Title I funds comprise about two-thirds of the nearly $27 billion in ESEA funding in 2025. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act provision intended to improve oversight of funds does not explicitly direct the Department of Education to monitor grantees. The provision also does not include specific requirements regarding the method or frequency of monitoring and oversight activities.

All states that receive funding under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act are required to develop statewide accountability systems. Thirty-six states have chosen to include indicators related to chronic absenteeism in their statewide accountability systems. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act has certain chronic absenteeism reporting requirements for all states, regardless of whether a state includes chronic absenteeism in its accountability system.

At least one-quarter of K-12 students were estimated to be chronically absent in recent years. Chronic absenteeism is defined as missing 10 percent or more school days. The Department of Education requires states to report the number of chronically absent students over a school year. The Department of Education requires states to report total enrollment based on a single date.

Calculating chronic absenteeism rates using mismatched timeframes has resulted in unreliable and implausible rates, such as rates over 100 percent. Over 30 percent of low-performing and shared-time schools had implausible chronic absenteeism rates. Implausible chronic absenteeism rates were especially true in low-performing schools where enrollment fluctuates more often.

Implausible chronic absenteeism rates were especially true in shared-time schools which students attend for partial days. Shared-time schools include those housing career and technical education programs.

Chronic absenteeism is associated with decreased academic performance. The Department of Education cited chronic absenteeism as a key challenge as recently as February 2026. The Department of Education has noted that chronic absenteeism remains elevated following the COVID-19 pandemic.

Why It Matters

The removal of comprehensive federal monitoring creates a gap in oversight for billions of dollars in education funding. Without explicit statutory direction on monitoring methods or frequency, the Department of Education lacks a mandated framework to detect potential misuse of funds. This structural absence coincides with challenges in student attendance, a metric tied to academic outcomes and funding accountability.

Data inconsistencies further complicate oversight efforts, as mismatched reporting timeframes produce implausible attendance figures in vulnerable school populations. These data issues affect low-performing and shared-time institutions, where enrollment volatility is higher. The combination of reduced federal monitoring and unreliable state-reported data increases the difficulty of ensuring compliance with federal education requirements.

Timeline

On Dec. 10, 2015, the Secretary amended the regulations implementing programs under title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to implement changes to the ESEA by the Every Student Succeeds Act enacted on that date. On Jan. 1, 2026, the Department of Education discontinued its most comprehensive monitoring of Elementary and Secondary Education Act programmatic and fiscal requirements.

On Feb. 1, 2026, the Department of Education cited chronic absenteeism as a key challenge. On Sept. 14, 2026, the Education Department published a notice titled "Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) 2025-26 Through 2026-27; Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement (ACTS)". On Sept. 21, 2026, the Education Department published a notice titled Notice Announcing Impact Aid Discretionary Construction Grant Program Competition.

What's New

In 1976, federal auditors found that Kentucky had approved Title I programs for fiscal year 1974 that violated the prohibitions on supplanting state and local expenditures. The Secretary of Education determined that Kentucky violated its assurances of compliance with Title I requirements by approving the 'readiness classes' and thereby misused Title I funds. The case was heard by the Supreme Court, which held that the Secretary properly determined that Kentucky violated its assurances by approving the readiness classes and thereby misused funds received under Title I.