U.S. Department of Education

FY 2019 Annual 

Performance 

Report and 

FY 2021 Annual 

Performance Plan

Message from the Secretary i

Message from the Secretary

Education is primarily a local concern. The U.S. 

Constitution reserves responsibility for education 

to those closest to students—state and local 

governments. The U.S. Department of Education 

Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2018–22 reflects 

President Donald Trump’s commitment to 

work alongside states and localities to enhance, 

supplement, and augment their efforts to serve each 

and every student. 

All students need the freedom to learn in ways and

in places that work for them. To this end, expanding educational freedom for students 

of all ages, as well as their families and teachers, is a top priority for this Administration.

Our Education Freedom Scholarships proposal represents a historic investment in 

America’s students. It creates a $5 billion annual federal tax credit for voluntary contributions to state-based, non-profit organizations that provide scholarships to students. The 

proposal does not grow the federal government, nor does it divert a single dollar from 

public school students. Instead, it fuels states to create new opportunities for disadvantaged 

students. 

In addition to promoting education freedom, we have continued to faithfully implement 

the bipartisan K–12 law, the Every Student Succeeds Act, which affords states and 

communities more flexibility to address their challenges. At the beginning of fiscal year 

(FY) 2019, I was pleased to write to parents and guardians to encourage them to take 

note of these flexibilities, and I will continue to urge states to seize the opportunities the 

law affords.

Education freedom also means setting aside the belief that all students must follow the 

same path to success. There should be as many pathways as there are students, interests, 

job requirements, and career opportunities. To that end, each state plus the District of 

Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Republic of Palau now has an approved transition plan 

under the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act, or 

Perkins V, which took effect this year. Full Perkins V state plans covering FYs 2020–2023 

will be submitted to the Department for approval this spring. 

In other areas, the Department has published regulations that will reduce unnecessary burdens. We have also taken great strides in improving accreditor oversight of our 
ii FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

nation’s colleges and universities and streamlining state authorization requirements 

for distance education and correspondence courses. These changes, developed by 

consensus from a diverse rulemaking panel, are designed to encourage innovation in 

higher education and establish appropriate guardrails to support students as they pursue 

the right higher education options for them.

Furthermore, I have delivered on my promise to provide students with more information 

than ever as they make decisions about their postsecondary options. Through a 

groundbreaking redesign of the College Scorecard, students can now find and compare 

data to include potential debt and earnings based on fields of study (including data for 

two‐year programs, four-year degrees, certificate programs, and some graduate programs)

and graduation rates regardless of full-time, part-time, first-time, or transfer status, as 

well as links to search for apprenticeships and careers. This new design with these new 

data allows students to explore key information about each field of study for the schools 

they may be considering, without regard to the type of school.

In addition to providing improved data to assist students with decision-making, the 

Department has worked to improve the quality of students’ experiences in the financial 

aid process. Our movement to the next generation of service in Federal Student Aid—an 

initiative called Next Generation Financial Services Environment (or Next Gen FSA)—

streamlines the Department’s student aid systems and processes through innovations to 

our online tools, including the StudentAid.gov website and the myStudentAid mobile 

app. With these improvements, in FY 2019, more than 2.2 million people used a mobile 

device to submit a Free Application for Federal Student Aid®. 

Finally, this Administration is upholding the promise Congress made more than 40 years 

ago—that establishing the Department would “not increase the authority of the Federal 

Government over education or diminish the responsibility for education which is reserved 

to the States.” In this regard, we have followed through on the President’s regulatory 

reform charge to federal agencies. We have repealed, replaced, and modified hundreds of 

burdensome federal regulations and guidance documents. 

We live in the most exciting and opportunity-filled times ever. America’s students deserve 

our unwavering commitment to their success. This Administration and the Department 

I lead will always defend and extend the freedom to pursue quality and personalized 

learning to prepare all students for what comes next. 

Betsy DeVos

Secretary of Education
This page is intentionally left blank.
iv FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Table of Contents

Executive 

Summary 1

About the 

Department 3

Mission................................................. 3

FY 2019 Organization Structure .......... 4 National 

Landscape 5

About the Report 10

Strategic Process Building Blocks 10

How to Read Performance Data ... 11

Strategic 

Framework 12

FY 2018–2022 Strategic 

Goals and Objectives ..........12

FY 2018–2019 Agency 

Priority Goals......................13

FY 2020–2021 Agency 

Priority Goals......................14

Cross-Agency Priority 

Goals...................................16

Performance Assessment and Planning

Goal 1: P–12 Education........................................................................................................................18

Objective 1.1: Educational Options for Students and Parents................................................................21

Objective 1.2: Access to High-Quality Educational Opportunities........................................................30

Objective 1.3: Transition to College and Career.....................................................................................41

Objective 1.4: Implementation of Evidence-Based Strategies ...............................................................50

Goal 2: Postsecondary Education........................................................................................................56

Objective 2.1: Access and Completion ...................................................................................................59

Objective 2.2: Using Evidence-Based Strategies or Other Promising Practices....................................67

Objective 2.3: Innovative and Affordable Pathways ..............................................................................74

Objective 2.4: Federal Student Aid (FSA) Customer Service ................................................................79

Objective 2.5: Student Loan Repayment ................................................................................................86

17
Table of Contents v

Goal 3: Data...........................................................................................................................................90

Objective 3.1: Internal Data Governance................................................................................................93

Objective 3.2: Privacy Protections..........................................................................................................98

Objective 3.3: Access and Use of Education Data................................................................................104

Goal 4: Management and Reform.....................................................................................................112

Objective 4.1: Regulatory Relief and Improved Processes ..................................................................115

Objective 4.2: Enterprise Risk Management ........................................................................................122

Objective 4.3: Cybersecurity at the Department...................................................................................133

Objective 4.4: Engaged and Prepared Workforce.................................................................................137

Appendices 143

Appendix A: Data Validity and Verification .........................................................................................143

Appendix B: Performance Metric Changes..........................................................................................161

Appendix C: Programs by Goal............................................................................................................169

Appendix D: Summary of Performance Evaluations Conducted During FY 2019 and Expected 

During FY 2020 and FY 2021 ..............................................................................................................177

Appendix E: Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations.......................................................................221
This page is intentionally left blank.
Executive Summary 1

Executive Summary

As a precursor to this annual report, in February 2018, the Department issued its U.S. 

Department of Education Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2018–22 (Strategic Plan). The 

Strategic Plan establishes four broad, overarching goals—one goal each in the areas of 

K–12 education, postsecondary education and training, data quality and accessibility, and 

the effectiveness and accountability of the Department. Each goal, in turn, has within it 

separate strategic objectives that state a specific manner in which the Department will 

accomplish the goal.

The Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) 

(Pub. L. No. 111-352) updated the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 

(GPRA) (Pub. L. No. 103-62) and provides the legal basis for the Strategic Plan, goals, 

and strategic objectives. In accordance with GPRAMA, the Deputy Secretary serves as 

the Chief Operating Officer of the Department and leads the Department’s work toward 

achieving its goals.

This year’s annual report, the FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual 

Performance Plan, summarizes the results of the Department’s first full year executing 

its Strategic Plan.

As shown in this report, the Department made significant strides—proposing a new 

initiative to promote education freedom for students and families; encouraging students 

and families to rethink the traditional American education model to consider a variety 

of postsecondary options; modernizing the technology and operational components that 

support federal student aid programs; helping states and school districts comply with 

recent federal laws; making the Department’s data more transparent and available for the 

public; and reorganizing the Department to make its corporate structure more efficient and 

to better respond to current needs.

Using the standards it set for itself—that is, the set of 54 metrics with annual targets that 

gauge the Department’s performance in fiscal year (FY) 2019, the Department met its 
2 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

targets for 38 metrics (70.4 percent). The Department did not meet its targets for 16 of the 

54 metrics (29.6 percent). There were seven other metrics in FY 2019 that did not have 

annual targets given the Department was gathering data to set a baseline and establish 

targets for future years.

Accomplishing the goals of the Strategic Plan is about much more than meeting targets 

for metrics and has encompassed a wide array of activities. This report discusses the 

accomplishments of the Department during FY 2019 as well as the challenges encountered. 

The report further summarizes the actions the Department will take within the next 

two years (FYs 2020–2021) to achieve its goals. This information can be found in the 

FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan sections within each strategic objective.
About the Department 3

About the 

Department

Mission and FY 2019 Organization Structure

Mission

The U.S. Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and 

preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring 

equal access.

The Department accomplishes its mission by administering programs that provide services 

from early intervention services to employment training programs. Many of these programs 

provide grants to states or local educational agencies and support students and families 

from vulnerable populations, including children with disabilities and those from 

disadvantaged backgrounds. These programs also provide grants and loans to postsecondary 

students and facilitate research that examines ways that states, schools, districts, and 

postsecondary institutions can improve America’s education system. In addition, the 

Department fulfills its mission through the enforcement of civil rights laws that provide 

equal access to Department programs for all individuals.
4 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

FY 2019 Organization Structure12

The following shows the coordinating structure used in fiscal year (FY) 2019.

Office of

Finance

and Operations

Office of

the Chief

Information

Officer

Office of

Elementary

and Secondary

Education

Office of

English

Language

Acquisition

Office of Special

 Education and

 Rehabilitative

Services

Office for

Civil Rights

Office of the 

Secretary and

Deputy Secretary1

Institute of

Education

Sciences

Office of

Inspector

General

Office of the 

Under Secretary

Office of

Postsecondary

Education

Office of Career,

Technical and

Adult Education

Federal

Student Aid

Office of

Planning,

Evaluation

and Policy

Development

Office of

Communications

and Outreach

White House

Initiatives2

Office of the

General Counsel

Office of

Legislation and

Congressional

Affairs

1

The Deputy Secretary is the Chief Operating Officer of the agency. As Chief Operating Officer, the Deputy 

Secretary is responsible for improving the management and performance of the agency and providing 

overall organizational management to improve agency performance and achieve the mission and goals 

of the agency through the use of strategic and performance planning, measurement, analysis, regular 

assessment of progress, and use of performance information to improve the results achieved. Government 

Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-352, January 4, 2011, 

124 Stat 3866; 31 U.S.C.A. §§ 1123 (a) and (b)(1).

2

White House Initiatives in fiscal year 2019 were the Center for Faith and Opportunity Initiatives, American 

Indian and Alaskan Native Education, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, Educational Excellence 

for African Americans, Educational Excellence for Hispanics, and Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities.
National Landscape 5

National Landscape

Pathways to Higher Income—It’s Broader than Just a 

Bachelor’s Degree

Postsecondary education is one of the most important investments that individuals 

make, and it can be one of the most expensive. Conventional wisdom holds that a 

bachelor’s degree is an essential building block for a career with family-sustaining 

wages. From a taxpayer’s perspective, postsecondary education seems like a surefire bet: 

the nation, states, and individual communities all benefit from higher-paid workers. It is 

not surprising that for decades, the nation has pursued policies designed to increase the 

number of students who attend college.

For those students who do attend college, some struggle with repaying student loan debt. 

According to the Department’s Federal Student Aid, outstanding student loan debt stands 

at around $1.5 trillion, and nearly 17 percent of borrowers are more than 30 days late in 

repayment, making them officially classified as delinquent.1

Students with such debt have often failed to complete their studies.2 While there is a strong 

“sheepskin effect” in which the wages of graduates are greater compared to the wages of 

students who have failed to complete their studies, many graduates—i.e., the students who 

do receive a degree—are still entering professions that do not pay a high enough wage to pay 

off their debt and start a family. Students should be made aware of the earnings potential of 

various majors or fields of study to help inform their educational decisions. They should also 

be made aware of other alternatives to a bachelor’s degree before deciding to take on debt.

Not all degrees and fields of study automatically lead to higher wages. Consider figure 1, 

which shows substantial variation in the annual average earnings of college graduates based 

on their field of study. Electrical engineers earn $73,000 per year, which is about twice that of 

elementary education graduates, who earn $38,000. 

1

See https://ifap.ed.gov/eannouncements/010320FSAPostsNewReportstoFSADataCenter.html. 2

About 40 percent of bachelor’s degree students have not finished their degree six years after enrolling. 

Among students pursuing an associate degree, two-thirds have not completed their two-year degree 

three years after enrolling. Completion rates for black and Hispanic students are lower. See https://nces.

ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_ctr.asp and https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_326.10.asp.
6 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

The highest paid recipients of bachelor’s degrees are clustered in science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. Economics, finance, and accounting majors 

are also among the best paid. In contrast, the average wage for psychology, which is 

one of the most popular majors in the nation, are fourth from the bottom ($42,000), just 

above general education, fine arts, and elementary education majors. 

Certainly, many choose to work in professions with lower salaries that are personally 

rewarding. Teaching, social work, and fine arts are not only personally rewarding but vital 

to our nation and communities. Students who choose one of the lower-paying majors in 

college may also be able to increase their potential income by earning a graduate degree. 

But, the return on investment in advanced degrees also varies greatly based on field of 

study. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has identified the fields in which a master’s degree 

is associated with higher wages. These include business, education, health care, social 

services, and STEM.3

 Master’s degree graduates in fields such as philosophy, art, and early 

childhood education have the lowest median earnings—often less than graduates with 

bachelor’s degrees or even associate degrees.4

As students complete high school and consider their next steps, they should understand the 

available postsecondary choices and the various income implications. Average earnings 

data mask the fact that some bachelor’s degrees are not necessarily a path to higher income 

by themselves. Academic majors and the skills associated with them lead to radically 

different wage outcomes. 

The fact is, there are pathways to higher income that do not require a bachelor’s degree. 

Many two-year technical associate degrees provide higher returns than many bachelor’s 

degrees. For example, the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce 

reports that the median earnings of individuals with an associate degree in a STEM field 

($60,000) exceed those of individuals with a bachelor’s degree in liberal arts ($53,000).5

Enrollment in community college programs that prepare students for STEM fields has risen 

steadily. For example, between academic years 2000–2001 and 2016–2017, the number 

of certificates and associate degrees awarded increased more than 70 percent, exceeding 

the growth in bachelor’s degrees. Technical and STEM fields are growing at community 

colleges, especially in computer and information technology-related studies. However, the 

increase in the number of students completing associate degrees in these fields is relatively 

3

See https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2015/article/should-i-get-a-masters-degree.htm#Business. 4

See https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/the-masters-as-the-new-bachelors-degree-in-search-of-thelabor-market-payoff/. 5

Carnevale, Anthony P. and Cheah, Ban (2018). Five Rules of the College and Career Game. Washington, 

D.C.: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. Retrieved from https://cew.

georgetown.edu/cew-reports/5rules/.
National Landscape 7

small compared to the hundreds of thousands of associate degrees awarded in general 

studies and liberal arts—degrees that often lead to low-paying careers.6

These data are national in scope. State data consistently show variation in wage outcomes 

by program of study that is far larger than income differences across colleges and universities within a state.7

Given the importance of earning a livable wage to students,8 and given that income is 

strongly related to one’s field of study, the Department released the new version of the 

College Scorecard in November 2019. 

The College Scorecard now includes potential debt and earnings by field of study (including 

for two-year programs, four-year degrees, certificate programs, and some graduate 

programs); it also provides graduation rates regardless of full-time, part-time, first-time, or 

transfer status as well as links to search for apprenticeships and careers.

Though outcomes for apprenticeship programs are not part of the College Scorecard, 

research continues to demonstrate the importance of such programs as viable pathways to 

good careers and higher wages.9

With income information, students are far better positioned to decide how much to borrow 

and how much to spend as well as the most lucrative fields of study to pursue. They will 

be able see that there are many pathways to family-sustaining wages that do not involve 

receiving a bachelor’s degree.

6

See https://www.burning-glass.com/wp-content/uploads/RPT_Saving_the_Associates_of_Arts_Degree.pdf. 7

See, for example, the work of College Measures, https://www.air.org/project/college-measures, or the work 

of Georgetown University’s Center for Education and the Workforce, including https://cew.georgetown.edu/

states/oregon/ or its The Good Jobs Project, https://goodjobsdata.org/. 8

According to an annual nationwide survey of freshmen conducted by the University of California Los 

Angeles’s Higher Education Research Institute, the majority of students agree that a very important reason 

for going to college is “to be able to get a better job” (85 percent) and “to get training for a specific career” 

(76 percent). Additionally, 60 percent say that when choosing a college, the ability of its graduates to obtain 

good jobs is very important.

9

See https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/apprenticeships-and-community-colleges-do-theyhave-a-future-together/; Seleznow, Eric M., “The U.S. Department of Labor’s Registered Apprenticeship 

Program Works for Employers and Workers, Jobs for the Future,” November 17, 2017, https://www.jff.org/

points-of-view/us-department-labors-registered-apprenticeship-program-works-employers-and-workers/; 

Apprenticeship Expansion Task Force, “Task Force on Apprenticeship Expansion Final Report to the 

President of the United States,” May 10, 2018, https://www.dol.gov/apprenticeship/docs/task-force-apprenticeship-expansion-report.pdf; Schneider, Mark, “Measuring the Economic Success of Florida’s Graduates: 

Economic Security Report 2017,” College Measures at the American Institutes for Research, December 

2017, figure 1, http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/7749/urlt/16EcoSecReport.pdf.
8 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Figure 1. Average Annual Wages for 25–29-year-old 

Bachelor’s Degree Holders by Field of Study and 

Associate Degree Holders by Occupation in 2017

Electrical Power-Line Installers and Repairers

Electrical Engineering

Computer Science

Economics

Mechanical Engineering

Finance

Software Developers, Applications and Systems Software

Nursing

Accounting

First-Line Supervisors of Mechanics, Installers, and Repairers

Industrial and Refractory Machinery Mechanics

General Business

Marketing and Marketing Research

Firefighters

Construction Managers

Political Science and Government

Business Management and Administration

Network and Computer Systems Administrators

Electricians

Police Officers

First-Line Supervisors of Construction Trades and Extraction Workers

Heavy Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Service Technicians and Mechanics

Computer Programmers

Computer Systems Analysts

Dental Hygienists

Aircraft Mechanics and Service Technicians

Engineering Technicians, Except Drafters

First-Line Supervisors of Production and Operating Workers

Registered Nurses

Communications

Welding, Soldering, and Brazing Workers

Bus and Truck Mechanics and Diesel Engine Specialists

Pipelayers, Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Steamfitters

Journalism

History

Heating, Air Conditioning, and Refrigeration Mechanics and Installers

Physical Therapist Assistants and Aides

Computer Occupations, All Other

Maintenance and Repair Workers, General

Commercial Art and Graphic Design

Criminal Justice and Fire Protection

Biology

English Language and Literature

Sociology

Physical Fitness Parks Recreation and Leisure

Liberal Arts

Psychology

General Education

Fine Arts

Elementary Education

$0K $20K $40K $60K $80K

$76K

$63K

$57K

$56K

$54K

$54K

$52K

$52K

$52K

$51K

$51K

$51K

$51K

$50K

$50K

$50K

$49K

$49K

$48K

$48K

$48K

$47K

$47K

$47K

$46K

$73K

$72K

$72K

$70K

$68K

$58K

$57K

$55K

$55K

$53K

$53K

$49K

$48K

$48K

$46K

$46K

$45K

$44K

$44K

$43K

$43K

$42K

$41K

$40K

$38K

Associate Bachelor

Degree Type

Note: This figure shows the 20 most popular bachelor’s degree categories based on a weighted population count within the 

25–29-year-old population. The 20 highest paid occupations among 25–29-year-old associate degree holders is limited to 

individuals who indicated their highest level of educational attainment was an associate degree. Data exclude any occupation 

with fewer than 2,000 individuals in the specified age-restricted population. Wages were reported in constant 2017 dollars. 

Averages were based on unrounded numbers with appropriate weights applied.

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, 2010 and 2017 American Community Survey Public Use Microdata 

Sample data, 2013–2017 5-year estimates. (This table was prepared October 2019.)
This page is intentionally left blank.
10 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

About the Report

Strategic Process Building Blocks and How to 

Read Performance Data

Strategic Process Building Blocks

Strategic Plan

4 Strategic Goals

16 Strategic Objectives

61 Performance Metrics

Framework for implementing the Administration’s vision for improving education

State what the Department wants to achieve

Strategies the

Department will undertake in pursuit of

strategic g

oals Agency 

Priority Goals

Reflect top 

performance priorities 

for the next 24 months

Strategic Plan

Strategic Goals

Strategic Objectives

Performance Metrics

Quantifiable indicators 

that are one way to assess 

progress in meeting 

strategic objectives 

or goals 
About the Report 11

How to Read Performance Data

Performance metrics are presented at the end of each strategic objective section in standardized tabular and graphic format. This page explains the design elements on those pages.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

The following acronyms and abbreviations are regularly used throughout the metrics:

N/A = not applicable, TBD = to be determined, SY = school year (i.e., August to July and is aligned with a P–12 school 

year), FY = fiscal year (i.e., federal fiscal year), and — = not available.

Table 1.4-A. Number of technical assistance engagements, events or related activities or products 

focused on the grantees’ use of evidence in prekindergarten through grade 12 education.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — — 672 882 773 970 Prior year 

+ 5%

Note: Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2018.

Data Source: Department offices that deliver technical assistance.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2018 through September 2019.

Target

FY 2019

Actual

Numeric measures are set at zero and 

range to the FY 2019 actual or target, 

whichever is higher.

FY 2019

Actual

(3,630)

Target

(3,719)

FY 2019

Actual

(1,608,691)

Target

(1,634,800)

Color banding 

accompanies the arrow 

and is coordinated to 

match the color selection 

from the icon.

3,630 1,608,691

Improved from previous year No or negative improvement

Odometer and Icon Examples

Worst Best

35%

Target and

 FY 2019 Actual

(35%)

FY 2019

Actual

(16.6%)

Target

(18.4%)

Percentages are shown on a 

0 to 100 percent scale.

Odometers are oriented to show performance 

from worst to best, left to right.

Ranges are inverted for metrics where 

lower numbers show improved performance.

16.6%

Target not established Met or exceeded target Met or exceeded target

Needle and 

center number 

identify FY 2019 

performance XXXX

Title

Identifies the performance elements being measured.

Icon

Provides a 

quick visual 

assessment of 

performance 

against the 

established 

target for 

FY 2019.

Odometer

Provides graphical representation of the 

FY 2019 target and actual performance.

Notes:

Identifies 

trends and data 

availability

Data Source:

Indicates the 

source for 

the data

FY 2019 

Period of 

Performance: 

Indicates the 

time period the 

data reference
12 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Strategic Framework

FY 2018–2022 Strategic Goals and Objectives and 

Priority Goals

FY 2018–2022 Strategic Goals and Objectives

The following tables show the Department’s fiscal year (FY) 2018–2022 Strategic Goals 

and objectives. 

Strategic Goal 1: Support state and local efforts to improve learning outcomes for all 

P–12 students in every community.

Strategic Objective 1.1 Increase high-quality educational options and empower students and parents to choose an education 

that meets their needs.

Strategic Objective 1.2 Provide all P–12 students with equal access to high-quality educational opportunities.

Strategic Objective 1.3 Prepare all students for successful transition to college and careers by supporting access to dual 

enrollment, job skills development and high-quality science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

Strategic Objective 1.4 Support agencies and institutions in the implementation of evidence-based strategies and practices 

that build the capacity of school staff and families to support students’ academic performance.

Strategic Goal 2: Expand postsecondary educational opportunities, improve outcomes 

to foster economic opportunity and promote an informed, thoughtful and productive 

citizenry.

Strategic Objective 2.1 Support educational institutions, students, parents and communities to increase access and completion 

of college, lifelong learning and career, technical and adult education.

Strategic Objective 2.2 Support agencies and educational institutions in identifying and using evidence-based strategies or 

other promising practices to improve educational opportunities and successfully prepare individuals 

to compete in the global economy.

Strategic Objective 2.3 Support agencies and educational institutions as they create or expand innovative and affordable 

paths to relevant careers by providing postsecondary credentials or job-ready skills.

Strategic Objective 2.4 Improve quality of service for customers across the entire student aid life cycle.

Strategic Objective 2.5 Enhance students’ and parents’ ability to repay their federal student loans by providing accurate and 

timely information, relevant tools and manageable repayment options.

Strategic Goal 3: Strengthen the quality, accessibility and use of education data through better 

management, increased privacy protections and transparency.

Strategic Objective 3.1 Improve the Department’s data governance, data life cycle management and the capacity to support 

education data.

Strategic Objective 3.2 Improve privacy protections for, and transparency of, education data both at the Department and in the 

education community.

Strategic Objective 3.3 Increase access to, and use of, education data to make informed decisions both at the Department and in the 

education community.

Strategic Goal 4: Reform the effectiveness, efficiency and accountability of the 

Department.

Strategic Objective 4.1 Provide regulatory relief to educational institutions and reduce burden by identifying time-consuming 

regulations, processes and policies and working to improve or eliminate them, while continuing to 

protect taxpayers from waste and abuse.

Strategic Objective 4.2 Identify, assess, monitor and manage enterprise risks.

Strategic Objective 4.3 Strengthen the Department’s cybersecurity by enhancing protections for its information technology 

infrastructure, systems and data.

Strategic Objective 4.4 Improve the engagement and preparation of the Department’s workforce using professional 

development and accountability measures.
Strategic Framework 13

FY 2018–2019 Agency Priority Goals

Agency Priority Goals (APGs) state results to be achieved in a 24 month period. The 

effective implementation of the Department’s APGs depends, in part, on the effective use of 

high-quality and timely data, including evaluations and performance measures. Quarterly 

updates for the APGs are available at www.performance.gov.

The Department identified four APGs for fiscal year (FY) 2018–2019. The goals aimed 

to increase education choices, improve the Department’s customer service, ensure data 

privacy protections, and provide regulatory relief to stakeholders.

APG: Improve the access to and the quality and transparency 

of school choice options for K–12 students. Related Strategic Objective: 1.1

By September 30, 2019, the Charter Schools Program (CSP) will 

support the creation and expansion of 300 new charter schools 

nationally. CSP will also support the enrollment of 50,000 students 

in new charter schools. Additionally, by September 30, 2019, 

the Department will disseminate eight resources, at least one per 

quarter, on evidence-based and promising practices related to 

school choice.

Increase high-quality educational 

options and empower students and 

parents to choose an education that 

meets their needs.

APG: Improve borrowers’ access to quality customer service. Related Strategic Objective: 2.4

By September 30, 2019, Federal Student Aid (FSA) will 

advance the adoption of the Next Generation Financial Services 

Environment, enabling over 1.8 million customers to submit their 

Free Application for Federal Student Aid® through the FSA mobile 

platform and 30,000 customers to use the mobile platform to check 

on their loan balances.1

Improve quality of service for 

customers across the entire student 

aid life cycle.

APG: Improve student privacy and data security at Institutions 

of Higher Education (IHEs) through outreach and compliance 

efforts. Related Strategic Objective: 3.2

By September 30, 2019, the Department will increase information 

security program outreach activities to IHEs by 40 percent in order 

to help protect information technology systems and data privacy 

and commence audits of IHEs subject to A-133 and GrammLeach-Bliley Act (GLBA), resulting in 36 IHEs (from a baseline of 

zero), completing an audit of GLBA-related information security 

safeguards with no significant findings.

Improve privacy protections for, 

and transparency of, education data 

both at the Department and in the 

education community.

APG: Provide regulatory relief to education stakeholders. Related Strategic Objective: 4.1

By September 30, 2019, the Department will reduce the regulatory 

burden on education stakeholders by submitting to the Office of 

Management and Budget no less than 25 deregulatory actions 

(against a baseline of 0 for FY 2015 and FY 2016).

Provide regulatory relief to 

educational institutions and 

reduce burden by identifying 

time-consuming regulations, 

processes and policies and 

working to improve or eliminate 

them, while continuing to protect 

taxpayers from waste and abuse.

1

This Agency Priority Goal changed in Quarter 1 of fiscal year 2019 with the Department’s transition to a 

new paradigm of student loan processing.
14 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

FY 2020–2021 Agency Priority Goals

Agency Priority Goals (APGs) state results to be achieved in a 24 month period. The 

Department identified five APGs for fiscal years 2020–2021. These goals seek to increase 

education choices, enhance multiple pathways for student success in career and job ready 

skills, improve the Department’s Federal Student Aid customer service, improve student 

privacy protection and cybersecurity at institutions of higher education, and provide 

regulatory relief and burden reduction to stakeholders.

Education Freedom: Improve awareness of and access to highquality K–12 education opportunities for students and families. Related Strategic Objective: 1.1

By September 30, 2021, the Department will increase both the 

number and percentage of total charter school students and total 

scholarship students nationwide. 

• Charter school student enrollment will increase from 

3.29 million to 3.51 million (6.90 percent of all students in 

public schools).

• The number of scholarship students, including participants 

in state-based vouchers, tax-credit scholarship, and 

education savings account programs, will increase from 

482,000 to 579,250 (1.10 percent of the total school age 

population). 

• The number of parents who receive support and 

engagement through technical assistance and other 

resources will increase by 5 percent per year.

Increase high-quality educational 

options and empower students and 

parents to choose an education that 

meets their needs.

Multiple Pathways to Success: Improve nationwide awareness 

of and access to career pathways that support job skills 

development and career readiness. 

Related Strategic Objectives: 

1.3 and 2.3

By September 30, 2021, the Department will, through programs 

such as the Career and Technical Education and Adult Education 

State Grants:

• Support the creation and expansion of integrated education 

and training (IET) programs in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, 

and the District of Columbia.

• Increase by 70,000 participants enrollment in IET 

programs. 

• Increase by 10 percent enrollment of Career and 

Technical Education concentrators in science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields.

• Increase by 25,000 the number of federal financial aid 

recipients who earn a postsecondary credential in STEM.

Prepare all students for successful 

transitions to college and 

careers by supporting access 

to dual enrollment, job skills 

development and high-quality 

STEM. Support agencies and 

educational institutions as they 

create or expand innovative and 

affordable paths to relevant careers 

by providing postsecondary 

credentials or job-ready skills.
Strategic Framework 15

Federal Student Aid Customer Service: Leverage the Next 

Generation Financial Services Environment (Next Gen FSA) 

to improve and personalize customers’ experience with Federal 

Student Aid (FSA). Related Strategic Objective: 2.4

By September 30, 2021, FSA will transform its relationship 

with prospective and current customers through deployment 

of significant components of the Next Gen FSA that result in a 

personalized experience:

• The number of individuals submitting a Free Application 

for Federal Student Aid® (FAFSA®) through a mobile 

device will increase to 2.6 million.

• The overall customer satisfaction level throughout the 

student aid life cycle, as measured by the FSA Customer 

Satisfaction Score,2 will increase. 

Improve quality of service for 

customers across the entire student 

aid life cycle.

Student Privacy and Cybersecurity: Improve student privacy 

and cybersecurity at institutions of higher education (IHEs) 

through outreach and compliance efforts. Related Strategic Objective: 3.2

By September 30, 2021, the Department will participate 

in 12 engagements with sector-related non-governmental 

organizations to inform the development of five best practice 

programmatic improvements.

Improve privacy protections for, 

and transparency of, education data 

both at the Department and in the 

education community.

Regulatory Reform: Provide regulatory relief to education 

stakeholders as necessary and appropriate. Related Strategic Objective: 4.1

By September 30, 2021, the Department will provide regulatory 

relief for education stakeholders by taking no fewer than 

eight deregulatory actions, which includes reduction in 

paperwork burden. 

Provide regulatory relief to 

educational institutions and 

reduce burden by identifying 

time-consuming regulations, 

processes, and policies and 

working to improve or eliminate 

them, while continuing to protect 

taxpayers from waste and abuse.

2

The Federal Student Aid customer satisfaction score is an annual composite metric that measures the 

overall customer satisfaction level throughout the student aid life cycle for Free Application for Federal 

Student Aid® (FAFSA®) applicants (mobile and FAFSA.gov), Title IV aid recipients in school, and 

borrowers in repayment. The score is based on the American Customer Satisfaction Index surveys.
16 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Cross-Agency Priority Goals

In addition to the Agency Priority Goals, the Department contributes to Cross-Agency 

Priority (CAP) Goals established by the Administration in the President’s Management 

Agenda (PMA) of March 2018. These CAP Goals are used to accelerate progress on 

Presidential priority areas that require active collaboration among multiple agencies to 

ensure successful implementation.

The PMA includes 14 CAP Goals. The following three CAP Goals are identified as key 

drivers of transformation: (1) Information Technology (IT) Modernization; (2) Data, 

Accountability, and Transparency; and (3) People—Workforce for the Future. The 

remaining CAP Goals are organized as either cross-cutting or functional priority areas. 

The Office of Management and Budget is leading various initiatives to advance all the 

CAP Goals and coordinating with agencies as appropriate.

The Department co-leads efforts on CAP Goal 8 (Results-Oriented Accountability for 

Grants) and CAP Goal 10 (Improving Outcomes Through Federal IT Spending 

Transparency). The Department supports CAP Goal 8 through its participation in working 

groups. For example, the Single Audit Workgroup is looking for a unified solution for audit 

work across all federal agencies, with a focus on documenting the specific steps in the 

process (from intake through audit resolution and closure). Additionally, the Department’s 

Technology Business Management Solution initiative directly supports CAP Goal 10. 

By understanding the total costs to run an application or business service, leadership 

will further understand the costs and value received as the Department modernizes its 

IT through fiscal year 2022. Using industry best practices, the federal government can 

leverage data decisions and analyze trade-offs between costs, quality, and value as 

it strategically modernizes its IT portfolio. In addition to supporting the CAP Goals it 

co-leads, the Department also contributes to other goals of the PMA. For example, 

the Department supports CAP Goal 2 by contributing leadership and staff for working 

groups developing the Federal Data Strategy, which articulates a vision for leveraging 

federal data as a strategic asset to better deliver on mission, serve the public, and 

steward resources.

Please refer to www.performance.gov for the Department’s contributions to those goals 

and progress, where applicable.
Performance Assessment and Planning 17

Performance 

Assessment and 

Planning

Performance Assessment Overview and Strategic Goals

STRATEGIC GOALS

Support state and local efforts 

to improve learning outcomes 

for all P–12 students in every 

community.

Expand postsecondary 

educational opportunities, 

improve outcomes to foster 

economic opportunity 

and promote an informed, 

thoughtful and 

productive citizenry.

Strengthen the quality, 

accessibility and use of 

education data through better 

management, increased 

privacy protections and 

transparency.

Reform the effectiveness, 

efficiency and accountability 

of the Department.

1

2

3

4

Performance Assessment Overview 

The following provides an overview of the Department’s performance across its four Strategic Goals.

Metric Performance Overview

In fiscal year (FY) 2019, the Department had 61 metrics. Of these 

61 metrics, 38 metric targets were met or exceeded, five metrics 

showed improvement in performance from the prior year but did not 

meet the established targets, and 11 metrics performed below both 

this year’s target and the prior year’s performance. Additionally, 

seven metrics do not have an established target and are baselined 

in FY 2019 or later. 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Metrics

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4

FY 2019 target not established

Met or exceeded the FY 2019 target

Improved from prior year but did not meet the FY 2019 target

Did not meet the FY 2019 target or prior year performance 
18 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Strategic Goal 1

Support state and local efforts to improve learning 

outcomes for all P–12 students in every community.

GOAL LEADER:

Assistant Secretary for Elementary 

and Secondary Education

GOAL 1 OBJECTIVES

Increase high-quality 

educational options and 

empower students and parents 

to choose an education that 

meets their needs.

Provide all P–12 students with 

equal access to high-quality 

educational opportunities.

Prepare all students for 

successful transition to college 

and careers by supporting 

access to dual enrollment, job 

skills development and highquality science, technology, 

engineering and mathematics.

Support agencies and 

institutions in the 

implementation of 

evidence-based strategies 

and practices that build the 

capacity of school staff and 

families to support students’ 

academic performance.

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

 Goal Spotlight:

Education is, and always has been, an essential aspect 

of American life. In fall 2019, the United States was 

projected to have about 51 million students in public 

schools and about 6 million students in private 

schools at the elementary and secondary education 

levels. These students attend the 98,500 public 

elementary and secondary schools and 34,600 private 

schools in the United States based on the most recent 

estimates.1

Yet, multiple reports indicate American education 

is not working. According to the 2019 results of 

the National Assessment of Educational Progress 

(known as the “Nation’s Report Card”), two-thirds 

1

The number of public elementary and secondary schools is from 

school year (SY) 2017–2018; the number of private schools in 

the United States is from SY 2015–2016. https://nces.ed.gov/

programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_105.50.asp?current=yes. 
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 1 19

of American eighth graders are not proficient in reading, mathematics, or science—and 

test scores have essentially stayed the same for decades.

Internationally, the United States is ranked 13th in reading, 37th in mathematics, and 

18th in science according to the results on the most recent 2018 Program for International 

Student Assessment, which measures reading, mathematics, and science literacy and other 

key skills every three years among 15-year-olds in 79 countries and economies. 

The effects of a lack of preparation in early childhood can follow students throughout 

high school into their postsecondary education and careers. Goal 1 of the U.S. Department 

of Education Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2018–22 aims to fundamentally rethink 

elementary and secondary education in order to improve student achievement. To that end, 

the Department strives to come alongside state and local leaders, teachers, parents, and 

students themselves to expand education freedom and to urge new and innovative ways 

for students of all ages to learn. The Department creates policies, administers programs, 

and awards grants to further that goal, and it provides technical assistance as well.

The following pages discuss the Department’s major accomplishments of the past 

fiscal year—October 1, 2018, through September 30, 2019—to achieve Goal 1 and its 

four underlying strategic objectives. While everything the Department accomplished 

within this timeframe is too vast to include, the following information provides a snapshot.

Metric Performance Overview

In FY 2019, the Department had 22 metrics 

for this goal. Of these 22 metrics, 11 metric 

targets were met or exceeded, three metrics 

showed improvement in performance from 

the prior year but did not meet the established 

targets, and five metrics performed below 

both this year’s target and the prior year’s 

performance. Additionally, three metrics 

do not have an established target and are 

baselined in FY 2019 or later.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Metrics

Objective 1.1 Objective 1.2 Objective 1.3 Objective 1.4

FY 2019 target not established

Met or exceeded the FY 2019 target

Improved from prior year but did not meet the FY 2019 target

Did not meet the FY 2019 target or prior year performance 
20 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Goal 1 Discretionary Resources

The following figure and table show total Goal 1 discretionary resources and examples of 

select major discretionary programs and activities supporting the goal, respectively.

Goal 1 Discretionary Resources

$0 $20 $50

Dollars (in billions)

$10 $30

$35.9

$40.7

$39.5

FY 2021 President’s Budget

FY 2020 Appropriation

FY 2019 Appropriation

$40

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities Supporting Goal 1 in Thousands

POC ACCT Objective Program

FY 2019 

Appropriation

FY 2020 

Appropriation

FY 2021 

President’s 

Budget

OESE ED 1.2, 1.3, 

1.4

Title I Grants to Local 

Educational Agencies 

$15,859,802 $16,309,802 $0

OESE IESE 1.1, 1.2, 

1.3, 1.4

Elementary and Secondary 

Education for the Disadvantaged Block Grant (proposed 

legislation)

$0 $0 $19,363,430

OESE I&I 1.3, 1.4 Education Innovation and 

Research

$130,000 $190,000 $0

OESE I&I 1.2, 1.4 Teacher and School Leader 

Incentive Grants 

$200,000 $200,000 $0

OESE I&I 1.1, 1.2 Charter Schools Grants $440,000 $440,000 $0

OESE I&I 1.1, 1.2 Magnet Schools Assistance $107,000 $107,000 $0

OESE SIP 1.2, 1.4 State Assessments $378,000 $378,000 $369,100

OESE SSCE 1.2 School Safety National 

Activities

$95,000 $105,000 $0

OESE/

OLEA

ELA 1.2 English Language 

Acquisition 

$737,400 $787,400 $0

OSERS SE 1.1, 1.2, 

1.4

Special Education Grants to 

States 

$12,364,392 $12,764,392 $12,864,392

Other N/A N/A All Other Programs $9,177,122 $9,432,726 $3,288,803

Note:

Discretionary resources listed here include Department programs that may contribute to multiple goals. A list of programs by 

goal is provided in appendix C.

Acronyms and Definitions:

POC = Principal Operating Component; ACCT = Account; OESE = Office of Elementary and Secondary Education; 

ED = U.S. Department of Education; IESE = Improving Elementary and Secondary Education; I&I = Innovation and 

Improvement; SIP = Strengthening Institutions Program; SSCE = Safe Schools and Citizenship Education; OLEA = Office of 

English Language Acquisition; ELA = English Language Acquisition; OSERS = Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services; SE = Special Education; and N/A = Not Applicable. 
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 1 21

Strategic Objective: 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 

Increase high-quality educational options and empower 

students and parents to choose an education that meets 

their needs.

Objective Leader: Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Programs for Elementary and 

Secondary Education

Overview

The Department continues to support greater state and local flexibility in elementary and 

secondary education and encourages states and local educational agencies (school districts) 

to provide meaningful school choice. Parents and students should be able to select the 

educational experience that best suits students’ needs. To encourage opportunities and 

choices, states and school districts should ensure that all interested parties have knowledge 

and understanding of all available education options. 

The Department supports improved learning outcomes for prekindergarten through 

grade 12 students by awarding about $40 billion annually in formula and discretionary 

grants (through a competitive process) to states, school districts, and nonprofit organizations. States can support increased educational options through a variety of ways, including 

open enrollment policies, virtual schools, homeschooling, customized learning, and dual 

enrollment. 

The President’s fiscal year 2021 budget proposes to consolidate most formula and 

competitive grant programs authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 

1965 into a single flexible formula grant. This Elementary and Secondary Education for the 

Disadvantaged Block Grant (ESED Block Grant) would help right-size the federal role in 

education by shifting authority and responsibility from the federal government to the states 

and reducing the size and cost of the federal bureaucracy. This approach empowers states, 

school districts, and local leaders to determine how best to use federal resources within 

existing federal guardrails while recognizing local needs and context. It also minimizes 

federal intrusion in local schools while still enabling the federal government to fulfill its 

role of helping states improve educational outcomes for the most vulnerable children.
22 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Several offices across the Department support this strategic objective, including the Office 

of Elementary and Secondary Education; the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services; the Office for Civil Rights; the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education; 

the Institute of Education Sciences; and the Office of English Language Acquisition.

FY 2019 Annual Performance Report

Education Freedom Scholarships. The Trump Administration unveiled a policy proposal, 

Education Freedom Scholarships (EFS), that will drive a historic voluntary investment of 

up to $5 billion a year in America’s students by providing tax credits to fund educational 

choice for families. Scholarships will help students access a variety of state-determined 

educational activities such as career and technical education, apprenticeships, dual 

enrollment, special education services, advanced or elective courses not available in their 

assigned schools, and transportation to out-of-zone education providers.

EFS would be funded through taxpayers’ voluntary contributions to state‐identified

 scholarship granting organizations. Those taxpayers would then receive a nonrefundable, 

dollar-for-dollar federal tax credit. EFS would not create a new federal education program 

but would instead allow states to decide whether to participate and how to select eligible 

students, education providers, and allowable education expenses. The Department has 

established an Agency Priority Goal (APG) for fiscal years (FYs) 2020–2021 to increase 

school choice options through multiple avenues and better support parents with technical 

assistance and other resources.

Opportunities for education freedom, such as 

through the EFS proposal, enable students to 

enhance their current learning environments 

by paying for educational activities including 

academic enrichment courses such as art, music, 

or world languages; summer and after-school 

education programs offered by private schools; 

and tutoring offered by private school teachers to 

public and private school students. It empowers 

families to find the best learning environments 

for their children. EFS has the potential to also 

empower all participating students, especially 

students who may not have had the same 

advantages in life as others.

Charter Schools. Data show that more students and families are seeking various kinds 

of school choice options. There are 45 states that allow charter schools in addition to the 

District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico. In the 2017–2018 school year, approximately 

“I believe every student in 

America deserves the 

opportunity to pursue the 

education that best meets 

his or her needs. The major 

shift is that a student’s needs 

and preferences, not their 

address or family income, will 

determine the type and quality 

of education they can pursue.”

—U.S. Secretary of Education 

Betsy DeVos
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 1 23

3.2 million children attended a charter school—a growth of 39 percent in five years. By 

one estimate, an additional 1 million students are on waiting lists to attend charter schools 

across the country.1

FY 2019 marked the conclusion of a two-year effort by the Department to meaningfully 

improve access to, and quality and transparency of, school choice options for K–12 students. 

The Department made this an APG in FY 2018 and pledged that by September 30, 2019, 

it would support the creation and expansion of 300 new charter schools nationally and the 

enrollment of 50,000 students in new Charter Schools Program (CSP)-funded schools. 

Reviews at the end of the two-year period showed CSP supported 337 new, expanded, 

or replicated charter schools during the two-year period, and student enrollment in 

CSP‐funded charter schools increased by 52,674 during the two-year period

There were, however, challenges in meeting higher targets for FY 2019 that the Department 

established for related metrics within this strategic objective. The number of students 

attending charter schools funded by CSP declined in the past year by 1,189 students 

from FY 2018. As such, the FY 2019 enrollment of 1,624,564 students in CSP-funded 

charter schools fell 26,189 students short of the annual target of 1.63 million students (see 

metric 1.1-B). The Department also did not meet its annual target for the number of charter 

schools financially supported by the Department. The year-end number of such schools 

(3,670) was short of the annual target of 3,761, but it was up from the FY 2018 year-end 

total of 3,595 (see metric 1.1A).

The Department did meet the APG’s target to release eight resources on evidence-based 

and promising practices related to school choice over the two-year period—five the first 

year and three the second year. The Department did not meet its goal to release one 

such publication per quarter. Three of the resources, each developed by the Institute of 

Education Sciences, were released in FY 2019: Presenting School Choice Information 

to Parents: An Evidence-Based Guide, Do Charter Middle Schools Improve Students’ 

College Outcomes?, and Evaluation of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program: 

Impacts After Three Years.

CSP also sought to better align its grants with the Secretary’s focus on expanding opportunities 

for all students, particularly traditionally underserved students, to attend high-quality public 

charter schools and meet challenging state academic standards. To this end, CSP used a variety 

of competitive preference priorities, including priorities for grant applicants proposing to 

serve students in rural areas and Native American communities, as well as for novice 

applicants. One competition also included a competitive preference priority for applicants 

proposing to open, replicate, or expand a charter school located in a qualified opportunity zone, 

1

Another estimate puts the number of students on waiting lists for charter schools at 5 million. See https://

www.publiccharters.org/latest-news/2019/03/11/national-alliance-statement-president-trumps-fy2020-bud- get-proposal.
24 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

as designated by the Secretary of the Treasury. Qualified opportunity zones are designed to 

spur economic development and job creation in distressed communities throughout the 

country and U.S. possessions by providing tax benefits to those who invest eligible capital in 

these communities.

The five CSP grant competitions of the past year were: (1) grants to state entities, (2) grants 

to charter management organizations (CMOs) for the replication and expansion of highquality charter schools, (3) grants to charter school developers for the opening of new 

charter schools and the replication and expansion of high-quality charter schools, (4) credit 

enhancement grants, and (5) state incentive grants. The Department conducted rulemaking 

for three of these five grant competitions to incorporate the Secretary’s priorities.

CSP partnered with the U.S. Department of Treasury so that Community Development 

Financial Institutions, which are a vital source of capital for charter school operators, could 

leverage funds from the CSP credit enhancement program and Treasury’s Bond Guarantee 

program in tandem. This aims to help charter schools leverage additional capital for the 

building of new facilities in distressed and underserved areas.

In March 2019, the Department awarded more than $100 million in 15 new grants to CMOs 

for the planned implementation of 138 new public charter schools and the expansion of 

96 high-quality public charter schools. These grants are intended to support public charter 

schools that serve early childhood, elementary school, or secondary school students by 

providing funds to eligible applicants for the replication and expansion of high-quality 

public charter schools. A few months later in May, the Department awarded $30 million to 

boost academic improvement in public charter schools in the District of Columbia via the 

Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act of 2011. 

In addition to awarding grants, the Department also sought to increase its monitoring of 

the quality of the charter schools it funds. In the past fiscal year, the Department made 

25 visits to monitor the quality of charter schools, working with grantees to highlight and 

share successes as well as areas in need of improvement. The Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education will share findings of the monitoring visits with the grantees and will 

engage them in post-monitoring follow-ups to gauge the grantees’ plans for addressing the 

areas noted for improvement.

