K-12 EDUCATION

Selected States and 

School Districts Cited 

Numerous Federal 

Requirements As 

Burdensome, While 

Recognizing Some 

Benefits

Report to Congressional Requesters

June 2012

GAO-12-672

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-672, a report to 

congressional requesters 

June 2012 

K-12 EDUCATION

Selected States and School Districts Cited

Numerous Federal Requirements As Burdensome, 

While Recognizing Some Benefits

Why GAO Did This Study

States and school districts receive 

funding through ESEA, IDEA, and

national school meals programs. Some 

requirements for these programs are 

intended to help ensure program 

integrity and transparency, among other 

purposes, but questions have been 

raised about whether some federal 

requirements place an undue burden on 

states and school districts. GAO was 

asked to (1) describe federal 

requirements identified as the most 

burdensome by selected states and 

school districts and other stakeholders, 

(2) describe information states and 

school districts collect on the cost of 

complying with those requirements, and 

(3) assess federal efforts to reduce or 

eliminate burdensome requirements. 

We defined burdensome requirements 

as those that are viewed as complicated 

or duplicative, among other things. We 

interviewed officials in 3 states and 12 

districts and obtained information on the 

costs to comply with selected 

requirements. While the results from 

these interviews are not generalizable, 

they provide insights into complying with 

federal requirements. We interviewed 

external education stakeholders and 

officials in the Departments of 

Education and Agriculture and the 

Office of Management and Budget. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Secretary 

of Education take additional steps to 

address potentially duplicative 

reporting requirements, such as 

working with stakeholders to address 

their concerns, and develop legislative 

proposals to reduce unnecessarily 

burdensome statutory requirements.

Education generally agreed with our 

recommendations. 

What GAO Found

Generally consistent with the views of key stakeholders we interviewed, state and 

school district officials cited 17 federal requirements as most burdensome for them. 

These requirements were related to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

(ESEA) Title I, Part A; the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B; 

national school meals programs; or other requirements related to the receipt of 

federal funds. Officials described the burdens associated with these requirements 

as complicated, time-intensive, and duplicative, among other things, and 

characterized most of the requirements as being burdensome in multiple ways. For 

example, several officials told us that collecting data for IDEA reporting 

requirements—such as the number of data elements collected—takes a significant 

amount of time and resources. State and district officials also noted benefits of 

some requirements, for example, that the process to create individualized 

education programs can help protect the rights of students with disabilities.

Type of Burdens State and District Officials Associated with 17 Federal Requirements 

For a variety of reasons, states and school districts generally do not collect 

information about the costs to comply with federal requirements, according to 

officials we interviewed. For example, states and district officials told us they are 

not required to report compliance cost data, the data are not useful to them, and 

collecting the data would be too burdensome, in their view.

Federal agencies have developed plans and are taking other steps to reduce 

burden, but stakeholders and state and district officials told us about several 

burdensome requirements that have not been addressed. The Department of 

Education’s (Education) plan identified regulatory provisions for review including 

ones that were mentioned as burdensome in interviews we conducted. In 

addition, Education granted waivers to some states from certain ESEA 

requirements, such as offering supplemental educational services to eligible 

students in certain schools identified for improvement. To receive waivers, states 

had to describe how they will implement key efforts, such as college and careerready standards. Despite these efforts, stakeholders and state and district 

officials said there are potentially duplicative reporting requirements that still

need to be addressed. Department officials told us that there are relatively few 

duplicative reporting requirements and the few that exist present only a small 

burden on states and districts. In addition, Education’s ability to address the 

burden associated with some requirements, such as some IDEA provisions, may 

be limited without statutory changes. 

View GAO-12-672. For more information, 

contact George A. Scott at (202) 512-7215 or 

scottg@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-12-672 K-12 Education Requirements

Letter 1 

Background 3

Key Education Stakeholders and State and School District Officials 

Cited Many Federal Requirements as Both Burdensome and 

Beneficial 8

States and School Districts Generally Do Not Track Their Costs to 

Comply with Federal Requirements, According to Those We 

Interviewed 15

Federal Agencies Are Taking Steps to Reduce Burden, but 

Potentially Duplicative Reporting Requirements and Statutory 

Limitations Remain 17

Conclusions 24

Recommendations for Executive Action 25

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 25

Appendix I Description and Source of Requirements Identified as Burdensome 

by the State and School District Officials We Interviewed 27

Appendix II Comments from the U.S. Department of Education 32

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 38

Tables

Table 1: Selected Examples of Federal Rulemaking Requirements 

that Address the Potential Burden or Costs and Benefits of 

Proposed Regulations 4

Table 2: Requirements Identified as Burdensome by State and 

School District Officials We Interviewed 27

Figures

Figure 1: Types of Burdens Identified by State and School District 

Officials We Interviewed 10

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-672 K-12 Education Requirements

Figure 2: Reasons State and School District Officials We 

Interviewed Said They Do Not Collect Compliance Cost 

Data 16

Abbreviations

AYP adequate yearly progress

CRDC Civil Rights Data Collection

CSPR Consolidated State Performance Report

Education U.S. Department of Education

ESEA Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 

amended

IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

IEP Individualized Education Program

OMB Office of Management and Budget

SES Supplemental Educational Services

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-12-672 K-12 Education Requirements

United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548

June 27, 2012

The Honorable John Kline

Chairman

Committee on Education 

and the Workforce

House of Representatives

The Honorable Richard Hanna

House of Representatives

An estimated $41 billion in federal funds were provided to states and 

school districts through Title I of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act (ESEA), Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA), and the National School Lunch and School 

Breakfast programs in fiscal year 2011. To receive these funds, states 

and school districts must comply with federal requirements, some specific 

to these programs and others that apply to multiple programs. Some of 

these requirements—established either by Congress or by the federal 

agencies that oversee the programs—are intended to serve a number of 

purposes, such as to hold recipients accountable for how they use 

program funds or to ensure that students with disabilities have access to 

a free appropriate public education. Others require that information be 

made available on student progress and outcomes in each state and 

school district. Notwithstanding these potential benefits, questions have 

been raised by Congress and state and local education officials about the 

time and effort needed to comply with some federal requirements and 

whether they place an undue burden on states and school districts.

In this review, we addressed the following questions: (1) What federal 

requirements do selected states, school districts, and other key 

stakeholders identify as the most burdensome? (2) What information, if 

any, do states and school districts collect on the cost of complying with 

those requirements? and (3) What federal efforts are underway to reduce 

or eliminate burdensome requirements?

For our review, we interviewed officials from selected states and school 

districts; selected national education stakeholder organizations; and the 

Department of Education (Education), the Department of Agriculture 

(USDA), and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). To address 

the first two questions, we interviewed state education officials in Kansas, 

Massachusetts, and Ohio, and officials in four school districts in each of 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-672 K-12 Education Requirements

those states. We selected these states because they varied in terms of 

several factors—including their geographic location and the number of 

elementary and secondary education students in the state—and based on 

recommendations from stakeholders. Within each state, we selected 

school districts that varied in terms of whether they were in urban, 

suburban, or rural areas and the number of students, among other 

factors. The information we collected in these interviews represents the 

experiences and perspectives of the state and district officials we 

interviewed and is not representative of all states and districts. We 

interviewed a variety of officials, including superintendents, federal 

program directors, special education directors, food and nutrition 

supervisors, and finance directors. We asked state and school district 

officials to identify (1) the most burdensome federal requirements that 

affect states and school districts, (2) the factors that contribute to that 

burden, (3) the benefits associated with the requirements, and (4) 

whether they have information on the financial cost of complying with the 

requirement. When state and district officials told us about certain 

requirements, we conducted additional research to confirm that they were 

federal requirements (not state or local requirements). We also confirmed 

that the provisions in question were actually requirements as opposed to 

recommended activities contained in other nonmandatory sources, such 

as guidance.1

 

1

We reviewed guidance documents for some requirements identified in this report, as 

appropriate, but it was outside the scope of this report to conduct a comprehensive review 

of all guidance documents related to every requirement identified by states and school 

districts. 

We asked state and district officials to provide us with the 

cost of implementing certain requirements. If they were unable to do so, 

we asked them to explain the factors that limit their ability to collect cost 

information. In addition to interviews with state and school district officials, 

we interviewed selected education stakeholders: American Association of 

School Administrators, Brustein and Manasevit, PLLC; Council of Chief 

State School Officers; Council of the Great City Schools; National 

Association of Federal Education Program Administrators; National 

Governors Association; and the National Rural Education Association. 

