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

U.S. Department of Education 

Betsy DeVos 

Secretary 

May 23, 2017 

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 2016 

Annual Performance Report and Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Performance Plan: Washington, DC, 2017. 

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 computer diskette. For more information, please contact our 

Alternate Format Center at 202-260-0852 or by contacting the 504 coordinator via e-mail 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) 

(TTY: 1-800-877-8339), or e-mail us at: Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov. 

[SPANISH] 

Aviso a personas con dominio limitado del idioma inglés: Si usted tiene alguna dificultad en entender el idioma 

inglés, puede, sin costo alguno, solicitar asistencia lingüística con respecto a esta información llamando al 1-800-

USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327) (TTY: 1-800-877-8339), o envíe un mensaje de correo electrónico a: 

Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov. 

[CHINESE] 

給英語能力有限人士的通知: 如果您不懂英語, 或者使用英语有困难,您可以要求獲得向大眾提供的語言協助服務,

幫助您理解教育部資訊。這些語言協助服務均可免費提供。如果您需要有關口譯或筆譯服務的詳細資訊,請致電 1-

800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327) (聽語障人士專線:1-800-877-8339),或電郵: 

Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov. 

[VIETNAMESE] 

Thông báo dành cho những người có khả năng Anh ngữ hạn chế: Nếu quý vị gặp khó khăn trong việc hiểu 

Anh ngữ thì quý vị có thể yêu cầu các dịch vụ hỗ trợ ngôn ngữ cho các tin tức của Bộ dành cho công chúng. Các 

dịch vụ hỗ trợ ngôn ngữ này đều miễn phí. Nếu quý vị muốn biết thêm chi tiết về các dịch vụ phiên dịch hay thông 

dịch, xin vui lòng gọi số 1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327) (TTY: 1-800-877-8339), hoặc e-mail: 

Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov. 

[KOREAN] 

영어 미숙자를 위한 공고: 영어를 이해하는 데 어려움이 있으신 경우, 교육부 정보 센터에 일반인 대상 언어 지원

서비스를 요청하실 수 있습니다. 이러한 언어 지원 서비스는 무료로 제공됩니다. 통역이나 번역 서비스에 대해 자세한

정보가 필요하신 경우, 전화번호 1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327) 또는 청각 장애인용 전화번호 1-800-877-8339 

또는 이메일주소 Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov 으로 연락하시기 바랍니다.
FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 

[TAGALOG] 

Paunawa sa mga Taong Limitado ang Kaalaman sa English: Kung nahihirapan kayong makaintindi ng English, 

maaari kayong humingi ng tulong ukol dito sa inpormasyon ng Kagawaran mula sa nagbibigay ng serbisyo na 

pagtulong kaugnay ng wika. Ang serbisyo na pagtulong kaugnay ng wika ay libre. Kung kailangan ninyo ng dagdag 

na impormasyon tungkol sa mga serbisyo kaugnay ng pagpapaliwanag o pagsasalin, mangyari lamang tumawag sa 

1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327) (TTY: 1-800-877-8339), o mag-e-mail sa: Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov. 

[RUSSIAN] 

Уведомление для лиц с ограниченным знанием английского языка: Если вы испытываете 

трудности в понимании английского языка, вы можете попросить, чтобы вам предоставили перевод 

информации, которую Министерство Образования доводит до всеобщего сведения. Этот перевод 

предоставляется бесплатно. Если вы хотите получить более подробную информацию об услугах устного 

и письменного перевода, звоните по телефону 1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327) (служба для 

слабослышащих: 1-800-877-8339), или отправьте сообщение по адресу: Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov.

Please submit your comments and questions regarding this plan and report and any suggestions to improve future 

reports, including suggestions for additional links that will increase the usefulness of the report to the public, to 

APP_APRComments@ed.gov or: 

U.S. Department of Education 

Performance Improvement Officer 

400 Maryland Ave, SW 

Washington, DC 20202 

The following companies were contracted to assist in the preparation of the U.S. Department of Education 

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan:

For general layout and web design: ICF Macro 
FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education ii

Foreword 

As required by the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Modernization Act of 2010, each federal 

agency must report annually on its progress in meeting the goals and objectives established by its Strategic 

Plan. The United States Department of Education’s (the Department’s) Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 Annual 

Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan presents to Congress, the President, and the 

American people detailed information about progress in meeting the Department’s strategic goals and 

objectives and performance metrics. This report accompanies the administration’s budget request to Congress. 

The complete budget request for the Department will be available at 

http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/focus/performance.html. 

This year, the Department is consolidating its FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and the FY 2018 Annual 

Performance Plan into one report on its U.S. Department of Education Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2014–

2018. The data included in this report for the FY 2014–18 Strategic Plan metrics are the most current data 

available to the Department. The Department’s FY 2016 annual reporting includes these two documents: 

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan 

[available May 2017]

This report is produced in conjunction with the FY 2018 President’s Budget Request and provides more detailed performance 

information and analysis of performance results. 

FY 2016 Agency Financial Report (AFR) [published November 14, 2016]

The AFR is organized into three major sections: 

 The Management’s Discussion and Analysis section provides executive-level information on the Department’s 

history, mission, organization, key activities, analysis of financial statements, systems, controls and legal 

compliance, accomplishments for the fiscal year, and management and performance challenges facing the 

Department. 

 The Financial section provides a Message From the Chief Financial Officer, consolidated and combined financial 

statements, the Department’s notes to the financial statements, and the Report of the Independent Auditors.

 The Other Information section provides improper payments reporting details and other statutory reporting 

requirements. 

All annual reports will be available on the Department’s website at 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/index.html. 
FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education iii

Contents 

Mission and Organizational Structure ......................................................................................... 2

About This Report ...................................................................................................................... 4

About the Agency Financial Report ........................................................................................ 4

Performance Results Details ...................................................................................................... 5

Performance Management Framework ................................................................................... 5

FY 2014–18 Strategic Plan ..................................................................................................... 6

Cross-Agency Priority (CAP) Goals ........................................................................................ 8

The Department’s Approach to Data Collection and Analysis ................................................. 9

Support for the Department’s Evaluations............................................................................... 9

Performance Plan Summary .....................................................................................................10

Looking Ahead and Addressing Challenges ..........................................................................10

Data Verification and Validation .............................................................................................11

Reporting on Progress ...........................................................................................................12

Goal 1. Postsecondary Education, Career and Technical Education, and Adult Education ....14

Goal 2. Elementary and Secondary Education ......................................................................32

Goal 3. Early Learning ...........................................................................................................48

Goal 4. Equity ........................................................................................................................59

Goal 5. Continuous Improvement of the U.S. Education System ...........................................68

Goal 6. U.S. Department of Education Capacity ....................................................................85

Management Priorities and Challenges ...............................................................................101

Lower-Priority Program Activities .........................................................................................104

Appendix A: Data Validity and Verification ..............................................................................107

Appendix B: Changed Performance Goals ..............................................................................127

Appendix C: Additional Programs by Goal ..............................................................................132

Appendix D: Summary of Performance Evaluations Released During FY 2016–17 and 

Expected During FY 2017–18 ................................................................................................. 136

Appendix E: Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................184
FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education iv

This page intentionally left blank. 
FY 2010 Annual Performance Report—U.S. Department of Education 

FY 2016 Annual Performance 

Report and FY 2018 Annual 

Performance Plan
Our 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.

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 2 

Mission and Organizational Structure

Who We Are. In 1867, the federal government recognized that furthering education was a 

national priority and created a federal education agency to collect and report statistical data. 

The Department was established as a cabinet-level agency in 1980. Today, the Department 

supports programs in every area and level of education. 

Our Public Benefit. While recognizing the primary role of states and school districts in 

providing a high-quality education, the Department is committed to helping ensure that students 

throughout the nation develop skills to succeed in school, college, and the workforce. The 

Department supports efforts to help students succeed regardless of background or 

circumstance by encouraging challenging content, setting high expectations for all students, and 

monitoring academic progress. 

The Department’s largest fiscal responsibility is a portfolio of student loans (see the Financial 

Highlights and Notes sections of the Agency Financial Report [AFR]). The second-largest fiscal 

responsibility is grants to states, mostly for elementary and secondary education, awarded 

based on both statutory formulas (see the chart on page 6 of the AFR) and competitions. The 

third largest fiscal responsibility is student aid to help pay for college through Pell Grants, Work 

Study, and other campus-based programs (see the Notes section of the AFR). 

The Department also supports research, collects education statistics, enforces civil rights 

statutes, and carries out competitive grant programs to promote innovation (see The 

Department’s Approach to Performance Management section).
MISSION AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 3 

Our Organization in Fiscal Year 2016 

This chart reflects the coordinating structure of the U.S. Department of Education in FY 2016. 
FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 4 

About This Report 

The United States Department of Education’s (the Department’s) FY 2016 Annual Performance 

Report (APR) and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan (APP) provide information relative to the 

FY 2014–18 Strategic Plan. 

About the Agency Financial Report

The AFR is available on the Department’s website. The Management’s Discussion and Analysis 

section highlights information on the Department’s performance, financial statements, systems 

and controls, compliance with laws and regulations, and actions taken or planned to address 

select challenges. The Department’s intent is to provide users with access to helpful information 

about the Department and its financial and performance activities. To help continue to improve 

the content of the AFR, readers are encouraged to provide their feedback at 

AFRComments@ed.gov. 
PERFORMANCE RESULTS DETAILS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 5 

Performance Results Details

Performance Management Framework 

In accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Modernization Act of 

2010, the Strategic Plan is the basis for the Department’s performance management framework. 

The Department uses quarterly performance reviews, targeted strategic initiatives, and outreach 

to leaders and stakeholders to assess progress and garner engagement toward achieving 

strategic goals and outcomes. 

The performance data presented in this report are based on the goals in the Department’s FY 

2014–18 Strategic Plan (outlined below). The Department welcomes input from Congress, state 

and local partners, and other education stakeholders on its Strategic Plan and Agency Priority 

Goals (APGs). Questions or comments about the Department’s performance management 

framework and reporting should be e-mailed to PIO@ed.gov. 
PERFORMANCE RESULTS DETAILS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 6 

The FY 2014–18 Strategic Plan is comprised of six strategic goals, which serve as the 

foundation for establishing long-term priorities. Within each goal are strategic objectives that the 

Department undertakes to realize the goal. For each objective, the Department has established 

measures to gauge its progress. Additionally, in collaboration with the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB), the Department established FY 2016–17 APGs and reported quarterly 

updates on these APGs on performance.gov. 

The Department monitors progress toward its strategic goals and its APGs using data-driven 

review and analysis. This focus promotes active management engagement across the 

Department. 

FY 2014–18 Strategic Plan1

 

1 This graphic reflects the Strategic Plan adopted by the Department in 2014. 
PERFORMANCE RESULTS DETAILS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 7 
PERFORMANCE RESULTS DETAILS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 8 

Cross-Agency Priority (CAP) Goals 

Cross-Agency Priority (CAP) Goals are used to accelerate progress on a limited number of 

priority areas where implementation requires active collaboration between multiple agencies. 

The 15 CAP Goals include the following 7 mission-oriented and 8 management-focused goals. 

Mission CAP Goals Management CAP Goals

 Cybersecurity 

 Service Members and Veterans 

Mental Health 

 Climate Change (Federal Actions) 

 Insider Threat and Security Clearance 

Reform 

 Job-Creating Investment 

 Infrastructure Permitting 

Modernization 

 STEM Education 

 Customer Service 

 Smarter IT Delivery 

 Category Management 

 Shared Services 

 Benchmark and Improve MissionSupport Operations 

 Open Data 

 Lab-To-Market 

 People and Culture 

The Department contributes to the following four CAP Goals: 

Cybersecurity Goal Statement: Improve awareness of security practices, vulnerabilities, and 

threats to the operating environment by limiting access to only authorized users and 

implementing technologies and processes that reduce the risk from malicious activity. 

Service Members and Veterans Mental Health Goal Statement: Improve mental health 

outcomes for Service Members, Veterans, and their Families. 

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) Education Goal Statement: Improve 

STEM Education by implementing the Federal STEM Education 5-Year Strategic Plan, 

announced in May 2013. 

Customer Service Goal Statement: Deliver world-class customer services to citizens by 

making it faster and easier for individuals and businesses to complete transactions and have a 

positive experience with government. 
PERFORMANCE RESULTS DETAILS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 9 

The Department’s Approach to Data Collection and Analysis 

In FY 2016, the Department continued to support programs to help the education system by 

facilitating the development of the infrastructure necessary to collect and disseminate high-value 

education information for the improvement of student outcomes. 

EDFacts. The EDFacts system enables the consolidation of separate school-, district-, and 

state-level data collections and reduces the reporting burden for states by eliminating redundant 

data requests. 

Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems. The Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS) 

grant program, as authorized by the Educational Technical Assistance Act of 2002, is designed 

to aid state educational agencies (SEAs) in developing and implementing longitudinal data 

systems. Most SLDS funds are awarded as state grants, but a portion of the funds are used for 

activities to improve data quality, coordination, and use. Activities include the Education Data 

Technical Assistance program and the Privacy Technical Assistance Center. 

Data Strategy Team. The Department’s Data Strategy Team (DST) develops and promotes 

coordinated and consistent data strategies among the various offices whose responsibilities 

include data and content management within the Department. The mission of the DST is to 

coordinate the Department’s public-facing data initiatives by building cohesiveness in internal 

processes and data policies and by improving transparency in matters related to the 

Department’s collection of data. 

Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC). The Department collects data on key education and civil 

rights issues in our nation’s public schools for use by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in its 

enforcement and monitoring efforts, by other Department offices, and by policymakers and 

researchers outside of the Department. 

Enhancing Education Systems and Supports. The Department strives to leverage its data, 

evaluation, performance, and financial systems to meet four important aspects of its mission: 

 To contribute to the Department’s ability to build customer relations by providing timely 

responses to customer inquiries. 

 To empower employees to make informed decisions by increasing their access to data. 

 To increase accountability through improved financial management. 

 To keep Department employees informed of the project status and ensure that all users 

receive proper training on the new system. 

Support for the Department’s Evaluations

To determine the effectiveness of programs, policies, and strategies for improving education 

outcomes, funding is directed toward evaluations that will yield valid, reliable, and useful 

information for the field. For a list of evaluations completed in FY 2016 and of those planned 

through FY 2018, see appendix D.
FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 10

Performance Plan Summary

Looking Ahead and Addressing Challenges 

With new leadership, the Department of Education begins a fresh start for educational 

opportunity and innovation in America. For too long, educators have had to spend significant 

time filling out paperwork and seeking permission to enact commonsense reforms. In the future, 

this agency will be a mirror—reflecting and illuminating the tremendous work that educators do 

every day with the support of parents, advocates, current and former students, and community 

members. 

Our goal is to support greater state and local flexibility in elementary and secondary education, 

already underway with implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act, while helping every 

student receive a high-quality education. Rather than merely enforcing compliance, the 

Department will empower educators. The Department also will embolden parents and students 

to make their own choices, whether traditional public, public charter, private, or other innovative 

options. Our guiding principle for assisting this work is simple: Let teachers teach, let students 

learn, and let parents decide the path their child’s education will take. 

Greater flexibility must take root in higher education as well. That means innovative new models 

for delivering an affordable, accessible, high-quality postsecondary education that holds all 

institutions accountable for their use of taxpayer funds. The Department will also seek to 

improve and, if necessary, repeal regulations that needlessly burden institutions of higher 

education and drive up costs and debt for students. This will allow colleges and universities to 

spend less time on paperwork and bureaucracy and more time on instruction and research. 

The Department has a key role to play in enforcing the law and ensuring every student—and 

especially the most vulnerable—has access to a high-quality education and receives the 

protections guaranteed them under the law. This important work will be strengthened by leaders 

in state capitals, district offices, and college administration buildings having the opportunity to do 

things differently to meet the needs of their students. Greater flexibility will mean more 

opportunities for students, but only if those new possibilities are explored and new ideas are 

encouraged. 

Therefore, over the next year, the Department will: 

 Identify internal processes and regulations that are out-of-date, are not reflective of best 

practices, are legally insufficient, or are too cumbersome for teachers, principals, and 

parents. In every case, why a regulation is necessary and reasonable will need to be 

demonstrated. 

 Proactively reach out to educators, parents, institutions, and state and local leaders to 

identify opportunities for additional flexibility and support. 

 Work with members of Congress from both parties to identify additional opportunities to 

reduce the red tape that encumbers or distracts educational institutions from their central 

mission of educating their students. 

 Ensure that billions of dollars in federal student aid will be spent effectively, producing 

positive outcomes for students and a solid return on investment for the taxpayer and 

society. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 11

While decisions made by local government will be valued, there is no educational decision more 

local or more important than that made by a child’s parent or guardian. The Department will 

support parental choice—not as an endorsement of private, charter, magnet, virtual, or 

traditional public schools, but as an acknowledgment of parental wisdom and authority to make 

decisions important to their child’s future. High-quality data and transparency at the state, local, 

and school levels will further empower parents to make the best decisions for their children. 

Many have favored school turnaround efforts over parental choice. Under the School 

Improvement Grants (SIG)—$7 billion was spent in recent years alone and a comprehensive 

evaluation of the program found “no significant impacts” on any student outcome.

If we can identify a school turnaround model that shows promise, we want to learn about it. If we 

find a solution that demonstrates consistent results, we want to support it. However, we cannot 

wait and hope for a miracle, while blocking efforts that can help millions of children immediately. 

That is why we must invest in what we know works for students even as we continue to innovate 

and build knowledge. 

We must also refocus our efforts—and our federal, state, and local partnerships—on helping 

Americans get ahead and stay ahead by finding a fulfilling and well-paying career. Career and 

technical education must be aligned with state standards and directed towards areas of greatest 

need where there is the greatest potential for a good job. Although the needs of employers must 

be considered to a much greater degree than they are currently, an education must first and 

foremost provide a student with knowledge and skills that will yield benefits for a lifetime, not 

simply a single job. 

Similarly, while job training cannot be the sole focus of a bachelor’s degree, there are far too 

many students who leave campus saddled with debt and lacking employable skills. In 

partnership with organizations representing students, taxpayers, educators, and colleges, we 

will support new paths to a meaningful credential and a fulfilling career. Through innovation and 

commonsense approaches to providing aid to those who need it most, we can make a quality 

postsecondary education more accessible and more affordable to all. 

When developing any new policy, the Department will remember the interests of students first. It 

will remember the service member leaving active duty and looking to build employable skills, the 

student with special needs looking to build a life of dignity and purpose but lacking the supports 

she deserves, and the child from poverty looking to build a better life but unsure where to turn 

for a helping hand. As the Department of Education begins a new chapter, it will be with a focus 

on empowering these and so many other Americans to realize their full potential. 

Data Verification and Validation 

The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 requires agencies to prepare information on the reliability 

of data presented. OMB guidance indicates: 

Agencies may develop a single data verification and validation appendix used to 

communicate the agency’s approaches, and/or may also choose to provide information 

about data quality wherever the performance information is communicated (e.g., 

websites).2

 

2 OMB Circular A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget, Part 6, Section 260.9, 2014. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 12

The full data verification and validation summary and a high-level assessment of the 

completeness and reliability of the data presented are provided in appendix A of this report. 

Reporting on Progress 

The Department continues to use quarterly performance reviews, targeted strategic initiatives, 

and outreach to leaders and stakeholders to assess progress and garner engagement toward 

achieving strategic goals and outcomes. Continuous improvement rests on ongoing cycles of 

assessing performance, examining data, and applying lessons learned to improve practices. 

Creating a culture of continuous improvement is at the heart of the Department’s efforts to 

partner with and support educators, administrators, and policymakers, with the intent of 

obtaining better outcomes for all students. 

The Department’s Strategic Plan portfolio of metrics (indicators) shifts year-over-year.3 For 

example, metrics are retired as more meaningful metrics are identified that can drive the 

Department’s strategic goals and objectives forward. In FY 2016, the Department added 

(including metrics re-baselined) a total of 18 performance metrics to its public annual 

performance reporting. The Department met 50 percent of the targets for those new metrics. 

Overall, in FY 2016, the Department met 27 of its 52 performance metric targets, exceeded the 

targeted results for 23 of those metrics, and just missed the targets for 7 metrics. The 

Department continues to be committed to identifying performance metrics that are meaningful 

and drive the Department’s work forward and to establishing targets that are both ambitious and 

attainable. With the removal and addition of performance metrics each fiscal year, the 

Department has seen a decrease in performance metric targets met overall from FY 2014 

through FY 2016. 

 

3 See appendix B (Changed Performance Goals) of the FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance 

Plan, available online at https://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/2017plan/2015-2017-apr-app-plan-appdx-b.pdf.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 13

Fiscal 

Year

Total 

External 

Metrics

External 

Metrics 

Met

% 

Met

Year/Year 

Change

2014 48 31 64.6%

2015 46 31 67.4% 4.3%

2016 52 27 51.9% -23.0%
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 14

Goal 1. Postsecondary Education, Career and Technical Education, 

and Adult Education: 

Increase college access, affordability, quality, and completion by 

improving postsecondary education and lifelong learning 

opportunities for youths and adults. 

Goal Leader: Under Secretary 

Objective 1.1: Access and Affordability. Close the opportunity gap by improving the 

affordability of and access to college and/or workforce training, especially for underrepresented 

and/or underprepared populations (e.g., low-income and first-generation students, English 

learners, individuals with disabilities, adults without high school diplomas, etc.). 

Objective 1.2: Quality. Foster institutional value to ensure that postsecondary education 

credentials represent effective preparation for students to succeed in the workforce and 

participate in civic life. 

Objective 1.3: Completion. Increase degree and certificate completion and job placement in 

high-need and high-skill areas, particularly among underrepresented and/or underprepared 

populations. 

Objective 1.4: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Pathways.

Increase STEM pathway opportunities that enable access to and completion of postsecondary 

programs. 

Public Benefit

Increasing college access, affordability, quality, and completion by improving postsecondary 

education and lifelong learning opportunities for youths and adults requires attention to three 

equally important factors to facilitate success: availability of good consumer information and 

financial aid, strong motivation by students and families, and access to affordable, high-quality 

learning opportunities. 

In FY 2016, the Department delivered nearly $126 billion in grants, work-study, and loan 

assistance to more than 13 million postsecondary students at over 6,600 schools.4 In addition, 

the Department administered $2 billion annually in grants to strengthen postsecondary 

institutions and promote college readiness, and nearly $1.7 billion in grant funds for career and 

technical education (CTE) programs5 and adult education programs aimed at helping youth and 

adults attain the academic and technical skills and knowledge necessary to transition to 

postsecondary education, training, and employment. 

The Department developed resources, including the College Affordability and Transparency 

Center, the Financial Aid Shopping Sheet, and other loan counseling and financial literacy 

resources, to provide students and families with enhanced tools for informed decision-making. 

Additionally, the Federal Student Aid Feedback System provides a way for students, parents, 

borrowers, and others to file complaints about their experiences with federal aid programs and 

 

4

 Federal Student Aid Annual Report FY 2016. 

5

 Of the roughly $1.1 billion in Perkins formula funds that are distributed by states to local recipients, approximately 40 percent are 

allocated for postsecondary CTE programs.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 15

institutions. The Department will use the feedback to improve the experience for current and 

future borrowers. 

Goal 1 Discretionary Resources

$0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000

FY 2016

FY 2017

FY 2018

$29,866

$29,811

$28,089

(Dollars in millions)

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities6 Supporting Goal 1 Performance 

Metrics [Dollars in Millions] 

POC Account Obj. Program 

FY 2016 

Appropriation 

FY 2017 

Annualized 

CR7

FY 2018 

President’s 

Budget 

FSA DM/SAA Student Aid Administration: Salaries and expenses 697 694 681

FSA DM/SAA Student Aid Administration: Servicing Activities 855 855 1,017 

FSA SFA 1.1 Federal Pell grants: Discretionary 22,475 22,433 22,433 

OCTAE CTAE 1.1, 

1.2, 1.3 Adult basic and literacy education state grants 582 581 486

OCTAE CTAE NA Career and technical education state grants 1,116 1,115 949

OPE HE 1.1, 1.3 Federal TRIO programs 900 898 808

Subtotal 26,625 26,576 26,374 

Other Discretionary Programs/Activities 3,241 3,234 1,715 

TOTAL, GOAL 1 29,866 29,811 28,089 

POC = Principal Operating Component. 

CR = Continuing Resolution. 

NA = Not applicable. 

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

 

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

noncompetitive/formula programs. 

7 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 16 

Goal 1: Details

U.S. Department 

of Education 

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

Missed8 Exceeded9

2017 2018

1.1.A. Federal 

student loan 

delinquency rate

FY: End of 

FY 2014–15

21.7%

FY: 2013–14

24.0% 

FY: 

2014–15

21.7% 

FY: 2015–

16

19.4%

FY: 2015–

16

21.0%

MET

18.8% >= 3 

% points 

below 

previous 

year’s actual

  DECREASE

1.1.B. Web traffic 

to the College 

Scorecard10 

09/12/2014–

9/11/201511

91,011

(Excluding 

new 

Scorecard 

launch on 

Sept. 12, 

2015)

NA FY: 2015 

91,011 

FY: 2016

1,427,797

FY: 2016

1,500,000

NOT MET

1,800,000 TBD 

INCREASE

 

8

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

9

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

10 Performance metric is transitioning to Strategic Goal 5 in FY 2017. 

11 In the 2015 APR, the baseline was noted as being a fiscal year. However, the baseline was measured using 09/12/2014–09/11/2015 data. The period did not align with the fiscal 

year in order to exclude anomalous data from the release of the new College Scorecard on September 12, 2015. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 17

U.S. Department 

of Education 

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

Missed8 Exceeded9

2017 2018

1.1.C. Percentage 

of first-time 

FAFSA filers 

among high 

school seniors12

SY: 

2012–13

59.2%

SY: 

2013–14

60.1% 

SY: 

2014–15

60.5% 

SY: 2015–

16

57.5%

SY: 2015–

16

59.5%–

61.5%

NOT MET

NA NA

INCREASE 

New Metric: 

Number of firsttime FAFSA filers 

among high 

school seniors 

Application 

Cycle 

Applicants 

5-Year 

Average 

2012/13–

2016/17 

2,016,304 

AY: 2014–15 

(FY: 2014) 

2,021,691 

AY: 

2015–16 

(FY: 

2015)

2,009,155 

AY: 2016–

17

(FY: 2016)

2,015,138

NA NA NA 2,016,304 2,021,345 NA

 

12 Revising metric language (in the 2014 and 2015 APR read as: “Percentage of high school seniors filing a FAFSA”) to align with how the metric is captured in the Federal Student Aid 

(FSA) Strategic Plan. All of the underlying assumptions and calculation methodologies were confirmed by FSA to be the same. Retiring metric at conclusion of FY 2016. Please see 

appendix B for additional information pertaining to the metric’s retirement. The FY 2017 target was 56.5%–58.5%, and FY 2018 was +/- one percentage point over prior year’s actual.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 18

U.S. Department 

of Education 

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

Missed8 Exceeded9

2017 2018

1.1.D. Index of 

national 

aggregate annual 

earnings of VR 

consumers 

(based on the 

number of 

competitive 

integrated 

employment 

outcomes, hours 

worked, and 

hourly wages of 

VR consumers) 

FY: 

2010

$57,971,317

FY: 2014 

$61,800,214 

FY: 2015 

$64,688,3

2013

FY: 2016

$66,791,9

33

FY: 2016

$65,608,8

96

MET

$66,921,074 $68,259,495 

INCREASE 

 

13 Metric was TBD in the 2015 APR due to data not being available until FY 2016. The metric was MET. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 19

U.S. Department 

of Education 

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

8 Exceeded9

2017 2018

1.1.E. Index of 

national 

aggregate annual 

earnings of 

Transition-Age 

Youth (based on 

the number of 

competitive 

integrated 

employment 

outcomes, hours 

worked, and 

hourly wages of 

VR TransitionAge Youth) 

FY: 

2010

$15,971,665

FY: 2014

$18,540,576 

FY: 2015 

$19,579,0

7414

FY: 2016

$19,980,9

56

FY: 2016

$19,476,8

18

MET

$19,866,354 $20,263,681 

INCREASE 

 

14 Metric was TBD in the 2015 APR due to data not being available until FY 2016. The metric was MET. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 20

U.S. Department 

of Education 

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

Missed8 Exceeded9

2017 2018

1.1.F. Number of 

data points or 

other information 

reports released 

on the FSA Data 

Center15

FY: 2009–14 

Aggregate 

12

NA FY: 

2014–15

12

FY: 2015–

16

15

FY: 2015–

16

15

MET

1516 TBD 

INCREASE 

1.2.A. Pell 

enrollment at 

IHEs with high 

graduation rates17

AY: 2013–14

24.1% 

NA AY: 

2013–14

24.1% 

AY 2014–

15

24.5%

AY 2014–

15

25.0%

NOT MET

AY 2015–16

26.0% 

AY: 2016–17

27.0% 

INCREASE 

 

15 Metric is aligned with an Agency Priority Goal. 

16 Initial FY 2017 target of 30 provided in the 2015 APR was inclusive of FY 2016’s total of 15, thus making the total a cumulative 30. However, the actual FY 2017 target is 15 new 

releases. 

17

“High graduation rate” is defined as 65 percent or higher, which is roughly the 75th percentile. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 21

U.S. Department 

of Education 

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

Missed8 Exceeded9

2017 2018

1.2.B. Number of 

states that 

develop or 

strengthen career 

pathways 

policies, 

guidance, or 

legislation 

FY: 2015 

8

NA FY: 2015 

8 

FY: 2016

20

FY: 2016

10

MET

37 50

INCREASE 

1.3.A. Degree 

attainment 

among 25–34-

year-old age 

cohort18

Current 

Population 

Survey 

(CPS) Year: 

2012

44.0% 

CPS 

Year: 2013 

44.8% 

CPS 

Year: 

2014

45.7% 

CPS 

Year: 

2015

46.5%

CPS 

Year: 

2015

46.8%

NOT MET

48.4% 50.5% 

INCREASE 

 

18 Metric is aligned with an Agency Priority Goal. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 22

U.S. Department

of Education

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

8 Exceeded9

2017 2018

1.3.B. Enrollment 

in IHEs below the 

minimum 

earnings 

threshold19,20

AY: 

2012–13

9.7%

NA AY: 

2012–13

9.7% 

AY: 

2013–14

10.7%

AY: 

2013–14

9.4%

NOT MET

NA NA

DECREASE 

 

19 In the 2015 APR, the initial metric was identified as “Enrollment in IHEs where students’ median earnings 10 years after entering college are below a minimum earnings threshold.”

The metric’s verbiage was condensed to “Enrollment in IHEs below the minimum earnings threshold.” Retiring metric at conclusion of FY 2016. Please see appendix B for additional 

information pertaining to the metric’s retirement. The FY 2017 target was 9.0 percent. 

20

“Minimum earnings threshold” is defined as the median earnings above the level of an institution at the 25th percentile for students 10 years after entering college, which equals 

$19,000 for less-than-two-year institutions, $26,000 for two-year institutions, and $35,000 for four-year institutions. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 23

U.S. Department

of Education

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

8 Exceeded9

2017 2018

1.3.C. 

Persistence 

among first-time 

filing aid 

recipients21

FY: 2015 

79.5%22

FY: 2014 

79.6% 

FY: 2015 

79.5% 

FY: 2016

79.7%

FY: 2016

78.5%-

80.5%

MET

78.7%–

80.7% 

+/- one % 

point over 

prior year’s 

actual 

INCREASE 

1.4.A. Number of 

STEM 

postsecondary 

credentials 

awarded 

AY: 2010–11

531,018 

AY: 2011–12

556,696 

AY: 

2012–13

573,911 

AY: 2013–

14

578,583

AY: 2013–

14

608,980

NOT MET

637,67223 TBD 

INCREASE 

 

21 Revising metric language (in 2015 APR read as: “FAFSA Renewal Rate”) to align with how the metric is captured in the Federal Student Aid (FSA) Strategic Plan. All of the 

underlying assumptions and calculation methodologies were confirmed by FSA to be the same. 

22 Modifying the baseline data to account for the actual being 79.5% (79.47%); however, the decimals were dropped by FSA when the metric was initially reported. 

https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/sites/default/files/FY_2015_FSA_Annual_Report_official.pdf

23 FY 2016 target reduced from 691,000 to 637,672 due to a calculation error in how the targets were initially calculated. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 24

Goal 1 FY 2016 Indicator Performance Summary 

6 (50.0%)

6 (50.0%)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Met Not Met

12 Total Indicators

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: 

1.1.A. Federal Student Aid (FSA) Data Center; annually 

1.1.B. Google Analytics data from College Scorecard; annually 

1.1.C. The denominator is the number of graduating seniors according to the most recent projection by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (Table 219.10 within the 

Digest of Education Statistics). The numerator is from FSA’s Central Processing System and is based on the number of applications during the first nine months of the 

application cycle that are—as of September 30 of the first year of the application cycle—complete (not rejected); first-time filers; incoming freshmen, with or without previous 

college attendance; age 18 or less as of June 30 of the first year of the application cycle; reporting high school diploma attainment; and attended a high school in the 

50 states and Washington, DC; annually 

1.1.D. Rehabilitation Services Administration-911 (RSA-911); annually 

1.1.E. RSA-911; annually 

1.1.F. FSA Data Center; annually 

1.2.A. Data from College Scorecard; annually 

1.2.B. Development data from the National Skills Coalition, possibly supplemental with data from the Association of State Legislators and Center on Law and Social Policy 

(CLASP); annually 

1.3.A. NCES Digest of Education Statistics, Table 104.30 (https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_104.30.asp), Number of persons age 18 and over, by highest level 

of educational attainment, sex, race/ethnicity, and age: 2015. Tabulated from Current Population Survey data, U.S. Census; annually 

1.3.B. Data from College Scorecard; annually 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 25

1.3.C. FSA’s Common Origination and Disbursement (COD) system; annually

1.4.A. IPEDS; 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 26

Analysis and Next Steps by Objective

Objective 1.1: Access and Affordability. Close the opportunity gap by improving the 

affordability of and access to college and/or workforce training, especially for 

underrepresented and/or underprepared populations (e.g., low-income and firstgeneration students, English learners, individuals with disabilities, adults without high 

school diplomas, etc.). 

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

Although the Department has limited ability to directly impact college costs or control price, the 

Department made progress toward strategic objective 1.1. 

The Department’s implementation strategy in FY 2016 continued to focus on providing 

consumer tools and better information about postsecondary institutions to help students make 

more informed decisions; modifying and simplifying the Free Application for Federal Student Aid 

(FAFSA); expanding access to income-driven repayment plans; and improving customer service 

related to student aid. 

FY 2016 Barriers to Success

Although many states are beginning to increase appropriations per full-time equivalent student, 

state-level funding for higher education overall remained low compared to levels before the 

recent recession. The Department had little influence over state funding decisions and was 

limited in its ability to impact affordability. Nonetheless, the Department will continue to explore 

ways to help ensure that borrowers are able to manage student loan debt. 

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

In 2016, the Department implemented two major changes to the FAFSA. The first change was 

to make the FAFSA available to students and families three months earlier than usual. In the 

past, the FAFSA was available January 1 for the upcoming financial aid award year (July 1 

through June 30). Beginning with the 2017–18 financial aid application cycle, the FAFSA 

became available October 1 of the year prior to the upcoming award year (2017–18 FAFSA 

filing began October 1, 2016). By having the FAFSA available earlier, the financial aid process 

generally will coincide with the college admissions application and decision cycle, allowing 

schools and states to provide financial aid information sooner to students and families. The 

second change involved the year for which tax information is collected on the FAFSA. Prior to 

FY 2016, when completing a FAFSA, applicants provided income information from the prior tax 

year (i.e., 2015 income information for the 2016–17 FAFSA). Beginning with the 2017–18 

FAFSA, income information from one tax year earlier—the so-called “prior-prior year”—will be 

collected. As a result of this change, students will be able to complete their FAFSA using 

information from an already-completed tax return. 

The Department continues to enhance the online FAFSA® Completion Tool, which helps 

financial aid professionals, school administrators, and guidance counselors track and increase 

FAFSA completion. The tool also provides FAFSA completion rates for school districts, allowing 

communities to tailor communications, support, and counseling to students while helping 

schools monitor their progress. 

Federal Student Aid (FSA) published reports about applications for the Public Service Loan 

Forgiveness (PSLF) Program, enrollment in income-driven repayment plans, and data on cohort 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 27

default rates. As of September 2016, nearly 5.8 million Direct Loan borrowers were enrolled in 

income-driven repayment plans—such as income-based repayment, Pay As You Earn (PAYE), 

and Revised Pay As You Earn (REPAYE)—a 38 percent increase from September 2015 and a 

110 percent increase from June 2014. Cohort default rates continued to decline from 14 percent 

in 2010 to 11 percent in 2013. 

Beginning in January 2016, the Department required all Direct Loan servicers to provide 

enhanced disclosures to borrowers and strengthened consumer protections. The recompetition 

of loan servicer contracts commenced in March 2016, with the goal of ensuring that servicers 

help borrowers responsibly make affordable monthly payments on their student loans. The final 

selection of a service is scheduled to be made and a contract should be awarded in FY 2017. 

Students, parents, and others can now provide feedback about their Title IV federal student aid 

experience via a streamlined, centralized portal, the Federal Student Aid Feedback System. 

Launched July 1, 2016, the system enhances customers’ ability to provide feedback and receive 

a timely and meaningful resolution. Customers can submit feedback about applying for and 

receiving federal loans, grants, and work study, as well as feedback about their experiences 

with federal loan servicers, collection agencies, and the Department itself. Complaints submitted 

through the feedback system are tracked from intake to resolution and will inform the continual 

improvement of the Department’s customers’ experience, regardless of where they are in the 

student aid process. Through the system, the Department has the ability to monitor the 

resolution process, intervene as needed, and compile data about complaints in order to improve 

the applicant and borrower experience. In FY 2017, the Department will publish the first annual 

report about feedback system data. 

The Department announced institutional participants in four experiments under the Experimental 

Sites Initiative conducted under FSA’s experimental sites authority. The Department announced 

participating institutions in the Dual Enrollment experiment in May, participating institutions for 

Second Chance Pell in June, participating institutions in Educational Quality through Innovative 

Partnerships in August, and participating institutions in the Loan Counseling experiment in 

December 2016. 

Objective 1.2: Quality. Foster institutional value to ensure that postsecondary education 

credentials represent effective preparation for students to succeed in the workforce and 

participate in civic life.

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

The Department’s implementation strategy to address postsecondary quality included: using 

regulatory authority to strengthen program integrity; taking steps to strengthen accreditation 

oversight; fostering innovation by providing flexibility where appropriate, and testing ideas 

through experimental sites projects; encouraging the postsecondary community to focus on 

student learning that is validated through the assessment of actual learning outcomes; 

addressing teacher preparation initiatives to improve teacher quality; and promoting information 

about successful evidence-based programs and strategies. 