Magnet Schools. The Department also sought to more closely monitor the performance 

of its federally funded magnet schools. In addition to reviewing annual end-of-year 

reports submitted by these magnet schools, program officers for the Magnet Schools 

Assistance Program initiated a new practice of convening monthly monitoring calls with 

recipients of magnet school funds. The calls have been an avenue for the Department to 

collect additional information.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 1 25

In May, the Department provided a webinar to grantees on Core Concepts of Strategic 

Enrollment Management (SEM) to introduce grantees to the various tenets of SEM 

practice and to assist grantees in increasing the number of students enrolled in magnet 

schools. Program officers are gathering information on how grantees propose to increase 

the number of students enrolled in their magnet programs, their enrollment period, and 

their enrollment process. The Department exceeded its annual target for the number of 

students who are enrolled in federally funded magnet schools (see metric 1.1-D). Final data 

from the 2018–2019 school year put such enrollment at 84,296, which was 694 students 

more than the FY 2019 target of 83,602.

FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

During fiscal year (FY) 2021, the Department will revise several of its Goal 1 performance 

metrics, should the President’s FY 2021 budget proposal to consolidate most formula and 

competitive grant programs authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 

1965 into a single flexible formula grant be included in the FY 2021 appropriation.

During FY 2020 and FY 2021, the Department will:

• Fulfill a new Agency Priority Goal to improve awareness of and access to highquality K–12 education opportunities for students and families. Specifically, the 

Department will work to:

• Increase the number and percentage of total charter school students 

nationwide from 3.29 million to 3.51 million students (i.e., 6.90 percent of 

all students in public schools).

• Increase the number and percentage of total scholarship students, including 

participants in state-based vouchers, tax-credit scholarships, and education 

savings account programs, nationwide from 482,000 to 579,250 (i.e., 

1.10 percent of the total school age population).

• Increase the number of parents who receive support and engagement through 

technical assistance and other resources by 5 percent per year.

• Look for opportunities when monitoring existing grants through the Magnet Schools 

Assistance Program (MSAP) to partner with a newly created Risk Management 

and Consolidated Monitoring team in the Office of Grants Administration. This 

team has piloted several consolidated monitoring and engagement efforts with 

other offices in the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, and it leverages 

the lessons learned from pilot projects into improved practices. The goal for MSAP 

in working with the team will be to address the substance and quality of the annual 

performance plans of federally funded magnet schools.

• Incorporate the Secretary’s supplemental priority on education choice where 

appropriate.
26 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

• Leverage findings from research on charter schools and school choice to provide 

targeted technical assistance.

• Support more outreach and communication about the impact and results of 

educational choice options, including engaging more families and communities. 

• Identify one or more questions related to education choice and parent information 

for inclusion in the Department’s learning agenda consistent with the Foundations 

for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018. The Department’s learning agenda 

summarizes the key programmatic and operational questions staff need answers 

to so that they can meet the Department’s strategic objectives, driving evidencebuilding and use activities across the Department. 
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 1 27

Performance Measures

Table 1.1-A. Number of open and operating charter schools supported by the Charter 

Schools Program (CSP).

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — 3,599 3,595 3,670 3,761 3,820 Prior year 

+ 150

Notes: (1) Grant funding cycles and priorities expanded the list of charter schools that have received 

CSP funding each year. (2) Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2017. 

Data Source: National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data and grantee annual 

performance reports.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: School year 2018–2019.

Target

FY 2019 

Actual

Table 1.1-B. Number of students enrolled in charter schools supported by the Charter 

Schools Program (CSP).

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — 1,556,017 1,609,880 1,624,564 1,634,880 1,649,564 Prior year 

+ 25,000

Notes: (1) Grant funding cycles and priorities expanded the list of charter schools that have received 

CSP funding each year. (2) Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2017.

Data Source: National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data and grantee annual 

performance reports.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: School year 2018–2019.

Target

FY 2019

Actual

Table 1.1-C. Number of new resources on evidence-based and promising practices related 

to school choice disseminated.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

2 0 0 3 5 3 4 4 4

Data Source: National Charter School Resource Center and Institute for Education Sciences-sponsored 

materials.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2018 through September 2019.

Target

FY 2019

Actual
28 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Table 1.1-D. Number of students enrolled in federally funded magnet schools.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — 81,963 81,342 84,296 83,602 85,982 Prior year 

+ 2%

Notes: (1) The period of performance was changed to reflect more recent school years. (2) Data are 

not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2017. (3) Grant funding cycles and priorities expand the list of 

magnet schools that have received Magnet School Assistance Program (MSAP) funding each year.

Data Source: MSAP grantee annual performance reports.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: School year 2018–2019.

FY 2019 

Actual

Target

Table 1.1-E. Number of open and operating public charter schools (new). B

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Target Target

6,934 7,304 7,288 7,137 7,335 7,393 7,443 7,493

Note: This metric will be added in fiscal year (FY) 2020.

Data Source: National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: The FY 2019 number reported here is for school year 2018–2019.

FY 2019 

Actual

Table 1.1-F. Number of students enrolled in public charter schools (new). B

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Target Target

2,522,202 2,722,013 2,844,654 3,010,152 3,144,229 3,291,403 3,400,701 3,510,000 

Note: This metric will be added in fiscal year (FY) 2020.

Data Source: National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: The FY 2019 number reported here is for school year 2018–2019.

FY 2019 

Actual
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 1 29

Table 1.1-G. Number of students enrolled in public magnet schools (new).

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Target Target

2,557,811 2,610,228 2,605,134 2,538,036 2,666,691 2,658,942 TBD TBD

Notes: (1) This metric will be added in fiscal year (FY) 2020. (2) The definition of magnet school 

from the National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data is more expansive than 

those eligible for assistance through the Magnet School Assistance Program. 

Data Source: National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: The FY 2019 number reported here is for school year 2018–2019.

FY 2019 

Actual

Table 1.1-H. Number of scholarships provided through state-based vouchers, tax credit 

scholarships, and education savings account programs (new).

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Target Target

— — 399,280 446,000 466,000 482,000 538,464 579,250

Notes: (1) This metric will be added in fiscal year (FY) 2020. (2) Students may participate in more than 

one program. (3) See appendix A for more information on imputation and projections. (4) Data are not 

available prior to FY 2016.

Data Source: EdChoice, The ABCs of School Choice. The targets for FY 2020 and FY 2021 are 

imputed by the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education based on EdChoice reported data for 

the last three years.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: The FY 2019 number reported here is for school year 2018–2019. FY 2019 

Actual

Table 1.1-I. Number of parents receiving support and engagement on school choice options 

through technical assistance and other resources (new).

Baseline will be established in fiscal year (FY) 2020.

Notes: Data are not available prior to FY 2020.

Data Source: Internal Department outreach data and performance reports from Department-funded technical assistance centers.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: This metric will be added in FY 2020.
30 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Strategic Objective: 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 

Provide all P–12 students with equal access to high-quality 

educational opportunities. 

Objective Leader: Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

Overview

Every child, regardless of zip code or family income, should have access to a highquality education. The Department is committed to improving access to high-quality 

prekindergarten through grade 12 educational opportunities for every student and will 

support educational institutions, parents, and communities in developing such opportunities as well as their capacity to improve the outcomes for every student. 

Several offices across the Department support this strategic objective, including the Office 

of Elementary and Secondary Education; the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services; the Office for Civil Rights; the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education; 

and the Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development.

FY 2019 Annual Performance Report

State and Local Report Cards. Students are not the only ones who got report cards this past 

year. Under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) 

as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), each state and local educational 

agency (school district) receiving these federal funds has to produce report cards assessing 

its own performance. The report cards provide data on, among others, how students fared 

on standardized tests by demographic group, high school graduation rate, information about 

school quality, climate and safety (e.g., rates of school suspensions, expulsions, schoolrelated arrests, and incidences of violence, including bullying and harassment) as well as 

the professional qualifications of teachers. The target audiences for these report cards are 

parents and communities.

Although states and districts have been required to publish report cards since 2003, this 

past school year (2018–2019) was the first that districts and states had to publish report 

cards that comply with ESSA requirements. One requirement is that the report cards be 

concise and presented in an understandable and uniform format that is accessible to the 

public, including persons with disabilities, and, to the extent practicable, are in a language 
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 1 31

that parents and other stakeholders can understand. The report cards must also be posted on 

state and school district websites.

The Department monitors when states publish their report cards. By January 15, 2020, 

some 75 percent of states had published their report cards for the 2018–2019 school year 

(see metric 1.2-F). Over the past year, the Department also held listening sessions with 

parents and other stakeholders to gather their feedback on the format and accessibility of 

information on the new report cards. These listening sessions provided the Department 

with an opportunity to hear from parents and others about what information is most 

important to them and the challenges they encounter when using report cards. This 

feedback, and additional feedback from a public comment period, was incorporated 

into guidance the Department developed for states and districts. In September 2019, 

the Department published the Opportunities and 

Responsibilities for State and Local Report 

Cards Under the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965, as Amended by the Every 

Student Succeeds Act, which provides useful 

information for education leaders on the content, 

development, design, and dissemination of their 

report cards. The publication of this guidance 

followed the release of a special Parent Guide 

to State and Local Report Cards, which the 

Department issued in November 2019. 

Through its Office of Elementary and Secondary 

Education (OESE), the Department also supported states and districts in developing useful 

and timely report cards. OESE provided a selfassessment tool for states to use in examining 

their state report cards and identifying areas 

for improvement. In November, OESE also 

conducted a report card design challenge that 

brought together states and website designers to 

focus on creating samples of report cards that are 

accessible and user friendly. They also discussed ways to present a new data feature of 

the report cards—per-pupil expenditures. Between February and December 2018 (which 

was partially in fiscal year (FY) 2019, which runs from October 2018 through September 

2019), OESE convened a state report card community of practice (CoP) with nine states 

and the Bureau of Indian Education. Together, they worked with subject-matter experts on 

ways to incorporate ESEA’s requirements to add more data to the report cards as well as 

how to communicate complex data to various external and internal stakeholders. 

“State and local report cards 

should be a rich source of 

information for parents to 

understand exactly how their 

child’s school is performing, 

how much is being spent on 

their child, and how it compares to other schools in their 

community. But, if report cards 

are hard to understand or obfuscate, they will not serve their 

intended purpose which is to 

empower families with relevant, 

accurate, and actionable data.”

— U.S. Secretary of Education 

Betsy DeVos
32 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Another CoP hosted by OESE met from September 2018 through May 2019 and focused 

on helping states improve the quality, accuracy, and timeliness of their data for state and 

local report cards. OESE also created a report card resource library that provides examples 

of how states are designing—and communicating about—their report cards. 

Supplement Not Supplant Under Title I, Part A. The same federal law mandating that 

states and districts publish report cards on how they are doing (i.e., Title I, Part A) was 

also the foundation for the Department’s issuance of guidance in June titled Supplement 

Not Supplant Under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

of 1965, as Amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act. This guidance clarifies an 

important change in Title I, Part A. Specifically, 

it provides information to states and districts 

regarding how to ensure that federal funds from 

Title I are supplemental and do not supplant or 

replace state and local funds that schools would 

otherwise have received.

As explained in the guidance, Congress changed 

the way a school district demonstrates compliance 

with the Title I, Part A supplement not supplant 

requirement when it reauthorized ESEA in 2015. 

Specifically, Congress eliminated the cost-bycost analysis that ESEA previously required and 

replaced it with a new test intended to simplify 

the compliance process, reduce burden, and, most 

importantly, prioritize effective spending. Now, 

in order to comply, a school district only needs 

to show that its methodology to allocate state 

and local resources to schools does not consider 

a school’s Title I status (i.e., the methodology is 

Title I neutral).

English Learners. Students for whom English is not a first language, or who otherwise 

meet the criteria to be designated as English learners (ELs), rose to nearly 10 percent 

of students in public schools in the United States by fall 2016, and their numbers are 

projected to have continued rising since then. The Department’s Office of English 

Language Acquisition (OELA) spent much of FY 2019 overseeing the implementation 

of two grant programs, one to support the teaching, learning, and studying of Native 

American languages (while also increasing the English language proficiency of these 

students) and the other to support training for the teachers and other school personnel 

who work with ELs.

“Schools need to spend 

resources on what’s best for 

students, not what’s least 

likely to come up in an audit. 

This [guidance] does not 

change the legal obligations 

school districts have to make 

appropriate investments in 

education. It simply makes 

clear that a school district has 

significant flexibility in how it 

demonstrates compliance with 

the law.”

— U.S. Secretary of Education 

Betsy DeVos
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 1 33

In addition, in May, OELA, in conjunction with the Department’s Office of Planning, 

Evaluation, and Policy Development (OPEPD), released Supporting English Learners 

through Technology: What Districts and Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources 

for English Learners. The report was the culmination of a nationally representative study 

conducted during the 2016–2017 school year and included findings from 767 district 

and 706 teacher surveys. It found that the use of digital learning resources (DLRs) for 

EL instruction was widespread, with 85 percent of teachers who instruct EL students 

reporting their use as instructional tools (although teachers used DLRs designed for EL 

students only 65 percent of the time, indicating a preference for the general tools that did 

not single out EL students). Information from this study was incorporated into OPEPD’s 

Office of Education Technology’s EdTech for English Learners technical assistance 

resources, including two toolkits released in October—one for DLR developers to make 

technology tools useful for EL students and another for educators to help them integrate 

these resources into the classroom. 

The National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition & Language Instruction 

Educational Programs released three fact sheets: English Learners (ELs) Who Are Arab 

Americans in January, County Maps of the English Learner (EL) Population in April, and 

English Learners (ELs) Who Are Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (NHPI) in 

June. These fact sheets provide data in an easy-to-access and user-friendly format for the 

general public. 

OELA also provided a series of webinars to various stakeholders to build capacity and 

raise awareness on topics ranging from ELs and implementation of ESEA to the evaluation 

of available grant programs. OELA hosted an EL symposium on multi-literacy in May. It 

was a follow-up to a community of practice on EL accountability OELA hosted in 2018 for 

nearly two dozen states. Although the main purpose of the CoP was related to accountability, 

issues of better serving a growing population of ELs arose, such as evaluating programs 

that are effective in increasing academic achievement and the English language proficiency 

of such students. 

Incorporation of Technology into Classrooms. Another way the Department has sought to 

ensure equal opportunities for all students is by supporting technology in K–12 classrooms. 

A student who has access to basic levels of high-speed Internet (generally, 100 kilobits per 

second, or kbps) can harness a world beyond his or her classroom, with DLRs that would 

be more difficult to provide if Internet speeds were slower and multiple students tried to go 

online at the same time. 

The Department is on track to meet its goal to have 99 percent of the nation’s students 

attend schools with Internet access speeds at (or in excess of) 100 kbps per student by 
34 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

FY 2020 (see metric 1.2-D). In FY 2019, 98 percent of the nation’s students (44.7 million 

students) attended such schools, up from the 30 percent who attended such schools in 2013. 

Additionally. in 2018, only 1,356 schools lacked fiber-optic data connections, an improvement from the 21,600 schools lacking these connections in 2013. The E-Rate program of 

the Federal Communications Commission, founded to implement the Telecommunications 

Act of 1996, has had a central role in making such access affordable.

Policies and Procedures to Monitor Grantees’ Performance. Just before the start of 

FY 2019, in September 2018, the Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) 

issued its findings of an audit it conducted of grants issued by the Department’s Office of 

Indian Education (OIE). OIG stated its purpose in conducting the audit was to determine 

whether the Department has an adequate process in place to ensure grantees are using 

funds appropriately and performance goals are met. OIG found that while OIE does collect 

some data on grantee performance and use of funds, there was little evidence that the data 

were used to provide assistance to grantees in implementing the program successfully. 

In response, in FY 2019, OESE developed written policies and procedures to monitor 

grantees’ performance, both in distinct areas and in overall achievement of a program’s 

goals and objectives. The policies and procedures also included means for OESE to verify 

data provided by grantees and request timely follow-up on corrective actions when needed.

More fundamentally, OESE underwent a structural reorganization during this past year 

with substantial changes throughout the office. For example, it:

• Created a new state and grantee relations team to provide front-line support and 

additional customer service for states and grantees. This team is exclusively 

dedicated to servicing the relationship between grantees and OESE, with the intent 

of helping OESE better understand the context and goals of the work of its grantees.

• Added an evidence-based practices team, with the intention of better integrating the 

use of evidence into policy, planning, and technical assistance. The team will also 

look to highlight evidence-based practices currently taking place among grantees 

and provide data and perspectives to help improve program decision-making and 

implementation.

• Created an Office of Administration and assigned to it administrative tasks 

traditionally handled by other staff, who can now focus on their other job duties 

and delivery of service to grantees and others. 

Federal Commission on School Safety. In March 2018, President Trump established 

the Federal Commission on School Safety (FCSS) to review safety practices and make 

meaningful and actionable recommendations for best practices to keep students safe. In 

December 2018, FCSS released its final report, marking the culmination of months of 

focused study. Secretary DeVos chaired the commission. Its members included the then 

Attorney General of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the Secretary of the U.S. 
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 1 35

Department of Health and Human Services 

(HHS), and the former Secretary of the U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 

FCSS studied what was already working well 

in states and local communities and issued 

nearly 100 recommendations for best practices, 

recognizing that one size does not fit all. Included 

in the report was a recommendation that all 

appropriate federal, state, and local agencies 

should increase awareness of mental health 

issues among students and expand access to care 

while reducing the stigmas often associated with 

mental health issues.

The Department also launched a website for 

FCSS; it features the final report of the commission along with its recommendations. The website includes a Frequently Asked Questions 

page that consolidates previously issued guidance and technical assistance into a single 

resource to help raise schools’ and districts’ awareness of the support available to help 

students, teachers, and schools.

In June 2019, as a follow-up to these recommendations, OESE announced plans to award 

$15 million in grants under the new Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration 

Grant Program to support partnerships that train school-based mental health service 

providers for employment in schools and local educational agencies (school districts) that 

serve children from low-income families.

In September, the Department completed another recommendation—this one to provide 

resources to assist schools and districts in developing customized school emergency 

operations plans (EOPs) with their community partners, such as first responders. The 

Department, in conjunction with DOJ, HHS, and DHS, released a new planning guide 

to help districts support schools in developing and maintaining customized EOPs: The 

Role of Districts in Developing High-Quality School Emergency Operations Plans. 

The guide serves as a complement to 2013’s Guide for Developing High-Quality School 

Emergency Operations Plans and provides information about a variety of support to help 

schools develop local policies and procedures that address and plan for hazards and threats 

specific to their school community.

FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

During fiscal year (FY) 2020 and FY 2021, the Department will:

• Monitor several states for the implementation of their approved plans for complying 

with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) as amended 

“Each of us has an important 

role to play in keeping our 

nation’s students, teachers, 

and faculty safe at school. We 

want local leaders to have the 

resources and support they 

need to help prevent school 

violence and effectively respond 

and recover should tragedy 

occur.”

— U.S. Secretary of Education 

Betsy DeVos
36 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), including report card requirements. 

Specifically, the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) will:

• Monitor two states for compliance with Title I, Part A; Title II, Part A; and 

Title III, Part A of ESEA in Quarter 1 of FY 2020, through OESE and its 

new Office of School Support and Accountability. These states were chosen 

based on a risk assessment.

• Review every state’s report card in January 2020 to evaluate whether they 

have been published and include required information for parents and 

stakeholders, including the list of schools identified for comprehensive or 

targeted support and improvement; data on the newly required demographic 

subgroups (i.e., homeless students, students in foster care, and students with 

a parent in the Armed Forces); data on per-pupil expenditures; and districts 

and schools receiving school improvement funds, including the amount of 

funds and types of strategies implemented. 

• Determine the effectiveness of its methods for monitoring compliance and 

assess whether additional tools, methods, or communications should be explored to support state implementation of key ESEA requirements in FY2020.

• Release a guidebook via its contractor, the State Support Network, that will 

compile lessons learned from a 2018 community of practice on EL accountability. 

Specifically:

• The Department will also host, in Quarter 2 of FY 2020, a “peer-to-peer” 

opportunity for all states on English learners. 

• This will provide a platform for states to exchange best practices and 

resources on better serving these students.

• Publish guidance documents on key issues (e.g., equitable services for students in 

private schools and school improvement and fiscal requirements in Title I) and create 

several additional communities of practice (CoPs) with states (e.g., communication 

around report cards, equitable services for students in private schools, support for 

evidence-based practices in school improvement, and foster care).

• Support and monitor states and districts in the implementation of multi-tiered 

systems of support to improve school climate and access to mental health services 

for students exposed to violence or traumatic events. The Department will also 

support the development of emergency management plans to address school safety.

• Publish guidance documents on key issues related to mental health services for 

vulnerable populations.

• Create CoPs on mental health/trauma/social and emotional learning or convene 

focus groups.

• Release a tool by Quarter 4 of FY 2020 to help states analyze their accountability 

systems and identify how to strengthen and improve their systems.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 1 37

• Work collaboratively with 19 other federal agencies that are members of the 

U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness to provide technical assistance and 

information to address the needs of homeless children and youths.

• Enhance the intra/interagency collaboration for the directors of federal and state 

programs for neglected, delinquent or at-risk children and youths. Participating 

offices include, but are not limited to, the Department’s Office of Elementary of 

Secondary Education; Office of School Support and Accountability; Office of 

Career, Technical, and Adult Education; and the Office of Special Education 

Programs. The Department will share technical assistance and information with the 

U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

• Develop and convene a Tribal Broadband Summit of community leaders with 

information and resources to assist in effective program implementation strategies.

• Improve Small, Rural School Achievement program and Rural Low-Income School 

program grantees’ knowledge of program flexibilities by Quarter 2 of FY 2020 by 

disseminating an informational document that explains program requirements and 

available uses of funds.

• Continue to use the National Assessment of Educational Progress mathematics 

and reading participation and proficiency scores as factors in calculating states’ 

annual determinations under Section 616(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act about outcomes for children and youths with disabilities, or develop 

an alternative approach using state assessment results.

• Issue a final regulation in Quarter 1 of FY 2020 for the Migrant Education program 

to reduce burden on state educational agencies related to requirements to conduct 

independent interviewing to verify child eligibility for the program.

• Identify for inclusion in the Department’s learning agenda, consistent with the 

Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018, one or more questions 

related to how state and local educational agencies (school districts) select and 

implement evidence-based practices designed to improve student performance.

• Launch a school safety clearinghouse (a major resource for state and local school 

officials, law enforcement authorities, mental health professionals, and others) to 

help keep students safe, through the Department and the Departments of Homeland 

Security, Health and Human Services, and Justice, fulfilling a recommendation 

included in the final report of the Federal Commission on School Safety.
38 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Performance Measures

Table 1.2-A. Percentage of states that show improvement across a three-year trend in the percentage 

of students in grades 3 through 8 scoring at or above proficient on state assessments in reading in the 

following subgroups: economically disadvantaged, children with disabilities, English learners, 

migrant, homeless, and major racial and ethnic groups.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — 24% 20% 17% 24% 21%

Prior year 

+ 4 percentage 

points

Notes: (1) Data updated since prior reporting to reflect methodological changes. See appendix B for 

details. (2) Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2017.

Data Source: The Department’s annual Assessment Data File that includes state-reported data 

pulled from EDFacts files C175, C178, C185, and C188.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: School year 2017–2018.

Target

Y 2019

ctual

F

A

Table 1.2-B. Percentage of states that show improvement across a three-year trend in the percentage 

of students in grades 3 through 8 scoring at or above proficient on state assessments in mathematics 

in the following subgroups: economically disadvantaged, children with disabilities, English 

learners, migrant, homeless, and major racial and ethnic groups.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — 37% 24% 17% 24% 21%

Prior year 

+ 4 percentage 

points

Notes: (1) Data and target updated since prior reporting to reflect methodological changes. 

See appendix B for details. (2) Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2017.

Data Source: The Department’s annual Assessment Data File that includes state-reported data 

pulled from EDFacts files Cl75, Cl78, Cl85, and Cl88.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: School year 2017–2018. 

Target

FY 2019

Actual
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 1 39

Table 1.2-C. Percentage of states with 80 percent or more of preschoolers with disabilities 

that showed greater than expected growth in social-emotional skills by the time they exit 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B, Section 619 services. 

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — 55% 55% 60% 56% 57% 58%

Note: Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2017.

Data Source: IDEA Part B state annual performance reports.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: School year 2017–2018.

FY 2019

Actual

Target

Table 1.2-D. Percentage of students in the country who have Internet bandwidth at school 

of at least 100 kbps per student.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — 88% 96% 98% 98% 99% 99%

Note: Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2017.

Data Source: EducationSuperHighway.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2018 through September 2019.

Target 

and 

FY 2019 

Actual

Table 1.2-E. Percentage of rural schools connected to a broadband infrastructure capable 

of scaling to 10 gigabits per second.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — 96% 97% 98% 98% 99% 99%

Notes: (1) Data updated from prior reporting. (2) Rural schools include small town schools. (3) Data 

are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2017.

Data Source: EducationSuperHighway.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2018 through September 2019.

Target and 

FY 2019

Actual
40 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Table 1.2-F. Percentage of states publishing report cards on the preceding school year 

in a timely manner (i.e., by January 15th of the year following the reporting year).

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — — 68% 75% ≥68% ≥ prior 

year

≥ prior 

year

Note: Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2018.

Data Source: Consolidated State Performance Report.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: School year 2018–2019.

Target

FY 2019 

Actual

Table 1.2-G. Percentage of monitored states publicly reporting information on each indicator 

in the state’s accountability system, including the list of schools identified for comprehensive 

or targeted support and improvement.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — — — 100% 100% 100% 100%

Note: Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2019.

Data Source: The Office of Elementary and Secondary Education’s Office of School Support and 

Accountability monitors state compliance with Title I requirements, including the requirement to 

publish state and local report cards.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: School year 2018–2019.

Target and 

FY 2019 

Actual 
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 1 41

Strategic Objective: 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 

Prepare all students for successful transitions to college 

and careers by supporting access to dual enrollment, job 

skills development and high-quality science, technology, 

engineering and mathematics (STEM).

Objective Leader: Assistant Secretary for Career, Technical, and Adult Education

Overview

The most recently available data on graduation rates (school year 2016–2017) indicate 

that 85 percent of public school students graduate within four years of starting high 

school. In a June 2018 speech at the National Leadership and Skills Conference, 

Secretary DeVos noted that “there are many avenues to earn what individual students 

want and what employers need: industry-recognized certificates, two-year degrees, 

stackable credits, credentials, licenses, advanced degrees, badges, four-year degrees, 

micro-degrees, apprenticeships, and so on. All of these are valid pursuits. Each should be 

embraced . . .” This observation stresses the importance of informed decision-making as 

students transition to college and careers.

To support this strategic objective, the Department is working to expand the practical and 

affordable options available to students and parents for successful transition from high 

school to postsecondary education and careers, including dual or concurrent enrollment 

programs; access to accelerated coursework, such as Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate courses to earn postsecondary credit while still in high school; and 

high-quality science, technology, engineering, and mathematics instruction and job skills 

development through career and technical and adult education programs. These options are 

critical for students as they prepare for the transition to college and careers and the quickly 

changing demands of the technology-driven global economy.

Several offices across the Department support this strategic objective, including the 

Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education; the Office of Elementary and Secondary 

Education; the Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development; the Office for 

Civil Rights; the Office of Postsecondary Education; the Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services; and the Institute of Education Sciences.
42 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

FY 2019 Annual Performance Report

Perkins V. Much of the year was spent helping states prepare to meet the requirements 

of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006, as amended and 

reauthorized by the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century 

Act (Perkins V), which went into effect on July 1 and will be fully implemented by states, 

local educational agencies (school districts), institutions of higher education (IHEs), and 

other recipients on July 1, 2020. Originally enacted as the Vocational Education Act of 

1963, the law was updated to better reflect the changing needs of preparing students in 

career and technical education (CTE). Perkins V requires extensive collaboration among 

state- and local-level secondary, postsecondary, and business and industry partners to 

develop and implement high-quality CTE programs and programs of study. It also requires 

local grantees to conduct a needs assessment to align CTE programs to locally identified, 

high-wage, high-skill, or in-demand career fields, and it expands the reach and scope of 

career guidance and academic counseling.

In April, in preparation for the implementation of Perkins V, the Office of Career, 

Technical, and Adult Education (OCTAE) published the Guide for the Submission of State 

Plans, hosted a national “Re-Think CTE summit,” and launched a web-based video series 

to encourage states to take advantage of the opportunities created by the law to improve 

CTE and student outcomes. One month prior, OCTAE also sponsored a convening to 

help stakeholders (e.g., IHEs, adult education providers, and workforce boards) make 

full use of the ability to benefit (ATB) provisions in Title IV of the Higher Education Act 

of 1965 as amended by the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 

2015. ATB provisions allow a student who did not receive a high school diploma (or its 

recognized equivalent), or who did not complete a secondary school education in a homeschool setting, to be eligible for Title IV financial aid and thus finance a postsecondary 

education or training. OCTAE provided assistance on how stakeholders could remove 

barriers that in the past have stymied participation in ATB programs.

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Workforce Preparation and the 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. The Department also announced 15 new 

competitive grant competitions that prioritized science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) activities through competitive preference or absolute priorities, exceeding 

the fiscal year (FY) 2019 target of nine and the FY 2018 actual number achieved of 12 (see 

metric 1.3-A). The Department also exceeded its FY 2019 target by 145,263 students for 

the number of secondary CTE concentrators enrolling in STEM courses (see metric 1.3-J). 

With record national employment and fewer adults enrolling in education programs, the 

Department experienced challenges in meeting its established targets for getting adults to 

pursue additional education. For example, the Department administers programs under the 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), which aims to help adults with barriers 
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 1 43

to employment, including individuals with disabilities, achieve high-quality careers and 

assists employers with hiring and retaining skilled workers. The actual number of students 

in one of these WIOA Title II programs who achieved what is called a “measurable skill 

gain” in FY 2019 fell short of the annual target by 22,047 students (see metric 1.3-D), 

largely because overall enrollment in the program dropped seven percent. However, 

performance did improve; during the 2018 program year, 46 percent of participants 

achieved a measurable skill gain—up two percentage points from 2017.

Title II of WIOA, which supports adult education programs, authorized a new, innovative 

program strategy called integrated education and training (IET). In these programs, eligible 

adults participate, concurrently, in both occupational skills training and adult education 

and literacy activities (e.g., programs that help adults earn a high school diploma or its 

equivalent or become proficient in English). The number of adults enrolled in IET programs 

fell short of the annual target by 25,567 participants even though the number of adults 

enrolled in such programs nearly doubled from the number enrolled in FY 2018 (see 

metric 1.3-G). The Department will revise its targets for these metrics next year and, at the 

same, intensify its efforts to improve performance on these measures. They have become 

part of an Agency Priority Goal for FY 2020–2021 in which the Department pledges 

to improve nationwide awareness of, and access to, career pathways that support job 

skills development and career readiness.

Opportunities for Students and Youths with Disabilities. In September, the Department 

released guidance clarifying that vocational rehabilitation and Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act funds can be used to support dual enrollment, comprehensive transition, 

and other postsecondary education programs for students and youths with disabilities. 

The Department produced the guidance, in the form of a set of questions and answers, 

after receiving reports that there was confusion about whether and when these federal 

funds could be used to help students and youths with disabilities access these educational 

options. The guidance explains that select federal funds can be used to help students with 

disabilities, as appropriate, enroll in postsecondary education programs while still in high 

school and that there are specific financial aid options available.

In addition, the Department continued work on the Promoting Readiness of Minors in 

Supplemental Security Income (PROMISE) program, which is a joint initiative with the 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Labor, and the 

U.S. Social Security Administration. The program was created to foster improved health, 

education, and postsecondary outcomes for children ages 14–16 who receive Supplemental 

Security Income, as well as their families; it supports improved coordination of 

various services and seeks to facilitate the increased use of such services, ensuring 

that families are tied into programs for which they might be eligible, but are not yet 

participating. In April, the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services held 
44 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

a live webcast to discuss the findings of six model demonstration projects for PROMISE 

that explored topics such as accomplishments and challenges in the context of disability 

and poverty.

FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

In fiscal year (FY) 2020 and FY 2021, the Department will:

• Fulfill a new Agency Priority Goal to improve nationwide awareness of and 

access to career pathways that support job skills development and career 

readiness. Specifically, through programs such as the Career and Technical 

Education (CTE) and Adult Education State Grants, by September 30, 2021, the 

Department will:

• Support the creation and expansion of integrated education and training 

(IET) programs in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia.

• Support the enrollment of 70,000 participants in IET programs.

• Increase enrollment of CTE concentrators in science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields by 10 percent.

• Increase the number of students who are federal financial aid recipients 

who earn a postsecondary credential in STEM by 25,000.

• Develop guidance for state special education and vocational rehabilitation staff 

on transition services and pre-employment transition services for youths and 

students with disabilities.

• Publish practitioner briefs on Title IV, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act, regarding 

the implementation of specific evidence-based interventions, including wellrounded education and STEM programs.

• Issue a revised Transition Resource Guide by Quarter 1 of FY 2020. The guide 

will provide information to students with disabilities and their families on using 

Achieving a Better Life Experience Act accounts. These are tax-free savings 

accounts for individuals with disabilities and can be used to cover qualified 

expenses such as education, housing, and transportation.

• Initiate a significant new effort to support states in their ongoing efforts to ensure 

high-quality, evidence-based mathematics instruction for adult learners.

• Provide technical assistance, through special initiatives and subject-matter experts, 

to ensure that grantees serving out-of-school migrant and seasonal farmworkers 

can provide students with the skills and knowledge required for employment in 

in-demand industry sectors and occupations.

• Continue to support state efforts to improve the transition of high school CTE 

students to postsecondary education and employment through work-based learning, 

such as apprenticeships, with an emphasis on STEM fields. 
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 1 45

• Encourage the integration of applied STEM instruction in high school CTE and 

expose students to careers in technology and aerospace through the CTE Cube 

Satellite nationwide challenge, which will encourage and help high school 

CTE students compete to design, build, and test cube satellite prototypes in 

collaboration with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

• Increase the number of teachers certified to teach cybersecurity through CTE Cyber 

Camps.

• Increase access to cybersecurity programs of study by students in underserved 

communities.

• Expand high school pathways to postsecondary cybersecurity programs at 

community and technical colleges designated as Centers of Academic Excellence 

in Cybersecurity by the National Security Agency and the U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security.
46 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Performance Measures

Table 1.3-A. Number of discretionary grant notices with science, technology, engineering, 

and mathematics as a priority.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — 3 12 15 9 10 12

Note: Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2017.

Data Source: Program offices holding discretionary grant competitions each year, including the Office 

of Elementary and Secondary Education; the Office of Innovation and Improvement; the Office of 

Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; the Office of Postsecondary Education; the Office of 

Career, Technical, and Adult Education; the Institute of Education Sciences; and the Office of English 

Language Acquisition.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2018 through September 2019.

Target

FY 2019

Actual

Table 1.3-B. Number of public high school students by graduating cohort who have taken at 

least one Advanced Placement science, technology, engineering, and mathematics exam 

while in high school.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

527,001 555,119 592,410 622,553 644,485 677,702 676,709 711,587 Prior year 

+ 5%

Data Source: College Board.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: School year 2017–2018.

Target

FY 2019 

Actual
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 1 47

Table 1.3-C. Number of public high school students by graduating cohort who have taken at 

least one Advanced Placement science, technology, engineering, and mathematics exam 

while in high school and scored a 3 or better.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

291,946 312,421 325,329 339,784 348,322 370,231 365,738 388,743 Prior year 

+ 5%

Data Source: College Board.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: School year 2017–2018.

Target

FY 2019

Actual

Table 1.3-D. Number of adult education participants who achieved a measurable skill gain.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — — 676,178 654,853 676,900 655,508 Prior year 

+ 0.1%

Notes: (1) The number of adult education participants refers to participants in Workforce Innovation 

and Opportunity Act Title II programs. (2) Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2018.

Data Source: National Reporting System for Adult Education.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: July 2017 through June 2018.

Target

FY 2019

Actual
48 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Table 1.3-E. Number of adult education participants who obtained a secondary school 

diploma or its equivalent and are employed or enrolled in an education or training program 

within one year following exit.

Baseline will be established in fiscal year (FY) 2020.

Notes: (1) The number of adult education participants refers to participants in Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Title II programs. 

(2) Data are not available prior to FY 2020.

Data Source: National Reporting System for Adult Education.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: July 2017 through June 2018.

Table 1.3-F. Number of secondary career and technical education (CTE) concentrators 

who attained a secondary school diploma, a General Education Development credential, 

or another state-recognized equivalent.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

1,106,065 1,135,572 1,095,254 1,093,531 1,112,329 84.1% of 

CTE

96% of 

CTE

96% of 

CTE __

Notes: (1) Fiscal year (FY) 2019 performance represents 84.1 percent of CTE concentrators, which is 

down from 96 percent in FY 2018. (2) No data will be reported in FY 2021.

Data Source: State Consolidated Annual Reports for the Strengthening Career and Technical 

Education for the 21st Century Act (Perkins V).

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2017 through September 2018.

Target

FY 2019

Actual

Table 1.3-G. Number of adult education participants enrolled in an integrated education 

and training program.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — — 23,307 43,904 69,471 56,000 70,000

Notes: (1) The number of adult education participants refers to participants in Workforce Innovation 

and Opportunity Act Title II programs. (2) Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2018.

Data Source: National Reporting System for Adult Education.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: July 2017 through June 2018.

Target

FY 2019

Actual
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 1 49

Table 1.3-H. Number of adult education participants who advanced one educational 

functioning level in mathematics.

Baseline will be established in fiscal year (FY) 2020.

Notes: (1) The number of adult education participants refers to participants in Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Title II programs. 

(2) Data are not available prior to FY 2020.

Data Source: National Reporting System for Adult Education.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: July 2017 through June 2018.

Table 1.3-I. Percentage of secondary career and technical education (CTE) concentrators 

placed in employment, further training, or the military.

Baseline will be established in fiscal year (FY) 2022.

Notes: (1) Data are not available prior to FY 2020. (2) Title changed since prior reporting; see appendix B for details. (3) National and 

Community Service Act volunteers references the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12511 et seq.), Title I program. 

(4) Peace Corps volunteers references the Peace Corps Act (22 U.S.C. 2504(a). 

Data Source: State Consolidated Annual Reports for the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act

(Perkins V).

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2017 through September 2018.

Table 1.3-J. Number of secondary career and technical education concentrators enrolling 

in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

965,673 992,302 1,020,914 1,154,916 1,251,886 1,409,668 1,264,405 1,480,151 1,550,635

Data Source: State Consolidated Annual Reports for the Strengthening Career and Technical 

Education for the 21st Century Act (Perkins V).

FY 2019 Period of Performance: School year 2017–2018.

Target

FY 2019

Actual
50 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Strategic Objective: 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 

Support agencies and institutions in the implementation 

of evidence-based strategies and practices that build the 

capacity of school staff and families to support students’ 

academic performance.

Objective Leader: Assistant Secretary for Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development

Overview

Focusing on evidence of what works will better serve students, families, and communities. 

This strategic objective aims to support the development of evidence about what works 

in prekindergarten through grade 12 education, primarily through expanded support for 

states and local educational agencies (school districts) as they implement provisions in the 

Every Student Succeeds Act that require the use of evidence-based interventions whenever

practicable.

Several offices across the Department support this strategic objective, including the Office 

of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development; the Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services; the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education; and the 

Institute of Education Sciences.

FY 2019 Annual Performance Report

New Offices. The Grants Policy Office, a new component of the Office of Planning, 

Evaluation, and Policy Development, works with offices across the Department to ensure 

alignment with the Secretary’s priorities, including evidence-based practices. It looks to see 

where the Department and the field can continuously improve, and it does so by building 

stronger evidence, making decisions based on a clear understanding of the available 

evidence, and disseminating evidence to decision-makers.

Specific activities of the office include strengthening the connection between the Secretary’s 

policies and grant implementation, from design through evaluation; supporting a culture of 

evidence-based practices; providing guidance to grant-making offices on how to integrate 

evidence into program design; and identifying opportunities where the Department and 

field can improve by building, understanding, and using evidence. In addition, the Grants 

Policy Office works with offices across the Department to award new competitive grants 

earlier in the fiscal year to better support the education community. 
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 1 51

In addition to the new Grants Policy Office, the Department launched a new office for 

Evidence-Based Practices in January, within the Office of Elementary and Secondary 

Education (OESE). This office aims to identify and promote effective practices for internal 

and external stakeholders to support academic and program excellence, ensure educational 

opportunities and equity for all children, and improve the quality of teaching and learning. 

Among its duties are building direct relationships with teachers, principals, and other 

educators across the country to hear first-hand about shared concerns.

This office will also serve as an informational resource for the public and develop and plan 

the design of OESE grant program activities to ensure they align with the Department’s 

priorities. It will also develop policies based on the identification of effective practices. It 

is the Department’s subject-matter expert in cross-cutting areas, such as turning around 

low-performing schools, engaging families and communities, and improving charter and 

magnet schools.

Exploring What Works. Programs within the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) are 

designed to identify, synthesize, and disseminate information about what works in 

education to improve student outcomes. Many of these activities are sponsored by IES’ 

National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE). In addition 

to conducting high-quality evaluations, NCEE oversees the What Works Clearinghouse, 

which reviews the existing research on programs, products, practices, and policies in 

education to provide educators with the information they need to make evidence-based 

decisions. 

In fiscal year (FY) 2019, IES added to the Department’s understanding of “what works” 

via rigorous evaluations in several ways. For example, in September, the Department 

released the report Evaluation of Support for Using Student Data to Inform Teachers’ 

Instruction. This study assessed one approach to supporting teachers’ use of student data 

to tailor their instruction; it assigned half of the 102 participating elementary schools to 

receive funding for a data coach of their choosing as well as intensive professional 

development for coaches and school leaders. In the end, the study’s coaching and 

professional development interventions did not increase teachers’ data usage or change 

their instructional practices. Furthermore, the support offered through the study did not 

lead to an increase in student achievement. 

Additionally, in May, the Department released the final report from a rigorous evaluation 

of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. The program, established in 2004, is the 

only federally funded private school voucher program for low-income parents in the 

United States. As reported, this evaluation examined impacts on achievement and other 

outcomes three years after eligible students were selected (or not selected) to receive 

scholarships using a lottery process in 2012, 2013, and 2014. The report indicates that, 

although being offered or using a scholarship did not affect student achievement, it did 
52 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

reduce chronic absenteeism. Participating in the program also had positive effects on 

students’ satisfaction with their schools and perceptions of school safety but had no effect 

on their parents’ views on these issues.

IES also oversees the 10 Regional Educational Laboratories (RELs) that work in partnership 

with educators and policymakers to develop and use research that improves academic 

outcomes for students. As part of IES’ Knowledge Use Division, the RELs and What 

Works Clearinghouse programs provided leadership for more than 550 technical assistance 

engagements, events, or related activities or products focused on evidence building and 

evidence use in FY 2019. RELs supported more than 75 partnerships across the nation, 

bringing together educators, policymakers, and researchers to find solutions to some of 

stakeholders’ most vexing problems, including supporting early literacy outcomes, improving 

mathematics instruction, and supporting teacher effectiveness. Examples of partnership 

activities included professional development focused on literacy instruction in Mississippi; 

data analytics to understand teacher retention and mobility in Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, 

and South Dakota; and the development of measures of school climate to support 

implementation of Maryland’s plan for the Every Student Succeeds Act. 

In addition to new practice guides and intervention reports, the clearinghouse developed a 

series of events and materials focused on supporting state, district, and school use of the 

clearinghouse to find evidence-based practices and interventions. This included a video, as 

well as three new webinars and two new in-person training modules. The video, released 

in February, featured how public schools in Cleveland, OH, are using resources from the 

clearinghouse to make informed decisions about program adoption. 

By the end of the fiscal year, 

OESE had awarded 41 Education 

Innovation and Research (EIR) 

grants worth $123 million. OESE 

oversees and administers the EIR 

grants program, which is designed 

to generate and validate solutions 

to persistent education challenges 

and support the expansion of those 

solutions to serve substantially 

larger numbers of students. All 

grantees must develop, implement, 

replicate, or scale up interventions 

or innovations that prior research 

suggest have promise or are 

demonstrated to have an impact on 

“For too long, the one-size-fits-all approach 

to education has failed too many students. 

Through the EIR program, grantees have 

the opportunity to rethink education and 

approach student learning in new ways. 

I’m excited to see states, school districts, 

and nonprofits proposing more creativity, 

innovation, and personalization on behalf 

of students.”

—U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 1 53

improving student achievement or student growth, closing achievement gaps, decreasing 

dropout rates, increasing high school graduation rates, or increasing college enrollment and 

completion rates for high-need students. The grants serve 590,000 students in 3,200 schools 

and 560 districts across 35 states and the District of Columbia. 

FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

In fiscal year (FY) 2020 and FY 2021, the Department will:

• Include questions in the Department’s learning agenda, consistent with the 

Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018, which support 

generating evidence in the following:

• One or more core academic subjects (e.g., supporting struggling readers) 

or domains of education policy (e.g., teacher preparation or professional 

development) where significant gaps exist in knowledge about effective 

practice.

• How the Department can maximize the effectiveness of technical assistance 

programs designed to serve state and local educational agencies, parents, 

and other relevant education stakeholders. 

• Collaborate with internal and external partners to disseminate resources related to 

the use of evidence, including an internal evidence training agenda to build staff 

capacity to support discretionary and formula grantees and the broader education 

community.

• Begin or complete more than a dozen What Works Clearinghouse intervention 

reports focused on prekindergarten to grade 12 as well as two clearinghouse 

practice guides related to evidence-based practices in assisting students struggling 

with mathematics and promoting pro-social behavior.

• Continue to refine the work of the new office of Evidence-Based Practices to meet 

the needs of the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, states, and districts.
54 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Performance Measures

Table 1.4-A. Number of technical assistance engagements, events, or related activities or 

products focused on the grantees’ use of evidence in prekindergarten through grade 12 

education.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — — 672 1,008 773 1,109 Prior year 

+ 5%

Note: Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2018.

Data Source: Department offices that deliver technical assistance.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2018 through September 2019.

Target

FY 2019

Actual
This page is intentionally left blank.
56 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

 

Strategic Goal 2

Expand postsecondary educational opportunities, improve 

outcomes to foster economic opportunity and promote an 

informed, thoughtful and productive citizenry.

GOAL LEADER: 

Assistant Secretary for 

Postsecondary Education

GOAL 2 OBJECTIVES

Support educational institutions, 

students, parents and communities to increase access and 

completion of college, lifelong 

learning and career, technical 

and adult education.

Support agencies and educational institutions in identifying 

and using evidence-based 

strategies or other promising 

practices to improve educational 

opportunities and successfully 

prepare individuals to compete 

in the global economy.

Support agencies and educational institutions as they 

create or expand innovative 

and affordable paths to 

relevant careers by providing 

postsecondary credentials or 

job-ready skills.

Improve quality of service for 

customers across the entire 

student aid life cycle.

Enhance students’ and parents’ 

ability to repay their federal 

student loans by providing 

accurate and timely information, 

relevant tools and manageable 

repayment options.

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

Goal Spotlight:

This year, 20 million students across the country 

are expected to pursue higher education. Of these, 

13.4 million will enroll in four-year colleges and 

universities, and the remaining 6.7 million will pursue 

alternative pathways such as two-year colleges, 

apprenticeships, or some form of technical education.

A primary focus for institutions of higher education 

should be on adequately preparing students for work 

in today’s and tomorrow’s economies. The nature of 

work is always changing. That means institutions must 

prepare American workers to be agile and adaptive.

More and more students are not pursuing a traditional 

bachelor’s degree and are instead pursuing career 

and technical education (CTE), certificate programs, 

and associate degree programs. These pathways are 

significant and necessary for today’s workforce as well 

as for the future.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 2 57

For some students, an apprenticeship or six-month industry-recognized certificate may 

be the right choice after high school. For others, a bachelor’s degree or even a Ph.D. 

may be necessary to get them to their career objectives. The Department seeks to 

provide multiple opportunities for any of these paths and for others that a student may 

choose. Goal 2 explores the ways in which the Department expands postsecondary 

educational opportunities to foster successful careers and meaningful lives.

Consistent with industry demands and with where many of today’s economic opportunities 

lie, the Trump Administration and the Department have made coursework and training 

in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) a significant part of these 

efforts. In fiscal year 2019, the Department invested $540 million in STEM education 

through discretionary and research grants in accordance with the President’s directive to 

foster expanded opportunities in these in-demand career fields.

