![](media/image1.png){width="3.4180555555555556in"
height="3.529166666666667in"}

# U.S. Department of Education

## STRATEGIC PLAN

> 2002 - 2007

***Department of Education Mission***

# To ensure equal access to education and to promote 

# educational excellence throughout the nation

### 

> *"In this great land called America, no child will be left behind."*
>
> \--President George W. Bush

***Department of Education Strategic Goals***

Goal One: Create a Culture of Achievement

### Create a culture of achievement throughout the nation's education system by effectively implementing the president's plan, No Child Left Behind, and by basing all federal education programs on its principles: accountability, flexibility, expanded parental options and doing what works.

### 

### Goal Two: Improve Student Achievement

### Improve achievement for all groups of students by putting reading first, expanding high quality mathematics and science teaching, reforming high schools, and boosting teacher and principal quality, thereby closing the achievement gap.

### Goal Three: Develop Safe Schools and Strong Character

### Establish safe, disciplined, and drug-free educational environments that foster the development of good character and citizenship.

### 

#### 

### Goal Four: Transform Education into an 

### Evidence-Based Field

### Strengthen the quality of educational research.

### Goal Five: Enhance the Quality of and Access to Postsecondary and Adult Education

### Increase opportunities for students and the effectiveness of institutions.

### Goal Six: Establish Management Excellence

### Create a culture of accountability throughout the 

### Department of Education. 

### **Department of Education Strategic Objectives**

####### Goal One: Create a Culture of Achievement

1.  Link federal education funding to accountability for results.

2.  Increase flexibility and local control.

3.  Increase information and options for parents.

4.  Encourage the use of scientifically based methods within federal
    education programs.

####### Goal Two: Improve Student Achievement

1.  Ensure that all students read on grade level by the third grade.

2.  Improve mathematics and science achievement for all students.

3.  Improve the performance of all high school students.

4.  Improve teacher and principal quality.

####### Goal Three: Develop Safe Schools and Strong Character

1.  Ensure that our nation's schools are safe and drug-free and that
    students are free of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs.

2.  Promote strong character and citizenship among our nation's youth.

####### Goal Four: Transform Education into an Evidence-Based Field

1.  Raise the quality of research funded or conducted by the Department.

2.  Increase the relevance of our research in order to meet the needs of
    our customers.

####### Goal Five: Enhance the Quality of and Access to Postsecondary and Adult

#######  Education

1.  Reduce the gaps in college access and completion among student
    populations

> differing by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and disability
> while increasing the educational attainment of all.
>
> 5.2 Strengthen accountability of postsecondary institutions.
>
> 5.3 Establish effective funding mechanisms for postsecondary
> education.

4.  Strengthen Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic
    Serving Institutions,

> and Tribal Colleges and Universities.

5.  Enhance the literacy and employment skills of American adults.

####### Goal Six: Establish Management Excellence 

1.  Develop and maintain financial integrity and management and internal
    controls.

2.  Improve the strategic management of the Department's human capital.

3.  Manage information technology resources, using e-gov, to improve
    service for our customers and partners.

4.  Modernize the Student Financial Assistance programs and reduce their
    high-risk status.

5.  Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions
    to results.

6.  Leverage the contributions of community- and faith-based
    organizations to increase the effectiveness of Department programs.

7.  By becoming a high performance, customer-focused organization, earn
    the President's Quality Award.

##### ***Secretary's Statement***

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="2.5in" height="2.0in"}This is not just
another strategic plan. Education is not just another policy area. 2002
is not just another year.

The nation is at a special point in its history. Under attack from those
who wish to destroy democracy and civilization, it has responded with
resolve, strength, and compassion.

In the midst of some of the greatest challenges it has ever faced, the
nation's leaders have kept a focus on what matters most: our children.
They worked together in a bipartisan spirit and passed the most
fundamental reform of federal education policy in over 35 years: the *No
Child Left Behind Act*.

Now it is up to the U.S. Department of Education---in partnership with
states, local communities, parents, teachers, and others---to implement
this law, and to ensure that its principles guide everything we do. This
strategic plan provides the roadmap.

This plan has been in development for over two years. Its vision was
first communicated in September of 1999, when then-Governor George W.
Bush started discussing his plans to improve the quality of America's
education system. This vision was further refined and communicated
during the course of the presidential campaign and became even more
concrete and actionable when President Bush issued his landmark
education plan, *No Child Left Behind*. The development of this
strategic plan continued apace at the Department as our leadership and
staff set about identifying and attacking longstanding management
problems that had challenged this agency for years.

In the midst of this process the nation was shocked by the attacks of
September 11, 2001. That day brought a great amount of pain and
suffering to our people, especially to our friends and neighbors who
lost loved ones. Yet it also awoke a dormant spirit of resolve, of
patriotism, and of community. Our nation was deeply wounded by the
horrendous attacks, yet, as the president reminds us, we have arisen
stronger.

What does September 11 mean for education? What does it mean for this
Department's strategic direction?

September 11 made education more important than ever. It made the
achievement of these goals---to increase student achievement, to instill
sound character and citizenship in our youth, to improve the quality of
educational research, and more---more urgent than ever. And it reminded
all of us parents and educators that, above all else, we must ensure the
safety of our children.

Ever since *A Nation at Risk* was published almost 20 years ago, we have
acknowledged the importance of our education system to our economy. Now
we acknowledge its importance to our national security, and to the
strength of our democracy itself.

Congress understands the importance of education, and in late December
passed by an overwhelming margin the president's plan for improving
elementary and secondary education in America. The *No Child Left Behind
Act* and its principles for reform---accountability, flexibility,
expanded parental options and doing what works---are embedded throughout
this strategic plan, and will be our North Star in the years to come.
Those same principles will be embedded in future legislative proposals,
in areas including special education, vocational education and higher
education.

This plan is a promise to our children and their parents and to our
young people seeking higher education. We promise to improve the quality
of education and to raise our expectations of what students can
accomplish. We promise to leave no student behind. And in return, this
nation may ask our young people to use their skills and knowledge to
defend our citizens, to contribute to our economy, to rebuild our
communities and to strengthen our democracy.

##### 

##### We take responsibility for making good on these promises---the goals and objectives in this strategic plan. But we also know that we cannot achieve these ends alone. Our partners at the state and local level; educators in schools and colleges and literacy programs; parents and even students themselves all have essential roles to play, roles just as important (if not more important) than our role.

##### 

##### But make no mistake. More than ever, education is a national priority, and this Department of Education will make it a source of national pride. That is my personal promise to you.

###### Rod Paige

######## U.S. Secretary of Education 

######## *Introduction *

*[No Child Left Behind]{.underline}*

The passage of the *No Child Left Behind Act* marks the most significant
shift in federal education policy in 35 years.

In signing the Act, President George W. Bush proclaimed, "Today begins a
new era, a new time in public education in our country.  As of this
hour, America's schools will be on a new path of reform, and a new path
of results."

About the Act, Secretary Rod Paige declared, "Reform is no longer about
access or money. It is no longer about compliance or excuses. It is
about improving student achievement by improving the quality of the
education we offer American students."

This Act calls for revolutionary change, change that is desperately
needed because too many children are being left behind. Our system
educates some of our children very well, and their success is a
testament to many excellent teachers and administrators. We need to help
our whole system identify, honor, and emulate these successes. But we
cannot be satisfied with islands of excellence. Great public schools
should be found in every city and in every neighborhood in America.  No
child should ever be written off because every child is important and
every child can learn.  

The *No Child Left Behind Act* demands progress and achievement. It
embraces the principles supported by the president: accountability for
results, flexibility and local control, expanded parental options and
doing what works. Putting these principles into action will lead to a
transformation of our K-12 educational system. These same principles
will serve as the foundation for upcoming reforms in areas such as
special education, vocational rehabilitation, higher education, and
vocational education.

*No Child Left Behind* is more than a slogan. It is a promise that the
Department intends to keep.

[Creating a Culture of Achievement]{.underline}

The ultimate objective of any educational enterprise is to improve
student achievement so that individuals may contribute to our democracy,
economy, and communities and live their own American dreams. Improving
student achievement is hard. It requires meaningful change in the way
educators do their work. It requires new structures, new tools and new
knowledge. But more than anything, to boost student achievement, to
leave no child behind, we must change the culture of the education
system.

Our vision at the Department is to change the culture of education, from
a culture of compliance and susceptibility to instructional fads to a
culture of achievement, professionalism and results.

Changing a culture requires changing people's beliefs, values and
assumptions. For example, we must change the belief that some children
cannot learn challenging content, especially children from low-income or
minority families. This belief is simply not true and must be defeated
if we want to make progress.

We also must change the education system's values. For example, some
educators continue to value ideology over evidence. This value has led
many people to ignore research-based instructional practices in favor of
deeply held beliefs. We must learn to value the scientific method over
personal opinion or comfort with familiar practices.

Finally, we must change people's assumptions. For a long time, schools
assumed that whether or not their students learned, business as usual
would continue forever. If that assumption has not yet changed, it will
soon.

The Department will lead a national campaign in the coming years to
change the culture of the nation's education system. Through
conferences, publications, face-to-face meetings and other
communications, we will engage in discussions with state and local
officials, educators, parents, business leaders, and others to create a
culture of achievement. And we will ensure that federal education policy
contributes to this cultural shift.

# [ Transforming the U.S. Department of Education]{.underline}

The *No Child Left Behind* Act is a mandate for the transformation of
the Department. Not only does it embrace the president's education
principles, it also embraces the spirit of the Government Performance
and Results Act. It demands achievement in return for investment, and it
requires a system of performance measurements throughout the educational
enterprise. But in order to create a culture of achievement throughout
the nation's education system, first we must create a culture of
accountability within the Department itself.

Thankfully, the work of cultural change at the Department is already
well under way. It started with the efforts of the secretary's
Management Improvement Team, a strike-team of senior career managers who
identified long-standing management challenges and developed the
Department's Blueprint for Management Excellence. It was enhanced by the
work of the secretary's Culture of Accountability Team, which
interviewed employees and suggested ways to focus the whole agency on
results. And it was greatly strengthened with the release of the
President's Management Agenda (PMA), a comprehensive plan to improve the
performance of the federal government.

The PMA identifies five government-wide goals: the strategic management
of human capital; competitive sourcing; improved financial management;
expanded e-government; and budget and performance integration. These
goals have been integrated into the Department's strategic goal,
"Establish Management Excellence," and, more important, into the
management improvement efforts of the Department.

This strategic plan integrates the policy shifts embodied by *No Child
Left Behind* with the management improvements of the President's
Management Agenda. It acknowledges that policy and management efforts
must work together for us to achieve our objectives. It is a stronger
document because of the comments and suggestions of employees at the
Department and those received from the public at large.

This strategic plan focuses on performance. It states in unambiguous
language the measurable goals and objectives the Department intends to
achieve. It creates the base of an accountability system for this
agency, as it works to imbue accountability throughout the nation's
education system.

This strategic plan will not be a trophy to hang on the wall. Rather, it
will be an agent of change for the Department, setting the course for a
sweeping transformation. Department employees will be held accountable
for the implementation and success of this plan, from top to bottom.
Senior officers will be placed on performance contracts linked to this
plan and recognized for achieving results. A system has already been
built to track action steps related to these strategic objectives, and
to report and celebrate progress. And the Department's employee
performance rating standards are being redesigned to link to this
strategic plan and to instill a culture of accountability. The success
of this plan depends largely on the people who work at the Department.
They will be held accountable for its implementation and rewarded for
its success.

The Department will be a model of management excellence and
accountability, both for other government agencies and for the nation's
education system. This strategic plan will be the driving force toward
that goal.

##### *Note: Two appendices to this Strategic Plan can be found on the Department's web site at [www.ed.gov/pubs/stratplan2002-07/index.html](http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/strat/plan2002-07/index.html). One appendix provides an overview of how the Department will collaborate with other federal agencies to achieve these goals; the other one describes how we consulted with Congress, stakeholders and the general public to develop this plan.* 

##### **Strategic Goal 1**

#####  ***Create a Culture of Achievement***

Individuals and groups who work in social systems such as the American
education system are strongly influenced by the system's culture. To
improve such a system, the most potent strategy for change is cultural
change. Therefore, through the effective implementation of the *No Child
Left Behind* Act, we will create a culture characterized by
*accountability for results, flexibility and local control, expanded
parental options*, and *the use of instructional practices based on
scientific research;* and we will embed these principles in programs and
activities throughout the Department.

![](media/image3.wmf){width="1.5354166666666667in" height="1.38125in"}

##### **Objective 1.1**

Link federal education funding to accountability for results.

##### **Objective 1.2**

Increase flexibility and local control.

##### **Objective 1.3**

Increase information and options for parents.

**Objective 1.4**

Encourage the use of scientifically based methods within federal
education programs.

##### **Strategic Goal 1**

#####  ***Create a Culture of Achievement***

To create a culture of achievement, we must demonstrate that achievement
counts, at the local, state and federal levels. We will work with our
partners to make accountability for results the hallmark of our
education system. In alignment with *No Child Left Behind*, states will
develop systems that hold local schools accountable for results. State
progress on a number of achievement indicators will be reported
annually. Federal education programs will also be held accountable;
those that do not demonstrate results in terms of student outcomes will
be reformed or eliminated.

##### **Strategies for Objective 1.1**

#####  {#section-6 .unnumbered}

**Provide technical assistance.** The Department will offer technical
assistance for states to help them develop robust school accountability
systems that fulfill the requirements of the *No Child Left Behind* Act.
These systems must include rigorous academic standards, annual
assessments in reading and mathematics in grades three through eight,
real accountability for schools and greater options for parents.

**Publish a national education performance report.** The Department will
publish an annual report detailing each state's progress over time on a
number of K-16 performance indicators. These indicators will be drawn
from the student achievement reporting requirements of *No Child Left
Behind*, as well as other existing data sources.

**Create performance-based grants.** Within upcoming reauthorizations,
the Department will work with Congress to transform formula-based state
grants into performance-based grants that award bonuses to states for
significant progress and impose sanctions for lack of results.

**Support Department programs that work.** We will provide an annual
list, in conjunction with our GPRA annual performance report and budget
submission to Congress, of Department programs that have and have not
demonstrated effectiveness in terms of outcomes and propose reforming or
eliminating ineffective programs. Effectiveness will be determined by
program performance indicators or through rigorous program evaluations.
(See objective 6.5 for more on this topic.)

> **Performance Measures for Objective 1.1**

+---------------+-------------------+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| #####         |                   | ## |    |    |    |     |     |
| ### Objective |                   | ## |    |    |    |     |     |
|  1.1 Link Fed |                   | ## |    |    |    |     |     |
| eral Educatio |                   | ## |    |    |    |     |     |
| n Funding to  |                   |  P |    |    |    |     |     |
| Accountabilit |                   | er |    |    |    |     |     |
| y for Results |                   | fo |    |    |    |     |     |
|               |                   | rm |    |    |    |     |     |
|               |                   | an |    |    |    |     |     |
|               |                   | ce |    |    |    |     |     |
|               |                   |  T |    |    |    |     |     |
|               |                   | ar |    |    |    |     |     |
|               |                   | ge |    |    |    |     |     |
|               |                   | ts |    |    |    |     |     |
+---------------+-------------------+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+
|               |                   | *  | *  | *  | *  | *   | *   |
|               |                   | *' | *' | *' | *' | *'0 | *'0 |
|               |                   | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 6** | 7** |
|               |                   | ** | ** | ** | ** |     |     |
+---------------+-------------------+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| ####### St    | The percentage of | 30 | 40 | 50 | 75 | 100 | 100 |
| ate Accountab | states with       |    |    |    |    |     |     |
| ility Systems | complete school   |    |    |    |    |     |     |
|               | accountability    |    |    |    |    |     |     |
|               | systems in place  |    |    |    |    |     |     |
|               | as required by    |    |    |    |    |     |     |
|               | the *No Child     |    |    |    |    |     |     |
|               | Left Behind*      |    |    |    |    |     |     |
|               | Act.\*            |    |    |    |    |     |     |
+---------------+-------------------+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| ####### Fede  | The percentage of | Ba | Ba | Ba | Ba | B   | 70  |
| ral Program A | Department        | se | se | se | se | ase |     |
| ccountability | programs that     |    |    |    |    |     |     |
|               | demonstrate       | li | li | li | li | l   |     |
|               | effectiveness in  | ne | ne | ne | ne | ine |     |
|               | terms of          |    |    |    |    |     |     |
|               | outcomes, either  | \+ | \+ | \+ | \+ | \+  |     |
|               | on performance    |    |    |    |    |     |     |
|               | indicators or     | 5  | 10 | 20 | 30 | 40  |     |
|               | through rigorous  | PP | PP | PP | PP | PP  |     |
|               | evaluations.      |    |    |    |    |     |     |
+---------------+-------------------+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+
|               | The percentage of | Ba | Ba | Ba | Ba | B   | 80  |
|               | Department        | se | se | se | se | ase |     |
|               | program dollars   |    |    |    |    |     |     |
|               | that are in       | li | li | li | li | l   |     |
|               | programs that     | ne | ne | ne | ne | ine |     |
|               | demonstrate       |    |    |    |    |     |     |
|               | effectiveness in  | \+ | \+ | \+ | \+ | \+  |     |
|               | terms of          |    |    |    |    |     |     |
|               | outcomes, either  | 10 | 20 | 30 | ## | 50  |     |
|               | on performance    | PP | PP | PP | ## | PP  |     |
|               | indicators or     |    |    |    | ## |     |     |
|               | through rigorous  |    |    |    |  4 |     |     |
|               | evaluations.      |    |    |    | 0  |     |     |
|               |                   |    |    |    | PP |     |     |
+---------------+-------------------+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+

\* For this indicator, a complete accountability system includes annual
assessments in grades three through eight in mathematics and reading;
the publication of adequate yearly progress targets for each student
subgroup; the publication of student achievement data (by school,
district, and statewide) disaggregated by race/ethnicity, poverty,
disability, and limited English proficiency; and the choice provisions
for students in low-performing schools. This entire system is not
required to be in place until 2005-2006.

PP = Percentage Points

The baseline year is FY 2001.

##### **Strategic Goal 1**

#####  ***Create a Culture of Achievement***

##### As the president has said, "Local schools now have a mandate to reform, and we are giving them the freedom to reform." States, school districts and other grantees will receive increased flexibility over the use of federal funds, and greater responsiveness from the Department to their concerns, in exchange for greater accountability for results. Information technology initiatives will dramatically reduce the data collection burden on state and local officials by seamlessly collecting and disseminating performance information. Increased flexibility will be a core principle incorporated in all legislative proposals.

##### 

##### **Strategies for Objective 1.2**

**Publicize flexibility provisions to the states.** The Department will
aggressively communicate the flexibility opportunities provided by the
*No Child Left Behind Act* to the states. These include the state
transferability provisions, as well as the State Flexibility
Demonstration Program. We will make the process of using the flexibility
provisions as simple as possible, while maintaining program integrity.
We will encourage greater participation in Ed-Flex.

**Publicize flexibility provisions to local districts.** The Department
will aggressively communicate the flexibility opportunities provided by
the *No Child Left Behind Act* to local school districts. These include
the local transferability provisions, as well as the Local Flexibility
Demonstration Program. We will encourage greater participation in the
flexibility program for small rural schools. We will commission a study
to understand the barriers to participation in flexibility programs.

**Foster a customer service orientation at the Department**. The
Department will ensure that states, districts, and other partners
receive timely responses to inquiries. Specifically for the
implementation of *No Child Left Behind*, we will assign senior officers
to develop relationships with individual states, and create a customer
support team to respond to issues.

**Increase flexibility within other federal programs**. The Department
will work with Congress to embed greater flexibility within other
federal education legislation, such as the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, the Perkins Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Higher
Education Act.

**Reduce the data collection and reporting burden while increasing the
usefulness of the data.** The Department will leverage technology and
dramatically reduce data collection burden by implementing a
performance-based data management system. We will eliminate unnecessary
and duplicative data requests. We will ensure that program performance
measures are focused on outcomes, avoiding compliance-oriented data
collection when possible. The Department will work with states to define
common data and technical standards to allow seamless electronic sharing
of information. We will provide access to the data so that it may be
used for school improvement efforts. (See objective 6.3 for more on this
topic.)

# **External Factors**

[Statutory Limitations.]{.underline} In some situations, Congress
mandates the collection of specific data elements. We will work with
Congress to encourage the elimination of redundant data requirements or
those that are not focused on results.

######### Performance Measures for Objective 1.2

+-------------+-----------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| ######      |                       | ## |    |    |    |    |    |
| ## Objectiv |                       | ## |    |    |    |    |    |
| e 1.2 Incre |                       | ## |    |    |    |    |    |
| ase Flexibi |                       | ## |    |    |    |    |    |
| lity and Lo |                       |  P |    |    |    |    |    |
| cal Control |                       | er |    |    |    |    |    |
|             |                       | fo |    |    |    |    |    |
|             |                       | rm |    |    |    |    |    |
|             |                       | an |    |    |    |    |    |
|             |                       | ce |    |    |    |    |    |
|             |                       |  T |    |    |    |    |    |
|             |                       | ar |    |    |    |    |    |
|             |                       | ge |    |    |    |    |    |
|             |                       | ts |    |    |    |    |    |
+-------------+-----------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
|             |                       | *  | *  | *  | *  | *  | *  |
|             |                       | *' | *' | *' | *' | *' | *' |
|             |                       | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 |
|             |                       | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** |
+-------------+-----------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| ###         | The percentage of     | Ba | Ba | Ba | Ba | Ba | Ba |
| #### Local  | school districts      | se | se | se | se | se | se |
| Flexibility | utilizing             |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|             | transferability or    | li | li | li | li | li | li |
|             | rural flexibility     | ne | ne | ne | ne | ne | ne |
|             | provisions.           |  + |  + |  + |  + |  + |  + |
|             |                       | 5  | 10 | 20 | 30 | 40 | 50 |
|             |                       | PP | PP | PP | PP | PP | PP |
+-------------+-----------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| ###         | The number of States  | 15 | 20 | 25 | 30 | 35 | 40 |
| #### State  | approved for Ed-Flex. |    |    |    |    |    |    |
| Flexibility |                       |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|             | (2001 baseline = 9)   |    |    |    |    |    |    |
+-------------+-----------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| ######      | The OMB burden hour   | 4  | 3  | 3  | 3  | 2  | 2  |
| # Federal D | estimates of          | 0M | 8M | 5M | 0M | 5M | 0M |
| ata Collect | Department program    |    |    |    |    |    |    |
| ion Burden  | data collections per  |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|             | year. (2001 baseline  |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|             | = 40.5 million)       |    |    |    |    |    |    |
+-------------+-----------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| ##          | The percentage of     | T  | T  | T  | T  | T  | T  |
| ##### Custo | Department grantees   | BD | BD | BD | BD | BD | BD |
| mer Service | that express          |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|             | satisfaction with ED  |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|             | customer service      |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|             | (responsiveness,      |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|             | timeliness,           |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|             | efficiency, etc.).\*  |    |    |    |    |    |    |
+-------------+-----------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+

\* Customer satisfaction rating to be determined.