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

The Department had limited authority and funding to promote innovative, evidence-based 

strategies and practices for college access and completion. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 28

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

To improve accreditation transparency and promote outcome-driven accountability, the 

Department publishes a chart with each accrediting agency’s stated student achievement 

measures and key student and institutional metrics arranged by accreditor. The Department 

also requires accreditors to submit decision letters when they place institutions on probation, 

and the Department publicly posts releasable portions of such letters. The redesigned 

accreditation webpage better informs the public regarding the Secretary’s recognition process 

and provides a one-stop information repository for accreditation-related information. 

Accreditation staff at the Department now have regular access to critical outcomes data, state 

and federal litigation reports, and other information about each accreditor’s schools prior to 

conducting accrediting agency reviews. This information is also provided to the National 

Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity. 

This year, the Department issued two letters to accreditors. The first, released in March 2016, is 

a “Terminology Letter,” which clarifies terminology and requirements for reporting to the 

Department. The second was an April 2016 “Flexibility Letter,” which clarifies and encourages 

accreditors to use flexibility to focus monitoring and resources on student achievement and 

problematic institutions or programs. 

The Department published several significant regulations. In October 2015, the Department 

published final regulations on debit cards to protect students from unscrupulous actions by 

financial institutions concerning student access to financial aid funds. Additionally, in August 

2016, the Department, in collaboration with the Department of Labor (DOL), published final 

regulations to implement the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). WIOA reforms 

the public workforce development system through enhanced coordination and collaboration 

across education and training programs, including employment and training programs 

administered by DOL, and adult education programs and vocational rehabilitation programs for 

individuals with disabilities administered by the Department. The final regulations assist states in 

implementation efforts, including fostering more cohesive planning within economic regions, 

enhancing performance accountability for education and employment outcomes, strengthening 

employer engagement, and improving access to education and workforce services for 

individuals with significant barriers to employment, among other efforts. The final regulations 

included program-specific rules related to adult education programs and vocational rehabilitation 

programs, as well as joint WIOA regulations related to unified and combined state plans, 

performance accountability, and the one-stop system. 

The Department published final regulations on Borrower Defense to Repayment in October 

2016 (effective July 1, 2017, with several provisions slated for early implementation) and State 

Authorization of Distance Education programs in December 2016, with implementation taking 

effect in July 2018. The Department published the Gainful Employment debt-to-earnings rates in 

January 2017 and will implement the rest of the requirements of the regulation by July 2017. 

In October 2015, the Department announced an initiative through FSA’s experimental sites 

authority to address alternative methods for quality assurance—dubbed Educational Quality 

through Innovative Partnerships, or EQUIP. The Department evaluated applications and in 

August 2016, invited eight institutions to continue to Phase 3 of the selection process. In 

Phase 3, these institutions will begin to set up their proposed programs and apply to the 

Department for final approval, which is expected during FY 2017. 

The Department conducted a number of grant competitions that incorporated evidence-based 

activities, including TRIO Talent Search, TRIO Educational Opportunity Centers, and several 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 29

programs for minority-serving institutions. In October 2015, the Department (the Office of 

Career, Technical, and Adult Education ([OCTAE]) awarded nine pilots under the Performance 

Partnership Pilots for Disconnected Youth (P3) program. The notice inviting applications (NIA) 

for round two (FY 2015) was published in April 2016, and for round three (FY 2016) in August 

2016. The agencies selected one pilot finalist for round two and six pilot finalists for round three. 

P3 tests the hypothesis that additional flexibility for states, localities, and tribes can help 

overcome some of the significant hurdles in providing intensive, comprehensive, and sustained 

service pathways and improving outcomes for disconnected youth. 

Objective 1.3: Completion. Increase degree and certificate completion and job placement 

in high-need and high-skill areas, particularly among underrepresented and economically 

disadvantaged populations.

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

While the federal government has no direct impact on the educational attainment rate, the 

Department established annual targets since increasing the percentage of adults who have 

completed a college degree is a key Department objective. For the first time, the rate this year 

fell just short of the target by 0.3 percentage points. Future targets, set at progressively larger 

increases, may be difficult to achieve. 

With few tools to impact completion on a large scale, the Department’s implementation strategy 

focused on the ability to convene partners, disseminate noteworthy practices through reports, 

conduct research, and conduct prize challenges that support pathways in CTE. 

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

The Department’s ability to significantly impact completion rates nationwide depends on 

Congressional support for programs. Another factor affecting the Department’s ability to impact 

completion rates was the time lag between actions and changes initiated in the current year and 

results that will take several years to manifest as the current cohort moves through its multiyear 

educational program. 

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

In support of CTE, the Department announced winners of the CTE Makeover Challenge and the 

grand prize winner of the Reach Higher Career App Challenge. The Department also developed 

and published on November 2, 2016, an EdSim Challenge notice with the intent to announce 

winners in summer 2017. The challenge calls upon the gaming, developer, and educational 

technology communities to design simulated environments that prepare America’s students for 

a more competitive world through high-quality CTE. In September 2016, the Department 

awarded a $2 million Pay for Success (PFS) grant for providing technical assistance on the first 

two phases of a PFS project: a feasibility analysis in four local CTE sites, and transaction 

structuring for those local sites where a PFS project is deemed feasible. 

The Department participates in the Interagency Working Group on Supports for Postsecondary 

Success, which meets regularly to plan joint activities in support of access and completion for 

low-income students. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 30

Objective 1.4: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Pathways. 

Increase STEM pathway opportunities that enable access to and completion of 

postsecondary programs.

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

The number of STEM postsecondary credentials awarded is shaped by actions taken by 

postsecondary institutions, by state and local agencies through funding decisions, and by 

market forces and job creation trends. Many external factors impact this objective, but the 

Department’s STEM Team, within the Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII), employs the 

following strategies to support this objective: 

 strengthening the Department’s existing STEM programs; 

 enhancing interagency collaboration focused on STEM by fostering stronger linkages 

across agencies that have STEM education programming and collaborating with other 

agencies; 

 using convenings, events, speeches, and other mechanisms to highlight models, 

interventions, and data, and share leading practices and policies for formal and informal 

STEM learning at the federal, state, and local levels; 

 partnering with nongovernment strategic partners to support STEM; and 

 identifying and helping to cultivate, disseminate, and encourage adoption of innovative, 

promising, and evidence-based practices to influence and shape the future of STEM 

education. 

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

The STEM Team identifies programs within the Department and across the federal government 

that are well suited for enhancing and increasing STEM participation through strategic use of 

STEM priorities. For programs that have already implemented STEM strategies, the STEM 

Team lends its expertise for program review and evaluation. The investments at the Department 

that address STEM degree and credential completion in particular were limited to select 

programs that target minority-serving institutions. The Department will continue to promote 

STEM pathway opportunities within the Committee on STEM Education (CoSTEM) structure 

that includes community colleges, as well as engage with specific STEM-focused initiatives led 

by corporate and philanthropic entities that help elevate the quality of STEM programs and 

advance STEM participation, such as STEM Learning Ecosystems. 

Trends for females and minority students point to continued challenges in broadening 

participation in STEM. For example, in January, the National Science Foundation (NSF) 

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) released the 2017 Women, 

Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering report, the federal 

government’s most comprehensive look at the participation of these three demographic groups 

in science and engineering education and employment. The report found that while women 

have reached parity with men in educational attainment, they have not done so in employment 

in science and engineering. Furthermore, underrepresented minorities (black, Hispanic, and 

American Indian or Alaska Native) account for disproportionately smaller percentages in both 

science and engineering education and employment. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 31

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

CoSTEM has established a task force which is working to enhance the undergraduate 

experience of STEM majors through a formally chartered interagency working group led by 

NSF. The group is focused on four major objectives: 

 evidence-based practices to improve undergraduate learning and retention in STEM; 

 community college efforts to both support two-year students and create bridges between 

two- and four-year postsecondary institutions; 

 research experiences that involve both university-industry and university-federal entity 

partnerships, particularly for students in the first two years; and 

 promoting mathematics success to help combat excessively high failure rates in 

introductory math courses at the undergraduate level. 

Representatives from the Department have been instrumental in bringing new focus to the role 

of community colleges and articulation programs in supporting undergraduate STEM education. 

Other areas of the Department are bolstering support for STEM, as well. STEM education is an 

integral component of CTE. OCTAE is leading initiatives seeking to increase knowledge of and 

access to postsecondary STEM opportunities. For example, the EdSim challenge is seeking 

next generation Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality to improve teaching in areas including 

STEM. As additional examples, the CTE makeover challenge will incorporate “making” and 

“maker spaces” into CTE programs by upgrading or modernizing facilities that meet the needs 

of manufacturing in the 21st century. The Reach Higher App challenge will spur innovation in 

career exploration by empowering students with individualized career and education 

information. And the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities 

(WHI-HBCU) convened events and panels in FY 2016 to share best practices across HBCUs for 

supporting and retaining students in STEM fields. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 32

Goal 2. Elementary and Secondary Education: 

Improve the elementary and secondary education system’s ability to 

consistently deliver excellent instruction aligned with rigorous 

academic standards while providing effective support services to 

close achievement and opportunity gaps, and ensure all students 

graduate high school college- and career-ready. 

Goal Leader: Assistant Secretary, Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education (OESE)

Objective 2.1: Standards and Assessments. Support implementation of internationally 

benchmarked college- and career-ready standards, with aligned, valid, and reliable 

assessments. 

Objective 2.2: Effective Teachers and Strong Leaders. Improve the preparation, recruitment, 

retention, development, support, evaluation, recognition, and equitable distribution of effective 

teachers and leaders. 

Objective 2.3: School Climate and Community. Increase the success, safety, and health of 

students, particularly in high-need schools, and deepen family and community engagement. 

Objective 2.4: Turn Around Schools and Close Achievement Gaps. Accelerate 

achievement by supporting states and districts in turning around low-performing schools and 

closing achievement gaps, and developing models of next-generation high schools. 

Objective 2.5: STEM Teaching and Learning. Increase the number and quality of STEM 

teachers and increase opportunities for students to access rich STEM learning experiences. 

Public Benefit

The goal for America’s elementary and secondary educational system is clear: all students 

should have meaningful opportunities to graduate from high school ready for college and a 

career. The important work in communities across the country over the past several years 

contributed to the highest ever national high school graduation rate, reaching 83.2 percent. 

However, while many schools are increasing the quality of instruction and improving academic 

achievement, our education system fails to consistently provide all students with equal access 

to a high-quality education, as evidenced by persistent achievement gaps between student 

subgroups. Data from the 2015 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) show 

that low-income students scored 24 to 28 points below their more advantaged peers in reading 

and math, respectively. The achievement gaps between black and white students were between 

24 and 32 points and achievement gaps between Hispanic and white students were between 

18 and 24 points. 

The Department’s elementary and secondary education programs focus on the building blocks 

needed for states, districts, and schools to more consistently deliver excellent classroom 

instruction for all students. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as 

reauthorized by the ESSA, requires that all students in America be taught to high academic 

standards that will prepare them to succeed in college and careers and that vital information is 

provided to educators, families, students, and communities through annual statewide 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 33

assessments that measure students’ progress toward those high standards. The ESEA also 

promotes local innovation and the use of evidence-based interventions, particularly as part of 

locally determined efforts to turn around low-performing schools.

Goal 2 Discretionary Resources

$0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000

FY 2016

FY 2017

FY 2018

$34,407

$34,342

$30,876

(Dollars in millions)
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 34

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities24 Supporting Goal 2 Performance 

Metrics [Dollars in Millions]

POC Account Obj. Program 

FY 2016 

Appropriation 

FY 2017 

Annualized 

CR25

FY 2018 

President’s 

Budget 

OESE ED 2.4 School improvement grants 450 449 -- 

OESE ED 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 

2.4 Title I Grants to local education agencies 14,889 14,881 15,881 

OESE I&I 2.2 Teacher and school leader incentive 

grants 230 230 200

OESE SIP 2.5 Mathematics and science partnerships 153 152 --

OESE SIP 2.1 State assessments 378 377 377 

OESE SIP 2.2 

Supporting effective instruction state 

grants 2,256 2,252 -- 

OESE SIP NA 21st century community learning centers 1,167 1,164 --

OII I&I 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 Charter schools grants 333 333 500

OII I&I 2.2, 2.3, 2.6 Magnet schools assistance 97 96 96 

OII SSCE 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 Promise Neighborhoods 73 73 60

OSERS SE 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 Special Education grants to states 11,895 11,890 11,890 

Subtotal 31,959 31,898 29,005 

Other Discretionary Programs/Activities 2,448 2,444 1,871 

TOTAL, GOAL 2 34,407 34,342 30,876 

POC = Principal Operating Component. 

CR = Continuing Resolution. 

NA = Not applicable. 

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

 

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

noncompetitive/formula programs. 

25 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 35

Goal 2: Details

U.S. Department of 

Education 

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

Missed26 Exceeded27 2017 2018

2.1.A. Number of 

states/territories that have 

adopted college- and 

career-ready standards28

SY: 2012–

13

49, plus 

DC

SY: 

2013–14

51 (49 

plus D.C. 

and 

Puerto 

Rico)29

SY: 

2014–15 

51 (49 

plus D.C. 

and 

Puerto 

Rico) 

SY: 

2015–16

51

(49 plus 

D.C. and 

Puerto 

Rico)

SY: 

2015–16

52

NOT 

MET

52 50 

INCREASE 

2.1.B. Number of 

states/territories that are 

implementing nextgeneration reading and 

mathematics 

assessments, aligned with 

college- and career-ready 

standards30

SY: 2012–

13

0 

0 SY: 

2014–15

49 (48 

plus DC) 

SY: 

2015–16

47

SY: 

2015–16

52

NOT 

MET

52 50

INCREASE 

 

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

27 Surpassed target; not just met the target. If a diminishing target, the actual was below the reduction target set. 

28 The Department is no longer conducting ESEA Flexibility monitoring, but states continued to implement their ESEA Flexibility requests through August 1, 2016, before beginning the 

transition to the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). 

29 Revising from “49, plus DC and Puerto Rico” reported in the 2015 APR to “51 (49 plus DC and Puerto Rico)” to be consistent with 2015’s language. 

30 The Department is no longer conducting ESEA Flexibility monitoring, but states continued to implement their ESEA Flexibility requests through August 1, 2016, before beginning the 

transition to the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 36

U.S. Department of 

Education 

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

Missed26 Exceeded27 2017 2018

2.2.A. Number of states 

that have fully 

implemented teacher and 

principal evaluation and 

support systems that 

consider multiple 

measures of effectiveness, 

with student growth as a 

significant factor31

SY: 2012–

13

6

SY: 

2013–14

7 

SY: 

2014–15

8 

SY: 

2015–16

8

SY: 

2015–16

22

NOT 

MET

NA NA

INCREASE 

2.3.A. Disparity in the rates 

of out-of-school 

suspensions for students 

with disabilities and youth 

of color (youth of color 

metric)

SY: 2011–

12

10.7 

% 

point 

disparity 

SY 2013–

14

10.6 

% point 

disparity32

Not 

Collected 

TBD

SY 

2014–15 

data 

collected 

in 2016 

and 

available 

in 2017

SY: 

2014–15

6.7

% point 

disparity

TBD TBD NA

Biennial 

Metric 

4.7 

% point 

disparity 

DECREASE 

 

31 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 39 and 42, 

respectively. 

32 The 2011–12 CRDC results could not be replicated. However, the Department is able to report the 2013–14 CRDC disparities for one or more out-of-school suspensions for K-12 

students (excluding 504-only students). The 2014 target was NOT MET.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 37

U.S. Department of 

Education 

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

Missed26 Exceeded27 2017 2018

2.3.B. Disparity in the rates 

of out-of-school 

suspensions for students 

with disabilities and youth 

of color (SWDs, IDEA only 

metric)

SY: 2011–

12

5.7 

% point 

disparity 

SY 2013–

14

6.6 

% point 

disparity33

Not 

Collected 

TBD

SY 

2014–15 

data 

collected 

in 2016 

and 

available 

in 2017

SY: 

2014–15

2.7

% point 

disparity

TBD TBD NA

Biennial 

Metric 

1.2 

% point 

disparity 

DECREASE 

2.4.A. Number of 

persistently low 

graduation rate high 

schools34

SY: 2011–

12

775

SY: 

2012–13

737

SY: 

2013–14

680

SY: 

2014–15

605

SY: 

2014–15

664

MET

630 598

DECREASE 

2.4.B. Percentage of SIG 

schools in Cohort 5 that 

are above the 25th 

percentile in mathematics, 

as measured by their state 

assessments 

SY: 2013–

14 

19.7% 

NA SY: 

2013–14

19.7% 

SY: 

2014–15

21%

SY: 

2014–15

21.0%

MET 23.3% 25.6%

INCREASE 

 

33 The 2011–12 CRDC results could not be replicated. However, the Department is able to report the 2013–14 CRDC disparities for one or more out-of-school suspensions for K-12 

students (excluding 504-only students). The 2014 target was NOT MET.

34 Metric is aligned with an Agency Priority Goal. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 38

U.S. Department of

Education

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

26 Exceeded27 2017 2018

2.4.C. Percentage of SIG 

schools in Cohort 5 that 

are above the 25th 

percentile in 

reading/language arts, as 

measured by their state 

assessments 

SY: 2013–

14

20.1% 

NA SY: 

2013–14

20.1% 

SY: 

2014–15

19.5%

SY: 

2014–15

23.0%

NOT 

MET

25.9% 27.8% 

  INCREASE

2.5.A. Percentage of high 

school and middle school 

teachers who teach STEM 

as their main assignment 

who hold a corresponding 

undergraduate degree35

SY: 2011–

12

62.2% 

Not 

Collected 

Not 

Collected 

TBD

Q1 of FY 

2018

65.3% NA NA NA NA NA

INCREASE 

 

35 This is a quadrennial metric and based on data collection should not have had an FY 2017 target; thus the target of 65.3% identified in the 2015 APR has been removed. Retiring 

metric at conclusion of FY 2016. Please see appendix B for additional information pertaining to the metric’s retirement. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 39

U.S. Department of 

Education 

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

Missed26 Exceeded27 2017 2018

2.5.B. Number of public 

high school graduates 

who have taken at least 

one STEM AP exam36

SY: 2011–

12

497,922 

SY: 

2013–14

555,11937

SY: 

2014–15

592,41038

SY: 

2015–16

622,553

SY: 

2015–16

632,642

NOT 

MET 

691,541 759,381 

  INCREASE

 

36 Although the metric’s data has a lag in when it is reported, the cohort year, school year, and fiscal year align. The metric has been updated to reflect this alignment. 

37 In the 2014 APR, the performance target of 536,810 was reported as “Not Met.” However, it was “Met.”

38 In the 2015 APR, the performance target of 581,419 was reported as “Not Met.” However, it was “Met.”
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 40

Goal 2 FY 2016 Indicator Performance Summary 

12

10 Total Indicators

10 1 (10.0%)

8 2 (20.0%)

6

5 (50.0%) 4

2

2 (20.0%)

0

Met Not Met TBD NA

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: 

2.1.A. Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Monitoring; annually 

2.1.B. ESEA Monitoring; annually 

2.2.A. ESEA Flexibility Applications and Monitoring; annually 

2.3.A. Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC); biennially 

2.3.B. CRDC; biennially 

2.4.A. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) EDFacts; annually 

2.4.B. Analytic dataset produced by the contractor for the SIG National Summary, because this provides an accurate list of SIG schools and flags for different exclusions that are 

included in the analysis. (The analytic dataset is a combination of EDFacts student achievement files in Math and Reading, the NCES Common Core of Data, SIG lists 

provided to EDFacts by OSS, and Exclusions that are generated by the contractor that apply to these results.); annually 

2.4.C. Analytic dataset produced by the contractor for the SIG National Summary, because this provides an accurate list of SIG schools and flags for different exclusions that are 

included in the analysis. (The analytic dataset is a combination of EDFacts student achievement files in Math and Reading, the NCES Common Core of Data, SIG lists 

provided to EDFacts by OSS, and Exclusions that are generated by the contractor that apply to these results.); annually 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 41

2.5.A. Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), NCES; quadrennially 

2.5.B. College Board/Advanced Placement (AP) administrative records; 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 42

Analysis and Next Steps by Objective

Objective 2.1: Standards and Assessments. Support implementation of internationally 

benchmarked college- and career-ready standards, with aligned, valid, and reliable 

assessments.

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

Given that the ESSA made few changes to most of the assessment provisions under Title I, the 

Department moved ahead with its Title I Assessment Peer Review process in 2016, using the 

peer review guidance released in September 2015. Through this process, external peers are 

making recommendations to the Department regarding whether the state has sufficiently 

documented the quality of its assessment system and whether its assessments are consistent 

with the requirements under Title I and the peer review guidance and nationally accepted 

professional testing standards. Through the end of FY 2016, the Department reviewed 

components of 38 states’ assessment systems and began providing feedback to states in fall 

2016.

The Department continued to make use of existing technical assistance resources, including the 

College and Career Readiness and Success Center, Center on Standards and Assessments 

Implementation, and Reform Support Network, to support state implementation. 

The ongoing work of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) 

through its Results Driven Accountability (RDA) is also a key activity supporting progress on this 

goal. RDA is shifting the Department’s accountability efforts from a primary emphasis on 

compliance to a framework that focuses on improved results for students with disabilities, while 

continuing to assist states in ensuring compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act’s (IDEA) requirements. RDA emphasizes child outcomes such as performance on 

assessments, graduation rates, and early childhood outcomes. 

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

There are several external risks to achieving this strategic objective. During 2016, several state 

legislatures considered bills related to standards and assessments, including bills that would 

remove state standards or assessments that have been identified as college- and career-ready. 

While most of these bills did not move forward, states may reconsider this legislation in the 

future, particularly as states develop and implement plans as required under Title I of the ESSA. 

There also is a risk that implementation of college- and career-ready standards will not be 

successful at the local level and inadequate supports will be provided to teachers and students. 

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

The Department began the Title I assessment peer review process in 2016, and external peers 

reviewed documentation regarding approximately 38 state assessment systems. The 

Department began providing these states with feedback and a decision regarding the outcome 

of peer review in fall 2016 and will continue to provide feedback on a rolling basis throughout 

the winter of 2017. Historically, the majority of states are required to submit additional evidence 

after the initial peer review in order to demonstrate that their system meets all of the 

requirements of professional and technical testing standards, consistent with Title I of the ESEA. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 43

Objective 2.2: Effective Teachers and Strong Leaders. Improve the preparation, 

recruitment, retention, development, support, evaluation, recognition and the equitable 

distribution of effective teachers and leaders.

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

The primary strategy the Department adopted for this objective is to support states and districts 

in the development and implementation of high-quality teacher and principal evaluation and 

support systems, as well as broader human capital management systems that use the results of 

evaluation systems to inform placement, retention, promotion, differential performance-based 

compensation, and other considerations. 

In FY 2016, the Department supported states in implementing educator evaluation and support 

systems and finalized approval of all states’ State Plans to Ensure Equitable Access to 

Excellent Educators (Educator Equity Plans). In addition to providing support through the 

Equitable Access Support Network (EASN), the Department hosted its inaugural Educator 

Equity Lab and worked to plan additional labs. The Department also issued guidance advising 

states that Educator Equity Plans remain in effect for both the 2015–16 and 2016–17 school 

years. 

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

Prior to termination of the waivers of Title I, Part A granted through the ESEA Flexibility 

initiative, 42 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico committed to implementing 

educator evaluation and support systems and reporting their progress on implementing those 

systems to the Department. The ESSA, which was signed into law in the first quarter of 

FY 2016, terminated, effective August 1, 2016, the ESEA Flexibility waivers that had been 

granted to states. Given the change in law, states are no longer required to report to the 

Department the details of their evaluation systems and therefore the Department does not have 

a viable data source to collect data regarding states’ work to continue to implement these 

systems. 

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

During the fourth quarter of 2015 and the first quarter of 2016, the Department approved 

Educator Equity Plans for all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The 

Department continues to work with states through the EASN to provide support as they work to 

implement their Educator Equity Plans. 

In March 2016, the Department cohosted the inaugural Educator Equity Lab with the Mississippi 

Department of Education. This full-day forum provided an opportunity for a wide variety of 

stakeholders to come together to carry forward the work embedded within Mississippi’s 

Educator Equity Plan. 

Nevertheless, the Department remained concerned about its progress against this metric 

throughout FY 2016, given the clear termination of the ESEA Flexibility waivers, as required by 

the ESSA on August 1, 2016. 

In FY 2017, the Department intends to host additional Educator Equity Labs and to continue to 

provide support for states through Office of State Support (OSS) program officers and the 

EASN, as well as to support states in implementing the requirements under ESEA, as 

reauthorized by the ESSA, Section 1111(g)(1)(B) and 34 CFR 299.18(c). 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 44

The Department anticipates reviewing and revising its strategies for meeting the Effective 

Teachers and Strong Leaders objective to reflect the changes made by Congress in the ESSA. 

Objective 2.3: School Climate and Community. Increase the success, safety, and health 

of students, particularly in high-need schools, and deepen family and community 

engagement.

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

The Department, broadly, and the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), 

specifically, play a role in improving academic achievement, equity in education, and other 

important youth outcomes by working to understand and improve conditions for learning in 

public schools. Students’ academic achievement and their eventual success in school and in life 

are sensitive to the broader context in which they live and learn, and in which their schools 

operate. 

OESE’s implementation strategy included supporting activities related to the improvement of 

student success and school safety, discipline, health, and climate with a focus on districts and 

schools receiving School Improvement Grants (SIG). 

Examples of activities that supported progress towards this strategic objective include: 

 OESE’s Office of Safe and Healthy Students (OSHS), in coordination with the Office of 

the Deputy Secretary, sponsored two regional “Rethink Discipline” convenings. 

 On July 27, 2016, the Department, in partnership with the Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), 

sponsored the Healthy Students, Promising Futures (HSPF) Learning Collaborative, 

bringing together teams from 10 states to work on expanding school health services for 

Medicaid-enrolled and eligible students by leveraging CMS’ change to the free care 

policy. The Learning Collaborative builds on the HSPF guidance and toolkit jointly 

released by the Department and HHS in January 2016. 

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

Limited resources are a risk to achieving this strategic objective, such as identifying funds to 

support new efforts to provide additional technical assistance to improve state and local 

systems of support for chronically absent students. 

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

Future actions to support conditions for student learning in order to improve student attendance 

and achievement in the nation’s schools include: 

 Supporting states and local communities in identifying and meeting the needs and 

aspirations of chronically absent students. To extend this work, the Department is 

currently supporting the National Student Attendance, Engagement, and Success 

Center, which provides states and local communities access to expert assistance in 

establishing early warning prevention and intervention systems that aim to link 

chronically absent students with supportive services to improve student attendance and 

youth success in school and in life. 

 Supporting states and local communities in improving access to school-based health 

services, particularly for low-income and vulnerable youth. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 45

 Supporting states and local communities in improving school safety and climate through 

school discipline reform and investments in assessing, measuring, and responding to 

school climate issues at state, local, and school levels. This includes funding grant 

programs directed to SEAs and local educational agencies (LEAs), as well as a technical 

assistance center that provides training, disseminates resources, and responds to 

inquiries. 

Objective 2.4: Turn Around Schools and Close Achievement Gaps. Accelerate 

achievement by supporting states and districts in turning around low-performing 

schools and closing achievement gaps, and developing models of next-generation high 

schools.

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

The Department’s efforts to turn around schools were largely focused on the distribution of SIG 

funding and technical assistance to states. The Department awards grants to states, which then 

award competitive subgrants to school districts. 

In schools that have received funds under the SIG program, up to 80 percent of students are 

from low-income families—28 percentage points higher than the average school.39

The State Support Network is a technical assistance center that supports state and district 

efforts to achieve significant improvements in student outcomes, scale up effective systemic 

approaches and practices within and across states and districts, and identify and share effective 

practices to facilitate learning from states, districts, and others to support school improvement. 

The Department also continued to partner with the Corporation for National and Community 

Service to support the School Turnaround AmeriCorps program grantees, and partnered with 

the President’s Council on Arts and Humanities to support the Turnaround Arts Initiative. 

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

Turning around the lowest-performing schools is challenging work and takes several years to 

show progress and success. In addition, as states implemented new college- and career-ready 

standards and assessments aligned with those standards, it was challenging to measure 

progress over time using the mathematics and reading/language arts assessments. 

In addition, under the ESSA, states will still have financial resources to devote to school 

improvement efforts. As such, the Department will ensure a continuity of support to the field as 

states transition to the implementation of the law. 

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

All FY 2015 and FY 2016 SIG formula funds were awarded to states that applied for funds. The 

Department also utilized multiple existing technical assistance efforts to support states in 

implementing SIG. These efforts will continue in the future to support states as they transition to 

implementing the ESSA.

 

39 http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/signationalsum09292015.pdf
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 46

Objective 2.5: STEM Teaching and Learning. Increase the number and quality of science, 

technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) teachers and increase opportunities 

for students to access rich STEM learning experiences.

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

In lieu of budget appropriations for proposed STEM initiatives, the Department worked to 

strengthen existing programs that have a focus on STEM, enhance interagency collaborations, 

propose new areas of focus and work with external organizations to build public-private 

partnerships to increase the number and quality of STEM teachers and increase opportunities 

for students to access rich STEM learning experiences. 

STEM was included as a competitive or invitational priority in many discretionary grant 

competitions in FY 2016, including the Magnet School Assistance Program (MSAP), Investing in 

Innovation Program (i3), Hispanic Serving Institution STEM Articulation Program (HSI-STEM), 

and Ready to Learn (RTL). In addition, states, districts, schools, and their partners may utilize 

formula dollars to support STEM education. Examples of ways that SEAs, LEAs, and their 

partners could use formula funds (under Title I, II, III, and IV of the ESEA; IDEA; and the Carl D. 

Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006) to support STEM were provided in Q2 of 

2016: https://www2.ed.gov/programs/promiseneighborhoods/stemdearcolleagueacces.pdf. 

In addition to supporting existing Department programs and proposing new areas of focus in 

STEM, the Department has worked closely with the National Science and Technology Council 

CoSTEM that coordinates federal programs and activities in support of STEM education 

pursuant to the requirements of Sec. 101 of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 

2010.40 The Department cochairs the P-12 and Computer Science for All Interagency Working 

Groups and actively participates in the Engagement Interagency Working Group. 

The Department also expanded interagency partnerships through the 21st Century Community 

Learning Centers (21st CCLC) program, a $1.1 billion formula grant program. The funds are 

used to provide high-quality, hands-on out-of-school learning experiences that connect learning 

that takes place during the school day with real-world applications in STEM areas. Since 2013, 

the partnerships have grown in scale and scope from two agencies—the Department and the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)—reaching 20 sites across three states 

to five agencies—the Department, NASA, the National Park Service, the Institute of Museum 

and Library Services, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration—reaching 

more than 200 sites across 25 states in 2016. 

In addition, the Department has worked closely with a number of partners, such as 100Kin10, a 

network of over 280 partners that came together in response to the President’s 2011 call to 

action, in the State of the Union address, to recruit 100,000 STEM educators in the next 

10 years; in May 2016, 100Kin10 announced that they have the commitments in hand to recruit 

100,000 additional STEM teachers by 2021. Another successful partnership is with the STEM 

Funders’ Network around their STEM Learning Ecosystems initiative, which has cultivated 

37 community-based partnerships nationwide focused on providing high-quality STEM 

education opportunities, both in and out of school, for students from underserved and high-need 

communities. These partners have undertaken remarkable work to increase the number and 

quality of STEM educators and expand opportunities for students in STEM. 

 

40 https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/about/BILLS-111hr5116enr.pdf
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 47

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

The ESSA eliminated Mathematics and Science Partnerships (MSP), the Department’s program 

to improve elementary and secondary school mathematics and science teacher education and 

professional development. With the elimination of MSP, the ESSA does not authorize any 

Department program dedicated solely to improving K-12 STEM education. If funded, the Title IV 

block grant may be used partially for STEM activities; but it is spread across multiple aspects of 

well-rounded education, and since the funds are distributed by formula, funding for LEAs for 

STEM education would likely be minimal. Limited resources present a risk to achieving this 

strategic objective, as STEM programming requires funds to support recruitment, training, 

support, and retention of STEM educators. 

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

In March 2016, STEM leaders across the country, representing state and local entities, 

foundations, nonprofits, media organizations, technology companies, research institutions, and 

museums, made commitments to support innovative STEM work. Collectively, these 

commitments have the potential to bring new, active STEM content for the nation’s youngest 

children to millions of households across the nation. In addition to the public and private sector 

groups that stepped up, federal agencies are deepening the resources and support they provide 

for early active STEM learning. 

The Department also will review and revise its strategy for supporting STEM Teaching and 

Learning to reflect changes made by the Congress in the ESSA. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 48

Goal 3. Early Learning: 

Improve the health, social-emotional, and cognitive outcomes for all 

children from birth through 3rd grade, so that all children, 

particularly those with high needs, are on track for graduating from 

high school college- and career-ready. 

Goal Leader: Assistant Secretary, Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education (OESE) 

Objective 3.1: Access to High-Quality Programs and Services. Increase access to highquality early learning programs and comprehensive services, especially for children with high 

needs. 

Objective 3.2: Effective Workforce. Improve the quality and effectiveness of the early learning 

workforce so that early childhood educators have the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary 

to improve young children’s health, social-emotional, and cognitive outcomes. 

Objective 3.3: Measuring Progress, Outcomes, and Readiness. Improve the capacity of 

states and early learning programs to develop and implement comprehensive early learning 

assessment systems. 

Public Benefit

Each year, about 4 million children enter kindergarten in the United States. Unfortunately, not 

every parent has access to high-quality early learning opportunities for their children. There are 

large disparities in enrollment based on geography, race, and socioeconomic levels. As a result, 

too many children enter kindergarten a year or more behind their classmates in academic skills 

and social-emotional development.41 

A robust body of research shows that children who participate in high-quality preschool 

programs have better health, social-emotional, and cognitive outcomes than those who do not 

participate. The gains are particularly powerful for children from low-income families and those 

at risk for academic failure who, on average, start kindergarten 12 to 14 months behind their 

peers in preliteracy and language skills.42 Studies also reveal that participating in quality early 

learning can boost children’s educational attainment and earnings later in life.43 

In FY 2016, the Department’s investments in early learning included IDEA Part C and Preschool 

Development Grants (PDG).

41 Yoshikawa, Hirokazu, Christine Weiland, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Margaret R. Burchinal, Linda M. Espinosa, William T. Gormley, 

Jens Ludwig, Katherine A. Magnuson, Deborah Phillips, and Martha J. Zaslow. Investing in Our Future: The Evidence Base on 

Preschool Education. Vol. 9. Society for Research in Child Development and Foundation for Child Development, 2013. 

42 Committee on Integrating the Science of Early Childhood Development. From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early 

Childhood Development. (2000). Jack P. Shonkoff and Deborah A. Phillips, eds. Board on Children, Youth, and Families, 

Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 

43 See, e.g., Yoshikawa, et.al., Investing in Our Future: The Evidence Base on Preschool Education, 2013. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 49

Goal 3 Discretionary Resources

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

FY 2016

FY 2017

FY 2018

$1,103

$1,100

$825

(Dollars in millions)

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities44 Supporting Goal 3 Performance 

Metrics [Dollars in Millions]

POC Account Obj. Program

FY 2016 

Appropriation 

FY 2017 

Annualized 

CR45

FY 2018 

President’s 

Budget 

OESE I&I 3.1 Preschool development grants 250 250 --

OSERS SE 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 Grants for infants and families 459 458 458

OSERS SE 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 Preschool grants 368 368 368

Subtotal 1,077 1,075 825

Other Discretionary Programs/Activities 26 26 0 

TOTAL, GOAL 3 1,103 1,100 825

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. 

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

noncompetitive/formula programs. 

45 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 50

Goal 3: Details

U.S. Department of 

Education 

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

Missed46 Exceeded47 2017 2018

3.1.A. Percentage of 4-year 

olds enrolled in state 

preschool programs48

SY: 

2015–16 

(FY: 2016) 

85.5% 

NA NA SY: 

2015–

16

(FY: 

2016)

85.5%

NA NA NA 92.7% 100% NA

INCREASE 

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

47 Surpassed target; not just met the target. If a diminishing target, the actual was below the reduction target set.

48 Metric is aligned with an Agency Priority Goal (APG). This metric is being revised from what was reported in the 2015 Annual Performance Report (APR) to focus on the 

18 Preschool Development Grants (PDG)-funded states (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada,

New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia) and more accurately reflect the grants’ impact. The data source has also been changed from National Institute 

for Early Education Research (NIEER) Yearbook to the states’ annual performance reports: Preschool Development Grants Annual Performance Reports, Data Workbook, Table A(1)

(a) and (b). 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 51

U.S. Department of 

Education 

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

Missed46 Exceeded47 2017 2018

INCREASE 

SY: 

2014–15

(FY: 

2015)

8 

SY: 

2015–

16

(FY: 

2016)

Q3 of 

Following FY

SY:

2015–16

(FY: 

2016)

10

3.2.A. Number of states 

that require a teacher with 

a bachelor’s degree in a 

state preschool program50

SY: 2013–

14

(FY: 2014) 

1151

SY: 

2013–14

(FY: 

2014)

11

SY: 

2014–15

(FY: 

2015)

1152

SY: 

2015–

16

(FY: 

2016)

TBD

Q3 of 

Following FY

SY:

2015–16

(FY: 

2016)

15

TBD TBD 18 TBD 

INCREASE 

50 This metric is being revised to focus on the 18 PDG-funded states (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 

Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia) and more accurately gauge the grants’ impact. All of the data have been revised from what

was reported in the 2015 Annual Performance Report. The data source is being updated to reflect the column from which the data are pulled: National Institute for Early Education 

Research (NIEER) Yearbook, Workforce Supplement, Table 3: Preschool Teacher Qualifications and Salary, Column “BA Required.” 

51 For the baseline year/data, the NIEER SY 2013–14 Yearbook did not have a Workforce section, which is where the data for this metric should be pulled. Thus the “Teacher has a 

BA” column was used and the 11 states that met the criteria were: Alabama, Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and 

Tennessee. 

52 In SY 2014–15 (FY 2015) the column changed to “BA Required,” so if a state reported on more than one program, and all programs did not require a BA, then the state was not 

included in the count for the state requiring a teacher with a bachelor’s degree in a state preschool program. Where a state reported on more than one program, all programs in that 

state must require a BA in the state preschool program to be included in the data count. PDG-funded states meeting criteria include: Alabama, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, 

Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Tennessee. 

