Special Education: State and Local-Imposed Requirements Complicate Federal Efforts to Reduce Administrative Burden
Published: 2016-01-08T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: When IDEA was reauthorized in 2004, it included provisions to reduce administrative and paperwork requirements to address concerns about burden. GAO was asked to review federal efforts to reduce burden related to meeting IDEA requirements for educating children with disabilities. Congress provided about $11.5 billion in grants in fiscal year 2015 under IDEA Part B to help states and local districts defray the costs of special education services for nearly 6.6 million students ages 3 to 21.
This report examines (1) what Education and states have done to implement selected IDEA provisions intended to reduce burden, (2) stakeholder views about IDEA's administrative and paperwork requirements, and (3) steps that Education and others have taken to minimize IDEA-related burden.
GAO reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations; held nongeneralizable focus groups with state and local administrators and educators from 37 states; visited schools in Clinton, Arkansas and Rochester, New York; and interviewed officials from Education and stakeholder organizations. GAO selected focus group participants, site visit locations, and organizations to highlight a range of demographic and geographic characteristics and obtain perspectives from a variety of stakeholders.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: In response to the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)—the primary federal law governing education of children with disabilities—the Department of Education (Education) attempted to reduce administrative burden by creating pilot programs and publishing model paperwork forms, but states have used these tools sparingly. Specifically, Education created pilot programs allowing states to use multi-year rather than annual individualized education programs (IEP) to describe services to meet each student's needs, and to waive certain federal paperwork requirements. However, no state applied for these pilots, citing a perceived lack of benefit, and inadequate funding to implement and evaluate the pilots. As required by law, Education also published templates, known as model forms, to help states streamline the process of preparing IEPs and comply with parent notice requirements in IDEA. Although some states and school districts adopted at least one of these model forms, they have used others primarily as a starting point to develop their own forms. State and district officials told GAO this allowed them to meet federal as well as state and local requirements, and provided better protection against potential litigation. Stakeholders were mixed in their views about the effects of other provisions intended to reduce administrative burden. For example, several stakeholders viewed a provision allowing states to use more grant funds for paperwork reduction activities as helpful; others said the effect of a provision eliminating benchmarks and short-term objectives for IEPs was largely negligible.
Stakeholders across 9 focus groups—3 each with state administrators, local administrators, and educators—said that state-imposed requirements contribute to the administrative and paperwork burden, but their views on the burdens and benefits of federal IDEA requirements varied somewhat. For example, in focus groups, educators expressed concerns about monitoring and documenting student progress, while local and state administrators expressed concerns, respectively, about IEP implementation and federal reporting requirements. Consistent with prior research, many educators in these focus groups estimated they spend roughly one to two hours daily on administrative tasks, and expressed concern about this taking time away from the classroom. Despite perceived burdens, stakeholders widely acknowledged that IDEA's requirements play an important role in accountability. For example, educators said the requirements provide information about student strengths and limitations that help them assist the student, while state administrators said requirements aid planning and program development.
Education, states, and school districts have reduced administrative burdens by adopting new technology and using certain resource strategies. For example, several state administrators said Education's electronic data submission system has made it easier to complete federally-required state performance plans. During fall 2014, Education launched a new electronic reporting system intended to, among other things, consolidate data collections and ease data entry. Some schools and districts have also adopted resource strategies, such as hiring data clerks to reduce administrative burdens, but these strategies can be costly.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO is not making any recommendations at this time.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the primary federal  law authorizing federal funding for special education and related services,  is designed to ensure that eligible students with disabilities have available  a free appropriate public education, as well as to give parents a role in  their children’s education. In fiscal year 2015, an estimated 6.6 million  students ages 3 through 21 received special education services through a  combination of federal, state, and local funding, according to Department  of Education (Education) data. Under IDEA Part B, the federal  government contributed $11.5 billion that same year to help defray the  excess costs of educating these students. Administered at the federal  level by Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) in the  Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, IDEA has been  reauthorized several times since its enactment in 1975, most recently in  2004. Prior to the 2004 reauthorization, organizations representing state  and local administrators, educators, disability education advocates, and  parents expressed concerns that resources were being directed away  from classrooms in order to meet paperwork and other IDEA  requirements that were not directly related to improving education  outcomes for children. To address these concerns, Congress added  several provisions in the 2004 reauthorization intended to help reduce  administrative tasks and paperwork associated with special education  programs. Among other things, the provisions included a pilot under  which Education could waive statutory or regulatory requirements under  IDEA Part B for up to 4 years for up to 15 states. The provisions also  included a requirement for Education to provide templates, known as  “model forms,” for states and local educational agencies (LEAs) to use in  documenting various administrative requirements in the special education  process. You asked us to review federal efforts to reduce the burden  associated with IDEA administrative and paperwork requirements.
This report examines (1) what Education and states have done to  implement selected provisions of the law to help minimize the burden  associated with administrative and paperwork requirements under IDEA,  (2) stakeholder views about IDEA’s administrative and paperwork  requirements, and (3) the steps Education and others have taken to  minimize IDEA-related burden.