For the third question, we interviewed federal officials about their efforts 

to identify and reduce or eliminate burdensome requirements. We also 
 

Page 3 GAO-12-672 K-12 Education Requirements

reviewed documentation regarding such federal efforts, including 

Education’s and USDA’s retrospective analysis plans.

2

We limited the scope of our review to grant requirements for (1) ESEA Title 

I, Part A (2) IDEA Part B, and (3) national school meals programs. We 

selected these programs based on the amount of funding provided through 

the programs, our review of letters that states and stakeholders sent to 

Education regarding its retrospective analysis plan, and after our interviews 

with education stakeholders and state and district officials in one state. We 

define a “burdensome requirement” as any mandatory requirement

established by Congress or a federal agency that is viewed as being too 

costly, vague, complicated, paperwork-heavy, unnecessary, or duplicative.3

We conducted this performance audit from October 2011 through June 

2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The statutes that create federal programs may contain requirements that 

recipients must comply with in order to receive federal assistance. In 

addition, when Congress enacts a law establishing a program, it may 

authorize or direct a federal agency to develop and issue regulations to 

implement it. Congress may impose specific requirements in the statute; 

alternatively it may set general parameters and the implementing agency 

 

2

The names of these plans differed slightly and we will refer to them as retrospective 

analysis plans in this report. Federal agencies created these plans in response to 

Executive Order 13563 issued by the President in January 2011. 76 Fed. Reg. 3821 (Jan. 

18, 2011). In these plans, agencies describe the process they will use to periodically 

review significant regulations in order to determine whether they should be modified or 

repealed to make the agency’s regulatory program more effective or less burdensome. 

3

We developed this definition based in part on our prior work on burdensome 

requirements. See GAO, Regulatory Burden: Measurement Challenges and Concerns 

Raised By Selected Companies, GAO/GGD-97-2 (Washington, D.C.: November 1996).

Background

Sources of Federal 

Requirements and Efforts 

to Reduce Burdensome 

Requirements
 

Page 4 GAO-12-672 K-12 Education Requirements

may then issue regulations further clarifying the requirements. Most 

federal agencies use the informal rulemaking procedures described in the 

Administrative Procedure Act.4

Table 1: Selected Examples of Federal Rulemaking Requirements that Address the Potential Burden or Costs and Benefits of 

Proposed Regulations

Those procedures, also known as “noticeand-comment” rulemaking, generally include publishing proposed 

regulations for public comment before issuing final rules. Comments from 

the public, particularly parties that will be affected by the proposed 

regulations, can provide agencies with valuable information on the 

regulation’s potential effects. In addition to regulations, agencies also use 

guidance and other documents to provide advice and information to 

entities affected by government programs. When agencies issue 

guidance documents, the Administrative Procedure Act generally allows 

them to forgo notice-and-comment procedures. In addition, agencies 

must comply with other rulemaking requirements, some of which direct 

agencies to estimate the burden of proposed regulations or assess their 

potential costs and benefits (see table 1).

Act or executive order (year) Summary of requirements that address potential burden or costs and benefits

Paperwork Reduction Act (1980)a The Paperwork Reduction Act requires agencies to provide public notice and solicit 

comments on any proposed collection of information from 10 or more nonfederal 

persons, such as states and school districts. OMB must approve each information 

collection before it can be implemented. Each notice and information collection must 

provide, among other information, an estimate of the burden of the collection.

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning 

and Review (1993)b Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to submit significant rulesc to OMB for review before they are published and assess the potential costs and benefits of the rule. For 

certain significant rules, agencies must also submit the underlying analyses of the costs 

and benefits of the rule and potential alternatives. 

Executive Order 13563: Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review (2011)d Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to develop a plan to periodically review their 

existing significant rules to determine whether they should be modified, streamlined, 

expanded, or repealed to make the agency’s regulatory program more effective or less 

burdensome.

Source: GAO summary of selected federal laws and executive orders.

a

Pub. L. No. 96-511, 94 Stat. 2812 (1980), codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. §§ 3501-21. 

b

58 Fed. Reg. 51,735 (Oct. 4, 1993). 

c

Under these executive orders, significant rules include, among others, those that may have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. 

d

76 Fed. Reg. 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011). Executive Order 13563 reaffirmed the principles, structures, and 

definitions in Executive Order 12866. 

 

4

Pub. L. No. 79-404, 60 Stat. 237 (1946). Informal rulemaking procedures are codified at 5 

U.S.C. § 553.
 

Page 5 GAO-12-672 K-12 Education Requirements

OMB performs many functions related to federal agency rulemaking. For 

example, under Executive Order 12866, OMB reviews agency rulemaking 

to ensure that regulations are consistent with applicable law, the 

President’s priorities, and the principles in executive orders. OMB also 

ensures that decisions made by one agency do not conflict with the 

policies or actions taken or planned by another agency and provides 

guidance to agencies. In 2003, for example, OMB revised guidelines for 

agencies to use when they assess the regulatory impact of economically 

significant regulations and provided guidance for how agencies can 

improve how they evaluate the benefits and costs of regulations.

Title I of ESEA,

5 as amended, provides funding to states and school 

districts to expand and improve educational programs in schools with high 

concentrations of students from low-income families. Title I funds may be 

used for instruction and other supportive services for disadvantaged 

students to increase their achievement and help them meet challenging 

state academic standards. To receive Title I funds, states must comply 

with certain requirements. For example, states must develop (1) 

academic assessments, to provide information on student achievement, 

and (2) an accountability system, to ensure that schools are making 

adequate yearly progress (AYP).6

 

5

Pub. L. No. 89-10, 79 Stat. 27, codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301-7941. In this 

report, we use the term “Title I” to refer to Part A of Title I. Part A addresses improving 

basic programs operated by local educational agencies, referred to in this report as school 

districts. 

6

States that receive Title I funds must develop and implement a system to determine 

whether all schools and school districts make AYP, with the goal of having all of their 

students meet or exceed the proficient level of academic achievement on 

reading/language arts and mathematics assessments by the 2013-2014 school year. 

States measure progress by determining the specific percentage of students that must 

meet or exceed the proficient level on these assessments and by establishing other 

measures, such as graduation rates. States and Title I districts are required to take 

specified remedial actions in response to schools and districts that repeatedly fail to make 

AYP. 20 U.S.C. §§ 6311(b)(2)-(3), 6316.

Selected Federal 

Education Programs and 

Reporting Requirements
 

Page 6 GAO-12-672 K-12 Education Requirements

The IDEA7

Both ESEA and IDEA contain provisions that require states and school 

districts to collect data or other information and report those data to 

Education. For example, IDEA Part B requires Education to monitor the 

states, and the states to monitor their school districts, using indicators 

that measure performance in priority areas, such as ensuring that states 

and school districts provide a free appropriate public education to 

students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment.

is the primary federal law that addresses educational needs of 

students with disabilities, and Part B of IDEA provides grants to states 

and school districts to provide services to students with disabilities aged 3 

through 21. IDEA Part B funds may be used for a variety of purposes, 

including providing instructional staff for students with disabilities and 

related services, such as speech therapy. To receive an IDEA grant, 

states and school districts must comply with certain requirements. For 

example, they must ensure that students with disabilities have an 

Individualized Education Program (IEP) that specifies the instruction and 

services that will be provided to the student.

8

 

7

20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-82.

The 

department uses reported information for a variety of purposes, but 

primarily to provide support and oversight of states and school districts. 

For example, to develop guidance documents to support state and local 

implementation of ESEA and IDEA grant activities, Education officials told 

us they review information states submit in their Consolidated State 

Performance Reports (for ESEA) and their Annual Performance Reports 

(for IDEA). To assist states in reporting required data and the department 

in managing the data, Education created a data system, known as 

EDFacts. States use this system to report to Education almost all data 

required by both ESEA and IDEA. In addition, states that receive federal 

funds under these and other programs must comply with other federal 

data collection requirements. For example, since 1968, Education has 

administered a survey—known as the Civil Rights Data Collection 

(CRDC)—that helps the department to administer and enforce federal 

civil rights laws, which generally prohibit states or school districts that 

8

Education developed 20 indicators to implement these monitoring requirements. 

Examples of indicators include the percent of youths with IEPs who graduate with a 

regular diploma and the percent which drop out of high school. For more information on 

the priority areas and indicators, see Education’s web site on the IDEA Part B State 

Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report: 

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/bapr/index.html, accessed June 19, 2012. 
 

Page 7 GAO-12-672 K-12 Education Requirements

receive federal funds from discriminating against students based on their 

race, color or national origin, sex, disability, or other characteristics.

