DEPARTMENT OF 

EDUCATION

Resource and 

Achievement Trends

Report to the Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. 

Senate

February 2018

GAO-18-154

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-18-154, a report to the 

Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate

February 2018

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Resource and Achievement Trends

What GAO Found

Since the Department of Education (Education) began operations in fiscal year 

1980, its mission has included promoting student achievement and ensuring

equal access to educational opportunity. To do so, Education partners with state 

and local governments, which provide most of the resources to school districts 

for K-12 programs. Federal funds accounted for 6 to 13 percent of the annual 

funding for public K-12 schools from 1980 to 2014, according to the most recent 

available data (see figure). Education also provides funds to help support higher 

education. In fiscal year 2016, Education provided $30.8 billion for selected 

higher education federal grant and work study programs and was responsible for 

a portfolio of $1.3 trillion in outstanding student loans.

Public Elementary and Secondary School Funding by Source, School Years 1980-2014

Trends in key indicators of K-12 student achievement have improved from 1980 

through 2015, according to the most recent available data. Achievement gaps 

narrowed in reading and math between White and Black students and between 

White and Hispanic students. Regarding trends in key indicators for access to 

higher education, tuition, fees, and room and board also increased (after 

adjusting for inflation). 

Since 1998, Education’s strategic planning documents report meeting or 

exceeding about a quarter of its performance indicators for K-12 student 

achievement and more than a third of its indicators for access to higher 

education. From 1998 through 2016, Education reported, on average, meeting or 

exceeding 25 percent of its K-12 student achievement indicators and not meeting 

29 percent. Education reported other outcomes, such as having had discontinued 

metrics, for, on average, 46 percent of K-12 student achievement indicators.

View GAO-18-154. For more information, 

contact Jacqueline M. Nowicki at (617) 788-

0580 or nowickij@gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

Education has primary responsibility 

for administering many federal 

elementary, secondary, and 

postsecondary education programs.

The agency plays a key role in 

supporting educational opportunities 

for students and managing federal 

student aid programs. GAO was asked 

to review trends in resources and 

achievement at Education. This report 

provides information on: 

• the role of the federal government 

in education, including resources 

used for K-12 public education and 

higher education;

• trends in key indicators of K-12 

student achievement and access 

to higher education; and 

• Education’s progress meeting its 

goals and objectives. 

GAO analyzed publicly available 

Education data and information from 

other selected sources, such as federal 

budget data, the Common Core of 

Data, the National Assessment of 

Educational Progress, and Trends in 

International Mathematics and Science 

Study. GAO analyzed trends from 

1980 through 2016, or the most recent 

year available. GAO also analyzed 

Education’s key goals and objectives 

related to K-12 student achievement 

and access to higher education, as 

reported in its strategic planning 

documents, from 1998 (when these 

documents were first required) through 

2016 (the most recent available). 

GAO is not making recommendations

in this report. Education provided 

technical comments on a draft of this 

report, which we incorporated, as 

appropriate.
Page i GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

Letter 1

Role of the Federal Government in Education 3

Federal, State, and Local Resources Used for K-12 Public 

Education 11

Federal Spending for Higher Education 18

Key Measures of K-12 Student Achievement 23

Key Measures of Access to Higher Education 29

Education’s Reported Progress in Meeting Goals and Objectives 34

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 41

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 42

Appendix II GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 48

Related GAO Products 49

Tables

Table 1: Summary of Responsibilities of Selected U.S. 

Department of Education (Education) Offices 6

Table 2: Strategic Goals from Each of the Department of 

Education’s Strategic Plans 34

Figures

Figure 1: Spending by Four Key Education Offices, Fiscal Years 

1980-2016 9

Figure 2: Trends in the Department of Education’s Full-Time 

Equivalent (FTE) Staffing Levels, Fiscal Years 1981-2016 11

Figure 3: Public Elementary and Secondary School (K-12) 

Funding by Source of Funds, School Years 1979-2014 12

Figure 4: Public Elementary and Secondary School (K-12) 

Funding by State and Source of Funds, School Year 

2013-2014 14

Figure 5: Public Elementary and Secondary School (K-12) 

Funding by U.S. Territory and Source of Funds, School 

Year 2013-2014 15

Contents
Page ii GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

Figure 6: Public Elementary and Secondary School (pre-K through 

12) Annual Student Enrollment in the United States, 

1980-2014 16

Figure 7: Public Elementary and Secondary School (K-12) State 

Expenditures per Student, School Year 2013-14 17

Figure 8: Spending on Three Key Higher Education Federal Grant 

and Work Study Programs, Fiscal Years 1980-2016 19

Figure 9: Current Estimated Subsidy Income and Costs of Federal 

Student Loans Issued from Fiscal Year (FY) 1992 

through 2016, as of the President’s FY 2018 Budget 

Request 20

Figure 10: Education’s Direct Loan Program Administrative Costs 

by Category and Number of Loans, Fiscal Years 2007-

2012 22

Figure 11: National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 

Long-Term Trend Assessments for 9-, 13-, and 17-YearOld Students’ Achievement in Reading (1980-2012) and 

Mathematics (1982-2012) 23

Figure 12: National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 

Long-Term Trend Assessments for 9-, 13-, and 17-YearOld Students’ Achievement by Race/Ethnicity in Reading 

(1980-2012) and Mathematics (1982-2012) 25

Figure 13: National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 

Long-Term Trend Assessments for 9-, 13-, and 17-YearOld Students’ Achievement by Gender in Reading (1980-

2012) and Mathematics (1982-2012) 26

Figure 14: Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study 

(TIMSS) K-12 Scores by Grade Level, 1995-2015 28

Figure 15: Amount of Outstanding Student Debt from Federal 

Student Loans for Higher Education, Fiscal Years 2007-

2017 29

Figure 16: Average Tuition and Fees and Room and Board Rates 

Charged for Full-Time Students, by Type of Higher 

Education Institution, School Years 1980-81 through 

2015-16 30

Figure 17: Share of Revenue from Federal, State, Local, and 

Other Sources Received by Public Higher Education 

Institutions, School Years 1999-00 through 2014-15 31

Figure 18: Graduation Rates at 2-year and 4-year Higher 

Education Institutions (1997-2015) 33

Figure 19: Example of a Goal, Objective, and Indicators Published 

in Education’s Annual Performance Reports 38
Page iii GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

Figure 20: Annual Reported Progress of Selected Goals Compiled 

at the Indicator-Level by Education, Fiscal Years 1999 to 

2016 40
Page iv GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

Abbreviations

ACG Academic Competitiveness Grants

ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

Education U.S. Department of Education

CCD Common Core of Data

ESEA Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965,

as amended

ESSA Every Student Succeeds Act 

FCRA Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990

FFEL Federal Family Education Loan

FSA Federal Student Aid

FTE full-time equivalent

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act of 1993

GPRAMA GPRA Modernization Act of 2010

HEA Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended

IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, as 

amended

IPEDS Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System

K-12 kindergarten through 12th grade

NAEP National Assessment of Educational Progress

OESE Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OPE Office of Postsecondary Education

OSERS Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services

SMART National Science and Mathematics Access to 

Retain Talent

TIMSS Trends in International Mathematics and Science 

Study

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

February 7, 2018

The Honorable Ron Johnson

Chairman

The Honorable Claire McCaskill

Ranking Member

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The U.S. Department of Education (Education) plays a key role in 

supporting educational opportunities for students from kindergarten 

through college, managing approximately $99 billion in spending during 

fiscal year 2016.1 Education’s role includes distributing grants to states 

and localities and overseeing compliance with federal education laws. It 

also includes managing federal student aid programs for students 

pursuing higher education. In fiscal year 2016, Education employed 

approximately 4,100 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees.2

You asked us to examine questions related to trends in resources and 

achievement at Education over time. This report provides information on 

six broad topic areas: (1) the role of the federal government in education, 

(2) federal, state, and local resources used for kindergarten through 12th 

grade (K-12) public education; (3) federal resources used for higher 

education; (4) key measures of K-12 student achievement; (5) key 

measures of access to higher education; and (6) Education’s reported 

progress meeting its goals and objectives.

We focused our review on four Education offices: (1) Office of 

Postsecondary Education (OPE), (2) Federal Student Aid (FSA), (3) 

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), and (4) 

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE). We chose these 

offices because they manage most aspects of implementing three key 

Education laws: these laws are the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA),

 1

In this report, we use the term “spending” to refer to federal obligations. An obligation is a 

definite commitment that creates a legal liability for the payment of goods and services 

ordered or received. An agency incurs an obligation, for example, when it places an order, 

signs a contract, or takes other actions that require the government to make payments. 

2

For more information on the FTE levels at Education see GAO, Department of Education: 

Staffing Levels Have Generally Decreased Over Time, while Contracting Levels Have 

Remained Relatively Stable, GAO-17-669R (Washington, D.C.: June 12, 2017).

Letter
Page 2 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

as amended, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as 

amended, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 

(ESEA), as amended.3 (For information about these laws see appendix I.) 

These offices have managed 90 percent of Education’s annual spending. 

