More Flexible Spending Requirement Could Mitigate Unintended Consequences While Protecting Services
GAO-16-2: Published: Oct 19, 2015. Publicly Released: Oct 19, 2015.
What GAO Found
States reported that nearly all school districts generally met the local maintenance of effort (MOE) spending requirement for special education, but some districts faced challenges for various reasons. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), MOE requires districts to spend at least the same amount on special education services for students with disabilities that they spent in the preceding year, with some exceptions. In response to GAO's 50-state survey, states reported that nearly all districts met MOE based on the most recent data available in all states (school year 2012-13). However, most states reported that at least some of their districts faced challenges in doing so. In a separate GAO survey of districts, many cited budget and cost reductions—such as state or local revenue declines and new state caps on benefits, which lowered the cost of a special education teacher—as key challenges in meeting MOE.
State and district officials had mixed views on MOE's effects on services for students with and without disabilities. MOE is one of several safeguards meant to protect special education funding, and while some officials reported positive effects, others said the requirement can sometimes create unintended consequences for the services provided to special education students. They said that because the MOE requirement lacks flexibility, it can discourage districts from altering their baseline of special education spending, even when doing so would benefit students with disabilities or result in more efficient delivery of the same services. For example, despite other grant provisions in IDEA that promote innovation, some district officials commented that the MOE requirement can serve as a disincentive to districts' efforts to pilot innovative or expanded services requiring a temporary increase in funds because it would commit them to higher spending going forward. In addition, some district officials noted that prioritizing special education spending to meet MOE resulted in cuts to general education spending that affected services for all students, including the many students with disabilities who spend much of their days in general education classrooms.
Reported Unintended Consequences of the Local MOE Requirement
The Department of Education's (Education) delayed monitoring feedback has hampered states' efforts to facilitate district compliance with MOE. In 2010, Education initiated its latest round of reviews of states' processes for overseeing their districts' compliance with IDEA, including MOE. However, Education currently has no standards for providing timely feedback on this process and—as of August 2015—had not provided feedback from these reviews to about half the states, due in part to competing priorities. Such delays are contrary to federal standards that call for prompt resolution of findings. Officials in one state said Education's untimely feedback had delayed the state's ability to provide guidance to districts regarding MOE, and in another state, monitoring was on hold until Education approved the state's process for determining MOE compliance.
Why GAO Did This Study
IDEA provides federal support to school districts through grants to states for the excess cost of educating students with disabilities. Education is responsible for monitoring states' oversight of district compliance with IDEA, including an MOE requirement to ensure special education spending generally is at least equal to the level spent the preceding year. A 2011 GAO report found an estimated 24 percent of districts anticipated trouble meeting MOE. GAO was asked to examine districts' recent experiences with MOE.
This report examines: (1) the extent to which districts face challenges meeting MOE and why, (2) how MOE affects services for students with and without disabilities, and (3) how well Education and states facilitate school districts' compliance with MOE. GAO surveyed the states, as well as districts that in 2011 anticipated trouble meeting MOE; analyzed MOE data; and interviewed Education officials, disability advocates, and state and district officials in three states selected to illustrate a range of experiences with MOE.
What GAO Recommends
To promote innovation and efficiency while safeguarding special education funding, GAO suggests that Congress consider options for a more flexible local MOE, such as adopting a less stringent requirement. GAO also recommends, among other things, that Education take steps to establish specific time frames for providing prompt feedback to states about their fiscal monitoring of districts. Education agreed with GAO's recommendations.
For more information, contact Jacqueline M. Nowicki at (617) 788-0580 or email@example.com.
Matter for Congressional Consideration
Comments: As of September 2018, Congress has not taken legislative action on this issue.
Matter: To help districts address key challenges in meeting MOE and mitigate unintended consequences that may affect services for students with disabilities, while preserving the safeguard for funding for students with disabilities, Congress should consider options for a more flexible MOE requirement. This could include adopting a less stringent MOE requirement to align with the MOE requirements in other education programs or adding to or modifying exceptions. For example, current exceptions could be changed to allow one-time increases in spending without changing a district's MOE baseline in order to encourage pilot innovations or to allow certain spending decreases (e.g., state caps on teacher benefits), as long as a district can demonstrate the decrease does not negatively affect services.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Status: Closed - Implemented
Comments: In its 60-day letter, Education stated it agreed with the recommendation and would include timelines for providing feedback on monitoring results in its new monitoring system. In August 2016, Education officials provided GAO with additional information on the status of this recommendation. On its monitoring website, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) posted an overview of its fiscal monitoring system, which includes written documentation that OSEP will issue a report within 90 days of the completion of States? monitoring if findings of noncompliance, required actions, or areas for recommendations are identified.
Recommendation: To strengthen states' monitoring and facilitate local MOE compliance, the Secretary of Education should establish and document set timeframes for providing prompt feedback to states on findings from its next cycle of IDEA fiscal monitoring.
Agency Affected: Department of Education
Status: Closed - Implemented
Comments: In August 2016, Education officials reported that the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) had been working on tools to assist states and local educational agencies with using the four calculation methods and exceptions for local educational agency maintenance of effort (LEA MOE). Specifically, Education officials reported that the OSEP-funded Center for Idea Fiscal Reporting (CIFR) established a community of practice (COP) composed of states interested in sharing best practices on LEA MOE, including how to facilitate the use of all four methods to calculate LEA MOE. In addition, in October 2016, the CIFR published a LEA MOE calculator to assist States and LEAs in tracking and calculating LEA MOE using all four methods, including exceptions and adjustments.The officials also reported that CIFR held a National Fiscal Forum in November 2016 which included as a topic overcoming barriers to using the local-to-local calculations permitted under IDEA.
Recommendation: To strengthen states' monitoring and facilitate local MOE compliance, the Secretary of Education should prioritize technical assistance and information sharing across states on ways to facilitate local MOE compliance with respect to the use of the four calculation methods and the exceptions.
Agency Affected: Department of Education