Background

		Military Dependent Students

There are approximately 1.1 million school-age dependents of military  parents in the United States and an increasing number of these dependents  have a parent deployed overseas. While DOD operates 194 schools for  military dependents in seven states, two territories, and in 12 countries,  DOD estimates the majority of military dependent students attend U.S.  public schools operated by local school districts. Because of their family  situations, military dependent students may face a range of unique  challenges, such as frequent moves throughout their school career and the  emotional difficulties of having deployed parents. Figure 1 is a photo from  a school we visited with about 90 percent military dependent students that  showed the global locations of students’ previous and future residences.  Military dependent students often find stability in the school routine  during the challenges of deployment and the resulting disruptions to daily  life, according to a DOD publication.

		Education and DOD’s Impact Aid Programs

Appropriations for Education’s Impact Aid program, reauthorized and  incorporated into Title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education  Act of 1965 (ESEA), were almost $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2010, and DOD  provided $41 million in additional funding for DOD Impact Aid. DOD  Impact Aid was established in the early 1990s to supplement the Education  Impact Aid program which, as we testified at that time, was underfunded  (i.e., meaning that appropriations did not fully fund authorizations).  Together, the programs are intended to compensate school districts for  revenue losses resulting from federal activities and to maintain  educational standards for all students. Federal activities that can affect  revenues or the ability to maintain standards include federal ownership of  property within a district as well as the enrollment of children whose  parents work or live on federal land (e.g., military bases).
Education Impact Aid funds are awarded in formula grants based on  various types of federally connected children in the school district and  other measures. If appropriations are not sufficient to provide funding at  the level for which all districts qualify, funding is reduced with more  heavily impacted districts receiving higher percentages of their maximum  payments than less impacted districts. Of the more than 14,000 school  districts nationwide, 902 received Education Impact Aid payments for  federally connected children in fiscal year 2009. Because Impact Aid  payments are not aimed at specific educational goals, accountability  requirements for the use of funds or for specific outcomes are minimal.
DOD Impact Aid, administered by DOD’s Education Activity (DoDEA)  Educational Partnership office is intended to supplement the much larger  Education Impact Aid program. All districts that receive DOD Impact Aid  also receive Education Impact Aid. There are no statutory requirements  mandating that school districts report on the use of these funds. DOD  Impact Aid has three distinct funding components for school districts with  military dependent students. These funding components are:    Supplemental assistance. These funds are allocated to school districts in  which military dependents made up at least 20 percent of average daily  attendance during the previous school year. Data from Education’s  Impact Aid application are used to determine a district’s eligibility. About  120 districts receive funds from DOD Impact Aid Supplemental assistance  annually. Total amounts awarded to all districts combined have ranged  from $30 to $40 million in each fiscal year from 2002 through 2010, and  the funding has been included by Congress in DOD’s annual appropriation  for operation and maintenance for defensewide activities.
Assistance for children with severe disabilities. Funds are allocated to  school districts with at least two military dependent children with severe  disabilities where the costs exceed certain criteria. The funding is a  reimbursement for expenses paid, and is sent to the school districts after  the expenses are incurred. According to a DOD official, approximately 40– 50 school districts that apply and meet the cost criteria are awarded funds  each year out of the 400–500 school districts that are potentially eligible.  Total amounts awarded to all districts combined have generally ranged  from $4 to $5 million in each fiscal year from 2002 through 2010.
Assistance for districts significantly affected by BRAC. Funds are  allocated to school districts that have been heavily impacted as a direct  result of large scale military rebasing. Beginning in the late 1980s, the U.S.  military has attempted to streamline the nation’s defense infrastructure  through a series of base realignments and closures. For example, as part of  the 2005 BRAC round, DOD has relocated or plans to relocate more than  120,000 military and DOD civilian personnel by September 2011. In  addition, DOD and local community officials expect thousands of  dependents to relocate to communities near the BRAC 2005 growth bases.  Thus, several U.S. bases could each see the addition of more than 10,000  military and DOD civilian personnel, along with their families and  children. To qualify for these DOD Impact Aid BRAC funds, districts must  have had at least 20 percent military dependent students in average daily  attendance during the previous school year and have had an overall  increase or decrease of 5 percent or more of these students, or an increase  or decrease of no less than 250 military dependent students at the end of  the prior school year. No school district is permitted to receive more than  $1 million in assistance in a fiscal year. In fiscal years 2006 and 2007, 45  districts received BRAC funding from DOD Impact Aid totaling $15  million. Although authorized, funding was not provided in fiscal years  2002, 2008, 2009, and 2010 (see table 1).

		Other DOD Assistance for Military Dependent Children

In addition to DOD Impact Aid, DOD provides other assistance to school  districts and military families for school-age children through the  following programs:    DoDEA grants to schools. DoDEA has two programs that provide grants  for military-connected schools nationwide. These grant programs began in  2008, and are authorized through fiscal year 2013. Unlike the  Supplemental Impact Aid program, the DoDEA grants are targeted for  specific uses and have specific evaluation requirements. The competitive  grant program aims to enhance student achievement, provide professional  development for educators, and integrate technology into curricula at  schools experiencing growth in numbers of military dependent students.  The invitational grant program aims to enhance student achievement and  ease challenges that military dependent students face due to their parents’  military service. Through these two programs, DoDEA awarded  approximately $56 million to 40 schools in fiscal year 2009, and  approximately $38 million to 32 schools in fiscal year 2010.
Military family life consultants. DOD’s Office of the Deputy Under  Secretary of Defense for Family Policy, Children, and Youth administers  the Military Family Life Consultant program, which provides counseling  services to faculty, staff, parents, and children in school districts with a  high percentage of parent deployments. The program began in fiscal year  2004 as a demonstration program, and received $150 million in fiscal year  2009 and $259 million in fiscal year 2010. Working as DOD contract  employees, these consultants typically assist with issues including school  transitions, adjustment to deployments and reunions, and parent-child  communication. In addition, consultants try to promote a culture that  encourages service members and their families to seek counseling or other  assistance when they have a problem. As of fall 2010, there were more  than 200 consultants supporting 297 schools and 105,000 military  dependent students worldwide.
School liaison officers. Each service branch—the Army, Marine Corps,  Navy, and Air Force—administers the School Liaison Officer program,  which provides military commanders with the support necessary to  coordinate assistance to and advise military parents of school-age children  on educational issues and assist in solving education-related problems. In  fiscal year 2010, the Army spent $14.7 million on its program, the Marine  Corps $2.1 million, and the Navy $3.6 million. A school liaison officer’s  responsibilities include promoting military parents’ involvement in  schools, assisting children and parents with overcoming obstacles to  education that stem from the military lifestyle, and educating local  communities and schools on the needs of military children. As of fall 2010,  there were more than 250 school liaison officers assisting DOD and  military-connected public schools throughout the world, and more than  150 of those were in the United States, all of whom are disbursed across  the service branches. The Army reported funding 141 school liaison  officers, the Marine Corps 24, the Navy 58, and the Air Force 82.
Tutor.com. Since the end of 2009, DOD has provided children of active  duty military with free, unlimited access to online tutoring, academic skills  courses, and homework assistance in math, science, social studies, and  English for kindergarten through 12th grade (K–12) students through  Tutor.com. The program received $2 million in fiscal year 2009.  Professional tutors assist military dependent students with completing  homework, studying for standardized tests, and writing papers. Some  tutors are career specialists who can assist with resume writing and job  searches. The program provided 162,570 sessions during fiscal year 2010.
Heroes at Home for preschool-age children. Heroes at Home, a pilot  program established in fiscal year 2007, seeks to assist active duty  parents of preschool-age children at military installations with significant  transition or deployment activities. The program provides research-based  curriculum and training for parent educators, who then work with other  parents to help them mitigate any risk to children’s well-being or  educational readiness posed by military life. Over a 3 year period, Heroes  at Home has served more than 1,900 military families and almost 2,400  children from birth until kindergarten. The program has received $3.4  million since fiscal year 2008. Activities supported by the funding ended in  September 2010, but will continue at some installations through other  funding mechanisms and existing programs.