For questions in each topic area, we reviewed relevant federal laws, 

regulations, and guidance.

• To address questions about the federal role in education, we reviewed 

various Education documents, including budget documents, strategic 

plans, performance reports, and financial reports. We also reviewed 

data from the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) MAX 

database.

• To address questions on federal, state, and local resources used for 

K-12 public education, we obtained and reviewed data from a variety 

of sources including OMB’s MAX and Education’s Common Core of 

Data (CCD).

• To address questions on federal resources used for higher education, 

we used data from the President’s budget appendix, OMB’s federal 

credit supplement, and Education.4

• To address questions on key measures of K-12 student achievement, 

we used data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress 

(NAEP), and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science 

Study (TIMSS).

• To address questions on key measures of access to higher education, 

we used data from the FSA data center, and the Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS).

• To address questions about Education’s progress meeting its goals 

and objectives, we analyzed goals and objectives related to K-12 

student achievement and access to higher education as reported in 

strategic plan and performance reports covering fiscal years 1998 

through 2018.

We determined that the data from each of these data sources were 

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.

 3

HEA is codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. IDEA is codified as amended at 

20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq. ESEA is codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq.

4

In this report, we use the terms “higher education” or “college” to refer to postsecondary 

education. In addition, we use the terms “higher education institution,” “colleges,” or

“postsecondary institutions,” to refer to “institutions of higher education” as defined in 20 

U.S.C. § 1002. These include both 2-year and 4-year colleges. 
Page 3 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

We conducted this performance audit from July 2017 to February 2018 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. Further details about our 

objectives, scope, and methodology are provided in appendix I.

According to Education’s website, Education’s current mission statement 

is “to promote student achievement and preparation for global 

competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal 

access.” The website also states that Education’s mission is comprised of 

the seven statutory purposes described in the Department of Education 

Organization Act.5 (See text box.)

 5

Department of Education Organization Act, Pub. L. No. 96-88, § 102, 93 Stat. 668, 670 

(1979). While the Department of Education Organization Act did not use the term 

“mission” in describing the purpose of the act, the Department of Education’s website lists 

the same seven purposes indicated in the Act to describe its mission (see 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/mission/mission.html).

Role of the Federal 

Government in 

Education

What were Education’s 

original mission and key 

responsibilities and how 

have they changed since 

its creation?
Page 4 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

Department of Education Organization Act, Section 102, Purpose

The Congress declares that the establishment of a Department of Education is in the 

public interest, will promote the general welfare of the United States, will help ensure that 

education issues receive proper treatment at the Federal level, and will enable the Federal 

Government to coordinate its education activities more effectively. Therefore, the 

purposes of this Act are—

1. to strengthen the Federal commitment to ensuring access to equal educational 

opportunity for every individual;

2. to supplement and complement the efforts of States, the local school systems and 

other instrumentalities of the States, the private sector, public and private educational 

institutions, public and private nonprofit educational research institutions, communitybased organizations, parents, and students to improve the quality of education;

3. to encourage the increased involvement of the public, parents, and students in 

Federal education programs;

4. to promote improvements in the quality and usefulness of education through federally 

supported research, evaluation, and sharing of information;

5. to improve the coordination of Federal education programs;

6. to improve the management and efficiency of Federal education activities, especially 

with respect to the process, procedures, and administrative structures for the 

dispersal of Federal funds, as well as the reduction of unnecessary and duplicative 

burdens and constraints, including unnecessary paperwork, on the recipients of 

Federal funds; and

7. to increase the accountability of Federal education programs to the President, the 

Congress, and the public.

Source: Section 102 of the Department of Education Organization Act, codified at 20 U.S.C. § 3402. | GAO-18-154
Page 5 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

To carry out its stated purposes, the Act also established certain offices, 

including OPE, OSERS, and OESE.6 FSA was established by the Higher 

Education Amendments of 1998.

7 While Education’s statutory purposes 

have not changed in nearly 40 years, the responsibilities of these offices 

have changed over time (see table 1).8

 6

For more information on the creation of offices within Education see GAO-17-669R.

7

Higher Education Amendments of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-244, § 141, 112 Stat. 1581, 

1604-1611. Federal Student Aid is named in statute as the “Performance-based 

organization for the delivery of Federal student financial assistance.”

8

Under the Department of Education Organization Act, the Secretary may delegate any 

function to officers and employees of the Department as the Secretary may designate, 

and may authorize such successive redelegations of functions within the Department as 

may be necessary or appropriate. 20 U.S.C. § 3472.
Page 6 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

Table 1: Summary of Responsibilities of Selected U.S. Department of Education (Education) Offices

Office Summary of responsibilities in authorizing act Description on Education’s websitea

Office of 

Postsecondary 

Education (OPE)

• Administer functions affecting public and private 

postsecondary education, as delegated by the 

Secretary.

• Serve as the principal advisor to the Secretary 

on matters affecting public and private 

postsecondary education.

• Provide financial assistance to eligible students 

enrolled in postsecondary educational institutions.

• Improve postsecondary educational facilities and 

programs through the provision of financial support to 

eligible institutions.

• Recruit and prepare disadvantaged students for the 

successful completion of postsecondary educational 

programs.

• Promote the domestic study of foreign languages and 

international affairs and support international 

educational research and exchange activities.

Federal Student 

Aid (FSA)

• Improve service in student financial assistance 

programs, including making them more 

understandable.

• Reduce the costs of administering FSA 

programs.

• Increase the accountability of officials 

administering FSA programs.

• Provide greater flexibility in the management of 

FSA programs.

• Integrate the information systems supporting 

FSA programs.

• Implement an open, common, integrated 

system for the delivery of student financial 

assistance.

• Develop and maintain a financial assistance 

system that contains complete, accurate, and 

timely data to ensure program integrity.

• Provide financial assistance to eligible students 

enrolled in postsecondary educational institutions.

• Deliver grants, loans, and work-study assistance to 

nearly 12.9 million students through approximately 

6,100 postsecondary institutions.

Office of Special 

Education and 

Rehabilitative 

Services 

(OSERS)

• Perform all functions, transferred to the 

Secretary from the Secretary of Health, 

Education, and Welfare under specified federal 

laws relating to the education and training of 

students with disabilities.

• Meet the needs and develop the full potential of 

children with disabilities through the provision of special 

educational programs and services.

• Increase knowledge about, foster innovation in, and 

improve the delivery of services for persons with 

disabilities through the performance of special 

education research and demonstration activities.

• Disseminate information about services, programs, and 

laws affecting persons with disabilities.
Page 7 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

Office Summary of responsibilities in authorizing act Description on Education’s websitea

Office of 

Elementary and 

Secondary 

Education (OESE)

• Administer functions affecting public and private 

elementary and secondary education, as 

delegated by the Secretary.

• Assist state and local educational agencies to improve 

the achievement of preschool, elementary, and 

secondary school students.

• Assure equal access to services leading to improved 

achievement for all children, particularly those who are 

from low-income families, have limited English 

proficiency, are Native American, live in rural areas, 

and are children of migrant workers.

• Provide financial assistance to States to assist with 

comprehensive education reform efforts at State, local 

district, and school levels.

• Assist States and local school districts in improving the

health, social, emotional, and cognitive outcomes for all 

children, especially children with high needs, from birth 

through third grade so that more children enter 

kindergarten ready to succeed in school and continue 

on track to be college and career ready.

• Assist States and local school districts turn around the 

lowest performing schools.

• Assist elementary and secondary teachers in improving 

the effectiveness of their teaching.

• Strengthen the management capabilities of State 

educational agency personnel and foster educational 

improvement at the State and local levels.

• Provide financial assistance to local educational 

agencies whose local revenues are affected by Federal 

activity.

• Provide financial assistance for drug and violence 

prevention activities; activities that promote the health 

and well-being of students in elementary and 

secondary schools, and institutions of higher education; 

and school preparedness activities.

• Assist State and local educational agencies in the 

process of school desegregation.

Source: GAO analysis of the Department of Education Organization Act, Pub. L. No. 96-88, § 102, 93 Stat. 668, 674 (1979; the Higher Education Amendments of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-244, § 141, 112 

Stat. 1581, 1604-1611; and https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/om/fs_po/ope/intro.html, https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/om/fs_po/fsa/intro.html, 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/om/fs_po/osers/intro.html, and https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oese/index.html?src=oc. | GAO-18-154

a

These descriptions of the office’s responsibilities were obtained from pages on Education’s website 

that provide functional overviews of each office. Additional information on the activities of each office 

can be found at their respective homepages at 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/index.html?src=oc, 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/fsa/index.html, 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/index.html?src=oc, and 

https://ed.gov/about/offices/list/oese/index.html?src=oc.

Since 1980, changes in appropriations levels and program activities have 

affected the roles and responsibilities of OPE, FSA, OSERS, and OESE. 

