

3. Because states play a key role in overseeing and administering federal

programs, in order for flexibility initiatives to succeed, state education

agencies must be able and willing to help school districts implement them.

For local school districts, state education agencies are the main source not

only for information and technical assistance but also for monitoring and

oversight. In addition, states impose their own requirements on school

districts. Some of these, such as teacher certification standards, may

interact with federal requirements but are not associated with specific

federal programs. Others, such as requirements concerning IEP forms, arise

out of the state’s role in administering federal programs. Because state

Page 62 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Chapter 5 

Conclusions

requirements are stricter than federal ones, initiatives to loosen federal

requirements may not have the desired impact unless related state

requirements are also modified. As a result, federal legislation alone may

be insufficient to create regulatory flexibility that reaches down to the

local level.

4. The Congress and the Department of Education face potential conflicts

between local officials’ desire for flexibility and the important purposes

underlying federal programs and mandates.

District officials recognized the benefits of federal requirements to

students, parents, and educators. Requirements that students with

disabilities receive the additional help they need to achieve in school were

widely supported, as were many health and safety requirements.

Educators and advocates alike have expressed concern that the

opportunity to achieve these goals could be lost if too many federal

requirements are loosened or lifted. The Congress and the Department of

Education may sometimes face a tension between providing flexibility and

still ensuring equal educational opportunity, promoting high quality

education, guarding against health and safety hazards, or protecting the

integrity of federal funds. In education, where such outcomes are often

difficult to identify and measure, it may be especially difficult to ensure

that these goals are realized without procedural requirements.

Consequently, in some program areas federal authorities may choose to

provide local officials with less discretion than they may desire.

Page 63 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Appendix I 

Descriptive Information on Major Federal

Laws and Programs

Law or program Citation Agency Purpose

How school districts are

affected

Which school districts are

covered

Education

Adult Education 20 U.S.C.

1201-1213

Education To improve adult

literacy skills.

Provides financial support

to states and local

organizations (including

school districts) for adult

education programs.

All school districts are

eligible to apply; program

requirements apply only if

school district receives

funds.

Bilingual Education 20 U.S.C.

7401-7491

Education To educate students

with limited English

proficiency to meet

the same rigorous

standards for

academic

performance

expected of all

children.

Provides financial support

for local organizations

(including school districts)

to provide programs to

assist students with limited

English proficiency.

All school districts are

eligible to apply; program

requirements apply only if

school district receives

funds.

Carl D. Perkins

VocationalTechnical

Education Act

20 U.S.C.

2302-2471

Education To help prepare

students to work in a

technologically

advanced society by

giving them needed

academic and

occupational skills

technology.

Provides funding to school

districts for vocational

education programs at the

high school level. (Also

supports vocational

programs at postsecondary

institutions, such as

community colleges.)

All school districts are

eligible to apply; program

requirements apply only if

school district receives

funds.

Eisenhower

Professional

Development State

Grants (Title II)

20 U.S.C.

6601-6702

Education To assist in the

training and

professional

development of

teachers, especially

in math and science.

Provides financial support

to states and school

districts for teacher training,

with priority given to math

and science.

All school districts are

eligible to apply; program

requirements apply only if

school district receives

funds.

Emergency

Immigrant

Education Program

(Part C of Title VII)

20 U.S.C.

7541-7549

Education To ensure that

high-quality education

is provided to

immigrant children

and to help these

children transition into

American society.

Provides funding to school

districts that experience

large increases in student

enrollment due to

immigration.

Only school districts with

500 immigrant children (or 3

percent of the student

population, whichever is

less) are eligible to receive

funds. Program

requirements apply only if

school district receives

funds.

Even Start Family

Literacy programs

20 U.S.C.

6361-6370

Education To help break the

cycle of poverty and

illiteracy by improving

the educational

opportunities of

low-income families

through unified family

literacy programs.

Provides financial support

to partnerships of school

districts and other

organizations to operate

family literacy programs.

School districts that form a

partnership agreement with

a community-based

organization or institution of

higher education are

eligible to apply for funds.

Program requirements

apply only if school district

receives funds.

(continued)

Page 64 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Appendix I 

Descriptive Information on Major Federal

Laws and Programs

Law or program Citation Agency Purpose

How school districts are

affected

Which school districts are

covered

Gifted and

Talented programs

20 U.S.C.

8031-8037

Education To help meet the

needs of gifted and

talented students.

Provides funding to school

districts for programs for

gifted and talented students.

All school districts that are

carrying out programs for

gifted and talented students

are eligible to apply (as are

states and higher education

institutions). Program

requirements apply only if

school district receives

funds.

Goals 2000 20 U.S.C.

5801-6084

Education To assist school

districts in improving

a number of areas,

including school

completion and

student achievement.

Provides financial support

to states and school

districts for education

reform efforts.

All school districts are

eligible to apply; program

requirements apply only if

school district receives

funds.

Head Start 42 U.S.C.

9831-9855

Health and

Human

Services

To help prepare

disadvantaged

preschool children

and their families for

school.

Provides funding to

organizations (including

some school districts) to

provide comprehensive

early childhood education

and support services for

children, with priority to

children from low-income

families.

All school districts are

eligible to apply; program

requirements apply only if

school district receives

funds.

Impact Aid 20 U.S.C.

7701-7714

Education To help educate

children of military

parents and to assist

school districts that

are affected by the

federal acquisition of

real property or that

experience sudden

increases or

decreases in

enrollment due to

military realignments.