		Other Education Assistance for School Districts

In addition to Education and DOD Impact Aid and other DOD assistance  for military dependent children, school districts may also qualify for other  funding from Education. For example, a district may receive funding  through Title I, Part A of ESEA, which authorizes financial assistance to  school districts and schools with high numbers or high percentages of  economically disadvantaged children. Funding may also come through the  Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which provides formula  grants to states and school districts for children ages 3–21 who have a  disability that impacts their education.

	Little Is Known About the Specific Use and Effectiveness of DOD Impact Aid and There Are No National Data on Military Dependent Students as a Group

		Most School Districts Put DOD Impact Aid Supplemental Funds Into Their General Fund for Overall Expenses and Specific Uses Are Generally Not Tracked

Little is known about the specific use and effectiveness of DOD Impact Aid  Supplemental funds because most school districts place the aid into their  general fund to support salaries, maintenance, and operation of schools. In  our survey of school districts that received DOD Impact Aid Supplemental  funds in any year from 2001 through 2009, of the 87 school districts that  reported receiving funds for the 2009–2010 school year, 85 percent put at  least some of their award in their general fund. Approximately 15 percent  of reported funds went to a capital project fund, about 11 percent to a  special revenue fund, and about 5 percent to another account (see fig.  2). When asked to provide a brief description of how DOD Impact Aid  Supplemental funds were spent, survey respondents reported using them  for salaries, supplies, technology, transportation, heating and cooling  systems, and capital upgrades.
School districts reported using, on average, about 77 percent of their  general fund for salaries and benefits. The general fund was also used to  pay for supplies, property services (such as operations, maintenance, and  repair of district-owned property), and other services such as food and  transportation (see fig. 3).
DOD Impact Aid Supplemental funds are not required by statute to be used  for specific purposes or to be targeted directly to military dependent  students. Further, there are no tracking or reporting requirements on the  expenditures of funds and, as a result, there is no way to determine  specifically how the funds are used. However, school districts that expend  $500,000 or more are subject to a financial audit in accordance with the  Single Audit Act. Fewer than 20 percent of the districts that responded to  our survey reported using a separate accounting code to track  expenditures of DOD Impact Aid Supplemental funds.
School districts that completed our survey had mixed opinions regarding  how easy or challenging it is or would be to track how they spend DOD  Impact Aid Supplemental funds. Thirty-nine percent of districts receiving  these funds said it would be easy for them to track the funds’ use. For  example, some districts already put their DOD Impact Aid Supplemental  funds into a separate fund or have an accounting system that can track  spending using a unique code. One school district official said in the  survey that the district would simply designate its DOD Impact Aid  Supplemental funds for a particular expenditure, such as 25 percent of its  total expenditures for counseling services, if tracking and reporting were  required. However, an equal percentage of districts in our survey said that  tracking exactly how funds are spent would be challenging and time  consuming because their accounting systems are not set up to do so, and  their funds are used for multiple programs and needs (see fig. 4). In  addition, we heard from several district officials that the amount of money  received by districts is so small—less than 2 percent, on average, of a  district’s total budget—that additional resources to account for the funds  would not be justified. One district official from Colorado said that DOD  Impact Aid funding is too small and too unpredictable to dedicate  specifically to military dependent students or to fund special staff or  programs.
Officials in four of the seven school districts that we interviewed and 19  survey respondents commented on the flexibility afforded by DOD Impact  Aid funding. Many of these districts appreciated the flexibility of these  funds because they can spend the money how they deem most beneficial  for their district. Flexible funding is particularly important now, some  school officials said, because of state cuts to education budgets in recent  years. In another 2010 GAO survey of school districts on stimulus  spending, an estimated one-third reported budget cuts in the 2009–2010  school year and nearly one in four reported cutting jobs, even with  American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 funds. Several school  districts we contacted reported using DOD Impact Aid Supplemental funds  to pay for necessities that would have otherwise been cut due to less  funding from the state. Fifty-one percent of survey respondents said if they  did not receive DOD Impact Aid Supplemental funds for the 2010–2011  school year, they would likely or very likely make cuts or adjustments to  instructional staff (see fig. 5). Forty-six percent reported that they would  likely or very likely make cuts or adjustments to technology expenditures,  and 42 percent reported that supplies and classroom materials would  likely or very likely be cut. One school district official said if his district  did not receive the funds, it would prioritize expenditures and any  consideration of possible staff reductions would be taken very seriously,  but used as a last resort. Another school district reported that since this  funding is small, a one-year loss would impact technology and supplies,  but staffing would only be affected if the funds were lost going forward.
When we asked school district officials in our survey if the DOD Impact  Aid Supplemental funding is effective in improving the quality of education  provided to military dependent students, 66 percent strongly agreed. One  district official from Texas told us that while DOD Impact Aid  Supplemental funding is not a significant amount of money compared to  that of the Education Impact Aid program, it is “the icing on the cake” for  addressing the unique needs of their military dependent students. In  addition, several school district officials we contacted said the funding is  very important and allows the district to improve the quality of education.  For example, the funds enabled one school district to make enhancements  to their educational programs, offer new programs, and upgrade facilities.  Sixty-seven percent of the districts responding to our survey strongly  agreed that DOD Impact Aid Supplemental funding serves its purpose by  compensating them for some of the tax and other revenues lost due to a  federal presence in the district. Yet, only 16 percent strongly or  somewhat agreed that the amount of DOD Impact Aid Supplemental  funding received is adequate.