Other federal agencies also administer grant programs and issue 

associated regulations with which states and school districts must 

comply. For example, USDA has issued regulations and guidance to 

states and school districts to implement the national school meals 

programs, which provide federal assistance to help provide nutritionally 

balanced reduced-price or free meals (breakfast, lunch, and snacks) to 

low-income students.9 These programs, in part, aim to address the 

adverse effects that inadequate nutrition can have on children’s learning 

capacity and school performance. In fiscal year 2010, almost 32 million 

students participated in the largest school meal program, the National 

School Lunch Program. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 201010

revised some requirements for school meal programs, most notably by 

requiring USDA to update nutrition standards for meals served through 

the National School Lunch and School Breakfast programs.

 

9

The national school meals programs consist of a number of programs, including the 

National School Lunch Program, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1751-1769j, and the School Breakfast 

Program, 42 U.S.C. § 1773.

10Pub. L. No. 111-296, 124 Stat. 3183.
 

Page 8 GAO-12-672 K-12 Education Requirements

Key education stakeholders we interviewed said many federal 

requirements related to ESEA Title I, IDEA Part B, or national school 

meals programs were burdensome to states and school districts. For 

example, representatives from the National Governors Association 

identified multiple federal requirements as burdensome,11 such as the 

requirement for school districts to spend 20 percent of their Title I 

allocation on specified school improvement activities, including 

Supplemental Educational Services (SES), and the requirement to 

provide Title I services on an equitable basis to eligible children attending 

private school. (See appendix I for a description, including the sources, of 

these requirements as well as all other requirements cited throughout our 

report.) Also, representatives from the Council of Chief State School 

Officers told us of a study they conducted in which they found that states 

must comply with numerous duplicative reporting requirements.12

 

11See the National Governors Association’s Eliminating Federal “Red Tape” website: 

Specifically, their study found that states are required to report over 200 

data elements multiple times to Education through collections such as the 

ESEA Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR), the IDEA Part B 

Annual Performance Report, and the CRDC. Representatives from other 

organizations we interviewed—such as the American Association of 

School Administrators, the Council of the Great City Schools, and the 

http://www.nga.org/cms/home/federal-relations/nga-key-committee-issues/page-ecw-issue

s/col2-content/main-content-list/eliminating-federal-red-tape.html, accessed 

June 12, 2012. 

12Council of Chief State School Officers, “Federal Redundancy Reporting Analysis,” 

(Nov. 21, 2010).

Key Education 

Stakeholders and 

State and School 

District Officials Cited 

Many Federal 

Requirements as Both 

Burdensome and 

Beneficial

Consistent with Key 

Education Stakeholders, 

Officials in Selected States 

and School Districts 

Identified 17 Federal 

Requirements as Most 

Burdensome
 

Page 9 GAO-12-672 K-12 Education Requirements

National Rural Education Association—identified other federal 

requirements as burdensome for states and school districts. These 

requirements include data collection and reporting requirements for IDEA 

Part B and monitoring of SES providers under ESEA.

Officials we interviewed in 3 states and 12 school districts reported 17 

federal requirements as most burdensome, and many of these were the 

same requirements identified by key stakeholders. The 17 requirements 

included in this report met the following criteria: (1) they were identified as 

burdensome by more than one state or school district; (2) they could 

potentially impact all schools, districts, or states; and (3) they are 

mandatory requirements established by Congress or a federal agency.13

Of these 17 requirements, 7 relate to ESEA Title I, 3 to IDEA Part B, and 

4 to the national school meals programs. For example, multiple state and 

district officials identified certain data collection and reporting 

requirements for IDEA Part B, referred to as the IDEA Indicators, as 

burdensome. Education uses these indicators to monitor states on key 

priority areas that are identified in the IDEA, such as ensuring that 

students with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education. The 

remaining 3 requirements relate to more than one federal grant program. 

For example, as required by the Federal Funding Accountability and 

Transparency Act of 2006 and OMB guidance, recipients of federal funds 

totaling $25,000 or more must report basic information on awards, such 

as the name and location of the entity receiving the award, and the award 

amount.14

As shown in figure 1, state and district officials we interviewed described 

many ways in which the identified requirements were burdensome to 

them: complicated, time-intensive, paperwork-intensive, resourceintensive, duplicative, and vague. Officials characterized 16 of the 17 

requirements as being burdensome in multiple ways. For example, 

officials told us that collecting data for the IDEA Indicators requires a 

significant amount of time and resources because of the volume of data 

reported. In addition, these officials said that Education routinely changes 

 

13In applying these criteria, we included requirements that apply to all states and school 

districts that choose to participate in our selected programs (ESEA Title I, IDEA Part B, 

and national school meals programs), although we recognize that some requirements, 

such as providing SES, may only apply to a particular state or school district if certain 

criteria are met.

14Pub. L. No.109-282, 120 Stat. 282 (2006), codified at 31 U.S.C. § 6101 note.
 

Page 10 GAO-12-672 K-12 Education Requirements

what data is collected, which one official noted resulted in costly 

modifications to state and local data systems.

Figure 1: Types of Burdens Identified by State and School District Officials We Interviewed

Note: See appendix I for a description, including the sources, of these requirements. 

a

Complicated: Requirements change often, include varying or conflicting definitions, involve multiple 

steps, or have processes, deadlines, or rules that make compliance difficult or that result in 

unintended consequences. 

b

Time-intensive: Compliance is time-consuming. 

c

Paperwork-intensive: Documentation is excessive. 

d

Resource-intensive: Compliance is costly or requires a substantial amount of technical support. 

e

Duplicative: Requirements from different agencies or offices within the same agency were poorly 

coordinated or requested redundant information (similar or exact). 

f

Vague: States or school districts lacked knowledge or guidance related to the requirement, or certain 

processes were unknown or unclear. 
 

Page 11 GAO-12-672 K-12 Education Requirements

All of the requirements identified by state and school district officials as 

most burdensome were characterized as being complicated, timeintensive, or both. Officials described 15 of the 17 burdensome 

requirements as complicated,15

• SES provider approval and monitoring. Under ESEA Title I, for 

schools that do not make AYP for 3 years, school districts must offer 

SES, such as tutoring and other academic enrichment activities, from 

state-approved providers selected by the parents of eligible students. 

State educational agencies must approve SES service providers and 

develop, implement, and publicly report on standards and techniques 

for monitoring the quality and effectiveness of their services. To 

approve providers, states told us they process applications, develop 

lists of approved providers, and address complaints from applicants 

who were not approved. A state official said that monitoring providers 

can also be challenging. For example, the official said it is difficult to

know which providers are effective and that it is unclear whether SES 

has resulted in improvements in student achievement. School district 

officials told us they also struggle with their responsibilities under 

these requirements. School districts must notify parents about the 

availability of services annually and enter into a service agreement 

with any approved provider selected by parents of an eligible student. 

Districts must work with providers selected by parents, which, 

according to one district official, is burdensome because the districts 

have no control over the services provided. The official said her 

district employs teachers to monitor the SES providers and that in 

some cases the district has had problems with providers. Another 

district official said some of the challenges his district faced include 

providers not responding to the district in a timely manner, not 

submitting timely invoices, and submitting poorly crafted student 

learning plans. In contrast, according to a 2008 report, most parents

of children receiving SES are satisfied with those services, which may 

be because parents are able to select service providers.

but also identified some benefits, as 

illustrated by the following requirements:

16

 

15While each requirement was identified as burdensome in multiple ways, our description 

is organized to highlight one of the many types of burdens.

In addition, 

one official we interviewed said that a benefit of SES is that students 

16See U.S. Department of Education, State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left 

Behind Act, Volume IV—Title I School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services: 

Interim Report (Washington, D.C.: 2008). 

Selected Federal 

Requirements Illustrate 

Burdens, Benefits, and 

Suggestions to Reduce or 

Eliminate Burden
 

Page 12 GAO-12-672 K-12 Education Requirements

receive extended learning time. However, officials indicated they 

would like certain improvements. For example, one district official 

indicated she would like more input into which providers to use and 

how to monitor the services provided.17

• IEP processing. Under IDEA Part B, for each eligible student with a 

disability, an IEP must be in place at the beginning of each school 

year. The IEP must be developed, reviewed, and revised in 

accordance with a number of requirements. For example, the IEP 

must include information about the child’s educational performance 

and goals, and the special education and related services that will be 

provided. The IEP team (consisting of, at a minimum, the parents, a 

regular education teacher, a special education teacher, a 

representative of the school district, and the child, when appropriate) 

must consider specific criteria when developing, reviewing, or revising 

each child’s IEP. Officials described this multistep process as 

complicated, in part because of unclear terms in the IEP paperwork. 