For example, in 2011, we reported that Education had faced expanded 

responsibilities and evolving program priorities that challenged the 

department to allocate resources strategically to balance new duties with 
Page 8 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

ongoing ones.9 Specifically, we reported that Education’s annual budget 

had increased by nearly 36 percent in real terms between fiscal years 

2000 and 2008, and that the number of grants and loans administered by 

Education had grown. More recently, in 2016, we reported that the Direct 

Loan program had grown dramatically, with over six times as many 

outstanding loans as there were in 2007.10

Federal laws have also prompted changes in some Education offices. For 

example, two laws enacted in 2008 and 2009 added four new programs 

in OPE.11 More recently, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) was 

enacted in 2015, reauthorizing the ESEA. ESSA makes various changes 

to the ESEA, such as modifying accountability requirements for schools 

and districts in the Title I-A program.12

Nearly every year since Education’s creation, the four key offices we 

reviewed have accounted for over 90 percent of Education’s spending, 

ranging from $23.2 billion in 1980 to $93.8 billion in 2016, according to 

OMB.13 (See fig. 1.) Historically, OPE and FSA have accounted for the 

majority of this spending, except in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, when 

spending peaked for OSERS and OESE after the enactment of the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), which 

 9

GAO, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Federal Teacher Quality 

Programs, GAO-11-510T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 13, 2011) and Department of 

Education: Improved Oversight and Controls Could Help Education Better Respond to 

Evolving Priorities, GAO-11-194 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 10, 2011).

10GAO, Federal Student Loans: Education Could Improve Direct Loan Program Customer 

Service and Oversight, GAO-16-523 (Washington D.C.: May 16, 2016).

11The four programs are the Erma Byrd Scholarship Program, authorized by the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-117, 123 Stat. 3034 (2009), and 

the Promoting Post Baccalaureate Opportunities For Hispanic Americans Program, the 

Master’s Degree Programs at Predominantly Black Institutions Program, and the Master’s

Degree Programs at Predominantly Black Institutions Program, authorized by the Higher 

Education Opportunity Act, Pub. L. No. 110-315, 122 Stat. 3078 (2008).

12The Every Student Succeeds Act, Pub. L. No. 114-95, 129 Stat. 1802 (2015). Title I-A, 

the largest ESEA program, provides grants to local educational agencies to fund 

educational and related services for low-achieving and other students attending 

elementary and secondary schools with relatively high concentrations of students from 

low-income families.

13Although FSA was created in 1998, we included accounts from its predecessor 

organizations in the spending totals for prior years.

How much have four key 

Education offices spent

since 1980?
Page 9 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

increased appropriations for K-12 education programs.14 Spending by 

OSERS and OESE returned to prior levels in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 

respectively, when the relevant appropriations from ARRA expired. Also, 

in fiscal year 2006, spending by FSA increased temporarily after the 

Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2005 created two need-based 

grant programs—Academic Competitiveness Grants (ACG) and National 

Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent (SMART) grants for 

undergraduate students.

15 Program participation was low during the first 

two years ACG and SMART grants became available, and Education’s 

authority to make ACG and SMART grants expired at the end of school 

year 2010-11.

Figure 1: Spending by Four Key Education Offices, Fiscal Years 1980-2016

 14American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115.

15Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-171, § 8003, 120 Stat. 4, 

155-58. 
Page 10 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

Notes: Data are not available for 1981. We use the term “spending” to refer to federal obligations—an 

obligation is a definite commitment that creates a legal liability for the payment of goods and services 

ordered or received.

FSA was established in 1998 and began operating in fiscal year 1999. Prior to the establishment of 

FSA, spending for federal student aid programs was associated with other offices within the 

department.

Staffing levels at Education have declined overall from a high of 6,391 

FTEs in fiscal year 1981 to 4,147 FTEs in fiscal year 2016 (see fig. 2). 

More specifically, staffing levels decreased by 23 percent from fiscal 

years 1981 through 1985, and then declined more gradually, decreasing 

by 16 percent from fiscal years 1985 through 2016. The fiscal year 2010 

increases in staff coincided with increased appropriations Education 

received through ARRA. As of fiscal year 2016, Education was close to its 

lowest overall staffing level, which occurred in fiscal year 2009 with 4,018 

FTEs.

While overall staffing levels have decreased at Education over time, FSA, 

which manages the federal student loan portfolio, has generally increased 

its FTEs. FSA had approximately one-third of Education’s total FTEs in 

fiscal year 2016. The timing of this increase was corresponded with key 

changes in federal student loan programs.16 As shown in figure 2, if 

staffing levels for FSA, and for staff allocated to student aid activities prior 

to the creation of FSA, are removed, the trend in Education’s overall 

staffing levels shows a greater decrease over time. Total FTEs for FSA 

have ranged from 907 FTEs when it was first operating in fiscal year 1999 

to its highest level in fiscal year 2016, at 1,453 FTEs.

 16For example, changes in federal student loan programs led numerous schools to 

transition from the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program, under which most 

federal student loans were originated by private lenders, to the Direct Loan Program. Also, 

the SAFRA Act terminated the authority to make or insure new loans under the FFEL 

Program after June 30, 2010.

How has Education’s 

staffing changed from its 

creation to present?
Page 11 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

Figure 2: Trends in the Department of Education’s Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Staffing Levels, Fiscal Years 1981-2016

Notes: FTE information was not available in 1980, the first fiscal year in which The Department of 

Education (Education) was operating.

Federal Student Aid (FSA) was established in 1998 and began operating in fiscal year 1999. Prior to 

the establishment of FSA in 1998, FTEs for administering federal student aid programs were 

associated with other offices within the department and first itemized in the Office of Management 

and Budget MAX database in 1994.

Federal, State, and 

Local Resources 

Used for K-12 Public 

Education
Page 12 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

The federal government provides a significantly smaller percentage of 

funding in K-12 public schools than state and local governments do, 

according to CCD data.17 For school years 1979-80 through 2013-14, the 

federal funding for K-12 public schools accounted for approximately 6 

percent to 13 percent of K-12 public schools’ total revenue while state 

and local sources accounted for from 87 percent to 94 percent, roughly 

equally divided between state and local governments (see fig. 3).

Figure 3: Public Elementary and Secondary School (K-12) Funding by Source of Funds, School Years 1979-2014

 17In this report, we use the term “funding” to refer to school revenue. In this subsection of 

this report, for all revenue data describing K-12 resources we relied on CCD data sources. 

CCD defines “revenue” as additions to assets that do not incur an obligation that must be 

met at some future date, do not represent exchanges of fixed assets, and are available for 

expenditure by the local education agencies in the state. Revenues include funds from 

local, intermediate, state, and federal sources. For more information, see 

https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/pdf/NCES_2016302.pdf.

How does federal funding 

for K-12 education 

compare to state and local 

funding since Education’s 

creation?
Page 13 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

Notes: Data are from the Common Core of Data (CCD) as reported in the Digest of Education 

Statistics 2015 (December 2016), https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/.

Based on CCD definitions, funding to schools from local sources includes local property and 

nonproperty taxes, investments, and activities such as textbook sales, transportation and tuition fees, 

and food service revenues. Funding from state sources includes revenues from state governments 

and revenues in lieu of taxes, which are paid to compensate school districts for nontaxable state 

institutions or facilities within the districts’ boundaries. Funding from federal sources includes direct 

grants-in-aid to schools or agencies, funds distributed through a state or intermediate agency, and 

revenues in lieu of taxes to compensate a school district for nontaxable federal institutions within the 

district’s boundaries.

Federal funding for K-12 education varies by state. Because states’

funding of K-12 public schools varies widely, the percent of total school 

revenue from the federal government also varies widely by state. For 

example, in school year 2013-2014, revenue from the federal government 

accounted for 15.3 percent (approximately $1.3 billion) of total school 

revenues in Louisiana, while in New Jersey revenues from the federal 

government accounted for 4.3 percent (approximately $1.2 billion) of total 

school revenues (see fig. 4).
Page 14 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

Figure 4: Public Elementary and Secondary School (K-12) Funding by State and Source of Funds, School Year 2013-2014 

Notes: Data are from the Common Core of Data (CCD) as reported in the Digest of Education 

Statistics 2015 (December 2016), https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/.

Based on CCD definitions, funding to schools from local sources includes revenues from local 

property and nonproperty taxes, investments, and activities such as textbook sales, transportation 
Page 15 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

and tuition fees, and food service revenues. Funding from state sources includes revenues from state 

governments and revenues in lieu of taxes, which are paid to compensate school districts for 

nontaxable state institutions or facilities within the districts’ boundaries. Funding from federal sources 

includes revenues from direct grants-in-aid to schools or agencies, funds distributed through a state 

or intermediate agency, and revenues in lieu of taxes to compensate a school district for nontaxable 

federal institutions within the district’s boundaries.

Federal funding for K-12 public education also varies by U.S. territory. For 

example, in school year 2013-14, the federal share of public school 

funding ranged from a high of 85 percent (approximately $74.5 million) in 

American Samoa to a low of 18 percent (approximately $35.1 million) in 

the U.S. Virgin Islands. Puerto Rico received the most federal funds for its 

K-12 public schools among the five U.S. territories (approximately $1.2 

billion) and its federal share of funding was 35 percent (see fig. 5).