		No National Data Exist on Military Dependent Students as a Group

Further compounding the difficulty of efforts to evaluate the effectiveness  of DOD Impact Aid funds, we found a lack of national data on military  dependent students in general. There are no national public data on  military dependent students’ academic progress, attendance, or long-term  outcomes, such as college attendance or workplace readiness. DoDEA  officials told us the only data currently available on this population come  from the Impact Aid forms completed by parents, which provide  information on whether a student is federally connected or not.
Federal agency officials and a military education advocacy group have  expressed interest in having more data collected about military dependent  students, as it is for other public school cohorts. ESEA, amended and  reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, designates four  specific groups of students as reportable and accountable subgroups:  economically disadvantaged, major racial and ethnic groups, those with  disabilities, and those with limited proficiency in English. The legislation  holds states, school districts, and individual schools accountable for the  achievement of all students, including students in these four subgroups.  While some senior Education officials have acknowledged the importance  of obtaining these data for military dependent students, they have not yet  determined what, if any, concrete actions they will take. Similarly, the  Military Child Education Coalition, a nonprofit organization focused on  ensuring quality educational opportunities for all military dependent  children, is working with DOD and Education to explore ways to use  existing capacities to create processes for collecting and analyzing data on  all students of active duty, National Guard, and Reserves families.
While DOD Impact Aid funds are not targeted for use for military  dependent students only, collecting this information could help serve  these students better. Senior representatives from Education and the  Military Child Education Coalition explained that without more specific  data, educators, base commanders, and community leaders are not able to  provide military dependent students with appropriate resources because  they do not have information on their specific educational needs or the  effectiveness of the schools and programs serving them. Further, these  data could help military families make more informed decisions about  where to enroll their children by identifying how well specific schools  educate military dependent students. For example, military families may in  some cases choose whether to live on or off a base, and may choose which  school district their children will attend, depending on the quality of the  schools. A senior Education official also emphasized that this information  could shed light on practices that work well generally in educating other  highly mobile students, such as homeless or migrant students. In addition,  using data on military dependent students in a longitudinal database  would allow researchers to better understand these students’ academic  achievement and educational outcomes over time and the factors that  might affect them.
At the same time, some groups representing school districts have  expressed concerns about making military dependent students a  reportable subgroup. These concerns include creating an additional  reporting burden and new costs for school districts and concerns about  singling out military dependent students as a unique group. However,  Education officials did not anticipate excessive cost or burden for school  districts to collect and report these data.

	Military Dependent Students’ Frequent Moves and Educating Military Dependents with Special Needs are Primary Challenges for School Districts, and Various Strategies Help Address These Challenges

		Military Dependent Students’ Mobility and Students with Special Needs Were Primary Educational Challenges Reported by School Districts