For example, an official told us that special education service 

providers on the IEP team often misinterpret questions on the IEP 

form18 regarding the student’s performance and progress. Another 

official said the paperwork required for an IEP meeting takes 2 to 3 

hours to complete and the meeting itself takes another 2 to 3 hours. 

Although meetings can be consolidated or held via conference call, 

this official said that each of these time commitments takes away from 

classroom instruction time and provision of support services. Despite

these challenges, IEPs provide benefits for students with disabilities. 

For example, one advocacy group noted that the IEP contains goals 

and includes progress reporting for parents so that the IEP team will 

know whether or not the child is actually benefiting from his or her 

educational program.19

 

17In a prior study we conducted, almost every state we surveyed said they needed 

assistance with methods to determine the effectiveness of SES services. See, GAO, 

Education Actions Needed to Improve Local Implementation and State Evaluation of 

Supplemental Educational Services,

Also, one district official we interviewed said 

that having IEPs online has allowed special education administrators 

to give immediate feedback to teachers and other special education 

GAO-06-758 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 4, 2006).

18Although the statute and regulations specify information that must be included in an IEP, 

no specific IEP form is required by Education. However, Education has provided a model 

form and some states and school districts may have developed their own form.

19See SPEDWatch, IEP or 504 Plan: What difference does it make? (June 2008).
 

Page 13 GAO-12-672 K-12 Education Requirements

service providers on changes to students’ educational needs. Other 

officials acknowledged that these requirements are designed to 

ensure that parental and student rights are protected, but believe 

those rights can be protected in a less-complicated way.

Officials described 13 of the 17 requirements as time-intensive. For 

example, officials said disseminating state and district report cards is 

time-intensive, and according to one official this is due to the large 

amount of time devoted to developing data for the reports and printing 

and mailing them. States and districts that receive ESEA Title I funds are 

required to disseminate annual report cards that include, among other 

information, student achievement data at each proficiency level on the 

state academic assessments, both in the aggregate for all students and 

disaggregated by specified subgroups. They also include information on 

the performance of school districts in making AYP and schools identified 

for school improvement, as well as the professional qualifications of 

teachers in the state.20

 

20Similar to state report cards, district report cards generally include a substantial amount 

of information. Specifically districts must include information such as the number and 

percentage of schools identified for school improvement and, for each school, information 

that shows how students’ achievement on the statewide academic assessments 

compared to other students in the district and state.

According to Education officials, state and district 

report cards can also include state-required information. To comply with 

these and other ESEA requirements, states maintain a large amount of 

student demographic and assessment data, which they use to provide 

information about the academic progress of students in the schools and 

districts. An official also noted that processes for collecting, verifying, and 

reporting these data take large amounts of state and local officials’ time 

and resources. In addition, these report cards can be quite long; one state 

official said report cards for districts in his state can be 20 to 30 pages in 

length. A district official we interviewed recognized that the information on 

state and district report cards is important to help inform parents about 

the academic performance of their children’s school. However, officials 

suggested ways to streamline the report cards, including that states and 

districts be allowed to distribute one page of data highlights along with a 

reference to where the full report is available publicly, such as online or in 

the school library. In its guidance on state and district report cards, 

Education stated that because not all parents and members of the public 
 

Page 14 GAO-12-672 K-12 Education Requirements

have access to the Internet, posting the report cards on the Internet alone 

is not sufficient to meet the dissemination requirement.21

Several of the most burdensome requirements identified are reporting 

requirements, which state and district officials told us contained 

duplicative data elements. Specifically, officials said some data 

collections may require the same or similar data elements to be reported 

multiple times. For example, through the CSPR used for ESEA reporting 

as well as the Annual Performance Report used for IDEA reporting, states 

are required to report graduation and dropout rates for students with 

disabilities. Additionally, officials from eight school districts told us that the 

CRDC required them to provide data directly to Education that had 

previously been submitted to the state. Examples of data elements 

reported as duplicative by district officials include student enrollment; 

testing; and discipline, which includes suspensions and expulsions.

State and school district officials characterized other burdensome federal 

requirements as paperwork-intensive (7 of 17), resource-intensive (6 of 

17), and vague (4 of 17). For example, officials said time distribution 

requirements, established by OMB,22

 

21See U.S Department of Education, Report Cards Title I, Part A Non-Regulatory 

Guidance (Washington, D.C.: September 2003). 

are paperwork-intensive. According 

to these requirements, in order for state and local grant recipients to use 

federal funds to pay the salaries of their employees who perform activities 

under multiple grants, they must maintain documentation of the 

employee’s activities. One district said that IDEA funding is used to pay 

for teachers working directly with students with disabilities, but because 

these students are included in general education classrooms it is difficult 

to document exactly how much time is spent working with these students. 

Two officials we interviewed said that complying with time distribution 

requirements provided no benefit to them. Officials described 

requirements to administer academic assessments as resource-intensive 

due to the costs needed to establish and maintain appropriate data 

systems. However, one state official noted that, as a result of the 

requirements, assessment data on student performance can be provided 

immediately to teachers and administrators. Also, some officials said they 

22 OMB Circular No. A-87, Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal 

Governments, codified at 2 C.F.R. Part 225, requires individuals whose salaries come at 

least partly from federal funds to document that the appropriate share of their time is spent 

on work activities required or allowed by the applicable federal funding stream.
 

Page 15 GAO-12-672 K-12 Education Requirements

were uncertain about requirements to implement the Healthy, HungerFree Kids Act of 2010, because, at the time of our interviews, some of the 

requirements had not gone into effect.

According to key stakeholders and state and school district officials we 

interviewed, states and districts do not generally collect information about 

the cost to comply with federal requirements. Stakeholders we 

interviewed said there were many reasons that states and school districts 

generally do not collect data on compliance costs. For example, some 

stakeholders told us most states and districts do not have the capacity to 

track spending on compliance activities. In addition, three stakeholders 

told us that school districts often have difficulty determining whether 

requirements are federal requirements or state requirements, and may 

not be able to separately track costs associated with federal 

requirements.

Information provided by the states and school districts we interviewed 

was generally consistent with views from these key stakeholders. 

Specifically, state and school district officials we interviewed said they do 

not collect information about the costs their agencies incur to comply with 

federal requirements, for a variety of reasons, including: (1) capacity 

limitations, such as limited staff and heavy workloads; (2) states and the 

federal government do not require them to report it; (3) it is too 

burdensome to collect the information; and (4) the information is not 

useful for improving student achievement or program administration and 

evaluation (see figure 2).23

 

23Some state and district officials we interviewed mentioned several other reasons that 

were not frequently cited by officials in other districts. These reasons included: (1) 

uncertainty about what a compliance activity is, (2) lack of information on how to calculate 

costs when compliance duties are performed outside the normal work week, and (3) 

difficulty isolating costs for activities associated with specific requirements when staff have 

multiple responsibilities. Officials in one district also told us that it would be difficult to 

calculate compliance costs because reporting requirements constantly change. 

When we asked state and district officials 

whether they could provide cost estimates on one requirement, most of 

States and School 

Districts Generally Do 

Not Track Their Costs 

to Comply with 

Federal 

Requirements, 

According to Those 

We Interviewed
 

Page 16 GAO-12-672 K-12 Education Requirements

them said they were unable to do so, and the estimates that were 

provided did not meet our criteria to include in the report.24

Figure 2: Reasons State and School District Officials We Interviewed Said They Do Not Collect Compliance Cost Data

Note: GAO received responses from 14 of the 15 sites (3 states and 12 school districts) selected for 

review. 

 

24When we asked state and district officials to provide cost estimates on one requirement, 

two provided estimates on requirements that were beyond the scope of our review (that is, 

the estimates were for programs that were not included in our report). Another estimate 

was incomplete as it did not include the costs associated with all personnel involved in the 

compliance activity. We did not include another estimate, because we could not verify all 

of the information included in the estimate.
 

Page 17 GAO-12-672 K-12 Education Requirements

Education and USDA developed plans, known as retrospective analysis 

plans, to identify and address burdensome regulations, as required by 

Executive Order 13563. The order required agencies to develop plans to 

periodically review their existing significant regulations and determine 

whether these regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded or 

repealed to make the agencies’ regulatory programs more effective or 

less burdensome. Consistent with the order’s emphasis on public 

participation in the rulemaking process, OMB encouraged agencies to 

obtain public input on their plans and make their final plans available to 

the public. Education’s final plan, issued in August 201125 discussed its 

efforts to reduce the burden on states and school districts and identified a 

preliminary list of regulatory provisions for future review, including IDEA 

reporting requirements, which were mentioned as burdensome by several 

stakeholders and state and school district officials we interviewed.26

 

25The final plan is available at www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/reg/retrospective-analysis/plan.pdf. 

