	Background

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. 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. Education Has Implemented Provisions of IDEA Designed to Reduce Paperwork, but States Have Been Reluctant to Use Them

		States Saw Little Benefit in Participating in Pilot Programs

Education took several steps to design and implement two pilot programs,  the Paperwork Waiver Program and Multi-Year IEP Program. Despite Education’s efforts, no state applied to participate in either of the  pilot programs. Some States and Local Districts Used Federal Model Forms Primarily to Help Develop Their Own Forms

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. Stakeholders Had Mixed Views on the Effects of Other Paperwork Reduction Provisions

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. Stakeholders Said Additional State and Local Requirements Contribute to Burden, but Differed on the Burdens and Benefits of Federal Requirements

		States and Localities Described Additional Requirements that Contribute to Administrative and Paperwork Burden

State and local officials with whom we spoke widely agreed that  nonfederal IDEA-related requirements were burdensome. This example, however, highlights  the difficulty in determining what state-imposed requirements should be  reported. 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. 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. 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. Education and States Stated that They Have Adopted Computer Technology and Other Steps that Reduce Administrative Burdens, but These Efforts Have Limitations

		Computer Technology and Data Systems Have Reportedly Helped Ease Some Administrative Burdens Related to Special Education Requirements

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. It includes data required by IDEA and is comprised of six data  collections. Some focus group participants said that using  amended or draft IEPs (rather than creating completely new IEPs) can  reduce burden. Communication strategies. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

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. 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. 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. Parents were  informed of these meetings by the local districts, and attendance was  voluntary. We selected these organizations to  provide a range of views on the benefits and burdens of IDEA  requirements.
Why GAO Did This Study

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.

What GAO Found

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.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is not making any recommendations at this time.