Provides general financial

aid to qualifying school

districts.

School districts are eligible

to receive funds only if they

have large numbers of

federally connected

children (including military

and Native American

children), have experienced

large increases in

enrollment of military

dependents, or been

negatively affected by the

federal government’s

acquisition of real property

in their district.

Innovative

Education Program

Strategies

20 U.S.C.

7301-7372

Education To support innovative

local education

reform efforts.

Provides financial

assistance to states and

school districts for

education reform efforts.

All school districts are

eligible to apply. Program

requirements apply only if

school district receives

funds.

(continued)

Page 65 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Appendix I 

Descriptive Information on Major Federal

Laws and Programs

Law or program Citation Agency Purpose

How school districts are

affected

Which school districts are

covered

Individuals With

Disabilities

Education Act

(IDEA)

20 U.S.C.

1401-1487

Education To ensure that all

children with

disabilities are

provided with a free

and appropriate

public education and

to provide financial

support to states and

districts for educating

students with

disabilities.

Provides financial support

to states and school

districts for the education of

students with disabilities;

also sets out procedures

(such as IEPs) and

conditions (such as placing

children in the least

restrictive environment) that

school districts must meet

to provide a free,

appropriate public

education.

All states and school

districts are eligible for

funds if they have in effect

policies and procedures as

described in the law.

Districts are obligated to

provide a free and

appropriate public

education whether or not

they receive federal funds.

Magnet Schools

program (Title V)

20 U.S.C.

7201-7213

Education To provide assistance

for desegregation

efforts by supporting

magnet schools to

attract students of

diverse racial

backgrounds.

Provides financial support

for school districts that are

implementing a

desegregation plan that

includes magnet schools.

Only school districts that

are implementing a

court-ordered

desegregation plan or a

desegregation plan

approved by the Secretary

of Education are eligible.

Program requirements

apply only if school district

receives funds.

Safe and Drug

Free Schools and

Communities

20 U.S.C.

7101-7143

Education To make schools and

communities safer by

preventing violence,

hate crimes, and drug

use.

Provides financial support

to states and school

districts for drug and

violence prevention

programs.

All school districts are

eligible to apply. Program

requirements apply only if

school district receives

funds.

School to Work

Opportunities Act

20 U.S.C.

6161-6235

Education

and Labor

To establish a

national framework for

education and

training programs that

will prepare students

for high-skill careers,

increase opportunities

for further education,

and utilize the

workplace as a

learning environment.

Provides financial support

for states and school

districts to implement

programs designed to

facilitate the transition from

school to work.

All school districts are

eligible to apply. Program

requirements apply only if

school district receives

funds.

Section 504 of the

Rehabilitation Act

29 U.S.C. 794 Education To protect individuals

with disabilities from

discriminatory

treatment.

Prohibits school districts

(and other recipients of

federal assistance) from

denying the benefits of their

programs to otherwise

qualified individuals with

disabilities.

All school districts are

eligible to apply. These

requirements apply if

school district receives any

federal funds.

Stewart B.

McKinney

Homeless

Assistance Act

42 U.S.C.

11421-11435

Education To provide funds for

programs (including

education programs)

to assist the homeless.

Provides some school

districts with funds to

ensure that homeless

children have access to

education.

All school districts are

eligible to apply. These

requirements apply only if

school district receives any

federal funds.

(continued)

Page 66 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Appendix I 

Descriptive Information on Major Federal

Laws and Programs

Law or program Citation Agency Purpose

How school districts are

affected

Which school districts are

covered

Technology for

Education

20 U.S.C.

6801-6871

Education To support a

comprehensive

system for the

acquisition and use

by schools of

technology and

technology-enhanced

curricula and

instruction so as to

improve the delivery

of educational

services.

Provides funds to states

and school districts to buy

and use new technology.

All school districts are

eligible to apply. Program

requirements apply only if

school district receives

funds.

Tech-Prep

program (part of

Perkins Act)

20 U.S.C. 2394 Education To help prepare

students to work in a

technologically

advanced society by

giving them needed

academic and

occupational skills

technology.

Provides funding for school

districts and postsecondary

institutions (generally

community colleges) to

develop and operate 4-

year “tech prep” programs

(which often lead to an

associate’s degree).

Any partnership of a school

district and postsecondary

institution is eligible to apply

for funds. Program

requirements apply only if

school district receives

funds.

Telecommunications

Act of 1996

47 U.S.C. 151

et seq.

Federal

Trade

Commission

To promote

competition and

reduce regulation in

order to secure lower

prices and higher

quality services for

consumers, and to

encourage the rapid

deployment of new

communications

technologies.

Provides school districts

with discounts on

telecommunications

services.

All school districts are

eligible to apply for

discounts.

Title I (Elementary

and Secondary

Education Act)

20 U.S.C.

6301-6514

Education To assist school

districts in addressing

the needs of

economically

disadvantaged

children, especially in

reading and math.

Provides financial support

to states and school

districts for programs

designed to assist children

in high-poverty areas.

School districts are eligible

to receive funds if more

than 2 percent of district

students are from families

with incomes below the

poverty level. Program

requirements apply only if

school district receives

funds.