“This Administration continues to make strategic investments in STEM education and is 

working to ensure that all Americans have access to high-quality STEM education, no 

matter where they are in their life-long learning journeys,” Secretary DeVos stated.

The funds—about $200 million for new awards and nearly $345 million for continuation 

awards—have been used to prepare a corps of STEM teachers; provide graduate student 

fellowships in areas of national need; increase the number of low-income students who are 

prepared to enter and succeed in postsecondary education; and support state initiatives to 

expand and improve the transition of high school CTE students to postsecondary education 

and employment through apprenticeships, among other areas.

The following pages discuss the Department’s major accomplishments of the past 

fiscal year—October 1, 2018, through September 30, 2019—to achieve Goal 2 and its 

five underlying strategic objectives. While everything the Department accomplished within 

this timeframe is too vast to include, the following information provides a snapshot.

Metric Performance Overview

In FY 2019, the Department had 20 metrics 

for this goal. Of these 20 metrics, 12 metric 

targets were met or exceeded, one metric 

showed improvement in performance from 

the prior year but did not meet the established 

target, and three metrics performed below 

both this year’s target and the prior year’s 

performance. Additionally, four metrics 

do not have an established target and are 

baselined in FY 2019 or later.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Metrics

Objective 2.1 Objective 2.2 Objective 2.3 Objective 2.4 Objective 2.5

FY 2019 target not established

Met or exceeded the FY 2019 target

Improved from prior year but did not meet the FY 2019 target

Did not meet the FY 2019 target or prior year performance 
58 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Goal 2 Discretionary Resources

The following figure and table show total Goal 2 discretionary resources and examples of 

select major discretionary programs and activities supporting the goal, respectively.

Goal 2 Discretionary Resources

$0 $20 $40

Dollars (in billions)

$10 $30

$30.2

$31.6

$31.2

FY 2021 President’s Budget

FY 2020 Appropriation

FY 2019 Appropriation

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities Supporting Goal 2 in Thousands

POC ACCT Objective Program

FY 2019 

Appropriation

FY 2020 

Appropriation

FY 2021 

President’s 

Budget

FSA SFA 2.1, 2.3 Federal Pell Grants: 

Discretionary 

$22,475,352 $22,475,352 $22,475,352

OCTAE CTAE 2.1, 2.3 Career and Technical 

Education State Grants 

$1,262,598 $1,282,598 $1,962,598

OPE HE 2.1 Strengthening HBCUs $282,420 $324,792 $324,792

OPE HE 2.1, 2.2, 

2.3

Federal TRIO 

Programs

$1,060,000 $1,090,000 $950,000

Other N/A N/A All Other Programs $6,173,589 $6,467,752 $4,442,346

Note:

Discretionary resources listed here include Department programs that may contribute to multiple goals. A list of programs by 

goal is provided in appendix C.

Acronyms and Definitions:

POC = Principal Operating Component; ACCT = Account; FSA = Federal Student Aid; SFA = Student Financial Assistance; 

OCTAE = Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education; CTAE = Career, Technical, and Adult Education; OPE = Office 

of Postsecondary Education; HE = Higher Education; HBCU = Historically Black College and University; and N/A = Not 

Applicable.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 2 59

Strategic Objective: 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 

Support educational institutions, students, parents 

and communities to increase access and completion of 

college, lifelong learning and career, technical and adult 

education.

Objective Leader: Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education

Overview

The Department recognizes that effective grant making is in the best interests of the 

students the grants serve, is critical to responsible stewardship of public dollars, and, in 

the long term, can yield measurable returns to society as a whole. In fiscal year 2019, the 

Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) awarded more than 5,000 discretionary grants 

totaling just over $2.4 billion to increase college access and completion. Grants were given 

to institutions of higher education, state and local educational agencies (school districts), 

community-based organizations, and other education providers. OPE focused this year on 

laying the groundwork to increase timeliness and efficiency in its grant-making process—

important work since the lack of alignment between the Department’s fiscal year and the 

academic year on which schools operate can result in grantees receiving their awards too 

late to effectively plan in advance for success.

Several offices across the Department contribute to this strategic objective, including OPE; 

Federal Student Aid; the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education; and the Office 

of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.

FY 2019 Annual Performance 

Report

Regulatory Reform. In the past fiscal year, the 

Department focused multiple regulatory efforts 

on easing the burden for institutions of higher 

educattion (IHEs) trying to comply with a maze 

of federal laws, and, at the same time, holding 

them accountable. The Department reached 

consensus through a negotiated rulemaking 

process on forthcoming accreditation and state

“With these reforms, our nation’s 

colleges and universities can 

spend more time and effort on 

serving students and less time, 

energy, and money focused on 

bureaucratic compliance.” 

-U.S. Secretary of Education 

Betsy DeVos
60 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

authorization distance education regulations to improve the process for recognizing 

accrediting agencies, expand educational options for students, lower the cost of 

postsecondary education, and ensure that occupationally focused education meets 

current workforce needs. The Department published a final rule on July 1 rescinding 

the 2014 Gainful Employment Rule and on August 30 finalized the borrower defense 

regulations after two years of deliberations, public hearings, negotiated rulemaking, and 

consideration of tens of thousands of public comments. These regulations will help protect 

student borrowers, hold IHEs accountable, and provide financial protections to taxpayers.

Federal Work-Study Program Experiment. For decades, college work-study programs 

have provided opportunities for students to earn money for their studies, usually by 

working as office assistants, cafeteria aides, residential assistants, and a variety of other 

positions on campus. These jobs do not necessarily train students for careers but give them 

money to help pay for college expenses. 

In May, the Department launched an experiment that may one day change how colleges 

leverage work-study funds. The Department announced that it would, for a limited 

number of IHEs, broaden the Federal Work-Study Program (FWSP) beyond its traditional 

confines to include more jobs in the private sector—among them, internships, externships, 

apprenticeships, clinical rotations, and student teaching—that can help students not 

only pay for college but train for careers. For participating IHEs, the Department 

will eliminate barriers that often make using federal work-studies with private sector 

employers undesirable. For example, the Department will not limit the amount of FWSP 

funds that participating IHEs can use with private-sector employers. Additionally, the 

Department will increase the amount of Job Location and Development program funds, a 

comoponent of FWSP, that are available to participating IHEs to assist them in fostering 

long-term partnerships with companies that could serve as potential employers for their 

students. The Department will then examine data collected as part of the experiment to 

gauge support for changes to the regulations and statute governing the FWSP.

Before this experiment, nearly 92 percent of all FWSP funds nationwide were spent to 

support students in on-campus employment, while just over eight percent supported 

students working for non-profit organizations. Less than one-tenth of one percent, 

or just $726,000 of the multi-billion dollar FWSP, was spent to support students in 

private-sector employment even though many students are likely to seek permanent 

employment in the private sector. Through this experiment, the Department will explore 

whether paying students for off-campus internships and other private-sector jobs is 

associated with improved on-time college completion rates and student satisfaction as 

well as reduced student loan borrowing and improved employment outcomes.

The Department was able to launch the experiment through its Experimental Sites Initiative 

(ESI), which is a limited waiver authority provided under Section 487A(b) of the Higher 
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 2 61

Education Act of 1965 (HEA), which allows the Department to evaluate new policy ideas 

for potential broader applicability. Under ESI, Secretary DeVos has authority to grant 

waivers of certain federal student aid program statutory or regulatory requirements to 

test alternative methods of administering federal student aid programs.

This experiment is just one of the many ways the Department sought to prepare all students 

for successful transitions to college and careers in fiscal year (FY) 2019.

College Scorecard. One significant effort the Department made, in May, was to revise its 

website for the College Scorecard in May, which, since its inception in 2015, has provided 

basic data about postsecondary institutions by type of degree, location, size, public or 

private status, and specialized mission (e.g., a women’s college, a Historically Black 

College and University, or religious affiliation).

The revisions to the website have enabled students who are on the verge of completing 

their K–12 studies to visit the website and research options for obtaining additional 

education at the level of a certificate or at the two-year or four-year degree level. Students 

who want to do an apprenticeship can find information there too, and all users can find 

information about ways to finance their additional education or job training. 

Second Chance Pell. In May, the Department announced it would expand its Second 

Chance Pell experiment, which was first launched in 2016 to allow participating colleges 

and universities to provide federal need-based Pell grant funding to students who are 

incarcerated in federal or state penal institutions. Under 401(b)(6) of HEA, people who 

are incarcerated in a federal or state penal institution are not eligible to receive federal 

Pell grants. The initiative provides limited exceptions to that rule for incarcerated students 

who are eligible for release into the community, with priority given to individuals likely 

to be released within five years of enrollment in the program. The initiative examines the 

impact that expanded access to financial aid has on incarcerated adults’ participation in 

educational opportunities. Sixty-four IHEs have made more than 20,000 Pell grant awards 

to incarcerated students totaling nearly $64 million since the experiment began in 2016. 

Approval has been received for the Second Chance Pell experiment to continue for the 

2019–2020 award year; the expansion will further increase the number of participating 

colleges and students.

Office for Civil Rights. All students should have equal access to education free from 

discrimination. The protection of students’ civil rights is central to supporting students, 

parents, and communities in increasing access and completion of college; lifelong learning; 

and career, technical, and adult education.

In July, the Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced that in FY 2017 and 

FY 2018, it had resolved, on average, 16,000 complaints per year compared to an average 

of 8,200 complaints per year under the previous Administration. In addition, during 
62 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

FY 2017 and FY 2018, OCR achieved a 60 percent increase over the previous eight years 

in the annual number of complaint resolutions requiring a school to make a substantive 

change to protect students’ civil rights. OCR attributed these increases to changes in the 

way it processes case investigations—that is, the office addressed issues with the individual students who filed complaints instead of using individual complaints as an impetus to 

launch a broad investigation into whether the institution or school district had additional or 

systemic civil rights concerns beyond what was alleged in the individual complaint.

Free Application for Federal Student Aid®. Access to educational or training options 

beyond grade 12 requires, for many students, assistance with financing such options. The 

Department has two performance metrics to assess its efforts to provide this assistance. 

These metrics assess the percentage of first-time filers of the Free Application for Federal 

Student Aid® (FAFSA®) among high school seniors (see metric 2.1-D) and the persistence 

of these filers in completing FAFSA® (see metric 2.1-E). Meeting the performance 

standards for these metrics requires that the Department, throughout the year, extensively 

reach out to high school seniors, their parents, and others to tout the benefits of filing 

FAFSA®. Without filing it, students are not eligible for federal student loans and may not 

be eligible for scholarships and grants offered by states, colleges, universities, and private 

organizations.

Just before the start of the fiscal year, as schools across the country were beginning a 

new academic year, the Department launched a “But First, FAFSA!” public information 

campaign to help boost the number of timely FAFSA® filers. The campaign continued in 

FY 2019 and was the Department’s first to tout the use of a new mobile app that allows 

users to complete FAFSA® on a smartphone with the same ease that they could have on a 

computer or the more traditional method of filing paperwork. 

The Department’s expansion of FAFSA® to smartphones also made it more accessible to 

a wider array of students. According to data released by the Pew Research Center in June, 

37 percent of Americans (and 58 percent of adults ages 18 to 29) now go online mostly by 

using a smartphone instead of a computer or tablet.

Students from specific demographic groups are even more likely to rely on smartphones 

for Internet use. According to the same Pew survey, 92 percent of adults from households earning $75,000 or more a year say they have broadband Internet at home, but only 

56 percent of adults with an annual household income below $30,000 have broadband Internet at home. There are similar gaps between racial groups, with about one in four blacks 

and one in four Hispanics reporting they rely exclusively on their smartphones for Internet 

access at home, while only one in 10 whites do so. A study by the Department’s Institute 

of Education Sciences and its National Center for Education Statistics also found that, in 

2015, students whose parents did not go to college were less likely than their peers with 
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 2 63

college-educated parents to have access to high-speed Internet access at home. However, 

these gaps in access closed in relation to access to the Internet through mobile devices.

With FAFSA® now available in a mobile-friendly form, students and others can more 

readily apply for the financial assistance needed to further their educations. In the past year, 

several states also passed laws encouraging high school seniors to file FAFSA®. In Illinois, 

Louisiana, and Texas, the new legislation means seniors may not be able to graduate high 

school unless they file FAFSA® or receive a waiver exempting them from doing so.

FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan 

In fiscal year (FY) 2020 and FY 2021, the Department will:

• Publish three final regulatory packages stemming from a negotiated rulemaking 

that began in FY 2018 and continued in FY 2019. The Department plans to publish:

• Final regulations regarding accreditation by Quarter 1 of FY 2020. As a 

result of these regulations, the Department will more clearly define the roles 

of accreditors, states, and the Department in the oversight of institutions; 

increase career mobility by facilitating the transfer of credits and addressing 

some of the issues associated with the level of credentials needed for state 

licenses; provide greater flexibility to institutions; ensure that accreditors 

honor institutional autonomy and campus mission; and clarify the accreditor 

recognition process.

• A notice of proposed rulemaking and final regulations relating to the 

development of innovative programs that are responsive to students and 

employers. These regulations will focus on removing barriers to student 

access and completion.

• A notice of proposed rulemaking and final regulations designed to: 

(1)simplify the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grants to minimize inadvertent grant to loan conversions and 

provide opportunities to correct erroneous conversions and (2) clarify the 

eligibility of faith-based entities and individuals to participate in student aid 

programs under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended.

• Award grants earlier in the fiscal year so that grantees (who operate on a school 

year, not fiscal year, schedule) can have funds in optimal time for program planning 

and implementation.

• Restructure the annual performance report (APR) for the Gaining Early Awareness 

and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP). The APRs will collect 

improved program outcome data (i.e., performance indicators) to measure the 

extent to which the goals of each program are achieved and document program 

effectiveness.
64 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

• Continue to strengthen the Office of Postsecondary Education’s capacity to collect 

and interpret meaningful and reliable data, reinforce accountability for results, 

and support the identification and replication of practices that result in improved 

student outcomes.

• Continue to increase both the percentage of first-time Free Application for Federal 

Student Aid® filers among high school seniors as well as persistence among firsttime applicants.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 2 65

Performance Measures

Table 2.1-A. Percentage of Office of Postsecondary Education grantees with large available 

balances.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — — 1% 0% 1% N/A N/A

Notes: (1) This metric will not be tracked for fiscal year (FY) 2020 forward. (2) Data are not available 

prior to FY 2018. (3) Data are point-in-time measures rounded to the whole percentage point. 

Data Source: The Department’s Grants Management System grantee documentation.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2018 through September 2019. The 0 percent noted here 

was the percentage assessed on the last day of the fiscal year, September 30, 2019.

Target

FY 2019

Actual

Table 2.1-B. Percentage of Office of Postsecondary Education grantees with large available 

balances that received technical assistance resulting in “Resolved with Good Explanation.”

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — — 100% 100% 100% N/A N/A

Notes: (1) This metric will not be tracked for fiscal year (FY) 2020 forward. (2) Data are not available 

prior to FY 2018. (3) Data are point-in-time measures rounded to the whole percentage point. 

Data Source: The Department’s Grants Management System grantee documentation.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2018 through September 2019.

Target and 

FY 2019 

Actual

Table 2.1-C. Percentage of annual statutory requirements for Office of Postsecondary 

Education (OPE) programs that are fulfilled by OPE.

The Department is removing this metric.

Note: This metric will not be tracked to ensure Department efforts are focused on grant performance and accountability instead of tracking. 

Tracking this metric for purposes of determining metric performance would involve approximately 1,700 statutory requirements across 

37 higher education programs and more than 5,000 active OPE grants.

Data Source: The Department’s Grants Management System. 

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2018 through September 2019.
66 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Table 2.1-F. Percentage of Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate 

Programs (GEAR UP) participants who obtain a secondary school diploma or its equivalent 

and, within one year, are enrolled in postsecondary education (new).

Baseline will be established in fiscal year (FY) 2020.

Data Source: GEAR UP annual performance reports.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: This metric will be added in fiscal year (FY) 2020. 

Table 2.1-D. Percentage of first-time Free Application for Federal Student Aid® filers among 

high school seniors.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

60.1% 60.5% 57.5% 60.2% 67.4% 65.9% 61.5% 66.0% 68.0%

Data Source: Federal Student Aid’s Central Processing System.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2018 through September 2019.

Target

FY 2019

Actual

Table 2.1-E. Persistence among first-time filing aid recipients.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

79.6% 79.5% 79.7% 82.6% 82.5% 82.8% 83.0% 83.0% 84.0%

Data Source: Federal Student Aid’s Common Origination and Distribution System.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2018 through September 2019. FY 2019 

Actual

Target
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 2 67

Strategic Objective: 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 

Support agencies and educational institutions in 

identifying and using evidence-based strategies or other 

promising practices to improve educational opportunities 

and successfully prepare individuals to compete in the 

global economy.

Objective Leader: Assistant Secretary for Planning Evaluation, and Policy Development

Overview

The Department is committed to improving educational opportunities for the existing and 

future American workforce. As such, this strategic objective promotes the identification 

and use of evidence in federal programs that provide educational opportunities, training, 

and support services focused on the workforce. It is also essential that the Department 

fulfills its commitment to individuals with disabilities by working with state and local 

agencies to provide job-driven training and support services consistent with the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act. 

To increase the likelihood that these programs achieve their goals, the Department supports 

the use of evidence across multiple programs that address postsecondary education and 

workforce outcomes.

Several offices across the Department support this strategic objective, including the Office 

of Postsecondary Education; the Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development; 

the Institute of Education Sciences; the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services; and the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education.

FY 2019 Annual Performance Report

Reshaping of Traditional Vocational Education. Formerly known as “vocational education,” career and technical education (CTE) generally comprises instruction in academic, 

technical, and employability skills and knowledge that are required to get, and succeed 

in, jobs in a wide array of industries. At the secondary school level, CTE is a potential 

avenue for career success, and it can be an important aspect of ensuring that students are 

college and career ready by the time they graduate from high school. CTE can also expand 
68 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

opportunities for college students and for adults who may have been out of school for 

an extended period of time. 

Recognizing the demand for evidence about effective CTE programs and courses, the 

Department launched a new CTE Research Network, “Expanding the Evidence Base for 

Career and Technical Education,” just before the start of fiscal year (FY) 2019. The network 

is administered through a partnership between the Department’s Institute of Education 

Sciences (IES) and the Department’s Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education 

(OCTAE). Together, they will work with researchers over the next five years to: (1) increase 

the number of impact studies examining the effects of CTE policies, programs, and 

practices on students’ academic, career, technical, and employment outcomes; (2) increase 

the pipeline of new CTE researchers; and (3) promote and disseminate high-quality 

research studies to CTE practitioners and the broader research community.

During FY 2019, the network also launched a nationwide search for promising CTE 

programs and strategies that are suitable for rigorous research and evaluation; the results 

of this search will be reported in FY 2020. Also in FY 2019, the network formed 

three subgroups, each tackling critical CTE issues: (1) CTE definitions and measurement, 

(2) approaches to studying CTE using causal research designs, and (3) strategies for 

increasing equity in CTE. The network is one of the ways the Department supports 

agencies and educational institutions in identifying and using evidence-based strategies 

or other promising practices to improve educational opportunities and successfully 

prepare individuals to compete in the global economy. 

The Department also examined the percentage of Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act (WIOA) Title II adult education program participants who are in unsubsidized 

employment during the second quarter after exit from a WIOA program (see metric 2.2-B). 

The year-end result of 25.6 percent will be used to establish a performance target for 

future years. WIOA helps adults with barriers to employment, including individuals 

with disabilities, achieve high-quality careers and helps employers hire and retain skilled 

workers. 

In another effort to support future achievement of adult learners, OCTAE awarded a new 

$1.8 million technical assistance contract in September to support states’ implementation 

and scaling of integrated education and training (IET) in adult education. In IET programs, 

adult participants receive training in work skills as well as adult education and literacy. 

OCTAE’s new contract will create an IET design toolkit and provide training that will 

be available to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico to help them 

expand IET opportunities and provide integrated English literacy and civics education in 

combination with IET.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 2 69

In September, OCTAE also awarded a new $2.1 million technical assistance contract 

to launch a pre-apprenticeship challenge for adult education programs. Over the next 

two years, this initiative is expected to result in the development of 100 or more new 

pre- apprenticeship programs involving partnerships among adult education providers, 

sponsoring apprenticeship organizations, and employers.

The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) issued its State 

Vocational Rehabilitation Services and State Supported Employment Services Programs 

Federal Fiscal Year 2019 Monitoring and Technical Assistance Guide in February. 

Section 107 of the Rehabilitation Act requires periodic on-site monitoring of vocational 

rehabilitation (VR) agencies; in FY 2019, OSERS conducted on-site monitoring of 12 VR 

agencies. OSERS selected which states to monitor by using a risk accountability model; it 

then provided technical assistance to these states.

Finding What Works. In October, IES released its first report on the impact of enhanced 

college advising in the Department’s Upward Bound program. The report described an 

experiment IES conducted of a program of promising, low-cost advising strategies, called 

Find the Fit, that were designed to help low-income and first-generation students enrolled 

in Upward Bound choose more selective colleges and stay in them until they complete a 

degree. About 200 Upward Bound projects with 4,500 seniors agreed to participate. The 

study found that the enhanced advising of Find the Fit increased the number and selectivity 

of colleges to which students applied. Given positive early findings, the Department met 

with national organizations to discuss how the approach might be made more widely 

available to its members.

In FY 2019, the Regional Educational Laboratories (RELs) and What Works Clearinghouse

programs provided leadership for more than 125 technical assistance engagements, 

events, related activities, or products focused on evidence in postsecondary settings. Each 

of the 10 RELs had at least one partnership focused on postsecondary transitions. 

The clearinghouse increased its emphasis on education and training after high school. 

Four new reviews of individual studies were released, including reviews of a program

that helps incoming students who did not meet placement requirements for college-level 

coursework and another program that encourages low-income students to apply to highly 

selective colleges. In May, the clearinghouse released its Using Technology to Support 

Postsecondary Learning practice guide. Finally, the clearinghouse also launched its 

Postsecondary Studies of the Month program, reviewing two studies of interest to educators 

who focus on postsecondary success and supporting their awareness of evidence-based 

policy and practices. 
70 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

In all, in FY 2019, the Department completed 188 technical assistance events or related 

activities or products focused on the use of evidence in federal programs that promote 

educational opportunities, training, and support services for the workforce (see 

metric 2.2-A). This was significantly more than the annual target of 85 and was also a 

significant increase from the 77 events, activities, and products achieved in FY 2018. The 

Department also gathered data on two other metrics, 2.2-C and 2.2-D, which will help it 

to establish performance targets for these metrics in future years. Through those metrics, 

the Department tracks the success of former participants in VR programs by evaluating 

whether they have subsidized employment (see metric 2.2-C) or are enrolled in specific 

types of education or training programs and are achieving what is known as “measurable 

skill gains” in documented academic, technical, or occupational fields (see metric 2.2-D). 

FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

In fiscal year (FY) 2020 and FY 2021, the Department will:

• Collaborate with internal and external partners to disseminate resources related to 

the use of evidence, including an internal evidence training agenda to build staff 

capacity to support discretionary and formula grantees.

• Launch a new national evaluation of the implementation of the Strengthening 

Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act (Perkins V), as required 

by law.

• Work (via the What Works Clearinghouse) on a practice guide related to evidencebased practices in career and technical education (CTE) in community college 

settings as well as advise colleges and universities that accept a majority of 

students who apply (i.e., grant broad access). 

• Revise and implement the FY 2020 vocational rehabilitation (VR) program 

monitoring and technical assistance process and identify six state VR agencies 

for focused on-site monitoring and technical assistance using a risk accountability model.

• Provide technical assistance to promote the development and use of stackable 

credentials by community and technical colleges to improve the attainment of CTE 

credentials by their students. By awarding credit for a range of education, training, 

and workplace learning and skill-building experiences that “stack” toward associate degrees, stackable credential programs help working students develop the skills 

they need to simultaneously advance on the job and earn credentials that enable 

further study. Such programs accelerate credit attainment and may increase the 

likelihood of degree completion.

• Disseminate a Young Adult Diversion Tool Kit to help state and local governments 

learn how to provide justice-involved young adults with alternatives to prosecution 

and/or incarceration. 
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 2 71

• Identify one or more questions related to improving student outcomes in (1) CTE, 

(2) adult basic education, (3) access to college, and (4) postsecondary completion 

for inclusion in the Department’s learning agenda, consistent with the Foundations 

for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018.
72 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Performance Measures

Table 2.2-A. Number of technical assistance events or activities and products focused on the 

use of evidence in federal programs that promote educational opportunities, training, and 

support services for the workforce.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — — 77 188 85 207 Prior year 

+ 5%

Note: Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2018.

Data Source: Department offices that deliver technical assistance.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2018 through September 2019.

Target

FY 2019 

Actual

Table 2.2-B. Percentage of adult education program participants who were in unsubsidized 

employment during the second quarter after exiting the program.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target

— — — — — 25.6% 27.0% 28.5%

Notes: (1) The number of adult education participants refers to participants in Workforce Innovation 

and Opportunity Act Title II programs. (2) Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2019.

Data Source: National Reporting System annual state reports.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: July 2017 through June 2018. FY 2019 

Actual
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 2 73

Table 2.2-C. Percentage of Vocational Rehabilitation program participants who were 

in unsubsidized employment during the second quarter after exiting the program.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target

— — — — — 50.4% TBD TBD

Note: Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2019.

Data Source: Rehabilitation Services Administration’s 911 Vocational Rehabilitation Case Service 

Report.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: Program year 2018.

Actual

FY 2019 

Table 2.2-D. Percentage of Vocational Rehabilitation program participants who, during a program 

year, are in an education or training program that leads to a recognized postsecondary credential 

or employment and who are achieving measurable skill gains, defined as documented academic, 

technical, occupational, or other forms of progress, toward such a credential or employment.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target

— — — — 21.1% 23.4% TBD TBD

Note: Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2019.

Data Source: Rehabilitation Services Administration’s 911 Vocational Rehabilitation Case Service 

Report.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: Program year 2018.

FY 2019 

Actual
74 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Strategic Objective: 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 

Support agencies and educational institutions as they 

create or expand innovative and affordable paths to 

relevant careers by providing postsecondary credentials or 

job-ready skills.

Objective Leader: Assistant Secretary for Career, Technical, and Adult Education

Overview

It is critical that the Department helps ensure the nation’s workforce is prepared to 

meet the challenges of tomorrow with the skills and credentials that employers require. 

Postsecondary credentials and job-ready skills for in-demand industries may be obtained 

by students through a wide variety of education providers, such as traditional institutions 

of higher education, non-traditional education providers, and providers of self-guided 

learning. Through this strategic objective, the Department will provide grant funding and 

technical assistance resources to develop, evaluate, and replicate practices and programs 

that expand access to viable education and career pathways.

Several offices across the Department support this strategic objective, including the 

Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education; the Office of Postsecondary Education; 

and the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.

FY 2019 Annual Performance Report

Perkins V. As of July 1, every state began implementing the Carl D. Perkins Career 

and Technical Education Act of 2006 as amended and reauthorized by the Strengthening 

Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act (Perkins V), which is designed 

to improve career and technical education (CTE) by helping students gain the skills they 

need to compete for in-demand, high-wage jobs in their communities. Through this law, 

the Administration will direct $1.3 billion in federal funding to CTE programs nationwide, 

beginning as early as fifth grade.

States must work with business, industry, and community partners to set goals for how they 

will prepare an educated and skilled workforce. To help, the Department in the past year 

issued planning guidance one year before full state plans were due, and it reviewed and 

approved each state’s individual transition plan. In August, the Office of Career, Technical, 

and Adult Education (OCTAE) also rescinded 75 pages of nonregulatory guidance that 
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 2 75

had been issued under previous authorizations of the law. To preserve state and local 

flexibility, OCTAE does not plan to issue new nonregulatory guidance under Perkins V.

In September, OCTAE also awarded more than $1.4 million to nine grantees in an 

inaugural competition for the Perkins Innovation and Modernization Grant Program that 

was newly authorized under Perkins V. These grants are intended to test new ideas to help 

prepare students for success in the workforce by identifying, supporting, and evaluating 

evidence-based strategies for improving CTE. All projects focus on science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics and will serve students in qualified opportunity zones. 

These zones are areas of cities or towns that meet federal definitions of economic distress 

and determinations that new investments, under certain conditions, could be eligible for 

preferential tax treatment.

Other Initiatives in Adult Education. Many other activities in the Department support 

agencies and educational institutions as they create or expand innovative and affordable 

paths to relevant careers by providing postsecondary credentials or job-ready skills. For 

example, OCTAE recruited five states—Arizona, Arkansas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and 

Virginia—to pilot a new professional development program, Teaching Skills that Matter. 

The program helps adult education instructors integrate digital literacy, financial literacy, 

health, and employability skills development with academic instruction. When pilot testing 

is completed in January 2020, the program will be made available to 20 additional states.

The Department surpassed its fiscal year (FY) 2019 goal of providing technical assistance 

intended to expand or enhance the integration of workforce preparation activities within 

academic instruction in adult education classrooms. The number of such technical 

assistance presentations provided in FY 2019 (i.e., 24) was double the annual target. 

The Department also surpassed its annual target for the percentage of postsecondary 

CTE concentrators who received an industry-recognized credential, certificate, or degree 

(see metric 2.3-B).

Rural Community Colleges. In July, OCTAE also joined with eight federal agencies to 

host a first-of-its-kind event for rural community colleges. The event aimed to assist these 

colleges in identifying, and successfully competing for, federal grants. Joining OCTAE for 

this event were the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, 

and Labor; the Environmental Protection Agency; the Federal Communications 

Commission; the National Endowment for the Arts; and the National Science Foundation. 

The Delta Regional Authority, a federal-state partnership aimed at improving the lives 

of residents of the Mississippi River Delta region, also participated. The Department’s 

collaboration with these other agencies was crucial because the agencies administer 

competitive grants for which rural community colleges may be eligible. Receiving one of 

these grants could improve the capacity of rural community colleges to deliver cuttingedge CTE programs to the communities they serve.
76 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Vocational Rehabilitation. The Department also supported agencies and educational 

institutions in helping their adult learners. For example, the Office of Special Education 

and Rehabilitative Services, through its Workforce Innovation Technical Assistance 

Center (WINTAC), entered into 49 agreements covering 52 state vocational rehabilitation 

(VR) agencies to assist them in implementing the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act (WIOA). The agreements provide intensive technical assistance in implementing 

pre-employment transition services; meeting the requirements of WIOA Section 511 relating 

to employment at subminimum wage; improving the number and quality of competitive 

employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities; integrating state VR agencies into 

state and local workforce development systems (i.e., helping the state agencies function as 

core partners in the workforce system, mostly through working with the local American 

Job Centers); and transitioning to common performance measures.

WINTAC is also working with some state VR agencies on multi-year pilot projects,

including use of the Career Index Plus labor market information system, use of the 

semi-autonomous rehabilitation assistants, implementation of peer mentoring programs, 

and development of state service systems to implement customized employment programs.

FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

In fiscal year (FY) 2020 and FY 2021, the Department will:

• Fulfill a new Agency Priority Goal to improve nationwide awareness of and access 

to career pathways that support job skills development and career readiness. 

Specifically, through programs such as the Career and Technical Education (CTE) 

and Adult Education State Grants, by September 30, 2021, the Department will:

• Support the creation and expansion of integrated education and training 

(IET) programs in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia.

• Support the enrollment of 70,000 participants in IET programs.

• Increase enrollment of CTE concentrators in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields by 10 percent.

• Increase the number of federal financial aid recipients who earn a postsecondary credential in STEM by 25,000.

• Provide critical new technical assistance to support states in their efforts to 

implement the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century 

Act (Perkins V), including a data quality institute to help states meet the law’s new 

reporting requirements, as well as review and approve new Perkins V state plans 

that will be submitted in spring 2020.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 2 77

• Educate states, community, and technical colleges and adult education providers about how they can implement the provisions in the Higher Education Act of 

1965, as amended, that allow students who lack a high school credential to access 

federal student aid to finance their postsecondary education or training (i.e., “ability 

to benefit” alternatives).

• Increase opportunities for adults to participate in apprenticeships through both a 

national challenge aimed at designing effective pre-apprenticeship programs for 

low-skilled adults and through other outreach and technical assistance activities.

• Strengthen the capacity and effectiveness of community and technical colleges 

serving rural communities by providing technical assistance on identifying and 

successfully competing for federal grant opportunities. 
78 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Performance Measures

Table 2.3-A. Number of technical assistance activities sponsored by the Department intended 

to expand or enhance the integration of workforce preparation activities within academic 

instruction in adult education classrooms.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — 3 23 24 12 15 18

Note: Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2017.

Data Source: Contractor quarterly progress reports.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2018 through September 2019.

FY 2019

Actual

Target

Table 2.3-B. Percentage of postsecondary career and technical education concentrators 

who received an industry-recognized credential, certificate, or degree.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

49.9% 53.0% 54.6% 54.9% 56.4% 58.1% 56.0% 56.0% —

Note: No data will be reported for fiscal year (FY) 2021 due to the transition to the Strengthening 

Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act (Perkins V). A new baseline will be 

established in FY 2022.

Data Source: State Consolidated Annual Reports for the Strengthening Career and Technical 

Education for the 21st Century Act (Perkins V).

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2017 through September 2018.

Target FY 2019

Actual

Table 2.3-C. Number of postsecondary science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 

degrees and certificates conferred (new).

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Target Target

604,167 635,800 668,091 704,580 N/A 587,000 662,000 737,000 

Note: This metric will be added in fiscal year (FY) 2020.

Data Source: The National Center for Education Statistics’ Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System Completions component.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: The FY 2019 actual value is from school year 2018–2019.

FY 2019

Actual
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 2 79

Strategic Objective: 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 

Improve quality of service for customers across the entire 

student aid life cycle.

Objective Leader: Chief Operating Officer for Federal Student Aid

Overview

As the nation’s largest provider of financial aid for education beyond high school, the 

Department’s Federal Student Aid (FSA) delivers more than $120 billion in financial aid 

each year to students and their families. FSA also manages oversight of nearly 6,000 postsecondary institutions that participate in the federal student aid programs. In every 

interaction with students and their families, FSA strives to be the most trusted and reliable 

source of student financial aid information and services in the nation.

FY 2019 Annual Performance Report

High school students and their families become customers of the Department’s Federal 

Student Aid (FSA) when they start thinking about how to finance their future education 

or job skills training. They will want to know how, where, and when to apply for federal 

financial assistance. They may have many questions about the process, and the need to 

get answers could continue after students have enrolled in college or started an apprenticeship. Questions will continue even after students have separated from school and loan 

repayment begins.

In fiscal year (FY) 2019, the Department began executing its plan to transform federal 

student aid and improve customer service by modernizing the technology and very way of 

operating federal student aid programs. The plan, known as the Next Generation Financial 

Services Environment (Next Gen FSA), will transform current and prospective customers’ 

experience of applying for, receiving, and repaying federal student aid for millions of 

students, parents, and borrowers as well as nearly 6,000 postsecondary institutions.

To help students and their families as they become customers—that is, as they are just 

starting the process of applying for assistance—FSA launched the myStudentAid app

in October 2018 for use on smartphones and other mobile devices. The app is available 

from both Apple’s App Store (iOS) and Google Play (Android). Its myFAFSA component, 

which is used to complete the form for the Free Application for Federal Student Aid® 

(FAFSA®), is the app’s featured function and allows users to fill out and submit FAFSA® 

on their smartphones.
80 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

The app also includes answers to basic questions about the process of applying for aid 

and allows customers to check the status of their applications for grants and student loans 

and check the balances on those loans. As of July, the app also includes the myChecklist

feature, which provides users with guidance on next steps in the student aid process. Push 

notifications were also added; these send reminder messages directly to users. Between 

October 2018 and August 2019, FSA made more than 295 iterative changes to the app to 

improve usability based on customer feedback.

By the end of the fiscal year, the number of downloads of the app had exceeded the 

target of 1 million by an additional 226,234 downloads (see metric 2.4-D).

This volume of usage was part of the Department’s vision when it created an Agency 

Priority Goal (APG) for FY 2018–2019 that pledged that, by September 30, 2019, more 

than 1.8 million customers would submit a FAFSA® through one of FSA’s mobile platforms 

(i.e., either the app or the redesigned fafsa.gov website, see metric 2.4-F). FSA redesigned 

its website in FY 2019 so that its pages (e.g., the pages with the FAFSA® form) fit the 

screen size and shape of any device, including desktop or laptop computers and mobile 

devices, such as smartphones and tablets. The Department exceeded its APG target, as 

more than 2.2 million customers submitted a FAFSA® through one of the two mobile 

platforms by the September 30, 2019, target date.

The APG also included a pledge to have 30,000 customers use the mobile app to check 

their student loan balances by September 30, 2019. The Department exceeded its target 

for this as well, with 65,718 customers using the mobile app to check their student loan 

balances by the target date (see metric 2.4-E).

In February, FSA awarded a contract to provide for Digital and Customer Care (DCC), 

which will combine the content and functionality from multiple customer-facing websites 

and telephone numbers into StudentAid.gov and the myStudentAid mobile app, allowing 

customers to complete all business with FSA on one digital platform. The use of a single 

platform will assist customers in receiving prompt, accurate, and consistent answers at 

all phases of the student aid lifecycle. By the end of the year, FSA had completed the 

 requirements, design, and build for DCC’s digital, customer care, and marketing and 

communications platforms.

As FSA continues its emphasis on the use of technology to provide better customer service, 

it also maintains call centers that answer telephone calls from students and others who have 

questions about applying for student loans or paying back their loans, along with other 

related issues. FSA has two performance metrics to assess how well its nine loan servicing 

call centers operate: metric 2.4-A examines how quickly someone at a loan servicing call 

center answers a telephone call, while metric 2.4-B examines the rate at which callers who 

are put on hold abandon their calls by hanging up before they reach a live person. 
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 2 81

In FY 2019, FSA was challenged in meeting its performance targets for both of those 

metrics. Throughout the year, their performance lagged behind both the FY 2019 

performance targets and the FY 2018 rates achieved. While most of the loan servicing 

call centers were meeting performance standards throughout the year, a few were not, and 

their performance negatively impacted the overall annual averages. Still, overall average 

performance improved in the second half of the fiscal year due to a range of measures 

FSA implemented. For example, FSA piloted a new program to help all centers more 

expeditiously process the security clearances of new staff so that the centers could have 

more staff on hand during peak calling seasons. FSA leadership also visited each of the 

call centers and required centers that were not meeting the FY 2019 performance targets 

to establish “get well” plans. 

FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

In fiscal year (FY) 2020 and FY 2021, the Department will:

• Continue its commitment to improving customer experience with the implementation of the Next Generation Financial Services Environment (Next Gen FSA). 

Specifically, for the next two fiscal years, as part of an Agency Priority Goal for 

FY 2020–2021, the Department has established new, higher-performance targets 

than it attained in FY 2019. These include:

• At least 2.6 million customers will submit a Free Application for Federal 

Student Aid® through the mobile app by September 30, 2021.

• The overall customer satisfaction level throughout the student aid life 

cycle, as measured by the FSA Customer Satisfaction score, will increase.

• Release, in FY 2020, the Digital and Customer Care (DCC) platform and its array 

of services across the student aid lifecycle. Specifically:

• DCC will enhance the digital experience of student aid customers by 

combining the content and functionality from multiple websites into 

StudentAid.gov and the myStudentAid mobile app. This will allow customers 

to complete all business with FSA on one digital platform. 

• This release will be consistent with Executive Order 13864 requiring a secure 

and confidential website and a mobile application that inform federal student 

loan borrowers of: (1) how much they owe, (2) how much their monthly 

payment will be when they enter repayment, (3) what repayment options 

are available, (4) how long each repayment option will take, and (5) how to 

enroll in the repayment option that best serves their needs.

• Award contracts for Enhanced Processing Solution (EPS), Business Process 

Operations (BPO), and Optimal Processing Solution (OPS) to improve loan 

servicing throughout the student aid lifecycle. Specifically:

• EPS will provide a transitional core processing system to house the legacy 

portfolio of 35 million borrowers currently serviced under contracts set to 
82 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

expire by December 2019. FSA is reviewing vendor proposals and expects 

to make an award by Quarter 3 of FY 2020.

• BPO will identify multiple vendors to staff, operate call centers, and manage 

manual processing associated with customers on the EPS and OPS systems. 

FSA is reviewing vendor proposals and expects to make an award by 

Quarter 3 of FY 2020. 

• OPS will create a state-of-the-art, enterprise-wide core processing capability 

for new customers. FSA anticipates receiving vendor proposals for this in 

FY 2021.

• Provide a single entry point, through 1-800-4FEDAID, to any one of FSA’s call 

centers based on each customer’s need. For example, for customers wishing 

to reach their loan servicer, an automatic lookup will be performed against the 

telephone numbers the customers are calling from, and, if matched against FSA’s 

records, the customers will get the option of being routed to their loan servicer. This 

will provide customers with a single, consistent point of contact and also address 

the current problem of borrowers not knowing the identity of their loan servicers 

or how to contact them.

• Continue planning for the Next Generation Partner Participation and Oversight 

(PPO) program, which will transform the way FSA interacts with the thousands of 

schools, financial institutions, and other partners that participate in FSA programs. 

Specifically: 

• FSA will deliver phase 1 of the PPO in Quarter 1 of FY 2021; it will include 

the basic user platform for schools and will grow in capability over time.

• Goals for PPO include a single portal through which institutions can access 

FSA systems and processes, streamlined processes for submitting and 

reviewing program participation and other eligibility materials, and improved 

FSA workflow tools to support faster decision-making.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 2 83

Performance Measures

Table 2.4-A. Average speed to answer incoming calls to Federal Student Aid’s call centers.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — 77 

seconds

66 

seconds

139 

seconds

≤70 

seconds

≤60 

seconds

≤60 

seconds

Notes: (1) Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2017. (2) Data represent the fiscal year. 

For example, 2019 data represent FY 2019.

Data Source: Federal servicers’ quarterly reports.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2018 through September 2019.

Target

FY 2019

Actual

Table 2.4-B. Average abandon rate for incoming calls to Federal Student Aid’s call centers.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — 3.8% 3.9% 6.5% ≤3.5% ≤2.0% ≤2.0%

Note: Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2017.

Data Source: Federal servicers’ quarterly reports.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2018 through September 2019.

Target

FY 2019

Actual

Table 2.4-C. American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) Surveys. 

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — 70 71 70 71 73 74

Note: Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2017.

Data Source: ACSI.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2018 through September 2019.

Target

FY 2019

Actual
84 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Table 2.4-D. Number of downloads of the myStudentAid mobile app.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,226,234 1,000,000 1,300,000 1,400,000

Notes: (1) Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2019. (2) The myStudentAid mobile app 

officially launched in FY 2019.

Data Source: Federal Student Aid’s online platform analytics.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2018 through September 2019.

FY 2019

Actual

Target

Table 2.4-E. Number of customers checking loan balances via the myStudentAid mobile app.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 65,718 30,000 70,000 1,500,000

Note: Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2019.

Data Source: Federal Student Aid’s online platform analytics.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2018 through September 2019.

FY 2019

Actual

Target

Table 2.4-F. Number of customers submitting a Free Application for Federal Student Aid® 

via a mobile platform—the myStudentAid mobile app or fafsa.gov.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — — 0 2,201,000 1,800,000 2,400,000 2,600,000

Note: Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2019.

Data Source: Federal Student Aid’s online platform analytics.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2018 through September 2019. Target

FY 2019

Actual
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 2 85

Table 2.4-G. Number of visits (sessions) demonstrating adoption of the updated 

StudentAid.gov site.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — — 44.500,000 183,700,000 150,000,000 190,000,000 210,000,000

Note: Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2018.

Data Source: Federal Student Aid’s online platform analytics.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2018 through September 2019. Target

FY 2019

Actual

Table 2.4-H. Number of users of “Aidan,” the StudentAid.gov virtual assistant (new).

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Target Target

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 25,000 100,000

Notes: (1) This metric will be added in fiscal year (FY) 2020. (2) “Aidan” is scheduled to launch in FY 2020.

Data Source: Federal Student Aid’s online platform analytics.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: Not applicable.
86 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Strategic Objective: 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5

Enhance students’ and parents’ ability to repay their 

federal student loans by providing accurate and timely 

information, relevant tools and manageable repayment 

options.

Objective Leader: Chief Operating Officer for Federal Student Aid

Overview

In fiscal year 2019, the Department continued to execute its comprehensive framework 

for student aid management to allow students to understand and access information about 

college options and associated costs, loan counseling and guidance, support for retention, 

loan repayment options, and borrower benefits.

Through increased collaboration and collective action, offices across the Department led 

by Federal Student Aid and the Office of Postsecondary Education will further advance 

information and materials that inform students and parents about federal student loan 

repayment options, both before and throughout the student aid lifecycle. 

FY 2019 Annual Performance Report

The rate at which students and their families have gone into debt to finance college and 

other postsecondary education and training opportunities has continued to increase. The 

$1.5 trillion in outstanding federal student loans forms the largest asset in the federal 

government’s financial portfolio and exceeds all other types of consumer debt except 

home mortgages. Students graduating from college in 2016 with a bachelor’s degree who 

took out loans to finance their education owed, on average, $29,910 in loans. Additionally, 

graduating students reported that the difficulties of repaying these loans can be so great 

that they forgo major life decisions, such as homebuying and vehicle purchases.1

While the Department urges students and families to consider a full range of options that 

are of varying cost levels, including community colleges and career and technical training, 

the Department also takes measures to enhance students’ and parents’ abilities to repay 

1See https://www.bankrate.com/loans/student-loans/student-loans-survey-february-2019/ and 

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/feds/2016/files/2016010pap.pdf.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 2 87

their federal student loans. The Department does this by providing accurate and timely 

information, relevant tools, and manageable repayment options.

As part of the Next Generation Financial Services Environment (Next Gen FSA), 

Federal Student Aid (FSA) is establishing a dedicated portfolio management team and 

undertaking a set of analytical actions to implement “bank-grade” portfolio management 

practices. 

In this past fiscal year, FSA was successful in reducing the percentage of student loan 

borrowers who were 30 days or less delinquent in repayment of their student loans (see 

metric 2.5-A). The final year-end performance of 16.6 percent was also lower than the

fiscal year (FY) 2018 performance of 17.2 percent and marked a five-year low. The 

delinquency rates for loans in one type of federal loan program, the William D. Ford 

Federal Direct Loan Program, have declined gradually but steadily. In FY 2019, this may 

be attributable, in part, to borrowers of these loans migrating from traditional repayment 

plans to more affordable income-driven repayment (IDR) plans. FSA and its partners 

conducted extensive outreach to educate borrowers on available options under the federal 

student aid programs, including IDR plans.

A smaller but still significant percentage of borrowers were delinquent by 90 or more 

days in repayment of their student loans (see metric 2.5-B). The methodology used to 

determine the percentage of borrowers who fall into this category was changed this year, 

for purposes of reporting on performance under the Department’s Strategic Plan, to 

parallel the methodology FSA uses in its independent, statutorily required annual 

reporting. Consistent with the new methodology, the target for metric 2.5-B was changed. 

These methods showed that FSA met the FY 2019 target and also achieved a five-year low 

in the percentage of borrowers in this category of delinquency.

Since August, the Department also instituted a new process, Total and Permanent Disability 

Discharge, to automatically discharge federal student loans of veterans who are permanently 

disabled as a result of their military service, consistent with the August 2019 Presidential 

Memorandum. This streamlined a process once so cumbersome that, by some estimates, 

fewer than half of the 50,000 eligible veterans were applying for loan discharge. 

FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

In fiscal year (FY) 2020 and FY 2021 the Department will:

• Issue an award for development of the Event Generator, which simulates a 

borrower-based microsimulation model of repayment of federal student loans. It 

aims to better address the complexity of the federal student loan programs as well 

as more completely capture distributional impacts of proposed program changes 

and their effects on borrower behavior. In FY 2020, the Department expects to 
88 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

begin model development; the Department requested $1.45 million to fund the 

first phase.

• Complete the Enhanced Portfolio Analysis in Quarter 2 of FY 2020, which is 

the first of a series of projects that will enhance analytical capabilities in Federal 

Student Aid’s (FSA’s) data and analytical environment. 

• Continue to engage other agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Treasury, to 

update the income profile data that are used to estimate income-driven repayment 

plan costs.

