PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 68

Goal 5. Continuous Improvement of the U.S. Education System: 

Enhance the education system’s ability to continuously improve 

through better and more widespread use of data, research and 

evaluation, evidence, transparency, innovation, and technology. 

Goal Leader: Assistant Secretary, Office of Planning, Evaluation and 

Policy Development (OPEPD)

Objective 5.1: Data Systems and Transparency. Facilitate the development of interoperable 

longitudinal data systems for early learning through employment to enable data-driven, 

transparent decision-making by increasing access to timely, reliable, and high-value data. 

Objective 5.2: Privacy. Provide all education stakeholders, from early childhood to adult 

learning, with technical assistance and guidance to help them protect student privacy while 

effectively managing and using student information. 

Objective 5.3: Research, Evaluation, and Use of Evidence. Invest in research and evaluation 

that builds evidence for education improvement; communicate findings effectively; and drive the 

use of evidence in decision-making by internal and external stakeholders. 

Objective 5.4: Technology and Innovation. Accelerate the development and broad adoption 

of new, effective programs, processes, and strategies, including education technology. 

Public Benefit

Education stakeholders, ranging from students and parents, to teachers and principals, to 

institutional leaders and the Secretary, need access to timely, appropriate, relevant, and 

actionable information. Sources of helpful education information can range from datasets to 

rigorous evaluations and research studies to consumer-oriented tools. They must be accessible 

in multiple ways, relying on the use of technology and other dissemination strategies, while 

applying appropriate controls to protect student privacy. The Department must continue to 

invest in its information resources so that internal and external stakeholders can use the best 

available information to inform evidence-based decisions by states, districts, institutions of 

higher education, and students and parents. 

The Department continues to support states developing systems that will collect, manage, and 

appropriately report the valid, reliable data that are essential to achieving improvements across 

education, but there is much more work to do. In addition to supporting the development of the 

systems and structures that will provide education agencies across the nation with the data 

necessary to generate accurate information on student performance and other critical elements, 

the Department must continue to lead the national discussion of how these systems are best 

and most appropriately used to support students, improve instruction, address inequities in 

access and success, develop future teachers, and inform practice. 

Additionally, the Department must help ensure that states, districts, and institutions of higher 

education are using and sharing data in ways that meet the highest standards of data ethics and 

protect student privacy, including compliance with applicable privacy laws. The collection, 

storage, maintenance, and use of data must be responsible and must appropriately protect 

student privacy. Stewards and users of data must remember that these data describe real 

people and ensure that systems protect the rights of those people. Student privacy is now a 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 69

focal point across the country; over the past three years, a majority of states have enacted 

student privacy legislation, while also expanding data use. 

Better use of information, for policymakers, educators, institutional leaders, and students and 

parents, depends on information being accessible through reliable technology in formats that 

are helpful to various users. Data on students’ educational and related financial outcomes will 

enable accountability for institutions and help to support students in their educational and career 

pathways. Additionally, the Department strives to provide public access to its own data by 

sharing it in various formats appropriate for data novices, reporters, researchers, and 

developers. In addition, the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) provides user-friendly 

syntheses of research evidence on various approaches and strategies in ways that are 

designed to be helpful to decision-makers. Taken together, these activities support the effort to 

help ensure that scarce dollars have their intended impact and empower states, districts, and 

institutions of higher education to become more dynamic learning organizations, especially in 

areas with little existing rigorous evidence. 

Goal 5 Discretionary Resources

$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500

FY 2016

FY 2017

FY 2018

$861

$859

$1,129

(Dollars in millions)

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities72 Supporting Goal 5 Performance 

Metrics [Dollars in Millions] 

POC Account Obj. Program

FY 2016 

Appropriation 

FY 2017 

Annualized 

CR73

FY 2018 

President’s 

Budget 

IES IES 5.3 National assessment 149 149 149 

IES IES 5.3 Regional educational laboratories 54 54 54 

 

72 All the programs listed are discretionary programs, as distinct from mandatory programs. These include both competitive and 

noncompetitive/formula programs. 

