GAO: Suspending federal monitoring raises risks to K‑12 spending and absenteeism data

# What happened

The U.S. Department of Education suspended its consolidated monitoring of Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) requirements in 2026 while it develops a new monitoring approach. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report saying that suspension leaves federal oversight gaps that heighten the risk of undetected waste, fraud and abuse involving K‑12 federal funds.

# Why this matters now

# Problems with chronic absenteeism data

GAO found a key reporting mismatch: states are directed to report the number of chronically absent students over a school year (the numerator) while reporting total enrollment based on a single date (the denominator). That mismatch produces unreliable and sometimes implausible rates — including rates over 100% in some schools.

The data problems are concentrated in specific settings:

• Shared‑time schools (where students split their day between institutions, often for career and technical education) showed implausible rates in more than 30% of cases. By comparison, under 2% of other schools had implausible rates.
• Schools designated for Comprehensive Support and Improvement (a federal category for low‑performing schools) had nearly 13% with implausible rates over 100%, versus about 2% among schools not in that category.
• State variation is large: GAO's analysis found 98% of shared‑time schools in Pennsylvania had implausible chronic absenteeism rates, while Delaware, Idaho, Maryland, Missouri, North Carolina, and Rhode Island had no shared‑time schools with implausible rates.

# Consequences for accountability and intervention

GAO concludes that, because of unreliable chronic absenteeism data, the nationwide data source cannot be used reliably to track trends or evaluate the effectiveness of accountability efforts and interventions designed to reduce chronic absenteeism. Chronic absenteeism has remained elevated since the COVID‑19 pandemic, with at least one‑quarter of K‑12 students estimated as chronically absent in recent years, so flawed data hamper efforts to measure and address the problem.

# What the Education Department told GAO

Department officials said they suspended consolidated monitoring while developing a new process. As of August, GAO noted the department had not provided a timeline for resuming reviews or explained an alternative approach that would ensure states comply with federal requirements.

# Immediate implications for districts and states

• States should expect a lapse in systematic federal reviews of ESEA compliance until the department implements a replacement monitoring system.
• Data managers should review how they compute absenteeism rates and whether enrollment and absence timeframes align for federal reporting.
• Districts that send students to shared‑time programs or that serve high‑mobility, low‑performing populations should anticipate greater scrutiny once monitoring resumes and consider internal audits of absenteeism reporting.

# Bottom line

GAO's report identifies two linked problems: a suspension of the federal monitoring process that checks ESEA compliance and widespread flaws in chronic absenteeism reporting that undermine a key national metric used to target supports for struggling students. The Education Department has not yet provided a clear timeline or alternative for restoring assurance that federal K‑12 funds and reporting requirements are being managed correctly.