Figure 5: Public Elementary and Secondary School (K-12) Funding by U.S. Territory and Source of Funds, School Year 2013-

2014

Notes: Data are from the Common Core of Data (CCD) as reported in the Digest of Education 

Statistics 2015 (December 2016), https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/.

CCD refers to revenues received from the central government of the territory as “state” revenues.

Based on CCD definitions, funding to schools from local sources includes revenues from local 

property and nonproperty taxes, investments, and activities such as textbook sales, transportation 

and tuition fees, and food service revenues. Funding from state sources includes revenues from state 

governments and revenues in lieu of taxes, which are paid to compensate school districts for 

nontaxable state institutions or facilities within the districts’ boundaries. Funding from federal sources 

includes revenues from direct grants-in-aid to schools or agencies, funds distributed through a state 

or intermediate agency, and revenues in lieu of taxes to compensate a school district for nontaxable 

federal institutions within the district’s boundaries.
Page 16 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

From 1980 through 2014, the most recent year for which final data are 

available, annual public pre-K through 12 enrollment increased from 

approximately 41 million to over 50 million students (see fig. 6).

Figure 6: Public Elementary and Secondary School (pre-K through 12) Annual 

Student Enrollment in the United States, 1980-2014

Notes: Data are from the Common Core of Data (CCD) as reported in the Digest of Education 

Statistics 2015 (December 2016), https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/.

The CCD did not provide enrollment data for years 1981 through 1984 or 1986 through 1989 and we 

did not include the CCD projections of student enrollment for 2015-2017.

While overall public school enrollment has increased over time, changes 

in enrollment have varied by state. From fall 2000 to fall 2014, for 

example, public school enrollment in pre-K through 12 increased in 32 

states and the District of Columbia and decreased in 18 states. Per 

student expenditures vary significantly among states, according to CCD 

data (see fig. 7). In school year 2013-14, average expenditure per student 

in K-12 ranged from $6,638 in Utah to $20,867 in the District of Columbia.

How many students have 

been in the pre-K through 

12 system since 1980?
Page 17 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

Figure 7: Public Elementary and Secondary School (K-12) State Expenditures per Student, School Year 2013-14 

Note: Data are from the Common Core of Data (CCD) as reported in the Digest of Education 

Statistics 2015 (December 2016), https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/.
Page 18 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

Since Education’s creation, spending for higher education has ranged 

from $15 billion to $71 billion, with OPE and FSA accounting for the 

majority of combined spending by OPE, FSA, OSERS, and OESE, as 

noted earlier (see fig. 1), and accounting for almost 50 percent of 

Education’s total spending.18

From fiscal years 1980 through 2016, Education spent more than $500 

billion for Pell Grants, Supplemental Educational Opportunity grants and, 

and Federal Work Study—three of Education’s key federal grant and work 

study programs—with 90 percent of these funds spent on Pell Grants. 

(See fig. 8.)

 18Other federal agencies, such as the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department 

of Defense, also have programs that provide funds for postsecondary education, and the 

federal government provides financial assistance for postsecondary education in the form 

of tax benefits, although these programs were out of the scope of our review. See GAO,

VA Education Benefits: VA Should Strengthen Its Efforts to Help Veterans Make Informed 

Education Decisions, GAO-14-324 (Washington, D.C.: May 13, 2014); Higher Education: 

Improved Tax Information Could Help Families Pay for College, GAO-12-560 

(Washington, D.C.: May 18, 2012); and DOD Education Benefits: Increased Oversight of 

Tuition Assistance Program is Needed, GAO-11-300 (Washington, D.C.: March 1, 2011).

Federal Spending for 

Higher Education

How much has Education 

spent on OPE and FSA 

programs?

How much has Education 

spent on higher education 

federal grant and work 

study programs?
Page 19 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

Figure 8: Spending on Three Key Higher Education Federal Grant and Work Study Programs, Fiscal Years 1980-2016

Notes: Data are from the Office of Management and Budget as reported in the President’s Budget 

Appendix (2017).

We use the term “spending” to refer to federal obligations—an obligation is a definite commitment that 

creates a legal liability for the payment of goods and services ordered or received.

For federal student loans issued or guaranteed by Education from 1992 

through 2016, OMB currently estimates that the federal government will 

generate a net subsidy income of approximately $40 billion (see fig. 9).19

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 requires agencies to estimate the 

cost to the government of extending or guaranteeing credit, with periodic 

(generally annual) re-estimates. This cost is known as a “subsidy cost,”

 19Prior to the enactment of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA), credit 

programs—like most other federal programs—were recorded in budgetary accounts on a 

cash basis (the expected amount of cash paid out minus the cash received in a given 

year). Because a loan guarantee does not require a cash outlay at the time the guarantee 

is issued, guarantees initially appeared to be of no cost to the federal budget; conversely, 

because the entire amount of a direct loan is disbursed and recognized as a budget cost 

when the loan is made, the cost of direct loans was recorded similar to that of grants in the 

federal budget. This budgetary treatment created an incentive to structure programs as 

guarantees, rather than as direct loans. FCRA requires agencies to estimate the cost to 

the government of extending or guaranteeing credit, which puts direct loans and loan 

guarantees on an equal footing in terms of cost in the federal budget and permits the 

costs of credit programs to be compared with each other and with the costs of noncredit 

programs. The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-508, Title XIII, Subtitle 

B, § 13201, 104 Stat 1388, 1388–610.

How much has Education 

spent on student loans?
Page 20 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

and equals the net present value of estimated cash flows from the 

government (e.g., loan disbursements) minus estimated cash flows to the 

government (e.g., loan principal repayments, interest payments, and 

fees), over the life of the loan and excluding administrative costs.20

Subsidy costs are re-estimated and updated annually to reflect actual 

loan performance over the prior year, and any updated assumptions 

about future loan performance. Education annually reestimates subsidy 

costs for each loan cohort (the group of loans made in a particular fiscal 

year) until all loans in the cohort have been repaid, which may take 

decades. Reestimates may result in increases or decreases in subsidy 

cost estimates.

Figure 9: Current Estimated Subsidy Income and Costs of Federal Student Loans Issued from Fiscal Year (FY) 1992 through 

2016, as of the President’s FY 2018 Budget Request

 20We use the term “subsidy income” to describe a positive “subsidy cost.”
Page 21 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

Notes: Data are from the Office of Management and Budget as reported in the Federal Credit 

Supplement, Fiscal Year 2018 (May 2017).

Loan volume is estimated separately for each group of loans made in a particular fiscal year—

referred to as a loan cohort. The volume of loans issued under the Direct Loan program expanded 

dramatically after the SAFRA Act terminated the authority to make or insure new Federal Family 

Education Loans after June 30, 2010.

As we reported in 2014, Direct Loan administrative costs rose from $314 

million to $864 million—a 175 percent increase—from fiscal year 2007 

through fiscal year 2012, according to Education.21 The growth in 

administrative costs was associated with expansion in the volume of 

Direct Loans issued by the government after the SAFRA Act terminated 

Education’s authority to make or insure new loans under the Federal 

Family Education Loan (FFEL) program after June 30, 2010.22 While total 

administrative costs increased over this time period, costs per borrower 

and other unit costs remained steady or declined. Rising loan servicing 

costs represented the greatest portion of that increase (over $300 million 

or 152 percent) during that time period (see fig. 10).

 21GAO-14-234.

22The SAFRA Act, Pub. L. No. 111-152, 124 Stat. 1029, 1071-81 (2010). Under the FFEL 

program, private lenders made and administered student loans that were insured against 

loss by the federal government.

What are the 

administrative costs for 

student loan 

management?
Page 22 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

Figure 10: Education’s Direct Loan Program Administrative Costs by Category and Number of Loans, Fiscal Years 2007-2012

Notes: All administrative costs are full costs generated by Education’s Activity Based Costing model 

for the Direct Loan program; for more information see GAO, VA Education Benefits: VA Should 

Strengthen Its Efforts to Help Veterans Make Informed Education Decisions, GAO-14-324 

(Washington, D.C.: May 13, 2014).

Administrative costs for the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program are generally borne by 

private lenders and not included in this analysis; for more information see GAO, Student Loan 

Programs: As Federal Costs of Loan Consolidation Rise, Other Options Should Be Examined, 

GAO-04-101 (Washington, D.C.: October 31, 2003).
Page 23 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

From 1980 through 2012, NAEP reading and mathematics scores for 

students aged 9, 13, and 17 generally increased (see fig. 11).23

Figure 11: National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Long-Term Trend Assessments for 9-, 13-, and 17-Year-Old 

Students’ Achievement in Reading (1980-2012) and Mathematics (1982-2012)

Note: Data are from NAEP as reported in The Nation’s Report Card: Trends in Academic Progress 

2012 (June 2013).

 23The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is the largest nationally 

representative and continuing assessment of what America’s students know and can do in 

various subject areas. NAEP is administered by the National Center for Education 

Statistics within the U.S. Department of Education. The National Assessment Governing 

Board oversees and sets policy for NAEP. For more information see 

https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/.