73 A full-year 2017 appropriation was not enacted at the time the FY 2018 Budget was prepared; therefore, the Budget is built off of 

the Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L. 114–254). The amounts included for 2017 reflect the annualized level 

provided by the continuing resolution.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 70

POC Account Obj. Program

FY 2016 

Appropriation 

FY 2017 

Annualized 

CR73

FY 2018 

President’s 

Budget 

IES IES 5.3 Research in special education 54 54 54 

IES IES 5.3 Research, development, and dissemination 195 195 195 

IES IES 5.1, 5.2 Statewide longitudinal data systems 35 34 34 

IES IES 5.3 Statistics 112 112 112 

OII I&I 5.3 Education innovation and research74 120 120 370 

Subtotal 719 718 968

Other Discretionary Programs/Activities 142 141 161

TOTAL, GOAL 5 861 859 1,129 

POC = Principal Operating Component. 

CR = Continuing Resolution. 

NOTES: Many programs may have sub-activities that relate to other goals. Detail may not add to total due to rounding. 

 

74 This program was titled “Investing in Innovation” in 2016.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 71

Goal 5: Details

Continuous Improvement 

of the U.S. Education 

System 

Indicators of Success Baseline

Actuals 

Current 

Year 

Target 

Current 

Year 

Results 

Actual-to-Target 

2016 Out-Year Targets 

Trend Line 

(Actuals) Indicator Measurement 

Direction 2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed75 Exceeded76

2017 2018

5.1.A. Number of public 

data sets included in ED 

Data Inventory and thus 

linked to Data.gov or 

ED.gov websites

FY: 2013 

55

FY: 2014 

66

FY: 

2015

79

FY: 2016 

94

FY: 2016 

94

MET

104 110

INCREASE 

5.1.B. Number of states 

linking K–12 and 

postsecondary data with 

workforce data

FY: 2013 

12

FY: 2014 

20

FY: 

2015

24

FY: 2016 

28

FY: 2016 

25

MET

25 28

INCREASE 

 

75 Missed target by <=1, or if percentage, <=1.3 percentage points. 

76 Surpassed target; not just met the target. If a diminishing target, the actual was below the reduction target set. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 72

Continuous Improvement

of the U.S. Education 

System

Indicators of Success Baseline

Actuals

Current

Year 

Target

Current

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target

2016 Out-Year Targets

Trend Line

(Actuals) Indicator Measurement 

Direction 2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed

75 Exceeded76

2017 2018

5.1.C. Number of states 

linking K–12 with early 

childhood data77

FY: 2013 

19

FY: 

2014

26

FY: 

2015

32

FY: 

2016

35

FY: 

2016

29

MET

NA NA

INCREASE 

New Metric: Number of 

states actively using data 

systems to support and 

inform improvements 

FY: 2012 

7 

18 28 32 NA NA NA 2678 35 NA

77 Retiring metric at conclusion of FY 2016. Please see appendix B for additional information pertaining to the metric’s retirement. The FY 2017 and 2018 targets were 32 and 33, 

respectively. If a new metric is being proposed, the new metric will be directly below the indicator measurement direction of the metric being retired. 

78 Currently finalizing approval from OMB to implement survey of all states on data system capabilities and uses. The appropriate time to revisit FY 2017 and 2018 targets will be in 

quarter 4 of FY 2017 once the Department has the initial data from that survey. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 73

Continuous Improvement 

of the U.S. Education 

System 

Indicators of Success Baseline

Actuals 

Current

Year 

Target 

Current

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2016 Out-Year Targets 

Trend Line 

(Actuals) Indicator Measurement 

Direction 2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed75 Exceeded76

2017 2018

5.2.A. Average time to 

close “cases” (PTAC + 

FPCO)

FY: 2013 

10 days 

FY: 2014 

9 days 

FY: 

2015

4.9 

days 

FY: 2016

6.06 days

FY: 2016 

7.2 days 

MET

6.70979 10.0 

DECREASE 

5.3.A. Percentage of select 

new (noncontinuation) 

competitive grant dollars 

that reward evidence80

FY: 2012 

6.5% 

FY: 2014 

15.9% 

FY: 

2015

29.4% 

FY: 2016 

29.9% 

FY: 2016 

18.0% 

MET

20.0% 30.0% 

INCREASE 

79 Target was updated to reflect the goal of a 10% reduction from the prior year in the 2015 APR (FY 2017 target was an average of 6.48 days). However, the target has since been 

revised to be less aggressive due to internal staffing shifts, but still represents a 1⁄2 day improvement from the FY 2016 target. 