(continued)

Page 67 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Appendix I 

Descriptive Information on Major Federal

Laws and Programs

Law or program Citation Agency Purpose

How school districts are

affected

Which school districts are

covered

Food Service

National School

Breakfast program

42 U.S.C.

1751-1790

Agriculture To help increase

children’s capacity to

learn by supporting

school-based

programs to provide

nutritious food to

children and to

provide for the

domestic

consumption of

nutritious agricultural

commodities.

Provides financial

assistance and commodity

support for meals served to

children.

All school districts are

eligible to participate.

Program requirements do

not apply unless school

district receives funds.

National School

Lunch program

42 U.S.C.

1751-1790

Agriculture To help increase

children’s capacity to

learn by supporting

school-based

programs to provide

nutritious food to

children and to

provide for the

domestic

consumption of

nutritious agricultural

commodities.

Provides financial

assistance and commodity

support for meals served to

children.

All school districts are

eligible to participate.

Program requirements do

not apply unless school

district receives funds.

Summer Meal

program

42 U.S.C.

1751-1790

Agriculture To help increase

children’s capacity to

learn by supporting

school-based

programs to provide

nutritious food to

children and to

provide for the

domestic

consumption of

nutritious agricultural

commodities.

Provides financial

assistance and commodity

support for meals served to

children.

All school districts are

eligible to participate.

Program requirements do

not apply unless school

district receives funds.

Employment

Age Discrimination

in Employment Act

29 U.S.C.

621-634

Equal

Employment

Opportunity

Commission

(EEOC)

To protect workers

against discrimination

in employment on the

basis of age.

Prohibits discrimination in

employment (including

employee benefits) on the

basis of age against people

40 years and older.

Applies to employers with

20 or more employees

(including school districts).

(continued)

Page 68 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Appendix I 

Descriptive Information on Major Federal

Laws and Programs

Law or program Citation Agency Purpose

How school districts are

affected

Which school districts are

covered

Americans With

Disabilities Act,

Title I

42 U.S.C.

12101-12130

EEOC To protect workers

with disabilities

against discrimination

in employment.

Prohibits discrimination in

employment against

individuals with disabilities

and requires employers to

make “reasonable

accommodations” for

disabilities unless doing so

would cause undue

hardship to the employer.

Applies to employers

(including school districts)

with 15 or more employees.

Civil Rights Act,

Title VII

42 U.S.C. 2000e EEOC To protect workers

against discrimination

in employment.

Prohibits employment

discrimination on the basis

of race, color, religion, sex,

or national origin.

Applies to employers

(including school districts)

with 15 or more employees.

Fair Labor

Standards Act

29 U.S.C.

201-219

Labor To protect workers by

establishing

provisions for

minimum wages,

overtime, and child

labor standards.

Requires employers to pay

a minimum wage, to pay

overtime to eligible

(“non-exempt”) workers,

and to obey child labor

standards.

Applies to all employers

(including school districts)

with more than one

employee.

Family and

Medical Leave Act

29 U.S.C.

2601-2654

Labor To provide workers

with the right to take

unpaid leave under

certain conditions

without losing their

jobs.

Requires employers to allow

employees to take up to 12

weeks of unpaid,

job-protected leave to take

care of a sick child, parent,

or spouse, for the birth or

adoption of a child, or for

the employee’s own serious

health condition.

Applies to all employers

with 50 or more employees,

including school districts.

However, special rules

apply with respect to

instructional employees of

school districts. These

provisions allow the district

to play a role in scheduling

unpaid leave for teachers

and other instructional staff.

Occupational

Safety and Health

Act

29 U.S.C.

651-679

Occupational

Safety and

Health

Administration

To protect workers

from recognized

safety hazards in the

workplace.

Requires employers to

adhere to safety and health

standards.

School districts are

generally exempt under the

federal OSHA legislation.

However, 19 states

(including California,

Michigan, and North

Carolina) operate their own

health and safety programs

that include both public and

private employers,

including school districts.

Another 2 states (New York

and Connecticut) do not run

their own programs but

require public employees to

adhere to safety and health

standards.

(continued)

Page 69 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Appendix I 

Descriptive Information on Major Federal

Laws and Programs

Law or program Citation Agency Purpose

How school districts are

affected

Which school districts are

covered

Environmental and Facilities

Americans with

Disabilities

Act —Title II

42 U.S.C.

12131-12211

Justice To ensure

accessibility for

individuals with

disabilities.

New structures and, in

some cases, renovations of

existing structures must

meet design standards for

accessibility.

All school districts are

covered.

Asbestos Hazard

Emergency

Response Act and

Asbestos School

Hazard Abatement

Act

15 U.S.C.

2641-2656; 20

U.S.C.

4011-4022

Environmental

Protection

Agency

To help identify and

abate asbestos

hazards in schools.

School districts were

required to inspect each

school for asbestos and

draw up an asbestos

management plan.

All school districts are

covered.

Davis-Bacon Act 40 U.S.C. 276a Labor To ensure a prevailing

wage for laborers and

mechanics employed

on construction

contracts supported

by the federal

government.

Contractors working on

construction projects for

school districts may be

required to pay prevailing

local wages.

Contracts in excess of

$2,000 are covered.

Resource

Conservation and

Recovery Act

42 U.S.C.

6901-6992

EPA To promote the

protection of health

and the environment

by regulating

hazardous waste

disposal.

School districts must

dispose of any hazardous

materials properly and

comply with EPA standards

concerning underground

storage tanks (UST) where

applicable.

School districts with USTs

or hazardous materials

must comply with EPA

standards. However, some

USTs are exempt—for

example, tanks that store

heating oil for use on the

premises.