Key Measures of 

K-12 Student 

Achievement

What are some key trends 

in K-12 student 

achievement, including 

those for subpopulations 

of students, as measured 

by NAEP?
Page 24 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

a

The difference between the 1980 and 2012 reading scores for 17-year-old students was not 

statistically significant.

In all grade levels, there have been gaps between the reading and 

mathematics scores of White and Black students and between scores of 

White and Hispanic students; however, these gaps narrowed between 

1980 and 2012 (see fig. 12). While most scores improved for each cohort 

of students, scores of Black and Hispanic students improved more than 

those of White students.
Page 25 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

Figure 12: National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Long-Term Trend Assessments for 9-, 13-, and 17-Year-Old 

Students’ Achievement by Race/Ethnicity in Reading (1980-2012) and Mathematics (1982-2012)

Note: Data are from NAEP as reported in The Nation’s Report Card: Trends in Academic Progress 

2012 (June 2013).

a

The difference between the 1980 and 2012 reading scores for White 17-year-old students was not 

statistically significant.
Page 26 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

In reading, scores of female students were higher than those of male 

students for each age group from 1980 through 2012. In mathematics, the 

average scores for female and male students at ages 9 and 13 were 

similar in most years, while at age 17, the average scores were higher for 

males than females in most years (see fig. 13).

Figure 13: National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Long-Term Trend Assessments for 9-, 13-, and 17-Year-Old 

Students’ Achievement by Gender in Reading (1980-2012) and Mathematics (1982-2012)

Note: Data are from NAEP as reported in The Nation’s Report Card: Trends in Academic Progress 

2012 (June 2013).

a

The difference between the 1980 and 2012 reading scores for both male and female 17-year-old 

students was not statistically significant.
Page 27 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

According to a report on the most recent TIMSS data collection in 2015, 

the scores of U.S. fourth- and eighth-grade students on the TIMSS 

mathematics assessments have shown long-term improvement, on 

average, while trends in science achievement have been mixed. 24 Figure 

14 shows math and science scores from the 2015 TIMSS for fourth- and 

eighth-grade students from the United States and selected other 

countries (see fig. 14).

 24Highlights From TIMSS and TIMSS Advanced 2015: Mathematics and Science 

Achievement of U.S. Students in Grades 4 and 8 and in Advanced Courses at the End of 

High School in an International Context (NCES 2017-002). U.S. Department of Education, 

National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, D.C.

The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) measures the 

mathematics and science achievement of U.S. students and students in other countries 

every 4 years, in general. TIMSS data have been collected from students in grades 4 and 

8 since 1995. TIMSS is sponsored by the International Association for the Evaluation of 

Educational Achievement and managed in the United States by the National Center for 

Education located within the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education 

Sciences. For more information see https://nces.ed.gov/timss/. 

How does achievement of 

U.S. K-12 students, 

including subpopulations 

of students, compare to 

students in other 

countries, as measured by 

TIMSS?
Page 28 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

Figure 14: Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) K-12 Scores by Grade Level, 1995-2015

a

The difference between the 1995 and 2015 scores is not statistically significant.
Page 29 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

From fiscal years 2007 through 2017, the amount of outstanding student 

debt from federal student loans for higher education more than doubled 

from a little over $500 billion to $1.3 trillion (see fig. 15).25

Figure 15: Amount of Outstanding Student Debt from Federal Student Loans for Higher Education, Fiscal Years 2007-2017

Note: Pursuant to the SAFRA Act no new loans could be issued under the FFEL Program after June 

30, 2010. The Department of Education retains a portfolio of previously issued loans. The SAFRA 

Act, Pub. L. No. 111-152, 124 Stat. 1029, 1071-81 (2010).

 25Other measures and indicators, such as average indebtedness per student, can also 

provide useful information about access to higher education, but were outside the scope 

of this report.

Key Measures of 

Access to Higher 

Education

What is the amount of 

outstanding student debt 

from federal student 

loans?
Page 30 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

In school year 2015-16, the average costs of tuition, fees, and room and 

board rates at private non-profit and private for-profit higher education 

institutions were $43,065 and $23,776, respectively. In school year 2015-

16, the average cost for tuition, fees, and room and board rates at public 

higher education institutions was $16,757 (see fig.16).

Figure 16: Average Tuition and Fees and Room and Board Rates Charged for Full-Time Students, by Type of Higher 

Education Institution, School Years 1980-81 through 2015-16

Notes: Data are from IPEDS as reported in the Digest of Education Statistics 2015 (December 2016), 

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/.

Published tuition prices do not necessarily indicate actual costs incurred by students and families, in 

part because grant aid can help reduce out-of-pocket costs.

What is the average cost 

of tuition, fees, and room 

and board rates, by type of 

higher education 

institution?
Page 31 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

In school year 2014-15, public higher education institutions received 

about $102 billion from state and local revenue sources.26 From school 

years 1999-00 through 2014-15, funding from state sources to public 

higher education institutions generally decreased, from 34.7 percent to 

23.6 percent of total funding, while funding from local sources increased 

from 3.9 percent to 7.2 percent of total funding (see fig. 17).27

Figure 17: Share of Revenue from Federal, State, Local, and Other Sources Received by Public Higher Education Institutions, 

School Years 1999-00 through 2014-15

Note: “Federal” sources include appropriations for meeting current operating expenses, grants, 

contracts, and federal grant aid to students such as Pell Grants. “State” sources refer to funds 

received by colleges through state appropriations laws or through grants and contracts from state 

 26In this subsection of this report, for all revenue data describing the resources of 

institutions of higher education, we relied on IPEDS data. IPEDS defines “revenue” as the 

inflow of resources or other enhancement of net assets (or fund balance) of an institution 

or settlements of its liabilities (or a combination of both) from delivering or producing 

goods, rendering services, or other activities that constitute the institution’s ongoing major 

or central operations. For more information see 

https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/ipeds/VisGlossaryAll.aspx. 

27Public higher education institutions are supported by funding from federal, state, and 

local sources, revenue from tuition and fees, and other sources. Other sources can be 

private gifts, grants, and contracts, sales and services of educational activities, auxiliary 

enterprises, and hospital revenues. See GAO, Higher Education: State Funding Trends 

and Policies on Affordability, GAO-15-151 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 16, 2014).

How much revenue do 

public higher education 

institutions receive from 

state and local sources?
Page 32 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

government agencies. “Local” sources refer to funds provided and grants made by local government. 

“Other sources” include private gifts, grants and contracts; sales and services of educational 

activities; auxiliary enterprises; hospital revenues; and tuition, which is net tuition revenue. Net tuition 

revenue is the amount of money the institution takes in from students after institutional grant aid is 

provided. For more information see GAO, Higher Education: State Funding Trends and Policies on 

Affordability, GAO-15-151 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 16, 2014).

From fiscal years 1997 through 2015 more than 5 million students 

graduated within 150 percent of the normal time (within 3 years) from 2-

year higher education institutions, and more than 12 million students 

graduated within 150 percent of the normal time (within 6 years) from 4-

year higher education institutions, according to IPEDS data (see fig. 18).28

During the same time period, average graduation rates at 2-year higher 

education institutions ranged from 30.7 percent to 34.6 percent; average 

graduation rates at 4-year institutions ranged from 52.5 percent to 59.2 

percent (see fig. 18).29

 28Graduation rates in IPEDs measure the percentage of a postsecondary institution’s firsttime, full-time undergraduate students who graduate from the same institution within 150 

percent of the normal time. The National Center for Education Statistics defines the 

“normal” amount of time it should take to receive a degree is 4 years for a bachelor’s 

degree and 2 years for an associate’s degree. See 

https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011221.pdf. To graduate within 150 percent of the normal 

time from a 2-year or 4-year institution will take 3 and 6 years, respectively. The 

graduation rate collected by Education is limited to degree/certificate-seeking 

undergraduate students and excludes part-time and returning students. Students who 

transfer without completing a degree are counted as noncompleters in the calculation of 

these rates regardless of whether they complete a degree at another institution.

29For more information on graduation rates at 2-year higher education institutions, which 

typically have higher proportions of returning and part-time students than their 4-year 

counterparts, and often serve more students from disadvantaged backgrounds, see 

American Association of Community Colleges, Trends in Community College Enrollment 

and Completion Data, 2016 (Washington, D.C.: March 2016).

How many students 

graduate within 150 

percent of the normal time 

from 2-year and 4-year 

higher education

institutions?
Page 33 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

Figure 18: Graduation Rates at 2-year and 4-year Higher Education Institutions (1997-2015)

Note: These graduation rates are limited to degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students and 

exclude part-time and returning students. Students who transfer without completing a degree are 

counted as noncompleters in the calculation of these rates regardless of whether they complete a 

degree at another institution.
Page 34 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

Since 1998, when Education released its first official strategic plan as 

required by GPRA, its goals have focused on academic achievement, 

postsecondary education access and aid, and agency service quality.30

Over time, Education’s goals have also addressed different aspects of 

Education’s mission, such as national education reform; educational 

research; early social-emotional and cognitive outcomes; workforce 

improvement; equity among educational opportunities, for example, 

among different racial and socioeconomic student populations; and civil 

rights enforcement (see table 2.)

