OIG Issues Report on NCLB Reauthorization

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a report, entitled “An OIG Perspective on Improving Accountability and Integrity in ESEA [Elementary and Secondary Education Act] Programs.” Based on its audits of ESEA programs and topics related to the ESEA over the last seven years, OIG identified five main weaknesses or deficiencies that led to noncompliance:


1. Essential, Clear, and Consistent Requirements. The OIG’s report criticizes ESEA’s lack of specificity in stating how an LEA or SEA can demonstrate compliance. It notes that grantees are forced to rely on ED-issued non-regulatory guidance. In addition, OIG observes, certain requirements in NCLB are inconsistent between programs — for example, caps on administrative costs and carryover limitations vary between NCLB programs. The report points out that such inconsistent requirements cause confusion, make compliance more difficult, and may not be based on objective criteria.
2. Data Quality. Valid and reliable data are imperative because academic assessments and accountability data are critical to the implementation of the ESEA. OIG is concerned about the reliability and accuracy of data that SEAs and districts use to determine student achievement and program effectiveness as well as weak state controls over collecting and reporting performance data and scoring state assessments. OIG specifically pointed out that federal funds may have been spent improperly because of poor quality data related to counting migrant children.
3. Weak Monitoring and Oversight. OIG has identified deficiencies in ED’s monitor¬ing of SEAs and in the states’ monitoring of their districts. OIG posited that these weaknesses were particularly apparent in the school choice and SES programs as well as charter schools program.
4. Improprieties in State and Local Programs. The report points out several in¬stances of corruption, embezzlement and other misappropriation of federal funds by state and local officials. It also says conflicts of inter¬est often arise at the district and school levels and that such conflicts may lead to misuse of federal funds. OIG suggests that the ED and Congress consider taking specific actions to (1) enhance transparency in decisionmaking by deterring conflicts of interest at the State and local levels; (2) ensure States identify and provide additional oversight of high-risk subgrantees; (3) establish a reporting requirement for suspected fraud and other criminal misconduct, waste, and abuse; and (4) ensure whistleblower protection for State and local employees and contractors.
5. Program-Specific Issues. The report pointed out that OIG has identified provisions of the ESEA that have yet to be addressed. Therefore, OIG recommended that the Department and Congress consider incorporating the following: (1) Changes to the definition of “weapon” in the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communi¬ties Act; (2) More specificity regarding the criteria SEAs use to identify persistently dangerous schools; (3) Alternate approaches to defining SES eligibility; and (4) Clarification of whether Reading First pro¬grams must have scientific evidence of effective-ness to be eligible for funding.

OIG’s purpose in authoring the report was to inform the reauthorization process by providing its perspective on improving accountability and integrity in ESEA programs. OIG stated that it will continue to provide comments, when requested, on specific ED or Congressional legislative proposals.

You can view the report at http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/auditreports/fy2008/s09h0007.pdf.

Author: CWP