Tax Reform Act of

1986

26 U.S.C. 103,

148

Internal

Revenue

Service

To prevent the use of

funds from the sale of

tax-exempt bonds to

acquire

higher-yielding

investments.

School districts are

generally not allowed to use

the provisions of tax-exempt

bonds to buy higher

yielding investments.

Exceptions are allowed for

investment for a temporary

period, for investment of a

minor portion, and for

investment in a reasonably

required reserve or

replacement fund. In

addition, a special

exemption for bonds up to

$10 million is allowed to

finance the construction of

public school facilities if

certain conditions are met.

(continued)

Page 70 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Appendix I 

Descriptive Information on Major Federal

Laws and Programs

Law or program Citation Agency Purpose

How school districts are

affected

Which school districts are

covered

Toxic Substances

Control Act

15 U.S.C.

2601-2629; 15

U.S.C.

2661-2692

EPA To ensure that

commerce in

chemical substances

and mixtures does not

present an

unreasonable risk to

health or the

environment.

School districts may be

required to comply with

storage, disposal, and

recordkeeping

requirements for

polychlorinated biphenyls

(PCBs) or other chemical

substances as applicable.

This legislation also

provides assistance to

states to develop programs

aimed at lead or radon

hazards, which may affect

school districts in some

states.

School districts are subject

to these requirements as

applicable.

Page 71 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Appendix II 

Information on Funding for Major Federal

Laws and Programs

Law or program FY 1998 funding

Plan or

application

required?

Funding

distributed

through the state? Description of distribution of funds

Education

Adult Education $354 million x x Funds are allotted to each state on the basis of a

formula that is related to the number of adults

who do not have a certificate of graduation from

a secondary school. Each state must submit a

4-year state plan. Funds are distributed by states

to local organizations (including school districts)

through competitive grants; these grants are to

be awarded in accordance with the state’s plan.

Bilingual Education $199 million x School districts submit applications to the state

for comment, then to the Secretary of Education.

A minimum of 75 percent of funds is reserved for

bilingual education programs. The Department

of Education gives priority to applications that (1)

provide for the development of bilingual

proficiency in both English and another

language; (2) are from school districts that large

numbers of students with limited English

proficiency; and/or (3) are from school districts

that have experienced significant increases in

the number of students with limited English

proficiency.

Carl D. Perkins

Vocational-Technical

Education Act

$1.028 billion x x States are allocated funds for high school-level

programs under a formula primarily based on the

number of students aged 9 to 15 and previous

allocations, with a set minimum. Each state must

produce a state plan and establish a state

vocational education board. Funds are

distributed to districts on the basis of previous

allocations and the number of students with

disabilities. Ten and a half percent of funds are

set aside for programs for single parents,

displaced homemakers, and single pregnant

women. In addition, districts are required to give

priority to programs that have higher

concentrations of “special population” students:

students with disabilities, economically

disadvantaged students, and students with

limited English proficiency. Districts that are

allocated less than $15,000 must join a

consortium to receive funds.

(continued)

Page 72 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Appendix II 

Information on Funding for Major Federal

Laws and Programs

Law or program FY 1998 funding

Plan or

application

required?

Funding

distributed

through the state? Description of distribution of funds

Eisenhower

Professional

Development State

Grants (Title II)

$335 million x x Funds are allocated to the states, with 50

percent of the funds allotted to each state on the

basis of the number of students and the other 50

percent allotted on the basis of the Title I

formula. State funds are distributed to school

districts in the same way. Districts that are

allocated less than $10,000 must join a

consortium to receive funds; however, states are

allowed to waive this requirement.

Emergency Immigrant

Education Program

(Part C of Title VII)

$150 million x x Funds are distributed to states, but only states

that contain eligible school districts can receive

funds. Allocations to states are based on the

percentage of immigrant children in each state

compared with all the states. At least half of the

funds given to states must be distributed to

school districts with the highest numbers and

percentages of immigrant children and youth.

Even Start Family

Literacy programs

$198 million x x Funds are allocated to the states on the basis of

the Title I formula, with a minimum grant of

$250,000. Partnerships (school districts

partnered with community-based organizations

or higher education institutions) apply for funds.

There is a minimum grant level of $75,000.

Priority is given to applicants from areas with a

high percentage of poverty, illiteracy,

unemployment, and limited English proficiency;

areas designated as empowerment zones or

enterprise communities are also given priority.

Gifted and Talented

programs

$6.5 million x Funds are distributed directly to grantees

(including school districts) after a competitive

peer review process.

Goals 2000 $491 million x x Funds are allotted to states in accordance with

their relative allocations under Title I and the

Eisenhower program. Ninety percent of funds

awarded to the state are distributed to school

districts on a competitive basis according to

criteria outlined in the federal statute.

Head Start $4.355 billion xa Funds are distributed directly to each Head Start

agency on the basis of past allocations. For

newly designated agencies, grant amounts are

based on a complex formula that includes the

percentage of low-income children in the state.

(continued)

Page 73 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Appendix II 

Information on Funding for Major Federal

Laws and Programs

Law or program FY 1998 funding

Plan or

application

required?

Funding

distributed

through the state? Description of distribution of funds

Impact Aid $808 million Funds are distributed directly to school districts.

Aid resulting from federal acquisition of property

is based on the current tax rate received by the

school district on the value of the property. Aid

resulting from large numbers of federally

connected children is distributed by a formula

that is based on the number of children and the

amount received in the past.