80 Metric is aligned to an Agency Priority Goal. This metric’s FY 2016 actual excludes Striving Readers. Even without that data, the metric’s target has been met.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 74

Continuous Improvement

of the U.S. Education 

System

Indicators of Success Baseline

Actuals

Current

Year 

Target

Current

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target

2016 Out-Year Targets

Trend Line

(Actuals) Indicator Measurement 

Direction 2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed

75 Exceeded76

2017 2018

5.3.B. Number of peerreviewed, full-text 

resources in the 

Education Resources 

Information Center (ERIC)

FY: 2013 

23,512 

FY: 2014 

27,292 

FY: 

2015

36,197 

FY: 2016 

47,573 

FY: 2016 

35,692 

MET

40,892 46,892 

INCREASE 

5.3.C. Number of visits to 

the What Works 

Clearinghouse (WWC) 

website 

FY: 2015

1,822,000 

NA FY: 

2015

1,822,0

00

FY: 2016 

3,756,724 

FY: 2016 

1,967,76

0 

MET

2,164,536 2,380,989 

INCREASE 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 75

Continuous Improvement 

of the U.S. Education 

System 

Indicators of Success Baseline 

Actuals 

Current 

Year 

Target 

Current 

Year 

Results 

Actual-to-Target 

2016 Out-Year Targets 

Trend Line 

(Actuals) Indicator Measurement 

Direction 2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed75 Exceeded76

2017 2018

5.3.D. Number of 

completed project 

evaluations from grantees 

from select discretionary 

grant programs in a given 

fiscal year that meet What 

Works Clearinghouse 

(WWC) Evidence 

Standards81

FY: 2015 

2 

NA FY: 

2015

2 

FY: 2016 

20

FY: 2016 

10

MET

1082 30

INCREASE 

81 Metric is aligned to an Agency Priority Goal (APG). 

82 The FY 2017 target has been revised to reflect a target of 10 versus 20. The APG statement notes that by 9/30/2017 there will 20 completed project evaluations. FY 2016’s target 

was 10 and FY 2017’s target is also 10, equating to a target of 20 for the two-year APG. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 76

Continuous Improvement

of the U.S. Education 

System

Indicators of Success Baseline

Actuals

Current

Year 

Target

Current

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target

2016 Out-Year Targets

Trend Line

(Actuals) Indicator Measurement 

Direction 2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed

75 Exceeded76

2017 2018

5.4.A. Percentage of 

schools in the country 

that have actual Internet 

bandwidth speeds of at 

least 100 Mbps

FY: 2013 

20.0% 

41.0% 55.0% 80.9% 70.0% MET

80.0% 90.0% 

INCREASE 

Goal 5 FY 2016 Indicator Performance Summary 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 77

NA = Not applicable. 

TBD = To be determined. 

Academic Year (AY) is a collegiate year spanning August–May; School Year (SY) spans August–July and is aligned with a P–12 school year; Fiscal Year (FY) corresponds to a federal 

fiscal year; Calendar Year (CY) spans January–December. 

Data Sources and Frequency of Collection: 

5.1.A. Data Strategy Team Data Inventory and the public ED Data Inventory at http://datainventory.ed.gov; quarterly 

5.1.B. State Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS) grant monitoring (monthly updates from states, annual performance reports, final performance reports, and site visits); quarterly 

5.1.C. SLDS grant monitoring (monthly updates from states, annual performance reports, final performance reports, and site visits); quarterly 

5.2.A. Case Tracking System (CTS) Monthly Metric Reports; quarterly 

5.3.A. Forecast Report issued by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) and final Funding Reports from relevant programs; annually 

5.3.B. Education Resources Information Center (ERIC); quarterly 

5.3.C. What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) website analytics provided monthly by the WWC website contractor; quarterly 

5.3.D. Discretionary grant slate memoranda, discretionary grant financial forecasts and reports from OCFO, and the What Works Clearinghouse; quarterly

5.4.A. Education Superhighway (for baseline), Consortium for School Networking (CoSN)/AASA (American Association of School Administrators today known as AASA, The 

School Superintendents Association) E-rate Infrastructure Survey; annually 

Note on performance metrics and targets: These metrics were established as a part of the FY 2014–18 Strategic Plan. Metrics may be updated or revised to 

reflect awareness of more accurate data or clarifications. Such updates or revisions are identified in footnotes. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 78

Analysis and Next Steps by Objective

Objective 5.1: Data Systems and Transparency. Facilitate the development of 

interoperable longitudinal data systems for early learning through employment to enable 

data-driven, transparent decision making by increasing access to timely, reliable, and 

high-value data.