3.1.B. Number of states 

with high-quality 

preschool program 

standards49

SY: 2013–

14

(FY: 2014) 

8 

SY: 

2013–14

(FY: 

2014)

8 

TBD TBD 12 TBD 

49 Metric is aligned with an APG. This metric is being revised from what was reported in the 2015 APR to focus on the 18 PDG-funded states (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, 

Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia) and more 

accurately gauge the grants’ impact. The data source is being updated to reflect the column from which the data are pulled: NIEER Yearbook Table 1: State Ranking and Quality 

Checklist Sums, Column “Quality Checklist Sums.”
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 52

U.S. Department of 

Education 

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

Missed46 Exceeded47 2017 2018

3.3.A. Number of states 

collecting and reporting 

disaggregated data on the 

status of children at 

kindergarten entry using a 

common measure 

SY: 2010 

(FY: 2010) 

2 

SY: 

2013–14

(FY: 

2014)

5

53

SY: 

2014–15

(FY: 

2015)

1154

SY: 

2015–

16

(FY: 

2016)

17

SY:

2015–16

(FY: 

2016)

14

MET

1655 TBD56

INCREASE 

53 Five ELC states implemented their KEA (OR, KY, VT, MD, and OH) in the 2014–15 school year. One state (DE) had planned to implement its KEA in 2014–15 year, but later 

adjusted its timeline to implement during the 2015–16 school year. As such, the FY 2014 actual is revised from six to five states. 

54 Eleven ELC states (CA, CO, DE, KY, MD, MA, MI, NC, OH, OR, and VT) are implementing their KEAs in the 2015–16 school year. The remaining eight states that chose to 

implement KEAs (GA, IL, MN, NJ, NM, PA, RI, WA) will begin after the 2015–16 school year. Wisconsin did not select to implement a KEA, but is implementing a statewide literacy 

assessment and is exploring the development and use of a KEA. 

55 There will be difficulty collecting ELC data in out-years because some grantees will no longer be reporting APR data. 

56 In FY 2017, the data source will change from RTT-ELC to EDFacts. However, the data will not be available until FY 2018 Q3 with a collection commencement timeframe of 

December 2017. Nine (9) of 19 RTT-ELC states that wrote to this optional area will have completed their grants and the Department will only have 10 states reporting in FY 2017. KEA 

data collection has been added to EDFacts. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 53

Goal 3 FY 2016 Indicator Performance Summary 

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: 

3.1.A. Preschool Development Grants Annual Performance Reports, Data Workbook, Table A(1)(a) and (b); annually 

3.1.B. National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) Yearbook Table 1: State Ranking and Quality Checklist Sums, Column “Quality Checklist Sums”; annually 

3.2.A. NIEER Yearbook, Workforce Supplement, Table 3: Preschool Teacher Qualifications and Salary, Column “BA Required”; annually 

3.3.A. Race to the Top (RTT)-Early Learning Challenge (ELC) Technical Assistance Center; 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 54

Analysis and Next Steps by Objective

Objective 3.1: Access to High-Quality Programs and Services. Increase access to highquality early learning programs and comprehensive services, especially for children with 

high needs. 

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

In 2010, the Department and HHS formed an Early Learning Interagency Policy Board (IPB) to 

advise the Secretaries on how to better align programs and systems, and improve coordination 

and administration of federally funded early learning programs serving children from birth to 

age 8 (e.g., Head Start, Child Care, Home Visiting, and early learning programs funded under 

Title I, Part A of the ESEA and IDEA). Meeting quarterly, the IPB has provided a venue for 

developing policy recommendations and improving program coordination and quality across 

federally funded early learning and development programs. Through the work of the IPB, 

several policy statements were released that focus on improving the quality of early childhood 

programs. 

Improving access to high-quality early learning programs has been a priority for the Department. 

In FY 2016, the key programs on which the Department focused are the PDG and IDEA 

programs serving children from birth through age 5. Other efforts to improve the quality of early 

childhood programs focused on activities such as reducing suspensions and expulsions, 

addressing chronic absenteeism, promoting family engagement and inclusive settings, and 

supporting STEM for early learners. 

Preschool Development Grant Technical Assistance (PDG TA)—the technical assistance 

provider for the PDG grantees—held a number of webinars in FY 2016, providing information on 

communicating with families to prevent chronic absenteeism, supporting young children 

demonstrating difficult behaviors, and avoiding suspension and expulsion in early childhood 

programs. 

In order to improve the quality of early learning programs from birth through third grade, the 

Department and HHS collaborated with the National Center for Education Research (NCER) at 

the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) and leveraged $20.5 million of NCER resources with 

$5.5 million of PDG national activities funds to support the $26 million Early Learning Research 

Network. 

Several webinars and documents were produced in FY 2016 to provide the tools and resources 

to support families and their engagement with children’s learning and development including 

resources on supporting children and families living in poverty in rural areas and family 

engagement. 

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

As PDG program administration transitions to HHS under the ESSA, the Department and HHS 

will work together to continue to support existing grantees and ensure that they are able to 

successfully meet their commitments during the project period. 

Despite a recent increase in federal funding, IDEA Part C systems within many states were 

stretched thin because of high demand for early intervention services. Some states have 

narrowed their definition of developmental delay as part of their eligibility requirements for 

serving children with disabilities and their families. Staff and Department-funded centers support 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 55

states in using their resources most efficiently. This was the first time in many years that there 

was an increase in Part B, Section 619 funding, yet because there has been an increase in the 

number of children served in the program over the years, the funding increase did not 

substantially increase the historic per child funding for the program. 

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

OSERS and its technical assistance centers have been supporting states on implementing and 

evaluating their State Systematic Improvement Plans (SSIPs) to improve results for children 

with disabilities. As OESE, OSERS, and HHS developed policy statements, the Department 

conducted input sessions with multiple stakeholder groups to ensure their perspectives were 

included and to get their input on additional resources that would be of benefit. 

In October 2016, the Department and HHS held their annual meeting for the 29 Race to the 

Top – Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC) and PDG grantees—11 RTT-ELC and 18 PDG—to 

share best practices and lessons learned. In February 2017, the Institute of Medicine/National 

Research Council (NRC) released a new report, “Fostering School Success for English 

Learners: Toward New Directions in Policy, Practice, and Research,” and in July 2016, 

“Supporting the Parents of Young Children” was released. Both were funded by the Department, 

HHS, and philanthropic partners. 

The Department also may consider revising this objective and/or strategies for achieving the 

objective to reflect changes to early learning programs made by the Congress in the ESSA. 

Objective 3.2: Effective Workforce. Improve the quality and effectiveness of the early 

learning workforce so that early childhood educators have the knowledge, skills, and 

abilities necessary to improve young children’s health, social-emotional, and cognitive 

outcomes.

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

A number of activities were held to support states in building and strengthening the early 

learning workforce, including a joint webinar with HHS and a Peer Learning Exchange entitled, 

“Cultivating Excellence: Developing and Strengthening Your Early Childhood Workforce.” 

The new PDG program under the ESSA will provide continued support for the early learning 

workforce. The Department participated in meetings and planning regarding implementation of 

the new PDG under the ESSA, including working with HHS, OMB, and the Domestic Policy 

Council on creating an agreement between the Department and HHS to implement the program. 

The nonregulatory guidance developed by the Department will help ensure that administrators, 

teachers, and paraeducators are supported as they work to improve outcomes for young 

children in early learning programs. 

In addition, OSERS funds the Early Childhood Personnel Center (the Center) to work with 

states to improve their personnel systems to increase the quality and effectiveness of the early 

learning workforce to serve children with disabilities. The Center recently finished providing 

intensive technical assistance to a cohort of four states, targeted technical assistance to six 

states, and chose six more states for intensive technical assistance. The Center also held 

leadership institutes for IDEA Part C and Part B, Section 619 coordinators. OSERS also 

continues to fund personnel preparation grants. The Center was supplemented to develop 

online modules on evidence-based practices for use by faculty and professional development 

providers preparing personnel that will serve young children with disabilities and their families. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 56

On October 27, 2015, the Department and HHS released a report that summarizes the progress 

of professional development systems in the RTT-ELC states. In November 2015, the Early 

Learning Challenge Technical Assistance Program (ELC TA) released a report, Articulation 

Strategies in RTT-ELC States, to highlight best practices in supporting future practitioners in 

transferring from two-year colleges to four-year universities. In December 2015, ELC TA 

released a report, RTT-ELC Grantees That Incorporate Business Trainings for Child Care 

Providers in Their Scope of Work. In January 2016, ELC TA published a report, Scholarships for 

Early Childhood Educators in RTT-ELC States. In June 2016, the Department and HHS 

released Credentialing in the Early Care and Education Field Report. 

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

While the ESSA includes language explicitly stating that Title II dollars can be used for early 

childhood educators, it remains unclear whether or how that will affect the workforce. 

Challenges abound in developing an effective early learning workforce. States that can sustain 

programs for longer periods have less difficulty recruiting and retaining strong early childhood 

educators. 

In FY 2016, the Department and its technical assistance providers worked to address some of 

these challenges through webinars, peer learning, and highlighting promising practices, such as 

mentoring and coaching. 

Limited resources are a risk to achieving this strategic objective. The IDEA Part C and Part B, 

Section 619 programs report personnel shortages, specifically related to service providers who 

have specialized knowledge and skills in serving young children with disabilities and their 

families (e.g., speech-language pathologists, physical therapists). Additionally, there is an 

increased demand for resources under Part D that can address personnel shortages and 

improve the quality of the workforce serving young children with disabilities and their families. 

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

During May 2016, the Office of Early Learning (OEL) worked with HHS to develop a plan for the 

National Academies of Science to review and synthesize available research and analysis on the 

resources needed to meet the true costs of high-quality early care and education. The 

committee will produce a report that synthesizes the information gathered and, based on their 

analysis and interpretation, draw conclusions about and make recommendations for concrete, 

implementable funding strategies in the public and private sectors at the national, state, and 

local levels. In addition, an early childhood workforce case study is progressing well. 

During September 2016, the Department’s Policy and Program Studies Service (PPSS) office 

worked with HHS to develop a plan for a study on articulation from two-year to four-year 

colleges. The American Institutes for Research (AIR) is contracted to complete the study and is 

supported by PDG national activities funds. The report is expected to be released late next year. 

The Department may also consider revising this objective and/or strategies for achieving the 

objective to reflect changes to early learning programs made by the Congress in the ESSA as 

well as related budget proposals by the new administration. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 57

Objective 3.3: Measuring Progress, Outcomes, and Readiness. Improve the capacity of 

states and early learning programs to develop and implement comprehensive early 

learning assessment systems.

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

The Department will continue to reach out to the Education Commission of the States (ECS), 

the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), the National Institute for Early Education 

Research (NIEER), and other organizations that share its interest in advancing quality 

kindergarten entry assessments (KEAs), share resources, and develop strategies that might 

increase its collective impact. 

OESE staff are working with Enhanced Assessment Grants (EAG) staff in supporting the three 

EAG grantees developing KEAs, paying particular attention to the RTT-ELC and PDG 

overlapping states. The Department has reviewed the applications submitted for the PDG 

competition that discuss the states’ assessment practices, and will use the PDG TA contractor’s 

electronic grant monitoring tool, GRADS 360, and other means to monitor and report on 

KEA/assessment progress. OESE is working with the national comprehensive center, CEELO, 

to provide targeted technical assistance on KEA development or enhancement. 

The Department, HHS, and ELC TA support both the RTT-ELC states and many voluntary 

nongrantee states and PDG states through an online early learning community. In October 

2015, the ELC TA center updated its brief, “Kindergarten Entry Assessments in ELC Grantee 

States.” 

On August 27, 2015, the Department posted for comment the EDFacts Data Set “Kindergarten 

Entry Assessment Data Collection through EMAPS” as part of the Annual Mandatory Collection 

of Elementary and Secondary Education Data. The Department is reviewing and responding to 

comments received and expects to post the final data collection in FY 2017. The data collection 

will fill a void left when RTT-ELC KEA data collection diminishes as states finish their grant 

periods. 

To support implementation of the high-quality preschool program components, the Department 

and HHS reviewed the PDG and RTT-ELC APR data collected through February 2016. The 

PDG TA center published a brief, “State Technical Assistance Report: Comprehensive 

Assessment Systems in Preschool Development and Expansion Grant States.” In September 

2016, the ELC TA center updated its report, Kindergarten Entry Assessments in RTT-ELC 

States. Project officers continue to work with grantees to support implementation of high-quality, 

coordinated early learning systems and continued monthly calls with grantees to provide 

technical assistance. 

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

Some states have challenges implementing their KEAs due to funding constraints and local 

district decisions. For example, in Maryland, one of three EAG grantees, a new law restricts the 

Maryland Kindergarten Readiness Assessment to sampling, rather than assessing all children 

when they enter kindergarten. A district may still voluntarily choose to assess all its 

kindergarteners. 

Key Milestones and Future Actions

On October 27, 2015, the Department and HHS released a report that shows the Department 

surpassed the 2015 performance target of nine states collecting and reporting disaggregated 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 58

data on the status of children at kindergarten entry using a common measure. Eleven ELC 

states (CA, CO, DE, KY, MD, MA, MI, NC, OH, OR, and VT) are implementing their KEAs in the 

2015–16 school year. The remaining eight states that chose to implement KEAs (GA, IL, MN, 

NJ, NM, PA, RI, and WA) will begin after the 2015–16 school year. 

The 2015 APRs for 19 states—WI did not choose to spend funds on a KEA—show that all 

states have made progress in moving towards implementing their KEAs. The 18 PDG states are 

required to report on the school readiness of the children participating in their high-quality 

preschool programs, with encouragement to use a KEA. States describe the assessment they 

will use in the 2016 APR to report the school readiness of the first PDG cohort of children. The 

Department expects to have data in spring 2017 for the second year of the grant. The 18 states 

reported serving 28,000 4-year-olds in high-quality preschool programs. In the 2016 APR for 

PDG, the Department will collect data on school readiness. 

The individual state RTT-ELC APRs and Progress Reports were posted on September 1, 2016. 

Seventeen of the 19 states that used RTT-ELC funds for KEAs are either phasing in 

implementation (7 states) or fully implementing (10 states) their KEA in the 2016–17 school 

year. Rhode Island and Georgia are piloting their KEA. 

The Department also may consider revising this objective and/or strategies for achieving the 

objective to reflect changes to early learning programs made by the Congress in the ESSA as 

well as the policy priorities of the new administration. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 59

Goal 4. Equity: 

Increase educational opportunities for underserved students and 

reduce discrimination so that all students are well-positioned to 

succeed. 

Goal Leader: Assistant Secretary for Office for Civil Rights (OCR) 

Objective 4.1: Equitable Educational Opportunities. Increase all students’ access to 

educational opportunities with a focus on closing achievement gaps, and remove barriers that 

students face based on their race, ethnicity, or national origin; sex; sexual orientation; gender 

identity or expression; disability; English language ability; religion; socioeconomic status; or 

geographical location.

Objective 4.2: Civil Rights Compliance. Ensure educational institutions’ awareness of and 

compliance with federal civil rights obligations and enhance the public’s knowledge of their civil 

rights. 

Public Benefit

Equal access to equitable opportunities in education permeates every facet of the Department’s 

work and is the cornerstone of the mission to promote student achievement and preparation for 

global competitiveness. Through grant programs, loans, technical assistance, and civil rights 

enforcement, the Department improves educational opportunities and outcomes for all 

students—regardless of income, home language, ZIP code, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender 

identity, race, or disability. 

The Department works to serve students from their very first instructional experiences through 

early learning investments and to serve P-12 students through the implementation of the ESSA, 

which was signed into law in December 2015 and goes into effect with the 2017–18 school year. 

The ESSA continues the ESEA’s longstanding focus on providing resources and supports for 

students from low-income families, students with disabilities, English learners, and students who 

are migrant, homeless, or in foster care. The ESSA also focuses on providing support and 

interventions for the lowest-achieving schools as well as providing equal access to excellent 

educators for low-income and minority students. 

In addition to enhancing educational opportunities, the Department also works to eliminate 

discriminatory barriers that might prevent students from achieving their fullest potential. One 

way that the Department continues to monitor progress toward closing equity gaps in the 

nation’s schools is through the biennial CRDC. In FY 2016, the Department released its 

2013–14 CRDC report, demonstrating that despite significant work from districts across the 

country, persistent disparities remain, highlighting the need for a continued focus on educational 

equity. Another way is through continued efforts in OCR to address issues of equity in 

educational opportunity through both its policy and robust enforcement work. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 60

Goal 4 Discretionary Resources

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

FY 2016

FY 2017

FY 2018

$1,440

$1,437

$1,362

(Dollars in millions)

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities57 Supporting Goal 4 Performance 

Metrics [Dollars in Millions]

POC Account Obj. Program 

FY 2016 

Appropriation 

FY 2017 

Annualized 

CR58

FY 2018 

President’s 

Budget 

OCR OCR Office for Civil Rights 107 107 107

OESE ED 4.1 State agency programs: Migrant 375 374 374

OESE IE NA Indian Education: Grants to local 

educational agencies 100 100 100

OESE IE NA Indian Education: Special programs 

for Indian children 38 38 38

OESE SIP NA Alaska Native education 32 32 --

OESE SIP NA Native Hawaiian education 33 33 --

OESE SIP 4.1, 4.2 Training and advisory services 7 7 7 

OESE/OELA ELA 4.1, 4.2 English Language Acquisition 737 736 736

OSERS SE NA Special Olympics education programs 10 10 --

TOTAL, GOAL 4 1,440 1,437 1,362 

POC = Principal Operating Component. 

CR = Continuing Resolution. 

NA = Not applicable. 

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

 

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

noncompetitive/formula programs. 

58 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 61

Goal 4: Details

U.S. Department of 

Education 

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

Missed59 Exceeded60 2017 2018

4.1.A. National high school 

graduation rate61

SY: 

2011–12

80.0% 

SY: 

2012–13 

81.4% 

SY: 

2013–14

82.3% 

SY: 

2014–15

83.2%

FY: 

2016

84.5%62

NOT MET

85.0% 85.3% 

INCREASE 

4.1.B. Gap in the 

graduation rate between 

students from low-income 

families and all students63

SY: 

2013–14 

7.7% 

SY: 

2012–13 

8.1% 

SY: 

2013–14

7.7% 

SY: 

2014–15

7.1%

FY: 

2016

7.6%64

MET

7.4% 6.8% 

DECREASE 

 

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

60 Surpassed target; not just met the target. If a diminishing target, the actual was below the reduction target set.

61 Metric is aligned with an Agency Priority Goal (APG). 

62 SY 2014–15 actuals are being used to compare against the FY 2016 target; SY 2015–16 (aligns with FY 2016) data not available until 2017. 

63 Metric is aligned with an APG. 

64 SY 2014–15 actuals are being used to compare against the FY 2016 target; SY 2015–16 (aligns with FY 2016) data not available until 2017. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 62

U.S. Department of

Education

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

59 Exceeded60 2017 2018

4.1.C. Number of schools 

that do not have a gap or 

that decreased the gap 

between students from 

low-income65 families and 

the state average of all 

students66, 67

SY: 2013–

14

13,048 

NA SY: 

2013–14

13,048 

SY: 

2014–15

13,158

FY: 

2016

13,24468

NOT MET 13,442 13,487

INCREASE 

4.2.A. Percentage of 

proactive civil rights 

investigations launched 

annually that address 

areas of concentration in 

civil rights enforcement69 

FY: 2013 

7.0% 

FY: 2014 

21.0% 

FY: 

2015

16.0% 

FY: 

2016

20.0%

FY: 

2016

12.0%

MET

15.0% 15.0% 

  INCREASE

 

65 For purposes of this metric, eligibility for Free or Reduced Price Lunches (FRPL) under the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) is the primary source of data for identifying 

economically disadvantaged (low-income) students for reporting on student outcomes, including graduation rates. The Department is currently considering options for redefining 

“economically disadvantaged” students for student outcomes reporting and other uses. Should the Department make such a change, data on economically disadvantaged students 

may not be entirely comparable with data for previous years. 

66 Metric is aligned with an Agency Priority Goal (APG). 

67 This measure is calculated as the number of schools in which the ACGR for low-income students was equal to or greater than the statewide ACGR for all students PLUS the number 

of schools with a gap that reduced the size of this gap by 5 percent or more. Initially the data points in the 2015 APR were for a percentage calculation versus the number. 

68 SY 2014–15 actuals are being used to compare against the FY 2016 target; SY 2015–16 (aligns with FY 2016) data not available until 2017. 

69 Retiring metric at conclusion of FY 2016. Please see appendix B for additional information pertaining to the metric’s retirement. If a new metric is being proposed, the new metric will 

be directly below the indicator measurement direction of the metric being retired. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 63

U.S. Department of 

Education 

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

Missed59 Exceeded60 2017 2018

New Metric: Average 

number of cases 

substantively70 resolved, 

per investigative staff 

member 

FY: 2016 

5.17 

NA NA FY: 

2016

5.17

NA NA NA 5.27 5.32 NA

4.2.B. Percentage of 

proactive civil rights 

investigations resolved 

annually that address 

areas of concentration in 

civil rights enforcement71

FY: 2013 

8.0% 

FY: 

2014

15.0% 

FY: 

2015

20.0% 

FY: 

2016

33.0%

FY: 

2016

12.0%

MET

16.0% 18.0% 

INCREASE 

New Metric: Number of 

technical assistance 

presentations and press 

releases on Office for Civil 

Rights’ work

FY: 2016 

317

NA NA FY: 

2016

317

NA NA NA 333 341 NA

 

70 “Substantively” resolved includes cases with the following outcomes: finding of insufficient evidence, closure through early complaint resolution (ECR) process, cases that resulted in 

change without an agreement, and cases that resulted in change with a resolution agreement. The ultimate disposition of a case (that is, the case outcome) is tracked in OCR’s 

database and includes the above categories. For example, an outcome that is considered not substantive would be a dismissal. 

71 Retiring metric at conclusion of FY 2016. Please see appendix B for additional information pertaining to the metric’s retirement. If a new metric is being proposed, the new metric will 

be directly below the indicator measurement direction of the metric being retired. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 64

Goal 4 FY 2016 Indicator Performance Summary 

3 (60.0%)

2 (40.0%)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Met Not Met

5 Total Indicators 12 Total Indicators

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: 

4.1.A. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) EDFacts; annually 

4.1.B. NCES EDFacts; annually 

4.1.C. NCES EDFacts; annually

4.2.A. Office for Civil Rights’ (OCR) Case Management System (CMS) and Document Management (DM) systems; quarterly 

4.2.B. OCR CMS and DM systems; quarterly 

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 65

Analysis and Next Steps by Objective

Objective 4.1: Equitable Educational Opportunities. Increase all students’ access to 

educational opportunities with a focus on closing achievement gaps, and remove 

barriers that students face based on their race, ethnicity, or national origin; sex; sexual 

orientation; gender identity or expression; disability; English language ability; religion; 

socioeconomic status; or geographical location. 

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

The Department is committed to pursuing equity at all stages of education, from birth through 

adulthood, by supporting institutions of: early learning; elementary and secondary education; 

career and technical, and postsecondary education; adult education; workforce development; 

and independent living programs. The Department’s goal is to ensure that all—not just a 

subset—of the nation’s children have access to high-quality preschool, graduate high school, 

and obtain the skills necessary to succeed in college, in the pursuit of a meaningful career, and 

in their lives. Accordingly, the equity goal incorporates programs and initiatives across the 

Department. 

In December 2015, Congress passed the ESSA, which reauthorized and amended the ESEA. 

The ESSA continued the ESEA’s longstanding commitment to equal opportunity for all students 

with its focus on ensuring that students from low-income families and students of color have 

equitable access to excellent educators and its requirement that meaningful actions are taken to 

improve the lowest-performing schools. Throughout FY 2016, the Department worked diligently 

to analyze the changes to the ESEA made by the ESSA and provide guidance and technical 

assistance to states, districts, and the public on the new law, as well as on the transition to the 

new law. The Department coordinated this support across offices, including OESE, OSERS, the 

Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA), OII, and the Office of Planning, Evaluation and 

Policy Development (OPEPD). 

In addition to supporting states as they prepare to implement the ESSA, the Department also 

worked to improve equitable access by removing discretionary barriers to education. In 

FY 2016, OCR continued its work to enhance equitable opportunity for students through the 

development of civil rights guidance materials and by enforcing federal civil rights laws to 

remove discriminatory barriers to education. 

OCR and the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) continued to support the equity goal of 

increasing educational opportunities for underserved students and reducing discrimination by 

representing the Department in litigation. In FY 2016, OGC worked with attorneys from OCR 

and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to file 13 statements of interest and amicus curiae briefs in 

federal courts to clarify the government’s interpretation of civil rights laws. 

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

A key challenge is the continued implementation of the changes to the ESEA made by the 

ESSA in addition to managing the transition from the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Limited 

resources are a risk to achieving this strategic objective, and pose challenges to 

implementation. 

As SIG ends, limited capacity at the state, district, and school levels could impact the 

sustainability of reforms in schools and support for the implementation of school-based 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 66

interventions. Ensuring quality and completeness of data at the state and local levels to enable 

better measurement of success also remains a challenge. 

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

Staff will continue to support states on their Educator Equity Plans. In FY 2017, the Department 

intends to host additional Educator Equity Labs and to continue to provide support for states 

through OESE program officers and the EASN. 

On October 11, 2016, the Department announced awards to expand opportunity in CTE and 

dual language programs under the PFS Initiative. Additionally, the Department awarded a 

technical assistance grant to the Boston-based Social Finance Inc., in partnership with Jobs for 

the Future, in order to improve outcomes for underserved, high-need youth, through the 

development of PFS projects to implement new or scale up existing high-quality CTE

opportunities. The Department also awarded a contract to the Washington, DC-based AIR to 

identify effective strategies to improve outcomes for children learning English. The study 

focuses on early learning-dual language programs for English learners from pre-K to grade 3. 

The Department also may consider revising its strategies for achieving the objective to reflect 

changes to programs made by the Congress in the ESSA as well as the policy priorities of the 

new administration. 

Objective 4.2: Civil Rights Compliance. Ensure educational institutions’ awareness of 

and compliance with federal civil rights obligations and enhance the public’s knowledge 

of their civil rights.

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

OCR’s implementation strategy for this strategic objective involves the issuance of policy 

guidance, robust data collection, vigorous enforcement through investigations and monitoring, 

proactive technical assistance and engagement with stakeholders through interagency working 

groups, and the dissemination of information and response to public inquiries to enhance the 

public’s knowledge of their civil rights. In the policy arena, in FY 2016, OCR issued five policy 

guidance documents. 

In FY 2016, OCR unveiled its 2013–14 CRDC, published a First Look document detailing 

preliminary findings, and, for the first time ever, released the full, privacy-protected data set for 

the 2013–14 CRDC, which is available for direct download from the Department’s webpage. 

OCR continues to work with other offices in the Department to prepare and publish data sheets 

based on the CRDC 2013–14 data findings, including the rollout of chronic absenteeism data

and website, which were published in June.

In FY 2015, OCR overhauled its website to increase usability and to provide more information to 

the public, and in FY 2016, OCR continued to update its website with case resolution 

agreements and letters, policy guidance documents, technical assistance materials, and 

information about OCR’s enforcement processes. 

OCR continued to provide excellent customer service to enhance the public’s knowledge of their 

civil rights by responding to public inquiries for information. Through the Customer Service 

Team, OCR responded to 5,025 incoming correspondence inquiries and answered 8,019 OCR 

“Hotline” call inquiries in FY 2016. The Department also distributed 701 copies of selected OCR 

publications in response to inquiries from advocacy groups, educational institutions, state and 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 67

local educational agencies, parents, students, members of the general public, and enforcement 

offices. 

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

In FY 2016, OCR received a record-high number of complaints (16,720) and resolved 

8,631 complaints despite challenges facing its operations, including a massive long-term 

staffing shortage and compressing and moving office space. Complaint volume and limited 

resources impacted OCR’s ability to conduct and resolve proactive investigations and to 

conduct proactive technical assistance. OCR continues to leverage all resources, both staffing 

and technological, to ensure that its enforcement and outreach efforts are timely, efficient, and 

effective, and used the minimal budgetary relief provided in FY 2016 to recruit, hire, and 

on-board new staff to support the more than 60 percent increase in complaint volume. 

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

In FY 2017, OCR will continue its focus on improving the quality and efficiency of investigations 

through training, technology, innovation, and strategic partnerships; expanding transparency; 

increasing proactive efforts to highlight the full range of OCR’s work through the release of data 

and materials to the public; and expanding technical assistance available to the public. In 

December 2016, OCR released its FY 2016 Annual Report, detailing efforts to protect students’ 

civil rights. 
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. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 85

Goal 6. U.S. Department of Education Capacity: 

Improve the organizational capacities of the Department to 

implement the Strategic Plan. 

Goal Leader: Assistant Secretary, Office of Management (OM) 

Objective 6.1: Effective Workforce. Continue to build a skilled, diverse, and engaged 

workforce within the Department. 

Objective 6.2: Risk Management. Improve the Department’s program efficacy through 

comprehensive risk management, and grant and contract monitoring. 

Objective 6.3: Implementation and Support. Build Department capacity and systems to 

support states’ and other grantees’ implementation of reforms that result in improved outcomes, 

and keep the public informed of promising practices and new reform initiatives. 

Objective 6.4: Productivity and Performance Management. Improve workforce productivity 

through information technology enhancements, telework expansion efforts, more effective 

process performance management systems, and state-of-the-art leadership and knowledge 

management practices. 

Public Benefit 

The Department continues to focus on acquiring and developing its workforce through human 

capital management; increasing diversity and inclusion and improving employee engagement; 

rethinking how it monitors and intervenes with high-risk grantees and contractors; enhancing 

workforce productivity through IT; safeguarding its assets and stakeholders from cybersecurity 

threats; continuing to improve and integrate effective performance management; and 

transforming the way the Department interacts with states, districts, institutions of higher 

education, and other grantees and stakeholders. These efforts aim to improve performance 

results, increase stakeholder collaboration, and lead to greater employee engagement. 

The Department continues to build Department capacity and systems to support states’ and 

other grantees’ implementation of reforms that result in improved outcomes, and keep the public 

informed of promising practices and new reform initiatives. By consolidating processes, the 

Department has been able to more effectively customize its outreach to individual states and 

model the critical partnerships states should have with their respective districts. 

Beyond building Department capacity to support states and other grantees, throughout 

FY 2016, the Department provided strategic training courses to strengthen leadership and 

knowledge management throughout the Department, with a special emphasis on ensuring 

managers and supervisors have the essentials they needed to effectively manage and lead. The 

Department also recognized the important role that technology and facilities contribute to 

supporting productivity. As a result, the Department continued to build on the success of its ED 

Space Modernization plan, including the deployment of critical IT to support telework and 

leverage wireless connectivity.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 86

Goal 6 Discretionary Resources

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

FY 2016

FY 2017

FY 2018

$491

$490

$499

(Dollars in millions)

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities83 Supporting Goal 6 Performance 

Metrics [Dollars in Millions] 

POC Account Obj. Program

FY 2016

Appropriation 

FY 2017 

Annualized 

CR84

FY 2018 

President’s 

Budget 

OIG OIG Office of Inspector General 59 59 61

DM/PA DM/PA Program Administration: Building 

modernization 1 -- --

DM/PA DM/PA Program Administration: Salaries and 

expenses 431 431 438

TOTAL, GOAL 6 491 490 499

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. 

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

noncompetitive/formula programs. 

84 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 87

Goal 6: Details

U.S. Department of 

Education 

Indicators of Success

Baseline 

Actuals 

Current 

Year 

Target 

Current 

Year 

Results 

Actual-to-Target 

2016 Out-Year Targets 

Trend Line 

Indicator (Actuals) 

Measurement 

Direction 

2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed85 Exceeded86 2017 2018

6.1.A. Percent of 

selections made per job 

opportunity 

announcement (JOA) 

FY: 

2015

46.4% 

NA FY: 2015 

46.4% 

FY 2016: 

70.0% 

FY: 2016

48.7% 

MET 

51.2% 53.7% 

INCREASE 

6.1.B. EVS Employee 

Engagement Index 

FY: 2012 

64.7% 

FY: 2014 

67.0% 

FY: 2015 

68.0% 

FY 2016: 

67.0% 

FY: 2016 

71.0% 

NOT 

MET

  72.0% 73.0%

INCREASE 

6.1.C. Time to hire FY: 2013 

65.0% 

FY: 2014 

85.0% 

FY: 2015 

67.6% 

FY: 2016 

79.1% 

FY: 2016 

69.0% 

MET

70.0% 71.0% 

INCREASE 

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

86 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 88

U.S. Department of 

Education 

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals 

Current 

Year 

Target 

Current

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2016 Out-Year Targets 

Trend Line 

Indicator (Actuals) 

Measurement 

Direction 

2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed85 Exceeded86 2017 2018

6.1.D. Effective 

Communication Index 

FY: 2012 

48.0% 

FY: 2014 

50.0% 

FY: 2015 

51.0% 

FY: 2016 

50.0% 

FY: 2016 

51.0% 

NOT 

MET

52.0% 53.0% 

INCREASE 

6.2.A. Percentage of 

A-133 Single Audits 

Overdue for resolution87

FY: 2012 

57.0% 

FY: 2014 

37.0% 

FY: 2015 

20.0% 

FY: 2016 

10.0% 

FY: 2016 

37.0% 

MET

NA NA

DECREASE 

 

87 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 31.0% and 

25.0%, respectively. If a new metric is being proposed, the new metric will be directly below the indicator measurement direction of the metric being retired. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 89

U.S. Department of 

Education 

Indicators of Success

Baseline 

Actuals 

Current

Year 

Target 

Current 

Year 

Results 

Actual-to-Target 

2016 Out-Year Targets 

Trend Line 

Indicator (Actuals) 

Measurement 

Direction 

2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed85 Exceeded86 2017 2018

New Metric: Percentage 

of Department Grant 

Recipients without any 

Single Audit Findings

FY: 2014–

2016 

Average 

85.4%88

NA NA 86.1% NA NA NA 86.1% 86.6% NA

6.2.B. Compliance rate of 

contractor evaluation 

performance reports 

FY: 2013 

85.0% 

FY: 2014

97.0% 

FY; 2015 

98.0% 

FY: 2016 

95.8% 

FY: 2016 

100.0% 

NOT 

MET

100.0% 100.0% 

  INCREASE

 

88 The baseline data is based on an average of Department grantees with no single audit findings over the past three fiscal years, 2014–16.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 90

U.S. Department of 

Education 

Indicators of Success

Baseline 

Actuals 

Current 

Year 

Target 

Current

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2016 Out-Year Targets 

Trend Line 

Indicator (Actuals) 

Measurement 

Direction 

2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed85 Exceeded86 2017 2018

6.3.A. Overall average 

impact score of the 

Department’s technical 

assistance in helping 

build State capacity to 

implement education 

reforms89

FY: 2015 

7.73 

NA FY: 2015 

7.73 

FY: 2016 

7.58 

FY: 2016 

8.00 

NOT 

MET

7.75 8.00 

INCREASE 

 

89 Metric has been revised from tracking the “percentage of states” to tracking the “overall average impact score” of the states that rate the Department’s technical assistance via the 

Grantee Satisfaction Survey, which is a more meaningful metric for the Department. The baseline and subsequent data points have been revised from the 2015 APR to reflect the 

change in the metric. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 91

U.S. Department of 

Education 

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals

Current 

Year 

Target 

Current

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2016 Out-Year Targets

Trend Line 

Indicator (Actuals) 

Measurement 

Direction 

2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed85 Exceeded86 2017 2018

6.4.A. Number of ED IT 

security incidents 

FY: 2012 

756

FY: 2014 

445

FY: 2015 

580

FY: 2016 

291

FY: 2016 

551

MET

29190 27791

DECREASE 

6.4.B. EVS ResultsOriented Performance 

Culture Index 

FY: 2012 

53.0% 

FY; 2014 

56.0% 

FY: 2015 

57.0% 

FY: 2016 

56.0% 

FY: 2016 

57.0% 

NOT 

MET

58.0% 59.0% 

INCREASE 

 

90 FY 2017 target was reduced significantly to aim at a continual decrease in incidents by more than the 5 percent reduction from the initially proposed FY 2016 target in the 2015 APR. 

91 Reduction of 5 percent from previous year’s actual to align with a more aggressive approach to reducing security incidents. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 92

U.S. Department of 

Education 

Indicators of Success

Baseline 

Actuals 

Current

Year 

Target 

Current

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2016 Out-Year Targets 

Trend Line 

Indicator (Actuals) 

Measurement 

Direction 

2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed85 Exceeded86 2017 2018

6.4.C. EVS Leadership 

and Knowledge 

Management Index

FY: 2012 

60.0% 

FY: 2014 

61.0% 

FY: 2015 

62.0% 

FY: 2016 

61.0% 

FY: 2016 

63.0% 

NOT 

MET

  64.0% 65.0%

INCREASE 

6.4.D. Total usable 

square footage 

FY: 2012 

1,563,641 

FY: 2014 

1,533,239 

FY: 2015 

1,530,864 

FY: 2016 

1,367,000 

FY: 2016 

1,459,937 

MET

TBD TBD 

DECREASE 

6.4.E. Rent cost FY: 2014 

$74.3M 

FY: 2014 

$74.1M 

FY: 2015 

$72.7M 

FY: 2016 

72,149,82

8 

FY: 2016 

$80.3M 

MET

$74,470,439 TBD 

DECREASE 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 93

Goal 6 FY 2016 Indicator Performance Summary 

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: 

6.1.A. EDHires (Monster’s electronic hiring management system); annually 

6.1.B. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS); annually 

6.1.C. Federal Personnel/Payroll System (FPPS) Datamart; annually 

6.1.D. OPM FEVS; annually 

6.2.A. Office of the Chief Financial Officer’s (OCFO) Audit Accountability & Resolution Tracking System (AARTS); annually

6.2.B. Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) www.ppirs.gov “PPIRS Compliance Report”; annually

6.3.A. Annual Grantee Satisfaction Survey; annually 

6.4.A. Cyber Security Assessment and Management (CSAM) and RSA Security Operations management (SecOps); quarterly 

6.4.B. OPM FEVS; annually 

6.4.C. OPM FEVS; annually 

6.4.D. Department’s Master Space Management Plan; annually 

6.4.E. Department’s Master Space Management Plan; quarterly 

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 94

Analysis and Next Steps by Objective

Objective 6.1: Effective Workforce

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

In FY 2016, the Department continued to improve its time-to-hire performance, fill missioncritical positions, and offer viable options to the competitive process while ensuring hiring 

managers continue to receive a high caliber of applicants from which to select. These 

successes continue to be relayed during Supervisor Training 101, at collaboration meetings with 

hiring managers and HR Specialists, and in meetings with the Department’s Senior Leaders. 

The Department’s enhanced engagement activities resulted in the Department exceeding the 

government average Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) response rate by 

30.4 percentage points. The Department’s 2016 response rate increased 3.5 points to 

76.2 percent. Nine offices met or exceeded the Department’s 2016 response rate goal of 

80 percent. Fourteen offices exceeded their prior year participation rate; seven exceeded by 

double digits. The Department’s unwavering and focused championing of engagement has 

resulted in the Department achieving a 1 percent increase in the Employee Engagement Index 

annually since 2012. 