Table 2: Strategic Goals from Each of the Department of Education’s Strategic Plans

Strategic 

Plan Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6

1998 – 2002 Build a solid 

foundation for 

learning for all 

children.

Help all students 

reach challenging 

academic standards 

so that they are 

prepared for 

responsible 

citizenship, further 

learning, and 

productive 

employment.

Ensure access to 

postsecondary 

education and 

lifelong learning.

Make Education

a highperformance 

organization by 

focusing on 

results, service 

quality, and 

customer 

satisfaction.

N/A N/A

2001 – 2005a Build a solid 

foundation for 

learning for all 

children.

Reform the U.S. 

education system to 

help make it the best 

in the world.

Ensure access 

for all to a highquality 

postsecondary 

education and 

lifelong learning.

Make the 

Education 

Department a 

high 

performance 

organization.

N/A N/A

 30Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Pub. L. No 103-62, 107 Stat. 285. In 

2011, GPRA was significantly enhanced by the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 

(GPRAMA). GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 

(2011).

Education’s Reported 

Progress in Meeting 

Goals and Objectives

How have Education’s 

strategic and performance 

goals changed?
Page 35 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

Strategic 

Plan Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6

2002 – 2007 Create a culture of 

achievement.

Improve student 

achievement.

Enhance the 

quality of and 

access to 

postsecondary 

and adult 

education.

Establish 

management 

excellence.

Transform 

education into an 

evidence-based 

field.

Develop safe 

schools and 

strong 

character.

2007 – 2012 Improve student 

achievement, with a 

focus on bringing 

all students to 

grade level in 

reading and 

mathematics by 

2014

Increase the 

academic 

achievement of all 

high school 

students.

Ensure the 

accessibility, 

affordability, and 

accountability of 

higher education, 

and better 

prepare students 

and adults for 

employment and 

future learning.

Cross-goal 

strategy on 

management: 

The Department 

of Education will 

carry out its 

mission and 

reach its goals 

through a 

commitment to 

excellent 

management 

practices.

N/A N/A

2011 – 2014 Early Learning. 

Improve the health, 

social-emotional, 

and cognitive 

outcomes for all 

children from birth 

through 3rd grade, 

so that all children, 

particularly those 

with high needs, 

are on track for 

graduating from 

high school collegeand career-ready.

Elementary and 

Secondary. Prepare 

all elementary and 

secondary students 

for college and 

career by improving 

the education 

system’s ability to 

consistently deliver 

excellent classroom 

instruction with 

rigorous academic 

standards while 

providing effective 

support services.

Postsecondary 

Education, 

Career and 

Technical 

Education, and 

Adult Education. 

Increase college 

access, quality, 

and completion 

by improving 

higher education 

and lifelong 

learning 

opportunities for 

youth and adults.

U.S. Department 

of Education 

Capacity. 

Improve the 

organizational 

capacities of the 

Department to 

implement this 

Strategic Plan.

Continuous 

Improvement of the 

U.S. Education 

System. Enhance 

the education 

system’s ability to 

continuously 

improve through 

better and more 

widespread use of 

data, research and 

evaluation, 

transparency, 

innovation, and 

technology.

Equity. Ensure 

and promote 

effective 

educational 

opportunities 

and safe and 

healthy 

learning 

environments 

for all students 

regardless of 

race, ethnicity, 

national origin, 

age, sex, 

sexual 

orientation, 

gender identity, 

disability, 

language, and 

socioeconomic 

status.
Page 36 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

Strategic 

Plan Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6

2014 – 2018 Early Learning. 

Improve the health, 

social-emotional, 

and cognitive 

outcomes for all 

children from birth 

through 3rd grade, 

so that all children, 

particularly those 

with high needs, 

are on track for 

graduating from

high school collegeand career-ready.

Elementary and 

Secondary 

Education. Improve 

the elementary and 

secondary education 

system’s ability to 

consistently deliver 

excellent instruction 

aligned with rigorous 

academic standards 

while providing 

effective support 

services to close 

achievement and 

opportunity gaps, 

and ensure all 

students graduate 

high school collegeand career-ready.

Postsecondary 

Education, 

Career and 

Technical 

Education, and 

Adult Education. 

Increase college 

access, 

affordability, 

quality, and 

completion by 

improving 

postsecondary 

education and 

lifelong learning 

opportunities for 

youths and 

adults.

U.S. Department 

of Education 

Capacity. 

Improve the 

organizational 

capacities of the 

Department to 

implement this 

strategic plan.

Continuous 

Improvement of the 

U.S. Education 

System. Enhance 

the education 

system’s ability to 

continuously 

improve through 

better and more 

widespread use of 

data, research and 

evaluation, 

evidence, 

transparency, 

innovation, and 

technology.

Equity. 

Increase 

educational

opportunities 

for 

underserved 

students and 

reduce 

discrimination 

so that all 

students are 

well-positioned 

to succeed.

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Education’s Strategic Plans, Fiscal Years 1998-2018. | GAO-18-154

a

According to an Education official, due to a change in administration, the fiscal year 2001-2005 

strategic plan was replaced by a new strategic plan shortly after its release.

Education’s strategic plans are structured in a three tier format comprised 

of goals, with each goal having a subset of objectives that provide 

additional detail, which are measured by indicators.31 (See sidebar.)

 31Education also refers to indicators as sub-goals, measures, metrics, and strategies in its 

strategic plans and annual performance reports.
Page 37 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

These goals, objectives, and indicators are interrelated. In Education’s 

plan, each goal describes how the agency will implement a major part of 

its mission, and each goal has a subset of objectives that provide 

additional detail on the goal. Progress in meeting the planned objectives 

is measured by indicators. Education publishes goals, objectives, and 

indicators in its strategic plans, each of which covers 4 years, and reports 

on its progress in meeting those goals, objectives, and indicators in its 

annual performance reports.32 (See fig. 19.)

 32Education commonly consolidates its annual performance reports with its annual 

performance plans into one document. 

GPRA and GPRAMA Requirements

The Department of Education’s first official 

strategic goals were established in 1997 and 

published in Education’s Fiscal Year 1998-

2002 Strategic Plan. Prior to the enactment of 

the Government Performance Results Act of 

1993 (GPRA),federal agencies were not 

required to create strategic plans. GPRA 

established requirements for agencies to set 

goals, measure performance, and submit 

related plans and reports to Congress.

Specifically, GPRA requires each agency to 

prepare (1) strategic plans with long-term,

outcome-oriented goals and objectives, (2) 

annual performance plans with goals linked to 

achieving the long-term goals in the strategic 

plan and indicators to measure performance

against the goals, and (3) annual reports on 

the results achieved toward the goals in the 

performance plan.

In 2011, GPRA was significantly enhanced by 

the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 

(GPRAMA) which, among other things, 

changed the timing of strategic plan updates 

to more closely align with presidential terms. 

Specifically, GPRAMA requires strategic plans 

to cover at least 4 years and be updated

every 4 years, approximately 1 year after a 

new presidential term begins. See Related 

GAO Products at the end of this report.

Source: GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-

352, 124 Stat. 3866 (2011). | GAO-18-154
Page 38 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

Figure 19: Example of a Goal, Objective, and Indicators Published in Education’s Annual Performance Reports

In its annual performance reports for fiscal years 1999 through 2016, 

Education reported on indicators associated with the objectives we 

identified as related to K-12 student achievement. For these indicators, 

Education reported, on average, 25 percent as met or exceeded and, on 

average, 29 percent as not met.33 Education reported “other” outcomes, 

such as discontinued or unavailable data, for, on average, 46 percent of 

these K-12 student achievement indicators.34 Education also reported 

progress annually for indicators associated with the objectives we 

identified as related to access to higher education. For these indicators, 

Education reported, on average, 34 percent as met or exceeded, 20 

 33The FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan is the 

most current performance report released by Education and presents performance 

information for fiscal year 2016. 

34We characterized as “other” indicators that were reported by Education as (1) not 

applicable, (2) having had metrics removed or discontinued, (3) having “positive progress,”

“but data not available,” or (4) “likely,” “but data not available.”

To what extent has 

Education reported 

meeting or not meeting its 

goals related to K-12 

student achievement and 

access to higher education 

over time?
Page 39 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

percent as not met, and 45 percent as other.35 (See fig. 20.) More 

information related to Education’s annual performance reporting is 

available on Education’s website.

 35Our analysis included only those goals, objectives, and indicators that we identified as 

being related to K-12 student achievement and access to higher education. Thus, this 

analysis does not reflect Education’s total reported progress, but rather the progress of 

those objectives and indicators we identified as related to student achievement and 

access to higher education. In addition, Education does not group its indicators into 

categories such as student achievement and access to higher education. We asked 

officials from Education’s Office of the Deputy Secretary to review our categorization and, 

in some cases, expanded our selection of goals and objectives based on their comments. 

