Congress has been actively engaged in efforts to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), most recently amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB; P.L. 107-110 ). During the 113 th Congress, both the House and Senate have considered legislation to reauthorize the ESEA. On June 12, 2013, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee considered and ordered reported the Strengthening America's Schools Act ( S. 1094 ) by a strictly partisan vote of 12-10. The House Education and Workforce Committee also considered and ordered reported a bill that would reauthorize the ESEA. On June 19, 2013, on a strictly partisan vote of 23-16, the Success for All Students Act ( H.R. 5 ) was ordered reported. H.R. 5 was subsequently considered and amended on the House floor. The amended version of H.R. 5 was passed on July 19, 2013, by a vote of 221-207. It is unclear whether S. 1094 will be considered on the Senate floor. As part of the reauthorization debate, Congress has focused on the federal role in education, particularly in the area of educational accountability, where federal efforts to hold states, local educational agencies (LEAs), and schools accountable for student achievement and teacher performance are under debate. In these discussions, issues related to the burden that complying with the statutory and regulatory reporting requirements associated with the ESEA have put on state educational agencies (SEAs), LEAs, and schools have been considered. For example, the House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education of the House Education and the Workforce Committee held a hearing in 2011 specifically focused on these issues. In addition, in response to a congressional request, the Government Accountability Office found that states and LEAs cited data collection and reporting as being among the most burdensome of elementary and secondary education requirements. The NCLB included a set of accountability based reforms that are inherently reliant on testing, data collection, and data reporting. For example, without the data collection and reporting associated with Title I-A, Education for the Disadvantaged, it would not be possible to determine how well schools, LEAs, or SEAs were performing with respect to improving student achievement for all students, including minority students, English language learners, students from low-income families, and students with disabilities. In addition, it would not be possible to implement the outcome based accountability requirements that are associated with schools and LEAs failing to make adequate yearly progress for a certain number of years if various data collection and reporting requirements were not in place. As many of these accountability based requirements were either implemented for the first time or enhanced through the enactment of NCLB, it may be no surprise that the burden associated with ESEA data collection and reporting, particularly with respect to Title I-A, has increased over time. In other instances, burden is created when states and other entities must apply to receive federal funding or report on the use of federal education funds received. Without this information, however, it could be difficult for the U.S. Department of Education (ED) to award funds to grantees or for ED or Congress to perform oversight functions related to the provision of federal education funds. This report was undertaken in response to concerns about state and local reporting burden having increased in recent years since the enactment of NCLB. It examines the hour and cost burden associated with complying with the ESEA statutory and regulatory reporting requirements associated with 16 information collection packages. In general, there are two ways to measure the burden associated with an information collection package. Federal paperwork is frequently measured in terms of burden hours, which measure in hours the estimated amount of time that would be required to complete the paperwork. Agencies also measure paperwork in terms of dollars (cost burden), which include the annualized costs associated with the hour burden. The first part of the report includes key findings and discusses the methodology used to conduct the analysis and the scope of the analysis. This is followed by a discussion of key findings. The second part of the report discusses the 16 information collection packages that are examined in this report. This includes general information about each information collection package and issues related to the collection of data, as well as the purpose of each information collection package. The next part of the report analyzes the number of respondents, burden hours, and cost burden associated with each of the information collection packages. This discussion is followed by an examination of the federal costs associated with each information collection package. The last part of the report provides a detailed analysis of the burden hours and cost burden associated with the "State Educational Agency, Local Education Agency, and School Data Collection and Reporting Under ESEA, Title I, Part A (accountability issues)" information collection package, including an analysis of this package both pre- and post-NCLB enactment. This information collection package currently has the largest number of annualized estimated burden hours and cost burden among all of the information collection packages examined in this report. Three appendices are included at the end of the report. Appendix A provides information on the data source used to prepare this report. Appendix B provides a copy of the "Supporting Statement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submission," which is submitted to the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) when a federal agency makes an information collection request (ICR) (e.g., new collection, revision, extension, no substantial change) for OMB approval. Appendix C provides a description of the statutory and regulatory requirements associated with the "State Educational Agency, Local Education Agency, and School Data Collection and Reporting Under ESEA, Title I, Part A (accountability issues)" information collection package. Below is a summary of key findings from the analysis of the 16 information collection packages included in this report. Across all respondents (i.e., SEAs, LEAs, schools, and other entities), the estimated annualized state and local aggregate annual burden hours associated with responding to each of the 16 information collection packages examined ranged from 200 hours to 4.7 million hours, while the estimated annualized cost of responding ranged from $6,000 to $118.1 million. One information collection package, "State Educational Agency, Local Educational Agency, and School Data Collection and Reporting Under ESEA Title I, Part A" (accountability issues), had both the highest number of estimated annualized burden hours and highest annualized cost burden. Respondents to the 16 information collection packages include SEAs, LEAs, schools, parents, and other entities. The average number of estimated annualized burden hours and estimated annualized cost burden is generally spread across numerous respondents, and the burden placed on an individual respondent for a given information collection package varies. Within information collections there can be substantial variation in the number of underlying reporting requirements or activities that are applicable to a given type of respondent. For a given type of respondent within a single information collection package, the respondent may not have to address every item on a given information collection package, and the cost of responding to the information collection package may vary by item (e.g., the hourly cost of responding to one item may be different than the cost of responding to another item). For example, for the "State Educational Agency, Local Educational Agency, and School Data Collection and Reporting Under ESEA Title I, Part A" (accountability issues) information collection package, there are three types of activities or information that schools may need to address. On average, the annualized burden for each of these activities ranges from 4.8 to 960 burden hours and from $120 to $24,000 per school. While some schools will not need to address any of the requirements, others may need to address one or two requirements. Federal agencies are required to provide an estimate of the annualized cost to the federal government. This estimate must include expenses that would not have been incurred without the collection of information, such as agency review of applications, peer review, monitoring and oversight, collection and analysis of data, and guidance development. Estimated annualized federal costs for each of the 16 collections ranged from $0 to $3.1 million. The information collection package with the largest estimated aggregate burden hours and cost burden is "State Educational Agency, Local Educational Agency, and School Data Collection and Reporting Under ESEA Title I, Part A" (accountability issues) with an estimated 4,710,525 burden hours and an estimated cost of $118,075,705. The purpose of this information collection package, in part, is to meet the Title I-A requirements that SEAs, LEAs, and schools collect and disseminate information to document progress and inform parents and the public about school, LEA, and state educational performance. This information is used to hold schools, LEAs, and states accountable for student performance in accordance with the underlying policies incorporated into the NCLB. For example, identifying achievement and graduation rate gaps between groups of students and then implementing a series of outcome based accountability requirements based on these results necessitates the collection of numerous pieces of data. For the information collection package with the largest estimated aggregate burden hours and cost burden, "State Educational Agency, Local Educational Agency, and School Data Collection and Reporting Under ESEA Title I, Part A" (accountability