PP = Percentage Points

M = Million

##### **Strategic Goal 1**

##### ***Create a Culture of Achievement***

Parents are children's first and most important teachers. The Department
will aggressively implement the parental involvement, information and
options components of *No Child Left Behind* and encourage states and
communities to provide additional choices to parents. States and
districts will be required to publish report cards that provide school
performance information to parents. Children trapped in failing or
unsafe schools will have the opportunity to attend better public schools
(including charter schools) or use federal funds for private tutoring.
Public school options, including charter schools, will be strongly
supported for all students, as will private school options for
disadvantaged children. The Department will also work with Congress to
embed greater parental choice, involvement and information in all
federal education programs, as well as within the tax code.

##### 

##### **Strategies for Objective 1.3**

**Require school report cards.** The Department will work with states to
implement the report card requirements of *No Child Left Behind* to
provide high quality, understandable information to parents about their
child's school. We will publicize the existence of these report cards
and encourage their use, both for school improvement efforts and to help
parents make good choices regarding where to send their child to school.
We will also encourage the creation of easy-to-use online databases of
school information and options for parents.

**Support charter schools.** We will support start-up funds and
facilities financing to enable the development of many high-quality
charter schools.

**Provide choices to children trapped in failing or unsafe schools.**
The Department will work with states to ensure that children trapped in
failing or unsafe schools have the opportunity to transfer to better
public schools (including charter schools) or use federal dollars for
supplemental educational services. We will encourage states and
communities to provide additional options for children trapped in
failing schools, including attendance at high quality private schools.

**Expand choice in other federal programs**. The Department will work
with Congress and other agencies to increase information and options for
parents and other customers within other legislative areas, including
special education, vocational education, higher education, vocational
rehabilitation and through the tax code.

# **External Factors**

[State and local parental choice provisions]{.underline}. While the *No
Child Left Behind* Act mandates public school choice for children
trapped in failing or unsafe schools, the range of choices is dependent
upon state and local policies. We will encourage states and local
communities to provide mechanisms for choice outside the student's
district and to develop charter school laws and systems.

######### Performance Measures for Objective 1.3

+--------------+---------------------+-----+----+----+----+----+----+
| #######      |                     | #   |    |    |    |    |    |
| # Objective  |                     | ### |    |    |    |    |    |
| 1.3 Increase |                     | ### |    |    |    |    |    |
|  Information |                     | # P |    |    |    |    |    |
|  and Options |                     | erf |    |    |    |    |    |
|  for Parents |                     | orm |    |    |    |    |    |
|              |                     | anc |    |    |    |    |    |
|              |                     | e T |    |    |    |    |    |
|              |                     | arg |    |    |    |    |    |
|              |                     | ets |    |    |    |    |    |
+--------------+---------------------+-----+----+----+----+----+----+
|              |                     | *   | *  | *  | *  | *  | *  |
|              |                     | *'0 | *' | *' | *' | *' | *' |
|              |                     | 2** | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 |
|              |                     |     | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** |
+--------------+---------------------+-----+----+----+----+----+----+
| #######      | The percentage of   | B   | Ba | Ba | Ba | Ba | Ba |
|  Information | parents who report  | ase | se | se | se | se | se |
|              | having the          |     |    |    |    |    |    |
|              | information they    | l   | li | li | li | li | li |
|              | need to determine   | ine | ne | ne | ne | ne | ne |
|              | the effectiveness   |     |  + |  + |  + |  + |  + |
|              | of their child's    |     | 5  | 10 | 25 | 40 | 50 |
|              | school.             |     | PP | PP | PP | PP | PP |
+--------------+---------------------+-----+----+----+----+----+----+
| ####### Par  | The percentage of   | 18  | 19 | 20 | 21 | 23 | 25 |
| ental Choice | students in grades  |     |    |    |    |    |    |
|              | K-12 that are       |     |    |    |    |    |    |
|              | attending a school  |     |    |    |    |    |    |
|              | (public or private) |     |    |    |    |    |    |
|              | that their parents  |     |    |    |    |    |    |
|              | have chosen.        |     |    |    |    |    |    |
|              |                     |     |    |    |    |    |    |
|              | (1999 baseline =    |     |    |    |    |    |    |
|              | 15%)                |     |    |    |    |    |    |
+--------------+---------------------+-----+----+----+----+----+----+
|              | The number of       | 690 | 8  | 9  | 1. | 1. | 1. |
|              | children attending  |     | 28 | 97 | 19 | 43 | 72 |
|              | charter schools (in |     |    |    |    |    |    |
|              | thousands).\*       |     |    |    |    |    |    |
|              |                     |     |    |    |    |    |    |
|              | (2001 baseline =    |     |    |    |    |    |    |
|              | 575,000)            |     |    |    |    |    |    |
+--------------+---------------------+-----+----+----+----+----+----+
| #####        | Of eligible         | \-- | Ba | Ba | Ba | Ba | Ba |
| ## Supplemen | children, the       | \*\ | se | se | se | se | se |
| tal Educatio | percentage using    | *\* |    |    |    |    |    |
| nal Services | supplemental        |     | li | li | li | li | li |
|              | educational         |     | ne | ne | ne | ne | ne |
|              | services under the  |     |    |  + |  + |  + |  + |
|              | provisions of Title |     |    | 5  | 10 | 15 | 20 |
|              | I.\*\*              |     |    | PP | PP | PP | PP |
+--------------+---------------------+-----+----+----+----+----+----+

\* Targets assume 20% annual growth, which was the rate of growth from
2000-2001 to 2001-2002.

\*\* Eligible children are low-income children who attend a Title I
school in "school improvement" status.

\*\*\* This provision does not go into effect until September 2002 for
the 2002-2003 school year. This equates with the Department's 2003
fiscal year; therefore 2003 data will be used as the baseline.

PP = Percentage Points

##### **Strategic Goal 1**

#####  ***Create a Culture of Achievement***

Part of the cultural transformation needed throughout the American
education system is the switch from a fascination with instructional
fads to a focus on scientifically based research. This cultural change
is addressed further in Goal Four, where we describe how the Department
will develop and disseminate sound educational research. But the
Department will also work to embed the best science in all of our
programs to ensure the use of methods that work.

##### 

##### 

##### **Strategies for Objective 1.4**

#####  {#section-11 .unnumbered}

**Develop "what works" guides for each Department program.** Working
with Department researchers, each program will develop an overview of
rigorous research studies related to their policy area. Whenever
possible, these guides will be informed by the "What Works
Clearinghouse" (see Objective 4.2). These guides will be distributed to
program grantees electronically and in print.

**Revise grant applications to reflect scientifically based research**.
In areas with robust research, grant applications and guidance will be
revised to reflect the findings. Grantees will be required to use
methods that have been proven effective.

**Work with Congress to embed scientifically based research in all
federal programs**. The Department's upcoming legislative proposals in
areas such as special education, vocational education, higher education,
and vocational rehabilitation will reflect rigorous research and will
demand the use of methods that work.

> **External Factors**
>
> [Limitations of Research]{.underline}. Policy makers have supported
> some programs for which there is no rigorous research, and in which
> building a solid research base may prove to be difficult. As described
> in Goal Four, we will work to develop the research base in high
> priority areas, while working with Congress to focus on interventions
> with clear evidence of effectiveness.

######### Performance Measures for Objective 1.4

+-------------+-----------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| #######     |                       | ## |    |    |    |    |    |
| # Objective |                       | ## |    |    |    |    |    |
|  1.4 Encour |                       | ## |    |    |    |    |    |
| age the Use |                       | ## |    |    |    |    |    |
|  of Scienti |                       |  P |    |    |    |    |    |
| fically Bas |                       | er |    |    |    |    |    |
| ed Methods  |                       | fo |    |    |    |    |    |
| within Fede |                       | rm |    |    |    |    |    |
| ral Educati |                       | an |    |    |    |    |    |
| on Programs |                       | ce |    |    |    |    |    |
|             |                       |  T |    |    |    |    |    |
|             |                       | ar |    |    |    |    |    |
|             |                       | ge |    |    |    |    |    |
|             |                       | ts |    |    |    |    |    |
+-------------+-----------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
|             |                       | *  | *  | *  | *  | *  | *  |
|             |                       | *' | *' | *' | *' | *' | *' |
|             |                       | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 |
|             |                       | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** |
+-------------+-----------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| ###         | The percentage of     | 10 | 25 | 50 | 60 | 70 | 80 |
| #### What W | Department programs   |    |    |    |    |    |    |
| orks Guides | that have developed   |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|             | and disseminated      |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|             | research-based "what  |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|             | works" guides to      |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|             | their grantees.       |    |    |    |    |    |    |
+-------------+-----------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
|             | The percentage of     | 90 | 95 | 1  | 1  | 1  | 1  |
|             | "what works" guides   |    |    | 00 | 00 | 00 | 00 |
|             | that are deemed to be |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|             | of high quality by an |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|             | independent review    |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|             | panel of qualified    |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|             | scientists.           |    |    |    |    |    |    |
+-------------+-----------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+

##### **Strategic Goal 2**

##### ***Improve Student Achievement***

##### In education, the bottom line is student learning. As a result of the hard work of students, educators, parents, and leaders at the state and local levels, American students will dramatically improve their achievement in reading, mathematics and science, while receiving a rich, well-rounded education. The Department will lead a national campaign to ensure that every child is reading at grade level by third grade. Pre-school and elementary school teachers throughout the nation will receive training in the proven components of effective early reading instruction. To ensure that students become proficient in mathematics and science, the Department will establish a broad collaboration of school districts, colleges and universities, and research institutions to improve the quality of instruction. The Department will lead a campaign to improve the rigor of the high school curriculum and to design new options for adolescent students. Because student achievement is dependent upon the effort of well-prepared teachers and school leaders, the Department will establish initiatives to ensure that the supply of high-quality teachers and principals meets demand. 

![](media/image4.wmf){width="1.367361111111111in"
height="1.6201388888888888in"}

##### **Objective 2.1**

Ensure that all students read on grade level by the third grade.

##### **Objective 2.2**

Improve mathematics and science achievement for all students.

#####  **Objective 2.3**

Improve the performance of all high school students.

**Objective 2.4**

Improve teacher and principal quality.

##### **Strategic Goal 2**

##### ***Improve Student Achievement***

President Bush and Congress set a goal through *No Child Left Behind*
that all children will read at grade level by third grade. To reach this
goal we must ensure that reading instruction is based on solid
scientific research. We will build a strong understanding of the five
essential components of good reading instruction and the importance of
early cognitive development. We will boost reading achievement for all
students, including minority and low-income children, English language
learners, and children with disabilities.

##### 

##### **Strategies for Objective 2.1**

**Hold schools accountable for improving reading achievement.** As
discussed in Goal One, states will hold schools accountable for ensuring
that no child is left behind, especially in the critical area of
reading.

**Promote early cognitive development.** Through the Early Childhood
Task Force, we will ensure that all Department and HHS early childhood
programs are designed to boost cognitive ability and early literacy
skills. Early Reading First will support model pre-school programs that
demonstrate the power of scientifically based interventions in early
cognitive development. Through Even Start, we will work to ensure that
family literacy programs are based on solid research.

**Publicize the rigorous research on reading instruction.** To focus
state and local leaders on reading instruction that works, the
Department will convene Reading Leadership Academies and will spotlight
the research on effective reading instruction. Through Reading First and
Early Reading First, we will provide program guidance and fund technical
assistance to support effective reading instruction.

**Encourage early identification and intervention of reading
difficulties**. The Department will encourage schools to identify
children with reading difficulties early and intervene with
research-based methods. We will work with Congress to reform the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to emphasize early
identification and prevention of reading difficulties.

**Include special education students in state reading assessments.** We
will enforce the requirements of *No Child Left Behind* and IDEA to
ensure the inclusion of special education students in reading
assessments.

**Ensure that English language learners meet rigorous standards.**
Limited-English proficient students will be included in state reading
assessments (in English) within three years of their arrival in America,
and prior to that, in state assessments in their home language. The
Department will support research on effective strategies for boosting
English acquisition, enhancement, and academic achievement.

######### External Factors 

[Teacher Certification]{.underline}. One of the most important factors
outside the Department's control is the system of teacher certification.
We will work with the states and national accreditation bodies to
encourage the incorporation of research-based reading instruction into
teacher certification requirements.

######### Performance Measures for Objective 2.1

+------------+----------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
| ##         |                      | #   |    |     |    |    |    |
| ###### Obj |                      | ### |    |     |    |    |    |
| ective 2.1 |                      | ### |    |     |    |    |    |
|  Reading A |                      | # P |    |     |    |    |    |
| chievement |                      | erf |    |     |    |    |    |
|            |                      | orm |    |     |    |    |    |
|            |                      | anc |    |     |    |    |    |
|            |                      | e T |    |     |    |    |    |
|            |                      | arg |    |     |    |    |    |
|            |                      | ets |    |     |    |    |    |
+------------+----------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
|            |                      | *   | *  | *   | *  | *  | *  |
|            |                      | *'0 | *' | *'0 | *' | *' | *' |
|            |                      | 2** | 03 | 4** | 05 | 06 | 07 |
|            |                      |     | ** |     | ** | ** | ** |
+------------+----------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
| #######    | **All Students**.    | N/A | 45 | 45  | 45 | 45 | 45 |
|            | The number of states |     |    |     |    |    |    |
| ###        | meeting their        |     |    |     |    |    |    |
| #### State | targets for          |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|  Reading A | third-grade reading  |     |    |     |    |    |    |
| ssessments | achievement for all  |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | students.            |     |    |     |    |    |    |
| #######    |                      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            |                      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
| #######    |                      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
+------------+----------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
|            | **Low-Income         | N/A | 45 | 45  | 45 | 45 | 45 |
|            | Students**. The      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | number of states     |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | meeting their        |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | targets for          |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | third-grade reading  |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | achievement for      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | low-income students. |     |    |     |    |    |    |
+------------+----------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
|            | **African American   | N/A | 45 | 45  | 45 | 45 | 45 |
|            | Students**. The      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | number of states     |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | meeting their        |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | targets for          |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | third-grade reading  |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | achievement for      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | African American     |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | students.            |     |    |     |    |    |    |
+------------+----------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
|            | **Hispanic           | N/A | 45 | 45  | 45 | 45 | 45 |
|            | Students**. The      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | number of states     |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | meeting their        |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | targets for          |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | third-grade reading  |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | achievement for      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | Hispanic students.   |     |    |     |    |    |    |
+------------+----------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
|            | **Students with      | N/A | 45 | 45  | 45 | 45 | 45 |
|            | Disabilities**. The  |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | number of states     |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | meeting their        |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | targets for          |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | third-grade reading  |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | achievement for      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | students with        |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | disabilities.        |     |    |     |    |    |    |
+------------+----------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
|            | **English Language   | N/A | 45 | 45  | 45 | 45 | 45 |
|            | Learners**. The      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | number of states     |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | meeting their        |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | targets for          |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | third-grade reading  |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | achievement for      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | English language     |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | learners.            |     |    |     |    |    |    |
+------------+----------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+

Note: Using the 2001-2002 school year as a baseline, states are required
to set the same annual achievement target for all students and for
several student subgroups, starting with the 2002-2003 school year.
(This equates to the Department's 2003 fiscal year, which is the first
year this indicator can be measured.) Under the *No Child Left Behind
Act*, these targets must increase at least every three years for the
next 12 years, when 100 percent of all students within all subgroups are
expected to achieve proficiency. Therefore, while the targets listed
above are stable, student achievement will actually need to improve
steadily in order to meet these goals. When a state does not test
students in the third-grade, results from fourth- or fifth-grade
assessments will be used instead.

+------------+----------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
| ##         |                      | #   |    |     |    |    |    |
| ###### Obj |                      | ### |    |     |    |    |    |
| ective 2.1 |                      | ### |    |     |    |    |    |
|  Reading A |                      | # P |    |     |    |    |    |
| chievement |                      | erf |    |     |    |    |    |
|            |                      | orm |    |     |    |    |    |
|            |                      | anc |    |     |    |    |    |
|            |                      | e T |    |     |    |    |    |
|            |                      | arg |    |     |    |    |    |
|            |                      | ets |    |     |    |    |    |
+------------+----------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
|            |                      | *   | *  | *   | *  | *  | *  |
|            |                      | *'0 | *' | *'0 | *' | *' | *' |
|            |                      | 2** | 03 | 4** | 05 | 06 | 07 |
|            |                      |     | ** |     | ** | ** | ** |
+------------+----------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
| ####### NA | **All Students.**    | 60  | 61 | X   | 62 | X  | 63 |
| EP Reading | The percentage of    |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | all 4^th^ grade      | 30  | 31 | X   | 32 | X  | 33 |
|            | students scoring at  |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | or above the basic   |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | and proficient       |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | levels on the NAEP.  |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            |                      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | 2000 Basic Baseline  |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | = 59%                |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            |                      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | 2000 Proficient      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | Baseline = 29%       |     |    |     |    |    |    |
+------------+----------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
|            | **Low-Income         |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | Students**. The      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | percentage of        |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | low-income 4^th^     |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | grade students       |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | scoring at or above  |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | the basic and        |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | proficient levels on |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | the NAEP.            |  40 |    | X   | 42 | X  |    |
|            |                      |     | 41 |     |    |    | 47 |
|            | 2000 Basic Baseline  | 14  |    | X   | 16 | ## |    |
|            | = 39%                |     | 15 |     |    | ## | 21 |
|            |                      |     |    |     |    | ## |    |
|            | 2000 Proficient      |     |    |     |    |  X |    |
|            | Baseline = 13%       |     |    |     |    |    |    |
+------------+----------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
|            | **African American   |     |    |     |    | [  |    |
|            | Students**. The      |     |    |     |    | ]{ |    |
|            | percentage of        |     |    |     |    | .m |    |
|            | African American     |     |    |     |    | ar |    |
|            | 4^th^ grade students |     |    |     |    | k} |    |
|            | scoring at or above  |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | the basic and        |     | 37 |     |    |    |    |
|            | proficient levels on |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | the NAEP.            | 36  | 12 | X   | 38 |    | 43 |
|            |                      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | 2000 Basic Baseline  | 11  |    | X   | 13 |    | 18 |
|            | = 35%                |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            |                      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | 2000 Proficient      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | Baseline=10%         |     |    |     |    | X  |    |
|            |                      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            |                      |     |    |     |    | X  |    |
+------------+----------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
|            | **Hispanic           |     |    |     |    | [  |    |
|            | Students**. The      |     |    |     |    | ]{ |    |
|            | percentage of        |     |    |     |    | .m |    |
|            | Hispanic 4^th^ grade |     |    |     |    | ar |    |
|            | students scoring at  |     |    |     |    | k} |    |
|            | or above the basic   |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | and proficient       |     | 38 | X   | 39 |    | 44 |
|            | levels on the NAEP.  |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            |                      | 37  | 15 | X   | 16 |    | 21 |
|            | 2000 Basic Baseline  |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | = 36%                | 14  |    |     |    |    |    |
|            |                      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | 2000 Proficient      |     |    |     |    |  X |    |
|            | Baseline=13%         |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            |                      |     |    |     |    | X  |    |
+------------+----------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
|            | **Students with      |     |    |     |    | [  |    |
|            | Disabilities**. The  |     |    |     |    | ]{ |    |
|            | percentage of 4^th^  |     |    |     |    | .m |    |
|            | grade students with  |     |    |     |    | ar |    |
|            | disabilities scoring |     |    |     |    | k} |    |
|            | at or above the      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | basic and proficient |  24 |    | X   |    |    |    |
|            | levels on the NAEP.  |     | 25 |     |    |    |    |
|            |                      | 9   |    | X   |    |    | 31 |
|            | 2000 Basic Baseline  |     | 10 |     | 26 |    |    |
|            | = 23%                |     |    |     |    |    | 16 |
|            |                      |     |    |     | 11 |    |    |
|            | 2000 Proficient      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | Baseline = 8%        |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            |                      |     |    |     |    |  X |    |
|            |                      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            |                      |     |    |     |    | X  |    |
+------------+----------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
|            | **Limited English    |     |    |     |    | [  |    |
|            | Proficient           |     |    |     |    | ]{ |    |
|            | Students**. The      |     |    |     |    | .m |    |
|            | percentage of 4^th^  |     |    |     |    | ar |    |
|            | grade limited        |     |    |     |    | k} |    |
|            | English proficient   |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | students scoring at  |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | or above the basic   |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | and proficient       |  19 |    |   X |    |    |    |
|            | levels on the NAEP.  |     | 20 |     | 21 |    | 26 |
|            |                      | 4   |    | X   |    |    |    |
|            | 2000 Basic Baseline  |     | 5  |     | 6  |    | 11 |
|            | = 18%                |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            |                      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | 2000 Proficient      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | Baseline = 3%        |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            |                      |     |    |     |    |  X |    |
|            |                      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            |                      |     |    |     |    | X  |    |
+------------+----------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+

[Note on achievement targets]{.underline}: These targets assume a 4
percentage point gain for all students from 2000 to 2007 and an 8
percentage point gain for each subgroup, thus narrowing the achievement
gaps. While this is very ambitious when compared to long-term national
trend lines, some States have shown that such rapid progress is
possible. For example, from 1992 to 1998, African American students in
Minnesota made gains of 8 percentage points at the proficient level on
the fourth-grade NAEP reading assessment, as did Hispanic students in
Connecticut. At the basic level, two states showed gains of 8 percentage
points or more for African Americans -- Rhode Island and Connecticut,
plus the Virgin Islands. For Hispanics, at the basic level, one state
(Connecticut) showed gains of 8 percentage points or more. Due to
relatively small sample sizes, American Indians/Alaska Natives and
Asian/Pacific Islanders are not reported.

Note: Under the current schedule, NAEP Reading will not be given in 2004
and 2006. 

# Strategic Goal 2

##### ***Improve Student Achievement***

##### 

The National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the
21^st^ Century (the Glenn Commission) and the Hart-Rudman commission on
national security both made clear that America's future depends upon
improvements in mathematics and science achievement. Currently,
international comparisons such as the Third International Mathematics
and Science Study show middle and high school students in America
performing at or below the average level. The National Assessment of
Educational Progress shows eighth-grade student performance below
proficient in mathematics and science for 70 percent of our students and
90 percent of our minority students. For this situation to improve, the
quality of teaching in these subjects must improve. Every student
deserves to have teachers who possess strong content knowledge in their
areas of teaching, as well as effective strategies to engage all
students. Mathematics and science teachers must have opportunities to
remain current in their fields and take advantage of new technologies to
make their subject areas meaningful and engaging for their students.

#####  {#section-17 .unnumbered}

##### **Strategies for Objective 2.2**

**Hold schools accountable for improving mathematics and science
achievement of all students.** As discussed in Goal One, states will
hold schools accountable for improving achievement in mathematics and
reading of all subgroups of students. Annual assessments in mathematics
in grades three through eight will be required, as will state
assessments in science.