To address our first objective, we reviewed relevant laws, regulations,  and published studies. We also interviewed officials from Education, and  from organizations representing education stakeholder groups, including  state and local education administrators, parents of students with  disabilities, and educators. To address our second objective, we  conducted 9 focus group discussions—3 with state administrators from 18  states, 3 with local administrators from 14 states, and 3 with educators  from 15 states. Overall, participants came from 37 separate states and,  though not generalizable, their views represent a broad range of  experiences from across all regions of the country and all types of school  districts. To identify potential participants for our focus groups, we worked  with the National Association of State Directors of Special Education, Inc.,  the Council of Administrators of Special Education, the National  Education Association, and other organizations representing special  education stakeholders. To select focus group participants, we extended  invitations to potential participants to maximize diversity in the following  areas: the state in which they were employed, type of position, years of  experience, and type of school district (rural or urban).
We also completed site visits in Clinton, Arkansas and Rochester, New  York. We selected these two school districts to highlight different  experiences in how urban and rural school districts manage  administrative requirements. These site visits provided opportunities to  understand and document local efforts to manage administrative  requirements, and to speak with parents about how they perceive special  education procedures, although the views of the parents with whom we  met are not generalizable. At each location, we met with parents whose  children were receiving special education services. Parents were  informed of the opportunity to attend these meetings by the local districts,  and attendance was voluntary. The site visits allowed us to explore how  differences in state and local requirements may contribute to differences  in perceptions of the relative benefits and challenges associated with  meeting key federal requirements.
To address our third objective, we spoke with Education officials about  the agency’s efforts to minimize the burden associated with selected  administrative and paperwork requirements under IDEA. We also spoke  with state and local officials in New York and Arkansas, and included a  question about efforts to minimize burden in our focus group  discussions. Finally, we discussed this topic with educators and officials  from organizations representing state and local administrators of special  education programs, as well as officials from organizations representing  parents of students with disabilities. We selected these organizations to  provide a range of views on the benefits and burdens of IDEA  requirements.
We conducted this performance audit from August 2014 to January 2016  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
paragraphs: IDEA Part B authorizes federal grants to states to help them meet the  excess costs of providing special education and related services to  students with disabilities. There are a number of conditions that states  must meet to be eligible for funding. In particular, states must agree to  make available a free appropriate public education to all students with  disabilities beginning at the age of 3 and possibly lasting to the 22nd  birthday depending on state law or practice, in the least restrictive  environment—meaning, to the maximum extent appropriate, these  children are educated with other children who do not have disabilities. To  accomplish this, states and LEAs must first identify, locate, and evaluate  students who are eligible for special education services, regardless of the  severity of their disability. For those deemed eligible, the state and LEA  must ensure that each student has an individualized education program  (IEP) describing their present levels of academic achievement and  functional performance; measurable annual goals, including academic  and functional goals; special education and related services;  supplementary aids and services; and other supports to enable the child  to advance appropriately toward attaining those goals. The IEP is  developed by a team of teachers, parents, school district representatives,  and other educational professionals. This team must meet to develop the  initial IEP within 30 days of determining that a student needs special  education and related services, and must review the IEP periodically, but  not less than annually, to determine whether the annual goals have been  achieved, and revise the IEP, as appropriate.
To qualify for IDEA funding, states must also provide certain procedural  safeguards to children and their parents. For example, these safeguards  require that parents be provided with prior written notice a reasonable  time before the LEA proposes or refuses to initiate or change the  identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the  provision of a free appropriate public education to the child. IDEA also  affords parents the right to request a due process hearing, as well as  the right to bring a civil action in a state or federal district court. States  must ensure that any state rules, regulations, and policies related to IDEA  conform to the purposes of IDEA, and are required to identify in writing to  Education and their LEAs any state-imposed requirement that is not  required by IDEA.
The 2004 reauthorization of IDEA included several provisions that were  intended to help reduce administrative tasks and paperwork associated  with documenting compliance with the law. Specifically, the law:
Created two pilot programs: the Paperwork Waiver Demonstration  Program (Paperwork Waiver Program), and the Multi-Year IEP  Demonstration Program (Multi-Year IEP Program). Under the  Paperwork Waiver Program, Education could waive statutory or  regulatory requirements that states must comply with in order to  receive funding under Part B for up to 4 years, for up to 15 states.  The Multi-Year IEP Program authorized Education to allow up to 15  states to give parents and LEAs the option of developing a  comprehensive IEP covering up to 3 years, rather than developing  yearly IEPs, as currently required.
Required that Education publish and disseminate model forms,  including forms for documenting IEPs, providing prior written notice,  and providing procedural safeguards notice.
Introduced various administrative changes, including raising the  amount of federal grant funds that states may set aside for  administration and other state-level activities, and permitting states to  use these funds for paperwork reduction, among other things;  eliminating the requirement for benchmarks and short-term objectives  in IEPs, and requiring that states identify in writing to LEAs and  Education any state requirements that are not mandated by IDEA,  and that they minimize requirements that LEAs and schools are  subject to under IDEA.