issues), a more detailed analysis was completed to examine how the burden has changed over time with the enactment of NCLB. The overall number of estimated annualized burden hours for the information collection package prior to the enactment of the NCLB was about 564,000. Following the enactment of the NCLB, the estimated annualized burden hours associated with this information collection package peaked at 7.9 million hours (an increase in burden hours of almost 1,300%). In the most recently approved version of the information collection package, ED estimates that the annualized burden hours will decline by about 3.2 million hours (40%) due primarily to new flexibility being offered to SEAs by the Administration with respect to Title I-A accountability requirements. Mirroring the increase in burden hours, the estimated annualized cost burden associated with the "State Educational Agency, Local Educational Agency, and School Data Collection and Reporting Under ESEA Title I, Part A" (accountability issues) information collection package also increased as the NCLB requirements were implemented, peaking at $169.4 million. As with the burden hours, ED estimates that the annualized cost burden will decline by $51.4 million (30%) as a result of new Title I-A flexibility. While the hour and cost burdens associated with ESEA reporting requirements have clearly increased since the enactment of NCLB, it is important to highlight that the data collected and reported play an important role in supporting core components of the federal education policies enacted through NCLB. SEAs, LEAs, and schools use such data to gauge student performance and determine the progress schools are making in enhancing student academic achievement. Parents use these data to inform choices about their child's education, and ED uses these data to inform technical assistance efforts and monitor SEA work in a number of areas in which educational accountability is expected under the provisions of NCLB. The information collection packages examined in this report were selected from the 305 OMB approved information collection packages administered by the Department of Education (ED) as of April 4, 2013. Federal agencies are required under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to obtain approval from OMB for the collection of information from 10 or more persons. To obtain OMB approval, a federal agency submits an ICR to OIRA within OMB. The ICR includes such things as a description of the collection and its planned use as well as information collection instruments (e.g., data collection form, survey, script, etc.) and other supporting documentation. OIRA maintains an inventory of currently approved information collections. (For more information on the inventory and the information clearance process, see Appendix A , "Data Source and Information Clearance Process.") The criteria used for selecting an information collection package to be examined in this report were the following: The package was related to a formula grant program authorized under ESEA that was funded in FY2012 or required information that must be provided to receive any funding under the ESEA, such as the completion by SEAs of the annual Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR). If the primary grantee (i.e., the grantee to whom the federal government makes the formula grant) is required to respond to the information collection package, regardless of how subgrants were awarded, the information collection package was included. Studies or surveys in which participation is voluntary or not required of all grantees, as well as information collection packages related to competitive grants, are not examined in this report. While attempts were made to identify all relevant information collection packages that met the aforementioned criteria, the information contained in this report may not be fully comprehensive, especially as changes are continually made by ED with respect to information collection packages. Each of the collections included in this report is administered by the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education within ED. Table 1 lists the title of each of the information collection packages discussed in this report. It also includes the ESEA title under which the program or activity relevant to the package is authorized, a synopsis of OMB's abstract about the collection package, and the OMB control number. The table also shows the ICR reference number, which is the number of the specific version of the information collection package associated with the OMB control number that is examined in this report, and the date that the package with that reference number expires. For each information collection package included in this report (1) information is provided on the purpose of the collection ( Table 2 ) and (2) data are provided on current time and cost burden ( Table 3 and Table 4 ). Table 5 examines the annualized estimated burden hours and cost burden for an individual type of respondent for one of the information collection packages examined in this report. PRA regulations define "burden" to mean: the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency, including: (i) Reviewing instructions; (ii) Developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information; (iii) Developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of processing and maintaining information; (iv) Developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of disclosing and providing information; (v) Adjusting the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; (vi) Training personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; (vii) Searching data sources; (viii) Completing and reviewing the collection of information; and (ix) Transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the information. Table 6 provides ED's estimate of the current annualized cost to the federal government for each information collection package. Finally, a more extensive analysis of changes in burden hours and costs is provided for the "State Educational Agency, Local Education Agency, and School Data Collection and Reporting Under ESEA, Title I, Part A," information collection package ( Table 7 and Table 8 ). This is the largest information collection package examined in this report and the burden hours and cost associated with it have fluctuated since the enactment of NCLB. While ED administers the various information packages discussed in this report, in general, the data collections conducted by ED are required by statute. The extent to which Congress specified exactly what data ED should collect varies by information package. Thus, the burden associated with a given information package is based both on congressional action and actions taken by ED, often in response to congressionally established requirements. For example, the CSPR data collection instruments specifically state the impetus for the data collection: The Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR) is the required annual reporting tool for each State, the Bureau of Indian Education, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico as authorized under Section 9303 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) , as amended. The CSPR consists of two parts. Part I of the CSPR collects data related to the five ESEA goals established in the approved June 2002 Consolidated State Application, information required for the Annual State Report to the Secretary, as described in section 1111(h)(4) of ESEA , and data required under McKinney-Vento Homeless Program and the Migrant Child Count. Part II of the CSPR collects information related to state activities and outcomes of specific ESEA programs needed for the programs' GPRA indicators or other assessment and reporting requirement. The burden associated with a given data collection instrument may not affect all states, schools, or other respondents equally. That is, the data required by ED may already be collected by certain states, LEAs, or schools, thus the reporting of this data would not be as burdensome to those entities as it would be for those that did not already collect the data. It is also possible that states, LEAs, or schools collect certain data; however, statutory or regulatory changes in definitional terms over time or other changes to the information collection package could lead to a change in how they must collect and report the data, thus potentially increasing burden. For example, if statutory or regulatory definitions of "race/ethnicity" changed, states, LEAs, and schools would have to change their data collection practices even if the purpose of the data collection may not have changed. OIRA requires federal agencies to indicate the purpose of the information collection for any given information collection package on Form OMB 83-1. Agencies can choose from among seven categories of purposes for collecting the data. They must indicate whether a category is a primary purpose (P) or is another purpose that applies to the information collection package (X). The seven categories as defined on the OMB form are the following: 1. Application for benefits—"the purpose is to participate in, receive, or qualify for a grant, financial assistance, etc., from a Federal agency or program." 2. Program evaluation—"the purpose is a formal assessment, through objective measures and systematic analysis, of the manner and extent to which Federal programs achieve their objectives or produce other significant effects." 3. General purpose statistics—"the data is collected chiefly for use by the public or for general government use without primary reference to the policy or program operations of the agency collecting the data." 4. Audit—"the purpose is to verify the accuracy of accounts and records." 5. Program planning or management—"the purpose relates to progress reporting, financial reporting and grants management, procurement and quality control, or other administrative information that does not fit into any other category." 6. Research—"the purpose is to further the course of research, rather than for a specific program purpose." 