Innovative Education

Program Strategies

$310 million b x x Funds are allotted to states on the basis of the

school-aged population, with a minimum amount

to each state. At least 85 percent of the funds

must be allocated to school districts, with priority

to districts with the greatest numbers or

percentages of (1) children living in areas with

high concentrations of low-income people; (2)

children from low-income families; and (3)

children living in sparsely populated areas.

Individuals With

Disabilities Education

Act (IDEA)

$4.8 billion x x Funds are distributed to states on the basis of a

complex formula that includes the number of

children with disabilities and (once total funding

reaches a certain threshold) the total number of

children and the number of children in poverty.

At least 75 percent of funds must be distributed

to school districts. School districts are allocated

a base payment plus additional funds according

to the number of students and the number of

poor students.

Magnet Schools

Program (Title V)

Not available x Funds are distributed directly to school districts

by the Department of Education. Funding priority

is given to districts whose programs (1) have the

greatest need, (2) are new magnet school

projects, (3) are magnet schools where students

are chosen by lottery, (4) are in accordance with

Goals 2000, and (5) draw on comprehensive

community involvement plans.

Safe and Drug Free

Schools and

Communities

$556 million x x Funds are distributed to states through a formula

that is primarily based on student population.

Eighty percent of each state’s allocation must be

distributed to school districts, with the remaining

20 percent funding Governors’ programs that are

distributed to community based organizations.

Of the funds allocated to school districts, 70

percent are distributed on the basis of

population and the remaining 30 percent on the

basis of need.

School to Work

Opportunities Act

Not available x x Each state must develop a state plan to be

eligible for funds. At least 90 percent of these

funds are distributed to local partnerships

through competitive grants.

(continued)

Page 74 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Appendix II 

Information on Funding for Major Federal

Laws and Programs

Law or program FY 1998 funding

Plan or

application

required?

Funding

distributed

through the state? Description of distribution of funds

Section 504 of the

Rehabilitation Act

None Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable

Stewart B. McKinney

Homeless Assistance

Act

$28.8 million x x All states can apply for funds. Funds are

distributed to the states using the Title I formula,

with a minimum grant amount. School districts

must apply to the state, which awards funds on

the basis of need.

Technology for

Education

$584 million x x All states can apply for funds. Funds are

distributed to the states using the Title I formula,

with a minimum grant amount. School districts

must apply to the state, which awards funds on a

competitive basis.

Tech-Prep program

(part of Perkins Act)

Not available x xc Funds are distributed by the states or by the

Department of Education, depending on total

program funding.

Telecommunications

Act of 1996

Not available x Program has not yet been implemented.

Title I (Elementary

and Secondary

Education Act)

$8 billion x x Funds for the basic grant are allocated to the

state, and from the state to the school district, on

the basis of a very complex formula that

includes, among other things, the number of

children from poor families, the average per

pupil expenditure in the state, and the amount

the state has received in previous years. School

districts are also eligible for additional

concentration grants if they have especially high

percentages of children in poverty.

(continued)

Page 75 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Appendix II 

Information on Funding for Major Federal

Laws and Programs

Law or program FY 1998 funding

Plan or

application

required?

Funding

distributed

through the state? Description of distribution of funds

Food Service

National School

Breakfast program

$1.3 billion x Funds are distributed to states and allocated to

school districts on the basis of the number of

free, reduced-price, and full-price meals served.

“Severe need” schools can obtain a slightly

higher reimbursement rate. To obtain a “severe

need” designation, a school must show that its

costs exceed the regular rate and must serve 40

percent or more of its breakfasts for free or the

reduced price. Commodities are distributed to

schools through the state.

National School

Lunch program

$4.2 billion x Funds are distributed to states and allocated to

school districts on the basis of the number of

free, reduced-price, and full-price meals served.

Commodities are distributed to schools through

the state.

Summer Meal program $272.3 million x Funds are distributed to states and allocated to

school districts on the basis of the number of

free and reduced-price meals served.

Commodities are distriburted to schools through

the state.

Employment

Age Discrimination in

Employment Act

None Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable

Americans With

Disabilities Act, Title I

None Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable

Civil Rights Act, Title

VII

None Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable

Fair Labor Standards

Act

None Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable

Family and Medical

Leave Act

None Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable

Occupational Health

and Safety Act

None Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable

Environmental and Facilities

Americans With

Disabilities

Act —Title II

None Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable

Asbestos Hazard

Emergency Response

Act and Asbestos

School Hazard

Abatement Act

None Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable

Davis-Bacon Act None Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable

(continued)

Page 76 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Appendix II 

Information on Funding for Major Federal

Laws and Programs

Law or program FY 1998 funding

Plan or

application

required?

Funding

distributed

through the state? Description of distribution of funds

Resource

Conservation and

Recovery Act

None Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable

Tax Reform Act of

1986

None Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable

Toxic Substances

Control Act

None Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable

aAn initial competitive application is required, and a reapplication form is filed annually. However,

once the district has been designated as a Head Start agency, it does not have to compete for

funds in subsequent years.

bThis figure is for fiscal year 1997.

cIf the program is funded over $50 million, then the money is allocated to the states under the

basic grant Perkins Act formula, and the states award grants to consortia on a competitive basis

or on the basis of a formula determined by the state. If total program funding is under $50 million,

the Department of Education awards the grants directly to the partnerships.