IDEA requires states to have a mechanism for interagency coordination  between the state educational agency (SEA) and any other state  agencies that provide or pay for any services that are considered special  education or related services. For example, since 1988, costs of some  related services provided to low-income children under IDEA may be  covered by Medicaid. In 1999, GAO reported that Medicaid  documentation requirements are more burdensome than those of IDEA,  leading states to cite this as an area of concern in coordinating Medicaid  and IDEA services.
Following the 2004 reauthorization, there has been little public debate on  the issue of paperwork and administrative burdens associated with IDEA.  In 2012, GAO reported information about the burden on states and school  districts associated with federal education regulations and identified three  IDEA requirements as being among the more burdensome: reporting  IDEA performance indicators, IEP processing, and transitioning students  into school-age programs from infant and toddler programs. We also  found that officials of states and school districts reported they generally  did not collect information about the costs to comply with federal  requirements, noting that states and school districts are not required to  report compliance costs, the data are not useful to them, and collecting  such data would in itself be burdensome. We recommended Education  take additional steps to address duplicative reporting and data collection  efforts across major programs. In addition, we recommended Education  identify unnecessarily burdensome statutory requirements and develop  legislative proposals to address these burdens, acknowledging that the  agency’s ability to address burdens associated with some provisions of  IDEA might be limited without statutory changes. Education agreed that it  should take additional steps to address duplicative reporting and data  collection efforts that are not statutorily required, and believed additional  efficiencies could be achieved in its data collections. However,  Education noted that some data elements are required under various  program statutes and said it would work with Congress in the next  reauthorization of IDEA to address duplication or the appearance of  duplication resulting from those requirements.
Additionally, GAO has performed extensive work on the Paperwork  Reduction Act (PRA), including the law’s effectiveness and approaches to  reducing burden on the public. Under PRA, federal agencies are  generally required to submit any proposed information collections to the  Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval, including an  estimate of the burden the information collections impose on the public.  This submission certifies that the information collections meet the PRA  standards that, among others, include taking steps to ensure the  collection: avoids duplication, minimizes burden on the public.  is necessary for agency performance, and  In response to PRA requirements, Education submits estimates of time  needed to collect and report some IDEA related information, including  state applications for IDEA funding, the State Performance Plan/Annual  Performance Report, and SEA and LEA recordkeeping requirements. In  our past work, we have noted potential discrepancies between  Education’s estimates and reported burden as estimated by institutions of  higher learning, making it difficult to know the actual burden imposed by  these data collections.
section_title: Education Has Implemented Provisions of IDEA Designed to Reduce Paperwork, but States Have Been Reluctant to Use Them
subsections: section_title: States Saw Little Benefit in Participating in Pilot Programs
paragraphs: Education took several steps to design and implement two pilot programs,  the Paperwork Waiver Program and Multi-Year IEP Program. To promote  these pilot programs, Education conducted a national outreach tour to  discuss the changes in the 2004 IDEA reauthorization and provide  information about the pilot programs. In December 2005, Education also  published notices of proposed requirements and selection criteria for both  programs, and requested public comments by March 6, 2006. Education  published the final requirements and selection criteria in July 2007, and  made applications available to states in October 2007. Additionally,  Education officials noted they held a teleconference for the state directors  of special education describing the process for applying to participate in  the pilot programs, which was also publicized through email and  supported by the National Association of State Directors of Special  Education, Inc. (NASDSE).
Despite Education’s efforts, no state applied to participate in either of the  pilot programs. NASDSE officials told us that the application requirements  were much too resource-intensive for the potential value they would bring,  and implementation of either pilot program would most likely require  additional staff that federal funding would not cover. Several states wrote  letters to Education explaining their reasons for not applying for and  implementing the Paperwork Waiver Program in particular, noting that the  program would require more paperwork and staff, but provide little in the  way of additional federal funds. For example, New York’s letter listed as  key reasons for not participating the extensive requirements for  participation, limited funding for the pilots, and the staff commitment  necessary for both development of the proposals and ongoing oversight  of the pilot projects. In a similar letter, Rhode Island noted that  implementing the Paperwork Waiver Program would likely result in more  paperwork—not less—as well as taking more time from staff. Likewise,  Wisconsin and Missouri expressed concerns about the number of  requirements and constraints, coupled with inadequate funding.  Education officials said that the amount of funding that was offered to  help states implement the Paperwork Waiver Program, $25,000 per state,  was based on the amount of available funding at the time, and had taken  into account the need to establish a sound evaluation design, as well as  Education’s commitment to providing technical assistance, as needed.
States also might have been reluctant to participate in the Paperwork  Waiver Program because Education cannot waive certain provisions  states find most burdensome. For example, Education officials said that  states and LEAs were most interested in Education waiving the  requirements to notify parents of procedural safeguards and to provide  parents prior written notice of certain actions taken with regard to their  child’s education, both of which are procedural safeguards that Education  is prohibited from waiving under IDEA. Furthermore, the National  Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) told us that none of  their members were in favor of the paperwork waivers, in part because of  the perceived risk of exposing local districts to potential litigation if they  were to eliminate any of the requirements that parents have come to  expect.
