FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 

U.S. Department of Education 

John B. King, Jr. 

Acting Secretary 

February 9, 2016 

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 2015 

Annual Performance Report and Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Performance Plan: Washington, DC, 2016. 

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 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 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 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan:

For general layout and web design: ICF Macro
FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 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) 2015 Annual 

Performance Report and FY 2017 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 2015 Annual Performance Report and the FY 2017 Annual 

Performance Plan to 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 2015 annual reporting includes these three documents:

FY 2015 Summary of Performance and Financial 

Information [available February 2016]

This document provides an integrated overview of 

performance and financial information that consolidates 

the FY 2015 Agency Financial Report (AFR) and the 

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report (APR) and FY 2017

Annual Performance Plan (APP) into a user-friendly 

format.

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and 

FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan

[available February 2016]

This report is produced in conjunction with the FY 2017

President’s Budget Request and provides more detailed 

performance information and analysis of performance 

results.

FY 2015 Agency Financial Report (AFR) [published November 13, 2015]

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

http://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/index.html. 
FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education iii

Contents 

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

Our Mission ............................................................................................................................ 2

Our Organization in Fiscal Year 2015 ..................................................................................... 4

Overview .................................................................................................................................... 5

About This Report ................................................................................................................... 5

About the Agency Financial Report ........................................................................................ 5

FY 2015 Financial Highlights and Information ......................................................................... 5

Analysis of Controls, Systems, and Legal Compliance ........................................................... 5

Performance Results Details ...................................................................................................... 6

Performance Management Framework ................................................................................... 6

FY 2014–18 Strategic Plan ..................................................................................................... 7

The Department’s Agency Priority Goals ................................................................................ 9

Cross-Agency Priority (CAP) Goals .......................................................................................16

The Department’s Approach to Data Collection and Analysis ................................................17

Support for the Department’s Evaluations..............................................................................18

Performance Plan Summary .....................................................................................................19

Looking Ahead and Addressing Challenges ..........................................................................19

Data Verification and Validation .............................................................................................19

Reporting on Progress ...........................................................................................................20

Goal 1. Postsecondary Education, Career and Technical Education, and Adult Education ....21

Goal 2. Elementary and Secondary Education ......................................................................42

Goal 3. Early Learning ...........................................................................................................57

Goal 4. Equity ........................................................................................................................75

Goal 5. Continuous Improvement of the U.S. Education System ...........................................87

Goal 6. U.S. Department of Education Capacity ..................................................................101

Management Priorities and Challenges ...............................................................................114

Lower-Priority Program Activities .........................................................................................116

Appendix A: Data Validity and Verification ..............................................................................119

Appendix B: Changed Performance Goals ..............................................................................135

Appendix C: Summary Data Table ..........................................................................................140

Appendix D: Additional Programs by Goal ..............................................................................162

Appendix E: Summary of Performance Evaluations Conducted During FY 2015 and 

Expected During FY 2016–17.............................................................................167

Appendix F: Selected Department Web Links and Education Resources ................................214

Appendix G: Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations ...........................................................218
FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 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 2015 Annual Performance 

Report and FY 2017 Annual 

Performance Plan
FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 2 

Mission and Organizational Structure

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.

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.

Who We Are. In 1867, the federal government formally 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 1979. Today, the 

Department supports programs that address access and equity in education. 

The Department engages in four major types of activities: establishing policies related to federal 

education funding, including the distribution of funds, collecting on student loans, and using data 

to monitor the use of funds; supporting data collection and research on America’s schools; 

identifying major issues in education and focusing national attention on them; and enforcing 

federal laws prohibiting discrimination in programs that receive federal funds. 

Our Public Benefit. The Department is committed to helping all students throughout the nation 

succeed in school and, in doing so, preparing them for work, life, and citizenship. While 

recognizing the primary role of states and school districts in providing a high-quality education, 

the Department supports efforts to employ effective teachers and administrators, establish 

challenging content and achievement standards, and monitor students’ progress against those 

standards. 

The Department’s largest financial asset (and expenditure) is a portfolio of student loans. The 

second-biggest expenditure is student grants and other aid to help pay for college through Pell 

Grants, Work Study, and other campus-based programs. Grants to states based on legislated 

formulas are the third-largest expenditure of the Department, mostly for elementary and 

secondary education. The Department also administers competitive grant programs to promote 

innovation, performs research, collects education statistics, and enforces civil rights statutes. 

Offices by Function. Federal Student Aid (FSA) administers need-based financial assistance 

programs for students pursuing postsecondary education and makes available federal grants, 

direct loans, and work-study funding to eligible undergraduate and graduate students. 

The offices of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Educational Technology (OET), 

Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), Innovation and Improvement (OII), 

English Language Acquisition (OELA), Postsecondary Education (OPE), and Career, Technical, 

and Adult Education (OCTAE) provide leadership, technical assistance, and financial support to 

state and local education agencies, institutions of higher education (IHEs), adult education 

programs, and state vocational rehabilitation agencies for reform, strategic investment, and 

innovation in education and employment of youth and adults from all backgrounds and those 

with disabilities. 

The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) is the research and statistics arm of the Department. 

The Department’s goal is to provide rigorous and relevant evidence on which to ground 

education practice and policy and share this information broadly. By identifying what works, 
MISSION AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 3 

what doesn’t, and why, IES aims to improve educational outcomes for all students, particularly 

those at risk of failure. Its goal is to transform education into an evidence-based field in which 

decision makers routinely seek out the best available research and data before adopting 

programs or practices that will affect significant numbers of students. 

The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) works to ensure equal access to education and to promote 

educational excellence throughout the nation through vigorous enforcement of civil rights laws. 

OCR serves student populations facing discrimination and the advocates and institutions 

promoting systemic solutions to civil rights issues. 

The Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development (OPEPD) serves as the principal 

adviser to the Secretary on all matters relating to policy development, performance 

measurement and evaluation, and budget formulation, policy, and process. The Budget Service 

and the Policy and Program Studies Service (PPSS) are housed within OPEPD. 

The White House Initiatives. A number of committees and other groups—composed of 

individuals who are knowledgeable of education in elementary and secondary schools; 

postsecondary institutions, including community colleges; or adult education programs―assist

and advise the President and the Secretary and provide valuable guidance to the Department 

on policy and program issues: Center for Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, White 

House Initiative on Educational Excellence for African Americans, White House Initiative on 

Educational Excellence for Hispanics, White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific 

Islanders, White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and White 

House Initiative on American Indian and Alaska Native Education.

Support Service Offices. The Department’s support services offices are major partners with 

the grant-making and other principal offices as they provide services to external and internal 

customers. These offices include: Office of the Secretary; Office of the Deputy Secretary; Office 

of the Under Secretary; Office of the General Counsel; Office of Legislation and Congressional 

Affairs; Office of the Chief Financial Officer; Office of the Chief Information Officer; Risk 

Management Service; Office of Management; and Office of Communications and Outreach. 

Office of Inspector General. The Department of Education Organization Act (P.L. 96-88) 

established the Office of Inspector General (OIG) within the Department. The OIG’s mission is 

to promote the efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity of the Department’s programs and 

operations by conducting independent and objective audits, investigations, inspections, and 

other activities. 

Regional Offices. The Department has 10 primary regional offices that provide points of 

contact and assistance for schools, parents, and citizens. Those regional offices and certain 

other locations offer support through communications, civil rights enforcement, law enforcement, 

and federal student aid services to promote efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity in the 

programs and operations of the Department. 

Descriptions of the principal offices and overviews of the activities of the Department and its 

programs can be found on the Department’s website. 
MISSION AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 4 

Our Organization in Fiscal Year 2015

This chart reflects the organizational structure of the U.S. Department of Education. 

Interactive and text versions of the coordinating structure of the Department are available 

online. 
FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 5 

Overview 

About This Report

The United States Department of Education’s (the Department’s) FY 2015 Annual Performance 

Report (APR) and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan (APP) provide information relative to the 

FY 2014–18 Strategic Plan. 

Again this year, the Department has consolidated its APR and APP in an effort to provide a 

more complete and meaningful picture of the Department’s past performance and plans for the 

2017 fiscal year. Because there is typically a delay of at least one year to allow for data 

collection for many of the Department’s performance metrics, annual trend data are not 

available for all metrics. 

About the Agency Financial Report

The FY 2015 Agency Financial Report (AFR), released in November 2015, provides detailed 

information on the Department’s financial performance and stewardship over its financial 

resources. Former Secretary Arne Duncan outlined accomplishments, ongoing initiatives, and 

management challenges for the Department in FY 2015 in his letter published in the AFR. 

FY 2015 Financial Highlights and Information

The Financial Highlights section of the AFR provides an overview and analysis of the 

Department’s sources of funds and financial position, including a section on trend analysis, to 

depict key financial activities for FY 2015 and to identify and explain significant trends. 

As an 11-time recipient of the Association of Government Accountants Certificate of Excellence 

in Accountability Reporting and having earned unmodified1(or “clean”) audit opinions for 

14 consecutive years, the Department remains committed to continuous improvement in its 

financial management, operations, and reporting. 

The AFR also provides a review of the Department’s financial summary and complete financial 

statements, including required supplementary stewardship information and notes to the principal 

financial statements for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2015, and September 30, 2014. 

Analysis of Controls, Systems, and Legal Compliance 

The Department is the smallest of 15 cabinet-level agencies in terms of government staff, with 

approximately 4,100 employees. In contrast, it has the third-largest grant portfolio among the 

26 federal grant-making organizations. To demonstrate effective stewardship of these 

resources, the Department has to implement effective controls over operations, systems, and 

financial reporting, as described in the Analysis of Controls, Systems, and Legal Compliance

section of the AFR. 

For more information regarding compliance with the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 

1982 (P.L. 97-255) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-123, 

Management’s Responsibility for Internal Control, see the Management Assurances section of 

the AFR. 

 

1

“Unmodified” has the same meaning as the previous terminology, “unqualified.”
FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 6 

Performance Results Details

Performance Management Framework 

In accordance with the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, the Department’s framework for 

performance management starts with the Strategic Plan, including its Agency Priority Goals 

(APGs), which serve as the foundation for establishing long-term priorities and developing 

performance goals, objectives, and metrics by which the Department can gauge achievement of 

its stated outcomes. Progress toward the Department’s Strategic Plan is measured using datadriven review and analysis. This focus promotes active management engagement across the 

Department. Additional information is available in the Department’s Annual Performance Plans 

and Annual Performance Reports.

The FY 2014–18 Strategic Plan addresses six strategic goals that influence the day-to-day work 

of the Department’s staff. The Department continues to welcome input from Congress, state and 

local partners, and other education stakeholders about the Strategic Plan. Questions or 

comments about the Strategic Plan should be e-mailed to APP_APRComments@ed.gov. 

. 
PERFORMANCE RESULTS DETAILS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 7 

FY 2014–18 Strategic Plan2

 

2 This report addresses the Department’s progress on the FY 2014–15 APGs and introduces the FY 2016–17 APGs. Quarterly 

updates for the APGs are available on performance.gov. 
PERFORMANCE RESULTS DETAILS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 8 
PERFORMANCE RESULTS DETAILS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 9 

The Department’s Agency Priority Goals 

The Department identified six APGs for FY 2014–15 that served to focus its activities over the 

two-year period. These goals are consistent with the Department’s five-year strategic plan, 

which will be used to monitor and report regularly on progress, reflect the Department’s cradleto-career education strategy, and help concentrate efforts on the importance of teaching and 

learning at all levels of the education system. As noted in the APG table above, this report 

addresses the Department’s progress on the FY 2014–15 APGs and introduces the 

FY 2016–17 APGs. Quarterly updates for the APGs are available on performance.gov. 

Progress on the Department’s FY 2014–15 Agency Priority Goals

APG: Increase college degree attainment in America

Goal for FY 2014–2015: By September 30, 2015, 45.6 percent of adults ages 25–34 will 

have an associate degree or higher, which will place the nation on track to reach the 

President’s goal of 60 percent degree attainment by 2020.

Supports Strategic Goal 1

Overview: The President set a goal for the United States to have the highest proportion of 

college graduates in the world. Meeting this goal will require millions of additional Americans to 

earn a postsecondary degree by the end of this decade. This goal is meant to augment the 

Department’s longstanding efforts to improve access and enrollment, with this added emphasis 

on actual completion. The President’s focus on the educational attainment among ages 25–34 

allows us to assess progress in preparing the next generation of United States workers and to 

benchmark for international comparisons. 

Progress: Starting from a baseline of 44.0 percent in 2012, the Department projected that the 

annual increase of educational attainment among ages 25–34 would grow progressively each 

year above the four-year historical average of 0.7 percentage points and established a 

performance target of 45.6 percent. This APG has been achieved, as 45.7 percent of adults 

ages 25–34 have an associate’s degree or higher, exceeding the performance target (note that 

the rate reflects prior-year data, in this case from 2014, but is reported in 2015 when data are 

available). Department activities that support this goal include redesigning the College 

Scorecard to include additional information that helps students make more informed choices, 

promoting institutional innovation to foster college completion, and implementing evidencebased practices that support student success. 

Opportunities and Challenges: Continued success toward achieving this goal will depend 

largely on whether, and to what extent, states and institutions: (a) implement policies and 

programs to increase access and success; (b) reduce costs and time to completion; (c) support 

accelerated learning opportunities, including dual enrollment; (d) develop and adopt effective 

and innovative practices that improve student outcomes; and (e) promote seamless transitions 

from secondary to postsecondary education and among higher education institutions. Although 

the Department has limited leverage to influence states’ policies and the practices of 

postsecondary institutions, the Department will use its available resources—including 

implementation and impact of programs and technical assistance, and the ability to convene 

stakeholders to encourage collaboration and best practices—to continue to sustain and 

advance success in this area.
PERFORMANCE RESULTS DETAILS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 10

APG: Support implementation of college- and career-ready standards and 

assessments

Goal for FY 2014–2015: By September 30, 2015, at least 50 states/territories will be

implementing next-generation assessments, aligned with college- and career-ready 

standards.

Supports Strategic Goal 2

Overview: The adoption of college- and career-ready standards, coupled with high-quality 

formative and summative assessments to measure the extent to which students are mastering 

the standards, is the foundation to improving educational outcomes for all students. 

Progress: Most states have adopted college- and career-ready standards and are in the 

process of implementing summative assessments aligned with those standards. The Race to 

the Top - Assessment (RTTA) consortia, which included 29 states, DC, and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands, completed the operational administration of their assessments during spring 2015. In 

September 2015, OESE released revised criteria, procedures, and guidance for the 

Department’s peer review of state assessment systems under Title I of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act (ESEA). 

Opportunities and Challenges: On December 10, 2015, the President signed a 

reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, now known as the Every 

Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).3 The law 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 assessments that measure students’ progress toward those high standards. The 

Department is developing plans for how best to support states and districts during the transition 

to the ESSA. 

APG: Improve learning by ensuring that more students have effective 

teachers and leaders

Goal for FY 2014–2015: By September 30, 2015, at least 37 states will have fully 

implemented teacher and principal evaluation and support systems that consider multiple 

measures of effectiveness, with student growth as a significant factor.

Supports Strategic Goal 2

Overview: The nation needs to do more to ensure that every student has an effective teacher, 

every school has an effective leader, and every teacher and leader has access to the 

preparation, ongoing support, recognition, and collaboration opportunities he or she needs to 

succeed. The Department has worked to help strengthen the profession by focusing on 

meaningful feedback, support, and incentives at every stage of a career, based on fair 

evaluation and support systems that look at multiple measures, including, in significant part, 

 

3 P.L. No. 114-95
PERFORMANCE RESULTS DETAILS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 11

evidence of student learning and are used to help educators improve instruction and student 

outcomes. 

The Department has supported states that developed and adopted comprehensive teacher and 

principal evaluation and support systems, as well as in district development and implementation 

of comprehensive educator evaluation systems. This additional support was helpful to begin to 

ensure that teachers, principals, and educator evaluators are able, for example, to use and 

develop learning objectives to measure student growth and to implement new classroom 

observation, coaching, and feedback techniques. 

Progress: The performance targets for this APG are based on state implementation timelines 

provided through original ESEA Flexibility requests. However, as part of the ESEA Flexibility 

renewal process, the Department offered states the flexibility to adjust their timelines. As of 

June 30, 2015, eight states have fully implemented teacher and principal evaluation and support 

systems.4

Opportunities and Challenges: Under the ESSA, ESEA Flexibility waivers, including Principle 

3—supporting effective instruction and leadership—expire on August 1, 2016. As a result, it will 

be up to states to choose to continue the hard work of implementing comprehensive educator 

evaluation and support systems in accordance with the original timeline. The Department is 

developing plans for how best to support states and districts during the transition to the ESSA. 

The Department will continue to look for ways to encourage innovation in this area. As states 

continue work to implement teacher and leader evaluation systems, the Department will 

continue to provide robust technical assistance and encourage forward motion in 

implementation.

APG: Support comprehensive early learning assessment systems

Goal for FY 2014–2015: By September 30, 2015, at least nine states will be collecting 

and reporting disaggregated data on the status of children at kindergarten entry using a 

common measure.

Supports Strategic Goal 3

Overview: Kindergarten entry assessments (KEAs), when properly designed, can be used to 

inform professional development to improve the early learning workforce, be included in a 

state’s comprehensive early learning assessment system, and improve student achievement 

and program effectiveness. 

Progress: The Department anticipated exceeding the goal of at least nine states collecting and 

being able to report disaggregated data on the status of children at kindergarten entry using a 

common measure by September 30, 2015. Five Early Learning Challenge (ELC) states 

implemented KEAs in the 2014–15 school year, and 6 additional ELC states are implementing 

their KEAs in the 2015–16 school year, bringing the total to 11 ELC states implementing a KEA 

during the 2015–16 school year.5 

 

4

“Fully implemented” is defined as the data year from which teachers’ and principals’ effectiveness ratings are derived; that is, 

states are considered to have “fully implemented” in a given year if their systems provide summative ratings based on professional 

practice and student growth data from that school year. 

5

In the AFR, the Department reported 12 states projected to implement a KEA during the 2015–16 school year. New Mexico was 

included in this projection, but will now begin implementation after the 2015–16 school year. 
PERFORMANCE RESULTS DETAILS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 12

Opportunities and Challenges: Constructing, testing, and implementing KEAs across every 

school in every state will be challenging and take time. In addition, states will need to ensure 

that the KEAs are implemented in such a way that minimizes assessment time and maximizes 

the usefulness of information collected; KEAs should not result in the loss of a significant 

amount of instructional time in the classroom. Additionally, two of the three Enhanced 

Assessment Grants (EAG) grantees that are consortia may experience challenges coordinating 

across states due to variances in standards and differences in their policies and procedures. For 

example, states differ in exactly when and how assessments are given. Some states ask that 

assessments be administered in the first month of kindergarten. Other states allow for a longer 

assessment window or encourage assessments be administered in the summer before 

kindergarten. All states are implementing the assessments on a rolling basis so that not all 

classrooms participate at the same time. Some states are still pilot testing their assessments. 

While some states may mandate statewide assessments through their legislature, others leave 

it to local districts to decide. A few states, such as Kentucky, have developed systems to 

generate and distribute reports for families and policy makers. The Department is working with 

these grantees to minimize coordination challenges. 

To understand and address state challenges, the Department has funded a report on KEA 

implementation in four states: Maryland, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington. This report, 

which will be released late in 2016, will review challenges and potential solutions at the state, 

district, and classroom level. In addition, the Department will continue to support the 

development and implementation of KEAs and highlight best practices through its technical 

assistance centers and grant monitoring. By 2017, the EAG grantees and their consortia states 

will begin implementing their school readiness assessments. The new Preschool through Early 

Elementary School Grades (Early Learning Network), administered by the National Center for 

Education Research (NCER) at the IES and funded in part through the Preschool Development 

Grants program’s national activities funds, will support teams of researchers to advance the 

field’s understanding of policies and practices that support early learning and ongoing academic 

success. 

APG: Ensure equitable educational opportunities

Goal for FY 2014–2015: By September 30, 2015, the number of high schools with 

persistently low graduation rates will decrease by 5 percent annually. The national high 

school graduation rate will increase to 83 percent, as measured by the Adjusted Cohort 

Graduation Rate, and disparities in the national high school graduation rate among 

minority students, students with disabilities, English learners, and students in poverty will 

decrease.

Supports Strategic Goal 4

Overview: Through many federal programs, including Title I of the ESEA, the Department has 

provided significant funding, technical assistance, and other support intended to improve the 

nation’s lowest-achieving schools dramatically by, among other strategies, using turnaround 

interventions and strategies. The Department is focused on supporting innovation, not just 

compliance monitoring, and on spurring growth in achievement, not just absolute achievement 

measures.

Increasing the national high school graduation rate and decreasing disparities in the graduation 

rate are critical to achieving the President’s goal of once again having the highest proportion of 
PERFORMANCE RESULTS DETAILS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 13

college graduates in the world. The nation has made significant progress in increasing both high 

school graduation rates and degree attainment rates, but gaps between rates for different 

student groups continue to persist. 

Progress: The national public high school graduation rate has reached an all-time high, with 

82.3 percent of students graduating high school within 4 years in the 2013–14 school year.6 The 

Department has reviewed and approved all states’ 2015 plans to ensure equitable access to 

excellent educators, and states are in the midst of implementing those plans. This work is 

critical to ensure that students of color and students from low-income families have equitable 

access to excellent educators. In June 2015, the Department hosted 19 local education 

agencies (LEAs) with high dropout rates among students of color to provide technical 

assistance and support. The Department also began the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) for 

the 2013–14 school year, which is including for the first time collection of the number of students 

absent 15 or more days. 

Opportunities and Challenges: The ESSA continues the ESEA’s focus on ensuring that states 

and school districts account for the progress of all students, take meaningful actions to improve 

the lowest-performing schools, and ensure equitable access to excellent educators. The 

Department is developing plans for how best to support states and districts during the transition 

to the ESSA. 

APG: Enable evidence-based decision making

Goal for FY 2014–2015: By September 30, 2015, the percentage of select new (noncontinuation) competitive grant dollars that reward evidence will increase by 70 percent.

Supports Strategic Goal 5

Overview: Through its range of grants, contracts, and internal analytic work, the Department 

supports the use of rigorous research and study designs that inform federal investments in 

education. This APG tracks whether the Department is increasing its internal capacity to make 

competitive grant awards based on the existence of (and amount of) evidence in support of 

projects, where appropriate.

Progress: The Department surpassed the FY 2014 performance target for increasing the 

percentage of select new (noncontinuation) discretionary grant dollars that reward evidence. In 

FY 2014, 15.92 percent of the Department’s discretionary dollars was awarded to new projects 

with supporting evidence of effectiveness, with five competitions in OII, OESE, and OPE using 

evidence through eligibility requirements, competitive preference priorities, and selection 

criteria. In FY 2015, 29.44 percent of the Department’s discretionary dollars was awarded to 

new projects with supporting evidence of effectiveness, with eight competitions in OII, OESE, 

and OPE. The Department exceeded its FY 2015 target by 18 percentage points, doubling the 

amount from FY 2014. 

Opportunities and Challenges: Properly using evidence to award competitive grants has been 

embraced, but still requires additional capacity building and new ways of working across the 

Department. The Department wants to ensure that use of evidence in competitions is supported 

across the grant-making life cycle, including in grant development, award, and support for 

grantees. Additionally, goal targets are based on reasonable projections of which competitive 

 

6 http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/tables/ACGR_RE_and_characteristics_2013-14.asp
PERFORMANCE RESULTS DETAILS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 14

grant programs may make new awards in a given fiscal year, but the actual dollar amount 

awarded will depend on final appropriations amounts in different programs and other funding 

decisions and trade-offs, so the percentage of dollars may not increase each year. Through the 

Regional Educational Laboratories (RELs) and the What Works Clearinghouse, the Department 

continues to develop toolkits, webinars, guides, and other resources intended to build the 

capacity of applicants and grantees. For example, the RELs have offered online trainings and 

mini-courses on developing logic models and designing rigorous evaluations of professional 

development programs. However, grantees vary in their comfort with and understanding of 

evaluation and use of evidence, and the Department has limited resources to support grantees 

in conducting rigorous evaluations that would produce evidence of effectiveness. 
PERFORMANCE RESULTS DETAILS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 15

Department’s FY 2016–17 Agency Priority Goals

In collaboration with the OMB, the Department announced its FY 2016–17 APGs. These APGs 

include: 

Increase college degree attainment in America

Increase attainment of college degrees by improving affordability, access, and student outcomes. By 

September 30, 2017, 48.4 percent of adults ages 25–34 will have an associate degree or higher.

(Supports Strategic Goal 1)

Federal Student Aid transparency

Increase and enhance transparency of information about the student loan portfolio for taxpayers, 

researchers, and the public. The Department will publish on Federal Student Aid’s Data Center at least 

15 new releases of data points or other information reports in 2016 and 2017, resulting in 30 new 

releases by September 30, 2017. (Supports Strategic Goal 1)

Support implementation of college- and career-ready standards and assessments

Support implementation of college- and career-ready standards and assessments. By September 30, 

2017, all states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico will be implementing high-quality 

assessments, aligned with college- and career-ready standards. (Supports Strategic Goal 2)

Increase enrollment in high-quality state preschool programs

Increase the percentage of children, especially children from low-income families, enrolled in highquality preschool programs. By September 30, 2017, the percentage of four-year old children enrolled 

in state preschool programs will increase to 33 percent (representing the 2015–16 school year, 

increasing from 29.1 percent in the 2013–14 school year). By September 30, 2017, the number of state 

preschool programs meeting high-quality benchmarks will increase to 19 states (representing the 

2015–16 school year, increasing from 15 in the 2013–14 school year). (Supports Strategic Goal 3)

Ensure equitable educational opportunities

Improve high school graduation rates and decrease gaps in graduation rates between all students and 

students from low-income families, through comprehensive school and instructional improvement 

strategies such as the equitable distribution of effective teachers and rigorous coursework in lowincome schools. By September 30, 2017, the national high school graduation rate will increase to 

85 percent, and the gap in the graduation rate between all students and students from low-income 

families will decrease to 7.4 percent. By September 30, 2017, the number of high schools with 

persistently low graduation rates will decrease by 10 percent and the number of schools that do not 

have a gap or have decreased the gap between all students and students from low-income families by 

5 percent or more will increase by 3 percent. (Supports Strategic Goal 4)

Enable evidence-based decision making

Increase use and generation of credible evidence on what works and what does not work in education. 

By September 30, 2017, the Department will increase to 20 percent the percentage of new competitive 

grant dollars that support evidence-based strategies. By September 30, 2017, the Department will 

increase by 20 the number of Department-funded project evaluations that provide credible evidence 

about what works in education. (Supports Strategic Goal 5)

The Department will begin quarterly reporting on these APGs in FY 2016, and the action plans 

for these APGs are available on performance.gov. 
PERFORMANCE RESULTS DETAILS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 16

Cross-Agency Priority (CAP) Goals

In accordance with the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, interim CAP Goals were published on 

performance.gov in March 2014. The CAP Goals are divided into two categories: 

Mission CAP Goals Management CAP Goals

 Cybersecurity

 Climate Change (Federal Actions)

 Insider Threat and Security Clearance

Reform

 Job-creating Investment

 Infrastructure Permitting Modernization

 Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics (STEM) Education

 Service Members and Veterans Mental 

Health 

 Customer Service

 Smarter IT Delivery

 Strategic Sourcing

 Shared Services

 Benchmark and Improve Mission-support 

Operations

 Open Data

 Lab-to-Market

 People And Culture

Performance.gov is updated quarterly for each CAP Goal. The website includes goal statements 

and other information, such as lists of accountable senior leader(s) and contributing agencies. 

Quarterly performance updates for the website on progress will be provided by the goal leader 

in coordination with the Performance Improvement Council, OMB, corresponding 

governmentwide management council, and contributing agencies. (A-11, Part 6, 220.5) 

In addition to the APGs, 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.

A progress update through FY 2015 Q3 is available on performance.gov. The update further 

clarifies the President’s commitment and sense of urgency in addressing cybersecurity threats, 

which are deemed to be significant threats to national security, public safety, and economic 

viability, particularly given recent major data breaches, such as that which occurred at the Office 

of Personnel Management (OPM). In response to that incident and other threats of potential 

breaches, the Department participated in the White House’s “30-day sprint” to address known 

vulnerabilities, secure network infrastructures, and restrict access through improved 

authentication, among other key strategies. 

The third quarter update shows substantive progress in three critical areas: 

 Information Security Continuous Monitoring—Impactful increase in the number of 

Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (CFO Act) agencies that met the Secure 

Configuration Management target; 

 Identify, Credentialing and Access Management—Notable increase in the percentage 

of civilian users (privileged and unprivileged) using Personal Identification Verification 

cards; and 

 Anti-Phishing and Malware Defense—Encouraging increase in the number of CFO Act 

agencies that met the Blended Defense target. 
PERFORMANCE RESULTS DETAILS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 17

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. 

A progress update through FY 2015 Q4 is available on performance.gov. The update defines 

the goal team and a governance plan and identifies subgoals and major actions to achieve 

impact. Milestones have been established for each of the four strategy areas and key indicators 

are in development. 

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, specifically: 

 Improve STEM instruction. 

 Increase and sustain youth and public engagement in STEM. 

 Enhance STEM experience of undergraduate students. 

 Better serve groups historically underrepresented in STEM fields. 

 Design graduate education for tomorrow’s STEM workforce. 

 Build new models for leveraging assets and expertise. 

 Build and use evidence-based approaches. 

A progress update through FY 2015 Q4 is available on performance.gov. The update highlights 

the formulation of a governance plan, and identifies subgoals and major strategies to achieve 

impact as well as key indicators for the action plan. 

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

outcomes for Service Members, Veterans, and their Families. 

A progress update through FY 2015 Q4 is available on performance.gov. The update highlights 

governance plan alignment with the President’s Executive Actions, and identifies subgoals and 

major actions to achieve impact as well as key indicators and milestones. 

Additionally, the Department is a member of the Interagency Taskforce on Military and Veterans 

Mental Health. 

Real-time information on CAP Goals is available at performance.gov. 

The Department’s Approach to Data Collection and Analysis 

In FY 2015, 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 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 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 
PERFORMANCE RESULTS DETAILS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 18

quality, coordination, and use. Activities include the Education Data Technical Assistance 

program, the Privacy Technical Assistance Center, and work on Common Education Data 

Standards (CEDS). 

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

coordinated and consistent data strategies among the various principal offices 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. The Department collects data on key education and civil rights 

issues in our nation’s public schools for use by 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 2015 and of those planned 

through FY 2017, see appendix E.
FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 19

Performance Plan Summary

Looking Ahead and Addressing Challenges

The U.S. Department of Education’s commitment to equity and access are at the heart of its 

strategic planning and reporting across the six goals in the Department’s Strategic Plan. 

Excellent Education for All

America’s high school graduation rate has reached a record high, dropout rates are down, and 

1.1 million more Black and Hispanic students are attending college than in 2008, according to 

new National Center for Education Statistics data. 

As a nation, America must accelerate that pace of change because today: 

 a quarter of high schools with the highest percentage of African-American and Latino 

students do not offer Algebra II, and a third do not offer chemistry; 

 about 40 percent of school districts do not offer preschool programs; and 

 we have far too many students of color, primarily boys, being suspended and expelled 

from school. 

The Department’s work will not be done until it ensures that the opportunity for a high-quality 

education is not just a possibility, and not just a promise, but a reality for the nation’s citizens. 

Going forward, the Department will build on priorities that are in place: 

 state-driven accountability that demands progress for all children; 

 increased access to high-quality early education for children from low-income families; 

 more flexibility for state decision-making; 

 more support for principals and teachers to apply high standards to practice; 

 reforming career and technical education in high schools and community colleges; and 

 reforming and simplifying the application process for student aid to help drive college 

affordability and completion. 

The reauthorization of the ESEA by the ESSA will impact many of the Department’s activities, 

but plans for implementation are being developed. Through the transition to the ESSA, the 

opportunities that remain to help improve the education system for citizens are a constant and 

essential source of motivation and urgency to do even more to improve America’s education 

system. Accomplishing the Department’s strategic goals will require strong coordination and 

collaboration from Department staff working with partners at the federal, state, and local levels, 

including representatives from Congress; federal, state, and local agencies; school districts; and 

schools. 

Data Verification and Validation 

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

of data presented. OMB guidance indicates: 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 20

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).7

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. Additionally, the Organizational Performance Review 

contributes to the Department’s compliance with the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 by 

informing data-driven performance discussions, and serving as a tool for principal offices to 

improve their efficiency and effectiveness through operational and administration priorities and 

initiatives at the principal office level. 

To support the tracking and reporting of progress against the goals and objectives, the 

Department provides regular updates to its data profile on performance.gov. The effective 

implementation of the Department’s Strategic Plan will depend, in part, on the effective use of 

high-quality and timely publicly reported data throughout the lifecycle of policies and programs. 

In addition, the Department’s success in achieving its strategic goals is closely tied to its 

capacity and funding. In addressing capacity, the Department has increased investment in the 

continuous improvement of its workforce, adding more resources for workforce management 

and development. An emerging federal emphasis on enterprise risk management has 

contributed to the Department seeking to employ comprehensive risk management to ensure 

prudent use of public dollars by mitigating risk through increased oversight and support of 

grantees and contractors as well as in its general operations. 

Continuous improvement rests on ongoing cycles of assessing performance, examining data, 

and employing lessons 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 

policy makers, but with the main intent to see better performance results overall. The 

Department is committed to doing its part to bring innovative ideas, convening influence, and 

any other resources that will help achieve the outcomes that matter most to its stakeholders. 

 

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

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 21

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: Ted Mitchell

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 

Leaders: Jon O’Bergh, Jim Runcie, and Michael Yudin 

Metric 1.1.A: Rate of increase in net price of public four-year institutions8

 

Metric 1.1.B: Rate of increase in net price of public two-year institutions9

Metric 1.1.C: Percentage of high school seniors filing a Free Application for Federal 

Student Aid (FAFSA) 

Metric 1.1.D: Index of national annual aggregate earnings of Vocation Rehabilitation 

(VR) consumers (based on the number of competitive integrated employment outcomes, 

hours worked, and hourly wages of VR consumers) 

Metric 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) 

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 Leader: Jon O’Bergh 

Metric 1.2.A: Number of low-performing institutions with high loan default rates and low 

graduation rates10

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 Leader: Jon O’Bergh 

Metric 1.3.A: Degree attainment among 25–34-year-old age cohort 

Metric 1.3.B: Retention rate of first-time degree-seeking undergraduates: Full-time11

 

8 Metric is being removed at the end of the FY 2015 reporting period. Please refer to appendix B for details pertaining to the removal 

and addition of metrics. 