**Use data to inform instruction.** The Department will work with states
and districts to ensure that schools have access to student assessment
data in order to inform school improvement strategies and to develop
specific interventions for individual children. We will fund training in
the use of Internet-based data disaggregation tools for schools,
districts, and state education agencies.

**Develop mathematics and science partnerships.** The Department will
work with the National Science Foundation to award grants to
partnerships of school districts, institutions of higher education,
research centers, and scientific institutions to improve the quality of
instruction throughout the K-16 system. We will work with business
groups to encourage student interest in careers in mathematics and
science.

**Include special education students and English language learners in
state mathematics assessments.** The Department will enforce the
requirements of *No Child Left Behind* to ensure the inclusion of
special education students and English language learners in mathematics
assessments.

**Encourage rigorous course-taking.** The Department will lead a
national campaign to encourage students to take challenging mathematics
and science courses in elementary and secondary school.

**Support high quality professional development.** Through Title II of
the *No Child Left Behind Act* and other programs, we will ensure that
mathematics and science teachers have access to high quality training in
effective instructional methods and content knowledge.

**Recruit mathematics and science teachers into high-need schools.** The
Department will promote new options for the recruitment, selection, and
retention of qualified teachers, including high quality alternate routes
to certification. We will encourage school districts to develop and
implement new incentive and compensation systems to attract and retain
teachers of mathematics and science. We will publicize and expand the
Department's loan forgiveness program for teachers in high-poverty
schools. (See objective 2.4 for more on this topic.)

**Strengthen the research on mathematics and science instruction**. The
Department will support high quality studies to investigate how students
best learn mathematics and science and ensure that the findings are
disseminated to the field. (See Goal Four for more on this topic.)

#########  {#section-18 .unnumbered}

######### External Factors

[Labor Market]{.underline}. Competition from other sectors for
prospective mathematics and science teachers may exacerbate the shortage
of highly qualified teachers of mathematics and science. We will work
with states and local districts to encourage the adoption of
compensation and incentive systems that will effectively recruit and
retain talented mathematics and science teachers.

######### 

######### Performance Measures for Objective 2.2

+--------------+--------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
| ######## O   |                    | #   |    |     |    |    |    |
| bjective 2.2 |                    | ### |    |     |    |    |    |
|  Mathematics |                    | ### |    |     |    |    |    |
|  Achievement |                    | # P |    |     |    |    |    |
|              |                    | erf |    |     |    |    |    |
|              |                    | orm |    |     |    |    |    |
|              |                    | anc |    |     |    |    |    |
|              |                    | e T |    |     |    |    |    |
|              |                    | arg |    |     |    |    |    |
|              |                    | ets |    |     |    |    |    |
+--------------+--------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
|              |                    | *   | *  | *   | *  | *  | *  |
|              |                    | *'0 | *' | *'0 | *' | *' | *' |
|              |                    | 2** | 03 | 4** | 05 | 06 | 07 |
|              |                    |     | ** |     | ** | ** | ** |
+--------------+--------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
| #######      | **All Students**.  | N/A | 45 | 45  | 45 | 45 | 45 |
|              | The number of      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
| #            | states meeting     |     |    |     |    |    |    |
| ###### State | their targets for  |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|  Mathematics | eighth-grade       |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|  Assessments | mathematics        |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | achievement for    |     |    |     |    |    |    |
| #######      | all students.      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              |                    |     |    |     |    |    |    |
| #######      |                    |     |    |     |    |    |    |
+--------------+--------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
|              | **Low-Income       | N/A | 45 | 45  | 45 | 45 | 45 |
|              | Students**. The    |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | number of states   |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | meeting their      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | targets for        |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | eighth-grade       |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | mathematics        |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | achievement for    |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | low-income         |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | students.          |     |    |     |    |    |    |
+--------------+--------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
|              | **African American | N/A | 45 | 45  | 45 | 45 | 45 |
|              | Students**. The    |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | number of states   |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | meeting their      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | targets for        |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | eighth-grade       |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | mathematics        |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | achievement for    |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | African American   |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | students.          |     |    |     |    |    |    |
+--------------+--------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
|              | **Hispanic         | N/A | 45 | 45  | 45 | 45 | 45 |
|              | Students**. The    |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | number of states   |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | meeting their      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | targets for        |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | eighth-grade       |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | mathematics        |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | achievement for    |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | Hispanic students. |     |    |     |    |    |    |
+--------------+--------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
|              | **Students with    | N/A | 45 | 45  | 45 | 45 | 45 |
|              | Disabilities**.    |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | The number of      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | states meeting     |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | their targets for  |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | eighth-grade       |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | mathematics        |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | achievement for    |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | students with      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | disabilities.      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
+--------------+--------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
|              | **English Language | N/A | 45 | 45  | 45 | 45 | 45 |
|              | Learners**. The    |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | number of states   |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | meeting their      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | targets for        |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | eighth-grade       |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | mathematics        |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | achievement for    |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | English language   |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | learners.          |     |    |     |    |    |    |
+--------------+--------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+

Note: Using the 2001-2002 school year as a baseline, states are required
to set the same annual achievement target for all students and for
several student subgroups, starting with the 2002-2003 school year.
(This equates to the Department's 2003 fiscal year, which is the first
year this indicator can be measured.) Under the *No Child Left Behind
Act*, these targets must increase at least every three years for the
next 12 years, when 100 percent of all students within all subgroups are
expected to achieve proficiency. Therefore, while the targets listed
above are stable, student achievement will actually need to improve
steadily in order to meet these goals. When a state does not test
students in the eighth-grade, results from sixth- or seventh-grade
assessments will be used instead.

+-------------+-------------------------+----+---+----+----+---+---+
| ##          |                         | ## |   |    |    |   |   |
| ###### Obje |                         | ## |   |    |    |   |   |
| ctive 2.2 M |                         | ## |   |    |    |   |   |
| athematics  |                         | ## |   |    |    |   |   |
| Achievement |                         |  P |   |    |    |   |   |
|             |                         | er |   |    |    |   |   |
|             |                         | fo |   |    |    |   |   |
|             |                         | rm |   |    |    |   |   |
|             |                         | an |   |    |    |   |   |
|             |                         | ce |   |    |    |   |   |
|             |                         |  T |   |    |    |   |   |
|             |                         | ar |   |    |    |   |   |
|             |                         | ge |   |    |    |   |   |
|             |                         | ts |   |    |    |   |   |
+-------------+-------------------------+----+---+----+----+---+---+
|             |                         | *  | * | *  | *  | * | * |
|             |                         | *' | * | *' | *' | * | * |
|             |                         | 02 | ' | 04 | 05 | ' | ' |
|             |                         | ** | 0 | ** | ** | 0 | 0 |
|             |                         |    | 3 |    |    | 6 | 7 |
|             |                         |    | * |    |    | * | * |
|             |                         |    | * |    |    | * | * |
+-------------+-------------------------+----+---+----+----+---+---+
| ##          | **All Students.** The   | X  | 6 | X  | 65 | X | 6 |
| ##### NAEP  | percentage of all 8^th^ |    | 4 |    |    |   | 7 |
| Mathematics | grade students scoring  | X  |   | X  | 28 | X |   |
|             | at or above the basic   |    | 2 |    |    |   | 3 |
|             | and proficient levels   |    | 7 |    |    |   | 0 |
|             | on the NAEP.            |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|             |                         |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|             | 2000 Basic Baseline =   |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|             | 63%                     |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|             |                         |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|             | 2000 Proficient         |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|             | Baseline = 26%          |    |   |    |    |   |   |
+-------------+-------------------------+----+---+----+----+---+---+
|             | **Low-Income            |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|             | Students**. The         |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|             | percentage of           |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|             | low-income 8^th^ grade  |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|             | students scoring at or  |  X |   |  X | 45 | X | 5 |
|             | above the basic and     |    | 4 |    |    |   | 0 |
|             | proficient levels on    | X  | 3 | X  | 13 | X |   |
|             | the NAEP.               |    |   |    |    |   | 1 |
|             |                         |    | 1 |    |    |   | 8 |
|             | 2000 Basic Baseline =   |    | 1 |    |    |   |   |
|             | 42%                     |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|             |                         |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|             | 2000 Proficient         |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|             | Baseline = 10%          |    |   |    |    |   |   |
+-------------+-------------------------+----+---+----+----+---+---+
|             | **African American      |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|             | Students**. The         |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|             | percentage of African   |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|             | American 8^th^ grade    |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|             | students scoring at or  |  X |   |    |    |   |   |
|             | above the basic and     |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|             | proficient levels on    | X  |   | X  | 33 | X | 3 |
|             | the NAEP.               |    | 3 |    |    |   | 8 |
|             |                         |    | 1 | X  | 8  | X |   |
|             | 2000 Basic Baseline =   |    |   |    |    |   | 1 |
|             | 30%                     |    | 6 |    |    |   | 3 |
|             |                         |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|             | 2000 Proficient         |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|             | Baseline = 5%           |    |   |    |    |   |   |
+-------------+-------------------------+----+---+----+----+---+---+
|             | **Hispanic Students**.  |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|             | The percentage of       |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|             | Hispanic 8^th^ grade    |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|             | students scoring at or  |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|             | above the basic and     |    |   | X  |    |   |   |
|             | proficient levels on    |    | 4 |    | 42 | X |   |
|             | the NAEP.               | X  | 0 | X  |    |   | 4 |
|             |                         |    |   |    | 11 | X | 7 |
|             | 2000 Basic Baseline =   | X  | 9 |    |    |   |   |
|             | 39%                     |    |   |    |    |   | 1 |
|             |                         |    |   |    |    |   | 6 |
|             | 2000 Proficient         |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|             | Baseline = 8%           |    |   |    |    |   |   |
+-------------+-------------------------+----+---+----+----+---+---+
|             | **Students with         |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|             | Disabilities**. The     |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|             | percentage of 8^th^     |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|             | grade students with     |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|             | disabilities scoring at |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|             | or above the basic and  |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|             | proficient levels on    |  X | 2 | X  | 25 | X | 3 |
|             | the NAEP. 2000 Basic    |    | 3 |    |    |   | 0 |
|             | Baseline = 22%          | X  |   | X  | 7  | X |   |
|             |                         |    | 5 |    |    |   | 1 |
|             | 2000 Proficient         |    |   |    |    |   | 2 |
|             | Baseline = 4%           |    |   |    |    |   |   |
+-------------+-------------------------+----+---+----+----+---+---+
|             | **Limited English       |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|             | Proficient Students**.  |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|             | The percentage of 8^th^ |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|             | grade limited English   |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|             | proficient students     |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|             | scoring at or above the |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|             | basic and proficient    |  X |   |  X | 24 | X | 2 |
|             | levels on the NAEP.     |    | 2 |    |    |   | 9 |
|             |                         | X  | 2 | X  | 5  | X |   |
|             | 2000 Basic Baseline =   |    |   |    |    |   | 1 |
|             | 21%                     |    | 3 |    |    |   | 0 |
|             |                         |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|             | 2000 Proficient         |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|             | Baseline = 2%           |    |   |    |    |   |   |
+-------------+-------------------------+----+---+----+----+---+---+

[Note about achievement targets]{.underline}: These targets assume a 4
percentage point gain for all students from 2000 to 2007 and an 8
percentage point gain for each subgroup, thus narrowing the achievement
gaps. While this is very ambitious when compared to long-term national
trend lines, several states have shown that such rapid progress is
possible. For example, from 1992 to 2000, Hispanic students in six
states (Ohio, Maryland, North Carolina, West Virginia, Tennessee and
Massachusetts) made gains of at least 8 percentage points on the
eighth-grade NAEP mathematics assessment, and African-American students
in Nebraska and New York made gains of at least six percentage points.
At the basic level, African American students in 14 states achieved
gains of at least 8 percentage points on the 8^th^ grade NAEP
mathematics assessment, and Hispanics gained at least 8 percentage
points in 18 states.

Note: Under the current schedule, NAEP Mathematics will not be given in
2002, 2004 and 2006.

+-----------+--------------------------+----+---+----+----+---+---+
| #####     |                          | ## |   |    |    |   |   |
| ### Objec |                          | ## |   |    |    |   |   |
| tive 2.2  |                          | ## |   |    |    |   |   |
|           |                          | ## |   |    |    |   |   |
| #         |                          |  P |   |    |    |   |   |
| ####### S |                          | er |   |    |    |   |   |
| cience Ac |                          | fo |   |    |    |   |   |
| hievement |                          | rm |   |    |    |   |   |
|           |                          | an |   |    |    |   |   |
|           |                          | ce |   |    |    |   |   |
|           |                          |  T |   |    |    |   |   |
|           |                          | ar |   |    |    |   |   |
|           |                          | ge |   |    |    |   |   |
|           |                          | ts |   |    |    |   |   |
+-----------+--------------------------+----+---+----+----+---+---+
|           |                          | *  | * | *  | *  | * | * |
|           |                          | *' | * | *' | *' | * | * |
|           |                          | 02 | ' | 04 | 05 | ' | ' |
|           |                          | ** | 0 | ** | ** | 0 | 0 |
|           |                          |    | 3 |    |    | 6 | 7 |
|           |                          |    | * |    |    | * | * |
|           |                          |    | * |    |    | * | * |
+-----------+--------------------------+----+---+----+----+---+---+
| ##        | **All Students.** The    | X  | X | X  | 61 | X | X |
| ##### NAE | percentage of all 8^th^  |    |   |    |    |   |   |
| P Science | grade students scoring   | X  | X | X  | 33 | X | X |
|           | at or above the basic    |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | and proficient levels on |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | the NAEP.                |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           |                          |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | 2000 Basic Baseline =    |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | 59%                      |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           |                          |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | 2000 Proficient Baseline |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | = 30%)                   |    |   |    |    |   |   |
+-----------+--------------------------+----+---+----+----+---+---+
|           | **Low-Income Students**. |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | The percentage of        |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | low-income 8^th^ grade   |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | students scoring at or   |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | above the basic and      |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | proficient levels on the |    |   |    | 39 |   | X |
|           | NAEP.                    | X  | X | X  |    | X |   |
|           |                          |    |   |    | 17 |   | X |
|           | 2000 Basic Baseline =    | X  | X | X  |    | X |   |
|           | 33%                      |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           |                          |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | 2000 Proficient Baseline |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | = 11%                    |    |   |    |    |   |   |
+-----------+--------------------------+----+---+----+----+---+---+
|           | **African American       |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | Students**. The          |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | percentage of African    |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | American 8^th^ grade     |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | students scoring at or   |  X |   |  X |    |   |   |
|           | above the basic and      |    | X |    | 30 |   |   |
|           | proficient levels on the | X  |   | X  |    | X | X |
|           | NAEP.                    |    | X |    | 12 |   |   |
|           |                          |    |   |    |    | X | X |
|           | 2000 Basic Baseline =    |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | 24%                      |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           |                          |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | 2000 Proficient Baseline |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | = 6%                     |    |   |    |    |   |   |
+-----------+--------------------------+----+---+----+----+---+---+
|           | **Hispanic Students**.   |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | The percentage of        |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | Hispanic 8^th^ grade     |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | students scoring at or   |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | above the basic and      |    |   | X  |    |   |   |
|           | proficient levels on the |    | X |    |    |   | X |
|           | NAEP.                    | X  |   | X  | 39 | X |   |
|           |                          |    | X |    |    |   | X |
|           | 2000 Basic Baseline =    | X  |   |    | 16 | X |   |
|           | 33%                      |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           |                          |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | 2000 Proficient Baseline |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | = 10%                    |    |   |    |    |   |   |
+-----------+--------------------------+----+---+----+----+---+---+
|           | **Students with          |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | Disabilities**. The      |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | percentage of 8^th^      |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | grade students with      |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | disabilities scoring at  |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | or above the basic and   |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | proficient levels on the | X  | X | X  | 3  | X | X |
|           | NAEP.                    |    |   |    | 4  |   |   |
|           |                          |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | 2000 Basic Baseline =    |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | 28%                      | X  |   | X  |    |   |   |
|           |                          |    | X |    | 14 | X | X |
|           | 2000 Proficient Baseline |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | = 8%                     |    |   |    |    |   |   |
+-----------+--------------------------+----+---+----+----+---+---+
|           | **Limited English        |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | Proficient Students**.   |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | The percentage of 8^th^  |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | grade limited English    |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | proficient students      |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | scoring at or above the  |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | basic and proficient     | X  | X | X  | 1  | X | X |
|           | levels on the NAEP.      |    |   |    | 8  |   |   |
|           |                          |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | 2000 Basic Baseline =    |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | 12%                      | X  |   | X  |    |   |   |
|           |                          |    | X |    | 9  | X | X |
|           | 2000 Proficient Baseline |    |   |    |    |   |   |
|           | = 3%                     |    |   |    |    |   |   |
+-----------+--------------------------+----+---+----+----+---+---+

[Note about achievement targets]{.underline}: These targets assume a 3
percentage point gain for all students from 2000 to 2005 and a 6
percentage point gain for each subgroup, thus narrowing the achievement
gaps. This rate of change is proportionate to the targets set for
reading and mathematics (considering the shorter timeline).

Note: Under the current schedule, NAEP Science will next be given in
2005.

# Strategic Goal 2

##### ***Improve Student Achievement***

##### 

The demands of a competitive economy and flexible workplace require
every American youth to acquire solid academic preparation for an
effective transition from high school to postsecondary education and
then to the workplace. Today's youth need strong academic skills in
written and oral communication, mathematics and science, problem solving
and teamwork. Yet the National Assessment of Educational Progress shows
12^th^ grade achievement declining at the same time that the national
dropout rate is increasing. We must do better. American high schools
must be held accountable for raising the academic achievement of all
students. At the same time, our education system should offer customized
learning opportunities to adolescents, tapping into community colleges,
education technology, and other nontraditional sources to boost learning
and career preparation for students.

#####  {#section-24 .unnumbered}

## **Strategies for Objective 2.3**

**Hold schools accountable for student achievement.** The Department
will work with states to implement the high school accountability
measures within *No Child Left Behind* to ensure that all high school
students attain strong academic knowledge and skills and graduate from
high school. The Department will partner with states to investigate ways
to link high school graduation exams with postsecondary entrance
requirements.

**Improve the rigor of the high school curriculum.** The Department will
encourage all students to take more challenging courses, such as
Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate, especially in
mathematics and science. We will develop strategies to accelerate
learning for students arriving at high school below grade level so that
they meet academic standards upon graduation. The Department will
commission a study of the rigor of high school exit exams. We will work
to improve the academic content knowledge of high school teachers. (See
objective 2.4 for more on this topic.)

**Strengthen research and development efforts focused on high schools.**
Comparatively little work has been done to study the effectiveness of
various high school reform models. The Department will invest in
research and development to determine more effective ways to raise the
achievement of high school students, especially those arriving well
below grade level.

**Increase learning options for students.** The Department will test the
relative effectiveness and impact of strategies relating to adolescent
literacy, mathematics and science achievement, career-related academies,
education technology, career and technical education, dual or concurrent
enrollment in postsecondary education, career awareness, and career
development. Effective strategies for students with disabilities and
English language learners will be given special attention.

######### Performance Measures for Objective 2.3

+------------+----------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
| ######     |                      | #   |    |     |    |    |    |
| ## Objecti |                      | ### |    |     |    |    |    |
| ve 2.3 Hig |                      | ### |    |     |    |    |    |
| h School A |                      | # P |    |     |    |    |    |
| chievement |                      | erf |    |     |    |    |    |
|            |                      | orm |    |     |    |    |    |
|            |                      | anc |    |     |    |    |    |
|            |                      | e T |    |     |    |    |    |
|            |                      | arg |    |     |    |    |    |
|            |                      | ets |    |     |    |    |    |
+------------+----------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
|            |                      | *   | *  | *   | *  | *  | *  |
|            |                      | *'0 | *' | *'0 | *' | *' | *' |
|            |                      | 2** | 03 | 4** | 05 | 06 | 07 |
|            |                      |     | ** |     | ** | ** | ** |
+------------+----------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
| #######    | **All Students**.    | N/A | 45 | 45  | 45 | 45 | 45 |
|            | The number of states |     |    |     |    |    |    |
| ###        | meeting their        |     |    |     |    |    |    |
| #### State | targets for high     |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|  Reading A | school reading       |     |    |     |    |    |    |
| ssessments | achievement for all  |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | students.            |     |    |     |    |    |    |
| #######    |                      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            |                      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
| #######    |                      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
+------------+----------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
|            | **Low-Income         | N/A | 45 | 45  | 45 | 45 | 45 |
|            | Students**. The      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | number of states     |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | meeting their        |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | targets for high     |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | school reading       |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | achievement for      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | low-income students. |     |    |     |    |    |    |
+------------+----------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
|            | **African American   | N/A | 45 | 45  | 45 | 45 | 45 |
|            | Students**. The      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | number of states     |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | meeting their        |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | targets for high     |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | school reading       |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | achievement for      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | African American     |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | students.            |     |    |     |    |    |    |
+------------+----------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
|            | **Hispanic           | N/A | 45 | 45  | 45 | 45 | 45 |
|            | Students**. The      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | number of states     |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | meeting their        |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | targets for high     |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | school reading       |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | achievement for      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | Hispanic students.   |     |    |     |    |    |    |
+------------+----------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
|            | **Students with      | N/A | 45 | 45  | 45 | 45 | 45 |
|            | Disabilities**. The  |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | number of states     |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | meeting their        |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | targets for high     |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | school reading       |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | achievement for      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | students with        |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | disabilities.        |     |    |     |    |    |    |
+------------+----------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
|            | **English Language   | N/A | 45 | 45  | 45 | 45 | 45 |
|            | Learners**. The      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | number of states     |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | meeting their        |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | targets for high     |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | school reading       |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | achievement for      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | English language     |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | learners.            |     |    |     |    |    |    |
+------------+----------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+

Note: Using the 2001-2002 school year as a baseline, states are required
to set the same annual achievement target for all students and for
several student subgroups, starting with the 2002-2003 school year.
(This equates to the Department's 2003 fiscal year, which is the first
year this indicator can be measured.) Under the *No Child Left Behind
Act*, these targets must increase at least every three years for the
next 12 years, when 100 percent of all students within all subgroups are
expected to achieve proficiency. Therefore, while the targets listed
above are stable, student achievement will actually need to improve
steadily in order to meet these goals. States may assess reading
achievement in either grade 10, 11 or 12.