Stakeholders cited similar reasons for not participating in the Multi-Year  IEP Program. Representatives from NASDSE and the Council for  Exceptional Children (CEC) cited the costs associated with applying for  the program absent sufficient additional federal funding. In its response  to the proposed requirements for the pilot programs, the Statewide Parent  Advocacy Network, Inc. commented that enabling states to participate in  a multi-year IEP demonstration program would have primarily negative  implications for families of children with disabilities.
section_title: Some States and Local Districts Used Federal Model Forms Primarily to Help Develop Their Own Forms
paragraphs: Although some states have adopted some of the model forms Education  developed pursuant to the 2004 reauthorization’s attempt to reduce  paperwork, they have used other model forms primarily as a reference  tool to develop their own state forms. In a 2011 NASDSE survey of state  directors of education, 18 of the 39 who responded said they had adopted  one or more of the forms. Of those who did not adopt any of the forms, 17  said they had used them to help guide revision of their own forms, and  only 3 indicated they had not used the forms at all.
Education officials and other stakeholders offered several reasons why  some states have not adopted the model forms as written and instead  used them as reference tools. Education officials said that some states  find the model IEP form, for example, lacks the content necessary to  meet state and local requirements. Several stakeholders agreed that the  model IEP form does not cover all the information required by states, so  even if states used a federal model form as a starting point, the state  forms could all be different because the state requirements vary so  widely. For example, officials from one stakeholder organization told us its  state has its own model form for prior written notice because it includes  additional procedural safeguards specific to that state. A different  stakeholder noted that it would be a lot of work for states to switch from  the state forms with which they are familiar to Education’s model forms;  another stakeholder said that local school districts may also tailor the  forms for local use. On the other hand, one stakeholder noted that the  forms provided helpful models for states and districts, and said that  further standardization of these forms would be particularly useful for  students who move across districts and states because currently they  must be reevaluated using different forms, which is resource-intensive  and frustrating.
The states we visited used some of Education’s forms and not others. For  instance, Arkansas has generally adopted Education’s model form for  notice of procedural safeguards in its entirety, while New York has  adopted most of this form, but has added state-specific information. Both  Arkansas and New York have included most of Education’s model form  on prior written notice, but with some modifications. Neither state has  adopted the model IEP form. One Arkansas official suggested that the  model IEP form does not adequately instruct those completing it to  include details that could protect school districts from potential parental  litigation. In contrast, the official said, the state form specifically calls for  those details, which helps staff complete the form in keeping with  Arkansas’ direction. New York officials told us they do not use the IEP  form because they must include other items in their form to ensure  compliance with both federal and state requirements.
section_title: Stakeholders Had Mixed Views on the Effects of Other Paperwork Reduction Provisions
paragraphs: Views on the effects of other IDEA provisions related to paperwork  reductions are mixed, based on our conversations with focus group  participants, representatives of education stakeholder organizations, and  state and local officials in Arkansas and New York. For example, several  focus group participants and stakeholders differed in their views of a  provision allowing states to use set-aside funds for certain authorized  state-level administrative activities, including paperwork reduction  activities. Several participants in our state administrator focus groups  reported that they have used the flexibility of this provision to help fund  automated systems for preparing IEPs and for assisting in data collection  and reporting. However, officials from NASDSE said that some states  have restrictions on the amount of funds they can use for state  administration, making the provision irrelevant to them for paperwork  reduction purposes.
Stakeholders said that the effect of the revised IEP provision eliminating  benchmarks and short-term objectives was mostly negligible. For  instance, several stakeholders said that any potential reductions in  paperwork were offset by what they described as a new statutory  requirement that IEPs include a statement of measurable annual goals,  including academic and functional goals. Although Education officials  characterized that statutory language as clarifying a previously existing  requirement rather than creating a new requirement, several stakeholders  said the provision created additional work for those states and local  districts that revised their local IEP forms to explicitly include the annual  goal information.
The 2004 reauthorization also required states to identify any state- imposed special education rules, regulations, and policies not required by  IDEA or federal regulations, and minimize the number of rules,  regulations, and policies that districts and schools are subject to under  IDEA, but it is not clear what effect this provision has had. Education  facilitates compliance with this provision by directing states to list their  state-imposed rules, regulations, and policies on their annual applications  for federal IDEA funding. However, in our review of the information that  states submit, we found it varies in detail and format. Education does not  verify the accuracy of the information states provide, and the provision  does not require Education to do so, making it difficult to determine the  prevalence of state-imposed requirements based on state responses  alone.