9 Metric is being removed at the end of the FY 2015 reporting period. Please refer to appendix B for details pertaining to the removal 

and addition of metrics. 

10 Metric is being removed at the end of the FY 2015 reporting period. Please refer to appendix B for details pertaining to the 

removal and addition of metrics. 

11 Metric is being removed at the end of the FY 2015 reporting period. Please refer to appendix B for details pertaining to the 

removal and addition of metrics. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 22

Metric 1.3.C: Retention rate of first-time degree-seeking undergraduates: Part-time12

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

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

programs. Objective Leader: Russ Shilling

Metric 1.4.A: Number of STEM postsecondary credentials awarded 

Goal 1 Discretionary Resources

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

FY 2015

FY 2016

FY 2017

$29,632

$29,867

$30,148

(Dollars in millions)

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities13 Supporting Goal 1 Performance Metrics 

[Dollars in Millions]

POC Account Obj. Program

FY 2015 

Appropriation

FY 2016 

Appropriation

FY 2017 

President’s 

Budget

FSA SAA Student Aid Administration: Salaries and expenses 675 697 732

FSA SAA Student Aid Administration: Servicing Activities 722 855 900

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

OCTAE CTAE 1.1, 

1.2, 1.3 Adult basic and literacy education state grants 569 582 582

OCTAE CTAE NA Career and technical education state grants 1,118 1,118 1,193

OPE HE 1.1, 1.3 Federal TRIO programs 840 900 900

OPE HE First in the World 60 0 100

OPE HE 

HBCU and minority-serving institutions (MSI) 

innovation for completion fund (proposed) 0 0 30

Subtotal 26,459 26,627 26,912

Other Discretionary Programs/Activities 3,174 3,241 3,236

TOTAL, GOAL 1 29,632 29,867 30,148

POC = Principal Office Component 

NA = Not applicable. 

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

 

12 Metric is being removed at the end of the FY 2015 reporting period. Please refer to appendix B for details pertaining to the 

removal and addition of metrics. 

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

noncompetitive programs. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 23

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. 

Prior to entering postsecondary education, prospective students need easily accessible 

information on the cost of attendance and financial aid; rates for career placement, graduation, 

and college loan defaults; labor market outcomes and projections of labor market demand; loan 

repayment and management options; and other subjects crucial to understanding the 

affordability and value of the postsecondary institutions and programs of study available. 

Students deserve to know that, whether they enter a college, university, career training 

program, or adult education program, the credential they earn will be affordable and its value 

will be recognized as an indication that they possess the necessary knowledge and skills for 

success in the workplace and in life. 

Providing federal student aid in a simple, reliable, and efficient manner is primarily how the 

Department supports college access, affordability, quality, and completion. In FY 2015, the 

Department delivered nearly $128 billion in grants, work-study, and loan assistance to almost 

12 million postsecondary students at over 6,100 schools.14 In addition, the Department 

administered $2 billion annually in grants to strengthen postsecondary institutions and promote 

college readiness, and nearly $1.7 billion more in grant funds for career and technical education 

(CTE), adult education (including literacy and civics education), and correctional education to 

help youths and adults secure the skills that equip them for work, civic participation, and lifelong 

learning.15

The Department has taken significant steps to increase college access, affordability, quality, 

and completion in recent years. Resources developed by the Department, such as the College 

Affordability and Transparency Center, the Financial Aid Shopping Sheet, the College 

Scorecard, a consolidated student aid website, and new loan counseling and financial literacy 

resources, now provide students and families with new and enhanced tools for informed 

decision-making. In particular, the release in FY 2015 of a vastly expanded College 

Scorecard—including many important metrics that have not been published before—has set a 

new standard for consumer information about postsecondary education. Redesigned with direct 

input from students, families, and their advisers, the College Scorecard provides the clearest, 

most accessible, and most reliable national data on cost, graduation, debt, and postcollege 

earnings. Gainful Employment regulations will also ensure that students are informed about key 

outcomes for occupational-oriented programs before they enroll and that programs not meeting 

established standards will lose eligibility for access to federal student aid funds. In addition, the 

Department continues to simplify the FAFSA so it is easier and faster for students to apply for 

aid, and has improved the process. Beginning with the 2017–18 award year, students can apply 

earlier and electronically retrieve tax information filed for an earlier year, rather than waiting until 

tax season to complete their applications. Learning about aid eligibility options much earlier in 

the college application and decision process will allow students and families to determine the 

true cost of attending college—taking available financial aid into account—and make more 

informed decisions. New and expanded repayment plans, including Pay As You Earn (PAYE) 

 

14 Federal Student Aid Annual Report FY 2015.

15 Note that CTE formula funds go to both secondary and postsecondary programs; approximately 40% of the amount listed goes to 

postsecondary programs. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 24

and Revised Pay As You Earn (REPAYE), make debt more affordable for students after they 

leave school. America’s College Promise, the President’s proposed new federal-state 

partnership to to make two years of community college free for responsible students, would 

significantly impact affordability by letting students earn the first half of a bachelor’s degree 

and earn skills needed in the workforce at no cost. This proposal will require everyone to do 

their part: community colleges must strengthen their programs and increase the number of 

students who graduate, states must invest more in higher education and training, and 

students must take responsibility for their education, earn good grades, and stay on track to 

graduate. The Department will build on these efforts to ensure that all Americans, regardless of 

their financial circumstances, will have the opportunity to access and complete an affordable 

postsecondary degree or other postsecondary credential.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 25

Goal 1: Details

U.S. Department 

of Education 

Indicators of 

Success

Baseline

Actuals Current Year 

Target Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals)

2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

1.1.A. Rate of 

increase in net 

price of public fouryear institutions16

AY: 2010–11

1.7%

AY: 2010–11

1.7%

AY:

2011–12

3.1%

AY:

2012–13

0.6%

AY: 2012–13

1.3% MET

1.3%

0.6%

0.0%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

0.8%

1.0%

1.2%

1.4%

1.1.A

NA NA

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

2013 2014 2015

New Metric: 

Federal student 

loan delinquency 

rate

FY: 2015

21.7% NA FY: 201424.0%

FY: 2015

21.7% NA NA

+/- 3–5% 

over prior 

year’s 

actuals

+/- 3–5% 

over prior 

year’s 

actuals

1.1.B. Rate of 

increase in net 

price of public twoyear institutions17

AY: 2010–11

1.7%

AY: 2010–11

1.7%

AY: 

2011–12

3.2%

AY: 

2012–13

0.1%

AY: 2012–13

1.3% MET

1.3%

0.1%

0.0%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

0.8%

1.0%

1.2%

1.4%

1.1.B

NA NA

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

2013 2014 2015

 

16 Metric being removed at the end of the FY 2015 reporting period and being replaced with the metric identified as “New Metric” directly below it. If there is no corresponding “New 

Metric” identified, new metric TBD. Please refer to appendix B for details pertaining to the removal and addition of metrics. The proposed FY 2016 and 2017 targets for the metric being 

removed were 1.1% and 0.9%, respectively. 

17 Metric being removed at the end of the FY 2015 reporting period and being replaced with the metric identified as “New Metric” directly below it. If there is no corresponding “New 

Metric” identified, new metric TBD. Please refer to appendix B for details pertaining to the removal and addition of metrics. The proposed FY 2016 and 2017 targets for the metric being 

removed were 1.1% and 0.9%, respectively. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 26

U.S. Department 

of Education 

Indicators of 

Success

Baseline

Actuals Current Year 

Target Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals)

2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

New Metric: Web 

traffic to the 

College Scorecard

(as measured by 

unique visitors 

annually)

FY: 2015 

91,011

(Excluding 

new 

Scorecard 

launch on 

Sept. 12, 

2015)

NA NA 91,011 NA NA 1,500,000 1,800,000

New APG Metric: 

Number of data 

points or other 

information reports

released on the 

FSA Data Center18

FY: 2009–14

12 NA NA 12 NA NA 15 30

1.1.C. Percentage 

of high school 

seniors filing a 

FAFSA

SY: 2012–13

59.2%

SY: 2012–13

59.2%

SY: 

2013–14

60.1%

SY: 

2014–15

60.5%

SY 2014–15 

59.1%–

61.1%

MET

59.1%

60.5%

50.0%

51.0%

52.0%

53.0%

54.0%

55.0%

56.0%

57.0%

58.0%

59.0%

60.0%

61.0%

1.1.C

+/- one 

percentage 

point of prior 

year’s

actuals

+/- one 

percentage 

point of prior 

year’s

actuals

55.5%

57.5%

59.5%

61.5%

2013 2014 2015

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

$61,824,728 $61,800,2

1419

TBD

Data 

available Q1 

FY16

$64,322,447 TBD TBD $65,608,896 $66,921,074

61,500,000

61,600,000

61,700,000

61,800,000

61,900,000

2013 2014

 

18 Metric is aligned with an APG. 

19 Metric reported as TBD in the 2014 APR. 2014 actuals show the 2014 target was “Not Met.”
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 27

U.S. Department 

of Education 

Indicators of 

Success

Baseline

Actuals Current Year 

Target Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals)

2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

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 

Transition-Age 

Youth)

FY:

2010

$15,971,665

$18,353,441 $18,540,5

7620

TBD

Data 

available Q1 

FY16

$19,094,920 TBD TBD $19,476,818 $19,866,354

17,500,000

17,700,000

17,900,000

18,100,000

18,300,000

18,500,000

18,700,000

2013 2014

1.2.A. Number of 

low-performing 

institutions with 

high loan default 

rates and low 

graduation rates21

AY: 2010–11

205

AY: 2010–11

205

AY: 

2011–12

91

AY: 

2012–13

55

AY: 2012–13 

155 MET

155

55

0

50

100

150

200

1.2.A

NA NA

0

50

100

150

200

250

2013 2014 2015

New Metric: Pell 

enrollment at IHEs 

with high 

graduation rates22

AY: 2013–14

24.1% NA NA

AY:

2013–14

24.1%

NA NA AY 2014–15

25.0%

AY 2015–16

26.0%

New Metric: 

Number of states 

that develop or 

strengthen career 

pathways policies, 

guidance, or 

legislation

FY: 2015 

8

NA NA 8 NA NA 10 37

 

20 Metric reported as TBD in the 2014 APR. 2014 actuals show the 2014 target was “Not Met.”

21 Metric being removed at the end of the FY 2015 reporting period and being replaced with the metric identified as “New Metric” directly below it. If there is no corresponding “New 

Metric” identified, new metric TBD. Please refer to appendix B for details pertaining to the removal and addition of metrics. The proposed FY 2016 and 2017 targets for the metric being 

removed were 135 and 117, respectively. 

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

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 28

U.S. Department 

of Education 

Indicators of 

Success

Baseline

Actuals Current Year 

Target Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals)

2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

1.3.A. Degree 

attainment among 

25–34-year-old 

age cohort23

Current 

Population 

Survey 

(CPS) Year: 

2012

44.0%

CPS Year: 

2012

44.0%

CPS 

Year: 

2013

44.8%

CPS 

Year: 

2014

45.7%

45.6% MET

45.6

%

45.7

%

45.0%

45.1%

45.2%

45.3%

45.4%

45.5%

45.6%

45.7%

45.8%

1.3.A

46.8% 48.4%

35.0%

37.0%

39.0%

41.0%

43.0%

45.0%

47.0%

2013 2014 2015

1.3.B. Retention 

rate of first-time 

degree-seeking 

undergraduates: 

Full-time24

AY: 2011

71.9%

AY: 2011

71.9%

AY: 2012

71.8%

AY: 2013

72.9% 72.1% MET

72.

1%

72.

9%

45.0%

50.0%

55.0%

60.0%

65.0%

70.0%

75.0%

1.3.B

NA NA

65.0%

67.0%

69.0%

71.0%

73.0%

75.0%

2013 2014 2015

New Metric: 

Enrollment in IHEs 

where students’ 

median earnings 

10 years after 

entering college 

are below a 

minimum earnings 

threshold25

AY: 

2012–13

9.7%

NA NA

AY: 

2012–13

9.7%

NA NA 9.4% 9.0%

 

23 Metric is aligned with an APG. 

24 Metric being removed at the end of the FY 2015 reporting period and being replaced with the metric identified as “New Metric” directly below it. If there is no corresponding “New 

Metric” identified, new metric TBD. Please refer to appendix B for details pertaining to the removal and addition of metrics. The proposed FY 2016 and 2017 targets for the metric being 

removed were 72.1% and 72.3%, respectively. 

25 “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-2-year institutions, $26,000 for 2-year institutions, and $35,000 for 4-year institutions. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 29

U.S. Department 

of Education 

Indicators of 

Success

Baseline

Actuals Current Year 

Target Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals)

2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

1.3.C. Retention 

rate of first-time 

degree-seeking 

undergraduates: 

Part-time26

AY: 2011

41.7%

AY: 2011

41.7%

AY: 2012

42.2%

AY: 2013

43.1% 42.6% MET

42.6

%

43.1

%

40.0%

40.5%

41.0%

41.5%

42.0%

42.5%

43.0%

43.5%

1.3.C

NA NA

35.0%

37.0%

39.0%

41.0%

43.0%

45.0%

2013 2014 2015

New Metric:

FAFSA renewal 

rate

FY: 2015

79% NA NA FY: 201579% NA NA

+/- one 

percentage 

point over 

prior year’s 

actual

+/- one 

percentage 

point over 

prior year’s 

actual

1.4.A. Number of 

STEM 

postsecondary 

credentials 

awarded

AY: 2010–11

531,018

AY: 2010–11

531,018

AY: 

2011–12

556,696

AY: 

2012–13

573,911

595,000 NOT 

MET

595,

000

573,

911

500,000

520,000

540,000

560,000

580,000

600,000

1.4.A

638,000 691,000

500,000

520,000

540,000

560,000

580,000

2013 2014 2015

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. Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS); annually 

1.1.B. IPEDS; 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). 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 fifty states and Washington, DC; annually 

 

26 Metric being removed at the end of the FY 2015 reporting period and being replaced with the metric identified as “New Metric” directly below it. If there is no corresponding “New 

Metric” identified, new metric TBD. Please refer to appendix B for details pertaining to the removal and addition of metrics. The proposed FY 2016 and 2017 targets for the metric being 

removed were 42.9% and 43.5%, respectively. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 30

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

1.1.E. RSA-911; annually 

1.2.A. FSA Cohort Default Rate (CDR) Report, September 2014, and IPEDS Data Center; annually 

1.3.A. NCES Digest of Education Statistics, Table 104.30 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_104.30.asp), Number of persons age 18 and over, by highest level of 

educational attainment, sex, race/ethnicity, and age: 2013. Tabulated from Current Population Survey (CPS) data, U.S. Census; annually 

1.3.B. IPEDS Data Center; annually 

1.3.C. IPEDS Data Center; annually 

1.4.A. IPEDS Data 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 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 31

Analysis and Next Steps by Objective

Objective 1.1: Access and Affordability 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

The Department supported or initiated a number of efforts and made progress toward this 

objective, despite limited ability to impact college costs or control price. The Department 

unveiled the expanded College Scorecard, a college choice tool that provides a wealth of 

customizable data—including many important metrics that have not been published before—so 

students and families can make informed choices based on the criteria most important to them. 

The Department also made the data behind the Scorecard publicly available in order to 

jumpstart efforts across the country to develop meaningful metrics for accountability. The 

Department continues to seek ways to simplify the FAFSA so it is easier and faster for students 

and families to apply for financial aid. Beginning with the 2017–18 award year, students can 

apply earlier and electronically retrieve tax information filed for an earlier year, rather than 

waiting until tax season to complete their applications. The number of IHEs agreeing to utilize 

the Financial Aid Shopping Sheet, a model form that makes it easier for students to compare 

financial aid offers, grew from around 2,000 in 2013–14 to more than 3,000 in 2014–15 following 

an outreach effort to encourage institutions to sign on. 

Recognizing that FAFSA completion significantly increases chances that students will actually 

enroll in college, the Department issued guidance clarifying that state authorities may share 

FAFSA completion data with nonprofit organizations. This adds to the list of authorized entities 

that includes LEAs, The Federal TRIO Programs (TRIO) and Gaining Early Awareness and 

Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) grantees, tribal education authorities, and 

Indian organizations, so those entities can maximize the number of their students that complete 

the FAFSA. 

The Department has taken additional actions to help struggling federal student loan borrowers 

manage their debt. The Department held negotiated rulemaking sessions and finalized 

regulations in October 2015 that expand Pay As You Earn, an income-based repayment 

program, to all student borrowers who have direct loans. In the wake of the collapse of 

Corinthian Colleges, the Department announced in June of this year that it would begin 

implementing a previously little-used provision in the law called “defense to repayment,” which 

allows borrowers to seek loan forgiveness if they believe they were defrauded by their college 

under state law, and assigned a Special Master to oversee the high volume of loan discharge 

cases. Since then, the Special Master has issued two reports with recommendations for 

developing a process to handle these borrower defense claims. The Department also 

announced its intent to establish a negotiated rulemaking committee in FY 2016 to address loan 

discharge and borrower defense issues, held two public hearings in September for the 

rulemaking, and since the end of the fiscal year has selected negotiators and announced three 

negotiated rulemaking sessions to be held in January, February, and March. The Department 

began to wind down contracts with five private collection agencies that provided inaccurate 

information to borrowers, and is revising existing contracts to ensure the proper balance 

between the interests of the borrower and of the taxpayer, as well as to increase the 

Department’s oversight capabilities. 

Subsequent to FY 2015, the Department issued a report on October 1, 2015 with U.S. 

Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on a 

series of statutory, regulatory, and administrative recommendations to safeguard student 

borrowers. The recommendations include establishing: a way for borrowers to authorize the 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 32

Internal Revenue Service to release income information for multiple years to the Department to 

determine monthly payments under income-driven repayment plans; loan servicing standards; 

principles for borrower defense legislation; a streamlined discharge process for borrowers 

eligible for a total and permanent disability discharge of their loans; increased borrower 

protections in the federal student loan program; and protections for private student loan 

borrowers. The Under Secretary is overseeing a process to collect feedback from student 

borrowers and loan servicers in order to strengthen loan servicer contracts when they are 

renegotiated in the future. 

Research indicates that correctional education programs for prisoners reduce recidivism rates. 

The Department therefore launched a Second Chance Pell Grant pilot through the Experimental 

Sites program. The goal of this limited pilot program is to increase access to high-quality 

educational opportunities and help incarcerated individuals successfully transition out of prison 

and back into the classroom or the workforce. In addition, the Department invested in a series of 

demonstration projects through the Improving Reentry Education grant competition, and 

launched a program to improve the outcomes of juvenile justice youth in the reentry process 

through a strong partnership with the Department of Justice (DOJ). 

The partial restoration of Ability to Benefit provisions tied to career pathways restored access to 

federal student aid for millions of older youth and adults who lack a high school credential and 

are enrolled in a program that is part of a career pathway. The Department provided guidance 

through a Dear Colleague letter and initiated a series of webinars and other technical assistance 

activities to hold up programs and institutions that illustrate how to appropriately administer 

these new provisions. These efforts significantly open up affordable opportunities for those who 

were unable to complete high school due to a variety of reasons. 

As part of the Reach Higher Campaign, the Department collaborated with the Office of the First 

Lady to create a competition to promote the development of mobile app solutions that will help 

students navigate education and career pathways, including CTE. (The competition was 

subsequently announced in October 2015.) 

Although results for metrics 1.1.A, 1.1.B, 1.1.C, 1.1.D, and 1.1.E are influenced by actions taken 

by the Department, they are most influenced by factors that are beyond the control of the 

Department. For example, results for metrics 1.1.A and 1.1.B are most influenced by actions 

taken by postsecondary institutions, state and local agencies regarding funding decisions, and 

market forces and job creation trends. The Department met its FY 2015 performance targets for 

metrics 1.1.A and 1.1.B to slow the increase in average net price at public institutions. However, 

given the Department’s limited ability to influence net price, the Department plans to replace 

these metrics with different metrics for FY 2016. 

Regarding metric 1.1.C, the Department achieved its FY 2015 performance target to increase 

the number of high school students completing the FAFSA. Efforts such as the FAFSA 

completion project, increased outreach activities by FSA and other offices, and the 

Department’s participation in the American Council on Education’s National College Application 

Week initiative since 2011, likely contributed to success with this target. 

States are required to submit data for metrics 1.1.D and 1.1.E by November 30 for the previous 

fiscal year. As such, the FY 2015 data are not available until spring 2016. The Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), signed by the President in July 2014, reforms the public 

workforce system by strengthening alignment and access to employment, training, education, 

and support services needed to succeed in the labor market. In particular, the WIOA includes 

many changes that are designed to strengthen and improve employment for individuals with 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 33

disabilities, many served by the State Vocational Rehabilitation Services and Supported 

Employment programs. WIOA places significant emphasis on obtaining competitive integrated 

employment, especially in the amendments to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Program services 

are designed to maximize the ability of individuals with disabilities, including individuals with the 

most significant disabilities, to achieve competitive integrated employment through customized 

employment, supported employment, and other individualized services. The Department will 

continue to track national aggregate annual earnings of Vocational Rehabilitation consumers 

and transition-aged youth. Future annual earnings are expected to improve by the regulatory 

actions that the Department will undertake in FY 2016. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

The Department will take additional actions to help struggling federal student loan borrowers 

manage their debt. These actions include publishing final rules in October 2015 that expand the 

Pay As You Earn repayment program to all student borrowers with direct loans, which is 

expected to help millions of struggling borrowers; building on successful pilot programs to 

communicate information about federal student loan repayment options; conducting rulemaking 

on loan discharge and borrower defense issues; and advocating for the administration’s 

proposal for a single income-driven repayment plan. 

America’s College Promise, President Obama’s proposed initiative announced in January 2015, 

would allow students to attend community colleges tuition-free if they attend at least half-time, 

make satisfactory academic progress to a degree, and maintain a 2.5 grade point average. If 

Congress passes legislation to enact the proposal, and all states participate and provide quality 

programs, the plan could benefit millions of students by making a higher education more 

affordable. 

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

funding for higher education overall continues at historically low levels, which places pressure 

on institutions to raise costs in order to maintain quality and levels of service. Without specific 

programs, such as the proposed College Opportunity and Graduation Bonus program 

(discussed in strategic objective 1.3) and America’s College Promise, the Department has little 

influence over state funding decisions and is limited in its ability to impact net price and college 

cost. Despite these challenges, the Department will continue to highlight institutions that are 

taking steps to ensure affordability for families and will support practices that reduce cost by 

reducing the time taken to earn a degree, such as competency-based education (see discussion 

of Experimental Sites programs in section 1.2), dual enrollment,27 remedial education reforms, 

and improved articulation between institutions. The Department will also build on its existing 

work on consumer information tools, such as the College Scorecard; its work on consumer 

protections; and improving student loan servicing to ensure students have access to highquality, affordable education and quality customer service. 

Objective 1.2: Quality 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

The Department pursued several rulemaking activities during FY 2015 on higher education 

topics, including the use of prepaid debit cards at IHEs; teacher preparation programs; and 

implementation of WIOA, which reforms adult education training and services, including in the 

areas of English language acquisition and vocational rehabilitation for individuals with 

 

27 An Experimental Site project addressing dual enrollment was subsequently announced on October 30, 2015. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 34

disabilities. Most significantly, the Department implemented the Gainful Employment 

regulations, which took effect July 1, 2015, and began collecting data from institutions. The 

regulations foster program quality through transparency and accountability. Institutions will be 

required to notify students about completion rates as well as debt and earnings outcomes for 

certain types of occupational-oriented programs; programs that do not meet established 

standards risk losing eligibility for federal student aid funds. The Department also implemented 

its state authorization regulations on July 1 and reminded institutions and states of dual 

requirements that 1) IHEs must be authorized to operate in a given state by the appropriate 

state agency, and 2) that agency must have a process for handling student complaints. 

The Department continues to encourage the higher education community to focus on 

innovative, transparent, and validated approaches to student learning. Through the 

Experimental Sites initiative, the Department announced experiments in the areas of 

competency-based learning, Federal Work Study, and prior learning assessments. The results 

of these experiments will guide future policy decisions. The Department and the White House 

convened a group of 50 leading higher education experts for a discussion of innovation in higher 

education. Participants spent the day considering opportunities for innovation on which the 

federal government and others could take action expediently, and were led through a designthinking workshop about how online learning tools can catalyze improvements in postsecondary 

education. 

The Department awarded 18 First in the World grants totaling $60 million, with nine of the 

winning applications awarded to minority-serving institutions. The program focuses on highneed students and promotes evidence-based strategies and practices for college access and 

completion. Funded projects include a partnership of community colleges to implement 

proactive and individualized student support services, informed by an early alert and advising 

system based in predictive analytics; incorporating new teaching and learning strategies into the 

curriculum and student experience at an Historically Black College; and creating seamless 

transfer of lower-division general education requirements across participating institutions based 

on students’ demonstration of learning outcomes regardless of courses or credits completed. 

The Department, through a contractor, will provide technical assistance to assist all grantees in 

conducting rigorous project evaluations. Those projects showing evidence of success will serve 

as models for possible dissemination or could be eligible for future validation and scale-up 

grants. 

The Department awarded 40 grants totaling $17.5 million in the Strengthening Institutions 

Program (SIP).28 This program helps postsecondary schools expand their capacity to serve lowincome students by providing funds to improve and strengthen academic quality, institutional 

management, and fiscal stability, as well as build a framework to help students complete 

college. For the FY 2015 competition, the Department included a competitive preference priority 

supporting programs, practices, or strategies that are based on rigorous evidence. 

The Department created an interagency task force on for-profit schools, including the 

Departments of Education, Defense, Justice, Labor, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, as well 

as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Trade Commission, and the 

Securities and Exchange Commission. The task force established a working group to focus on 

enforcement-related issues. 

The Department collaborated with the Department of Labor, the Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS), the Corporation for National and Community Service, and the Institute 

 

28 FY 2015 awards listed at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/iduestitle3a/awards.html. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 35

of Museum and Library Services to develop Performance Partnership Pilots (P3) for 

Disconnected Youth. Nine pilots were announced in October 2015 that will test the hypothesis 

that additional flexibility for states, localities, and tribes, in the form of blending funds and 

obtaining waivers of certain programmatic requirements, can help overcome some of the 

significant hurdles that states, localities, and tribes may face in providing intensive, 

comprehensive, and sustained service pathways and improving outcomes for disconnected 

youth. Proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for a second 

competition are under development (subsequently published in October as well). 

In collaboration with the National Economic Council, the Department of Labor, and the Aspen 

Institute, the Department held an UpSkill Summit at the White House on April 24, 2015. One 

hundred employers made commitments to help millions of frontline workers develop their skills, 

training and credentials. The Department secured similar commitments from national and 

international labor unions and labor-management collaborations. 

As part of the President’s commitment to double the number of apprenticeships in the country, 

the Department collaborated with the Department of Labor and the Office of the Vice President 

to secure over 200 commitments from community colleges and their Registered Apprenticeship 

partners to grant college credits and degrees to individuals who hold apprenticeship program 

completion certificates. 

The Department surpassed its FY 2015 target for reducing the number of low-performing 

institutions—i.e., those with high student loan cohort default rates and below average 

completion rates. However, the Department proposes to replace this metric in FY 2016 with 

other metrics that take advantage of better data available through the expanded College 

Scorecard. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

The Department will continue various rulemaking development and implementation activities 

during FY 2016. Working cooperatively with schools and the Social Security Administration, the 

Department must ensure that activities such as data matching and validation occur on schedule 

in processing Gainful Employment data. The Department will also publish final rules regarding 

WIOA, Teacher Prep, and cash management regulations.29 

In the innovation space, the Department will continue to develop specifications for Experimental 

Sites projects on dual enrollment and alternative methods of quality assurance (the latter 

project, dubbed Educational Quality through Innovative Partnerships, or EQUIP, was 

subsequently announced in October 2015, as was the dual enrollment project). Processing 

amended Program Participation Agreements for institutions that wish to participate in the 

competency-based education and prior learning assessment experiments remains a complex 

activity and has taken longer than anticipated, but the Department expects to complete the 

process in FY 2016 so the experiments can commence. The Department will also consider 

steps that can be taken to help accreditors strengthen their oversight of institutions. 

The possible reauthorization of the Higher Education Act could provide an opportunity to 

develop new ways to encourage innovation and quality in this sector. Continuing to embed 

evidence-based practices in grant competitions is another area in which the Department can 

foster quality in terms of better student outcomes. The interagency For-Profit Task Force will 

 

29 Final Rules regarding Cash Management Regulations were published in October 2015. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 36

work toward sharing information to ensure that students are protected from unscrupulous 

institutional behavior. 

The reauthorization of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act of 

2006 creates opportunities to name quality features of CTE programs, strengthen the link 

between funding and results by incentivizing performance-based funding (such as completionbased state funding as an alternative to enrollment-based state funding mechanisms), and 

embed innovation funding in a reauthorized law that would include innovations, such as the 

American Technical Training Fund targeted at cohort-based, accelerated programming for highdemand sectors and occupations that embed remediation into program design. 

Finally, the emphasis in WIOA Title II on integrated education and training programming opens 

the door for programs that by design allow adults to work on their basic skills while 

simultaneously pursuing credit-bearing courses at the postsecondary level that lead toward 

certificates or degrees in high-demand fields.

Objective 1.3: Completion 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

The Department made progress through a variety of activities to support this strategic objective, 

especially by embedding a focus on completion in more grant competitions. One competition 

incorporated a competitive preference priority to increase postsecondary access, affordability 

and completion: Predominantly Black Institutions. The Department awarded grants to Asian 

American and Native American Pacific Islander Serving Institutions that are designed to 

increase the number and proportion of high-need students who are academically prepared for, 

enroll in, or complete on time college, other postsecondary education, or other CTE. In the 

Hispanic-Serving Institutions grant competition, the Department incorporated two competitive 

preference priorities: one to support tutoring, counseling, and student service programs 

designed to improve academic success, including innovative and customized instruction 

courses designed to help retain students and move the students rapidly into core courses and 

through program completion; and one to develop and implement high-quality online or hybrid 

credit-bearing learning opportunities that reduce the cost of higher education, reduce time to 

degree completion, or allow students to progress at their own pace. First in the World grants, 

discussed in strategic objective 1.2, also support practices that improve college completion. The 

IES announced a competition to establish a Research Network on Scalable Practices to Support 

College Completion, and expects to award a grant during the first quarter of FY 2016. 

The Department launched a new National Activities Project to study CTE stackable certificates. 

During the project’s first year, the Department will gather information and convene 

knowledgeable stakeholders. During the second year, the Department will provide technical 

assistance to the field. A new CTE innovation program proposed in the FY 2016 budget, the 

American Technical Training Fund, would support the development and implementation of new 

models and practices at the local level. 

The College Opportunity and Graduation Bonus program, also proposed in the FY 2016 budget, 

would provide $7 billion in mandatory budget authority over 10 years to support colleges that 

successfully enroll and graduate a significant number of low- and moderate-income students on 

time and encourage all institutions to improve their performance. 

Many students that enter higher education are not college ready. Improving the community 

college developmental education system is an important element of improving community 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 37

college completion. In 2015, the Department launched “Supporting Student Success: Adult 

Education and Remedial Education Reform in Community Colleges,” a national activity to 

improve developmental education practices across several states. 

The Department cohosted with the White House a College Opportunity Summit on December 4, 

2015, focused on completion and affordability, as well as on partnerships between P-12 and 

higher education to promote educational quality and seamless transitions from high school to 

college. Almost 300 commitments were announced at the summit to improve college 

opportunities for young people in communities across the country through college readiness 

partnerships, college advising, improving STEM learning and degree completion for 

underrepresented students, and helping more students complete their degrees. 

In an effort to scale up successful practices that lead to completion, especially in the area of 

remedial education, the Department developed communities of practice among minority-serving 

community colleges. Lead institutions were identified, recruited, and trained. Two communities 

of practice have been launched as of October 2015. Subsequently, on November 16–17, 2015, 

approximately 130 minority-serving community colleges met at the Department and exchanged 

promising practices; received technical assistance from the Department and 13 federal 

agencies; and heard from leading authorities in the fields of minority-serving institution research, 

philanthropy, and student success strategies. Several colleges stepped forward to join the other 

lead colleges in growing the communities of practice that will continue the capacity-building 

dialogue with the federal agencies. 

The Department achieved its performance target for metric 1.3.A with an educational attainment 

rate of 45.7 percent. The Department also achieved its performance targets for metric 1.3.B with 

a retention rate of 72.9 percent for full-time students and metric 1.3.C with a retention rate of 

43.1 percent for part-time students. Given the Department’s limited ability to impact retention 

rates overall, the Department proposes alternative metrics to replace 1.3.B and 1.3.C for FY 

2016.

Challenges and Next Steps: 

The Department’s ability to significantly impact completion rates on a large scale nationwide 

depends on Congressional support for programs proposed through the budget process. There is 

also a time lag in that actions and changes initiated in any particular year will take several years 

to show results as the cohort progresses through its educational programs. The Department will 

continue to incorporate postsecondary completion as a competitive preference priority in grant 

competitions where appropriate. 

While the Department achieved its FY 2015 performance target for educational attainment, the 

targets in future years are set to grow at increasingly accelerated rates in order to reach the 

President’s 2020 goal of 60 percent degree attainment. However, while increases in high school 

graduation rates (one of the factors that feed into the attainment rate) are growing, data from the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics show that fewer high school graduates are opting for college than 

they were in 2009—65.9 percent in 2013 and 68.4 percent in 2014, compared to a high point of 

70.1 percent in 2009.30 Total fall enrollment has declined as well, falling by an estimated 3.6 

percent in 2014 from an enrollment surge in 2010.31 These data may be attributable to the 

 

30 Bureau of Labor Statistics, College Enrollment and Work Activity of High School Graduates News Release, April 22, 2014, and 

April 16, 2015: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/hsgec.htm. 

31 National Center for Educational Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics 2014, “Table 303.10. Total fall enrollment in degreegranting postsecondary institutions, by attendance status, sex of student, and control of institution: Selected years, 1947 through 

2024”: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/dt14_303.10.asp. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 38

natural cycle of higher enrollment rates during economic downturns followed by comparatively 

lower rates as the economy improves, but these trends may impact the ability to achieve the 

targeted growth in the attainment rate unless institutions significantly increase the percentage of 

students who complete their programs of study. Despite efforts to support college completion for 

underrepresented students, equity gaps in the attainment rate based on race, ethnicity, and 

disability status have not lessened. 

Subpopulation Breakout for Metric 1.3.A: Degree attainment among 25–34-year-old age 

cohort, by race/ethnicity and disability status* 

White Black Hispanic Asian

Pacific 

Islander

American 

Indian

Two or 

More 

Races Disability

Percentage, 

2012 51.6% 32.6% 22.6% 68.7% 37.2%** 29.3%** 45.7% 20.9%

Percentage, 

2013 52.4% 33.2% 22.7% 70.9% 41.4%** 25.1%** 46.7% 19.1%

Percentage, 

2014 53.6% 33.0% 24.0% 71.5% 30.6%** 21.4%** 44.4% 21.0%

Note: Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. 