See appendix I for more information on our methodology. 
Page 40 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

Figure 20: Annual Reported Progress of Selected Goals Compiled at the Indicator-Level by Education, Fiscal Years 1999 to 

2016

Notes: Indicators reported here as “Met or exceeded” include those that Education reported as “met”

or “exceeded.” Indicators reported here as “Not met” include those that Education reported as “not 

met” or in cases that Education reported data for a target that was explicitly not reached. Indicators 

reported here as “Other” include those that Education reported as (1) not applicable, (2) having had 

metrics removed or discontinued, (3) having “positive progress,” “but data not available” or (4) “likely,” 

“but data not available.”

We found some indicators to be related to K-12 student achievement and access to higher education. 

In those cases, we included the indicators in both categories for our analysis.

Performance information for fiscal years 2001, 2011, and 2013 are not presented at the indicator 

level. See https://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/index.html for further information related to 

Education’s reported strategic goals and performance.
Page 41 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Education for 

review and comment. Education provided technical comments on our 

draft, which we incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, the Secretary of Education, and other interested parties. In 

addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (617) 788-0580 or nowickij@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 key contributions to this report 

are listed in appendix III.

Jacqueline M. Nowicki, Director

Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 42 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

This report provides information on six broad areas: (1) the role of the 

federal government in education; (2) federal, state, and local resources 

used for K-12 public education; (3) federal resources used for higher 

education; (4) key measures of K-12 student achievement; (5) key 

measures of access to higher education; and (6) Education’s reported 

progress meeting its goals and objectives.

We focused our review on four Education offices: (1) Office of 

Postsecondary Education (OPE), (2) Federal Student Aid (FSA), (3) 

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), and (4) 

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE). We chose these 

offices because they manage most aspects of implementing three key 

Education laws. These laws are the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA),

as amended, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as 

amended, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 

(ESEA), as amended.1 Also, these offices have managed over 90 percent 

of Education’s annual spending. For each question, we reviewed relevant 

federal laws, regulations, and guidance.

To address questions about the federal role in education, we reviewed 

various Education documents, including budget documents, strategic 

plans, performance reports, and agency financial reports. We also 

reviewed data from the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) MAX 

database. Unless otherwise noted, we obtained and reviewed data from 

fiscal year 1980, Education’s first year of operation, through the fiscal 

year for which the most current data were available. We reviewed OMB 

MAX to determine obligations to OPE, FSA, OSERS, and OESE from 

1980 through 2016. Throughout this report, we use the term “spending” to 

refer to federal obligations. We also reviewed OMB MAX to determine 

Education’s and FSA’s FTEs from 1981 through 2016. Data reported in 

MAX are subject to rigorous review and checks through OMB to help 

ensure consistency of the data. Accordingly, such data were considered 

 1

HEA authorizes many of Education’s programs for higher education, including many 

federal student aid programs that assist students and their families in financing 

postsecondary education expenses. IDEA authorizes many of Education’s programs for 

children with disabilities, including grant programs that support special education and early 

intervention services for children with disabilities from birth to age 21. ESEA authorizes 

many of Education’s programs for K-12 schools including Title I-A, which provides grants 

to local educational agencies to fund educational and related services for low-achieving 

and other students attending elementary and secondary schools with relatively high 

concentrations of low-income families. HEA is codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. § 1001 et 

seq. IDEA is codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq. ESEA is codified as

amended at 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 43 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

reliable for the purpose of this report and the most recent publicly 

available data were used.

To address questions on federal, state, and local resources used for K-12 

public education and federal resources used for higher education, we 

obtained and reviewed data from Education’s Common Core of Data 

(CCD). Unless otherwise noted, we obtained and reviewed data from 

1980, Education’s first year of operation, through the year for which the 

most current data were available. CCD is a comprehensive, annual, 

national database of all public elementary and secondary schools and 

school districts in the United States and captures data on, among other 

things, pre-K-12 enrollment by state and school revenues from federal, 

state, and local sources. We reviewed data from the CCD as reported in 

the Digest of Education Statistics to determine federal funding for K-12 

education compared to state and local funding from 1979 through 2014. 

We reviewed data from the CCD as reported in the Digest to determine K12 funding by state and U.S. territory and the source of funds for school 

year 2013-2014. We also reviewed data from the CCD as reported in the 

Digest to determine the number of students enrolled in pre-K-12 public 

schools from 1980 through 2014. Additionally, we reviewed data from the 

CCD as reported in the Digest to determine K-12 state expenditures per 

student in school year 2013-2014. CCD is administered by Education’s 

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), which annually collects 

non-fiscal data about all public schools, as well as fiscal and non-fiscal 

data on public school districts, and state education agencies in the United 

States. The data are supplied by state education agency officials 

describing their schools and school districts. Data elements include 

name, address, and phone number of the school or school district; 

demographic information about students and staff; and fiscal data, such 

as revenues and current expenditures. Data reported in CCD are subject 

to rigorous review and checks through NCES to help ensure consistency 

of the data.2 We reviewed technical documentation and determined that 

these data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes.

To address questions on federal spending for higher education, we used 

data from OMB MAX, President’s budget appendix, OMB’s federal credit 

supplement, and Education. Unless otherwise noted, we obtained and 

reviewed data from 1980, Education’s first year of operation, through the 

fiscal year for which the most current data were available. To determine 

 2

For more information on NCES’ statistical standards see https://nces.ed.gov/statprog/.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 44 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

how much Education spent on OPE and FSA programs, we reviewed 

obligations data from OMB MAX for these offices. To determine how 

much Education spent on higher education federal grant and work study 

programs, we used the President’s budget appendix and focused on 

three of Education’s key federal grant and work study programs—Pell 

grants, Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, and Federal Work 

Study. We reviewed the President’s budget appendix for obligations to 

Pell grants, Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, and Federal 

Work Study from fiscal years 1982 through 2018. To determine how much 

Education spent on federal student loans, we used direct loan and loan 

guarantee reestimate data for fiscal years 1992 through 2016, which are 

reported in the fiscal years 1994 through 2018 President’s Budgets as 

presented in the Federal Credit Supplement.3 To calculate the subsidy 

cost estimate, we multiplied the original subsidy rate by the total 

disbursements, then added or subtracted the net lifetime reestimate. To 

determine the administrative costs for student loan management we 

reviewed 2007 through 2012 expenditure data from Education.4 We 

determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of 

this report.

To address questions on key measures of K-12 student achievement, we 

used data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress 

(NAEP), and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study 

(TIMSS).5 Unless otherwise noted, we obtained and reviewed data from 

school year 1980, Education’s first year of operation, through the year in 

which the most current data were available. NAEP results are based on a 

sample of students and measures what U.S. students aged 9, 13, and 17 

know and can do in mathematics and reading, among other subjects, 

every 2 years. Since NAEP assesses a representative sample of students 

rather than the entire population of students, some margin of error will 

always be present in estimations of characteristics of the total population 

or subpopulation because the data are available from only a portion of the 

 3

The Federal Credit Supplement is supplementary material issued along with the federal 

budget. It provides summary information about federal direct loan and loan guarantee 

programs subject to the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990. 

4

GAO-14-234.

5

NAEP is the largest nationally representative and continuing assessment of what 

America’s students know and can do in various subject areas. TIMSS measures the 

mathematics and science achievement of U.S. students and students in other countries 

every 4 years, in general. TIMSS data have been collected from students in grades 4 and 

8 since 1995. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 45 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

total population. To determine key trends in K-12 student achievement, 

we reviewed long-term trend data on NAEP’s reading scores available 

from 1980 through 2012 and mathematics scores from 1982 through 

2012. We also reviewed NAEP data by race/ethnicity and gender. TIMSS 

provides data on the mathematics and science achievement of U.S. 

students compared to that of students in other countries and measures 

students’ knowledge and skills in mathematics and science and their 

ability to apply their knowledge in problem-solving situations. TIMSS data 

have been collected from students at grades 4 and 8 since 1995 and 

generally every 4 years; 2015 is the most recent year scores are 

available. To determine how achievement of U.S. K-12 students 

compared to students in other countries, we reviewed TIMSS long term 

trend data in mathematics and science from 1995 through 2015. NAEP 

and TIMSS are administered by NCES and subject to NCES statistical 

standards and review. NAEP and TIMSS findings are reported based on 

a statistical significance level set at 0.05. We reviewed technical 

documentation and determined that the data from both datasets were 

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.

To address questions on key measures of access to higher education, we 

used data from the Federal Student Aid (FSA) data center and Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). Unless otherwise noted, 

we obtained and reviewed data from school year 1980, Education’s first 

year of operation, through the year in which the most current data were 

available. To determine the amount of outstanding student debt from 

federal student loans, we reviewed data from the FSA data center, which 

provided the amount of outstanding student debt from William D. Ford 

Federal Direct Loans, Federal Family Education Loans, and Federal 

Perkins loans from 2007, the earliest year of available data, through 

2017.6 IPEDS reports the annual survey given to postsecondary 

institutions that participate in federal student financial aid programs. To 

determine the average cost of tuition, fees, and room and board rates by 

type of higher education institution, we reviewed IPEDS data as reported 

in the Digest of Education Statistics. To determine how much revenue 

public higher education institutions receive from state and local sources, 

we reviewed IPEDS data from 1999, which is the earliest year of available 

data, through 2015, the most recent year available. To determine how 

many students graduate within 150 percent of the normal time from 2-

year and 4-year higher education institutions, we reviewed IPEDS data on 

 6

For more information see https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/data-center. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 46 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

graduation rates from 1997, which is the earliest year of available data, 

through 2015, the most recent available. IPEDS is administered by NCES 

and subject to NCES statistical standards and review. We reviewed 

technical documentation and determined that the data from both datasets 

were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.

