K-12 Education: Actions to Improve Oversight of Key Federal Programs and Address High Chronic Absenteeism
Fast Facts
At least one quarter of K-12 students are chronically absent, meaning they miss 10% or more of school days. To receive federal funds, states must report on chronic absenteeism.
But in 2026, the Department of Education stopped its key monitoring strategy for this and other legal requirements states must meet to receive federal funds. This limits the ability of the federal government and states to monitor and address chronic absenteeism. Also, without more oversight, these funds—nearly $27 billion in FY 2025—are at higher risk of fraud, waste, or abuse.
Our recommendations to Congress and the Department of Education address these issues.
Empty classroom desks
Highlights
What GAO Found
All states that receive funding under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA) are required to develop statewide accountability systems. Thirty-six states have chosen to include indicators related to chronic absenteeism in their statewide accountability systems. ESEA also has certain chronic absenteeism reporting requirements for all states, regardless of whether a state includes chronic absenteeism in its accountability system.
In 2026, the Department of Education discontinued its most comprehensive monitoring of ESEA’s programmatic and fiscal requirements. The ESEA provision intended to improve oversight of funds does not explicitly direct Education to monitor grantees, nor does it include specific requirements regarding the method or frequency of monitoring and oversight activities. Suspending its most comprehensive monitoring has broad oversight implications that extend beyond chronic absenteeism. Given that Education is not currently assessing ESEA compliance with Title I fiscal requirements, there is higher risk that these federal funds—comprising about two-thirds of the nearly $27 billion in ESEA funding in 2025—could be subject to undetected fraud, waste, or abuse.
While Education requires states to report data on chronically absent students using a standard method, the way Education uses those data to calculate chronic absenteeism rates can be unreliable. For example, Education directs states to report the number of chronically absent students over a school year, but to report total enrollment based on a single date. Calculating rates using mismatched timeframes has resulted in unreliable and implausible chronic absenteeism rates (e.g., rates over 100 percent), according to GAO’s analysis. GAO calculated rates at the school level and found this was especially true in low-performing schools where enrollment fluctuates more often, and shared-time schools which students attend for partial days, such as those housing career and technical education programs. Specifically, over 30 percent of these schools had implausible rates compared to under 2 percent for other schools.
Methods of Calculating the Chronic Absenteeism Rates
Missing school means missing valuable instructional time and poses serious implications for students' overall academic success and wellbeing. Absent quality chronic absenteeism data, this nationwide data source cannot be used to reliably track trends or evaluate the effectiveness of accountability efforts and interventions to address chronic absenteeism.
Why GAO Did This Study
Chronic absenteeism, which Education defines as missing 10 percent or more school days, is associated with decreased academic performance. As recently as February 2026, Education cited chronic absenteeism as a key challenge. Education has also noted that chronic absenteeism remains elevated following the COVID-19 pandemic. At least one-quarter of K-12 students were estimated to be chronically absent in recent years.
GAO was asked to examine federal oversight related to chronic absenteeism. This report examines (1) how states have incorporated chronic absenteeism into their statewide accountability systems and the extent to which Education’s monitoring addresses relevant federal requirements and (2) the extent to which Education has leveraged its data to help address chronic absenteeism.
GAO reviewed relevant federal laws and analyzed Education’s guidance and relevant monitoring reports since 2019, when Education fully implemented its main ESEA monitoring strategy. GAO also analyzed Education’s school year 2022–2023 chronic absenteeism data (the most recent available).
Recommendations
GAO recommends that Congress consider clearly articulating ESEA monitoring requirements to ensure compliance and deter waste, fraud, and abuse. GAO is also making three recommendations, including that Education resume more comprehensive ESEA monitoring and improve the reliability of chronic absenteeism data. Education agreed with one of the recommendations and disagreed with two. GAO continues to believe these actions are necessary, as discussed in the report.
Matter for Congressional Consideration
| Matter | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Congress should consider clearly articulating ESEA monitoring requirements to help ensure that the federal government's approach to monitoring ESEA programs will ensure compliance with federal requirements and deter waste, fraud and abuse with respect to these funds, as intended by the ESEA. (Matter for Consideration 1) | We will monitor congressional activity that addresses this matter. |
Recommendations for Executive Action
| Agency Affected | Recommendation | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Education | The Secretary of Education should promptly resume more comprehensive monitoring to better ensure states are meeting ESEA fiscal and programmatic requirements. (Recommendation 1) |
The Department of Education disagreed with this recommendation. Education noted that it will provide its 2027 monitoring plan in Fall 2026. We are encouraged that Education is developing a monitoring plan for 2027. However, by significantly curtailing the scope of fiscal and programmatic monitoring, especially for Title I, given the size of the program relative to other ESEA programs, Education has left over $18billion in federal funding at heightened risk for undetected waste, fraud ,and abuse. We continue to believe that Education should promptly resume more comprehensive monitoring to ensure that federal funds are being used for the purposes intended and are sufficiently safeguarded.
|
| Department of Education | The Secretary of Education should require that states report the number of students who are enrolled in each school in a way that matches how it requires states to report chronic absenteeism counts so that it can calculate reliable chronic absenteeism rates. (Recommendation 2) |
The Department of Education disagreed with this recommendation. Education noted that the mismatch between the enrollment data and chronic absenteeism data is a known limitation that is already documented. We agree that this is a known limitation, but that does not negate the importance of addressing it, especially given how Education and others have highlighted the importance of addressing chronic absenteeism. Our report notes that Education's annual EDFacts data is the only federal data collection meant to provide nationally comparable data on chronic absenteeism for every public school and school district. Without addressing the mismatch between enrollment data and chronic absenteeism data, Education cannot fulfill one of the primary reasons for collecting the data. In addition, Education noted that it has chosen to continue working with currently reported EDFacts data elements, highlighting limitations as needed, rather than imposing additional reporting burden on states. However, states already need to identify the number of students enrolled for at least 10 days to determine the number of students who are chronically absent as required for EDFacts. Therefore, any additional burden could be minimal. Further, collecting only part of the data needed to calculate accurate rates means that states and districts are expending time and effort reporting data with limited utility, and doing so in a way that does not meet a primary purpose of collecting and reporting the data. Finally, Education noted that the data limitation associated with using October1 enrollment counts is particularly problematic at the school level and it does not publicly publish analysis at this level for this reason. These data limitations do not disappear when the data are aggregated to the district and state levels; rather, they become harder to discern. Furthermore, having reliable data at the school level is important for helping to understand trends in low-performing schools, including analyzing the effectiveness of chronic absenteeism interventions that could be replicated. We continue to believe that Education should require states to report the number of students who are enrolled in each school in a way that matches how it requires states to report chronic absenteeism counts so that it can calculate reliable chronic absenteeism rates.
|
| Department of Education | The Secretary of Education should provide guidance on how states should report chronic absenteeism data for shared-timed schools to ensure consistent reporting among states. (Recommendation 3) |
The Department of Education agreed with this recommendation. Education stated that subject matter experts from various offices will work together to improve the guidance to provide more information that states can use in reporting these data for shared time schools. We will monitor the progress of these efforts.
|