* Disability is defined as: deaf; blind; difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions; difficulty walking or climbing stairs; 

difficulty dressing or bathing; difficulty doing errands alone. 

** Interpret with caution; small sample sizes reduce the reliability of these estimates. 

Data Source and Frequency of Collection: NCES tabulations of data from the Current Population Survey, Census; annually

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

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

The Department, in consultation with OMB, has highlighted this objective as a focus area for 

improvement. 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 jobs creation trends. Many external factors impact this objective but the 

Department can nonetheless assert considerable influence to improve quality and access in 

STEM education. The total number of STEM postsecondary credentials awarded reflects a 

mixed response to the President’s call to graduate an additional 1 million STEM majors by 2020. 

To reach that ambitious goal, the target of total credentials established for FY 2015 was 

595,000; the actual number of granted credentials was 573,911. The First in the World program, 

which seeks to address persistent and widespread challenges in postsecondary education for 

high-need students, awarded more than half of the development grants for implementation and 

evaluation of projects to increase success in STEM fields or that utilize education technology to 

enhance learning and assessment. 

OCTAE is leading initiatives seeking to increase knowledge of and access to postsecondary 

STEM opportunities. For example, 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. During this reporting period, the White House Initiative on Historically Black 

Colleges and Universities held its annual conference focused on STEM and entrepreneurship. 

Across the administration, the Committee on STEM Education (CoSTEM) has established a 

task force which is working to enhance the undergraduate experience of STEM majors through 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 39

a formally chartered interagency working group led by the National Science Foundation (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. 

We anticipate that increasing the overall pipeline of candidates pursuing postsecondary 

education through community colleges and articulation programs will help address the decline in 

STEM certificates awarded. 

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

participation in STEM. More STEM credentials were awarded in 2012–13 to students of each 

gender and racial/ethnic category—including Hispanic and Black—than in previous years, with 

the exception of American Indian and Alaska Native students. Along with the CoSTEM 

interagency working group focused on broadening participation in STEM, the My Brother’s 

Keeper and Reach Higher initiatives, as well as other targeted efforts, may help expand 

participation of underrepresented groups in postsecondary STEM programs. 

Challenges and Next Steps:

The Office of STEM has been in place since June 2014. As a comparatively new entity one of 

its primary tasks has been to identify 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 office lends its expertise for program review and evaluation. The investments at the 

Department that address STEM degree and credential completion in particular are limited to 

select programs that target minority-serving institutions. As the next grant cycle commences, the 

Department is engaging in planning meetings that will identify areas for strategic leverage—

technical assistance to grantees, preaward support to potential applicants, etc. The Department 

will continue to promote STEM pathway opportunities within the CoSTEM structure that include 

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 (e.g., STEM Learning Ecosystems). 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 40

Subpopulation Breakout for Metric 1.4.A: STEM* postsecondary credentials awarded by 

degree-granting institutions**, by gender and race/ethnicity 

Year Total

Gender Race/Ethnicity

Male Female White Black Hispanic

Asian/Pacific Islander American 

Indian/

Alaska 

Native

Two or 

More 

Races

Nonresident 

Total Asian Alien

Pacific 

Islander

2010–

11 531,018 370,922 160,096 319,327 47,014 45,794 51,461 50,250 1,211 3,601 5,551 58,270

2011–

12 556,696 387,705 168,991 333,652 47,004 49,262 53,670 52,336 1,334 3,600 7,388 62,120

2012–

13 573,911 397,074 176,837 337,191 47,721 52,982 56,984 55,564 1,420 3,580 9,809 65,644

* STEM includes the following fields: Biological and biomedical sciences, Computer and information sciences, Engineering, 

Engineering technologies and engineering-related fields, Mathematics and statistics, and Physical sciences and science 

technologies. Engineering technologies and engineering-related fields excludes “Construction trades” and “Mechanic and repair 

technologies/technicians,” which are listed separately. The baseline has been recalculated from what was reported in the FY 2013 

Annual Performance Report and FY 2015 Annual Performance Plan because of revised IPEDS data. Additionally, last year’s data 

included Military technologies and applied sciences, which is no longer included in the calculation. 

** Degree-granting institutions grant associate’s or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Race 

categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Reported racial/ethnic distributions of students by level of degree, field of degree, 

and sex were used to estimate race/ethnicity for students whose race/ethnicity was not reported. To facilitate trend comparisons, 

certain aggregations have been made of the degree fields as reported in the IPEDS Fall survey: “Agriculture and natural resources” 

includes Agriculture, agriculture operations, and related sciences and Natural resources and conservation; and “Business” includes 

Business management, marketing, and related support services and Personal and culinary services. 

Data Source and Frequency of Collection: IPEDS Data Center; annually 

Selected Strategies to Achieve Goal 1

The Department must ensure that all students—recent high school graduates and adult learners 

alike—are well prepared for college and careers by helping more of them enroll in 

postsecondary education or training and helping to increase the number of those who complete 

programs of study with a degree or certificate. This effort includes continuing to promote STEM 

pathway opportunities that help elevate the quality of STEM programs and advance STEM 

participation. 

The Department continues to help struggling federal student loan borrowers manage their debt. 

Activities planned for FY 2016 include rulemaking to address borrower defense to repayment 

issues; new borrower outreach efforts about repayment options; strengthening loan servicing in 

ways that better serve borrowers; and advocating to simplify income-driven repayment plans. 

FSA is also developing a student aid complaint system that will allow students to submit 

complaints easily. Another FSA initiative, creating an enterprise data warehouse, will provide 

timely, accurate, and consistent access to FSA data. FSA has begun releasing additional 

information and reports to the public and will continue those transparency efforts in FY 2016.

To most effectively impact attainment rates, the Department will implement the President’s 

College Value and Affordability Agenda. One central strategy promotes innovation and 

competition (such as in course redesign and student services, accelerating time to degree by 

fostering dual enrollment and competency-based education). To support innovation and 

competition, the Department will launch Experimental Sites pilots on competency-based 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 41

education, prior learning assessment, dual enrollment, and alternative methods of quality 

assurance; and award P3 for Disconnected Youth.32

A second major strategy holds institutions and students accountable for completion and 

postsecondary outcomes by fostering more informed decision-making by students and wiser 

investment of resources by institutions. To support this strategy, the Department will consider 

enhancements and additional data sources for the College Scorecard; continue implementing 

the Gainful Employment regulations; publish regulations implementing WIOA; and convene 

minority-serving community colleges in an effort to scale up successful practices that lead to 

completion, especially in the area of remedial education. 

The Department will continue to spotlight model state programs and draw on them to shape 

federal strategies. The Department will highlight institutions that are working in noteworthy ways 

to successfully enroll and graduate low-income students. Furthermore, the Department 

continues to implement an evidence-based approach for institutional grants, with, for example, 

the use of competitive priorities in the SIP and the tiered-evidence structure of the First in the 

World grant competition. The net effect of these strategies will be to boost completion rates and, 

by extension, educational attainment. 

 

32 The P3 for Disconnected Youth awards were subsequently announced in October 2015. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 42

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: Ann Whalen

Objective 2.1: Standards and Assessments. Support implementation of internationally 

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

assessments. Objective Leader: Ary Amerikaner 

Metric 2.1.A: Number of states/territories33 that have adopted college- and career-ready 

standards34

Metric 2.1.B: Number of states/territories35 that are implementing next-generation 

reading and mathematics assessments, aligned with college- and career-ready 

standards 

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.36 Objective Leader: Ary Amerikaner 

Metric 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 

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 Leader: Heather Rieman 

Metric 2.3.A: Disparity in the rates of out-of-school suspensions for SWDs and youth of 

color (youth of color metric) 

Metric 2.3.B: Disparity in the rates of out-of-school suspensions for students with 

disabilities and youth of color, SWDs, Individuals with Disabilties Education Act (IDEA) 

only metric) 

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 

Leader: Ary Amerikaner 

 

33 Revising metric language to include “states/territories” to align with the 2014–15 APG statement.

34 College- and career-ready standards included in this metric are in the fields of reading/language arts and math. 

35 Revising metric language to include “states/territories” to align with the 2014–15 APG statement.

36 States with approved ESEA Flexibility requests were initially required to implement teacher and principal evaluation and support 

systems by 2014–15 or 2015–16, depending on the school year of initial approval. Through ESEA Flexibility renewal in fall 2014, the 

Department committed to working with states that need to make adjustments to implementation timelines or sequencing through the 

ESEA Flexibility renewal process. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 43

Metric 2.4.A: Number of persistently low graduation rate high schools 

Metric 2.4.B: Percentage of Cohort 1 priority schools that have met the state exit criteria 

and exited priority school status37

 

Metric 2.4.C: Percentage of Cohort 1 focus schools that have met the state exit criteria 

and exited focus school status38 

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. 

Objective Leader: Russ Shilling 

Metric 2.5.A: Percentage of high school and middle school teachers who teach STEM 

as their main assignment who hold a corresponding undergraduate degree 

Metric 2.5.B: Number of public high school graduates who have taken at least one 

STEM AP exam 

Goal 2 Discretionary Resources

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

FY 2015

FY 2016

FY 2017

$33,369

$34,407

$34,920

(Dollars in millions)

 

37 Metric is being removed at the end of the FY 2015 reporting period. Please refer to appendix B for details pertaining to the 

removal and addition of metrics. 

38 Metric is being removed at the end of the FY 2015 reporting period. Please refer to appendix B for details pertaining to the 

removal and addition of metrics. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 44

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities39 Supporting Goal 2 Performance Metrics 

[Dollars in Millions]

POC Account Obj. Program

FY 2015 

Appropriation

FY 2016 

Appropriation

FY 2017 

President’s 

Budget

OESE ED 2.4 School improvement grants 506 450 0

OESE ED 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 

2.4 Title I Grants to local education agencies 14,410 14,910 15,360

OESE I&I 2.1 State assessments 378 378 403

OESE I&I 2.2 Teacher and school leader incentive 

grants 230 230 250

OESE SIP NA

Student support and academic 

enrichment grants 0 0 500

OESE SIP 2.2

Supporting effective instruction State 

grants 2,350 2,350 2,250

OESE SSS NA 21st century community learning centers 1,152 1,167 1,000

OII I&I 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 Charter schools grants 253 333 350

OII I&I 2.2, 2.3, 2.6 Magnet schools assistance 92 97 115

OII I&I 2.1, 2.4, 2.5 Next generation high schools (proposed) 0 0 80

OII I&I 2.2 Teach to lead (proposed) 0 0 10

OII SIP 2.5 Mathematics and science partnerships 153 153 0

OII SSS 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 Promise Neighborhoods 57 73 128

OPE HE 2.2

Teacher and principal pathways 

(proposed) 0 0 125

OSERS SE 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 Special Education grants to states 11,498 11,913 11,913

Subtotal 31,077 32,053 32,484

Other Discretionary Programs/Activities 2,292 2,354 2,437

TOTAL, GOAL 2 33,369 34,407 34,920

POC = Principal Office Component 

NA = Not applicable. 

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

Public Benefit

The goal for America’s elementary and secondary educational system is clear: every student 

should graduate from high school ready for college and a career. Every student should have 

meaningful opportunities from which to choose upon graduation from high school. Over the past 

several years, states, districts, and schools have initiated groundbreaking reforms and 

innovations to try to meet this goal. For the first time, almost every state is supporting higher 

standards that will demonstrate that students who meet those standards are truly college- and 

career-ready. Many states are implementing assessments that are not only aligned with these 

new standards, but also gauge essential skills such as critical thinking, problem solving, and the 

application of knowledge. At the same time, states, districts, and schools are working to meet 

the challenges of ensuring that every classroom has an excellent teacher and every school has 

a strong and effective leader; building local capacity to support successful school turnarounds; 

redesigning high school education by building stronger connections among secondary 

education, postsecondary education, and the workplace; and improving teacher preparation and 

classroom instruction in STEM education. 

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

achievement, there is also broad agreement that the United States education system fails to 

 

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

noncompetitive programs. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 45

consistently provide all students with the excellent education necessary to achieve college- and 

career-readiness. The result is that too many of our students are failing to reach their full 

potential. 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. 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.40

Many children, particularly children from low-income families, students with disabilities (SWDs), 

ELs, and children of color, confront not only an achievement gap, but also an opportunity gap. 

Today, a student attending a high school with high minority enrollment is much less likely to be 

offered calculus and physics than a student in a high school with low minority enrollment. 

Closing the opportunity gap will require that school resources, talent, and spending be targeted 

toward kids who need help the most. 

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

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

instruction for all students. The foundation of these reforms is a system for improving learning 

and teaching that aligns with college- and career-ready standards, high-quality formative and 

summative assessments, and engaging and effective instructional content. Ensuring that U.S. 

students have the critical thinking skills and other tools they need to be effective in the 21stcentury economy means improving teaching and learning in all content areas—from language 

arts and STEM to history, civics and government, geography, foreign languages, the arts, 

economics and financial literacy, environmental education, computer science, health education, 

and other subjects. 

On December 10, 2015, the President signed a reauthorization of the ESEA, the ESSA. The law 

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 assessments that measure 

students’ progress toward those high standards. It also continues the ESEA’s focus on ensuring 

that states and school districts account for the progress of all students, take meaningful actions 

to improve the lowest-performing schools, and ensure equitable access to excellent educators. 

The Department is developing approaches to best support the implementation of the ESSA. The 

FY 2016 APR will provide additional detail on the impact of the ESSA for the Department’s 

work.

 

40 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 

2015 Reading and Mathematics Assessments, http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2015/#/
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 46

Goal 2: Details

U.S. Department of 

Education

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals

Current 

Year 

Target

Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals)

2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

2.1.A. Number of 

states/territories that have 

adopted college- and careerready standards41

SY: 2012–

13

49, plus 

DC

49, plus 

DC

49, plus 

DC and 

Puerto 

Rico

SY: 

2014–15 

51 (49 

plus DC 

and 

Puerto 

Rico)

50 MET

50

51

40

42

44

46

48

50

52

2.1.A

(49 plus 

D.C.& 

Puerto 

Rico)

52 52

45

47

49

51

53

2013 2014 2015

2.1.B. Number of 

states/territories that are 

implementing nextgeneration reading and 

mathematics assessments, 

aligned with college- and 

career-ready standards42

SY: 2012–

13

0

0 0

SY: 

2014–15

49 (48 

plus DC)

50 NOT 

MET

50

49

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

2.1.B

(Plus 

D.C.)

52 52

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 

factor43

SY: 2012–

13

6

6 7 8 37 NOT 

MET

37

8

0

10

20

30

40

50

2.2.A

2244 3945

0

2

4

6

8

10

2013 2014 2015

 

41 Revising metric language to include “states/territories” to align with the 2014–15 APG statement. 2014 Metric reported as “Not Met.” However, metric was “Met” given the inclusion 

of territories to align with the APG statement. 

42 Metric is aligned with an APG. Revising metric language to include “states/territories” to align with the 2014–15 APG statement. 

43 Metric is aligned with an APG.

44 The out-year performance targets are revised to reflect updated information provided by states through ESEA Flexibility renewal requests regarding implementation timelines. 

45 The out-year performance targets are revised to reflect updated information provided by states through ESEA Flexibility renewal requests regarding implementation timelines.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 47

U.S. Department of 

Education

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals

Current 

Year 

Target

Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals)

2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

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

Not 

Collected

TBD

SY 2013–

14 data 

collected 

in 2015

and 

available 

in 2016

Not 

Collected

NA

Biennial 

Metric

6.7% point 

disparity

NA

Biennial 

Metric

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 

Not 

Collected

TBD

SY 2013–

14 data 

collected 

in 2015

and 

available 

in 2016

Not 

Collected

NA

Biennial 

Metric

2.7% point 

disparity

NA

Biennial 

Metric

2.4.A. Number of 

persistently low graduation 

rate high schools 

SY: 2011–

12

775

SY:

2011–12

775

SY: 

2012–13

737

SY: 

2013–14

680

699 MET

699

680

600

620

640

660

680

700

720

2.4.A

5% annual 

reduction

5% annual 

reduction46

550

600

650

700

750

800

2013 2014 2015

2.4.B. Percentage of Cohort 

1 priority schools that have 

met the state exit criteria and 

exited priority school status47

SY: 2013–

14 

NA

NA 16.3%48 NA 15% NA49 NA NA

 

46 The baseline data for this performance metric were recalculated from what was reported in the FY 2013 APR and FY 2015 APP. The targets remain at a 5% reduction each year. 

47 Metric being removed at the end of the FY 2015 reporting period and being replaced with the metric identified as “New Metric” directly below it. If there is no corresponding “New 

Metric” identified, new metric TBD. Please refer to appendix B for details pertaining to the removal and addition of metrics. The proposed FY 2016 and 2017 targets for the metric being 

removed were 20.0% and 25.0%, respectively. 

48 Metric reported as TBD in the 2014 APR. 2014 actuals show the 2014 target was “Met.”

49 The FY 2015 data for this metric are not available. Further, the Department has decided to remove this metric due to unforeseen challenges in using the data provided by states. 

These challenges are discussed in more detail in appendix B of this report. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 48

U.S. Department of 

Education

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals

Current 

Year 

Target

Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals)

2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

New Metric: 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 NA

SY: 

2013–14

19.7%

NA NA TBD TBD

2.4.C. Percentage of Cohort 

1 focus schools that have 

met the state exit criteria and 

exited focus school status50

SY: 2013–

14

NA

NA 11.9%51 NA 15% NA52 NA NA

New Metric: 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 NA

SY:

2013–14

20.1%

NA NA TBD TBD

2.5.A. Percentage of high 

school and middle school 

teachers who teach STEM 

as their main assignment 

who hold a corresponding 

undergraduate degree

AY: 2011–

12

62.2%

Not 

Collected

Not 

Collected

Not 

Collected NA NA 65.3% 65.3%

2.5.B. Number of public high 

school graduates who have 

taken at least one STEM AP 

exam

AY: 2011–

12

497,922

AY: 

2011–12

497,922

AY: 

2012–13

527,001

AY: 

2013–14

555,119

581,419 NOT 

MET

581,

419

555,

119

500,000

520,000

540,000

560,000

580,000

600,000

2.5.B

632,642 691,541

460,000

480,000

500,000

520,000

540,000

560,000

2013 2014 2015

NA = Not applicable. 

TBD = To be determined. 

 

50 Metric being removed at the end of the FY 2015 reporting period and being replaced with the metric identified as “New Metric” directly below it. If there is no corresponding “New 

Metric” identified, new metric TBD. Please refer to appendix B for details pertaining to the removal and addition of metrics. The proposed FY 2016 and 2017 targets for the metric being 

removed were 20.0% and 25.0%, respectively. 

51 Metric reported as TBD in the 2014 APR. 2014 actuals show the 2014 target was “Met.”

52 The FY 2015 data for this metric are not available. Further, the Department has decided to remove this metric due to unforeseen challenges in using the data provided by states. 

These challenges are discussed in more detail in appendix B of this report. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 49

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) Flexibility Monitoring; annually 

2.1.B. ESEA Flexibility 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. EDFacts; annually 

2.4.B. EDFacts; annually 

2.4.C. EDFacts; annually 

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 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 50

Analysis and Next Steps by Objective

Objective 2.1: Standards and Assessments 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

States have recognized the need to improve the rigor and quality of their standards and 

assessments. With standards in place, educators are designing instructional strategies to 

engage students and implementing support systems to strengthen college- and career-ready 

skills for all students, including those with disabilities and ELs. 

Results for this metric are most influenced by actions taken by states and LEAs, but also are 

influenced by other factors. For example, the complexity of developing appropriate assessment 

instruments and approaches for students poses significant challenges, especially for children 

from low-income families, children who are ELs, and children with disabilities. Developing and 

administering college- and career-ready assessments and supporting teachers through training 

related to the new standards will require continuing support. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

On December 10, 2015, the President signed a reauthorization of the ESEA, the ESSA. The law 

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 assessments that measure 

students’ progress toward those high standards. The FY 2016 APR will provide additional detail 

on the impact of the ESSA. 

While the Department evaluates how it will best implement the requirements of the new law, 

where applicable, it will continue to leverage federal investments, including Titles I, II, and III of 

the ESSA, as well as IDEA, and provide guidance and technical assistance to states to ensure 

that teachers and principals are well prepared and students have the resources and support 

needed to graduate from high school ready for college and careers. 

A key challenge facing the Department over the next two years relates to the changes states 

may make to their currently adopted college- and career-ready standards due to decisions 

implemented by state leadership or state legislatures. Another key challenge is supporting 

states with the implementation of their college- and career-ready aligned assessments for all 

students, including ELs, SWDs, and economically disadvantaged and low-achieving students, to

ensure that all students are prepared for postsecondary success. 

The Department is taking steps to address these challenges by developing and targeting 

technical assistance activities that will, in part, increase state capacity to leverage limited 

resources and continue to identify promising practices across multiple states. First, the 

Department has released its Title I assessment peer review guidance, which highlights the 

requirements for a high-quality assessment to help support state assessment development; in 

FY 2016, the Department will begin conducting peer review of state assessment systems. The 

Department will also build a library of resources (i.e., a central location for practitioners looking 

for best practices) to assist state educational agencies (SEAs) in transitioning to college- and 

career-ready standards, leveraging work that has occurred during RTT with other partner 

organizations such as Achieve, Student Achievement Partners, National Parent Teacher 

Association, and others. In addition, the Department is working internally to coordinate the 

provision of technical assistance across OESE, OSEP, and other related offices and programs. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 51

The Department also funds a Center on Standards and Assessments Implementation (part of 

the Comprehensive Centers program) that helps build the capacity of state educational 

agencies to implement college- and career-ready standards. The Department will continue to 

work with states by taking such steps as providing technical assistance and guidance to states 

as they implement the next steps outlined in the President’s Testing Action Plan announced in 

November 2015. 

Objective 2.2: Effective Teachers and Strong Leaders 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

Over the past several years, states and school districts have made educator effectiveness a key 

priority in their reform efforts. States and districts are working on 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 targeted educator development and support opportunities, placement, retention, 

promotion, compensation, and other personnel decisions. The Department has supported the 

work of states and districts in this area through key programs and initiatives such as Title I, 

Title II, RTT, Teacher Incentive Fund, ESEA Flexibility, Excellent Educators for All, and the 

Comprehensive Center on Great Teachers and Leaders (in addition to the other regional and 

content comprehensive centers), and using these programs and initiatives to provide resources 

and technical assistance to states and districts so that they can move forward with successful 

implementation. In 2015, more states and districts are implementing teacher and principal 

evaluation and support systems that are based on multiple measures, including evidence of 

student learning growth as a significant factor. 

Similar to objective 2.1, the results of this metric are greatly influenced by state and district 

actions, as well as other factors not in the Department’s control. As teacher and school leader 

evaluation and support systems are governed by state and local policies, without revisions in 

state policies and new partnerships with teacher and principal organizations, reforms of existing 

evaluation and support systems are unlikely to be successful. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

Implementation of teacher and leader evaluation and support systems has proven to be very 

challenging work for states and districts, particularly during the time of transition to new 

standards and assessments, and has caused states to need to adjust timelines and sequencing 

of implementation steps. In order to mitigate these risks, the Department has provided flexibility 

to states regarding the use of student growth based on statewide assessments during the 

transition to new assessments, as well as other changes that are outside their original 

implementation timelines and plans under ESEA Flexibility. The Department is working to 

connect all states to experts who can provide technical assistance in this area. There are also 

challenges associated with teacher and principal support for the new systems. The Department 

is continuing to work with states to help them engage with educators and develop plans focused 

on continuous improvement so that they can make adjustments as needed. 

Under ESSA, ESEA Flexibility waivers, including Principle 3—supporting effective instruction 

and leadership—expire on August 1, 2016. The FY 2016 APR will provide additional detail on 

the impact of the ESSA. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 52

Objective 2.3: School Climate and Community 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

Strengthening school and classroom climate in preschool through 12th-grade settings is an 

essential precondition to scalable improvements in the academic achievement, socioemotional 

wellbeing, and college and career readiness of American public school students. While states, 

districts, and schools across the country have made real strides reforming approaches to school 

discipline and climate in order to ensure effective environments for more students, significant 

challenges remain to guaranteeing safe and supportive schools in which to learn and grow for 

all students. More than one in five students report being bullied in school; national data continue 

to suggest that suspensions and expulsions disproportionately impact minority students and 

SWDs; and too few schools are employing school climate data and interventions as part of their 

continuous improvement strategies. Maximizing instructional time to prepare all students for the 

rigors and opportunities of meaningful postsecondary educations and careers requires that 

these issues are addressed at every level of the P–12 system. 

During FY 2015, the Department has pursued a vigorous strategy to improve school climate and 

community and encourage the nationwide adoption of evidence-based practices to ensure safe 

and supportive learning environments for all students. In June 2015, the Department hosted a 

two-day convening for 19 high-needs school districts to support their local implementation of 

“early warning systems” to identify and support students at-risk of falling behind in school and/or 

dropping out. This convening served to highlight effective local practices to use data 

strategically to identify students in need of additional support. To shine a light on effective 

reforms in school discipline policy and practice, and in support of the administration’s My 

Brother’s Keeper initiative, the Department sponsored—in collaboration with the White House 

and DOJ—a major summit on school climate and discipline, entitled “Rethink Discipline,” on 

July 22, 2015. This summit brought to the White House over 45 school districts and a coalition 

of public and private partners to elevate effective reforms of school discipline in schools, with 

the goal of highlighting best practices in eliminating disproportionalities and bias in the 

administration of school discipline. At the summit, the Department also released a new resource 

for school district superintendents and their leadership teams—“Rethink Discipline: A Resource 

Guide for Superintendent Action”—that provides suggested action steps and links to free 

resources to support communitywide efforts to reform and improve the efficacy of local school 

discipline and climate policy and practice. The Department also supported the development of 

new school climate survey resources that states, districts, and schools can use, free of charge, 

to systematically collect and act on school climate data from multiple stakeholders, including 

students, teachers, noninstructional school staff, and parents and families (to be released in 

FY 2016). The Department also laid significant groundwork for the launch of “Every Student, 

Every Day: A National Initiative to Address and Eliminate Chronic Absenteeism,” which aims to 

raise nationwide awareness of and encourage action to combat the serious problem of chronic 

absenteeism affecting between five and seven and a half million students each year. In 

collaboration with HHS, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), DOJ, 

and a coalition of public and private partners, the Department released on October 7, 2015, a 

Dear Colleague letter and community toolkit for states, districts, and schools that includes 

actionable strategies to address and eliminate chronic absenteeism within communities. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

Improving school discipline and climate policy and practice nationwide remains a significant 

challenge given the many differentiated contexts in which this work must unfold. There simply is 

no one right way to approach the challenge of ensuring safe and supportive learning 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 53

environments for all students, and a spirit of experimentation and innovation is critical to 

sustaining motivation for and persistence in tackling what are often extraordinary challenges at 

the state, district, and school levels. Challenges to improving school discipline and climate 

include a lack of funding for and focus on this work, which can often be treated as “extra” or 

“additional” work not necessarily related to the core functions of school systems. When 

practitioners and policymakers do not understand the relationship between conditions for 

learning and student achievement, it is difficult to enshrine effective school discipline and 

climate practice and policy. To meet this challenge, the Department continues to advance the 

Supportive School Discipline Initiative in partnership with DOJ, offering technical assistance to 

states and districts that are working to reduce bias and disproportionalities in the administration 

of school discipline. Moreover, the Department also continues to pursue a vigorous strategy to 

improve school discipline and climate that includes a major focus on the upcoming release of 

the 2013–14 CRDC, which will include updates to national school discipline data as well as the 

first-ever national data on chronic absenteeism. The Department will leverage the data on 

chronic absenteeism to promote effective cross-sector efforts to meet student needs in order to 

ensure that student are able and ready to attend and succeed in school every day. 

Objective 2.4: Turn Around Schools and Close Achievement Gaps: 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

Turning around the lowest-performing schools, closing achievement gaps, increasing high 

school graduation rates, and decreasing disparities in graduation rates are critical to achieving 

the President’s goal of once again having the highest proportion of college graduates in the 

world. States and districts have assumed the challenge of focusing on their lowest-performing 

schools, and directing significant resources and support in order to improve student outcomes 

dramatically. Since 2009, more than 1,700 schools have received up to $2 million per year for 

three years through the School Improvement Grant (SIG) program to implement rigorous 

intervention models intended to turn these schools around. Nearly two-thirds of the schools in 

the first two cohorts and over half of schools in the third cohort have made progress in 

improving student achievement in reading, and a similar percentage have shown improvement 

in math. However, some participating schools have also shown decreases in performance, and 

more work is needed to ensure that the progress is sustained. To assist states in this 

challenging work, the Department strengthened the SIG program in FY 2015 by, among other 

things, including three new models, including an evidence-based, whole school reform model, 

and allowing additional time for planning and implementation. 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, including expanding that initiative to 

incorporate early learning as a turnaround strategy. 

In addition, the nation has made significant progress in increasing overall graduation rates, but 

gaps between rates for different student groups continue to persist. See also the Explanation 

and Analysis of Progress for objective 4.1 for additional information on the Department’s efforts 

to improve the national high school graduation rate and to close gaps between groups of 

students. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

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

years to show progress and success. As a result, there are challenges in communicating that 

this is a long-term process, not a short-term fix, and managing expectations of what success 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 54

looks like along the way. Additionally, as major grant programs are ending, such as RTT and 

SIG, there may be fewer resources available in states and districts to support school 

turnaround. Sustaining successful school turnaround is a major challenge for states, districts, 

and schools. 

In addition to financial resources, sustaining successful school turnaround requires effective 

technical assistance and support from the Department. In particular, there is a significant need 

for effective turnaround leaders for the lowest-performing schools, which the Department is 

attempting to address through its Turnaround School Leaders program, a program focused on 

helping districts, in partnership with states, IHEs, and nonprofit or for-profit partners, develop 

leaders with the specialized skills needed to turn schools around. 

The ESSA continues the ESEA’s focus on ensuring that states and school districts account for 

the progress of all students, take meaningful actions to improve the lowest-performing schools, 

and ensure equitable access to excellent educators. However, the provisions and ultimate 

impact of the new law are still being evaluated, and plans for implementation have yet to be fully 

developed. The FY 2016 APR will provide additional detail on the impact of the ESSA. 

Objective 2.5: STEM Teaching and Learning: 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

The Department, in consultation with OMB, has highlighted this objective as a focus area for 

improvement. Efforts such as the expansion of 100Kin10, the nonprofit organization created in 

response to the call to recruit 100,000 STEM teachers from 2011 to 2021, and the recent 

awards made to support effective STEM teachers via the Supporting Effective Educator 

Development Grant program show continued attention and progress toward the Department’s 

goal of increasing the number and quality of STEM teachers. Across the administration, there 

has been a significant emphasis on improving STEM instruction, most directly through the 

CoSTEM Education’s interagency working groups. The Department leads this formally 

chartered group on P-12 STEM Instruction, which includes regular participation from the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National 

Institutes of Health, NSF, Department of Defense, and White House (Office of Science and 

Technology Policy and OMB). All participating agencies have committed to align efforts to 

support the preparation of high-quality STEM teachers and to support authentic STEM 

experiences53 for P-12 educators. Not only do these agencies work together within the context 

of the CoSTEM Education, but the goals of the interagency working groups align to the CAP 

Goal for STEM Education across the administration. All activities that are being undertaken by 

the interagency working groups feed into the CAP process, and all milestones for that process 

align with the CoSTEM goals. 

In addition, through the Teacher Incentive Fund national activities the STEM office is engaged in 

work around STEM Teacher Leadership and STEM Master Teachers that will continue into 

FY 2016. Six research action clusters will be convening every couple of months and developing 

resources to support STEM teacher leadership efforts. 

2014 data from the College Board shows an overall increase in the number of graduating high 

school students taking Advanced Placement (AP) STEM exams: 555,119 compared to 527,001 

in 2013 data. In all subgroups, the total number of participants increased, ranging from an 

 

53 Authentic STEM experiences means laboratory, research-based, or experiential learning opportunities in a STEM subject in 

informal or formal settings. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 55

approximate 15 percent increase for Hispanic/Latino students to a 3 percent increase for 

Black/African American students. Females still outnumber males in terms of AP STEM exam 

participation (which has been the case since 2002). 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

While efforts continue to support P-12 STEM instruction, only two current federal programs are 

focused on preparing new STEM teachers—the Teacher Quality Partnerships program at the 

Department and the Noyce Scholarship program at NSF. Proposals for a dedicated program to 

prepare new STEM teachers have not yet been acted on by Congress, and the majority of 

teachers are prepared at colleges and universities that do not receive direct NSF or Department 

funding aimed specifically at STEM teacher preparation. The Mathematics and Science 

Partnership (MSP) program, which is no longer authorized under ESSA, does not have a 

national activities set-aside to provide technical assistance and, although each project within 

MSP must complete an evaluation for the state, these evaluations are not submitted to the 

Department. While the overall numbers of students taking STEM AP exams have increased—

including through Department-supported programs such as the Investing in Innovation (i3) 

program—AP courses are only one way to provide students with rich STEM learning 

experiences. Additional support should be given to both formal and informal STEM opportunities 

for students within the entire P-12 spectrum. 