Page 77 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Appendix III 

Comments From the Department of

Agriculture

Page 78 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Appendix III 

Comments From the Department of

Agriculture

Page 79 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Appendix III 

Comments From the Department of

Agriculture

Page 80 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Appendix IV 

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts Harriet Ganson, Assistant Director, (202) 512-9045

Sarah L. Glavin, Senior Economist and Project Manager, (202) 512-7180

Staff

Acknowledgments

Arthur T. Merriam Jr., Senior Evaluator, managed the state survey and

co-wrote portions of the report; Linda W. Stokes, Senior Evaluator,

managed several site visits, assisted in data-gathering, and co-wrote

portions of the report; Daniel C. Schwimmer and Robert G. Crystal

provided legal assistance; Linda Choy and Robert J. Aiken provided

programming and database assistance; and Sally Coburn, Senior

Evaluator; Gene Kuehneman, Senior Economist; Susan Lawless, Senior

Evaluator; John McDonough, Senior Evaluator; Kevin Murphy, Senior

Evaluator; and Linda McIver, Senior Evaluator, conducted the telephone

interviews.

Page 81 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Bibliography

Education Finance Berne, Robert, and Leanna Stiefel. “Student-Level School Resource

Measures,” Selected Papers in School Finance 1995, in U.S. Department of

Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National

Center for Education Statistics, NCES 97-536, May 1997, pp. 61-81.

Card, David, and Alan B. Krueger. “Does School Quality Matter? Returns to

Education and the Characteristics of Public Schools in the United States,”

Journal of Political Economy, 100 (1) (1992) 1-42.

Chambers, Jay G. “The Development of a Cost of Education Index: Some

Empirical Estimates and Policy Issues,” Journal of Education Finance, 5

(Winter 1980) 262-81.

Council of Chief State School Officers. Key State Education Policies on

K-12 Education: Content Standards, Graduation, Teacher Licensure, Time

and Attendance. Washington, D.C.: Oct. 1996.

Council of the Great City Schools. “Urban School Superintendents: Tenure

and Salaries,” Urban Indicator, 4 (1) (Oct. 1997).

Deller, Steven C., and Edward Rudnicki. “Production Efficiency in

Elementary Education: The Case of Maine Public Schools,” Economics of

Education Review, 12 (1) (1993) 45-57.

Downes, Thomas A., and Jacquelyn L. Horowitz. “An Analysis of the Effect

of Chicago School Reform on Student Performance,” Economic

Perspectives, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, 19

(3) (May-June 1995) 13-35.

Downes, Thomas A., and Thomas F. Pogue. “Adjusting School Aid

Formulas for the Higher Cost of Educating Disadvantaged Students,”

National Tax Journal, 47 (Mar. 1994) 89-110.

Duncombe, William, and John Yinger. “Why Is It So Hard to Help Central

City Schools?” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 16

(1) (1997) 85-113.

Educational Research Service, Inc. Measuring Changes in Wages and

Salaries in Public Schools, 1986.

Ehrenberg, Ronald G., Richard P. Chaykowski, and Randy A. Ehrenberg.

“Are School Superintendents Rewarded for ‘Performance’?” Microlevel

Page 82 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Bibliography

School Finance: Issues and Implications for Policy, eds. David H. Monk

and Julie Underwood. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger Publishing Company,

1988, pp. 337-64.

Grissmer, David W., et al. Student Achievement and the Changing

American Family. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND, 1994.

Gritz, R. Mark, and Neil D. Theobald. “The Effect of School District

Spending Priorities on Length of Stay in Teaching,” Journal of Human

Resources, 31 (3) 477-512.

Hanushek, Eric. “Measuring Investment in Education,” Journal of

Economic Perspectives, 10 (4) (Fall 1996) 9-30.

_____. “The Productivity Collapse in Schools,” Developments in School

Finance, 1996. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational

Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics,

NCES 97-535, July 1996, pp. 183-96.

Hanushek, Eric A., and Steven G. Rivkin. “Understanding the

Twentieth-Century Growth in U.S. School Spending,” Journal of Human

Resources, 32 (1) 35-68.

Kirst, Michael W. “The Internal Allocation of Resources Within U.S. School

Districts: Implications for Policymakers and Practitioners,” in Microlevel

School Finance: Issues and Implications for Policy, eds. David H. Monk

and Julie Underwood. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger Publishing Company,

1988, pp. 365-89.

Levin, Henry M. “Raising School Productivity: An X-Efficiency Approach,”

Economics of Education Review, 16 (3) (1997) 303-11.

Monk, David H., Brian O. Brent, and Christopher F. Roelke. “Teacher

Resource Use Within New York State Secondary Schools,” in

Developments in School Finance, 1996, U.S. Department of Education,

Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for

Education Statistics, NCES 97-535, July 1996, pp. 37-67.

Picus, Lawrence O. “Does Money Matter in Education? A Policymaker’s

Guide,” Selected Papers in School Finance 1995, U.S. Department of

Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National

Center for Education Statistics, NCES 97-536, May 1997, pp. 15-35.

Page 83 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Bibliography

Poterba, James M. “Demographic Structure and the Political Economy of

Public Education,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 16

(1) (1997) 48-66.

“Quality Counts ’98: The Urban Challenge,” Education Week, Jan. 8, 1998.

Riddle, Wayne Clifton. “Federal Aid for the Education of Disadvantaged

Children: Funding, Participation, and Legislative Trends,” in Helping

At-Risk Students: What Are the Educational and Financial Costs? eds.