To address questions about Education’s progress meeting its goals and 

objectives, we analyzed reported goals and objectives related to K-12 

student achievement and access to higher education for fiscal years 1998 

through 2018, using the most recent performance information available. 

Our analysis focused on that time period because Education’s first official 

strategic plan was published in 1997 when federal agencies were 

required to have strategic plans, annual plans, or performance reports 

under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA).7

Because Education does not group its goals and objectives into 

categories such as K-12 student achievement or access to higher 

education and the goals, objectives, and indicators change from plan to 

plan and are updated from year to year, we reviewed each of Education’s 

strategic plans and identified those goals and objectives we determined 

were related to K-12 student achievement and access to higher 

education. Specifically, to assess progress related to student 

achievement, we identified goals and objectives that addressed academic 

standards and achievement with a focus on subject matter including 

STEM programming, equity among opportunity gaps within K-12 

students, teacher and principal quality, and early learning outcomes. To 

assess progress related to access to higher education, we identified goals 

and objectives that addressed postsecondary access and affordability. 

We asked officials from Education’s Office of the Deputy Secretary to 

review our categorization and revised the goals and objectives used for 

our analysis based on their comments.

Using the goals and objectives from the strategic plans, we identified 

corresponding goals and objectives in Education’s annual performance 

reports, beginning with the first report published in 2000 with performance 

information for fiscal year 1999, through the most recent report published 

in 2017 with performance information for fiscal year 2016. We also 

examined the performance reports to identify the corresponding 

 7

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Pub. L. No 103-62, 107 Stat. 285. In 

2011, GPRA was significantly enhanced by the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 

(GPRAMA). GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 

(2011).
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 47 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

performance indicators aligned with each objective, to determine the 

number of indicators related to student achievement and access to higher 

education in each year. Finally, we examined Education’s reported 

progress on each indicator to determine the number of indicators related 

to student achievement and access to higher education that Education 

reported meeting and not meeting annually. We present three categories 

of indicators: “met or exceeded,” “not met,” and “other.” Indicators 

reported by Education as met or exceeded were included in the “met or 

exceeded” category. Indicators reported by Education as “not met” or 

indicators that Education reported data on for a target that was explicitly 

not reached were included in the “not met” category. Indicators reported 

as having “positive progress...but data not available” or as “likely, but 

data not available” are included in the “other” category. The “other”

category also includes indicators reported as “not applicable,” when data 

were under the control and review of another agency, or metrics were 

removed or discontinued. Our analysis included only those goals, 

objectives, and indicators that we identified as being related to K-12 

student achievement and access to higher education. Information on all of 

Education’s reported goals, objectives and indicators, as well as more 

information about Education’s performance measures and strategic 

planning, is available on Education’s website at 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/index.html.
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 48 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

Jacqueline M. Nowicki, (617) 788-0580 or nowickij@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Bill Keller (Assistant Director), 

Mindy Bowman (Analyst-in-Charge), Susan Aschoff, James Bennett, 

Deborah Bland, Sarah Cornetto, Camille Henley, Efrain Magallan, 

Amanda Miller, John Mingus, Sheila R. McCoy, and Ben Sinoff made key 

contributions to this report.

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments
Related GAO Products

Page 49 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

Managing for Results: Further Progress Made in Implementing the GPRA 

Modernization Act, but Additional Actions Needed to Address Pressing 

Governance Challenges. GAO-17-775. Washington, D.C.: September 29, 

2017.

Department of Education: Staffing Levels Have Generally Decreased 

Over Time, while Contracting Levels Have Remained Relatively Stable.

GAO-17-669R. Washington, D.C.: June 12, 2017.

K-12 Education: Education Needs to Improve Oversight of Its 21st 

Century Program. GAO-17-400. Washington, D.C.: April 26, 2017.

Federal Student Loans: Education Needs to Improve Its Income-Driven 

Repayment Plan Budget Estimates. GAO-17-22. Washington, D.C.: 

November 15, 2016.

Federal Student Loans: Education Could Improve Direct Loan Program 

Customer Service and Oversight. GAO-16-523. Washington D.C.: May 

16, 2016.

K-12 Education: Better Use of Information Could Help Agencies Identify 

Disparities and Address Racial Discrimination. GAO-16-345. Washington 

D.C.: April 21, 2016.

K-12 Education: Federal Funding for and Characteristics of Public 

Schools with Extended Learning Time. GAO-16-141. Washington D.C.: 

November 30, 2015.

Higher Education: State Funding Trends and Policies on Affordability.

GAO-15-151. Washington, D.C.: December 16, 2014.

Education of Homeless Students: Improved Program Oversight Needed. 

GAO-14-465. Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2014.

Special Education: Additional Federal Actions Could Help Address 

Unique Challenges of Education Children in Nursing Homes.

GAO-14-585. Washington, D.C.: July 16, 2014.

Federal Student Loans: Borrower Interest Rates Cannot Be Set in 

Advance to Precisely and Consistently Balance Federal Revenues and 

Costs. GAO-14-234. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2014.

Related GAO Products
Related GAO Products

Page 50 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

Federal Student Loans: Impact of Loan Limit Increases on College Prices 

Is Difficult to Discern. GAO-14-7. Washington, D.C.: February 18, 2014.

Community Colleges: New Federal Research Center May Enhance 

Current Understanding of Developmental Education. GAO-13-656. 

Washington, D.C.: September 10, 2013.

Program Evaluation: Strategies to Facilitate Agencies’ Use of Evaluation 

in Program Management and Policy Making. GAO-13-570. Washington, 

D.C.: June 26, 2013.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Standards Needed to Improve 

Identification of Racial and Ethnic Overrepresentation in Special 

Education. GAO-13-137. Washington, D.C.: February 27, 2013.

Higher Education: Improved Tax Information Could Help Families Pay for 

College. GAO-12-560. Washington, D.C.: May 18, 2012.

Postsecondary Education: Financial Trends in Public and Private 

Nonprofit Institutions. GAO-12-179. Washington, D.C.: January 26, 2012.

Disadvantaged Students: School Districts Have Used Title I Funds 

Primarily to Support Instruction. GAO-11-595. Washington, D.C.: July 15, 

2011.

Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Federal Teacher Quality 

Programs. GAO-11-510T. Washington, D.C.: April 13, 2011.

Federal Student Loans: Patterns in Tuition, Enrollment, and Federal 

Stafford Loan Borrowing Up to the 2007-08 Loan Limit Increase.

GAO-11-470R. Washington, D.C.: May 25, 2011.

DOD Education Benefits: Increased Oversight of Tuition Assistance 

Program is Needed. GAO-11-300. Washington, D.C.: March 1, 2011.

Department of Education: Improved Oversight and Controls Could Help 

Education Better Respond to Evolving Priorities. GAO-11-194. 

Washington, D.C.: February 10, 2011.

K-12 Education: Many Challenges Arise in Educating Students Who 

Change Schools Frequently. GAO-11-40. Washington, D.C.: November 

18, 2010.
Related GAO Products

Page 51 GAO-18-154 Resource and Achievement Trends

Postsecondary Education: Many States Collect Graduates’ Employment 

Information, but Clearer Guidance on Student Privacy Requirements Is 

Needed. GAO-10-927. Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2010.

Recovery Act: Planned Efforts and Challenges in Evaluating Compliance 

with Maintenance of Effort and Similar Provisions. GAO-10-247. 

Washington, D.C.: November 30, 2009.

Federal Education Funding: Overview of K-12 and Early Childhood 

Education Programs. GAO-10-51. Washington, D.C.: January 27, 2010.

Federal Student Aid: Highlights of a Study Group on Simplifying the Free 

Application for Federal Student Aid. GAO-10-29. Washington, D.C.: 

October 29, 2009.

Higher Education: Tuition Continues to Rise, but Patterns Vary by 

Institution Type, Enrollment, and Educational Expenditures. GAO-08-245. 

Washington, D.C.: November 28, 2007.

Managing For Results: Enhancing Agency Use of Performance 

Information for Management Decision Making. GAO-05-927. Washington, 

D.C.: September 9, 2005.

A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process.

GAO-05-734SP. Washington, D.C.: September 1, 2005.

Student Loan Programs: As Federal Costs of Loan Consolidation Rise, 

Other Options Should Be Examined. GAO-04-101. Washington, D.C.: 

October 31, 2003.

(102143)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, LinkedIn, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov and read The Watchblog.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.