+--------------+--------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
| ######## O   |                    | #   |    |     |    |    |    |
| bjective 2.3 |                    | ### |    |     |    |    |    |
|  High School |                    | ### |    |     |    |    |    |
|  Achievement |                    | # P |    |     |    |    |    |
|              |                    | erf |    |     |    |    |    |
|              |                    | orm |    |     |    |    |    |
|              |                    | anc |    |     |    |    |    |
|              |                    | e T |    |     |    |    |    |
|              |                    | arg |    |     |    |    |    |
|              |                    | ets |    |     |    |    |    |
+--------------+--------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
|              |                    | *   | *  | *   | *  | *  | *  |
|              |                    | *'0 | *' | *'0 | *' | *' | *' |
|              |                    | 2** | 03 | 4** | 05 | 06 | 07 |
|              |                    |     | ** |     | ** | ** | ** |
+--------------+--------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
| #######      | **All Students**.  | N/A | 45 | 45  | 45 | 45 | 45 |
|              | The number of      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
| #            | States meeting     |     |    |     |    |    |    |
| ###### State | their targets for  |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|  Mathematics | high school        |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|  Assessments | mathematics        |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | achievement for    |     |    |     |    |    |    |
| #######      | all students.      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              |                    |     |    |     |    |    |    |
| #######      |                    |     |    |     |    |    |    |
+--------------+--------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
|              | **Low-Income       | N/A | 45 | 45  | 45 | 45 | 45 |
|              | Students**. The    |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | number of states   |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | meeting their      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | targets for high   |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | school mathematics |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | achievement for    |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | low-income         |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | students.          |     |    |     |    |    |    |
+--------------+--------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
|              | **African American | N/A | 45 | 45  | 45 | 45 | 45 |
|              | Students**. The    |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | number of states   |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | meeting their      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | targets for high   |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | school mathematics |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | achievement for    |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | African American   |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | students.          |     |    |     |    |    |    |
+--------------+--------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
|              | **Hispanic         | N/A | 45 | 45  | 45 | 45 | 45 |
|              | Students**. The    |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | number of states   |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | meeting their      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | targets for high   |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | school mathematics |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | achievement for    |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | Hispanic students. |     |    |     |    |    |    |
+--------------+--------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
|              | **Students with    | N/A | 45 | 45  | 45 | 45 | 45 |
|              | Disabilities**.    |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | The number of      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | states meeting     |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | their targets for  |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | high school        |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | mathematics        |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | achievement for    |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | students with      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | disabilities.      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
+--------------+--------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
|              | **English Language | N/A | 45 | 45  | 45 | 45 | 45 |
|              | Learners**. The    |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | number of states   |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | meeting their      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | targets for high   |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | school mathematics |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | achievement for    |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | English language   |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|              | learners.          |     |    |     |    |    |    |
+--------------+--------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+

Note: Using the 2001-2002 school year as a baseline, states are required
to set the same annual achievement target for all students and for
several student subgroups, starting with the 2002-2003 school year.
(This equates to the Department's 2003 fiscal year, which is the first
year this indicator can be measured.) Under the *No Child Left Behind
Act*, these targets must increase at least every three years for the
next 12 years, when 100 percent of all students within all subgroups are
expected to achieve proficiency. Therefore, while the targets listed
above are stable, student achievement will actually need to improve
steadily in order to meet these goals. States may assess mathematics
achievement in either grade 10, 11 or 12.

+-----------+---------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+
| #         |                           | ## |   |    |   |    |   |
| ####### O |                           | ## |   |    |   |    |   |
| bjective  |                           | ## |   |    |   |    |   |
| 2.3 High  |                           | ## |   |    |   |    |   |
| School Pe |                           |  P |   |    |   |    |   |
| rformance |                           | er |   |    |   |    |   |
|           |                           | fo |   |    |   |    |   |
|           |                           | rm |   |    |   |    |   |
|           |                           | an |   |    |   |    |   |
|           |                           | ce |   |    |   |    |   |
|           |                           |  T |   |    |   |    |   |
|           |                           | ar |   |    |   |    |   |
|           |                           | ge |   |    |   |    |   |
|           |                           | ts |   |    |   |    |   |
+-----------+---------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+
|           |                           | *  | * | *  | * | *  | * |
|           |                           | *' | * | *' | * | *' | * |
|           |                           | 02 | ' | 04 | ' | 06 | ' |
|           |                           | ** | 0 | ** | 0 | ** | 0 |
|           |                           |    | 3 |    | 5 |    | 7 |
|           |                           |    | * |    | * |    | * |
|           |                           |    | * |    | * |    | * |
+-----------+---------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+
| ##        | **All Students.** The     | 76 | X | X  | 7 | X  | 7 |
| ##### NAE | percentage of all 12^th^  |    |   |    | 7 |    | 9 |
| P Reading | grade students scoring at | 39 | X | X  |   | X  |   |
|           | or above the basic and    |    |   |    | 4 |    | 4 |
|           | proficient levels on the  |    |   |    | 0 |    | 2 |
|           | NAEP.                     |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           |                           |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | 1998 Basic Baseline = 75% |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           |                           |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | 1998 Proficient Baseline  |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | = 38%                     |    |   |    |   |    |   |
+-----------+---------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+
|           | **African American        |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | Students**. The           |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | percentage of African     |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | American 12^th^ grade     |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | students scoring at or    |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | above the basic and       |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | proficient levels on the  |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | NAEP.                     |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           |                           |    |   |  X |   |  X |   |
|           | 1998 Basic Baseline = 56% | 57 | X |    | 5 |    | 6 |
|           |                           |    |   | X  | 9 | X  | 4 |
|           | 1998 Proficient Baseline  | 17 |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | = 16%                     |    |   |    | 1 |    | 2 |
|           |                           |    | X |    | 9 |    | 4 |
+-----------+---------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+
|           | **Hispanic Students**.    |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | The percentage of         |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | Hispanic 12^th^ grade     |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | students scoring at or    |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | above the basic and       |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | proficient levels on the  |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | NAEP.                     |    |   |  X |   |  X |   |
|           |                           | 61 | X |    | 6 |    | 6 |
|           | 1998 Basic Baseline = 60% |    |   | X  | 3 | X  | 8 |
|           |                           | 24 | X |    |   |    |   |
|           | 1998 Proficient Baseline  |    |   |    | 2 |    | 3 |
|           | = 23%                     |    |   |    | 6 |    | 1 |
+-----------+---------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+
|           | **Students with           |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | Disabilities**. The       |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | percentage of 12^th^      |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | grade students with       |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | disabilities scoring at   |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | or above the basic and    |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | proficient levels on the  |    |   |  X |   |    |   |
|           | NAEP.                     | 31 | X |    | 3 | X  | 3 |
|           |                           |    |   | X  | 3 |    | 8 |
|           | 1998 Basic Baseline = 30% | 8  | X |    |   | X  |   |
|           |                           |    |   |    | 1 |    | 1 |
|           | 1998 Proficient Baseline  |    |   |    | 0 |    | 5 |
|           | = 7%                      |    |   |    |   |    |   |
+-----------+---------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+
|           | **Limited English         |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | Proficient Students**.    |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | The percentage of 12^th^  |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | grade students with       |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | limited English           |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | proficiency scoring at or |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | above the basic and       |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | proficient levels on the  |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | NAEP.                     |    |   |  X | 3 |  X |   |
|           |                           | 28 | X |    | 0 |    | 3 |
|           | 1998 Basic Baseline = 27% |    |   | X  |   | X  | 5 |
|           |                           | 9  | X |    | 1 |    |   |
|           | 1998 Proficient Baseline  |    |   |    | 1 |    | 1 |
|           | = 8%                      |    |   |    |   |    | 6 |
+-----------+---------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+

[Note about achievement targets]{.underline}: These targets assume a 4
percentage point gain for all students from 1998 to 2007 and an 8
percentage point gain for each subgroup, thus narrowing the achievement
gaps. This rate of progress is equivalent to our targets for 4^th^ grade
reading. (See objective 2.1 for detail about how we set those targets.)
"Low-income students" are not included because the data for this
subgroup are unreliable at the 12^th^ grade level.

Note: Under the current schedule, NAEP Reading will not be given in
2003, 2004 and 2006.

+-------------+-------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+
| ##          |                         | ## |   |    |   |    |   |
| ###### Obje |                         | ## |   |    |   |    |   |
| ctive 2.3 H |                         | ## |   |    |   |    |   |
| igh School  |                         | ## |   |    |   |    |   |
| Performance |                         |  P |   |    |   |    |   |
|             |                         | er |   |    |   |    |   |
|             |                         | fo |   |    |   |    |   |
|             |                         | rm |   |    |   |    |   |
|             |                         | an |   |    |   |    |   |
|             |                         | ce |   |    |   |    |   |
|             |                         |  T |   |    |   |    |   |
|             |                         | ar |   |    |   |    |   |
|             |                         | ge |   |    |   |    |   |
|             |                         | ts |   |    |   |    |   |
+-------------+-------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+
|             |                         | *  | * | *  | * | *  | * |
|             |                         | *' | * | *' | * | *' | * |
|             |                         | 02 | ' | 04 | ' | 06 | ' |
|             |                         | ** | 0 | ** | 0 | ** | 0 |
|             |                         |    | 3 |    | 5 |    | 7 |
|             |                         |    | * |    | * |    | * |
|             |                         |    | * |    | * |    | * |
+-------------+-------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+
| ##          | **All Students.** The   | X  | 6 | X  | 6 | X  | 6 |
| ##### NAEP  | percentage of all       |    | 3 |    | 4 |    | 6 |
| Mathematics | 12^th^ grade students   | X  |   | X  |   | X  |   |
|             | scoring at or above the |    | 1 |    | 1 |    | 2 |
|             | basic and proficient    |    | 7 |    | 8 |    | 0 |
|             | levels on the NAEP.     |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             |                         |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | 2000 Basic Baseline =   |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | 62%                     |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             |                         |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | 2000 Proficient         |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | Baseline = 16%          |    |   |    |   |    |   |
+-------------+-------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+
|             | **African American      |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | Students**. The         |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | percentage of African   |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | American 12^th^ grade   |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | students scoring at or  |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | above the basic and     |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | proficient levels on    |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | the NAEP.               |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             |                         |  X |   |  X |   |  X |   |
|             | 2000 Basic Baseline =   |    | 3 |    | 3 |    | 3 |
|             | 29%                     | X  | 0 | X  | 2 | X  | 7 |
|             |                         |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | 2000 Proficient         |    | 3 |    | 5 |    | 1 |
|             | Baseline = 2%           |    |   |    |   |    | 0 |
+-------------+-------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+
|             | **Hispanic Students**.  |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | The percentage of       |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | Hispanic 12^th^ grade   |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | students scoring at or  |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | above the basic and     |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | proficient levels on    |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | the NAEP.               |  X |   |  X |   |  X |   |
|             |                         |    | 4 |    | 4 |    | 5 |
|             | 2000 Basic Baseline =   | X  | 3 | X  | 5 | X  | 0 |
|             | 42%                     |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             |                         |    | 5 |    | 7 |    | 1 |
|             | 2000 Proficient         |    |   |    |   |    | 2 |
|             | Baseline = 4%           |    |   |    |   |    |   |
+-------------+-------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+
|             | **Students with         |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | Disabilities**. The     |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | percentage of 12^th^    |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | grade students with     |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | disabilities scoring at |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | or above the basic and  |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | proficient levels on    |  X |   |  X |   |  X |   |
|             | the NAEP.               |    | 2 |    | 2 |    | 3 |
|             |                         | X  | 5 | X  | 7 | X  | 2 |
|             | 2000 Basic Baseline =   |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | 24%                     |    | 5 |    | 7 |    | 1 |
|             |                         |    |   |    |   |    | 2 |
|             | 2000 Proficient         |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | Baseline = 4%           |    |   |    |   |    |   |
+-------------+-------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+
|             | **Limited English       | X  | 3 | X  | 5 | X  | 1 |
|             | Proficient Students**.  |    |   |    |   |    | 0 |
|             | The percentage of       |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | 12^th^ grade students   |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | with limited English    |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | proficiency scoring at  |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | or above the basic and  |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | proficient levels on    |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | the NAEP.               |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             |                         |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | 2000 Basic Baseline =   |  X |   |  X |   |  X |   |
|             | 28%                     |    | 2 |    | 3 |    |   |
|             |                         | X  | 9 | X  | 1 | X  | 3 |
|             | 2000 Proficient         |    |   |    |   |    | 6 |
|             | Baseline = 2%           |    | 3 |    | 5 |    |   |
|             |                         |    |   |    |   |    | 1 |
|             |                         |    |   |    |   |    | 0 |
+-------------+-------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+

[Note about achievement targets]{.underline}: These targets assume a 4
percentage point gain for all students from 2000 to 2007 and an 8
percentage point gain for each subgroup, thus narrowing the achievement
gaps. This rate of progress is equivalent to our targets for 8^th^ grade
mathematics. (See objective 2.2 for detail about how we set those
targets.) "Low-income students" are not included because the data for
this subgroup are unreliable at the 12^th^ grade level.

Note: Under the current schedule, NAEP Mathematics will not be given in
2002, 2004 and 2006.

+-----------+---------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+
| #         |                           | ## |   |    |   |    |   |
| ####### O |                           | ## |   |    |   |    |   |
| bjective  |                           | ## |   |    |   |    |   |
| 2.3 High  |                           | ## |   |    |   |    |   |
| School Pe |                           |  P |   |    |   |    |   |
| rformance |                           | er |   |    |   |    |   |
|           |                           | fo |   |    |   |    |   |
|           |                           | rm |   |    |   |    |   |
|           |                           | an |   |    |   |    |   |
|           |                           | ce |   |    |   |    |   |
|           |                           |  T |   |    |   |    |   |
|           |                           | ar |   |    |   |    |   |
|           |                           | ge |   |    |   |    |   |
|           |                           | ts |   |    |   |    |   |
+-----------+---------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+
|           |                           | *  | * | *  | * | *  | * |
|           |                           | *' | * | *' | * | *' | * |
|           |                           | 02 | ' | 04 | ' | 06 | ' |
|           |                           | ** | 0 | ** | 0 | ** | 0 |
|           |                           |    | 3 |    | 5 |    | 7 |
|           |                           |    | * |    | * |    | * |
|           |                           |    | * |    | * |    | * |
+-----------+---------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+
| ##        | **All Students.** The     | X  | X | X  | 5 | X  | X |
| ##### NAE | percentage of all 12^th^  |    |   |    | 3 |    |   |
| P Science | grade students scoring at | X  | X | X  |   | X  | X |
|           | or above basic and        |    |   |    | 2 |    |   |
| #######   | proficient levels on the  |    |   |    | 0 |    |   |
|           | NAEP.                     |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           |                           |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | 2000 Basic Baseline = 50% |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           |                           |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | 2000 Proficient Baseline  |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | = 17%                     |    |   |    |   |    |   |
+-----------+---------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+
|           | **African American        |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | Students**. The           |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | percentage of African     |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | American 12^th^ grade     |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | students scoring at or    |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | above the basic and       |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | proficient levels on the  |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | NAEP.                     |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           |                           |  X |   |  X |   |  X |   |
|           | 2000 Basic Baseline = 21% |    | X |    | 2 |    | X |
|           |                           | X  |   | X  | 7 | X  |   |
|           | 2000 Proficient Baseline  |    | X |    |   |    | X |
|           | = 3%                      |    |   |    | 9 |    |   |
+-----------+---------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+
|           | **Hispanic Students**.    |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | The percentage of         |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | Hispanic 12^th^ grade     |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | students scoring at or    |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | above the basic and       |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | proficient levels on the  |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | NAEP.                     |  X |   |  X |   |  X |   |
|           |                           |    | X |    | 3 |    | X |
|           | 2000 Basic Baseline = 28% | X  |   | X  | 4 | X  |   |
|           |                           |    | X |    |   |    | X |
|           | 2000 Proficient Baseline  |    |   |    | 1 |    |   |
|           | = 6%                      |    |   |    | 2 |    |   |
+-----------+---------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+
|           | **Students with           |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | Disabilities**. The       |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | percentage of 12^th^      |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | grade students with       |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | disabilities scoring at   |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | or above the basic and    |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | proficient levels on the  |  X |   |  X |   |  X |   |
|           | NAEP.                     |    | X |    | 2 |    | X |
|           |                           | X  |   | X  | 3 | X  |   |
|           | 2000 Basic Baseline = 17% |    | X |    |   |    | X |
|           |                           |    |   |    | 1 |    |   |
|           | 2000 Proficient Baseline  |    |   |    | 0 |    |   |
|           | = 4%                      |    |   |    |   |    |   |
+-----------+---------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+
|           | **Limited English         |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | Proficient Students**.    |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | The percentage of 12^th^  |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | grade students with       |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | limited English           |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | proficiency scoring at or |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | above the basic and       |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | proficient levels on the  |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | NAEP.                     |  X |   |  X |   |  X |   |
|           |                           |    | X |    | 1 |    | X |
|           | 2000 Basic Baseline = 13% | X  |   | X  | 9 | X  |   |
|           |                           |    | X |    |   |    | X |
|           | 2000 Proficient Baseline  |    |   |    | 8 |    |   |
|           | = 2%                      |    |   |    |   |    |   |
+-----------+---------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+

[Note about achievement targets]{.underline}: These targets assume a 3
percentage point gain for all students from 2000 to 2005 and a 6
percentage point gain for each subgroup, thus narrowing the achievement
gaps. This rate of progress is equivalent to our targets for 8^th^ grade
science. (See objective 2.2 for detail about how we set those targets.)
"Low-income students" are not included because the data for this
subgroup are unreliable at the 12^th^ grade level.

Note: Under the current schedule, NAEP Science will next be given in
2005.

+-------------+-------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+
| ##          |                         | ## |   |    |   |    |   |
| ###### Obje |                         | ## |   |    |   |    |   |
| ctive 2.3 H |                         | ## |   |    |   |    |   |
| igh School  |                         | ## |   |    |   |    |   |
| Performance |                         |  P |   |    |   |    |   |
|             |                         | er |   |    |   |    |   |
|             |                         | fo |   |    |   |    |   |
|             |                         | rm |   |    |   |    |   |
|             |                         | an |   |    |   |    |   |
|             |                         | ce |   |    |   |    |   |
|             |                         |  T |   |    |   |    |   |
|             |                         | ar |   |    |   |    |   |
|             |                         | ge |   |    |   |    |   |
|             |                         | ts |   |    |   |    |   |
+-------------+-------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+
|             |                         | *  | * | *  | * | *  | * |
|             |                         | *' | * | *' | * | *' | * |
|             |                         | 02 | ' | 04 | ' | 06 | ' |
|             |                         | ** | 0 | ** | 0 | ** | 0 |
|             |                         |    | 3 |    | 5 |    | 7 |
|             |                         |    | * |    | * |    | * |
|             |                         |    | * |    | * |    | * |
+-------------+-------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+
| #######     | **All Students** The    | 14 | 1 | 16 | 1 | 18 | 2 |
|  Advanced P | percentage of all       |    | 5 |    | 7 |    | 0 |
| lacement Pa | 12^th^ grade students   |    |   |    |   |    |   |
| rticipation | who took at least one   |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | of the AP exams. (1999  |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | Baseline = 13.1%)       |    |   |    |   |    |   |
+-------------+-------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+
|             | **African American      | 4  | 5 | 7  | 9 | 12 | 1 |
|             | Students.** The         |    |   |    |   |    | 5 |
|             | percentage of all       |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | 12^th^ grade African    |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | American students who   |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | took at least one of    |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | the AP exams. (2001     |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | Baseline = 3.7%)        |    |   |    |   |    |   |
+-------------+-------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+
|             | **Hispanic Students.**  | 9  | 1 | 12 | 1 | 16 | 1 |
|             | The percentage of all   |    | 0 |    | 4 |    | 8 |
|             | 12^th^ grade Hispanic   |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | students who took at    |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | least on of the AP      |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | exams. (2001 Baseline = |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | 8.5%)                   |    |   |    |   |    |   |
+-------------+-------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+

Note: These targets demonstrate a narrowing of the AP participation rate
gaps (between all individuals and African Americans/Hispanic Americans)
by half. The denominator is the universe of all 12^th^ grade students in
the U.S.

Source: The College Board Advanced Placement Program.

+-------------+-------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+
| ##          |                         | ## |   |    |   |    |   |
| ###### Obje |                         | ## |   |    |   |    |   |
| ctive 2.3 H |                         | ## |   |    |   |    |   |
| igh School  |                         | ## |   |    |   |    |   |
| Performance |                         |  P |   |    |   |    |   |
|             |                         | er |   |    |   |    |   |
|             |                         | fo |   |    |   |    |   |
|             |                         | rm |   |    |   |    |   |
|             |                         | an |   |    |   |    |   |
|             |                         | ce |   |    |   |    |   |
|             |                         |  T |   |    |   |    |   |
|             |                         | ar |   |    |   |    |   |
|             |                         | ge |   |    |   |    |   |
|             |                         | ts |   |    |   |    |   |
+-------------+-------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+
|             |                         | *  | * | *  | * | *  | * |
|             |                         | *' | * | *' | * | *' | * |
|             |                         | 02 | ' | 04 | ' | 06 | ' |
|             |                         | ** | 0 | ** | 0 | ** | 0 |
|             |                         |    | 3 |    | 5 |    | 7 |
|             |                         |    | * |    | * |    | * |
|             |                         |    | * |    | * |    | * |
+-------------+-------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+
| #####       | **English.** The        | 5  | 5 | 6  | 7 | 8  | 9 |
| ## Advanced | percentage of all       | .4 | . | .4 | . | .4 | . |
|  Placement  | 12^th^ grade students   |    | 9 |    | 4 |    | 9 |
| Achievement | who scored 3 or higher  |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | on at least one of the  |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | AP English exams. (2001 |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | Baseline = 4.9%)        |    |   |    |   |    |   |
+-------------+-------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+
|             | **History.** The        | 3  | 4 | 4  | 5 | 6  | 8 |
|             | percentage of all       | .5 |   | .5 | . | .5 |   |
|             | 12^th^ grade students   |    |   |    | 5 |    |   |
|             | who scored 3 or higher  |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | on the AP American      |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | history exam. (2001     |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | Baseline = 3.0%)        |    |   |    |   |    |   |
+-------------+-------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+
|             | **Calculus.** The       | 3  | 4 | 4  | 5 | 6  | 8 |
|             | percentage of all       | .9 | . | .9 | . | .9 | . |
|             | 12^th^ grade students   |    | 4 |    | 9 |    | 4 |
|             | who scored 3 or higher  |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | on at least one of the  |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | AP calculus exams.      |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | (2001 Baseline = 3.4%)  |    |   |    |   |    |   |
+-------------+-------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+
|             | **Science.** The        | 3  | 3 | 4  | 5 | 6  | 7 |
|             | percentage of all       | .1 | . | .1 | . | .1 | . |
|             | 12^th^ grade students   |    | 6 |    | 1 |    | 6 |
|             | who scored 3 or higher  |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | on at least one of the  |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | AP science exams. (2001 |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|             | Baseline = 2.6%)        |    |   |    |   |    |   |
+-------------+-------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+

Note: English exams include AP English Literature & Composition and AP
English Language & Composition. Calculus exams include AP Calculus AB
and AP Calculus BC; science exams include AP Biology, AP Chemistry, AP
Environmental Science, AP Physics B, AP Physics C (Electricity &
Magnetism), and AP Physics C (Mechanics). The denominator is the
universe of all 12^th^ grade students in the U.S; these targets reflect
a goal of having more students pass the test, but also of having more
students taking AP classes and exams.