Diversity and inclusion has been empirically and positively associated with greater talent 

utilization, better employee retention, increased innovation, and higher performance. The 

Department continues to build capacity at all levels of the Department, working through the 

Department’s Diversity and Inclusion Council, the Diversity Change Agent Program, and various 

training opportunities. The Department has designed a “Diversity and Inclusion Dashboard” for 

internal use that serves as a tool to provide senior leaders with demographic diversity data 

about hiring, attrition, retention, and a host of other data-driven accountability measures to 

assist in diversity planning. The Department continues to participate in the governmentwide 

Federal Diversity in Government Council. 

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

There are challenges to educating managers on the numerous hiring flexibilities of the 

recruitment process and engaging subject matter experts (SMEs) where it would be most 

beneficial. Some hiring managers found reworking recruitment packages to include 

strengthening specialized experience statements or reworking self-assessment questions to be 

a challenge. The Department mitigates this risk by building partnerships up front, utilizing other 

avenues to hire, and providing consistent briefings from top to bottom. 

The Department’s employee engagement initiative relies heavily on principal office prioritization 

and implementation. The Office of Management (OM) offered and will continue to offer training 

courses, access to expert consultants, and senior-level engagement meetings to assist principal 

offices in successfully implementing employee engagement programs and activities. OM also 

communicated to principal offices about the support services available to the principal offices to 

assist them in the engagement planning and implementation process. 

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

The Department has entered into an agreement with Monster Government Solutions to utilize 

the assessment tool and position classification modules within its hiring system. This agreement 

expands the Department’s ability to standardize position descriptions and provide more support 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 95

in the efforts to shorten timeframes. In addition, the Department will continue to promote the 

effective use of noncompetitive hiring authorities and advocate HR Specialists directly 

partnering with hiring officials at the onset of the process. 

In the area of employee engagement, OM will continue outreach to principal offices and work 

through the Monthly Operations Forum to shape annual engagement focus areas, raise 

awareness of best practices and information sharing, incorporate engagement best practices 

into day-to-day operations, and strive to increase the Department’s Employee Engagement 

Index. 

Currently, the Department plans to continue hosting regularly scheduled Diversity and Inclusion 

Council meetings, participating in the governmentwide Diversity and Inclusion Council, and 

providing diversity and inclusion training opportunities. 

Objective 6.2: Risk Management 

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

Through risk management, the Department identifies, sets priorities, and takes action on 

challenges affecting the successful use of grant, loan, and contract funds, in order to forward 

the achievement of its mission and strategic goals. During FY 2016, the Department’s risk 

management work included improving the audit resolution process, conducting grantee risk 

assessments, increasing oversight and technical assistance with targeted grantees, recording 

past performance information on contractors, and monitoring grants and contracts. 

This year, the Department improved its use of audit data to identify grantee management 

challenges. Our continued improvement in the audit resolution and closure process enables the 

Department to provide feedback and technical assistance to audited grantees that helps them 

improve the management and outcomes of their grant-funded activities. 

During FY 2016, the Department conducted a preaward risk review of all organizations slated 

for new awards or continuation awards from competitive grant programs. This process helped 

identify grantees that had not completed audits, as required for all grantees expending $750,000 

or more during the fiscal year, and resulted in many organizations completing their audits. The 

number of grantees the Department identified as missing audits declined by two-thirds between 

2012 and 2015. In addition, the Department’s program officers provided targeted oversight of 

and technical assistance to grantees to address issues identified during the preaward risk 

reviews. The Department formula grant programs reviewed the financial management and 

performance information of grantees and used this information to guide technical assistance to 

the field, as well as monitoring and oversight of specific grantees. 

Contract monitoring was improved this year by partnership between the contracts office and 

program staff to ensure that both the contractor fulfillment of requirements and successful 

outcomes and deliverables were achieved. Program offices conducted ongoing monitoring of 

grants, targeting programs and grantees that pose the greatest risk to program success. 

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

Although the Department did not encounter barriers to success in risk management, there are 

ongoing challenges that must be addressed on a regular basis. These include the resources 

available for monitoring and the agency’s dependence on direct grant recipients to monitor the 

ultimate recipients, who spend the grant funds. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 96

The staff levels in Department program offices, FSA, the contracts office, and other Department 

offices largely determine the limits of monitoring and oversight activities. To address this 

challenge, the Department continues to explore ways to make the process more efficient, such 

as targeting oversight based on risk, automating the analysis of audit and past performance 

information, and using telecommunication and web-based technology to communicate with 

grantees. 

Because most Department funds flow through direct grant recipients to the agencies and 

individuals who ultimately use the funds, good oversight of Department funds depends on the 

“pass through agency” that distributes funds to the ultimate recipient agencies and beneficiaries. 

State agencies that sub-award Department grants to local agencies are crucial participants in 

grant oversight. Control over student aid funds is dependent on participating institutions. Most of 

these partners in administering Department programs are also challenged to find sufficient staff 

resources to conduct rigorous oversight of grant programs. 

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

In 2016, the Department launched Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) to meet the 

requirements of OMB Circular No. A-123, “Management’s Responsibility for Enterprise Risk 

Management and Internal Control.” Over the next year, the Department will formulate ERM 

plans by coordinating and expanding current risk management activities into an agencywide 

strategy to address its highest priority risks. 

To address capacity for grant, contract, and student financial aid oversight, the Department will 

continue to improve upon its risk-based monitoring planning and provide professional 

development for contract and grant officers. The number and skills of the staff responsible for 

monitoring will be assessed through ERM. 

To improve the usefulness of audits to the Department as well as the audited organization, the 

Department will continue to work toward improving the audit process. The Department is 

developing guidance for grantees on audit readiness, and plans to continue to promote quality 

audits by working with the national auditor community. The Department will continue to improve 

the process for resolving audits and will revise its procedures for audit resolution and closure. 

Objective 6.3: Implementation and Support 

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

The OSS within OESE is designed to provide more transparent, higher quality, and better 

differentiated support to states. The matrix organization model adopted by the OSS ensures that 

a state has two primary contacts within the office, and these individuals serve as the liaisons 

across key state-administered grant programs and major federal funding streams that flow to 

each state and district. By consolidating processes and technical assistance, the Department 

will be able to more effectively customize its outreach to individual states and model the critical 

partnerships that states should have with their respective districts. 

In FY 2016, the office focused on continuing professional learning and increasing staff 

knowledge and capacity in the program areas and office functions, as well as supporting states 

in implementing programs administered by the OSS. The OSS is working to deepen staff 

knowledge and build and pilot systems and routines that allow staff to support states with 

implementation through a systemic approach to performance review, policy coordination, data 

review, and technical assistance. In early 2016, the OSS launched staff Professional Learning 

Communities to provide OSS staff opportunities to deepen knowledge of new ESSA provisions. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 97

The OSS is also working to create a culture of data use. In FY 2016, OSS staff reviewed and 

validated state data reported on the consolidated state performance report (CSPR). Staff used 

this and other outcome data from the state to better understand state context when conducting 

performance progress review calls. Additionally, leadership used data from the employee 

viewpoint survey, as well as focus group findings, to determine areas of strength and 

weaknesses of the OSS. As a result of these data, leadership began a strategic planning 

process, with input from staff. 

The OSS continued implementing its performance review system. This new system covers all 

OSS programs through a single, streamlined process that encourages SEAs to develop and 

effectively implement integrated and coherent state plans. OSS restructured the comprehensive 

performance review system implementation timeline by elevating support to SEAs preparing for 

full implementation of the ESSA and its requirements in SY 2017–18. As a result, during this 

transition period the OSS implemented, in phases, a comprehensive performance review 

system. 

In FY 2016, OSS implemented several new routines to ensure ongoing coordination with 

internal and external partners. OSS began monthly conversations with the CCSSO to increase 

information sharing and coordination of ESSA transition support to states. Additionally, OSS and 

School Support and Rural Programs have regular meetings to increase coordination and 

communication between state program officers and Department-funded Comprehensive 

Centers. 

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

Transitioning to the new OSS structure is a significant change that will take time to implement 

fully. OESE and OSS leadership are still establishing new processes and procedures, and the 

transition will take place gradually. Continuing challenges include staffing, appropriate 

professional development and support for staff, and relevant outreach and communication 

internally and externally. Additional challenges for the upcoming year include the launch of an 

updated state performance review and implementing against a new strategic technical 

assistance plan. State capacity to implement new ESSA provisions also continues to be a 

challenge. 

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

In launching the OSS performance review system, the Department deepened its collaborative 

relationship with the states with the quarterly progress checks on a common topic, piloted a riskbased fiscal review, conducted several shadowing trips to better understand the work of SEA 

staff, and hosted two collaborative calls that brought several states together to discuss common 

problems and share their approaches. To support continuous improvement of this process, OSS 

surveyed each fiscal review pilot state to gather feedback on the prototype tiered protocol that 

was developed in partnership with the Management and Support Unit of OESE. 

The OSS kicked off the State Support Network, a new four-year, $10 million technical 

assistance contract that will support states as they intervene in the lowest-achieving schools. 

The State Support Network continues to work collaboratively with the Comprehensive Centers 

and other partners to help states. In FY 2017, the State Support Network will provide universal 

support through broadly shared school improvement resources organized in a user-friendly 

website; collective support for technical assistance delivered in person, virtually, and shared by 

multiple organizations; and individual support focused on direct technical assistance from 

providers delivered in person and virtually to address specific state and district needs. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 98

The OSS restarted an assessment peer review process. After a four-year hiatus, and releasing 

new guidance in fall 2015, the OSS led a peer review process for 38 states in spring and 

summer 2016. From those reviews, the OSS began to develop feedback to states, with the goal 

of providing peer review notes and feedback letters to all reviewed states by the first quarter of 

FY 2017. Having good, actionable data from the assessment system is paramount to having a 

strong accountability system and providing schools, teachers, parents, and the public with the 

information they need to help all kids reach their potential. 

Objective 6.4: Productivity and Performance Management 

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

Cybersecurity continues to be a priority at the Department with the implementation of new, and 

the optimization of existing, capabilities to control the flow of sensitive information and prevent 

access to information systems, data, and critical information and infrastructure by unauthorized 

individuals. The ongoing measurement and analysis of cybersecurity incidents and privacy 

breaches, in accordance with OMB and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) guidelines, 

identifies areas for improvement and working with critical stakeholders to implement best 

practices. 

The Department continued its focus on the implementation and utilization of new security tools, 

and fine-tuning existing tools to meet the security needs of the IT environment. Our progress 

demonstrated the effectiveness of the installed capabilities by identifying unauthorized business 

practices and inappropriate handling of sensitive information. The Department increased its 

emphasis on the training of the cybersecurity workforce, to address identified discrepancies, 

and published new standard operating procedures (SOPs). In another effort to expand and 

strengthen its IT security posture, the Department implemented Two-Factor Authentication 

(2FA) for external users of the Grant Management System (G5), in compliance with Homeland 

Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12). 

The Department continued its implementation efforts to maximize the utilization of electronic 

signature functionality for discretionary and formula grants. The Department performed 

continuous monitoring of discretionary and formula grant activities in the G5 system to evaluate 

adoption of the electronic signature functionality by the program offices. 

The Department focused on applying the lessons learned, testing of the automation changes, 

and implementation of additional process to improve the Department’s overall incident 

response. To reduce the response time, additional resources were assigned and a surge 

capacity has been identified using Department and DHS assets. 

The Department also continues to improve the performance management system to strengthen 

and clarify performance expectations and ensure alignment with organizational goals to support 

a results-oriented performance culture. This effort keeps performance management at the 

forefront of Departmental news on a regular and recurring basis. 

Ensuring staff have the facilities and space to perform is an important part of supporting 

productivity. Through an aggressive strategy of relocating staff and reconfiguring space, as well 

as leveraging wireless connectivity, telework, desk sharing, and “hoteling” seating 

arrangements, the Department achieved the FY 2016 goals in reducing overall footprint (Usable 

Square Feet/USF) and rent costs. The immediate reductions in FY 2016 were mainly due to the 

Rapid Rent Reduction initiative (R3), which compressed personnel into existing Lyndon B. 

Johnson (LBJ) and Potomac Center Plaza (PCP) locations, allowing the release of three 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 99

commercial leases: 1990 K Street, Capitol Place, and L’Enfant Plaza. This strategy supported 

an overall plan that will further reduce the overall USF and rent costs in FY 2017, FY 2018, and 

beyond. Significant progress was made in FY 2016 that will generate further reductions in space 

and commercial leases. 

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

During FY 2016, the Department continued to address challenges that included the availability 

of a skilled cybersecurity workforce, and the ability to rapidly implement automated 

cybersecurity capabilities. Additionally, OCIO is working with its IT services provider to provide 

qualified staff and accelerate planned implementations. 

While data assurance and visibility increased, processes and technology continually need to be 

refined to reduce the risk to the Department. The Department met the FY 2016 performance 

target of 234 for IT security incidents and 120 for IT security breaches. To reduce the response 

time, additional resources were assigned and a surge capacity has been identified using 

Department and DHS assets. The Department’s efforts resulted in reducing the cybersecurity 

response time to 22 minutes for the final quarter of FY 2016. 

The use of the electronic signature functionality was heavily promoted during the fourth quarter 

of FY 2016. The outcome was an increase in use by program offices. The Department found 

that only through continued change management efforts will the use of the functionality be fully 

accepted. Change management is an important theme in the Department’s efforts in leadership 

and knowledge management and maintaining a results-oriented performance culture. However, 

employees need time to participate in training opportunities, even online learning opportunities. 

Managers and employees need to be engaged in training and performance management; risks 

are mitigated by senior leadership emphasis and support for the program. Also, risks are 

mitigated by holding managers accountable for completing the process. 

In the areas of space and rent, while the commitment is strong to reduce the amount of space 

and the rent bill, there are several factors that affect the Department’s implementation of these 

plans. One challenge is the availability of funds in the near term, as it will require an initial 

investment to realize the longer-term savings. 

Another challenge is identifying program areas that may grow or shrink in coming years, based 

on both policy and changes in resources and environment. One way to mitigate this is to provide 

flexibilities both in furnishings and layout, but also to leverage increased telework, desk sharing, 

and technology to increase the flexibility and usage of space. 

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

As noted earlier, the Department achieved a 97 percent establishment rate for performance 

plans. The Department continues to make strides toward 100 percent completion of 

performance plans. The involvement and commitment from senior leaders was essential to the 

increase in the percentage of performance plans completed this year and is essential moving 

forward. Performance management and training are critical to employees and supervisors. 

Throughout FY 2016, OM continued to market and educate supervisors on the initial and annual 

requirements for supervisory/managerial training. This effort and the provision of a robust set of 

course offerings for employees will continue in FY 2017. 

In the area of space and rent, the Department will continue with projects and plans to 

consolidate our footprint. The General Services Administration (GSA) is currently performing the 

PCP/LBJ Program of Requirements (POR)/Feasibility study for the renovation, space 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 100 

optimization, and consolidation of a significant portion of the PCP-leased space into the LBJ 

Headquarters Building. The consolidation will reduce the overall utilization rate by reducing 

space allocations in the two locations. Once the Department has the study results, it will 

incorporate the space reductions into its out-year space plan. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 101 

Management Priorities and Challenges 

The mission of the Department is to promote student achievement and preparation for global 

competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. 

Continuous Improvement & Accountability in Department Operations

To support the work of the Department’s policy agenda, a sound infrastructure and strategic 

allocation of and investments in human resource capacity are critical. The Department uses 

data-driven reviews as a mechanism to bring together the people, resources, and analysis 

needed to drive progress, reinforce priorities, and establish a culture of continuous 

improvement. Also, again in FY 2016, the Department participated in the President’s 

Management Agenda Benchmarking effort and reviewed the data during the Department’s 

FedStat meeting with OMB to discuss organizational performance management, gauge the 

impact of operations, and talk about risk mitigation strategies and the path forward.

The Department has collaborated with both government and private sector partners to explore 

solutions to payment and data integrity issues, address fraud risk, and provide better oversight 

of its programs. More information on these efforts, including the use of shared services and 

managing enterprise risk, was reported in the FY 2016 Agency Financial Report. 

In FY 2018, the Department’s management priorities will focus on improvements to achieve the 

goals established in the President’s Management Agenda. These include: 

1. managing programs and delivering critical services more effectively; 

2. devoting a greater percentage of taxpayer dollars to mission achievement rather than 

costly, unproductive compliance activities; 

3. increasing effectiveness and efficiency in supporting program outcomes; and 

4. increasing accountability for improving performance. 

Addressing Management Challenges

As summarized in the FY 2016 Agency Financial Report, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) 

has identified five management challenges for the Department in FY 2017. These challenges 

are detailed in the FY 2017 Management Challenges Report. 

In FY 2016, the Department began a new effort to address these challenges. The Office of the 

Deputy Secretary initiated a detailed review of the five management challenges, assigned

senior managers to be accountable for each, and assembled a workgroup of other senior 

managers throughout the Department to address the noted challenges. This effort underway 

has helped identify systemic root causes to ensure that the Department’s actions produce 

results. The OIG has stated that it considers this initiative to be a positive step towards 

addressing long-standing management challenges and encouraged the Department to continue 

to explore approaches that result in targeted focus within each of the areas. 

While these challenges reflect continuing vulnerabilities and emerging issues, the Department 

remains committed to improved governance and better business processes. Management has 

worked closely with OIG to gain its perspective about the Department’s most significant 

management and performance challenges. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 102 

In FY 2018, the Department will continue implementing coordinated actions to address the root 

causes of management challenges. The Government Performance and Results Modernization 

Act of 2010 requires the Department to include in its APP the following information on those 

planned actions, including performance goals, indicators, and milestones, to address these 

challenges: 

Management 

Challenge

Accountable 

Official Planned Actions Performance Goals/Indicators/ Milestones

Improper 

Payments 

Chief 

Financial 

Officer (FSA)

 Continue to coordinate with 

OMB on refinements to 

estimation methodology for 

student aid programs 

 Continue to improve grant and 

contract risk assessments 

 Continuous monitoring of 

processes and systems to 

strengthen controls, including 

work with IRS to implement 

system upgrades and 

reactivate the Data Retrieval 

Tool to enable applicants to 

securely obtain necessary 

financial information to 

complete the FAFSA or apply 

for an income-driven 

repayment (IDR) plan 

 Goal: Minimize the risk of 

improper payments without 

unduly burdening students

 Indicators: Strengthened 

controls, improved risk 

assessments and estimates 

 Key milestones: Engage 

OMB and Congress, revise 

risk assessment and 

estimation methodologies, 

implement actions intended 

to help achieve FY 2018 

targets including reactivation 

of IRS Data Retrieval Tool 

Information 

Technology 

Security 

Chief 

Information 

Security 

Officer (OCIO)

 Complete ED cybersecurity 

workforce assessment to 

identify current gaps in 

Department cybersecurity 

workforce 

 Develop ED Cybersecurity 

Workforce Development Plan 

to address gaps identified in 

the ED cybersecurity 

workforce assessment 

 Establish Department/FSA 

Cybersecurity Committee 

 Develop ED Cybersecurity 

Strategy and Implementation 

Plan (ED-CSIP) 

 Goal: Mature the 

Department’s cybersecurity 

operations to achieve the 

next level of effectiveness as 

defined by the FISMA 

maturity model 

 Indicators: Updated plans 

and strategies, tools 

acquired, increased detection 

and reporting of system 

breaches 

 Key milestones: FY 2018 and 

FY 2019 budget submissions, 

deployment phases through 

FY 2018 

Oversight and 

Monitoring 

Director, Risk 

Management 

(FSA)

 Increase expertise among 

Department staff to effectively 

monitor student aid program 

participants and grant 

recipients 

 Improve monitoring and 

support processes, including 

increased information-sharing 

across offices and more 

integrated and targeted 

monitoring approaches 

 Expand data analysis 

capabilities and develop better 

 Goal: Improve program 

compliance and grant 

outcomes through highquality and timely monitoring 

and support 

 Indicators: Increased use of 

data to identify higher-risk 

program participants, 

improved internal controls to 

ensure efficient and effective 

monitoring, improved 

customer feedback 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 103 

Management 

Challenge

Accountable 

Official Planned Actions Performance Goals/Indicators/ Milestones

ways to identify higher-risk 

program participants to detect 

potential misuse of funds 

 Highlight areas of ambiguity 

or common misunderstanding 

for program participants and 

provide additional technical 

assistance in those areas 

 Key milestones: update risk 

assessments for student aid 

participants; gather feedback 

from annual student aid 

conference attendees; 

implement FY 2018 

Enterprise Risk Management 

requirements; implement riskbased, tiered, and virtual 

monitoring approaches for 

grant recipients; strengthen 

electronic records for grant 

monitoring; develop skills in 

staff 

Data Quality 

and Reporting 

Director, Risk 

Management 

Service (ODS)

 Implement tracking tool using 

key elements from 

Consolidated State 

Performance Reports (CSPR) 

to improve monitoring and 

correction of data quality 

issues 

 Finalize data management 

strategy and continuation with 

principal offices stewarding 

data quality, as part of the 

EDFacts Data Governance 

Board 

 Adopt new standard 

certification language in each 

data collection system; require 

states to provide additional 

justification for questionable 

data

 Identify promising practices in 

monitoring grantee controls 

over data accuracy and share 

across principal offices 

 Leverage Single Audits to 

help assess grantee data 

quality 

 Goal: Strengthen data quality 

and reporting to better enable 

evidence-based decisionmaking 

 Indicators: Improved 

governance of data quality, 

fewer data quality audit 

findings, increased use of 

data to improve program 

outcomes 

 Key milestones: Expand use 

of data tracking tool, 

disseminate promising 

practices, revise FY 2018 

Compliance Supplement 

Information 

Technology 

System 

Development 

and 

Implementation 

Director, 

Information 

Technology 

Program 

Services 

(OCIO)

 Establish a governing OCIObased Project Management 

Office capability to begin 

integrating and optimizing 

resources to review project 

work plans, methods, and 

deliverables and provide 

support, review, and oversight 

to Department IT project 

managers 

 Consolidate and standardize 

current LCM/LMM structure 

and governance to monitor, 

 Goal: Mature the 

Department’s compliance 

with FITARA requirements 

 Indicators: Improved 

governance and capabilities, 

fewer audit findings 

 Key milestones: Implement 

new governance structure 

and LCM/LMM reporting, 

target dates through FY 2018 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 104 

Management 

Challenge

Accountable 

Official Planned Actions Performance Goals/Indicators/ Milestones

manage, and enforce IT 

project management practices 

and IT solution delivery 

methods 

 Educate systems owners on 

LCM/LMM processes by 

forming an internal community 

of practice 

 Develop Department 

Guidance on Software 

Development Best Practices 

Lower-Priority Program Activities 

The Cuts, Consolidations and Savings volume of the President’s Budget identifies the lowerpriority program activities, where applicable, as required under the GPRA Modernization Act of 

2010, 31 U.S.C. 1115(b)(10). The public can access the volume at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget. 
FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 105 

Appendices 
FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 106 

This page intentionally left blank. 
107
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 108 

GOAL 1: POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION, CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION, AND ADULT EDUCATION. Increase college access, affordability, quality, 

and completion by improving postsecondary education and lifelong learning opportunities for youths and adults. 

Metric No. Metric (Indicator) Data Source Data Quality, Limitations and Improvements

1.1.A Federal student loan delinquency rate Federal Student Aid (FSA) Data Center NSLDS is currently the source of the data. Verification and validation occur in three 

aspects of the process: 

(1) Data providers (servicers in this case) transmit data to NSLDS where the data are 

subject to edits and screening. FSA works with the servicers to resolve anomalies. 

(2) Users who analyze the data sometimes identify anomalies in the course of their 

analytic roles and work with experts in NSLDS to resolve. In some cases NSLDS will 

again work with the servicer(s) to resolve. 

(3) The report providing the data for this metric has been validated. This means that 

the programming and logic have been independently reviewed.

1.1.B Web traffic to the College Scorecard Google Analytics data from College 

Scorecard

The data are simply pulled from the GSA Google Analytics account. The data are 

checked for reasonability, and incorporated alongside the existing baseline data. The data 

need to be matched with baseline data and collated accordingly. There is limited analysis 

required.

The data will be matched with prior data for reasonability checks. The Office of Planning, 

Evaluation and Policy Development will pursue solutions to anomalous data, but do not 

anticipate a significant problem, as the data are produced relatively automatically.

1.1.C Percent of High School Seniors Filing a 

FAFSA

The denominator is the number of 

graduating seniors according to the most 

recent projection by NCES (Table 219.10 

within the Digest of Education Statistics). 

The numerator is from Federal Student Aid’s 

(FSA’s) Central Processing System and is 

based on the number of applications during 

the first nine months of the application cycle 

that are—as of September 30 of the first 

year of the application cycle—complete (not 

rejected); first-time filers; incoming 

freshmen, with or without previous college 

attendance; age 18 or less as of June 30 of 

the first year of the application cycle; 

reporting high school diploma attainment; 

and attended a high school in the fifty states 

and Washington, DC.

The denominator is the number of graduating seniors according to the most recent 

projection by National Center for Education Statistics (3,365,560). 

Number of seniors obtained from the most recent release of Digest of Education Statistics 

(2013) obtained here: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_219.10.asp

The numerator is based on the number of applications during the first nine months of the 

application cycle that are—as of September 30 of the first year of the application cycle—

complete (not rejected; first-time filers; incoming freshmen, with or without previous 

college attendance; age 18 or less as of June 30 of the first year of the application cycle; 

reporting high school diploma attainment; and attended a high school in the 50 states and 

DC. (Data Source: FSA’s Central Processing System. Query timeframe: January–

September 30, 2014: 2,021,691)

Broadly speaking, several individuals and organizations serve as controls, including the 

Customer Analytics Group (for primary calculation), Business Intelligence (for technical 

validation), and the Financial Reporting and Analysis Branch for ensuring documentation 

is complete and archived. 

In addition to the above controls, queries and calculations are simultaneously conducted 

on data from previous years to ensure technical definitions remain consistent and 

calculations are accurate. 

Being that the Central Processing System is the core legacy system used to determine 

aid eligibility and awards and understanding the significance, value and reliability of the 

Digest of Educational Statistics, FSA feels confident that the outcomes are reliable, 

accurate, and valid.

*Metric associated with an Agency Priority Goal. 
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 109 

Metric No. Metric (Indicator) Data Source Data Quality, Limitations and Improvements

1.1.D Index of national annual aggregate 

earnings of VR consumers (based on 

the number of competitive integrated 

employment outcomes, hours worked, 

and hourly wages of VR Consumers) 

Rehabilitation Services Administration 

(RSA)- 911

Each grantee’s RSA-911 is submitted as a text file to RSA via an SFTP server. We run an 

edit program that converts the text file into MS Access and verifies the accuracy of the 

data. Each of the 215 data elements is verified. If errors are identified by the application, 

the grantee is requested to correct the errors and resubmit the data. Once the data file is 

corrected and resubmitted, it is checked again using the same process. If anomalies are 

identified, the grantee must provide an explanation and verify that the data is correct. 

RSA provides the agencies with the edit program that we use and are encouraged to run 

their data using the program often, at least quarterly, during the year. In addition, 

agencies have edits in their own systems which run additional checks. 

1.1.E Index of national annual aggregate 

earnings of Transition-Age Youth 

(based on the number of competitive 

integrated employment outcomes, 

hours worked, and hourly wages of VR 

Transition-Age Youth) 

1.1.F *Number of data points or other 

information reports released on the 

FSA Data Center

FSA Data Center The Validation Subject Matter Expert (SME) works with the Request SME to understand 

the solution used to fulfill the request, checking all results, code, and documentation 

produced by the Request SME. Additionally, the Validation SME ensures there are no 

data disclosure issues that need to be addressed. In the event the Validation SME cannot 

validate the request results, they contact the Request SME and the Data Request Team 

(DRT) to resolve any issues necessary to successfully complete their validation. The 

Validation SME completes their portion of the Request Template and notifies the DRT 

that the validation step is complete. Upon receipt of the data that was requested, the DRT 

confirms with the assigned Validation SME that the results have been validated and 

documented per their selected solution and enters it into the Data Request Tracking 

database. 

1.2.A Pell enrollment at IHEs with high 

graduation rates

Data from College Scorecard Validation of the data is conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 

through its annual IPEDS data validation process. NCES will ensure accuracy, while 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development / Policy and Program Studies 

Service will incorporate the data into the Scorecard datasets. 

Analysis will be conducted to identify anomalous data. They will be handled on a case-bycase basis, as most anomalies are due to variation from year-to-year or small n-size and 

are already pooled and suppressed before publishing the data. Other data problems may 

necessitate additional runs, qualifications, or suppression for stability reasons. 

1.2.B Number of states that develop or 

strengthen career pathways policies, 

guidance, and or legislation 

Development data from the National Skills 

Coalition, possibly supplemental with data 

from the Association of State Legislators and 

CLASP 

The Department cannot independently verify the data, but rely on the tracking of the 

National Skills Coalition. There are no processes in place to check for anomalous data. 

1.3.A *Degree attainment among 25-34-yearold age cohortNCES Digest of Education Statistics, Table 

104.30 

(https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tab

les/dt15_104.30.asp), Number of persons 

age 18 and over, by highest level of 

educational attainment, sex, race/ethnicity, 

and age: 2015. Tabulated from Current 

Population Survey data, U.S. Census 

Data quality and limitations are documented in: 

http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/tp-66.pdf. 

NCES tabulates the data, which is verified prior to publication according to NCES 

guidelines. 

*Metric associated with an Agency Priority Goal. 
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 110 

Metric No. Metric (Indicator) Data Source Data Quality, Limitations and Improvements

1.3.B Enrollment in IHEs below the minimum 

earnings threshold 

Data from College Scorecard Tool Extensive validation is conducted by the Treasury Department before it is shared with the 

Department of Education, both on the earnings file used to construct the measure and on 

the resulting data file by institution. The Department will also continue to validate the unitlevel files that are shared with the Treasury Department to generate the match. 

Analysis will be conducted to identify anomalous data. They will be handled on a case-bycase basis, as most anomalies are due to variation from year-to-year or small n-size and 

are already pooled and suppressed before sharing with the Department of Education. 

Other data problems may necessitate additional runs, qualifications, or suppression for 

stability reasons. 

The median earnings is calculated only on individuals who are employed (i.e., have 

earnings greater than zero). The data are not produced for small years, and are pooled 

across years, to reduce variability or misrepresentative figures. 

1.3.C Persistence among first-time filing aid 

recipients

FSA’s Common Origination and 

Disbursement (COD) system 

Data used for these calculations are based on counts from operational systems (number 

of recipients and number of applicants). Moreover, standardized queries are used to rerun and match calculations for earlier cycles. Therefore, the metric as defined should be 

considered verified and valid. 

Data used for these calculations are based on counts from operational systems (number 

of recipients and number of applicants meeting certain criteria). Anomalous data would 

suggest there are recipients that are not recipients (or vice versa) or applicants that are 

not applicants (or vice versa). A variety of internal controls are in place tracking both of 

these processes. 

*Metric associated with an Agency Priority Goal. 
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 111 

Metric No. Metric (Indicator) Data Source Data Quality, Limitations and Improvements

1.4.A Number of STEM postsecondary 

credentials awarded 

Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System (IPEDS) Data Center 

Doctor’s Degrees: (324.25, 324.30 and 

324.35) 

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/table

s/dt14_324.25.asp

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/table

s/dt14_324.30.asp

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/table

s/dt14_324.35.asp

Master’s Degrees: (323.30, 323.40, 323.50) 

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/table

s/dt14_323.30.asp

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/table

s/dt14_323.40.asp

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/table

s/dt14_323.50.asp

Bachelor’s Degrees: (322.30, 322.40, 

322.50) 

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/table

s/dt14_322.30.asp

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/table

s/dt14_322.40.asp

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/table

s/dt14_322.50.asp

Associate’s Degrees: (321.30, 321.40, 

321.50) 

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/table

s/dt14_321.30.asp

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/table

s/dt14_321.40.asp

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/table

s/dt14_321.50.asp

Certificates (320.20) 

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/table

s/dt14_320.20.asp

IPEDS collects completions by Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) Code which 

may be aggregated into STEM and non-STEM counts. The Department of Education 

does not currently have a single definition for which CIP codes are STEM. 

Data quality and limitations are identified in IPEDS First Look Publications, “Data 

Collection Procedures,” and IPEDS methodology available at 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014067.pdf. Data are checked by NCES for consistency.

*Metric associated with an Agency Priority Goal. 
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 112 

GOAL 2: ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION. Improve the elementary and secondary education system’s ability to consistently deliver excellent 

instruction aligned with rigorous academic standards while providing effective support services to close achievement and opportunity gaps, and ensure all students 

graduate high school college- and career-ready. 

Metric No. Metric (Indicator) Data Source Data Quality, Limitations and Improvements 

2.1.A Number of states / territories that have 

adopted college- and career-ready 

standards 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act

(ESEA) Monitoring 

The Office of Elementary and Secondary Education’s (OESE) Office of State Support will 

count the number of states that either (a) have a memorandum of understanding in place 

to implement standards common to a number of states or (b) have a letter from 

Institutions for Higher Education in their state certifying that their state has college- and 

career-ready standards. There are no known data limitations. 

The Office of Elementary and Secondary Education’s (OESE) Office of State Support 

(OSS) monitors that states are meeting requirements under the ESEA waiver. Monitoring 

includes desk monitoring and on-site monitoring. Previously, OSS state leads monitored 

using a monitor protocol and rubric based on ESEA Flexibility waivers to ensure that 

monitoring is consistent across all states with ESEA Flexibility. OSS is revising its 

monitoring practices based on passage of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, in 

December 2016, based on statutory revisions, as well as regulatory action. OSS state 

leads work with their Group Leader to finalize monitoring reports. There are no known 

data limitations. 

The Department is no longer conducting ESEA Flexibility monitoring, but states continued 

to implement their ESEA Flexibility requests through August 1, 2016, before beginning the 

transition to the ESSA. 

2.1.B Number of states / territories that are 

implementing next-generation reading 

and mathematics assessments, aligned 

with college- and career-ready standards 

2.2.A Number of states that have fully 

implemented teacher and principal 

evaluation and support systems that 

consider multiple measures of 

effectiveness, with student growth as a 

significant factor 

ESEA Flexibility Applications and 

Monitoring 

In December 2015, the President signed into law the Every Student Succeeds Act

(ESSA), which reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965

(ESEA). Under the ESEA as amended by the ESSA, the Secretary of Education is 

prohibited from, among other prohibitions, prescribing “any aspect or parameter of a 

teacher, principal, or other school leader evaluation system within a State or local 

educational agency” and “indicators or specific measures of teacher, principal, or other 

school leader effectiveness or quality.” The Department has no new data on the number 

of states implementing teacher and leader evaluation and support systems consistent 

with this performance metric and no way to verify the data reported. 

The Department is no longer conducting ESEA Flexibility monitoring, but states continued 

to implement their ESEA Flexibility requests through August 1, 2016, before beginning the 

transition to the ESSA. 

2.3.A Disparity in the rates of out-of-school 

suspensions for students with disabilities 

and youth of color (youth of color metric) 

Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) strives to ensure CRDC data are an accurate and 

comprehensive depiction of student access to educational opportunities in school 

districts. The submission system includes a series of embedded edit checks to ensure 

significant data errors are corrected before the district submits its data. Additionally, each 

district is required to certify the accuracy of its submission. Only a district superintendent, 

or the superintendent’s designee, may certify the CRDC submission. Ultimately, the 

quality of the CRDC data depends on accurate collection and reporting by the 

participating districts. 

2.3.B Disparity in the rates of out-of-school 

suspensions for students with disabilities 

and youth of color (SWD, IDEA only 

metric) 

*Metric associated with an Agency Priority Goal. 
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 113 

2.4.A *Number of persistently low graduation 

rate high schools

NCES EDFacts EDFacts works with the data stewards to determine the appropriate business rule checks for 

these data. The checks that were done on these data include: 

• File validation and format checks: Identifies file submissions that do not conform 

to the accepted file format, the data universe (school/LEA/state directory), or the 

reporting requirements (mandatory reporting fields). 

• Submission Edit Business Rules: Submission edits and warnings ensure that the 

data meet or exceed an acceptable level of reasonability by checking the values 

entered in a field against other similar values in the same file or across files. If a 

discrepancy is found (i.e., a value falls outside of the acceptable range), a 

submission error or warning is issued. Unlike format and validation edits, 

submission edits and warnings are programmed into the EDFacts Submission 

System and applied to the data after they are in the staging database. 

• Coordinated Data Quality Reviews (CDQR): Identifies potential errors and 

anomalies related to completeness, consistency, and comparability in the file 

submissions that would affect the quality and usability of data in the files. 

o CDQR Process: At the end of a collection period, EDFacts runs checks to 

validate data quality of submitted data and presents all results to program 

offices. It is the responsibility of the program offices, in consultation with 

the EDFacts staff, to determine which identified errors to escalate to 

states for further review. The EDFacts Partner Support Center (PSC) 

sends these errors to states for remediation, which take the form of 

explanations for data anomalies, data file submission updates, and data 

corrections. OESE should be considered the point-of-contact for 

identifying which errors were escalated and the result of those 

escalations. 

Data concerns for state, district and school level 2014–15 data submissions are documented 

and available in two places: 

a) State Notes to submitted Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR) data are 

available within the Department’s ED Data Express Tool at 

http://eddataexpress.ed.gov 

b) Identified Data Anomalies are documented at the state level in appendix B to the file 

documentation released along with school and district level data files at 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/edfacts/data-files/index.html 

Additional concerns, if any are identified, related to the calculated national rate or work done 

prior to 2014–15 will be available in future releases of the NCES report “Public High School 

Four-Year On-Time Graduation Rates and Event Dropout Rates: School Year ####-##.” The 

most recent report covers 2010–11 and 2011–12. Reports covering more recent years of data 

are being prepared and once released will be available at 

http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/pub_dropouts.asp. 

Path to public release and national rates: For each collection cycle states report their calculated 

cohort counts and ACGR graduation rates. These counts and rates are tested against a number 

of submission edit business rules and the ACGR Coordinated Data Quality Review for format, 

consistency, completeness, and comparability. Those rule checks are delivered to the Office of 

Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) for follow-up correspondence through the 

EDFacts Partner Support Center with the states. The program office, in consultation with NCES 

EDFacts staff and other stakeholders, meet to determine which issues identified by the 

business rules should be raised with the state for explanation, update, or correction. Following 

that review, data are then aggregated to the national level for the purpose of calculating and 

publishing a national rate. NCES processes these data to force conformity of reporting 

categories (mapping reported “Major Racial/Ethnic Groups” to the traditional 5 racial/ethnic 

groups) and addresses any issues raised by missing data. After imputations are made, NCES 

produces a national rate for the country as a whole; a rate which is representative of every 

state. Once produced, NCES documents any remaining issues with these data, and the 

aggregation and imputation methodology in a public report. That report, documentation, and the 

associated data tables are put through several stages of review including independent reviews 

at the division (Administrative Data), center (NCES), and principal office (IES) levels prior to 

public dissemination.

