Skip to content
Hugin
An empty grey steel school desk standing alone in a dim, bare classroom.

Hugin News

GAO says the Education Department halted its most comprehensive check on key federal K-12 aid programs in 2026 and is not currently assessing whether states follow the fiscal rules of Title I, a program through which it allocated over $18 billion to states in fiscal 2025; the Department says it never stopped monitoring and disagreed with GAO's call to resume.

4 min read

Original editorial artwork generated for Hugin.

The Government Accountability Office reported on September 23 (GAO-26-107920) that in 2026 the Department of Education suspended consolidated monitoring, its most comprehensive review of whether states follow the program and fiscal rules of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and is not currently assessing compliance with the fiscal requirements for Title I, the aid program for schools with many students from low-income families. Education allocated over $18 billion to states through Title I in fiscal 2025, about two-thirds of the almost $27 billion in the law's formula grants. GAO says 32 of 51 states have had no consolidated review since 2019, that Education could not give plans or timeframes for resuming as of August 2026, and that the law does not explicitly direct Education to monitor. GAO describes a higher risk of undetected fraud, waste or abuse, not a finding of misuse. It asked Congress to consider spelling out monitoring requirements and asked Education to promptly resume more comprehensive monitoring. In an August 21 letter answering a draft version of that recommendation, Education disagreed, said it had never ceased monitoring, and said it would provide its fiscal year 2027 monitoring plan in early fall 2026.

gaoeducation-departmenttitle-ik-12federal-grantsoversightchronic-absenteeism
4source receipts2source hosts4 minread timelinkedprimary source

Title I is the federal program that sends aid to schools and districts with high concentrations of students from low-income families: over $18 billion in fiscal 2025. This year the Education Department stopped its most thorough review of how states run and spend that money, and as of August it could not tell auditors when the review would come back.

The finding sits inside a Government Accountability Office report released September 23 that began as a study of chronic absenteeism.

What stopped

The review is called consolidated monitoring. Each year Education picked several states, based on risk factors, and checked Title I and other programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the main federal K-12 law, against their program and fiscal rules. Findings were published, and states had to fix what was found. GAO's summary:

In 2026, the Department of Education discontinued its most comprehensive monitoring of ESEA's programmatic and fiscal requirements.

Since the reviews were fully running in 2019, 32 of 51 states (GAO counts the District of Columbia as a state) have not had one. Education told GAO it paused them because it is developing plans for future monitoring. The narrower checks that continue, GAO says, are "limited in scope".

The money, and what GAO did not find

In fiscal 2025 the law's formula grants totaled almost $27 billion, and over $18 billion of it, about two-thirds, was Title I. GAO writes that Education "is not currently assessing compliance with ESEA fiscal requirements for Title I", which raises the risk that billions of dollars "could be subject to undetected fraud, waste, or abuse."

That describes risk. The report does not say any Title I dollar was misspent.

A duty the law does not spell out

The law's provision on oversight of these funds "does not explicitly direct Education to conduct monitoring", GAO writes, and sets no method or frequency. Education told GAO it must oversee grantees but has broad discretion in how. Congress did write a monitoring duty into the special education law and the child care block grant. So GAO's first request goes to Congress: consider spelling out monitoring requirements for this law too.

Two accounts of the same year

GAO also asked Education to "promptly resume more comprehensive monitoring to better ensure states are meeting ESEA fiscal and programmatic requirements." Education did not concur. Its August 21 letter, signed by Assistant Secretary Kirsten Baesler, says "at no point has the Department ceased monitoring", cites more than 100 other oversight activities from 2019 to 2025, and calls GAO's broad statements about its oversight "not consistently accurate." The letter answered an earlier draft that asked Education simply to resume monitoring; GAO reworded it afterward. It also promised:

We will provide our fiscal year 2027 monitoring plan in early fall 2026 to demonstrate our continued commitment to monitoring.

GAO said it was encouraged, but that Education "has left over $18 billion in federal funding at heightened risk for undetected waste, fraud, and abuse."

GAO's two other recommendations concern the absenteeism data. Counting chronically absent students over a whole year but enrollment on a single day produced rates above 100 percent in around 2.5 percent of schools in 2022-2023. Education declined to change the count, calling the mismatch a known limitation, and agreed to improve its reporting guidance for shared-time schools, which students attend part of the day.

What to watch

  • Early fall 2026, meaning now. Education said it would provide its fiscal year 2027 monitoring plan then. The letter does not say whether it will be public or restore consolidated reviews.
  • Congress. The report went to the House and Senate appropriations subcommittees that fund Education.
  • Your state's report card. The law requires every state to publish one each year, including absenteeism data. GAO could not find some required data on two states' 2025 report cards, despite earlier federal findings.

What the record does not say

  • That money was misused. GAO describes a missing check, not fraud.
  • What earlier reviews found about spending. The report details only their absenteeism findings.
  • Why the reviews stopped, beyond Education's explanation that it is writing new plans.

Source links