+------------+----------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
| ######     |                      | #   |    |     |    |    |    |
| ## Objecti |                      | ### |    |     |    |    |    |
| ve 2.3 Hig |                      | ### |    |     |    |    |    |
| h School A |                      | # P |    |     |    |    |    |
| chievement |                      | erf |    |     |    |    |    |
|            |                      | orm |    |     |    |    |    |
|            |                      | anc |    |     |    |    |    |
|            |                      | e T |    |     |    |    |    |
|            |                      | arg |    |     |    |    |    |
|            |                      | ets |    |     |    |    |    |
+------------+----------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
|            |                      | *   | *  | *   | *  | *  | *  |
|            |                      | *'0 | *' | *'0 | *' | *' | *' |
|            |                      | 2** | 03 | 4** | 05 | 06 | 07 |
|            |                      |     | ** |     | ** | ** | ** |
+------------+----------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
| #######    | **Total**.\* The     | 8   | 86 | 8   | 88 | 90 | 91 |
|            | percentage of 18-24  | 6.1 | .5 | 7.5 | .5 |    |    |
| ####### Hi | year-olds who have   |     |    |     |    |    |    |
| gh School  | completed high       |     |    |     |    |    |    |
| Completion | school.              |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            |                      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
| #######    | (2000 Baseline =     |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | 85.9%)               |     |    |     |    |    |    |
| #######    |                      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
+------------+----------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
|            | **African            | 8   | 84 | 8   | 87 | 88 | 90 |
|            | Americans**. The     | 4.0 | .5 | 5.5 |    | .5 |    |
|            | percentage of 18-24  |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | year-old African     |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | Americans who have   |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | completed high       |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | school.              |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            |                      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | (2000 Baseline =     |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | 83.5%)               |     |    |     |    |    |    |
+------------+----------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+
|            | **Hispanic           | 6   | 66 | 69  | 73 | 77 | 80 |
|            | Americans**. The     | 3.9 |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | percentage of 18-24  |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | year-old Hispanic    |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | Americans who have   |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | completed high       |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | school.              |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            |                      |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | (2000 Baseline =     |     |    |     |    |    |    |
|            | 63.4%)               |     |    |     |    |    |    |
+------------+----------------------+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+

Note: These targets demonstrate a narrowing of the high school
completion gaps (between all individuals and African Americans/Hispanic
Americans) by half.

\* Due to small sample sizes, American Indian/Alaskan Natives and
Asian/Pacific Islanders are included in the total, but are not shown
separately.

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current
Population Survey.

##### **Strategic Goal 2**

##### ***Improve Student Achievement***

##### 

##### The president has called for a quality teacher in every classroom. He has said, "Education reform is empty if it does not take account of the needs of educators. Teachers are not the objects of education reform. They are the engines of education reform. They have a high calling, and we must respect it." We will work to ensure that all of our nation's schools have the high-quality teachers they need to boost student achievement, both by recruiting new, highly qualified teachers and by providing current teachers access to rigorous professional development. This is especially critical in schools where many children have been left behind. In addition, we will work to strengthen the leadership corps, as we know from research and experience that strong principals are essential for the improvement of student achievement. 

##### 

##### **Strategies for Objective 2.4**

**Reduce barriers to teaching for highly qualified individuals.** By
supporting programs like Troops to Teachers and Transition to Teaching,
we will encourage men and women to enter teaching through alternate
routes to certification. We will also encourage states to use their
Title II (ESEA) resources to transform their teacher certification
systems to strengthen subject mastery standards while simultaneously
removing bureaucratic barriers, making it easier for highly qualified
individuals to apply for teaching positions. We will actively promote
the Department's loan forgiveness programs for mathematics and science
teachers assigned to high poverty schools, and will support its
expansion.

**Support professional development in research-based instruction.** We
will also work with the states to ensure that all professional
development funded through Department programs focuses on research-based
instructional practices, is linked to state academic content standards,
and is of adequate duration to be effective. We will also encourage
induction and mentoring programs for new teachers that are focused on
research-based practices.

**Improve the quality of teacher preparation programs.** We will work
with the states, institutions of higher education, alternate route
programs, and accreditation agencies to dramatically improve the quality
of teacher preparation. We will promote sound training in evidence-based
reading instruction, as well as other research-based interventions. We
will encourage strong preparation within arts and sciences departments
to ensure sound content knowledge. The Title II (of the Higher Education
Act) reporting system will be improved and teacher certification exams
scrutinized so that accountability becomes a reality.

**Encourage innovative teacher compensation and accountability
systems.** By working with the states and by highlighting promising
practices, we will encourage the development of alternative compensation
systems (such as those based on student achievement and those allowing
differential pay for high-need areas), as well as accountability systems
linked to student achievement gains. The Department will examine tenure
systems and will promote alternatives. Information about teacher
qualifications will be made public to parents through school report
cards, as required by *No Child Left Behind*.

**Develop new leadership training models.** The nation's educational
system is experiencing an acute shortage of highly qualified school
principals. Through Title II of ESEA, the Department will encourage the
development of innovative models to transition educators or
non-educators into the leadership role. Professional development for
existing principals will be supported, especially training in
research-based instruction and in using data to inform school
improvement.

**Improve schools as workplaces.** The Department will work, through the
implementation of this strategic plan, to ensure that schools are safe
and disciplined, that teachers and principals have access to high
quality professional development, and that they have the freedom to do
their jobs. This strategy will improve the attractiveness of teaching
and school leadership as careers, and will encourage high quality
teachers and principals to continue their valuable service.

**Strengthen the research base**. The Department will invest in rigorous
studies related to teacher quality and principal quality to better
inform policy making, as well as teacher and principal preparation and
professional development.

######### External Factors

[Teacher and Principal Certification]{.underline}. One of the most
important factors outside the Department's control is the system of
teacher certification. We will encourage the states to streamline their
certification systems, strengthen their subject matter standards and
open their school doors to qualified individuals from other fields.

######### Performance Measures for Objective 2.4

*We know from research that improving teacher and principal quality will
lead to improved achievement, though we also know that measuring
"teacher quality" or "principal quality" is very difficult. While
research has shown that a few measurable attributes relate to student
achievement---such as master's degrees in math or science or teachers'
verbal ability---more than 90 percent of a teachers' influence on
student achievement goes unexplained. So the best performance measure
for this objective is student achievement, as expressed in the
indicators for objectives 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 (achievement on national and
state assessments in reading, mathematics, and science, disaggregated by
subgroups).*

##### **Strategic Goal 3**

#####  ***Develop safe schools and strong character***

The terrorist attacks have created a new environment in which we must
ensure that our children are safe from threats both foreign and
domestic. The Department will work to maintain a safe and drug-free
environment in which every child can learn. In addition, as the
president has said, "Teaching is more than training, and learning is
more than literacy. Our children must be educated in reading and
writing---but also in right and wrong." He quoted Martin Luther King,
Jr., who said, "Intelligence plus character---that is the true goal of
education." We will focus the nation's education system on our
children's hearts, as well as their minds.

![](media/image5.jpeg){width="2.0in" height="2.0in"}

##### **Objective 3.1**

Ensure that our nation's schools are safe and drug-free and that
students are free of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs.

##### **Objective 3.2**

Promote strong character and citizenship among our nation's youth.

#####   {#section-37 .unnumbered}

##### **Strategic Goal 3**

#####  ***Develop safe schools and strong character***

##### 

Teaching and learning to the high standards demanded in *No Child Left
Behind* requires that our Nation's schools be safe and that our students
abstain from the use of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs. In order to
ensure that our schools are safe and our students drug-free, the
Department of Education will focus on four areas: best practices; data
collection and dissemination; coordination of efforts; and addressing
safe school priorities in a timely manner.

##### **Strategies for Objective 3.1**

**Focus on results and progress.** The Department will develop and
release to the public an annual report detailing the extent and nature
of crime in our nation's schools and the extent of alcohol, tobacco and
other drug use among our nation's students. We will work to improve the
quality of data in this area so that federal, state and local policy
makers can make better-informed decisions regarding how to attack these
problems.

**Disseminate information on best practices.** The Department will
disseminate "best practices" in areas of school safety and alcohol,
tobacco, and drug prevention to school districts throughout the country.
The Department will also promote the development and use of research
that meets standards identified in *No Child Left Behind*.

**Encourage the revision of school safety plans to reflect new
threats.** The Department will encourage schools to revise their school
safety plans in light of possible terrorist attacks as well as the
recent scourge of mass shootings.

**Ensure that Department activities are coordinated.** To coordinate
Department-wide activities, an intra-agency group on school safety will
be established. Improved coordination will help ensure that schools are
prepared for possible terrorism attacks, gaps in programming are closed,
and a uniform strategy is followed. The Department will also spearhead
an inter-agency group to coordinate these issues among federal agencies.

# 

# **External Factors**

[Families and Culture.]{.underline} We know from research that children
develop unhealthy habits, like smoking or drug-use, within the context
of their families and communities. The media also contribute to a
culture of violence and drug abuse. While these factors are outside the
direct control of the Department, we will work to mitigate them. We will
help states and local communities make all schools oases of safety and
health.

# 

# **Performance Measures for Objective 3.1**

+-------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **Objective 3.1: Safe   | *    |      |      |      |      |      |
| and Drug-Free Schools** | *Per |      |      |      |      |      |
|                         | form |      |      |      |      |      |
|                         | ance |      |      |      |      |      |
|                         | T    |      |      |      |      |      |
|                         | arge |      |      |      |      |      |
|                         | ts** |      |      |      |      |      |
+-------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **Violent Crime at      | **'  | **'  | **'  | **'  | **'  | **'  |
| School**                | 02** | 03** | 04** | 05** | 06** | 07** |
+-------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| The number of violent   | 876  | 869  | 862  | 854  | 847  | 839  |
| crimes experienced at   | ,700 | ,400 | ,000 | ,600 | ,200 | ,900 |
| school by students ages |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| 12 through 18.          |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|                         |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| (2000 Baseline =        |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| 884,100)                |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| The number of serious   | 184  | 182  | 180  | 179  | 177  | 176  |
| violent crimes          | ,000 | ,500 | ,900 | ,400 | ,800 | ,300 |
| experienced at school   |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| by students ages 12     |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| through 18.             |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|                         |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| (2000 Baseline =        |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| 185,600)                |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Source: U.S. Department |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| of Justice, Bureau of   |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Justice Statistics,     |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| National Crime          |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Victimization Survey,   |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| 2001. "Serious violent  |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| crime" includes rape,   |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| sexual assault,         |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| robbery, and aggravated |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| assault. "Violent       |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| crime" includes serious |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| violent crime and       |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| simple assault.         |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| "Serious violent crime" |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| is a subset of "violent |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| crime". These data are  |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| collected annually and  |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| are analyzed and        |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| released two years      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| after collection.       |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+

+-----------+---------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+
| ####      |                           | ## |   |    |   |    |   |
| #### Obje |                           | ## |   |    |   |    |   |
| ctive 3.1 |                           | ## |   |    |   |    |   |
|  Safe and |                           | ## |   |    |   |    |   |
|  Drug-Fre |                           |  P |   |    |   |    |   |
| e Schools |                           | er |   |    |   |    |   |
|           |                           | fo |   |    |   |    |   |
|           |                           | rm |   |    |   |    |   |
|           |                           | an |   |    |   |    |   |
|           |                           | ce |   |    |   |    |   |
|           |                           |  T |   |    |   |    |   |
|           |                           | ar |   |    |   |    |   |
|           |                           | ge |   |    |   |    |   |
|           |                           | ts |   |    |   |    |   |
+-----------+---------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+
|           |                           | *  | * | *  | * | *  | * |
|           |                           | *' | * | *' | * | *' | * |
|           |                           | 02 | ' | 04 | ' | 06 | ' |
|           |                           | ** | 0 | ** | 0 | ** | 0 |
|           |                           |    | 3 |    | 5 |    | 7 |
|           |                           |    | * |    | * |    | * |
|           |                           |    | * |    | * |    | * |
+-----------+---------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+
| #######   | **Alcohol.** The          | 13 | 1 | 11 | 1 | 9  | 8 |
| Drug Use  | percentage of youth ages  | .2 | 2 | .2 | 0 | .2 | . |
|           | 12-17 who reported using  |    | . |    | . |    | 2 |
|           | alcohol in the past 30    |    | 2 |    | 2 |    |   |
|           | days.                     |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           |                           |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | (2000 baseline = 16.4%)   |    |   |    |   |    |   |
+-----------+---------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+
|           | **Tobacco (cigarettes).** | 11 | 1 | 9  | 8 | 7  | 6 |
|           | The percentage of youth   | .2 | 0 | .4 | . | .6 | . |
|           | ages 12-17 who reported   |    | . |    | 5 |    | 7 |
|           | smoking a cigarette in    |    | 3 |    |   |    |   |
|           | the past 30 days. (2000   |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | baseline = 13.4%)         |    |   |    |   |    |   |
+-----------+---------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+
|           | **Marijuana.** The        | 5  | 5 | 4  | 4 | 4  | 3 |
|           | percentage of youth ages  | .8 | . | .9 | . | .0 | . |
|           | 12-17 who reported using  |    | 3 |    | 5 |    | 6 |
|           | marijuana in the past 30  |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | days.                     |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           |                           |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | (2000 baseline = 7.2%)    |    |   |    |   |    |   |
+-----------+---------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+
|           | **Cocaine.** The          | .  | . | .  | . | .  | . |
|           | percentage of youth ages  | 40 | 3 | 34 | 3 | 28 | 2 |
|           | 12-17 who reported using  |    | 7 |    | 1 |    | 5 |
|           | cocaine in the past 30    |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | days.                     |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           |                           |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | (2000 baseline = .6%)     |    |   |    |   |    |   |
+-----------+---------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+
|           | **Heroin.** The           | .  | . | .  | . | .  | . |
|           | percentage of youth ages  | 16 | 1 | 14 | 1 | 11 | 1 |
|           | 12-17 who reported using  |    | 5 |    | 2 |    | 0 |
|           | heroin in the past 30     |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | days.                     |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           |                           |    |   |    |   |    |   |
|           | (1999 baseline = .20%)    |    |   |    |   |    |   |
+-----------+---------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+

Note: The source is the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. The
Office of National Drug Control Policy set these targets.

  ------------------------- --------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
  **Measures**              **Performance                                           
                            Targets**                                               

  **Substance Use At        **'02**         **'03**   **'04**   **'05**   **'06**   **'07**
  School**                                                                          

  **Alcohol.** Percent of   X               5         X         4         X         3
  high school students who                                                          
  report any alcohol use on                                                         
  school property in the                                                            
  previous 30 days. (2001                                                           
  Baseline = 5%)                                                                    

  **Cigarettes**. Percent   X               14        X         13        X         10
  of high school students                                                           
  who report any cigarette                                                          
  use on school property in                                                         
  the previous 30 days.                                                             
  (2001 Baseline = 14%)                                                             

  **Marijuana**. Percent of X               7         X         6         X         5
  high school students who                                                          
  report any marijuana use                                                          
  on school property in the                                                         
  previous 30 days. (2001                                                           
  Baseline = 7%)                                                                    

  **Illicit Drugs**.        X               29        X         28        X         27
  Percent of high school                                                            
  students who report being                                                         
  offered, sold, or given                                                           
  an illegal drug on school                                                         
  property in the previous                                                          
  12 months. (2001 Baseline                                                         
  = 30%)                                                                            

  Source: Youth Risk                                                                
  Behavior Survey, Centers                                                          
  for Disease Control and                                                           
  Prevention, 1999. These                                                           
  data are collected                                                                
  biennially and are                                                                
  analyzed and released one                                                         
  year after collection.                                                            
  ------------------------- --------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------

##### **Strategic Goal 3**

#####  ***Develop safe schools and strong character***

##### 

Recent events have unified our nation and rekindled a spirit of
community and patriotism. The Department will build upon this energy to
launch a national campaign to promote character development and
citizenship in our youth. We will also highlight programs and schools
that have demonstrated evidence of improved student safety and the
development of character in their students.

##### **Strategies for Objective 3.2**

**Launch a campaign for character.** The Department will launch a
national campaign to promote character development and citizenship
within the school curriculum, and to remind schools of their patriotic
mission.

**Promote effective discipline strategies**. We will share best
practices with schools about effective ways to develop disciplined
learning environments.

**Partner with faith-based and community organizations.** The Department
will work with states to encourage the participation of faith-based and
community organizations in federally funded after-school programs, as
well as supplementary educational services and other tutoring and
mentoring opportunities.

**Support and evaluate character education pilots.** The Department will
fund and will widely disseminate successful models to develop sound
character and citizenship, including those that sensitize students to
the painful effects of bullying, ridicule, and other forms of
disrespect. The Department will support rigorous evaluations of
character education interventions to determine their effectiveness.

**Promote the teaching of American history**. The Department will
support high quality, traditional American history programs that
emphasize well-informed and active citizenship as the foundation of a
democratic society.

**Highlight opportunities for civic awareness.** The Department will
organize high-profile activities, like the Pledge Across America, to
encourage attention to patriotism and civic awareness in the nation's
schools. We will encourage the teaching of American ideals and
democratic principles throughout the curriculum.

# 

# **External Factors**

[Commitment of local schools]{.underline}. More than a separate program,
character education should be something woven through the school day,
through the curriculum and also through the countless daily interactions
between adults and students. We will encourage local educators to make
character development a key component of their mission.

# **Performance Measures for Objective 3.2**

*Note: Measuring "character" is intrinsically difficult; these
indicators are proxies at best.*

  ------------------------- --------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
  **Measures**              **Performance                                           
                            Targets**                                               

  **Community Service**     **'02**         **'03**   **'04**   **'05**   **'06**   **'07**

  Percentage of students in 55%             56%       57%       58%       59%       60%
  grades 6--12 who                                                                  
  participated in community                                                         
  service. (1999 baseline =                                                         
  52%)                                                                              

  Source: U.S. Department                                                           
  of Education, NCES.                                                               
  *Youth Service-Learning                                                           
  and Community Service                                                             
  Among 6th- Through                                                                
  12th-Grade Students in                                                            
  the United States: 1996                                                           
  and 1999* (NCES                                                                   
  2000--028), 2000.                                                                 

  **Cheating**              **'02**         **'03**   **'04**   **'05**   **'06**   **'07**

  Percent of 14 to 18 year  40%             39%       38%       37%       36%       35%
  olds who believe cheating                                                         
  occurs by half or most                                                            
  students. (2000 baseline                                                          
  = 41%)                                                                            

  Source: State of                                                                  
  America\'s Youth Survey,                                                          
  Horatio Alger                                                                     
  Association.                                                                      
  ------------------------- --------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------

#####   {#section-43 .unnumbered}

##### 

##### **Strategic Goal 4**

#####  ***Transform education into an evidence-based field***

Unlike medicine, agriculture and industrial production, the field of
education operates largely on the basis of ideology and professional
consensus. As such, it is subject to fads and is incapable of the
cumulative progress that follows from the application of the scientific
method and from the systematic collection and use of objective
information in policy making. We will change education to make it an
evidence-based field. We will accomplish this goal by dramatically
improving the quality and relevance of research funded or conducted by
the Department, by providing policy makers, educators, parents, and
other concerned citizens with ready access to syntheses of research and
objective information that allow more informed and effective decisions,
and by encouraging the use of this knowledge (especially within federal
education programs, as explained in Objective 1.4).

![](media/image6.wmf){width="2.0in" height="2.0in"}

##### **Objective 4.1**

Raise the quality of research funded or conducted by the Department.

#####  **Objective 4.2**

Increase the relevance of our research in order to meet the needs of our
customers.

##### 

##### **Strategic Goal 4**

#####  ***Transform education into an evidence-based field***

##### 

##### The Department is a primary source of funding for education research. Thus, we have an opportunity and an obligation to ensure that the research funded or published by the Department is of the highest quality. We will develop and enforce rigorous standards, overhaul the peer review process, and focus the Department's research activities on topics of greatest relevance to educational practice.

##### 

##### **Strategies for Objective 4.1**

**Develop rigorous standards.** These standards will match those applied
by the most respected research journals and scientific research
agencies.

**Enforce rigorous standards.** The Department will fund only those
research projects that adhere to rigorous research standards.

**Improve peer review of research proposals.** The Department will
improve the peer review process by articulating clear standards and by
enlisting only those qualified scientists who have high levels of
methodological and substantive expertise pertinent to the projects being
reviewed.

**Develop editorial review**. We will create an editorial review board
for all Department research publications to ensure that they meet the
highest standards of scientific rigor before their publication.

# **External Factors**

[Authorizing and Appropriations Statutes]{.underline}. The Department's
ability to set research priorities, revamp its peer review process, and
demand greater quality and rigor from grantees is limited by the
statutes authorizing the Office of Educational Research and Improvement
and the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, as well
as legislative mandates within appropriations bills. Through
reauthorization of these statutes we will work with Congress to create
the flexibility that high quality research agencies need.

## **Performance Measures for Objective 4.1**

+--------------+---------------------+-----+----+----+----+----+----+
| ######## O   |                     | #   |    |    |    |    |    |
| bjective 4.1 |                     | ### |    |    |    |    |    |
|  Quality and |                     | ### |    |    |    |    |    |
|  Rigor of De |                     | # P |    |    |    |    |    |
| partment-fun |                     | erf |    |    |    |    |    |
| ded Research |                     | orm |    |    |    |    |    |
|              |                     | anc |    |    |    |    |    |
|              |                     | e T |    |    |    |    |    |
|              |                     | arg |    |    |    |    |    |
|              |                     | ets |    |    |    |    |    |
+--------------+---------------------+-----+----+----+----+----+----+
|              |                     | *   | *  | *  | *  | *  | *  |
|              |                     | *'0 | *' | *' | *' | *' | *' |
|              |                     | 2** | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 |
|              |                     |     | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** |
+--------------+---------------------+-----+----+----+----+----+----+
| ####### Qua  | **Projects**. The   | B   | Ba | 95 | 95 | 95 | 95 |
| lity as Judg | percentage of new   | ase | se |    |    |    |    |
| ed by Indepe | research and        |     |    |    |    |    |    |
| ndent Review | evaluation projects | Lin | Li |    |    |    |    |
|              | funded by the       | e + | ne |    |    |    |    |
|              | Department that are | 25  |  + |    |    |    |    |
|              | deemed to be of     | PP  | 50 |    |    |    |    |
|              | high quality by an  |     | PP |    |    |    |    |
|              | independent review  |     |    |    |    |    |    |
|              | panel of qualified  |     |    |    |    |    |    |
|              | scientists.\*       |     |    |    |    |    |    |
+--------------+---------------------+-----+----+----+----+----+----+
|              | **Publications**.   | B   | Ba | 95 | 95 | 95 | 95 |
|              | The percentage of   | ase | se |    |    |    |    |
|              | new Department      |     |    |    |    |    |    |
|              | research and        | Lin | Li |    |    |    |    |
|              | evaluation          | e + | ne |    |    |    |    |
|              | publications that   | 25  |  + |    |    |    |    |
|              | are deemed to be of | PP  | 50 |    |    |    |    |
|              | high quality by an  |     | PP |    |    |    |    |
|              | independent review  |     |    |    |    |    |    |
|              | panel of qualified  |     |    |    |    |    |    |
|              | scientists.\*       |     |    |    |    |    |    |
+--------------+---------------------+-----+----+----+----+----+----+
| ####### Us   | **Projects**. Of    | B   | Ba | 75 | 75 | 75 | 75 |
| e of Randomi | new research and    | ase | se |    |    |    |    |
| zed Experime | evaluation projects |     |    |    |    |    |    |
| ntal Designs | funded by the       | Lin | Li |    |    |    |    |
|              | Department that     | e + | ne |    |    |    |    |
|              | address causal      | 10  |  + |    |    |    |    |
|              | questions, the      | PP  | 25 |    |    |    |    |
|              | percentage that     |     | PP |    |    |    |    |
|              | employ randomized   |     |    |    |    |    |    |
|              | experimental        |     |    |    |    |    |    |
|              | designs.\*          |     |    |    |    |    |    |
+--------------+---------------------+-----+----+----+----+----+----+
|              | **Publications**.   | B   | Ba | 75 | 75 | 75 | 75 |
|              | Of new research and | ase | se |    |    |    |    |
|              | evaluation          |     |    |    |    |    |    |
|              | publications funded | Lin | Li |    |    |    |    |
|              | by the Department   | e + | ne |    |    |    |    |
|              | that address causal | 10  |  + |    |    |    |    |
|              | questions, the      | PP  | 25 |    |    |    |    |
|              | percentage that     |     | PP |    |    |    |    |
|              | describe studies    |     |    |    |    |    |    |
|              | that employ         |     |    |    |    |    |    |
|              | randomized          |     |    |    |    |    |    |
|              | experimental        |     |    |    |    |    |    |
|              | designs.\*          |     |    |    |    |    |    |
+--------------+---------------------+-----+----+----+----+----+----+

PP = Percentage Points

\* These would include all research and evaluation studies initiated by
any office within the Department, but would exclude collections of
statistics. The independent review panel referenced here is different
than the peer review panels that oversee the selection of projects. This
panel would be convened at the close of the fiscal year and would review
projects and publications after-the-fact as a way to judge the
effectiveness of the Department's quality control mechanisms.