Patricia Anthony and Stephen L. Jacobson. Newbery Park, Calif.: Corwin

Press, 1992, pp. 12-37.

Riddle, Wayne Clifton, and Liane White. “Expenditures in Public School

Districts: Estimates of Disparities and Analysis of Their Causes,” in

Developments in School Finance, 1996. U.S. Department of Education,

Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for

Education Statistics, NCES 97-535, July 1996, pp. 23-35.

Rosenkranz, Todd. “Reallocating Resources: Discretionary Funds Provide

Engine for Change,” Education and Urban Society, 26

(3) (May 1994) 264-84.

Rothstein, Richard, and Lawrence Mishel. “Alternative Options for

Deflating Educational Expenditures Over Time,” in Developments in

School Finance, 1996, U.S. Department of Education, Office of

Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education

Statistics, NCES 97-535, July 1996, pp. 159-81.

Rothstein, Richard, and Karen Hawley Miles. Where’s the Money Gone?

Changes in the Level and Composition of Education Spending.

Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute, 1995.

U.S. Congressional Budget Office. The Federal Role in Improving

Elementary and Secondary Education. Washington, D.C.: May 1993.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and

Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics. Dropout Rates in

the United States: 1995. NCES 97-473, July 1997.

_____. “Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary

Education: School Year 1994-1995,” Statistics in Brief. NCES 97-533,

June 1997.

Page 84 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Bibliography

_____. Projections of Education Statistics to 2007. NCES 97-382, June 1997.

_____. Profiles of Children in U.S. School Districts. NCES 96-831, Sept.

1996.

_____. The Condition of Education 1996. NCES 96-304, June 1996.

_____. Public Elementary and Secondary Education Statistics: School Year

1995-96. NCES 96-238, May 1996.

_____. Trends in School District Demographics, 1986-87 to 1990-91. NCES

96-399, Feb. 1996.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Inspector General. State and

Local Education Agencies Need More Technical Assistance to Take Full

Advantage of the Flexibility Provisions of Title XIV of the Improving

America’s Schools Act, No. 04-70001, Aug. 1997.

Environmental

Requirements

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Airborne Asbestos

Concentrations Three Years After Abatement in Seventeen Schools,”

EPA/600/R-93/152, Aug. 1993.

_____. “AHERA Clearance at Twenty Abatement Sites,” EPA/600/2-91/028,

July 1991.

_____. “Asbestos in Schools: Evaluation of the Asbestos Hazard

Emergency Response Act (AHERA): A Summary Report,” EPA 560/4-91-012,

June 1991.

Food and Nutrition

Programs

U.S. Department of Agriculture. “Paperwork Reduction in the School

Nutrition Programs,” 1996.

_____. “Improving USDA Commodities,” Oct. 1995.

_____. School Lunch and Breakfast Cost Study, Final Report. Abt

Associates, Oct. 1994.

Limited English

Proficiency

Council of Chief State School Officers. Systematic Reform and Limited

English Proficient Students. Washington, D.C.: Feb. 1996.

Page 85 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Bibliography

Parrish, Thomas B. “A Cost Analysis of Alternative Instructional Models

for Limited English Proficient Students in California,” Journal of

Education Finance, 19 (Winter 1994) 256-78.

Sevilla, Jennifer. “Bilingual Education: The Last 25 Years,” in Helping

At-Risk Students: What Are the Educational and Financial Costs? eds.

Patricia Anthony and Stephen L. Jacobson. Newbery Park, Calif.: Corwin

Press, 1992, pp. 38-65.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and

Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics. “Are Limited

English Proficient (LEP) Students Being Taught by Teachers with LEP

Training?” Issue Brief. NCES 97-907, Dec. 1996.

Special Education American Association of School Administrators. Opportunities and

Challenges: An Administrator’s Guide to the New IDEA. Washington, D.C.:

1997.

Anthony, Patricia. “Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: The Legacy

Continues,” in Helping At-Risk Students: What Are the Educational and

Financial Costs? eds. Patricia Anthony and Stephen L. Jacobson. Newbery

Park, Calif.: Corwin Press, 1992, pp. 1-11.

Brown, Stephanie, et al. “Impact of Personnel Policies on Students with

Disabilities,” Helping At-Risk Students: What Are the Educational and

Financial Costs? eds. Patricia Anthony and Stephen L. Jacobson. Newbery

Park, Calif.: Corwin Press, 1992, pp. 229-252.

Chaikind, Stephen, Louis C. Danielson, and Marsha L. Brauen. “What Do

We Know About the Costs of Special Education? A Selected Review,” The

Journal of Special Education, 26 (4) (1993) 344-70.

Chaikind, Stephen, and Hope Corman. “The Impact of Low Birthweight on

Special Education Costs,” Journal of Health Economics, 10 (1991) 291-311.

Finlan, Thomas Gerald, and William T. Hartman. “Cost Projections for

Learning Disabilities,” in Helping At-Risk Students: What Are the

Educational and Financial Costs? eds. Patricia Anthony and Stephen L.

Jacobson. Newbery Park, Calif.: Corwin Press, 1992, pp. 166-88.

Page 86 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Bibliography

Hartman, William T. “Policy Effects of Special Education Funding

Formulas,” Journal of Education Finance, 6 (Fall 1980) 135-59.

