K-12 Education: Special Forms of Flexibility in the Administration of Federal Aid Programs

Publication Date: January 2008

Publisher: Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Author(s):

Research Area: Education

Type:

Abstract:

Beginning with the Improving America's Schools Act in 1994, and continuing through the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA), the authorization of special forms of flexibility for grantees has been a focus of federal K-12 education legislation. These flexibility authorities apply primarily to programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the largest source of federal aid to K-12 education.

In general, federal K-12 education assistance program requirements include a broad range of activities or outcomes that state or local educational agencies (SEAs, LEAs) are expected to provide or achieve in order to establish accountability for use of funds consistent with the purposes of statutes that authorize the programs. These requirements are usually intended to provide target accountability -- assuring that funds are focused on eligible localities, pupils, and purposes; outcome accountability -- assuring that funds are used effectively to improve student achievement and improve the quality of K-12 instruction; and fiscal accountability -- assuring financial integrity and providing that federal funds constitute a net increase in resources for the eligible pupils or purposes.

In contrast, special flexibility authorities allow exceptions to these general requirements; they include Ed-Flex, Secretarial case-by-case waivers, ESEA Title I-A schoolwide programs, flexibility for small rural LEAs, the Innovative Programs block grant, transferability authority, plus the State and Local Flexibility Demonstration Program (State-Flex and Local-Flex). In general, these authorities: (a) increase the ability of states or LEAs to use federal aid more completely in accordance with their own priorities; (b) are significantly limited in terms of the number of states and LEAs that may participate, the number and size of the programs affected, and/or the range of requirements that may be waived; (c) often require some degree of accountability based on pupil achievement outcomes in return for increased flexibility, although the primary outcome requirements are applicable to all states and LEAs participating in Title I-A and other ESEA programs, not just those granted special flexibility authority; (d) often include a variety of requirements for reporting on ways in which the authorities have been used and the impact of increased flexibility on pupil achievement, although little information has been published on the uses or effects of the flexibility authorities implemented thus far; and (e) have been adopted in a policy context of substantially increased accountability requirements and authorized degrees of flexibility in general for the ESEA and related programs.

Major issues regarding special forms of flexibility in federal K-12 education programs include: How significant are the degrees of flexibility allowed under these authorities? For what purposes have special flexibility authorities been used in the past, and is there evidence that these have resulted in increased pupil performance or had other major impacts? And, are the outcome accountability requirements consistent with the increased flexibility provided under these authorities? This report will be updated.