• Continue the phased implementation of the Next Generation Financial Services 

Environment (Next Gen FSA) based, in part, on market research with more than 

50 industry leaders. This research-based approach has enabled FSA to identify 

best-in-industry standards and technical benchmarks and will continue to inform 

the procurement process.

• Expand implementation of the Next Gen FSA Digital Customer Care platform, 

including the launch of new tools to improve financial literacy and loan repayment. 

• Provide a new loan simulator tool on StudentAid.gov in compliance with the 

March 2019 Executive Order 13864. This tool will provide a step-by-step guide, 

integrated with College Scorecard data, and allow borrowers to project student 

loan payments using typical salaries, loan balances, and interest rates.

• Allow borrowers to personalize their repayment strategy based on a customerchosen goal, such as the lowest monthly payment, quickest payoff, or lowest 

amount paid over time, with the ability to compare additional options.

• Allow borrowers to make a payment on StudentAid.gov and the myStudentAid 

mobile app to any of FSA’s loan servicers. This will address a common complaint 

of customers who state they do not know who their loan servicer is or where to 

make a payment. 

• Re-envision the master promissory note and loan counseling process. For borrowers 

with existing loans and grants, the tools will ensure they understand how much they 

have borrowed and give them a sense of what their monthly payment would be 

based on their current loan information. 

• Offer borrowers greater transparency into their loan information and the status 

of their Free Application for Federal Student Aid® and any loan repayment plan 

applications, including timelines for completion. 

• Incorporate delinquency and default prevention strategies in Next Gen FSA. 

• Improve the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program by providing clear communication about requirements for eligibility, develop tools to assist in the application 

process, and identify qualifying employers. 

• Operationalize College Scorecard measures on debt and related federal student aid 

metrics in the National Student Loan Data System, automating some of its provsions.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 2 89

Performance Measures

Table 2.5-A. Percentage of borrowers who are more than 30 days delinquent.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

23.3% 21.4% 19.0% 18.4% 17.2% 16.6% 18.4% 16.6% 17.1%

Data Source: Federal Student Aid’s data warehouse.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2018 through September 2019.

Target

FY 2019

Actual

Table 2.5-B. Percentage of borrowers who are more than 90 days delinquent.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

14.0% 13.0% 11.2% 10.9% 10.1% 9.8% 10.1% 9.8% 10.1%

Note: Current and prior year data were updated to reflect an updated calculation methodology; 

additional information can be found in appendix B.

Data Source: Federal Student Aid’s data warehouse.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2018 through September 2019.

FY 2019 

Actual

Target
90 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Strategic Goal 3

Strengthen the quality, accessibility and use of 

education data through better management, 

increased privacy protections and transparency.

GOAL LEADER: 

Assistant Secretary for Planning, 

Evaluation, and Policy 

Development

GOAL 3 OBJECTIVES

Improve the Department’s data 

governance, data life cycle 

management and the capacity 

to support education data.

Improve privacy protections 

for, and transparency of, 

education data both at the 

Department and in the 

education community.

Increase access to, and use 

of, education data to make 

informed decisions both at 

the Department and in the 

education community.

3.1

3.2

3.3

 Goal Spotlight:

This year, the Department took major strides in federal 

data policy management. The Secretary appointed a 

Chief Data Officer to coordinate agency data assets, 

support the Evaluation Officer in acquiring agency 

data, and serve as liaison with statistical officials 

from other agencies who seek to use new statutory 

authority to request data for evidence building. These 

were requirements for all federal agencies included 

in the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking 

Act of 2018—which states that better coordination of 

data assets within and across government “will enable 

agencies to shift...towards actions that will support 

decision makers: linking spending to program outputs, 

delivering on mission, better managing enterprise 

risks, and promoting civic engagement.”
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 3 91

The Department has been a leader in its implementation of a coherent and collaborative 

approach to data governance and management, privacy and transparency, and data access 

and use. This new approach will help the Department strengthen its internal operations and 

program management, and it will provide new opportunities for transparency about and 

access to the Department’s data assets.

Public transparency about data access protects student privacy. Letting the public know 

about the Department’s data assets shines light on appropriate uses of confidential data for 

legitimate purposes. Open data also fuels public innovation. The President’s Management 

Agenda calls for a long-term, enterprise-wide approach to leveraging government data and 

making it “accessible and useful for the American public, businesses, and researchers.” 

Federal agencies have not made substantial portions of their data available outside the 

federal bureaucracy. During fiscal year 2019, the Department began developing an Open 

Data Platform to address the needs of transparency and begin providing information 

access. This platform will be the Department’s public-facing data inventory and provide 

all stakeholders with direct access to up-to-date privacy-protected education data assets 

through an integrated application programming interface (API). 

Although APIs drive modern information technology development by allowing outside 

developers to build a host of applications off a common data source, most Department 

data are not published with this key integrator. The API currently attached to the College 

Scorecard has had more than 6,000 developer-level subscribers since 2015. In any given 

month, nearly 500 application platforms, from small-scale student counseling tools to 

global search engines, leverage College Scorecard data in real time. The Open Data 

Platform will expand upon this success, delivering more education data to the public.

The following pages discuss the Department’s major accomplishments of the past 

fiscal year—October 1, 2018, through September 30, 2019—to achieve Goal 3 and its 

three underlying strategic objectives. These accomplishments illustrate the momentum 

that is building around more effective stewardship of education data and provide a 

launching point for future successes.

Metric Performance Overview

In FY 2019, the Department had 

eight metrics for this goal. Of these 

eight metrics, seven metric targets were 

met or exceeded, and one metric did not 

meet its target this year or last year. 

1

2

3

Metrics

Objective 3.1 Objective 3.2 Objective 3.3

FY 2019 target not established

Met or exceeded the FY 2019 target

Improved from prior year but did not meet the FY 2019 target

Did not meet the FY 2019 target or prior year performance 
92 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Goal 3 Discretionary Resources

The following figure and table show total Goal 3 discretionary resources and examples of 

select major discretionary programs and activities supporting the goal, respectively.

Goal 3 Discretionary Resources

$0 $200 $600

Dollars (in millions)

$100 $300

$554.6

$556.6

$549.2

FY 2021 President’s Budget

FY 2020 Appropriation

FY 2019 Appropriation

$400 $500

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities Supporting Goal 3 in Thousands

POC ACCT Objective Program

FY 2019 

Appropriation

FY 2020 

Appropriation

FY 2021 

President’s 

Budget

IES IES 3.3 Research, Development, 

and Dissemination 

$192,695 $195,877 $195,877

IES IES 3.1, 3.2, 

3.3

Statistics $109,500 $110,500 $113,500

IES IES 3.1, 3.2, 

3.3

National Assessment $151,000 $153,000 $181,000

Other N/A N/A All Other Programs $96,026 $97,245 $64,245

Note:

Discretionary resources listed here include Department programs that may contribute to multiple goals. A list of programs by 

goal is provided in appendix C.

Acronyms and Definitions:

POC = Principal Operating Component; ACCT = Account; IES = Institute of Education Sciences; and N/A = Not Applicable. 
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 3 93

Strategic Objective: 3.1 3.2 3.3 

Improve the Department’s data governance, data life cycle 

management and the capacity to support education data.

Objective Leader: Associate Commissioner, Administrative Data Division, National Center for 

Education Statistics, Institution of Education Sciences

Overview

This strategic objective focuses primarily on opportunities to enhance the Department’s 

data management framework and internal capacity regarding collected and acquired data. 

The main goal of improving data management is to clarify the common standards, operating 

policies, implementation roles, and procedures needed across the Department to improve 

the integrity and quality of the data used by the Department and released to the public.

While supported by all offices across the Department, two offices steer efforts for this 

strategic objective: the National Center for Education Statistics within the Institute of 

Education Sciences and the Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development.

FY 2019 Activities and Results

Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018. The Department continues to 

improve its data governance, data life cycle management, and capacity to support the timely 

release of better education data. During the past year, this work was guided and supported by 

the Department’s Data Strategy Team (DST) through hosting monthly meetings, developing 

tools and resources, and delivering trainings on key data management principles. 

Overseeing improvements in the way the Department manages its data will be the responsibility of the Department’s new Data Governance Board (DGB), starting in fiscal year 

(FY) 2020. Significant work was underway in FY 2019 to establish a DGB consistent 

with the requirements of the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018

(Evidence Act). DST will continue to support the Department’s principal offices in their 

implementation of improvements approved by DGB.

As part of its implementation of the Evidence Act, the Department also designated 

senior-level staff with appropriate technical expertise for the statutory positions of Chief 

Data Officer (CDO), Evaluation Officer, and Statistical Official (SO). Specifically:

• CDO chairs DGB and leads the Department’s new Office of the Chief Data Officer 

(OCDO) within the Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. OCDO 

is responsible for managing and improving the Department’s ability to leverage 
94 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

its data for program operations and informs policy, including, but not limited to, 

lifecycle data management and development and enforcement of the Department’s 

data governance policies.

• The Evaluation Officer is responsible for developing a learning agenda to 

answer priority questions for the Department and an annual evaluation plan and 

assessment of the coverage, quality, methods, effectiveness, and independence of 

the Department’s statistics, evaluation, research, and analysis efforts. 

• SO provides advice on statistical policy, techniques, and procedures to Department 

officials and coordinates statistical policy for the Department, including overseeing 

the development of standards for data quality and confidentiality; identifying data 

needs; building interoperability of data from its inception; improving collection, 

analysis, and dissemination of data; and seeking input from stakeholders.

Data Usage and Management. Metric 3.1-B focuses on training the Department provides 

to its staff on managing data. For this metric, the Department tracks the percentage of its 

offices that participate in data management training offered by the Department’s DST. 

Results this fiscal year exceeded the annual target, with 83 percent of offices participating 

in training that principally focused on data collection, planning, and design. Offices 

identified focal areas for training regarding DST’s July 2018 (i.e., FY 2018) internal 

guidelines for data management and governance. Data management training offered to help 

meet office needs included data visualization techniques, disclosure protection strategies 

for public releases, guidance for states to improve disaggregation of student subgroups, 

updates and overviews of the Evidence Act and Federal Data Strategy, and a best practices 

sharing session with a representative from the National Institutes of Health.

Additionally, DST issued the following resources this fiscal year:

• Understanding the Department’s Data Supports describes the purpose, available 

support, and points of contact for data-focused initiatives within the Department. 

• Data Strategy Team Glossary lists and defines common data governance and 

management jargon, aiming to reduce staff confusion in understanding critical data 

terminology. 

• The POC Data Collection Documentation Template helps staff document essential 

information for the data collection lifecycle.

• Data Lifecycle Considerations for Disclosure Avoidance follows up on several DST 

discussions on existing and emerging strategies to protect data against the inadvertent disclosure of individuals’ information. This guide identifies opportunities early 

in the data lifecycle to incorporate disclosure avoidance techniques.

The Department also made several key improvements to help agencies and institutions in 

the education field with data management. The National Center for Education Statistics 

(NCES) within the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) released a request for applications 
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 3 95

for the FY 2019 round of the statewide longitudinal data systems (SLDS) grant program. 

This grant round will support states’ efforts to build and use SLDS to support decisions about 

policy and practice. IES/NCES is working to award between 25 and 30 new grants in FY 2020.

Federal Data Strategy. The Department actively participated in the Federal Data Strategy, 

providing four Department staff as team members, effectively contributing more than two 

full-time equivalent staff for a full year. Federal Data Strategy is a set of federal principles 

and practices aimed at leveraging the value of the entire federal government’s data asset 

portfolio while protecting security, privacy, and confidentiality. In June, the Office of 

Management and Budget released Federal Data Strategy—A Framework for Consistency

(M-19-18), and the Department’s contribution to this memorandum ensured that education 

data were considered in developing principles and practices to help agencies “leverage 

data as a strategic asset to grow the economy, increase the effectiveness of the Federal 

Government, facilitate oversight, and promote transparency” as called for in Cross-Agency 

Priority Goal 2.1

Additionally, NCES is serving in a leading role on two of the 16 action items in the Federal 

Data Strategy Action Plan. NCES is supporting the development of a re-identification risk 

assessment toolkit for federal agencies and developing a software package that will be 

made available to all federal agencies. NCES is also piloting a software tool that will aid 

in documenting planned data collection activities consistent with the Paperwork Reduction 

Act. The goal is to reduce duplicate collections, better identify the types of conditionality 

or privacy protections data require, and provide information on the levels of tiered access 

the data sets will have.

Data Collection and Reducing Burdens. One component of data maturity highlights how 

well an agency recognizes and actively manages the burden imposed by its data collection. 

In October, the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) posted 

an information collection request in the Federal Register to revise and reduce the burden 

associated with complying with the 911 Vocational Rehabilitation Case Service Report

(RSA-911). The data reported in RSA-911 are mandated by Title I of the Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973 as amended by Title IV of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act and 

are used by state vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies to assess program performance, 

including service delivery and outcomes of individuals served by the program. 

In May, OSERS issued revised guidance on RSA-911 in its Policy Directive RSA-PD-19-

03. In addition to clarifying reporting instructions, this guidance reduced the collection 

burden, saving a total of 316 hours, by removing duplicative education data elements; 

streamlining the process for reporting public support and medical insurance coverage at 

1

Cross-Agency Priority Goals are set by the Administration in the President’s Management Agenda and are 

used to accelerate progress on a limited number of presidential priority areas that require active collabora- tion among multiple agencies to ensure successful implementation.
96 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

application and exit; and removing unnecessary career, training, and other services data 

elements for reporting VR program expenditures.

In May, OSERS also issued the Case Service Report (RSA-911) Correction Procedures. 

This technical assistance resource outlines the options available to state VR agencies 

to correct information reported on RSA-911 when errors in data collection or reporting 

are identified. In August, OSERS issued a crosswalk of changes made to RSA-911. This 

technical assistance outlines changes to some RSA-911 data elements and various code 

values specified in the appendices.

Throughout the fiscal year, OSERS also provided quarterly data dashboards to state 

VR agencies, a practice it began in FY 2018. These dashboards highlight RSA-911 data 

elements and other performance accountability metrics. OSERS used the dashboards in 

technical assistance discussions with state VR agencies to improve data collection and 

reporting and inform data-driven decision-making related to service delivery. In the field, 

the dashboards also serve a variety of purposes, including: (1) improving data collection, 

reporting, validity, and accuracy; (2) assisting grantees with strategic planning, program 

performance, and service delivery; and (3) providing grantees with more real-time analytics. 

RSA-911 provides data dashboards to all of its grantees—the 78 VR agencies nationwide. 

FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

In fiscal year (FY) 2020 and FY 2021, the Department will:

• Convene the Department’s Data Governance Board, which will be chaired by the 

Department’s Chief Data Officer and comprise senior-level staff in agency business 

units, data functions, and financial management. 

• Deliver training curricula for data professionals across the Department to continue 

to enhance the development of a highly skilled workforce to facilitate the accurate 

and appropriate use of data.

• Leverage data as a strategic asset by improving the Department’s operating structure, 

including by further developing its new Office of the Chief Data Officer. 

• Award grants for the Institute of Education Sciences’ Statewide Longitudinal Data 

System (SLDS) FY 2019 grant round in Quarter 2 of FY 2020. These grants support 

states’ efforts to build and use SLDS to support decisions about policy and practice 

for state purposes and stakeholders. 

• Continue to improve and coordinate the online tools and data repositories used 

to prepare packages for formal information collection clearance and manage the 

Department’s collection portfolio. This work will be integrated with other maintenance and enhancement efforts to ensure that details about Office of Management 

and Budget-approved Department collections are included within the Department’s 

Data Inventory, Open Data Platform, and Public Data Listing.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 3 97

Performance Measures

Table 3.1-A. Number of data management activities for which Department-wide procedures 

or templates have been created and reviewed through the Data Strategy Team (DST).

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — 0 4 8 6 8 N/A

Notes: (1) This metric will not be tracked for fiscal year (FY) 2020 forward. (2) Data are not available 

prior to FY 2018.

Data Source: Minutes from monthly DST meetings.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2018 through September 2019.

Target

FY 2019

Actual

Table 3.1-B. Percentage of Department program offices participating in Data Strategy 

Team (DST)-offered data management training.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — 41% 67% 83% 74% 89% N/A

Notes: (1) This metric will not be tracked for fiscal year (FY) 2020 forward. (2) Data are not available 

prior to FY 2017.

Data Source: Minutes from monthly DST meetings.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2018 through September 2019.

Target

FY 2019

Actual

Table 3.1-C. Percentage of principal offices assessed as having higher data maturity 

year-over-year based on the Department’s data maturity assessment tool (new).

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Target Target

— — — — — — — 25% gap 

reduction

Notes: (1) This metric will be added in fiscal year (FY) 2020. (2) Prior year data are not applicable; the establishment of the Data Governance Board was not a requirement until FY 2019.

Data Source: Department’s Annual Data Maturity Assessment.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2018 through September 2019.
98 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Strategic Objective: 3.1 3.2 3.3 

Improve privacy protections for, and transparency 

of, education data both at the Department and in the 

education community.

Objective Leader: Chief Information Officer

Overview

The Department is committed to protecting student privacy. While education data can be 

used to inform and drive transformative efforts, the vast amount and sensitivity of these 

data make it imperative that the Department and educational institutions that maintain 

student data take steps to adequately protect it. This strategic objective focuses on 

improving privacy protections through the administration of the Family Educational Rights 

and Privacy Act, developing and disseminating privacy and security training, and making 

technical assistance available to states, districts, and institutions of higher education. 

While all Department offices have a role in supporting this strategic objective, primary 

stakeholders include the director of the Student Privacy Policy Office (i.e., Chief Privacy 

Officer); Chief Data Officer; Federal Student Aid; Institute of Education Sciences; Office 

of the General Counsel; and the Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development.

FY 2019 Activities and Results

Cybersecurity attacks are costly for elementary and secondary schools as well as institutions of 

higher education (IHEs). According to the K–12 Cybersecurity Research Center, 119 districts 

in 38 states were victims of cybersecurity attacks in 2018, costing millions of taxpayer dollars 

to remedy. A year earlier, a survey found that just 15 percent of districts had implemented a 

cybersecurity plan despite warnings from both the Department and the U.S. Internal Revenue 

Service that scammers were targeting school districts to extort money by either threatening to 

release sensitive data from student records or obtaining employees’ federal tax forms, payroll 

information, or other data to steal money and file false tax returns.2

Leading Conversations. In addition to the potential harm to schools and other educational 

institutions, vulnerabilities to cybersecurity attacks also potentially place Department data 

2

See https://ifap.ed.gov/eannouncements/101617ALERTCyberAdvisoryNewTypeCyberExtortionThreat.html

and https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/dangerous-w-2-phishing-scam-evolving-targeting-schools-restaurantshospitals-tribal-groups-and-others.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 3 99

and the efficacy of its systems and programs at risk. To mitigate the risk, the Department is 

working on improving privacy protections for, and transparency of, education data both at 

the Department and in the education community. 

In November, for example, the Department held the 2018 Federal Student Aid Training 

Conference for 6,500 financial aid professionals and discussed cybersecurity and threat 

issues in student financial aid. Topics of discussion included what constitutes a breach, 

compliance agreements, cybersecurity threats, cybersecurity best practices, incident 

reporting, and the response process of the Department’s Federal Student Aid (FSA). In 

May, the Department also presented at the 2019 Treasury Institute for Higher Education’s 

Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Workshop in Tampa, FL, to discuss 

cybersecurity issues with representatives from approximately 160 IHEs.

Technical Assistance. FSA, in FY 2019, advised 708 IHEs on their own cybersecurity needs. 

The Department chose these IHEs because they had a potential breach at the 1 to 3 severity 

level. For reference, the fiscal year (FY) 2019 severity scale ranges from 0 to 3, with 3 being 

the highest. FSA, through its FSA Postsecondary Institutions Cyber team, requested each 

IHE’s incident response plan and gave advice on industry best practices, mitigation strategies, guidance for improving processes, and documentation to improve security postures. 

FSA worked with the schools and tracked the remediation actions. All identified schools 

completed the remediation and patching actions. Too often, IHEs may not be fully aware of 

the scope of their responsibilities for self-reporting cybersecurity incidents and, therefore, 

fail to inform the Department and respond to inquiries in a timely fashion. Hundreds of

technical assistance outreach efforts like the 708 of the past year are aimed at addressing 

such issues.

In addition, the Student Privacy Policy Office (SPPO), through the Privacy Technical 

Assistance Center (PTAC), partnered with FSA in assisting IHEs by delivering, during 

FY 2019, 40 outreach activities focused on data privacy and security. PTAC also supported 

K–12 stakeholders by providing outreach activities that included topics such as data 

privacy, data security, and data breach response and prevention.

Outreach Activities and Audits. The Department also completed outreach efforts as part of 

its Agency Priority Goal (APG) commitment to help protect information technology (IT) 

systems and improve student privacy and data security at IHEs. In this APG, which was 

one of four for the two-year period that ended in FY 2019, the Department pledged that by 

September 30, 2019, it would increase its information security program outreach activities 

to IHEs by 40 percent. The Department exceeded this target, as it provided 103 outreach 

activities in the two-year period that targeted information security programs, including data 

privacy and IT security requirements of IHEs; the baseline at the start of the APG had been 

12 such activities.
100 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

As part of the APG, the Department also said it would audit IHEs that are subject to the 

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA). GLBA requires financial institutions, including IHEs 

if they offer loans to their students, to explain their information-sharing practices to their 

customers and to safeguard sensitive data. The Department intended for IHEs to obtain 

independent audits and report the findings to the Department. However, guidance on GLBA 

was not released until June through the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) 

2 C.F.R. Part 200 Appendix IX Compliance Supplement. The delay in issuing this guidance, 

and its explanation of the requirements for auditors performing audits of IHEs subject to 

GLBA, prevented the Department from fulfilling this part of its APG commitment. 

Although the Department successfully increased information security program outreach 

activities to IHEs in excess of the 40 percent target, the Department did not meet its 

APG target to commence audits of IHEs subject to GLBA (see metric 3.2-A). Hence, the 

Department designated this strategic objective as a “Focused Area for Improvement.” This 

designation is consistent with guidelines issued by OMB for the strategic review process 

of federal agencies.3

 The Department’s plans to address this issue during the next two years 

are discussed in the subsection labeled “FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan” within this 

strategic objective.

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. Transparency also means the Department 

must be responsive to issues regarding the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act

(FERPA) (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99). This law protects the privacy of student 

education records and gives parents certain rights with respect to their children’s education 

records. These rights transfer to the student when he or she reaches the age of 18 or attends 

a school beyond the high school level. The Department led several FERPA-related initiatives this fiscal year. 

For example, in February, SPPO, within the Department’s Office of Planning, Evaluation, 

and Policy Development, issued a comprehensive set of questions and answers on the 

application of FERPA in the context of school safety initiatives. This guidance consists of 

37 commonly asked questions about schools’ and school districts’ responsibilities under 

FERPA when disclosing student information to school security units, school resource 

officers, law enforcement, and others. Typically, FERPA would guard the privacy of 

student records; the guidance explains how FERPA gives schools and districts flexibility to 

disclose otherwise private student records, under certain limited circumstances, to maintain 

school safety. 

SPPO also expanded its review of the websites of local educational agencies (school 

districts) to assess whether the websites included best practices for transparency and 

3

§ 260.15, Circular No. A-11 Part 6: Federal Performance Framework and Evaluation Evidence-Building: 

Strategic Planning, Annual Performance Plans and Reports, Priority Goals, Performance Reviews, 

Customer Experience, Program and Project Management, and Evidence-Building Activities.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 3 101

complied with legal requirements related to third-party contracting. In addition to meeting 

the annual target for this metric (i.e., metric 3.2-C) by reviewing 35 percent of the district 

websites in a statistically representative sample, SPPO also sent letters to those districts to 

provide individual feedback on how the websites could be improved. The aim is for district 

websites to provide the information that parents and students would likely seek and have 

a right to receive under FERPA, thereby helping reduce the number of complaints parents 

and students file with the Department alleging a violation of FERPA.

Typically, the Department receives more FERPA complaints than it can process in a timely 

manner. To assist with processing these complaints, in December, SPPO implemented new 

processes for responding to FERPA complaints. The implementation of a flexible process 

to investigate FERPA complaints, known as resolution assistance and intermediation, 

has allowed SPPO to better address both new incoming complaints and its oldest cases. 

SPPO also made structural changes within its office, reallocating staff and developing new 

performance standards for staff to more timely process FERPA complaints and respond to 

audit recommendations from the Department’s Office of Inspector General. 

FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

In fiscal year (FY) 2020 and FY 2021, the Department will:

• Evaluate the Office of Management and Budget’s Supplement on the GrammLeach-Bliley Act (GLBA) and develop processes to actively monitor cybersecurity 

compliance and the risk factors that would lead to performing a cybersecurity review.

• Undertake an Agency Priority Goal for FY 2020–2021 to improve student privacy 

and cybersecurity at institutions of higher education through outreach and compliance efforts. As part of this goal, the Department will participate in at least 

12 engagements with nongovernmental organizations to inform the development 

of at least five best-practice programmatic improvements, such as guidance on the 

definition of a cybersecurity breach.

• Release a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the Family Educational Rights 

and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment 

(20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99), with updates and clarifications of policy 

and technical issues. The proposed regulations are also needed to implement 

statutory amendments to FERPA contained in the Uninterrupted Scholars Act 

of 2013 (Pub. L. No. 112-278) and the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010

(Pub. L. No. 111-296) to reflect a change in the name of the office designated 

to administer FERPA and to make changes related to the enforcement responsibilities of the office concerning FERPA.

• Expand the Department’s review of websites of school districts to assess their 

inclusion of transparency best practices and compliance with legal requirements 

for third-party contracting. Specifically:
102 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

• The Student Privacy Policy Office (SPPO) within the Office of Planning, 

Evaluation, and Policy Development will analyze aggregated data from the 

school district website reviews it conducted in FY 2019 to identify trends 

and target future technical assistance activities that will begin in Quarter 2 

of FY 2020.

• SPPO will also consider options for how to share the results with state 

educational agencies for their awareness and use (see metric 3.2-C).
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 3 103

Performance Measures

Table 3.2-A. Number of institutions of higher education (IHEs) that have an audit of 

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA)-related information security safeguards that result in 

no significant findings.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 36 77 TBD

Notes: (1) The 2019 GLBA compliance supplement was released in June 2019 on the Office of 

Management and Budget’s website, too late to start and receive audits for fiscal year (FY) 2019. 

(2) Data are not applicable prior to FY 2020, as no audits were reviewed.

Data Source: IHE-provided auditor reports.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2018 through September 2019.

Target

FY 2019

Actual

Table 3.2-B. Number of outreach activities targeting data privacy and information 

technology security requirements of institutions of higher education.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — 12 63 40 17 20 20

Note: Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2017.

Data Source: Outreach activity records maintained by the Privacy Technical Assistance Center.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2018 through September 2019.

Target

FY 2019

Actual

Table 3.2-C. Percentage of local educational agency (LEA) websites from a statistically 

representative sample reviewed for inclusion of transparency best practices and compliance 

with legal requirements relating to third-party contracting.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 35% 35% 60% TBD

Note: Data are not applicable prior to fiscal year (FY) 2019, as study had not yet commenced.

Data Source: Selected LEA public websites.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2018 through September 2019.

Target and 

FY 2019 

Actual
104 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Strategic Objective: 3.1 3.2 3.3

Increase access to, and use of, education data to make 

informed decisions both at the Department and in the 

education community.

Objective Leader: Director for Policy and Program Studies Service for Planning, Evaluation, 

and Policy Development

Overview

For education data to be used to support informed decisions, the Department must continue 

to develop and implement methods to analyze, interpret, and disseminate education data 

and support education stakeholders in doing the same. This strategic objective focuses 

on increasing access to education data at all levels and improving the tools necessary to 

support the appropriate use of education data for decision-making by the Department and 

education stakeholders.

Several offices across the Department support this strategic objective, including the 

Institute of Education Sciences; the Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy 

Development (OPEPD); OPEPD’s Policy and Program Studies Service; OPED’s Office of 

Educational Technology; the Office for Civil Rights; and the Office of Special Education 

and Rehabilitative Services.

FY 2019 Activities and Results

Decision-makers and data users come with varying levels of familiarity with using and 

understanding data. Through multiple efforts, the Department kept a focus on understanding 

and responding to the needs of data novices, data consumers, data analysts, and the 

developer community.

College Scorecard. The Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development (OPEPD) 

made significant contributions in improving the availability and use of data with the 

Department’s May release of a revised College Scorecard, a website that provides basic 

data about postsecondary institutions by type of degree, location, size, public or private 

status, specialized mission (e.g., a women’s college or a Historically Black College and 

University), and religious affiliation.

College Scorecard data are made available in a user-friendly format that accomplishes 

multiple needs: easy accessibility for consumers, usability of underlying data files for data 
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 3 105

consumers and data analysts, and the ability to be leveraged by application programming 

interface (API) developers. OPEPD’s efforts to expand the types of institutions listed on 

the College Scorecard as well as the status of students (e.g., full-time or part-time) and the 

data that are included was demonstrated by new abilities to show data such as graduation 

outcomes of part-time and transfer students, and, for the first time, federal student loan debt 

by field of study at each institution. 

ED Data Express. Parents wanting to know how high school graduation rates in their 

states compare to high school graduation rates in neighboring states (or multiple states 

across the country) could visit the Department’s revamped ED Data Express website. 

There, a new mapping feature allows users to view available data displayed on a map of 

the United States. A new trend line tool displays the data across multiple school years. A 

new conditional analysis tool allows users to view one data element based on conditions 

set by another data element.

The site’s two main features are grant program dashboards and customizable downloads. 

The download functionality allows users to export privacy-protected data based on 

the following set of filters: (1) grant program, (2) state, (3) school year, (4) reporting 

level (state or district), and (5) type of data. The site features data for school years 

2010–2011 to 2016–2017 on the following formula grant programs administered 

in the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education: 

• Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) as amended 

by the Every Student Succeeds Act, which supports local educational agencies 

(school districts) and schools with high numbers or high percentages of children 

from low-income families to help ensure all children meet challenging state 

academic standards. 

• Title I, Part C of ESEA, which supports programs of education for migratory 

children.

• Title I, Part D of ESEA, which, in part, supports children and youths in state-run 

institutions for juveniles and in adult correctional institutions so that these youths 

can make successful transitions to school or employment once they are released.

• Title III of ESEA, which supports supplemental services that improve the English 

language proficiency and academic achievement of English learners.

• The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11431 et seq.), which 

supports the education of homeless children and youths.

Additional data and data notes will be added to the site over time. The website is one 

example of how the Department helps to increase access to, and use of, education data to 

make informed decisions both at the Department and in the education community. 
106 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Department’s Role in the Data Community. When acting as a central repository, the 

Department can facilitate access to a wide range of data for the education community. The 

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reminded the Department of this role in 

its findings from its audit, GAO-17-400, K-12 Education: Education Needs to Improve 

Oversight of Its 21st Century Program. In this report, GAO recommended that the Secretary 

direct the Department’s Office of Academic Improvement to use the information it collects 

from its monitoring visits and ongoing interactions with states regarding the 21st Century 

Community Learning Centers program to share effective practices with other states. The 

21st Century program supports the creation of community learning centers that provide 

academic enrichment opportunities during non-school hours for children, particularly 

students who attend high-poverty and low-performing schools. By the time GAO closed 

out the audit in December 2019, it found the Department had begun effectively sharing 

effective practices across states. For example, the Department shares best practices at 

two meetings each year with program directors and through newsletters, webinars, and 

listening sessions at major after-school conferences.

In addition to collecting data, the Department generates data for use by the education 

community. For example, OPEPD’s Policy and Program Studies Service released a series of 

new interactive data stories. One such story, A Leak in the STEM Pipeline: Taking Algebra 

Early, focuses on exploring access to, and enrollment in, Algebra I in K–12 public schools. 

Another data story illustrates career and technical education (CTE) in American high 

schools and the outcomes for students who participate in CTE programs. The data show 

that CTE participation, especially focusing one’s studies by taking two or more CTE classes 

within the same career cluster, is positively correlated with both future employment and 

future earnings. Finally, the Department also updated its data story on chronic absenteeism

to include the most recent data made available from the Office for Civil Rights’ 2015-16 

Civil Rights Data Collection.

Additionally, the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) 

developed and made user-friendly data products publicly available, such as Individuals 

with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) data tables and state data displays that stakeholders 

within the Department and the education community can use. In fiscal year (FY) 2019, 

OSERS’s IDEA Section 618 Data Products webpage had 68,859 page views, and its Annual 

Report to Congress webpage had 28,724 page views.

Transparency. At the same time the Department is working to make its data (and the 

data of educational institutions) more secure, it is working to make more data available 

to the public to the extent possible and protect privacy interests while doing so. The 

Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 (Evidence Act) is shaping 

how the Department manages these dual responsibilities. 
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 3 107

One of the aims of the Evidence Act is to make government more transparent by making 

its data publicly accessible in machine-readable formats. This makes the data more usable 

by researchers and the public. In the past fiscal year, the Department made 93 datasets 

publicly available in machine-readable formats—more than double the annual target of 

36 (see metric 3.3-B). Even more data may be made available in machine-readable formats 

in future years due to a FY 2019 redesign of the Department’s ED Data Express website

and the Department’s forthcoming Open Data Platform. 

The Department continued its efforts to build an enterprise Open Data Platform in 

FY 2019 after assessing options in FY 2018. The platform will be a central repository for 

the Department’s data, benefiting members of the public (who would no longer have to 

search on multiple websites to find information) as well as the Department, because having 

all significant Department data available in one place for downloading would enable 

the Department to better assess the public demand for different types of data. With this 

information, the Department could assess what types of data are most in demand and try to 

meet these demands. Similarly, if the results point to data not being accessed or used (and 

if there is no legal requirement to publicly report such data), the Department could focus 

its efforts elsewhere.4

 The Department has continued to conduct rounds of both internal 

and external user testing to improve the platform in FY 2019 so that it can be populated in 

FY 2020.

In addition to the data sets made available in machine-readable formats as well as the 

forthcoming Open Data Platform, in FY 2019, the Department also required 98 percent of 

its discretionary grant competitions to include a requirement to openly license materials 

that were created with Department funds (see metric 3.3-C). These are materials that would 

otherwise be copyrightable. By requiring open licensing, the Department aims to improve 

transparency and foster research and innovation.

FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

In fiscal year (FY) 2020 and FY 2021 the Department will:

• Develop an open data plan in accordance with guidance from the Office of 

Management and Budget and publish this plan with the Department’s Information 

Resource Management Strategic Plan. 

• Enhance the Department’s forthcoming Open Data Platform to align with new statutory requirements for a comprehensive data inventory that accounts for all data 

assets created by, collected by, under the control or direction of, or maintained by 

the Department.

4

This responsiveness to the demand for particular types of data, and the possibility of discontinuing the 

publication of some data, would not apply to data that the Department is statutorily required to continue 

publishing.
108 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

• Explore opportunities to link the Department’s K–12 and postsecondary education 

data to help inform policy decisions and improve program implementation.

• Develop and make user-friendly data products publicly available, such as 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act data tables, annual reports to Congress, 

and state data displays that stakeholders within the Department and the education 

community can use to make informed decisions.

• Develop and make available on the Rehabilitation Services Administration’s (RSA’s) 

website user-friendly and accessible data products (e.g., vocational rehabilitation 

(VR) program data tables, data dashboards, and annual reports related to program 

performance) that VR agencies and stakeholders can use to make informed 

decisions.

• Provide, in Quarters 1 and 2 of FY 2020 through RSA, in partnership with one of its 

technical assistance partners (e.g., the Workforce Innovation Technical Assistance 

Center (WINTAC)), eight brief trainings to state VR agencies on implementation 

of the revised 911 Vocational Rehabilitation Case Service Report (RSA-911). 

• Revise the Annual Vocational Rehabilitation Program/Cost Report (RSA-2) in 

FY 2020 through the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services 

(OSERS) to reduce reporting burden and incorporate federal financial reporting 

(SF-425) requirements. 

• Begin, through state VR agencies, collecting and reporting data on the revised 

RSA-911 for program year 2020 (beginning July 1 of FY 2020). In the meantime, 

OSERS, in partnership with WINTAC, is developing a training plan to provide 

technical assistance to state VR agencies to assist them with data collection and 

reporting consistent with the revised RSA-911 requirements. This training will 

begin in Quarter 1 of FY 2020. 

• Unveil two new tools to inform student decision-making in postsecondary education. In June of FY 2019, the Institute of Education Sciences announced two new 

awards of up to $200,000 for firms to develop and evaluate prototype web-based 

tools that inform student decision-making in postsecondary education. Specifically:

• The first project, a toolkit designed to inform student training and educational 

decision-making over a variety of potential pathways, aims to improve 

estimates of the return on investment (ROI) for different postsecondary 

education pathways. 

• The second project is a user-contextualized ROI tool that prospective 

students will use to make meaning of the lifetime costs and opportunity 

tradeoffs associated with different degree programs offered by postsecondary 

institutions. 

• Develop and implement a process to assess the Department’s organizational and 

human capacity to use data in support of evidence-based policymaking consistent 

with the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 3 109

Performance Measures

Table 3.3-A. Number of sessions dedicated to improved data use provided to external grantees 

and stakeholders presented by Department employees or their contractors or occurring at 

Department-hosted events.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — — 106 106 65 N/A N/A

Notes: (1) This metric will not be tracked for fiscal year (FY) 2020 forward. (2) Data are not available 

prior to FY 2018.

Data Source: Policy and Program Studies Services records collection.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2018 through September 2019.

Target

FY 2019

Actual

Table 3.3-B. Number of newly added publicly available datasets in machine-readable formats.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — — 126 93 36 N/A N/A

Notes: (1) This metric will not be tracked for fiscal year (FY) 2020 forward. (2) Data are not available 

prior to FY 2018.

Data Source: The Department’s public data listing.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2018 through September 2019.

FY 2019 

Actual

Target

Table 3.3-C. Percentage of discretionary grant competitions that include the requirement to openly 

license to the public copyrightable grant deliverables created with Department grant funds.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — — 72% 98% 80% N/A N/A

Notes: (1) This metric will not be tracked for fiscal year (FY) 2020 forward. (2) Data are not available 

prior to FY 2018.

Data Source: Information collection packages.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2018 through September 2019.

FY 2019 

Actual

Target
110 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Table 3.3-D. Number of data assets listed in a comprehensive data inventory that are made 

available to the Federal Data Catalogue with official determinations regarding “open-bydefault” requirements (new). 

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Target Target

— — — — — — — 15% 

increase

Notes: (1) This metric will be added in fiscal year (FY) 2020. (2) Prior year data are not applicable, as the establishment of a comprehensive 

data inventory was not a statutory requirement until FY 2019.

Data Source: The Department’s comprehensive data inventory.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2018 through September 2019. 
This page is intentionally left blank.
112 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Strategic Goal 4

Reform the effectiveness, efficiency and 

accountability of the Department.

GOAL LEADER: 

Assistant Secretary for Finance 

and Operations

GOAL 4 OBJECTIVES

Provide regulatory relief to 

educational institutions and 

reduce burden by identifying 

time-consuming regulations, 

processes and policies 

and working to improve 

or eliminate them, while 

continuing to protect taxpayers 

from waste and abuse.

Identify, assess, monitor and 

manage enterprise risks.

Strengthen the Department’s 

cybersecurity by enhancing 

protections for its information 

technology infrastructure, 

systems and data.

Improve the engagement 

and preparation of the 

Department’s workforce using 

professional development and 

accountability measures.

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

 Goal Spotlight:

As the Department seeks to serve students, it must 

also ensure that its own information technology (IT) 

is up to the task. For too long, the Department operated 

with outdated equipment that made it harder for its 

employees to do their work and more time-consuming 

to accomplish basic tasks. 

In the past year, the Office of the Chief Information 

Officer (OCIO) initiated a transformation of the 

Department’s IT infrastructure. This transition enabled 

the Department to reduce operating costs and increase 

productivity through the adoption of more modern 

technology and a suite of new tools that make the 

Department more efficient and secure.

Over the course of three months, OCIO successfully 

transitioned its core IT services and capabilities 

from a single decade-old contract to a modular set of 
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 4 113

new IT service contracts supported by multiple service providers. This transition allows 

for unprecedented agility, cost transparency, accountability, and resilience across the 

Department’s core IT services and capabilities.

This transition included the deployment of more than 4,900 new laptops that have 

significantly reduced boot-up times while improving accessibility and security. As a result, 

employee downtime due to slow laptop boot-up has been reduced by nearly 96 percent.

In addition to modernizing the Department’s laptops, OCIO deployed a new print 

capability comprised of high-efficiency, cloud-based, multi-functional printing devices 

that are secured by personal identification verification, enabling OCIO to reduce the fleet 

of printers by 55 percent and better monitor utilization to reduce the costs associated with 

toner, paper use, and maintenance.

Finally, OCIO successfully migrated more than 450 terabytes of data from its former IT 

environment to a Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program-authorized smart 

cloud for a government environment. This shift reduced storage costs by 92 percent from 

$1.43 per gigabyte to $0.12 per gigabyte. 

These efforts have transformed how the Department provides and accounts for IT service 

delivery and gives the Department the flexibility to address emerging IT needs in an agile 

and cost-conscious manner.

The following pages discuss the Department’s major accomplishments of the past fiscal 

year—October 1, 2018, through September 30, 2019—to achieve Goal 4 and its four 

underlying strategic objectives. While everything the Department accomplished within this 

timeframe is too vast to include, the following information provides a snapshot.

Metric Performance Overview

In FY 2019, the Department had 

11 metrics for this goal. Of those 11 metrics, 

eight metric targets were met or exceeded, 

one metric showed improvement in 

performance from the prior year but did not 

meet the established target, and two metrics 

performed below both this year’s target and 

the prior year’s performance.

1

2

3

4

5

6

Metrics

Objective 4.1 Objective 4.2 Objective 4.3 Objective 4.4

FY 2019 target not established

Met or exceeded the FY 2019 target

Improved from prior year but did not meet the FY 2019 target

Did not meet the FY 2019 target or prior year performance 
114 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Goal 4 Discretionary Resources

The following figure and table show total Goal 4 discretionary resources and examples of 

select major discretionary programs and activities supporting the goal, respectively.

Goal 4 Discretionary Resources

$0 $200 $700

Dollars (in millions)

$100 $300

$646.7

$623.0

$616.1

FY 2021 President’s Budget

FY 2020 Appropriation

FY 2019 Appropriation

$400 $500 $600

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities Supporting Goal 4 in Thousands

POC ACCT Objective Program

FY 2019 

Appropriation

FY 2020 

Appropriation

FY 2021 

President’s 

Budget

ALL DM/

PA

N/A Program Administration: 

Salaries and Expenses

$430,000 $430,000 $433,723

OCR OCR N/A Office for Civil Rights $125,000 $130,000 $130,000

Other N/A N/A All Other Programs $61,143 $63,000 $83,019

Note:

Discretionary resources listed here include Department programs that may contribute to multiple goals. A list of programs by 

goal is provided in appendix C.

Acronyms and Definitions:

POC = Principal Operating Component; ACCT = Account; ALL = All; DM/PA = Departmental Management/Program 

Administration; N/A = Not Applicable; and OCR = Office for Civil Rights.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 4 115

Strategic Objective: 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 

Provide regulatory relief to educational institutions and 

reduce burden by identifying time-consuming regulations, 

processes and policies and working to improve or eliminate them, while continuing to protect taxpayers from 

waste and abuse.

Objective Leaders: Senior Counselor to the Secretary and the Deputy General Counsel for 

Ethics, Legislative Counsel and Regulatory Services

Overview

Reducing regulatory burden on educational institutions and other stakeholders and 

improving internal decision-making processes will help ensure greater efficiencies in 

Department operations and more effective and efficient services to the public. 

Given the importance of protecting taxpayers from waste and abuse, all Department offices 

support this strategic objective. 

FY 2019 Annual Performance Report

Regulatory Burden Reduction. In fundamental ways, the Department’s work over the 

past two years has changed the landscape of education for years to come. Central to 

this revolutionary work has been a large span of regulatory and deregulatory efforts that 

will expand education options for students, help occupationally focused education meet 

current workforce needs, protect students who take out loans to finance their post-high 

school education and training, hold institutions of higher education (IHEs) accountable, 

and provide financial protections to taxpayers.

The estimated annual cost savings in fiscal year (FY) 2019 alone was $190.4 million due to 

the reduced need for states, IHEs, school districts, and individuals to collect information and 

comply with legal requirements (the reduction in time needed for these tasks is multiplied 

by applicable hourly wages to derive estimated cost savings).

Achieving these goals became an Agency Priority Goal (APG) for the Department for 

FY 2018 and FY 2019. For this APG, the Department conducted a comprehensive review 

of its regulations, guidance, and information collections to identify those that were 

overly burdensome, inconsistent with Administration priorities, unnecessary, outdated, 
116 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

or ineffective. The Department then determined whether such regulations, guidance, 

or information collections needed to be modified or rescinded, setting a goal to submit 

25 deregulatory actions to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval 

by the end of FY 2019. In the end, the Department far exceeded this goal, having sent 

40 deregulatory actions to OMB for approval during the past two fiscal years.

The Department also met or exceeded the other targets it set for this goal. For example, 

the Department targeted recommending three deregulatory actions to OMB in FY 2019; 

it ended the year having recommended 14. It also targeted issuing eight deregulatory 

actions in FY 2019; it ended the year having issued 18.

For these reasons, the Department designated strategic objective 4.1 as having “noteworthy performance” this past fiscal year. OMB, in published guidance to federal agencies, 

requires that the Department designate a strategic objective(s) as having had noteworthy 

performance. The criteria for this designation include that the intended results or improvements in ultimate outcomes represent a significant improvement in national welfare. As is 

explained in the following section, this is descriptive of the performance of this strategic 

objective in FY 2019.

Regulatory Guidance. In July, the Department published final regulations rescinding the 

gainful employment rule (effective July 1, 2020). This rule nominally required IHEs to provide 

their students with a degree or with gainful employment in a recognized occupation so that 

they can pay back their student loans. The Department determined that the prior regulations, 

in assessing whether students were eligible, relied on a debt-to-earnings rates formula that was 

fundamentally flawed and inconsistent with the requirements of currently available student 

loan repayment programs. The prior regulations also failed to properly account for factors 

other than institutional or program quality that directly influence student earnings and other 

outcomes, failed to provide transparency regarding program-level debt and earnings outcomes 

for all academic programs, and wrongfully targeted some academic programs and institutions 

while ignoring other programs that may result in lesser outcomes and higher student debt.

In September, the Department published final borrower defense to repayment (institutional 

accountability) regulations in the Federal Register. These regulations were the result of a 

two-year process to revise the regulations for Section 455(h) of the Higher Education Act 

of 1965 as amended, which authorizes the Secretary to specify in regulation which acts or 

omissions of an IHE a borrower may assert as a defense to repayment of a William D. Ford 

Federal Direct Loan (i.e., Direct Loan). 

The new regulations, effective for Direct Loans that are first disbursed on or after July 1, 

2020, are intended to provide a single federal standard for evaluating student assertions of a 

defense to repaying their Direct Loans. They also encourage a student to directly seek remedies from his or her school when acts or omissions by a school fail to provide the student 
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 4 117

with access to the educational or job placement opportunities promised. They also provide 

for actions the Secretary can take to collect from the schools the amount of financial loss 

due to successful borrower defense to repayment loan discharges. In this manner, the new 

regulations aim to ensure that schools, rather than taxpayers, bear the burden of billions of 

dollars in losses from approvals of borrower defense to repayment loan discharges.

The Department also prepared final regulations, to be issued in early FY 2020 and effective 

on and after July 1, 2020, to change the rules for accrediting agencies. Although the 

Department does not accredit educational institutions and/or programs, it does provide 

oversight over the postsecondary accreditation system through its review of all federally 

recognized accrediting agencies. The Department holds accrediting agencies accountable by 

ensuring they effectively enforce their accreditation standards when reviewing educational 

activities in the United States.

The changes provide students with a better ability to transfer credits between IHEs and 

enable more IHEs, including rural ones, to provide low-cost or no-cost dual enrollment 

opportunities to students while still in high school. These new regulations are also expected 

to speed up approval of new programs and curricular changes to ensure that what students 

learn in school keeps pace with the knowledge and skills employers demand in the 

workplace. They will also help students determine whether programs are likely to prepare 

them to meet the licensure or certification requirements in certain occupations.