Officials at three quarters of the school districts responding to our survey  reported that issues associated with military dependent students’ frequent  moves to new schools were moderately, very, or extremely challenging. In  addition, 58 percent reported meeting the needs of military dependent  students with disabilities was moderately, very, or extremely challenging.  In our survey of these school districts, three of the top four challenges  reported by districts responding to our survey were related to the mobility  of military families. Mobility increased academic needs due to differences  in state and district curricula, lack of connectedness with school, and  behavioral issues in the classroom. Serving students with special needs  was another important challenge faced by the school districts in our  survey. These challenges, as well as the emotional toll faced by students as  a result of frequent moves, were echoed in the interviews we held with  selected school districts. A smaller percentage of survey respondents also  reported lack of participation by parents, transportation to and on bases,  and transitioning of teachers and staff who are in military families, among  other challenges (see fig. 6).
Key issues associated with the mobility of military dependent students  identified by school districts we contacted were different state and district  academic curricula and standards, lack of student and family  connectedness to school, and behavioral and emotional issues of students,  most often related to a parent’s deployment or absence.
Different Academic Curricula and Standards  The largest challenge reported by school districts in our survey was the  increased academic need of children in military families who transfer to a  school with different curricula or academic standards than those in their  previous school and thus need additional support. Forty-one percent of  school districts rated increased academic needs due to differences in  curricula between districts and/or states as extremely or very challenging,  and 32 percent said it was moderately challenging. States use different  curricula and have different graduation and academic standards and  assessment practices, sometimes making it difficult for a receiving school  to integrate new students. For example, one school district official we  interviewed noted the state requires 25 classes to graduate from high  school, whereas other states require only 20 classes, which has created  challenges for incoming juniors and seniors. These inter-district  differences can extend to the placement of students in special education  or gifted programs. A school district official in one state, for example, told  us that some students who received special education services in their  previous state no longer qualified for these services. While the district  works to provide adequate supports within the classroom, the official said  it is sometimes difficult to explain to students and their families why they  no longer qualify for services to which they are accustomed. These  challenges are compounded when the records from the sending district do  not arrive on time or are incomplete—an issue identified as a challenge by  some districts.
In addition, mobility often results in classes with a high degree of student  turnover each year, creating an extra burden on teachers to orient new  students to class material, assess their academic abilities, and provide  extra support, as needed. Officials at five of the schools we interviewed  told us that each year at least one-third of their student population turns  over. A principal of an elementary school in Colorado told us only one out  of 57 fifth graders has been with the school since kindergarten. Because  this turnover takes place throughout the school year, teachers must spend  time continually absorbing and integrating new students into their  classrooms, which reduces the time available for instruction.
We found very few generalizable studies that systematically examined the  academic and behavioral effects of mobility for military students  specifically. National student level achievement data on military  dependent students are also not available, so it is difficult to link  achievement and mobility. However, we recently reported that mobility is  one of several interrelated factors, including socio-economic status and  lack of parental education, which have a negative effect on academic  achievement. In addition, some of the studies we reviewed found that the  effect of mobility on achievement also varied depending on such factors as  the student’s race or ethnicity, special needs, grade level, frequency of  school change, and characteristics of the school change—whether it was  between or within school districts, or to an urban district from a suburban  or rural one.
Lack of Connectedness with School  Military dependent students’ lack of connectedness with their school due  to frequent moves was reported as extremely or very challenging by 24  percent of school districts in our survey, and moderately challenging by 34  percent. Frequent moves make it difficult, for example, for students to get  involved with extracurricular activities or sports if they move after the  tryout season. Officials we interviewed from one school in Texas said they  allowed children to try out for extracurricular activities by sending a video  before they arrived, and another allowed newly arrived military dependent  students to try out for teams mid-season. Students are not guaranteed their  same position (e.g., quarterback) which can be disappointing, but they will  be given an opportunity to try out for the team. Officials also said limited  child care options and lack of transportation to the military base limit  students’ ability to attend after-school events. School liaison officers in  another school district similarly attributed the lack of public  transportation on base to families feeling isolated and having difficulty  attending extracurricular activities. Officials in 23 percent of districts  responding to our survey reported transportation was at least moderately  challenging. Related to a student’s lack of connectedness is lack of  parental involvement. School principals we interviewed in Colorado said  military parents tend to avoid school involvement partly because they  anticipate leaving in a few years. The lack of parental involvement is  particularly troubling for district officials because they feel that parents  need to be part of the school community for success in educating their  students.
Finally, related to mobility, 13 percent of survey respondents reported that  transitioning of teachers and staff from military families who work at  schools when military families are reassigned was extremely or very  challenging, and 27 percent reported this was moderately challenging.  Officials in two school districts told us that hiring military spouses is  advantageous because they have first hand experience with military issues  and can relate well to military dependent students. However, when the  military spouses leave the school district it creates more inconsistency in  the education of military dependent students.
Officials in 24 percent of school districts in our survey said behavioral  issues in the classroom, such as aggression—which may be attributable to  frequent moves and parent deployment—were extremely or very  challenging, and 31 percent said they were moderately challenging.  Officials we interviewed in six of the seven districts said there is an  emotional toll faced by students as a result of frequent school transfers. In  one school district in Virginia, approximately 60 percent of students who  started at a school are no longer there at graduation. Officials in this  district found that frequent moves are a significant hindrance to the  academic and emotional success of military dependent students. Some  officials said mobility-related emotional issues tend to be more challenging  for high school students, who may have more trouble fitting in and  meeting academic requirements for graduation. The students we spoke  with at one high school, many of whom were military dependents and had  moved frequently, agreed that transitioning to new schools was most  difficult during high school because social groups are already firmly  established.
School district officials we interviewed also identified emotional and  behavioral challenges connected to parent deployment, absence, and in  some cases, the death of a parent. In particular, officials we interviewed at  two school districts near Army bases noted an increase in emotional and  behavioral issues, including student truancy and tardiness, in recent years.  Specifically, school officials near Army bases in Colorado and Missouri  agreed that students’ misbehavior and acting out has increased in recent  years and is currently at chronic levels. One superintendent noted that her  county has lost more than 300 soldiers in the Afghanistan and Iraq  conflicts. A school counselor added that reintegration when the absent  parent returns can also be stressful as families re-establish rules and  dynamics. Some districts noted that the leave soldiers take upon return  from deployment resulted in long student absences. While district officials  we spoke with wanted to be accommodating to reunited families, they  noted that these student absences were taking an academic toll. Officials  in these two districts said that teachers have found themselves fulfilling  the role of social worker for military dependent students, a position they  felt underqualified to fill.
A 2010 study examining the well-being and deployment difficulties of more  than a thousand families with military children aged 11–17 found they  tended to have more emotional difficulties compared to national  samples. The study found that older children had a greater number o school, family, and peer-related difficulties during deployment, and girls of  all ages reported more challenges during both deployment and deployed parent reintegration. Both the length of parental deployment and poor  mental health of the nondeployed caregiver were significantly associated  with a greater number of challenges for children both during deploymen t  and deployed-parent reintegration.

			Serving Students with Special Needs

Fifty-eight percent of survey respondents cited serving students with  special needs as extremely or very challenging (36 percent) or moderately  challenging (22 percent). We heard similar views in our interviews. For  example, a special education director in one district we visited said that  the difficulties most military dependent students face in transitioning  frequently to and from schools are exacerbated for special education  students given their greater instructional and other needs. Serving  students with disabilities in public schools is a challenge for many school  districts nationwide because these students are increasingly taught in  mainstream classrooms. In 2009 we found that state and local school  district officials believed classroom teachers were generally unprepared  for teaching students with disabilities and a number of state and district  officials wanted a stronger focus in teacher preparation programs on  instruction of children with disabilities.
DOD Impact Aid’s Children with Severe Disabilities program reimburses  school districts serving military dependent students with severe  disabilities, but a number of school districts we contacted said the  application for reimbursement is burdensome, in some cases taking  numerous hours for school districts to complete. According to a DoDEA  official, approximately 10 percent of the school districts that serve two or  more military dependent children with special needs and establish that  they meet the cost criteria submit an application each year. In accordance  with statutory requirements, payment calculations require, among other  things, determinations of average per pupil expenditure in the state as well  as nationally. According to some school districts, calculations and  application requirements are time consuming and require them to list  specific costs expended on services for each eligible child. One director of  special education told us that the process of applying for the Children with  Severe Disabilities reimbursement takes about 80–90 hours of staff time.  She explained that collecting the information requires obtaining data from  occupational and physical therapists, and from other offices including  transportation and special education. When there is staff turnover among  any of these contacts, the process takes even longer. Officials from two  districts we interviewed said the amount of the reimbursement was very  small compared to the difficulty with completing the application. Officials  in 10 of the 39 school districts responding to the survey that have received  these funds said the application is difficult to complete in an open-ended  survey question. DoDEA officials told us they are aware that the  application can be difficult to complete, and one official was concerned  that some districts that could benefit from the funds may not apply for  them given the burden of the application. In response, DoDEA plans to  issue more guidance in the form of frequently asked questions for the next  application process in spring 2011. Officials plan to base this guidance on  questions the department has received from applicants over the last  several years. They also plan to develop a webinar to walk applicants  through the application process for the next round.