Hocutt, Anne M. “Effectiveness of Special Education: Is Placement the

Crucial Factor?” in “Special Education for Children with Disabilities,” The

Future of Children, 6 (1) (Spring 1996) 77-102.

Lyon, G. Reid. “Learning Disabilities,” in “Special Education for Children

with Disabilities,” The Future of Children, 6 (1) (Spring 1996) 54-76.

National Council on Disability. Improving the Implementation of the

Individuals with Disbilities Education Act: Making Schools Work for All of

America’s Children. Washington, D.C.: May 9, 1995.

_____. Inclusionary Education for Students with Disabilities: Keeping the

Promise. Washington, D.C.: Dec. 30, 1994.

_____. Serving the Nation’s Students with Disabilities: Progress and

Prospects. Washington, D.C.: Mar. 4, 1993.

Parrish, Thomas B. “Special Education Finance: Past, Present, and

Future,” U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education

Programs, Center for Special Education Finance, Policy Paper No. 8,

May 1996.

Parrish, Thomas B., and Jay G. Chambers. “Financing Special Education,”

in “Special Education for Children with Disabilities,” The Future of

Children, 6 (1) (Spring 1996) 121-38.

Raphael, Ellen S., Judith D. Singer, and Deborah Klein Walker. “Per Pupil

Expenditures on Special Education in Three Metropolitan School

Districts,” Journal of Education Finance, 11 (Summer 1985) 69-88.

Reschly, Daniel J. “Identification and Assessment of Students with

Disabilities,” in “Special Education for Children with Disabilities,” The

Future of Children, 6 (1) (Spring 1996) 40-53.

Rossman, Gretchen B. “State Policy for Integrating All Students,” in

Helping At-Risk Students: What Are the Educational and Financial Costs?

eds. Patricia Anthony and Stephen L. Jacobson. Newbery Park, Calif.:

Corwin Press, 1992, pp. 210-28.

Page 87 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Bibliography

Singer, Judith D., et al. “Variation in Special Education Classification

Across School Districts: How Does Where You Live Affect What You Are

Labeled?” American Educational Research Journal, 26 (2) (Summer

1989) 261-81.

Slobojan, Alan. “Descriptive Cost Analysis of Special Education,” Journal

of Education Finance, 12 (Summer 1987) 99-106.

Terman, Donna L., et al. “Special Education for Students with Disabilities:

Analysis and Recommendations,” in “Special Education for Children with

Disabilities,” The Future of Children, 6 (1) (Spring 1996) 4-24.

Thompson, David C., and Robert H. Zabel. “Special Education in Rural

Areas,” in Helping At-Risk Students: What Are the Educational and

Financial Costs? eds. Patricia Anthony and Stephen L. Jacobson. Newbery

Park, Calif.: Corwin Press, 1992, pp. 189-209.

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Equal Educational Opportunity Project

Series, Vol. I. Washington, D.C.: Dec. 1996.

_____. Equal Educational Opportunity and Nondiscrimination for Students

with Disabilities: Federal Enforcement of Section 504, Equal Educational

Opportunity Project Series, Vol. II. Washington, D.C.: Sept. 1997.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and

Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics. Profiles of

Students with Disabilities Identified in NELS:88. NCES 97-254, June 1997.

Verstegen, Deborah, and Cynthia L. Cox. “State Models for Financing

Special Education,” in Helping At-Risk Students: What Are the Educational

and Financial Costs? eds. Patricia Anthony and Stephen L. Jacobson.

Newbery Park, Calif.: Corwin Press, 1992, pp. 136-65.

Page 88 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Bibliography

Page 89 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Bibliography

Page 90 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Bibliography

Page 91 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Related GAO Products

Grant Programs: Design Features Shape Flexibility, Accountability, and

Performance Information (GAO/GGD-98-137, June 22, 1998).

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act: School Districts’ Response to

Regulatory Deadline (GAO/T-HEHS-98-159, Apr. 22, 1998).

Charter Schools: Federal Funding Available but Barriers Exist

(GAO/HEHS-98-84, Apr. 30, 1998).

Head Start Programs: Participant Characteristics, Services, and Funding

(GAO/HEHS-98-65, Mar. 31, 1998).

School Technology: Five School Districts’ Experiences in Funding

Technology Programs (GAO/HEHS-98-35, Jan. 29, 1998).

Education Programs: Information on the Ed-Flex Demonstration Project

(GAO/HEHS-98-61R, Dec. 15, 1997).

Education Programs: Information on Major Preschool, Elementary, and

Secondary Education Programs (GAO/HEHS-97-210R, Sept. 15, 1997).

Regulatory Burden: Measurement Challenges and Concerns Raised by

Selected Companies (GAO/GGD-97-2, Nov. 18, 1996).

People With Disabilities: Federal Programs Could Work Together More

Efficiently to Promote Employment (GAO/HEHS-96-126, Sept. 3, 1996).

School Facilities: Profiles of School Condition by State (GAO/HEHS-96-148,

June 24, 1996).

School Lunch Program: Cafeteria Managers’ Views on Food Wasted by

Students (GAO/RCED-96-191, July 18, 1996).

School Facilities: America’s Schools Report Differing Conditions

(GAO/HEHS-96-103, June 14, 1996).

School Facilities: Accessibility for the Disabled Still An Issue

(GAO/HEHS-96-73, Dec. 29, 1995).

(104901) Page 92 GAO/HEHS-98-232 Federal Requirements and School Districts
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100