In FY 2016 and beyond, continued collaboration within the Department to better coordinate 

awards made to support STEM educator development will be important. In addition, ESSA 

authorizes new activities for STEM educator preparation. For example, the new STEM Master 

Teacher Corps program provides an opportunity for states to utilize their STEM master 

educators in the development of new STEM educators. Further, ESSA authorizes states and 

districts to use funds to provide all students access to advanced STEM coursework through the 

Student Support and Academic Enrichment grants. There is opportunity to infuse STEM into 

other Department priorities, including for example a possible collaboration with the Office of 

Early Learning to support P-3 STEM educators, as well as continued collaboration across 

agencies like NSF to support educator development and support, especially in disciplines like 

engineering and computer science. Disparities in computer science are emblematic of the large 

gaps in student access and engagement in STEM courses overall; only half of high schools 

offer calculus, and only 63 percent offer physics. The 2017 Budget provides resources to 

empower states and districts to create high-quality computer science learning opportunities in 

grades P-8 and access to computer science courses in high school, dedicating $100 million in 

discretionary funding at the Department of Education for Computer Science for All Development 

Grants to help school districts, alone or in consortia, execute ambitious computer science 

expansion efforts, particularly for traditionally underrepresented students. Lastly, absent direct 

funding streams to support the preparation of new STEM educators, continued work with 

nongovernment partners like 100Kin10 who are making progress against the goal of preparing 

100,000 STEM educators will be essential. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 56

Subpopulation Breakout for Metric 2.5.B: Number of Graduates Taking an AP STEM 

Exam during High School: U.S. Public Schools, 2012–14

Race/Ethnicity Gender

Socioeconomic 

Status

Total

American 

Indian/

Alaska 

Native

Asian, 

Asian 

American, 

Pacific 

Islander

Black or 

African 

American

Hispanic 

or 

Latino White Other

No 

Response Female Male

Low 

Income

Not 

Low 

Income

Number of 

Graduates, 

2012

2,363 73,503 36,689 64,237 298,859 15,001 7,270 256,705 241,217 114,658 383,264 497,922

Number of 

Graduates, 

2013

2,918 78,886 37,816 74,015 312,917 16,785 3,664 271,217 255,784 128,782 398,219 527,001

Number of 

Graduates, 

2014

3,103 83,412 41,108 82,595 323,887 17,723 3,291 287,424 267,695 142,307 412,812 555,119

Data Source and Frequency of Collection: College Board/AP administrative records; annually 

Selected Strategies to Achieve Goal 2

During FY 2015, the Department implemented a reorganization in OESE that incorporates a 

new (and aforementioned) Office of State Support, which replaces and enhances services 

previously provided by the units formerly known as the Office of Student Achievement and 

School Accountability, Office of School Turnaround, and the Implementation and Support Unit 

(ISU). This reorganization integrates key state-administered programs in a new office that will 

provide improved state-centered support across programs. The Department is using this 

reorganization to rethink, redesign, and rebuild core grant administration functions in order to 

provide more transparent, higher quality, and better differentiated support to states. This new 

structure, which builds on the collaboration that has occurred between OESE, the ISU, and 

OSEP, will better support states in implementing the key reform programs and initiatives that 

support Goal 2, and in transitioning to and implementing the ESSA, and will improve the 

Department’s ability to execute its core priorities. The Department will continue to provide 

technical assistance to states in the areas of college- and career-ready standards and 

assessments, teacher and principal evaluation and support systems, and turning around the 

lowest-performing schools. The Department will begin to implement a revised process for peer 

reviewing state assessments to ensure that they are high-quality and will work with states to 

implement their plans for ensuring equitable access to effective teachers and leaders for all 

students. 

Finally, the Department will explore all opportunities for meaningful guidance and regulations 

under the ESSA that would help states implement the new law and promote the equity and 

excellence objectives that Goal 2 represents. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 57

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: Ann Whalen 

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 Leader: Libby Doggett 

Metric 3.1.A: Number of states with Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (QRIS) 

that meet high-quality benchmarks for child care and other early childhood programs54

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 

Leader: Libby Doggett 

Metric 3.2.A: Number of states and territories with professional development systems 

that include core knowledge and competencies, career pathways, professional 

development capacity assessments, accessible professional development opportunities, 

and financial supports for child care providers55

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. Objective Leader: Libby Doggett 

Metric 3.3.A: Number of states collecting and reporting disaggregated data on the 

status of children at kindergarten entry using a common measure 

 

54 Metric is being removed at the end of the FY 2015 reporting period. Please refer to appendix B for details pertaining to the 

removal and addition of metrics. 

55 Metric is being removed at the end of the FY 2015 reporting period. Please refer to appendix B for details pertaining to the 

removal and addition of metrics. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 58

Goal 3 Discretionary Resources

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

FY 2015

FY 2016

FY 2017

$1,068

$1,103

$933

(Dollars in millions)

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities56 Supporting Goal 3 Performance Metrics 

[Dollars in Millions]

POC Account Obj. Program

FY 2015 

Appropriation

FY 2016 

Appropriation

FY 2017 

President’s 

Budget

OESE I&I 3.1 Preschool development grants 250 250 0

57

OSERS SE 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 Grants for infants and families 439 459 504

OSERS SE 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 Preschool grants 353 368 403

Subtotal 1,042 1,077 907

Other Discretionary Programs/Activities 26 26 26

TOTAL, GOAL 3 1,068 1,103 933

POC = Principal Office Component 

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

Public Benefit

Each year, about 4 million children enter kindergarten in the United States. They live in cities, 

suburbs, and rural areas. They speak many languages, come from diverse cultures, and have 

differing abilities, which may require individualized services and supports. Parents and 

caregivers send their children to school believing that one day their children will be able to 

pursue their dreams—whether that is teaching, protecting their communities as police officers, 

making scientific discoveries, or helping companies and organizations succeed. All parents 

hope their child will start school ready for success. And many parents turn that hope into action, 

seeking out supportive and high-quality early learning opportunities. Unfortunately, not every 

 

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

noncompetitive programs. 

57 Funds are included in the 2017 President’s Budget for the Department of Health and Human Services.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 59

parent finds those opportunities, and access to high-quality early learning opportunities differs 

across states and communities. 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 socio-emotional development.58 For some 

children, starting school already behind can trap them in a cycle of continuous catch-up in their 

learning. As a nation, we must ensure that all children, regardless of family circumstance, 

immigration status, the color of their skin, disability, or their zip code, have access to highquality early learning opportunities. 

Advances in education, developmental psychology, neuroscience, medicine, and economics 

have helped to demonstrate the benefits of quality early education for young children and that 

the years from birth to age five are a critical period in children’s learning and development, 

providing the necessary foundation for more advanced skills.59 For example, at kindergarten 

entry, children with bigger vocabularies at an early age have higher reading and mathematics 

achievement and fewer behavior challenges.60 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.61

Studies also reveal that participating in quality early learning can boost children’s educational 

attainment and earnings later in life.62 Children who attend high-quality preschool programs are 

less likely to utilize special education services or be retained in their grade, and are more likely 

to graduate from high school, go on to college, and succeed in their careers than those who 

have not attended high-quality preschool programs.63 Research also suggests that expanding 

early learning—including high-quality preschool—provides society with a return on investment of 

$8.60 for every $1 spent with half of this benefit from increased earnings and improved health 

outcomes for children when they grow up.64

The Administration began efforts to increase investments in early learning in its first term and 

has continued to request additional funding in each subsequent budget proposal—through Head 

Start, child care, home visiting, IDEA Part C, ELC, and Preschool Development Grants. States 

and local communities have welcomed the opportunity to partner with the federal government 

through these early learning programs. 

From 2011 to 2013, 20 (of the 40 states that applied for ELC) were awarded grants. These 

grantees had committed to align, coordinate, and improve the quality of early learning programs 

 

58 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. 

59 Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Burchinal, M., Espinosa, L., Gormley, W., & Zaslow, M. J. (2013). Investing in Our 

Future: The Evidence Base for Preschool Education. Policy brief, Society for Research in Child Development and the Foundation for 

Child Development. Retrieved from the Foundation for Child Development website: fcd-us.org/sites/default/files/Evidence Base on 

Preschool Education FINAL.pdf 

60 Maczuga, S., Morgan, P., Farkas, G., Hammer, C., Hillemeier, M., & Scheffner, C. 24-Month-Old Children With Larger Oral 

Vocabularies Display Greater Academic and Behavioral Functioning at Kindergarten Entry. Child Development, Volume 86, Issue 5, 

pages 1351–1370, September/October 2015. 

61 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. 

62 See, e.g., Yoshikawa, et.al., Investing in Our Future: The Evidence Base on Preschool Education, 2013. 

63 Center for Public Education. (2008). The Research on Pre-K. Alexandria, VA. 

64 White House Council of Economic Advisors. The Economics of Early Childhood Investments, 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/early_childhood_report1.pdf
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 60

across multiple funding streams supporting children from birth through age 5 and serve as 

model early learning and development systems. By December 2014, nearly 14,000 early 

childhood programs are ranked in the highest quality tiers of the 20 ELC states’ rating 

systems—a 63 percent increase since the states applied for their grants—with significantly more 

children enrolled in the highest quality-rated early learning programs than ever before.65

National technical assistance is also available to help all states in building such systems. 

In 2013, the President’s Budget proposed a landmark investment to expand access to highquality preschool, Preschool for All. The President’s overarching vision has been captured in the 

bipartisan Strong Start for America’s Children Act reintroduced in the 114th Congress. This

legislation would fund voluntary, high-quality preschool for all four-year old children from families 

earning below 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Line in a state-federal partnership, and 

encourage states to spend their own funds to support preschool for young children with family 

incomes above that income level. The legislation would also expand Early Head Start-child care 

partnerships to help raise the quality of services for infants and toddlers and increase IDEA 

funding for young children with disabilities. 

In addition, Strong Start includes authorization for Preschool Development Grants, which were 

first funded by Congress in 2014. Last year 18 states (of the 36 that applied) were awarded 

grants to create or expand high-quality preschool programs for 4-year-olds in over 200 highneed communities. This program builds on the achievements of ELC by expanding access to 

preschool programs that include the following nationally recognized standards: high staff 

qualifications; professional development for teachers and staff; low staff-child ratios; small class 

sizes; full-day programs; developmentally appropriate, culturally and linguistically responsive 

instruction and evidence-based curricula and learning environments that are aligned with states’

early learning standards; inclusive programs for children with disabilities; employee salaries that 

are comparable to those for K–12 teaching staff; ongoing program evaluation to ensure 

continuous improvement; strong family engagement; and onsite comprehensive services for 

children. 

Providing children, including children with disabilities and those who are ELs, with quality early 

education experiences is essential to strengthening our nation’s economy. Significant new 

investments to expand access to high-quality early learning, improve the early childhood 

workforce, and support comprehensive assessment systems are necessary to help states, local 

communities, and parents close the school readiness gaps between disadvantaged children and 

their more advantaged peers. Only then can we ensure that all children graduate from high 

school prepared to succeed in college, careers, and life.

 

65 At a Glance: Race to the Top - Early Learning Challenge Year 2014 Progress Update http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetopearlylearningchallenge/2014apr/rtt-elc-2014-apr-progress.pdf 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 61

Goal 3: Details

U.S. Department of 

Education

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals

Current 

Year 

Target

Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals)

2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

3.1.A. Number of states with 

Quality Rating and 

Improvement Systems 

(QRIS) that meet high 

quality benchmarks for child 

care and other early 

childhood programs66

SY: 2010

17 27 2967 NA 32 NA68 NA NA

0

10

20

30

40

2012 2013 2014

New APG Metric: Percent 

of 4-year olds enrolled in 

state preschool programs69

SY: 2013–

14 

29.1%

NA

SY:

2013–14 

29.1%

NA NA NA 33.0% 35.0%

New APG Metric: Number 

of states with high-quality 

preschool program 

standards70

SY: 2013–

14 

15

NA

SY:

2013–14 

15

NA NA NA 19 21

3.2.A. Number of states and 

territories with professional 

development systems that 

include core knowledge and 

competencies, career 

pathways, professional 

development capacity 

assessments, accessible 

professional development 

opportunities, and financial 

supports for child care 

providers71

SY: 2011

30 30 Not Collected NA 38 NA72 NA NA

 

66 Metric being removed at the end of the FY 2015 reporting period and being replaced with the metric identified as “New Metric” directly below it. If there is no corresponding “New 

Metric” identified, new metric TBD. Please refer to appendix B for details pertaining to the removal and addition of metrics. The proposed FY 2016 and 2017 targets for the metric being 

removed were 35 and 37, respectively. 

67 Metric reported as TBD in the 2014 APR. 2014 actuals show the 2014 target was “Met.”

68 This is an HHS metric and out of the Department's control or influence. Please refer to footnote 66 for additional information. 

69 Metric is aligned with an APG. 

70 Metric is aligned with an APG. 

71 Metric being removed at the end of the FY 2015 reporting period and being replaced with the metric identified as “New Metric” directly below it. If there is no corresponding “New 

Metric” identified, new metric TBD. Please refer to appendix B for details pertaining to the removal and addition of metrics. The proposed FY 2016 and 2017 targets for the metric being 

removed were both NA. 

72 Please refer to footnote 68. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 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

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals)

2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

New Metric: Number of 

states that require a teacher 

with a bachelor’s degree in a 

state preschool program

SY: 2013–

14

15

NA

SY: 

2013–14

15

NA NA NA 19 20

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

2

3 5

73 1174 9 MET

9

11

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

3.3.A

14 1675

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2013 2014 2015

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. Child Care Development Fund (CCDF) Report of State Plans with annual updates from states and territories (HHS/Office of Childcare); annually 

3.2.A. CCDF Report of State Plans (HHS/Office of Childcare); biennially 

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. 

 

73 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 FY14 actual is revised from six to five states. 

74 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. 

75 There will be difficulty collecting ELC data in out-years because some grantees will no longer be reporting APR data. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 63

Analysis and Next Steps by Objective

Objective 3.1: Access to High-Quality Programs and Services 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

While states and the federal government both invest in early learning, these efforts have fallen 

short of what is needed to ensure that all children can access a high-quality early education that 

will prepare them for success. Across the nation, 58 percent of 4-year-olds and 85 percent of 

3-year-olds are not enrolled in publicly funded preschool programs through state preschool, 

Head Start, and preschool special education services.76 Even fewer are enrolled in the highestquality programs.77 Overall, during 2011–13, 4.4 million 3- and 4-year-olds were not attending 

any preschool at all, representing more than half (54 percent) of all children in that age group.78 

Children’s access to preschool also varies significantly by family income level and geographic 

region.79 As of the 2013–14 school year, 41 states and the District of Columbia offered

voluntary, state preschool programs for some children.80 In 2015–16, three states (Indiana, New 

Hampshire, and North Dakota) had small pilot programs. Hawaii now has a program reaching 

public school students and their Preschool Development Grant will serve children in the public 

charter school system. Montana’s Preschool Development Grant has provided that state’s first 

state preschool program, which by 2018 will provide high-quality preschool to over 5,000 

children from low-income families in sixteen communities, eight of which are on Indian lands. 

Twenty-nine percent of America’s 4-year-olds were enrolled in a state-funded preschool 

program in the 2013–14 school year. While total enrollment for 4-year-olds increased by 8,535, 

nearly half this increase was required to recoup the loss of 4,000 seats in 2012–13. At the May 

release of the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) Yearbook, Secretary 

Duncan noted, “The current pace of change is far too incremental...We have to think about 

transformational change.” In fact, as NIEER researchers observed, “at the 2013–2014 growth 

rate it would take about 75 years for states to reach 50 percent enrollment at age 4 and 

150 years to reach 70 percent enrollment.”

While states enroll a total of 1.35 million 3- and 4-year-olds in state preschool, enrollment in 

individual state programs significantly varies.81 For example, Florida, Oklahoma, Vermont, and 

the District of Columbia served more than 70 percent of their 4-year-olds in state-funded 

preschool, whereas 11 states with programs served fewer than 10 percent of 4-year-olds. These 

states are: Alabama; Alaska; Arizona; Delaware; Minnesota; Missouri; Nevada; Ohio; Oregon; 

 

76 Barnett, W.S., Carolan, M.E., Squires, J.H., Clarke Brown, K., & Horowitz, M. (2015). The state of preschool 2014: State 

preschool yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research. 

77 Nores, M., & Barnett, W.S. (2014). Access to High Quality Early Care and Education: Readiness and Opportunity Gaps in 

America (CEELO Policy Report). New Brunswick, NJ: Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes. 

78 Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2015). KIDS COUNT data center. Baltimore, MD: Author. http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/aecf2015kidscountdatabook-2015.pdf

79 Cascio, E.U., Whitmore Schanzenbach, D. Expanding Preschool Access for Disadvantaged Children 

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/06/19_hamilton_policies_addressing_poverty/expand_preschool_acc

ess_cascio_schanzebach.pdf

80 Barnett, W.S., Carolan, M.E., Squires, J.H., Clarke Brown, K., & Horowitz, M. (2015). The state of preschool 2014: State 

preschool yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research. 

81 Barnett, W.S., Carolan, M.E., Squires, J.H., Clarke Brown, K., & Horowitz, M. (2015). The state of preschool 2014: State 

preschool yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 64

Rhode Island; and Washington. Local Head Start programs serve another approximately half 

million 4-year-olds from the lowest-income families.82 

While Latinos are the fastest growing and largest minority group in the United States, making up 

a quarter of 3- and 4-year-olds, Latinos demonstrate the lowest preschool participation rates of 

any major ethnicity or race with 63 percent of 3- and 4-year-olds not in any preschool 

programs.83 The rates were also low for American Indians (59 percent). More than half of 

African-American and non-Hispanic white 3- and 4-year-olds were not in any preschool 

programs, which was nearly the same for Asian and Pacific Islander children (48 percent). While 

most children who have access to preschool attend moderate-quality programs, African 

American children and children from low-income families are the most likely to attend low-quality 

preschool programs and the least likely to attend high-quality preschool programs.84 About 

one-third of children served by state preschool programs live in the two states with the lowest 

quality standards from the NIEER—Florida and Texas.85 Forty percent of preschoolers—more 

than half a million—attend programs that meet few of the quality NIEER benchmark standards. 

Children with disabilities also have difficulty accessing inclusive preschool programs. In 2013, 

across all states, 55.6 percent of preschool children served under Part B, section 619 of IDEA 

participated in at least 10 hours of a general early childhood program. Fewer than half (43.5 

percent) of preschool children with disabilities received special education services in their 

general early childhood programs.86 

In coordination with the Early Learning Challenge Technical Assistance Center (ELC TA) and 

Preschool Development Grants Technical Assistance Center (PDG TA), the Department, in 

coordination with HHS, is supporting efforts to expand access to high-quality early learning 

programs for the 20 ELC and 18 Preschool Development Grants states, as well as nongrantee 

states, through online early learning communities, technical assistance webinars, briefs, and 

reports. Additionally, OESE’s national comprehensive center, the Center on Enhancing Early 

Learning Outcomes (CEELO) and OSEP technical assistance (TA) centers provide support for 

all states, including around issues of access and quality. 

A critical driver of quality in all early learning and development programs has been the states’

QRIS (or Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (TQRIS) for ELC states). This reform 

metric helps states set progressively higher program standards and provides supports to 

programs so they can meet those higher standards. Once programs are enrolled in a state’s 

TQRIS, the state helps them improve their quality and their ranking. States provide technical 

assistance, professional development opportunities, and program improvement grants that allow 

programs to make the necessary quality improvements. Nearly half of all children who live in 

low-income families in the Unites States reside in the 20 ELC states. ELC states have increased 

the number of early learning and development programs participating in their TQRIS and are 

implementing strategies to improve the quality of those programs. The 20 ELC states’

cumulative state data show that the number of early childhood programs included in the states’

 

82 Head Start Program Facts Fiscal Year 2014. http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/data/factsheets/docs/hs-program-fact-sheet2014.pdf 

83 Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2015). KIDS COUNT data center. Baltimore, MD: Author. http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/aecf2015kidscountdatabook-2015.pdf

84 Center for American Progress. Why We Need a Federal Preschool Investment in 6 Charts. December 9, 2014. 

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/early-childhood/news/2014/12/09/102737/why-we-need-a-federal-preschool-investmentin-6-charts/

85 Barnett, W.S., Carolan, M.E., Squires, J.H., Clarke Brown, K., & Horowitz, M. (2015). The state of preschool 2014: State 

preschool yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research. 

86 2013 Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Data File. Accessed on 4/17/15 at: 

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/osepidea/618-data/state-level-data-files/index.html
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 65

TQRIS has nearly doubled from 38,642 at the start of their grants to 72,281 programs in 2014, 

an increase of 87 percent. 

The 20 ELC states also reported on the number of children in various types of early learning 

and development programs that are in top tiers of their state’s TQRIS in 2014. The report shows 

a 176 percent increase in the number of children with high needs enrolled in state preschool 

programs in the top tiers of their state’s TQRIS from the time the states received their grants. 

More than 200,000 children are now enrolled in these programs, an increase of more than 

127,000 children. As a result of the ELC program, there is a 75 percent increase in the number 

of children enrolled in high-quality programs supported through the Child Care Development 

Fund (CCDF or child care subsidy). 228,760 children with high needs are now enrolled in 

CCDF-funded programs in the top tiers of their TQRIS, an increase of almost 100,000 children. 

151,676 children with high needs are now enrolled in Head Start/Early Head Start programs in 

the top tiers of their TQRIS, an increase of more than 78,000 children. 

In his 2014 State of the Union address, President Obama called upon Congress to expand 

access to high-quality preschool for every child in America, proposing investments that would 

support a continuum of early learning opportunity from birth through kindergarten entry. He 

challenged more Americans—elected officials, business leaders, philanthropists, and the 

public—to help more children access the early education they need to succeed in school and in 

life. On December 10, 2014, the President convened state and local policymakers, mayors, 

school superintendents, corporate and community leaders, and advocates for the White House 

Summit on Early Education, highlighting collective leadership in support of early education for 

America’s children. Leaders shared best practices in building the public-private partnerships that 

are expanding early education in communities across the country. Participants discussed 

effective strategies and programs that support and bring high-quality early childhood education 

to scale. 

Leading private and philanthropic organizations made commits to new actions to spur greater 

access to high-quality early learning programs. Together with federal awards, this amounts to a 

collective investment of over $1 billion in the education and development of America’s youngest 

learners. It includes: 

 Over $340 million in new actions from corporate and philanthropic leaders to expand the 

reach and enhance the quality of early education for thousands of additional children. 

 Up to $750 million in new federal grant awards announced by Secretaries Duncan and 

Burwell, to support early learning for over 63,000 additional children across the country 

for Preschool Development Grants and the Early Head Start-Child Care Partnerships. 

 The launch of Invest in US, a new initiative created by the First Five Years Fund, a 

bipartisan nonprofit organization, in partnership with private philanthropic leaders, in 

response to the President’s call to action. 

 New private and philanthropic resources and support for Early Learning Communities, 

an initiative of Invest in US. Invest in US is working to connect communities and states 

interested in expanding early learning programs and opportunities with 10 leading 

partners that have committed to helping connect leaders with resources, planning 

grants, technical assistance, and other support for their youngest learners. 

Since the Summit, significant progress has been made, and bipartisan cooperation has led to a 

substantial increase in public-private investments in early education. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 66

Congress took an important step in 2014 to address inequities in access to high-quality 

preschool by supporting the Preschool Development Grants program, a 4-year, federal-state 

partnership to expand the number of children enrolled in high-quality preschool programs in 

high-need communities. There was significant bipartisan interest from state governors in this 

program. Thirty-five states and Puerto Rico applied and the Department made grants to 

18 states. During the 2015–16 school year, these states are serving approximately 

33,000 4-year-olds from low- and moderate-income families in more than 200 communities in 

high-quality preschool programs. The diversity of the 18 states that received grants reflects the 

fact that increasing access to preschool is a bipartisan priority across the country. From 

Massachusetts and Montana to Alabama and Hawaii, Preschool Development Grants are 

designed to help states move forward with high-quality preschool, whether that means 

expanding an already successful preschool program or helping to build state-level capacity and 

put in place quality improvements to serve more children in high-quality settings. 

While the Preschool Development Grants will not reach every child in the funded states and 

there remains a huge unmet need, these states will be another step closer to the goal of 

expanding access to high-quality early learning across the country. Over the 4-year grant 

period, and with continued funding from Congress, these states are expecting to enroll an 

additional 177,000 children in high-quality preschool programs, which will help put children on a 

path to success in school and in life. About 285,000 preschoolers could have been served in the 

18 states that did not receive a Preschool Development Grant. For four years, the Obama 

administration has requested formula funding to address the enormous unmet need for highquality preschool and provide preschool for all 4-year-olds from low- to moderate-income 

families. In addition, the Administration’s FY 2017 budget request includes funding for 

continuation grants to support current states, as well as additional dollars to expand Preschool 

Development Grants to more states, the Bureau of Indian Education, tribal educational 

agencies, territories, and the Outlying Areas. 

The Department is also engaging in specific activities to ensure that infants, toddlers, and 

preschool children with disabilities and their families have access to high-quality programs and 

services. OSEP began implementing an RDA system to hold states accountable for both 

improving results for children with disabilities and complying with requirements in IDEA. As part 

of RDA, states are being asked to develop a SSIP to focus and drive their efforts to improve 

results for children with disabilities. Phase 1 of the SSIP was submitted to OSEP in April 2015. 

States were required to submit SSIPs for both Part B and C of IDEA. The SSIPs included a 

measurable child result that states will be working to achieve over the next 5 years, and the 

infrastructure that they will need to have in place to support local programs in delivering highquality services to meet the state-identified child result. Another component of RDA is ensuring 

that determinations reflect state performance on results, as well as compliance. OSEP must 

annually determine if a state “Meets Requirements,” “Needs Assistance,” or “Needs 

Intervention.” In July 2015, OSEP used child outcome data for the first time in making 

determinations for Part C programs. 

In addition to accountability activities, OSEP is supporting states through technical assistance. 

Three of OSEP’s national centers specifically focus on supporting states in enhancing their Part 

C and Part B, section 619 programs, as well as other early learning programs, to increase the 

quality of services provided to children with disabilities and their families. These centers are 

working with Part C and Part B, section 619 programs to develop effective and efficient 

infrastructures, including data and personnel systems, to deliver high-quality services to infants, 

toddlers, and preschool age children with disabilities and their families. The centers have 

developed a systems framework that states can use to assess their infrastructure and work 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 67

towards improving it. In addition, the centers are working with the Division of Early Childhood 

(DEC) to promote the use of the recently released DEC Recommended Practices, which 

provide guidance to practitioners and families about the most effective ways to improve the 

learning outcomes and promote the development of young children, birth through age 5, who 

have or are at risk for developmental delays or disabilities.

The Department and HHS released two major early childhood policy statements. Policy 

Statement on Expulsion and Suspension Practices in Early Childhood Settings was released 

December 10, 2014. The statement has influenced local and state efforts to assist states and 

their public and private local early childhood programs in preventing and severely limiting 

expulsions and suspensions in early learning settings. A second policy statement, Policy 

Statement on Inclusion of Children with Disabilities in Early Childhood Programs, released on 

September 14, 2015, supports the goal that all young children with disabilities should have 

access to inclusive high-quality early childhood programs, where they are provided with 

individualized and appropriate support in meeting high expectations. In addition, the Department 

and HHS, in partnership with Too Small to Fail, have created the Talk, Read, and Sing Together 

Every Day tip sheets. Made specifically for families, caregivers and early educators, these 

resources can help enrich a child’s early language experiences by providing research-based 

tips for talking, reading, and singing with young children every day beginning from birth. The 

Departments are also collecting public input on policy statements around family engagement in 

early learning settings and health and wellness promotion in early childhood settings. Each of 

these efforts contributes to the goal of improving the quality of early learning programs. 

In October 2015, the Departments held a three-day annual grantee meeting for the 20 ELC and 

18 Preschool Development Grants states. In addition, nongrantee states were invited to attend. 

In all, over 300 persons participated, and over 35 states were represented. Sessions focused on 

meeting the needs of states around improving quality in programs, measuring child outcomes, 

and supporting birth to third grade systems and other reforms. 

Metrics in Goal 3 are influenced most by actions taken by states or grantees in response to 

state and federal policy initiatives, but they are also influenced by factors that are beyond the 

control of states, LEAs, or the Department of Education. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

Expanding access to high-quality preschool is critically important to ensuring that every child in 

America has the opportunity for lifelong success. On December 10, 2015, President Obama 

signed the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), reauthorizing the ESEA. ESSA includes a new 

Preschool Development Grants program designed to improve coordination of early childhood 

programs and expand access to high-quality preschool. It is not certain how many additional 

children will have access to high-quality preschool under the new program. Also in December 

2015, President Obama signed the FY 2016 spending bill, which provides funding for year 3 of 

the Preschool Development Grants. The Departments will be working to secure funding for the 

fourth and final year of the current Preschool Development Grants program in FY 2017. Pulling 

these funds away from states and communities would jeopardize their plans to serve over 

50,000 children in high-quality preschool programs during the last year of the grants.87

 

The President has made it a priority to expand educational opportunity for our nation’s children, 

starting with our youngest learners, and has put forward a vision that would support the healthy 

 

87 This estimate assumes that the elimination of Preschool Development Grants in 2016 would prevent states from serving the 

additional children proposed in their applications for the final two years of the grant. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 68

development and growth of children from birth to kindergarten entry. The President’s FY 2017 

Budget builds on the good work underway in states and local communities, and calls for 

expanding support to additional grantees to improve program alignment and coordination and to 

expand access to services. Preschool Development Grants are a critical step toward voluntary, 

universal access to high-quality early learning that gives all children a strong start in school and 

life. 

ELC states face many challenges in developing a rating and monitoring process for their 

TQRIS. Providers must be informed about the process, so as to make them more likely to 

participate. The observation and rating tool must be a true measure of different levels of quality; 

it must give the same rating results in many different settings, and it has to be easy to use. 

Validating the effectiveness of a TQRIS ensures that it is measuring and assessing program 

quality in ways that make sense to state policy makers, early learning and education programs, 

and families with young children. Both the Departments of Education and Health and Human 

Services are providing support so ELC states have the knowledge and best research for 

improving their TQRIS. This technical assistance is provided directly to the states in addition to 

peer learning groups on various topics of interest such as best ways to validate a TQRIS system 

or to ensure families understand the difference in the quality tiers. The Departments are helping 

ELC states to validate their systems, ensure consistency in the reporting of TQRIS ratings, and 

develop data system linkages between their TQRIS and other systems with data on young 

children and the early childhood workforce. As states begin to report on evaluations of their 

TQRIS, there must be a recognition that the systems are still not mature and may not yet reflect 

their true impact. OSEP-funded technical assistance also supports states in thinking about how 

to intentionally include children with disabilities across all levels of the TQRIS system, as some 

states only have optional indicators for children with disabilities, only include children with 

disabilities at some levels of the TQRIS, or do not intentionally include children with disabilities. 

Additionally, IES is also doing a study of the TQRIS systems and plans to make results 

available in 2016. 

The Department committed $5 million in Preschool Development Grants national activities funds 

to add to a multiyear investment by IES funding to expand the work of the network to support 

the work of the Preschool Development Grants states and other states advancing preschool and 

addressing the need for a new quality assessment tool. The Early Learning Network will 

comprise five Research Teams that will conduct in-depth, exploratory research in states, 

regions, cities, or school districts that are providing preschool opportunities for children from 

disadvantaged backgrounds. Each Research Team will conduct three complementary, 

prospective studies: (1) a descriptive study of systems-level policies and practices that support 

early learning; (2) a classroom observation study to identify teaching practices and other 

classroom-level malleable factors associated with children’s school readiness and achievement 

in preschool and early elementary school; and (3) a longitudinal study to identify malleable 

factors associated with early learning and school achievement over time from preschool through 

the early elementary school grades (e.g., kindergarten through third grade). The Research 

Teams will also provide support to the Early Learning Assessment Team in piloting and 

validating a classroom observation tool that is designed for practitioners to use. 

Funding continues to be a challenge for IDEA programs. Part C programs in particular are 

stretched thin as data shows that the number of children receiving services under Part C over 

the years has been steadily increasing. However, federal funding for Part C has not increased at 

the same rate so there has been a decrease in federal per-child funding for Part C services. To 

address fiscal challenges, some states have narrowed or restricted eligibility criteria, 

implemented or increased family fees for services, and reduced provider reimbursements. All of 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 69

these can reduce access to services for infants and toddlers who could benefit from them. 

OSEP-funded TA centers will provide TA to states on building their state infrastructure, which 

includes their financial system, to support states in using their funding as efficiently as possible. 

Additionally, OSEP-funded TA centers will continue to work with states to enhance the quality of 

services that they provide under IDEA Parts C and B, section 619. 

Objective 3.2: Effective Workforce 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

Securing a well-trained and properly supported early learning workforce is an essential element 

of high-quality early learning programs. Significant headway has been made in describing and 

conceptualizing what teachers do in the classroom that results in learning, which is a critical first 

step in getting teachers into those positions. 

On April 1, 2015, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and National Research Council (NRC) released 

Transforming the Workforce for Children Birth through Age 8: A Unifying Foundation, which was 

commissioned by both the Departments of Education and HHS and four philanthropic 

foundations. The study explores the science of child development, particularly looking at 

implications for the professionals who work with children birth through age 8. The committee 

found that much is known about how children learn and develop, as well as the qualifications of 

the early childhood workforce and the supports they need. However, this knowledge is not fully 

reflected in the current capacities and practices of the workforce, the settings in which they 

work, and the qualifications and professional learning that is most effective. 

The IOM/NRC Study outlines a blueprint for action based on 13 recommendations for local, 

state, and national governmental agencies, nongovernmental organizations, philanthropic 

funders, and the business sector to support improvements to the quality of professional practice 

for early learning professionals who work with children from birth through age 8 and the 

environments in which they work. The study makes recommendations on improving the quality 

of the early learning workforce, including higher levels of education such as a bachelor’s degree 

for lead educators, qualifications based more strongly on competencies and knowledge, and the 

use of evidence-based practices and strategies. Additionally, the study recommends fair 

compensation to recognize the professionalization of the workforce, as well as other improved 

supports for educators in their work environments. In the months following the release, 

additional communication materials were developed and distributed to the field through 

conferences, webinars, meetings, and in-service trainings. 

ELC states are creating quality professional development systems to improve the skills of 

current and aspiring early learning teachers, directors, and assistant teachers. Fourteen ELC 

states are specifically working to provide and expand access to professional development 

opportunities that are aligned with their Workforce Knowledge and Competency Framework and 

that tightly link training with professional development approaches, such as coaching and 

mentoring (CO, DE, GA, KY, MD, MN, NJ, NM, OH, OR, PA, RI, WA, and WI). These states are 

also using incentives, such as scholarships, compensation and wage supplements, tiered 

reimbursement rates, other financial incentives and strategies to promote professional 

improvement and career advancement. These other strategies include management 

opportunities, and they promote professional improvement and career advancement along an 

articulated career pathway that is based on the state’s Workforce Knowledge and Competency 

Framework. Fifteen ELC states are working to support educators in improving their knowledge, 

skills and abilities (CA, CO, DE, GA, IL, MD, MA, MI, MN, NM, NC, OR, PA, RI, VT). 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 70

The Preschool Development Grants program sets a high bar for workforce quality in the 

18 grantee states. High-quality preschool programs require, for example, high staff 

qualifications, including a teacher with a bachelor’s degree in early childhood education or a 

bachelor’s degree in any field with a state-approved alternate pathway, which may include 

coursework, clinical practice, and evidence of knowledge of content and pedagogy relating to 

early childhood, and teaching assistants with appropriate credentials. In addition, instructional 

staff salaries are required to be comparable to the salaries of local K-12 instructional staff, and 

programs must provide high-quality professional development for all staff. 