In the past year, the Department also reached consensus agreements on distance 

education and innovation, Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education 

(TEACH) grants (which help students pay for college if they plan to become teachers in 

high-need fields in low-income areas), and the equitable treatment of faith-based entities 

and activities. Proposed regulations on these will be forthcoming in FY 2020.

The Department’s other final regulations submitted to OMB and published this past 

fiscal year included those for the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (Title II of 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act) and Program Regulations Superseded by 

Reauthorizations of the Perkins Act. These rules were rescinded because they were outdated 

by statutory reauthorizations.

Nonregulatory Guidance. In June, the Department released final nonregulatory guidance 

to support school districts in complying with the requirement that federal funds supplement 

not supplant state and local funds consistent with Section 1118 of Title I, Part A of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 as amended by the Every Student 

Succeeds Act. To comply with the supplement not supplant requirement, a school district 

need only show that its methodology to allocate state and local resources to schools does 

not take into account a school’s Title I status (i.e., the methodology is Title I neutral). For 

many school districts, the requirement can be met using the district’s current methodology 

for allocating state and local resources. The June guidance walks school districts through 

these rules. 
118 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

During FY 2019, the Department also modified or discontinued 10 information collection 

requests, which resulted in approximately $3.6 million in cost savings related to the time 

and burden it takes state agencies, school districts, and IHEs, among others, to complete 

information collection requests. The Department also launched or continued many 

collaborative projects to further the goals of this strategic objective. For example, a crossoffice workgroup on grants procedures, which originated from a recommendation of the 

Department’s Regulatory Reform Task Force (RRTF), continued its work to update the 

Department’s grants-related regulations.1

 The aim is for these new regulations to be in 

effect during FY 2020. A workgroup composed of the Department’s principal operating 

components (major offices), which also originated from a RRTF recommendation, created 

a one-stop shop for guidance via a web portal with a brief explanation of, and links to, each 

office’s guidance.

The Department worked to improve and streamline its competitive grants process with a 

goal of awarding more grants earlier in the fiscal year while maximizing alignment with 

the Secretary’s policy priorities. While some grants were awarded earlier than in recent 

years, the Department plans to demonstrate greater improvements in FY 2020. 

FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

In fiscal year (FY) 2020 and FY 2021, the Department will:

• Publish final regulations on accreditation and related issues in the Federal 

Register (expected in Quarter 1 of FY 2020).

• Continue to make regulatory relief an Agency Priority Goal and pledge, by 

September 30, 2021, to take no fewer than eight deregulatory actions, including 

reduction in paperwork burdens. These regulatory reform efforts will include:

• Revisions to the Department’s Title IX regulations under Title IX of the 

Education Amendments of 1972 (expected in Quarter 1 of FY 2020). In 

November 2018, the Department issued a notice of proposed rulemaking 

and will issue final regulations to address sexual harassment in any 

education program or activity to ensure that federal financial recipients 

understand their legal obligations under Title IX.

• Review and modify other Higher Education Act of 1965 regulations in 

critical areas, including distance education programs and innovation.

• Revise the Education Department General Administrative Regulations 

(EDGAR); a notice of proposed rulemaking is expected in Quarter 2 of 

FY 2020. The Department plans to review and amend or rescind specific 

EDGAR regulations as needed to be consistent with current law and reduce 

or eliminate unnecessary burdens and restrictions.

1The Regulatory Reform Task Force, which includes a wide cross section of the Department’s senior 

leaders, was established under Executive Order 13777 to review and reduce regulatory inefficiencies. 
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 4 119

Performance Measures

Table 4.1-A. Number of evaluations to identify potential Executive Order 13771 

deregulatory actions that included opportunity for public input and/or peer review.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

N/A N/A N/A N/A 6 2 2 3 TBD

Notes: (1) Data were updated from prior reporting. (2) The target for fiscal year (FY) 2021 is 

dependent, in part, on the deregulatory actions performed in FY 2020; this target will be 

established at the end of FY 2020. (3) FY 2014 through FY 2017 data are not applicable.

Data Source: Department reports to the Office of Management and Budget.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2018 through September 2019.

Target and 

FY 2019 

Actual

Table 4.1-B. Number of Executive Order 13771 deregulatory actions recommended by 

the Regulatory Reform Task Force to the agency head consistent with applicable law.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

N/A N/A N/A N/A 44 14 3 3 TBD

Notes: (1) Data were updated from prior reporting. (2) The target for fiscal year (FY) 2021 is 

dependent, in part, on the deregulatory actions performed in FY 2020; this target will be established at 

the end of FY 2020. (3) FY 2014 through FY 2017 data are not applicable.

Data Source: Department records.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2018 through September 2019.

FY 2019 

Actual

Target

Table 4.1-C. Number of Executive Order 13771 deregulatory actions issued that address 

recommendations by the Regulatory Reform Task Force.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

N/A N/A N/A N/A 23 18 8 3 TBD

Notes: (1) Data were updated from prior reporting. (2) The target for fiscal year (FY) 2021 is 

dependent, in part, on the deregulatory actions performed in FY 2020; this target will be 

established at the end of FY 2020. (3) FY 2014 through FY 2017 data are not applicable.

Data Source: Federal Register and https://www.ed.gov/.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2018 through September 2019.

FY 2019 

Actual

Target
120 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Table 4.1-D. Number of Executive Order (EO) 13771 regulatory actions and, separately, 

EO 13771 deregulatory actions issued.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

N/A N/A N/A N/A 27 18 10 4 4

Notes: (1) Data were updated from prior reporting. (2) Fiscal year (FY) 2014 through FY 2017 data are 

not applicable.

Data Source: Federal Register and https://www.ed.gov/.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2018 through September 2019.

FY 2019 

Actual

Target

Table 4.1-E. Total incremental cost of all Executive Order (EO) 13771 regulatory actions and 

EO 13771 deregulatory actions (including costs or cost savings carried over from previous 

fiscal years).

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

N/A N/A N/A N/A

−$5.2 

million 

(annual)

−$80.5 

million 

(present 

value)

−$190.4 

million 

(annual)

−$3.56 

billion 

(present 

value)

−$194 

million 

(annual)

−$3.1 

billion 

(present 

value)

TBD TBD

Notes: (1) The Department is not far enough along in applicable regulatory processes to estimate costs 

for fiscal year (FY) 2020. (2) The target for FY 2021 is dependent, in part, on the deregulatory actions 

performed in FY 2020; this target will be established at the end of FY 2020. (3) FY 2014 through 

FY 2017 data are not applicable. (4) FY 2019 target was met, in part.

Data Source: Department reports to the Office of Management and Budget.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2018 through September 2019.

FY 2019 

Actual

Target
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 4 121

Table 4.1-F. Number of deregulatory actions submitted to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB).

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

N/A N/A N/A N/A 24 16 3 4 TBD

Notes: (1) Data were updated from prior reporting. (2) The target for fiscal year (FY) 2021 is 

dependent, in part, on the deregulatory actions performed in FY 2020; this target will be 

established at the end of FY 2020. (3) FY 2014 through FY 2017 data are not applicable.

Data Source: Reginfo.gov and emails between the Department and OMB.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2018 through September 2019.

FY 2019 

Actual

Target
122 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Strategic Objective: 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 

Identify, assess, monitor and manage enterprise risks.

Objective Leader: Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Finance and Operations

Overview

The Department continues to develop its Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) program to 

strategically align risk management efforts with the agency’s overall mission, objectives, 

and priorities. The Department’s approach to ERM is to focus on the complete spectrum 

of the organization’s significant risks and the combined impact of those risks as an interrelated portfolio rather than simply addressing risks within silos. This coordinated approach 

leverages data and analytical solutions to identify, measure, and assess challenges related 

to mission delivery and resource management. Through ERM, the Department seeks to 

embed a systematic and deliberate view of risk into its management practices, ultimately 

yielding more effective performance and operational outcomes. 

Accordingly, recognizing the significant growth in the scope and complexity of Federal 

Student Aid’s (FSA’s) responsibilities since its establishment as a performance-based organization more than 20 years ago, the President’s fiscal year 2021 budget proposes the evaluation of FSA as a separate organization with reformed governance.

FSA has an established risk management program; the Department’s ERM program resides 

in the Office of Finance and Operations. Due to the inherent cross-cutting nature of ERM, 

all Department offices support this strategic objective. 

FY 2019 Annual Performance Report

Senior Management Council—Primary Governance Body. In fiscal year (FY) 2019, 

the Department renewed its focus on greater oversight of matters related to Department 

operations and management, including internal control deficiencies, risk management, 

monitoring, and assessment of significant management challenges, audits, business 

processes and controls (including grants and contracts), and other areas of concern to the 

Department’s senior leadership. The Department’s Senior Management Council, chaired 

by the Deputy Secretary, served as the primary governance body for the Department in 

these areas.

Enterprise Risk Management. The Department took further steps to strengthen its 

Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) program by establishing a dedicated team within the 
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 4 123

Office of Finance and Operations (OFO) to lead these efforts. The team was specifically 

designed to include individuals with cross-cutting expertise in risk management, internal 

controls, data analysis, process development, project management, program evaluation, 

and strategic management. In FY 2019, the team became active in the Federal ERM 

Community of Practice led by the U.S. Department of Treasury.

The team also gained additional insight on best practices and implementation by cultivating 

strong partnerships with the Department’s own Federal Student Aid (FSA) Enterprise Risk 

Management Office. FSA is widely recognized for establishing the federal government’s 

first ERM program in 2004, and, in FY 2019, it continued to expand its ERM capabilities across all aspects of the ERM system, including governance and culture, strategy and 

objective setting, performance and communication, and reporting. FSA also continued to 

build on its portfolio view of risk, analyzing and incorporating changes in the business 

and operating environments. Cybersecurity and fraud risk areas of focus have continued 

to develop with the creation of formalized frameworks that integrate within the overall 

ERM system. These frameworks, once finalized, will detail the specific processes in place 

for identifying, monitoring, mitigating, and reporting on cybersecurity and fraud risks 

throughout the student aid life cycle. Specific areas addressed in the frameworks include 

governance, approach, execution, communication, and evaluation.

Additionally, FSA developed its first formal risk appetite statement to assist the organization in determining appropriate risk responses and increasing consistency and transparency 

in decision-making throughout the organization. Leaders at all levels of the organization 

were involved in this effort to ensure identified risk tradeoffs were appropriately identified 

and reflected an alignment with FSA’s mission, goals, and objectives. 

FSA continues to identify, assess, and monitor its risks and corresponding mitigation strategies to support meeting its strategic goals and objectives. Results are included in a monthly 

risk compendium that provides risk intelligence for risk-based decision-making across FSA.

Efficacy of the Department’s ERM program is measured through advancements in risk 

management culture, capability, and practice. The collective achievements of the OFO and 

FSA ERM teams—particularly in areas of program governance; alignment with internal 

controls; risk appetite statements; and appropriately defined roles, responsibilities, and 

resources—effectively advanced the program’s overall maturity level beyond the FY 2019 

target (i.e., 2.5). By the final quarter of the fiscal year, the Department’s ERM program 

maturity level was 2.8 (i.e., in the “Emerging” stage) and demonstrated growth over last 

year’s “Nascent” determination. This was significant progress toward the 3.0 maturity level 

(i.e., “Integrated”).

Management Challenges. In FY 2019, the Department also made progress in addressing 

specific areas of risk. For example, the U.S. Department of Education FY 2019 Management 

Challenges report, issued in October 2018 by the Department’s Office of Inspector General 
124 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

(OIG), identified the following four areas of risk that continue to pose the most significant 

challenges for the Department: 

• Improper payments.

• Information technology (IT) security.

• Oversight and monitoring.

• Data quality and reporting.

These were the same four areas of significant challenges OIG identified in FY 2018. All 

areas saw improvements during FY 2019 but continue to remain management challenges. 

The following tables identify each of the four management challenges along with some of 

the Department’s notable accomplishments.

Management Challenge 1—Improper Payments: The Department provides 

billions of dollars to support students and must work with states and schools to 

ensure funds reach the intended recipients in the right amounts.

Accountable 

Official: 

Department’s Chief Financial Officer and FSA’s Chief Financial Officer

Notable 

Accomplishments:

Most of the direct assistance the federal government provides to postsecondary 

students comes through programs for the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan 

(Direct Loan) and the Federal Pell Grant (Pell). The Department identified 

these programs as susceptible to greater vulnerability to improper payments. 

In addition, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated these 

programs as high-priority programs, and, as such, they are thus subject to greater 

levels of oversight. 

A primary cause of improper payments in the Pell program is failure to 

accurately verify financial data. The Department continues to take action to 

improve its payment integrity by addressing this management challenge on 

several fronts, including the following:

• The Department coordinated with the U.S. Department of the Treasury and 

OMB to pursue legislation for an exemption to the Internal Revenue Code 

(IRC) Section 6103 that would authorize the Internal Revenue Service to 

disclose tax return information directly to the Department for the purpose 

of administering programs authorized by Title IV of the Higher Education 

Act of 1965, through which the Department awarded more than $122 billion 

in FY 2019. Several bills have been introduced in Congress to allow the 

disclosure of tax return information to authorized Department officials 

for purposes of determining eligibility for, and the amount of, federal 

student financial aid. The Department expects the exemption will allow for 

significant simplification of and improvement to the administration of 

Title IV programs, including reduction in improper payments.

• The President’s FY 2020 budget request includes a payment integrity section 

that provides proposals for government-wide improvements to address 

improper payments. It also includes specific proposals for the Department, 

including the IRC Section 6103 exemption referenced previously, improved 

selection of applicants for income verification reviews, and the selection of 

schools with higher risk of improper payments for FSA program compliance 

reviews. The new method for selection of applicants for income verification
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 4 125

was implemented in October for users of the Free Application for Federal 

Student Aid® who were applying for aid for award year 2019–2020. It will allow 

FSA to better identify applicants for whom errors would result in a change in 

their federal aid award and potentially reduce improper payments.

In FY 2019, the Department implemented a statistically valid methodology based 

on a random sample of the complete population of nearly 6,000 institutions of 

higher education (IHEs) and used data from the compliance audits performed by 

external auditors for those IHEs rather than the prior non-statistical methodology 

that used a smaller, non-random sample of a subset of schools selected for 

program reviews.

Based on the new methodology, the FY 2019 Direct Loan improper payment rate 

is 0.52 percent ($483.14 million) and 2.23 percent ($646.14 million) for Pell. 

This compares to the FY18 total improper payment amount of $6,055.25 million.

Management Challenge 2—IT Security: Department systems contain data that 

must remain accessible to the Department’s partners while protected from threats.

Accountable 

Official: 

Department’s Chief Information Officer

Notable 

Accomplishments:

OIG’s work related to IT identified control weaknesses and ineffective security 

management programs that the Department should address to adequately protect 

its systems and data. The Department continues to take action to improve its 

IT security by addressing this management challenge. Examples of actions are 

described. 

During FY 2019, the Department successfully completed an IT migration that 

transitioned core IT services and capabilities to new service providers. This 

transition has enabled the Department to avoid various costs with the deployment 

of more effective hardware, increased productivity through upgraded technology, 

and the deployment of new tools that, together, will make the Department more 

efficient and secure. Examples of the new tools and capabilities deployed through 

this transition are improved spam filtering and anti-phishing policies through the 

Department’s email service provider. In addition, the Department implemented 

geo-blocking at the Department’s Managed Trusted Internet Protocol Service, 

which enhances its ability to block malicious actors from known bad locations.

In FY 2019, the Department revised the Information Security Program’s policy 

framework to include a new review and approval process for cybersecurity 

policies, standards, and instructions. This process now includes automated 

workflows, pre-defined review timelines, and delegated approval authorities that 

improve the Department’s ability to provide critical time-sensitive guidance and 

requirements to Department IT systems stakeholders.

The Department also made significant progress in efforts to maintain an accurate 

system inventory, communicate the impact of identified cybersecurity risks, and 

actively manage its Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&Ms). As part of this 

ongoing work, the Department continued to publish Cybersecurity Framework 

(CSF) Risk Scorecards, which provide a data analysis tool for authorizing 

officials, information system owners (ISOs), and information system security 

officers (ISSOs) to prioritize and mitigate risks to the Department’s information 

systems. The CSF Risk Scorecard was enhanced in FY 2019 to allow for 

automated risk scoring, improved accessibility, more granular and user-friendly 

data filtering capabilities, and enhanced data modeling. To drive accountability,
126 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

OCIO increased cybersecurity communications and reporting across the 

Department. This effort ensured the consistent communication of CSF Risk 

Scorecard results, phishing exercises, and current cyber threats through 

targeted briefings for specific stakeholder groups from ISOs and ISSOs to the 

Department’s executive leadership. The increased communication and continued 

use of the CSF Risk Scorecards enabled the Department to prioritize resources 

to resolve identified vulnerabilities. This prioritization led to the closure of 

all past-due POA&Ms for the Department’s high value assets. Overall, the 

Department has reduced total POA&Ms by more than 83 percent and delayed 

POA&Ms by 95 percent.

In the metric domain of Identity and Access Management, the Department made 

substantial progress in the development of its enterprise Identity Credential and 

Access Management (ICAM) solution. ICAM will provide the Department with 

the ability to manage, centrally and securely, enterprise identity, user accounts, 

and user roles within and across Department systems and applications. ICAM 

will also provide the ability to automate the creation, modification, and removal 

of identities, accounts and roles throughout enterprise systems. In FY 2020, the 

Department will deploy the ICAM solution into the Department’s production 

environment and will begin the process of onboarding systems and applications.

In the metric domain of Information Security Continuous Monitoring, the 

Department worked with the Department of Homeland Security to mature its 

Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation (CDM) implementation by incorporating 

additional program elements of the Dynamic and Evolving Federal Enterprise 

Network Defense (DEFEND) series of task orders. The Department is currently 

in the discovery and analysis phase for the following CDM projects: 

• CDM DEFEND-E Asset Management Gap Fill: The Department will 

achieve a more comprehensive view and accurate security assessment of 

endpoints on its network.

• CDM DEFEND-E Bound-Encryption: The Department will gain 

the ability to collect data from hardware, software, and cryptographic 

implementation configuration settings.

Finally, during FY 2019, the Department engaged with nongovernment 

organizations to expand and improve information sharing and communication 

to protect students from cyber threats. The Department believes there are 

opportunities for it to contribute operationally, tactically, and strategically 

to strengthen cybersecurity protections within educational communities that 

use Department systems and access Department data through collaborative 

engagements with IT and cybersecurity leadership in educational communities. 

For example, in FY 2019, the Department was able to leverage its relationship 

with educational communities to quickly collaborate on a cybersecurity alert and 

enlist assistance with promulgating the message.

In summation, the Department has managed a significant amount of transition 

risk and made significant progress during FY 2019 to strengthen its information 

security program. The new infrastructure, processes, and tools deployed 

in FY 2019 created a prime environment for further growth in maturing its 

programs in FY 2020.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 4 127

Management Challenge 3—Oversight and Monitoring: The Department must 

provide effective oversight and monitoring of participants in the student financial 

assistance programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965 to ensure that the 

programs are not subject to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement; such 

monitoring and oversight are also essential for ensuring that grantees meet grant 

requirements and achieve program goals and objectives.

Accountable 

Official: 

Assistant Secretary for the Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy 

Development and the Deputy Chief Operating Officer for Strategic Measures and 

Outcomes for FSA

Notable 

Accomplishments:

FSA took action to improve its performance. Specifically, FSA:

• Launched Next Generation Financial Services Environment (Next Gen FSA) 

through which it will restructure its systems, processes, and contracts to 

introduce greater accountability based on more targeted standards, metrics, 

incentives, and disincentives to drive outstanding performance, particularly 

from its loan servicers. 

• Continued the implementation of risk-based oversight and monitoring of 

student financial assistance participants and grant recipients, including 

correction of audit findings. 

• Established a new office for operational improvement and oversight 

focusing on enhancing enterprise-wide quality assurance and internal and 

quality controls related to servicers and vendors. 

• Implemented an improved model for verification selection and evaluation 

of data elements from the federal student aid application to better identify 

applicants for whom errors would result in a change in their federal aid 

award, potentially reducing improper payments.

The Department also provided oversight and monitoring of grant recipients and 

supported state and local efforts. Specifically, the Department:

• Provided training covering basic to advanced strategies and resources for 

monitoring formula and discretionary grants, increasing expertise to provide 

effective oversight. 

• Implemented a performance review system designed to provide effective 

performance management and support to states in administering Title I and 

other grant programs. 

• Revised the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education’s (OESE’s) 

Guide to Program and Grantee Risk Management to more systematically 

identify and assess the level of risk associated with grant programs and 

entities and established a risk management team in OESE’s Management 

and Support Office to implement the revised guide. 

• Established an OESE consolidated monitoring standard operating procedure 

to more efficiently examine the implementation of federal programs 

administered by state education agencies. 

• Established the Office of Evidence-Based Practices and the Office of State 

and Grantee Relations within OESE to, among other objectives, improve 

customer service to grantees and states to help them improve student 

outcomes. Specifically, the offices developed protocols for tracking technical 

assistance questions that can determine aspects of risk. 
128 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Management Challenge 4—Data Quality and Reporting: The Department, states, 

and schools must have effective controls to ensure that reported data are accurate, 

reliable, and accessible to improve the use of that data at the Department and in 

the education community.

Accountable 

Official: 

Department’s Chief Data Officer (CDO)

Notable 

Accomplishments:

Under Goal 3 of its Strategic Plan, the Department has committed to 

strengthening the quality, accessibility, and use of education data. The President 

and Congress have provided the Department with additional authority and 

responsibility to manage education data as a strategic asset with the January 2019 

enactment of the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018

(Evidence Act) and the July 2019 release of implementation guidance from the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB), M-19-23. OMB updated its guidance 

on the Information Quality Act (M-19-15), which requires the Department to 

review the quality of information in each product it disseminates based on the 

information’s likely use. In this context, the Department is developing a coherent 

and coordinated approach to data governance, data management, and data quality 

to ensure that education data provide high value for internal decision-makers and 

external stakeholders. Accomplishments include the following:

• In response to Evidence Act requirements, the Department named a CDO, 

an Evaluation Officer, and a Statistical Official (SO), each of whom has 

responsibility for data quality within his or her sphere of authority. To 

facilitate coordination and in adherence to OMB guidance, the Department 

worked to establish an agency-wide Data Governance Board chaired by 

the CDO and composed of other senior agency officials from across the 

Department. The CDO also leads the Department’s new Office of the 

Chief Data Officer, which is responsible for managing and improving the 

Department’s ability to leverage its data routinely for program operations 

and to inform policy.

• The Department continues to support complementary data governance 

initiatives, including a Data Strategy Team (DST) and the EDFacts Data 

Governance Board (EDGB). During FY 2019, DST offered 10 data 

management trainings to 15 Department offices and developed eight data 

governance and management tools and templates for Department offices. 

DST also assisted OESE in planning and managing its Data Governance 

Team, which was created to better understand the data collected by the office 

and create OESE-wide strategies and standards for use throughout the data 

lifecycle. Specifically:

• EDFacts is the Department’s consolidated data reporting system for 

administrative data required by formula and discretionary grant awards. 

Each year, technical, process, and human solutions are implemented in 

an effort to improve data quality. During FY 2019, all business rules 

used within the EDFacts system were consolidated into a Business 

Rules Single Inventory document available to states to support their 

efforts to build internal controls.

• EDGB continues to improve the coordination and collaboration among 

offices using submitted data on graduation rates. This has resulted 

in consistent feedback to states in a timelier fashion and has helped 

identify questionable data; in turn, this has resulted in the Department 

following up with state data submitters. All identified issues were 

resolved through resubmission or explained through data quality 

comments from the states.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 4 129

Notable 

Accomplishments:

• The Evidence Act also charges the SO with providing advice on statistical 

policy, techniques, and procedures to agency officials engaged in statistical 

activities. The SO serves as the agency champion for data quality by, for 

example, validating data; identifying data needs; building interoperability of 

data from its inception; improving collection, analysis, and dissemination; 

and seeking input from stakeholders. The SO oversees development of data 

quality standards to ensure that quality standards described in the Information 

Quality Act and Paperwork Reduction Act are met for statistical products. For 

example, implementing data quality standards have included the following:

• The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) supports the 

Common Education Data Standards (CEDS), a voluntary, field-driven 

system of data standards for prekindergarten through workforce data. 

By providing a common vocabulary to discuss the meaning of data 

elements, CEDS helps states speak more clearly and transparently to 

those who provide data to the state (e.g., school districts) and those who 

would request the data (e.g., researchers). 

• NCES meets with state- and system-level data providers to inform 

them of upcoming changes to the Integrated Postsecondary Education 

Data System (IPEDS) so they can help institutions in their state/system 

with accurate reporting. NCES is also working with the Association for 

Institutional Research (AIR) to improve and enhance online and face-toface workshops to help postsecondary data providers understand how to 

report correctly to IPEDS. During the past fiscal year, the Department 

worked with AIR to develop a new Student Success Metrics workshop 

to improve reporting for the Outcome Measures and Graduation Rates 

survey components.

• The State Longitudinal Data Systems grant program supports states’

efforts to design, develop, and implement data systems that efficiently 

and accurately manage, analyze, disaggregate, and use individual 

student data. FY 2019 grants include an infrastructure priority area to 

help states seeking to modernize or improve their data systems. 

• OESE continued to improve its data verification process in FY 2019 by 

expanding data quality checks, including at the school district level, and 

increasing standardization. In addition, OESE increased its investment 

in data quality by leveraging the Policy and Planning Support Service’s 

Analysis, Resources, and Quality Assurance contract. 
130 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

In fiscal year (FY) 2020 and FY 2021, the Department will:

• Continue to build a comprehensive Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) program 

by developing a more risk-aware culture at all levels of the organization. 

• Expand ERM capacity to maximize performance and operational outcomes by 

leveraging data and analytical solutions to successfully identify and manage 

risks, strengthen internal controls through process improvement, and inform 

decision-making. 

• Revise the Department’s Risk Profile template and ERM maturity model. 

• Develop a formal risk appetite statement for the Department to communicate a 

transparent view of risk to stakeholders. 

• Integrate internal control activities (financial and operational controls) with ERM 

to incorporate risk information into decision-making processes, including resource 

allocation and performance improvement.

• Continue to keep the four management challenges identified by the Department’s 

Office of Inspector General as areas of top priority. To address these issues, the 

Department will continue a coordinated range of actions, including the following:

• Improper Payments:

§ Work with the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Office of 

Management and Budget to implement the exemption to the Internal 

Revenue Code Section 6103, which generally prohibits the Internal 

Revenue Service from the release of tax information to other parties. 

§ Apply a statistically valid and rigorous estimation methodology to 

calculate estimated improper payment rates. Continue to expand, 

develop, and implement corrective actions to drive reductions in 

improper payments.

• Information Technology Security:

§ Consolidate, mature, and optimize tier 1 and tier 2 operations of the 

Security Operations Center. 

§ Mature the Department’s Identity Credentialing & Access Management 

program through the development of a centralized identity system.

• Oversight and Monitoring:

§ Disseminate risk reports to staff, including for Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education programs and grantees.

§ Continue to identify gaps in technical assistance and develop strategies to support discretionary grantees and state and local educational 

agencies.

§ Improve Department processes to provide timely and effective guidance 

and technical assistance to grantees. 
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 4 131

§ Identify employee skill gaps and develop strategies to close those gaps, 

including training, workforce engagement initiatives, and succession 

plans.

§ Continue risk-based oversight and monitoring of student financial assistance participants and grant recipients, including correction of audit 

findings.

• Data Quality and Reporting:

§ Implement requirements and provisions of the Foundations for 

Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 around increased access 

and open procedures for public releases of data that continue to ensure 

improved levels of data quality.

§ Regularly convene the Department’s Data Governance Board, gathering 

input from across the Department to develop and enforce sound data 

governance policy and process decisions through the Office of the Chief 

Data Officer.

§ Set and enforce policies for managing data as a strategic asset. 

§ Select a data maturity assessment model, which will be used in FY 2020 

to evaluate the current state of the Department’s data and data-related 

infrastructure.

§ Develop a learning agenda that will use education data to answer priority 

questions for the Department. For example, the Department will: (1) use 

high-quality data to understand “what works” in technical assistance 

so the Department can improve its return on investment for these 

resource-intensive activities and (2) use data to inform the Department’s 

performance information and measurement against strategic objectives. 

§ Develop a new set of program effectiveness measures for the Office of 

Postsecondary Education’s discretionary grant programs by September 

30, 2020, including collection of improved program outcome data to 

determine the extent to which program goals are achieved and document program effectiveness. 
132 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Performance Measures

Table 4.2-A. Improve maturity level of Enterprise Risk Management (ERM).

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — — 1.50 2.80 2.50 3.00 3.25

Notes: (1) The current ERM maturity model is graded on a 5.00 scale. (2) Fiscal year (FY) 2014 

through FY 2017 data are not available; the Department adopted the ERM maturity model in FY 2018.

Data Source: Office of the Chief Financial Officer calculations.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2018 through September 2019.

FY 2019 

Actual

Target
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 4 133

Strategic Objective: 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 

Strengthen the Department’s cybersecurity by enhancing 

protections for its information technology infrastructure, 

systems and data.

Objective Leader: Chief Information Officer

Overview

Improved cybersecurity is a key contributor to ensuring the Department’s systems and data 

are protected, which will provide a strong foundation for the Department’s information 

technology infrastructure. As such, the Department will provide proactive cybersecurity 

services, monitor and enhance threat intelligence capabilities, explore shared services and 

cloud capabilities, and improve its cybersecurity workforce. 

All Department offices support this strategic objective given the focus on cybersecurity.

FY 2019 Annual Performance Report

Protecting the Department’s data—and the systems that house that data—is critical to all 

of the work of the Department. Without a sustained focus on cybersecurity, the Department 

would be unable to function effectively. The Department’s work in this area this fiscal year 

was extensive and wide-ranging.

Cybersecurity Risk Management. The Department closed 3,690 items from its Plan of 

Action and Milestones (POA&Ms). These are the current disposition of any discovered 

vulnerabilities and system findings and the intended corrective actions for those findings. 

There was such a large amount of POA&M closures that the Department moved from 

moderate to low in overall risk based on the Department’s Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 

Risk Scorecard, which assesses the overall cybersecurity risks facing the Department.

Security Operations Center Maturation Plan. The Office of the Chief Information Officer 

(OCIO), in collaboration with Federal Student Aid (FSA), developed the Department’s 

Security Operations Center (SOC) maturation plan in accordance with the Office of 

Management and Budget’s M-19-02.

The 18-month plan identifies and describes a timeline of immediate executable actions 

that consolidate and improve Department-wide SOC activities across the Department and 
134 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

FSA environments. These actions include governance, staffing requirements, training, 

workforce, situational awareness, and a coordinated acquisition strategy for implementation. This plan enhances risk visibility throughout the Department and eliminates 

duplications in actions.

Reports and Guidance. In April, the Department replaced its existing guidance on CSF 

to align with the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s CSF. The Department’s 

previous guidance led to corrective action recommendations from the Department’s Office 

of Inspector General, as noted in an October report. The new guidance reduces review and 

approval timelines and provides alignment with budget and risk reporting processes. It also 

allows system owners to identify and prioritize opportunities for improvement within the 

context of a continuous and repeatable process while also communicating with stakeholders 

about cybersecurity opportunities and risks.

The Department also instituted a new practice of disseminating Cybersecurity Assessment 

and Management (CSAM) discrepancy reports to its information systems security officers 

and information system owners. Getting these reports out to staff facilitated updates to 

CSAM records for systems displaying poor data quality and improved the accuracy of 

the Department’s systems inventory and data. During fiscal year (FY) 2019, there was an 

overall reduction in CSAM data discrepancies from 413 to 174 records.

OCIO also updated, issued, or revised 28 cybersecurity governance documents, including 

instructional policies, standards, Department memos, and policy framework refresh 

presentations. In June, the Department’s Chief Information Officer (CIO) assumed 

responsibility as the authorizing official for all high value assets as well as high and 

moderate impact systems. This change in delegation of authority provides greater oversight 

of the Department’s most important information technology (IT) systems and allows 

for the CIO to determine acceptable levels of risk for each system.

Contracts. The Department updated its standards for cybersecurity contract language 

for use in its IT contracts. The Office of Acquisition Management issued an acquisition 

alert notifying contracting officers and contract specialists. Successful bidders must have 

these new elements in place at the time of receiving an IT contract. Final updates were 

incorporated into a Department acquisition regulation, with an anticipated release in 

Quarter 1 of FY 2020.

Employees. There has also been increased attention to cybersecurity issues for the 

Department’s employees, with fewer employees having their accounts suspended for 

failure to complete required training in a timely manner. Additionally, an increasing 

number of employees in FY 2019 were following protocol to report suspected phishing 

attempts.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 4 135

The Department also established a new virtual private network (VPN) capability that 

enforces personal identity verification-only multifactor authentication and provides 

advance threat protection for all Portfolio of Integrated Value-Oriented Technologies 

(PIVOT) VPN sessions.

Training Exercises. OCIO conducted Department-level, system-tailored tabletop 

exercises focused on system contingency planning in the event of a cyber incident and 

how the Department would respond to such an incident. During FY 2019, 96 percent of the 

Department’s Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 reportable systems 

completed the contingency plan test, and 156 of the Department’s 163 systems were tested 

using this enterprise approach. Feedback reports were provided to system stakeholders on 

weaknesses and opportunities for improvement to their contingency plans.

FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

In fiscal year (FY) 2020 and FY 2021, the Department will:

• Award a blanket purchase agreement in Quarter 1 of FY 2020 and initial task orders 

in Quarter 2 of FY 2020 for the Department’s Security Operations Center maturation plan in accordance with Office of Management and Budget’s M-19-02. 

• Mature the Department’s portfolio of cybersecurity shared services, standardize 

processes and reporting, and employ automation where possible to reduce operating costs and streamline management of cybersecurity functions.

• Expand analytics and real-time threat information sharing to improve enterprisewide cybersecurity situational awareness, incident detection, and tactical response.

• Continue to develop, by Quarter 2 of FY 2020, a comprehensive Departmental 

Vulnerability Management Program, complete with policies and guidance on practices for the proper evaluation of vulnerability management and the unification of 

vulnerability management technology and programs across the Department’s new 

information technology infrastructure.

• Ensure all mission-critical applications and infrastructure have sufficient continuity 

of operations and disaster recovery capabilities.
136 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Performance Measures

Table 4.3-A. Percentage of the Department’s Information Technology (IT) security 

functions that improved at least one maturity level. 

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — —

Identify 

(level 3),

Protect 

(level 2),

Detect 

(level 2),

Respond 

(level 2),

Recover 

(level 2)

1 of 5 

(20%)

0 of 5 

(0%) 40% 60% 60%

Notes: (1) Targets were updated from prior reporting to account for delays incurred in fiscal year (FY) 2019 

and anticipated Office of Inspector General (OIG) audit criteria changes. (2) The IT security model 

consists of five functional areas scored on a 5.0 scale. (3) FY 2014 through FY 2016 data are not available; 

the model was first implemented in FY 2017.

Data Source: Annual (fiscal year) OIG Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 Reporting 

Metrics Audit Report.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2018 through September 2019.

Y 2019 

ctual

Target

F

A
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 4 137

Strategic Objective: 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 

Improve the engagement and preparation of the Department’s workforce using professional development and 

accountability measures.

Objective Leader: Chief Human Capital Officer

Overview

The Department will continue to build the skills and knowledge of its workforce and will 

transition from identifying competency gaps to prioritizing learning and development 

opportunities and identifying best practices for closing competency gaps. Furthermore, the 

Department will continue to improve the organizational structure and internal decisionmaking processes and spur opportunities to involve employees in thinking differently 

about strategies to reengineer, streamline, or even eliminate work that does not serve the 

efficiency of the Department in achieving its strategic goals and overall mission.

Given its focus on the Department’s workforce, all Department offices support this strategic 

objective.

FY 2019 Annual Performance Report

The Department is designing an organization for success in accordance with the President’s 

Comprehensive Plan for Reorganizing the Executive Branch. In the past fiscal year, the 

Department reorganized, seeking to be more efficient, effective, and accountable by 

reducing redundancy in the Department’s work, maximizing employee and organizational 

efficiency, and better leveraging staff’s substantial knowledge and expertise.

The reorganization resulted in the consolidation of the Office of the Secretary and the 

Office of the Deputy Secretary; the integration of the Office of Innovation and Improvement 

into the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education; the merger of the Office of the 

Chief Financial Officer with the Office of Management to create a new Office of Finance 

and Operations (OFO); and the integration of certain functions of the Office of the Chief 

Information Officer, Office of the Deputy Secretary, and Office of Planning, Evaluation, 

and Policy Development (OPEPD) into OFO. The Department also created a new Office of 

the Chief Data Officer within OPEPD.

The other ways in which the Department changed how it operates were equally 

fundamental.
138 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Enhanced On-site Collaborations. The Department sought to bring more employees 

on-site for collaboration, both within an individual office and across offices. Reducing 

options for telework also helped the Department with its aim of improving accountability.

Enhanced Employee Engagement. In addition to having its employees on-site more 

often, the Department sought to keep its employees engaged in what they do. When 

compared to fiscal year (FY) 2018, the Department increased the percentage of managers 

and supervisors who have employee engagement as a critical element in their 

performance plans by more than 20 percent (see metric 4.4-A); ultimately, however, 

the Department did not meet its FY 2019 target for this metric.

Additionally, the Department provided focused support to work units with Employee 

Engagement Index scores in the bottom 20 percent of the FY 2018 Federal Employee 

Viewpoint Survey (FEVS). It encouraged each of its major offices, known as principal 

operating components, to develop employee engagement action plans to drive employee 

engagement in their specific areas. By the end of the fiscal year, 12 out of 14 participating 

offices had such plans. Best practices from these plans, as measured by how the offices do 

on the annual FEVS, will be compiled to establish a “what works” bank of strategies for 

offices to use.

Additionally, the Department targeted for improvement the seven offices whose scores 

on the FY 2018 FEVS landed them in the lowest 20 percent in the Department; the 

targeting was a strategy to help boost the Department’s overall FEVS scores in FY 2019 

(see metric 4.4-A). The actual employee engagement index score for the year, 62 percent, 

fell short of the annual target of 64 percent. However, 10 of 17 work units (58 percent) 

received a positive increase in their employee engagement scores in FY 2019 compared to 

FY 2018.

OFO also redesigned the Department’s employee engagement roadmap to align with the 

Office of Personnel Management’s key engagement drivers (i.e., performance feedback, 

collaborative management, merit system principles, training and development, and work/

life balance). It then incorporated the drivers into the Department’s employee engagement 

action plan template. OFO also developed engagement driver trend analysis reports for each 

principal office. These reports, when coupled with the roadmap and action plan templates, 

were crucial to providing leadership teams across the Department with synchronized 

employee engagement action planning tools.

Improvement of Employee Competencies. The Department also forged ahead with 

its plans to become the first federal agency to assess employee competencies across all 

job series and take action to ensure employees get training if they are found to lack a 

key skill for the job series. This multiyear, enterprise-wide project covers 59 job series, 

entails five phases, and has a target completion date of FY 2025.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 4 139

During this past fiscal year, which was phase 2 of the project, competency assessments 

were sent to 3,330 employees, with 52 percent of staff responding (220 supervisors 

and 1,506 nonsupervisors). The topmost notable core strengths for all grades and job 

series—where the Department, on average, exceeded proficiency expectations—included 

customer service, interpersonal skills, integrity and self-management, and ethics. The 

most notable skills gaps (where the Department, on average, did not meet proficiency 

expectations) included formula grants management; workforce planning; network and 

telecommunications technology; and legal, legislative, and administrative matters. This 

determination of the skills gap established a baseline that will be used in future years by 

OFO to partner with offices to prioritize learning and development opportunities and to 

share best practices for closing competency gaps.

Retraining staff also meant that, in FY 2019, the Department moved many of its cadre of 

senior leaders into new positions within the Department. These senior leaders are members 

of the Senior Executive Service (SES), which was established as part of the Civil Service 

Reform Act of 1978 to “...ensure that the executive management of the Government of the 

United States is responsive to the needs, policies, and goals of the Nation and otherwise is 

of the highest quality.” SES staff are the major link between presidential appointees and the 

rest of the federal workforce, and they were intended to be a corps of senior executives, not 

technical experts, who regularly rotate positions. 

Consistent with Executive Order 13714, Strengthening the Senior Executive Service, the 

Department developed a plan in FY 2018 to increase the number of SES employees who 

rotate job assignments. The Department continued to implement this plan in FY 2019 and, 

as of June 2019, 59 percent of the Department’s SES members have been provided with 

short- and long-term rotation opportunities to help them cross-train. 

To help other, non-SES staff improve their professional skills, the Department offers 

employees a wide variety of training. Employees can select mentoring and training 

programs from numerous offerings on the Department’s internal website. For example, 

in April and May, the Department hosted trainings focused on the new Department-wide 

grant funding slate template, slate review and approval process, and ways for employees to 

improve the efficiency of the slate process.

FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

In fiscal year (FY) 2020 and FY 2021, the Department will:

• Continue the strategic framework, started in Quarter 4 of FY 2019, to focus the 

Department’s FY 2020 employee engagement action planning efforts.

• Use a new performance plan template to automatically prepopulate an employee 

engagement performance element into the performance plans for all supervisors.
140 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

• Increase the number of major offices and work units with employee engagement 

action plans and ensure all participating offices provide quarterly updates on 

progress made toward achieving improvement goals. 

• Identify and share scalable best practices after analyzing the results of employee 

engagement action plans established by major offices and work units.

• Increase linkages between employee performance plans and agency strategic goals 

and objectives.

• Prioritize learning and developmental opportunities and share best practices for 

closing competency gaps. 

• Launch LEADING@ED, a series of leadership development opportunities designed 

to close leadership competency gaps, improve employee engagement, and enhance 

human resources skills. 

• Launch, in Quarter 2 of FY 2020, phase 3 of the Department’s employee competency project. The Department will prioritize a specific set of trainings to address 

universal competency gaps identified from competency assessment evaluations. 

Training offered will be evaluated to ensure identified competency gaps are targeted 

to be closed by the content of the training programs.

• Redesign the current mentoring program to support competency gap closure 

activities.

• Enhance human capital data analytics to inform data-driven decision-making 

across the Department.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 4 141

Performance Measures

Table 4.4-A. Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) employee engagement index score.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

67% 68% 67% 67% 63% 62% 64% 65% 66%

Data Source: Office of Personnel Management FEVS.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2018 through September 2019. Target

FY 2019 

Actual

Table 4.4-B. Percentage of positions with competencies identified.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — 19% 100% 100% 100% N/A N/A

Notes: (1) Fiscal year (FY) 2014 through FY 2016 data are not available; the position competency 

assessment began in FY 2017. (2) This assessment is complete; this metric will not be tracked for 

FY 2020 forward.

Data Source: The Department’s Talent Management System.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2018 through September 2019.

Target and 

FY 2019 

Actual

Table 4.4-C. Percentage of supervisors and managers with a performance plan critical 

element related to employee engagement.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — 5% 35% 56% 98% 100% 100%

Data Source: The Department’s Talent Management System and USA Performance.

FY 2019 Period of Performance: October 2018 through September 2019.

Target

FY 2019 

Actual
This page is intentionally left blank.
Appendices 143

Appendices

Appendices A–E

Appendix A. Data Validation 

and Verification

Appendix A provides data validation and verification information for all performance 

metrics found across the Department’s four Strategic Goals.

Strategic Goal 1: Support state and local efforts to improve 

learning outcomes for all P–12 students in every community.

1.1-A. Number of open and operating charter schools supported by the Charter Schools 

Program (CSP).

Data Source: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD) and 

grantee annual performance reports.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

CSP staff and contractors review reported data for anomalies and compare annual 

performance reports with NCES CCD to confirm reporting accuracies. Grantees 

are questioned about any identified inconsistencies and must confirm or update 

reporting. NCES CCD undergo a rigorous and well-documented review process. 

More information can be found at https://nces.ed.gov/ccd. 

1.1-B. Number of students enrolled in charter schools supported by the Charter Schools 

Program (CSP).

Data Source: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD) and 

grantee annual performance reports.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

CSP staff and contractors review reported data for anomalies and compare annual 

performance reports with NCES CCD to confirm reporting accuracies. Grantees 

are questioned about any identified inconsistencies and must confirm or update 

reporting. NCES CCD undergo a rigorous and well-documented review process. 

More information can be found at https://nces.ed.gov/ccd. 
144 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Data Source:

Data Validation 

and Verification:

1.1-C. Number of new resources on evidence-based and promising practices related to school 

choice disseminated.

National Charter School Resource Center and Institute for Education Sciences 

(IES) sponsored materials. -

Applicable resources and publications are posted on the websites of the Office of 

Innovation and Improvement and IES. Charter Schools Program staff review these 

two websites to ensure resources are available and meet the requisite criteria for this 

metric throughout the year.

1.1-D. Number of students enrolled in federally funded magnet schools.

Data Source: Magnet School Assistance Program (MSAP) grantee annual performance reports.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The MSAP contractor conducts data reviews of grantee performance data. The 

contractor is responsible for locating, assessing, and recording annual performance 

data. Review protocols include checking and documenting the presence and 

completeness of performance measure data for analysis. The contractor’s research 

staff discuss anomalous data with grantees, who verify or correct submissions. 

Valid anomalies are documented. The Parental Options and Improvement 

Programs Director is responsible for certifying the data are accurate.

1.1-E. Number of open and operating public charter schools (new).

Data Source: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD).

Data Validation 

and Verification:

NCES CCD undergo a rigorous and well-documented review process. More 

information can be found at https://nces.ed.gov/ccd. 

1.1-F. Number of students enrolled in public charter schools (new).

Data Source: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD).

Data Validation 

and Verification:

NCES CCD undergo a rigorous and well-documented review process. More 

information can be found at https://nces.ed.gov/ccd. 

1.1-G. Number of students enrolled in public magnet schools (new).

Data Source: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD).

Data Validation 

and Verification:

NCES CCD undergo a rigorous and well-documented review process. More 

information can be found at https://nces.ed.gov/ccd. 

1.1-H. Number of scholarships provided through state-based vouchers, tax credit scholarships, 

and education savings account programs (new).

Data Source: EdChoice, The ABCs of School Choice. The targets for fiscal year (FY) 2020 and 

FY 2021 are imputed by the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education based 

on EdChoice reported data for the last three years.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

EdChoice addresses data quality issue for its annual publications. Imputations and

projections are based on EdChoice historic data. Qualifying scholarships include 

education savings accounts, vouchers, tax-credit scholarships, and individual tax 

credits and deductions as defined by EdChoice. 
Appendix A. Data Validation and Verification 145

1.1-I. Number of parents receiving support and engagement on school choice options through 

technical assistance and other resources (new).

Data Source: Internal Department outreach data and performance reports from Department-funded 

technical assistance centers.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data validation and verification are pending additional information from the program 

office.

1.2-A. Percentage of states that show improvement across a three-year trend in the percentage of 

students in grades 3 through 8 scoring at or above proficient on state assessments in reading in 

the following subgroups: economically disadvantaged, children with disabilities, English learners, 

migrant, homeless, and major racial and ethnic groups.

Data Source: The Department’s annual Assessment Data File that includes state-reported data 

pulled from EDFacts files C175, C178, C185, and C188.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Office of Special 

Education Programs (OSEP), and EDFacts conduct a thorough, coordinated 

data quality review of the assessment data submitted by states. OSEP reviews 

this set of assessment data files to ensure compliance with the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act Section 618, and OESE reviews this set of assessment 

data files for the Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR). Reviews focus 

on three areas: timeliness, completeness, and accuracy. OESE, OSEP, and EDFacts 

conduct two data quality reviews of states’ assessment data submissions. The first 

data quality review results in data quality inquiries, comments, and questions for 

state respondents. States may respond through resubmission, written response, or 

data notes. The second data quality review is conducted to ensure published data 

meet established data quality criteria. OESE, OSEP, and EDFacts hold conference 

calls with states to gain a better understanding of identified anomalies and provide 

technical assistance to empower states to submit higher-quality assessment data. 

Data quality reviews are conducted following each due date/resubmission date. 