##### **Strategic Goal 4**

#####  ***Transform education into an evidence-based field***

##### The Department will seek to understand the needs of our primary customers---federal, state and local policy makers, educators, parents and individuals with disabilities---and will ensure that our research is relevant to those needs. The Department will ensure that high-quality research---whether or not it is funded by the Department---is synthesized, publicized, and disseminated widely. In order to facilitate access to high-quality research, the Department will create and regularly update an online database of scientifically rigorous research on what works in education. The Department also will create user-friendly syntheses of quality research that communicate effective practices to a wide audience. 

##### 

##### **Strategies for Objective 4.2**

**Survey decision makers.** The Department will periodically conduct
fast-response surveys of Congressional staff, governors' aides, chief
state school officers, state higher education officers, school
administrators, and individuals in other major categories of education
decision makers to determine the issues about which they most need
evidence.

**Create and maintain the What Works Clearinghouse.** The Department
will create and maintain an online database of quality research on
topics relevant to educational practice, as determined in part by the
fast response surveys. (High quality research will be included whether
the Department funded it or not.) Users will be able to ascertain the
quantity, quality, relevance, and direction of the evidence with respect
to a wide and expanding range of topics.

**Translate research results so they are applicable to the classroom.**
The Department will create and distribute user-friendly syntheses of
quality research that bear on significant problems in educational
practice.

**Develop guides for evidence-based education.** The Department will
create a variety of materials for dissemination on how to engage in
evidence-based education, including conferences and other public events.

**Increase focus**. We will focus our efforts on a select group of
significant priorities, so that a solid research base can be developed
in critical areas.

**Allocate resources in response to needs.** The Department will reserve
resources annually to respond with research evidence on emerging high
priority policy issues.

######### External Factors

> [Legislative Mandates]{.underline}. Language within authorizing and
> appropriations statutes often limits our ability to target research
> dollars to high-need areas. Through reauthorization, we will work with
> Congress to ensure greater flexibility so that we can respond to our
> customers' needs.

######### Performance Measures for Objective 4.2

+------------+----------------------+----+-----+----+----+----+----+
| ###        |                      | ## |     |    |    |    |    |
| ##### Obje |                      | ## |     |    |    |    |    |
| ctive 4.2  |                      | ## |     |    |    |    |    |
| Meeting Ne |                      | ## |     |    |    |    |    |
| eds of our |                      |  P |     |    |    |    |    |
|  Customers |                      | er |     |    |    |    |    |
|            |                      | fo |     |    |    |    |    |
|            |                      | rm |     |    |    |    |    |
|            |                      | an |     |    |    |    |    |
|            |                      | ce |     |    |    |    |    |
|            |                      |  T |     |    |    |    |    |
|            |                      | ar |     |    |    |    |    |
|            |                      | ge |     |    |    |    |    |
|            |                      | ts |     |    |    |    |    |
+------------+----------------------+----+-----+----+----+----+----+
|            |                      | *  | *   | *  | *  | *  | *  |
|            |                      | *' | *'0 | *' | *' | *' | *' |
|            |                      | 02 | 3** | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 |
|            |                      | ** |     | ** | ** | ** | ** |
+------------+----------------------+----+-----+----+----+----+----+
| ####### R  | The percentage of    | Ba | B   | 75 | 75 | 75 | 75 |
| elevance a | new research         | se | ase |    |    |    | \* |
| s Judged b | projects funded by   |    |     |    |    |    | \* |
| y Independ | the Department that  | Li | Lin |    |    |    |    |
| ent Review | are deemed to be of  | ne | e + |    |    |    |    |
|            | high relevance to    |  + | 30  |    |    |    |    |
|            | educational practice | 20 | PP  |    |    |    |    |
|            | as determined by an  | PP |     |    |    |    |    |
|            | independent review   |    |     |    |    |    |    |
|            | panel of qualified   |    |     |    |    |    |    |
|            | practitioners.\*     |    |     |    |    |    |    |
+------------+----------------------+----+-----+----+----+----+----+
| ###        | The number of hits   | Ba | B   | Ba | Ba | Ba | Ba |
| #### What  | on the What Works    | se | ase | se | se | se | se |
| Works Clea | Clearinghouse Web    |    |     |    |    |    |    |
| ring-house | site.\*\*\*          | Li | L   | Li | Li | Li | Li |
|            |                      | ne | ine | ne | ne | ne | ne |
|            |                      |    | x2  | x4 | x8 | x  | x  |
|            |                      |    |     |    |    | 16 | 32 |
+------------+----------------------+----+-----+----+----+----+----+
| ####### D  | The percentage of    | Ba | 50  | 60 | 70 | 80 | 90 |
| ecision Ma | K-16 policymakers    | se |     |    |    |    |    |
| ker Survey | and administrators   |    |     |    |    |    |    |
|            | who report routinely | Li |     |    |    |    |    |
|            | considering evidence | ne |     |    |    |    |    |
|            | of effectiveness     |    |     |    |    |    |    |
|            | before adopting      |    |     |    |    |    |    |
|            | educational products |    |     |    |    |    |    |
|            | and approaches.      |    |     |    |    |    |    |
+------------+----------------------+----+-----+----+----+----+----+
|            | The percentage of    | Ba | 25  | 50 | 60 | 70 | 80 |
|            | policymakers and     | se |     |    |    |    |    |
|            | school               |    |     |    |    |    |    |
|            | administrators who   | Li |     |    |    |    |    |
|            | report that they use | ne |     |    |    |    |    |
|            | research products of |    |     |    |    |    |    |
|            | the Department in    |    |     |    |    |    |    |
|            | policy-making        |    |     |    |    |    |    |
|            | decisions.           |    |     |    |    |    |    |
+------------+----------------------+----+-----+----+----+----+----+

\*The independent review panel referenced here is different than the
peer review panels that oversee the selection of projects. This panel
would be convened at the close of the fiscal year and would review
projects and publications after-the-fact as a way to judge the
effectiveness of the Department's quality control mechanisms.

\*\*This target demonstrates recognition that some important research
will be funded that may not seem highly relevant in the moment but will
make contributions over the long term.

\*\*\* We hope to add a "customer satisfaction" indicator; once the
clearinghouse is operational and the technology is in place, we will
consider doing so.

##### **Strategic Goal 5**

##### ***Enhance the quality of and access to postsecondary and adult education***

The Department provides support for enhancing the quality of and access
to postsecondary and adult education and employment in multiple ways.
The Department's programs provide financial aid to increase access to
college; help institutions of higher education improve their quality;
provide mentoring and tutoring services to help students master the
knowledge needed to get into and complete college; inform middle and
high school students about what it takes to go to college; provide
needed support to help people with disabilities achieve employment; and
provide support to adults in meeting more basic educational needs. The
Department will work to improve the effectiveness of all institutions,
including four-year schools, community colleges, technology-based
programs and others.

##### ![](media/image7.wmf){width="2.0in" height="2.1069444444444443in"}**Objective 5.1**

Reduce the gaps in college access and completion among student
populations differing by race/ ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and
disability while increasing the educational attainment of all.

##### **Objective 5.2**

Strengthen accountability of postsecondary institutions.

#####  **Objective 5.3**

Establish effective funding mechanisms for postsecondary education.

##### **Objective 5.4**

Strengthen Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic
Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges and Universities.

**Objective 5.5**

Enhance the literacy and employment skills of American adults.

##### **Strategic Goal 5**

#####  ***Enhance the quality of and access to postsecondary and adult education***

The economy of the 21^st^ century requires more workers than ever to
develop skills and master knowledge beyond the high-school level.
Although progress has been made over the years to increase participation
and graduation levels for all individuals, large gaps still exist
between low-income and middle- and high-income students, between
minority and non-minority students, and between students with
disabilities and their non-disabled peers. In the year 2000, according
to NCES data, 65.7 percent of white youth aged 16 to 24 enrolled in
college the fall following high school graduation, while only 54.9
percent of their African American peers and 52.9 percent of their
Hispanic peers were similarly enrolled. Graduation rates show similar
gaps. The Department will work to close these gaps through its student
financial aid and institutional aid programs. In addition, the
Department will continue its efforts to enhance preparation for college,
increase knowledge about college preparation and financial aid
availability, and improve college support services for students from all
economic and social backgrounds.

##### **Strategies for Objective 5.1**

**Improve the performance of the K-12 system.** As expressed throughout
this plan and within the *No Child Left Behind* Act, the Department will
work to improve student achievement at the elementary and secondary
levels. These improvements will contribute to a closing of the college
participation and graduation gaps.

**Enhance efforts to prepare low-income and minority youth for
college.** The Department will expand efforts with states, postsecondary
institutions, and local schools through our postsecondary programs to
foster the academic preparation of low-income and minority students. We
will provide better academic support, information about postsecondary
costs and financing, and other assistance to low-income and minority
youth.

**Increase communication about postsecondary opportunities.** We will
ensure that all middle and high school students and their parents are
knowledgeable about (1) academic and financial preparation necessary for
pursuing postsecondary education, (2) the process for applying to
college, and (3) the availability of financial aid. We will disseminate
easy-to-understand information and provide other postsecondary
preparatory services to a broader range of students and families
beginning in middle school and continuing through high school.

**Improve support services.** The Department will increase postsecondary
completion rates by improving the effectiveness of support services for
low-income and minority students.

**Highlight effective strategies for nontraditional students**. We will
support the development of innovative instructional strategies for
nontraditional or part-time students, including the use of technology,
distance-learning, or community college education.

**Provide support to students with disabilities**. The Department will
identify and disseminate policies and practices that increase access to
and completion of postsecondary education by students with disabilities.

## 

## **External Factors**

[Parental Influence]{.underline}. The level of encouragement and support
provided by parents to their children will greatly influence our ability
to reduce participation and graduation gaps. Through outreach programs
we will work to ensure that all parents and students have the
information they need to aim for postsecondary education.

# **Performance Measures for Objective 5.1**

+--------------+--------+-----+--------+--------+--------+------+----+
| **Measure**  | **FY   | *   | **FY   | **FY   | **FY   | **FY | ** |
|              | 2000   | *FY | 2003** | 2004** | 2005** | 20   | FY |
|              | (Basel | 200 |        |        |        | 06** | 20 |
|              | ine)** | 2** |        |        |        |      | 07 |
|              |        |     |        |        |        |      | ** |
+--------------+--------+-----+--------+--------+--------+------+----+
| Percentage   |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| of 16-24     |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| year-old     |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| high school  |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| graduates    |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| enrolled in  |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| college the  |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| October      |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| following    |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| graduation.  |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
+--------------+--------+-----+--------+--------+--------+------+----+
| Overall      | 63.3   | 6   | 64.1   | 64.5   | 64.9   | 65.2 | 65 |
|              |        | 3.8 |        |        |        |      | .5 |
+--------------+--------+-----+--------+--------+--------+------+----+
| White        | 66.8   | 6   | 67     | 67.1   | 67.2   | 67.3 | 67 |
|              |        | 6.9 |        |        |        |      | .4 |
+--------------+--------+-----+--------+--------+--------+------+----+
| Black        | 58.6   | 5   | 60.3   | 61     | 61.8   | 62.6 | 63 |
|              |        | 9.6 |        |        |        |      | .2 |
+--------------+--------+-----+--------+--------+--------+------+----+
| *White-Black | 8.3    | 7.3 | 6.7    | 6.1    | 5.4    | 4.7  | 4  |
| Gap*         |        |     |        |        |        |      | .2 |
+--------------+--------+-----+--------+--------+--------+------+----+
| Hispanic     | 47.4   | 50  | 51.5   | 53.1   | 54.6   | 56   | 57 |
|              |        |     |        |        |        |      | .2 |
+--------------+--------+-----+--------+--------+--------+------+----+
| *Wh          | 19.5   | 1   | 15.5   | 14     | 12.6   | 11.3 | 10 |
| ite-Hispanic |        | 6.9 |        |        |        |      | .2 |
| Gap*         |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
+--------------+--------+-----+--------+--------+--------+------+----+
| Low-Income   | 48.5   | 5   | 53.5   | 56.5   | 58.5   | 60.5 | 63 |
|              |        | 1.5 |        |        |        |      | .2 |
+--------------+--------+-----+--------+--------+--------+------+----+
| High-Income  | 76.8   | 7   | 77     | 77.1   | 77.2   | 77.3 | 77 |
|              |        | 6.9 |        |        |        |      | .4 |
+--------------+--------+-----+--------+--------+--------+------+----+
| *Income Gap* | 28.3   | 2   | 23.5   | 20.6   | 18.7   | 16.8 | 14 |
|              |        | 5.4 |        |        |        |      | .2 |
+--------------+--------+-----+--------+--------+--------+------+----+
| Note:        |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| Three-year   |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| averages are |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| used to help |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| smooth out   |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| yearly       |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| f            |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| luctuations. |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| The          |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| Department   |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| is           |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| considering  |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| adding an    |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| annual       |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| collection   |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| of these     |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| data for     |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| students     |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| with         |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| d            |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| isabilities. |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
|              |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| Source:      |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| October      |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| Current      |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| Population   |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| Survey (CPS) |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| conducted by |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| the Census   |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| Bureau.      |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
|              |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| Note about   |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| targets:     |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| These        |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| projections  |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| illustrate a |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| goal of      |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| cutting the  |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| various gaps |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| in half from |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| 2002-2007.   |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
+--------------+--------+-----+--------+--------+--------+------+----+

+--------------+--------+-----+--------+--------+--------+------+----+
| **Measure**  | **FY   | *   | **FY   | **FY   | **FY   | **FY | ** |
|              | 1998   | *FY | 2003** | 2004** | 2005** | 20   | FY |
|              | (Basel | 200 |        |        |        | 06** | 20 |
|              | ine)** | 2** |        |        |        |      | 07 |
|              |        |     |        |        |        |      | ** |
+--------------+--------+-----+--------+--------+--------+------+----+
| The national |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| percentage   |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| of           |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| full-time,   |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| bachelor     |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| de           |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| gree-seeking |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| students who |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| graduate     |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| within six   |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| years, and   |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| the          |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| percentage   |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| of           |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| full-time,   |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| two-year     |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| de           |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| gree-seeking |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| students who |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| graduate,    |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| earn a       |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| certificate, |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| or transfer  |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| to a         |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| four-year    |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| school       |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| within three |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| years.       |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
+--------------+--------+-----+--------+--------+--------+------+----+
| **4-Year     |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| In           |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| stitutions** |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
+--------------+--------+-----+--------+--------+--------+------+----+
| All          | 52.6   | 5   | 53.1   | 53.6   | 54.0   | 54.4 | 54 |
|              |        | 2.7 |        |        |        |      | .7 |
+--------------+--------+-----+--------+--------+--------+------+----+
| White        | 55.8   | 56  | 56.1   | 56.2   | 56.3   | 56.4 | 56 |
|              |        |     |        |        |        |      | .5 |
+--------------+--------+-----+--------+--------+--------+------+----+
| Black        | 34.5   | 37  | 38.9   | 40.9   | 42.8   | 44.6 | 46 |
|              |        |     |        |        |        |      | .4 |
+--------------+--------+-----+--------+--------+--------+------+----+
| *White-Black | 21.3   | 19  | 17.2   | 15.3   | 13.5   | 11.8 | 10 |
| Gap*         |        |     |        |        |        |      | .1 |
+--------------+--------+-----+--------+--------+--------+------+----+
| Hispanic     | 39.1   | 41  | 42.5   | 44.1   | 45.6   | 47   | 48 |
|              |        |     |        |        |        |      | .2 |
+--------------+--------+-----+--------+--------+--------+------+----+
| *Wh          | 16.7   | 15  | 13.6   | 12.1   | 10.7   | 9.4  | 8  |
| ite-Hispanic |        |     |        |        |        |      | .3 |
| Gap*         |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
+--------------+--------+-----+--------+--------+--------+------+----+
| **2-Year     |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| In           |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| stitutions** |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
+--------------+--------+-----+--------+--------+--------+------+----+
| All          | 32.2   | 3   | 32.7   | 33.0   | 33.2   | 33.4 | 33 |
|              |        | 2.5 |        |        |        |      | .7 |
+--------------+--------+-----+--------+--------+--------+------+----+
| White        | 33.8   | 34  | 34.1   | 34.2   | 34.3   | 34.4 | 34 |
|              |        |     |        |        |        |      | .5 |
+--------------+--------+-----+--------+--------+--------+------+----+
| Black        | 25.1   | 2   | 27     | 27.8   | 28.6   | 29.4 | 30 |
|              |        | 6.3 |        |        |        |      | .2 |
+--------------+--------+-----+--------+--------+--------+------+----+
| *White-Black | 8.7    | 7.7 | 7.1    | 6.4    | 5.7    | 5    | 4  |
| Gap*         |        |     |        |        |        |      | .3 |
+--------------+--------+-----+--------+--------+--------+------+----+
| Hispanic     | 29.9   | 3   | 30.8   | 31.2   | 31.6   | 32   | 32 |
|              |        | 0.5 |        |        |        |      | .5 |
+--------------+--------+-----+--------+--------+--------+------+----+
| *Wh          | 3.9    | 3.5 | 3.3    | 3      | 2.7    | 2.4  | 2  |
| ite-Hispanic |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| Gap*         |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
+--------------+--------+-----+--------+--------+--------+------+----+
| Source:      |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| Graduation   |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| Rate Survey  |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| (GRS)        |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| conducted by |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| NCES as part |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| of the       |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| Integrated   |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| P            |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| ostsecondary |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| Data System  |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| (IPEDS).     |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
|              |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| Note: The    |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| Department   |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| is           |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| considering  |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| adding an    |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| annual       |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| collection   |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| of these     |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| data for     |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| students     |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| with         |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| d            |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| isabilities. |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
|              |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| Note about   |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| targets:     |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| These        |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| projections  |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| illustrate a |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| goal of      |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| cutting the  |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| various gaps |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| in half from |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
| 2002-2007.   |        |     |        |        |        |      |    |
+--------------+--------+-----+--------+--------+--------+------+----+

+-----------------+----------+-------+----------+---------+---------+
| Measure         | **FY     | **FY  | **FY     | **FY    | **FY    |
|                 | 1999**   | 2     | 2003**   | 2005**  | 2007**  |
|                 |          | 001** |          |         |         |
|                 | **(Bas   |       |          |         |         |
|                 | eline)** |       |          |         |         |
+-----------------+----------+-------+----------+---------+---------+
| **Awareness of  |          |       |          |         |         |
| Financial       |          |       |          |         |         |
| Aid**. The      |          |       |          |         |         |
| percentage of   |          |       |          |         |         |
| parents of      |          |       |          |         |         |
| students in     |          |       |          |         |         |
| middle and high |          |       |          |         |         |
| school who      |          |       |          |         |         |
| talked with a   |          |       |          |         |         |
| counselor about |          |       |          |         |         |
| the             |          |       |          |         |         |
| availability of |          |       |          |         |         |
| financial aid   |          |       |          |         |         |
| for             |          |       |          |         |         |
| postsecondary   |          |       |          |         |         |
| study.\*        |          |       |          |         |         |
|                 |          |       |          |         |         |
| **              |          |       |          |         |         |
| Middle-School** |          |       |          |         |         |
+-----------------+----------+-------+----------+---------+---------+
| All             | 27       | 28    | 29       | 30      | 31      |
+-----------------+----------+-------+----------+---------+---------+
| Low-income      | 23       | 25    | 27       | 29      | 31      |
+-----------------+----------+-------+----------+---------+---------+
| High-income     | 30       | 30.2  | 30.4     | 30.7    | 31      |
+-----------------+----------+-------+----------+---------+---------+
| *Income Gap*    | 7        | 5.2   | 3.4      | 1.7     | 0       |
+-----------------+----------+-------+----------+---------+---------+
| **High-School** |          |       |          |         |         |
+-----------------+----------+-------+----------+---------+---------+
| All             | 48       | 49.5  | 50.5     | 51.3    | 53      |
+-----------------+----------+-------+----------+---------+---------+
| Low-income      | 39       | 42.5  | 46       | 49.5    | 53      |
+-----------------+----------+-------+----------+---------+---------+
| High-income     | 52       | 52.2  | 52.4     | 52.7    | 53      |
+-----------------+----------+-------+----------+---------+---------+
| *Income Gap*    | 13       | 9.7   | 6.4      | 3.2     | 0       |
+-----------------+----------+-------+----------+---------+---------+

Note: These data are not available by race/ethnicity.