*Metric associated with an Agency Priority Goal. 
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 114 

Metric No. Metric (Indicator) Data Source Data Quality, Limitations and Improvements

2.4.B Percentage of SIG schools in Cohort 5 

that are above the 25th percentile in 

mathematics, as measured by their state 

assessments 

Analytic dataset produced by the 

contractor for the SIG National Summary, 

because this provides an accurate list of 

SIG schools and flags for different 

exclusions that we are included in the 

analysis. (The analytic dataset is a 

combination of EDFacts student 

achievement files in Math and Reading, 

the NCES Common Core of Data, SIG lists 

provided to EDFacts by Office of State 

Support (OSS), and Exclusions that are 

generated by the contractor that apply to 

these results.) 

To produce these numbers, OESE relies on the analytic dataset produced by the 

contractor for the SIG National Summary, because this provides a list of SIG schools and 

flags for different exclusions that we include in the analysis. The analytic dataset is a 

combination of EDFacts student achievement files in Math and Reading, the NCES 

Common Core of Data, SIG lists provided to EDFacts by OSS, and Exclusions that are 

generated by the contractor that apply to these results. 

For the 2012–13 data, a draft version of the analytic dataset was available in March of 

2015, although OESE hopes that it will be available sooner in future years. 

Information can be found on the EDFacts website 

(http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/edfacts/index.html).

2.4.C Percentage of SIG schools in Cohort 5 

that are above the 25th percentile in 

reading language arts, as measured by 

their state assessments 

2.5.A Percentage of high school and middle 

school teachers who teach STEM as 

their main assignment who hold a 

corresponding undergraduate degree 

Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), 

NCES 

The methods report for the 2011–12 SASS is not yet released. Study documentation from 

the 2007–08 survey is available at https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/methods.asp. 

2.5.B Number of External high school 

graduates who have taken at least one 

STEM AP exam 

College Board/AP administrative records College Board Public School List is updated annually by state DOEs; thus small changes 

to the list over time are to be expected as schools open, close, and/or merge. Students 

are assigned to graduating cohorts based on self-reported information (i.e., grade level 

and/or graduation year) provided at the time of registration (in the case of SAT) or test 

administration (in the case of AP and PSAT). The College Board matches students’ data 

across programs to identify the most recent valid value when assigning students to 

cohorts. 

*Metric associated with an Agency Priority Goal. 
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 115 

GOAL 3: EARLY LEARNING. Improve the health, social-emotional, and cognitive outcomes for all children from birth through 3rd grade, so that all children, 

particularly those with high needs, are on track for graduating from high school college- and career-ready. 

Metric No. Metric (Indicator) Data Source Data Quality, Limitations and Improvements 

3.1.A *Percent of 4-year olds enrolled in state 

preschool programs

Preschool Development Grants Annual 

Performance Reports (APR), Data 

Workbook, Table A(1)(a) and (b) 

APR data is collected externally. The data are collected primarily through a performance 

report template and a data workbook submitted by State Project Directors for the grants. 

Data are collected by program offices through a technical assistance contractor using a 

performance report template and self-administered electronic submission tool. The data 

collection period for one year is reported in the following year’s APR submission. For 

example, school year 2015–2016 data is reported in February of 2016. During November 

of 2015, State Project Directors are provided with any submission updates and granted 

access to the APR submission tool. The APR data collection period is January 1, 2015–

December 31, 2015. The Technical Assistance (TA) contractor performs an analysis and 

data anomalies are clarified and verified with the State Project Director. 

3.1.B *Number of states with high-quality 

preschool programs standards 

National Institute for Early Education 

Research (NIEER) Yearbook (The State of 

Preschool), Table 1: State Ranking and 

Quality Checklist Sums, Column “ Quality 

Checklist Sums”

NIEER data are collected externally. The data are collected primarily through surveys of 

state preschool administrators using the State of Preschool data collection instrument. 

Data are collected by staff at Rutgers University’s NIEER using a self- administered 

online data instrument. The collection for the 2013–14 school year, for example, began in 

the fall of 2013. During November of 2013, links to the web-based survey instrument were 

sent to administrators of the state-funded preschool programs. The initial listing of 

administrators was drawn from the 2011–12 State of Preschool data collection. NIEER 

project staff updated the list, where appropriate, by recontacting state agencies to 

determine if new programs had been started since the 2013–14 school year, or whether 

any programs had been left out of the previous report (no such programs were identified). 

All states and the District of Columbia responded. Data collection ended in April 2015. All 

programs included in the data collection and current report are those that are funded and 

directed by the states to support group learning experiences for preschool-age children, 

usually ages 3 and 4. A full list of criteria programs must meet for inclusion is available in 

the introduction of this report. Please see Data Verification Overview.

http://nieer.org/yearbook. 

3.2.A Number of states that require a teacher 

with a bachelor’s degree in a state 

preschool program 

National Institute for Early Education 

Research (NIEER) Yearbook (The State of 

Preschool), Workforce Supplement, Table 

3: Preschool Teacher Qualifications and 

Salary, Column “BA Required”

NIEER data are collected externally. The data are collected primarily through surveys of 

state preschool administrators using the State of Preschool data collection instrument. 

Data are collected by staff at Rutgers University’s NIEER using a self- administered 

online data instrument. The collection for the 2013–14 school year, for example, began in 

the fall of 2013. During November of 2013, links to the web-based survey instrument were 

sent to administrators of the state-funded preschool programs. The initial listing of 

administrators was drawn from the 2011–12 State of Preschool data collection. NIEER 

project staff updated the list, where appropriate, by recontacting state agencies to 

determine if new programs had been started since the 2013–14 school year, or whether 

any programs had been left out of the previous report (no such programs were identified). 

All states and the District of Columbia responded. Data collection ended in April, 2015. All 

programs included in the data collection and current report are those that are funded and 

directed by the states to support group learning experiences for preschool-age children, 

usually ages 3 and 4. A full list of criteria programs must meet for inclusion is available in 

the introduction of this report. Please see Data Verification Overview.

http://nieer.org/yearbook. 

*Metric associated with an Agency Priority Goal. 
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 116 

Metric No. Metric (Indicator) Data Source Data Quality, Limitations and Improvements

3.3.A Number of states collecting and 

reporting disaggregated data on the 

status of children at kindergarten entry 

using a common measure 

Race to the Top (RTT)-Early Learning 

Challenge (ELC) Technical Assistance 

Center 

The data are limited to the 20 Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC) 

states. 

Department staff has requested Kindergarten Entry Assessment (KEA) data be collected 

in the 2015–16 academic year as part of the State of Preschool data collection and has 

requested to add KEA data reporting in EDFacts. In addition, the new Preschool 

Development Grants will provide data on additional states. 

*Metric associated with an Agency Priority Goal. 
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 117 

GOAL 4: EQUITY. Increase educational opportunities for underserved students and reduce discrimination so that all students are well-positioned to succeed. 

Metric No. Metric (Indicator) Data Source Data Quality, Limitations and Improvements 

4.1.A *National high school graduation rate NCES EDFacts EDFacts works with the data stewards to determine the appropriate business rule checks for 

these data. The checks that were done on these data include: 

• File validation and format checks: Identifies file submissions that do not conform 

to the accepted file format, the data universe (school/LEA/state directory), or the 

reporting requirements (mandatory reporting fields). 

• Submission Edit Business Rules: Submission edits and warnings ensure that the 

data meet or exceed an acceptable level of reasonability by checking the values 

entered in a field against other similar values in the same file or across files. If a 

discrepancy is found (i.e., a value falls outside of the acceptable range), a 

submission error or warning is issued. Unlike format and validation edits, 

submission edits and warnings are programmed into the EDFacts Submission 

System and applied to the data after they are in the staging database. 

• Coordinated Data Quality Reviews (CDQR): Identifies potential errors and 

anomalies related to completeness, consistency, and comparability in the file 

submissions that would affect the quality and usability of data in the files. 

o CDQR Process: At the end of a collection period, EDFacts runs checks to 

validate data quality of submitted data and presents all results to program 

offices. It is the responsibility of the program offices, in consultation with 

the EDFacts staff, to determine which identified errors to escalate to 

states for further review. The EDFacts Partner Support Center (PSC) 

sends these errors to states for remediation, which take the form of 

explanations for data anomalies, data file submission updates, and data 

corrections. OESE should be considered the point-of-contact for 

identifying which errors were escalated and the result of those 

escalations. 

Data concerns for state, district and school level 2014–15 data submissions are documented 

and available in two places: 

a) State Notes to submitted Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR) data are 

available within the Department’s ED Data Express Tool at 

http://eddataexpress.ed.gov 

b) Identified Data Anomalies are documented at the state level in appendix B to the file 

documentation released along with school and district level data files at 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/edfacts/data-files/index.html 

Additional concerns, if any are identified, related to the calculated national rate or work done 

prior to 2014–15 will be available in future releases of the NCES report “Public High School 

Four-Year On-Time Graduation Rates and Event Dropout Rates: School Year ####-##.” The 

most recent report covers 2010–11 and 2011–12. Reports covering more recent years of data 

are being prepared and once released will be available at 

http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/pub_dropouts.asp. 

Path to public release and national rates: For each collection cycle states report their calculated 

cohort counts and ACGR graduation rates. These counts and rates are tested against a number 

of submission edit business rules and the ACGR Coordinated Data Quality Review for format, 

consistency, completeness, and comparability. Those rule checks are delivered to the Office of 

Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) for follow-up correspondence through the 

EDFacts Partner Support Center with the states. The program office, in consultation with NCES 

EDFacts staff and other stakeholders, meet to determine which issues identified by the business 

rules should be raised with the state for explanation, update, or correction. Following that review, 

data are then aggregated to the national level for the purpose of calculating and publishing a 

national rate. NCES processes these data to force conformity of reporting categories (mapping 

reported “Major Racial/Ethnic Groups” to the traditional five racial/ethnic groups) and addresses 

any issues raised by missing data.

*Metric associated with an Agency Priority Goal. 
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 118 

Metric No. Metric (Indicator) Data Source Data Quality, Limitations and Improvements

4.1.B *Gap in the graduation rate between all 

students and students from low-income 

families

After imputations are made, NCES produces a national rate for the country as a whole; a rate 

which is representative of every state. Once produced, NCES documents any remaining issues 

with these data, and the aggregation and imputation methodology in a public report. That 

report, documentation, and the associated data tables are put through several stages of review 

including independent reviews at the division (Administrative Data), center (NCES), and 

principal office (IES) levels prior to public dissemination. 

4.1.C *Number of schools that do not have a 

gap or that decreased the gap between 

students from low-income families and 

the state average for all students

4.2.A Percentage of proactive civil rights 

investigations launched annually that 

address areas of concentration in civil 

rights enforcement 

Office for Civil Rights’ (OCR) Case 

Management System (CMS) and 

Document Management (DM) systems 

The verification and validation of CMS data utilize (1) rules built into the CMS Case 

Management component; (2) periodically checks on questionable data; (3) guidance and 

reference on data entries; and (4) regular training and guidance for primary users 

imputing the data. 

 

(1) Rules built in CMS: 

 Samples of CMS validations: 

 - Docket number is assigned by the CMS based on four required data (Active 

Office, Case Type, Institution Type, and Case Open Date). 

- Date should be a validated date. 

- When a notification letter is issued, current stage is changed from Evaluation to 

Investigation. 

- Resolution Type is filled by the CMS based on the Resolution Codes of allegations. 

 

(2) Periodic checks on questionable data: (monthly) 

- Missing entries: such as cases resolved without (a) case resolved/closed dates, (b) 

allegations and (c) resolutions. 

- Inconsistent entries: such as resolution type not matched with resolution code. 

 

(3) Guidance and reference materials for use by primary users making data entries are 

posted at the OCR SharePoint site and are available to all OCR staff: 

- Lists of issue codes, specific bases, resolution codes, milestones, stage, data 

definition, and etc. 

- CMS Data Entries requirements and checklist. 

- CMS User Manual. 

 

(4) Users Training: 

 - User training is available as needed. OCR also provides training through a “peer 

helper” or “train the trainer” model for staff in the field offices and headquarters.

4.2.B Percentage of proactive civil rights 

investigations resolved annually that 

address areas of concentration in civil 

rights enforcement 

*Metric associated with an Agency Priority Goal. 
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 119 

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. 

Metric No. Metric (Indicator) Data Source Data Quality, Limitations and Improvements 

5.1.A Number of public data sets included in 

ED Data Inventory and thus linked to 

Data.gov or ED.gov websites 

Data Strategy Team Data Inventory and 

the public ED Data Inventory at 

http://datainventory.ed.gov

The data are validated with a crosswalk between Inventory entries and the listing of public 

Department datasets, ensuring that the data described in the ED Data Inventory is 

publicly available at the identified web address. 

5.1.B Number of states linking K-12 and 

postsecondary data with workforce data 

State Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS) 

grant monitoring (monthly updates from 

states, annual performance reports, final 

performance reports, and site visits) 

Data are collected through monitoring of states with active SLDS grants. The data are 

limited to this population. While 47 states and territories have received these grants over 

time, by June 2015, there will be fewer than 25 states with active grants, which leads to 

incomplete and not up-to-date data from states that either have not receive grants or that 

do not have active grants. 

5.1.C Number of states linking K-12 with early 

childhood data 

If the state is focusing on an early childhood data system, the state’s reporting might 

reflect only those development efforts, and not statewide P20W (preschool to college 

workforce) development efforts. There are additional sources for information about state 

data linkages in the field. For example the Data Quality Campaign (DQC) conducts 

surveys of state capacity to collect, store, link, and use data. Because the Department 

does not use the same definitions as DQC, our figures tend to be lower than theirs. For 

example, we require that a state possess the capacity to follow its own students in order 

for us to report that the state has the linkage in place. Similarly, we enable states to report 

on whether particular linkages are planned, in progress, or complete, and report that a 

state has a linkage when the state reports that the project is complete; DQC might give a 

state credit for an ‘in progress’ or pilot-stage linkage. 

A survey administered to the universe of states and territories would enable more 

systematically collect data about all states’ capacity for data linkages and data use. There 

is a concern, however, that if those data were to be used for public reporting, states might 

begin to overstate their capacities, particularly on data that are also publicly reported by 

organizations such as DQC. Currently, data from monitoring is used in an iterative, 

formative approach to program improvement; our technical assistance program is 

designed to support states’ efforts to improve their systems. This relies on states being 

honest about their own internal capacities. 

*Metric associated with an Agency Priority Goal. 
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 120 

Metric No. Metric (Indicator) Data Source Data Quality, Limitations and Improvements

5.2.A Average time to close “cases” (PTAC + 

FPCO) 

Case Tracking System (CTS) 

Monthly metric reports 

The term “case” refers to requests for quick, informal responses to routine questions 

related to student privacy. These requests are received via email, the Family Policy 

Compliance Office (FPCO) / Privacy Technical Assistance Center (PTAC) resource 

website, or by telephone and subsequently entered into the Case Tracking System (CTS). 

In contrast, “correspondence and complaints” refers to written complaints of alleged 

failures to comply with Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) / Protection of 

Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) filed with FPCO; requests for formal written 

guidance/interpretation laws administered by FPCO; and, to the reporting of instances of 

data breaches by educational agencies and institutions. These inquiries are logged into 

the Correspondence Control Manager (CCM) System, given a tracking control number, 

and assigned to FPCO staff. 

The preliminary data for this metric are reviewed at least weekly for verification. If 

anomalous data are identified in the periodic reviews or when anomalies are suspected, 

individual cases are examined individually to identify if they were properly closed or if their 

status was entered incorrectly. When appropriate, corrections are made. Staff responsible 

for entering data into the CTS will continue to be trained on policies and procedures. 

The monthly metric reports are scrutinized by the Director of FPCO, the Contracting 

Officer Representative for the PTAC contractors, and the Department’s Chief Privacy 

Officer, to assure completeness and reliability of data and to recommend any 

improvements to the CTS or modifications to the standard operating procedures. The 

quarter entry represents the fiscal year to date average days to close as of the end of that 

quarter taken from the corresponding monthly report. 

5.3.A *Percentage of select new (noncontinuation) discretionary grant dollars 

that reward evidence

Forecast Report issued by the Office of the 

Chief Financial Officer and final Funding 

Reports from relevant programs 

In determining which discretionary grants are considered “evidence-based” (i.e., the 

numerator when calculating the percentage), the Department includes all programs that 

rewarded applicants with supporting evidence of promise or better (per the EDGAR 

evidence framework). This could be done through a competitive preference or absolute 

priority, an eligibility requirement, or a selection factor. Only the amounts of the grants 

awarded for those projects were counted. In determining what counts as discretionary 

funding (i.e., the denominator when calculating the percentage), the Department includes 

all programs for which the EDGAR evidence framework could conceivably work. In Fiscal 

Year 2015, the Department counted all discretionary grant programs except for those 

programs run through the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), which are already 

evidence-based and would not be candidates for the EDGAR evidence framework). 

5.3.B Number of peer-reviewed, full-text 

resources in the Education Resources 

Information Center (ERIC) 

ERIC To be counted as a full-text, peer-reviewed article in ERIC, the document had to be 

indexed in ERIC and designated with a “peer-reviewed” and “full-text” flag, both of which 

are available on the public ERIC website 

The ERIC contractor uses specified quality assurance procedures. In addition, the IES 

program officer pays close attention to the metric in their review of deliverables. 

5.3.C Number of reviewed studies in the What 

Works Clearinghouse (WWC) database 

WWC To be counted as a reviewed study, the study had to be listed in the What Works 

Clearinghouse’s publicly available Database of Reviewed Studies. 

The What Works Clearinghouse contractors use specified quality assurance procedures. 

In addition, the IES program officers pay close attention to the metric in their review of 

deliverables. 

*Metric associated with an Agency Priority Goal. 
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 121 

Metric No. Metric (Indicator) Data Source Data Quality, Limitations and Improvements

5.3.D *Number of completed project 

evaluations from grantees of select 

discretionary grant programs in a given 

fiscal year that meet What Works 

Clearinghouse (WWC) Evidence 

Standards

Discretionary grant slate memoranda, 

discretionary grant financial forecasts and 

reports from OCFO, and the What Works 

Clearinghouse 

Expectation is that it will take about five minutes to search the WWC database for new i3 

studies each quarter. Also considering ways in which Institute of Education Sciences’ staff 

and Office of Innovation and Improvement staff can work closely to report these data 

quickly. 

 

No formal verification or validation processes are in place or to check for anomalous data. 

So far, no anomalous data has been encountered. 

 

The Office will report out on studies that are funded by i3 that are in the WWC database 

and meet WWC Evidence Standards. Please note it is not implied that these studies all 

reflect positive results—in actuality, the WWC Evidence Standards only measure the rigor 

of impact evaluations and do not consider the actual outcomes reported. 

5.4.A Percentage of schools in the country that 

have actual internet bandwidth speeds 

of at least 100 Mbps 

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 

The Department uses an external data source for this metric and relies on the external, 

third party’s verification and validation methodology. Based on the information provided 

(http://cosn.org/about-cosn), the response rate for this survey may not be sufficient to 

ensure that the data are representative of all districts in the country. The Department is 

exploring the feasibility of collecting data on access to and use of education technology 

from a representative sample of schools and districts across the country. In the 

meantime, we believe these data are the best currently available and provide useful 

information to gauge progress on this metric. 

*Metric associated with an Agency Priority Goal. 
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 122 

GOAL 6: U.S. DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION CAPACITY. Improve the organizational capacities of the Department to implement this strategic plan. 

Metric No. Metric (Indicator) Data Source Data Quality, Limitations and Improvements 

6.1.A Percent of selections made per job 

opportunity announcement (JOA) 

EDHires (Monster’s electronic hiring 

management system) 

The data are entered into the EDHires system by customers, contractors, and staff, so 

quality of data are only as reliable as the information entered and/or updated in the 

system. 

 

Data are reviewed by HR Specialists for relevance and completeness to ensure correct 

parameters and filters have been applied. 

 

If anomalies are identified, HR Specialists will compare contractor generated reports 

against ad hoc hiring reports generated from the system of record and other linked HR 

systems. Any questionable results would be brought to the contractor’s attention; in turn, 

OHR would work with the contractor to obtain clarity and/or resolve. 

6.1.B EVS Employee Engagement Index Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 

Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey 

(FEVS) 

Any questionable FEVS data points are brought to the attention of OPM. In turn, the OPM 

point of contact responds to the inquiry. Further, if there are questions regarding the 

FEVS data, the Department works with the OPM point of contact to obtain clarity. 

The Engagement index score is calculated by OPM by first determining the percent 

positive for each of the 15 items in the sub-indices (i.e., Leaders Lead, Supervisors, and 

Intrinsic Work Experiences). Then the unrounded percent positive scores are averaged 

across the items in the index to get the index score. The overall index score is then 

rounded for reporting purposes.
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 123 

Metric No. Metric (Indicator) Data Source Data Quality, Limitations and Improvements

6.1.C Time to Hire Federal Personnel/Payroll System (FPPS) 

Datamart 

The Office of Management (OM) identified a gap between hiring procedures and the 90 

Day Hiring Model’s time to hire calculations which necessitated an adjustment in the way 

time to hire is calculated for some actions. OM found that recruitment work is often 

initiated prior to the receipt of an “official” action. While this is a proactive customer-centric 

approach, especially prevalent in ED’s noncompetitive hiring activities, it can sometimes 

result in a negative time to hire or a time to hire of zero—neither of which reflects a 

realistic or meaningful hiring lead time. 

To account for, track and document this upfront work, OM developed an adjustment 

mechanism to better gauge hiring lead time in these cases. For ease of comparison, the 

adjustment was applied to all FY 2016 hiring actions and resulted in a revised Q1 actual. 

To ensure clarity and consistency in the application of time to hire methodology moving 

forward, OM also clarified time to hire calculation protocols as follows: 

 Individual time to hire: 

o Time to hire for individual hiring actions is determined by calculating 

the number of days between the Request to Recruit (ROE) Date and 

the Verbal (tentative) Offer Date, as reflected in FPPS DataMart. 

 If time to hire results in a negative or zero, it is replaced 

with the value 1. 

 If time to hire cannot be determined (i.e., date not 

available), it is excluded from agency calculations. 

o Time to hire is not calculated for actions In-Progress; it is only 

calculated for Completed actions (i.e., estimated EOD established). 

 Agency time to hire: 

o The Department’s time to hire is an annual rate determined by 

calculating the percent of hiring actions within a fiscal year completed 

within 90 days. 

o Q1, Q2, and Q3 actuals are cumulative, measured from the 

beginning of the fiscal year. 

o Q4 actuals represent the Department’s annual time to hire rate and 

are reported in the Annual Performance Report. 

o Periodic snapshots of time to hire may be computed monthly, 

quarterly or by principal office to help gauge progress toward the 

annual target; however, care should be taken to ensure periodic 

updates are clearly identified as snapshots or progress indicators and 

not represented as the agency’s annual rate.

6.1.D Effective Communication Index Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 

Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey 

(FEVS) 

Any questionable FEVS data points are brought to the attention of OPM. In turn, the OPM 

point of contact responds to the inquiry. Further, if there are questions regarding the 

FEVS data, the Department works with the OPM point of contact to obtain clarity. 

This index score is calculated by the Department by averaging the percent positive scores 

from OPM FEVS questions 53, 58, and 64. 
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 124 

Metric No. Metric (Indicator) Data Source Data Quality, Limitations and Improvements

6.2.A. Percentage of A-133 Single Audits 

Overdue for resolution 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer’s 

(OCFO) Audit Accountability & Resolution 

Tracking System (AARTS) 

Calculations for this metric are determined by dividing the total number of audits that are 

overdue at the end of the Department’s fiscal year by the total number of audits in the 

Department’s inventory. 

Access rights to the AARTS database are managed by Office of the Chief Financial 

Officer (OCFO) and all users receive annual IT security training to help ensure data 

integrity. A Quality Control reviewer initiates a weekly upload of A-133 audit data to 

AARTS through a file submission directly from the Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC). An 

AARTS administrator (separate from the Quality Control reviewer) must verify the 

uploaded data with the actual audits. Data for individual programs are verified by Principal 

Offices (POs) through periodic review by Responsible Managers and Audit Liaison 

Officials. In addition, the specific data for this metric are verified by POs each month as 

part of monthly Dashboard reports. 

Data are validated by OCFO monthly. Staff work to reconcile data reported on the 

Dashboards with any discrepancies reported by the POs. 

6.2.B. Compliance rate of contractor evaluation 

performance reports 

Past Performance Information Retrieval 

System, www.ppirs.gov, “PPIRS 

Compliance Report”

Compliance rates of contractor performance evaluations are set by OMB and are 

calculated by use of a Government wide reporting tool available in the PPIRS 

(www.ppirs.gov).

Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) and Federal Student Aid (FSA) Acquisitions 

staff actively monitor the PPIRS report to ensure that each contractor performance 

evaluation reflected on that report should appear on that report, and to rectify any errors 

on the report. 

6.3.A. Overall average impact score of the 

Department’s technical assistance in 

helping build State capacity to 

implement education reforms 

Annual Grantee Satisfaction Survey The contractor has a quality control system and the results are also provided to all of the 

programs that participate in the survey to identify issues/anomalies with the data. 

 

Program staff report anomalies to the contractor to correct. 

 

The data comes from the Annual Grantee Satisfaction Survey Report (See 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/gss/index.html). The report is produced by a 

contractor; the contract is managed by OCFO. 

 

One major issue with the Grantee Satisfaction Survey is the timing of the survey. The 

survey is administered in late spring/early summer when many staff are out of the office, 

which suppresses the response rate. Also, some grant programs do a better job than 

others of promoting the survey and showing how the survey results have been used to 

make improvements. We have been told that the survey is administered late each year for 

the following reasons: 

--The Interagency Agreement can’t be put into clearance until the budget is approved 

each year; 

--Getting the Interagency Agreement through Departmental clearances takes several 

months; program staff are asked to review their customized survey questions and submit 

their grantee contact lists at the busiest time of the year which makes it difficult to turn 

them around quickly. 
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 125 

Metric No. Metric (Indicator) Data Source Data Quality, Limitations and Improvements

6.4.A. Number of ED IT security incidents Cyber Security Assessment and 

Management (CSAM) and RSA Security 

Operations management (SecOps) 

Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) has standard operating procedures (SOP) 

to verify and validate the data: 1) CSAM SOP, 2) Incident Response SOP, and 3) SecOps 

SOP. This process is executed on a weekly basis. Further, the data is pulled from the 

Department’s authoritative source (system of record) for Incident Response and Tracking. 

In addition, SOPs enforce the use of this capability for entering, tracking, and managing 

all incident related activity. The data is also audited on a routine basis to ensure 

consistency and accuracy. 

6.4.B. EVS Results-Based Performance 

Culture Index 

Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 

Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey 

(FEVS) 

Data verification and validation process is integrated into the OPM FEVS survey results 

validation process. Any questionable FEVS results would be brought to the attention of 

OPM; the Department would then work with the OPM point of contact to obtain clarity. 

Data verification and validation process is integrated into the OPM FEVS survey results 

validation process. The Results-Oriented Performance Culture Index score is calculated 

by OPM by first determining the percent positive for each of the 13 items in the index. 

Then the unrounded percent positive scores are averaged across all index items to get 

the index score. The index score is then rounded for reporting purposes. 

6.4.C. EVS Leadership and Knowledge 

Management Index 
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 126 

Metric No. Metric (Indicator) Data Source Data Quality, Limitations and Improvements

6.4.D Total usable square footage Department’s Master Space Management 

Plan 

The Department reconciles its rent bills per building on a monthly basis. Every six months 

the usable square footage is verified with GSA. 

Because usable square footage relates directly to rent costs, the Department uses the 

same data verification and validation procedures. Specifically, the data are collected 

directly from Occupancy Agreements and rent bills per building. 

The data are derived from historic examples and relevant experience. Department 

leadership has agreed to a set of assumptions by which the data are based. Leadership 

has reached out to subject matter experts to broaden the scope of the data set, and lower 

risks of missing contingencies that may affect the data. At each step, the data are 

reviewed independently to double check the work of each team member and provide 

quality control. These processes help ensure the data’s completeness and reliability.

For the baseline data, the Department made the following assumptions: 

1) All leased buildings: 2% is applied for anticipation of CPI (Consumer Price Index) 

annual increases on the anniversary date of the active lease/occupancy agreement (OA); 

and 2.5% is applied for anticipation of annual tax increases. 

2) All federal buildings: 2.5% is applied for operating cost escalations on the anniversary 

date of the active OA. 

3) 20% is applied to all federal buildings after an OA has expired and a new OA is 

unavailable. (Projected increase on the appraisal.) 

4) 40% is applied to all leased buildings after an OA has expired and a new OA is 

unavailable. (Projected increase on the market rent.) 

5) If a new OA is unavailable, 3 months’ early rent is applied to all buildings that are 

relocating due to possible Department delays. Example: Changes made to the designs 

after Scope of Work (SOW) is completed. 

6) 3 months’ late rent is applied to all buildings that are relocating due to possible 

Department delays. For example, delays in returning space back to a rentable condition. 

 

The Department reconciles its rent bills per building on a monthly basis. 

 

6.4.E Rent cost Department’s Master Space Management 

Plan 

Data are collected directly from OAs and rent bills per building. The actual rent may vary 

significantly if the Department relocates to a new leased building and/or signs short lease 

extensions. The Department is leveraging the examples and experience of the mobility 

labs and building consolidations programs. 

The Department reconciles its rent bills per building on a monthly basis. Every six 

months, leadership will re-evaluate the data, the assumptions on which it is based, and 

incorporate actual costs and project schedules. These steps will become part of our 

quality assurance program and procedures. Leadership looks to improve completeness, 

reliability, and quality of the data at these milestones. 

Total number of the Department’s 2016 external (public-facing) metrics (indicators): 52
APPENDICES

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 127 

Appendix B: Changed Performance Goals 

The Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010 requires 

agencies to “identify performance goals changed or dropped since publication of the 

Annual Performance Plan, if such changes were approved by OMB, and the reasons 

for the changes.”

92

 

92 OMB Circular A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget (2015), Part 6, Section 210.22 – Content for Strategic 

Plans, Annual Performance Plans, Annual Performance Reports 
APPENDICES

CHANGED PERFORMANCE GOALS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 128 

FY 2016 EXTERNAL (PUBLIC-FACING) METRICS BEING REMOVED and NEW METRICS BEING ADDED FOR 2017

GOAL 1: POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION, CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION, AND ADULT EDUCATION. Increase college access, 

affordability, quality, and completion by improving postsecondary education and lifelong learning opportunities for youths and adults.

EXTERNAL 

METRIC NO. METRIC (INDICATOR) BRIEF SUMMARY FOR REMOVAL NEW METRICS FOR 2017 NEW METRIC DATA SOURCE 

1.3.B. Enrollment in IHEs below the minimum 

earnings threshold 

The Department has minimal impact 

on this metric and the rate did not 

change positively in FY 2016. 

No replacement metric is being 

proposed at this time. 

NA

1.1.C. Percentage of first-time FAFSA filers among 

high school seniors 

Federal Student Aid (FSA) reports this 

metric in their Annual Performance 

Report with ranges as targets. The 

Department is moving away from 

using ranges for any of its metrics. The 

new metric will focus on the number of 

first-time FAFSA filers among high 

school seniors, which is 

complementary to what FSA is already 

reporting. Further, the new metric 

highlights the actual impact of FSA’s 

reach by reflecting the actual number 

of students completing the FAFSA 

versus reporting just the percentage 

year-over-year. 

Number of first-time FAFSA filers 

among high school seniors 

FSA’s Central Processing 

System 
APPENDICES

CHANGED PERFORMANCE GOALS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 129 

GOAL 2: ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION. Improve the elementary and secondary education system’s ability to consistently 

deliver excellent instruction aligned with rigorous academic standards while providing effective support services to close achievement and 

opportunity gaps, and ensure all students graduate high school college- and career-ready 

EXTERNAL 

METRIC NO. 

METRIC (INDICATOR) BRIEF SUMMARY FOR 

REMOVAL NEW METRIC(s) FOR 2017 NEW METRIC DATA SOURCE 

2.2.A. Number of states that have fully implemented 

teacher and principal evaluation and support 

systems that consider multiple measures of 

effectiveness, with student growth as a 

significant factor 

In December 2015, the President 

signed into law the Every Student 

Succeeds Act (ESSA), which 

reauthorizes the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965

(ESEA). Under the ESEA as amended 

by the ESSA, the Secretary of 

Education is prohibited from, among 

other prohibitions, prescribing “any 

aspect or parameter of a teacher, 

principal, or other school leader 

evaluation system within a State or 

local educational agency” and 

“indicators or specific measures of 

teacher, principal, or other school 

leader effectiveness or quality.” The 

Department has no new data on the 

number of states implementing 

teacher and leader evaluation and 

support systems consistent with this 

performance metric and no way to 

verify the data reported. 

No replacement metric is being 

proposed at this time. 

NA

2.5.A. Percentage of high school and middle school 

teachers who teach STEM as their main 

assignment who hold a corresponding 

undergraduate degree

Retiring this metric due to the data set 

only being available every four years 

and therefore has not been helpful to 

inform STEM policy efforts. In addition, 

degree held is just one indicator of 

STEM content knowledge and doesn’t 

apply for things like elementary school 

teaching. The data set was also only 

applicable for math and science and 

didn’t capture engineering or computer 

science, which have been important 

STEM disciplines as well. 

No replacement metric is being 

proposed at this time. 

NA
APPENDICES

CHANGED PERFORMANCE GOALS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 130 

GOAL 3: EARLY LEARNING. Improve the health, social-emotional, and cognitive outcomes for all children from birth through 3rd grade, so 

that all children, particularly those with high needs, are on track for graduating from high school college- and career-ready. 

EXTERNAL 

METRIC NO. METRIC (INDICATOR) BRIEF SUMMARY FOR REMOVAL NEW METRIC(s) FOR 2017 NEW METRIC DATA SOURCE 

NA NA NA NA NA

GOAL 4: EQUITY. Increase educational opportunities for underserved students and reduce discrimination so that all students are wellpositioned to succeed. 

4.2.A. Percentage of proactive civil rights 

investigations launched annually that address 

areas of concentration in civil rights 

enforcement 

This metric is too narrow to capture 

the breadth of the Office for Civil 

Rights’ (OCR) work. A new metric is 

being proposed. 

To ensure educational 

institution’s awareness of and 

compliance with federal civil 

rights obligations, the new metric 

focuses on increasing the 

average number of cases 

resolved, per investigative staff 

member. 

OCR’s Case Management 

System (CMS) and human 

resources dashboard 

4.2.B. Percentage of proactive civil rights 

investigations resolved annually that address 

areas of concentration in civil rights 

enforcement 

This metric is too narrow to capture 

the breadth of the Office for Civil 

Rights’ (OCR) work. A new metric is 

being proposed. 

To increase awareness and 

understanding by students and 

their families of their rights, and 

schools, colleges and universities 

of their obligations under federal 

civil rights, the new metric 

focuses on increasing the 

number of technical assistance 

presentations and press 

releases on OCR’s work. 

OCR’s Case Management 

System (CMS) and website 

external metric no. METRIC (INDICATOR) Brief summary for removal New metric(s) for 2017 New metric data source
APPENDICES

CHANGED PERFORMANCE GOALS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 131 

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. 

EXTERNAL 

METRIC NO. 

METRIC (INDICATOR) BRIEF SUMMARY FOR 

REMOVAL NEW METRIC(s) FOR 2017 NEW METRIC DATA SOURCE 

1.1.B. Web traffic to the College Scorecard NA This performance metric is 

transitioning from Goal 1 to Goal 

5.

NA

5.1.C. Number of states linking K-12 with early 

childhood data 

Requesting to replace this metric with 

a new metric related to the number of 

states actively using data systems to 

support and inform improvements, 

which is a more meaningful and useful 

metric. 

Number of states actively using 

data systems to support and 

inform improvements 

Grant monitoring 

GOAL 6: U.S. DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION CAPACITY. Improve the organizational capacities of the Department to implement this strategic 

plan.

EXTERNAL 

METRIC NO.

METRIC (INDICATOR) BRIEF SUMMARY FOR 

REMOVAL NEW METRIC(s) FOR 2017 NEW METRIC DATA SOURCE

6.2.A Percentage of A-133 Single Audits Overdue 

for resolution 

OCFO/Financial Improvement 

Operations is proposing this change 

because the new measure will 

potentially be a more accurate 

measure of the efforts of both program 

office (grants administration) staff and 

staff involved in resolution of Single 

Audits to positively influence lasting 

program improvement. Lack of any 

audit findings is a reflection of effective 

administration by grant recipients and 

improvements over time will validate 

the Department’s overall efforts to 

partner with them to effect positive 

change in their operations. 

Percentage of Department grant 

recipients without any Single 

Audit findings 

Federal Audit Clearinghouse 

(FAC) 

Total number of the Department’s 2016 external metrics being removed FY-end: 8* 

Total number of new external metrics being added in 2017: 5

 

*

 Please note, the total number of metrics removed in FY 2015 was 11 versus the 12 reported in the 2015 APR. 
APPENDICES

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 132 

Appendix C: Additional Programs by Goal 

Most of the Department’s 100-plus programs are funded through discretionary appropriation 

acts enacted each fiscal year. However, there are many education programs—some of them 

large—that are funded directly through their authorizing statutes. For many budgeting purposes, 

these programs are classified as mandatory. For the purposes of this document, resources by 

goal are discretionary funds only. Mandatory programs that contribute to each goal are listed 

below. 

Goal 1: Postsecondary Education, Career and Technical Education, 

and Adult Education

Other discretionary Goal 1 programs/activities include the following: 

POC Account Objective Program

FSA SFA 1 Federal supplemental educational opportunity grants 

FSA SFA 1 Federal work-study 

OCTAE HE NA Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions 

OESE ED NA Special programs for migrant students 

OPE HE 1,2,3 Aid for institutional development: Strengthening institutions

OPE HE 1,2,3 Aid for institutional development: Strengthening tribally controlled colleges and 

universities 

OPE HE 1,3 Child care access means parents in school 

OPE HE College Housing and Academic Facilities Loans Program Account: Federal 

administration 

OPE HE 1,2,3 Developing Hispanic-serving institutions 

OPE HE 1 Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs (GEAR UP)

OPE HE 3 Graduate assistance in areas of national need 

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 Howard University Hospital 

OPE HE 2,3 Howard University: General support 

OPE HE 2 International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs 

OPE HE 2 International education and foreign language studies: Overseas programs 

OPE HE 1,2,3 Minority science and engineering improvement 

OPE HE 1,2 Model transition programs for students with intellectual disabilities into higher 

education

OPE HE 1,2,3 Promoting postbaccalaureate opportunities for Hispanic Americans

OPE HE 1,2,3 Strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions 

OPE HE 1,2,3 Strengthening Asian American- and Native American Pacific Islander-serving 

institutions 

OPE HE 1,2,3 Strengthening HBCUs 

OPE HE 1,2,3 Strengthening historically Black graduate institutions 

OPE HE 1,2,3 Strengthening Native American-serving nontribal institutions 

OPE HE 1,2,3 Strengthening predominantly Black institutions 

OSERS GU 2,3 Gallaudet University

OSERS NTID 2,3 National Technical Institute for the Deaf

NA = Not applicable. 