section_title: Stakeholders Said Additional State and Local Requirements Contribute to Burden, but Differed on the Burdens and Benefits of Federal Requirements
subsections: section_title: States and Localities Described Additional Requirements that Contribute to Administrative and Paperwork Burden
paragraphs: State and local officials with whom we spoke widely agreed that  nonfederal IDEA-related requirements were burdensome. For example,  participants across 6 of our 9 focus groups—3 with local administrators  and 3 with educators—said that additional requirements imposed by  states and localities contribute to the administrative and paperwork  burden beyond that imposed by federal requirements. Similarly, based on  our observations and interviews with state and local officials, the number  of additional requirements can be considerable. New York listed over 200  state-imposed requirements in 2014. For example, when a student is  referred for special education, the school must provide a copy of the  state’s 46-page handbook for parents of students with disabilities. If a  student is at risk of being placed in a residential facility, the school must  provide the parent with information about community support services,  including how to obtain an assessment of the family’s service needs, and  placement alternatives. New York officials reported that they attempted to  identify state administrative requirements that did not add value to the  special education process but did not find many items to remove. Further,  although Arkansas listed no state-imposed requirements on its federal  IDEA funding application, during our visit we observed several required  forms imposed by the state. States are not prohibited under IDEA from  using their own forms, and Arkansas state officials told us they did not list  the forms because they did not believe they were doing anything more  than what was required under IDEA. This example, however, highlights  the difficulty in determining what state-imposed requirements should be  reported.
In both local school districts we visited in New York and Arkansas, IEPs  are electronic, and each district contracts with a vendor to develop and  maintain the software used to guide IEP preparation, tailored to local  preferences and needs. However, in the Rochester, N.Y. district, the  electronic IEP includes state-required data elements in addition to those  required by federal law. Further, the district has added at least one  additional requirement that teachers include the student’s latest report  card results—even though the information is available in the student’s  official school file. Although this approach is typical of many school  districts, these systems are tailored to local requirements and the IEPs  themselves are formatted differently, making it difficult to transfer  students’ records when they move from one district to another within each  state, let alone across states with differing laws and administrative  requirements.
Stakeholders said that the additional requirements can make it difficult to  isolate the contribution of IDEA requirements to administrative burdens.  One official commented that it is nearly impossible to isolate the  contribution of IDEA requirements to administrative burdens at the state  and local levels because there are so many other requirements placed on  states and local districts related to education by other sources. In a 2015  issue paper, the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association noted  that although federal statutes and regulations generate paperwork and  administrative burdens for their members, all levels of government  contribute to the total burden shouldered by their members. In addition to  IDEA requirements, there are those mandated under the Elementary and  Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, Medicaid, and various  smaller programs, as well as those added by state law and local school  districts, which further exacerbate the problem, whether in anticipation of,  or due to compliance with, litigation and court decisions.
section_title: Stakeholders Differed on the Specific Burdens and Benefits of IDEA Requirements
paragraphs: While many stakeholders agreed that special education requirements  contribute to administrative and paperwork burden, they differed in their  views on the burdens and benefits of specific IDEA requirements.  Participants across educator and local administrator focus groups cited  more tasks as being particularly burdensome than did those in the state  administrator groups. Common areas of concern for participants across  all 3 educator focus groups and all 3 local administrator focus groups  included preparing IEP documents, focusing on compliance, using  technology, and identifying students with special needs or determining  eligibility. In focus group discussions with state administrators, the only  specific administrative task they reported as particularly burdensome was  preparing state performance plans and annual performance reports for  Education. (See table 1.)
Our focus group results are consistent with previous findings from a GAO  review of federal education requirements in which education stakeholders  identified two IDEA requirements— processing IEPs and collecting and  reporting performance data to Education—as being among the more  burdensome for states and districts. More specifically, stakeholders said  in our prior work that IEP processing was complicated, time and  paperwork intensive, and vague. They also said that IDEA indicators— performance measures that Education uses to monitor state compliance  with IDEA—were complicated, time and resource and paperwork  intensive, and duplicative. Similarly, participants in our focus groups for  this review identified preparing IEPs and reporting annually to Education  as being particularly burdensome, and described similar types of burdens  to those previously identified when explaining why these tasks are  particularly burdensome. (See table 2.)
Aside from their views on IDEA requirements they regard as particularly  burdensome, stakeholders across all 9 focus groups acknowledged that  administrative tasks and paperwork play an important role in helping  ensure accountability and transparency in the special education process,  among other benefits. (See table 3.)
Although the parents that we spoke with during our site visit in New York  did not express any positive views of the administrative requirements,  parents in Arkansas said the IEP is useful in guiding discussions with  school district staff, and serves as a record of what the district is doing for  their child. Based on our discussions with groups that represent the  interests of parents with children who receive special education services,  evaluation reports, which provide information about a student’s limitations  and strengths, can facilitate individualization of instruction by providing a  baseline for performance that can be used to measure student progress.  Officials from these organizations also noted that administrative  requirements that safeguard procedural rights, such as prior written  notice, benefit parents by helping them understand how to help their  children receive special education services.
Additionally, based on our discussions with parents and representatives  of parent organizations, we found that administrative requirements in  special education can be helpful to parents, but only to the extent that the  information generated is accessible, and requirements are enforced. In  particular, the language used to document students’ current levels of  performance poses a challenge for many parents, who sometimes find  the language complicated and confusing, making it difficult to understand  important information about their children. In another example, while  parents noted that certain administrative requirements, such as IEPs and  parent meetings, can be useful tools to share information and promote  collaboration among those involved in a child’s education, they did not  find them helpful when used incorrectly. For example, parents expressed  some frustration with IEPs they felt were not being followed, as well as  IEP meetings they felt were sometimes used to justify a course of action  rather than to determine the best course of action for their child.
section_title: Available Research Shows Administrative and Paperwork Tasks Take Time Away from Teaching and Training
paragraphs: Available research supports what stakeholders told us about special  education administrative burden. Specifically:
The 2002 Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education  (SPeNSE), commissioned by Education, found that elementary and  secondary special education teachers reported spending an average  of 1 hour per day completing forms and paperwork—as much time as  they spent preparing for lessons.
