# Archived Information

#  Changes in Indicators and Targets 

Indicators must change over time as part of the process of continual
data improvement. As the Department of Education has become more
knowledgeable about the Government Performance Results Act (GPRA), we
have been improving our performance indicators and integrating more
sophisticated performance measures into our Performance Plan. The focus
and target have changed in some indicators, new indicators have been
added and others have been deleted. We are tracking these changes to
present a statement of our progress in improving our performance
indicators as well as a full report of the changes.

Most of the indicators that have changed did so between fiscal year 1999
and fiscal year 2000. This was expected, because we were just beginning
to learn about GPRA reporting. During the past year, our indicators,
data collection, and reporting process have been stabilizing. Some
measure of change will always be a part of performance indicators as
policy needs change, targets are met and exceeded, and improvements
arise in data collection methods.

**Increasing Focus: Decreasing the Number of Indicators**

Some indicators in the fiscal year 2000 plan were useful in determining
program progress, but they did not allow us to directly demonstrate
progress in the areas of data collection process, educational outcomes,
or national goals. These have been omitted from this year's Annual Plan
and may be retained for internal management and tracking purposes only.
One example of this type of indicator is fiscal year 2000 Indicator 21
*\"By 1999, all states will conduct periodic statewide surveys or
collect statewide data on alcohol and drug use of students and incidents
of crime and violence in schools.\"* This indicator was deleted from
this year's Annual Plan because its focus was more on process than on
outcomes. Approximately one-third of the indicators from last year's
Annual Plan were removed from this year's Annual Plan under this
guideline.

The second category of deleted indicators are those for which data were
not of high quality and could not be improved; therefore, we could not
report on program progress. These indicators have been omitted from this
year's Annual Plan, and they have not been retained for internal
management purposes. Where appropriate, new indicators, for which
resources and data will be available, have been created to better
measure the strategic goals and objectives of the Department.

The final category of deleted indicators are those that overlapped with
other indicators. For example, fiscal year 2000 Indicator 42 *\"At least
60 percent of teachers, school administrators, and school librarians
will have been trained on use of computers and the Internet to help
students learn by 2001\"* was dropped from this year\'s Annual Plan
because it overlapped with this year\'s Indicator 1.7.f *\"By 2001, at
least 50 percent of teachers will indicate that they feel very well
prepared to integrate educational technology into instruction\"*.

**Increasing Utility: Modifying the Focus of Indicators**

Programs have been working hard to improve their indicators as the
Department of Education incorporates performance planning into the GPRA
framework and becomes more sophisticated at writing indicators.
Indicators were modified where clear improvements could be made. For
example, modifications may include adding a numerical target to the text
of the indicator and choosing indicators that better match program
outcome goals. For example, Indicator 1.7.c: \"*The percentage of public
school instructional rooms connected to the Internet (Information
Superhighway) will increase from 14 percent in 1996 to higher
percentages thereafter\"* was modified to reflect the 2000 target of 100
percent, and now reads *\"The percentage of public school instructional
rooms connected to the Internet (Information Superhighway) will increase
to 100 percent by 2000.\"*

**Increasing Scope: Responding to Additional Data Needs**

Indicators have been added as part of the continuous improvement process
in our DQ and indicator systems. The additional indicators address all
aspects of the ED's strategic goals and objectives. Indicator 1.4.g is
an example of this process of continuous improvement: *\"There will be
an increase in the percentage of new teachers who feel very well
prepared to: (a) address the needs of students with limited English
proficiency; (b) address the needs of students with disabilities; and
(c) integrate educational technology into the grade or subject they
teach.\"*

For a comprehensive list of indicator changes, please see the appendix
"Changes from Fiscal Year 2000 Plan to Fiscal Year 2001 Plan."

**New Numbering System: Clarifying Strategic Goals**

We have instituted a new numbering system of indicators in the fiscal
year 2001 edition of the Annual Plan. The indicators have been numbered
and visibly linked to both their strategic goal and to their objectives.
This allows for immediate recognition of the relationship between the
indicator and the plan. This modification from last year\'s numbering
system was instituted to allow individuals outside the Department to
better track our indicators.

We have used a three-part numbering system: The first part is the goal
number; the second part is the objective of that goal; the third is a
letter that will differentiate the indicators. For example, fiscal year
2001 Indicator 1.4.c is the third indicator of the fourth objective of
Goal 1. For a full correlation table, please see the appendix "Numbering
System Changes from Fiscal Year 2000 to Fiscal Year 2001."