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

The primary implementation strategies regarding data systems and transparency for FY 2016 

were centered on three goals: 

 ensure a successful first year for the 16 SLDS grantees from the FY 2015 round, 

 connect internal transparency efforts to the new InformED initiative, and 

 improve the tools and support services available to the public for adoption of the CEDS. 

With the new SLDS grantees, the Department looked at grant areas that created problems in 

previous grants and aligned support as appropriate when setting up grant monitoring plans for 

this round of grantees. In addition to establishing clear grant implementation plans and 

monitoring schedules with each FY 2015 grantee, the SLDS team delivered 15 topical webinars 

and released 9 new publications on traditionally challenging topics, including data system 

sustainability, effectively linking education and workforce records, and successfully supporting a 

research agenda. These developed resources are available for all states, not just grantee 

states, through the SLDS program website. 

Within the Department, the InformED initiative was launched during FY 2016. InformED seeks 

to develop a world-class open data infrastructure at the Department, focusing on improved data 

releases and internal data dissemination procedures. One of the important FY 2016 

accomplishments was to improve the Department’s data landing page, including enabling 

visitors to search data resources by topic and keywords. By the end of the year, the InformED 

activities continued to expand to encompass a study of aligning key words in the Data Inventory 

with the organizational structure used on the new landing page, thereby aligning existing Goal 5 

metrics with InformED activities. 

FY 2016 began with the installation of a new support team for the CEDS. The team analyzed 

public feedback and website usage to inform their decision to place a high priority on 

reorganizing the tools and resources on the CEDS webpage. This strategy resulted in the 

deployment of a Mapping Toolkit on the website before the end of the fiscal year. 

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

There are three key barriers that could affect progress on this strategic objective: 

1) The Department may not have the human capital and financial resources needed to support 

the information technology (IT) infrastructure and procedural changes required to continue to 

advance its open data and transparency efforts. 

2) The lower number of active SLDS grantees (as FY 2012 grants close out) could lead to 

program data not accurately representing the state of the nation as a whole. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 79

3) Focus on other online resources could result in less traffic to education.data.gov, which could

make it more difficult to track usage statistics and improve the sites accordingly and may require 

redefining success in terms of web traffic. 

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

The Department reached a number of key milestones, including: 

 launching CEDS Mapping Toolkit;

 establishing grant implementation plans for all 16 FY 2015 SLDS grantees;

 deploying resources and technical assistance to FY 2015 SLDS grantees, and making

additional opportunities available to all states; and

 adding information on 16 public datasets to the ED Data Inventory, and through the

Department’s data.json file to the repository at data.gov.

In FY 2017, the Department engaged a network of state Chief Information Officers (CIOs) 

organized by Chief State School Officers (CSSOs) at their fall meeting about explicit actions 

they would be willing to take in support of CEDS. There was consensus among the members in 

attendance at the fall meeting that strong messaging to establish CEDS as the standard listing 

of elements, definitions, and relationships upon which they rely was needed. In addition to that 

messaging, the network of CIOs of CSSOs is drafting a set of “action steps” that member states 

can choose to implement. 

The SLDS program team spent much of FY 2016 preparing a new data collection proposal to 

enable gathering information on data system and transparency capability from all states, not just 

grantee states. 

Objective 5.2: Privacy. Provide all education stakeholders, from early childhood to adult 

learning, with technical assistance and guidance to help them protect student privacy 

while effectively managing and using student information.