A 2008 time-use study found that special education teachers in five  Texas school districts spent an average of almost 2 hours per day (1  hour and 51 minutes) on administrative tasks—more time than they or  their principals thought they were spending.
A 2012 study of how preventive services are implemented by special  education teachers found that special education teachers across  seven elementary schools in Kansas spent about 1 hour per day, on  average, doing managerial tasks that involved paperwork.
In an American Speech-Language-Hearing Association biannual  survey of school-based speech-language pathologists and  educational audiologists, respondents listed paperwork as their top  challenge in each survey from 2004 through 2014.
Consistent with this research, participants across our 3 educator focus  groups estimated that they spend between 2 to 3 hours per day on  administrative tasks, or roughly 20 to 35 percent of their time, and said  that these tasks take away time needed to complete other required tasks.  In particular, they said they do not have enough time to complete  paperwork during their regular work hours, which means they complete it  on their own time. Participants across the educator focus groups also  reported that paperwork and administrative tasks take time away from the  classroom and other important tasks, such as academic planning and  performing assessments.
Although local administrators would reasonably be expected to spend  more time on administrative tasks due to the nature of their jobs, they still  shared similar concerns regarding administrative and paperwork burdens  crowding out important, non-administrative responsibilities, such as  providing training or observing classrooms.
section_title: Education and States Stated that They Have Adopted Computer Technology and Other Steps that Reduce Administrative Burdens, but These Efforts Have Limitations
subsections: section_title: Computer Technology and Data Systems Have Reportedly Helped Ease Some Administrative Burdens Related to Special Education Requirements
paragraphs: Some participants in all of our focus groups said that computer  technology and the availability of electronic data sets have reduced  administrative burdens associated with IDEA. In particular, some  participants in focus groups stated that they found electronic IEPs to be  helpful in ways such as making data input easier, reducing the chance for  data entry errors, and pulling data together from different sources.  According to several SEA officials in our focus groups, the linkage of IEPs  with automated data systems assists SEAs in their monitoring and  compliance activities with local school districts.
Education has developed a data system called EDFacts which it believes  will help reduce administrative burden. According to Education, EDFacts  is a system designed to centralize data provided by SEAs and LEAs and  to streamline data processes at the federal, state, district, and school  levels. SEAs transmit data to Education via the EDFacts Submission  System, an electronic system designed to help SEAs transmit data in a  timely and efficient manner through the use of a file submission  application. It includes data required by IDEA and is comprised of six data  collections. To further ease the data submission process, Education has  developed a web-based Data Submission Organizer tool that provides  information about how and when to submit IDEA and other K-12 data.  Members of our focus groups also said that GRADS360, an IDEA-specific  data system unveiled in October 2014 by the Office of Special Education  Programs (OSEP), has effectively reduced the reporting burdens  associated with IDEA. GRADS360 is the electronic platform for states to  submit data which is then used to create states’ annual IDEA Part B and  Part C State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR).  The SPP/APR evaluates a state’s efforts to implement the requirements  and purposes of IDEA, and describes how a state will improve its  implementation. Education’s GRADS360 website contains, among other  things, profiles on states’ previous data submissions, tools on how to  submit data to the system, and a calendar that specifies data submission  deadlines. Some focus group participants said GRADS360 has reduced  the burden associated with completing the SPPs and APRs. One  participant asserted that GRADS360 reduced the administrative burdens  of producing these reports by 50 percent.
In addition to EDFacts and GRADS360, Education’s OSEP has funded  four technical assistance centers intended to help states produce and  submit high quality IDEA-related data. The centers focus on (1) IDEA’s  data collecting and reporting requirements (The IDEA Data Center), (2)  the development or enhancement of longitudinal data systems (The  Center for IDEA Early Childhood Data Systems for children from birth  through age 5), (3) support for combining IDEA data with the Education- funded State Longitudinal Data System (Center for the Integration of  IDEA Data), and (4) assistance to SEAs on their federal special education  fiscal data collection and reporting obligations (Center for IDEA Fiscal  Reporting).