Four states (Delaware, Iowa, Kansas, and Oregon) are finishing up working with the OSEPfunded Early Childhood Personnel Center (ECPC). This work centered on enhancing the 

personnel system within the states to ensure that personnel have the knowledge and skills to 

provide services to young children with disabilities and their families. These states developed 

and are implementing a plan to align their personnel standards with national professional 

organization personnel standards; develop partnerships with universities and community 

colleges to ensure that their curriculum is aligned to state personnel standards and to support 

better alignment between pre-service preparation and in-service professional development; and 

implement evidence-based practices within in-service professional development. ECPC is in the 

process of selecting four more states to work with over the next two years. In addition to 

providing intensive TA with states, ECPC held Leadership Institutes for 20 states. These 

Leadership Institutes provides strategies for Part C and Part B, section 619 coordinators and 

leaders within early childhood agencies to work together to develop the workforce so that they 

have the competencies to serve young children with disabilities and their families. Additionally, 

ECPC has facilitated national professional organizations coming together to identify a set of 

competencies that personnel need to serve young children with disabilities. Those organizations 

include including DEC, the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), 

the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, the American Occupational Therapy 

Association, and the American Physical Therapy Association. Through this work, DEC and 

NAEYC are in the process of developing an agreement to align their personnel standards. 

During the fiscal year OSEP, also funded 7 new awards to universities to prepare personnel to 

work in early intervention and early childhood special education. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

On December 10, 2015, President Obama signed ESSA, reauthorizing the ESEA. ESSA 

includes a new Preschool Development Grants program designed to improve coordination of 

early childhood programs and expand access to high-quality preschool, which may positively 

affect the early childhood workforce with expanded opportunities for professional development 

and improved conditions. ESSA also includes language explicitly stating that Title II dollars can 

be used for early childhood educators. Also in December 2015, President Obama signed the 

FY 2016 spending bill, which provides funding for year 3 of the Preschool Development Grants. 

The Departments will be working to secure funding for the fourth and final year of the current 

Preschool Development Grants program in FY 2017. 

There are challenges in developing an effective early learning workforce. States have hiring 

challenges, due in part to a lack of available well-trained and effective personnel across multiple 

disciplines. Some states have experienced high turnover of early childhood educators and 

consultants due to low wages, attractive offers in other states, challenging financial times, and 

program management. States that can sustain programs for longer periods have less difficulty 

recruiting and retaining strong early childhood educators. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 71

The Department and its technical assistance providers are working to address some of these 

challenges through webinars, peer learning, and pointing out promising practices, such as 

mentoring and coaching. For example, a study examining career pathways to be released in FY 

2016 will provide states with an overview of how these systems are working in a handful of 

leading states. Reducing duplication of efforts and promoting promising practices is necessary 

for creating an early learning workforce that can deliver on the promise of these programs. 

ECPC is currently working with Part C and Part B, Section 619 coordinators to identify additional 

states with which to work to improve their personnel systems. A challenge that Part C and Part 

B, section 619 personnel experience is that they are often not included within workforce 

initiatives within states. To address this, ECPC will continue to hold Leadership Institutes as a 

way to provide Part C and Part B, section 619 coordinators strategies to engage and become 

decision makers in workforce initiatives within their states. 

Building on the positive reception from the release of the Transforming the Workforce for 

Children Birth Through Age 8: A Unifying Foundation, the Departments are developing a plan to 

fund additional activities addressing the implementation of the recommendations, including 

funding a study on financing of preschool and convening with IHEs. The study will examine how 

to fund early care and education for 3- and 4-year-old preschool children that is accessible, 

affordable to families, and of high quality, including a well-qualified and adequately supported 

workforce consistent with the vision outlined in the Study. Over the course of 20 months, an ad 

hoc committee will review and synthesize the available research and analysis on the resources 

needed to meet the true costs of high-quality early care and education, including resources for 

improving the quality, affordability and accessibility of higher education; improving the quality 

and availability of professional learning during ongoing practice; and supporting well-qualified 

educators and administrators with adequate compensation through complete wage and benefit 

packages that are comparable across ages and settings. 

The committee will gather information and review the available evidence on funding 

mechanisms that are currently being employed successfully on a large scale as well as 

illustrative examples of funding strategies that are being employed on a smaller scale but have 

promise for expansion. The committee will also take into consideration lessons that can be 

drawn from financing of early care and education in other countries and from workforce 

development in sectors other than education. The committee will produce a report that 

synthesizes the information gathered and, based on their analysis and interpretation, draws 

conclusions about and makes recommendations for concrete, implementable funding strategies 

in the public and private sectors at the national, state, and local levels. 

Objective 3.3: Measuring Progress, Outcomes, and Readiness 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

The Department, in consultation with OMB, has determined that performance toward this 

objective is making noteworthy progress. As part of ELC, 11 states chose to use funds to 

address the use of comprehensive assessment systems, though all ELC states include 

comprehensive assessments as part of their program standards on which their TQRIS is based. 

These states are doing the difficult work of creating coordinated and comprehensive 

assessment systems that organize information to help early childhood educators, families, 

program directors, administrators, and policymakers to make informed instructional and 

programmatic decisions. A comprehensive assessment system coordinates the various types of 

valid and reliable screening, diagnostic, formative, and summative assessments that children 

are likely to receive throughout their early learning years, such as screenings for possible 

developmental delays, assessments of ongoing developmental progress, diagnostic 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 72

assessments, and measures that examine children’s accomplishments on developmentally 

appropriate standards-based benchmarks. As they create these comprehensive systems, states 

are updating and selecting screening and assessment tools that are valid and appropriate for 

the populations being served; educating users about the purposes of each assessment; 

coordinating assessments to avoid duplication; training early childhood educators to administer, 

interpret, and use the results of assessments; and involving parents in decisions regarding 

learning and development strategies for their children. 

In addition, 19 ELC states are or will be using KEAs that cover all the essential domains of 

school readiness and are aligned with their states’ early learning and development standards. 

Wisconsin did not elect to direct ELC funds toward the development of a comprehensive KEA, 

though they are funding an exploratory study. As part of a KEA, information is collected through 

observations, one-on-one discussions, small group activities, and through the use of 

technology. Results help early childhood educators better understand the status of children’s 

learning and development when they enter kindergarten so the educators can individualize 

instruction. Educators can share information with parents so that they can make informed 

decisions about their children’s education. Educators are using findings from the KEA to inform 

to inform instruction and help close the readiness gap at kindergarten and in the early 

elementary school grades. 

The Department surpassed the 2015 performance target of 9 states collecting and reporting 

disaggregated 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, WA) will begin after the 2015–16 school year. The 18 Preschool 

Development Grants states are required to report on the school readiness of the children 

participating in their high-quality preschool programs, with strong encouragement to use a KEA. 

We expect to have this data in spring 2017 for the second year of the grant. 

On April 7, 2015, ELC TA cohosted a webinar with CEELO and the Council of Chief State 

School Officers (CCSSO) focusing on the essential elements of a comprehensive assessment 

system, promising implementation strategies, key capacity-building considerations, and tools 

that can support this work at the state level. On June 6, 2015, ELC TA held the National 

Working Meeting on Early Learning Assessment in New Orleans, Louisiana. The one-day 

working meeting provided states with the opportunity to work together to address persistent 

problems associated with the implementation of comprehensive early learning assessment 

systems with a specific focus on child assessments, including KEAs. In August, 2015 ELC TA 

released a brief, statewide KEA Data Collection and Reporting in ELC states, in response to a 

request from a ELC state for information about issues that need to be considered in planning 

and implementing a statewide KEA data collection and reporting system. The report includes 

information on practices in five ELC states (Kentucky, Maryland, Oregon, Pennsylvania, 

Vermont and Washington). 

On August 27, 2015, the Department posted EDFacts Data Set: Kindergarten Entry Assessment 

Data Collection through EDFacts Metadata and Process System (EMAPS) as part of the Annual 

Mandatory Collection of Elementary and Secondary Education Data through EDFacts to explain 

the data that will be collected through EMAPS for KEAs in the School Year (SY) 2016–17, 

SY 2017–18, and SY 2018–19 EDFacts package. The team will address public comments 

received, post responses for 30 days, and then post a final regulation. 

In FY 2013, the Department made EAG awards to support the development and enhancement 

of KEAs. Texas and two state consortia, one led by Maryland and the other led by North 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 73

Carolina, were awarded EAG grants. KEAs under this program should be aligned with state 

early learning standards and cover all essential domains of school readiness. Three additional 

ELC grantees are participating in the Maryland consortium (Massachusetts, Michigan, and 

Ohio) as well as a number of non-ELC states. Eight states are partnering with North Carolina: 

Delaware, Iowa, Maine, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Washington, 

DC. Together the ELC and EAG programs support 29 states in creating incentives for states to 

implement KEAs. 

On an annual basis through their APRs, OSEP continues to require state Part C and Part B, 

section 619 programs to report on child outcomes for children that received at least 6 months of 

IDEA services. OSEP funds a technical assistance center to support states in collecting highquality data within their outcomes measurement system and in using that data for program 

improvement. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

Assessment in early learning is in its infancy. Many states are starting from scratch developing 

valid and reliable measures for KEAs. As a result, constructing and testing these instruments 

and implementing them across every school in the state will be challenging and will take time. In 

addition, states will need to ensure that the KEAs are implemented in a balanced way that does 

not result in the loss of a significant amount of instructional time. Additionally, two of the three 

EAG grantees that are consortia may experience challenges coordinating across states due to 

differences in their policies and procedures. Preschool Development Grants states are required 

to report on the status of children in kindergarten served by the grants in the high-need 

communities, but they are not required to use a KEA, and funding may be a challenge at the 

federal, state and local levels. The Departments are working with these grantees to minimize 

these coordination challenges. 

The Departments of Education and HHS will continue to reach out to CEELO, Education 

Commission on the States, CCSSO, NIEER, and other organizations that share our interest in 

advancing quality KEAs, share resources, and develop strategies that might increase our 

collective impact. The Departments are using national activities funds to develop case studies of 

four states’ approaches to KEAs through the Department of Education’s Office of Planning, 

Evaluation and Policy Development Policy. The objectives of this study are to document the 

processes, accomplishments, challenges, and solutions of four states (Maryland, Oregon, 

Pennsylvania, and Washington) implementing KEAs and to share what they have learned with 

federal and state policymakers and the field. Of particular interest was identifying what is 

working well and what lessons have been learned in these states that were early adopters of 

KEAs. Data collection occurred between January and June 2015 in the four case study states, 

12 districts, and 23 schools in the study. The final report is expected in July 2016. CEELO and 

ELC TA will continue to monitor state progress in development and implementation of KEAs and 

highlight best practices through webinars and meetings. 

This year OSEP used Part C child outcomes data in making annual determinations of 

performance based on state performance plans and annual performance reports. OSEP-funded 

TA centers will continue to work with states to support them collecting high-quality child 

outcomes data that is reliable and valid, and using this data for program improvement efforts. 

Selected Strategies to Achieve Goal 3

The Department is using a multipronged approach to improve the health, social-emotional, and 

cognitive outcomes for all children from birth through 3rd grade, so that all children, particularly 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 74

those with high needs, are on track for graduating from high school college- and career-ready. 

Through technical assistance by Department staff and contractors, technical assistance centers, 

monitoring, research networks and reports, grantee meetings, and use of social media and the 

bully pulpit, the Department expects to reach its goal. One tool that supports the Departments in 

the management of this goal is an electronic monitoring and reporting tool that it uses to assess 

the progress in all ELC and Preschool Development Grants states and deploy specialized 

technical assistance as quickly as possible to ensure progress continues. Further, the 

Departments work with the ELC TA, PDG TA, CEELO, and OSEP-funded TA centers to provide 

targeted technical assistance, establish learning communities and provide webinars, briefs, and 

reports on key topics. The Departments’ annual grantee meeting allows us to highlight key 

promising practices, discuss major challenges, and better understand state and local 

challenges. OSEP will be reviewing states’ Phase II SSIPs for Part C in April 2016 and will be 

supporting them through technical assistance to develop plans that have improvement 

strategies to build or enhance their infrastructure, collect and use high-quality data, and improve 

services to enhance results for young children with disabilities and their families. 

The Department of Education’s efforts are aimed at increasing access to high-quality, effective 

programs—served by an effective early learning workforce—for children from birth to school 

entry and beyond (including children with disabilities and those who are ELs). Comprehensive 

assessment systems will measure our success, helping us to enhance the quality of all early 

learning programs, and reach the ultimate goal of improving children’s outcomes. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 75

Goal 4. Equity: 

Increase educational opportunities for underserved students and 

reduce discrimination so that all students are well-positioned to 

succeed. 

Goal Leader: Catherine Lhamon 

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 Leader: Bob Kim 

Metric 4.1.A: National high school graduation rate 

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. Objective Leader: Bob Kim 

Metric 4.2.A: Percentage of proactive civil rights investigations launched annually that 

address areas of concentration in civil rights enforcement 

Metric 4.2.B: Percentage of proactive civil rights investigations resolved annually that 

address areas of concentration in civil rights enforcement

Goal 4 Discretionary Resources

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

FY 2015

FY 2016

FY 2017

$1,409

$1,440

$1,684

(Dollars in millions)
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 76

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities88 Supporting Goal 4 Performance Metrics 

[Dollars in Millions] 

FY 2017 

FY 2015 FY 2016 President’s 

POC Account Obj. Program Appropriation Appropriation Budget

OCR OCR Office for Civil Rights 100 107 138

OESE ED 4.1 State agency programs: Migrant 375 375 375

OESE IE NA Indian Education: Grants 

education agencies 

to local 

100 100 100

OESE IE NA Indian Education: Special programs 

for Indian children 18 38 68

OESE SIP NA Alaska Native education 31 32 32

OESE SIP NA Native Hawaiian education 32 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 737 737 800

OII I&I 4.1, 2.4 Stronger together (proposed) 0 0 120

OSERS SE NA Special Olympics education programs 8 10 10

TOTAL, GOAL 4 1,409 1,440 1,684

POC = Principal Office Component 

NA = Not applicable. 

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

Public Benefit 

Equity of opportunity is the foundation of the American dream, and equity in education is a 

cornerstone to building a strong, globally competitive workforce. From birth through adulthood, 

in institutions of early learning, P–12 schools, career and technical education, postsecondary 

education, adult education, workforce development, and independent living programs, the 

Department’s goal is to ensure that all of our nation’s students have access to the educators, 

resources, and opportunities to succeed. Accordingly, the Department is committed to improving 

outcomes for all students—regardless of income, home language, zip code, age, sex, sexual 

orientation, gender identity, race, or disability—through its major education initiatives. Moreover, 

the Department also recognizes the need to increase educational opportunities systemically for 

underserved populations, including by exploring ways to increase equitable access to resources 

and effective teachers within states and districts. 

To foster equitable access to early learning education, through the Preschool Development 

Grants program, the Department, together with the Administration for Children and Families at 

HHS, is providing access to high-quality preschool for thousands of children from low- and

moderate-income families in hundreds of communities across the nation. With the inclusion of 

this program in the ESSA, which reauthorized the ESEA, the Department will continue to foster 

increased access to high-quality preschool for the neediest children. 

In P–12 education, through the SIG program, ESEA, and other federal programs, the 

Department is providing significant resources to dramatically improve the nation’s lowestachieving schools by using turnaround interventions and strategies and identifying the lowachieving schools that are showing strong evidence of successfully turning around. The 

Department is focused on supporting innovation, not just compliance monitoring, and is focused 

on spurring growth in achievement, not just absolute achievement measures as done in the 

past. In FY 2015, Department launched programs and initiatives designed to study and address 

chronic absenteeism and high school dropouts as well as to promote best practices in improving 

 

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

noncompetitive programs.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 77

the rates of high school completion and graduation. The Department also started interagency 

planning to encourage greater socioeconomic diversity in schools and to provide greater 

educational opportunity for disconnected youth. 

The Department worked to increase the number of low-income high school students who are 

prepared to enter and succeed in postsecondary education. Building on partnerships with the 

Department of Labor and other federal agencies, the Department continued to expand career 

pathways for youth and adults by increasing access to high-quality secondary and 

postsecondary CTE programs, registered apprenticeship programs, and other forms of 

advanced technical training. 

In higher education, the Department developed the President’s America’s College Promise 

proposal to make two years of community college free for eligible students. Through the First in 

the World program, the Department also awarded grants to IHEs to promote evidence-based 

strategies and practices for college access and completion, focusing on low-income students. 

Through SIP, the Department is supporting IHEs to help them become self-sufficient and 

expand their capacity to serve low-income students through improvements in academic quality, 

institutional management, and fiscal stability. 

Civil rights data collection, policy development and enforcement are the tools for ensuring that 

recipients of federal funding provide educational opportunities absent discriminatory barriers. 

The Department’s OCR continues to address issues of equity in educational opportunity through 

both its policy and enforcement work by issuing detailed policy guidance; conducting vigorous 

complaint investigations; procuring strong systemic remedies; pursuing aggressive monitoring of 

resolution agreements; launching targeted and proactive compliance reviews and technical 

assistance activities; collecting and publicizing school-level data on important civil rights 

compliance indicators; and participating in intra- and interagency work groups to share expertise 

and best practices. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 78

Goal 4: Details

U.S. Department of 

Education

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals

Current 

Year 

Target Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target

2015 Out-Year Targets

Trend Line

(Actuals)

2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

4.1.A. National high school 

graduation rate89

SY: 

2011–12

80.0%

SY: 

2011–12

80.0%

SY: 

2012–13 

81.4%

SY: 

2013–14

82.3%

83.0%90 NOT MET

83.0

% 82.3

%

65.0%

67.5%

70.0%

72.5%

75.0%

77.5%

80.0%

82.5%

85.0%

4.1.A

84.5% 85%

75.0%

77.0%

79.0%

81.0%

83.0%

2013 2014 2015

New APG Metric: Gap in 

the graduation rate between 

students from low-income 

families and all students91

SY: 

2013–14 

7.7%

SY: 

2011–12

8.3%

SY: 

2012–13 

8.1%

SY: 

2013–14

7.7%

NA NA 7.6%92 7.4%

New APG Metric: Number 

of schools that do not have a 

gap or that decreased the 

gap between students from 

low-income93 families and 

the state average of all 

students94

SY: 

2013–14 

80%

SY: 

2011–12

77.6%

SY: 

2012–13 

78.8%

SY: 

2013–14

80%

NA NA 81.2%95 82.4%

 

89 Metric is aligned with an APG. 

90 SY 2013–14 actuals are being used to compare against the FY 2015 target. 

91 Metric is aligned with an APG. 

92 SY 2014–15 actuals are being used to compare against the FY 2016 target; FY 2016 (SY 2015–16) data not available until 2017. 

93 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. 

94 Metric is aligned with an APG. 

95 SY 2014–15 actuals are being used to compare against the FY 2016 target; FY 2016 (SY 2015–16) data not available until 2017. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 79

U.S. Department of 

Education

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals

Current 

Year 

Target Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target

2015 Out-Year Targets

Trend Line

(Actuals)

2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

4.2.A. Percentage of 

proactive civil rights 

investigations launched 

annually that address areas 

of concentration in civil rights 

enforcement 

FY: 2013

7% 7% 21% 16% 10% MET

10.0

%

16.0

%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

4.2.A

12% 15%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

2013 2014 2015

4.2.B. Percentage of 

proactive civil rights 

investigations resolved 

annually that address areas 

of concentration in civil rights 

enforcement

FY: 2013

8% 8% 15% 20% 10% MET

10.0

%

20.0

%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

4.2.B

12% 16%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

2013 2014 2015

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. 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 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 80

Analysis and Next Steps by Objective

Objective 4.1: Equitable Educational Opportunities 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

Throughout FY 2015, the Department continued its efforts to expand equitable educational 

opportunities through its budget priorities, grants, and initiatives in the P–12 and postsecondary 

spaces, as well as through interagency collaborations and taskforces. 

The Department has placed increased emphasis on ensuring educational equity through 

forward-looking strategies, such as FY 2016 budget development. For example, the Department 

proposed investing in equity measures in its FY 2016 budget, with $2.7 billion or almost 

12 percent increase for ESEA programs and substantial increases across many programs. 

P–12 Education 

The Office of Early Learning in the Department’s OESE and the Administration for Children and 

Families at HHS awarded grants to launch high-quality preschool for 33,000 children from lowto moderate-income families in over 200 communities in the 18 Preschool Development Grants 

states. The 20 Race to the Top-ELC states have finalized their Annual Performance Reports 

showing their states’ progress in developing or enhancing their early learning systems. OCR 

also worked with HHS to develop a policy statement on discipline in early learning 

environments. 

The Department continued to support the SIG program, ESEA Flexibility renewal, and the 

Excellent Educators for All initiative. On February 9, 2015, the Department published a notice of 

final regulations (NFRs) for SIG, incorporating changes from the FY 2014 appropriations act and 

lessons learned from implementation, so that SIG can better support turnaround efforts in the 

lowest-performing schools. The SIG NFR made slight adjustments to the four historical SIG 

models and includes three new SIG models: an early learning model, an evidence-based, whole 

school reform model, and a state-determined whole school reform model. 

The Department released guidance for the Excellent Educators for All initiative during FY 2015. 

The initiative is directly tied to the goal of closing achievement gaps and ensuring equal 

educational opportunities; it is a three-pronged attempt to support states and districts as they 

work to ensure that low income students and students of color have equal access to effective 

and qualified educators. First, the Department required states to submit new Plans to Ensure 

Equitable Access to Excellent Educators (State Plans) in June 2015 and has reviewed and 

approved the plans of all 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico. Second, the Department is currently 

implementing a $4.2 million effort to support an Equitable Access Support Network (EASN) that 

provides meaningful technical assistance to states in developing and then implementing high 

quality plans. The Department also created and released state-specific Educator Equity Profiles. 

The Department sent each state a copy of its CRDC file to facilitate additional state-level data 

analysis. The Department held a number of webinars with states to ensure they understood how 

the data could help in developing equity plans. 

Also, several offices across the Department continue to be involved in the White House My 

Brother’s Keeper initiative, which aims to improve educational and other outcomes and reduce 

involvement with the juvenile and criminal justice systems for boys and young men of color. 

OSERS worked with OESE to identify districts with the highest numbers of males of color 

dropping out of school with the goal of providing these districts with technical assistance to 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 81

support high needs students. OSERS also led a multistate convening to address 

disproportionate discipline rates for students of color. “Rethink Discipline,” a day-long 

conference at the White House, was convened by the Department and DOJ in July 2015, 

bringing together education professionals from across the country to work on strategies for 

creating positive school climates and implementing effective discipline practices to reduce the 

overuse of unnecessary out-of-school suspensions and expulsions and replace these practices 

with positive alternatives that keep students in school and engaged in learning, but also ensure 

accountability. 

OESE helped launch a new White House Administration initiative, Every Student, Every Day: A 

National Initiative to Address and Eliminate Chronic Absenteeism. Led by the White House, the 

Department, HHS, HUD, and DOJ, the administration announced new steps to combat chronic 

absenteeism and called on states and local communities across the country to join in taking 

immediate action to address and eliminate chronic absenteeism by at least 10 percent each 

year, beginning in the current school year (2015–16). 

OELA has been working with the White House Task Force on New Americans, particularly on 

highlighting promising practices for serving ELs, immigrants and refugees. In April, the Task 

Force released a new report that outlines the federal government’s goals to strengthen its 

integration efforts nationwide and build welcoming communities. Additionally, the Task Force 

has launched an “Educational and Linguistic Integration Webinar Series,” which has highlighted 

the work of researchers and practitioners who are working to support these populations. OELA 

has also partnered with the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for African 

Americans to launch a set of fact sheets on Black ELs to develop awareness for targeted 

actions to ensure that group of student receive appropriate attention and support. 

The Office of the Secretary supported the White House Initiative on American Indian and Alaska 

Native Education in its efforts to coordinate across federal agencies to execute Generation 

Indigenous, or Gen I, an interagency initiative to support Native youth. 

OCTAE continued to coordinate the implementation of the P3 initiative, a unique cross-agency 

initiative that gives state, local, and tribal governments greater flexibility in using their 

discretionary funds to test innovative strategies for improving results for disconnected youth. 

The first nine pilots were announced in October 2015. For the next round of P3, OCTAE has 

published a Notice of Proposed Priorities (NPP). The NPP includes proposed priorities for 

disconnected youth who are unemployed and not enrolled in education; ELs; individuals with 

disabilities; homeless; in foster care; involved with the justice system; or immigrants or refugees. 

While ESSA will certainly impact much of the Department’s work to promote equity in 

educational opportunity, the ultimate impacts of the new law are still being evaluated, and plans 

for implementation have yet to be fully developed. The FY 2016 APR will provide additional 

detail on the impact of the ESSA. 

Higher Education 

In FY 2015, OPEPD worked with the Office of the Under Secretary and other offices to develop 

the America’s College Promise to make two years of community college free for eligible 

students. OCTAE worked on preparing two solicitations related to reentry education. 

The Department published a notice announcing a First in the World grant competition on 

May 11, 2015. The program is designed to promote evidence-based strategies and practices for 

college access and completion, focusing on high-need students. The $60 million appropriated 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 82

for this program was used to make 18 grants to IHEs, including 9 grants to minority-serving 

institutions totaling $30 million. Two of the awards were Validation grants designed to replicate 

strategies proven to be successful in earlier evaluations. 

SIP supports eligible IHEs in becoming self-sufficient and expanding their capacity to serve lowincome students by providing funds to improve and strengthen the institution’s academic quality, 

institutional management, and fiscal stability. 

In an effort to scale up successful practices that lead to completion, especially in the area of 

remedial education, the Department developed communities of practice among minority-serving 

community colleges. Lead institutions have been identified, recruited, and trained. Two 

communities of practice have been launched as of October 2015. The Department convened 

these communities of practice and others in November 2015 for the Student Success at Minority 

Serving Institutions conference. 

OCR and FSA continue to support the President’s Sexual Assault Task Force to improve 

coordination, transparency, and effectiveness in responding to sexual violence in colleges and 

universities. The Task Force released a Resource Guide in September 2015, and is developing 

plans for the coming months, including a focus on technical assistance/regional convenings, 

research initiatives, and training/prevention at the P–12 level. 

OCTAE and OCR are developing joint guidance to assist high schools, community colleges, 

other CTE providers, and state agencies in meeting their obligations under federal law to 

administer and oversee CTE programs, without discriminating on the basis of gender. OCTAE is 

working as well with FSA to promote greater awareness of new ability to benefit provisions that 

enable adults who lack a high school diploma or its equivalent to access student financial aid if 

they are enrolled in qualifying career pathway program. 

Subpopulation Breakout for Metric 4.1.A: National high school graduation rate by 

race/ethnicity, other characteristics* 

SY Total

American 

Indian/

Alaska 

Native

Asian/

Pacific 

Islander

Hispa

nic Black White

Economically 

Disadvantaged

Limited 

English 

Proficiency

Students 

with 

Disabilities

2011–12 80% 67% 88% 73% 69% 86% 72% 59% 61%

2012–13 81.4% 69.7% 88.7% 75.2% 70.7% 86.6% 73.3% 61.1% 61.9%

2013–14 82.3% 69.6%** 89.4% 76.3% 72.5% 87.2% 74.6% 62.6% 63.1%

* Data are reported based on the requirements for individual states in the Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR). 

** The United States 4-year ACGR for American Indian/Alaska Native students was estimated using both the reported 4-year ACGR 

data from 49 states and the District of Columbia and using imputed data for Virginia. Available at: 

http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/tables/ACGR_RE_and_characteristics_2013-14.asp. 

Data Source and Frequency of Collection: EDFacts universe collection, annual reports; annually 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

The following items delineate future challenges and next steps as the Department works to 

enhance educational opportunities for underserved populations. 

As with all budget requests, the new and continuing proposals related to equity described above 

are dependent on final appropriations. Offices across the Department will maximize alignment 

with the Department’s issues of equity. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 83

Staff worked diligently to approve state educator equity plans and to oversee implementation of 

the Excellent Educators for All initiative, addressing the urgency of progress on educator equity 

and the capacity of states to meet new data and planning requirements. OESE is managing a 

large technical assistance effort around the plans that will allow all states to receive intensive 

support. A cross-agency group is working to ensure this technical assistance includes 

stakeholders from the civil rights community to help states improve consultation efforts. 

In FY 2015, the Department also promoted this goal through continued implementation of ESEA 

Flexibility. The ESEA Flexibility renewal guidance, issued on November 13, 2014, focused on 

improving educational outcomes for all students, closing achievement gaps, increasing equity, 

and improving the quality of instruction. As part of the SEA’s process of ensuring that schools 

were accountable for the performance of all subgroups of students, in its renewal request, each 

SEA had to demonstrate that a school could not receive the highest rating in the SEA’s 

differentiated recognition, accountability, and support system if there are significant 

achievement or graduation rate gaps across subgroups that are not closing in the school. States 

were also encouraged, through the renewal process, to identify and address existing opportunity 

gaps that may contribute to achievement gaps. 

The ESSA continues the ESEA’s focus on ensuring that states and school districts account for 

the progress of all students, take meaningful actions to improve the lowest-performing schools, 

and ensure equitable access to excellent educators. However, the provisions and ultimate 

impact of the new law are still being evaluated, and plans for implementation have yet to be fully 

developed. The FY 2016 APR will provide additional detail on the impact of the ESSA. 

Objective 4.2: Civil Rights Compliance 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

The Department, in consultation with OMB, has determined that performance toward this 

objective is making noteworthy progress. OCR has dramatically increased the efficiency and 

accuracy of the CRDC by launching a newly developed and improved data collection tool. Many 

new features of the data collection tool contributed to the increased efficiency and data 

accuracy, including the ability of LEAs and schools to (1) preview future CRDC questions that 

will be mandatory for the 2015–16 CRDC and to submit data voluntarily (optional) for these 

questions early, as part of the 2013–14 collection; (2) receive automated, customized edit 

checks of data entries prior to final data submission/ certification; (3) obtain individualized 

district feedback reports that summarize the 2013–14 data submitted; and (4) benefit from the 

prepopulation of some survey data items from 8 SEAs to reduce approximately 2,000 LEAs’

reporting burden. As a result, 17,000 LEAs can receive real-time summary reports of their 

2013–14 CRDC data up to 8 months earlier and at least 2,000 LEAs’ burden to comply with 

data violation to launching an investigation by as much as one year, thus bringing speedier relief 

to complainants. Data for the 2013–14 CRDC will be available in the spring of 2016. 

In FY 2015, OCR, in collaboration with OELA, supported major investments in the quality of the 

CRDC data, including the disaggregated data for ELs in all public schools. This new feature of 

the CRDC website allows access to individual district or school level EL profiles that include 

information about the demographics of EL students and their participation in early childhood, 

gifted and talented, AP, SAT, college and career readiness, math and science courses, and 

discipline. OCR worked with OELA to develop and publish the EL Toolkit to support the 

implementation of EL Guidance. The toolkit was launched nationally at the end of April and all 

ten chapters are now available online. OCR continues to promote the EL guidance and toolkit 

through speaking engagements and technical assistance. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 84

In the policy arena, in FY 2015, OCR released nine guidance documents of critical importance 

to the Department, schools, civil rights stakeholders and the public—the most issued in one 

fiscal year in OCR history—concerning: (1) the Title VI requirements around resource equity 

and resource comparability; (2) obligations of elementary and secondary schools to respond to 

the bullying of SWDs; (3) schools’ obligations surrounding effective communication for SWDs; 

(4) questions and answers on Title IX and single-sex elementary and secondary classes and 

extracurricular activities; (5) applicability of federal civil rights laws to juvenile justice residential 

facilities; (6) implementing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Ebola guidance for 

schools; (7) schools’ obligations to ensure that EL students can participate meaningfully and 

equally in school and to communicate information to limited English proficient parents in a 

language they can understand; (8) addressing the risk of measles in schools and school 

obligations to SWDs medically unable to obtain vaccinations; and (9) the importance and role of 

Title IX coordinators.

In order to further disseminate and deliver the message of these policy guidance documents to 

communities nationwide, OCR provided more than 220 technical assistance sessions to 

recipients and other stakeholders. These sessions were conducted by employees from all of 

OCR’s twelve regional and enforcement offices throughout the nation, and from headquarters, 

including Program Legal Group staff.

In FY 2015, OCR received a new record-high number of complaints (10,394, vs. 9,983 in 

FY 2014) and resolved 9,232 complaints (compared to 9,864 in FY 2014)—including a higher 

number of complex and systemic case resolutions than in FY 2014—despite experiencing the 

lowest staffing levels in OCR history (average of 539). 

Additionally, OCR increased the transparency of its work to the public by making available a list 

of colleges and universities currently being investigated under Title IX related to sexual violence; 

posting hundreds of resolution agreements with educational institutions on its website; and

overhauling the website to make more easily accessible information about OCR’s civil rights 

enforcement work (including resolution letters and agreements from FY 2014 forward); policy 

guidance documents; frequently asked questions about the laws OCR enforces; and a robust 

reading room with publications, pamphlets, and other materials. In total, there are now more 

than 800 cases available on the website. OCR’s customer service team responded to 

7,430 hotline calls, answered 3,397 public inquiries, and fulfilled 8,775 publication requests for 

OCR documents to ensure the public has accurate information about civil rights laws and policy 

to promote equity in education. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

In FY 2015, OCR again received a new record-high number of complaints despite experiencing 

the lowest staffing levels in OCR history—continuing a trend that has existed for decades and 

has accelerated during this administration.

To create greater efficiency in our work, OCR overhauled its case processing guidelines, 

increased use of technology, eliminated peripheral practices such as reviewing appeals of 

dismissals or retaining cases over which other agencies have joint jurisdiction, and successfully 

used its internal audit program to foster greater consistency, quality and systemic relief in its 

enforcement efforts. 

The complaint volume and lack of resources continue to have an impact on OCR’s ability to 

conduct and resolve proactive investigations and to conduct proactive technical assistance. 

OCR’s ability to conduct proactive activities is also impacted by limited staffing and resources. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 85

Selected Strategies to Achieve Goal 4

The Department will continue to work in FY 2016 to expand access to high-quality preschool, 

close achievement and graduation gaps, foster equitable access to educational resources and 

excellent educators, ensure all students have the opportunity to attain a high-quality education 

in a supportive and nondiscriminatory environment, and foster greater college access and 

completion. In doing so, the Department will continue to integrate the support for underserved or 

at-risk students, children and youth—including high-need students, students of color, ELs, and 

children and youth with disabilities—across its programs and initiatives. 

As mentioned above, ESSA continues the ESEA’s focus on ensuring that states and school 

districts account for the progress of all students, including students from low-income families 

and students of color; take meaningful actions to improve the lowest-performing schools; and 

ensure equitable access to excellent educators. The Department is developing approaches to 

best support the implementation of the ESSA, and the FY 2016 APR will provide additional 

detail on the impact of the ESSA for the Department’s work.

The Department will continue to support a robust early learning agenda that includes building 

state and local capacity to expand access to high-quality preschool programs, improving the 

workforce, aligning preschool systems, and supporting comprehensive assessment systems. 