		Schools Adopted Various Strategies to Address Challenges, Including Counseling, Use of Technology, and Flexible Academic Requirements

Additional counseling, use of technology, and flexibility on academic  requirements were the strategies identified by most survey respondents  that assist them in serving the unique needs of their military dependent  students. In addition, school district officials we interviewed reported  using a range of other related strategies, including providing literacy  coaches, encouraging peer-to-peer support and other support groups, and  reaching out to military installations for assistance (see fig. 7). However,  because most school districts receiving DOD Impact Aid Supplemental  funds deposit the funds in the district’s general fund and do not separately  track their spending, we could not assess the extent to which any of these  strategies were funded through DOD Impact Aid Supplemental funds  rather than other funding sources. Some of the strategies school officials  described are funded by other DOD programs or nonmilitary sources.
Eighty percent of school districts in our survey reported using additional  counseling as a key strategy to address the emotional needs of military  dependent students, and many provided services such as deployment  support groups and student peer support groups. One district hired a full- time psychologist to address the emotional and social needs of students  due to both frequent school moves and recurring deployments of parents.  Counseling and support often extend to other members of the family who  are also struggling to cope with a deployed parent. For example, a home  liaison in one district told us she holds training sessions on discipline with  the at-home parent. Military parents we interviewed at one school district  explained that sometimes the stigma associated with mental health  services deterred military families from seeking help on base, raising the  importance of supports at schools. Officials we interviewed at several  school districts said they provided extra training for teachers and  counselors on issues specific to military dependent students. In Texas, all  counselors in one district received training in how to respond to needs of  these students and their families in transitioning to a new area and how to  help students cope with the loss of a parent.
Officials in six of the seven school districts we interviewed told us they  provided deployment support groups, typically led by school counselors,  to provide military dependent students an opportunity to share feelings  and solutions. Sixty-five percent of the schools in our survey offered peer- to-peer support programs. For example, “Student 2 Student” is a peer  program promoted by the Military Child Education Coalition in which a  team of volunteer students, supervised by a school counselor, teacher, or  other school staff, assists both incoming and outgoing students to cope  with or prepare for changes in academics and relationships. Further, 33  percent of survey respondents reported using military or deployment- focused bulletin boards to provide support for military dependent  students. For example, one school we visited posted a “heroes wall,”  which contained pictures and text the children created about their parent  who was deployed. School district officials also highlighted the  involvement of members of the military in supporting military dependent  students. Sixty-one percent of districts responding to our survey said they  involve members of nearby installations, and 64 percent reported taking  advantage of counseling and other support offered by base  representatives. For example, volunteers from one local installation  provided one-on-one tutoring and military members attended physical  education classes to help promote wellness and inspire the students to  achieve a higher level of physical fitness.

			Use of Technology

The use of technology, such as online grades, coursework, and attendance  records, which is accessible to parents at home or deployed, was used by  80 percent of the school districts in our survey to help bridge the gap  between students and deployed parents. For example, a Texas school  district highlighted its use of an online resource that lets students take  assessments aligned to state standards and directs them to individualized  tutorials to improve skills. In addition, parents can monitor their child’s  progress online at home or abroad. According to one school district  official, families in his district have reported that this program has been a  “blessing” in helping their children academically. Thirty percent of school  districts in our survey reported streaming live graduation ceremonies. The  principal of one school, which sends videotaped graduation ceremonies to  deployed parents, said the video includes a special ceremony for these  students and interviews with graduates and their families. Thirty percent  of districts also reported in our survey providing Web-camera interactions  with deployed parents.

			Flexible Courses and Credits

To address academic standards, which differ among districts, 74 percent  of districts in our survey reported being flexible or taking an individualized  approach to academic requirements. This may include being flexible on  testing, course credits, or other requirements to meet the needs of  incoming military dependent students. Districts in Virginia and Colorado  made adjustments to requirements for courses and standardized testing  based on requirements at the previously attended school and the point in  the school year, for example, allowing seniors to use their previous  school’s graduation requirements.
Some schools hired extra teachers and staff to help facilitate the transition  for students. One school district in Colorado created a position called an  “integrationist” whose sole job was to ease the transition of the many  transferring military dependent students by gathering academic,  extracurricular, and personal information about them before they arrived  to the district, then helping them get into the appropriate classes and  extracurricular activities. Due to the constant influx of new military  dependent students, an elementary school in Virginia hired extra reading  support specialists to work individually with children who enter the  school with poor reading skills. Seventy-two percent of school districts we  surveyed reported using literacy coaches to assist military dependent  students. Military parents we interviewed in Virginia noted that of  everything the school did for military children, this extra and  individualized academic support was the most appreciated.
About half the districts in our survey highlighted their state’s participation  in the Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military  Children as an effective strategy to address some of the challenges related  to mobility and academics. As of October 2010, 35 states had signed this  agreement, which sets forth expectations for participating states to  address key transition issues encountered by military families, including  enrollment, placement, attendance, eligibility, and graduation. For  example, the compact states that school districts will either waive specific  courses required for graduation if similar course work has been  satisfactorily completed in another district or will provide reasonable  justification for denial. Officials we interviewed in all five states also  mentioned their state’s participation in the compact as a strategy to assist  with issues related to transition of military dependent students.

	DOD and Education’s Collaborative Practices Have Assisted Military Dependent Students, Their Schools, and Families

