To receive Title I funds, states must comply  with certain requirements. Key Education Stakeholders and State and School District Officials Cited Many Federal Requirements as Both Burdensome and Beneficial

		Consistent with Key Education Stakeholders, Officials in Selected States and School Districts Identified 17 Federal Requirements as Most Burdensome

Key education stakeholders we interviewed said many federal  requirements related to ESEA Title I, IDEA Part B, or national school  meals programs were burdensome to states and school districts. Officials characterized 16 of the 17  requirements as being burdensome in multiple ways. For example,  officials told us that collecting data for the IDEA Indicators requires a  significant amount of time and resources because of the volume of data  reported. School district  officials told us they also struggle with their responsibilities under  these requirements. For example, an official told us that special education service  providers on the IEP team often misinterpret questions on the IEP   regarding the student’s performance and progress. Despite  these challenges, IEPs provide benefits for students with disabilities. Officials described 13 of the 17 requirements as time-intensive. Several of the most burdensome requirements identified are reporting  requirements, which state and district officials told us contained  duplicative data elements. Also, some officials said they   are paperwork-intensive. States and School Districts Generally Do Not Track Their Costs to Comply with Federal Requirements, According to Those We Interviewed

According to key stakeholders and state and school district officials we  interviewed, states and districts do not generally collect information about  the cost to comply with federal requirements. Specifically, state and school district officials we interviewed said they do  not collect information about the costs their agencies incur to comply with  federal requirements, for a variety of reasons, including: (1) capacity  limitations, such as limited staff and heavy workloads; (2) states and the  federal government do not require them to report it; (3) it is too  burdensome to collect the information; and (4) the information is not  useful for improving student achievement or program administration and  evaluation (see figure 2). Federal Agencies Are Taking Steps to Reduce Burden, but Potentially Duplicative Reporting Requirements and Statutory Limitations Remain

		Federal Agencies Developed Plans, Offered Waivers, and Streamlined Other Processes to Reduce Burden on States and School Districts

Education and USDA developed plans, known as retrospective analysis  plans, to identify and address burdensome regulations, as required by  Executive Order 13563. Education’s final plan, issued in August 2011 discussed its  efforts to reduce the burden on states and school districts and identified a  preliminary list of regulatory provisions for future review, including IDEA  reporting requirements, which were mentioned as burdensome by several  stakeholders and state and school district officials we interviewed. Education’s Ability to Address the Burden Associated with Some Requirements May Be Limited without Statutory Changes

Education may be unable to address certain burdensome requirements in  the absence of legislative changes. In these cases, statutory changes would be needed. Recommendations for Executive Action

We recommend that the Secretary of Education take additional steps to  address duplicative reporting and data collection efforts across major  programs such as ESEA Title I and IDEA Part B as well as other efforts,  such as the Civil Rights Data Collection. For example, Education could  work with stakeholders to better understand and address their concerns  and review reporting requirements to identify specific data elements that  are duplicative. In addition, we recommend that the Secretary build on  these efforts by identifying unnecessarily burdensome statutory  requirements and developing legislative proposals to help reduce or  eliminate the burden these requirements impose on states and districts. Education generally agreed with our recommendations. Requirements are grouped by program: Elementary and  Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Title I, Part A; Individuals with  Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B; national school meals programs,  including the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast  Program; and other requirements related to the receipt of federal funds.
Why GAO Did This Study

States and school districts receive funding through ESEA, IDEA, and national school meals programs. Some requirements for these programs are intended to help ensure program integrity and transparency, among other purposes, but questions have been raised about whether some federal requirements place an undue burden on states and school districts. GAO was asked to (1) describe federal requirements identified as the most burdensome by selected states and school districts and other stakeholders, (2) describe information states and school districts collect on the cost of complying with those requirements, and (3) assess federal efforts to reduce or eliminate burdensome requirements. We defined burdensome requirements as those that are viewed as complicated or duplicative, among other things. We interviewed officials in 3 states and 12 districts and obtained information on the costs to comply with selected requirements. While the results from these interviews are not generalizable, they provide insights into complying with federal requirements. We interviewed external education stakeholders and officials in the Departments of Education and Agriculture and the Office of Management and Budget.

What GAO Found

Generally consistent with the views of key stakeholders we interviewed, state and school district officials cited 17 federal requirements as most burdensome for them. These requirements were related to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Title I, Part A; the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B; national school meals programs; or other requirements related to the receipt of federal funds. Officials described the burdens associated with these requirements as complicated, time-intensive, and duplicative, among other things, and characterized most of the requirements as being burdensome in multiple ways. For example, several officials told us that collecting data for IDEA reporting requirementssuch as the number of data elements collectedtakes a significant amount of time and resources. State and district officials also noted benefits of some requirements, for example, that the process to create individualized education programs can help protect the rights of students with disabilities.
For a variety of reasons, states and school districts generally do not collect information about the costs to comply with federal requirements, according to officials we interviewed. For example, states and district officials told us they are not required to report compliance cost data, the data are not useful to them, and collecting the data would be too burdensome, in their view.
Federal agencies have developed plans and are taking other steps to reduce burden, but stakeholders and state and district officials told us about several burdensome requirements that have not been addressed. The Department of Educations (Education) plan identified regulatory provisions for review including ones that were mentioned as burdensome in interviews we conducted. In addition, Education granted waivers to some states from certain ESEA requirements, such as offering supplemental educational services to eligible students in certain schools identified for improvement. To receive waivers, states had to describe how they will implement key efforts, such as college and career-ready standards. Despite these efforts, stakeholders and state and district officials said there are potentially duplicative reporting requirements that still need to be addressed. Department officials told us that there are relatively few duplicative reporting requirements and the few that exist present only a small burden on states and districts. In addition, Educations ability to address the burden associated with some requirements, such as some IDEA provisions, may be limited without statutory changes.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Secretary of Education take additional steps to address potentially duplicative reporting requirements, such as working with stakeholders to address their concerns, and develop legislative proposals to reduce unnecessarily burdensome statutory requirements. Education generally agreed with our recommendations.