Education issued a preliminary plan in May 2011 and solicited and received letters from 

stakeholders. 76 Fed. Reg. 39,343 (July 6, 2011). It also convened a forum in which 

department officials discussed burdensome requirements with key stakeholders. 

According to OMB guidance, federal agencies should update their plans periodically and 

shall report to OMB on their progress, accomplishments, and timelines for regulatory 

action. The progress reports are due quarterly in 2012 and semiannually in subsequent 

years. 

26Education also identified other regulations for review under the following programs: 

programs administered by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, 

the State Vocational Rehabilitation Unit In-service Training Program, career and technical 

education programs, postsecondary international education programs, campus-based 

Federal Student Aid programs, unfunded discretionary grant programs, and gainful 

employment education programs. 

Federal Agencies Are 

Taking Steps to 

Reduce Burden, but 

Potentially 

Duplicative Reporting 

Requirements and 

Statutory Limitations 

Remain

Federal Agencies 

Developed Plans, Offered 

Waivers, and Streamlined 

Other Processes to Reduce 

Burden on States and 

School Districts
 

Page 18 GAO-12-672 K-12 Education Requirements

Based on their review, Education officials told us they planned to 

consolidate several separate IDEA Part B data collections and include 

them in EDFacts beginning in October 2012.27

In addition, in September 2011, Education announced that states could 

request waivers on behalf of themselves and their districts and schools 

for exemption from 10 provisions of ESEA; if approved, they would no 

longer be required to comply with selected ESEA requirements.

Education also said it 

would survey departmental program offices to ask program personnel to 

identify requirements they consider to be burdensome. However, 

department officials told us this survey has been delayed due to other 

priorities within the department, and they now expect to administer it in 

the fall of 2012.

28

1. adopt college and career-ready standards in reading/language arts 

and mathematics, corresponding academic achievement standards, 

and administer high-quality assessments that are aligned with the 

standards;

While 

requesting ESEA waivers is voluntary, in order to receive a waiver, a 

state must submit a formal request to Education. In its waiver request, a 

state must indicate whether it agrees to a number of assurances, for 

example, that the state will evaluate and revise its own administrative 

requirements to reduce duplication and unnecessary burden on school 

districts and schools. Additionally, a request must describe how the state 

will implement the following principles:

2. develop and implement a system of recognition, accountability, and 

support for all school districts in the state and their Title I schools that 

 

27Education also noted that it has a general obligation under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

to minimize burden resulting from its collection of information and to obtain public 

comment on proposed collections.

2820 U.S.C. § 7861. ESEA authorizes the Secretary of Education to waive, with certain 

exceptions, any statutory or regulatory requirement of ESEA for states or school districts 

that receive ESEA funds and submit a waiver request that meets statutory requirements. 

Under the ESEA, waivers can be effective for up to 4 years, although they may be 

extended. Education currently offers waivers from 10 ESEA provisions, including the 

timeline for 100 percent proficiency on state assessments and implementation of school 

improvement requirements. States that choose to apply must request waivers from 10 

provisions and may choose to request waivers from an additional 3 provisions. For more 

information on the waivers, see http://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibility accessed June 19, 2012.
 

Page 19 GAO-12-672 K-12 Education Requirements

distinguishes high-performing districts and schools from those that are 

lower-performing; and

3. commit to create and implement teacher and principal evaluation and 

support systems that will be used to continually improve instruction 

and assess performance using at least three performance levels.

After receiving and reviewing waiver requests,29 Education approved 

waivers for 19 states, and, as of May 2012, was reviewing the requests of 

17 other states and the District of Columbia. The waivers are generally for 

a 2-year period, beginning in the 2012-2013 school year. The waivers 

may be extended, but Education has not specified the length of time an 

extension would be in effect. Of the three states included in our review, 

Education has approved requests from Massachusetts and Ohio and, as 

of May 2012, is considering one from Kansas. ESEA waivers may 

address some requirements officials and stakeholders identified as 

burdensome. For example, as a result of obtaining a waiver, 

Massachusetts will no longer require that school districts implement SES 

requirements. These exemptions are beneficial only to states which 

receive a waiver; states not approved for waivers must still comply with 

ESEA requirements. According to Education officials, the waivers may 

provide relief to many school districts by reducing certain reporting 

requirements and requirements to provide SES, among other provisions. 

However, we believe it is too soon to know whether states and school 

districts will encounter difficulties in implementing these waivers or what 

the ultimate benefits may be in terms of reducing regulatory burden. In 

prior work we reported that states faced challenges implementing multiple 

reforms and, as a result, some reform efforts have been delayed.30

As stated in its retrospective analysis plan, USDA implemented the direct 

certification process, which streamlined the approval process for free 

Similar to these other efforts, states with ESEA waivers may face 

challenges taking the steps needed to implement the required principles. 

 

29In addition to its internal staff, Education used a peer review panel that evaluated states’ 

ESEA waiver requests. 

30GAO, Race to the Top: Reform Efforts Are Under Way and Information Sharing Could 

Be Improved, GAO-11-658 (Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2011). School Improvement 

Grants: Early Implementation Under Way, but Reforms Affected by Short Time Frames,

GAO-11-741 (Washington, D.C.: July 25, 2011).
 

Page 20 GAO-12-672 K-12 Education Requirements

school meals.31 Direct certification is a means to determine a child’s 

eligibility for free school meals based on whether the child receives 

benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, among 

other criteria.

32 For example, students from families who receive nutrition 

assistance through this program are eligible for free school meals without 

completing the school meals application. In addition, in January 2012, 

USDA issued a final rule implementing revisions to nutrition standards 

required by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 that contained 

changes from the proposed rule.33 Among the provisions that may assist 

school districts in implementing the new requirements, the final rule gives 

school districts more time to make changes to school breakfast menus. In 

addition, in accordance with legislation passed in 2012,

34 USDA removed 

a proposed limit on the amount of starchy vegetables that could be 

served. As a result of these and other changes and lower estimates for 

the cost of food, USDA estimates the cost of complying with the new rule 

will be about $3.2 billion over the next 5 years, instead of the $6.8 billion 

cited in the proposed rule.35

In February 2012, OMB issued a notice that it plans to reform several 

federal financial assistance requirements, based on the work of an 

interagency group comprised of federal agencies, including Education.36

 

31USDA officials told us OMB and USDA agreed to exclude Food and Nutrition Service 

programs from USDA’s retrospective analysis plan. However, according to these officials, 

OMB and USDA officials have discussed how to ensure the spirit of Executive Order 

13563 is observed.

One reform OMB is considering is a pilot program, developed by 

32School districts also have the option to directly certify certain other students; for 

example, those from families receiving assistance under the Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families program. 42.U.S.C. § 1758(b)(4)-(5). 

3377 Fed. Reg. 4088 (Jan. 26, 2012). The proposed rule had been published in January 

2011. 76 Fed. Reg. 2494 (Jan. 13, 2011).

34The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012 prohibited funding 

for any rule that set a maximum limit on the serving of vegetables in school meal 

programs; as a result USDA removed from the final rule a provision that would have set 

limits on starchy vegetables. Pub. L. No. 112-55, § 746, 125 Stat. 552, 590.

35All but one of the new requirements for school breakfasts will be in effect by 2015. 

Assuming no other changes to the statute or regulations, school districts will likely incur 

the costs to comply with these requirements beyond the five years included in the 

estimate.

3677 Fed. Reg. 11,778 (Feb. 28, 2012).
 

Page 21 GAO-12-672 K-12 Education Requirements

Education, to reduce the burden of time distribution reports that school 

personnel must complete. According to Education, states, districts, and 

other stakeholders have repeatedly identified time distribution reports, 

required by OMB, as a source of administrative burden. Education 

officials told us they solicited feedback from stakeholders as they were 

designing this initiative. While the OMB notice did not include a timeline 

for this pilot, Education officials told us they expect to issue a notice to 

invite states and school districts to participate in the pilot later in 2012.

Education has taken some action to address duplicative reporting 

requirements. For example, department officials removed items from the 

2009-2010 CRDC that were already collected by the department under 

IDEA. According to Education officials, data on how students complete 

high school is no longer required in the CRDC, because Education 

already collects that information through its EDFacts data collection. 