7. Regulatory or compliance purposes—"the purpose is to measure compliance with laws or regulations." In the 16 information collection packages examined in this report, the most common purpose (either primary or "other" purpose) of the information collection was application for benefits and program evaluation (eight each). Program planning or management was a purpose for six, and regulatory or compliance was a purpose for five. See Table 2 for the purposes of each of the information collection packages. For none of the applications was general purpose statistics, audit, or research included as a purpose. This may be, at least in part, because no studies or surveys were included in this analysis. The OMB-approved data collection instruments may also provide information about the purpose of a given data collection. For example, the CSPR data collection instrument discusses the purpose of having both an ESEA Consolidated Application and the CSPR: Sections 9302 and 9303 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act ( ESEA ), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 ( NCLB ) provide to States the option of applying for and reporting on multiple ESEA programs through a single consolidated application and report. Although a central, practical purpose of the Consolidated State Application and Report is to reduce "red tape" and burden on States, the Consolidated State Application and Report are also intended to have the important purpose of encouraging the integration of State, local, and ESEA programs in comprehensive planning and service delivery and enhancing the likelihood that the State will coordinate planning and service delivery across multiple State and local programs. The combined goal of all educational agencies–State, local, and Federal–is a more coherent, well-integrated educational plan that will result in improved teaching and learning. In the Supporting Statement that accompanies each ICR to OMB, ED estimates the number of respondents, the annualized aggregate number of burden hours, and the annualized cost of each information collection package ( Table 3 ). The estimated aggregate annual burden hours associated with responding to each of the 16 information collection packages examined range from 200 hours to 4.7 million hours, while the estimated annualized cost of responding ranges from $6,000 to $118.1 million. In general, information collection packages that have the largest number of respondents do not necessarily have the highest burden per respondent. This is because the time for each respondent to engage in an activity related to the package can be relatively short. However, information collection packages with the highest burden hours tend to have the highest costs. The information collection package with the largest number of respondents is "Impact Aid Program Application for Section 8003 Assistance" with an estimated 501,839 respondents including 500,000 parents. However, the estimated annualized total burden hours and cost associated with this information collection package are 142,942 hours and $1.5 million, respectively. The purpose of this information collection package is to determine eligibility for the grants to LEAs and the amount of grant payment under the statutory formula. The information collection package with the smallest number of respondents and estimated annualized aggregate burden hours and cost is "State Agency Use of Alternative Method to Distribute Title I Funds to Local Educational Agencies with Fewer Than 20,000 Total Residents" with an estimated 200 hours and an estimated cost of $6,000. This information collection package addresses the process an SEA must follow to obtain approval from ED to use alternative poverty data to redistribute Title I, Part A funds to small LEAs. As shown in Table 4 , below, only SEAs provide the data for this collection effort. The information collection package with the largest estimated aggregate burden hours and cost is "State Educational Agency, Local Educational Agency, and School Data Collection and Reporting Under ESEA Title I, Part A" (accountability issues) with an estimated annualized 4,710,525 burden hours and an estimated annualized cost burden of $118,075,705. There are about 54,000 respondents to this information collection package. The purpose of this information collection package, in part, is to meet the Title I requirement that SEAs, LEAs, and schools collect and disseminate information to document progress and inform parents and the public about school, LEA, and state educational performance. As shown in Table 4 , below, SEAs, LEAs, and schools provide the data for this collection effort. It should be noted that the estimated annualized burden hours and cost burden are not necessarily calculated by ED in the same way for each collection. For example, burden hours placed on parents are included in the aggregate burden hours for three collections ("Migrant Education Program Regulations and Certificate of Eligibility," "Impact Aid Program Application for Section 8003 Assistance," and "Formula Grant EASIE"), but in calculating the burden cost, parent burden hours have no cost associated with them in one of the collections (Migrant Education), have a cost of $5.15 an hour in another (Formula Grant EASIE), and have a cost of $10.00 an hour associated with them in a third collection (Impact Aid). The aggregate burden hours for the Migrant Education package also includes contractor hours, but the costs associated with these hours are apparently included in the federal costs for the information collection (see Table 6 ). Burden hours do not include the hours of federal staff associated with the information collection, so it is not clear why contractor hours would be included in aggregate burden hours for the information collection. Table 4 shows the estimated number of respondent burden hours and estimated respondent cost for each of the 16 collections by the type of respondent: SEA, LEA, or "other entity." The other entities, identified in the table, include schools, parents, programs, partnerships, grantees, and local tax officials. Not all types of respondents participate in each collection. Of the 16 information packages, SEAs are respondents to 11, LEAs are respondents to 7, and other entities to 8. While SEAs are respondents to the most packages, the burden placed on them in the aggregate is not as great as the burden placed on LEAs or other entities, particularly schools, the "other entity" for the Title I accountability issues collection. However, on an average per respondent basis, SEAs may have higher estimated annualized burden hours and cost burden than other types of respondents to the same information collection package. This is due to the fact that there are generally only 52 LEAs (or fewer) responding to a given information collection package, while there may be thousands of other entities (e.g., schools, LEAs, parents) also responding, so the larger overall estimates of annualized burden hours and cost burden for these respondents are divided among a larger group of respondents. In general, in depth analyses of burden per respondent groups are not provided in this report because within information collections there can be substantial variation in the number of underlying reporting requirements that are applicable to a given type of respondent. For a given type of respondent within a single information collection package, the respondent may not have to address every item on a given information collection package, and the cost of responding to the information collection package may vary by item (e.g., the hourly cost of responding to one item may be different than the cost of responding to another item). For example, for the "State Educational Agency, Local Educational Agency, and School Data Collection and Reporting Under ESEA Title I, Part A" (accountability issues) information collection package, there are three types of activities or information that schools may need to address. First, a school may need to conduct a needs assessment or develop a comprehensive schoolwide plan. Second, a school operating a schoolwide program must maintain records demonstrating that it addresses the intent and purpose of each federal program for which funds have been consolidated under a schoolwide program. Third, schools newly identified for school improvement under current law requirements must develop a school improvement plan, and schools identified as focus or priority schools (that were not previously identified for school improvement under current law) under a new ESEA flexibility package provided by the Administration must plan for appropriate interventions. Table 5 indicates the average estimated annualized hour burden and cost burden for schools that need to respond to each of these requirements. On average, the annualized burden for each of these requirements ranges from 4.8 to 960 burden hours and from $120 to $24,000. Some schools will not need to address any of the requirements, while others may need to address one or two requirements. In Q.14 of the Supporting Statement, the agency must provide an estimate of the annualized cost to the federal government. This estimate must include expenses that would not have been incurred without this collection of information. Examples of the types of activities that have costs to the federal government include agency review of applications, peer reviewers, monitoring and oversight, collection and analysis of data, and guidance development. It is somewhat unclear when a particular activity is considered a normal or routine staff activity versus carrying an additional cost to the federal government. Table 6 shows the estimated annualized federal cost for each of the information packages examined in this report and ED's explanation of the cost. The estimated annualized federal cost for each of the 16 collections ranges from $0 to $3.2 million. The three information collection packages with the estimated annualized federal costs are (1) the "Migrant Education Program (MEP) Migrant Student Information Exchange (MSIX) and Minimum Data Elements" collection package ($3.2 million), (2) the "Impact Aid Program Application for Section 8003 Assistance" ($1.7 million), and (3) "State Educational Agency, Local Educational Agency, and School Data Collection and Reporting Under ESEA Title I, Part A" (accountability issues) ($1.2 million). Of the 16 information collection packages examined in this report, the "State Educational Agency, Local Education Agency, and School Data Collection and Reporting Under ESEA, Title I, Part A" (accountability issues) information collection package has the largest estimated number of annualized burden hours (4.7 million) and cost burden ($118.1 million). This part of the report examines this information collection package in greater detail. Among other issues, it discusses the underlying requirements that necessitate the information collection and examines how the burden hours and costs associated with the information data collection have varied over time. In particular, it compares differences in the burden associated with this information data collection prior to the enactment of NCLB and post-enactment of NCLB, as well as recent changes in burden estimates that coincide with the availability of an ESEA flexibility package being offered to states by the Administration. The first part of this discussion provides a general overview of the accountability requirements included in Title I-A, as the information collection package discussed in this part of the report was designed to collect data related to these requirements. This is followed by an examination of how hour and cost burden have changed over time for this information collection package. This part of the report concludes with information on how the data from this information collection package are used and the consequences of not collecting these data according to ED. The need for the aforementioned information collection package stems from numerous educational accountability requirements included in Title I-A of the ESEA and associated regulations. Title I-A authorizes federal grants to LEAs to provide supplementary educational and related services to low-achieving children attending schools with concentrations of students from low-income families. Title I-A is currently the largest federal elementary and secondary education program; it was funded at $13.8 billion and accounted for over half of the $22 billion appropriated for ESEA overall in FY2013. The estimated annualized cost burden associated with the "State Educational Agency, Local Education Agency, and School Data Collection and Reporting Under ESEA, Title I, Part A" (accountability issues) information collection package is equivalent to about 1% of the FY2013 appropriation for Title I-A. Beginning with the 1994 reauthorization of the ESEA, the Improving America's Schools Act (IASA; P.L. 103-382 ), the ESEA included broad accountability requirements. These requirements were enhanced under NCLB. Below is a brief description of the accountability requirements of IASA and NCLB. This is followed by a discussion of the ESEA flexibility package that has been granted by the Secretary to 39 states and the District of Columbia, as of July 31, 2013. As discussed in greater detail in a subsequent section of this report (see " Changes in Burden over Time "), ED anticipates that state implementation of the ESEA flexibility package will substantially reduce the hour and cost burden associated with this information collection package. As a condition of the receipt of Title I-A funds under IASA, states were required to develop or adopt content and performance standards, as well as assessments aligned with the standards. More specifically, states were required to adopt standards and assessments in the subjects of reading/language arts (hereinafter referred to as reading) and mathematics at three grade levels—at least once in each of the grade ranges of 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12. The performance standards were required to establish three performance levels for all students—advanced, proficient, and partially proficient. States were also required to develop assessment systems that included all students in the grades being assessed who had attended schools in the LEA for at least one year. The assessment system had to be capable of producing results for each state, LEA, and school that could be disaggregated by gender, major racial and ethnic groups, English proficiency status, migrant status, disability status, and economically disadvantaged status. These data were to be included in annual school profiles. Effectiveness was based on whether schools and LEAs were making "adequate yearly progress" (AYP) toward meeting the content and performance standards. The results on these assessments were also used as the basis for implementing program improvement requirements, including financial rewards to "distinguished" schools and LEAs and corrective actions for "unsuccessful" ones. Each school and LEA participating in ESEA Title I was to be reviewed annually. When standards and assessment systems were fully implemented, "individual performance profiles" were to be prepared and disseminated by LEAs for each participating school. "Statistically sound" achievement data, disaggregated by student gender, race or ethnicity, as well as LEP, migrant, disability, and low-income status, were to be reported for each school, LEA, and the state overall. Many of the underpinnings of the accountability requirements included in Title I-A of the ESEA, as amended by the NCLB, are evident in the accountability requirements included in the IASA; in some cases, the requirements were substantially expanded. For example, participating states must administer annual, standards-based assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics to students in each of grades 3-8, plus at least once in grades 10-12. Beginning with the 2007-2008 school year, such assessments were also required to be administered to students in each of three grade levels (3-5, 6-9, and 10-12) in science. The results of the required reading and math assessments are used to make annual AYP determinations. AYP standards must be applied to all public schools, LEAs, and to states overall and reported on annual public report cards. AYP is defined primarily on the basis of the percentage of students scoring at a proficient or higher level of achievement. AYP standards must also include at least one additional academic indicator; in the case of high schools, this must be the graduation rate. AYP calculations must be disaggregated—that is, determined separately for several demographic groups, as well as for an "all students" group. The specified groups include economically disadvantaged students, LEP students, students with disabilities, and students in major racial and ethnic groups. Title I-A schools that fail to meet AYP standards for two consecutive years must be identified for program improvement. When Title I-A schools do not make AYP for two or more consecutive years, they become subject to a range of increasingly severe performance-based accountability requirements, which are coupled with technical assistance provided by the LEA. For example, the ESEA requires states to identify LEAs and schools that fail to meet AYP standards for two consecutive years for improvement. Students attending these schools must be provided with options to attend other public schools that make AYP. If a Title I-A school fails to meet AYP standards for a third year, students from low-income families must be offered the opportunity to receive instruction from a supplemental educational services (SES) provider of their choice. Title I-A schools that fail to meet AYP for a fourth year must take one or more additional "corrective actions," such as implementing a new curriculum. Those that fail to meet AYP standards for a fifth year must develop a "restructuring" plan, involving such actions as reopening as a charter school. If a school fails to make AYP for a sixth year, the school must implement its restructuring plan. Procedures analogous to those for schools apply to LEAs that receive Title I-A grants and fail to meet AYP requirements. As part of these outcome accountability requirements, states, LEAs, and schools must take various actions, such as developing school improvement plans, identifying and evaluating SES providers, notifying families regarding their eligibility for public school choice and SES, and developing restructuring plans. States participating in Title I-A are required to provide that all public school teachers in core subjects are "highly qualified." In order to be deemed a highly qualified teacher (HQT), all such public school teachers must hold at least a bachelor's degree, have obtained full state certification or passed the state teacher licensing examination, and must hold a license to teach. In addition, teachers who are new to the profession must demonstrate subject area knowledge, including (if teaching at a secondary level) passing a state academic test or completing an academic major, graduate degree, or advanced certification in each subject taught. A public school teacher who is not new to the profession may also be deemed to be "highly qualified" by demonstrating competence in all subjects taught "based on a high objective uniform State standard of evaluation." Student assessment results and certain other data for individual public schools, LEAs, and states overall must be reported to parents and the public. Report cards must generally include information on student performance disaggregated by race, ethnicity, and gender, as well as disability, migrant, English proficiency, and economic disadvantage status. The report cards must also include information on student progress toward meeting any other educational indicators included in the state's AYP standards, plus secondary school student graduation rates, the number and identity of any schools failing to meet AYP standards, and aggregate information on the qualifications of teachers. The report