DOD and Education have developed and implemented practices that  facilitate their collaboration on efforts to assist military dependent  students, their schools, and families. In our previous work, we have  identified practices that help enhance and sustain interagency  collaboration. These practices include articulating common objectives and  resources, agreeing on compatible operating procedures and  responsibilities, and reinforcing accountability through monitoring. The  agencies have worked together, for example, to distribute guidance to  schools on best practices for addressing military dependent students’  needs and to assist school districts located in areas experiencing influxes  of military families.
DOD and Education officials have a history of collaborating on education  issues for children of military families through the Impact Aid programs  and formalized and broadened these efforts with a memorandum of  understanding (MOU) they signed in June 2008. The MOU identifies five  focus areas for collaboration:  1.  Quality education. Share educational best practices at schools serving  military dependent students, and implement policies to support those  with special needs. 2.  Student transition and deployment. Encourage school district and  state policies that minimize the impact of military dependent students’  frequent moves and parental deployments. 3.  Data. Consider approaches for the collection, disaggregation, and  analysis of education data on military dependent students. 4.  Communication and outreach. Devise joint communication strategies  to reach parents, educators, students, and military leaders about  resources available from DOD and Education. 5.  Resources. Support school districts affected by military growth  through the DOD and Education Impact Aid programs, as well as other  programs.
To address these five areas, DOD and Education outlined 13 specific  objectives in the MOU, including coordinating the DOD and Education  Impact Aid programs. (See appendix III for a complete list of the  objectives.) DOD and Education have carried out a number of  collaborative activities within the five focus areas. For example, to address  the area of resources, DOD and Education have collaborated to respond to  the challenges from the 2005 military base closure and realignment actions  that the BRAC Commission reported will result in 55 major closures and  realignments by September 2011. These actions, once completed, would  relocate large numbers of military families, which in turn will affect an  increasing number of school districts. Officials from both agencies have  made eight joint site visits, beginning in 2008, to high-growth military  installations to better understand the specific education issues arising  from mission changes and growth. The officials shared their findings with  cognizant federal agencies, affected state and local governments and  school districts, and made recommendations for how the districts can best  prepare for influxes of military dependent students. These  recommendations included improving coordination between districts and  federal agencies to better estimate military dependent student growth in a  district. DOD and Education are also collaborating on a study mandated in  the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 that required  DOD, in consultation with Education, to examine, among other things, the  educational options available to military dependent children who attend  schools in need of improvement as defined under ESEA. The study was  also required to address the challenges military parents face in securing  quality schooling for their children when the schools they attend are  identified as needing improvement.
To address student transitions and parental deployment, DOD and  Education issued guidance to school districts about best practices to  minimize the impact on military dependent students’ attendance records  and academics when they are absent upon a parent’s return from  deployment. Further, DOD, in cooperation with Education, published a  book for military families and military and school leaders called “Students  at the Center,” which provides information on resources and best  practices for meeting the needs of military dependent children.
DOD and Education have also taken steps to improve interagency  communication and develop compatible operating procedures and  responsibilities—key elements of effective collaboration identified in our  prior work. An MOU working group meets monthly and is in the process of  writing protocols for communication between the agencies. In addition, a  military liaison position was established at Education in 2008 to serve as  the primary contact between the agencies for coordinating program  development, management, and outreach related to improving the  academic condition of military dependent children. A senior DoDEA  official said this new position has been beneficial because it provides a  single point of contact. Education officials told us the working group’s  efforts have increased communication with DOD and have led to a better  understanding of the needs of children in families from all military  branches. DOD officials also highlighted increased interest by Education  officials to visit military installations. DOD officials said that prior to the  MOU, they had working relationships only with officials from Education’s  Impact Aid office; they now have relationships with officials in other  offices in Education, such as its Office of Special Education and  Rehabilitative Services and its Office of Elementary and Secondary  Education. As a result, DOD officials have worked with representatives  from those offices on several efforts. For example, according to a DOD  official, Education officials provided technical support to DOD by  reviewing school districts’ applications for the 2009 DoDEA grants, and  the working group has hosted guest speakers from both Education and  DOD. In addition, an official from Education’s Office of Safe and Drug- Free Schools spoke to the group about how its grant programs can assist  military dependent students, and an official from DOD’s Office of the  Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Military Community and Family  Policy spoke to the group about progress on the Interstate Compact.
In May 2010, the White House announced a Presidential Study Directive on  Military Family Policy, which requested that executive agencies develop a  coordinated governmentwide approach to support and engage military  families. According to senior Education officials, the directive has led  Education to place an even greater priority on its collaborative efforts with  DOD. The directive has provided another framework under which DOD  and Education have worked together to improve the quality of education  for military dependent children. Education developed a work plan that  details initiatives the agency will undertake to address the goals of the  directive. Specifically, senior Education officials have also visited military  communities and schools to raise awareness of the challenges military  dependent children face and the contributions their families make to the  country. In addition, Education proposed that priority be given to its  competitive grant proposals that could benefit military dependent  students.
The working group monitors its progress through a strategic plan  developed in 2010 that aligns the MOU’s five focus areas for collaboration  with initiatives the working group has accomplished or plans to carry out.  Our prior work has found monitoring to be a key practice for effective  interagency collaboration because it allows agencies to obtain feedback  and improve effectiveness. DOD and Education officials told us the  strategic plan helps them to examine and prioritize their areas of  collaboration to plan for future efforts, and reflect on the extent to which  they are meeting the original intent of the MOU. For example, to address  the focus area of student transition and deployment, working group  members outlined plans in their strategic plan for a resource guide about  best practices for school attendance. As a result of their work, they  contributed to a pamphlet, published by the Military Child Education  Coalition in 2010, called “Military-Connected Students and Public School  Attendance Policies” that is meant to assist school administrators, base  commanders, and parents. Specifically, the pamphlet includes examples of  districts around the country upholding their attendance policies while  ensuring military dependents receive a quality education when absent  from school. In addition, for transition and deployment, working group  members plan to look at installations with the highest deployment rates to  explore options to mitigate the effects of daily attendance requirements  for military dependent students affected by deployments.

	Conclusions

Support for military families, including the education of military  dependents, has received even greater attention with the May 2010  announcement of the Presidential Study Directive on Military Family  Policy. In response, DOD and Education further increased their  collaboration to provide a quality education and support to military  dependent children through a variety of activities in addition to DOD  Impact Aid. Programs such as DOD Impact Aid provide funding to assist  school districts with a significant percentage of military dependents, but  the outcomes and effectiveness of their activities are difficult to assess.  This is due in part to the structure of the DOD Impact Aid program, which  does not require any reporting on the use of the funds. Further, DOD,  Education, states, and other parties concerned about the education of  military dependents lack appropriate data to monitor the progress of  military dependent students and the effectiveness of the schools and  programs serving them. Currently, school districts and states are not  required to collect academic achievement data for military dependent  students, as they are for certain other groups of students, including  economically disadvantaged students and students with disabilities.  Without these data, stakeholders lack critical information that could help  them better understand the specific needs of these students and their  educational outcomes over time.

	Recommendation for Executive Action

To better understand the needs of military students and the effectiveness  of strategies to assist them, we recommend the Secretary of Education, in  collaboration with the Secretary of Defense, determine whether to require  school districts to identify military dependent students as a distinct  subgroup for reporting on their academic outcomes, such as test scores  and high school graduation rates. This should include determining  whether the Department of Education needs to obtain any additional  legislative authority for this requirement, and seeking it from Congress, if  necessary.

	Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of the report to the Departments of Education and  Defense for review and comment. Education agreed with our  recommendation and stated that the agency proposed improving the  collection of data on military dependent students in the upcoming  reauthorization of ESEA. This proposal is discussed in the  Administration’s January 2011 report, Strengthening Our Military  Families: Meeting America’s Commitment. According to Education,  under the Administration’s proposal, states and school districts that  receive funds under ESEA Title I, Part A would be required to report state- , district-, and school-level aggregate data on the academic achievement of  military dependent students. DoDEA provided oral concurrence with our  recommendation.
Education and DOD both provided technical comments, which have been  incorporated in the report as appropriate. Education’s comments are  reproduced in appendix IV.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretary of Education, the Secretary of Defense, and  other interested parties. The report also is available at no charge on the  GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-7215 or scottg@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the  last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this  report are listed in appendix V.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our review focused on (1) what is known about the use and effectiveness  of Department of Defense (DOD) Impact Aid funds, (2) the challenges  faced by school districts in serving military dependent students and  strategies they have in place to address these challenges, and (3) how  DOD and the Department of Education (Education) have coordinated their  assistance to districts.

	Survey of School Districts that Received DOD Impact Aid Supplemental Funds from 2001 to 2009

We designed and implemented a Web-based survey to gather information  on the use and effectiveness of DOD Impact Aid funds and the challenges  faced by school districts in serving military dependent students. The  survey also included questions regarding DOD Impact Aid for Children  with Severe Disabilities and DOD Impact Aid for Base Realignment and  Closure. We sent this survey to the 154 school districts that have received  DOD Impact Aid Supplemental funds in any year from 2001 to 2009, the  years covered in the mandate. We obtained the list of DOD Impact Aid  recipients from Education and verified the recipients with a list provided  by DOD Education Activity (DoDEA). Our survey was directed to the  school district official identified as the point of contact for DOD Impact  Aid by DoDEA officials. Most of these school district officials were  superintendents, assistant superintendents, directors of business or  finance, or other business office employees.

		Process for Developing the Survey Instrument

To assess the feasibility of conducting a survey for this report, we  contacted several school districts to determine whether they would be  able to respond to questions regarding their spending of DOD Impact Aid  funds. All districts that we spoke with told us they would be able and  willing to respond to such a survey. We obtained available data from both  DOD and Education on the school districts that received DOD Impact Aid  Supplemental funds in any year from 2001 through 2009, as well as a  contact person for each district. Drawing from the provisions in the  mandate, information obtained during site visits to school districts, and  preliminary interviews with DOD, Education, and two nonprofit  organizations—the Military Impacted Schools Association and the Military  Child Education Coalition—we developed survey questions. We also  sought input on our final draft from the two nonprofit organizations, as  well as internal GAO stakeholders and a survey specialist before  conducting pretests. We pretested our survey draft with school district  officials at four districts that received DOD Impact Aid funding in any year  from 2001 to 2009 to help ensure that the questions were clear, the terms  used were precise, the questions were unbiased, and the questionnaire  could be completed in a reasonable amount of time. We modified the  survey to incorporate the feedback from each pretest.
The survey contained questions on: (1) general school district information,  (2) spending tracking, and disbursement of DOD Impact Aid funds, (3)  perceptions of effectiveness of DOD Impact Aid funding sources, and (4)  challenges faced by districts with respect to military dependent students  and strategies to address those challenges. The survey also contained  questions on DOD’s monitoring of funds, a specific provision in the  mandate regarding the conversion of military housing to private housing  (see app. II), and DOD and Education technical assistance or guidance to  school districts.

		Administration Method for Survey

We conducted the survey by using a Web-based self-administered  questionnaire. In the questionnaire, we asked the school district officials  to be the lead survey respondent and to consult with others in the district  who may be more knowledgeable on questions related to challenges  associated with educating military dependent students. We collected  contact information for these school district officials from DoDEA and  through searches of these districts’ Web sites. We verified the contact  information by sending notification e-mails and calling districts for the  correct contact information in cases where the e-mail was undeliverable.  We sent the survey activation e-mail to these officials on July 28, 2010, and  then asked them to complete the survey within 3 weeks. To encourage  them to respond, we sent three follow-up e-mails over a period of about 4  weeks and extended our survey deadline to September 13, 2010. Staff  made phone calls over the next 2 weeks to encourage those who did not  respond to complete our questionnaire. We closed our survey on  September 24, 2010, and 118 school districts completed the survey for a  response rate of 77 percent.

		Efforts to Minimize Nonsampling Errors

The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may also introduce  errors commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example,  difficulties in the way a particular question is interpreted, the sources of  information that are available to respondents, or the way the data were  analyzed can introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. We  took steps in the development of this questionnaire, in the data collection,  and in the data analysis to minimize such errors. Specifically, a survey  specialist designed the questionnaire in collaboration with two staff  members who were familiar with the subject matter. Then, as previously  mentioned, the draft questionnaire was pretested with four school districts  to ensure that questions were relevant, clearly stated, and easy to  comprehend. The questionnaire was also reviewed by officials from two  military education advocacy organizations. Data analysis was conducted  by a data analyst working directly with the staff who developed the survey.  When the data were analyzed, a second independent data analyst checked  all computer programs for accuracy. Since this was a Web-based survey,  respondents entered their answers directly into the electronic  questionnaires. This eliminated the need to have the data keyed into  databases, thus removing an additional source of error.

	Site Visits to Selected States and School Districts

To identify the challenges school districts face in educating military  dependent students and the strategies they have implemented, we  conducted site visits to four districts in two states (Colorado and Virginia)  and phone calls with three districts in three states (California, Missouri,  and Texas). We chose these districts based on recommendations from  DOD, the Military Impacted Schools Association, and the Military Child  Education Coalition. We strove to achieve diversity in geographic location,  school district size, and percent of district made up of military dependents  from different branches of military service. (See table 3 below for more  information on the districts we interviewed.) The findings from these five  states and seven districts cannot be projected nationwide, but we believe  they illustrate valuable perspectives on the challenges of serving military  dependent students, and assistance from DOD and other sources to help  address the challenges. During the visits we interviewed superintendents,  assistant superintendents, budget office officials, guidance counselors,  and, in some locations, military school liaisons, teachers, and students. In  one school district, we also met with a group of parents. We also toured  schools and obtained documents. Interviewees provided information on  the unique challenges faced by military students and families and the  strategies schools employ to respond to those challenges from their  varying perspectives.

	Literature Review

We conducted a review of the literature on military dependent student  challenges and the strategies schools employ to respond to these  challenges. We searched for literature using appropriate search terms such  as “military dependent education” and “public school” in a variety of  research databases. A social scientist assisted us in assessing the  reliability and validity of these studies for our purposes. In the report, we  present some examples from the literature to illustrate our findings. In  addition, we reviewed prior GAO reports on elementary and secondary  education, military restructuring, and practices that can help to enhance  collaboration.