Some focus group participants said SEAs are implementing computer  systems that they believe help ease administrative burden. Most of these  efforts involve computer data and system consolidation. For example,  several participants said their states have activated systems in which  electronic IEP data and other student data can be integrated with the  state’s student data management system. Participants cited benefits to  this integration including making it easier for LEAs to upload participants’  data to the state system, and enabling the state to have data related to  IDEA requirements. One focus group participant said her state has a  single computer system so that the SEA and LEAs within the state can  use the same system.
section_title: Despite Benefits, Existing Technology Reportedly Has Limitations in Addressing Burdens
paragraphs: Some participants in our focus groups said the computer systems used in  their states need to be improved to further reduce burdens associated  with IDEA requirements. Several participants said existing computer  systems are not well integrated and thus do not exchange data across  systems. For example, two LEA participants said they must each work  with separate computer systems or databases that do not allow automatic  data transfers. In one instance, the participant noted having to pull down  data from an IEP system and then upload it to another system. In the  other case, the participant said data from each database in the system  had to be uploaded separately because none of the data had been  collated across databases. Another participant noted having to use five  different federal log-ons and yet still could not find the information sought.  One participant also said that reporting the same information multiple  times across different computer systems (federal and state) was a  burden.
Other focus groups members told us that technical problems can make  using automated systems difficult. Some of these technical problems  included system crashes, losing data when attempting to save the data  into the system, major technical “glitches,” and a lack of computer system  capacity. In addition, one educator cited the burden of having to learn a  new computer system, only to have the system replaced with another  shortly thereafter.
section_title: Stakeholders Also Reported Using Non- technology Strategies that Help Ease IDEA’s Administrative Burdens
paragraphs: Focus group participants, stakeholders in New York and Arkansas, and  other special education officials said adopting certain types of non- computer-related practices had reduced the burdens faced by SEAs,  LEAs, and educators generally fell into three categories: administrative  support, IEP management, and communication strategies.
Administrative support. One practice was to assign one or more  individuals to perform or monitor administrative duties related to IDEA.  According to state special education officials from our site visits, many  of the larger school districts hire due process clerks to handle  logistics. These are teachers who may continue to teach part time or  take on the special education administrative role full time. This frees  special education teachers from some of the required paperwork.  Some participants from our focus groups said that having  administrative clerks reduced the time and burdens associated with  administrative tasks. One educator from a focus group said hiring a  paraprofessional to set up all IEP meetings, contact parents, and send  out meeting notices proved helpful in reducing administrative burden.  Another practice favored by one focus group member was  establishing dedicated time periods in which a teacher would  exclusively teach for 3 weeks and then complete administrative tasks  for 1 week.
IEP management. Some focus group participants said that using  amended or draft IEPs (rather than creating completely new IEPs) can  reduce burden. According to the participants, amended IEPs have  advantages such as allowing an IEP team to make minor IEP  changes without having to call a meeting or redo the entire IEP,  making it easier to update or change goals, and reducing the time and  impact on staff. One participant said using a draft IEP provides  information so everyone attending an IEP meeting is better prepared.
Communication strategies. According to participants in several  focus groups, practices that foster communication among educators  and specialists who work with special education students can reduce  burden. For example, one participant said creating a triad relationship  with a student’s general education teacher, special education teacher,  and case manager can be very important and beneficial to the  student. Another participant noted the importance of everyone who  works with a special education student collaborating to make a plan  so that the student can make progress. In addition, one participant  stated that, to reduce burdensome redundancies created by the “dual- track” paperwork systems for special education and general  education, those working with a student should have a conversation  and reach agreement on whether special education or general  education is in that student’s best interests.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Education for  review and comment. In its written comments, reproduced in appendix II,  Education neither agreed nor disagreed with our findings. Education also  provided technical comments that were incorporated, as appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents  earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from its  issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the  appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Education, and  other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no  charge on GAO’s web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff should have any questions about this report, please  contact me at (617) 788-0580 or nowickij@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: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: The objectives of this report were to examine (1) what Education and  states have done to implement selected provisions of the law to help  minimize the burden associated with administrative and paperwork  requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),  (2) stakeholder views about IDEA’s administrative and paperwork  requirements, and (3) the steps Education and others have taken to  minimize IDEA-related burden.
To address our first objective, we reviewed relevant laws, regulations,  and published studies. We interviewed officials from Education and  organizations representing education stakeholder groups, including  special education administrators at the state and district levels, parents of  students with disabilities, and educators. Some of these groups included  the National Association of State Directors of Special Education, Inc.;  American Speech-Language-Hearing Association; Council for Exceptional  Children; Council of Administrators of Special Education; National  Education Association; National Association of Secondary School  Principals; and PACER Center. To identify specific provisions of the 2004  IDEA reauthorization intended to reduce the burden associated with  administrative and paperwork requirements, we reviewed a  Congressional Research Service analysis of the law as well as the results  of our literature search.
To address our second objective, we conducted a series of 9 focus group  discussions—3 with state administrators from 18 states, 3 with local  administrators from 14 states, and 3 with educators from 15 states.  Overall, participants came from 37 separate states, and though their  comments are not generalizable, they represented a broad range of  experiences from across all regions of the country and all types of school  districts. To identify potential participants for our focus groups, which  consisted of at least six participants each, we worked with the National  Association of State Directors of Special Education, Inc., Council of  Administrators of Special Education, National Education Association, and  other professional organizations representing education stakeholder  groups, including educators and special education administrators at the  state and district levels. The organizations we contacted that represent  parents of students with disabilities included the Statewide Parent  Advocacy Network, Inc. and the Council of Parent Attorneys and  Advocates. In addition to contacting these organizations, we posted  information in a National Association of Special Education Teachers’  newsletter to identify potential focus group participants. In order to  maximize the diversity of our sample of participants, we extended  invitations to participants based on the state in which they were  employed, type of position, years of experience, and type of school  district (rural or urban). We documented these characteristics via a  participant questionnaire. Using a combination of these methods for  identifying potential participants ensured that all of the participants in one  strata of the focus groups did not come from a single source, mitigating  potential bias toward a specific organization. Once the list of potential  participants was compiled, we emailed the potential participants to  confirm that they currently worked or had worked previously in the  relevant organization in the area of special education, and to inquire if  they wished to participate.