Outstanding questions regarding accuracy may result in data suppression. Note 

that this metric is impacted by changes to state assessment systems. If states 

change assessments, performance levels, or cut scores, among others, it will 

invalidate the year-to-year analysis to identify states that showed improvements 

in the percentage of students proficient. Since statewide assessment systems have 

been in flux for the last few years, it makes it challenging to establish baselines 

and set targets. States sign a certification when submitting their CSPR. If questions 

remain upon completion of the Department’s data quality review process regarding 

whether the data submitted by a state are accurate, the Department may decide not 

to publish or use the data.
146 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

1.2-B. Percentage of states that show improvement across a three-year trend in the percentage of 

students in grades 3 through 8 scoring at or above proficient on state assessments in mathematics in 

the following subgroups: economically disadvantaged, children with disabilities, English learners, 

migrant, homeless, and major racial and ethnic groups.

Data Source: The Department’s annual Assessment Data File that includes state-reported data 

pulled from EDFacts files Cl75, Cl78, Cl85, and Cl88.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Office of Special 

Education Programs (OSEP), and EDFacts conduct a thorough, coordinated data 

quality review of the assessment data submitted by states. OSEP reviews this set 

of assessment data files to ensure compliance with Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act Section 618, and OESE reviews this set of assessment data files 

for the Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR). Reviews focus on 

three areas: timeliness, completeness, and accuracy. OESE, OSEP, and EDFacts 

conduct two data quality reviews of states’ assessment data submissions. The first 

data quality review results in data quality inquiries, comments, and questions for 

state respondents. States may respond through resubmission, written response, or 

data notes. The second data quality review is conducted to ensure published data 

meet established data quality criteria. OESE, OSEP, and EDFacts hold conference 

calls with states to gain a better understanding of identified anomalies and provide 

technical assistance to empower states to submit higher-quality assessment data. 

Data quality reviews are conducted following each due date/resubmission date. 

Outstanding questions regarding accuracy may result in data suppression. Note that 

this metric is impacted by changes to state assessment systems. If states change 

assessments, performance levels, or cut scores, among others, it will invalidate the 

year-to-year analysis to identify states that showed improvements in the percentage 

of students proficient. Since statewide assessment systems have been in flux for 

the last few years, it makes it challenging to establish baselines and set targets. 

States sign a certification when submitting their CSPR. If questions remain upon 

completion of the Department’s data quality review process regarding whether the 

data submitted by a state are accurate, the Department may decide not to publish or 

use the data.

1.2-C. Percentage of states with 80 percent or more of preschoolers with disabilities that showed 

greater than expected growth in social-emotional skills by the time they exit Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B, Section 619 services.

Data Source: IDEA Part B state annual performance reports.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The Office of Special Education Programs’ (OSEP’s) state leads review each 

state’s annual performance report for data quality. The Monitoring and State 

Improvement Planning Division Data Implementation Team and OSEP’s Early 

Childhood Technical Assistance Center, which has expertise in early childhood 

outcome measurement systems, review the full set of data for anomalies and 

other data quality concerns. The center publishes a brief on its data analysis 

methodology at http://ectacenter.org/eco/. The number of states collecting 

high-quality data has increased over time as states continue to build their 

capacity to collect valid and reliable data. These efforts are supported by the 

Technical Assistance Center, which helps states build and improve their outcome 

measurement systems, collect and analyze data, and use data to make program 

improvements. States certify that the data they turn in to OSEP are accurate. The 

OSEP Director signs the determination letter for each state.
Appendix A. Data Validation and Verification 147

1.2-D. Percentage of students in the country who have Internet bandwidth at school of at least 

100 kbps per student.

Data Source: EducationSuperHighway.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Verification and validation of data are managed by EducationSuperHighway 

and documented at https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/esh-sots-pdfs/

methodology_2017_state_of_the_states.pdf. The process for checking for anomalous 

data is managed by EducationSuperHighway. The Office of Education Technology is 

responsible for certifying the data are accurate.

1.2-E. Percentage of rural schools connected to a broadband infrastructure capable of scaling to 

10 gigabits per second.

Data Source: EducationSuperHighway.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Verification and validation of data are managed by EducationSuperHighway 

and documented at https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/esh-sots-pdfs/

methodology_2017_state_of_the_states.pdf. The process for checking for anomalous 

data is managed by EducationSuperHighway. The Office of Education Technology is 

responsible for certifying the data are accurate.

1.2-F. Percentage of states publishing report cards on the preceding school year in a timely manner 

(i.e., by January 15th of the year following the reporting year).

Data Source: Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR).

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The Every Student Succeeds Act report card data metrics are new to states, beginning 

with report cards published in the 2018–2019 school year based on data from the 

2017–2018 school year. Some states may be working through the programming 

necessary to report them and therefore may be delayed for the first couple of years 

of implementation in the release of their data. Office of Elementary and Secondary 

Education (OESE) staff are reviewing state educational agency websites to 

determine if the report cards have been published by January 15 with data from the 

previous school year. Going forward, states will include in the CSPR the link where 

the report cards are located. There is a formal, extensive process for the verification 

and validation of any information submitted through EDFacts/CSPR that occurs 

annually, beginning immediately following the submission due date in a series of 

review windows between December and May. Data are reviewed by staff. Due to 

the scope and complexity of the process, most data included in the CSPR are not 

considered final and available for use until May. However, since the review of the 

report cards’ links will only involve navigating to the web locations and confirming 

that the current report cards are posted, OESE staff are able to use preliminary data, 

which are available earlier in the year, to produce this metric. Data will be reviewed 

by OESE prior to being submitted. Anomalous data will be checked and verified by 

OESE or other supporting offices. 
148 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

1.2-G. Percentage of monitored states publicly reporting information on each indicator in the 

state’s accountability system, including the list of schools identified for comprehensive or targeted 

support and improvement. 

Data Source: The Office of Elementary and Secondary Education’s (OESE’s) Office of School 

Support and Accountability monitors state compliance with Title I requirements, 

including the requirement to publish state and local report cards.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data are collected during Title I monitoring by OESE. Monitoring reports are 

reviewed internally by OESE staff and submitted to states as part of the monitoring 

process. Program officers doing the monitoring are trained for consistent and standard 

application of monitoring protocols. Anomalous data will be checked and verified 

by OESE or other supporting offices. OESE is responsible for monitoring the Title I 

program and follows the protocols necessary to ensure the data are accurate.

1.3-A. Number of discretionary grant notices with science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics as a priority.

Data Source: Program offices holding discretionary grant competitions each year, including 

the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education; the Office of Innovation and 

Improvement; the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; the Office 

of Postsecondary Education; the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education; the 

Institute of Education Sciences; and the Office of English Language Acquisition.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Reports can be checked against the Notice Inviting Applications for each 

competition. Each program office listed in the data source is responsible for 

certifying the data are accurate.

1.3-B. Number of public high school students by graduating cohort who have taken at least one 

Advanced Placement science, technology, engineering, and mathematics exam while in high school.

Data Source: College Board.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

College Board addresses all data quality issues and is responsible for certifying that 

all data are accurate.

1.3-C. Number of public high school students by graduating cohort who have taken at least one 

Advanced Placement science, technology, engineering, and mathematics exam while in high school 

and scored a 3 or better.

Data Source: College Board.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

College Board addresses all data quality issues and is responsible for certifying that 

all data are accurate.

1.3-D. Number of adult education participants who achieved a measurable skill gain.

Data Source: National Reporting System for Adult Education.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data are verified through federal review of state data submissions via desk 

monitoring, on-site reviews, and technical assistance.

1.3-E. Number of adult education participants who obtained a secondary school diploma or its 

equivalent and are employed or enrolled in an education or training program within one year 

following exit.

Data Source: National Reporting System for Adult Education.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data are verified through federal review of state data submissions via desk 

monitoring, on-site reviews, and technical assistance.
Appendix A. Data Validation and Verification 149

1.3-F. Number of secondary career and technical education (CTE) concentrators who attained 

a secondary school diploma, a General Education Development credential, or another staterecognized equivalent.

Data Source: State Consolidated Annual Reports for the Strengthening Career and Technical 

Education for the 21st Century Act (Perkins V).

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data are verified through federal review of state data submissions via desk 

monitoring, on-site reviews, and technical assistance.

1.3-G. Number of adult education participants enrolled in an integrated education and training 

program.

Data Source: National Reporting System for Adult Education.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data are verified through federal review of state data submissions via desk 

monitoring, on-site reviews, and technical assistance. 

1.3-H. Number of adult education participants who advanced one educational functioning level in 

mathematics.

Data Source: National Reporting System for Adult Education.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data are verified through federal review of state data submissions via desk 

monitoring, on-site reviews, and technical assistance. 

1.3-I. Percentage of secondary career and technical education (CTE) concentrators placed in 

employment, further training, or the military.

Data Source: State Consolidated Annual Reports for the Strengthening Career and Technical 

Education for the 21st Century Act (Perkins V).

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data are verified through federal review of state data submissions via desk 

monitoring, on-site reviews, and technical assistance.

1.3-J. Number of secondary career and technical education concentrators enrolling in science, 

technology, engineering, and mathematics.

Data Source: State Consolidated Annual Reports for the Strengthening Career and Technical 

Education for the 21st Century Act (Perkins V).

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data are verified through federal review of state data submissions via desk 

monitoring, on-site reviews, and technical assistance.

1.4-A. Number of technical assistance engagements, events or related activities, or products focused 

on grantees’ use of evidence in prekindergarten through grade 12 education.

Data Source: Department offices that deliver technical assistance.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Program offices review activities and apply established qualification criteria. The 

Policy and Program Studies Service reviews submissions and follows up with offices 

to address any anomalous data. Each program office identifies the point of contact 

responsible for certifying accuracy of the data.
150 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Strategic Goal 2: Expand postsecondary educational 

opportunities, improve outcomes to foster economic 

opportunity and promote an informed, thoughtful and 

productive citizenry.

2.1-A. Percentage of Office of Postsecondary Education grantees with large available balances.

Data Source: The Department’s Grants Management System (G5) grantee documentation.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Staff conducted a programmatic and financial review of G5 and grantee 

documentation to determine the fourth quarter large available balances for 

higher education programs.

2.1-B. Percentage of Office of Postsecondary Education grantees with large available balances that 

received technical assistance resulting in “Resolved with Good Explanation.”

Data Source: The Department’s Grants Management System (G5) grantee documentation.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Staff conduct a programmatic and financial review of G5 and grantee 

documentation to determine the fourth quarter large available balances for higher 

education programs.

2.1-C. Percentage of annual statutory requirements for Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) 

programs that are fulfilled by OPE.

Data Source: The Department’s Grants Management System.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

This information is not applicable, as this metric will not be measured. See 

appendix B for more information. 

2.1-D. Percentage of first-time Free Application for Federal Student Aid® filers among high school 

seniors.

Data Source: Federal Student Aid’s (FSA’s) Central Processing System.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

FSA operational systems have procedures in place to address potential data quality 

issues. The process for querying system data is consistent and disciplined. A separate 

data analyst from a different office within FSA validates the accuracy of the query 

and the resulting data and validates any anomalous data. Queries and calculations are 

simultaneously conducted on data from previous years by FSA’s Business Intelligence 

Team to ensure technical definitions remain consistent. The Customer Analytics 

Group is responsible for the primary calculation of the metric as well as the technical 

validation of the metric, which is done by reviewing for accuracy the query used to 

pull the data and all calculations made with the data. Finally, the Financial Reporting 

and Analysis Branch is responsible for ensuring that documentation is complete 

and archived. These calculations also restrict the application period to the first nine 

months of the application cycle (through the close of the fiscal year) rather than the 

entire 18 months. Since most applicants, including high school seniors, file their Free 

Application for Federal Student Aid® prior to the start of the upcoming academic year 

(usually before fiscal year end), this decision better aligns the performance metric with 

the fiscal year where most of the performance occurred.
Appendix A. Data Validation and Verification 151

2.1-E. Persistence among first-time filing aid recipients.

Data Source: Federal Student Aid’s Common Origination and Distribution System.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data results are ascertained through standardized system queries. These queries are 

used to rerun and match calculations for earlier cycles as part of the verification and 

validity assessment.

2.1-F. Percentage of Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs 

(GEAR UP) participants who obtain a secondary school diploma or its equivalent and, within 

one year, are enrolled in postsecondary education (new).

Data Source: GEAR UP annual performance reports.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data are verified through federal review of state data submissions via desk 

monitoring, on-site reviews, and technical assistance. 

2.2-A. Number of technical assistance events or activities and products focused on the use of 

evidence in federal programs that promote educational opportunities, training, and support 

services for the workforce.

Data Source: Department offices that deliver technical assistance.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Criteria for and examples of technical assistance events/activities and products are 

provided to program office representatives. The criteria are flexible to accommodate 

different technical assistance offerings provided across the Department. The Policy 

and Program Studies Service reviews program offices’ submission to address any 

anomalous data. The Department conducted level-setting meetings with staff charged 

with reporting from each program office to support the collection of standard and 

meaningful data. Contacts in each program office are responsible for certifying 

accuracy of the data.

2.2-B. Percentage of adult education program participants who were in unsubsidized employment 

during the second quarter after exiting the program.

Data Source: National Reporting System annual state reports.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data are verified through federal review of state data submissions that includes desk 

monitoring, on-site reviews, and technical assistance. 
152 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

2.2-C. Percentage of Vocational Rehabilitation program participants who were in unsubsidized 

employment during the second quarter after exiting the program.

Data Source: Rehabilitation Services Administration’s (RSA’s) 911 Vocational Rehabilitation Case 

Service Report (RSA-911).

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data are verified through federal review of state data submissions via desk 

monitoring, on-site reviews, and technical assistance. In accordance with 

Section 506(b) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), the 

performance accountability system requirements of Section 116 of WIOA took 

effect on July 1, 2016. However, the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services (OSERS) and RSA recognized that state vocational rehabilitation (VR) 

agencies may have difficulty implementing the new data requirements quickly 

enough to submit reports containing the new data elements for program year 

(PY) 2016. Therefore, the Department exercised its transition authority under 

Section 503 of WIOA to ensure the orderly transition from the requirements under 

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended by the Workforce Investment Act of 

1998, to the requirements of WIOA. With the issuance of RSA-PD-16-04 on 

June 14, 2017, OSERS/RSA revised RSA-911 to begin collecting WIOA data for 

the VR program effective in PY 2017, which began July 1, 2017. Data related to 

the percentage of VR program participants who were in unsubsidized employment 

during the second quarter after exit for PY 2018 reflect those participants who exited 

the VR program in PY 2017.

2.2-D. Percentage of Vocational Rehabilitation program participants who, during a program 

year, are in an education or training program that leads to a recognized postsecondary credential 

or employment and who are achieving measurable skill gains, defined as documented academic, 

technical, occupational, or other forms of progress, toward such a credential or employment.

Data Source: Rehabilitation Services Administration’s (RSA’s) 911 Vocational Rehabilitation 

Case Service Report (RSA-911).

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data are verified through federal review of state data submissions via desk 

monitoring, on-site reviews, and technical assistance. In accordance with 

Section 506(b) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), the 

performance accountability system requirements of Section 116 of WIOA took 

effect on July 1, 2016. However, the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services (OSERS) and RSA recognized that state vocational rehabilitation (VR) 

agencies may have difficulty implementing the new data requirements quickly 

enough to submit reports containing the new data elements for program year 

(PY) 2016. Therefore, the Department exercised its transition authority under 

Section 503 of WIOA to ensure the orderly transition from the requirements under 

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended by the Workforce Investment Act of 

1998, to the requirements of WIOA. With the issuance of RSA-PD-16-04 on 

June 14, 2017, OSERS/RSA revised RSA-911 to begin collecting WIOA data for 

the VR program effective in PY 2017, which began July 1, 2017. Data related to 

the percentage of VR program participants who were in unsubsidized employment 

during the second quarter after exit for PY 2018 reflect those participants who exited 

the VR program in PY 2017.
Appendix A. Data Validation and Verification 153

2.3-A. Number of technical assistance activities sponsored by the Department intended to expand 

or enhance the integration of workforce preparation activities within academic instruction in adult 

education classrooms.

Data Source: Contractor quarterly progress reports.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education (OCTAE) staff vet all event 

materials prior to actual events. For virtual events, the contractor provides relevant 

analytics as supporting documentation. For face-to-face events, the contractor 

collects sign-in sheets and event evaluation forms. OCTAE staff review contractor 

documentation for anomalous or unclear submissions and follow up with the 

appropriate contractor(s). The Deputy Director of the Division of Adult Education 

and Literacy within OCTAE is responsible for certifying the data are accurate.

2.3-B. Percentage of postsecondary career and technical education concentrators who received an 

industry-recognized credential, certificate, or degree.

Data Source: State Consolidated Annual Reports for the Strengthening Career and Technical 

Education for the 21st Century Act (Perkins V).

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data are verified through federal review of state data submissions that includes desk 

monitoring, on-site reviews, and technical assistance.

2.3-C. Number of postsecondary science, technology, engineering, and mathematics degrees and 

certificates conferred (new).

Data Source: The National Center for Education Statistics’ (NCES) Integrated Postsecondary 

Education Data System (IPEDS) Completions component.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

NCES IPEDS undergo a rigorous and well-documented review process. More 

information on that process can be found at https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds.

2.4-A. Average speed to answer incoming calls to Federal Student Aid’s call centers.

Data Source: Federal servicers’ quarterly reports.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The verification and validation of performance by the nondefault federal student 

loan servicers will be conducted by Federal Student Aid (FSA) and will include (but 

not be limited to): (1) review and validation of federal servicer reports, (2) ongoing/

recurring quality assurance discussion with federal servicers, (3) site visits to 

federal servicer call center sites, and (4) documented on-phone (“mystery caller”) 

evaluations of services. Because the agency directive is succinct and builds on 

current contractor operational capabilities, FSA does not anticipate anomalous data 

or issues with implementation. However, in cases where verification and validation 

detect anomalies that suggest less-than-complete information, FSA will address any 

deficiencies through direct contact with federal servicers, requests for information, 

audits, site visits, and/or other assessment measures of performance, as applicable. 

FSA’s Business Operations Officer, who oversees all of FSA’s nondefault federal 

student loan servicers, is responsible for certifying the data are accurate.
154 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

2.4-B. Average abandon rate for incoming calls to Federal Student Aid’s call centers.

Data Source: Federal servicers’ quarterly reports.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The verification and validation of performance by the nondefault federal student 

loan servicers will be conducted by Federal Student Aid (FSA) and will include (but 

not be limited to): (1) review and validation of federal servicer reports, (2) ongoing/

recurring quality assurance discussion with federal servicers, (3) site visits to 

federal servicer call center sites, and (4) documented on-phone (“mystery caller”) 

evaluations of services. Because the agency directive is succinct and builds on 

current contractor operational capabilities, FSA does not anticipate anomalous data 

or issues with implementation. However, in cases where verification and validation 

detect anomalies that suggest less-than-complete information, FSA will address any 

deficiencies through direct contact with federal servicers, requests for information, 

audits, site visits, and/or other assessment measures of performance, as applicable. 

FSA’s Business Operations Officer, who oversees all of FSA’s nondefault federal 

student loan servicers, is responsible for certifying the data are accurate.

2.4-C. American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) Surveys.

Data Source: ACSI.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

This metric is a direct reflection of the data collected through the ACSI Aid Life 

Cycle Survey. FSA monitors to ensure the system is secure and the query results 

are consistent.

2.4-D. Number of downloads of the myStudentAid mobile app.

Data Source: Federal Student Aid’s (FSA’s) online platform analytics.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

This metric is a direct reflection of the data platform analytics. FSA monitors to 

ensure the system is secure and the query results are consistent.

2.4-E. Number of customers checking loan balances via the myStudentAid mobile app.

Data Source: Federal Student Aid’s (FSA’s) online platform analytics.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

This metric is a direct reflection of the data platform analytics. FSA monitors to 

ensure the system is secure and the query results are consistent.

2.4-F. Number of customers submitting a Free Application for Federal Student Aid® via a mobile 

platform—the myStudentAid mobile app or fafsa.gov.

Data Source: Federal Student Aid’s (FSA’s) online platform analytics.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

This metric is a direct reflection of the data platform analytics. FSA monitors to 

ensure the system is secure and the query results are consistent.

2.4-G. Number of visits (sessions) demonstrating adoption of the updated StudentAid.gov site.

Data Source: Federal Student Aid’s (FSA’s) online platform analytics.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

This metric is a direct reflection of the data platform analytics. FSA monitors to 

ensure the system is secure and the query results are consistent.
Appendix A. Data Validation and Verification 155

2.4-H. Number of users of “Aidan,” the StudentAid.gov virtual assistant (new).

Data Source: Federal Student Aid’s (FSA’s) online platform analytics.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

This metric is a direct reflection of the data platform analytics. FSA will monitor to 

ensure the system is secure and the query results are consistent.

2.5-A. Percentage of borrowers who are more than 30 days delinquent. 

Data Source: Federal Student Aid’s (FSA’s) data warehouse.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data are collected on a quarterly basis from FSA’s data warehouse. Verification 

and validation of the rate(s) of delinquency are conducted by FSA’s Office of 

Performance Management. FSA does not anticipate anomalous data or issues with 

interpretation; however, in cases where verification and validation detect anomalies 

that suggest less-than-complete information, FSA addresses any deficiencies 

through collaboration with subject-matter experts within the Office of Performance 

Management. No limitations, other than macro-economic situations (i.e., economic 

downturn), have been identified. FSA’s Deputy Chief Operating Officer is 

responsible for certifying the data are accurate.

2.5-B. Percentage of borrowers who are more than 90 days delinquent.

Data Source: Federal Student Aid’s (FSA’s) data warehouse.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data are collected on a quarterly basis from FSA’s data warehouse. Verification 

and validation of the rate(s) of delinquency are conducted by FSA’s Office of 

Performance Management. FSA does not anticipate anomalous data or issues with 

interpretation; however, in cases where verification and validation detect anomalies 

that suggest less-than-complete information, FSA addresses any deficiencies 

through collaboration with subject-matter experts within the Office of Performance 

Management. No limitations, other than macro-economic situations (i.e., economic 

downturn), have been identified. FSA’s Deputy Chief Operating Officer is 

responsible for certifying the data are accurate.
156 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Strategic Goal 3: Strengthen the quality, accessibility and 

use of education data through better management, increased 

privacy protections and transparency.

3.1-A. Number of data management activities for which Department-wide procedures or templates 

have been created and reviewed through the Data Strategy Team (DST).

Data Source: Minutes from monthly DST meetings.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Minutes from monthly DST meetings are submitted by the DST support 

contractor to the DST co-chairs for review and acceptance. Meetings occur every 

two weeks, providing both the DST support contractor and the DST co-chairs with 

an opportunity to review and finalize meeting documentation in a timely fashion 

and before subsequent DST monthly meetings are held. Data identified by the DST 

co-chairs as anomalous are discussed at one of the biweekly meetings between the 

co-chairs and the DST support contractor. Anomalous data are researched using the 

original meeting notes from the meeting in question and followed up with calls from 

the co-chairs to any points of contact whose approval or whose attendance at the 

monthly meeting were in question. The DST co-chairs are responsible for certifying 

the data are accurate.

3.1-B. Percentage of Department program offices participating in Data Strategy Team (DST)-

offered data management training.

Data Source: Minutes from monthly DST meetings.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Minutes from monthly DST meetings are submitted by the DST support contractor 

to the DST co-chairs for review and acceptance. Meetings occur every two weeks, 

and the percentage of participating program offices is calculated. The DST co-chairs 

are responsible for certifying the data are accurate.

3.1-C. Percentage of principal offices assessed as having higher data maturity year-over-year on the 

Department’s selected data maturity assessment tool (new).

Data Source: Department’s Annual Data Maturity Assessment.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The Department’s Annual Data Maturity Assessment is administered by the Data 

Governance Board (DGB) support contractor. Meeting minutes from the DGB 

meetings, held every two months or as needed, are developed by the DGB support 

contractor. Information presented in support of this metric will be reviewed and 

accepted by the DGB program management office. Interactions between the DBG 

support contractor and the DGB program management office occur regularly 

between DGB meetings, providing both the DGB support contractor and the 

DGB program management office with an opportunity to review and finalize 

documentation of the DGB meeting in a timely fashion and before a subsequent 

DGB meeting is held. Any data identified by the DGB program management 

office as anomalous are discussed by the DGB support contractor and program 

management office. Anomalous data are researched using the original meeting notes 

from the monthly meeting in question and followed up with calls from the DGB 

program management office and to any office points of contact whose data are in 

question. The DGB program management office is responsible for certifying the data 

are accurate.
Appendix A. Data Validation and Verification 157

3.2-A. Number of institutions of higher education (IHEs) that have an audit of Gramm-Leach-Bliley 

Act (GLBA)-related information security safeguards that result in no significant findings.

Data Source: IHE-provided auditor reports.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The data are verified and validated by Federal Student Aid’s (FSA’s) Senior Advisor 

for Cybersecurity in collaboration with the Department’s Chief Privacy Officer on 

at least a quarterly basis and compared to report data, FSA records, and ongoing 

compliance and investigations regarding data breaches. FSA’s Deputy Chief 

Operating Officer certifies that all data are accurate.

3.2-B. Number of outreach activities targeting data privacy and information technology security 

requirements of institutions of higher education.

Data Source: Outreach activity records maintained by the Privacy Technical Assistance Center.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The data are verified and validated by Federal Student Aid’s (FSA’s) Senior Advisor 

for Cybersecurity in collaboration with the Department’s Chief Privacy Officer on 

at least a quarterly basis and are compared to report data, FSA records, and ongoing 

compliance and investigations regarding data breaches. There are no identified 

nuances or limitations to the data. FSA’s Deputy Chief Operating Officer certifies 

that all data are accurate.

3.2-C. Percentage of local educational agency (LEA) websites from a statistically representative 

sample reviewed for inclusion of transparency best practices and compliance with legal 

requirements relating to third-party contracting.

Data Source: Selected LEA public websites.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The data are verified and validated by the Director of Student Privacy Policy on at 

least a quarterly basis. Anomalous data are noted in the comments field, and staff and 

contractors are questioned to ensure that district website reviews are accurate and 

complete. No limitations are anticipated. The Director of Student Privacy Policy is 

responsible for certifying the data are accurate.

3.3-A. Number of sessions dedicated to improved data use provided to external grantees 

and stakeholders presented by Department employees or their contractors or occurring at 

Department-hosted events.

Data Source: Policy and Program Studies Services (PPSS) records collection.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The sessions are tracked on a dashboard on PPSS’s SharePoint site. Program offices 

submitting the data are responsible for verifying their accuracy. The dashboard 

includes a statement that program offices submitting data must agree to ensure the 

accuracy of their information prior to entering it into the dashboard. The Office of 

Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development (OPEPD) and PPSS investigate any 

anomalous data. Anomalous data are researched using the original data submitted 

and follow-up calls to the program office(s) are made when necessary. One limitation 

of the collection could be program offices not capturing all qualifying sessions in the 

dashboard. The Department’s multiple data-focused teams, such as the Data Strategy 

Team, EDFacts Data Governance Board, and InformED, continuously remind 

program offices to enter their data. OPEPD and PPSS are responsible for certifying 

the data are accurate to the best of their knowledge.
158 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

3.3-B. Number of newly added publicly available datasets in machine-readable formats.

Data Source: The Department’s public data listing.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The Office of the Associate Commissioner for the Administrative Data Division 

within the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) verifies that the data listing 

extracts match the inventory at the time of extraction. NCES and the Office of Planning, 

Evaluation, and Policy Development (OPEPD) and the Office of the Chief Data Officer 

(OCDO) jointly discuss and review any data identified as anomalous. Anomalous data 

are researched using the original metadata submitted and the extraction. Follow-up 

calls to the contact person listed for the dataset in question are made if necessary. The 

universe of the data used in this reporting does not currently reflect the full universe of 

data that are or could be made publicly available by the Department. There may also be 

access points to machine-readable data not listed in the public data listing; these gaps 

will continue to close as the listing becomes more complete. Additionally, there may be 

a time in the future when the public data listing is no longer the central access point for 

the Department’s machine-readable data. If this happens, the Department may need to 

revise the data source, but the metric will otherwise remain the same. OPEPD’s OCDO 

is responsible for certifying the data are accurate to the best of its knowledge.

3.3-C. Percentage of discretionary grant competitions that include the requirement to openly 

license to the public copyrightable grant deliverables created with Department grant funds.

Data Source: Information collection packages.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The Office of the Chief Data Officer’s Strategic Collections Clearance Team is 

responsible for ensuring information is accurate based on information received 

through information collection packages. If in reviewing the packages, the Office of 

Education Technology (OET) has questions about any information included in the 

packages, OET will first ask the Chief Data Officer’s Strategic Collections Clearance 

Team. If the team cannot find the answer, it will facilitate communications with the 

appropriate program office to find the answer. The numerator and denominator are 

clearly defined, as is the process for calculating a percentage; therefore, there are no 

limitations or nuances that need to be documented at this time. OET is responsible 

for certifying the data are accurate to the best of its knowledge. 

3.3-D. Number of data assets listed in a comprehensive data inventory that are made available 

to the Federal Data Catalogue with official determinations regarding “open-by-default” 

requirements (new). 

Data Source: The Department’s comprehensive data inventory.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The Chief Data Officer is responsible for establishing the Department’s 

comprehensive data inventory. The Department’s newly created Office of the Chief 

Data Officer (OCDO) will establish an Open Data Platform that will meet the needs 

of the statutorily required comprehensive data inventory and be capable of tracking 

new and existing data assets. OCDO will be responsible for calculating these 

numbers and establishing an independent validation process. 
Appendix A. Data Validation and Verification 159

Strategic Goal 4: Reform the effectiveness, efficiency and 

accountability of the Department.

4.1-A. Number of evaluations to identify potential Executive Order 13771 deregulatory actions that 

included opportunity for public input and/or peer review.

Data Source: Department reports to the Office of Management and Budget.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The Division of Regulatory Services monitors the data and verifies numbers. The 

Office of the General Counsel’s Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Services 

verifies the data are accurate.

4.1-B. Number of Executive Order 13771 deregulatory actions recommended by the Regulatory 

Reform Task Force to the agency head consistent with applicable law.

Data Source: Department records.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The Division of Regulatory Services monitors the data and verifies numbers. The 

Office of the General Counsel’s Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Services 

verifies the data are accurate.

4.1-C. Number of Executive Order 13771 deregulatory actions issued that address 

recommendations by the Regulatory Reform Task Force.

Data Source: Federal Register and https://www.ed.gov/.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The Division of Regulatory Services monitors the data and verifies numbers. The 

Office of the General Counsel’s Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Services 

verifies the data are accurate.

4.1-D. Number of Executive Order (EO) 13771 regulatory actions and, separately, EO 13771 

deregulatory actions issued.

Data Source: Federal Register and https://www.ed.gov/.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The Division of Regulatory Services monitors the data and verifies numbers. The 

Office of the General Counsel’s Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Services 

verifies the data are accurate.

4.1-E. Total incremental cost of all Executive Order (EO) 13771 regulatory actions and EO 13771 

deregulatory actions (including costs or cost savings carried over from previous fiscal years).

Data Source: Department reports to the Office of Management and Budget.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The Division of Regulatory Services and Budget Services monitors and verifies the 

data are accurate. 

4.1-F. Number of deregulatory actions submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Data Source: Reginfo.gov and emails between the Department and OMB.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The Division of Regulatory Services monitors the data and verifies numbers. The 

Office of the General Counsel’s Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Services 

verifies the data are accurate.
160 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

4.2-A. Improve maturity level of Enterprise Risk Management (ERM).

Data Source: Office of Finance and Operations calculations.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Progress is assessed against a maturity model that outlines the key indicators and 

activities that comprise sustainable and effective Enterprise Risk Management 

(ERM). The ERM model is comprised of five functional areas and 37 technical 

assessment guidelines. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) leverages 

the Senior Management Council to decide on the final list of indicators that 

comprise this metric. OCFO is responsible for certifying the data are accurate for 

the Department, except FSA.

4.3-A. Percentage of the Department’s Information Technology (IT) security functions that 

improved at least one maturity level.

Data Source: Annual (fiscal year) Office of Inspector General (OIG) Federal Information Security 

Modernization Act of 2014 Reporting Metrics Audit Report.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

As part of the annual audit process, OIG disseminates draft reports for the Department 

to review and comment on its findings, recommendations, and assessments of maturity. 

The Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) leads coordination efforts across 

Department stakeholders and participates in review meetings with OIG to verify and 

validate the information contained in the OIG’s report that provide the basis for its 

determination of the maturity levels. Each year, the Office of Management and Budget 

publishes new guidance on the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 

2014. OCIO reviews the new guidance and identifies areas that may impact how the 

Department’s IT security program will be evaluated. OCIO leads coordination and 

communication efforts to ensure stakeholders and Department leadership understand 

the new guidance and any steps that need to be taken. OCIO is responsible for 

certifying the data are accurate. 

4.4-A. Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) employee engagement index score.

Data Source: Office of Personnel Management (OPM) FEVS.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data verification and validation processes are integrated into the OPM FEVS results 

validation process. Any questionable or anomalous FEVS results identified are 

brought to the attention of OPM. The Department then works with the OPM point of 

contact to obtain clarity or resolve the results. There are no known data limitations. 

OPM is responsible for certifying the data are accurate.

4.4-B. Percentage of positions with competencies identified.

Data Source: The Department’s Talent Management System.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data are processed and reviewed by Learning and Development Division (LDD) 

staff for accuracy. LDD staff monitor the progress of the assessments. The Office of 

Management, Office of Human Resources and LDD are responsible for certifying 

the data are accurate.

4.4-C. Percentage of supervisors and managers with a performance plan critical element related to 

employee engagement.

Data Source: The Department’s Talent Management System and USA Performance.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

To ensure quality control, verification processors self-check and cross check each 

other. The validation and affirmation of final numbers is performed by the principal 

office leadership through system report reconciliation. The Director of Workforce 

Relations Division is responsible for certifying the data are accurate.
Appendix B. Performance Metric Changes 161

Appendix B. Performance Metric 

Changes

Appendix B includes performance metrics that were added, removed, or changed in the 

Department’s Strategic Plan since the publication of the FY 2018 Annual Performance 

Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan.

Strategic Goal 1: Support state and local efforts to improve 

learning outcomes for all P–12 students in every community.

Goal 1 FY 2019 Performance Metrics Removed or Changed and New 

Metrics Added for FY 2020

Metric 1.1-E Status: New

Type of Change: New metric added for fiscal year (FY) 2020 forward.

Current Title: Number of open and operating public charter schools.

Justification: The Department’s efforts in expanding charter school options are not limited to the 

direct funding streams aligned with the Charter Schools Program. These efforts will 

become part of a new Agency Priority Goal for FY 2020–2021.

Metric 1.1-F Status: New

Type of Change: New metric added for fiscal year (FY) 2020 forward.

Current Title: Number of students enrolled in public charter schools.

Justification: The Department’s efforts in expanding charter school options are not limited to the 

direct funding streams aligned with the Charter Schools Program. These efforts will 

become part of a new Agency Priority Goal for FY 2020–2021.

Metric 1.1-G Status: New

Type of Change: New metric added for fiscal year (FY) 2020 forward.

Current Title: Number of students enrolled in public magnet schools.

Justification: The Department’s efforts in expanding magnet school options are not limited to the 

direct funding streams aligned with the Magnet Schools Assistance Program. These 

efforts will become part of a new Agency Priority Goal for FY 2020–2021.
162 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Metric 1.1-H Status: New

Type of Change: New metric added for fiscal year (FY) 2020 forward.

Current Title: Number of scholarships provided through means such as state-based vouchers, tax 

credit scholarships, and education savings account programs.

Justification: The Department’s efforts in expanding school choice options are not limited to 

public charter and magnet school options. These efforts will become part of a new 

Agency Priority Goal for FY 2020–2021.

Metric 1.1-I Status: New

Type of Change: New metric added for fiscal year (FY) 2020 forward.

Current Title: Number of parents receiving support and engagement on school choice options 

through technical assistance and other resources.

Justification: The Department provides guidance to individual families to help them understand 

their school choice options. This guidance is one of the key touchpoints that the 

Department has with families and will become part of a new Agency Priority Goal 

for FY 2020–2021. 

Metric 1.2-A Status: Changed

Type of Change: Methodology changed to include states even if one or more subgroups are not 

publicly reported to mitigate disclosure concerns.

Current Title: Percentage of states that show improvement across a three-year trend in the 

percentage of students in grades 3 through 8 scoring at or above proficient on state 

assessments in reading in the following subgroups: economically disadvantaged, 

children with disabilities, English learners, migrant, homeless, and major racial and 

ethnic groups.

Justification: Earlier reporting excluded states where one or more subgroups was not sufficiently 

large enough to report. Reporting was restricted based on the number of students 

in the populational subgroup to protect individual students from being identified 

and classified. This resulted in several states being dropped from the analysis. 

The methodology has since changed such that any subgroup lacking the necessary 

population size for public reporting can be excluded without excluding the entire 

state from the analysis. This methodology change was applied to current and prior 

reporting.
Appendix B. Performance Metric Changes 163

Metric 1.2-B Status: Changed

Type of Change: Methodology changed to include states even if one or more subgroups are not 

publicly reported to mitigate disclosure concerns.

Current Title: Percentage of states that show improvement across a three-year trend in the 

percentage of students in grades 3 through 8 scoring at or above proficient on 

state assessments in mathematics in the following subgroups: economically 

disadvantaged, children with disabilities, English learners, migrant, homeless, and 

major racial and ethnic groups.

Justification: Earlier reporting excluded states where one or more subgroups was not sufficiently 

large enough to report. Reporting was restricted based on the number of students 

in the populational subgroup to protect individual students from being identified 

and classified. This resulted in several states being dropped from the analysis. 

The methodology has since changed such that any subgroup lacking the necessary 

population size for public reporting can be excluded without excluding the entire 

state from the analysis. This methodology change was applied to current and prior 

reporting.

Metric 1.3-I Status: Changed

Type of Change: Metric revised for fiscal year (FY) 2019 forward. (1) Measurement changed from 

number to percentage. (2) Data that are assessed are now more precisely defined 

(i.e., career and technical education concentrators who, in the second quarter 

after exiting from secondary education, are in postsecondary education, advanced 

training, or military service; volunteer as part of the National and Community 

Service Act service program or the Peace Corps; or are employed). (3) Baseline for 

this metric will begin in FY 2022.

Original Title: Number of secondary career and technical education (CTE) concentrators placed in 

employment, further training, or the military.

Current Title: Percentage of secondary career and technical education (CTE) concentrators placed 

in employment, further training, or the military.

Justification: This metric was changed to closely align with the reporting requirements under the 

Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act (Perkins V) 

meant to measure the effectiveness of the CTE programs administered. 
164 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Strategic Goal 2: Expand postsecondary educational 

opportunities, improve outcomes to foster economic 

opportunity and promote an informed, thoughtful and 

productive citizenry.

Goal 2 FY 2019 Performance Metrics Removed or Changed and New 

Metrics Added for FY 2020

Metric 2.1-A Status: Removed

Type of Change: Removed for fiscal year (FY) 2020 forward. 

Original Title: Percentage of Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) grantees with large 

available balances. 

Justification: The Handbook for the Discretionary Grant Process provides consistent policies, 

standards, and procedures for the Department’s discretionary grant programs. The 

handbook requires all program specialists to report quarterly on large available 

balances and assist grantees in resolving them. While this monitoring is an 

important grant management practice, the Department believes that other metrics 

more appropriately measure the extent to which its programs achieve their goals 

and, therefore, are better indicators of access to and completion of postsecondary 

education. The near-perfect performance realized for this indicator since FY 2018 

also suggests that improvement in this area is limited.

Metric 2.1-B Status: Removed

Type of Change: Removed for fiscal year (FY) 2020 forward. 

Original Title: Percentage of Office of Postsecondary (OPE) grantees with large available balances 

that received technical assistance resulting in “Resolved with Good Explanation.”

Justification: The Handbook for the Discretionary Grant Process provides consistent policies, 

standards, and procedures for the Department’s discretionary grant programs. The 

handbook requires all program specialists to report quarterly on large available 

balances and assist grantees in resolving them. While this monitoring is an 

important grant management practice, the Department believes that other metrics 

more appropriately measure the extent to which its programs achieve their goals 

and, therefore, are better indicators of access to and completion of postsecondary 

education. The near-perfect performance realized for this indicator since FY 2018 

also suggests that improvement in this area is limited.
Appendix B. Performance Metric Changes 165

Metric 2.1-C Status: Removed

Type of Change: Removed for fiscal year (FY) 2020 forward. 

Original Title: Percentage of annual statutory requirements for Office of Postsecondary Education 

(OPE) programs that are fulfilled by OPE. 

Justification: In FY 2018, the Department developed a draft checklist of statutory requirements 

for its institution of higher education (IHE) programs. The draft checklist estimated 

that, across all 37 IHE programs, there are approximately 1,704 specific statutory 

requirements in effect for nearly 5,000 OPE active grants. The Department believes 

that conducting a review of statutory compliance, for purposes of assessing this 

metric’s performance, would require considerable time and effort by staff with a 

high degree of programmatic expertise and pull them away from actual monitoring 

efforts. It would be cost prohibitive. In addition, there are currently other means 

by which OPE ensures that statutory requirements are met, including regular 

programmatic monitoring and technical assistance.

Metric 2.1-F Status: New

Type of Change: New metric added for fiscal year 2020 forward.

Current Title: Percentage of Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs 

(GEAR UP) participants who obtain a secondary school diploma or its equivalent 

and, within one year, are enrolled in postsecondary education.

Justification: The Department’s Strategic Goal 2 is to “expand postsecondary educational 

opportunities, improve outcomes to foster economic opportunity and promote an 

informed, thoughtful and productive citizenry.” The GEAR UP program directly 

addresses this goal because it aims to increase the number of low-income students 

who are prepared to enter and succeed in postsecondary education. GEAR UP

provides six-year grants to states and partnerships to provide services at highpoverty middle and high schools. GEAR UP grantees serve an entire cohort of 

students beginning no later than the seventh grade and follow the cohort through 

high school. GEAR UP funds are also used to provide college scholarships to lowincome students. This metric will be designed to measure the degree to which GEAR 

UP achieves its goal.

Metric 2.3-C Status: New

Type of Change: New metric added for fiscal year 2020 forward.

Current Title: Number of postsecondary science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 

(STEM) degrees and certificates conferred.

Justification: Increasing the number of degrees and certificates in STEM directly impacts skill 

gaps identified in the American economy. The Department is committed to ensuring 

that one of the aims of postsecondary education is in alignment with labor force 

needs.
166 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Metric 2.4-H Status: New

Type of Change: New metric added for fiscal year 2020 forward.

Current Title: Number of users of “Aidan,” the StudentAid.gov virtual assistant.

Justification: Federal Student Aid (FSA) is adding a virtual assistant, named “Aidan,” to the 

StudentAid.gov site. This tool will allow users to receive answers to their most 

common questions. Tracking the adoption of this tool allows FSA to understand the 

impact of this investment in artificial intelligence.

Metric 2.5-B Status: Changed

Type of Change: Methodology changed to include all delinquent accounts.

Current Title: Percentage of borrowers who are more than 90 days delinquent.

Justification: The new calculation includes more categories of loans in the numerator than the 

previous calculation and fewer categories of loans in the denominator than the 

previous calculation. This results in a higher baseline. The previous methodology 

excluded borrowers who were more than 270 days delinquent. The new 

methodology calculates Direct Loan recipients who have loans that are delinquent 

for more than 90 days divided by Direct Loan recipients with loans in current 

repayment or delinquency. Both the numerator and the denominator now include all 

loan delinquencies that are greater than 90 days (including greater than 270 days) 

if the loan is still at a federal loan servicer. The fiscal year 2019 target was adjusted 

to reflect a 0.2 percentage point decrease from the previous year, like the target 

identified using the previous methodology. This methodology change was applied to 

current and prior reporting.
Appendix B. Performance Metric Changes 167

Strategic Goal 3: Strengthen the quality, accessibility and 

use of education data through better management, increased 

privacy protections and transparency.

Goal 3 FY 2019 Performance Metrics Removed or Changed and New 

Metrics Added for FY 2020

Metric 3.1-A Status: Removed

Type of Change: Removed for fiscal year 2020 forward. 

Current Title: Number of data management activities for which Department-wide procedures or 

templates have been created and reviewed through the Data Strategy Team (DST).

Justification: To better align with agency priorities, the Department will replace this metric with 

metric(s) more closely focused with actual implementation of sound data governance 

policies.

Metric 3.1-B Status: Removed

Type of Change: Removed for fiscal year 2020 forward. 

Current Title: Number of Department program offices participating in Data Strategy Team (DST)-

offered data management training. 

Justification: The Department’s DST will continue to provide resources and strategies for data 

stewards and analysts, while the Data Governance Board (DGB) will ensure 

diversity of principal office participation and coordinate the maturation of the 

Department’s data enterprise. DBG includes senior-level membership from every 

principal office.

Metric 3.1-C Status: New

Type of Change: Added for fiscal year 2020 forward.

Current Title: Percentage of principal offices assessed as having higher data maturity year-overyear based on the Department’s data maturity assessment tool.

Justification: The Department’s Data Governance Board was established as required by OMB 

M-19-23 and in accordance with the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking 

Act of 2018. This metric was added to track the Department’s implementation of 

sound data governance policies, improve data lifecycle management, and increase 

capacity to support education data.

Metric 3.3-A Status: Removed

Type of Change: Removed for fiscal year 2020 forward. 

Current Title: Number of sessions dedicated to improved data use provided to external grantees 

and stakeholders presented by Department employees or their contractors or 

occurring at Department-hosted events. 

Justification: The Department will continue to host events and provide technical guidance around 

the use of data but plans additional approaches to supporting improved data use by 

its external stakeholders.
168 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Metric 3.3-B Status: Removed

Type of Change: Removed for fiscal year 2020 forward. 

Current Title: Number of newly added publicly available datasets in machine-readable formats. 

Justification: The Department seeks to improve data access to partners and stakeholders, both 

internally and externally, through a centralized data inventory and Open Data 

Platform. Efforts in the coming years will not track dissemination of data products 

but the growth in access provided through these critical platform developments.

Metric 3.3-C Status: Removed

Type of Change: Removed for fiscal year (FY) 2020 forward. 

Current Title: Percentage of discretionary grant competitions that include the requirement 

to openly license to the public copyrightable grant deliverables created with 

Department grant funds. 

Justification: Openly licensed data requirements have now been built into the Department’s grant 

templates. Reaching the 98 percent threshold in FY 2019 has shown the effects of 

these improvements, and analysis shows that the only exceptions were specific in 

ways where such a requirement was neither applicable nor achievable. In addition, 

the new Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 mandates this 

activity. 

Metric 3.3-D Status: New

Type of Change: Added for fiscal year 2020.

Current Title: Number of data assets listed in a comprehensive data inventory that are made 

available to the Federal Data Catalogue with official determinations regarding 

“open-by-default” requirements.

Justification: The Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 was enacted in 

2019, requiring each agency to establish a comprehensive data inventory. This 

metric was added to track the Department’s progress inventorying data assets as 

required by law.

Strategic Goal 4: Reform the effectiveness, efficiency and 

accountability of the Department.

Goal 4 FY 2019 Performance Metrics Removed or Changed and New 

Metrics Added for FY 2020

Metric 4.4-B Status: Removed

Type of Change: Removed for FY 2019 forward.

Original Title: Percentage of positions with competencies identified. 

Justification: This initiative was completed in FY 2018. The Department followed up this effort 

by evaluating staff skill sets against these competencies in FY 2019. Although this 

serves as the foundation for the long-term efforts aimed at closing skill gaps, future 

performance is not aligned with this specific measure.
Appendix C. Programs by Goal 169

Appendix C. Programs by Goal

Strategic Goal 1: Support state and local efforts to improve 

learning outcomes for all P-12 students in every community.

