American Association of School Administrators

New federal initiatives to give states and local districts more flexibility in dealing with federal education program requirements fall short because they don’t include the programs judged most critical by school officials, such as special education, according to a new U.S. General Accounting Office report.

GAO investigators interviewed officials from 87 school districts, primarily in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Louisiana, as well as representatives from 15 major education associations, to attempt to measure the effects of recent federal flexibility initiatives.

Investigators also concluded:

Rather than simplifying matters, the flexibility initiatives actually expand the amount of information school district officials need—"information that is often difficult to find."

Flexibility initiatives do not address school districts’ funding concerns. The areas covered by the initiatives are not those that school districts cited as especially costly—special education, environmental and building accessibility requirements.

The limited coverage of flexibility initiatives precludes school officials from addressing several of the logistical and management concerns identified as key issues, such as meeting timelines for evaluating special education students and finding qualified personnel (such as bilingual teachers or environmental contractors) to implement federal programs.

"The report accurately reflects the sentiments I hear from administrators—the intent of federal programs is often good, the implementation strategies to achieve the intent is often too prescriptive, and there is never enough money to cover the full cost of delivery," said Stinson Stroup, executive director of the Pennsylvania Association of School Administrators.

Under the Education Flexibility (Ed-Flex) Act passed last year with the support of AASA, state and local districts can be granted greater flexibility in using federal education funds to support locally designed school improvement efforts, in exchange for increased accountability for results.

States and districts can seek waivers in requirements of certain programs, including Title I, Eisenhower Professional Development, and Safe and Drug-Free Schools. Many schools seek waivers to combine funds from the programs for one larger project or to address a critical need area.

The law, however, makes clear that some requirements may not be waived, specifically those that apply to health, safety and civil rights. And the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)—the most expensive federal education law to implement—is not covered by Ed-Flex.

"The problem as a local superintendent—and I know most others will agree—is that there are so many regulations that tie our hands so much on how to use dollars," said Brock Butts, superintendent of the Tremont Community School District Unit 702 in Illinois.

"The dollars generally could serve us better in a different area, especially IDEA. That is such a big expenditure and a regulatory nightmare. Our own staff is so overwhelmed with paperwork, it’s taking time away from our first priority—the kids."

For several major programs—most notably IDEA—federal financial contributions do not fully fund the activities these programs support, the report noted. Currently the federal government provides only about 12 percent funding for IDEA; federal law allows it to contribute 40 percent.

And while Ed-Flex allows districts to shift a portion of their funds across certain federal programs, many states do not allow districts to use this provision, said the report, "Elementary and Secondary Education: Flexibility Initiatives Do Not Address Districts’ Key Concerns About Federal Requirements."

"When a state requirement arises from the implementation of a federal law or regulation, it becomes especially hard to distinguish a state requirement from a federal one," the report said. "Officials from most of the school districts we visited told us that they could not tell or did not know which requirements were state and which were federal."

Bruce Hunter, AASA’s director of public policy, said varying federal and state provisions often put local administrators in a Catch-22 situation. "We would like more money for IDEA, but we do not want to do anything with the structure that would make the program more incompatible with state law."

AASA has urged Congress to require states to implement federal laws and regulations, not state variations of the federal law.

The report also found that despite a "compelling need," state and local school district officials often have incomplete information about federal requirements and the flexibility available in implementing them. "Unfortunately, the generalist working with all school programs doesn’t always know all the options and therefore doesn’t take advantage of them when they are available," Stroup concurred.

The report concluded:

Federal flexibility initiatives must be multifaceted and reach across federal programs to successfully address districts’ needs.

Adequate information is crucial to districts’ efforts to successfully implement federal programs and take advantage of flexibility efforts.

Because states play a major role in overseeing and administering federal programs, state education agencies must be able and willing to help school districts implement flexibility initiatives.

Congress and the Department of Education face potential conflicts between local officials’ desire for flexibility and the purposes underlying federal programs.

Hunter said the interest in the success of the flexibility initiatives can be traced to the so-called "Straight A’s Act" passed by the U.S. House last fall. Under the original H.R. 2300, almost all formula grant funds—particularly Title 1—would have been directed into state coffers as a block grant to be used however individual states wished. Facing stiff opposition from public education supporters, including AASA, the bill was scaled back to a limited pilot project after some lawmakers objected that federal help could be diverted from disadvantaged students. The Senate has yet to take up the
Straight A’s Act.

Natalie Carter Holmes, Editor