Education officials also told us of an effort to consolidate district-level 

ESEA and IDEA reports and implement single file reporting in the 2011-

2012 school year. In an effort to reduce duplicative reporting by school 

districts, Education officials said they proposed that states report data 

required by the CRDC on behalf of their districts. However, according to 

department officials, only Florida has done so.

Despite these efforts, department officials generally disagree with 

stakeholders and state and districts officials about the extent to which 

duplicative reporting requirements exist and the burden they impose. In 

its July 2011 letter to Education regarding the department’s preliminary 

retrospective analysis plan, the Council of Chief State School Officers 

wrote of its on-going concerns about such requirements in the CSPR, 

CRDC, and other data collections. The National Title I Association and 

the National Association of State Directors of Special Education 

expressed similar concerns to the department. When we discussed the 

issues raised in these letters with Education officials, they told us there 

are few duplicative reporting requirements and that the burden they 

impose is minimal. For example, states are to report the graduation rate 

for students with disabilities in the ESEA CSPR and the IDEA Annual 

Performance Report and possibly other reports. However, Education 

officials said states’ reporting these data twice, in their view, is not 

burdensome, because both reports use the same data. They also said 

that similar reporting requirements may be viewed as duplicative by state 

and district officials. For example, states are required to report not only a 

graduation rate for students with disabilities, but also a program 

completion rate, which includes students with disabilities who finish high 

Education Has Taken 

Some Action to Remove 

Duplicative Reporting 

Requirements, but 

Generally Disagrees with 

Stakeholders About the 

Extent to Which 

Duplication Exists
 

Page 22 GAO-12-672 K-12 Education Requirements

school but do not graduate.37 States also report graduation and 

completion data through another departmental data collection, the 

Common Core of Data. However, Education officials said these data are 

not duplicative, because they measure different ways students finish high 

school. We asked Education officials why, in response to comments they 

received on their draft retrospective analysis plan, they did not include a 

broader effort to identify duplicative reporting requirements in their final 

plan. In response, they said Executive Order 13563 (which required the 

department to develop the plan) focused on regulations and, as such, any 

reporting requirements based in statute would have been outside the 

scope of the order.

Education may be unable to address certain burdensome requirements in 

the absence of legislative changes. These include, for example, certain 

requirements related to IDEA Indicators and transitioning preschool 

children with disabilities into IDEA Part B programs as well as 

requirements not addressed through ESEA waivers.38

• IDEA indicators. IDEA requires Education to monitor states and states 

to monitor school districts using indicators in each of three specified 

priority areas. In accordance with this requirement, Education has 

established 20 indicators under IDEA Part B. In October 2011, 

Education published a Federal Register notice seeking public 

comments on proposed changes to the IDEA Part B data collection. 

Education said it planned to eliminate two Part B indicators, since 

states report data on those indicators in other data collections. In 

response to the notice, several commenters recommended that the 

department eliminate many other indicators, but the department did 

not do so; among other reasons, the department said many of the 

 

37States are required to report the number and percentage of children with disabilities 

aged 14 through 21 who stop receiving special education and related services because of 

program completion or other reasons. The completion rate includes students with 

disabilities who graduate from high school with a regular high school diploma and those 

who complete high school, but do not graduate; this may include those who receive an 

alternative credential, such as a certificate of attendance.

38GAO did not independently determine whether these requirements should be modified. 

The examples we cite are those provided by education stakeholders and state and school 

district officials we interviewed.

Education’s Ability to 

Address the Burden 

Associated with Some 

Requirements May Be 

Limited without Statutory 

Changes
 

Page 23 GAO-12-672 K-12 Education Requirements

indicators are required by the IDEA.39

• Transition of preschool students with disabilities from the IDEA Part C 

program to the IDEA Part B program. Every state that receives IDEA 

funds must have in effect policies and procedures to ensure that an 

IEP (or an individualized family service plan, if applicable) has been 

developed and is implemented by the third birthday for children 

participating in the IDEA Part C program who will transition into the 

IDEA Part B program.

In addition, Education withdrew 

other modifications it had proposed to the data collection in response 

to input that those changes would actually increase the burden on 

states and districts. Education may continue to make modifications to 

the IDEA data collection in future years. However, Education lacks 

authority to eliminate certain indicators on priority areas that are 

required by statute.

40

 

39Although the IDEA specifies that Education use indicators in each of the three priority 

areas identified in the statute, it does not specifically identify the indicators to be used or 

how they are to be measured. Therefore, the statute leaves some discretion to the agency 

in implementing specific indicators. In exercising that discretion, Education made policy 

determinations on how to implement the IDEA. In light of these factors, GAO did not 

evaluate the extent to which each individual indicator may or may not be required to 

implement the IDEA’s requirements. Such an analysis was outside the scope of this 

report. 

Two district officials told us that the transition 

requirements impose a burden on them, since there is no flexibility, 

even in the case of emergencies or other extenuating circumstances. 

Officials in one district told us that failure to comply with the 

requirement to have the IEP done by the child’s third birthday, by 

even one day, renders the school district out of compliance with this 

requirement. To comply with this requirement, officials in this district 

said that they begin the transition process with an assessment about 

6 months in advance even though it would be better to assess the 

child as close to their third birthday as possible. (They explained that 

a child assessed when he or she is two and a half years old may need 

special education services, but, since children change more rapidly 

when they are young, it is possible they may not need services by the 

time they are three years old.) However, because the third birthday 

deadline is established by statute, Education lacks authority to provide 

exceptions to states and school districts.

40Part C of IDEA is for children under 3 years of age, and Part B is for children 3 to 21 

years old.
 

Page 24 GAO-12-672 K-12 Education Requirements

• Requirements not addressed through ESEA waivers. Several of the 

ESEA Title I requirements identified as burdensome by states and 

school districts are also required by statute. For example, the statute 

specifies certain information that must be included in state and district 

report cards and requires that school districts must spend 20 percent 

of their Title I allocation on SES and school choice-related 

transportation, unless a lesser amount is needed. Although Education 

does not have the authority to modify these statutory requirements, it 

has used its waiver authority to issue waivers exempting states and 

their districts from the SES and school choice requirements and from 

some of the state and district report card requirements. Other than 

offering these waivers, however, Education does not have the 

authority to change the underlying statute, so states and districts must 

still comply with the statutory requirements to the extent they are not 

covered by a waiver.

Recent government-wide initiatives have highlighted the need to reduce 

the burden faced by states and school districts in complying with federal 

grant requirements. While stakeholders and state and district officials 

generally agree that requirements are necessary to ensure program 

integrity, transparency, and fair and equal educational opportunities for all 

students, there is also acknowledgement that states and districts spend 

considerable time and resources complying with requirements. Education 

has taken some steps to alleviate burden on states and districts while, at 

the same time, ensuring these entities achieve program goals. Despite 

these efforts, additional in-depth analysis and greater collaboration 

among Education and key stakeholders is needed so that states and 

districts do not waste resources implementing overly complex processes 

or reporting data multiple times. Education can work with interested 

parties to identify requirements that can be modified or eliminated without 

affecting program integrity. Education cannot, however, change some 

requirements that states and districts find burdensome, because they are 

specified by statute. In these cases, statutory changes would be needed. 

Finding the appropriate balance between program goals and compliance 

can be difficult but maintaining requirements that are unnecessary and 

burdensome can hinder education reform efforts.

Conclusions
 

Page 25 GAO-12-672 K-12 Education Requirements

We recommend that the Secretary of Education take additional steps to 

address duplicative reporting and data collection efforts across major 

programs such as ESEA Title I and IDEA Part B as well as other efforts, 

such as the Civil Rights Data Collection. For example, Education could 

work with stakeholders to better understand and address their concerns 

and review reporting requirements to identify specific data elements that 

are duplicative. In addition, we recommend that the Secretary build on 

these efforts by identifying unnecessarily burdensome statutory 

requirements and developing legislative proposals to help reduce or 

eliminate the burden these requirements impose on states and districts. 

We provided a draft copy of this report to Education, USDA, and OMB for 

review and comment. Education’s comments are reproduced in appendix 

II. Education generally agreed with our recommendations. In particular, 

Education agreed that it should take additional steps to address 

duplicative reporting and data collection efforts that are not statutorily 

required and said it believes additional efficiencies can be achieved in its 

data collections. Education noted that some data elements are required 

under various program statutes and said it will work with Congress on 

reauthorization of key laws, such as the ESEA and IDEA, to address 

duplication or the appearance of duplication resulting from those 

requirements. Education also acknowledged the importance of 

collaborating with stakeholders whenever the department develops 

regulations, such as data reporting requirements.