POC = Principal Operating Component. 

Mandatory programs supporting Goal 1 include: 

POC Account Objective Program

FSA FDSL 1 Federal Direct Student Loans Program Account: Downward modification of existing 

loans (non-add)

FSA FDSL 1 Federal Direct Student Loans Program Account: Downward re-estimate of existing 

loans (non-add)
APPENDICES

ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS BY GOAL

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 133 

POC Account Objective Program 

FSA FDSL 1 Federal Direct Student Loans Program Account: Net modification of existing loans 

(non-add)

FSA FDSL 1 Federal Direct Student Loans Program Account: Net re-estimate of existing loans 

(non-add)

FSA FDSL 1 Federal Direct Student Loans Program Account: New loan subsidy 

FSA FDSL 1 Federal Direct Student Loans Program Account: New net loan subsidy (non-add)

FSA FDSL 1 Federal Direct Student Loans Program Account: Upward modification 

FSA FDSL 1 Federal Direct Student Loans Program Account: Upward re-estimate of existing loans 

FSA FFEL 1 Federal Family Education Loans Liquidating Account: Pre-1992 student loans 

FSA FFEL 1 Federal Family Education Loans Program Account: Downward modification of existing 

loans (non-add)

FSA FFEL 1 Federal Family Education Loans Program Account: Downward re-estimate of existing 

loans (non-add)

FSA FFEL 1 Federal Family Education Loans Program Account: Net modification of existing loans 

(non-add)

FSA FFEL 1 Federal Family Education Loans Program Account: Net re-estimate of existing loans 

(non-add)

FSA FFEL 1 Federal Family Education Loans Program Account: Upward modification of existing 

loans 

FSA FFEL 1 Federal Family Education Loans Program Account: Upward re-estimate of existing 

loans 

FSA FPL 1 Federal Perkins Loan Program 

FSA HEAL 1 Health Education Assistance Loans Liquidating Account 

FSA SFA 1 Federal Pell grants: Mandatory 

FSA SFA 1 Federal Pell grants: Mandatory funding for discretionary program costs 

FSA SFA 1 Iraq and Afghanistan service grants 

FSA TEACH 1 TEACH Grants: Downward re-estimate of existing loans (non-add)

FSA TEACH 1 TEACH Grants: Net re-estimate of existing loans (non-add)

FSA TEACH 1 TEACH Grants: New loan subsidy 

FSA TEACH 1 TEACH Grants: Upward re-estimate of existing loans 

OPE HE 1,2,3 Aid for institutional development: Mandatory strengthening tribally controlled colleges 

and universities 

OPE HE College housing and academic facilities loans liquidating account 

OPE HE College housing loans liquidating account 

OPE HE Higher education facilities loans liquidating account 

OPE HE Historically Black college and university capital financing program account: 

Re-estimate of existing loan subsidies 

OPE HE 1,2,3 Mandatory developing HSI STEM and articulation programs 

OPE HE 1,2,3 Mandatory strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions 

OPE HE 1,2,3 Mandatory strengthening Asian American- and Native American Pacific Islanderserving institutions 

OPE HE 1,2,3 Mandatory strengthening HBCUs 

OPE HE 1,2,3 Mandatory strengthening Native American-serving nontribal institutions 

OPE HE 1,2,3 Mandatory strengthening predominantly Black institutions 

OSERS REHAB 1 Vocational rehabilitation, Grants to Indians 

OSERS REHAB 1 Vocational rehabilitation, state grants 

SFA CHAFL downward re-estimate of loan subsidies 

SFA FDSL downward modification/negative loan subsidies 

SFA FDSL downward re-estimate of loan subsidies 

SFA FFEL downward modification/negative loan subsidies 

SFA FFEL downward re-estimate of loan subsidies 

SFA General receipts, not otherwise specified 

SFA HBCU capital financing downward re-estimate of loan subsidies 

SFA HEAL downward re-estimate of loan subsidies 

SFA Perkins Institutional fund recall (mandatory) 

SFA Perkins loan negative loan subsidies 

SFA 1 Perkins loan repayments 

SFA Proprietary receipts 

SFA Student financial assistance debt collection 

SFA 1 TEACH downward modification/negative loan subsidies 
APPENDICES

ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS BY GOAL

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 134 

Goal 2: Elementary and Secondary Education

Other discretionary Goal 2 programs/activities include the following: 

POC Account Objective Program

OESE ED NA Comprehensive literacy development grants 

OESE ED NA Innovative approaches to literacy

OESE ED NA State agency programs: Neglected and delinquent

OESE I&I NA Advanced placement 

OESE I&I NA Javits gifted and talented education

OESE I&I 2 Supporting effective educator development (SEED)

OESE IA 3 Impact Aid: Construction 

OESE IA 3 Impact Aid: Facilities maintenance 

OESE IA 2,3 Impact Aid: Payments for federal property 

OESE IA 2,3 Impact Aid: Payments for federally connected children: Basic support payments 

OESE IA 2,3 Impact Aid: Payments for federally connected children: Payments for children with 

disabilities 

OESE SIP NA Education for homeless children and youths

OESE SIP 2,3,4 Rural education 

OESE SIP Supplemental education grants 

OESE SSCE 3 Elementary and secondary school counseling 

OESE SSCE 3 Physical education program 

OESE SSCE 3 School safety national activities

OII I&I NA American history and civics education

OII I&I NA Arts in education

OII I&I 3 Non-cognitive skills initiative

OII I&I 2 School leader recruitment and support 

OII I&I 2 Teacher quality partnership

OII SSCE 1,2,3 Full-service community schools

OSERS APBH 1 American Printing House for the Blind 

OSERS SE Education technology, media, and materials 

OSERS SE 3 Parent information centers 

OSERS SE 2 Personnel preparation 

OSERS SE 2 State personnel development 

NA = Not applicable. 

POC= Principal Operating Component. 

Goal 3: Early Learning

Other discretionary Goal 3 programs/activities include the following: 

POC Account Objective Program

OII I&I NA Ready to learn programming

NA = Not applicable. 

POC = Principal Operating Component. 

Goal 4: Equity

No additional programs. 

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

Other discretionary Goal 5 programs/activities include the following: 

POC Account Objective Program

IES IES 3 National Assessment Governing Board
APPENDICES

ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS BY GOAL

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 135 

POC Account Objective Program 

IES IES 3 Special education studies and evaluations 

OCTAE CTAE 1,3 Adult education national leadership activities 

OCTAE CTAE 3 Career and technical national programs 

OESE IE 2 Indian Education: National activities 

OESE SIP 1,3,4 Comprehensive centers 

OSERS SE 1,2,3,4 Technical assistance and dissemination 

POC = Principal Operating Component. 

Goal 6: U.S. Department of Education Capacity 

Mandatory programs supporting Goal 6 include:

POC Account Objective Program 

Contributions 

POC = Principal Operating Component. 

Other 

Programs/activities supporting other performance metrics include: 

(Dollars in millions) 

POC Account Program 

FY 2016 

Appropriation 

FY 2017 

Annualized CR*

FY 2018 

President’s 

Budget 

OSERS REHAB Client assistance state grants 13 13 13 

OSERS REHAB Demonstration and training programs 6 6 6 

OSERS REHAB 

Helen Keller National Center for Deaf-Blind 

Youths and Adults 10 10 10 

OSERS REHAB Independent living services for older blind 

individuals 33 33 33 

OSERS REHAB Protection and advocacy of individual rights 18 18 18 

OSERS REHAB Supported employment state grants 28 27 -- 

OSERS REHAB VR Training 30 30 30 

College housing and academic facilities 

loans program account: Re-estimate of 

existing loan subsidies 0 0 -- 

TOTAL, OTHER 138 138 110

POC = Principal Operating Component. 

CR = Continuing Resolution. 

Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding. 

 

*

 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.
APPENDICES

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 136 

Appendix D: Summary of Performance Evaluations Released 

During FY 2016–17 and Expected During FY 2017–18 

For a complete list of program evaluations and studies from the Office of Planning, Evaluation, 

and Policy Development, please visit 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html. For a complete list of evaluation 

studies of the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, please visit 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/index.asp. 

Evaluation Reports From FY 2016–17

National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance

Literacy 

Summary of Research Generated by Striving Readers on the Effectiveness of 

Interventions for Struggling Adolescent Readers 

1. Study Purpose: Striving Readers was a discretionary grant program focused on raising 

reading achievement of middle school and high school students through intensive 

interventions for struggling readers and enhancing the quality of literacy instruction across 

the curriculum. The 2006 and 2009 cohorts of grantees were required to conduct rigorous, 

experimental evaluations. The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) provided technical 

assistance to support grantees in conducting evaluations that would meet What Works 

Clearinghouse (WWC) standards. This study also conducted a systematic review of the 

17 evaluations of 10 different interventions funded by Striving Readers across the 16 grants. 

2. Key Question Addressed: 

 What do the evaluations funded by the Striving Readers program tell us about effective 

interventions for improving the achievement of struggling adolescent readers? 

3. Design: The study is descriptive; it provided technical assistance to the local evaluations of 

Striving Readers grantees and also reviewed the completed evaluations against the WWC 

evidence standards. The report summarizes the results of this systematic review of the 

evaluations. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The final report was released in October 2015. 

5. Key Findings: 

 Fifteen of the 17 evaluations of the interventions funded by the Striving Readers grant 

program met WWC evidence standards with or without reservations. 

 Based on findings from the 15 evaluations that met WWC evidence standards with or 

without reservations, 4 of the 10 interventions funded by the Striving Readers grant 

program had positive, potentially positive, or mixed effects on reading achievement. 

 The Striving Readers studies not only expand the evidence base on effective reading 

interventions for adolescents, but also increase the number of high-quality effectiveness 

studies reviewed by the WWC on this topic. Three of the four interventions that had 

positive, potentially positive, or mixed effects on reading achievement had not previously 

been reviewed by the WWC. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 137 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20164001/ 

School Choice 

Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: Descriptive Reports Based on 

Parent and Principal Surveys 

1. Study Purpose: The April 2011 Scholarships and Opportunities for Results Act (SOAR Act) 

provided for a five-year continuation of a school choice program for low-income residents of 

Washington, DC. The program, still titled the Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP), now 

provides annual scholarships of $8,000 (for grades K–8) or $12,000 (for grades 9–12) to 

enable low-income students to attend private schools in DC in lieu of the public schools 

already available to them. The new law also mandated another independent, rigorous 

evaluation of the effectiveness of the program. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 What is the impact of the 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 does the program have on student and parent perceptions of school safety 

and satisfaction, and on parents’ involvement in education of their children? 

 Does the program change students’ instructional environments and opportunities? 

3. Design: The evaluation will primarily compare outcomes of approximately 1,800 student 

applicants randomly assigned by lottery to either receive a scholarship 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 will be collected for three follow-up 

years for each of the cohorts and, for students in both the scholarship and nonscholarship 

groups. The contractor will administer academic assessments, and conduct student, parent, 

and principal surveys each spring (spring 2013–17). Prior to the first impact report, 

descriptive reports based on application forms parents filled out when they applied to the 

OSP, principal surveys, and extant data will be released. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The second and third descriptive reports—focused on 

select findings from parent and principal surveys—were released in 2016. The first impact 

report is scheduled for completion in early 2017. 

5. Key Findings from the Second Report: 

 The majority of parents seeking a private school voucher for their child were satisfied 

with the school their child was attending at the time of application. Fifty-seven percent of 

applicants’ parents gave their child’s current school at time of application a grade of ‘A’

or ‘B’, while 14 percent gave their child’s school a ‘D’ or ‘F.’ 

 Most applicants’ parents (49 percent) chose academic quality as their top priority when 

selecting a new school. The next most commonly selected top priority was school safety 

(selected by 18 percent of applicants’ parents). 

 Among the 49 percent of parents that said academic quality was their top priority for a 

new school, over 85 percent were satisfied with the academic quality of the school their 

child was attending when they applied for a scholarship. This suggests that families do 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 138 

not always apply for private school vouchers because they are dissatisfied with key 

elements of the schools their children are already attending. 

Key Findings from the Third Report: Spring 2014 survey responses from principals at DC 

public schools—both traditional and charter—and private schools that participated in the 

OSP indicate that private schools participating in the OSP: 

 Were more likely than public schools to report that student behavior, student motivation, 

parental support for learning, and the instructional skills of teachers were excellent or 

very good; 

 Were less likely than public schools to suspend students, use metal detectors, and have 

on-site security personnel; 

 Taught reading and math for fewer minutes a week across grade levels than public 

schools; and 

 Were less likely than public school to have instructional programs for non-English 

speakers and students with learning disabilities. 

6. Links to Additional Information: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20164003/, 

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20164007/

Students with Disabilities 

Evaluation of Response to Intervention Practices for Elementary School Reading 

1. Study Purpose: The focus of this study was on the implementation and effects of Response 

to Intervention (RtI) practices for elementary school reading. RtI is a multistep approach to 

providing early and more intensive intervention and monitoring within the general education 

setting. In principle, RtI begins with research-based instruction provided to students in the 

general education classroom, followed by screening of all students to identify those who 

may need systematic progress monitoring, intervention, or support. Students who are not 

responding to the general education curriculum and instruction are provided with 

increasingly intense interventions through a “tiered” system, and they are frequently 

monitored to assess their progress and inform the choice of future interventions. This 

evaluation occurred under the National Assessment of the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA), which permits districts to use RtI to inform decisions regarding a 

child’s eligibility for special education.

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 How do RtI practices for early grade reading vary across schools? 

 How do schools experienced with RtI vary the intensity of reading instruction for children 

at different reading levels? 

 What are the effects on grade 1–3 reading achievement of providing reading 

interventions to children who fell just below school-determined standards for each grade 

on screening tests? 

3. Design: The evaluation relied on a combination of descriptive data collection from school 

staff and regression discontinuity methods to address the research questions, and focused 

on practices in place during the 2011–12 school year in a sample of 146 elementary schools 

from 13 states. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 139 

4. Actual Completion Date: The study report was released in November 2015. 

5. Key Findings:

 Full implementation of the RtI framework in grade 1–3 reading was reported by 

86 percent of the experienced elementary schools sampled for in-depth study, compared 

with 56 percent of a random sample of elementary schools from the same 13 states. 

 The schools sampled for in-depth study of their RtI practices provided more intense 

small-group instruction and more reading intervention services for groups of students 

reading below grade level than for groups of students reading at or above grade level. 

However, these schools’ implementation of RtI differed in some ways from descriptions 

in the prior literature: 

 In grade 1, 45 percent of schools provided intervention services to some groups of 

students at all reading levels, rather than only for reading groups below grade level. 

 In grade 1, 67 percent of schools provided at least some reading intervention during 

the core reading block, rather than only in addition to the core. 

 Grade 1 students who scored just below school-determined benchmarks on fall 

screening tests, and who were assigned to reading interventions, had lower spring 

reading scores than similar students in the same schools who were not assigned to 

those interventions. Unexplored, but plausible, factors that may be related to these 

negative effects include incorrect identification of students for intervention and a 

mismatch between the interventions provided and these students’ instructional needs. 

No statistically significant effects of assignment to reading interventions were found for 

students in Grades 2 or 3. 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20164000/

Teacher Effectiveness 

Evaluation of the Teacher Incentive Fund: Implementation and Impacts of Pay-forPerformance After Three Years 

1. Study Purpose: The Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) was renamed the Teacher and School 

Leader Incentive Program with reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act (ESEA) in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The purpose of the TIF program is 

to develop and implement performance-based compensation systems (PBCSs) for teachers, 

principals, and other personnel in high-need schools. Research indicates that high-quality 

teachers are critical to raising student achievement in low-performing schools, but schools 

most in need often have difficulty in attracting and retaining high-quality teachers. 

Performance pay is a policy promoted by the TIF program to improve the quality of teachers 

in high-need schools. This evaluation studies performance pay that provides substantial and 

differentiated bonus pay to high-performing teachers in low-performing schools with highneed students. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 What are the characteristics of all TIF districts and their performance-based 

compensation systems? What implementation experiences and challenges did TIF 

districts encounter? 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 140 

 How do teachers and principals in schools that did or did not offer pay-for-performance 

bonuses compare on key dimensions, including their understanding of TIF program 

features, exposure to TIF activities, allocation of time, and attitudes toward teaching and 

the TIF program? 

 What is the impact of pay-for-performance bonuses on students’ achievement on state 

assessments of math and reading? 

 How do pay-for-performance bonuses affect educator mobility, including whether 

mobility differs by educator effectiveness? 

3. Design: Study schools were randomly assigned within a grant to either implement all 

components of the PBCS or the PBCS with a 1 percent across-the-board bonus in place of 

the differentiated effectiveness incentive component of the PBCS. Data collection will 

include a grantee survey, a survey of teachers and principals, teacher and principal school 

assignment records, student record information (such as student demographics and student 

test scores), and grantee interviews to document implementation information, as well as to 

conduct impact analyses. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: A report on the implementation and early impacts 

after one year was released in September 2014. The second report on the ongoing 

implementation and impacts after two years was released in September 2015. The third 

report on implementation and impacts after three years was released in August 2016. A 

fourth and final report is scheduled for release in the fall of 2017. 

5. Key Findings: The main findings among all TIF districts with 2010 awards are: 

 Similar to the previous two years, most districts (88 percent) implemented at least three 

of the four required program components for teachers. 

 By the third year, reported implementation challenges decreased, with no more than 

one-fifth of TIF districts reporting any major challenges. 

For the subset of 10 districts that agreed to participate in a random assignment study, 

key findings on the effect of pay-for-performance on educators include the following: 

 After three years of TIF implementation, average student achievement remained 1 to 

2 percentile points higher in schools that offered pay-for-performance bonuses than 

in schools that did not. This difference was equivalent to a gain of about four 

additional weeks of learning. 

 At least half of the evaluation districts each year met the grant guidance for awarding 

differentiated performance bonuses for teachers. However, in each year, no more 

than 2 of the 10 districts awarded bonuses for teachers that were substantial or 

challenging to earn. 

 Teachers’ understanding of performance measures continued to improve, but only about 

60 percent of teachers correctly reported being eligible for a performance bonus. In 

addition, teachers believed that the maximum bonus they could earn was no more than 

two-fifths the size of the actual maximum bonus that districts awarded, a finding similar 

to previous years. 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20164004/ 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 141 

Focusing on Mathematical Knowledge: The Impact of Content-Intensive Teacher 

Professional Development 

1. Study Purpose: Title II, Part A of the current ESEA provides monetary resources to improve 

teacher quality through professional development. Currently there is relatively little rigorous 

empirical evidence on the components of an effective professional development program. At 

the same time, there has been renewed policy interest in fostering a globally competitive 

STEM workforce, which will require teachers to effectively impart mathematics to their 

students. This study will present implementation and impact findings from a random 

assignment evaluation of an intensive math professional development intervention focused 

on enhancing teacher content knowledge and integrating this knowledge into the classroom. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 What is the average impact on (a) teachers’ content knowledge, (b) teachers’ classroom 

practices, and (c) student achievement of offering a specialized professional 

development intervention (in this case, Intel Math, Mathematics Learning Communities, 

and Video Feedback Cycles) relative to “business-as-usual” professional development? 

 How is the professional development intervention implemented? 

3. Design: Approximately 200 volunteer fourth-grade math teachers from six districts around 

the country participated in this study during the 2013–14 school year. The intervention has 

three components: i) Intel Math (80 hours largely focused on developing teachers’

understanding of K–8 mathematics), ii) Mathematics Learning Communities (which offers 

teachers opportunities to connect their learning to the classroom through a professional 

learning community aligned to Intel Math that focuses on student thinking), iii) Video 

Feedback Cycles (which provide teachers with individualized feedback three different times 

based on videotaped lessons of their classroom teaching reviewed by certified analysts 

using the Mathematical Quality of Instruction [MQI] rubric). Within each participating school, 

fourth-grade teachers were randomly assigned to receive either the professional 

development intervention or business-as-usual professional development. Data collection 

includes measures of teacher knowledge and practice, and student achievement obtained 

from administrative records. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: A report on implementation and impacts was released 

in September 2016. 

5. Key Findings: 

 The professional development had a positive impact on teacher knowledge: Average 

scores on a study-administered math test were 21 percentile points higher for teachers 

who received the study professional development than for those who did not. 

 The professional development had a positive impact on some aspects of instruction: 

Average ratings of teachers’ use and quality of math explanations in the classroom were 

23 percentile points higher for teachers who received the study professional 

development than for those who did not. 

 The professional development did not have a positive impact on student achievement: 

Students of teachers who received the professional development scored, on average, 

2 percentile points lower than control teachers’ students on both a study-administered 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 142 

math test and state assessment. In general, this difference was not statistically 

significant. 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20164010/

Other 

Case Studies of Schools Receiving School Improvement Grants: Final Report 

1. Study Purpose: School Improvement Grants (SIGs) are authorized by Title I, Section 

1003(g) of the ESEA. The purpose of the grants—awarded based on the Title I funding 

formula to states, which then competitively distribute the funds to districts applying on behalf 

of their eligible schools—is to support the turnaround of the nation’s persistently lowestachieving schools. The first cohort of SIG, which is the focus of this study, received funding 

beginning in the 2010–11 school year. To qualify for the three-year grant in the first cohort, 

schools must (among other requirements) have been willing to implement one of four 

prescribed intervention models: turnaround, restart, closure, or transformation. About 

$546 million was allocated in FY 2009 for SIG with a supplement of $3 billion from the 

Recovery Act. With the possibility of rollover funds, this amounts to a $3.5 billion injection 

into the SIG program during the 2010–11, 2011–12, and 2012–13 school years. This study 

will provide descriptively rich, primarily qualitative information for a small set of schools 

receiving SIG in the first cohort to implement an intervention model beginning in the 

2010–11 school year. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 What is the background and context of these persistently lowest-achieving schools? 

How do the leadership and staff in these schools define the performance problem, and 

to what do they attribute their problems? 

 What leadership styles do the principals of these persistently lowest-achieving schools 

exhibit? What actions do these schools engage in to try to improve their history of low 

performance? 

 What is the change process in these persistently lowest-achieving schools, particularly in 

terms of school climate and staff capacity? 

 What improvements do school stakeholders perceive during the three-year course of 

SIG, and do these improvements appear to be sustainable? 

3. Design: This study employs a school-level case study design. A core sample of 25 SIG 

schools was purposively selected from six states to represent a range of geographic 

regions, urbanicities, school sizes, racial/ethnic compositions, socioeconomic statuses, SIG 

intervention models, and SIG funding levels, among other factors. Data collection took place 

over three school years, beginning in spring 2011 and concluding in spring 2013, and 

included interviews with each state’s SIG leaders, a teacher survey, and site visits to the 

case study schools, which included analysis of fiscal records, as well as interviews and 

focus groups with district officials, principals, teachers, parents, union officials, external 

support providers, and students. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: A final report was released in April 2016. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 143 

5. Key Findings: 

 Most case study schools (22 of 25) replaced their principal at least once in the year 

before SIG or the first two years of SIG: Two of the four SIG intervention models 

required the principal to be replaced. About half of the new principals were described by 

school staff as an improvement over their predecessor. 

 Twelve of the 25 case study schools replaced at least half of their teachers by the 

second year of SIG: Respondents in more than half of the 12 schools characterized the 

change as positive. All but one of the 25 schools created new nonteaching positions in 

the first two years of SIG, with the most frequent positions being instructional, 

technology, or data coaches and additional school administrators. 

 In 15 of the 25 case study schools, most of the teacher professional development was 

job-embedded: According to teacher survey responses, professional development more 

often focused on math, literacy, or data use than classroom management or improving 

instruction for English learners and special education students. In most schools, 

teachers reported changing their practice after participating in professional learning on 

math, literacy, or data use. 

 Sustaining improvements may be challenging: In more than half of the 12 schools the 

study followed for all three years of SIG, teachers felt their school had changed in 

primarily positive ways. However, just two of these schools show strong prospects for 

sustaining improvement, while six show mixed prospects, and four show weak 

prospects. The schools that had higher organizational capacity by the third year of SIG 

had higher sustainability prospects. 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20164002/

Policy and Program Studies Service (PPSS) 

Implementing Accountability and Supports Under ESEA Flexibility 

1. Study Purpose: This study examines the early implementation of the ESEA Flexibility 

initiative at the state and local levels. The study includes reviews of state and local 

documents; interviews with education officials at the state, district, and school level in early 

implementing states; and analysis of baseline student outcome and other data obtained 

through extant data sources. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 What are the primary components of state accountability and support systems under 

ESEA Flexibility? 

 What modes of communication did states and districts use to inform and build local-level 

understanding of state accountability and support systems under ESEA Flexibility? How 

did local-level officials perceive state accountability systems under ESEA Flexibility, 

including the criteria being used to identify low-performing schools? 

 What approaches did states take to identify and intervene in low-performing districts and 

schools? What improvement strategies did principals report implementing? 

 What supports were states and districts providing to low-performing schools? How did 

officials perceive their capacity to implement the ESEA Flexibility provisions for state 

support and accountability systems, and what challenges did they report? 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 144 

3. Design: The primary data sources for this study included state ESEA Flexibility applications, 

state and district policy documents, and interviews with officials identified by state and 

district leaders as holding primary responsibility for accountability and support systems 

under ESEA Flexibility. 

4. Actual Completion Date: The report was released in February 2016. 

5. Key Findings: 

 In developing updated accountability systems, five of the 12 states in the study used a 

combined subgroup as part of their system, and eight of the 12 devised their own goals 

for measuring student achievement. Eight of the 12 created a designation category for 

low-performing schools that did not meet the priority and focus designation criteria. 

 State officials reported providing support to priority and focus schools through regional 

technical assistance organizations, external support providers, and early warning 

systems. Ten of the 13 priority and focus school principals described receiving more 

frequent or more intensive support than in years prior to ESEA Flexibility. 

 State officials described building capacity through cross-agency collaborations, 

developing staff expertise, partnering with districts, implementing organizational 

changes, and consolidating funding streams. 

 Nearly all state officials (11 of 12) reported holding periodic committees, advisory 

councils, and commissions to share ESEA Flexibility update to districts. 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/title-i/implementingaccountability-esea-flexibility/report.pdf

Evaluation of the Teacher Incentive Fund: Final Report 

1. Study Purpose: This study examines program implementation in the first two cohorts of 

grantees for the TIF program (2006 and 2007), which included 33 grantees. All 33 grantees 

implemented performance pay systems for principals and other school administrators; 31 

grantees also included teachers in their performance pay systems. The final report 

complements a previous 2012 report from this study on the early implementation of the 

program, and analyzes award payouts and educator perspectives on a variety of issues 

related to implementation. 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

 How did the size and distribution of incentive awards vary across educators and 

grantees? 

 To what extent were incentive payments based on student achievement vs. other factors 

such as supports for improving practice, performance evaluations, and teaching in hardto-staff schools or subjects? 

 How did participating educators perceive the fairness and effectiveness of the 

performance pay system? 

3. Design: Data collection included surveys of a representative sample of teachers and 

principals in schools served by TIF projects; financial data for awards paid to educators; 

interviews with TIF project directors, teachers, principals, and other stakeholders; and 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 145 

reviews of extant documents. The surveys were conducted in spring 2011, and the incentive 

award payout data are primarily for the 2010–11 school year. 

4. Actual Completion Date: The report was released in June 2016. 

5. Key Findings: 

 Across all educators who received an incentive award, the average award was $3,651 

for teachers and $5,508 for administrators. These average awards represented 

approximately 8 percent of average teacher salaries and 6 percent of average principal 

salaries. 

 Within grantees, the average teacher award ranged from $1,170 for the grantee with the 

smallest average award to $8,772 for the grantee with the largest average award 

(2–24 percent of average salaries), and the average administrator award ranged from 

$814 to $10,711 (1–13 percent of average salaries). 

 Awards for student achievement gains comprised the largest share of incentive payouts 

to teachers and administrators; 64 percent of teacher award payouts and 63 percent of 

administrator award payouts were based on student achievement. 

 Smaller proportions of incentive payouts were based on performance evaluations 

(13–14 percent), participation in supports for improving practice (12–14 percent), and 

working in hard-to-staff schools and subjects (6–12 percent). 

 Teachers were less likely than principals to agree that their performance pay system 

was fair (46 percent vs. 64 percent). However, 55 percent of both teachers and 

principals agreed that the possible award size was large enough to motivate them to 

earn it. 

6. Link to Additional Information: 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#tq 

Case Studies of the Implementation and Use of Kindergarten Entry Assessments (KEAs) 

1. Study Purpose: The purpose of the KEAs implementation case studies is to examine the 

processes, accomplishments, challenges, and solutions of four states implementing KEAs 

and to share what they have learned with federal and state policymakers and the field. Of 

particular interest is to identify what is working well in states that are early adopters of KEAs. 

This information is needed to support the technical assistance efforts of the Department and 

to inform KEA efforts across the nation. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 How did the four case study states develop or adopt KEAs? 

 How did the four states train teachers to administer KEAs and to what extent did 

teachers feel prepared to do so? 

 What were the KEA implementation experiences of the 12 case study districts? 

 To what extent did the states, districts, and schools in the study use KEA results to 

inform policy and practice? 

 What challenges did the case study sites experience with KEAs, and what strategies did 

sites use or suggest using to address these challenges? 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 146 

3. Design: The study consisted of document reviews, telephone interviews with state agency 

respondents and local preschool directors, and in-person interviews with district 

administrators, principals, kindergarten teachers, and other KEA assessors. Data were 

collected in 12 districts and 23 schools in Maryland, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington 

between January and June 2015 and include information from a total of 201 interviews. 

4. Actual Completion Date: The report was released in August 2016. 

5. Key Findings: 

 State officials and stakeholders considered multiple criteria when developing or adopting 

KEA measures: reliability and validity, appropriateness for all students, usefulness for 

informing classroom instruction, usefulness for informing early learning policies and 

program improvement, feasibility of administration by teachers, and cost. 

 The four states trained teachers on KEA administration through self-paced webinars, 

in-person presentations, and train-the-trainer models. A majority of the interviewed 

teachers said the training prepared them to administer the KEA to students, though 

many teachers reported that they had difficulty in determining what were appropriate 

accommodations for English learner students and students with disabilities and indicated 

that they needed further assistance. 

 District officials reported working to reduce the burden associated with KEA data 

collection and entry by purchasing new technology, providing staffing assistance to 

teachers with KEA administration, and omitting or delaying other assessments. 

 Although the majority of interviewed teachers reported that they had not yet used formal 

KEA reports to inform their instructional practices, a few teachers said that the 

impressions they gained while administering the KEA helped them to understand their 

students’ strengths and needs and to assign students to instructional groups. 

 District administrators and teachers identified challenges with administering KEAs with 

English learner students and students with disabilities, using KEA results to inform 

instruction, and sharing KEA data with parents; they suggested that state officials could 

address these challenges by providing explicit training on these topics, on-site coaching, 

and tailored reports to help educators use and share the data. 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/kindergarten-entryassessments/report.pdf

A Study of Practices to Improve Learning in Kindergarten Through Third Grade 

1. Study Purpose: This study summarized how (a) aligning preschool through third grade 

education and (b) differentiating instruction for children in kindergarten and first grade may 

build on the positive effects of preschool and help students in kindergarten through third 

grade (K–3) make cognitive, social-emotional, and academic gains. In addition, the study 

conducted case studies of five programs that may build on the positive effects of preschool 

by using policies, programs, and practices for alignment and differentiation. 

2. Key Questions Addressed in the Literature Review: 

 What approaches does the research and theoretical literature suggest for aligning 

preschool through third grade (P–3) education, and what is the quality of the research 

studies? 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 147 

 What are the findings from studies of differentiated instruction on children in kindergarten 

and first grade, and what is the quality of these studies? 

Key Questions Addressed in the Case Studies: 

 What approaches did the five programs use to implement P–3 alignment? 

 In programs that implemented differentiated instruction, what approaches did staff use? 

3. Design: The literature review covered two topics: (1) preschool and K–3 alignment, and 

(2) differentiated instruction in kindergarten and first grade. The case studies examined five 

sites that implemented P–3 alignment or differentiating instruction in kindergarten and first 

grade. The research team interviewed principals, teachers, evaluators, and funders to 

understand programs’ characteristics, challenges and solutions, and the sustainability of the 

programs. 

4. Actual Completion Date: The literature review was released in August 2016, and the case 

study report was released in December 2016. 

5. Key Findings from the Literature Review: 

 Nearly all qualitative studies and policy and theory articles on P–3 alignment suggest 

aligning standards, curriculum, instruction, assessments, and environments across 

preschool and grades K–3.

 P–3 alignment could be supported by establishing similar teacher education and training 

requirements and developing longitudinal data systems that integrate preschool and 

K–12 data. 

 Of the 17 quantitative studies of differentiated instruction, one RCT of the Individualized 

Student Instruction With Assessment to Instruction intervention demonstrated positive 

results on reading outcomes and had the potential to meet the criteria for strong causal 

evidence. 

 Qualitative studies of differentiated instruction indicate that opportunities for peer 

collaboration and guidance by mentors may be helpful to improve teacher practice 

related to differentiation. 

Key Findings from the Case Studies:

 All five programs aligned instruction across grades by coordinating standards, curricula, 

instructional practices and professional development. 

 Common elements of these programs included the use of professional learning 

communities, coaches, parent engagement, and play-based or student-initiated learning. 

 All five programs reported using strategies to accommodate students’ different skill 

levels, including modifying assignments, adapting learning materials, providing different 

levels of support, or using small-group instruction. 

6. Links to Additional Information: 

Literature review: http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/p-3-alignment-differentiatedinstruction/report.pdf 

Case studies: http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/implementing-early-strategies/report.pdf
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 148 

Study of Emerging Teacher Evaluation Systems 

1. Study Purpose: This study will provide descriptive information on the design and early 

implementation of teacher evaluation systems in eight school districts. The findings are 

intended to help other districts and states learn from the experiences of eight districts 

featured in the study, and apply the design and implementation lessons to their own work as 

it relates to teacher evaluation and support. 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

 What key priorities and measures informed the design of the new teacher evaluation 

systems? 

 What steps did the districts take prior to full implementation to test the system and 

prepare teachers and staff to implement it? 

 How did the districts structure and conduct the classroom observation component of 

their teacher evaluation systems? 

 How did the districts analyze student performance and other data to evaluate teacher 

performance? 

 How did the districts use, or plan to use, teacher evaluation results to make personnel 

decisions? To what extent were professional development and career advancement 

decisions tied to evaluation results? 

 What administrative structures did districts use to support their new teacher evaluation 

systems? 

 What are the perceived early effects of the teacher evaluation systems on the 

professional practices of teachers, principals and district administrators? 

3. Design: This descriptive study relied on interviews with key district administrators, principals, 

teachers, and representatives of community stakeholder groups, from eight districts, who 

were involved in the development and early implementation of the respective districts’ 

teacher evaluation system. Given the limited sample, the findings cannot be generalized to 

other districts. 

4. Actual Completion Date: The final report was released in November 2016. 

5. Key Findings: 

 Teachers and central office staff generally agreed that the foremost goal of the teacher 

evaluation system was to improve instruction.

 Teacher and principal input during the design and/or pilot test phase strongly influenced 

decisions regarding system modifications in six districts, according to district 

administrators. 

 Classroom observations varied in frequency, duration, and degree of formality in all eight 

districts. In addition, principals reported challenges in finding time to conduct teacher 

observations. 

 Six districts used multiple approaches for measuring teacher impact on student 

performance, including individual and/or school-level value-added models. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 149 

 Districts used teacher evaluation results for a range of purposes, including targeted 

professional development and support, career ladders and performance pay, and in 

some instances, redeployment or release of teachers identified as ineffective. 

 The majority of districts created relatively simple, streamlined structures to administer 

their teacher evaluation systems. 

 Teachers reported that they believed that the classroom observations and feedback 

helped them become better teachers. 

6. Link to Additional Information: 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#tq

State Efforts to Promote Equitable Access to Effective Teachers 

1. Study Purpose: This report provides a broad overview of state efforts, as of the 2011–12 

school year, to monitor equitable access to qualified and effective teachers among schools; 

develop and adopt multiple measures of teacher performance to rate teachers among at 

least three performance levels; and implement targeted strategies for promoting equitable 

access to qualified and effective teachers in schools serving high proportions of poor and/or 

minority students. The report examines the use of measures of teacher qualifications and 

teacher performance in the implementation of these strategies. 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

 What measures did states use to monitor equitable access to qualified and effective 

teachers among schools? 

 To what extent were states developing or using multiple measures of teacher 

performance to rate teachers among at least three performance levels? 

 What strategies did states use to promote equitable access to qualified and effective 

teachers in schools serving high proportions of poor and/or minority students? 

3. Design: This report is based on telephone interviews with officials in SEAs in all states, the 

District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Study staff also reviewed extant sources including 

equity plans, Consolidated State Performance Reports, reports from federal monitoring 

visits, and other information on state websites. The interviews were conducted between 

August 2011 and January 2012, and the study reflects state efforts that were underway at 

that time, and predates implementation of the fall 2011 ESEA Flexibility initiative as well as 

the recent state equity plans submitted under the Excellent Educators for All initiative. 

4. Actual Completion Date: The final report was released in January 2017. 

5. Key Findings: 

 In 2011–12, states most commonly monitored equitable access to qualified and effective 

teachers among schools using measures of teacher qualifications. 

 Four states reported using measures of teacher performance—student achievement 

growth and/or measures of teacher practice—to monitor equitable access to qualified 

and effective teachers among schools, and nine states used teacher performance 

measures to monitor the quality of the teacher workforce overall. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 150 

 In two of the four states that reported using teacher performance measures to monitor 

equitable access among schools, officials reported seeing larger inequities than were 

previously detected using measures of teacher qualifications alone. 

 Six states reported that they had adopted multiple measures of teacher performance and 

were using them to rate teachers among at least three performance levels in 2011–12, 

and 38 states indicated that there were in the process of developing such measures. 

 Offering monetary incentives was the most common strategy that states reported using 

in disadvantaged schools to promote equitable access to qualified and effective teachers 

among schools (24 states). 

 Other state-reported strategies that were directed specifically at disadvantaged schools 

for promoting equitable access were specialized professional development (14 states) 

and teacher recruitment and preparation programs (14 states). 