Goal 1 Other Discretionary Programs and Activities

POC ACCT Objective # Program

IES IES 1.4, 2.2 Regional Educational Laboratories 

IES IES 1.2, 2.2 Special Education Studies and Evaluations

OESE ED 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies 

OESE ED 1.2, 1.4 Comprehensive Literacy Development Grants 

OESE ED 1.2 State Agency Programs: Migrant 

OESE ED 1.2 State Agency Programs: Neglected and Delinquent

OESE ED 1.2, 2.1 Special Programs for Migrant Students 

OESE IA 1.2 Impact Aid, Payments for Federally Connected Children: 

Basic Support Payments 

OESE IA 1.2 Impact Aid, Payments for Federally Connected Children: 

Payments for Children with Disabilities 

OESE IA 1.2 Impact Aid, Facilities Maintenance 

OESE IA 1.2 Impact Aid, Construction 

OESE IA 1.2 Impact Aid, Payments for Federal Property 

OESE IE 1.2 Indian Education: Grants to Local Educational Agencies 

OESE IE 1.2 Indian Education: Special Programs for Indian Children 

OESE IE 1.2 Indian Education: National Activities 

OESE IESE 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 

1.4

Elementary and Secondary Education for the Disadvantaged 

Block Grant (proposed legislation)

OESE I&I 1.3, 1.4 Education Innovation and Research

OESE I&I 1.2, 1.4 Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants 

OESE I&I 1.1, 1.2 Charter Schools Grants 

OESE I&I 1.1, 1.2 Magnet Schools Assistance 

OESE I&I 1.2, 1.4 Innovative Approaches to Literacy

OESE I&I 1.2 Full-Service Community Schools

OESE I&I 1.2 American History and Civics Education 

OESE I&I 1.2, 2.3 Teacher Quality Partnership 

OESE I&I 1.2, 1.4 Supporting Effective Educator Development

OESE I&I 1.2 Ready to Learn Programming

OESE I&I 1.2 Arts in Education

OESE I&I 1.2 Javits Gifted and Talented Education

OESE I&I 1.2, 1.4 Statewide Family Engagement Centers 
170 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

POC ACCT Objective # Program

OESE SIP 1.2, 1.4 State Assessments 

OESE SIP 1.2, 1.4 Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants 

OESE SIP 1.2, 1.4 21st Century Community Learning Centers 

OESE SIP 1.2 Education for Homeless Children and Youth Education 

OESE SIP 1.2 Native Hawaiian Education

OESE SIP 1.2 Alaska Native Education

OESE SIP 1.2 Training and Advisory Services 

OESE SIP 1.2 Rural Education 

OESE SIP 1.2 Supplemental Education Grants 

OESE SIP 1.2 Comprehensive Centers 

OESE SIP 1.2 Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants 

OESE SSCE 1.2 School Safety National Activities

OESE SSCE 1.2 Promise Neighborhoods 

OESE/OELA ELA 1.2 English Language Acquisition 

OSERS SE 1.1, 1.2, 1.4 Special Education Grants to States 

OSERS SE 1.1, 1.2 Preschool Grants 

OSERS SE 1.1 Grants for Infants and Families 

OSERS SE 1.1, 1.2, 1.4 Technical Assistance and Dissemination 

OSERS SE 1 Parent Information Centers 

OSERS SE 1.3 Education Technology, Media, and Materials 

OSERS SE 1.2 Special Olympics Education Programs 

OCTAE CTAE 1.3, 2.1 Adult Basic and Literacy Education State Grants 

OCTAE CTAE 1.3, 2.1 Adult Education National Leadership Activities 

Acronyms and Definitions:

POC = Principal Operating Component; ACCT = Account; IES = Institute of Education Sciences; OESE = Office of Elementary 

and Secondary Education; ED = U.S. Department of Education; IA = Impact Aid; IESE = Improving Elementary and Secondary 

Education; I&I = Innovation and Improvement; SIP = Strengthening Institutions Program; SSCE = Safe Schools and Citizenship 

Education; OELA = Office of English Language Acquisition; ELA = English Language Acquisition; OSERS = Office of Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services; SE = Special Education; OCTAE = Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education; and 

CTAE = Career, Technical and Adult Education.

Mandatory Programs Supporting Goal 1

No additional programs.
Appendix C. Programs by Goal 171

Strategic Goal 2: Expand postsecondary educational 

opportunities, improve outcomes to foster economic 

opportunity and promote an informed, thoughtful and 

productive citizenry.

Goal 2 Other Discretionary Programs and Activities

POC ACCT Objective # Program

FSA DM/SAA N/A Student Aid Administration: Salaries and Expenses 

FSA DM/SAA N/A Student Aid Administration: Servicing Activities

FSA SFA 2.1, 2.3 Federal Pell Grants: Discretionary 

FSA SFA 2.1, 2.3 Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants 

FSA SFA 2.1, 2.3 Federal Work-Study 

IES IES 1.4, 2.2 Regional Educational Laboratories 

IES IES 1.2, 2.2 Special Education Studies and Evaluations

OCTAE CTAE 2.1, 2.3 Career and Technical Education State Grants 

OCTAE CTAE 2.1, 2.4 Career and Technical National Programs 

OCTAE CTAE 1.3, 2.1 Adult Basic and Literacy Education State Grants 

OCTAE CTAE 1.3, 2.1 Adult Education National Leadership Activities 

OCATE HE 2.1 Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Career and Technical 

Institutions 

OESE ED 1.2, 2.1 Special Programs for Migrant Students 

OESE I&I 1.2, 2.3 Teacher Quality Partnership 

OPE HE 2.1 Strengthening HBCUs 

OPE HE 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 Federal TRIO Programs

OPE HE 2.1, 2.2 Aid for Institutional Development: Strengthening Institutions

OPE HE 2.1 Aid for Institutional Development: Strengthening Tribally 

Controlled Colleges and Universities 

OPE HE 2.1 Strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving 

Institutions 

OPE HE 2.1 Strengthening Historically Black Graduate Institutions 

OPE HE 2.1 Strengthening HBCUs Master’s Program 

OPE HE 2.1 Strengthening Predominately Black Institutions 

OPE HE 2.1 Strengthening Asian American- and Native American Pacific 

Islander-Serving institutions 

OPE HE 2.1 Strengthening Native American-Serving Nontribal 

Institutions 

OPE HE 2.2, 2.3 Minority Science and Engineering Improvement 

OPE HE 2.1 Aid for Hispanic-Serving Institutions: Developing HispanicServing Institutions 

OPE HE 2,1 Aid for Hispanic-Serving Institutions: Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans

OPE HE 2.1, 2.2 Consolidated MSI Grant (proposed legislation): Consolidated 

MSI Grant
172 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

POC ACCT Objective # Program

OPE HE 2.1 International Education and Foreign Language Studies: 

Domestic Programs 

OPE HE 2.1 International Education and Foreign Language Studies: 

Overseas Programs 

OPE HE 2.1 Model Transition Programs for Students with Intellectual 

Disabilities into Higher Education

OPE HE 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate 

Programs (GEAR UP)

OPE HE 2.3 Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need 

OPE HE 2.1 Childcare Access Means Parents in School 

OPE HE 2.1, 2.3 Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education 

(FIPSE)

OPE HE 2.1 Howard University: General Support 

OPE HE 2.1 Howard University Hospital 

OPE HE N/A College Housing and Academic Facilities Loans Program 

Account: Federal Administration 

OPE HE Historically Black College and University Capital Financing 

Program Account: Federal Administration

OPE HE Historically Black College and University Capital Financing 

Program Account: Loan Subsidies

OPE HE Historically Black College and University Capital Financing 

Program Account: Modification of Existing Loan Subsidies

OSERS APBH 2.1, 2.3 American Printing House for the Blind 

OSERS GU 2,1, 2.3 Gallaudet University

OSERS NTID 2.1, 2.2 National Technical Institute for the Deaf

OSERS REHAB 2.1 Client Assistance State Grants 

OSERS REHAB 2.1, 2.2 VR Training 

OSERS REHAB 2.1, 2.2 Demonstration and Training Programs 

OSERS REHAB 2.1 Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights 

OSERS REHAB 2.1, 2.3 Supported Employment State Grants 

OSERS REHAB 2.2 Independent Living Services for Older, Blind Individuals 

OSERS REHAB 2.2 Helen Keller National Center for Deaf-Blind Youths and 

Adults 

OSERS SE 2 State Personnel Development 

OSERS SE 2 Personnel Preparation 

Acronyms and Definitions:

POC = Principal Operating Component; ACCT = Account; FSA = Office of Federal Student Aid; DM = Departmental 

Management; SAA = Student Aid Administration; N/A = Not Applicable; SFA = Student Financial Assistance; IES = Institute 

of Education Sciences; OCTAE = Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education; CTAE = Career, Technical, and Adult 

Education; HE = Higher Education; OESE = Office of Elementary and Secondary Education; ED = U.S. Department of 

Education; I&I = Innovation and Improvement; OPE = Office of Postsecondary Education; HBCU = Historically Black College 

and University; MSI = Minority-Serving Institution; OSERS = Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; APBH = 

American Printing House for the Blind; GU = Gallaudet University; NTID = National Technical Institute for the Deaf; REHAB 

= Rehabilitation Services and Disability Research; VR = Vocational Rehabilitation; and SE = Special Education.
Appendix C. Programs by Goal 173

Mandatory Programs Supporting Goal 2

POC ACCT Objective # Program

FSA FDSL 2.1, 2.3 Federal Direct Student Loans Program Account: New Loan 

Subsidies

FSA FDSL 2.1, 2.3 Federal Direct Student Loans Program Account: New Net 

Loan Subsidy (non-add)

FSA FDSL 2.1, 2.3 Federal Direct Student Loans Program Account: Upward 

Reestimate of Existing Loans

FSA FDSL 2.1, 2.3 Federal Direct Student Loans Program Account: Downward 

Reestimate of Existing Loans (non-add)

FSA FDSL 2.1, 2.3 Federal Direct Student Loans Program Account: Net 

Reestimate of Existing Loans (non-add)

FSA FDSL 2.1, 2.3 Federal Direct Student Loans Program Account: Upward 

Modification of Existing Loans

FSA FFEL 2.1 Federal Family Education Loans Program Account: Upward 

Reestimate of Existing Loans

FSA FFEL 2.1 Federal Family Education Loans Program Account: 

Downward Reestimate of Existing Loans (non-add)

FSA FFEL 2.1 Federal Family Education Loans Program Account: Net 

Reestimate of Existing Loans (non-add)

FSA FFEL 2.1 Federal Family Education Loans Program Account: Upward 

Modification of Existing Loans

FSA FFEL 2.1 Federal Family Education Loans Program Account: 

Downward Modification of Existing Loans (non-add)

FSA FFEL 2.1 Federal Family Education Loans Program Account: Net 

Modification of Existing Loans (non-add)

FSA FFEL 2.1 Federal Family Education Loans Liquidating Account: 

Pre-1992 Student Loans

FSA HEAL 2.1 Health Education Assistance Loans Liquidating Account 

FSA TEACH 2.1, 2.3 TEACH Grants: New Loan Subsidy

FSA TEACH 2.1, 2.3 TEACH Grants: Upward Reestimate of Existing Loans 

FSA TEACH 2.1, 2.3 TEACH Grants: Downward Reestimate of Existing Loans 

(non-add) 

FSA TEACH 2.1, 2.3 TEACH Grants: Net Reestimate of Existing Loans (non-add) 

FSA SFA 2.1, 2.3 Federal Pell Grants: Mandatory 

FSA SFA 2.1, 2.3 Federal Pell Grants: Mandatory Funding for Discretionary 

Program Costs 

FSA SFA 2.1, 2.3 Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grants 

OPE HE 2.1 Aid for Institutional Development: Mandatory Strengthening 

Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities 

OPE HE 2.1 Mandatory Strengthening Alaska Native and Native 

Hawaiian-Serving Institutions 

OPE HE 2.1 Mandatory Strengthening HBCUs 

OPE HE 2.1 Mandatory Strengthening Predominantly Black Institutions 
174 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

POC ACCT Objective # Program

OPE HE 2.1 Mandatory Strengthening Asian American- and Native 

American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions 

OPE HE 2.1 Mandatory Strengthening Native American-Serving Nontribal 

Institutions 

OPE HE 2.1, 2.2 Aid for Hispanic-Serving Institutions: Mandatory Developing 

HSI STEM and Articulation Programs 

OPE HE 2.1, 2.2 Consolidated MSI Grant (proposed legislation): Mandatory 

Consolidated MSI Grant

OPE HE N/A College Housing and Academic Facilities Loans Program 

Account: Reestimate of Existing Loan Subsidies 

OPE HE N/A College Housing and Academic Facilities Loans Liquidating 

Account 

OPE HE N/A Historically Black College and University Capital Financing 

Program Account: Reestimate of Existing Loan Subsidies

OPE HE N/A Higher Education Facilities Loans Liquidating Account 

OPE HE N/A College Housing Loans Liquidating Account 

OSERS REHAB 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 Vocational Rehabilitation, State Grants 

OSERS REHAB 2.1 Vocational Rehabilitation, Grants to Indians 

SFA 2.1 Perkins Loan Repayments

SFA N/A FDSL Downward Reestimate of Loan Subsidies

SFA N/A FFEL Downward Reestimate of Loan Subsidies

SFA N/A FDSL Downward Modification/Negative Loan Subsidies

SFA N/A HBCU Capital Financing Downward Reestimate of Loan 

Subsidies 

SFA N/A FFEL Downward Modification/Negative Loan Subsidies

SFA N/A HEAL Downward Reestimate of Loan Subsidies 

SFA N/A TEACH Downward Reestimate of Loan Subsidies

SFA N/A Student Financial Assistance Debt Collection 

Acronyms and Definitions:

POC = Principal Operating Component; ACCT = Account; FSA = Federal Student Aid; FDSL = Federal Direct Student Loan; 

FFEL = Federal Family Education Loan; HEAL = Health Education Assistance Loan; TEACH = Teacher Education Assistance 

for College and Higher Education; SFA = Student Financial Assistance; OPE = Office of Postsecondary Education; HE = Higher 

Education; HBCU = Historically Black College and University; HSI STEM = Hispanic Serving Institution Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Mathematics Articulation Program; MSI = Minority-Serving Institution; N/A = Not Applicable; OSERS = 

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; and REHAB = Rehabilitation Services and Disability Research.
Appendix C. Programs by Goal 175

Strategic Goal 3: Strengthen the quality, accessibility, and 

use of education data through better management, increased 

privacy protections and transparency.

Goal 3 Other Discretionary Programs and Activities

POC ACCT Objective # Program

IES IES 3.3 Research, Development, and Dissemination 

IES IES 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 Statistics 

IES IES 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 National Assessment 

IES IES 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 National Assessment Governing Board

IES IES 3.3 Research in Special Education 

IES IES 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems 

Acronyms and Definitions:

POC = Principal Operating Component; ACCT = Account; and IES = Institute of Education Sciences.

Mandatory Programs Supporting Goal 3

No additional programs.

Strategic Goal 4: Reform the effectiveness, efficiency and 

accountability of the Department.

Goal 4 Other Discretionary Programs and Activities

POC ACCT Objective # Program

ALL DM/PA N/A Program Administration: Salaries and Expenses

ALL DM/PA N/A Program Administration: Building Modernization 

OCR OCR N/A Office for Civil Rights

OIG OIG N/A Office of Inspector General 

Acronyms and Definitions:

POC = Principal Operating Component; ACCT = Account; ALL = All; DM/PA = Departmental Management/Program 

Administration; N/A = Not Applicable; OCR = Office for Civil Rights; and OIG = Office of Inspector General.

Mandatory Programs Supporting Goal 4

No additional programs.
This page is intentionally left blank.
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 177

Appendix D. Summary of 

Performance Evaluations 

Completed During FY 2019 

and Expected During FY 2020 

and FY 2021

Appendix D provides a summary of performance evaluations completed during fiscal year 

(FY) 2019 and those expected during FY 2020 and FY 2021.

Evaluations Completed in FY 2019

National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional 

Assistance

Early Learning

Race to the Top–Early Learning Challenge: Descriptive Study of Tiered 

Quality Rating and Improvement Systems in Nine Round 1 States

Study Purpose

The Race to the Top–Early Learning Challenge Program (RTT-ELC) aimed to improve 

early learning and development programs so children enter kindergarten ready to succeed. 

The program awarded $1 billion in four-year grants to 20 states in three rounds between 

2011 and 2013. The program promoted reform in five key areas: (1) state systems, 

(2) high-quality accountable programs, (3) early learning and development outcomes for 

children, (4) workforce, and (5) measurement. The second area focused on the design 

and implementation of the Tiered Quality Rating Improvement System (TQRIS) that 

provides parents and other stakeholders with information on the quality of early-learning 

programs. To better understand TQRIS that RTT-ELC grantees developed, this descriptive 

study examined the structure and characteristics of grantee states’ TQRIS, analyzed state 

administrative data to examine patterns in the participation and distribution of programs 

in TQRIS, and synthesized findings from grantee states with completed TQRIS validation 

studies. This study focused on the nine Round 1 states, which received more than 

$500 million in 2011.
178 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Key Questions Addressed

• How was TQRIS structured and implemented in the nine Round 1 RTT-ELC states?

• How were TQRIS ratings defined, collected, and generated in the nine Round 1 

RTT-ELC states?

• What were the patterns in TQRIS participation, the distribution of programs and 

children across the rating levels, and the movement of programs and children 

across the rating levels since 2011?

• How do TQRIS characteristics (including structure, policies, and practices) relate 

to program movement up the rating levels and achievement of the highest rating 

level?

• What have completed RTT-ELC state validation studies found about the relationship between TQRIS tiers and program quality as well as the relationship between 

children’s development and TQRIS ratings?

Design

This descriptive study collected various data from the nine Round 1 RTT-ELC grantee 

states. In fall 2014, the study collected and conducted a targeted review of documents 

describing the structure of TQRIS, including component measures and the quality 

indicators used to evaluate preschool programs and how these are combined to generate 

overall ratings. In fall 2014 through winter 2015, the study also conducted interviews with 

state administrators to confirm and clarify the information obtained from documents and 

gather information that could not be obtained from the document reviews.

To address the third and fourth research questions, the study collected administrative 

data from the Round 1 RTT-ELC grantee states. To address the last question, the study 

conducted a systematic review of nine completed RTT-ELC grantee state validation 

studies available in 2017.

Actual Completion Date

A report addressing the first two questions was released in November 2017. Three additional publications addressing the remaining questions were released in April 2019.

Key Findings

• There were substantial differences in the ways that states structured, implemented, 

promoted participation in, rated, and monitored early-learning programs in their 

rating systems.

• While most states increased the percentage of programs rated at top TQRIS levels, 

which is a goal of RTT-ELC, 68 percent of programs remained at the same rating 

level during the study period. None of the states in the study could provide data 

needed to assess whether the number of high-needs children enrolled in top-rated 

TQRIS programs increased—another RTT-ELC goal.
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 179

• States that implemented TQRIS longer and whose rating structures allowed 

more flexibility for early-learning programs to demonstrate quality had a higher 

percentage of programs at the top rating levels.

• State reports found that programs with higher TQRIS ratings also had higher scores 

on independent measures of quality. However, children attending programs with 

higher TQRIS ratings generally did not have better developmental outcomes than 

those attending programs with lower TQRIS ratings.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/other_rtt.asp

School Choice

Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: Impacts 

Three Years After Students Applied

Study Purpose

The April 2011 Scholarships and Opportunities for Results Act provided a five-year 

continuation of a school choice program for low-income residents in Washington, D.C. 

The Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP) provides annual scholarships of about $8,000 

(for kindergarten through grade 8) or $12,000 (for grades 9 through 12) to enable low-income 

students to attend Washington, D.C., private schools in lieu of the public schools already 

available to them. The law also mandated a second independent, rigorous evaluation of 

the effectiveness of the program following one completed in 2011.

Key Questions Addressed

• What was the impact of OSP on student academic achievement and other measures 

of student success overall and for subgroups of students identified in the statute as 

high priority?

• What effect did the program have on student and parent perceptions of school safety 

and satisfaction and on parents’ involvement in the education of their children?

Design

The evaluation compared outcomes of approximately 1,800 student applicants randomly 

assigned by lottery to either receive or not receive a scholarship. Lotteries of program 

applicants were conducted in spring 2012 (cohort 1), spring 2013 (cohort 2), and spring 2014 

(cohort 3). Data were collected for three follow-up years for each of the cohorts and for 

students in both the scholarship and non-scholarship groups. The contractor administered 

academic assessments and conducted student, parent, and principal surveys each spring 

(spring 2013–2017).

Actual Completion Date

The final impact report was released in spring 2019. 
180 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Key Findings

• OSP had no effect on student achievement after three years. In the first two years 

after applying to OSP, students offered and students using scholarships performed 

worse in mathematics than those not offered scholarships. Between years two and 

three, growth in mathematics scores slowed for students not offered scholarships 

and increased for those offered and using scholarships. As a result, the groups 

performed similarly by year three. After three years, students offered and students 

using scholarships also had lower rates of chronic absenteeism (22 and 20 percent, 

respectively) than did students not offered scholarships (29 percent).

• OSP improved student (but not parent) satisfaction with schools as well as 

perceptions of school safety. Students offered and students using scholarships were 

more likely to give their school a grade of A or B and to report that their school 

was “very safe” three years after they applied to the program. However, parents of 

students offered or students using scholarships reported similar school satisfaction 

and perceptions of school safety as parents of students not offered scholarships.

• OSP did not have an impact on parent involvement in education at school or at home.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/choice_soar.asp

Do Charter Middle Schools Improve Students’ College Outcomes?

Study Purpose

The charter school sector plays an important role in efforts to reform the education system 

and better serve the nation’s public school students. To help understand this role, more than 

a decade ago, the National Evaluation of Charter Middle Schools examined how admission 

to about 30 charter middle schools affected students’ achievement. On average, there were 

no significant effects. However, some charter middle schools in the study were successful 

in improving achievement, including those in urban areas and serving economically disadvantaged students—features of many charter schools today. This follow-up study examined 

whether the charter middle schools included in the national evaluation affected students’ 

college enrollment and completion and the relationship between each school’s earlier 

achievement results and these important longer-term outcomes.

 Key Questions Addressed

• Does admission to a charter middle school affect students’ college enrollment and 

completion? 

• Is charter middle schools’ success in improving students’ middle school achievement 

related to their success in improving students’ college enrollment and completion?

Design

College data were obtained for almost all 2,900 students who applied to be admitted by 

lottery in 2004 or 2005 to one of the 36 middle schools that participated in the original 
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 181

study. The follow-up study compared the college enrollment and completion of lottery 

winners and those who did not win the lottery to determine the impact of being admitted to 

a charter middle school. College outcomes came from the National Student Clearinghouse, 

and data on student and school characteristics and student middle school mathematics 

and reading test scores came from the original evaluation. 

Actual Completion Date

An evaluation brief was released in April 2019. 

Key Findings

• Being admitted to a charter middle school in the study did not affect students’ 

chances of enrolling in or completing college. 

• Individual charter middle schools’ success in improving students’ middle school 

achievement was not related to their success in improving students’ college 

enrollment and completion.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20194005/index.asp

Parent Information and School Choice Evaluation

Study Purpose

School choice is among the most visible kindergarten through grade 12 education policy 

trends to emerge over the last few decades. For this policy to be effective, it seems critical 

that parents are able to understand and use information about schools and application 

procedures to make informed choices. However, few studies have rigorously examined 

school choice information strategies or attempted to identify effective methods of 

information presentation. This evaluation is designed to address this significant gap in 

the literature.

Key Questions Addressed

• Which formats make school choice information displays easiest to understand 

and use? For example, is it better to show school performance data with numbers, 

graphs, or icons?

• How does the amount of information displayed affect understanding and use?

• How should school choice information displays be organized?

Design

A low-cost, quick turn-around experiment was carried out online with about 3,500 low-income parents of school-aged children. Parents were randomly assigned to view 1 of 

72 versions of a school choice information display and then answered survey questions 

about their understanding of the information, ability to use the information, and which 

schools they would select based on the information they were provided. Responses to 
182 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

these survey questions were compared across the strategies tested to determine which ones 

were the most promising.

Estimated Completion Date

A short user-friendly guide based on the evaluation’s findings was released in 

October 2018.

Key Findings

• Parents were most satisfied with school data showing graphs in addition to numbers, 

but displays using numbers only were most understandable. Research outside 

of education indicates that graphs and icons, such as color-coded letter grades, 

can help people organize and interpret information. The study found that parents 

preferred school information displays that included graphs but better understood 

the information without these additional visual representations.

• A higher amount of information was more satisfying to parents with one exception: 

parents were more satisfied with displays showing multiple indicators to describe 

schools’ distance from home, academics, safety, and resources than they were with 

displays showing just one indicator for each. Likewise, displays that added ratings 

from parent surveys were more satisfying. However, more information was not 

always better. For example, displays that added district averages (i.e., meant to 

provide context for each school’s profile) were actually less preferred.

• Parents chose higher-performing schools when schools were ordered by academic 

quality but were most satisfied with displays that ordered schools by distance from 

home. The study compared displays that ordered schools from closest to farthest 

from home to those that ordered schools from highest to lowest academic quality. 

Parents both best understood and preferred schools ordered by distance from home. 

But when displays were ordered by academic quality, parents chose schools with 

higher academic quality.

Link to Additional Information

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/choice_parent.asp

Educator Effectiveness

Study of Teacher Preparation Experiences and Early Teaching Effectiveness

Study Purpose

Title II, Part A, the Supporting Effective Instruction Formula Grants program, is the primary 

federal funding under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to improve 

teacher quality. Research has shown that, on average, novice teachers are less effective 

in improving student achievement than their more experienced peers. This is particularly 

an issue given that new teachers tend to be concentrated in high-poverty schools with 

lower-performing students. 
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 183

To better understand teacher preparation and inform ways to improve it, this study surveyed 

new elementary school teachers about their preparation experiences. It also examined 

whether the experiences that novice teachers have in their certification programs are 

associated with teachers’ effectiveness in the classroom.

Key Question Addressed 

• To what extent did teachers report participating in various preparation experiences?

• Among novice teachers, what are the relationships between the teachers’ experiences 

in their preparation programs and the achievement of students in their classroom?

Design

Approximately 3,300 novice elementary school teachers participated in this descriptive 

study. They were surveyed once, in spring 2015. The survey asked teachers about their 

experiences learning specific teaching strategies across two categories of classroom 

instruction: “creating a productive learning environment” and “promoting analytic thinking 

skills.” For each strategy, teachers reported how often within their preparation they engaged 

in four different ways of learning them: (1) coursework, (2) observation of other teachers, 

(3) practice within a classroom setting, and (4) instructor feedback on their classroom 

practice. The study describes the frequency of these experiences and which experiences 

may matter for teachers’ effectiveness in improving student test scores.

Actual Completion Date

The report was released in September 2019.

Key Findings

• Of the four ways of learning—coursework, observation, practice, and feedback—

teachers’ preparation most frequently included coursework and least frequently 

included receiving feedback.

• Practice in “creating a productive learning environment” was the only way of 

learning related to teaching effectiveness in English/language arts and mathematics. More frequent observation of others and feedback from program staff or 

their cooperating teacher was also related to improved teaching effectiveness but 

only in English/language arts. The frequency of coursework on “creating a productive learning environment” was not related to how effective teachers were in either 

subject once they got to the classroom, despite coursework being the most common 

learning opportunity teachers experienced.

• Having more preparation experience with “promoting analytic thinking skills”—

through any of the four learning opportunities—was unrelated to teacher 

effectiveness. It would be premature to conclude that experiences focused on these 

teaching strategies are not important components of effective preparation; however, 

it does suggest that more investigation into the nature of these strategies is needed 

to guide improvements in preparation.
184 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Link to Additional Information

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_teacherprep_early.asp

Impact Evaluation of Professional Development for Teachers on DataDriven Instruction

Study Purpose

Most districts help teachers use data to improve student learning, often supporting this 

effort with Title II, Part A funds under ESEA. But many teachers feel unprepared to use 

student data to inform their instruction (referred to as data-driven instruction (DDI)), and 

there is little evidence of whether it improves student achievement. This study assessed an 

intensive approach to supporting teachers’ use of student data to tailor their instruction. 

The support included funding for a data coach of the schools’ choosing as well as intensive 

professional development for coaches and school leaders on helping teachers use student 

data to inform their instruction.

Key Questions Addressed 

• What are the effects of the study’s DDI support on teachers’ reported use of data 

and classroom practices?

• What are the effects of providing this support on student achievement?

Design

The study includes 102 elementary schools in 12 districts and randomly assigned half of 

the participating schools to receive the additional DDI support. Data collection included 

a teacher survey, a principal survey, and student administrative records in all participating 

schools, including those that received the extra support and those that did not. Comparing 

the classroom instruction and student achievement in schools that received the additional 

support versus those that did not provides evidence on the effectiveness of this specific 

approach to providing support for DDI.

Actual Completion Date

The report was released in September 2019.

Key Findings

• The study’s DDI coaching and professional development did not increase teachers’ 

data use or change their instructional practices. Prior research has suggested specific 

ways teachers can use data to improve student learning (e.g., to monitor student 

progress or to plan individualized instruction). The support offered in this study 

was intended to boost collaboration among teachers to analyze student data and 

tailor their instruction in response. However, teachers in schools who received additional DDI support reported using data and data-driven instructional approaches in 

largely the same ways as teachers in schools not receiving extra support. 
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 185

• The study’s support for DDI did not improve students’ achievement. On average, 

students had similar achievement in mathematics and English/language arts 

whether they were in schools that received extra DDI coaching and professional 

development or not. Students in each group scored near the 40th percentile on their 

state assessments in each subject.

Link to Additional Information

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_datadriven.asp

Technical Assistance to Evaluators or States

Evaluation of the Comprehensive Technical Assistance Centers’ FY 2012 

Grantees

Study Purpose

The Comprehensive Technical Assistance Centers program is a federally funded program 

currently authorized under the Educational Technical Assistance Act of 2002. In FY 2012, 

the Department awarded five-year grants, which were subsequently extended to seven-year 

grants, to 22 Comprehensive Technical Assistance Centers to help state educational agencies 

(SEAs) build their capacity to implement state-level initiatives and to support districtand school-level (i.e., local educational agencies (school districts) LEAs)) initiatives that 

improve educational outcomes for all students, close achievement gaps, and improve the 

quality of instruction. The total yearly funding for the program averaged about $50 million. 

This study will inform the Department, the program, and the larger field about the design, 

implementation, and outcomes of the centers’ work.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• How did centers define capacity building in their theories of action? How did the 

centers assess the needs of their constituents and develop work plans to address 

those needs?

• What strategies did centers employ to achieve their outcomes? To what extent and 

how did centers collaborate with each other?

• Did centers achieve their expected capacity-building outcomes, and how do they 

assess whether they achieved them? What strategies are perceived to be most 

effective and why? What challenges or barriers do centers face in achieving 

outcomes, and how do they respond?

Design

This evaluation is a multiyear descriptive study examining the Comprehensive Technical 

Assistance Centers program. The evaluation will describe how individual centers intend 

to build SEA capacity (their theories of action) and document what types of activities 

they actually conducted to build capacity. The evaluation focused on center projects in 

two priority areas: great teachers and leaders and early learning. Data were collected 
186 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

during FY 2015, FY 2016, and FY 2017 program years and included: (1) the centers’ 

management plans and technical assistance activity data, (2) interviews with staff from 

each center and interviews with technical assistance recipients, (4) a survey of center staff, 

and (5) a survey of technical assistance recipients. This approach yielded a diverse set 

of data that were analyzed using qualitative research methods and simple quantitative 

tabulations in order to address the study’s key questions.

Actual Completion Date

The final report was released in October 2019.

Key Findings

• Overall, centers and their technical assistance recipients reported that the centers’ 

technical assistance improved the capacity of SEAs to meet their goals.

• Centers shared similar approaches to the design and implementation of their 

technical assistance. Practices perceived to be instrumental to building capacity 

included: engaging a broad array of stakeholders to provide input on policy, 

providing products and tools for SEA staff to use as they took greater ownership 

of policy design and implementation, imparting organizational practices and structures resilient to SEA turnover and policy shifts, and flexibly adapting technical 

assistance in response to changing priorities and needs.

• Centers and their technical assistance recipients pointed to a few areas for program 

improvement, including clarification of the centers’ role and expected outcomes 

related to their work with LEAs as well as further guidance for SEAs about how 

best to use the centers.

Link to Additional Information

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/other_techcenters12.asp

Policy and Program Studies Service

Study of Digital Learning Resources for Instructing English Learners

Study Purpose

Over the past decades, kindergarten through grade 12 teachers have gained increasing 

access to digital technologies to support instruction while, at the same time, the number 

and percentage of English learners (ELs) in their classrooms has been increasing. This 

study is intended to inform educators, technology developers, and policymakers about how 

digital learning resources (DLRs) can be used to support EL students, both in terms of 

English language acquisition and achievement in academic content areas. The goals of the 

study are to explore the range of DLRs that are available for use with ELs, examine how 

districts and schools select and use these apps, and develop ideas on ways to improve the 

design and use of DLRs to support learning for ELs.
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 187

Key Question(s) Addressed

• How do districts and teachers identify DLRs for instructing EL students?

• What types of DLRs do teachers use, and how do they use DLRs in instructing 

EL students?

• What are supports for and barriers to DLR use in instructing EL students?

• How can educators and technology developers improve the usefulness of DLRs 

in instruction of EL students?

Design

The study is based on a nationally representative survey of 999 school districts that enroll 

EL students and a survey of teachers of EL students within those districts (including both 

mainstream teachers and EL specialists). Case studies were conducted in six of the districts, 

including interviews with district administrators, principals, and teachers of EL students. 

The study also includes market research on existing DLRs for kindergarten through 

grade 12 instruction and consultation with an expert panel of technology developers, 

practitioners, and education researchers about ways to improve the design and use of 

DLRs for instructing EL students.

Actual Completion Date

Two field-focused toolkits for educators and technology developers were released in 

October 2018. The final report was released in May 2019.

Key Findings

• Most teachers surveyed reported that they identified specific DLRs for instructing 

EL students based on the recommendations of fellow teachers and district or 

school administrators.

• Teachers were more likely to report weekly or daily use of general education DLRs 

than of DLRs designed primarily for EL students (85 percent vs. 65 percent).

• About two-thirds of teachers surveyed reported using digital references and 

resources, language tutorials or practice tools, and academic tutorials or practice 

tools weekly or daily in instructing their EL students.

• The majority of teachers reported that EL students often used DLRs when working 

independently (61 percent) or as part of a whole class activity (60 percent); few 

teachers reported assigning EL students to use DLRs outside of class.

• High-EL districts were more likely than low-EL districts to report providing professional development workshops, coaching, and in-class assistance related to DLR 

use in instructing EL students.

• Across all districts, EL specialists reported fewer hours of professional development in DLR use than did mainstream teachers.

• Frequently reported barriers to using DLRs with EL students were students’ lack of 

DLR access at home, and teachers’ needs for EL and technology expertise and for 

time to learn and use DLRs.
188 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

• Educators suggested that DLRs could improve by engaging students in academic 

content while building language and literacy skills; embedding visual, auditory, 

and other support features; providing multiple languages; and providing gradelevel content and age-appropriate design for older beginner-level EL students.

Link to Additional Information

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#ells

Evaluation of the Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent Program

Study Purpose

This study examined the implementation of educational programs for children and youth 

in residential facilities and correctional institutions funded under Title I, Part D of ESEA. 

The study included surveys of state grantees and local subgrantees to examine the types 

of services and strategies that Part D funds support, how state and local agencies assist 

students in transitioning back to schools, how state correctional facilities implement 

institution-wide Part D projects, and how grantees assess the educational outcomes of 

participating students.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• How do states and local agencies administer Part D programs?

• What types of services and strategies do Part D funds support and are otherwise 

provided to youth in justice and child welfare settings?

• How do justice and child welfare agencies and facilities assist students in transitioning back to districts and schools, including those outside their jurisdictions?

• How do grantees assess the educational outcomes of students participating in 

Part D-funded educational programs?

Design

The study included surveys of state and local coordinators of Title I, Part D-funded programs 

as well as site visits to state agencies (SAs), school districts, correctional institutions, and 

child welfare facilities. The study was also informed by a review of extant data and a 

review of literature related to programs for neglected and delinquent youth.

Key Findings

• SEA coordinators most frequently reported focusing on creating and reviewing 

Part D funding applications, supporting federal data collection, and conducting 

program compliance monitoring; they less frequently focused on providing 

training and technical assistance to subgrantees or direct involvement in academic 

instruction in facilities.

• Few SA coordinators (11 of 37 responding) reported that one or more of their 

juvenile justice or child welfare facilities implemented an institution-wide project 

under Subpart 1.
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 189

• Both SAs and local facilities used Part D funds primarily for personnel costs, 

most commonly for core instructional and supplemental teachers and counselors. 

However, roughly half of coordinators reported that facilities faced shortages of 

qualified instructional and support staff, and many reported challenges in employing 

teachers within their credentialed content area.

• In addition to core and supplemental academic programming, nearly all 

Part D-funded state facilities and roughly half of local facilities offered career 

and technical education (CTE).

• Less than 25 percent of all students entered a state or local facility with an existing 

transition plan; more than half had a transition plan developed while in placement.

• More than half of SA and local facility program coordinators said their facilities 

provided some form of services to youth after exiting the facility, such as general 

education support and counseling. Typically, these services lasted less than 

two months.

• Roughly half of state and local facilities could not track any students after exit. Those 

that could track students most often tracked high school equivalency credentials 

earned and high school graduation rates.

Actual Completion Date

The report was released in March 2019.

Link to Additional Information

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#neglected

Study of the Implementation of Migrant Education Program

Study Purpose

This study examined how states, districts, schools, and other service providers implement 

requirements authorized under the ESEA Title I, Part C: Migrant Education Program 

(MEP). The $374 million program serves approximately 300,000 highly mobile students 

and out-of-school youth accompanied by migratory farmworkers and fishers. SEAs serve 

as the primary grantees and sub-allocate funds to local school districts and operating 

agencies and regional service providers who serve students both during the academic year 

and summer months.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• How do MEP grantees identify, recruit, and prioritize migratory children for 

services?

• How does the Migrant Student Information Exchange (MSIX) system facilitate the 

transfer of educational and health information to support enrollment, placement, 

and accrual of credits for migratory children?

• What services do MEP grantees provide to migratory children?
190 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

• How do MEP grantees collaborate with other programs and organizations to deliver 

services to migratory children and their families?

Design

The study included surveys of all 46 state grantees and a nationally representative sample 

of 1,006 district programs serving migratory children. In addition, the study is conducting 

case studies of 10 states, 20 local grantees (2 per state), and 40 schools (2 per local grantee).

Key Findings

• Most state Migrant Education Program (MEP) grantees relied on their local/

regional MEP subgrantees and outside contractors to manage the identification and 

recruitment (ID&R) process, including hiring, deploying, and supervising MEP 

recruiters. At the same time, states played a significant role in recruiter training, 

monitoring and quality control.

• Most state MEP directors and local/regional MEP coordinators reported that MSIX 

had improved timely notification when migratory children moved across states and 

facilitated interstate migratory student records and transfers. 

• State MEP directors considered a variety of factors in determining specific services 

to provide or fund for migratory children, including the needs of migratory children, the availability of funds, student outcomes, policy priorities, and the services 

provided by other programs. 

• State MEP grantees and local/regional MEP subgrantees that provided direct services 

to migratory children most commonly provided supplemental instructional services 

that included reading/language arts instruction and mathematics instruction. Among 

the state MEP grantees and local/regional subgrantees that directly provided support 

services to migratory children, most provided school supplies, language support 

(e.g., translation or interpretation services), and individual advocacy services. 

• Most state MEP grantees and local/regional MEP subgrantees that provided direct 

instructional and support services to migratory children collaborated with other 

agencies and organizations to provide these services. 

Actual Completion Date

The report was released in August 2019.

Link to Additional Information

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html

Study of the Implementation of Title VI Indian Education Formula Grants 

Program

Study Purpose

This study examined the implementation of the Indian Education Formula Grants program 

authorized under Title VI of ESEA. More specifically, the study examines school district 
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 191

and tribal-level implementation of the grants, including the activities supported with 

formula funds, the processes used to identify and count eligible children, and how grantees 

establish program priorities and implement grant-funded services.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What services do Indian Education Formula Grants support?

• How do grantees work with stakeholders to identify program-eligible children 

and plan services to meet the needs of those children?

• How do grantees measure progress toward meeting their Title VI project 

objectives?

Design

This study is based on a survey of 1,304 local grant coordinators and case studies of 

9 grantees, as well as a review of relevant literature and analysis of extant data.

Key Findings

• The most common Title VI-funded services were academic support, cultural 

enrichment, and parent involvement. 

• Most grantees supported culturally responsive education by incorporating American 

Indian and Alaska Native history and culture into the curriculum and employing 

American Indian and Alaska Native teachers and support staff. 

• Most grantees relied on three strategies to identify eligible students: (1) including 

questions about students’ American Indian and Alaska Native status in the school 

registration process, (2) including Title VI student eligibility certification forms 

in enrollment packets, and (3) generating reports for students who identified as 

American Indian and Alaska Native on enrollment forms. 

• Most grantees collected information about students’ needs from the Title VI Parent 

Advisory Committee and other stakeholder groups, commonly through public 

hearings, convenings with stakeholder groups, and surveys. 

• Grantees reported using multiple data sources for project planning, including 

administrative data and information from parents, teachers, administrators, and 

public hearings. 

• Most grantees used state standardized assessment scores, attendance data, and 

graduation or dropout data to measure progress toward their Title VI project 

objectives. 

Actual Completion Date

The report was released in October 2019.

Link to Additional Information 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#amind-aknat-students
192 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Study of Weighted Student Funding Systems

Study Purpose

This study examined districts that have implemented weighted student funding (WSF) 

systems, which allocate per-pupil funding amounts to individual schools and use weights 

for certain types of students to provide additional resources to meet the needs of those 

students. In addition, WSF systems typically devolve a greater share of decision-making 

regarding resource use to principals and other school-level stakeholders. As the first 

national study of WSF systems, this study provides comprehensive and detailed information on the prevalence and characteristics of WSF systems, how they compare to traditional 

districts in terms of the autonomy and flexibility provided to principals and their schools, 

and equity outcomes related to the distribution of resources among schools with different 

levels of need.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• How are resources allocated to schools in districts with WSF systems, and how do 

they compare with districts with more traditional resource allocation practices?

• In what ways do schools have autonomy and control over resource allocation 

decisions, and how does this vary between WSF and non-WSF districts?

• Do WSF districts have higher levels of per-pupil spending in their higherneeds schools, and has funding equity increased since the adoption of the WSF 

system?

Design

This study included both qualitative and quantitative analysis of data from case studies 

of nine WSF districts and nationally representative surveys of districts and schools. 

The case studies included interviews with district and school staff as well as collection 

and analysis of data, such as school budget and expenditure data and documentation on 

specific weighting schemes and other aspects of allocation formulas. The district survey 

was completed by 253 districts, including 13 WSF districts and 240 non-WSF districts. 

The principal survey was completed by 318 principals, including 104 WSF principals 

and 214 non-WSF principals. Primary data collection was in the 2017–18 school year. 

Response rates were 63 percent for districts and 47 percent for principals. Because study 

findings are based on case studies and on surveys with relatively low response rates, they 

do not necessarily generalize to the nation as a whole. Additionally, observed differences 

between WSF and non-WSF districts were not necessarily caused by the use of WSF.

Key Findings

• WSF districts were more likely than non-WSF districts to classify principal 

autonomy and transparency as high-priority goals for their system of allocating 

resources to schools.
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 193

• The most common student subgroups weighted in WSF formulas were students 

from low-income families, ELs, and students with disabilities.

• Although all WSF case study districts reported that their schools use average teacher 

salaries in developing their budgets, three districts also used actual teacher salaries, either for some of their schools or by incorporating them into their weighting 

scheme. 

• On average, WSF district administrators reported that more than half (53 percent) 

of their total operational spending was under school discretion compared with 

8 percent in non-WSF districts. 

• Despite flexibility to make decisions about resources, principals in all nine WSF 

case study districts reported that their effective autonomy was constrained by 

district requirements to fill certain “non-negotiable” staff positions, collective 

bargaining agreements, and resource limitations. 

• In six of the nine WSF case study districts, higher-poverty schools had higher 

per-pupil spending levels than lower-poverty schools, but after controlling for 

other school characteristics, only two had a positive relationship between poverty 

and spending, while three had a negative relationship. 

• Among the five WSF case study districts with sufficient trend data, three 

showed increases in relative funding levels for high-poverty schools after WSF 

implementation.

Actual Completion Date

The report was released in October 2019.

Link to Additional Information

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#school-finance

Study of Higher Education Articulation Agreements Covering the Early 

Care and Education Workforce

Study Purpose

The purpose of this study is to identify elements that selected states have in place to enable 

articulation, or the transfer of course credits, for early care and education (ECE) workers 

who are progressing from an associate degree to a bachelor’s degree (BA) and to describe 

successes and challenges in implementing those elements.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What policies do states have to support articulation for ECE students?

• What governance structures do states have to oversee ECE articulation policy?

• How do institutions of higher education (IHEs) implement articulation policies?

• What support do states and IHEs provide for the transfer and articulation process?
194 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Design

This study examines ECE articulation policies and their implementation in six states 

(California, Florida, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania) that have 

statewide articulation policies addressing degrees or coursework in early childhood 

education. The study includes one-on-one telephone interviews with 80 individuals, 

including faculty and college administrators from two- and four-year IHEs, state higher 

education administrators, and representatives from higher education governing bodies and 

ECE licensure bodies. The study also includes focus groups of student and support staff 

and a review of extant documents.

Key Findings

• All six states used transfer associate degrees and general education block 

transfers, which allow students to transfer courses as a set rather than on a 

course-by-course basis, to facilitate course and credit transfer for ECE students; 

half of the states also used guaranteed admission or common course numbering.

• Four states established at least one statewide committee to oversee articulation, 

while the remaining two states oversaw articulation through a state higher education agency or system office.

• Most IHEs (17 of 20) supplemented state-level articulation policies with intrastate 

and interstate regional articulation agreements formed between IHEs.

• Most two-year IHEs (9 of 10) offered separate ECE degree pathways for students 

who planned to transfer and earn a BA versus students who planned to end their 

education with the associate degree.

• In nearly all the IHEs (19 of 20), ECE faculty played several key roles in 

implementing articulation policies, such as evaluating course transferability 

(15 IHEs) and designing courses that reflect agreed upon competencies (12 IHEs).

• IHEs supported transfer students by providing online information about transfer 

(12 IHEs), outreach programs (7 IHEs), transfer centers (6 IHEs), and transfer 

student orientations (5 IHEs).

• Faculty and staff reported advising students on topics including career paths 

(16 IHEs) and financial aid (15 IHEs), referring students to degree planning tools 

(14 IHEs), and referring students to transfer advisors (3 IHEs). 

Actual Completion Date

The report was released in September 2019.

Link to Additional Information

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports-postsecondary-education.

html#outcomes
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 195

Summary of Performance Evaluations 

Expected During FY 2020 and FY 2021

National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional 

Assistance

School Improvement

Impact Evaluation of Parent Messaging Strategies on Student Attendance

Study Purpose

Student attendance is a strong predictor of student success, even in early school years. In 

some communities, a quarter of all students in kindergarten through grade 3 are chronically 

absent, and this is most prevalent among low-income students. Under the Every Student 

Succeeds Act (ESSA), which reauthorized ESEA, many states plan to hold schools 

accountable for reducing chronic absenteeism. One potential low-cost intervention that 

schools are increasingly trying involves text messaging parents to provide relevant tips 

and motivation to improve their child’s attendance. This evaluation is designed to provide 

evidence on the effectiveness of such an intervention for students attending low-performing 

elementary schools. A novel aspect of the intervention is that it is adaptive. Initially, parents 

will be treated with “light-touch” messaging in the fall, and those that do not appear to be 

responsive will subsequently receive more intensive messaging in the spring.

Key Questions Addressed

• What is the impact on student attendance of using text messaging to provide parents 

with basic information related to attendance? Does it matter if messages are positively or negatively framed?

• For parents who do not respond to the lowest-cost messaging strategies, which 

higher-cost or intensified strategy works better to improve attendance—one that 

includes direct outreach from school staff or one that uses automated methods to 

improve motivation and behavioral skills? 

• Do the four combinations of fall and spring messaging strategies (i.e., the four adaptive interventions) have effects on end-of-year attendance and achievement when 

compared to each other and to business-as-usual attendance strategies?

• How is the messaging intervention implemented, and what are its costs?

Design

The evaluation will use a variant of a typical random assignment design, called a sequential multiple-assignment randomized trial. This design will measure the effectiveness of 

different initial messaging strategies and examine if there are any benefits to following 

up with more intensive strategies for parents who do not respond initially. Data will be 

collected to examine both the implementation of the intervention and the impact of the 

intervention on student-level outcomes, such as attendance and achievement. Specifically, 
196 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

information gathered from the text messaging vendor’s platform, a brief log that school 

staff will complete to document their parent outreach activities, interviews with district 

staff, and a survey of parents will be used to assess how well the intervention is implemented and to examine its costs. Information gathered from extant district records, 

including student absences and test scores, will be used to examine the impact of different 

messaging strategies.