cards may include additional information, such as average class size or the incidence of school violence. LEA and school report cards are to be disseminated to parents of public school students and to the public at large. While Congress has not enacted legislation to reauthorize the ESEA, on September 23, 2011, President Obama and the Secretary announced the availability of an ESEA flexibility package for states and described the principles that states must meet to obtain the included waivers. The waivers apply to school years 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014. States have the option to apply for a one-year waiver extension for the 2014-2015 school year. The waivers exempt states from various Title I-A academic accountability requirements, teacher qualification-related requirements, and funding flexibility requirements that were enacted through NCLB. However, in order to receive the waivers, SEAs must agree to meet four principles established by ED for "improving student academic achievement and increasing the quality of instruction." The four principles, as stated by ED, are as follows: (1) college- and career-ready expectations for all students; (2) state-developed differentiated recognition, accountability, and support; (3) supporting effective instruction and leadership; and (4) reducing duplication and unnecessary burden. Taken collectively, the waivers and principles included in the ESEA flexibility package amount to a fundamental redesign by the Administration of many of the accountability and teacher-related requirements included in Title I-A of current law. As of August 21, 2013, ED had approved ESEA flexibility package applications for 41 states and the District of Columbia as well as for a consortium of eight LEAs in California, and was reviewing applications from several other states. If Congress continues to work on ESEA reauthorization during the 113 th Congress, it is possible that provisions included in any final bill may be similar to or override the waivers and principles established by the Administration. In the meantime, however, the provisions waived by the ESEA flexibility package include the determination of AYP and the consequences related to failing to meet AYP for two or more consecutive years. That is, schools in states with approved applications for the ESEA flexibility package no longer have to determine whether a school should be identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring, and they are no longer required to implement the specific actions that are associated with each of these levels of identification. Thus, for example, schools are no longer identified for improvement and, therefore, do not have to write school improvement plans, states no longer have to identify SES providers, and parents no longer need to be notified whether their child is eligible for SES or public school choice. However, in return for receiving the waivers of existing accountability requirements, states are required to comply with the aforementioned principles established by ED. For example, states, LEAs, and schools must comply with prescribed interventions for the lowest performing 5% of schools (referred to as "priority schools" for the purposes of the ESEA flexibility package) and must implement some type of intervention in the next lowest performing 10% of schools (referred to as "focus schools" for purposes of the ESEA flexibility package). The outcome accountability requirements that currently apply to all Title I-A schools that fail to meet AYP are replaced by more prescriptive requirements for priority schools and a requirement for non-specified interventions to be implemented in focus schools. The ESEA flexibility package also substantially alters accountability requirements applicable to educators. While current law focuses on having highly qualified teachers, the ESEA flexibility package alters existing teacher requirements to focus on teacher (and school leader) effectiveness, determined, in part, based on student achievement. In response to the allowable changes to state accountability systems and requirements related to the four principles that SEAs must meet in order to receive the ESEA flexibility package, states that have received the flexibility package and LEAs in those states must implement new accountability systems and include additional information on report cards while continuing to include most of the information they were required to provide prior to the ESEA flexibility package. For example, data must still be reported on the achievement of student subgroups. However, if an SEA created a "super subgroup" (e.g., a subgroup comprised of the 25% lowest performing students in a school), data on that subgroup must also be reported on SEA and LEA report cards, unless the number of students in the subgroup is insufficient to yield statistically reliable information or the results would reveal personally identifiable information about an individual student. In addition, SEAs that receive the ESEA flexibility package must also report data on college-going (e.g., number of students who enroll in an institution of higher education within 16 months of earning a regular high school diploma) and college credit accumulation data. In some instances, data that must be reported under current law, such as whether a school has been identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring, has been replaced in states that received the ESEA flexibility package with reporting on the schools that have been identified as priority, focus, or reward schools. Changes in the estimated annualized burden hours and cost burden associated with the "State Educational Agency, Local Education Agency, and School Data Collection and Reporting Under ESEA, Title I, Part A" information collection package have been examined over time, beginning prior to the enactment of NCLB and continuing through the implementation of the ESEA flexibility package. In general, there was a substantial increase in both the estimated annualized burden hours and cost burden following the enactment of NCLB. These burdens continued to increase for several years but are now expected to decline, according to ED, with the implementation of the ESEA flexibility package. Appendix C provides a list of the statutory and regulatory requirements associated with the current information collection package and ED's description of each of these requirements. This section examines the changes over time in both the estimated annualized burden hours and cost burden for the information collection package. It should be noted that limited information about the information collection package is available prior to the enactment of NCLB and detailed information about reasons for changes in burden are not available prior to the information collection package that expired on December 31, 2009. When the estimate of burden hours from an information collection package changes, ED is required to identify one or more of four causes for the change in burden. There are four causes of paperwork burden change: (1) adjustments to agency burden estimates; (2) new statutory requirements; (3) discretionary agency actions; and (4) lapses in OMB approval. Burden changes from adjustments to agency burden estimates and new statutory requirements are to a significant degree outside of agencies' direct control, while burden changes resulting from discretionary agency actions and lapses in OMB approval are generally within agencies' direct control. OMB considers these last two categories—discretionary agency actions and lapses in OMB approval—to be the best measure of agencies' effectiveness in managing their paperwork burden, because they are within direct control of the agency. As shown in Table 7 , the estimated overall number of annualized burden hours for the information collection package prior to the enactment of NCLB was about 564,000 hours (information collection package expiring 6/30/1998). Following the enactment of NCLB, the estimated number of annualized burden hours increased by over 350% to about 2.6 million hours. The change from the initial information collection package to the information collection package that expired on October 31, 2003, was attributed to a change due to agency discretion. ED submitted this information collection package for emergency OMB approval. It is clearly stated in the "View ICR-OIRA Conclusion" web page that it was impossible for OMB and ED to predict the burden that would be associated with a number of statutory and regulatory provisions. There was no change in burden hours for the information collection package expiring October 31, 2006. According to ED, the change in the estimated annualized burden hours associated with the information collection package expiring on December 31, 2009, was attributed to agency discretion, as hours from another collection related to Title I-A and students with disabilities were included in this information collection package, and to a change due to adjustment in estimate. The latter change was due primarily to updated estimates of the time needed for the implementation of statutory requirements related to school improvement and notification of public school choice and SES, as well as to comply with regulatory requirements related to limited English proficient students and requirements related to the preparation of SEA and LEA report cards. For the information collection expiring October 31, 2011, the increase in burden hours was attributed to agency discretion. It was estimated that SEAs and LEAs would need more time to address amended regulations, which included additional data for report cards and cohort documentation related to high school graduation rates. The last increase in estimated annualized burden hours (information collection package expiring April 30, 2012) was also attributed to agency discretion to move hours attributed to a different data collection focused on flexibility to this information collection package. Overall, from the initial information collection package through the information collection package