In addition to gaining the perceptions of special education administrators  and educators on IDEA administrative and reporting requirements, we  also obtained information on how another key stakeholder group— parents of students with disabilities—perceive these requirements.  Although parents of such students do not directly complete IDEA  paperwork, we gathered information on how they perceive IDEA  administrative and paperwork requirements from our discussions with  organizations representing them and from results of their literature on the  subject.
We analyzed the content of our 9 focus group discussions to identify  similarities and differences within and across these groups regarding time  spent on IDEA administrative tasks, perceived benefits and burdens  associated with administrative requirements, and potential solutions and  strategies about how to minimize time spent on administrative tasks. To  achieve consensus on this identification, two analysts independently  reviewed focus group transcripts and categorized relevant discussions  across four different topics:
Time Spent on Paperwork
Perceived Burdens
Perceived Benefits of Administrative Tasks
Model Practices and Potential Solutions  For burdens specifically, we further categorized the reasons why focus  group participants considered administrative and paperwork tasks  burdensome, using categories we previously developed. These reasons  include and are defined as follows:
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.
Time-intensive: Compliance is time-consuming.
Paperwork-intensive: Documentation is excessive.
Resource-intensive: Compliance is costly or requires a substantial  amount of technical support.
Duplicative: Requirements from different agencies or offices within  the same agency were poorly coordinated or requested redundant  information (similar or exact).
Vague: States or school districts lacked knowledge or guidance  related to the requirement, or certain processes were unknown or  unclear.
To illustrate the administrative processes in different school districts in  different areas of the country, and to identify how differences in state and  local requirements may contribute to differences in burden, along with  common concerns and suggestions for addressing them, we completed  site visits in Clinton, Arkansas and Rochester, New York. We selected  these two school districts to highlight different experiences in how urban  and rural school districts manage administrative requirements, and how  parents in these districts perceive the requirements. We first selected  Arkansas and New York to provide diverse geographic locations, number  of state-imposed special education requirements listed on the state  application for IDEA funding, and incidence of dispute resolutions as  reported by a GAO special education report. Specifically, New York, in  the northeast region, listed over 200 state-imposed special education  requirements on its IDEA funding application, and also had a high  incidence of dispute resolutions. Arkansas, in the southeast region, listed  no state-imposed special education requirements on its IDEA funding  application, and was not identified in the GAO special education report on  dispute resolution. Within each state, we chose the LEAs and schools to  achieve diversity across urban and rural districts and primary and  secondary schools, and large enough to have with some experience with  special education needs.
These site visits provided opportunities to understand and document local  efforts to manage administrative requirements and to speak with parents  about how they perceive special education procedures. The visits also  allowed us to explore how differences in state and local requirements  may contribute to differences in perceptions of the relative benefits and  challenges associated with meeting key federal requirements. At each  site, we interviewed the relevant state and local special education  administrators, and those who work directly with special education  students. We also obtained state and local policies and procedures,  enabling us to develop a narrative about the types of paperwork various  individuals are responsible for and any additional requirements imposed  by the state or LEA. At each location, we also met with parents whose  children were receiving special education services. Parents were  informed of these meetings by the local districts, and attendance was  voluntary. We compared these narratives to understand various  differences across the locations.
To address our third objective, we spoke with Education officials about  steps the agency had taken to reduce the associated burden of  administrative and reporting requirements under IDEA, and reviewed the  agency’s Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) burden estimates for proposed  amendments to data collections related to IDEA implementation. We also  spoke with state and local officials in New York and Arkansas about steps  taken to minimize burden, and included a question on this subject in our  focus group discussions. Finally, we gathered information on efforts to  minimize burden from our discussions with officials from the previously- listed organizations representing education stakeholders and  organizations representing parents of students with disabilities, and from  results of our literature search. We selected these organizations to  provide a range of views on the benefits and burdens of IDEA  requirements.
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
paragraphs: Jaqueline M. Nowicki, (617) 788-0580 or nowickij@gao.gov.
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Mary Crenshaw, Assistant  Director; Regina Santucci, Analyst-in Charge; Betty Ward-Zukerman,  Justin Riordan, Tyne McGee, Daren Sweeney, Andrew Nelson, Susanna  Clark, Laurel Beedon, and Sheranda Campbell made significant  contributions to this report. Also contributing to this report were Walter  Vance, James Rebbe, Charlie Willson, Tim Bober, Carolyn Yocom, David  Forgosh, and Nyree Ryder Tee.