The Department will work with the White House, other agencies, states and local communities 

to implement Every Student, Every Day: A National Initiative to Address and Eliminate Chronic 

Absenteeism. 

The Department will implement the National Professional Development program to increase well 

prepared teachers and other educators to serve ELs. 

The Department will advance programs that serve homeless, foster, disconnected, incarcerated, 

and migrant youth, including through implementing the P3 program.

The Department will support the My Brother’s Keeper initiative to improve educational and other 

outcomes and reduce involvement with the juvenile and criminal justice systems for boys and 

young men of color, and to address disproportionate discipline rates for students of color and 

SWDs. 

The Department will work with the White House Initiative on American Indian and Alaska Native 

Education to implement Gen I. 

The Department will explore ways to work collaboratively with other federal agencies to increase 

socioeconomic and racial integration and diversity in schools. 

The Department will continue to issue civil rights policy guidance documents that address 

schools’ obligations to ensure equity for students, investigate civil rights complaints, launch 

targeted and proactive civil rights compliance reviews and technical assistance activities, 

provide more transparency about civil rights processes and resolutions on its website, and issue 

new CRDC data that illuminate equity and opportunity gaps in our nation’s schools. 

The Department will foster more equity in career, technical, and adult education programs, 

including through the Advancing Equity in CTE project to reduce inequities in CTE access, 

participation, completion, and post-program outcomes for girls and women, individuals with 

disabilities, and students of color. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 86

The Department will promote evidence-based strategies and practices to increase college 

access and completion and expand colleges’ capacity to support low-income students through 

the First in the World program and SIP.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 87

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: Amy McIntosh

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 Leader: Ross Santy 

Metric 5.1.A: Number of public data sets included in ED Data Inventory and thus linked 

to Data.gov or ED.gov websites 

Metric 5.1.B: Number of states linking K–12 and postsecondary data with workforce 

data 

Metric 5.1.C: Number of states linking K–12 with early childhood 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 Leader: Kathleen Styles 

Metric 5.2.A: Average time to close “cases” (PTAC + FPCO)96

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 Leaders: 

Ruth Neild and Margo Anderson 

Metric 5.3.A: Percentage of select new97 (noncontinuation) competitive grant dollars that 

reward evidence 

Metric 5.3.B: Number of peer-reviewed, full-text resources in the Education Resources 

Information Center (ERIC) 

Metric 5.3.C: Number of reviewed studies in the WWC database98

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

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

Objective Leader: Joseph South

 

96 Privacy Technical Assistance Center (PTAC) and Family Policy Compliance Office (FPCO). 

97 “New competitive grant dollars that reward evidence” includes all dollars awarded based on the existence of at least “evidence of 

promise” in support of a project, per the framework in the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (34 CFR Part 

75). Consideration of such evidence appears through: eligibility threshold (e.g., in the i3); absolute priority; competitive priority 

(earning at least one point for it); or selection criteria (earning at least one point for it). The percentage is calculated compared to the 

total new grant dollars awarded, excluding awards made by the IES, the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, 

and technical assistance centers, with some exceptions. 

98 Metric is being removed at the end of the FY 2015 reporting period. Please refer to appendix B for details pertaining to the 

removal and addition of metrics. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 88

Metric 5.4.A: Percentage of schools in the country that have actual Internet bandwidth 

speeds of at least 100 Megabits per second (Mbps) 

Goal 5 Discretionary Resources

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

FY 2015

FY 2016

FY 2017

$814

$861

$1,024

(Dollars in millions)

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities99 Supporting Goal 5 Performance Metrics 

[Dollars in Millions]

POC Account Obj. Program

FY 2015 

Appropriation

FY 2016 

Appropriation

FY 2017 

President’s 

Budget

IES IES 5.3 National assessment 129 149 149

IES IES 5.3 Regional educational laboratories 54 54 54

IES IES 5.3 Research in special education 54 54 54

IES IES 5.3 Research, development, and dissemination 180 195 209

IES IES 5.1, 5.2 Statewide longitudinal data systems 35 35 81

IES IES 5.3 Statistics 103 112 125

OII I&I 5.3 Education innovation and research 120 120 180

Subtotal 675 719 853

Other Discretionary Programs/Activities 139 142 171

TOTAL, GOAL 5 814 861 1,024

POC = Principal Office Component 

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

Public Benefit

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

superintendents and the Secretary, need access to timely, appropriate, relevant, and actionable 

information. Information sources, which can range from datasets to rigorous evaluations and 

research studies, must be accessible through reliable technology and must reach needed 

 

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

noncompetitive programs.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 89

audiences through dissemination, 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 this information to make evidence-based decisions. 

States continue to develop 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. The Department continues ongoing efforts to develop effective SLDS, design 

voluntary Common Education Data Standards (CEDS) to increase interoperability, and develop 

the capacity of institutions and staff to utilize data to improve teaching and learning outcomes. It 

is not enough to support only the development of the systems and structures that will provide 

education agencies across the nation with the data necessary to generate accurate pictures of 

student performance and other critical elements, from early learning programs through 

postsecondary institutions and the workforce. 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, develop future teachers, and inform practice; 

all while ensuring the privacy of the nation’s students is safely protected. 

Additionally, the Department must serve as a model for how data are disseminated. Information 

that SEAs and LEAs report to the Department should be made accessible, where possible, to 

inform the public and help with local decision-making, but these data must be shared in ways 

that protect student privacy and that are in compliance with federal and state 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. The Department will 

help practitioners in the field ensure they are properly protecting privacy and communicating 

with parents and students about the proper use and management of student data. 

The Department continues to prioritize the use of “evidence-based” practices through its 

competitive programs while supporting the creation of new evidence through rigorous project 

evaluations. This approach helps ensure that scarce dollars have their intended impact and also 

empowers states and districts to become more dynamic learning organizations, especially in 

areas with little existing rigorous evidence. Additionally, the Department continues to provide 

tools to stakeholders that help them understand what types of which strategies and 

interventions are effective for various “problems of practice.”

Better use of information, both for policy-makers, but also educators, depends on access to 

reliable technology. The Department’s vision for 21st-century learning requires that schools 

have a 21st-century technology infrastructure anchored around high-speed Internet to allow for 

innovation and personalization in the classroom. This vision is supported by the remarkable 

progress we have made towards the President’s ConnectED initiative goal to connect 

99 percent of students in the nation’s schools to high-speed broadband by 2018. States, 

districts, and schools must have such infrastructure to incorporate cutting-edge methods for 

strengthening curriculum quality and delivery to meet more rigorous college- and career-ready 

standards; improving student access and engagement; developing comprehensive, formative, 

and summative assessment systems; and enhancing data management systems. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 90

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

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals)

2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

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 55 66 79 79 MET

79 79

0

20

40

60

80

100

5.1.A

94 104

0

20

40

60

80

100

2013 2014 2015

5.1.B. Number of states 

linking K–12 and 

postsecondary data with 

workforce data

FY: 2013

12 12 20 24 22 MET

22

24

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

5.1.B

25 25

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2013 2014 2015

5.1.C. Number of states 

linking K–12 with early 

childhood data

FY: 2013

19 19 26 32 27 MET

27

32

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

5.1.C

29 32

0

10

20

30

40

2013 2014 2015
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 91

Continuous Improvement 

of the U.S. Education 

System

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals

Current 

Year 

Target

Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals)

2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

5.2.A. Average time to close 

“cases” (PTAC + FPCO)

FY: 2013 

10 days 10 9 4.9 8 days MET

8.0

4.9

0

2

4

6

8

10

5.2.A

7.2100 6.48101

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2013 2014 2015

5.3.A. Percentage of select 

new (noncontinuation) 

competitive grant dollars 

that reward evidence102

FY: 2012

6.5% 9.35% 15.9% 29.4% 11.0% MET

11.0

%

29.4

%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

5.3.A

18%103 20%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

2013 2014 2015

New APG Metric: Number 

of completed project 

evaluations from grantees 

from select discretionary 

grant programs in a given 

fiscal year that meet What 

Works Clearinghouse 

(WWC) Evidence 

Standards104

FY: 2015

2

NA NA 2 NA NA 10 20

 

100 Target is being updated to reflect the goal of a 10% reduction from the prior year. 

101 Target is being updated to reflect the goal of a 10% reduction from the prior year. 

102 Metric is aligned to an APG. 

103 The out-year performance targets are increased from what was reported in the FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan. 

104 Metric is aligned to an APG. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 92

Continuous Improvement 

of the U.S. Education 

System

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals

Current 

Year 

Target

Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals)

2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

5.3.B. Number of peerreviewed, full-text resources 

in the Education Resources 

Information Center (ERIC)

FY: 2013

23,512 23,512 27,292 36,197 31,192 MET 31,1

92

36,1

97

25,000

27,000

29,000

31,000

33,000

35,000

37,000

5.3.B

35,692 40,892

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

2013 2014 2015

5.3.C. Number of reviewed 

studies in the What Works 

Clearinghouse (WWC) 

database105

FY: 2013

9,535 9,535 10,310 10,889 10,235 MET

10,2

35

10,8

89

8,500

8,800

9,100

9,400

9,700

10,000

10,300

10,600

10,900

11,200

5.3.C

NA NA

8,500

9,000

9,500

10,000

10,500

11,000

2013 2014 2015

New Metric: Number of 

visits to the What Works 

Clearinghouse (WWC) 

website

FY: 2015

1,822,000 NA NA 1,822,000 NA NA 1,967,760 2,164,536

5.4.A. Percentage of 

schools in the country that 

have actual Internet 

bandwidth speeds of at least 

100 Mbps

FY: 2013

20% 20% 41% 55% 50% MET

50.0

%

55.0

%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

55.0%

60.0%

5.4.A

70% 80%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

2013 2014 2015

NA = Not applicable. 

 

105 Metric being removed at the end of the FY 2015 reporting period and being replaced with the metric identified as “New Metric” directly below it. If there is no corresponding “New 

Metric” identified, new metric TBD. Please refer to appendix B for details pertaining to the removal and addition of metrics. The proposed FY 2016 and 2017 targets for the metric being 

removed were 10,585 and 10,935, respectively. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 93

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); 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); quarterly 

5.4.A. Education Superhighway (for baseline), Consortium for School Networking (CoSN)/AASA E-rate Infrastructure Survey (for FY 2014 actual data); 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 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 94

Analysis and Next Steps by Objective

Objective 5.1: Data Systems and Transparency 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

The Department continues to focus upon providing technical assistance to the field to support 

the development and use of longitudinal data systems that serve the education needs of the 

states. In recent years a core focus for this work has been upon implementing and sustaining 

connections that span the complete student lifecycle. For example, the SLDS grant program

works with a State Support Team (SST) of experienced government and industry experts in the 

area of data systems development, connection and maintenance. The technical assistance 

provided by the SST is available to all states, not only to active grantees of the SLDS grant 

program. This level of support has enabled better conversations across states, sharing of both 

technical and business process best practices, and helped bring to life the number of new K-12 

and postsecondary to workforce connections and P–12 to early childhood data connections that 

surpassed our targets for FY 2015 on both metrics. 

Collaboration is key to the success of this objective. SLDS staff work frequently with other 

Department programs, including the ELC, as well as coordinating with Department of Labor’s 

Workforce Data Quality Information program. The Department continues to collaborate with 

technical experts, standards organizations and key stakeholders in the maintenance, 

enhancement and roll-out of CEDS. In FY 2015, in addition to successfully completing a new 

grant round and awarding 16 new SLDS grants to support collaborative data uses, a new 

contract was awarded to support CEDS enhancements, tools and uses over the next two years. 

States, postsecondary institutions and independent research groups continue to use the online 

CEDS tools to map their data systems, data uses and data models to CEDS. 

The Department continues to model the transparency we are working to develop in the field by 

updating and expanding the ED Data Inventory. While work to improve the functionality and 

connections of the ED Data Inventory system have stalled due to budgetary limitations, the work 

to improve and enhance the Inventory’s content continues to move forward. Collections and 

reports from Department programs within seven different Principal Office Components are now 

represented in the Inventory. This resulted in 74 distinct publicly available datasets across the 

Department being connected to an Inventory entry. The Inventory continues to provide source 

information to data.gov on a regular basis. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

As with previous years, state support for longitudinal data system development continues to be 

the largest dependency and area of risk for progress in this area. Several states have 

experienced increased political pressures over the past year to reduce collection and 

management of longitudinal student data. The most effective strategies towards building support 

within states for continuing to support longitudinal data system initiatives is to enable a strong 

set of best practice uses for the data that deliver value to stakeholders at multiple levels. The 

16 new awards made in the SLDS FY 2015 grant competition are all focused upon data use. A 

key challenge that is being addressed right now is to develop a consistently applied and agreed 

upon metric (or set of metrics) for measuring and documenting good data use. The SLDS team 

has been driving work forward in this area as monitoring practices and protocols are set up for 

FY 2015 grantees. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 95

Formalizing new phases for CEDS and the ED Data Inventory work will be very important in the 

coming months. As FY 2015 came to a close a new vehicle was put in place to support the 

development and use of CEDS for the next two years. As we start FY 2016, work is now getting 

back up to speed to engage the field in the continued development of the standards, and to 

support use of the online tools that enable agencies and interested individuals to interact with 

CEDS. Having the vehicle in place for two years will be helpful, as gaps in the work seen during 

both FY 2014 and FY 2015 should not occur. The ED Data Inventory is also at a critical juncture 

in its development. While the content of the inventory continues to be supported and enhanced, 

the technical work that was getting started at the beginning of FY 2015 to better integrate the 

Inventory and the collection clearance process systems at the Department had to be put on 

hold. Although, this should not cause problems for meeting the established goals connecting 

public data sets with entries within the Inventory in FY 2016, if the funding and integration 

issues are not resolved further progress into FY 2017 and FY 2018 may be threatened. 

In FY 2016, the Department is launching the InformED initiative. InformED is the Department’s 

groundbreaking effort to transform how the Department makes information available—and 

actionable—for internal users and for the public, building on lessons learned from the new 

College Scorecard. The InformED initiative would replicate across the education spectrum, from 

early childhood to adult education, what the Scorecard accomplished for higher education. Each 

of these Scorecard-like sites or “information hubs” would pull together the Department’s diverse 

array of information on a particular topic, make it accessible with intuitive tools for decisionmaking, and allow open data access to unlock answers to pressing education questions and 

needs. As with the College Scorecard, the release of these data will enable external developers 

to create innovative new tools to further serve students. The Department is working to identify 

several key themes around which to center information and will develop new iterations of the 

College Scorecard. InformED will empower decision-makers by providing the full set of 

information, both data and studies that currently live in disparate locations, into one location with 

analysis and reporting tools and open data access to address relevant education questions. To 

support open access to education data and centralized dissemination of other evidence, the 

Department must invest in its underlying data infrastructure for managing the collection, quality, 

release, and analysis of data. 

The Department is also continuing to improve its own internal data management practices 

through the maturation of the DST. What started as primarily a communication tool has evolved 

to document the key hurdles that prevent better data practices within the Department and to 

make recommendations to address them. Leadership of the DST is currently reviewing a drafted 

Directive on Departmental Data Management Practices. The Directive, if implemented, would 

formally unite existing data strategy and data governance practices while also outlining the roles 

and responsibilities for offices that steward key data on behalf of the Department. This work is 

continuing the evolution of DST from a volunteer, collaborative organization to a true 

governance body that can effect change and implement better practice across the Department. 

Objective 5.2: Privacy 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

Educational institutions rely on student data to improve decision-making, to personalize 

learning, and to target additional support to at-risk students, and the Department itself relies on 

student data for key administration initiatives. Increases in the collection and use of student 

data, however, have fueled public concern about student privacy, and important gains are at risk 

due to public concern. Throughout FY 2015, student privacy was an extremely hot topic and as 

a result the Department had to begin, to some degree, pulling away from our long term 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 96

improvement plans to respond to immediate Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act 

(FERPA) and privacy issues providing substantial, recurring technical assistance to the Hill on 

dozens of proposed bills dealing with student privacy. In addition, 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 on the protection 

of student privacy in campus medical records. The Department was publicly commended for 

publishing the letter in draft format, to obtain public input before finalizing it in FY 2016. 

While adjusting to these changing demands, there has been consistent, steady improvement in 

office metrics specific to privacy since we began tracking these numbers about two years ago. 

Our strategy has been to rely when appropriate on contractor resources, both within the office 

and from the contractors that staff the PTAC. These efforts in addressing the high degree of 

public interest in student privacy included the implementation of a new more user-friendly 

website, and the release of our Model Terms of Service guidance and teacher training video. 

Another strategy that continues to pay off is increased coordination with other Department 

offices engaged in privacy technical assistance as the Department expanded PTAC’s work to 

include early childhood programs, particularly through the creation of new online resource page 

that curates a vast array of technical assistance resources on the privacy and security of early 

childhood (EC) data from across the Department’s disparate EC technical assistance centers. 

Through PTAC and the Department’s Office of the Chief Privacy Officer (OCPO), the 

Department conducted a number of targeted technical assistance activities on early childhood 

issues, including a site visits, webinars, and workshops and provided extensive internal 

technical assistance on privacy issues relating to the Preschool Development Grants program. 

As a result of this focus on efficiencies and resource utilization, using metrics to improve 

performance and relying on a case tracking system that manages workload and content for both 

our contractor and federal staff, the average time to respond to cases was under 5 days, 

meeting the Department’s FY 2015 performance target of by having an average turnaround time 

of less than 8 days. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

As we move forward into FY 2016, the Department again anticipates a significant amount of 

activity in the field on student privacy issues, from new state statutes, to policy statements, 

continued industry pledges and coordination with other enforcement agencies. The challenge 

for this area is to be proactive, when limited resources mandate reactivity. We are 

fundamentally realigning privacy processes and policy at the Department, while continuing to 

run a compliance and technical assistance program. It is challenging to continue to run basic 

operations, while redesigning processes and building for the future. 

While we continued to make considerable strides in FY 2015, we still face an inherent challenge 

regarding inquiries seeking guidance on issues for which the Department has no answer. For 

example, video recording is increasingly being utilized in the educational arena (e.g., for 

surveillance, or remote classroom observation), and application of the regulatory framework to 

these situations is complicated. The Department, specifically the OCPO, will continue to use the 

biweekly meetings with the Department’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) and OPEPD to 

examine those issues that may require regulatory or statutory change to provide answers. Now 

having senior support for increased resources, there is the hope that even greater strides will be 

realized moving forward into FY 2016 with the addition of these resources and as part of a 

contract recompetition, to transform and restructure PTAC from an external, contractor-run TA 

center, to an integral part of the OCPO. The new contract, awarded in September 2015 will 

improve the Department’s privacy technical assistance by leveraging and integrating the 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 97

expertise and support of PTAC’s contractor subject-matter experts with the legal and policy 

expertise of the Department’s federal staff. 

Objective 5.3: Research, Evaluation, and Use of Evidence 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

Systemic improvement requires research and evaluation so that decision makers at the 

national, state, and local levels have reliable evidence to inform their actions. While the 

Department’s research programs are its primary driver for learning what works, the Department 

also seeks to build evidence by incorporating grantee-led evaluations into other programs. 

Requiring that more discretionary grants build on and generate evidence of effectiveness will 

increase the likelihood that scarce program dollars have a positive impact on student outcomes. 

A list of evaluations completed in FY 2015, as well as a summary of other relevant upcoming 

evaluations, can be found in appendix E. 

The Department’s Evidence Planning Group (EPG) continues to identify opportunities for 

discretionary grant programs to use evidence-related priorities or selection criteria in 

competitions. In FY 2015, a total of eight competitions in OII, OESE, and OPE encouraged 

evidence-based projects through eligibility requirements, competitive preference priorities, and 

selection criteria. In addition, nine competitions in OII, OESE, and OPE asked that applicants 

design evaluations of their proposed projects that will produce evidence. The Department 

surpassed the FY 2015 performance target for programs rewarding evidence in grant 

competitions. In addition, the EPG has met with each of the Department’s grant-making offices 

to discuss appropriate uses of evidence in FY 2016 competitions. The Department projects that 

over 10 competitions will reward evidence in their FY 2016 competitions. 

The metric above tracks the Department’s progress in incentivizing applicants to build on 

evidence of “what works” and to generate new evidence in the course of their grants. Two other 

metrics—one related to the WWC and one to ERIC—track the Department’s progress in 

reviewing studies of education effectiveness against rigorous standards and in making highquality education research widely available and easily accessible. The Department believes that 

progress in these metrics will contribute to the information flow that is essential to promoting 

promising areas of education research and development. 

The WWC reviews and summarizes studies of the effectiveness of education interventions. 

During FY 2015, the WWC surpassed the Department’s target by reviewing more than 

600 studies. Reviews of studies submitted by applicants to Department grant competitions 

contributed to the larger-than-anticipated number of studies reviewed. In addition to its regular 

reviews of IES-funded research studies, in FY 2015 the WWC also began to review studies 

produced by the i3 program’s first cohort of grantees. These grantees, originally funded in 2010, 

began to share their results of the independent evaluations of their projects this past year. The 

WWC also expanded its capacity to review higher volumes of studies by offering additional 

reviewer training and awarding a new contract for grant-related study reviews. 

Likewise, in FY 2015, ERIC continued to prioritize acquisition of peer-reviewed, full-text 

education research and secured many new agreements with content providers to enable ERIC 

to acquire the full text of peer-reviewed research articles supported with FY 2012 or later 

research funding from IES. This work contributed to surpassing the FY 2015 annual 

performance target by more than 5,000 full-text, peer-reviewed resources. ERIC also has 

incorporated a search function that allows users to identify studies in the ERIC database that 

were reviewed by the WWC and that met standards. In this way, the greater integration of the 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 98

Department’s WWC and ERIC investments contributes to the “virtuous cycle” of using and 

producing research evidence. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

The process to collect data and track progress against the goal is iterative, and properly using 

evidence to award competitive grants entails a shift in culture and capacity building across the 

Department. Building evidence into competitions is also resource-intensive in terms of program 

staff capacity, grantee capacity, availability of sufficient numbers of WWC-certified reviewers, 

and the review process. Grantees vary in their comfort with and understanding of evaluation and 

use of evidence, yet the Department has limited resources to support grantees in conducting 

rigorous evaluations that would produce evidence of effectiveness. Finally, targets for this 

objective are based on reasonable projections about which competitive grant programs may 

make new awards in this fiscal year, but the actual dollar amount awarded will depend on final 

appropriation amounts and other funding decisions and trade-offs, so performance targets may 

not increase in a linear fashion each year. 

The Department’s leadership will continue explaining to internal stakeholders how the new 

evidence framework in Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) 

can be used in upcoming discretionary grant competitions to reward evidence. For example: 

 EPG is meeting with program offices throughout the Department to identify ways to 

incorporate evidence into discretionary grant competitions. 

 EPG is also exploring ways to support program offices that choose to incorporate 

evidence and build capacity departmentwide. For example, EPG worked to establish a 

departmentwide contract that would provide for technical assistance to grantees on their 

evaluations, particularly impact evaluations that are intended to produce studies that 

meet WWC standards. This contract vehicle is now operational for programs planning 

FY 2016 competitions. Additionally, IES has collaborated with program offices to recruit 

peer reviewers familiar with the WWC standards, which will increase scrutiny of 

applicants’ proposed plans for rigorous evaluations. Finally, OII and IES are providing 

training to Department staff on logic models and other elements of the evidence 

framework to better inform our work at the Department and to provide better assistance 

to our grantees. 

 IES continues to use its various resources intentionally to support program design and 

evaluation. For example, in FY 2015, IES managed the development of a guide for 

planning and conducting strong quasi-experiments and offered a webinar on the topic. 

Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast will offer a five-part webinar series FY 2016 

on designing strong studies of the impact of professional development. The series is 

geared toward applicants to the Department’s discretionary grant programs that require 

evidence. 

To increase the number of individuals who are certified WWC reviewers, the WWC has been 

developing an on-demand online reviewer certification course. Previously, all training was held 

in-person and offered a few times per year. Demand is high for this credential, and the WWC 

has not been able to train all interested individuals. This new approach will allow anyone to take 

the training online and complete a multiple-choice exam on WWC standards. This system will 

allow many more individuals to receive training, at a considerably reduced per-person cost. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 99

Objective 5.4: Technology and Innovation 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

The Department, in consultation with OMB, has determined that performance toward this 

objective is making noteworthy progress. The Department made many successes during 

FY 2015, including a call to the country’s 16,000 superintendents who lead district, charter, and 

private schools to join the Department in taking the Future Ready District Pledge. By taking this 

pledge, superintendents commit to develop, implement, and share technology plans with other 

districts so they can learn from successes and challenges along the way. The Future Ready 

District Pledge offers a roadmap to achieve successful personalized digital learning for every 

student and affirms a commitment by districts to move as quickly as possible toward the shared 

vision of preparing students for success in college, careers, and citizenship. 

To support the work of the superintendents, the Department collected a series of best practices 

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

These practices were published in guides released at the “ConnectED to the Future” 

superintendent summit: Future Ready Schools: Empowering Educators through Professional 

Learning and Future Ready Schools: Building Technology Infrastructure for Learning. The 

Department also issued a Dear Colleague letter to state and local superintendents to clarify that 

technology and digital learning can be an allowable use of more than $27 billion in federal funds 

under the ESEA and IDEA. Moreover, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 

modernized School and Libraries (E-rate) program, raising the E-rate cap an additional $1.5 

billion per year and reprioritizing internal connectivity. With that added funding, E-rate will now 

provide up to $3.9 billion per year to schools and libraries for both connectivity to and bandwidth 

within these institutions. 

In April 2015, former Secretary Duncan announced the release of the Ed Tech Developer’s 

Guide: A Primer for Developers, Startups and Entrepreneurs—the first guidance from the 

Department specifically for developers of educational software. This guide addresses key 

questions about the education ecosystem and highlights critical needs and opportunities to 

develop digital tools and apps for learning that will help close equity gaps in our schools. Written 

with input from knowledgeable educators, developers, and researchers who were willing to 

share what they have learned, the guide is designed to help entrepreneurs apply technology in 

smart ways to solve persistent problems in education. The release was followed by a national 

Ed Tech Developers Tour, spawning more than twenty events around the country to promote 

the guide and highlight administration priorities regarding the creation and use of educational 

technology in schools. This guide is now the most downloaded publication from the 

Department’s Office of Educational Technology. 

In September 2015, the Department announced the hiring of the first ever open education 

adviser to lead a national effort to expand schools’ access to high-quality, openly licensed 

learning resources. In support of the President’s ConnectED goal for high-quality, low-cost 

digital learning resources, the open education advisor will focus on helping both P–12 and 

higher education connect with teaching, learning and research resources in the public domain 

that are freely available to anyone over the web. With this position filled, the Department is able 

to work with tool providers and developers, district and state leaders, and educators to expand 

the use of openly licensed educational resources at scale in districts and states. Open 

educational resources are an important element of an infrastructure for learning and ranges 

from podcasts to digital libraries to textbooks and games. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 100 

Also in September, the Department awarded a contract to develop approaches for evaluating 

educational apps to help schools and parents make evidence-based decisions when choosing 

which apps to use with their students. This project will establish a standard for low-cost, quick 

turnaround evaluations of apps, and field test rapid-cycle evaluations to understand how to 

improve outcomes of ESEA and now ESSA programs. In addition to generating evidence on 

specific apps, the project will help develop protocol tools for conducting rapid cycle evaluations 

of apps that practitioners, developers, and researchers can use beyond the scope of this 

evaluation. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

In November 2015, Education Superhighway, a nonprofit dedicated to reaching the President’s 

connectivity goal, released data based on application data from the FCC’s E-rate program. It 

includes data from 6,781 public school districts, representing over 25 million students in 

approximately 49,000 schools. It estimates that 59 percent of schools have reached the 

President’s connectivity goal this year. This estimate falls within 4 percentage points of that 

reported by the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN) survey. It further points out that 

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

affordability of broadband, especially in smaller districts that are not buying large quantities; and 

fully utilizing E-rate funds, since districts have to provide a percentage match to every E-rate 

dollar they receive. Each of these barriers could slow the rapid deployment of broadband to 

schools in coming years, since to varying degrees they fall outside the direct control of schools. 

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. 

Selected Strategies to Achieve Goal 5

Several themes run across Goal 5 implementation strategies. Collaboration will be a key 

strategy needed to implement all objectives, including collaboration within the Department, 

collaboration within government, and collaboration with the education community as a whole. 

Sufficient resources are also key to all objectives in Goal 5, both federal resources and (in the 

case of the SLDS program) state resources as well. Privacy is both a stand-alone objective and 

a theme in other objectives. The Department must address valid privacy concerns and dispel 

privacy myths. 

Another theme for success in Goal 5 is developing sustainable, scalable solutions for using data 

and evidence in decision-making, which will require the Department to be both efficient and 

effective. Building off Department resources, the Department is working to identify ways to make 

its data more accessible and actionable for the public. The recent release of the College 

Scorecard has shown the power of both user-friendly data tools and improved data access for 

researchers and developers through Application Program Interfaces. Department staff will 

leverage existing resources to improve the way that key datasets are located, accessed, and 

made usable. Another vital information resource is the WWC, helping identify the quality of 

various studies. Carefully reviewing studies against WWC standards is painstaking work and 

challenging to carry out at scale and in a short time frame. The Department is taking deliberate 

steps to increase the number of reviewers who are certified to carry out WWC reviews and to 

procure contracts that allow the Department to act nimbly to obtain these reviews.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 101 

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

Improve the organizational capacities of the Department to 

implement the Strategic Plan. 

Goal Leader: Andrew Jackson 

Objective 6.1: Effective Workforce. Continue to build a skilled, diverse, and engaged 

workforce within the Department. Objective Leader: Cassandra Cuffee-Graves 

Metric 6.1.A: Staffing gaps percentage106 

Metric 6.1.B: EVS Employee Engagement Index107

Metric 6.1.C: Time to hire108

Metric 6.1.D: Effective Communication Index109

Objective 6.2: Risk Management. Improve the Department’s program efficacy through 

comprehensive risk management, and grant and contract monitoring. Objective Leaders: Phil 

Maestri and Jim Ropelewski 

Metric 6.2.A: Percentage of A-133 Single Audits Overdue for resolution 

Metric 6.2.B: Compliance rate of contractor evaluation performance reports110

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 

Leader: Heather Rieman 

Metric 6.3.A: Percentage of states who annually rate the Department’s technical 

assistance as helping build state capacity to implement education reforms 

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. Objective Leaders: Danny Harris, Cassandra Cuffee-Graves, and 

Denise Carter

 

106 Percent resulting from dividing number of all agency positions into unfilled agency vacancies. Metric is being removed at the end 

of the FY 2015 reporting period. Please refer to appendix B for details pertaining to the removal and addition of metrics. 

107 Based on positive Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS, also referred to as “EVS”) responses.

108 The Department’s target for completing hiring actions is 90 days (as measured from Request to Recruit date to Tentative Offer 

date). This metric measures the percentage of hiring actions completed within 90 days. An increase in the time to hire rate means 

more hiring actions are completed within the target timeframe, the hiring process is more efficient, and vacancies are filled on a 

more timely basis. 

109 Based on positive FEVS responses. 

110 As reported in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) reporting tool at www.ppirs.gov. Government use of 

PPIRS is required by Federal Acquisition Regulation Subpart 42.15, and government wide annual reporting performance targets are 

set by the Office of Management and Budget in the March 6, 2013, memorandum titled, “Improving the Collection and Use of 

Information about Contractor Performance and Integrity.” The PPIRS compliance metric “calculates the number of completed 

evaluations against the contract actions that should have had an evaluation completed. This number is displayed as a percentage”

(https://www.cpars.gov/pdfs/Improving_Compliance.pdf).
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 102 

Metric 6.4.A: Number of Department information technology (IT) security incidents 

Metric 6.4.B: EVS Results-Oriented Performance Culture Index111

Metric 6.4.C: EVS Leadership and Knowledge Management Index112

Metric 6.4.D: Total usable square footage 

Metric 6.4.E: Rent cost

Goal 6 Discretionary Resources

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

FY 2015

FY 2016

FY 2017

$469

$491

$537

(Dollars in millions)

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities113 Supporting Goal 6 Performance Metrics 

[Dollars in Millions]

POC Account Obj. Program

FY 2015 

Appropriation

FY 2016 

Appropriation

FY 2017 

President’s 

Budget

OIG OIG Office of Inspector General 58 59 62

PA PA Program Administration: Building 

modernization 0 1 24

PA PA Program Administration: Salaries and 

expenses 411 431 450

TOTAL, GOAL 6 469 491 537

POC = Principal Office Component 

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

 

111 Based on positive FEVS responses. 

112 Based on positive FEVS responses. 

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

noncompetitive programs. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 103 

Public Benefit 

To ensure the achievement of the Department’s mission critical objectives, grants and contract 

management remain a strategic focus for improvement in long- and short-term initiatives. 

Additionally, fortifying human capital strategies, competencies and resources, along with the 

continuous improvement of IT security and technologically enhanced work environments, 

continue to be priorities. These activities support grantees, schools, students, families, and 

communities in achieving their educational and economic goals, while also continuing to hold 

recipients of the Department’s funding accountable to clear financial requirements and legal 

obligations. 

The Department continues to focus on human capital management to acquire and develop its 

workforce; increase diversity and inclusion and improve employee engagement; rethink how it 

monitors and intervenes with high-risk grantees and contractors; enhance workforce productivity 

through information technology; safeguard its assets and stakeholders from cybersecurity 

threats; continue to improve and integrate effective performance management; and transform 

the way the Department interacts with states, districts, IHEs, and other grantees and 

stakeholders. These efforts will improve performance results, increase stakeholder 

collaboration, and lead to greater employee engagement. 

In FY 2015, the Department was a leader in the broader grant community to implement 

successfully the new Uniform Guidance regulations prescribed and updated by the President’s 

Office of Management and Budget. The Department created an online repository of resources 

and conducted frequent outreach to help grantees follow the new rules, which reduce burden 

while strengthening controls against waste, fraud, and abuse. 

Using a strategic approach in FY 2015, the Department strengthened Human Resources (HR) 

operations by reducing hiring lead times, improving executive recruitment strategies, revising 

outdated HR policies, expanding training opportunities, and improving management practices.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 104 

Goal 6: Details

U.S. Department of 

Education 

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals

Current 

Year 

Target

Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line 

(Actuals)

2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

6.1.A. Staffing gaps 

percentage114

FY: 2013

15% 15% 4% 4.3% 15% MET

15.

0%

4.3

%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

6.1.A

NA NA

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

2013 2014 2015

New Metric

Percent of selections made 

per job opportunity 

announcement (JOA)

FY:

2015

46.4%

NA NA 46.4% NA NA 48.7% 51.2%

6.1.B. EVS Employee 

Engagement Index

FY: 2012

64.7% 66% 67% 68% 69% NOT 

MET

69.