that expired on April 30, 2012, there was an increase in overall estimated annualized burden hours from the pre-NCLB burden hour level of almost 1,300%. Estimated annualized burden hours peaked at 7.9 million hours for the latter. The most recent version of the information collection package includes an estimated decline of about 3.2 million (40%) annualized burden hours due to an adjustment in estimate. In the relevant information collection package, ED indicates that this decline is directly related to 43 SEAs having requested or indicated that they will request ESEA flexibility. As previously discussed, under the ESEA flexibility package, LEAs and schools no longer have to be identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring. Thus, fewer SEAs, LEAs, and schools will be required to implement the outcome accountability actions that correspond to each of these levels of identification. For example, LEAs in states that receive the ESEA flexibility package will no longer have to notify parents about the opportunity for public school choice or SES, and SEAs will no longer have to identify and evaluate SES providers (unless the SEA opted to continue these practices). More specifically, based on a detailed analysis of the burden hour changes included in the Supporting Statement of the current information collection package, ED anticipates that the greatest decreases in burden hours will occur with respect to compliance with the following regulatory provisions: LEAs planning for school restructuring (34 C.F.R. 200.34 and 200.43), LEAs developing or revising improvement plans (34 C.F.R. 200.52), and schools newly identified for improvement having to develop improvement plans (34 C.F.R. 200.30, 200.41, and 200.42). As previously discussed, the implementation of new state accountability systems in response to the ESEA flexibility package will continue to result in some schools being identified as low performing and being required to take various actions. In addition, the changes to state accountability systems made as a result of the ESEA flexibility package will result in changes to SEA and LEA report cards. Thus, while ED continues to include burden hours related to various accountability activities in its Supporting Statement for the current version of the information collection package, it is unclear whether the reductions in burden hours will be realized as stated, as SEAs, LEAs, and schools are at the early stages of implementing the measures they included in their ESEA flexibility package applications. In addition, ED based its burden hour estimates on 43 states receiving the ESEA flexibility package. As of August 21, 2013, 41 states and the District of Columbia, as well as a consortium of eight LEAs in California, have had their applications for the ESEA flexibility package approved. Depending on how many states ultimately apply for and have ESEA flexibility packages approved, the actual reduction in burden hours may deviate from the estimates included in the Supporting Statement. In general, as the estimated annualized burden hours associated with an information collection package increase so does the estimated associated annualized cost, since estimates of costs are based on burden hours as well as other financial costs such as employee benefits and overhead. With respect to the "State Educational Agency, Local Education Agency, and School Data Collection and Reporting Under ESEA, Title I, Part A" information collection package, the substantial increases and decreases in estimated annualized burden hours over time have been accompanied by commensurate changes in estimated annualized cost burden. Mirroring the increase in estimated annualized burden hours, the estimated annualized cost burden associated with the information collection package increased by almost 160% from the version of the information collection package that expired on October 31, 2006, to the version of the information collection package that expired on December 31, 2009 ( Table 8 ). The estimated annualized cost burden continued to increase, peaking at $169.4 million for the version of the information collection package that expired on April 30, 2012. Under the current information collection package, when ED takes into account the ESEA flexibility package, the estimated annualized cost burden decreases by $51.4 million (30.3%). (For a discussion of the reasons for the changes in cost burden, see the discussion of changes in burden hours.) As with the estimated annualized changes in burden hours, however, it is unknown whether the projected reduction in cost burden attributed to the ESEA flexibility package will be realized. With respect to the current version of the information collection package, ED identified the primary purpose of the data collection as program evaluation and other purposes as program management and regulatory. In its Supporting Statement (Q.2), ED provided more detailed information on how the data from the current information collection package will be used: SEAs, LEAs, and schools collect and disseminate the information to carry out the above-referenced reporting requirements of Title I of the ESEA. The information is used to facilitate compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements and to provide information to school communities (including parents), LEAs, SEAs and ED regarding activities required under Title I of the ESEA. With respect to ESEA flexibility, peer reviewers and ED staff will evaluate each SEA's flexibility request to inform the Secretary's determination of whether to approve an SEA's request. ED staff will review the reported information to determine whether an SEA's waivers will continue, be extended, or be terminated. Prior to ED making the ESEA flexibility package available to SEAs, ED responded to the question regarding the use of data in the version of the information collection package that expired April 30, 2012, as follows: School communities (most prominently parents), LEAs, SEAs, and ED have used the information from the various data collections in multiple ways in order to help all students meet and surpass the challenging State academic achievement standards in each State and to ensure that the statute is followed. Parents and other community members have used the information obtained from the annual LEA review of schools combined with information about any schools identified for school improvement or subject to corrective action or restructuring to make decisions about their child's education and to ensure public accountability for school performance. LEAs have used the list of approved SES providers to carry out the requirement to provide SES to eligible children attending schools that are in their second year of improvement, corrective action, or restructuring under section 1116 of ESEA. Also related to this requirement, parents have used information provided by the SEA and LEAs to select an SES provider for their children. SEAs have used the data on student performance to determine whether their schools have made adequate yearly progress, enforce sanctions on LEAs and schools, and prepared their State reports cards, which are on their web sites. In addition, SEAs have used the information provided by potential SES providers in their SES provider approval processes. Concerning private schools, SEAs have used LEAs' records of written affirmations that the required consultation with private school officials has occurred to ensure that statutory requirements are being met. At the national level ED has used the information on student academic achievement, the data on school choice and SES, equitable services to eligible private school students, and parent notification of school performance to inform its technical assistance efforts to SEAs and to support its crucial monitoring of SEAs in the areas of Standards and Assessments, Program Improvement, Parental Involvement, and Options, and Fiduciary. ED has also used these data to conduct analyses for performance measures used in the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), to respond to questions about Title I from the Congress and the public, and to run the program effectively and efficiently in order to maximize student achievement. Also as part of its Supporting Statement (Q.6), ED was required to describe the consequences of not conducting the data collection. For the most recent version of the information collection package that takes into account the ESEA flexibility provisions, ED responded as follows: If the information collection is not continued, SEAs, LEAs, and schools will not have information necessary to carry out the applicable requirements of Title I of the ESEA. Moreover, many of the innovations and reforms currently underway in many States and districts were not anticipated when NCLB was enacted nearly a decade ago. While NCLB helped SEAs and LEAs shine a bright light on the achievement gap and increased accountability for groups of high-need students, it inadvertently encouraged some States to set low academic standards, failed to recognize or reward growth in student learning, and did little to elevate the teaching profession or recognize the most effective teachers. Instead of fostering progress and accelerating academic improvement, many NCLB requirements have unintentionally become barriers to State and local implementation of forward-looking reforms designed to raise academic achievement. Consequently, many States have petitioned ED for relief from the requirements of current law. One of the Secretary's highest priorities is to help ensure that Federal laws and policies can support these reforms and not hinder State and local innovation aimed at increasing the quality of instruction and improving student academic achievement. For these reasons, ED is offering each SEA the opportunity to request flexibility on behalf of itself, its LEAs, and its schools, in order to better focus on improving student learning and increasing the quality of instruction. ED needs regular clearance of this information collection package to continue this important