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

The past several years have seen significant activity on student privacy issues. News stories 

abound about data collection in schools from emerging technologies, and the majority of states 

have passed student privacy legislation. Various federal student privacy statutes were 

introduced as well, though none of them were enacted. Resources devoted to student privacy 

increased in FY 2016, with five new full-time equivalents being added to these operations, and 

with the introduction of privacy “Fellows” in the Office of the Chief Privacy Officer. These new 

resources have enabled the Department to continue to meet the growing cry for technical 

assistance on privacy matters. The addition of these new resources, and a desire to focus on 

policy development and enforcement, prompted the Department to reorganize its student 

privacy functions, effective January 8, 2017. Two divisions have been created under the Chief 

Privacy Officer. The Family Policy Compliance Office (FPCO) will continue with its traditional 

function of investigating and responding to complaints from parents and eligible students, as 

well as providing technical assistance to school officials related to those complaints. A new 

division, the Student Privacy Policy and Assistance Division (SPPAD), will lead efforts to 

develop Departmental policy and coordinate technical assistance. 

The Department continues to refine the efficiency of its technical assistance delivery through 

use of metric management, relying on a case tracking system that manages workload and 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 80

content for both contractor and Department staff. These gains were further expanded during 

implementation of the restructured Privacy and Technical Assistance Center (PTAC) contract 

during the first quarter of the fiscal year, which increased contractor resource utilization by 

housing the helpdesk function within headquarters. 

Throughout the fiscal year, the Department made progress reducing turnaround time for cases 

and providing targeted technical assistance. Reducing the backlog of complaints and inquiries 

required devising and implementing a new approach in assigning and tracking cases. In 

addition, the Department completed a comprehensive review of the data in the tracking system, 

and worked to address a data entry delay uncovered during third-quarter reporting regarding 

average age of open “correspondence and complaints” and quality control for closing cases. 

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

The Department faces two primary barriers to success: 

 While the Department made progress on policy development in FY 2016, significant

work is still required to answer emerging and longstanding policy questions on privacy

topics related to video recording, e-mails, and permissible use.

 The Department’s student privacy caseload continues to increase, as does the complaint

backlog in FPCO. Process improvements and expanded proactive technical assistance

helped to mitigate the impact of this growth, but the sharp increase in new complaints

resulted in a modest increase in the complaint backlog of 21 percent over the same

timeframe. While the new resources and reorganization should help, limited resources

present a challenge to support student privacy technical assistance and enforcement

activities.

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

During FY 2016 and in prior fiscal years, the Department demonstrated expected progress on 

the metrics related to technical assistance delivery. Turnaround time for cases averaged only 

6.06 days, exceeding the goal of less than 7.2 days by more than a day. Proactive technical 

assistance goals were achieved through site visits, presentations, webinars, and regional 

meetings. To focus efforts on improving response time, and as noted in the FY 2015 APR, the 

metric regarding “average time to close correspondence and complaints” was retired and 

replaced with the “average age of correspondence and complaints.” 

In achieving the metric goals, the Department accomplished several additional milestones. In 

FY 2015, the Department responded to public and Congressional criticism over the privacy of 

students’ medical treatment records in the wake of a recent sexual assault case by issuing a 

draft Dear Colleague Letter to obtain public input on the protection of student privacy in campus 

medical records. After extensive collaboration not only across the Department, but also with 

partners in HHS, in FY 2016, the Department released and was publicly commended for the 

final version of this important Dear Colleague Letter. 

Another significant accomplishment was the Department’s collaboration with DOL in providing 

needed guidance to state agencies, educational agencies and institutions, and service providers 

on performance reporting and evaluation requirements under WIOA. 

In addition to these formal guidance documents, the Department also offered technical 

assistance through a variety of short, informative videos targeting both school personnel and 

parents. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 81

Objective 5.3: Research, Evaluation, and Use of Evidence. Invest in research and 

evaluation that builds evidence for education improvement; communicate findings 

effectively; and drive the use of evidence in decision making by internal and external 

stakeholders.