0%

68.

0%

60.0%

61.0%

62.0%

63.0%

64.0%

65.0%

66.0%

67.0%

68.0%

69.0%

6.1.B

71% 72%

61.0%

63.0%

65.0%

67.0%

69.0%

2013 2014 2015

6.1.C. Time to hire FY: 2013

65% 65% 85% 67.6% 68% NOT 

MET

68.

0%

67.

6%

55.0%

56.0%

57.0%

58.0%

59.0%

60.0%

61.0%

62.0%

63.0%

64.0%

65.0%

66.0%

67.0%

68.0%

69.0%

6.1.C

69% 70%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

201320142015

 

114 Metric being removed at the end of the FY 2015 reporting period and being replaced with the metric identified as “New Metric” directly below it. If there is no corresponding “New 

Metric” identified, new metric TBD. Please refer to appendix B for details pertaining to the removal and addition of metrics. The proposed FY 2016 and 2017 targets for the metric being 

removed were both NA. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 105 

U.S. Department of 

Education 

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals

Current 

Year 

Target

Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line 

(Actuals)

2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

6.1.D. Effective 

Communication Index

FY: 2012

48% 49.6% 50% 51% 50% MET

50.

0%

51.

0%

45.0%

46.0%

47.0%

48.0%

49.0%

50.0%

51.0%

6.1.D

51% 52%

48.0%

49.0%

50.0%

51.0%

52.0%

2013 2014 2015

6.2.A. Percentage of A-133 

Single Audits Overdue for 

resolution

FY: 2012

57% 52% 37% 20% 43% MET

43.

0%

20.

0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

6.2.A

37% 31%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

2013 2014 2015

6.2.B. Compliance rate of 

contractor evaluation 

performance reports

FY: 2013

85% 85% 97% 98% 100% NOT 

MET

100

.0%

98.

0%

75.0%

80.0%

85.0%

90.0%

95.0%

100.0%

6.2.B

100% 100%

75.0%

80.0%

85.0%

90.0%

95.0%

100.0%

2013 2014 2015
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 106 

U.S. Department of 

Education 

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals

Current 

Year 

Target

Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line 

(Actuals)

2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

6.3.A. Percentage of states 

who annually rate the 

Department’s technical 

assistance as helping build 

state capacity to implement 

education reforms115

FY: 2013

54% 54% 75% 69% 67% MET

67.

0%

69.

0%

55.0%

57.0%

59.0%

61.0%

63.0%

65.0%

67.0%

69.0%

71.0%

6.3.A

77% 85%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

2013 2014 2015

6.4.A. Number of

Department IT security 

incidents

FY: 2012

756 755 445 580 682 MET

682

580

500

520

540

560

580

600

620

640

660

680

700

6.4.A

551116 523117

0

200

400

600

800

2013 2014 2015

6.4.B. EVS ResultsOriented Performance 

Culture Index

FY: 2012

53% 54% 56% 57% 56% MET

56.

0%

57.

0%

50.0%

52.0%

54.0%

56.0%

58.0%

6.4.B

57% 58%

52.0%

53.0%

54.0%

55.0%

56.0%

57.0%

58.0%

2013 2014 2015

 

115 In FY 2016, the metric’s data source will be changed to the 2015 Grantee Satisfaction Survey. Thus, in FY 2016, the baseline and targets will be updated to reflect the change. 

There is also variability with this metric due to ESEA reauthorization and the impact on the programs included. 

116 FY 2016 target was reduced based on actual incidents reported in FY 2015 and then reducing that actual by 5%. 

117 FY 2017 target was reduced by 5% from the FY 2016 target. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 107 

U.S. Department of 

Education 

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals

Current 

Year 

Target

Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line 

(Actuals)

2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

6.4.C. EVS Leadership and 

Knowledge Management 

Index

FY: 2012

60% 61% 61% 62% 62% MET

62.

0%

62.

0%

50.0%

52.0%

54.0%

56.0%

58.0%

60.0%

62.0%

64.0%

6.4.C

63% 64%

55.0%

56.0%

57.0%

58.0%

59.0%

60.0%

61.0%

62.0%

63.0%

2013 2014 2015

6.4.D. Total usable square 

footage

FY: 2012

1,563,641 1,573,317 1,533,239 1,530,864 1,525,937 NOT 

MET

1,52

5,93

7

1,53

0,86

4

1,450,000

1,456,500

1,463,000

1,469,500

1,476,000

1,482,500

1,489,000

1,495,500

1,502,000

1,508,500

1,515,000

1,521,500

1,528,000

1,534,500

1,541,000

6.4.D

1,459,937 TBD

1,500,000

1,515,000

1,530,000

1,545,000

1,560,000

1,575,000

1,590,000

201320142015

6.4.E. Rent cost FY: 2014

$74.3M $71.7M $74.1M $72.7M $80.3M MET

$80

,30

0,0

00

$72

,72

0,0

99

68,000,000

70,000,000

72,000,000

74,000,000

76,000,000

78,000,000

80,000,000

82,000,000

6.4.E

$80,300,000 TBD

70,000,000

71,000,000

72,000,000

73,000,000

74,000,000

75,000,000

201320142015

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. Mission Critical Occupation (MCO) Staffing Gap Report; quarterly 

6.1.B. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS); annually 

6.1.C. Federal Personnel/Payroll System (FPPS) Datamart; quarterly 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 108 

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. Baseline is from the Race to the Top State Lead Survey, n=19. Future data will come from the Annual Grantee Satisfaction Survey; annually 

6.4.A. Operational Vulnerability Management Solution (OVMS) System; 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; 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 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 109 

Analysis and Next Steps by Objective

Objective 6.1: Effective Workforce 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

The Department’s staffing gaps have been successfully reduced and continue to maintain a 

stable, minimum level of 4–5 percent, which is well below the FY 2015 target level of 

15 percent. The Department also continues to reduce hiring lead times and completed 

approximately 68 percent of hiring actions within 90 days from the date the action was received 

to the tentative job offer. In FY 2015, the Department opened a new career center to assist 

employees in reaching their career development goals and successfully developed, marketed 

and deployed a boot-camp style supervisory training course for supervisors and managers. This 

mandatory three-day Supervisor Essentials course is facilitated by Department subject matter 

experts and provides new and existing supervisors with the essential tools in a participatory 

environment that encourages students to develop cross-component networks to share best 

practices. Additionally, the Department received full OPM certification for its Senior Executive 

Service performance management program for the first time in eight years. 

The Department’s strategic goals are vast: supporting postsecondary education, CTE, adult 

education, elementary and secondary education, early learning, equity, and continuous 

improvement of the education system. To achieve its objectives, the Department’s workforce 

must have the right skills and be led by skilled and engaging supervisors and managers. The 

Department is enhancing employee productivity by aligning priorities and goals at every level in 

the organization with the Department’s strategic objectives. The Department has achieved 

consistent, incremental progress in Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) results. Since 

2010, the Department has improved scores in the Employee Engagement Index of the FEVS 

from 62.6 percent to 68 percent in 2015. In FY 2015, the Department implemented a successful 

engagement strategy that resulted in 50 percent of subcomponents increasing their employee 

engagement scores between 1 and 12 percent, and 72 percent of subcomponents achieving 

employee engagement scores above the governmentwide average. 

The Office of Human Resources (OHR) worked with all Departmental offices to prioritize the 

revision and updating of key human capital policies, conducted extensive outreach efforts to 

hiring managers, and expanded supervisory and managerial training and development 

opportunities. 

Human capital management plays a critical role in the Department’s ability to fulfill its mission. 

By effectively planning for workforce changes, addressing skill gaps, and providing timely

guidance and hands-on options for recruitment, staffing, and retention, the Department can 

provide consistent oversight, execution, and support for its programs. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

The Department has improved managers’ awareness of key hiring activities and timelines. 

Classification and hiring activities have been automated for real-time tracking, which allows HR 

staff to focus on more complex questions. In FY 2016, the Department will continue outreach 

efforts to hiring managers on personnel flexibilities and improve HR tracking tools to support 

managers in hiring the best employees for their positions. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 110 

Objective 6.2: Risk Management 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

Risk management focuses on creating an environment where grant and loan funds are used for 

the right purpose and achieve program success. The Department has worked to increase its 

ability to provide the right technical assistance and oversight to help grantees achieve program 

goals. Some of that work is accomplished through improving the quality and thoroughness of 

risk assessments conducted by the Department assuring that grantees are ready to manage the 

funds awarded. During FY 2015 the Department conducted preaward risk reviews for 

100 percent of competitive grant programs. Other work has included improving the program 

staffs’ skills in the area of fiscal monitoring through training and technical assistance. In 

FY 2015, the Department far exceeded its goal of timely audit resolution—the target was set at 

no more than 43 percent resolved overdue, and the actual percentage achieved was 

20 percent. This was achieved by focusing on timeliness and fostering close working 

relationships with programs and support offices. In addition, a comprehensive training program 

to support the implementation of the new Uniform Guidance was developed and implemented 

for both grantees and Department staff, which included a strand on audit-related requirements. 

Risk management is also an essential aspect of contract monitoring, which is achieved by 

actively assessing program and performance risks inherent in contracts through oversight and 

support and issuance of policy and guidance to program and contract officials. The Department 

has sustained high performance in compliance with contractor performance reporting 

requirements, leading the government with a 98 percent compliance rate for FY 2015. Only four 

agencies reached a compliance rate of 90 percent in FY 2015, and the average compliance rate 

of all 64 agencies reported was only 30 percent.118

 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

The Department will continue to monitor contractor performance reporting requirements and 

work to attain the 100 percent compliance goal set by OMB. 

The Department will continue collaborating with offices to reduce the number of overdue audits 

and leverage audit follow-up data to manage grantee risk by providing additional technical 

assistance and training on audit requirements related to the Uniform Guidance. The Department 

will focus its work with program offices to increase understanding and application of the results 

of Entity Risk Reviews related to audit data, with an emphasis on strategies to mitigate risk 

through effective and timely corrective action and follow-up. 

Collecting quantitative data on the risk posed by grant recipients, and the extent to which the 

Department makes progress building capacity to address this risk, remains a challenge. Building 

the capacity of the Department to conduct more sophisticated analysis of data, both structured 

and unstructured, will be critical to addressing that challenge. The Department will work toward 

building quality, accessible sources of data on grant and grantee performance, sharing 

information about risks and mitigation across program offices, and building the grant staff 

capacity—in both knowledge and numbers—to monitor the financial and administrative 

components of grant performance. 

These efforts will ultimately improve the capacity of our grantees to provide quality programs 

and services. 

 

118 Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) (www.ppirs.gov) “PPIRS Compliance Report.”
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 111 

Objective 6.3: Implementation and Support 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

2015 was the first year of implementation for OESE’s new Office of State Support (OSS). The 

reorganization was approved in the fourth quarter of FY 2014 and OSS was created in early 

October. OSS is designed to provide improved state-centered support across related 

Department programs and offer more transparent, higher quality, and better differentiated 

support to meet the varied needs among states. The matrix organization model adopted by OSS 

ensures that a state has a primary contact within the Department and this individual serves as 

the liaison 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. 

The office is working to deepen staff knowledge and build or pilot systems and routines that 

allow OSS to support states with implementation through a systemic approach to technical 

assistance and the design and implementation of key processes, such as performance 

management and knowledge management, in order to ensure sustainability. 

Educator equity is one area of increased attention and support during the past year. In July 

2014, the Department announced the Excellent Educators for All initiative designed to move 

America toward the day when every student in every public school is taught by excellent 

educators. An Equitable Access Support Network (EASN) was set up to provide support and 

technical assistance to states to ensure that they had strong plans and targeted strategies so 

that students in poverty and minority children are not taught at higher rates than other children 

by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

Transitioning to the new OSS 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. Compounded by budget constraints, continuing challenges include 

staffing, appropriate professional development, and support for staff. 

Building new and stronger relationships with states and stakeholders requires significant 

outreach and effort. The Department continues to communicate with stakeholders and 

grantees—through printed publications, the PROGRESS blog, OSS technical assistance, 

YouTube videos, and speeches—and broadly share lessons learned across grantees and 

nongrantees and with the general public about the reforms being implemented at the state and 

local levels. Next steps also include launching an updated state performance review, 

implementing against a new strategic technical assistance plan, and adjusting plans to prepare 

for ESSA implementation.

Objective 6.4: Productivity and Performance Management 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

The Department takes pride in fostering a culture where managers and employees have the 

information and technology to perform their jobs well even when they are not physically 

onsite.The Department instituted tools and techniques for managers and employees to make 

performance goal setting, tracking, and feedback a regular work practice throughout the year. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 112 

Additionally, some supervisors used a best practice performance feedback worksheet with 

questions tied to FEVS results which enhanced proactive communication and built trust within 

work teams. The Department also developed a revised telework training course, How to Make 

Telework Really Work. Training sessions incorporated discussion on changes to the 

Department’s updated telework policy and provided a forum for managers and employees to 

ask questions about telework and any concerns regarding space reduction and modernization 

plans. The Department saw an increase in the use of telework as a viable and effective tool that 

enabled employees to meet professional responsibilities while also offering a mechanism to 

reduce work/life stress.

To improve efficiencies and reduce costs associated with the Grant Award Notification process, 

the Department issued a Grant Bulletin establishing policy and guidance to support e-signature 

for formula grants. 

In FY 2015, the Department implemented the second year of the ED Space Modernization 

Initiative, finalized space designs for two major subcomponents, and worked with the General 

Services Administration (GSA) to develop an aggressive construction schedule for the first 

major phase of the initiative in the Department’s headquarters building. The Department 

identified business requirements, conducted market research with a broad group of 

stakeholders, and completed procurement for an automated hoteling and conference room 

reservation system. Department staff in San Francisco and Chicago were engaged in the 

process of redefining requirements for new space when current leases expire and worked with 

GSA to find federally owned space in San Francisco to avoid a large rent increase in 2014; the 

resulting solution will save the Department $15 million in avoided rent and construction costs in

2017–18. The Department worked closely with its labor union partners to address space 

challenges in Washington, DC and regional office locations. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

The Department adopted a creative and dramatic response to reduce overall administrative 

expenses through emergency space consolidation in the Washington, DC area. As a result, the 

Department will achieve substantial cost avoidance in FY 2016 and FY 2017. Though the 

strategy was developed with full collaboration and commitment of Department leadership, the 

affected principal offices, OCIO, and GSA, potential challenges include maintaining morale and 

productivity and sustaining recent gains in employee engagement. 

Selected Strategies to Achieve Goal 6

The Department will build on the success of HR improvements of FY 2015 by continuing to 

strengthen HR operations, improving executive recruitment strategies, revising outdated HR 

policies, expanding training opportunities in critical areas, and improving labor relations 

management practices. 

While continued focus on the IT automated response capabilities has led to reductions in the 

number of security incidents in FY 2016 and FY 2017, additional training for the Department’s 

third-party partners will reduce the potential for personally identifiable information disclosures 

and ensure the proper protection of our customers’ information. The Department’s cybersecurity 

focus will remain on data protection and control. The Department will continue implementing 

various capabilities to control the flow of sensitive information, and prevent access to related 

systems, data, or other critical information and infrastructure by unauthorized individuals. These 

new capabilities with existing protective measures will ensure the protection of employee and 

customer data. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 113 

Finally, the Department must continue its work in developing customized change management 

strategies necessary to successful space redesign and reduce the Department’s physical 

footprint. By consolidating units, renegotiating leases, and making reductions in the needed 

space, the Department will save rent costs. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 114 

Management Priorities and Challenges

The Department continues to make notable progress in capacity and infrastructure in support of 

mission delivery. Year after year, the Department has demonstrated its commitment to 

employees through investments in technology innovation and cybersecurity, by transforming the 

human resources systems and hiring processes, introducing helpful tools, and updating policies 

and procedures. Delivering on Goal 6 of the Strategic Plan is critical to achieving the other 

mission-focused goals. The continuing challenge, however, is in converting and applying 

increased and improved capacity in ways that help the Department overcome its longstanding 

management challenges, particularly in IT security and management, as well as in the 

administration and delivery of the student financial aid system. 

The recent data breach at OPM in FY 2015 reiterated that agencies need to continue working 

towards cybersecurity. While the Department has focused significant resources toward the 

governmentwide “sprint” exercises and other strategic assessments of the Department’s IT 

security posture, critical work remains to be done. Numerous and continuous efforts are 

underway across the government and the Department to secure critical infrastructure and 

valued assets. To address noted areas of concern and vulnerability, key actions have resulted 

in the enhancement and increase of two-factor authentication as a requirement for accessing 

Departmental systems and peripherals. Additionally, there has been an intentional campaign to 

significantly decrease the number of privileged user accounts that are activated. Finally, the 

Department’s Chief Information Office continues to aggressively educate and test employees to 

help protect against phishing and other known schemes aimed at extracting personally 

identifiable information or other valuable data, and is helping other partners who must regularly 

or intermittently access and utilize our systems as well. 

The Department continues to enhance its hiring, staffing, training, and culture. Following efforts 

begun in FY 2014, the Department has streamlined hiring, and bolstered employee and labor 

relations and human capital policy development. OHR has introduced innovative strategies to 

expand the hiring tools used by managers, which reduced the time to hire, and allowed the team 

to focus on other critical customer issues and capacity concerns. For example, the 

Department’s human resource team is producing much-needed policy guidance at a faster rate 

than in the previous three years—publishing pivotal guidance, such as those related to the 

telework program, alternative work schedules, and the merit promotion plan—a clear result of 

improved staff technical and leadership capability. 

In FY 2015, the Department continued bolstering its impact in the people and culture element, 

with an agencywide campaign to address employee engagement in each of the Department’s 

offices. The campaign included employee engagement planning, a roadmap of essential and 

best practices, and support from top-level management in each office. Additionally, the 

Department met OPM’s newly mandated performance standard, with every senior executive 

addressing employee engagement as a part of their annual performance agreement. Final 

participation rates resulting from the 2015 OPM Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey show 

significant gains in this area, with a 73 percent survey response rate—3 percent above the 

Department’s target—and over 9 percentage points more than the 2014 response rate. 

The Department’s efforts to reduce significantly its real estate “footprint” and space inventory

will have a major impact on management and culture. While reduction of the overall square 

footage is the primary goal, this is a long-term endeavor and the Department recognizes that it 

must manage several other indirect dependencies that can derail the expected progress. 

However, as noted above, the Department has made significant progress toward the first phase 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 115 

of its headquarters building modernization and is completing plans to effect the move of two 

regional offices from more expensive leased space to less expensive federally owned space. 

Other elements critical to sound management are showing positive trends and results as well. 

The Department reduced the cost of managing accounts receivables by outsourcing the 

management of most of that portfolio to a federal shared service provider, significantly reducing 

the cost per transaction. The Department recently launched a new initiative to migrate to 

100 percent electronic vendor invoicing by FY 2018, which will both improve customer service 

and significantly reduce the internal processing costs of invoices. The Department’s percent of 

compliance with contractor performance reporting requirements is the best in government, 

currently over 98 percent. To put these numbers in greater context, this performance ranks the 

Department as one of only four agencies that have compliance rates of 90 percent or more. 

These efforts, taken as a whole, are positioning the Department to benefit from and leverage 

continuous improvement to increase its overall capacity, protect its assets, and support its 

employees. 

Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) Management Challenges

OIG works to promote efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity in the programs and operations of 

the Department. Through audits, inspections, investigations, and other reviews, OIG continues 

to identify areas of concern within the Department’s programs and operations and recommend 

actions the Department should take to address these weaknesses. The Reports Consolidation 

Act of 2000 requires the OIG to identify and report annually on the most serious management 

challenges the Department faces. The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 requires the 

Department to include in its agency performance plan information on its planned actions, 

including performance goals, indicators, and milestones, to address these challenges. 

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. Last year OIG presented five 

management challenges. The Department provided to the OIG a high-level summary 

assessment, actions taken, and planned actions for each of the management challenge areas. 

The FY 2016 management challenges are: 

(1) Improper Payments, 

(2) Information Technology Security, 

(3) Oversight and Monitoring, 

(4) Data Quality and Reporting, and 

(5) Information Technology System Development and Implementation. 

These challenges reflect continuing vulnerabilities and emerging issues faced by the 

Department as identified though OIG’s recent audit, inspection, and investigative work. 

The full report, to include how the Department is addressing each management challenge area, 

is published by the OIG. To view the full report, go to: 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/managementchallenges.html. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 116 

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. 
Appendices 
This page intentionally left blank. 

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 118 
FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 119 

Appendix A: Data Validity and Verification

The Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010 requires 

agencies to describe the accuracy and reliability of data presented. During 2015, the 

Department continued to strengthen its approach to data verification and validation. 

Details of how the Department assesses the completeness and reliability of the data 

reported are presented as part of this Appendix, and known limitations of the data 

are included also. 

To the best of my knowledge, the data verification and validation process and the 

data sources used provide, to the extent possible, complete and reliable 

performance data pertaining to goals and objectives in our FY 2014–18 Strategic 

Plan. Through a process of continuous improvement, the Department continues to 

assess its validation process and welcomes input from stakeholders. 

/s/ 

John B. King, Jr. 

Acting Secretary 

February 9, 2016

 
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 120 

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 Rate of increase in net price for public 

4-year IHEs

Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System (IPEDS) Data Center

Average net price is calculated only on the universe of students who receive financial aid. 

It does not include students who are attending college without financial aid. Thus, the 

metric represents the average net price for a subset of students and is not representative 

of the cost of college for all students.

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.

Graduation Rates for Selected Cohorts, 2005–10; and Student Financial Aid in 

Postsecondary Institutions, Academic Year 2012–13: First Look (Provisional Data) NCES 

2014 - NCES Number: 2014105 Release Date: November 20, 2014, available at: 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2014105

Postsecondary Institutions and Price of Attendance in 2013–14; Degrees and Other 

Awards Conferred: 2012–13; and 12-Month Enrollment: 2012–13: First Look (Provisional 

Data), available at: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2014066rev

1.1.B Rate of increase in net price for public 

2-year IHEs

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. 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.

Since year of high school graduation is not asked on the FAFSA, several assumptions are 

made and specific criteria are used (such as age of applicant) to identify those likely to be 

high school seniors. These assumptions and criteria are applied consistently across all 

baseline year and future calculations.

These calculations also restrict the application period to the first nine months of the 

application cycle (the close of the fiscal year), rather than the entire 18 months. Because 

most applicants, including high school seniors, file their FAFSA prior to the start of the 

upcoming academic year (usually before fiscal year end), this decision better aligns the 

performance metric with the fiscal year where most of the performance occurred. The 

alternative is waiting for the close of the18-month cycle, where a performance metric 

would mostly reflect performance from an earlier fiscal year.

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

Instructions for submitting the RSA-911 data are provided to agencies. Agency questions 

for coding particular data elements are provided by Data Unit staff on a case-by-case 

basis. 

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)
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 121 

Metric No. Metric (Indicator) Data Source Data Quality, Limitations and Improvements

1.2.A Number of low-performing institutions 

with high loan default rates and low 

graduation rates

FSA Cohort Default Rate (CDR) Report, 

September 2015

IPEDS Data Center

The number of low-performing Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) is calculated by first 

identifying institutions with a cohort default rate of 30 percent or higher (the threshold that 

jeopardizes an institution’s access to federal financial aid if that level is sustained for three 

consecutive years). The graduation rate within 150 percent of normal time for each of 

those IHEs is then extracted from IPEDS, along with the transfer-out rate, if applicable, 

and the two rates are combined to create a “completion rate.” If the completion rate is 

below the average completion rate for similar types of U.S. Title-IV eligible IHEs—

separately categorized as four-year, two-year, and less-than-two-year—then the IHE is 

included in the number of low-performing institutions. Community colleges that offer a 

limited number of bachelor’s degrees, which are categorized as four-year (primarily 

associate’s degree-granting) institutions in IPEDS, are treated as two-year IHEs in terms 

of calculating graduation rates and the comparable average completion rate. For fouryear IHEs, the graduation rate is based on the degree- or certificate-seeking cohort, not 

the bachelor’s-seeking cohort, since many four-year IHEs offer certificates and 

associate’s degrees in addition to bachelor’s degrees, and thus the broader cohort is 

more indicative of their performance. Institutions which do not have a graduation rate 

cohort (degree-seeking, first-time, full-time students) and thus no comparable 

graduation/completion rate are not included in the count, as they are institutions that 

cannot be found in the IPEDS database. The calculation includes an assumption that the 

cohort default rates for all institutions for the baseline year will not change. In actuality, 

institutions can appeal their rates after publication and, if justified, those rates may be 

changed, thus changing the record from one year to the next. This means the baseline 

number, or the number in any given year, may not be replicable using revised data in 

subsequent reports.

Graduation rate 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.

CDR data quality and limitations are available at 

http://ifap.ed.gov/DefaultManagement/finalcdrg.html.

The cohort default rate data, which serves as the basis of the spreadsheet, is verified by 

FSA prior to publication. Because the process for manually entering the completion rate 

data is so labor-intensive, there is not a process for Independent Verification and 

Validation (IV&V) verifying the accuracy of the process for extracting the data from IPEDS 

or the accuracy of the data that has been entered into the spreadsheet.

1.3.A Degree attainment among 25–34-yearold age cohort

NCES Digest of Education Statistics, Table 

104.30 

(https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tab

les/dt14_104.30.asp), Number of persons 

age 18 and over, by highest level of 

educational attainment, sex, race/ethnicity, 

and age: 2014. Tabulated from Current 

Population Survey data, U.S. Census

Data quality and limitations are documented in http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/tp66.pdf. NCES tabulates the data, which is verified prior to publication according to NCES 

guidelines.
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 122 

Metric No. Metric (Indicator) Data Source Data Quality, Limitations and Improvements

1.3.B Retention rate of first-time degreeseeking undergraduates; Full-time

IPEDS Data Center The retention rate is calculated based on degree-seeking, first-time undergraduates at 

degree-granting U.S. institutions that participate in Title IV.

Institutions employ a variety of methods for determining degree-seeking status to 

determine which students to include in the cohort, but none of these methods is foolproof. 

Furthermore, a student who transfers to another institution in the second year will be 

considered as not retained, suppressing the aggregate rate. (Retention in this context is 

at the reporting institution so transfer-outs are not retained at the institution.) 

Consequently, the retention rate is only an approximation of true retention. 

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.

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, but for the 

purpose here the NCES definition is used: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011226.pdf.

1.3.C Retention rate of first-time degreeseeking undergraduates; Part-time

1.4.A Number of STEM postsecondary 

credentials awarded
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 123 

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) Flexibility Requests and Monitoring

The Office of Elementary and Secondary Education’s (OESE) Student Achievement and 

School Accountability (SASA) office will count the number of states that either (a) have a 

memorandum of understanding in place to implement the Common Core or (b) have a 

letter from an Institute 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) Student Achievement and 

School Accountability (SASA) office monitors states that receive ESEA Flexibility waivers 

in three phases over the three-year waiver. Monitoring includes desk monitoring and onsite monitoring. SASA state leads use a monitoring protocol and rubric to ensure that 

monitoring is consistent across all states. SASA state leads work with their Group Leader 

to finalize monitoring reports. All reports are reviewed by both the Group Leader for 

Monitoring and Technical Assistance and the Director of SASA for consistencies across 

states. States have an opportunity to review the draft report before the final report is 

issued. There are no known data limitations.

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 Requests and Monitoring The Office of Elementary and Secondary Education’s (OESE) Office of State Support 

(OSS) office monitors states that receive ESEA Flexibility waivers. Monitoring includes 

desk monitoring and on-site monitoring. OSS state leads use a monitoring protocol and 

rubric to ensure that monitoring is consistent across all states. OSS state leads work with 

their Group Leader to finalize monitoring reports. All reports are reviewed by both the 

Group Leader for Monitoring and Technical Assistance and the OSS Director for 

consistencies across states. States have an opportunity to review the draft report before 

the final report is issued.

Additionally, Chief State School Officers must sign each state’s ESEA Flexibility request 

before it is approved. There are no known data limitations.

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 (SWDs, IDEA only 

metric)
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 124 

Metric No. Metric (Indicator) Data Source Data Quality, Limitations and Improvements

2.4.A Number of persistently low graduation 

rate high schools

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 don’t conform 

to the file format (unable to be processed), the data universe (school/LEA/state 

directory), or the reporting requirements (mandatory reporting fields).

 Submission Edit Business Rules: Data consistency checks, which produce 

warning messages for states to double-check their submitted data, are 

programmed into the EDFacts Submission System.

 SAS Data Quality Reviews: Post submission checks to determine 

completeness, consistency, and comparability.

 At the end of a collection period these rules are run against the submitted data 

and presented to the program office. It is the responsibility of the program 

office, in consultation with the EDFacts staff, to determine which errors should 

be escalated to the state for further review. Many of these errors were sent 

along to the state for remediation (data explanation/update/correction). OESE 

should be considered the point-of-contact for identifying which rules were 

escalated and the result of those escalations.

Data concerns for state, district and school level 2013–14 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

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 2013–14 utilizing an imputation methodology to address states that were not 

yet calculating ACGR, 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 for release at this time and will be available at 

http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/pub_dropouts.asp in the coming months.

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 business rules for format, consistency, completeness, and 

comparability. Those business rule checks are delivered to the Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education (OESE) for follow-up correspondence with the state(s). 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 imputes any 

missing data (3 states were imputed for 2011–12, 1 state was imputed for 2012–13, no 

imputations were necessary for 2013–14 forward). 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 

POC (IES) levels prior to public dissemination.
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 125 

Metric No. Metric (Indicator) Data Source Data Quality, Limitations and Improvements

2.4.B Percent of Cohort 1 priority schools that 

have met the state exit criteria and 

exited priority school status

ESEA Flexibility plans do not allow for one standard methodology to determine whether or 

not a school “met the state exit criteria.” This will need to be looked at manually, state-bystate, once the list of schools exiting priority status has been identified. 

2.4.C Percent of Cohort 1 focus schools that 

have met the state exit criteria and 

exited focus school status

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 http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/methods0708.asp.

2.5.B Number of 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.
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 126 

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 Number of states with Quality Rating 

and Improvement Systems (QRIS) that 

meet high quality benchmarks for child 

care and other early childhood programs

Biennial Child Care Development Fund 

(CCDF) Report of States Plans with annual 

updates from states and territories 

(HHS/Office of Childcare)

The data are self-reported by the states in their CCDF state plans. In addition, the data do 

not take into account the participation or coverage of the QRIS systems.

3.2.A Number of states and territories with 

professional development systems that 

include core knowledge and 

competencies, career pathways, 

professional development capacity 

assessments, accessible professional 

development opportunities, and financial 

support for childcare providers

Biennial Child Care Development Fund 

(CCDF) Report of State Plans (HHS/Office 

of Childcare)

The data are self-reported by the states in their CCDF state plans. In addition, the data do 

not take into account the participation or coverage of the professional development 

systems.

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 (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.
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 127 

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 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 don’t conform 

to the file format (unable to be processed), the data universe (school/LEA/state 

directory), or the reporting requirements (mandatory reporting fields).

 Submission Edit Business Rules: Data consistency checks, which produce 

warning messages for states to double-check their submitted data, are 

programmed into the EDFacts Submission System.

 SAS Data Quality Reviews: Post submission checks to determine 

completeness, consistency, and comparability.

 At the end of a collection period these rules are run against the submitted data 

and presented to the program office. It is the responsibility of the program 

office, in consultation with the EDFacts staff, to determine which errors should 

be escalated to the state for further review. Many of these errors were sent 

along to the state for remediation (data explanation/update/correction). OESE 

should be considered the point-of-contact for identifying which rules were 

escalated and the result of those escalations.

Data concerns for state, district and school level 2013–14 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

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 2013–14 utilizing an imputation methodology to address states that were not 

yet calculating ACGR, 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 for release at this time and will be available at 

http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/pub_dropouts.asp in the coming months.
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 128 

Metric No. Metric (Indicator) Data Source Data Quality, Limitations and Improvements

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 business rules for format, consistency, completeness, and 

comparability. Those business rule checks are delivered to the Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education (OESE) for follow-up correspondence with the state(s). 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 imputes any 

missing data (3 states were imputed for 2011–12, 1 state was imputed for 2012–13, no 

imputations were necessary for 2013–14 forward). 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 

POC (IES) levels prior to public dissemination.

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 Contracts and Acquisition Management/Case Management database utilized to 

collect data for this metric has built-in validation checks (such as requiring certain data 

elements and valid date entries), as well as automated entries based on other information 

entered into the system by staff, to reduce errors in data entry. OCR also employs 

additional safeguards to ensure data accuracy such as (1) periodic monthly checks to 

address missing or inconsistent entries, (2) publication of guidance materials including 

data entry requirements, codes, definitions, checklist and protocol for staff responsible for 

entering data; and (3) additional training and support for primary users inputting the data.

4.2.B Percentage of proactive civil rights 

investigations resolved annually that 

address areas of concentration in civil 

rights enforcement
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 129 

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.

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.

5.1.C Number of states linking K-12 with early 

childhood data
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 130 

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 e-mail, 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 (OCFO) 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

Education Resources Information Center 

(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.
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 131 

Metric No. Metric (Indicator) Data Source Data Quality, Limitations and Improvements

5.3.C Number of reviewed studies in the What 

Works Clearinghouse (WWC) database

What Works Clearinghouse (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.

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 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, 

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.
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 132 

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 Staffing gaps percentage Mission Critical Occupation (MCO) Staffing 

Gap Report

The Department’s Budget Service obtains the staffing gap data from the Department’s 

Federal Personnel and Payroll System (FPPS) Datamart roster and separations reports. 

As FPPS is a user-driven system, the data used for the Mission Critical Occupation 

(MCO) Staffing Gap Report are only as reliable as the data that are entered into FPPS. 

The Department’s Office of Human Resources (OHR) intends to improve data in FPPS by 

updating standard operating procedures, implementing process maps, and training 

customers and HCCS staff to follow these new processes when entering data into the 

system.

6.1.B EVS Engagement Index Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 

Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey 

(FEVS)

Any questionable data points from the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) are 

brought to the attention of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (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.

6.1.C Time to Hire Federal Personnel/Payroll System (FPPS) 

Datamart

Data reflecting actions input into the Workforce Transformation and Tracking System 

(WTTS) are exported from FPPS Datamart and validated via Excel formulas for reporting 

purposes. Actions with negative or missing hiring information are excluded from time to 

hire calculations.

Based on established data handling protocols, criteria established for the 90-Day Hiring 

Model metric, OM is confident the data presented is reasonably accurate and consistent.

Data are pulled biweekly and tested. Results are tracked and analyzed for consistency 

and monitored for patterns or trends; anomalies are identified and explored to determine 

root cause and then corrected (or work-around developed and noted pending further 

analysis/correction). The data are entered into the systems by Department customers and

the Department’s Office of Human Resources (OHR) staff, so quality of data, and in turn 

the quality of the final calculations, are only as reliable as the information entered into the 

system.