+-----------------+----------+-------+----------+---------+---------+
| Measure         | **FY     | **FY  | **FY     | **FY    | **FY    |
|                 | 1999**   | 2     | 2003**   | 2005**  | 2007**  |
|                 |          | 001** |          |         |         |
|                 | **(Bas   |       |          |         |         |
|                 | eline)** |       |          |         |         |
+-----------------+----------+-------+----------+---------+---------+
| **Awareness of  |          |       |          |         |         |
| Academic        |          |       |          |         |         |
| Requirements**. |          |       |          |         |         |
| The percentage  |          |       |          |         |         |
| of parents of   |          |       |          |         |         |
| students in     |          |       |          |         |         |
| middle and high |          |       |          |         |         |
| school who      |          |       |          |         |         |
| talked with a   |          |       |          |         |         |
| counselor about |          |       |          |         |         |
| the academic    |          |       |          |         |         |
| requirements    |          |       |          |         |         |
| for             |          |       |          |         |         |
| postsecondary   |          |       |          |         |         |
| study.\*        |          |       |          |         |         |
+-----------------+----------+-------+----------+---------+---------+
| **              |          |       |          |         |         |
| Middle-School** |          |       |          |         |         |
+-----------------+----------+-------+----------+---------+---------+
| All             | 10       | 10.8  | 11.6     | 12.4    | 13      |
+-----------------+----------+-------+----------+---------+---------+
| Low-income      | 8        | 9     | 10.5     | 11.7    | 13      |
+-----------------+----------+-------+----------+---------+---------+
| High-income     | 12       | 12.2  | 12.4     | 12.7    | 13      |
+-----------------+----------+-------+----------+---------+---------+
| *Income Gap*    | 4        | 3.2   | 1.9      | 1       | 0       |
+-----------------+----------+-------+----------+---------+---------+
| **High-School** |          |       |          |         |         |
+-----------------+----------+-------+----------+---------+---------+
| All             | 38       | 40    | 43       | 46      | 49      |
+-----------------+----------+-------+----------+---------+---------+
| Low-income      | 28       | 33    | 38       | 43.5    | 49      |
+-----------------+----------+-------+----------+---------+---------+
| High-income     | 48       | 48.2  | 48.4     | 48.7    | 49      |
+-----------------+----------+-------+----------+---------+---------+
| *Income Gap*    | 20       | 15.2  | 10.4     | 5.2     | 0       |
+-----------------+----------+-------+----------+---------+---------+
| \* Among        |          |       |          |         |         |
| parents who     |          |       |          |         |         |
| indicated they  |          |       |          |         |         |
| expected their  |          |       |          |         |         |
| child to attend |          |       |          |         |         |
| college.        |          |       |          |         |         |
|                 |          |       |          |         |         |
| Source:         |          |       |          |         |         |
| National        |          |       |          |         |         |
| Household       |          |       |          |         |         |
| Education       |          |       |          |         |         |
| Survey          |          |       |          |         |         |
| conducted by    |          |       |          |         |         |
| NCES.           |          |       |          |         |         |
+-----------------+----------+-------+----------+---------+---------+

Note: These data are not available by race/ethnicity.

##### **Strategic Goal 5**

#####  ***Enhance the quality of and access to postsecondary and adult education***

Although American institutions of higher education are among the best in
the world, the public and many policymakers are especially concerned
about the effectiveness of postsecondary institutions in two areas:
preparing high-quality teachers and completing the education of students
within a reasonable time. An effective strategy for ensuring that
institutions are held accountable for results is to make information on
student achievement and attainment available to the public, thus
enabling prospective students to make informed choices about where to
attend college and how to spend their tuition dollars.

Addressing widespread concern about the quality of new teachers,
Congress established an accountability system for teacher preparation
programs in Title II when reauthorizing the Higher Education Act (HEA)
in 1998. This system provides for the first time basic information on
the quality of teacher program completers. Public and Congressional
critics of this system note, however, that it needs to be strengthened
to produce information that is more useful to the public and policy
makers. As part of the next reauthorization of HEA, the Department will
recommend refinements to this system.

Congress also has addressed concerns about the effectiveness of
postsecondary institutions in graduating students in a timely fashion.
In amendments to the HEA in 1992, Congress required institutions of
higher education to report the proportions of their students who
complete their educational programs. Critics have pointed out that these
measures are not effectively integrated into accountability systems in
most states, and thus are not routinely used in evaluating postsecondary
institutions. In the next reauthorization, the Department will recommend
steps to strengthen the usefulness of these measures so that they can be
incorporated into state accountability systems. Successfully meeting
this objective will require the cooperation of the postsecondary
community, the states and Congress.

##### 

##### 

##### **Strategies for Objective 5.2**

**Refine the Title II accountability system.** We will build on the
successes of the Higher Education Act's Title II reporting system for
teacher preparation programs and make it more effective. The Department
will continue to work with Congress, the states and institutions in
standardizing data definitions and elements. (See objective 2.4 for more
details about our strategies to boost teacher quality and improve
teacher preparation.)

**Create a reporting system on retention and completion that is useful
for state accountability systems.** The Department will work with
Congress, the states and institutions to expand the current student
retention and completion reporting system for institutions of higher
education so that data are available by race, gender, ethnicity,
disability, and federal-aid recipient status. We will work to include
community colleges in the system, but will allow indicators of
completion that include transfer rates to four-year colleges (and do not
penalize institutions for serving part-time students).

# Performance Measures for Objective 5.2

  --------------- -------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
  **Measure**     **FY 2001      **FY     **FY     **FY     **FY     **FY     **FY
                  (Baseline)**   2002**   2003**   2004**   2005**   2006**   2007**

  The percentage  63             80       100      100      100      100      100
  of states and                                                               
  territories                                                                 
  submitting                                                                  
  Title II                                                                    
  reports with                                                                
  all data                                                                    
  reported using                                                              
  federally                                                                   
  required                                                                    
  definitions.                                                                
  --------------- -------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------

  --------------- -------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
  **Measure**     **FY 2001      **FY     **FY     **FY     **FY     **FY     **FY
                  (Baseline)**   2002**   2003**   2004**   2005**   2006**   2007**

  The percentage  Baseline       50       60       70       80       90       100
  of states with                                                              
  comprehensive                                                               
  reporting                                                                   
  systems for                                                                 
  colleges and                                                                
  universities                                                                
  that include                                                                
  student                                                                     
  retention data                                                              
  and graduation                                                              
  rates for                                                                   
  four-year                                                                   
  degree seekers                                                              
  after 4, 5 and                                                              
  6 years;                                                                    
  graduation                                                                  
  rates for                                                                   
  two-year degree                                                             
  and certificate                                                             
  seekers after 2                                                             
  and 3 years;                                                                
  and transfer                                                                
  rates for                                                                   
  students at                                                                 
  2-year and                                                                  
  4-year                                                                      
  institutions,                                                               
  disaggregated                                                               
  by student                                                                  
  demographic                                                                 
  factors such as                                                             
  race, gender,                                                               
  ethnicity,                                                                  
  disability, and                                                             
  federal aid                                                                 
  versus                                                                      
  non-federal aid                                                             
  recipient.                                                                  
  --------------- -------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------

##### **Strategic Goal 5**

#####  ***Enhance the quality of and access to postsecondary and adult education***

The financing of postsecondary education continues to be a challenge for
many students and their families. According to the College Board, the
average costs of attendance for 2001-2002 are \$17,123 for four-year
private institutions (up 5.5 percent from the previous year); \$3,754 in
four-year public institutions (up 7.7 percent from the previous year);
and \$1,738 for two-year public institutions (up 5.8 percent from the
previous year). With tuitions rising faster than inflation, students are
borrowing more money than in the past to attend college. The median
student federal loan amount tripled between 1990 and 1999, rising from
\$4,000 to \$11,199, and students are increasingly turning to
non-federal sources of loans including credit cards to pay college
expenses. These trends are occurring even though funding for Pell
Grants, Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants and other
campus-based aid programs continue to grow.

In response to the concerns about the price of college, the Department
will create a study group to examine the factors that contribute to the
rising costs of postsecondary education. Through the study group, the
Department will seek ideas and suggestions for achieving cost
efficiencies and cost reductions among postsecondary institutions. The
group will also consider effective funding strategies for nontraditional
and part-time students, including those participating in distance
learning via technology. The Department will then disseminate the
findings. In addition, the Department will continue to work toward a
more efficient Title IV aid process for the benefit of all parties
participating in these programs.

##### **Strategies for Objective 5.3**

**Investigate postsecondary funding strategies.** The Department will
assemble a study group of financial aid experts, financial officers of
postsecondary institutions, college presidents, trustees, parents,
students and Department staff to make recommendations for achieving cost
efficiencies and cost reductions at postsecondary education
institutions, as well as reducing unmet need and borrower indebtedness.

**Improve the efficiency of the Title IV aid process.** The Department
will work to improve the efficiency of the Title IV aid process through
streamlining requirements, reducing data burden and simplifying
programs.

## 

## **External Factors** 

**[College Prices and Costs.]{.underline}** Many factors affecting
college prices (tuition and fees, room and board), costs and revenues
are well beyond the control of the Department, including state
appropriations and costs related to salaries, facilities/maintenance
expenses, health care and insurance. However, we can create a forum for
identifying the rising prices of colleges and universities and for
identifying cost reduction measures that have proven successful at
individual institutions and businesses, and highlight those practices
for consideration and replication by similar postsecondary institutions.

**Performance Measures for Objective 5.3**

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 21%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Measure</strong></td>
<td><strong>FY 2000</strong></td>
<td><strong>FY 2001</strong></td>
<td><strong>FY 2002</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>FY 2003</strong></td>
<td><strong>FY 2004</strong></td>
<td><strong>FY 2005</strong></td>
<td><strong>FY 2006</strong></td>
<td><strong>FY 2007</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Average national increases in college tuition, adjusted for
inflation</td>
<td>--</td>
<td><p>3.1%</p>
<p>(Base-line)</p></td>
<td>3.1%</td>
<td colspan="2">3.0%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Unmet need as % of cost of attendance for low-income dependent
students</td>
<td>43.1* (base-line)</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>42**</td>
<td colspan="2">41**</td>
<td>40</td>
<td>39**</td>
<td>38**</td>
<td>37**</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Unmet need as % of cost of attendance for low-income independent
students with children</td>
<td>60.6* (base-line)</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>59**</td>
<td colspan="2">58**</td>
<td>57</td>
<td>56**</td>
<td>55**</td>
<td>54**</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Unmet need as % of cost of attendance for low-income independent
students without children</td>
<td>64.2* (base-line)</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>63**</td>
<td colspan="2">62**</td>
<td>61</td>
<td>60**</td>
<td>59**</td>
<td>58**</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="10">* Preliminary estimates from unreleased NPSAS 2000</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="10">** NPSAS is only collected every four years so
estimates will have to be made for intervening period</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Borrower indebtedness and average borrower payments (for federal
student loans) as a percentage of borrower income</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td colspan="2"><p>Less than</p>
<p>10% in first year of repay-ment</p></td>
<td><p>Less than</p>
<p>10% in first year of repay-ment</p></td>
<td><p>Less than</p>
<p>10% in first year of repay-ment</p></td>
<td><p>Less than</p>
<p>10% in first year of repay-ment</p></td>
<td><p>Less than</p>
<p>10% in first year of repay-ment</p></td>
<td><p>Less than</p>
<p>10% in first year of repay-ment</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="10"><p>Note: In 1998, the median debt burden was 7.1% of
borrower income.</p>
<p>Source: Federal loan records from the National Student Loan Data
System (NSLDS) merged with income data from the Internal Revenue
Service.</p></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

##### **Strategic Goal 5**

#####  ***Enhance the quality of and access to postsecondary and adult education***

An important strategy in closing the gap between low-income and minority
students and their high-income, non-minority peers is to strengthen the
quality of educational opportunities in institutions dedicated to
serving low-income and minority students. Through various programs and
initiatives, the Department promotes the quality of institutions serving
low-income and minority students.

There is more, however, that can and should be done by the Department to
offer access to information, training and technical assistance
opportunities that contribute to the fiscal soundness of these
institutions.

##### **Strategies for Objective 5.4**

**Offer technical assistance for planning, implementation, and
evaluation.** The Department will improve efforts to assist Historically
Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Hispanic Serving Institutions
(HSIs) and Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs) in long-term
financial planning, capacity-building and institutional sustainability.

**Assist in promoting the technology infrastructure of institutions
serving low-income and minority students.** We will focus guidance to
HBCUs, HSIs and TCUs on developing a 21^st^ century technology
infrastructure.

**Collaborate with HBCUs, HSIs and TCUs on K-12 improvement efforts.**
The Department will involve these institutions in professional
development and teacher preparation opportunities related to *No Child
Left Behind*.

**Performance Measures for Objective 5.4**

+--------------+------+------+-----+-------+------+------+------+---+
| **Measure**  | **FY | **FY | *   | **FY  | **FY | **FY | **FY | * |
|              | 19   | 20   | *FY | 2     | 20   | 20   | 20   | * |
|              | 99** | 01** | 200 | 003** | 04** | 05** | 06** | F |
|              |      |      | 2** |       |      |      |      | Y |
|              |      |      |     |       |      |      |      | 2 |
|              |      |      |     |       |      |      |      | 0 |
|              |      |      |     |       |      |      |      | 0 |
|              |      |      |     |       |      |      |      | 7 |
|              |      |      |     |       |      |      |      | * |
|              |      |      |     |       |      |      |      | * |
+--------------+------+------+-----+-------+------+------+------+---+
| The          | 69   | N/A  | 74  | 79    | 84   | 89   | 94   | 9 |
| percentage   |      |      |     |       |      |      |      | 9 |
| of HBCUs,    | Base |      |     |       |      |      |      |   |
| HSIs and     | line |      |     |       |      |      |      |   |
| TCUs with a  |      |      |     |       |      |      |      |   |
| positive     |      |      |     |       |      |      |      |   |
| fiscal       |      |      |     |       |      |      |      |   |
| balance.     |      |      |     |       |      |      |      |   |
+--------------+------+------+-----+-------+------+------+------+---+
| ####         |      |      | #   | ###   | ##   | ##   | ##   | # |
| # The percen |      |      | ### | ## Ba | ###  | ###  | ###  | # |
| tage of HBCU |      |      | # B | selin | Base | Base | Base | # |
| 's HSI's and |      |      | ase | e + 1 | line | line | line | # |
|  TCU's with  |      |      |     | 0 PP  |  + 2 |  + 3 |  + 4 | # |
| evidence of  |      |      | #   |       | 0 PP | 0 PP | 0 PP |   |
| increased te |      |      | ### |       |      |      |      | B |
| chnological  |      |      | # l |       |      |      |      | a |
| capacity (su |      |      | ine |       |      |      |      | s |
| ch as wirele |      |      |     |       |      |      |      | e |
| ss systems,  |      |      |     |       |      |      |      |   |
| high speed I |      |      |     |       |      |      |      | # |
| nternet conn |      |      |     |       |      |      |      | # |
| ections, dis |      |      |     |       |      |      |      | # |
| tance learni |      |      |     |       |      |      |      | # |
| ng programs, |      |      |     |       |      |      |      | # |
|  or other ev |      |      |     |       |      |      |      |   |
| idence of te |      |      |     |       |      |      |      | l |
| chnological  |      |      |     |       |      |      |      | i |
| innovation). |      |      |     |       |      |      |      | n |
|              |      |      |     |       |      |      |      | e |
|              |      |      |     |       |      |      |      |   |
|              |      |      |     |       |      |      |      | + |
|              |      |      |     |       |      |      |      |   |
|              |      |      |     |       |      |      |      | 5 |
|              |      |      |     |       |      |      |      | 0 |
|              |      |      |     |       |      |      |      |   |
|              |      |      |     |       |      |      |      | P |
|              |      |      |     |       |      |      |      | P |
+--------------+------+------+-----+-------+------+------+------+---+

PP = Percentage Points

##### **Strategic Goal 5**

#####  ***Enhance the quality of and access to postsecondary and adult education***

##### 

National surveys indicate that between 70 and 90 million adults in the
United States have limited English literacy skills that inhibit their
ability to support their families and exercise other important social
responsibilities. Shockingly, this includes an estimated ten million
high school graduates and 1.5 million college graduates. Current
classroom-based services reach only about three million individuals with
adult basic education and English literacy services. Combined with
education services delivered through other social services for adults,
only a fraction of the need for enhanced literacy is being addressed.
Working with state and local partners, we will develop new models of
flexible, high-quality basic education and English literacy services to
help a larger percentage of America's adult population, including
individuals with disabilities, receive the literacy skills they need for
workplace learning, postsecondary learning and lifelong personal and
career growth. We will also work with state vocational rehabilitation
programs, other federal agencies and others to improve employment
outcomes for adults with disabilities and will aggressively implement
the President's New Freedom Initiative.

##### **Strategies for Objective 5.5**

##### 

**Invest in research on adult literacy and English acquisition**.
Working with the National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development and the National Institute for Literacy, the Department will
invest in rigorous research on adult reading strategies, family
literacy, English language acquisition, and literacy-related learning
disabilities.

**Develop strong research-to-practice models**. Building from new
research, the Department will develop effective strategies to help adult
education teachers, volunteers, community-based organizations and other
social service programs understand research findings and integrate them
into locally run classes and programs.

**Develop high-quality community- and faith-based models**. We will
invest in pilot sites to develop new models of collaboration between
well-trained adult education teachers, volunteers and other community
resources like libraries. These partnerships will link adult education
and other government social services for adults needing enhanced
literacy skills with local resources of faith-based and community-based
organizations and businesses that support workplace education.

**Develop technology solutions**. We will continue to invest in the
development of adult education diagnostic and instructional technologies
that can be used by social services, one-stop career centers, and
community-based technology centers. We will also support and promote
research and innovation in the development and use of technology for
improving employment and living skills for people with disabilities.

**Implement performance standards.** We will work with State vocational
rehabilitation (VR) agencies to ensure implementation of VR standards
that will assist individuals with disabilities in obtaining high-quality
employment outcomes.

**Fund demonstration projects.** We will support demonstration,
evaluation, research, and training activities that enhance literacy and
employment skills of adults with disabilities.

**Performance Measure for Objective 5.5**

+----------------+--------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| ########       |                    | ## |    |    |    |    |    |
| Objective 5.5  |                    | ## |    |    |    |    |    |
|                |                    | ## |    |    |    |    |    |
| ######## Li    |                    | ## |    |    |    |    |    |
| teracy and Emp |                    |  P |    |    |    |    |    |
| loyment Skills |                    | er |    |    |    |    |    |
|                |                    | fo |    |    |    |    |    |
|                |                    | rm |    |    |    |    |    |
|                |                    | an |    |    |    |    |    |
|                |                    | ce |    |    |    |    |    |
|                |                    |  T |    |    |    |    |    |
|                |                    | ar |    |    |    |    |    |
|                |                    | ge |    |    |    |    |    |
|                |                    | ts |    |    |    |    |    |
+----------------+--------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
|                |                    | *  | *  | *  | *  | *  | *  |
|                |                    | *' | *' | *' | *' | *' | *' |
|                |                    | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 |
|                |                    | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** |
+----------------+--------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| #######        | The percentage of  | 19 | X  | 17 | X  | 15 | X  |
| Adult Literacy | adults reading at  |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|                | the lowest level   |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|                | of literacy in     |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|                | national adult     |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|                | literacy           |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|                | assessments. \*    |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|                |                    |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|                | (1992 Baseline =   |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|                | 21%)               |    |    |    |    |    |    |
+----------------+--------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| ####### E      | The percentage of  | 63 | 63 | 64 | 64 | 65 | 65 |
| mployment of I | all persons served |    | .5 |    | .5 |    | .5 |
| ndividuals wit | by State VR        |    |    |    |    |    |    |
| h Disabilities | agencies who       |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|                | obtain employment. |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|                |                    |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|                | (2000 Baseline =   |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|                | 62.5%)             |    |    |    |    |    |    |
+----------------+--------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+

\* Source: Periodic national surveys of Adult Literacy. The National
Assessments of Adult Literacy (NAAL) will be conducted in 2002. For this
indicator, we are measuring "prose" literacy. These targets may need to
be adjusted pending the results of the 2002 study. The Department is
considering adding a biennial collection of these data.

#####  {#section-55 .unnumbered}

##### **Strategic Goal 6**

##### ***Establish management excellence throughout the Department of Education***

##### In order to create a culture of achievement throughout the nation's educational system, we must first create a culture of accountability within the Department. We will do so by aggressively implementing the President's Management Agenda, including his initiative on community- and faith-based organizations. Through our work to create a culture of accountability and establish management excellence, we will earn the President's Quality Award.

##### **Objective 6.1**

![](media/image8.png){width="1.625in"
height="0.7333333333333333in"}Develop and maintain financial integrity
and management and internal controls.

##### **Objective 6.2**

Improve the strategic management of the Department's human capital.

##### **Objective 6.3**

Manage information technology resources, using e-gov, to improve service
for our customers and partners.

##### **Objective 6.4**

Modernize the Student Financial

Assistance programs and reduce their high-risk status.

##### **Objective 6.5**

Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to
results.

##### **Objective 6.6** 

##### Leverage the contributions of community- and faith-based organizations to increase the effectiveness of Department programs.

##### 

##### **Objective 6.7** 

By becoming a high performance, customer-focused organization, earn the
President's Quality Award.

##### **Strategic Goal 6**

#####  ***Establish management excellence throughout the Department of Education***

The first step to management excellence is to provide managers and
external stakeholders with timely financial information to aid them when
making programmatic and asset-related decisions. Financial integrity
also means that we maintain effective internal controls to reduce the
risk of errors and permit effective monitoring of programs and processes
and that employees assume responsibility for identifying and addressing
problems.

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### **Strategies for Objective 6.1**

**Update and integrate financial systems.** We will implement a new
financial system capable of producing timely and reliable financial data
and reconcile systems to the general ledger.

**Prepare financial statements to provide leading data on Department
performance.** The Department will create quarterly financial statements
to track financial performance against agreed upon budgets.**\
**

**Analyze data to reduce fraud.** The Department will create data
analysis capabilities within financial and program management systems
and will refer any cases of suspected fraud to the Inspector General's
office.

**Review existing internal controls and implement changes where
necessary.** These efforts will include processes for monitoring and
holding grantees, contractors, guarantors and lenders accountable and
closing open audit recommendations.

**Increase the use of performance-based contracting.** Contractors will
be held accountable to objective performance criteria.