Education and USDA provided technical comments on our report which 

we incorporated as appropriate. OMB did not have any comments on our 

report.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 26 GAO-12-672 K-12 Education Requirements

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate 

congressional committees, the Secretaries of Education and Agriculture, 

the Director of OMB, and other interested parties. In addition, this report 

will be available at no charge on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-7215 or scottg@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report 

are listed in appendix III.

Sincerely yours,

George A. Scott

Director

Education, Workforce, 

 and Income Security Issues
Appendix I: Description and Source of 

Requirements Identified as Burdensome by the 

State and School District Officials We 

Interviewed 

Page 27 GAO-12-672 K-12 Education Requirements

Table 2 lists the 17 federal requirements identified as most burdensome 

by the officials we interviewed in 3 state educational agencies and 12 

school districts. Requirements are grouped by program: Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Title I, Part A; Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B; national school meals programs, 

including the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast 

Program; and other requirements related to the receipt of federal funds.

The summaries and cited provisions for each requirement represent the 

burdens described in our interviews; therefore they are not intended to be 

complete descriptions of each requirement. Additional provisions related 

to these requirements may apply. In some cases a requirement may have 

multiple sources, such as where statutory requirements are further 

interpreted in a regulation or guidance document.

Table 2: Requirements Identified as Burdensome by State and School District Officials We Interviewed

Requirement description and citation Statute Regulation Other

ESEA Title I, Part A 

Academic Assessments. Each state, in consultation with school districts, must implement a 

system of high-quality, yearly student academic assessments in, at a minimum, mathematics, 

reading or language arts, and science. [20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(3)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 200.2(a)(1).]

x x 

Adequate yearly progress (AYP) data collection and reporting. Each state must develop and 

implement a statewide accountability system that is effective in ensuring that all public 

elementary and secondary schools and school districts in the state make AYP. A state must 

define AYP in a manner that includes separate measurable annual objectives for continuous and 

substantial improvement for the achievement of all public school students, and the achievement 

of students in each of the following subgroups: economically disadvantaged students, students 

from major racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and students with limited English 

proficiency. [20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(2); 34 C.F.R. §§ 200.12(a), 200.13(b)(7).]

x x 

Services to eligible private school children. School districts must provide special educational 

services or other Title I, Part A benefits (such as dual enrollment, educational radio and 

television, and computer equipment and materials, among others) on an equitable basis and in a 

timely manner to eligible children enrolled in private elementary and secondary schools. School 

districts must conduct timely and meaningful consultation with appropriate private school officials 

on a number of specified issues, such as how the children’s needs will be identified; what 

services will be offered; and how, where, and by whom the services will be provided, among 

others. Consultation must include meetings of district and private school officials, and written 

documentation of the consultation signed by school officials must be maintained by the school 

district and provided to the state. [20 U.S.C. § 6320(a)-(b); 34 C.F.R. §§ 200.62-.63.]

x x 

Appendix I: Description and Source of 

Requirements Identified as Burdensome by the 

State and School District Officials We Interviewed
Appendix I: Description and Source of 

Requirements Identified as Burdensome by the 

State and School District Officials We 

Interviewed 

Page 28 GAO-12-672 K-12 Education Requirements

Requirement description and citation Statute Regulation Other

Alternate Assessments. All students, including those with disabilities, must participate in the 

academic assessments under ESEA. [20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(3)(C)(ix); 34 C.F.R. § 200.6.]a x x 

The state’s academic assessment system must provide for one or more alternate assessments 

for a child with a disability (as defined under IDEA) whose Individualized Educational Program 

(IEP) team determines cannot participate in state assessments even with appropriate 

accommodations. [34 C.F.R. § 200.6(a)(2).]

x 

States may define “alternate academic achievement standards” for students with the most 

significant cognitive disabilities who take an alternate assessment. However, the regulations 

place a cap on the number of proficient and advanced scores of students based on the alternate 

academic achievement standards that may be included in the AYP calculation. Some exceptions 

apply. [34 C.F.R. §§ 200.1(d), 200.13(c) and 200.13 app.]

x 

State and district report cards. Any state or school district that receives Title I, Part A assistance 

must prepare and disseminate an annual report card. State report cards must include, among 

other information, aggregate information on student achievement at each proficiency level on the 

state academic assessments (disaggregated by specified subgroups), information on the 

performance of school districts in making AYP, including schools identified for school 

improvement, and the professional qualifications of teachers in the state. Districts must include 

the information required for state report cards as well as additional information, such as the 

number and percentage of schools identified for school improvement and, by school, information 

that shows how students’ achievement on the statewide academic assessments and other 

indicators of AYP compared to other students in the district and the state. [20 U.S.C. 

§ 6311(h)(1)-(2); 34 C.F.R. § 200.19(a)(3),(b)(4).]

x x 

The regulations also specifically require report cards to include the number of recently arrived 

limited English proficient students who are not assessed on the state’s reading/language arts 

assessment and specified academic achievement results on the state’s National Assessment of 

Educational Progress reading and mathematics assessment, [34 C.F.R. §§ 200.6(b)(4)(i)(C), 

200.11(c).]

x 

Supplemental Educational Services (SES) 20 percent obligation: School districts are required to 

spend 20 percent of their Title I, Part A allocation on choice-related transportation and SES, 

unless a lesser amount is needed. [20 U.S.C. § 6316(b)(10)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 200.48(a)(2).]

x x 

SES provider approval and monitoring. A state is responsible for approving service providers in 

accordance with objective criteria that are consistent with statutory requirements. States are also 

responsible for developing, implementing, and publicly reporting on standards and techniques for 

monitoring the quality and effectiveness of services offered by approved providers; and 

withdrawing approval from providers that fail, for two consecutive years, to contribute to 

increasing academic proficiency of the students served. [20 U.S.C. § 6316(e); 34 C.F.R. 

§ 200.47.]

x x 

IDEA Part B 

IDEA indicators. Education monitors states, and states are required to monitor school districts, 

using quantifiable indicators, and such qualitative indictors as needed to adequately measure 

performance, in specified priority areas. The priority areas are: (1) provision of a free appropriate 

public education in the least restrictive environment; (2) state exercise of general supervisory 

authority including child find, effective monitoring, the use of resolution sessions, mediation, 

voluntary binding arbitration, and a system of transition services; and (3) disproportionate 

representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services, to the extent 

the representation is the result of inappropriate identification. [20 U.S.C. § 1416(a)(3); 34 C.F.R. 

§ 300.600(c)-(d).]

x x 

To implement monitoring of performance in the statutorily-defined priority areas, Education 

developed 20 specific indicators and specified how they are to be measured. x 
Appendix I: Description and Source of 

Requirements Identified as Burdensome by the 

State and School District Officials We 

Interviewed 

Page 29 GAO-12-672 K-12 Education Requirements

Requirement description and citation Statute Regulation Other

IEP processing. An IEP for each child with a disability must be developed, reviewed, and revised 

in accordance with a number of statutory requirements. For example, it must be a written 

statement that includes, among other things, information about the child’s present levels of 

academic achievement and functional performance, measurable annual goals, how progress will 

be measured, and the special education and related services that will be provided. IEPs are to be 

developed by an IEP team, which must include, at a minimum, the parents, a regular education 

teacher, a special education teacher, a representative of the school district, and the child, when 

appropriate. The statute also specifies the criteria the IEP team is to consider when developing, 

making changes to, and reviewing or revising the IEP. [20 U.S.C. § 1414(d); 34 C.F.R. 

§§ 300.320-.321.]

x x 

Each public agency must ensure that a meeting to develop an IEP for a child is conducted within 

30 days of a determination that the child needs special education and related services and that 

as soon as possible following development of the IEP, special education and related services are 

made available to the child in accordance with the child’s IEP. [34 C.F.R. § 300.323(c).]

x

b x 

Transition from Part C to Part B. For children participating in the IDEA Part C, early intervention 

programs who will transition into the IDEA Part B, preschool programs, an IEP (or an 

individualized family service plan, if applicable) has been developed and is being implemented by 

their third birthday. [20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(9); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.101(b), 300.124(b), 303.209.]

x x 

National school meals programs 

Confidentiality. The use or disclosure of any information obtained from an application for free or 

reduced price meals, or from a state or local agency under the direct certification or direct 

verification process, shall be limited to specifically identified people for specified purposes, 

including officials directly connected with the administration or enforcement of certain federal, 

state, and local programs, among others. [42 U.S.C. § 1758(b)(6); 7 C.F.R. § 245.6(f),(g).]

x x 

The regulations specify in more detail exactly which information may be disclosed, to which 

officials, and under what circumstances. In addition, the state or school district may disclose 

aggregate information about children eligible for free and reduced price meals or free milk to any 

party without parental notification and consent when children cannot be identified. State agencies 

and districts that plan to use or disclose information about children eligible for free and reduced 

price meals or free milk in other ways must obtain written consent from children’s parents or 

guardians prior to the use or disclosure, which must comply with specified requirements.