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

In FY 2016, the Evidence Planning Group (EPG), which consists of representatives from OII, 

IES, and OPEPD, followed a similar implementation strategy to that of past years. Prior to the 

start of FY 2016, EPG met with various programs to discuss whether it would be appropriate to 

move toward an evidence-based model in their competitions. In the first quarter of FY 2016, 

programs worked with EPG to finalize their plans for using evidence once funding levels 

became certain. In addition, EPG began to review the ESSA carefully to determine which 

programs would be the best candidates for evidence, as well as how the Department’s current 

evidence definitions are aligned with the ESSA’s “evidence-based” definition, which appears in 

several programs. In the fourth quarter of FY 2016, the Department released guidance for states 

and districts that suggests steps for effective decision-making using evidence and recommends 

criteria and considerations for each of the four levels of evidence in the ESSA. Additionally, the 

Department’s Office of Educational Technology (OET), in partnership with IES, contracted 

Mathematica Policy Research and SRI International to build an online platform called the Ed 

Tech Rapid Cycle Evaluation (RCE) Coach to support school and district leaders to collect more 

evidence when making decisions about educational technologies. The need for evidence-based 

decision-making found in the ESSA prompted this work, and the platform is now available and 

free for educators to use. 

The Department exceeded the FY 2016 target for number of peer-reviewed, full-text resources 

in the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC). In the first quarter, ERIC completed a 

new source selection round and approved new sources to be in ERIC. In addition, IES engaged 

the i3 program to encourage its grantees to submit the studies from their project evaluations to 

ERIC, achieving two important goals for the i3 program: (1) ensuring that all studies from the i3 

program are publicly available and (2) ensuring that studies are made available for WWC review 

in a systematic way. 

In FY 2016, the Department exceeded the planned target for number of reviewed studies in the 

WWC database. In the first quarter, to continue to increase the number of visitors to the WWC 

website, the WWC continued to expand the database of reviewed studies through reviews 

conducted for WWC products (e.g., intervention reports, practice guides, single study reviews, 

and quick reviews). Studies submitted as part of a grant application for the Department’s 

evidence-based grant competitions were also a source of evidence reviewed by the WWC. 

During the first quarter, the WWC reviewed studies for grant competitions and publicized the 

use of its study findings dataset, which is a resource that reports all available data for studies 

that meet standards and either have a WWC report or were reviewed for a grant competition. In 

addition, in the fourth quarter of FY 2016, the WWC released a redesigned “Find What Works” 

tool that allows users to search for studies by topic area, such as math or science, to find 

studies where there is evidence of positive effects. The “Students Like Yours” feature of this tool 

also allows users to specify characteristics of their students to better identify what research has 

been conducted on similar populations. This resource continues to be widely used among the 

research community. To ensure success for this metric, IES continually collaborated with staff 

from OII, the Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), and OELA to coordinate evidence 

reviews for evidence-based competitions. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 82

In FY 2016, the Department exceeded the target for number of completed project evaluations 

from grantees of select discretionary grant programs that meet WWC evidence standards. The 

main implementation strategy for this indicator involved checking the WWC database of 

reviewed studies to determine whether any new studies from Department-funded competitive 

grants were in the database and met WWC standards. Bolstering performance for this metric is 

the Department’s understanding that effective technical assistance is necessary to ensure 

grantees tasked with conducting rigorous evaluations of their projects stay on track. 

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

The EPG continues to consider whether the current approach to this work is sustainable. Based 

on lessons learned, the Department has determined that focus must be strategic so that the use 

of evidence is in select programs rather than continuing to scale at the current rate. With limited 

resources, it is crucial that the Department focus on high-quality work in programs where using 

evidence is most likely to be impactful, as opposed to putting evidence priorities in every 

competitive program without strong fidelity of implementation. 

It is important to note that these efforts are also complemented by the work of the Department’s 

Comprehensive Centers and Regional Educational Laboratories, which are designed to provide 

high-quality resources to the field. 

While the Department surpassed its target for the number of studies conducted as part of a 

discretionary grant-funded project that are determined to meet WWC evidence standards in 

FY 2016, this work may not be sustainable. One lesson from the i3 program is that, even when 

employing very sophisticated evaluators, substantial technical assistance from the Department 

is essential in order to keep the project evaluations on track to meet rigorous standards. While 

most discretionary grant programs do not have the resource flexibility to focus on rigorous 

evaluation standards, EPG has worked to create a contracting option for programs that need 

help with evaluation expertise, with a few programs entering into that contract for FY 2016. 

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

Looking forward to FY 2017, the Department continues to consider ways to streamline and 

improve upon its evidence review process for discretionary grant competitions. 