######### 

######### Performance Measures for Objective 6.1

+------------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Measure    | FY 2002 | FY     | FY     | FY     | FY     | FY     |
|            |         | 2003   | 2004   | 2005   | 2006   | 2007   |
+------------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| The        | Yes     | Yes    | Yes    | Yes    | Yes    | Yes    |
| a          |         |        |        |        |        |        |
| chievement |         |        |        |        |        |        |
| of an      |         |        |        |        |        |        |
| u          |         |        |        |        |        |        |
| nqualified |         |        |        |        |        |        |
| audit      |         |        |        |        |        |        |
| opinion.   |         |        |        |        |        |        |
+------------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| The        | C       | B      | A      | A      | A      | A      |
| financial  |         |        |        |        |        |        |
| management |         |        |        |        |        |        |
| grade      |         |        |        |        |        |        |
| received   |         |        |        |        |        |        |
| on "report |         |        |        |        |        |        |
| card" by   |         |        |        |        |        |        |
| the        |         |        |        |        |        |        |
| Su         |         |        |        |        |        |        |
| bcommittee |         |        |        |        |        |        |
| on         |         |        |        |        |        |        |
| Government |         |        |        |        |        |        |
| E          |         |        |        |        |        |        |
| fficiency, |         |        |        |        |        |        |
| Financial\ |         |        |        |        |        |        |
| Management |         |        |        |        |        |        |
| and        |         |        |        |        |        |        |
| Intergo    |         |        |        |        |        |        |
| vernmental |         |        |        |        |        |        |
| Relations. |         |        |        |        |        |        |
+------------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| The number | 8 open  | 7      | 6      | 5      | 4      | 3      |
| of audit   | re      |        |        |        |        |        |
| recom      | commend |        |        |        |        |        |
| mendations | -ations |        |        |        |        |        |
| from prior |         |        |        |        |        |        |
| year       |         |        |        |        |        |        |
| financial  |         |        |        |        |        |        |
| statement  |         |        |        |        |        |        |
| audits     |         |        |        |        |        |        |
| remaining  |         |        |        |        |        |        |
| open.      |         |        |        |        |        |        |
+------------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| The        | 20% of  | 25% of | 30% of | 35% of | 40% of | 45% of |
| percentage | c       | co     | co     | co     | co     | co     |
| of         | ontract | ntract | ntract | ntract | ntract | ntract |
| perform    | a       | ac     | ac     | ac     | ac     | ac     |
| ance-based | ctions; | tions; | tions; | tions; | tions; | tions; |
| contract   |         |        |        |        |        |        |
| actions.   | 48% of  | 50% of | 50% of | 50% of | 60% of | 70% of |
|            | e       | el     | el     | el     | el     | el     |
|            | ligible | igible | igible | igible | igible | igible |
|            | service | s      | s      | s      | s      | s      |
|            | c       | ervice | ervice | ervice | ervice | ervice |
|            | ontract | co     | co     | co     | co     | co     |
|            | dollars | ntract | ntract | ntract | ntract | ntract |
|            |         | d      | d      | d      | d      | d      |
|            |         | ollars | ollars | ollars | ollars | ollars |
+------------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| The amount | Set and | Ba     | Ba     | Ba     | Ba     | Ba     |
| of         | v       | seline | seline | seline | seline | seline |
| erroneous  | alidate | minus  | minus  | minus  | minus  | minus  |
| payments.  | the     | 20%    | 30%    | 40%    | 50%    | 60%    |
|            | ba      |        |        |        |        |        |
|            | seline. |        |        |        |        |        |
+------------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| The number | B       | Ba     | Ba     | Ba     | Ba     | Ba     |
| of         | aseline | seline | seline | seline | seline | seline |
| erroneous  | minus   | minus  | minus  | minus  | minus  | minus  |
| payments.  | 10%     | 20%    | 30%    | 40%    | 50%    | 60%    |
+------------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| The        | B       | Ba     | Ba     | Ba     | Ba     | Ba     |
| Federal    | aseline | seline | seline | seline | seline | seline |
| admi       | minus   | minus  | minus  | minus  | minus  | minus  |
| nistrative | 10%     | 20%    | 30%    | 40%    | 50%    | 60%    |
| cost per   |         |        |        |        |        |        |
| grant      |         |        |        |        |        |        |
| tr         |         |        |        |        |        |        |
| ansaction. |         |        |        |        |        |        |
+------------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

##### **Strategic Goal 6**

#####  ***Establish management excellence throughout the Department of Education***

##### 

A key element of creating a Department-wide culture of performance
excellence and accountability is the strategic investment in human
capital. The Department will develop and carry out a plan for human
capital management that supports the Department's mission by ensuring
that skilled, high-performing employees are available and deployed
appropriately. This plan will be supported by a competitive sourcing
plan that ensures that services are provided at a maximum level of cost
effectiveness. We will delayer the organization and ensure that our work
is citizen-centered.

##### **Strategies for Objective 6.2**

**Identify and obtain needed skills.** The Department will continue its
efforts to identify core work competencies and develop and implement
strategies to close skills gaps. We will encourage managers to utilize
all the tools at their disposal to recruit and hire highly qualified
individuals.

**Improve employee performance and accountability.** The Department will
help to ensure high employee performance and accountability by improving
management training in these areas and by strengthening the Department's
employee performance appraisal system and related processes.

Managers will be given the freedom to manage and will be held
accountable for results. A new award system will be developed that will
provide recognition and bonuses to individuals and teams who do
outstanding work related to the strategic plan.

**Improve core processes related to human capital management.** The
Department will re-engineer key human capital processes and ensure that
it has the resources to assist the Department in addressing its human
capital challenges. Specifically, we will revamp our hiring system so
that managers may bring on high quality employees in a timely fashion.
We will delayer the bureaucracy.

**Improve the use of competitive sourcing.** The Department will
identify new opportunities for competitive sourcing in order to augment
the organization's capabilities.

######### Performance Measures for Objective 6.2

  ------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -------- ---------
  Measure            FY 2002     FY 2003     FY 2004     FY 2005     FY 2006  FY 2007

  ED employees are   52%[^1]     56%         60%         64%         69%      75%
  focused on results                                                          
  and show interest                                                           
  in improving the                                                            
  services of their                                                           
  organization. \*                                                            

  ED employees hold  56% [^2]    60%         68%         75%         80%      80%
  their leaders in                                                            
  high regard. \*                                                             

  ED employees       62%[^3]     65          68%         71%         75%      75%
  believe that their                                                          
  organization has                                                            
  set high but                                                                
  realistic                                                                   
  results-oriented                                                            
  work expectations                                                           
  for them. \*                                                                

  Employees believe  71%[^4]     72%         73%         75%         75%      75%
  that their                                                                  
  organization                                                                
  supports their                                                              
  development and                                                             
  expects them to                                                             
  improve their                                                               
  skills and learn                                                            
  new skills to do                                                            
  their jobs better.                                                          
  \*                                                                          

  ED meets skills    Baseline    TBD         TBD         TBD         TBD      TBD
  gap reduction                                                               
  targets included                                                            
  in its human                                                                
  capital management                                                          
  plan.                                                                       

  The percentage of  Baseline    70          75          80          85       90
  managers satisfied                                                          
  with services                                                               
  received from OM                                                            
  when hiring staff.                                                          

  ED meets its       Compete 43  Compete 86  Compete     Compete     TBD      TBD
  annual goals for   positions   positions   152[^5]     152[^6]              
  competitive                                positions   positions            
  sourcing.                                                                   
  ------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -------- ---------

\* Performance measure recommended by OPM Human Capital Scorecard. Data
collection instrument currently being developed by OPM. Adoption and use
of this instrument will allow for updated baselines and benchmarking for
purposes of setting targets using data gathered from other federal
agencies, government-wide averages and highs and private sector survey
participants.

##### **Strategic Goal 6**

#####  ***Establish management excellence throughout the Department of Education***

The Department must leverage information technology to perform its
business functions more efficiently and to better serve our partners,
internal customers and external customers. Improved Department
accountability requires that we effectively manage IT investments,
protect data integrity and confidentiality, improve data management and
increase our effectiveness in the use of technology in customer service.
We will use information technology to support effective business
processes and we will improve and simplify ineffective business
processes before applying information technology. We will prioritize IT
investments across program offices based on our prioritization of the
Department's business needs. Re-engineered business processes will
ensure that state and local educational institutions and institutions of
higher education can communicate effectively with the Department without
undue burden. We will assure confidentiality and accessibility.

##### **Strategies for Objective 6.3**

**Encourage customers to conduct business with the Department on-line.**
The Department will implement productivity improvements through
implementation of e-gov applications, customer relationship management,
supply chain management and knowledge management best practices, while
at the same time protecting the privacy of our customers.

**Ensure security of the IT infrastructure.** We will periodically
update and validate the General Support Systems (GSS) and Major
Applications (MA) Inventory. For each GSS and MA, assure a current risk
assessment and security plan and that certification and accreditation
are in place.

**Reduce our partners' data reporting burden.** The Department will
minimize burden on our partners and improve the quality of federal data
by implementing a performance-based data management initiative. We will
collect data once and use it in many ways. We will consolidate our data
collections and data storage. With our stakeholders and customers, we
will collaboratively build and publish data standards, including
consensus data elements and definitions. The enterprise architecture
will be structured to meet business needs. (See Objective 1.2 for more
on this topic.)

**Complete enterprise architecture**. The Department will create a
business-focused enterprise architecture that describes long-term
information system requirements and prioritizes IT business needs based
on Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives.

######### Performance Measures for Objective 6.3

######### 

+-------------------+----------+----+------+--------+-------+-------+
| Measure           | FY 2002  | FY | FY   | FY     | FY    | FY    |
|                   |          | 20 | 2004 | 2005   | 2006  | 2007  |
|                   |          | 03 |      |        |       |       |
+-------------------+----------+----+------+--------+-------+-------+
| The percentage of | 50       | 60 | 75   | 75     | 75    | 75    |
| significant IT    |          |    |      |        |       |       |
| investments that  |          |    |      |        |       |       |
| achieve less than |          |    |      |        |       |       |
| a 10% variance of |          |    |      |        |       |       |
| cost and schedule |          |    |      |        |       |       |
| goals.            |          |    |      |        |       |       |
+-------------------+----------+----+------+--------+-------+-------+
| Percent customer  | Baseline | Ba | Base | Base   | Basel | Basel |
| ratings of ED IT  |          | se |      | line + | ine + | ine + |
| services "good"   |          |    | line | 15 PP  | 20 PP | 25 PP |
| or better.        |          | li |      |        |       |       |
|                   |          | ne | \+   |        |       |       |
|                   |          |  + | 10   |        |       |       |
|                   |          | 5  | PP   |        |       |       |
|                   |          | PP |      |        |       |       |
+-------------------+----------+----+------+--------+-------+-------+
| The OMB burden    | 40 M     | 38 | 35 M | 30 M   | 25 M  | 20 M  |
| hour estimates of |          | M  |      |        |       |       |
| Department        |          |    |      |        |       |       |
| program data      |          |    |      |        |       |       |
| collections per   |          |    |      |        |       |       |
| year. (2001       |          |    |      |        |       |       |
| baseline = 40.5   |          |    |      |        |       |       |
| million)          |          |    |      |        |       |       |
+-------------------+----------+----+------+--------+-------+-------+

PP = Percentage Points

##### **Strategic Goal 6**

#####  ***Establish management excellence throughout the Department of Education***

##### While Student Financial Assistance has made some progress in recent years in modernizing its systems, it remains on the General Accounting Office's high-risk program list. It is also the only Department program identified for corrective action by the President's Management Agenda. The Department, in partnership with SFA, will continue to improve and integrate its financial and management information systems to manage the student aid programs effectively. We will reduce the programs' vulnerability to fraud, waste, error and mismanagement.

##### 

##### 

##### **Strategies for Objective 6.4**

**Create an efficient and integrated delivery system.** We will use new
technologies and integrate systems by eliminating, consolidating, and
redesigning the thirteen current legacy systems to improve service, cut
costs and reduce the improper payment of student aid funds.

**Improve program monitoring.** The Department will strengthen financial
management and internal controls so that relevant, timely information is
available to manage day-to-day operations. We will improve technical
assistance and increase program monitoring.

#######  

######### Performance Measures for Objective 6.4

+-----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| **        | **FY    | **FY    | **FY    | **FY    | **FY    | **FY    |
| Measure** | 2002**  | 2003**  | 2004**  | 2005**  | 2006**  | 2007**  |
+-----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| By 2003,  | Acc     | Leave   | *M      | *M      | *M      | *M      |
| Student   | omplish | GAO     | aintain | aintain | aintain | aintain |
| Financial | SFA     | High    | Prior   | Prior   | Prior   | Prior   |
| A         | High    | Risk    | Year    | Year    | Year    | Year    |
| ssistance | Risk    | List    | R       | Result* | Result* | Result* |
| will      | Plan    |         | esult.* |         |         |         |
| leave the |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| GAO       |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| high-risk |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| list and  |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| will not  |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| return.   |         |         |         |         |         |         |
+-----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Default   | 7.2%    | 7.6%    | 8.0%    | 8.5%    | 9%      | 9.5%    |
| recovery  |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| rate.\*   |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| (2001     |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| Basel     |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| ine=7.8%) |         |         |         |         |         |         |
+-----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Pell      | 138M    | 110M    | ## 97M  | 83M     | 69M     | 55M     |
| Grants    |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| over      |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| payments. |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| (2001     |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| Baseline  |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| = 138     |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| Million)  |         |         |         |         |         |         |
+-----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| T         | Rec     | TBD\*\* | TBD\*\* | Rec     | *M      | *M      |
| imeliness | onciled |         |         | onciled | aintain | aintain |
| of SFA    | within  |         |         | within  | Prior   | Prior   |
| major     | 45 days |         |         | 5 days  | Year    | Year    |
| system    | of the  |         |         | of the  | Result* | Result* |
| reconc    | end of  |         |         | end of  |         |         |
| iliations | the     |         |         | the     |         |         |
| to the    | c       |         |         | c       |         |         |
| general   | alendar |         |         | alendar |         |         |
| ledger.   | month.  |         |         | month.  |         |         |
+-----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Customer  | TBD     | TBD     | TBD     | TBD     | TBD     | TBD     |
| service   |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| (measures |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| of        |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| service   |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| levels of |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| targeted  |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| SFA       |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| tra       |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| nsactions |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| with      |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| public).  |         |         |         |         |         |         |
+-----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| In        | 100% of | TBD     | TBD     | TBD     | TBD     | TBD     |
| tegration | 2002    |         |         |         |         |         |
| of SFA    | inte    |         |         |         |         |         |
| systems.  | gration |         |         |         |         |         |
|           | targets |         |         |         |         |         |
|           | met;    |         |         |         |         |         |
|           | goals   |         |         |         |         |         |
|           | esta    |         |         |         |         |         |
|           | blished |         |         |         |         |         |
|           | for     |         |         |         |         |         |
|           | 200     |         |         |         |         |         |
|           | 3-2007. |         |         |         |         |         |
+-----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

M = Million

\* Defined as the sum of SFA's collections on defaulted loans---less
consolidations---divided by the outstanding default portfolio at the end
of the previous year.

\*\* System and operational plans to be developed in FY 2002; targets
will be set for 2003 and 2004 upon completion of these plans.

######### Strategic Goal 6

#####  ***Establish management excellence throughout the Department of Education***

The Department will seek funding for programs that work, and will seek
to reform or eliminate programs that do not. The budget execution
process will be linked to the Secretary's strategic plan to ensure that
high priority activities are funded. The Department will have standard,
integrated budgeting, performance, and accounting information systems at
the program level that will provide timely feedback for management that
will be consolidated at the agency and government levels.

##### **Strategies for Objective 6.5**

**Align Budget and Planning Processes.** The Department will integrate
its budget requests with annual GPRA reports and plans. The Department
will support programs and activities that have demonstrated their
effectiveness and that are aligned with the President's strategic
priorities. Spending plans will be aligned with the implementation of
the Strategic Plan.

**Track expenditures to strategic objectives.** The Department will
ensure that full budgetary cost is charged to mission accounts and
activities. The cost of outputs and programs will be integrated with
performance in budget requests and execution. A cost accounting system
will be developed.

**Document program effectiveness.** The Department will use several
strategies to determine program effectiveness. The performance-based
data management initiative will allow for the collection of better data
and stronger analysis of the impact of various federal programs. Program
evaluation studies will be dramatically improved through the use of
rigorous methods. Plus, randomized field trials of education
interventions will be supported in order to build the knowledge base of
what is working at the local level. (See Objective 1.1 for more on this
topic.)

######### Performance Measures for Objective 6.5

+---------------+-------------------+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| #####         |                   | ## |    |    |    |     |     |
| ### Objective |                   | ## |    |    |    |     |     |
|  6.5 Budget a |                   | ## |    |    |    |     |     |
| nd Performanc |                   | ## |    |    |    |     |     |
| e Integration |                   |  P |    |    |    |     |     |
|               |                   | er |    |    |    |     |     |
|               |                   | fo |    |    |    |     |     |
|               |                   | rm |    |    |    |     |     |
|               |                   | an |    |    |    |     |     |
|               |                   | ce |    |    |    |     |     |
|               |                   |  T |    |    |    |     |     |
|               |                   | ar |    |    |    |     |     |
|               |                   | ge |    |    |    |     |     |
|               |                   | ts |    |    |    |     |     |
+---------------+-------------------+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+
|               |                   | *  | *  | *  | *  | *   | *   |
|               |                   | *' | *' | *' | *' | *'0 | *'0 |
|               |                   | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 6** | 7** |
|               |                   | ** | ** | ** | ** |     |     |
+---------------+-------------------+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| ###           | The percentage of | Ba | Ba | Ba | Ba | B   | B   |
| #### Program  | Department        | se | se | se | se | ase | ase |
| Effectiveness | programs that     |    |    |    |    |     |     |
|               | demonstrate       | li | li | li | li | l   | l   |
|               | effectiveness in  | ne | ne | ne | ne | ine | ine |
|               | terms of          |    |    |    |    |     |     |
|               | outcomes, either  | \+ | \+ | \+ | \+ | \+  | \+  |
|               | on performance    |    |    |    |    |     |     |
|               | indicators or     | 5  | 10 | 20 | 30 | 40  | 50  |
|               | through rigorous  | PP | PP | PP | PP | PP  | PP  |
|               | evaluations.      |    |    |    |    |     |     |
+---------------+-------------------+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+
|               | The percentage of | Ba | Ba | Ba | Ba | B   | B   |
|               | Department        | se | se | se | se | ase | ase |
|               | program dollars   |    |    |    |    |     |     |
|               | that are in       | li | li | li | li | l   | l   |
|               | programs that     | ne | ne | ne | ne | ine | ine |
|               | demonstrate       |    |    |    |    |     |     |
|               | effectiveness in  | \+ | \+ | \+ | \+ | \+  | \+  |
|               | terms of          |    |    |    |    |     |     |
|               | outcomes, either  | 10 | 20 | 30 | ## | 50  | 60  |
|               | on performance    | PP | PP | PP | ## | PP  | PP  |
|               | indicators or     |    |    |    | ## |     |     |
|               | through rigorous  |    |    |    |  4 |     |     |
|               | evaluations.      |    |    |    | 0  |     |     |
|               |                   |    |    |    | PP |     |     |
+---------------+-------------------+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+

PP = Percentage Points

The baseline year is FY 2001.

######### Strategic Goal 6

#####  ***Establish management excellence throughout the Department of Education***

America is richly blessed by the diversity and vigor of neighborhood
heroes: civic, social, charitable and religious groups. These quiet
champions lift people's lives in ways that are beyond government's
know-how, usually on shoestring budgets, and they heal our nation's ills
one heart and one act of kindness at a time. The indispensable and
transforming work of charitable service groups---including faith-based
groups---must be encouraged. These organizations bring the spirit of
compassion, volunteerism and close connection to communities to their
work. The Department will encourage their active participation in its
programs.

##### **Strategies for Objective 6.6**

**Provide technical assistance and outreach.** We will inform states and
local and Tribal governments of the eligibility of community- and
faith-based organizations for specific Department grants. We will offer
technical assistance and launch outreach efforts to encourage community-
and faith-based organizations to apply for funds.

**Remove barriers to the full participation of faith-based
organizations.** We will publish grant announcements in non-traditional
publications read by community- and faith-based organizations. The
Department will clarify in grant announcements that faith-based
organizations are eligible to apply provided that they meet all
statutory and regulatory requirements.

**Implement novice applicant procedures**. The Department will provide
increased technical assistance to novice applicants so that they can
successfully administer new grants and leverage private dollars with
federal funds.

######### Performance Measures for Objective 6.6

+----------------+--------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| ####           |                    | ## |    |    |    |    |    |
| #### Objective |                    | ## |    |    |    |    |    |
|  6.6 Leverage  |                    | ## |    |    |    |    |    |
|                |                    | ## |    |    |    |    |    |
| #######        |                    |  P |    |    |    |    |    |
| # Community- a |                    | er |    |    |    |    |    |
| nd Faith-Based |                    | fo |    |    |    |    |    |
|  Organizations |                    | rm |    |    |    |    |    |
|                |                    | an |    |    |    |    |    |
|                |                    | ce |    |    |    |    |    |
|                |                    |  T |    |    |    |    |    |
|                |                    | ar |    |    |    |    |    |
|                |                    | ge |    |    |    |    |    |
|                |                    | ts |    |    |    |    |    |
+----------------+--------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
|                |                    | *  | *  | *  | *  | *  | *  |
|                |                    | *' | *' | *' | *' | *' | *' |
|                |                    | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 |
|                |                    | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** |
+----------------+--------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| #####          | The percentage of  | 50 | 75 | 1  | 1  | 1  | 1  |
| ## Community a | non-statutory      |    |    | 00 | 00 | 00 | 00 |
| nd Faith-Based | barriers relating  |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|  Organizations | to technical       |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|                | assistance and     |    |    |    |    |    |    |
| #######        | outreach           |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|                | identified in the  |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|                | *Report on         |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|                | Findings* that are |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|                | removed.           |    |    |    |    |    |    |
+----------------+--------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
|                | The percentage of  | 25 | 50 | 75 | 1  | 1  | 1  |
|                | appropriate        |    |    |    | 00 | 00 | 00 |
|                | programs in which  |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|                | the novice         |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|                | applicant          |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|                | procedures are     |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|                | implemented.       |    |    |    |    |    |    |
+----------------+--------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+

######### Strategic Goal 6

#####  ***Establish management excellence throughout the Department of Education***

As a result of implementing the Blueprint for Management Excellence, the
President's Management Agenda, the recommendations of the Culture of
Accountability team and this Strategic Plan, the Department will be in a
position to compete for and win the President's Quality Award.

##### 

**Performance Measure for Objective 6.7**

######### 

  -------------------------------------- ----------- ---------- ----------
  Measure                                FY 2002     FY 2003    FY 2004

  President's Quality Award              Put         Apply for  Apply for
                                         structure   the Award  and win
                                         and process and gain   the
                                         in place to insight.   Award.\*
                                         apply for              
                                         Award.                 
  -------------------------------------- ----------- ---------- ----------

#########  

\* Agencies may not re-apply for five years after winning the award.

[^1]: survey respondents who agree "employees have a feeling of personal
    empowerment and ownership of work processes."

[^2]: survey respondents who favorably responded to, "Overall, how good
    a job do you feel is being done by your immediate supervisor/team
    leader?" Government-wide high score reported at 71%.

[^3]: survey respondents who agree "managers set challenging and
    attainable performance goals."

[^4]: survey respondents who agree "employees receive the training they
    need to perform their jobs." Government-wide high score reported at
    75%.

[^5]: '04 competitive sourcing target based on estimate of progress
    needed to meet the existing target for 2005. All targets will be
    reviewed during a comprehensive human capital management planning
    process to be completed in June 2002.

[^6]: '05 competitive sourcing target based on current policy decision
    to compete 50% of FY 2000 FAIR Act inventory (866 positions) by
    2005.