6. Link to Additional Information: 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#tq 

Feasibility Study on Improving the Quality of School-Level Expenditure Data 

1. Study Purpose: This study explores the feasibility of improving the collection of school-level 

expenditure data by examining the nature and quality of school-level fiscal data collection in 

five states and four school districts that had developed their own systems for collecting and 

reporting school-level expenditures: Florida, Hawaii, Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, Baltimore 

City, Hillsborough County, Houston, and Los Angeles 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

 In states and districts that have developed systems to report expenditures at the school 

level, what types of personnel and nonpersonnel expenditures are included in the 

school-level data? 

 To what extent do the sites track actual expenditures to individual schools versus 

allocating or prorating expenditures to schools using formulas? 

 How consistent are school-level expenditure data obtained from these systems with 

similar data from other sources? How do the funding amounts attributed to individual 

schools based on formula allocations compare to those based on tracking actual 

expenditures? 

 What lessons can other states and districts learn from these sites if they wish to 

implement systems for reporting accurate and reliable data on school-level 

expenditures? 

3. Design: The study included (1) surveys and interviews of officials to understand the process 

of collecting school-level expenditure data and (2) collection and analysis of school-level 

spending data to examine data quality issues. The study examined three aspects of data 

quality: the comprehensiveness of school-level spending data, consistency with other data 

sources, and the relative accuracy of allocating expenditures to schools by formula (rather 

than tracking actual expenditures for each school). 

4. Actual Completion Date: The final report was released in January 2017. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 151 

5. Key Findings: 

 Study sites reported that they attributed most categories of spending to the school level, 

including salaries for teachers, administrators, and other support staff as well as 

nonpersonnel items, such as textbooks, instructional materials, furniture and equipment, 

and computers and software. 

 The school districts and states in this study attributed an average of three-quarters of 

operational expenditures to individual schools, demonstrating that it is feasible to link a 

significant share of spending to the school level. 

 Most of the expenditures that the study sites attributed to schools were directly tracked 

to schools (85 percent) rather than simply being allocated by formula (8 percent). 

 Comparisons between the site-reported school-level expenditures and other data 

sources showed a relatively high degree of consistency for salary expenditures, but 

nonpersonnel expenditure data were much less consistent. 

 Allocating expenditures to schools by formula (e.g., based on total salaries or staff) 

appeared relatively accurate for health benefits and less accurate for pension benefits, 

pupil support staff, and instructional support staff. 

 Instituting a system for collecting school-level expenditure data typically required new 

hardware and software (eight sites), changes to charts of accounts (six sites), and staff 

training (eight sites). 

 Advice that interviewees offered for others aiming to implement school-level expenditure 

data systems was to get stakeholders involved, communicate clearly and frequently, and 

think long-term about future data needs. 

6. Link to Additional Information: 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#title 

Study of Experiences and Needs of Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP) 

Grantees and Subgrantees 

1. Study Purpose: This descriptive study examined how grantees and subgrantees use REAP 

funds provided through the Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) and Rural and LowIncome Schools (RLIS) programs—on their own or in combination with other federal funds—

as well as to explore technical assistance needs related to REAP. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 What role do states play in supporting the Department’s SRSA and RLIS eligibility and 

award determination process? 

 How do districts use their SRSA or RLIS funds? 

 To what extent do SRSA-eligible districts use REAP Flex and for what purposes? 

 What recommendations do states and districts have for improving the operation of the 

SRSA and RLIS programs? 

3. Design: The study consisted of: 1) a survey of a sample of approximately 1,000 SRSA 

grantees and RLIS subgrantee districts; 2) telephone interviews with a sample of 30 SRSA 

grantees and RLIS subgrantees; and 3) telephone interviews with REAP coordinators in all 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 152 

states receiving REAP funds. Data collection began in winter 2015 and was completed by 

spring 2015. At the state level, the study included interviews with all state REAP 

coordinators about state goals and priorities, the planning process for use of RLIS funds, the 

eligibility process for districts, management and distribution of SRSA and RLIS funds, and 

recommendations for the program. At the school district level, the study included an online 

survey of a nationally representative sample of REAP coordinators about the REAP 

eligibility determination process, administration of REAP, and challenges and technical 

assistance needs related to REAP, as well as telephone interviews with a subsample of 

30 districts. The interviews included questions about program administration, technical 

assistance needs, and recommendations for changing the REAP program to better meet the 

needs of rural districts. 

4. Actual Completion Date: The report was completed in December 2016. 

5. Key Findings: 

 States supported the Department in determining REAP eligibility by providing districtlevel data and reviewing the accuracy of Department-provided data. 

 All 43 states with RLIS-eligible districts chose to make subgrants to districts on the basis 

of a funding formula rather than on a competitive basis, and 28 of these states based the 

subgrant amount entirely on average daily attendance (ADA). 

 Districts most frequently used SRSA and RLIS funds to improve or expand access to 

technology (71 percent of SRSA districts and 71 percent of RLIS districts) and to provide 

educator professional development (45 percent of SRSA districts and 58 percent of RLIS 

districts). 

 Forty-six percent of SRSA district coordinators reported exercising REAP-Flex; of these, 

82 percent reported that they used funds eligible for REAP-Flex to maintain a stable 

level of funding for ongoing activities. 

 The majority of both district and state REAP coordinators were highly satisfied with 

REAP as a whole. However, they provided recommendations for improvement to REAP 

in three categories: (1) improved timelines for eligibility and award determination, 

(2) more information on allowable uses of funds and REAP-Flex, and (3) revised 

eligibility criteria. 

6. Link to Additional Information: 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#rural
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 153 

Summary of Performance Evaluations Expected During FY 2017 and 

FY 2018*

National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance

Pathways to Career or College 

Enhancing Advising to Improve College Fit in Upward Bound 

1. 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, including those in high-profile college access programs. One aspect of this 

concern is that many low-income high school students fail to enroll in colleges that are well 

aligned with their qualifications, talents, and needs. This report provides the early impacts of 

a low-cost enhancement to current college advising approaches in Upward Bound that is 

designed to improve college fit and persistence. The approach includes professional 

development for Upward Bound advisors and user-friendly packets of information for 

students that demonstrate the value of considering a range of institutional indicators in their 

college application, search, and acceptance process.

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

 Can an enhanced college advising approach improve upon what Upward Bound 

grantees are already doing—i.e., 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? 

3. Design: About 200 Upward Bound grantees that volunteered were randomly assigned in 

spring 2015 so that half received the professional development and packets to begin using 

with their rising 2015–16 seniors (the treatment group) and half did not receive the 

enhancements for use with rising 2015–16 seniors (the control group); however, the control 

group did receive training and packets a year later to use with rising 2016–17 seniors. A 

survey administered in spring 2016 to seniors in both sets of projects collected information 

about their college planning, including the number of applications. The study will also 

examine those seniors’ later enrollment and persistence in college using administrative 

records. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The first report on early impacts (number of college 

applications, FAFSA completion by March 15) is expected in fall 2017. A second report 

examining impacts on college enrollment and fit is expected in early 2018. 

5. Link to Additional Information:

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/pathways_upward.asp 

 

*

 This section was last updated in April 2017. Key findings are included for reports that were released during the first half of FY 2017 

(October 2016 to March 2017). All other reports that are expected but not yet released in the second half of FY 2017 or in FY 2018 

have estimated completion dates only. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 154 

Is Access to Data Enough? The Effects of Providing Information on Student FAFSA 

Completion Directly to School Districts 

1. Study Purpose: Completing a Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) is a key but 

challenging task for many students applying to college, particularly for low-income students. 

The Department has responded to concerns about the complexity of the FAFSA, including 

through the FAFSA Completion Project which started with a 20-district pilot in 2010 and 

expanded in 2012 to almost 100 more. One component of the project was consistent urging 

by federal officials and some technical assistance for participating districts to help them 

conduct FAFSA promotion and outreach activities districtwide. But the Department also 

provided districts with ongoing and direct access to federal data on which seniors had not 

submitted a FAFSA so that schools could provide targeted support to individual students. 

The evaluation tested whether that data access had an impact on FAFSA completion rates 

above and beyond the other FAFSA activities the districts might have implemented. The 

study was conducted by IES staff and designed to be low-burden, and low-cost, depending 

only on the Department’s data for measuring effectiveness.

2. Key Question Addressed: 

 Does making the student-level data available improve FAFSA completion rates? 

3. Design: Just over 60 districts that had more than one high school participated in the 

evaluation, for a total of 567 schools. IES randomly assigned the schools within each district 

to either an “early start” (treatment) group, which would have access to the FAFSA 

completion status for 2013 seniors, or a “later start” (control) group, which would have 

access for 2014 seniors. Because many districts had relatively small numbers of schools, 

pairs of schools were matched prior to random assignment to help ensure that important 

characteristics of schools were balanced between the treatment and control groups. At the 

beginning of the evaluation, districts provided the lists of all seniors in each school and 

these were matched against the Department’s federal student aid database so that FAFSA 

completion rates in March 2013 and September 2013 could be compared between the two 

groups of schools. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The report is expected in fall 2017. 

5. Link to Additional Information:

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/pathways_fafsa.asp

The Effectiveness of Text Messaging to Support College Transition of GEAR Up Students 

1. Study Purpose: GEAR Up is one of the U.S. Department of Education’s college access 

programs, funding states or local partnerships of districts and postsecondary institutions to 

serve students in high need schools beginning in 7th grade. The 2008 amendments to the 

Higher Education Act (HEA) allowed GEAR Up grantees to serve participating students 

beyond high school graduation and into a first year of college, when they might be 

dispersing to a variety of college campuses. This demonstration evaluates a low-cost way to 

provide these services, building on emerging evidence that customized text messages can 

help students overcome logistical and behavioral challenges that might otherwise derail their 

college matriculation and persistence into sophomore year. The messages include 

reminders and information relating to college registration, course selection, financial aid 

award and renewal, meeting with college advisors and faculty, and tuition payments, and 

provide a way to access real-time support from GEAR Up counselors. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 155 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

 Do the text-based reminder strategies improve GEAR Up students’ rates of college 

enrollment and persistence? 

 For which types of students is the strategy more or less beneficial? 

3. Design: The first grantees eligible to use funds to support a year of post-high school 

services and who have seniors entering that phase have been targeted for the 

demonstration. Across about 80 schools, approximately 6,000 seniors in school years 

2015–16 or 2016–17 will be randomly assigned to receive either the college transition 

services grantees originally proposed in their applications or those regular transition 

services plus the customized reminders and support through text messages. Reminders and 

support will begin at the end of students’ high school senior year and continue into the 

spring of their expected first year of college. The study team will administer a survey before 

the reminder messaging begins, 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, will be measured using administrative records. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The first report examining impacts on initial college 

enrollment is expected in fall 2018. 

5. Link to Additional Information:

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/pathways_gearup.asp

Upward Bound at 50: Reporting on Implementation Practices Today 

1. Study Purpose: Upward Bound is the oldest and largest of the federal college access 

programs targeted to low-income students and those who would represent the firstgeneration of college completers in their families. First established in 1965, the program 

currently serves more than 60,000 high school students at a cost of about $4,300 per youth 

with a wide array of academic and college transition support services. While much about the 

structure of Upward Bound and the services to be offered are prescribed in legislation, little 

is currently known about the intensity, duration, and mix of services provided by projects or 

about how they are delivered. Because of the importance of its mission, and the 

comprehensiveness and costs of its services, Upward Bound has long been of interest to 

policymakers. This report describes the approaches to providing program services as 

reported by Upward Bound project directors. 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

 Within the core service areas of the program, where do projects focus their efforts? 

 How are services delivered to Upward Bound participants? 

 In what ways does the focus or delivery of services vary across different Upward Bound 

projects? 

3. Design: This descriptive report relies primarily on findings from a summer 2013 survey of all 

regular Upward Bound project directors. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The report was released in November 2016. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 156 

5. Key Findings: 

 In four of the seven core service areas—coursework, tutoring, college exposure, and 

college application assistance—there was a dominant approach (used by at least 

50 percent of projects) to how projects focused their activities. There was no dominant 

approach to how projects focused their efforts when it came to academic advising, 

ACT/SAT prep, and financial aid prep services. 

 When, where, and how services were delivered differed across service areas. There was 

no dominant approach to when projects offered services except for tutoring, which was 

typically available after school. The dominant location for services (where) was at the 

projects’ host institution for coursework, college entrance exam prep, and college and 

financial aid application assistance, but other services were more likely to be provided at 

students’ high schools. Finally, tutoring and college entrance exam preparation services 

were most commonly delivered (how) in groups, while academic advising, college 

application assistance, and financial aid assistance were typically provided one-on-one.

 Variation in the focus and delivery of services appears related to the urbanicity and type 

of institution (four-year, two-year, and nonhigher education) that hosts the project but not 

to other project characteristics examined. There were few substantive differences (at 

least 10 percentage points) in the percentage of projects reporting each potential 

approach by project size (number of students served), per-student funding, and whether 

the host institution was a Minority-Serving Institution. 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20174005/ 

School Choice 

Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: Impacts After One and Two 

Years 

1. Study Purpose: The April 2011 SOAR Act provided for a five-year continuation of a school 

choice program for low-income residents of Washington, DC. The program, still titled the 

Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP), now provides annual scholarships of $8,000 (for 

grades K–8) or $12,000 (for grades 9–12) to enable low-income students to attend private 

schools in DC in lieu of the public schools already available to them. The new law also 

mandated another independent, rigorous evaluation of the effectiveness of the program. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 What is the impact of the 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 does the program have on student and parent perceptions of school safety 

and satisfaction, and on parents’ involvement in education of their children? 

 Does the program change students’ instructional environments and opportunities? 

3. Design: The evaluation will primarily compare outcomes of approximately 1,800 student 

applicants randomly assigned by lottery to either receive a scholarship 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 will be collected for three follow-up 

years for each of the cohorts and, for students in both the scholarship and nonscholarship 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 157 

groups. The contractor will administer academic assessments, and conduct student, parent, 

and principal surveys each spring (spring 2013–16). Prior to the first impact report, 

descriptive reports based on application forms parents filled out when they applied to the 

OSP, principal surveys, and extant data were released. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The first impact report is expected in spring 2017. The 

second impact report is expected by early 2018. 

5. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/choice_soar.asp

Parent Information and School Choice Evaluation 

1. Study Purpose: School choice is among the most visible K-12 education policy trends to 

emerge over the last two decades. For school choice to be effective, it seems critical that 

parents are able to navigate school choice systems and process large amounts of complex 

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. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 What is the optimal way to present school choice information? (E.g., which presentation 

formats make school performance/achievement data easiest to understand?) 

 What is the right amount of information to provide to parents whom might be making a 

school choice? (E.g., is there a limit to the number of choice options and amount of 

information that parents can reasonably consider?) 

 How is school choice information best organized? (E.g., does the order in which 

information is presented shape how it is understood and used? Is there a way to make 

the information parents most often report caring about salient?) 

3. Design: The evaluation findings will be based on low cost quick turn-around “lab” based 

experiments. These studies will take advantage of opportunistic samples of low income 

parents in order to test a large number of potentially promising information strategies and to 

obtain findings within a relatively short period of time. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: A short user-friendly guide, based on the evaluation’s 

findings, that will help school districts and other providers of school choice information 

design or refine their own parent information materials is expected in October 2017. 

5. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/choice_parent.asp

Students with Disabilities 

Impact Evaluation of Training in Multi-Tiered Systems of Support for Behavior (MTSS-B)

1. Study Purpose: Training school staff in supporting student behavior is becoming 

increasingly attractive to districts and schools as a vehicle for school improvement. 

Implementation of MTSS-B is an approach to improving school and classroom climate as 

well as student outcomes. MTSS-B is a multi-tiered, systematic framework for teaching and 

reinforcing behavior for all students as well as for providing additional support to those who 

need it. Over a third of U.S. districts report implementing MTSS-B at the elementary school 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 158 

level. Recent studies have shown the promise of MTSS-B, and a large-scale study of the 

effectiveness of MTSS-B is needed. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 What MTSS-B training and support activities were conducted? 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 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)? 

3. Design: This is a randomized trial of the impact of training in MTSS-B on school climate, 

school staff practice, and student outcomes. The contractor, with assistance and input from 

the Department and in consultation with a panel of experts, selected a MTSS-B training 

provider, the Center for Social Behavior Support (CSBS), which is a collaboration between 

the Illinois-Midwest PBIS Network at the School Association for Special Education in 

DuPage, Illinois (SASED) and the PBIS Regional Training and Technical Assistance Center 

at Sheppard Pratt, in Maryland. Approximately 90 elementary schools will be randomly 

assigned to either training in MTSS-B including universal supports (Tier I) plus targeted 

interventions for at-risk students (Tier II) or a business-as-usual control group. Treatment 

schools will receive training in MTSS-B prior to and across two school-years, 2015–2016 

(Tier I) and 2016–2017 (Tiers I and II), and implement MTSS-B across these two years. 

Data collection will include staff surveys, teacher ratings of student behavior, classroom 

observations, site visits, and student records data. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The report is expected in 2018. 

5. Link to Additional Information:

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/disabilities_MTSSB.asp

National Evaluation of the IDEA Technical Assistance and Dissemination Program: Final 

Report 

1. Study Purpose: IDEA, which was most recently reauthorized in 2004, provides funds to 

assist states and local educational agencies in making available a free, appropriate public 

education for children with disabilities. Funded at $12.6 billion in FY 2010, IDEA supports 

early intervention services for infants and toddlers, special education and related services 

for children ages 3 through 21, and early intervening services for students not in special 

education but in need of academic or behavioral support. IES is conducting studies under 

Section 664 of IDEA to assess the implementation and effectiveness of key programs and 

services supported under the law. 

As specified in IDEA Part D, the Technical Assistance and Dissemination (TA&D) program is 

to provide technical assistance, support model demonstration projects, disseminate useful 

information, and implement activities that are supported by scientifically based research to 

meet the needs of children with disabilities. The National Evaluation of the IDEA TA&D 

program is designed to describe the products and services provided by the TA&D program 

grantees, state and local needs for technical assistance, and the role that the TA&D 

program plays in meeting these needs and supporting implementation of IDEA. The State 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 159 

Deaf-Blind Projects are part of the TA&D Program and are the focus of the evaluation’s final 

report. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 What technical assistance and dissemination activities do State Deaf-Blind Projects 

provide and how does this vary across the states? 

 How do State Deaf-Blind Projects collaborate with other organizations in their state, with 

other technical assistance providers, and across the network of State Deaf-Blind 

Projects? 

 What are the needs for technical assistance among direct service providers who work 

with children and youth with deaf-blindness? 

 How satisfied are direct service providers with services received from the State DeafBlind Projects? 

3. Design: Data collection for the interim report included administering surveys to the national 

and regional level TA&D program grantees, all state IDEA Part B and Part C administrators, 

and a sample of state-level special education program staff. Data were collected between 

November 2012 and March 2013. State-level administrators and staff reported on their 

receipt of technical assistance from TA&D program grantees during the 2010–11 school 

year. Grantees reported on their goals and activities from the beginning of their current grant 

through the interview date. The funding period for the centers included in the interim report 

varied, with the earliest end date in 2012 and the latest in 2014. Data collection for the final 

report included administering surveys to the 48 state level deaf-blind projects awarded 

grants in 2013 and to a sample of local level special and general education providers 

currently working with deaf-blind children. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The final report is expected in summer 2017. 

5. Link to Additional Information:

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/disabilities_idea2004.asp

Preparing for Life After High School 

1. Study Purpose: Phase I of the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2012 (NLTS 2012), 

also referred to as the Study of Transition Outcomes for Youth with Disabilities Phase I, is 

the third in a series examining the characteristics and school experiences of a nationally 

representative sample of youth with disabilities. NLTS 2012 focuses on youth ages 13 to 21 

(in December 2011), but also includes a small sample of students without disabilities to 

enable direct comparisons of students with and without individualized education programs 

(IEPs). It is part of the congressionally mandated National Assessment of the IDEA and is 

supported with funds authorized under Section 664 of IDEA. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 What are the personal, family, and school characteristics of youth with disabilities in 

public schools across the country? 

 What regular education, special education, transition planning, and other relevant 

services and accommodations do youth with disabilities receive? 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 160 

 How do the services and accommodations differ from those of youth not served under 

IDEA, including those identified for services under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act? 

 How do the services and accommodations for youth with disabilities vary with the 

characteristics of youth? 

 How much have the services and accommodations of youth with disabilities changed 

over time? 

3. Design: Phase I of the study collected survey data (spring 2012–summer 2013) on a 

nationwide sample of 12,000 youth in school, of which 10,000 are students with IEPs across 

the federal disability categories. Surveys of both youth and their parents/guardians were 

administered. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: A report assessing existing research on the 

effectiveness of transition strategies for youth with disabilities was released August 2013. 

Two volumes of a report describing the survey results were released in March 2017. The 

third and final volume of this report is expected later in 2017. 

5. Key Findings from the first two volumes of the March 2017 report include: 

 Youth with an IEP, particularly those with intellectual disability and emotional 

disturbance, are more likely than their peers to be socioeconomically disadvantaged. 

Youth with an IEP are 12 percentage points more likely to live in low-income households 

and are less likely to have parents who are employed or have a college education. 

Among disability groups, youth with intellectual disability and youth with emotional 

disturbance are more socioeconomically disadvantaged and more likely to attend a 

lower-performing school than youth with an IEP overall. In contrast, youth with autism 

and youth with speech or language impairments are less socioeconomically 

disadvantaged and less likely to attend a lower-performing school than youth with an IEP 

overall. 

 The vast majority of youth with and without an IEP feel positive about school, but those 

with an IEP experience bullying and are suspended at higher rates. Like their peers, 

more than 80 percent of youth in special education report that they are happy with 

school and with school staff. However, not only do youth with an IEP more commonly 

experience some types of bullying (e.g., being teased or called names) but, according to 

parent reports, they are more than twice as likely to be suspended or expelled from 

school. Among the disability groups, youth with emotional disturbance are most likely to 

report being teased and are suspended, expelled, and arrested at more than twice the 

rates of youth with an IEP on average. 

 Youth with an IEP are more likely than other youth to struggle academically, yet less 

likely to receive some forms of school-based support. Half of all youth with an IEP report 

they have trouble with their classes, about 15 percentage points more than reported by 

their peers. However, they are less likely to report receiving school-based academic help 

before or after regular hours, although their parents more commonly help with homework 

and attend a parent-teacher conference. Among youth with an IEP, those with autism, 

intellectual disability, and multiple disabilities are least likely to receive school-provided 

instruction outside of school hours though most likely to receive modified tests and 

assignments. 

 Youth with an IEP lag their peers in planning and taking steps to obtain postsecondary 

education and jobs. Substantially fewer youth with an IEP expect to enroll in 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 161 

postsecondary education or training, compared to youth without an IEP. Reflecting these 

gaps, youth in special education are almost half as likely as their peers to report taking 

college entrance and placement tests. Forty percent report having recent paid work 

experience while in high school, compared with 50 percent of youth without an IEP. 

Among youth with an IEP, the three groups least likely to receive academic supports 

before or after school—youth with autism, intellectual disability, and multiple 

disabilities—are also least likely to take these steps to prepare for college and 

employment. 

 Youth with autism, deaf-blindness, intellectual disability, multiple disabilities, and 

orthopedic impairments are most at-risk for not transitioning successfully beyond high 

school. Youth in these groups are less likely than all youth with an IEP to have key 

characteristics and experiences linked to success after high school, such as performing 

typical daily living tasks, engaging with friends and in school activities, or preparing for 

college, careers, and independent living. 

6. Link to Additional Information: 

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/disabilities_nlts2012.asp 

Preschool Special Education Programs and Practices Supporting Children with 

Disabilities 

1. Study Purpose: Most recently authorized in 2004, IDEA provides funding to states to support 

special education and related services for children and youth with disabilities, including 

young children ages 3–5 years old. Currently there is limited information available on the 

curricula and interventions being used across states to support young children with 

disabilities. Phase I of the Evaluation of Preschool Special Education Practices is being 

conducted to address the primary objective of assessing the feasibility of conducting a largescale impact study of curricula or interventions promoting the literacy, language, and/or 

social-emotional skills of preschool-age children with disabilities. A secondary objective of 

the Phase I study is to provide nationally representative descriptive information about 

preschool special education programs and the specific curricula or interventions being 

delivered to preschool children with disabilities. 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

 Which curricula and interventions are used nationally for preschool children with 

disabilities to promote learning of language, literacy, and social emotional skills? 

 How are states and school districts structuring programs to serve children ages 3 

through 5 with disabilities? 

 What staff resources are available to support the instruction of children ages 3 through 5 

with disabilities? 

3. Design: The study collected survey data from state and district grantees of IDEA funds to 

obtain nationally representative information on the programs, services, curricula and 

interventions available to children ages 3–5 identified for special education services. The 

survey sample included a nationally representative sample of 1,200 school district preschool 

special education coordinators and state Section 619 coordinators in all 50 states and DC. 

Additionally, an evidence review will be conducted to identify preschool curricula and 

interventions focused on improving literacy, language, and social emotional skills of 

preschool-aged children with disabilities for the design of impact study options. If an impact 

study is feasible to conduct, preparations for the impact study will occur under Phase I. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 162 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: A descriptive report on the survey findings is 

expected in 2018. 

5. Link to Additional Information:

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/disabilities_preschool.asp 

Study of Early Intervention and Special Education Services and Personnel 

1. Study Purpose: IDEA was most recently authorized in 2004 to promote a free appropriate 

public education for children with disabilities. Funded at $12.5 billion in FY 2015, IDEA 

supports early intervention services for infants and toddlers (IDEA Part C), special education 

and related services for children ages 3 through 21 (IDEA Part B), and early intervening 

services for students not in special education but in need of academic or behavioral support. 

Under Section 664 of IDEA 2004, IES is conducting studies to assess the implementation 

and effectiveness of key programs and services supported under the law. This study is 

supporting the analysis of extant data to examine early intervention and special education 

service delivery and the personnel providing services. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 How has the delivery of early intervention services changed over time, and how do these 

services differ for subgroups defined by age and state? 

 How have special education services changed over time, and how do these services 

differ for subgroups defined by age, disability category, and state? 

 How has the distribution of personnel providing special education services changed over 

time? 

3. Design: This study includes new descriptive analysis of extant data available in public use or 

restricted formats. Among the data sources that are being used are cross-sectional Section 

618 data submitted by states to the Department and the NCES Schools and Staffing Survey. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The report is expected in summer 2017. 

5. Link to Additional Information: 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/disabilities_persserv.asp 

Teacher Effectiveness 

Does Content-Focused Teacher Professional Development Work? Findings from Three 

Institute of Education Sciences Studies 

1. Study Purpose: Federal and local governments continue to invest billions of dollars each 

year in professional development for teachers. Until recently, there has been little rigorous 

evidence to inform the design and delivery of these professional development programs. 

Nevertheless, there has been growing consensus that deepening teachers’ content 

knowledge is an essential component of effective professional development in both reading 

and mathematics. Over the past decade, IES conducted three large-scale random 

assignment studies of teacher professional development in different grades in reading and 

math. These studies, which are the focus of this brief, reveal a common pattern of findings 

on the impact of intensive, content-focused professional development on teaching and 

learning. The findings also highlight unresolved issues that future research might explore to 

advance our understanding and inform professional development policy and practice. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 163 

2. Key Questions Addressed: This brief synthesizes findings from three large-scale random 

assignment studies of professional development that were conducted by the National Center 

for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance in IES. Each study examined the impact 

of teacher professional development on teacher knowledge, practice, and student 

achievement. 

3. Design: Although the professional development programs in each study were different, they 

all emphasized building teachers’ content knowledge or knowledge about content-specific 

pedagogy. The programs combined summer institutes with periodic teacher meetings and 

coaching during the school year. These programs were compared to the substantially less 

intensive professional development that teachers typically received in study districts. The 

three studies included 270 second-grade reading teachers, 165 fourth-grade math teachers, 

and 195 seventh-grade math teachers. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The brief was released in November 2016. 

5. Key Findings: 

 The professional development improved teachers’ knowledge and some aspects of their 

practice; 

 Improving teachers’ knowledge and practice did not lead to positive impacts on student 

achievement; 

 Most of the measured aspects of teachers’ knowledge and practice were not correlated 

with student achievement; and 

 The consistent pattern of findings suggests that future studies might seek to better 

understand on what aspects of teacher knowledge and practice professional 

development should focus, and how professional development can achieve a larger 

impact on knowledge and practice that also impacts student achievement. 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20174010/

Impact Evaluation of Professional Development for Teachers on Data-Driven Instruction 

1. Study Purpose: Title II, Part A of ESEA funds a broad array of activities to improve teacher 

quality, including professional development. One possible focus of professional 

development is how to use ongoing data from student performance and assessments. 

These data provide information about students’ academic needs and are already available 

to principals and teachers but may not be used effectively. This study evaluates the 

effectiveness of professional development for teachers to use such data to guide instruction. 

Existing evidence on data-driven instruction strategies is limited; however, it suggests that 

professional development that helps teachers focus on individual students’ academic needs 

is promising. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 What are the effects on student achievement of providing professional development to 

principals and teachers that focuses on using individual student academic information 

already available to school staff to guide instruction? 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 164 

 What are the effects of providing this professional development on teachers’ and 

principals’ use of individual student academic information to inform instructional support, 

planning, and practice? 

3. Design: The study is a randomized controlled trial with a sample of 104 schools in 

12 districts. In each district, schools were randomly assigned to treatment (professional 

development) or to control (business as usual) status. Data collection will consist of a 

teacher survey, a principal survey, and student administrative records, including student 

state standardized achievement test scores. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The report is expected in summer 2018. 

5. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_datadriven.asp 

Impact Evaluation of Teacher and Leader Evaluation Systems 

1. Study Purpose: The study is designed to examine the implementation of a package of 

performance evaluation system components and the impact of their use for formative 

purposes. These are components that states and districts might elect to include in their 

evaluation systems, with support from Title II Part A funds under the ESSA. The 

components include measures of student achievement growth, classroom practices, and 

principal leadership. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 What is the impact of the performance evaluation system on student achievement? 

 What is the impact on teachers’ classroom practices? 

 What are districts’ and educators’ experiences with implementation? 

3. Design: Within each of eight districts, approximately 15 elementary and middle schools were 

randomly assigned to receive the study’s measures of student achievement growth, 

classroom practices, and principal leadership during 2012–13 and 2013–14 (treatment 

group) or to participate only in the district’s usual performance evaluation system during the 

same time period. In treatment schools, each year, teachers received four rounds of 

classroom observations and feedback sessions and information about their students’

achievement growth in math and/or reading using a statistical model known as value-added. 

Principals in treatment schools received feedback on their leadership practices twice per 

year. Study data collection included surveys of teachers and principals, observations of 

teachers’ classroom practices, and collection of student records data. The study also looks 

at the extent to which the measures were implemented as intended and whether the ratings 

from the measures reliably distinguish educator performance. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: A report on first year implementation findings was 

released in November 2016. A final report on impacts on educator practices and student 

achievement as well as implementation during the study’s second year is expected in fall 

2017. 

5. Key Findings: The main findings from the study’s first report are: 

 The study’s performance measures were implemented generally as planned. Teachers 

and principals received multiple rounds of ratings and feedback on their practices. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 165 

However, fewer principals and teachers accessed their student growth reports than the 

study intended. 

 Both classroom observation and student growth measures differentiated teacher 

performance, although observation scores were mostly at the upper end of the scale. 

Overall, observation scores varied across teachers, and both value-added scores and 

average classroom observation scores over the year had sufficient reliability to capture 

performance differences among some teachers. 

 The principal leadership measure differentiated performance, but principal self-ratings, 

teachers’ ratings of the principal, and the principal’s supervisor’s ratings of the principal 

often differed. 

 Both teachers and principals in treatment schools reported receiving more feedback on 

their performance than did their counterparts. For example, teachers and principals in 

treatment schools reported spending more total time in performance feedback sessions 

across the year than teachers and principals in the control schools. 

6. Links to Additional Information:

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_performance.asp

Impact Evaluation of the Teacher Incentive Fund 

1. Study Purpose: The TIF was renamed the Teacher and School Leader Incentive Program 

with reauthorization of the ESEA in the ESSA. The purpose of the TIF program is to develop 

and implement performance-based compensation systems (PBCSs) for teachers, principals, 

and other personnel in high-need schools. Research indicates that high-quality teachers are 

critical to raising student achievement in low-performing schools, but schools most in need 

often have difficulty in attracting and retaining high-quality teachers. Performance pay is a 

policy promoted by the TIF program to improve the quality of teachers in high-need schools. 

This evaluation studies performance pay that provides substantial and differentiated bonus 

pay to high-performing teachers in low-performing schools with high-need students. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 What are the characteristics of all TIF grantee districts and their performance-based 

compensation systems? What implementation experiences and challenges did TIF 

districts encounter? 

 How do teachers and principals in schools that did or did not offer pay-for-performance 

bonuses compare on key dimensions, including their understanding of TIF program 

features, exposure to TIF activities, allocation of time, and attitudes toward teaching and 

the TIF program? 

 What is the impact of pay-for-performance bonuses on students’ achievement on state 

assessments of math and reading? 

 How do pay-for-performance bonuses affect educator mobility, including whether 

mobility differs by educator effectiveness? 

3. Design: Study schools were randomly assigned within a grant to either implement all 

components of the PBCS or the PBCS with a 1 percent across-the-board bonus in place of 

the differentiated effectiveness incentive component of the PBCS. Data collection will 

include a grantee survey, a survey of teachers and principals, teacher and principal school 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 166 

assignment records, student record information (such as student demographics and student 

test scores), and grantee interviews to document implementation information, as well as to 

conduct impact analyses. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The first report was released in September 2014. The 

second report was released in September 2015. The third report was released in August 

2016. The fourth and final report, which will include updated impacts, is expected in fall 

2017.

5. Key Findings from the Third Report: The main findings among all TIF districts with 2010 

awards are: 

 Similar to the previous two years, most districts (88 percent) implemented at least three 

of the four required program components for teachers. 

 By the third year, reported implementation challenges decreased with no more than 

one-fifth of TIF districts reporting any major challenges. 

 For the subset of 10 districts that agreed to participate in a random assignment study, 

key findings on the effect of pay-for-performance on educators include the following: 

 After three years of TIF implementation, average student achievement remained 1 to 

2 percentile points higher in schools that offered pay-for-performance bonuses than in 

schools that did not. This difference was equivalent to a gain of about four additional 

weeks of learning. 

 At least half of the evaluation districts each year met the grant guidance for awarding 

differentiated performance bonuses for teachers. However, in each year, no more than 

2 of the 10 districts awarded bonuses for teachers that were substantial or challenging to 

earn. 

 Teachers’ understanding of performance measures continued to improve, but only about 

60 percent of teachers correctly reported being eligible for a performance bonus. In 

addition, teachers believed that the maximum bonus they could earn was no more than 

two-fifths the size of the actual maximum bonus that districts awarded, a finding similar 

to previous years. 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_incentive.asp

Impact Evaluation of Support for Principals 

1. Study Purpose: Title II, Part A, the Improving Teacher State Formula Grants program, is the 

primary federal funding under ESEA to support high-quality educators. The program targets 

high-poverty districts and funds a broad array of allowable activities for principals and 

teachers, such as support for certification, teacher mentoring and induction, intensive 

professional development, recruitment, retention, and merit-based teacher and principal pay 

strategies as well as class size reduction. Principals, through a collective focus on 

instructional and organizational leadership and human capital management, have the 

potential to greatly influence the quality of instruction. However, there is limited evidence 

about the effectiveness of principal professional development programs and their ability to 

improve principals’ leadership skills and school quality. This evaluation studies professional 

development for principals and thus provides an important source of information for this 

program. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 167 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 What are the professional development experiences of principals? 

 What are the initial impacts on school climate and educator behaviors of providing 

principals structured and intensive professional development? 

 What are the impacts on teacher retention, the effectiveness of instructional staff, and 

student achievement of providing principals with structured and intensive professional 

development? 

3. Design: The study team will randomly assign within 10 districts a total of 100 elementary 

schools to a treatment or control group. Treatment group principals will be offered intensive 

professional development provided by the University of Washington’s Center for Educational 

Leadership during the 2015–16 and 2016–17 school years. The Center for Educational 

Leadership was competitively selected to provide the professional development focused on 

in this study. The professional development includes a heavy emphasis on instructional 

leadership activities, including support in conducting school walkthroughs and classroom 

observations with constructive feedback to facilitate teacher growth focused on improving 

student achievement. Control group principals will receive supports normally offered by the 

district. Data collection will include: information about the professional development 

delivered and experienced by the participating principals; teacher and principal surveys and 

periodic logs of principal daily activities to document intermediate outcomes, such as 

principal behaviors and school climate; and administrative records to document student 

outcomes (e.g., achievement, behavior, attendance) and teacher outcomes (e.g., retention 

of effective teachers, quality of newly hired teachers). 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The first report, which will focus on implementation 

and intermediate outcomes, is expected in spring 2018. 

5. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_principals.asp

Study of Teacher Preparation Experiences and Early Teacher Effectiveness 

1. Study Purpose: A primary focus of the ESSA’s Title II Part A is on the improvement of 

teacher quality. Little research exists, however, to inform how best to prepare teachers for 

the classroom. This study provides descriptive information on the preparation experiences of 

a large sample of novice teachers. It also will examine whether the instructional skills that 

teachers learn about and have opportunities to practice in their preparation programs are 

associated with teachers’ effectiveness once they are in the classroom. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 To what extent do teachers report participating in various preparation experiences? How 

much variation is there within and between programs? 

 Among novice teachers, what are the relationships between the teachers’ experience in 

their preparation programs and the achievement of students in their classroom? 

3. Design: Approximately 3,200 novice language arts and/or math teachers from grades 4 

through 6 participated in the study. In spring 2015, the teachers responded to a survey 

focused on their preparation experiences related to instructional skills that have been shown 

to be associated with teacher value-added scores. For each instructional skill, the teachers 

were asked about the nature of their learning experiences, including how they learned (e.g., 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 168 

through coursework or through practice in K-12 classroom) and the extent to which they 

found the experience useful. The study will also compute value-added scores for teachers, 

based on students’ state math and English language arts tests, and examine the 

relationships between teacher preparation experiences and teacher value-added scores. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: A report describing teachers’ preparation experiences 

and the relationship between experiences and teacher value-added scores is expected by 

fall 2017. 

5. Link to Additional Information:

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_teacherprep_early.asp. 

Study of the Distribution of Effective Teaching 

1. Study Purpose: There is a persistent achievement gap in the United States where students 

from high-income families outperform those from low-income families on achievement tests. 

There is also substantial variation in the effectiveness of teachers. A key question for 

policymakers is whether policy initiatives focused on providing low-income students with 

equal access to effective teachers can address the achievement gap. This study provided 

information about the extent to which disadvantaged students received less-effective 

teaching than other students. The study also examined teacher mobility in participating 

districts and how patterns of mobility might contribute to unequal access. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 Are low-income students taught by less effective teachers than high-income students? If 

so, to what extent would providing equal access to effective teachers reduce the student 

achievement gap? 