	Interviews with Agency Officials and Other Organizations

To review DOD and Education’s efforts to implement DOD Impact Aid and  to collaborate to serve military dependent students, we interviewed  appropriate officials at DoDEA, and in offices at Education, which  included the Office of Impact Aid; the Office of Innovation and  Improvement; the Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development;  and the Office of the Secretary, as well as representatives from the Military  Impacted Schools Association and the Military Child Education Coalition,  two organizations focused on military dependent education. We reviewed  relevant federal laws and regulations. We also reviewed agency  documentation, such as the memorandum of understanding (MOU)  between DOD and Education, their strategic plan for implementing the  MOU, and budget documentation for the DOD Impact Aid program and  other DOD programs.

Appendix II: Information on Additional Mandate Provisions

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 mandated us  to examine 17 separate provisions in various Defense Authorization Acts  from fiscal years 2001 to 2009. We addressed all but three of the  provisions in the main body of the report. Here we provide our findings  on the remaining three provisions of the mandate.
Grant program for repair, renovations, and maintenance. The 2001  Defense Authorization Act authorized a grant program for repair,  renovations, and maintenance of certain school facilities. Funding was to  come from appropriations made for “Quality of Life Enhancements,  Defense-Wide.” In fiscal year 2001, $10.5 million was authorized and  appropriated for that appropriations category. DOD allocated these funds,  but could not provide more details about the use of these funds.
Continuing Impact Aid after deployment or death of a parent or  guardian. This special rule was enacted to cover school years 2004–2005  and 2005–2006 so that Impact Aid would not be reduced in those districts  where a local educational agency would normally lose funding as a result  of the deployment or death of a parent or legal guardian on active duty.  Children who resided on federal property and whose parents or legal  guardians were deployed or died during that period were still counted for  funding purposes. School district officials told us they have had no  difficulties counting students whose parents or guardians had been  deployed or who had died. An official from the Military Impacted Schools  Association explained that this rule adequately addressed any problems  experienced in the past.
Extending eligibility for Impact Aid where military housing is  converted to private housing. This provision, enacted in fiscal year  2003, extends eligibility for a limited period of time to heavily impacted  school districts that received a basic support payment in the prior fiscal  year, but would subsequently be deemed ineligible as a result of the  conversion of military to private housing. The provision extends eligibility  during the period of conversion. School districts we interviewed and an  official from the Military Impacted Schools Association did not mention  any issues with regard to this provision.

Appendix III: The 13 Objectives from Education and DOD’s MOU

Education and DOD’s MOU identified 13 objectives to guide their  collaborative efforts.  1.  Promote and enhance policies that will improve military children’s  education and overall well-being. 2.  Advance the quality of educational opportunities for all military  children. 3.  Provide research-based academic, social-emotional and behavioral  supports to facilitate seamless transitions for military children. 4.  Provide leadership and advocacy programs to help military students  cope with issues surrounding deployments. 5.  Support foreign language education, including programs for strategic  languages. 6.  Assist military parents to be informed advocates of quality education  choices. 7.  Explore legislative options to address transition issues for military  children. 8.  Extend opportunities for student learning through support of online or  virtual and other research-based models. 9.  Provide research-based teacher and administrator professional  development programs. 10. Forge effective partnerships with schools and districts.  11. Coordinate the DOD and Education Impact Aid programs.  12. Communicate with military families and organizations to show  appreciation for their contributions.  13. Increase awareness of resources and tools available from Education  and DOD.

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Education

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

	Staff Acknowledgments

Individuals making key contributions to this report include: Beth Sirois  (Assistant Director), Kate Blumenreich (Analyst-in-Charge), Griffin Glatt- Dowd, and Karen Febey.  Blake Ainsworth, Susan Aschoff, Cornelia  Ashby, James Bennett, Michele Fejfar, Cathy Hurley, Julian Klazkin, Sheila  McCoy, Kelly Rubin, and Kim Siegal also provided valuable assistance.

Summary:
Why GAO Did This Study

Since the early 1990s, Congress has supplemented the Department of Education's (Education) Impact Aid program by providing funds for the Department of Defense's (DOD) Impact Aid program to compensate school districts with a high number of military dependent students. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 required GAO to review the use of these funds. GAO reviewed (1) what is known about the utilization and effectiveness of DOD Impact Aid funds, (2) the challenges faced by school districts in serving military dependent students, and (3) how DOD and Education have collaborated on their assistance. To address these issues, GAO conducted a Web-based survey of all 154 school districts that received DOD Impact Aid in any year from 2001 to 2009, with a response rate of 77 percent. GAO also interviewed officials from DOD and Education and seven school districts in five states, ranging in school district size, location, and percentage of military dependent students. The findings from these visits cannot be projected nationwide, but illustrate valuable perspectives.

What GAO Found

DOD Impact Aid has three distinct funding components, with more than three quarters of the funds provided through the DOD Impact Aid Supplemental program. Eighty five percent of the 87 responding school districts that received funds for the 2009-2010 school year reported placing these funds into their general fund to use for overall maintenance and operations. Because there are no reporting requirements on districts' use of the funding, it is difficult to assess how the funds are used and to what extent military dependent students benefit. Further, there are no data available on these students that could be used to assess their academic achievement or educational outcomes, or determine where funding needs are greatest. Such reporting requirements exist for certain other groups of students, such as economically disadvantaged students and students with disabilities. Federal agency officials acknowledged this need for information, and Education has begun discussing how to address this need. School districts GAO contacted reported that issues related to the mobility of military dependent students and serving students with special needs were among the greatest challenges they faced in serving these students. Mobility increased academic needs due to differences in state and district curricula and behavioral and emotional issues in the classroom. To address challenges in serving military dependent students, school districts reported adopting a range of strategies, including additional counseling for students with a deployed parent and flexibility on academic requirements for newly transferred students. Guided by a memorandum of understanding signed in 2008, DOD and Education have implemented practices that facilitate their collaboration to assist military dependent students, according to practices GAO has identified that enhance collaboration. For example, beginning in 2008, the departments completed eight joint site visits to high-growth military installations, which helped them advise school districts on preparation for an influx of military dependent students. To monitor these collaborative efforts, DOD and Education have developed a strategic plan that tracks their progress.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Secretary of Education determine whether to require school districts to report data on the academic outcomes of military dependent students, and if so, to determine the need for any additional legislative authority. Education agreed with GAO's recommendation, and DOD provided oral concurrence.