Estimated Completion Date

A report describing findings is expected in spring 2020.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/other_messaging.asp

Implementation Study of State Supports Under Title I for Reducing School 

Dropouts

Study Purpose

Title I, Part A of ESEA (as amended by ESSA) requires states to support LEAs in providing 

effective transitions of students at all levels of schooling, especially middle school grades 

and high school, to decrease the risk of students dropping out. ESSA requires an evaluation 

of these efforts. This report will describe the implementation of dropout prevention 

strategies at the state and district levels and report recent dropout rate trends.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• How do states and districts identify students at risk of dropping out?

• What strategies do districts use to help students transition from elementary to middle 

school and from middle to high school? What services or options do districts offer 

to students at risk of dropping out? How do states support these efforts?

• What are recent trends in dropout rates at the national and state levels?

Design

Data were collected from all 50 states and the District of Columbia as well as from a 

nationally representative sample of school districts through surveys administered under the 

Implementation of Title I and Title II, Part A Program Initiatives study during SY 2017–18. 

Data from the surveys will inform the first two research questions. Extant data on dropout 

rates will inform the third research question.

Estimated or Actual Completion Date

A report describing findings is expected in 2020.

Implementation of Title I and Title II, Part A Program Initiatives

Study Purpose

Title I and Title II, Part A are key ESEA programs intended to help provide all students with 

equal access to education by offering financial assistance to schools and districts that have 

a high percentage of students from low-income families (Title I) and improving teacher 
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 197

and principal quality (Title II, Part A). ESEA was most recently reauthorized as ESSA in 

December 2015. Under Title I, ESSA offers states and districts considerable autonomy 

while requiring them to adopt challenging academic standards, aligned assessments, and 

accountability systems that set state-specific accountability goals and identify and support 

low-performing schools. Under Title II, Part A, ESSA also provides funding for a broad 

array of permissible activities to improve the effectiveness of educators and achieve 

equitable distribution of effective educators.

This study is designed to provide relevant data on the implementation of programs and 

policies related to Title I and Title II, Part A at several points in time. A prior report based 

on data collected during SY 2013–14 provided information on implementation under the 

No Child Left Behind Act and ESEA flexibility. This report will provide information on the 

transition to and early implementation of ESSA during SY 2017–18. A subsequent report 

will look at implementation during SY 2019–20.

Key Questions Addressed

• What content standards and high school graduation requirements are states adopting, 

and what materials and resources are provided to support implementation?

• What types of assessments do states and districts use, and what materials and 

resources are provided to support the implementation of assessments and use of 

assessment data?

• What are the key features of states’ accountability systems? How do states and 

districts identify and support their lowest-performing schools?

• How do states and districts evaluate educator effectiveness and assess equitable 

distribution of educators? 

• What support is provided to improve educator effectiveness and equitable 

distribution?

Design

Surveys are administered to agencies in all 50 states and the District of Columbia as well 

as to a nationally representative sample of districts and a nationally representative sample 

of charter districts. These data will be tabulated to address the study’s key questions.

Estimated Completion Date

A first report on implementation findings from SY 2013–14 survey data was released in 

January 2017. The second report on findings from SY 2017–18 is expected in 2020.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/other_titleI.asp
198 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Literacy (Including English Learners)

Academic Language Impact Evaluation

Study Purpose

Districts and policymakers need information about effective academic language instruction 

that can be successful for both ELs and disadvantaged native English speakers. According 

to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, grade 4 ELs continue to score 

significantly lower on reading and mathematics achievement compared to their non-EL 

counterparts despite a decline in the size of the gap between 1998 and 2005. Moreover, 

students who enter kindergarten with limited academic language skills typically lag behind 

their peers in reading. Because academic language skills are critical supports for reading 

and understanding for all students, this evaluation examines whether a promising academic 

language program is effective when implemented at a large scale. The program includes 

12 2-week teaching units that introduce 5 to 6 high-frequency academic vocabulary words 

used across disciplines. Each unit provides students with repeated, authentic opportunities 

to actively engage in using academic language in the classroom. 

Key Questions Addressed

• What is the impact of the academic language program on student achievement?

• What is the impact on classroom instruction?

• Is there variation in the implementation or impact of the program? What implementation and sample characteristics are associated with variation in impacts?

Design

The study team recruited 70 schools and randomly assigned them to either receive the 

program’s training and materials or continue their instruction as usual. Program schools 

were offered summer training and ongoing support to implement the academic language 

program with their fourth and fifth grade teachers and students during SY 2017–18. Data 

collection includes direct assessments of students, classroom observations to document the 

contrast between treatment and control group teachers and classrooms, and administrative 

records to document student English proficiency and progress.

Estimated Completion Date

A report examining the impacts of the intervention at the end of the implementation year 

is expected in 2020.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/ell_ali.asp

Comprehensive Literacy Program Evaluation

Study Purpose

Many U.S. students still do not acquire even basic literacy skills. Students living in 

poverty, those with disabilities, and ELs are especially at risk. The National Assessment of 
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 199

Educational Progress shows a substantial gap for grade 4 students in reading achievement 

between those from high-income families (average score at about the 65th percentile) and 

those from low-income families (average score at about the 35th percentile).

To narrow the gap in literacy between disadvantaged students and other students, in 2011, 

the federal government launched the Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy (SRCL) 

program. SRCL is a discretionary grant program authorized as part of Title III of Division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 (P.L. 114-113) under the Title I 

demonstration authority (Part E, Section 1502 of ESEA). 

The most recent reauthorization of ESEA created the Comprehensive Literacy State Development (CLSD) program (Title I, Part B, Subpart 2, Section 2222 of ESEA as amended by 

ESSA). The CLSD program is the successor program to SRCL and will competitively award 

grants to SEAs that will then provide subgrants to LEAs and early-learning providers. Both 

the SRCL and CLSD programs intend subgrantees to implement evidence-based comprehensive literacy instruction. The ultimate goal of both programs is to advance literacy skills 

for students from birth through grade 12, with an emphasis on disadvantaged students. 

Both programs include a congressionally mandated national evaluation.

Key Questions Addressed

• How do state grantees and district subgrantees implement their SRCL/CLSD 

program grants? 

• What literacy interventions and practices are used by schools and early-learning 

programs in the SRCL and CLSD programs? 

• What are the literacy outcomes for students in SRCL schools and early-learning 

programs? 

• What is the impact of the CLSD program on classroom reading instruction? 

• What is the impact of the CLSD program on student reading outcomes? 

Design

The SRCL implementation evaluation will include grant application reviews, annual 

grantee interviews, surveys of all subgrantees in spring 2019, surveys of principals and 

teachers in a representative sample of 500 funded schools in spring 2019 and spring 2020, 

and the collection of state and local extant reading/language arts assessment data. The 

evaluation will also perform evidence reviews of practices commonly funded by SRCL and 

conduct observations and interviews to measure classroom instruction more in-depth in a 

sample of 100 classrooms in 50 schools. 

The CLSD evaluation will include two components. The first is an implementation study 

of all grantees and subgrantees, which will include a spring 2021 survey and collection of 

existing state data on student reading achievement. The second is an impact study that will 

involve an estimated 130 elementary schools that have been randomly assigned to implement CLSD right away versus an implementation date delayed by two years. 
200 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Estimated Completion Date

A report examining SRCL implementation in SY 2018–19 is expected in 2020. A report 

examining SRCL implementation and student outcomes in 2019–2020 is expected 

in 2021. 

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/literacy_comprehensive.asp

Pathways to Career or College

Effectiveness of Promising Strategies in Federal College Access 

Programs: Study of Enhanced Advising to Improve College Fit in Upward 

Bound

Study Purpose

Growing concern over college enrollment and completion rates has heightened interest in 

cost-effective strategies to improve the outcomes of low-income students. Studies suggest 

that about half of these students “undermatch”—meaning they do not enroll in college or 

not in the most selective institution they could—and that attending a less selective college 

may lower students’ chances of completing a degree and reduce their earnings. This evaluation tested a set of promising, low-cost advising strategies, called Find the Fit, that is 

designed to help students enrolled in the federal Upward Bound program to choose more 

selective colleges. Find the Fit includes customized information about college going and 

costs, text messaging of key application and financial aid deadlines, and related advisor 

training.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• Can an enhanced college advising approach improve what Upward Bound grantees 

are already doing—that is, does it have positive effects on the number of colleges 

to which Upward Bound participants apply, the quality/selectivity of the colleges 

in which they enroll, and their persistence?

• In what types of grantees is this approach most effective and with what types of 

students?

Design

About 200 Upward Bound grantees that volunteered were randomly assigned in early 

2015. Half participated in Find the Fit during SY 2015–16 as rising seniors during their 

study periods and half did not. Students in both sets of grantees were surveyed in fall 2014 

(early junior year) to assess expectations for college and in spring 2016 (end of senior year) 

to collect information about their college planning including their applications. Data on 

completion of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA®) and college enrollment and persistence were also collected.
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 201

Estimated Completion Date

A report describing impacts on college enrollment and selectivity (“fit”) is expected in 

spring 2020.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/pathways_upward.asp

Effectiveness of Promising Strategies in Federal College Access 

Programs: Study of College Transition Text Messaging in Gaining Early 

Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs

Study Purpose

Although academic preparation and financial circumstances continue to be barriers to postsecondary success among low-income students, the complexity of the process of applying 

to, enrolling in, and staying in college is also a factor. According to recent research, customized reminder messages and access to real-time support could help overcome procedural 

hurdles associated with registration, course selection, financial aid award and renewal, 

advisor meetings, and tuition payments—all of which can derail students’ college matriculation and persistence into sophomore year. This demonstration will test these promising 

strategies, building on the new opportunity for Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness 

for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) grantees to support a first year of college transition introduced in 2008 amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1965. GEAR UP is 

one of the Department’s college access programs, funding states or local partnerships of 

districts and postsecondary institutions to serve students in high-need schools beginning in 

seventh grade.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• Does the text-based reminder strategy improve GEAR UP students’ rates of college 

enrollment and persistence?

• For which types of students is the strategy more or less beneficial?

Design

About 80 GEAR UP high schools were recruited, with 5,000 seniors in SY 2015–16 or 

SY 2016–17. The students were randomly assigned to receive the college transition services 

grantees originally proposed in their applications or those services plus the customized 

reminders and support through text messages. Reminders and support were provided from 

the end of students’ high school senior year through the spring of their expected first year of 

college. The study team surveyed students before the reminder messaging began to collect 

information on students’ experiences with college advising and their intended college 

(so that the messages can be tailored to individual schools’ deadlines and requirements). 

College enrollment and persistence as well as FAFSA® renewal are being measured using 

administrative records.
202 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Estimated Completion Date

A report describing impacts on college enrollment and persistence through a second year 

will be published in early 2020.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/pathways_gearup.asp

Evaluation of the Pell Grant Experiments Under the Experimental Sites 

Initiative

Study Purpose

Federal Pell grants are considered the foundation of higher education financial aid for 

low-income students. However, under current rules, otherwise income-eligible students 

who already have a BA or who want to enroll in short-term (i.e., less than 15 weeks 

and 600 hours) programs are restricted from obtaining these grants. Given unemployment rates above 8.5 percent in 2011 and reports of unfilled openings for skilled jobs in 

some occupations, postsecondary institutions called for expanding Pell grants to help fill 

the skill training gap for low-income workers. In response, Federal Student Aid, under 

the Experimental Sites Initiative authorized by Section 487A(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, is conducting demonstrations to test the impacts of eliminating the BA 

restriction (experiment 1) and significantly lowering the minimum clock hours/duration 

restriction (experiment 2) for students interested in vocational training in high-demand 

fields. The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) designed and is overseeing a rigorous 

evaluation of these experiments.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• Does expanding Pell grant eligibility to include income-eligible students with a 

BA and/or cover shorter-term programs improve access to job training?

• Does expanding Pell grant eligibility to these groups affect financial aid receipt 

and/or student debt?

• Do these two Pell grant experiments improve persistence and completion rates?

Design

Close to 50 IHEs that chose to participate identified about 2,900 students eligible for the 

experiments between the 2012–2013 and 2016–2017 financial aid award years. Students 

were randomly assigned to receive or not receive a Pell grant in their financial aid package. 

Student administrative data about program enrollment and completion were collected from 

participating IHEs in spring 2018. Data collection also included student administrative 

records on financial aid receipt from Federal Student Aid.

Estimated Completion Date

The report for the study is expected to be published in early 2020.
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 203

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/pathways_pell.asp

Assessing Evidence of Effectiveness in Adult Education

Study Purpose

Title II of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) mandates that the Department carry out an independent evaluation of adult education programs and services. Under 

the National Assessment of Adult Education, IES will examine the effectiveness of adult 

education and literacy activities, starting with a feasibility and design study. This feasibility 

and design study will summarize what is known about effective adult education activities 

and services, identify policy-relevant activities or services that are feasible and appropriate 

to evaluate rigorously, and present design options for evaluating those activities or services.

Key Questions Addressed

• What is known about the effectiveness of adult education programs, activities, and 

services?

• What adult education programs, activities, and/or services are feasible to examine 

with an impact study?

• What are design options for impact studies, including the most feasible and policy-relevant counterfactual, the most feasible unit of random assignment, the 

required sample sizes, and the most credible outcome measures?

Design

A systematic evidence review will be conducted to summarize existing studies of adult 

education. The contractor will draw on the evidence review and interviews with state and 

local directors of adult education to identify a set of promising adult education activities 

or services that could feasibly be evaluated. Study design options will also be developed. 

The Department may elect to conduct up to two impact studies beginning as early as 2020.

Estimated Completion Date

The systematic evidence review is expected by summer 2020.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/pathways_evidence.asp

National Study of the Implementation of Adult Education Under the 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act

Study Purpose

Higher-level skills are increasingly required to succeed in the American workforce, 

yet many adults in the United States lack them. More than 25 million adults have not 

earned a high school diploma or General Educational Development (GED). Even 

among those with at least a secondary credential, a lack of proficiency with the English 
204 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

language can be a significant barrier to a family-sustaining income as well as full integration as citizens. Congress has sought to help individuals address these challenges 

(and the nation’s workforce development needs) by providing funds for adult education through WIOA. Title II of WIOA mandates that the Department carry out an 

independent evaluation of adult education programs and services. A part of the National 

Assessment of Adult Education, this study is designed to provide implementation information on such programs, with a focus on how the changes contained in WIOA appear 

to be shaping the services provided by adult education programs and the populations 

such programs serve. 

Key Questions Addressed

• How—and to what extent—are the changes to adult education policies and 

practices promoted by WIOA being implemented?

• Beyond the changes to adult education promoted by WIOA, in what other ways 

has implementation evolved since prior to the enactment of the law?

• What challenges do SAs and local providers currently face in administering and 

delivering adult education services?

Design

The study is descriptive and primarily involves collection and tabulation of data from 

surveys. It includes a survey of adult education state directors and a survey of adult education providers. Some key findings from the provider survey will be compared with findings 

from an earlier national survey of providers conducted in 2003. This will allow for an 

assessment of the extent to which adult education programs have evolved since prior to 

the enactment of WIOA. The study will also include analyses of extant data such as those 

programs collect for federal performance and accountability reporting. These data will 

be used to provide further contextual information about adult education programs and 

populations.

Estimated Completion Date

The first report is scheduled for completion in summer 2021.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/pathways_wioa.asp#

National Evaluation of Career and Technical Education Under the 

Perkins Act

Study Purpose

The 2018 reauthorization of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act 

of 2006 through the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century 

Act (Perkins V) mandates that the Department supports independent evaluation activities 

to assess CTE programs under the new law. IES is required to report to Congress on results 

from the evaluation through reports every two years, including an interim report in 2021, 

final report in 2023, and biennial updates.
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 205

Key Questions Addressed

• To what extent and how does current CTE implementation reflects the priorities 

and goals of Perkins V? What challenges do SAs and local grantees face in administering and delivering CTE services, particularly the newly introduced provisions 

in Perkins V?

• In what important ways has CTE implementation evolved since Perkins IV?

• How are CTE participation and outcomes changing?

• How effective are particular strategies and practices allowable under Perkins V in 

improving student outcomes?

Design

A variety of studies will be designed and carried out, including collection of information on 

Perkins implementation at the state and local levels, analysis of national data, reviews of 

existing evidence on the effectiveness of CTE strategies, and new evaluations examining 

the impact of policy-relevant CTE initiatives or practices.

Estimated Completion Date

The first (interim) report to Congress is due July 2021.

Link to Additional Information

FORTHCOMING

School Choice

Evaluating the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program After the 2017 

Reauthorization

Study Purpose

The DC OSP provides low-income students in Washington, D.C. with scholarships to 

attend the district’s participating private schools. It is the nation’s only federally funded 

private school voucher program. This third congressionally mandated evaluation of OSP 

addresses different issues than the two previous evaluations. Those evaluations (completed 

in 2011 and 2019) were random assignment studies focused on determining the effectiveness 

of the program. The evaluations’ findings raised questions about whether the program 

could be improved. The current study examines program implementation and participating 

families’ and schools’ experiences to address this issue. 

Key Questions Addressed

• What challenges do families face when it comes to applying for OSP scholarships, 

enrolling in private schools, and staying enrolled over time? What challenges do 

schools participating in the program encounter?

• What are the key activities necessary to implementing OSP, how does the program 

operator carry them out, and what might be improved to help families and schools 

overcome identified challenges? 
206 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

• How do families view the academic and overall quality of OSP participating 

schools, and how do OSP students perform and progress on mathematics and 

reading assessments?

Design

This descriptive evaluation will use interviews and surveys to collect data from the 

OSP program operator, families (students and parents) that apply for scholarships in 

SY 2019–20, and private schools that do and do not participate in the program. The 

evaluation will also collect OSP students’ nationally normed standardized achievement 

assessments from participating private schools that administer them.

Estimated Completion Date

The first implementation report is expected in fall 2021.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/choice_dcchoice2017.asp

Impact Study of Federally Funded Magnet Schools

Study Purpose

Magnet schools are an important component of public school choice and a strategy used 

by districts, with the aim of improving student achievement and school diversity. Approximately 2.5 million students currently attend magnet schools in the United States. Since 

1985, the Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP) has provided federal discretionary 

grants to school districts to help establish or expand magnet programs. MSAP was most 

recently reauthorized in December 2015 as part of Title IV, Part D of ESEA and received 

nearly $190 million in appropriations between FY 2016 and FY 2017. However, there is 

limited evidence of effectiveness. This evaluation will rely on random assignment lotteries 

that some schools use to admit students in order to rigorously assess magnet schools’ 

impact on student outcomes.

Key Questions Addressed

• What is the impact of the magnet programs on relevant student outcomes (achievement and/or other relevant measures of student success such as persistence in 

school or graduation)?

• What is the impact of the magnet program on the characteristics of the schools that 

the students attend, including whether they are higher performing or more diverse?

• To what extent is there a relationship between school characteristics, including 

diversity and student outcomes?

Design

Districts and schools receiving FY 2016 and FY 2017 MSAP funding are being screened 

first to determine if there is a sufficient number of schools that are both willing to participate 
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 207

in the study and use lotteries to admit their students. If so, the evaluation will compare the 

outcomes of approximately 4,000 students randomly assigned by lottery to either attend 

or not attend the magnet schools in fall 2018 or fall 2019. School district records will be 

collected for three follow-up years for each of the two cohorts. These will include data 

on student characteristics, school enrollment, test scores, and other relevant data, such as 

attendance, persistence, and graduation. Each year, principals at the magnet schools as 

well as the schools attended by students not offered admission to the magnet schools will 

be asked to provide information about the schools’ organization and instruction through a 

survey. These data will be analyzed to address the evaluation’s three research questions.

Estimated Completion Date

An introductory brief describing the recruitment and admissions practices of the FY 2016 

and FY 2017 MSAP grantees is expected in 2020.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/choice_impactmagnet.asp

Students with Disabilities

Impact Evaluation of Training in Multi-Tiered Systems of Support for 

Behavior

Study Purpose

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), most recently reauthorized in 

2004, is a law passed in 1975 to promote a free appropriate public education for children 

with disabilities. Districts are able to use a portion of their IDEA funds to provide services 

to students who are not identified as needing special education or related services but who 

need additional academic and behavioral support to succeed in a general education environment. Training school staff in supporting the behavior of all students—a potential use 

of these funds—is becoming increasingly attractive to districts and schools as a vehicle 

for school improvement. Implementation of multi-tiered systems of support for behavior 

(MTSS-B) is an approach to improving school and classroom climate as well as student 

outcomes. MTSS-B is a systematic framework for teaching and reinforcing behavior for 

all students as well as for providing additional support to those who need it. More than a 

third of U.S. districts report implementing MTSS-B at the elementary school level. Recent 

small-scale studies have shown the promise of MTSS-B. The purpose of this study is to 

evaluate the effectiveness of MTSS-B in a larger-scale setting.

Key Questions Addressed

• What MTSS-B training and support activities were provided? What MTSS-B 

activities occurred in the schools receiving MTSS-B training? How do these 

MTSS-B activities differ from those in schools that do not receive the training?

• What is the impact on school staff practices, school climate, and student outcomes 
208 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

of providing training in the MTSS-B framework plus universal (tier I) positive 

behavior supports and a targeted (tier II) intervention?

• What are the impacts for relevant subgroups (e.g., at-risk students)?

Design

This study is a randomized controlled trial of the impact of training in MTSS-B on school 

climate, school staff practice, and student outcomes. The training is provided by the 

Center for Social Behavior Support, a collaboration between the Illinois–Midwest Positive 

Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) Network at the School Association for Special 

Education in DuPage, IL, and the PBIS Regional Training and Technical Assistance Center 

at Sheppard Pratt in Baltimore, MD. Approximately 90 elementary schools were randomly 

assigned to either training in MTSS-B including universal support (tier I) plus targeted 

interventions for at-risk students (tier II) or a business-as-usual control group. Treatment 

schools received training in MTSS-B prior to and across two school years (SY 2015–16 

(tier I) and SY 2016–17 (tiers I and II)) and implemented MTSS-B across these two school 

years. Data collection includes a staff survey, teacher ratings of student behavior, classroom observations, site visits, and student records data. These data were collected from 

SY 2015–16 through SY 2018–19 and will be analyzed to answer the study’s impact (first 

and second) and implementation (third) research questions.

Estimated Completion Date

The report is expected in 2020.

Link to Additional Information

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/disabilities_MTSSB.asp

State and Local Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act

Study Purpose

The 2004 reauthorization of IDEA is the most recent reauthorization of a law passed in 

1975 to promote a free appropriate public education for children with disabilities. Funded 

at $12.9 billion in FY 2017, IDEA supports early intervention services for infants and 

toddlers identified as having a disability or at risk of substantial developmental delay. IDEA 

also supports special education and related services for children and youth ages 3 through 

21 identified as having a disability, as well as coordinated early intervening services for 

children and youth who are not identified as needing special education or related services 

but who need additional academic and behavioral support to succeed in a general education environment. The most recent national IDEA implementation study in 2009 provided 

a picture of state and school district implementation of IDEA. Although IDEA has not 

been reauthorized since then, developments in key areas may have influenced the context 

and implementation of special education and early intervention services. This study will 

provide a national picture of IDEA implementation 10 years after the most recent national 

IDEA implementation study. While this study will update information from the 2009 study 
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 209

on state and district implementation, the study will also describe policies and supports 

provided at the school level.

Key Questions Addressed

• How do states and districts identify infants, toddlers, children, and youth for early 

intervention and special education services? How do they measure disproportionate 

identification and what policies and practices have been implemented with the goal 

of addressing disproportionate identification?

• What policies and programs do states and districts have in place to support infants, 

toddlers, children, and youth identified for early intervention or special education 

services? How have these policies and programs changed over time?

• To what extent do states and districts rely on evidence on the effectiveness of 

policies, programs, and supports for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with 

disabilities?

• How do states and districts allocate resources, including funding and personnel, to 

support infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities?

• What types of support do schools provide to children and youth with disabilities to 

support their academic and behavioral learning, both within and outside of general 

education classrooms?

Design

The study will collect survey data from state administrators from all 50 states, the District 

of Columbia, and territories receiving IDEA funding, as well as a nationally representative 

sample of school districts and schools during SY 2019–20 and potentially SY 2022–23. 

The data from these surveys will be analyzed descriptively to answer the study’s research 

questions. 

Estimated Completion Date

An introductory brief describing the students with disabilities served by chart schools and 

their educational experiences using extant data is expected in 2020. A descriptive report on 

the national survey findings is expected in early 2021.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/disabilities_localidea.asp

Educator Effectiveness

Impact Evaluation of Support for Principals

Study Purpose

Helping principals improve their leadership practices is one way to improve teacher 

quality and uses federal funds under Title II, Part A, the Supporting Effective Instruction 

formula grants. This study seeks to understand the effectiveness of an intensive principal 
210 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

professional development program focused primarily on helping principals conduct structured observations of teachers’ classroom instruction and provide targeted feedback. The 

results will provide evidence about the program’s effectiveness. 

Key Questions Addressed

· What are the professional development experiences of principals?

• What are the initial impacts of the program on school climate and educator 

behaviors?

• What are the impacts of the program on teacher retention, principal retention, and 

student achievement?

Design

Within 10 districts, a total of 100 elementary schools were randomly assigned to receive 

the professional development program or not. The University of Washington’s Center for 

Educational Leadership was competitively selected and provided the professional development during SY 2015–16 and SY 2016–17 to those principals assigned to receive it. To 

improve their teachers’ effectiveness, the professional development emphasized instructional leadership activities to include conducting classroom observations with feedback to 

improve teacher effectiveness. Both principals assigned and not assigned to the program 

continued to receive support normally offered by the district. Data collection included 

information about the professional development delivered and experienced by the participating principals, teacher and principal surveys, periodic logs of principal daily activities, 

and student administrative records.

Estimated Completion Date

The report is expected in fall 2019.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_principals.asp

Study of Title II, Part A Use of Funds

Study Purpose

Title II, Part A, the Supporting Effective Instruction Formula Grants program, is the primary 

federal funding under ESEA to improve the quality and effectiveness of teachers, principals, and other school leaders. A broad range of activities is permissible at both the state 

and district levels under this program. The funding also supports low-income and minority 

students with greater access to effective educators. This study is designed to provide information about how states and districts use these funds.

Key Questions Addressed

• What activities do SEAs support with their Title II, Part A funds?

• What activities do LEAs support with their Title II, Part A funds?
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 211

Design

This is a descriptive study based on an annual survey of all 50 states, the District of 

Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The study also includes an annual survey of a nationally representative sample of charter districts and a state representative sample of LEAs. Survey 

information includes transfers to or from Title II, Part A and other programs allowed under 

ESEA section 5103; activities funded by Title II, Part A; types of professional development 

activities and the areas of focus supported by Title II, Part A; and strategies for identifying 

and addressing inequity in the distribution of teacher quality or effectiveness.

Estimated Completion Date

The first report is expected in winter 2020.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_titletwo_a.asp

Impact Study of Feedback for Teachers Based on Classroom Videos

Study Purpose

The primary federal funding for improving the quality and effectiveness of teachers, 

principals, and school leaders comes from the Supporting Effective Instruction formula 

grants within ESEA. The most commonly funded strategy is professional development. 

This study uses videos of a teacher’s classroom practice for coaches to provide ongoing 

individualized feedback to improve instruction. 

Key Questions Addressed

• What is the impact on teaching practices and student achievement of providing 

teachers with multiple rounds (eight) of written feedback and one-on-one coaching 

based on videos of their classroom practices?

• What is the impact on teaching practices and student achievement of providing 

teachers with multiple rounds (5) of written feedback and one-on-one coaching 

based on videos of their classroom practices?

Design

Within 14 districts, a total of 107 elementary schools were randomly assigned to receive 

8 cycles of the study-provided coaching program, 5 cycles, or no study provided coaching. 

Prior to random assignment, participating schools chose whether their 4th or 5th grade 

teachers would participate in the study. Teachstone was competitively selected to provide 

a coaching program called My Teaching Partner, which uses the Classroom Assessment 

Scoring System® (CLASS®) framework to guide the coaching. CLASS® focuses on 

practices related to (1) classroom organization, (2) instructional support (e.g., activities that engage students and support higher-level thinking), and (3) emotional support 

(e.g., responsiveness to students’ needs). Data collection included information about 

the professional development delivered and experienced by the teachers, intermediate 
212 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

outcomes (i.e., teacher classroom practice), and student achievement from student administrative records. 

Estimated Completion Date

The study report is expected in summer 2021.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_videos.asp

An Impact Evaluation to Inform the Teacher and School Leader Incentive 

Program

Study Purpose

Effective school leadership and teaching are at the heart of school improvement. Human 

capital management (i.e., the way in which a district makes and implements professional 

development and other personnel decisions) can play an important role in supporting effective educators. The purpose of the Teacher and School Leader (TSL) Incentive program 

is to develop and implement performance-based compensation systems or human capital 

management systems to improve student achievement. Grantees plan to implement multiple 

strategies, with a role for teacher leaders being the one strategy that is the most common 

among the 2017 awards. This mandated evaluation will provide implementation information from all 2017 grantees, with attention to teacher leader selection, roles, and support. In 

addition, the study will estimate the impact on student achievement and teacher satisfaction 

and retention of using teacher leaders to improve student achievement.

Key Questions Addressed

• What were the characteristics of 2017 TSL grantees, and what key strategies did 

they support with their TSL funds? 

• For key strategies, which activities did they consider were their primary way to 

achieve those goals, and how did districts implement these activities?

• What is the effect on student achievement, educator satisfaction, recruitment, 

and retention of a teacher leader role strategy? Is the teacher leader strategy cost 

effective?

Design

This study will include two evaluation components: (1) a descriptive study of TSL grantees’ 

programs, where data collection includes interviewing all districts included in FY 2017 

TSL grants to obtain information on TSL grantees’ programs and experiences, and (2) an 

implementation, impact, and cost-effectiveness study of designating one or more teacher 

leaders as coaches in schools. A random assignment study of this common TSL strategy will 

be conducted in non-TSL schools. This evaluation component will include approximately 

100 schools in 10 districts. Data collection will include teacher and principal surveys to 

collect program implementation, educator satisfaction information, and teacher recruitment activities and outcomes; teacher leader activity forms to provide information about 
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 213

teacher leader roles and activities; teacher and principal school assignment records to look 

at mobility and retention; and student administrative records to look at student outcomes.

Estimated Completion Date

The implementation report is expected in summer 2021.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_leader.asp

Policy and Program Studies Service

Profiles of Selected Practices of Charter Schools, Charter Management 

Organizations, and Charter School Authorizers

Study Purpose

The Expanding Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools program (i.e., Charter 

Schools program (CSP)) authorized under ESEA is intended to support innovation in public 

education, including the dissemination of best practices regarding charter schools. This 

study will result in 10 profiles describing innovative practices that are being implemented 

by charter schools, charter management organizations (CMOs), and charter school authorizers (CSAs), with a priority on CSP grantees and subgrantees and authorizers serving 

those grantees and subgrantees. The profiles will be disseminated to practitioners serving 

both charter and traditional public schools.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What are the key features of each innovative practice for charter schools, CMOs, 

and CSAs?

• How do charter schools, CMOs, and CSAs decide what practices to implement? To 

what extent do they consider criteria for identifying evidence-based practices based 

on each of ESSA’s four evidence levels?

• What, if any, challenges do charter schools, CMOs, and CSAs encounter in implementing innovative practices, and what strategies do they use to overcome these 

challenges?

• What evidence exists to suggest that the practices are successfully implemented? 

To what extent do state assessment results, leading indicators, or other quantitative 

data show improving outcomes? Are there any qualitative signs of progress?

• What factors do charter schools, CMOs, and CSAs believe are most important to 

the successful implementation of the practices? How do they support the replication of innovative practices?

Design

The study will include a review of relevant research, an expert panel, an analysis of school 

achievement data of charter schools that are candidates for site visits, and 30 site visits to 

charter schools, CMOs, and CSAs to collect information about their practices.
214 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Estimated Completion Date

The profiles are scheduled for completion in spring 2020.

Title IV State Survey

Study Purpose

This study provides an initial overview of how states and school districts are using their 

Student Support and Academic Enrichment grants (Title IV-A), a new state-administered 

grant program created through the 2016 ESSA. This program has the goal of improving 

student academic achievement by increasing the capacity of states, school districts, schools, 

and local communities to: (1) provide all students with access to a well-rounded education (Section 4107), (2) improve school conditions for student learning (Section 4108), 

and (3) improve the use of technology to improve the academic achievement and digital 

literacy of all students (Section 4109). This study will produce a program brief based on a 

survey of states that provides early information about the extent to which states and school 

districts are using Title IV-A funds for the wide range of permissible activities. 

Key Question(s) Addressed

• How are states using Title IV-A funds reserved at the state level to support school 

districts in meeting the program’s three main purposes—well-rounded education, 

safe and healthy students, and improving the use of technology? 

• How are school districts using their Title IV-A grants? 

• To what extent are districts using the funds for each of the three main purposes? 

What types of services and activities are they supporting under each of these areas?

Design

The report is based on a survey of all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico 

conducted in late spring 2019 to obtain information about the types of activities that states 

and school districts are supporting with FY 2018 Student Support & Academic Enrichment 

funds during the 2018–19 school year.

Estimated Completion Date

The study brief is scheduled for completion by early 2020.

Study of Career and Technical Education Teacher Pathways Initiative

Study Purpose 

This study is examining the implementation of the Career and Technical Education (CTE) 

Teacher Pathways Initiative (TPI) grant program. The Department’s Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education awarded grants to five entities across the country to implement 

strategies to prepare, recruit, and retain secondary CTE teachers. The purpose is to inform 

the Department’s continuous improvement efforts and to support efforts of grantees. The 

purpose of the study is not to evaluate the grant or grantees but to identify successes and 

challenges related to the implementation of strategies. 
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 215

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What do grantees see as the major factors contributing to shortages of secondary 

CTE teachers in their state or community? 

• How have the grantees used TPI funding to alleviate CTE teacher shortages? 

• What challenges have grantees experienced in implementing their TPI activities, 

and what strategies are they using to overcome those challenges? 

• Are there early indicators of success in alleviating CTE teacher shortages?

Design

During the first year of 2018–19, interviews were conducted with grant coordinators. In 

October, the interviews focused on initial grant implementation plans. In the spring of 

2019, site visits were conducted with grantee partner organizations to learn more about 

detailed, on-the-ground experiences with CTE TPI implementation. During these site visits, 

interviews were held to learn more about root causes of CTE teacher shortages, how the 

grantees have implemented strategies to alleviate CTE teacher shortages, what challenges 

grantees have faced in implementing TPI activities, and what indicators of success grantees 

have experienced. A second round of interviews will take place starting in May 2020.

Estimated Completion Date

The report is scheduled for completion in summer 2021.

Study of Unsafe School Choice Option

Study Purpose

This study is examining state implementation of federal requirements to provide an Unsafe 

School Choice Option (USCO) that permits students attending a persistently dangerous 

public elementary or secondary school, or students who become victims of a violent criminal offense while in or on the grounds of a public school that they attend, be allowed to 

attend a safe public school within the school district, including a public charter school. 

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What are states’ processes for developing and reviewing USCO-related policies 

about student and school safety?

• How do states ensure that the data used to make determinations of persistently 

dangerous schools are accurate?

• For states with appeal processes for determinations of persistently dangerous 

schools, how have those appeals worked in practice?

• What guidance do states provide to districts on how to comply with the USCO 

provisions, including offering transfer to a victim of a violent criminal offense?

• How do states monitor district compliance with USCO provisions, including 

offering transfer to victims of a violent criminal offense while in or on the grounds 

of a public school they attend?
216 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

• What challenges have states encountered in implementing the USCO provisions, 

and how can they be addressed?

Design

This study includes interviews with state representatives in all 50 states, the District of 

Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the outlying areas that are most familiar with the implementation of the USCO provision. The study also includes analysis of extant documents.

Estimated Completion Date

The report is scheduled for completion in summer 2020.

Study of Preventing Aiding and Abetting of Sexual Abuse in Schools

Study Purpose 

This study is examining how SEAs are implementing laws and policies to prohibit aiding 

and abetting sexual misconduct in schools in response to requirements under Section 8546 

of ESSA. The study will also describe the challenges states have encountered implementing 

the ESSA requirements and how they have addressed these challenges. The study is not 

intended to determine the extent to which each state is complying with Section 8546, but 

rather, to inform the Department’s technical assistance efforts by improving understanding 

of how states are implementing these provisions.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• To what extent do states have statutes, legislation, or regulations that prohibit aiding 

and abetting continued employment of school employees, contractors, or agents 

who have engaged or allegedly engaged in sexual misconduct with a student or 

minor?

• How did states develop statutes, legislation, regulations, and/or policies to address 

Section 8546?

• How are SEAs implementing statutes, regulations, and/or policies that prohibit 

aiding and abetting continued employment of school employees, contractors, or 

agents who have engaged in sexual misconduct with a student or minor?

• What challenges have SEAs faced in implementing the requirements of 

Section 8546?

Design

The study involves telephone interviews with knowledgeable staff in all 50 states, the 

District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the island territories (American Samoa, Guam, 

Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) about their jurisdiction’s laws and 

policies to prohibit aiding and abetting of sexual misconduct in schools. In preparation for 

these interviews, the study team conducted a systematic review of publicly available documents related to Section 8546, including state statutes, pending legislation, and regulations. 

The study team will produce a final report that will aggregate findings from interviews and 
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 217

document reviews across states. The report may also include state-by-state tables based on 

an analysis of documents. States will have the opportunity to review and verify these tables 

before the report’s release. 

Estimated Completion Date

The report is scheduled for completion in spring 2021.

Study of Student Support & Academic Enrichment Grants (Title IV, Part A)

Study Purpose

This study will describe the early implementation of Title IV-A grants, a state-administered 

grant program that is intended to improve student academic achievement by increasing 

the capacity of states, school districts, schools, and local communities to: (1) provide all 

students with access to a well-rounded education, (2) improve school conditions for student 

learning, and (3) improve the use of technology. The study will result in a final report and 

five practitioner briefs.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• How do districts decide how Title IV-A funds should be used, and how do states 

help inform those decisions? 

• What services and activities are states and districts implementing with Title IV-A 

funds? 

• What are examples of districts and schools using Title IV-A funds to implement 

evidence-based programs? 

Design

The study will include interviews with state Title IV-A coordinators in all 50 states, the 

District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. It will also include a nationally representative 

survey of 800 school districts receiving Title IV-A funds and site visits to 15 subgrantees. 

The site visits will include interviews with district Title IV-A coordinators, principals, and 

teachers; observations; and review of needs assessments, plans, and other documents. The 

surveys will be conducted in summer 2020 and the site visits will occur in early 2021.

Estimated Completion Date

The report is scheduled for completion in fall 2021. The briefs are scheduled for completion in early 2022.

Study of Key Aspects of Early Implementation of School Improvement Plans

Study Purpose

This study is examining state and local implementation of the school improvement provisions under Title I of ESEA. The study will focus on schools identified for comprehensive 

support and improvement (CSI), which includes the lowest-performing 5 percent of Title I 

schools, high schools failing to graduate one third or more of their students, and additional 
218 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

targeted support Title I schools who did not meet the state’s exit criteria. One objective 

of this study is to determine the extent to which states leverage the flexibility provided 

by ESSA for SEAs and local educational agencies (LEAs) to design new approaches to 

school improvement. The study will produce a set of five briefs that each focus on different 

aspects of implementation.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What are the characteristics of identified CSI schools nationally and within each state? 

• How do states allocate section 1003 funds to LEAs? 

• How are CSI plans developed, implemented, and supported? 

• How are states and LEAs monitoring implementation? 

Design

The study will include (1) an analysis of extant data on CSI schools from EDFacts, the 

Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), and other sources; (2) a review of state documents 

related to processes and procedures for implementing state-level school improvement 

requirements; (3) a review of a nationally representative sample of CSI plans; and 

(4) case studies of CSI implementation in a nested sample of 6 states, 18 school districts, 

and 36 CSI schools that include telephone interviews with state administrators and 2- to 

3-day site visits to each school district and its schools.

Estimated Completion Date

The briefs are scheduled for completion in spring 2022.

Cross-Cutting Resource Allocation Study

Study Purpose

This study is examining the targeting and uses of federal funds for five major education 

programs: Part A of Titles I, II, III, and IV of ESEA, including school improvement grants 

provided under Section 1003 of Title I, Part A, as well as Title I, Part B of IDEA. The study 

will culminate in a cross-cutting final report, as well as five program-specific evaluation 

briefs that summarize key findings for each of the five programs in the study.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What share of total funding is provided through federal programs, both overall and 

for specific types of students and services or resources?

• To what extent are federal program funds reaching the districts and schools with 

the greatest needs?

• How do districts and schools use federal education funds, and what specific services 

and resources are provided through these funds?

• How do federal programs support and/or restrict district and school flexibility over 

use of the funds, and how do districts and schools use existing flexibilities?
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 219

Design

The study will collect detailed fiscal data from a nationally representative sample of school 

districts, including budgets, plans, expenditure data, and personnel and payroll data. In 

addition, the study will collect data on allocations to districts and schools to examine how 

the distribution of funds varies in relation to program goals and student needs, survey 

district and school officials to explore such issues as the types of services and resources 

that are provided through the federal funds, coordination across programs, and use of flexibility, conduct interviews in nine case study districts to obtain more in-depth data, and 

analyze fiscal data.

Estimated Completion Date

The final report is scheduled for completion in December 2021. Five program-specific 

briefs are planned to be released in spring 2022.
This page is intentionally left blank.
Appendix E. Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations 221

Appendix E. Glossary of 

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Acronym Definition

ACCT Account

ACSI American Customer Satisfaction Index

AIR Association for Institutional Research

ALL All

APBH American Printing House for the Blind

APG Agency Priority Goal

API Application Programming Interface

APR Annual Performance Report

ATB Ability to Benefit

BA Bachelor’s Degree

BPO Business Process Operations

CAP Cross-Agency Priority 

CCD Common Core of Data

CDM Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation

CDO Chief Data Officer

CEDS Common Education Data Standards

CIO Chief Information Officer

CLASS® Classroom Assessment Scoring System®

CLSD Comprehensive Literacy State Development

CMO Charter Management Organization

CoP Community of Practice

CRDC Civil Rights Data Collection

CSA Charter School Authorizer

CSAM Cybersecurity Assessment and Management

CSF Cybersecurity Framework

CSI Comprehensive Support and Improvement

CSP Charter Schools Program

CSPR Consolidated State Performance Report

CTAE Career, Technical, and Adult Education

CTE Career and Technical Education

DCC Digital and Customer Care
222 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Acronym Definition

DDI Data-Driven Instruction

DEFEND Dynamic and Evolving Federal Enterprise Network Defense

DGB Data Governance Board

DHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security

DLR Digital Learning Resource

DM Departmental Management

DOJ U.S. Department of Justice

DST Data Strategy Team

ECE Early Care and Education

ED U.S. Department of Education

EDGAR Education Department General Administrative Regulations

EDGB EDFacts Data Governance Board

EFS Education Freedom Scholarships

EIR Education Innovation and Research

EL English Learner

ELA English Language Acquisition

EO Executive Order

EOP Emergency Operations Plan

EPS Enhanced Processing Solution

ERM Enterprise Risk Management

ESEA Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965

ESED Elementary and Secondary Education for the Disadvantaged

ESI Experimental Sites Initiative

ESSA Every Student Succeeds Act

FAFSA® Free Application for Federal Student Aid®

FCSS Federal Commission on School Safety

FDSL Federal Direct Student Loan

FERPA Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act

FEVS Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey

FFEL Federal Family Education Loan

FIPSE Fund for the Improvement of Post-secondary Education

FSA Federal Student Aid

FWSP Federal Work-Study Program

FY Fiscal Year

G5 Grants Management System

GAO Government Accountability Office
Appendix E. Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations 223

Acronym Definition

GEAR UP Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate 

Programs

GLBA Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act of 1993

GPRAMA Government Performance and Results Act Modernization 

Act of 2010

GU Gallaudet University

HBCU Historically Black College and University

HE Higher Education

HEA Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended

HEAL Health Education Assistance Loan

HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

HSI STEM Hispanic Serving Institution Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Mathematics Articulation Program

I&I Innovation and Improvement

IA Impact Aid

ICAM Identity Credential and Access Management

IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

IES Institute of Education Sciences

IESE Improving Elementary and Secondary Education

IET Integrated Education and Training

IHE Institution of Higher Education

IPEDS Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System

IRC Internal Revenue Code

ISO Information System Owner

ISSO Information System Security Officer

IT Information Technology

kbps Kilobits per Second

LDD Learning and Development Division

LEA Local Educational Agency

MEP Migrant Education Program

MSAP Magnet Schools Assistance Program

MSI Minority-Serving Institution

MSIX Migrant Student Information Exchange

MTSS-B Multi-tiered Systems of Support for Behavior

N/A Not Applicable

NCEE National Center for Education Evaluation
224 FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan

Acronym Definition

NCES The National Center for Education Statistics

Next Gen FSA Next Generation Financial Services Environment

NTID National Technical Institute for the Deaf

OCDO Office of the Chief Data Officer

OCFO Office of the Chief Financial Officer (this office is part of the 

Office of Finance and Operations effective January 6, 2019)

OCIO Office of the Chief Information Officer

OCR Office for Civil Rights

OCTAE Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education

OELA Office of English Language Acquisition

OESE Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

OET Office of Educational Technology

OFO Office of Finance and Operations

OIE Office of Indian Education

OIG Office of Inspector General

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPE Office of Postsecondary Education

OPEPD Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development

OPM Office of Personnel Management

OPS Optimal Processing Solution

OSEP Office of Special Education Programs

OSERS Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

OSP Opportunity Scholarship Program

PA Program Administration

PBIS Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports

PIVOT Portfolio of Integrated Value-Oriented Technologies

PMA President’s Management Agenda

POA&M Plan of Action and Milestone

POC Principal Operating Component

PPO Partner Participation and Oversight

PPSS Policy and Planning Studies Services

PROMISE Promoting Readiness of Minors in Supplemental Security 

Income

PTAC Privacy Technical Assistance Center

PY Program Year

REHAB Rehabilitation Services and Disability Research

REL Regional Educational Laboratory

ROI Return on Investment
Appendix E. Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations 225

Acronym Definition

RRTF Regulatory Reform Task Force

RSA Rehabilitation Services Administration

RTT-ELC Race to the Top–Early Learning Challenge Program

SA State Agency

SAA Student Aid Administration

SE Special Education

SEA State Educational Agency

SEM Strategic Enrollment Management

SES Senior Executive Service

SFA Student Financial Assistance

SIP Strengthening Institutions Program

SLDS Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems

SO Statistical Officer

SOC Security Operations Center

SPPO Study Privacy Policy Office

SRCL Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy

SSCE Safe Schools and Citizenship Education

STEM Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics

SY School Year

TBD To Be Determined

TEACH Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher 

Education

TPI Teacher Pathways Initiative

TQRIS Tiered Quality Rating Improvement System

TSL Teacher and School Leader

USCO Unsafe School Choice Option

VPN Virtual Private Network

VR Vocational Rehabilitation

WIOA Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act

WINTAC Workforce Innovation Technical Assistance Center

WSF Weighted Student Funding
This page is intentionally left blank.
U.S. Department of Education 

Betsy DeVos

Secretary

February 10, 2020

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is 

granted. While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be:

U.S. Department of Education, Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Performance Report and Fiscal 

Year 2021 Annual Performance Plan: Washington, D.C., 2020.

Notice of Availability of Alternate Formats

This report is available at http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/index.html. On request, 

the report also is available in alternative formats, such as Braille, large print or compact 

disk. For more information, please contact our Alternate Format Center at 1-202-260-0852 

or the 504 coordinator via email at om_eeos@ed.gov.

To become connected to the Department through social media, please visit the Department’s 

website at www.ed.gov. Our Twitter page is at @usedgov, and our blog is at Homeroom.

Notice to Limited English Proficient Persons

Notice of Language Assistance: If you have difficulty understanding English, you may 

request language assistance services, free of charge, for this Department information by 

calling 1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327) or TTY: 1-800-877-8339 or by emailing us 

at Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov.

Please submit your comments and questions regarding this report and any suggestions to 

improve its usefulness to PIO@ed.gov or write to:

U.S. Department of Education Performance Improvement Officer 

400 Maryland Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20202