 Are there differences between high- and low-poverty schools in teacher hiring, transfer, 

and attrition? If so, are they consistent with inequitable access to effective teachers for 

low-income students? 

3. Design: The study documented low-income students’ access to effective teachers, as 

measured by value added across the 2008–09 through 2012–13 school years. The study 

also described district polices designed to address inequitable distribution of effective 

teaching implemented during those years. Lastly, the study examined teacher mobility 

patterns within participating districts. Annual data collection included district administrative 

records, such as student achievement to conduct value added analyses, as well as annual 

semi-structured interviews with district leadership to provide information on district policies. 

District personnel data were also collected to examine teacher mobility within participating 

districts. The study was conducted in 29 geographically dispersed school districts. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The final report on school years 2008–09 through 

2012–13 was released in October 2016. 

5. Key Findings from the Final Report: The final report focused on low-income students’ access 

to effective teachers and teacher mobility patterns in 26 districts and found that: 

 There are small differences in the effectiveness of teachers of high- and low-income 

students, on average. The average teacher of a low-income student is just below the 

50th percentile of effectiveness based on value-added, while the average teacher of a 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 169 

high-income student is at the 51st percentile. Providing low-income students with equally 

effective teachers would not substantively reduce the achievement gap. 

 In a subset of the study districts, there is meaningful inequity in teacher effectiveness in 

math. In 3 of the 26 study districts, providing low-income students with teachers whose 

effectiveness is equal to that of high-income students over a five-year period would 

reduce the math achievement gap by at least a tenth of a standard deviation of student 

achievement, the equivalent of about 4 percentile points. 

 Teacher hiring patterns are consistent with small inequities in access to effective 

teachers. High-poverty schools have more newly hired teachers than low-poverty 

schools, but this difference is likely to have a small influence on equity because 

(1) relatively few teachers are new hires (11 percent of teachers in high-poverty schools 

and 5 percent in low-poverty schools), and (2) performance of newly hired teachers 

improves quickly. On average, newly hired teachers become as effective as the average 

teacher after one year. 

 Teacher transfer patterns are also consistent with small inequities in access to effective 

teachers. Teachers who transfer to schools in a higher poverty category are less 

effective (43rd percentile) than the average district teacher. Teachers who transfer to 

schools in a lower poverty category are nearly as effective (48th percentile) as the 

average district teacher. These patterns likely have a small influence on equity since just 

under 4 percent of all teachers transfer across poverty categories each year. 

 Teacher attrition patterns do not contribute to inequity. Teachers who leave a district are 

less effective (44th percentile) than the average teacher, and more teachers leave highpoverty schools than low-poverty schools (10 percent versus 7 percent, respectively). 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_distribution.asp

Other 

Evaluation of Investing in Innovation 

1. Study Purpose: Investing in Innovation (i3) is a competitive grant program that funds entities 

with a record of improving student achievement in order to expand the implementation of, 

and investment in, evidence-based interventions to significantly improve student education 

outcomes. The i3 program supports three types of grants that are differentiated by level of 

prior evidence supporting the intervention, the scope of the proposed implementation, and 

the amount of funding to be provided. Scale-up and Validation grants require prior evidence 

of effectiveness, while Development grants support innovative strategies. 

Grantees receiving funds under this program are required to conduct an independent 

evaluation of their project and must agree, along with their independent evaluator, to 

cooperate with evaluation technical assistance provided by the Department and its 

contractor. The purpose of this technical assistance is to maximize the strength of the 

impact studies and the quality of their implementation data and performance feedback. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 What types of supports were provided to i3 local evaluators and how were these 

supports implemented? 

 Were the i3-funded evaluations well-designed and well-implemented? 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 170 

 What did the i3-funded evaluations add to the evidence base on educational 

interventions? 

3. Design: This study is descriptive and includes technical assistance to support the i3 local 

evaluators. The study also includes a systematic review of the completed evaluations 

against the WWC evidence standards as well as other criteria for assessing the strength of 

the impact and implementation aspects of the evaluations. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The first report, which will focus primarily on findings 

for the first cohort (FY 2010), is expected in fall 2017. 

5. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/assistance_ita.asp 

Evaluation of NAEP Achievement Levels 

1. Study Purpose: Under the provisions of P.L. 107-279, the Secretary is required to provide 

for continuing review of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 

assessment. The legislation identifies the issues to be addressed in the reviews, one of 

which includes the requirement to evaluate whether the NAEP achievement levels, 

established by the National Assessment Governing Board, are “reasonable, valid, reliable 

and informative to the public.” Section 303(e)(2)(C) of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 

2002 (P.L. 107-279) states that NAEP achievement levels shall be used on a trial basis until 

the Commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) determines, as a 

result of an evaluation under Sec. 303(f), that such levels are “reasonable, valid, and 

informative to the public.” This independent evaluation was intended to provide IES and the 

Commissioner of NCES with information necessary to inform the decision about whether the 

current trial status of the NAEP achievement levels can be removed or whether they should 

remain in trial status. 

2. Key Objectives:

 Determine how “reasonable, valid, reliable and informative to the public” will be 

operationalized in this study. 

 Identify the kinds of objective data and research findings that will be examined. 

 Review and analyze extant information related to the study’s purpose. 

 Gather other objective information from relevant experts and stakeholders, without 

creating burden for the public through new, large-scale data collection. 

 Organize, summarize, and present the findings from the evaluation in a written report, 

including a summary that is accessible for nontechnical audiences, discussing the 

strengths/weaknesses and gaps in knowledge in relation to the evaluation criteria. 

 Provide, prior to release of the study report, for an independent external review of that 

report for comprehensiveness, objectivity, and freedom from bias. 

3. Design: This study focused on the achievement levels used in reporting NAEP results for 

the reading and mathematics assessments in grades 4, 8, and 12. Specifically, the study 

reviewed developments over the past decade in the ways achievement levels for NAEP are 

set and used and will evaluate whether the resulting achievement levels are “reasonable, 

valid, reliable, and informative to the public.” The study relied on an independent committee 

of experts with a broad range of expertise related to assessment, statistics, social science, 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 171 

and education policy. The project is receiving oversight from the Board on Testing and 

Assessment and the Committee on National Statistics of the National Research Council. 

4. Actual Completion Date: The prepublication version of the report from this study was 

released in November 2016 and may be downloaded at 

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23409/evaluation-of-the-achievement-levels-for-mathematicsand-reading-on-the-national-assessment-of-educational-progress.

5. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/other_naep.asp

Evaluation of the Comprehensive Technical Assistance Centers, FY 2012 Grantees 

1. Study Purpose: The Comprehensive Technical Assistance Centers is a federally funded 

program currently authorized under the Educational Technical Assistance Act of 2002. The 

Department awarded five-year grants in FY 2012 to 22 Comprehensive Technical 

Assistance Centers with the purpose to help state education agencies build their capacity to 

implement state-level initiatives and to support district- and school-level initiatives that 

improve educational outcomes for all students, close achievement gaps, and improve the 

quality of instruction. The FY 2014 appropriation for the Centers was $48.4 million. This 

study will inform the Department of Education, the Comprehensive Center program, and the 

larger field about the design, implementation, and outcomes of the Centers’ work. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 Program Design: How did the Centers design their work? How did Centers define 

capacity building? Did their definitions change over time? If so, how? What theories of 

action did Centers use to guide their general capacity-building work? Did the theories 

change over time? If so, how? How did Centers assess the needs of their 

constituencies? 

 Program Implementation: How did the Centers operate? What strategies did Centers 

employ to achieve their outcomes? To what extent did Centers implement technical 

assistance to their constituencies as planned? To what extent and how did Centers 

collaborate with each other? 

 Program Outcomes: What was the result of the Centers’ work? To what extent did 

Centers achieve their goals and objectives? 

3. Design: This evaluation is a multiyear descriptive study examining the Centers’ programs. 

Data on the Centers’ activities and outcomes will be collected during the FY 2015, FY 2016, 

and FY 2017 program years. The evaluation will describe how the individual Centers intend 

to build SEA capacity (their theories of action) and document what types of activities they 

actually conduct to build capacity. The evaluation plans to focus on Center projects in two 

priority areas: great teachers and leaders and early learning. Data collection will include: 

(1) the Centers’ management plans and technical assistance activity data; (2) interviews 

with staff from each Center; (3) interviews with technical assistance recipients; (4) a survey 

of Center staff; and (5) a survey of technical assistance recipients. Additionally, observations 

of technical assistance events will be conducted to inform project profiles that illustrate the 

strategies that the Centers use to support capacity building and achieve planned outcomes. 

This approach will yield a diverse set of data that can be analyzed and summarized using 

qualitative research methods and simple quantitative tabulations. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: A report describing findings is expected in 2018. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 172 

5. Link to Additional Information:

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/other_techcenters12.asp

Implementation and Impact Evaluation of Race to the Top: Final Report 

1. Study Purpose: RTT is a competitive grant program of the Department that funds states and 

districts planning to implement comprehensive education reform in one or more core areas. 

Since its first awards in 2010, RTT has funded general state competitions, state 

competitions focused on early learning, and district competitions focused on personalized 

learning. With funds from the Recovery Act, the general state competition awarded 

approximately $4 billion to states in support of comprehensive K–12 education reform in 

several core areas, including teachers and leaders, standards and assessments, data 

systems, and school turnaround. This study examined the implementation of RTT and its 

relationship to student outcomes, focusing on the initial general state competition for RTT 

that began in 2010. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 Which policies and practices promoted by the RTT program do RTT states report using, 

and how do they compare to the policies and practices that non-RTT states report 

using? 

 Is receipt of an RTT grant related to improvement in student outcomes? 

3. Design: The RTT sample included all 50 states and DC. Data from interviews with all states 

and DC informed the first evaluation question. The second evaluation question was 

addressed using a short interrupted time series design with state-level NAEP data 

comparing, before and after the RTT competition, states that were awarded an RTT grant to 

states that applied for but were not awarded an RTT grant. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The final report for RTT was released in October 

2016.

5. Key Findings from the Final Report for RTT:

 In four of six areas examined, 2010 RTT grantees reported using more policies and 

practices promoted by RTT than states that did not receive a grant: The four areas with 

differences were standards and assessments, teachers and leaders, school turnaround, 

and charter schools. The other two areas were state capacity and data systems. 

 2011 RTT grantees reported using more policies and practices promoted by RTT than 

states that did not receive a grant in one area, which was teachers and leaders. 

 Across all states, use of RTT-promoted policies and practices were highest in the data 

systems area and lowest in the teachers and leaders area: States reported using 

76 percent of the 8 RTT-promoted practices examined in data systems, but only 

26 percent of the 39 practices in teachers and leaders. 

 The relationship between RTT and student outcomes was not clear: Trends in student 

outcomes could be interpreted as providing evidence that RTT had a positive effect, a 

negative effect, or no effect. 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/other_racetotop.asp
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 173 

Implementation and Impact Evaluation of SIGs: Final Report 

1. Study Purpose: The SIG program is authorized through Title I of the ESEA and provides 

three-year awards to support turnaround in the nation’s persistently lowest-achieving 

schools. In FY 2009, the $546 million SIG appropriation was supplemented by $3 billion 

through the Recovery Act, for a total of $3.5 billion. SIG funds are distributed to states by 

formula based on Title I allocations. States then competitively award funds to districts 

applying on behalf of their eligible schools. Schools receiving SIG must implement one of 

four prescriptive intervention models: turnaround, transformation, closure, or restart. This 

study examined the implementation and impacts of SIG, focusing on the first cohort of SIG 

schools implementing intervention models beginning in the 2010–11 school year. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 Are SIG-funded schools using the improvement or turnaround strategies promoted by 

the four SIG intervention models, and how do they compare to strategies in schools not 

implementing a SIG-funded intervention model? How are states and districts supporting 

such efforts? 

 Does receipt of SIG funding to implement a school intervention model have an impact on 

outcomes for low-performing schools? 

 Is implementation of the four school intervention models related to improvement in 

outcomes for low-performing schools? 

3. Design: The SIG sample included about 500 schools in 60 districts from 22 states. This 

sample was purposively selected to support a regression discontinuity design to address the 

fourth evaluation question, exploiting cutoff rules that states used to identify their persistently 

lowest-achieving schools as eligible for SIG to implement one of the four intervention 

models. Data from state and district interviews, as well as school surveys from the SIG 

sample, were used to inform the third and fifth evaluation questions. Student- and schoollevel achievement data were also collected from administrative records up to the 2012–13 

school year to inform the fourth and fifth evaluation questions. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The final report for SIG was released in January 

2017.

5. Key Findings from the Final Report for SIG:

 SIG schools implementing one of the four models (transformation, turnaround, restart, or 

closure) reported using more practices than other schools: SIG schools reported using 

an average of 23 out of 35 practices, whereas other schools reported using 20 practices. 

 Across all schools, use of SIG-promoted practices was highest in the area of 

comprehensive instructional reform strategies and lowest in the area of operational 

flexibility and support: Schools reported using 89 percent of the eight SIG-promoted 

practices examined in the comprehensive instructional reform strategies area, but only 

43 percent of the two practices in operational flexibility and support (the other two areas 

examined were increasing teacher and principal effectiveness, and increasing learning 

time and creating community-oriented schools). 

 Implementing any of the four SIG models had no significant impacts on math or reading 

test scores, high school graduation, or college enrollment. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 174 

 In elementary grades, student achievement gains did not differ across the four SIG 

models. In secondary grades, the turnaround model was associated with larger 

achievement gains than the transformation model. 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/other_racetotop.asp

Implementation of Title I/II Program Initiatives 

1. Study Purpose: The Title I and Title II programs are part of the ESEA and are intended to 

help provide all students with equal access to education by providing financial assistance to 

schools and districts that have a high percentage of students from low-income families 

(Title I) and improving teacher and principal quality (Title II). The previous reauthorization of 

ESEA, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), increased accountability through the 

use of assessments for students, requirements for all teachers to be highly qualified, and 

funding for supports and interventions for schools not achieving adequate yearly progress 

for the entire school population as well as for various subgroups of students. Subsequently, 

a majority of states received ESEA Flexibility beginning in 2012, which allowed particular 

NCLB requirements to be waived in exchange for a commitment to implement various 

reform principles. ESEA was reauthorized as the ESSA in December 2015, and it offers 

states and districts more autonomy than under NCLB and ESEA Flexibility, specifically in the 

areas of accountability, educator evaluation systems, and teacher qualification 

requirements. 

This study is designed to provide relevant data from states, districts, schools, and teachers 

on the implementation of programs and policies related to Title I and Title II under NCLB and 

ESEA Flexibility (during the 2013–14 school year). It will also provide data from states and 

districts as they undergo the early stages of implementing the ESSA (during the 2017–18 

school year). 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 What content standards and high school graduation requirements are states adopting, 

and what materials and resources do states, districts, and schools provide to help 

teachers implement the state content standards? 

 What assessments do states and districts use (in terms of assessment format and 

coverage of grade levels and content areas), and what materials and resources do 

states, districts, and schools provide to support the implementation of assessments and 

use assessment data? 

 How has student achievement changed over time? 

 What elements are included in states’ accountability systems? How do states and 

districts identify and reward their highest-performing schools, how do they identify and 

support their lowest-performing schools, and how do they offer differentiated support for 

those schools that are neither highest-performing nor lowest-performing? 

 How do states and districts evaluate teacher and principal effectiveness and assess 

equitable distribution of teachers and principals, and what supports do states, districts, 

and schools provide to improve teacher and principal effectiveness? 

3. Design: The study is descriptive and nationally representative. Data were collected from all 

50 states and the District of Columbia, a nationally representative sample of districts and 

schools, and teachers within those schools through surveys in the 2013–14 school year. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 175 

Subsequently, data will be collected from all 50 states and the District of Columbia as well 

as the same nationally representative sample of districts through surveys in the 2017–18 

school year. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The first report, based on the findings from the 

2013–14 data collection, was released in January 2017.

5. Key Findings from the First Report:

 Most states adopted and most principals and teachers reported implementing state 

standards that focused on college- and career-readiness. All but one state had 

committed to having college- and career-ready standards in place by 2013–14. A 

majority of principals (67–69 percent, depending on subject) reported fully implementing 

state content standards, and most teachers reported receiving professional development 

relevant to state content standards (79 percent of teachers) and weekly use of aligned 

instructional activities (92 percent of teachers). 

 Many state assessments incorporated more sophisticated response formats to better 

assess students’ college- and career-readiness. In their reading/English language arts 

(ELA) summative assessments, many states (24–36, depending on grade level) reported 

using extended constructed-response formats, a type of response format intended to 

assess higher-order thinking skills. Nineteen states used this response format in math 

assessments. 

 States used ESEA flexibility to reset their accountability goals and to target a narrower 

set of schools for additional support. Forty-three states had received ESEA Flexibility for 

the 2013–14 school year. The most common accountability goal adopted by states with 

ESEA Flexibility (28 of the 43 states) was reducing by half the percentage of students 

and subgroups not proficient in 6–8 years. States with ESEA Flexibility identified 

5 percent of Title I schools as lowest performing and an additional 10 percent of Title I 

schools with substantial student achievement gaps, compared to non-Flexibility states 

that reported identifying 43 percent of Title I schools as lowest performing. 

 Almost all states adopted new laws or regulations related to educator evaluation 

systems between 2009 and 2014, and most districts reported full or partial 

implementation in 2013–14. Only four states had not adopted new teacher evaluation 

laws or regulations by 2014, and a majority (59 percent) of districts reported fully 

implementing, piloting, or partially implementing a new teacher evaluation system. 

However, few districts (18 percent) reported using evaluation system measures of 

student achievement growth and classroom practice consistent with emerging research. 

 Proficiency rates on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) slightly 

increased from 2005 to 2015, with the largest increases in 4th and 8th grades and 

smaller or no increases in 12th grade. Overall proficiency rates increased by statistically 

significant levels of 4–5 percentage points in 4th and 8th grade reading and math and by 

2 percentage points in 12th grade reading. Statistically significant increases in 

proficiency were also evident for economically disadvantaged students in both subjects 

and across all three grades (by 4–7 percentage points), and in the large majority of 

individual states (46–51 states, depending on grade and subject). 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/other_titleI.asp
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 176 

Progress and Challenges in Developing Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement Systems 

(TQRIS) in the Round 1 Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge (ELC) States 

1. Study Purpose: ELC aims to improve early learning and development programs so children 

enter kindergarten ready to succeed. One of the key areas of reform for the program 

focuses on the design and implementation of Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement 

Systems (TQRIS) that can provide parents and stakeholders with information on the quality 

of early learning programs. Since ELC grantee states are in the process of developing, 

refining, and/or implementing their TQRIS, this evaluation will describe the current state 

plans and implementation status.

2. Key Question Addressed: 

 How are TQRIS ratings defined, collected, and generated in the nine Round 1 ELC 

states and how might the structure and implementation of the rating system influence the 

reliability and validity of the ratings? 

3. Design: This is a descriptive study that involved collecting and analyzing various data from 

the nine Round 1 ELC grantee states. 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, how these are combined to 

generate overall ratings, the availability of TQRIS and child outcome data, and policies 

regarding the administration of kindergarten entry assessments (KEAs) in each Round 1 

state. The study also included interviews with state administrators to confirm and clarify the 

information obtained from documents and, as needed, to gather information that could not 

be obtained from the document reviews. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: An evaluation brief is scheduled for completion in 

summer 2017. 

5. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/other_rtt.asp

Policy and Program Studies Service (PPSS)

TEACH Grant Study 

1. Study Purpose: The TEACH Grant program provides grants up to $4,000 a year to students 

who are completing coursework needed to begin teaching. If a recipient does not complete 

four years of service in a high-need subject at a high-need school within eight years after 

completing their coursework, their grant funds are converted to a direct unsubsidized loan. 

This study examines how institutions support and inform students who are eligible for 

TEACH Grants. In addition, the study examines why some participants do not meet TEACH 

Grant service requirements. Lastly, the study examines factors associated with grant 

recipients meeting and not meeting service requirements. 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

 How are TEACH Grants administered in institutions of higher education? 

 Why do some TEACH Grant recipients fail to meet program service requirements? 

 What are the factors associated with TEACH Grant recipients meeting and not meeting 

the grant service requirements? 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 177 

3. Design: The study includes surveys of 1) 479 institutions that administered at least 

10 TEACH Grants in the 2014–15 award year and 2) a sample of 500 TEACH Grant 

recipients. In addition, the study includes case studies of six institutions and an analysis of 

administrative data. 

4. Estimated Completion Date: The final report is scheduled for completion in summer 2017.

National Survey on High School Strategies Designed to Help At-Risk Students Graduate 

1. Study Purpose: This nationally representative survey of high school administrators is 

examining strategies that high schools use to reduce students’ likelihood of dropping out of 

high school and to increase their likelihood of attaining a high school credential. The survey 

seeks information on the prevalence of high school graduation strategies, the students who 

participate in them, and how high schools deliver services or interventions as part of that 

strategy. The Department will release a set of issue briefs based on the survey data to 

describe the prevalence and characteristics of dropout prevention strategies for at-risk youth 

and will compare high schools with high and low graduation rates, among other school 

characteristics. 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

 What strategies are high schools implementing to help students stay in school and 

graduate? Do these strategies vary for high schools with high or low graduation rates? 

 How many students are served through each of these strategies? Are the strategies 

focused on particular student populations? 

 How do schools deliver services or interventions for each of the strategies? What 

specific services are provided, and who provides the services? 

3. Design: The study is conducting a web-based survey of a nationally representative sample 

of approximately 2,000 high school administrators. 

4. Estimated Completion Date: Issue briefs are scheduled for completion between winter 

2016–17 and spring 2017. 

Implementation Study of the Turnaround School Leaders Program 

1. Study Purpose: This study will examine the implementation of the Turnaround School 

Leaders Program (TSLP). This study seeks to generate information to help policymakers 

and practitioners who struggle with the challenges of developing leaders to turn around lowperforming schools and to add to the field’s general body of knowledge about developing 

turnaround leadership pipelines. 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

 How do TSLP projects identify, develop, and support leaders for low-performing 

schools? 

 What role do project partners play in implementing projects and helping grantees to 

achieve project goals? 

 How have grantees modified projects to adapt to challenges or meet the demands of 

changing circumstances? 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 178 

 How are grantees measuring the success of their TSLP projects, and do early outcome 

data show promising results? 

 How have the turnaround school leaders grants contributed to developing a sustainable, 

long-term pipeline of leaders for turnaround schools? 

3. Design: The study will include surveys of 12 TSLP cohort 1 grantees and case studies of 

seven TSLP cohort 1 grantees, including each grantees’ partners; an analysis of extant 

data, including grantee applications, early outcomes data, and other relevant project-specific 

data. 

4. Estimated Completion Date: The final report is scheduled for completion in fall 2017. 

Study of School Climate Transformation Grants 

1. Study Purpose: The study will describe how states and school districts that participate in the 

School Climate Transformation Grant (SCTG) program are coordinating services and 

supports with certain other related federal programs administered by the Departments of 

Health and Human Services and Justice. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 What does coordination between SCTG and Project AWARE grantees look like? 

 What does coordination between SCTG and DOJ grantees look like? 

 What did grantees say about the value of coordination? 

 What were the challenges and lessons learned? 

3. Design: The study will conduct telephone interviews with representatives from 38 state and 

local grantees to explore the ways in which grantees coordinate services, the benefits that 

grantees have experienced from program coordination, and challenges and lessons learned. 

4. Estimated Completion Date: The report is scheduled for completion in late fall/winter 2017.

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs 

1. Study Purpose: The study will examine how Title I schoolwide programs use the schoolwide 

flexibility to design services and strategies to address the needs of low-achieving students 

and subgroups, and how such strategies compare to approaches used in targeted 

assistance programs. The study will include interviews and analysis of extant data in 

approximately 30 Title I schools, including both schoolwide and targeted assistance 

programs, as well as surveys of principals and district administrators for a representative 

sample of Title I schools. 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

 How do schoolwide and targeted assistance programs use Title I funds to improve 

student achievement, particularly for low-achieving subgroups? 

 How do districts and schools make decisions about how to use Title I funds in 

schoolwide programs and targeted assistance programs? 

 To what extent do schoolwide programs commingle Title I funds with other funds or 

coordinate the use of Title I funds with other funds? 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 179 

3. Design: The study will include both in-depth case studies and surveys of a nationally 

representative sample of 350 districts and 1,400 schools. The case studies will include 

approximately 35 Title I schools including both schoolwide and targeted assistance 

programs. Data collection for the case studies will include site visits and interviews with two 

to four staff members in each school and approximately two staff members in each district, 

as well as extant documents and data, including Title I budgets and plans. 

4. Estimated Completion Date: The report is scheduled for completion in spring 2018. 

Study of Digital Learning Resources for Instructing English Learners 

1. Study Purpose: This study will examine the use of digital learning resources (DLRs) to 

support the English language acquisition and academic achievement of English learners in 

K–12 education. The study will explore the range of DLRs that are available for use with 

English learner students, examine how districts and schools select and use these apps, and 

consult an expert panel of technology developers, practitioners, and education researchers 

for ideas on ways to improve the design and use of apps to support learning for English 

learner students. The study will culminate in a final report that presents findings from the 

study, as well as two short field-focused toolkits or guides for educators and technology 

developers that present key information from the study in a manner that will be accessible 

and useful for those audiences. 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

 How do districts and teachers identify and select DLRs in general? How do districts and 

teachers identify and select DLRs specifically to support English learner students? 

 What are the types and characteristics of DLRs that districts most commonly report as 

used to support English learners? What are the types and characteristics of DLRs that 

teachers most commonly report that they use in instructing and structuring learning 

activities for their English learner students? 

 How do teachers of English learner students use DLRs in the instruction of English 

learner students? 

 To what extent do teachers receive professional development or other supports for 

effective use of DLRs for instruction? Which professional development approaches do 

teachers report to be most helpful in supporting their use of DLRs in instruction? 

 What are barriers to and supports for (1) the use of DLRs in instruction of English learner 

students and (2) the use of DLRs by students at home? How can districts, schools, and 

DLR developers address these? 

 How do districts and teachers define and measure the success of their use of technology 

to support English learner students? 

 How could developers and practitioners improve the usefulness of DLRs for instructing 

English learner students? 

3. Design: The study will explore the range of such apps that are available for use with English 

learner students, examine how districts and schools select and use these apps, and consult 

an expert panel of technology developers, practitioners, and education researchers for ideas 

on ways to improve the design and use of apps to support learning for English learner 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 180 

students. It will rely on six key components: (1) a literature review; (2) market research on 

existing DLRs for K–12 instruction; (3) survey of school districts; (4) survey of teachers; 

(5) case studies; and (6) an expert panel of technology developers, practitioners, and 

education researchers. 

4. Estimated Completion Date: The report is scheduled for completion in spring 2018. 

Study of the Title III Native American and Alaska Native Children in Schools Program

1. Study Purpose: The study will examine services and strategies for English learners in the 

Native American, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander communities that are 

supported through the Native American and Alaska Native Children in Schools (NAM) 

program. The study includes case study of 25 NAM grantees, and examines: (1) the types of 

services and strategies that NAM funds support to address the instructional needs of these 

communities and develop student proficiency in both English and (optionally) native 

languages; (2) how grantees plan, implement, and evaluate their respective projects; 

(3) how grantees coordinate and prioritize the use of NAM funds in relation to other federal, 

state, and local resources; and (4) how grantees use data and evidence to inform program 

implementation and meet U.S. Department of Education reporting requirements. 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

 How does the NAM program support grantees in providing services to Native American, 

Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander children, especially through teacher 

training and professional development, curriculum development, parent engagement, 

and English (especially academic English) and native language instruction? How do 

NAM grantees incorporate technology to support and/or preserve heritage languages 

through dual-language or other forms of English language instruction? How many 

students are served through each of these strategies? Are the strategies focused on 

particular student populations? 

 What challenges do NAM grantees face in providing funded services, and what steps 

have grantees taken to overcome these challenges? To what extent does the 

Department or other external entities provide support to overcome these challenges? 

What lessons have the grantees learned? 

 How do schools deliver services or interventions for each of the strategies? What 

specific services are provided, and who provides the services? 

 What are the roles and responsibilities among (as applicable) tribal entities, public 

schools, local education districts, and state agencies in implementing NAM grants and 

meeting federal reporting requirements? 

 What are NAM grant stakeholders’ perceptions of community participation and student 

engagement in language instruction and other educational programs? 

3. Design: The study will include site visits to NAM grantees to obtain detailed information 

regarding how they are implementing the NAM program and meeting the needs of their 

students and communities, as well as telephone surveys or interviews of local grant 

coordinators and state directors of Indian education to inform the case study site visits. The 

study will also utilize extant data, including grant applications.

4. Estimated Completion Date: The report is scheduled for completion in spring 2018. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 181 

Evaluation of the Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent Program 

1. Study Purpose: The study will examine 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 will be informed by 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. 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

 What types of services and strategies do Title I, Part D funds support for children and 

youth in correctional and child welfare settings? 

 How do correctional facilities and child welfare agencies assist students in transitioning 

back to districts and schools, including those outside their jurisdictions? 

 How do state correctional facilities plan and implement institution-wide Part D projects? 

 How do grantees assess the educational outcomes of students participating in 

Part D-funded educational programs? 

3. Design: The study will include a review of extant data, a review of literature related to 

programs for neglected and delinquent youth, surveys of state and local coordinators of 

Title I-Part D funded programs, and site visits to state agencies, school districts, correctional 

institutions, and child welfare facilities to obtain more detailed information on how grantees 

and subgrantees are implementing the Part D programs and how they are meeting the 

needs of their students. 

4. Estimated Completion Date: The report is scheduled for completion in spring 2018.

Evaluation of the Migrant Education Program 

1. Study Purpose: This study will examine how states, districts, and schools are providing 

instructional supports and assessing highly mobile migratory students, as well as examine 

state plans for implementing the new accountability requirements (as they pertain to 

migratory students) under the ESSA. The Migrant Education Program (MEP) is a state 

program, giving states flexibility in how they allocate funds to serve migratory students, 

allowing the local entities that serve migratory students to be both local educational

agencies (LEAs) and local operating agencies (LOAs). 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

 How do state and local grantees respond to federal requirements for serving migratory 

children? 

 What services are provided to migratory students? 

 How do MEP grantees collaborate with other programs and agencies to address the 

needs of highly mobile students? 

 How do migrant programs support students in earning high school diplomas and 

equivalency, and preparing for postsecondary education and the workforce? 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 182 

3. Design: The study will include survey of states, a nationally representative sample of district 

programs serving migrant children, site visits to state and local grantees. The contractor 

shall prepare a final report that integrates findings from the surveys and case studies as well 

as from an extant data analysis. 

4. Estimated Completion Date: The report is scheduled for completion in fall 2018.

Evaluation of the Indian Education LEA Grants Program 

1. Study Purpose: This study will examine the implementation of the Indian Education Local 

Education Agency (LEA) Grants Program funded under Title VI of the ESEA, as amended 

by the ESSA. The study will document the scope of activities funded by the Indian Education 

LEA Grants Program and will examine the LEA and tribal-level implementation of the grants. 

Specifically, the study will examine the processes used to identify and count eligible children 

and how grantees establish LEA program priorities and implement grant-funded services. 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

 What strategies do grantees use to identify and count program-eligible children?

 How do grantees plan services?

 What services do Indian Education LEA Grants fund?

 How do grantees assess the project outcomes of students participating in Indian 

Education LEA Grants Program-funded educational programs? 

3. Design: This study will consist of four key components: (1) analysis of extant data including 

APRs and Electronic Application System for Indian Education (EASIE) data; (2) review of 

relevant literature; (3) survey of 1,300 coordinators of Indian Education LEA grant programs; 

and (4) case studies of nine districts. 

4. Estimated Completion Date: The report is scheduled for completion in fall 2018.

Study of Weighted Student Funding Systems 

1. Study Purpose: This study is examining weighted student funding (WSF) and school-based 

budgeting (SBB) systems, which are methods for providing funds to schools based on the 

numbers and, in the case of WSF, types of students they served. The study will examine 

how districts have implemented SBB and WSF systems for allocating funds to schools and 

how these districts and their schools compare with districts using traditional systems for 

allocating school resources. 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

 How are resources allocated to schools in districts with SBB or WSF systems compared 

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 districts with SBB or WSF and other districts? 

 How has the implementation of WSF systems affected the distribution of funding 

provided to schools? 

 What challenges did districts and schools experience in implementing SBB and WSF, 

and how did they respond to those challenges? 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 183 

3. Design: To obtain detailed information about the implementation, benefits, and challenges of 

WSF systems, this study will conduct case studies in nine districts using such systems, 

including site visits that include in-person interviews and collection and analysis of extant 

documents and data such as school budgets and planning documents. In addition, the study 

will administer surveys to a nationally representative survey of districts and schools to 

enable the study to ground the case study data in the larger context of WSF, SBB, and 

traditional methods of resource allocation. 

4. Estimated Completion Date: The report is scheduled for completion in winter 2018–19.
APPENDICES

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 184 

Appendix E: Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations

2FA Two-Factor Authentication 

AARTS Audit Accountability and Resolution Tracking System 

AFR Agency Financial Report 

AIR American Institutes for Research 

AP Advanced Placement 

APG Agency Priority Goal 

APP Annual Performance Plan 

APR Annual Performance Report 

AY Academic Year 

CAP Goals Cross-Agency Priority Goals 

CCSSO Council of Chief State School Officers 

CEDS Common Education Data Standards 

CEELO Center for Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

COP Community of Practice 

CoSN Consortium for School Networking 

CoSTEM Committee on STEM Education 

CPS Current Population Survey 

CRDC Civil Rights Data Collection 

CTE Career and Technical Education 

CY Calendar Year

DATA Act Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 

DEC Division of Early Childhood 

DHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

DLR Digital Learning Resources 

DM Document Management 

DOJ U.S. Department of Justice 
APPENDICES

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 185 

DOL U.S. Department of Labor 

DRT Data Request Team

DST Data Strategy Team 

EAC Equity Assistance Center 

EAG Enhanced Assessment Grants 

EASN Equitable Access Support Network 

ECR Early Complaint Resolution 

ECS Education Commission on the States 

EDGAR Education Department General Administrative Regulations 

EDSOC Education Department Security Operations Center 

ELC Early Learning Challenge 

ELC TA Early Learning Challenge Technical Assistance Program 

EMAPS EDFacts Metadata and Process System 

EPG Evidence Planning Group 

EQUIP Educational Quality through Innovative Partnerships 

ERIC Education Resources Information Center 

ESEA Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 

ESSA Every Student Succeeds Act 

EVS Employee Viewpoint Survey 

FAFSA Free Application for Federal Student Aid 

FERPA Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act 

FEVS Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey 

FFEL Federal Family Education Loan 

FFY Federal Fiscal Year 

FPCO Family Policy Compliance Office 

FSA Federal Student Aid 

FY Fiscal Year 

GANs Grant Award Notices 

GEAR Up Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs 
APPENDICES

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 186 

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 

GPRAMA GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 

GSA General Services Administration 

HBCUs Historically Black Colleges and Universities 

HEA Higher Education Act of 1965

HEAL Health Education Assistance Loans 

HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

HR Human Resources 

HSI-STEM Hispanic Serving Institution STEM Articulation Program 

HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

i3 Investing in Innovation Program 

IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

IES Institute of Education Sciences 

IHE Institutions of Higher Education 

IPB Interagency Policy Board 

IPEDS Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 

IT Information Technology 

JOA Job Opportunity Announcement 

KEA Kindergarten Entry Assessment 

LBJ Lyndon B. Johnson 

LEA Local Educational Agency 

LINCS Literacy Information and Communication System 

LOA Local Operating Agency 

MEP Migrant Education Program 

MSAP Magnet School Assistance Program 

MSP Mathematics and Science Partnerships 

NA Not Applicable 

NAEP National Assessment of Educational Progress 

NAM Native American and Alaska Native Children in Schools Program 
APPENDICES

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 187 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NCER National Center for Education Research 

NCES National Center for Educational Statistics 

NIA Notice Inviting Applications 

NIEER National Institute for Early Education Research 

NRC National Research Council 

NSF National Science Foundation 

OCFO Office of the Chief Financial Officer 

OCIO Office of the Chief Information Officer 

OCR Office for Civil Rights 

OCTAE Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education 

OEL Office of Early Learning

OELA Office of English Language Acquisition 

OESE Office of Elementary and Secondary Education 

OET Office of Educational Technology 

OGC Office of the General Counsel 

OHR Office of Human Resources 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

OII Office of Innovation and Improvement 

OM Office of Management 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OPE Office of Postsecondary Education 

OPEPD Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development 

OPM Office of Personnel Management 

OSEP Office of Special Education Programs 

OSERS Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services 

OSP Opportunity Scholarship Program 

OSS Office of State Support 

P3 Performance Partnership Pilots for Disconnected Youth 
APPENDICES

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 188 

PAYE Pay As You Earn 

PBCS Performance-Based Compensation System 

PCP Potomac Center Plaza 

PDG Preschool Development Grants 

PDG TA Preschool Development Grant Technical Assistance 

PFS Pay For Success 

POC Principal Operating Component 

POR Program of Requirements 

PPIRS Past Performance Information Retrieval System 

PPSS Policy and Program Studies Service 

PSLF Public Service Loan Forgiveness 

R3 Rapid Rent Reduction Initiative 

RCE Rapid Cycle Evaluation 

RDA Results Driven Accountability 

REAP Rural Education Achievement Program 

REPAYE Revised Pay As You Earn 

RLIS Rural and Low-Income Schools Program 

RMS Risk Management Service 

RtI Response to Intervention 

RTL Ready to Learn

RTT Race to the Top 

SASS Schools and Staffing Survey 

SBB School-Based Budgeting 

SCTG School Climate Transformation Grant Program 

SEA State Educational Agency 

SFA Student Financial Assistance 

SIG School Improvement Grant 

SIP Strengthening Institutions Program 

SLDS Statewide Longitudinal Data System 
APPENDICES

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 189 

SOAR Act Scholarships and Opportunities for Results Act 

SPPAD Student Privacy Policy and Assistance Division 

SRSA Small, Rural School Achievement Program 

SSIP State Systemic Improvement Plan 

STEM Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 

SWD Students with Disabilities 

SY School Year 

TBD To Be Determined 

TEACH Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grant 

TIF Teacher Incentive Fund 

TQRIS Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System 

Treasury U.S. Department of Treasury 

TRIO Federal TRIO Programs 

TSLP Turnaround School Leaders Program 

U.S. United States 

VR Vocation Rehabilitation 

WHI-HBCU White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities 

WIOA Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 

WSF Weighted Student Funding 

WWC What Works Clearinghouse
OUR MISSION IS TO PROMOTE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND PREPARATION FOR 

GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS BY FOSTERING EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE AND 

ENSURING EQUAL ACCESS. 

WWW.ED.GOV