[7 C.F.R. § 245.6(f),(g),(i).]

x 

Application process. Applications for free and reduced price lunches, in such form as the 

Secretary may prescribe or approve, must be distributed to the parents or guardians of children in 

attendance at the school, and must contain only the family size income levels for reduced price 

meal eligibility with the explanation that households with incomes less than or equal to these 

values would be eligible for free or reduced price lunches.c [42 U.S.C. § 1758(b)(2)(B)(i).]

x 

Details about the form of the application are included in the regulations. [7 C.F.R. § 245.6(a).] x 

Every school year, a school district shall verify eligibility of the children in a sample of approved 

applications, following certain prescribed procedures. [42 U.S.C. § 1758(b)(3)(D)-(J); 7 C.F.R. 

§ 245.6a.]

x x 

Enrollment timelines. According to USDA’s Eligibility Manual for School Meals, school districts 

should distribute applications on or about the beginning of the school year (defined as July 1) or 

soon thereafter.

x 

“School year” is defined for purposes of the National School Lunch and School Breakfast 

programs as the annual period from July 1 through June 30. [42 U.S.C. § 1760(d)(6); 7 C.F.R. 

§ 210.2 and 42 U.S.C. § 1784(5); 7 C.F.R. § 220.2.]

x x 
Appendix I: Description and Source of 

Requirements Identified as Burdensome by the 

State and School District Officials We 

Interviewed 

Page 30 GAO-12-672 K-12 Education Requirements

Requirement description and citation Statute Regulation Other

The Secretary of Agriculture is required to prescribe income guidelines for determining eligibility 

for free and reduced price lunches not later than June 1 of each fiscal year for the 12-month 

period beginning July 1 of that fiscal year. The income guidelines are calculated based on the 

applicable family size income levels in the nonfarm income poverty guidelines prescribed by the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Consumer Price Index. [42 U.S.C. 

§ 1758(b)(1)(A).]

x 

Changes made by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. The Secretary of Agriculture is 

required to promulgate regulations to update the meal patterns and nutrition standards for the 

National School Lunch and the School Breakfast programs based on recommendations made by 

the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council of the National Academy of 

Sciences. [42 U.S.C. § 1753(b)(3)(A); 77 Fed. Reg. 4088 (Jan. 26, 2012).d

] 

x x 

Each lunch served in school food authorities determined to be eligible (meaning the food 

authority has been certified by the state to be in compliance with the regulations issued by the 

Secretary updating the meal patterns and nutrition standards) shall receive an additional 6 cents, 

annually adjusted, to the national lunch average payment for each lunch served. [42 U.S.C. 

§ 1753(b)(3)(C)(i); 77 Fed. Reg. 25,024 (Apr. 27, 2012).e] 

x x 

For each school year beginning July 1, 2011, the school food authority shall establish an average 

price for a paid lunch that is not less than the difference between the total federal reimbursement 

for a free lunch and the total federal reimbursement for a paid lunch. School food authorities that 

charged a lower price are required to increase their prices incrementally each year to meet this 

threshold. [42 U.S.C. § 1760(p)(2)(A)-(C),(3); 76 Fed. Reg. 35,301 (June 17, 2011).f

] 

x x 

The Secretary shall establish a program of required education, training, and certification for all 

school food service directors responsible for the management of a school food authority, as well 

as criteria and standards for selecting state agency directors, In addition, States are required to 

annually provide training in administrative practices to district and school food authority 

personnel. Training and certification of all local food service personnel is also required. [42 U.S.C. 

§ 1776(g)(1)(A)-(C).g

] 

x 

Other requirements related to the receipt of federal funds 

Civil Rights Data Collection. The Department of Education Organization Act authorizes the 

department’s Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights to collect or coordinate the collection of data 

necessary to ensure compliance with civil rights laws within its jurisdiction. [20 U.S.C. 

§ 3413(c)(1).]h

x 

Education’s regulations require grant recipients to keep records and report to Education such 

information as necessary to determine compliance with the civil rights laws. [34 C.F.R. 

§§ 100.6(b), 104.61, 106.71.]

x 

Education sets the specific data to be collected in its periodic Civil Rights Data Collection. x 

Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. Recipients of federal funds totaling 

$25,000 or more must report basic information on awards. [31 U.S.C. § 6101 note and OMB 

guidance on Requirements for Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act 

Implementation, codified at 2 C.F.R. §§ 170.100-.330 and 2 C.F.R part 170 app. A. See also the 

OMB Memorandum for Senior Accountable Officials (Aug. 27, 2010).]

x x 

Time distribution. In order for state and local federal grant recipients to use federal funds to pay 

salaries for their employees, they must document the employees’ time spent on federally funded 

activities. [OMB Circular A-87, codified at 2 C.F.R. §§ 225.5-.55. See 2 C.F.R. part 225 app. 

B(8)(h). Circular A-87 has been adopted by Education by regulation, 34 C.F.R. § 80.22.]

x x 

Source: GAO analysis of the sources of federal requirements identified by selected states and school districts.
Appendix I: Description and Source of 

Requirements Identified as Burdensome by the 

State and School District Officials We 

Interviewed 

Page 31 GAO-12-672 K-12 Education Requirements

Note: A source identified as “other” means the source is neither statutory nor regulatory, such as 

agency guidance. We reviewed guidance documents for some requirements identified in this report, 

as appropriate, but it was outside the scope of this report to conduct a comprehensive review of all 

guidance documents related to every requirement identified by states and school districts. In this 

table, we use the term “state” when a requirement refers to a state or a state educational agency, and 

we use the term “school district” when a requirement refers to a local educational agency. 

a

IDEA also requires that all children with disabilities be included in all general state and districtwide 

assessment programs, with appropriate accommodations and alternate assessments where 

necessary and as indicated in their respective IEPs. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(16)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 

300.160(a). 

b

IDEA Part A prohibits Education from issuing or implementing any regulation that procedurally or 

substantively lessens the protections provided to children with disabilities contained in regulations in 

effect on July 20, 1983, unless the regulation reflects the clear intent of Congress in legislation. 20 

U.S.C. § 1406(b)(2). Because the substantive provisions of the IEP regulations cited here were in 

effect on July 20, 1983 as 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.342(b) and 300.343(c), they may not be reduced or 

eliminated without a statutory change. 

c

The direct certification process and the community eligibility option eliminate the requirement for 

individual applications in some cases. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1758(b)(4)-(5), 1759a(a)(1)(F).

d

Compliance with the provisions of this rule will not be required until July 1, 2012. 

e

This rule will go into effect July 1, 2012. 

f

This rule went into effect July 1, 2011. 

g

At the time of our review, USDA had not issued proposed or final regulations implementing this 

provision. 

h

Applicable provisions of the civil rights laws include: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, codified 

at 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d to 2000d-1, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, codified at 20 

U.S.C §§ 1681-82, and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, codified as amended at 29 

U.S.C. § 794. 
Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. 

Department of Education

Page 32 GAO-12-672 K-12 Education Requirements

Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. 

Department of Education
Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. 

Department of Education

Page 33 GAO-12-672 K-12 Education Requirements
Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. 

Department of Education

Page 34 GAO-12-672 K-12 Education Requirements
Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. 

Department of Education

Page 35 GAO-12-672 K-12 Education Requirements
Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. 

Department of Education

Page 36 GAO-12-672 K-12 Education Requirements
Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. 

Department of Education

Page 37 GAO-12-672 K-12 Education Requirements
Appendix III: GAO Contact and 

Staff Acknowledgments

Page 38 GAO-12-672 K-12 Education Requirements

George Scott, (202) 512-7215 or scottg@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, the following staff members 

made important contributions to this report: Elizabeth Morrison, Assistant 

Director; Jason Palmer, Analyst-in-Charge; Sandra Baxter; Jamila 

Kennedy; and Amy Spiehler. In addition, Sarah Cornetto and Sheila 

McCoy provided extensive legal assistance. Jean McSween, Timothy 

Bober, Phyllis Anderson, and Kathleen Van Gelder provided guidance on 

the study.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(131131)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.