process. For the prior version of the information collection package, ED indicated that if the collection was not conducted, data needed to evaluate student progress toward reaching proficiency in reading and mathematics by the end of the 2013-2014 school year would not be available; parents would have less information about their child's education and their options for improving their child's education; and ED, SEAs, LEAs, and schools would not have the information needed to comply with statutory requirements. This report focused on the estimated annualized burden hours and cost burden of 16 information collection packages associated with ESEA statutory and regulatory requirements. Based on this analysis, it is clear that both estimated annualized burden hours and cost burden have increased since the enactment of NCLB in response to the accountability based reforms included in the law; however, it also appears that ED is currently taking steps to reduce both annualized burden hours and cost burden. Although, it remains to be seen whether expected decreases in annualized burden hours and cost burden for the information collection package with the highest number of annualized burden hours and cost burden will be realized as a result of states being approved for an ESEA flexibility package. It was beyond the scope of this report to evaluate the specific purposes for which data are being collected, the specific data elements that are being reported, or whether the burden hours and cost burden associated with current information collection packages are appropriate. For example, the report did not evaluate the value of the tradeoff between the burden hours and cost burden versus the value that has been derived from the collection of these data. It also did not examine whether some data being collected are redundant, whether there are additional steps that could be taken to reduce burden while continuing to collect and report data, or whether there are additional data that should be collected, despite a possible increase in burden hours or cost burden. It is possible that ED may consider other ways to reduce burden hours and cost burden. As part of these efforts, ED may consider whether there is any duplication in the information collection packages, how the requirements of information collection packages interact with data reporting requirements at the state and local levels, and whether data collection efficiency could be improved. According to GAO, ED is in the process of compiling an inventory of its data collections. This inventory is expected to be made publicly available by November 2013 and will provide descriptive information about each of the data collections, as well as the specific data elements that are reported through each data collection. If Congress continues to work on ESEA reauthorization, issues related to burden hours and cost burden may continue to surface and may be taken into account in legislation to reauthorize the ESEA. However, it is unknown whether any changes made to the ESEA by Congress in the future would reduce or increase burden hours and cost burden for the information collection packages included in this report. Appendix A. Data Source and Information Clearance Process In compiling and analyzing information for this report, the main data source used was the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs' (OIRA's) Inventory of Currently Approved Information Collections (Inventory). The Inventory includes the OMB control number, the principal office requesting the information collection, an abstract, the expiration date for each information collection, burden hours, the number of annual responses, data collection forms, and a supporting statement submitted by the federal agency to OMB. The Inventory also has an "OMB Control Number History" for each information collection. The history contains information on each version of the package for which the federal agency has made an information collection request (ICR) (e.g., new collection, revision, extension, no substantial change) for OMB approval. The information clearance process generally begins when an agency publishes a Federal Register notice about the information collection and ends when OIRA takes action regarding the ICR. After the agency develops an information collection that it wishes to implement, it publishes a Federal Register notice about the proposed information collection and provides the public with 60 days to provide comment on the proposed collection. The agency then considers the public's comments, makes changes as appropriate to address concerns raised by the public, submits the ICR to OMB for review, and publishes a second Federal Register notice announcing the start of OMB's review. The second notice provides the public with an additional 30 days to provide comments. After reviewing the ICR and considering public comments, OIRA concludes its review by approving the collection or taking other actions. The designations that OIRA can assign to a collection are approval, improperly submitted, withdrawn, and disapproval. Once an information collection is approved, OIRA assigns it an OMB Control Number. Using the OMB Control Number, one can locate and examine information collection packages in OIRA's Inventory of Currently Approved Collections. It should be noted that for each information collection package, there is a summary page titled "View ICR-OIRA Conclusion" that describes the actions taken by OMB, the current number of burden hours associated with an information collection package, and the previously approved number of burden hours. In some cases when an agency requests a change in the number of burden hours, the agency does not also submit updated supporting documentation (e.g., Supporting Statement) that details how the change in burden hours would result in changes in cost, if applicable. Thus, in discussing the 16 information collection packages included in this report, the analysis primarily relies on the data included in the Supporting Statements that accompany an information collection package, even if the "View ICR-OIRA Conclusion" web page indicates that the approved number of burden hours for a given information collection has been changed. Otherwise, it would not be possible to analyze the respondents to a given information collection package or the associated cost burden. Where there are differences in the burden hours, they have been detailed in the relevant table notes. Appendix B. Supporting Statement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submission This statement is submitted to the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) when a federal agency makes an information collection request (ICR) (e.g., new collection, revision, extension, no substantial change) for OMB approval. In the Supporting Statement, the agencies are asked to provide the following information. Q1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information. Q2. Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the information received from the current collection. Q3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision of adopting this means of collection. Also describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden. Q4. Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use of the purposes described in Item 2 above. Q5. If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities (Item 5 of OMB Form 83-I), describe any methods used to minimize burden. Q6. Describe the consequences to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden. Q7. Explain any special circumstance that would cause an information collection to be conducted in a manner: requiring respondents to report information to the agency more often than quarterly ; requiring respondents to prepare a written response to a collection of information in fewer than 30 days after receipt of it; requiring respondents to submit more than an original and two copies of any document; requiring respondents to retain records, other than health, medical, government contract, grant-in-aid, or tax records for more than three years; in connection with a statistical survey, that is not designed to produce valid and reliable results that can be generalized to the universe of study; requiring the use of a statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and approved by OMB; that includes a pledge of confidentiality that is not supported by authority established in statute or regulation, that is not supported by disclosure and data security policies that are consistent with the pledge, or which unnecessarily impedes sharing of data with other agencies for compatible confidential use; or requiring respondents to submit proprietary trade secrets, or other confidential information unless the agency can demonstrate that it has instituted procedures to protect the information's confidentiality to the extent permitted by law. Q8. If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER of the agency's notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken by the agency in response to these comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden . Q9. Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees. Q10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulations, or agency policy. Q11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent. Q12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information. The statement should : Indicate the number of respondents, frequency of response, annual hour burden, and an explanation of how the burden was estimated. Unless directed to do so, agencies should not conduct special surveys to obtain information on which to base hour burden estimates. Consultation with a sample (fewer than 10) of potential respondents is desirable. If the hour burden on respondents is expected to vary widely because of differences in activity, size, or complexity, show the range of estimated hour burden, and explain the reasons for the variance. Generally, estimates should not include burden hours for customary and usual business practices. If this request for approval covers more than one form, provide separate hour burden estimates for each form and aggregate the hour burdens in Item 13 of OMB Form 83-I. Provide estimates of annualized cost to respondents of the hour burdens for collections of information, identifying and using appropriate wage rate categories. The cost of contracting out or paying outside parties for information collection activities should not be included here. Instead, this cost should be included in Item 14. Q13. Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden shown in Items 12 and 14.) The cost estimate should be split into two components: (a) a total capital and start-up cost component (annualized over its expected useful life); and (b) a total operation and maintenance and purchase of services component. The estimates should take into account costs associated with generating, maintaining, and disclosing or providing the information. Include descriptions of methods used to estimate major cost factors including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, the discount rate(s), and the time period over which costs will be incurred. Capital and start-up costs include, among other items, preparations for collecting information such as purchasing computers and software; monitoring, sampling, drilling and testing equipment; and record storage facilities. If cost estimates are expected to vary widely, agencies should present ranges of cost burdens and explain the reasons for the variance. The cost of contracting out information collection services should be a part of this cost burden estimate. In developing cost burden estimates, agencies may consult with a sample of respondents (fewer than 10), utilize the 60-day pre-OMB submission public comment process and use existing economic or regulatory impact analysis associated with the rulemaking containing the information collection, as appropriate. Generally, estimates should not include purchases of equipment or services, or portions thereof, made: (1) prior to October 1, 1995, (2) to achieve regulatory compliance with requirements not associated with the information collection, (3) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the government, or (4) as part of customary and usual business or private practices. Q14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Also, provide a description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of hours, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information. Agencies also may aggregate cost estimates from Items 12, 13, and 14 in a single table . Q15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in Items 13 or 14 of the OMB Form 83-I. Q16. For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions. Q17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate. Q18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in Item 20, "Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions," of OMB Form 83-I. Appendix C. Description of Statutory and Regulatory Requirements Associated with the Title I-A Accountability Issues Information Collection Package In the Supporting Statement accompanying the State Educational Agency and Local Educational Agency and School Data Collection and Reporting under ESEA, Title I, Part A (accountability issues) information collection package, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) provides an accounting of the statutory and regulatory requirements associated with the information collection package and the related burden on state educational agencies (SEAs), local educational agencies (LEAs), and schools. The specific statutory and regulatory requirements and ED's description of these requirements is included in Table C-1 .

Summary: Congress has been actively engaged in efforts to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), most recently amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB; P.L. 107-110). It is anticipated that the 113th Congress may continue to work on ESEA reauthorization issues. As part of the reauthorization debate, Congress has focused on the federal role in education, particularly in the area of educational accountability, where federal efforts to hold states, local educational agencies (LEAs), and schools accountable for student achievement and teacher performance are being discussed. In these discussions, issues related to the burden that complying with the statutory and regulatory reporting requirements associated with the ESEA have put on state educational agencies (SEAs), LEAs, and schools have been considered. While the burden hours and annualized costs (also referred to as cost burden) associated with ESEA reporting requirements have clearly increased since the enactment of NCLB, it is important to highlight that the data collected and reported play an important role in supporting core components of the federal education policies enacted through NCLB. SEAs, LEAs, and schools use such data to gauge student performance and determine the progress schools are making in enhancing student academic achievement. Parents use these data to inform choices about their child's education, and the U.S. Department of Education (ED) uses these data to inform technical assistance efforts and monitor SEA work in a number of areas in which educational accountability is expected under the provisions of NCLB. This report was undertaken in response to concerns about state and local reporting burdens having increased in recent years since the enactment of NCLB. It examines the time and cost burden associated with complying with the ESEA statutory and regulatory reporting requirements associated with 16 information collection packages. For each information collection package, information is included on the purpose of the collection and data are provided on burden hours and cost burden as defined in the Paperwork Reduction Act. There is also a discussion of the current annualized cost to the federal government for each of the information collection packages. Finally, a more detailed analysis is provided for the information collection package that accounts for the largest number of the burden hours and largest cost burden of all the information collection packages examined. Currently, for respondents at the state and local levels, the overall annualized estimate of burden hours per information collection package ranges from 200 hours to 4.7 million hours and the estimated annualized cost associated with the information collection packages ranges from $6,000 to $118.1 million per information collection package. Respondents to the 16 information collection packages include SEAs, LEAs, schools, parents, and other entities. The average number of estimated annualized burden hours and estimated annualized cost burden is generally spread across numerous respondents, and the burden placed on an individual respondent for a given information collection package varies. Within information collections there can be substantial variation in the number of underlying reporting requirements or activities that are applicable to a given type of respondent. For a given type of respondent within a single information collection package, the respondent may not have to address every item on a given information collection package, and the cost of responding to the information collection package may vary by item (e.g., the hourly cost of responding to one item may be different than the cost of responding to another item). For example, for the "State Educational Agency, Local Educational Agency, and School Data Collection and Reporting Under ESEA Title I, Part A" (accountability issues) information collection package, there are three types of activities or information that schools may need to address. On average, the annualized burden for each of these requirements ranges from 4.8 to 960 burden hours and from $120 to $24,000 per school. While some schools will not need to address any of the requirements, others may need to address one or two requirements. Of the information collection packages examined in this report, the "State Educational Agency, Local Education Agency, and School Data Collection and Reporting Under ESEA, Title I, Part A" information collection package, which focuses on Title I-A accountability requirements that are a core component of the federal education policy incorporated in NCLB, has the largest number of estimated annualized burden hours (4.7 million) and greatest estimated annualized costs ($118.1 million). The burden associated with this information collection package has increased substantially since the enactment of NCLB. For example, the overall number of estimated annualized burden hours for the information collection package prior to the enactment of NCLB was about 564,000 hours. Following the enactment of NCLB, the number of estimated annualized burden hours increased by over 350% to about 2.6 million hours. The number of estimated annualized burden hours associated with this package peaked at 7.9 million burden hours. The most recent version of the information collection package, however, includes an expected decline of about 3.2 million (40%) burden hours from the peak level. The changes over time in the estimated annualized cost associated with this package mirror those for the changes in burden hours, peaking at an estimated $169.4 million. The most recent version of the information collection package expects the estimated annualized cost to decrease $51.4 million (30.3%) from the peak level. ED indicated that the decline in burden hours and cost burden is directly related to 43 SEAs having requested or indicated that they will request the ESEA flexibility package being offered to states by the Administration, which provides waivers of several of the Title I-A accountability requirements included in current law. It is unknown whether the reductions in burden hours and cost burden attributed to the ESEA flexibility package will be realized. As of August 21, 2013, ED had approved ESEA flexibility packages for 41 states and the District of Columbia, as well as for a consortium of eight LEAs in California.