To increase the number of visits to the WWC website in FY 2017, the Department will continue 

to expand social media presence, point competitive grant applicants to the WWC website, and 

produce products like intervention reports, quick reviews, single study reviews, and practice 

guides. 

Objective 5.4: Technology and Innovation. Accelerate the development and broad 

adoption of new, effective programs, processes, and strategies, including education 

technology.

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

The Department’s many successes during FY 2016 include expanded technical support and 

assistance to support state and district leaders across the country working to improve teaching 

and learning through the effective use of technology. Over 25 states and the District of 

Columbia have joined the effort and committed to supporting district leadership teams in 

planning for digital learning. In addition, 3,000 superintendents from across the country have 

committed to foster and lead a culture of digital learning in their districts by signing the Future 

Ready District Pledge. The Department, in partnership with the Alliance for Excellent Education 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 83

and with support from a coalition of over 50 national and regional partners, supports district 

leaders with specific tools and guidance to plan and implement personalized, research-based 

digital learning strategies in order to prepare students for success in college, career, and 

citizenship. 

To support the work of the superintendents, OET continued to collect examples of best 

practices for connecting schools, providing devices, and preparing teachers to use technology 

effectively. These regularly updated resources were posted on the Department’s website, blog,

and YouTube channel and shared via Twitter and Facebook. 

In October 2015, OET launched #GoOpen, a national movement that supports states, school 

districts, and educators transitioning to openly licensed educational materials to transform 

teaching and learning. Openly licensed educational resources have enormous potential to 

increase access to high-quality educational opportunities in the United States when they are 

accessible via high-speed broadband. 

#GoOpen was launched on October 29, 2015, at the Open Education Symposium, an event that 

brought together district leaders, state leaders, nonprofits, foundations, and private sector 

companies. As of September 30, 2016, 76 districts committed to transitioning to the use of 

openly licensed educational resources to replace traditional, static instructional materials, and 

16 states committed to providing guidance and leadership for districts making this transition, as 

well as developing a statewide repository to search and discover resources. 

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

Although much progress has been made in connecting schools to high speed broadband, future 

roadblocks to progress include access to needed fiber optic cable, especially in rural areas; 

affordability of broadband, especially in smaller and rural districts that are not eligible for bulk 

pricing discounts; and fully utilizing E-rate funds, since some districts still struggle to provide a 

percentage match to every E-rate dollar they receive. Several challenges remain in meeting the 

goals of this objective, including the need to educate the public about privacy and data security 

(leading to setbacks in the ability to use data to create personalized learning systems), difficulty 

measuring effectiveness without a robust evaluation program, and difficulty showing impact 

without data collection. 

Limited resources may prevent OET from meeting its legislative mandate to provide technical 

assistance to states, districts, and programs across the Department and the federal 

government. This technical assistance has included research and evaluation, updating critical 

guidance documents, and providing ongoing partnership support to organizations to leverage 

technology to improve teaching and learning and in support of states and districts working to 

increase connectivity for students. 

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

Strategies for reaching this goal have included updating federal government policies and 

guidance, encouraging significant private sector commitments, and engaging in national 

outreach efforts to states, districts, technology providers, and nonprofit organizations. 

Collaboration within the Department, with other government agencies, and the education 

community as a whole is also key to success, as is developing sustainable, scalable solutions 

for using data and evidence in decision-making. Some strategies, especially around support for 

teachers adopting innovative approaches, evaluating effectiveness of technology-based 

approaches, and establishing best practices for maintaining student privacy, are dependent on 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 84

funding and staffing. The Department is working to identify ways to make its data more 

accessible and actionable for the public. 

In the coming year, the Future Ready District Infrastructure Guide will be updated with an 

expanded connectivity section. OET will continue to collect examples of best practices for 

connecting schools, providing devices, and preparing teachers to use technology effectively and 

share them via its social media channels. 

Work will continue on the Ed Tech RCE Coach tool during FY 2017. With the implementation of 

ESSA, the need for evidence-based decision-making has increased significantly. The goal is to 

fundamentally change the procurement and implementation process to include evidence-based 

decision-making throughout. 

During FY 2017, OET will collect new examples from the field to add to the National Educational 

Technology Plan. This is based on the office’s commitment to refresh the plan more frequently 

than the previous five-year cycle in order to better respond to the needs of the field.