K-12 Education: Selected States and School Districts Cited Numerous Federal Requirements As Burdensome, While Recognizing Some Benefits
Published: 2012-06-27T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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.
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 career-ready 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.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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  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. 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  reviewed documentation regarding such federal efforts, including  Education’s and USDA’s retrospective analysis plans.
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.
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.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Sources of Federal Requirements and Efforts to Reduce Burdensome Requirements
paragraphs: 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  may then issue regulations further clarifying the requirements. Most  federal agencies use the informal rulemaking procedures described in the  Administrative Procedure Act. Those procedures, also known as “notice- and-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).
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.
section_title: Selected Federal Education Programs and Reporting Requirements
paragraphs: Title I of ESEA, 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).
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. 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. 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 2010revised 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.
section_title: Key Education Stakeholders and State and School District Officials Cited Many Federal Requirements as Both Burdensome and Beneficial
subsections: section_title: Consistent with Key Education Stakeholders, Officials in Selected States and School Districts Identified 17 Federal Requirements as Most Burdensome
paragraphs: 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, 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.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  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.  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.
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, resource- intensive, 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  what data is collected, which one official noted resulted in costly  modifications to state and local data systems.
All of the requirements identified by state and school district officials as  most burdensome were characterized as being complicated, time- intensive, or both. Officials described 15 of the 17 burdensome  requirements as complicated, but also identified some benefits, as  illustrated by the following requirements:
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   In addition,  be because parents are able to select service providers.one official we interviewed said that a benefit of SES is that students  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.
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   regarding the student’s performance and progress. Another  form 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. 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  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.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   According to Education officials, state and district  have access to the Internet, posting the report cards on the Internet alone  is not sufficient to meet the dissemination requirement.
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,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   are paperwork-intensive. According  were uncertain about requirements to implement the Healthy, Hunger- Free Kids Act of 2010, because, at the time of our interviews, some of the  requirements had not gone into effect.
section_title: States and School Districts Generally Do Not Track Their Costs to Comply with Federal Requirements, According to Those We Interviewed
paragraphs: 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). When we asked state and district officials  whether they could provide cost estimates on one requirement, most of  them said they were unable to do so, and the estimates that were  provided did not meet our criteria to include in the report.
section_title: Federal Agencies Are Taking Steps to Reduce Burden, but Potentially Duplicative Reporting Requirements and Statutory Limitations Remain
subsections: section_title: Federal Agencies Developed Plans, Offered Waivers, and Streamlined Other Processes to Reduce Burden on States and School Districts
paragraphs: 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 2011 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.
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. 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.
20 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. 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, 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.Similar to these other efforts, states with ESEA waivers may face  challenges taking the steps needed to implement the required principles.
As stated in its retrospective analysis plan, USDA implemented the direct  certification process, which streamlined the approval process for free  school meals. 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. 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. 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, 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.
77 Fed. Reg. 11,778 (Feb. 28, 2012).
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.
section_title: Education Has Taken Some Action to Remove Duplicative Reporting Requirements, but Generally Disagrees with Stakeholders About the Extent to Which Duplication Exists
paragraphs: 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  school but do not graduate.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.
section_title: Education’s Ability to Address the Burden Associated with Some Requirements May Be Limited without Statutory Changes
paragraphs: 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.
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  indicators are required by the IDEA. 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.
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. 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.
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.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Appendix I: Description and Source of Requirements Identified as Burdensome by the State and School District Officials We Interviewed
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Department of Education
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.