As OHR continues to reduce the shortage of trained human capital practitioners and staff 

become more proficient leveraging systems’ capabilities and streamlining processes, we 

expect data quantity and quality will increase which will negate the need to have an order 

of precedence for substitute/back up data when measured data points are missing.

Even though the 90 Day Model’s time to hire methodology was successfully advanced 

from initial concept to a stable, sustainable agencywide process in less than a year, it has 

not undergone peer review or independent verification and validation to validate its rigor.

Facilitated peer review is the recommended next step to ensure continued 

Departmentwide application of this metric as a meaningful measure.

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 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 133 

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 Percentage of states who annually rate 

the Department’s technical assistance 

as helping build state capacity to 

implement education reforms.

Baseline is from the Race to the Top State 

Lead Survey, n=19. Future data will come 

from the Annual Grantee Satisfaction 

Survey

The source for the data is the Race to the Top (RTT) Annual Leads Survey, which was 

sent to all 19 Race to the Top Phase 1, 2 and 3 states. Because RTT is a discretionary 

program, we only surveyed grantee states who received direct technical assistance.

The data collection process includes online survey software with questions in which 

respondents click on the appropriate response choice and data is then downloaded 

directly to analysis software. By configuring the online software and downloading the data 

directly, we reduce the opportunities for human error in data entry. Additionally, we utilize 

data quality assurance procedures which include having analysts review the data by hand 

upon download and run basic descriptive statistics to illustrate downloading issues, 

sample size concerns, variable integrity, data types, and other potential data concerns. 

We then merge with existing data files using established syntax which provides a further 

check to identify potential data errors. Merged data is examined again for potential data 

concerns. These procedures are used across a number of federal projects and are wellestablished and effective for verifying data integrity.

6.4.A Number of Department IT security 

incidents

Operational Vulnerability Management 

Solution (OVMS) System

Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) has standard operating procedures (SOP) 

to verify and validate the data: 1) OVMS SOP, 2) Incident Response Tracking SOP and 3) 

OVMS Checklist. This process is executed on a weekly basis.

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 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 134 

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

The Department reconciles its rent bills per building on a monthly basis. 

Data are collected directly from Occupancy Agreements 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 2015 external (public-facing) metrics (indicators): 46
APPENDICES

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 135 

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.”119

 

119 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 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 136 

FY 2015 EXTERNAL (PUBLIC-FACING) METRICS BEING REMOVED and NEW METRICS BEING ADDED FOR 2016

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 2016 NEW METRIC DATA SOURCE

1.1.A Rate of increase in net price of public four-year 

institutions

The annual change is volatile, with little 

ability for the Department to impact it.

1.1.A Federal student loan 

delinquency rate

National Student Loan Data 

System (NSLDS)

1.1.B Rate of increase in net price of public two-year 

institutions

The annual change is volatile, with little 

ability for the Department to impact it.

1.1.B Web traffic to the College 

Scorecard

Google Analytics Traffic data 

from College Scorecard

1.1.F Number of data points or other information reports 

released on the FSA Data Center (APG)*

NA 2016 Addition Federal Student Aid (FSA) 

Common Origination and 

Disbursement (COD) system

1.2.A Number of low-performing institutions with high loan 

default rates and low graduation rates

Administratively laborious, and CDR is 

problematic for IHEs with small n’s; 

Scorecard data offers better alternative.

1.2.A Pell enrollment at IHEs with 

high graduation rates

1.2.B Number of states that develop 

or strengthen career pathways 

policies, guidance, and or legislation

Data from College Scorecard

Development data from the 

National Skills Coalition, possibly 

supplemented with data from the 

Association of State Legislators 

and CLASP

1.3.B. Retention rate of first-time degree seeking 

undergraduates: Full-time

The annual change is volatile, with little 

ability for the Department to impact it.

1.3.B Enrollment in IHEs where 

students’ median earnings 10 years 

after entering college are below a 

minimum earnings threshold

Data from College Scorecard

1.3.C Retention rate of first-time degree seeking 

undergraduates: Part-time

The annual change is volatile, with little 

ability for the Department to impact it.

1.3.C Free Application for Federal 

Student Aid (FAFSA) Renewal Rate

FSA’s Common Origination and 

Disbursement (COD) system

 

*

 APG = Agency Priority Goal 
APPENDICES

CHANGED PERFORMANCE GOALS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 137 

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 2016 NEW METRIC DATA SOURCE

2.4.B Percentage of Cohort 1 priority schools that have met the 

state exit criteria and exited priority school status

The baseline data (FY 2014 actual) 

were generated by comparing the list of 

schools flagged by States as “priority” 

or “focus” schools in the given 

academic year to the schools flagged 

by the State in the prior year. Any 

school that was not re-flagged was 

considered to have met the State’s exit 

criteria. The Department questions the 

usefulness of these data given that (1) 

States did not have consistent 

timelines, either within the State or 

across States, for beginning 

implementation in Cohort 1 schools; (2) 

while States flag schools as “priority” or 

“focus” schools, they did not flag which 

cohort these schools belong; and 

(3) States have made policy changes 

(e.g., changes in exit criteria, allowing 

schools to not be labeled “priority” 

schools while continuing to implement 

interventions) during the period of 

implementation. As a result, the 

information extrapolated from these 

data are likely to be inconclusive.

2.4.B Percentage of SIG schools in 

Cohort 5 that are above the 25th

percentile in mathematics, as 

measured by their state assessment

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 OSS, 

and Exclusions that are 

generated by the contractor that 

apply to these results.)

2.4.C Percentage of Cohort 1 focus schools that have met the 

state exit criteria and exited focus school status

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 

assessment
APPENDICES

CHANGED PERFORMANCE GOALS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 138 

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 2016 NEW METRIC DATA SOURCE

3.1.A Number of states with Quality Rating and Improvement 

Systems (QRIS) that meet high quality benchmarks for 

child care and other early childhood programs

This is a Health and Human Services 

(HHS) metric and out of the 

Department's control or influence. HHS 

reports on all states while the 

Department reports on 20 states.

3.1.A Percent of 4-year olds enrolled 

in state preschool programs (APG)*

3.1.B Number of states with highquality preschool programs standards 

(APG)*

National Institute for Early 

Education Research (NIEER 

Yearbook)

3.2.B Number of states and territories with professional 

development systems that include core knowledge and 

competencies, career pathways, professional 

development capacity assessments, accessible 

professional development opportunities, and financial 

supports for child care providers

This is an HHS metric and out of the 

Department's control or influence.

3.2.B 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)

GOAL 4: EQUITY. Increase educational opportunities for underserved students and reduce discrimination so that all students are well-positioned to 

succeed.

4.1.B Gap in the graduation rate between all students and 

students from low-income families (APG)

NA 2016 Addition EDFacts

4.1.C Number of schools that do not have a gap or have 

decreased the gap between all students and students 

from low-income families (APG)

NA 2016 Addition EDFacts
APPENDICES

CHANGED PERFORMANCE GOALS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 139

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 2016 NEW METRIC DATA SOURCE

5.3.C Number of reviewed studies in the What Works 

Clearinghouse (WWC) database

Metric is being replaced with a more 

meaningful metric that tracks visits 

versus when a study is reviewed.

5.3.C Number of visits to the What 

Works Clearinghouse (WWC) website

WWC website analytics provided 

monthly by the WWC website 

contractor

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 (APG)

NA 2016 Addition Discretionary grant slate 

memoranda, discretionary grant 

financial forecasts and reports 

from OCFO, the WWC Database

GOAL 6: U.S. DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION CAPACITY. Improve the organizational capacities of the Department to implement this strategic plan.

6.1.A Staffing gaps percentage The metric is being replaced with a 

more meaningful metric that aims to 

measure the quality of candidates being 

referred for selection.

6.1.A Percent of selections made per 

job opportunity announcement

EDHires (Monster’s electronic

hiring management system)

Total number of the Department’s 2015 external metrics being removed FY-end: 12 

Total number of new external metrics being added in 2016: 16
APPENDICES

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 140 

Appendix C: Summary Data Table
APPENDICES

SUMMARY TABLE

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 141 

U.S. Department 

of Education 

Indicators of 

Success

Baseline

Actuals Current Year 

Target Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals) 2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

1.1.A. Rate of 

increase in net 

price of public fouryear institutions*

AY: 2010–11

1.7%

AY: 2010–11

1.7%

AY: 2011–12

3.1%

AY: 2012–

13

0.6%

AY: 2012–13

1.3% MET NA NA

New Metric:

Federal student 

loan delinquency 

rate

FY: 2015

21.7% NA FY: 201424.0%

FY: 2015

21.7% NA NA

+/- 3–5% 

over prior 

year’s 

actuals

+/- 3–5% 

over prior 

year’s 

actuals

1.1.B. Rate of 

increase in net 

price of public twoyear institutions†

AY: 2010–11

1.7%

AY: 2010–11

1.7%

AY: 2011–12

3.2%

AY: 2012–

13

0.1%

AY: 2012–13

1.3% MET NA NA

 

* Metric being removed at the end of the FY 2015 reporting period and being replaced with the metric identified as “New Metric” directly below it. If there is no corresponding “New 

Metric” identified, new metric TBD. Please refer to appendix B for details pertaining to the removal and addition of metrics. The proposed FY 2016 and 2017 targets for the metric being 

removed were 1.1% and 0.9%, respectively. 

† Metric being removed at the end of the FY 2015 reporting period and being replaced with the metric identified as “New Metric” directly below it. If there is no corresponding “New 

Metric” identified, new metric TBD. Please refer to appendix B for details pertaining to the removal and addition of metrics. The proposed FY 2016 and 2017 targets for the metric being 

removed were 1.1% and 0.9%, respectively. 

1.3%

0.6%

0.0%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

0.8%

1.0%

1.2%

1.4%

1.1.A

1.3%

0.1%

0.0%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

0.8%

1.0%

1.2%

1.4%

1.1.B

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

2013 2014 2015

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

2013 2014 2015
APPENDICES

SUMMARY TABLE

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 142 

U.S. Department 

of Education 

Indicators of 

Success

Baseline

Actuals Current Year 

Target Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals) 2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

New Metric: Web 

traffic to the 

College Scorecard

(as measured by 

unique visitors 

annually)

FY: 2015 

91,011

(Excluding 

new 

Scorecard 

launch on 

Sept. 12, 

2015)

NA NA 91,011 NA NA 1,500,000 1,800,000

New APG Metric:

Number of data 

points or other 

information reports 

released on the 

FSA Data Center*

FY: 2009–

2014

12

NA NA 12 NA NA 15 30

1.1.C. Percentage 

of high school 

seniors filing a 

FAFSA

SY: 2012–13

59.2%

SY: 2012–13

59.2%

SY: 2013–14

60.1%

SY: 2014–

15

60.5%

SY 2014–15 

59.1%–

61.1%

MET

59.1%

60.5%

50.0%

51.0%

52.0%

53.0%

54.0%

55.0%

56.0%

57.0%

58.0%

59.0%

60.0%

61.0%

1.1.C

+/- one 

percentage 

point of prior 

year’s 

actuals 

+/- one 

percentage 

point of prior 

year’s 

actuals

55.5%

57.5%

59.5%

61.5%

2013 2014 2015

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

$61,824,728 $61,800,214†

TBD

Data 

available 

Q1 FY16

$64,322,447 TBD TBD $65,608,896 $66,921,074

61,500,000

61,600,000

61,700,000

61,800,000

61,900,000

2013 2014

 

* Metric is aligned with an Agency Priority Goal (APG). 

† Metric reported as TBD in the 2014 Annual Performance Report (APR). 2014 actuals show the 2014 target was “Not Met.”
APPENDICES

SUMMARY TABLE

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 143 

U.S. Department 

of Education 

Indicators of 

Success

Baseline

Actuals Current Year 

Target Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals) 2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

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 

Transition-Age 

Youth)

FY: 

2010

$15,971,665

$18,353,441 $18,540,576*

TBD

Data 

available 

Q1 FY16

$19,094,920 TBD TBD $19,476,818 $19,866,354

17,500,000

17,700,000

17,900,000

18,100,000

18,300,000

18,500,000

18,700,000

2013 2014

1.2.A. Number of 

low-performing 

institutions with 

high loan default 

rates and low 

graduation rates†

AY: 2010–11

205

AY: 2010–11

205

AY: 2011–12

91

AY: 2012–

13

55

AY: 2012–13 

155 MET

155

55

0

50

100

150

200

1.2.A

NA NA

0

50

100

150

200

250

2013 2014 2015

New Metric: Pell 

enrollment at IHEs 

with high 

graduation rates‡

AY: 2013–14

24.1% NA NA

AY: 2013–

14

24.1%

NA NA AY 2014–15

25.0%

AY 2015–16

26.0%

New Metric: 

Number of states 

that develop or 

strengthen career 

pathways policies, 

guidance, or 

legislation

FY: 2015 

8

NA NA 8 NA NA 10 37

 

* Metric reported as TBD in the 2014 APR. 2014 actuals show the 2014 target was “Not Met.”

† Metric being removed at the end of the FY 2015 reporting period and being replaced with the metric identified as “New Metric” directly below it. If there is no corresponding “New 

Metric” identified, new metric TBD. Please refer to appendix B for details pertaining to the removal and addition of metrics. The proposed FY 2016 and 2017 targets for the metric being 

removed were 135 and 117, respectively. 

‡

“High graduation rate” is defined as 65% or higher, which is roughly the 75th percentile. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY TABLE

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 144 

U.S. Department 

of Education 

Indicators of 

Success

Baseline

Actuals Current Year 

Target Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals) 2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

1.3.A. Degree 

attainment among 

25–34-year-old 

age cohort*

Current 

Population 

Survey 

(CPS) Year: 

2012

44.0%

CPS Year: 

2012

44.0%

CPS Year: 

2013

44.8%

CPS Year: 

2014

45.7%

45.6% MET

45.6

%

45.7

%

45.0%

45.1%

45.2%

45.3%

45.4%

45.5%

45.6%

45.7%

45.8%

1.3.A

46.8% 48.4%

35.0%

37.0%

39.0%

41.0%

43.0%

45.0%

47.0%

2013 2014 2015

1.3.B. Retention 

rate of first-time 

degree-seeking 

undergraduates: 

Full-time†

AY: 2011

71.9%

AY: 2011

71.9%

AY: 2012

71.8%

AY: 2013

72.9% 72.1% MET

72.

1%

72.

9%

45.0%

50.0%

55.0%

60.0%

65.0%

70.0%

75.0%

1.3.B

NA NA

65.0%

67.0%

69.0%

71.0%

73.0%

75.0%

2013 2014 2015

New Metric: 

Enrollment in IHEs 

where students’ 

median earnings 

10 years after 

entering college 

are below a 

minimum earnings 

threshold‡

AY: 

2012–13

9.7%

NA NA

AY: 2012–

13

9.7%

NA NA 9.4% 9.0%

 

* Metric is aligned with an Agency Priority Goal (APG). 

† Metric being removed at the end of the FY 2015 reporting period and being replaced with the metric identified as “New Metric” directly below it. If there is no corresponding “New 

Metric” identified, new metric TBD. Please refer to appendix B for details pertaining to the removal and addition of metrics. The proposed FY 2016 and 2017 targets for the metric being 

removed were 72.1% and 72.3%, respectively. 

‡

“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-2-year institutions, $26,000 for 2-year institutions, and $35,000 for 4-year institutions. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY TABLE

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 145 

U.S. Department 

of Education 

Indicators of 

Success

Baseline

Actuals Current Year 

Target Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals) 2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

1.3.C. Retention 

rate of first-time 

degree-seeking 

undergraduates: 

Part-time*

AY: 2011

41.7%

AY: 2011

41.7%

AY: 2012

42.2%

AY: 2013

43.1% 42.6% MET

42.6

%

43.1

%

40.0%

40.5%

41.0%

41.5%

42.0%

42.5%

43.0%

43.5%

1.3.C

NA NA

35.0%

37.0%

39.0%

41.0%

43.0%

45.0%

2013 2014 2015

New Metric:

FAFSA renewal 

rate

FY: 2015

79% NA NA FY: 201579% NA NA

+/- one 

percentage 

point over 

prior year’s 

actuals

+/- one 

percentage 

point over 

prior year’s 

actuals

1.4.A. Number of 

STEM 

postsecondary 

credentials 

awarded

AY: 2010–11

531,018

AY: 2010–11

531,018

AY: 2011–12

556,696

AY: 2012–

13

573,911

595,000 NOT 

MET

595,

000

573,

911

500,000

520,000

540,000

560,000

580,000

600,000

1.4.A

638,000 691,000

500,000

520,000

540,000

560,000

580,000

2013 2014 2015

2.1.A. Number of 

states/territories 

that have adopted 

college- and 

career-ready 

standards†

SY: 2012–13

49, plus DC 49, plus DC

49, plus DC 

and Puerto 

Rico

SY: 2014–

15 

51 (49 plus 

DC and 

Puerto 

Rico)

50 MET

50

51

40

42

44

46

48

50

52

2.1.A

(49 plus 

D.C.& 

Puerto 

Rico)

52 52

45

47

49

51

53

2013 2014 2015

 

* Metric being removed at the end of the FY 2015 reporting period and being replaced with the metric identified as “New Metric” directly below it. If there is no corresponding “New 

Metric” identified, new metric TBD. Please refer to appendix B for details pertaining to the removal and addition of metrics. The proposed FY 2016 and 2017 targets for the metric being 

removed were 42.9% and 43.5%, respectively. 

† Revising metric language to include “states/territories” to align with the 2014–15 APG statement. 2014 Metric reported as “Not Met.” However, metric was “Met” given the inclusion of 

territories to align with the APG statement. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY TABLE

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 146 

U.S. Department 

of Education 

Indicators of 

Success

Baseline

Actuals Current Year 

Target Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals) 2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

2.1.B. Number of 

states/territories 

that are 

implementing nextgeneration reading 

and mathematics 

assessments, 

aligned with 

college- and 

career-ready 

standards*

SY: 2012–13

0

0 0

SY: 2014–

15

49 (48 plus 

DC)

50 NOT 

MET

50

49

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

2.1.B

(Plus 

D.C.)

52 52

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†

SY: 2012–13

6

6 7 8 37 NOT 

MET

37

8

0

10

20

30

40

50

2.2.A

22‡ 39§

0

2

4

6

8

10

2013 2014 2015

2.3.A. Disparity in 

the rates of out-ofschool 

suspensions for 

students with 

disabilities and 

youth of color 

(youth of color 

metric)

SY: 2011–12

10.7% point 

disparity

Not 

Collected

TBD

SY 2013–14 

data collected 

in 2015 and 

available in 

2016

Not 

Collected

NA

Biennial 

Metric

6.7% point 

disparity

NA

Biennial 

Metric

 

* Metric is aligned with an APG. Revising metric language to include “states/territories” to align with the 2014–15 APG statement. 

† Metric is aligned with an Agency Priority Goal (APG).

‡ The out-year performance targets are revised to reflect updated information provided by states through ESEA Flexibility renewal requests regarding implementation timelines. 

§ The out-year performance targets are revised to reflect updated information provided by states through ESEA Flexibility renewal requests regarding implementation timelines.
APPENDICES

SUMMARY TABLE

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 147 

U.S. Department 

of Education 

Indicators of 

Success

Baseline

Actuals Current Year 

Target Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals) 2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

2.3.B. Disparity in 

the rates of out-ofschool 

suspensions for 

students with 

disabilities and 

youth of color 

(SWDs, IDEA only 

metric)

SY: 2011–12

5.7% point 

disparity 

Not 

Collected

TBD

SY 2013–14 

data collected 

in 2015 and 

available in 

2016

Not 

Collected

NA

Biennial 

Metric

2.7% point 

disparity

NA

Biennial 

Metric

2.4.A. Number of 

persistently low 

graduation rate 

high schools 

SY: 2011–12

775

SY: 2011–12

775

SY: 2012–13

737

SY: 2013–

14

680

699 MET

699

680

600

620

640

660

680

700

720

2.4.A

5% annual 

reduction

5% annual 

reduction*

550

600

650

700

750

800

2013 2014 2015

2.4.B. Percentage 

of Cohort 1 priority 

schools that have 

met the state exit 

criteria and exited 

priority school 

status†

SY: 2013–14

NA NA 16.3%‡ NA 15% NA§ NA NA

New Metric: 

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 NA

SY: 2013–

14

19.7%

NA NA TBD TBD

 

* The baseline data for this performance metric were recalculated from what was reported in the FY 2013 APR and FY 2015 APP. The targets remain at a 5% reduction each year. 

† Metric being removed at the end of the FY 2015 reporting period and being replaced with the metric identified as “New Metric” directly below it. If there is no corresponding “New 

Metric” identified, new metric TBD. Please refer to appendix B for details pertaining to the removal and addition of metrics. The proposed FY 2016 and 2017 targets for the metric being 

removed were 20.0% and 25.0%, respectively. 

‡ Metric reported as TBD in the 2014 Annual Performance Report (APR). 2014 actuals show the 2014 target was “Met.”

§ The FY 2015 data for this metric are not available. Further, the Department has decided to remove this metric due to unforeseen challenges in using the data provided by states. 

These challenges are discussed in more detail in appendix B of this report. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY TABLE

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 148 

U.S. Department 

of Education 

Indicators of 

Success

Baseline

Actuals Current Year 

Target Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals) 2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

2.4.C. Percentage 

of Cohort 1 focus 

schools that have 

met the state exit 

criteria and exited 

focus school 

status*

SY: 2013–14

NA NA 11.9%† NA 15% NA‡ NA NA

New Metric: 

Percentage of 

priority and SIG 

schools in Cohort 

5 that are above 

the 25th percentile 

that show gains in

student 

achievement in 

reading/language 

arts, as measured 

by their state 

assessments

SY: 2013–14 

20.1% NA NA

SY 2013–

14

20.1%

NA NA TBD TBD

 

* Metric being removed at the end of the FY 2015 reporting period and being replaced with the metric identified as “New Metric” directly below it. If there is no corresponding “New 

Metric” identified, new metric TBD. Please refer to appendix B for details pertaining to the removal and addition of metrics. The proposed FY 2016 and 2017 targets for the metric being 

removed were 20.0% and 25.0%, respectively. 

† Metric reported as TBD in the 2014 Annual Performance Report (APR). 2014 actuals show the 2014 target was “Met.”

‡ The FY 2015 data for this metric are not available. Further, the Department has decided to remove this metric due to unforeseen challenges in using the data provided by states. 

These challenges are discussed in more detail in appendix B of this report. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY TABLE

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 149 

U.S. Department 

of Education 

Indicators of 

Success

Baseline

Actuals Current Year 

Target Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals) 2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

2.5.A. Percentage 

of high school and 

middle school 

teachers who 

teach STEM as 

their main 

assignment who 

hold a 

corresponding 

undergraduate 

degree

AY: 2011–12

62.2%

Not 

Collected Not Collected Not Collected NA NA 65.3% 65.3%

2.5.B. Number of 

public high school 

graduates who 

have taken at least 

one STEM AP 

exam

AY: 2011–12

497,922

AY: 2011–12

497,922

AY: 2012–13

527,001

AY: 2013–

14

555,119

581,419 NOT 

MET

581,

419

555,

119

500,000

520,000

540,000

560,000

580,000

600,000

2.5.B

632,642 691,541

460,000

480,000

500,000

520,000

540,000

560,000

2013 2014 2015

3.1.A. Number of 

states with Quality 

Rating and 

Improvement 

Systems (QRIS) 

that meet high 

quality 

benchmarks for 

child care and 

other early 

childhood 

programs*

SY: 2010

17 27 29† NA 32 NA‡ NA NA

0

10

20

30

40

2012 2013 2014

 

* Metric being removed at the end of the FY 2015 reporting period and being replaced with the metric identified as “New Metric” directly below it. If there is no corresponding “New 

Metric” identified, new metric TBD. Please refer to appendix B for details pertaining to the removal and addition of metrics. The proposed FY 2016 and 2017 targets for the metric being 

removed were 35 and 37, respectively. 

† Metric reported as TBD in the 2014 Annual Performance Report (APR). 2014 actuals show the 2014 target was “Met.”

‡ This is a Health and Human Services (HHS) metric and out of the Department’s control or influence. Please refer to footnote 66 for additional information. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY TABLE

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 150 

U.S. Department 

of Education 

Indicators of 

Success

Baseline

Actuals Current Year 

Target Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals) 2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

New APG Metric: 

Percent of 4-year 

olds enrolled in 

state preschool 

programs*

SY: 2013–14 

29.1% NA NA

SY: 2013–

14

29.1%

NA NA 33.0% 35.0%

New APG Metric: 

Number of states 

with high-quality 

preschool program 

standards†

SY: 2013–14 

15 NA NA

SY: 2013–

14

15

NA NA 19 21

3.2.A. Number of 

states and 

territories with 

professional 

development 

systems that 

include core 

knowledge and 

competencies, 

career pathways, 

professional 

development 

capacity 

assessments, 

accessible 

professional 

development 

opportunities, and 

financial supports 

for child care 

providers‡

SY: 2011

30 30 Not Collected NA 38 NA§ NA NA

New Metric: 

Number of states 

that require a 

teacher with a 

bachelor’s degree 

in a state 

preschool program

SY: 2013–14

15 NA SY: 2013–1415 NA NA NA 19 20

 

* Metric is aligned with an Agency Priority Goal (APG). 

† Metric is aligned with an Agency Priority Goal (APG). 

‡ Metric being removed at the end of the FY 2015 reporting period and being replaced with the metric identified as “New Metric” directly below it. If there is no corresponding “New 

Metric” identified, new metric TBD. Please refer to appendix B for details pertaining to the removal and addition of metrics. The proposed FY 2016 and 2017 targets for the metric being 

removed were both NA. 

§ Please refer to footnote 68. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY TABLE

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 151 

U.S. Department 

of Education 

Indicators of 

Success

Baseline

Actuals Current Year 

Target Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals) 2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

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

2

3 5

* 11† 9 MET

9

11

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

3.3.A

14 16‡

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2013 2014 2015

4.1.A. National 

high school 

graduation rate§

SY: 

2011–12

80.0%

SY: 

2011–12

80.0%

SY: 2012–13 

81.4%

SY: 2013–

14

82.3%

83.0%** NOT 

MET

83.0

% 82.3

%

65.0%

67.5%

70.0%

72.5%

75.0%

77.5%

80.0%

82.5%

85.0%

4.1.A

84.5% 85%

75.0%

77.0%

79.0%

81.0%

83.0%

2013 2014 2015

 

* 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 FY14 actual is revised from six to five states. 

† 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. 

‡ There will be difficulty collecting ELC data in out-years because some grantees will no longer be reporting APR data. 

§ Metric is aligned with an Agency Priority Goal (APG). 

** SY 2013–14 actuals are being used to compare against the FY 2015 target. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY TABLE

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 152 

U.S. Department 

of Education 

Indicators of 

Success

Baseline

Actuals Current Year 

Target Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals) 2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

New APG Metric:

Gap in the 

graduation rate 

between students 

from low-income 

families and all 

students*

SY: 2013–14 

7.7%

SY: 2011–12

8.3%

SY: 2012–13 

8.1%

SY: 2013–

14

7.7%

NA NA 7.6%† 7.4%

New APG Metric: 

Number of schools 

that do not have a 

gap or that 

decreased the gap 

between students 

from low-income‡

families and the 

state average of all 

students§

SY: 2013–14 

80%

SY: 2011–12

77.6%

SY: 2012–13 

78.8%

SY: 2013–

14

80%

NA NA 81.2%** 82.4%

4.2.A. Percentage 

of proactive civil 

rights 

investigations 

launched annually 

that address areas 

of concentration in 

civil rights 

enforcement 

FY: 2013

7% 7% 21% 16% 10% MET

10.0

%

16.0

%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

4.2.A

12% 15%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

2013 2014 2015

 

* Metric is aligned with an Agency Priority Goal (APG). 

† SY 2014–15 actuals are being used to compare against the FY 2016 target; FY 2016 (SY 2015–16) data not available until 2017. 

‡ 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. 

§ Metric is aligned with an Agency Priority Goal (APG). 

** SY 2014–15 actuals are being used to compare against the FY 2016 target; FY 2016 (SY 2015–16) data not available until 2017. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY TABLE

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 153 

U.S. Department 

of Education 

Indicators of 

Success

Baseline

Actuals Current Year 

Target Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals) 2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

4.2.B. Percentage 

of proactive civil 

rights 

investigations 

resolved annually 

that address areas 

of concentration in 

civil rights 

enforcement

FY: 2013

8% 8% 15% 20% 10% MET

10.0

%

20.0

%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

4.2.B

12% 16%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

2013 2014 2015

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 55 66 79 79 MET

79 79

0

20

40

60

80

100

5.1.A

94 104

0

20

40

60

80

100

2013 2014 2015

5.1.B. Number of 

states linking K–12 

and postsecondary 

data with 

workforce data

FY: 2013

12 12 20 24 22 MET

22

24

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

5.1.B

25 25

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2013 2014 2015

5.1.C. Number of 

states linking K–12 

with early 

childhood data

FY: 2013

19 19 26 32 27 MET

27

32

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

5.1.C

29 32

0

10

20

30

40

2013 2014 2015
APPENDICES

SUMMARY TABLE

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 154 

U.S. Department 

of Education 

Indicators of 

Success

Baseline

Actuals Current Year 

Target Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals) 2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

5.2.A. Average 

time to close 

“cases” (PTAC + 

FPCO)

FY: 2013 

10 days 10 9 4.9 8 days MET

8.0

4.9

0

2

4

6

8

10

5.2.A

7.2* 6.48†

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2013 2014 2015

5.3.A. Percentage 

of select new 

(noncontinuation) 

competitive grant 

dollars that reward 

evidence‡

FY: 2012

6.5% 9.35% 15.9% 29.4% 11.0% MET

11.0

%

29.4

%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

5.3.A

18%§ 20%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

2013 2014 2015

New APG Metric: 

Number of 

completed project 

evaluations from 

grantees from 

select 

discretionary grant 

programs in a 

given fiscal year 

that meet What 

Works 

Clearinghouse 

(WWC) Evidence 

Standards**

FY: 2015

2

NA NA 2 NA NA 10 20

 

* Target is being updated to reflect the goal of a 10% reduction from the prior year. 

† Target is being updated to reflect the goal of a 10% reduction from the prior year. 

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

§ The out-year performance targets are increased from what was reported in the FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan. 

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

SUMMARY TABLE

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 155 

U.S. Department 

of Education 

Indicators of 

Success

Baseline

Actuals Current Year 

Target Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals) 2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

5.3.B. Number of 

peer-reviewed, fulltext resources in 

the Education 

Resources 

Information Center 

(ERIC)

FY: 2013

23,512 23,512 27,292 36,197 31,192 MET 31,1

92

36,1

97

25,000

27,000

29,000

31,000

33,000

35,000

37,000

5.3.B

35,692 40,892

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

2013 2014 2015

5.3.C. Number of 

reviewed studies in 

the What Works 

Clearinghouse 

(WWC) database*

FY: 2013

9,535 9,535 10,310 10,889 10,235 MET

10,2

35

10,8

89

8,500

8,800

9,100

9,400

9,700

10,000

10,300

10,600

10,900

11,200

5.3.C

NA NA

8,500

9,000

9,500

10,000

10,500

11,000

2013 2014 2015

New Metric: 

Number of visits to 

the What Works 

Clearinghouse 

(WWC) website

FY: 2015

1,822,000 NA NA 1,822,000 NA NA 1,967,760 2,164,536

5.4.A. Percentage 

of schools in the 

country that have 

actual Internet 

bandwidth speeds 

of at least 100 

Mbps

FY: 2013

20% 20% 41% 55% 50% MET

50.0

%

55.0

%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

55.0%

60.0%

5.4.A

70% 80%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

2013 2014 2015

 

* Metric being removed at the end of the FY 2015 reporting period and being replaced with the metric identified as “New Metric” directly below it. If there is no corresponding “New 

Metric” identified, new metric TBD. Please refer to appendix B for details pertaining to the removal and addition of metrics. The proposed FY 2016 and 2017 targets for the metric being 

removed were 10,585 and 10,935, respectively. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY TABLE

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 156 

U.S. Department 

of Education 

Indicators of 

Success

Baseline

Actuals Current Year 

Target Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals) 2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

6.1.A. Staffing 

gaps 

percentage*

FY: 2013

15% 15% 4% 4.3% 15% MET

15.

0%

4.3

%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

6.1.A

NA NA

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

2013 2014 2015

New Metric: 

Percent of 

selections made 

per job opportunity 

announcement 

(JOA)

FY:

2015

46.4%

NA NA 46.4% NA NA 48.7% 51.2% 

6.1.B. EVS 

Employee 

Engagement Index

FY: 2012

64.7% 66% 67% 68% 69% NOT 

MET

69.

0%

68.

0%

60.0%

61.0%

62.0%

63.0%

64.0%

65.0%

66.0%

67.0%

68.0%

69.0%

6.1.B

71% 72%

61.0%

63.0%

65.0%

67.0%

69.0%

2013 2014 2015

6.1.C. Time to hire FY: 2013

65% 65% 85% 67.6% 68% NOT 

MET

68.

0%

67.

6%

55.0%

56.0%

57.0%

58.0%

59.0%

60.0%

61.0%

62.0%

63.0%

64.0%

65.0%

66.0%

67.0%

68.0%

69.0%

6.1.C

69% 70%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

201320142015

 

* Metric being removed at the end of the FY 2015 reporting period and being replaced with the metric identified as “New Metric” directly below it. If there is no corresponding “New 

Metric” identified, new metric TBD. Please refer to appendix B for details pertaining to the removal and addition of metrics. The proposed FY 2016 and 2017 targets for the metric being 

removed were both NA. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY TABLE

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 157 

U.S. Department 

of Education 

Indicators of 

Success

Baseline

Actuals Current Year 

Target Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals) 2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

6.1.D. Effective 

Communication 

Index

FY: 2012

48% 49.6% 50% 51% 50% MET

50.

0%

51.

0%

45.0%

46.0%

47.0%

48.0%

49.0%

50.0%

51.0%

6.1.D

51% 52%

48.0%

49.0%

50.0%

51.0%

52.0%

2013 2014 2015

6.2.A. Percentage 

of A-133 Single 

Audits Overdue for 

resolution

FY: 2012

57% 52% 37% 20% 43% MET

43.

0%

20.

0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

6.2.A

37% 31%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

2013 2014 2015

6.2.B. Compliance 

rate of contractor 

evaluation 

performance 

reports

FY: 2013

85% 85% 97% 98% 100% NOT 

MET

100

.0%

98.

0%

75.0%

80.0%

85.0%

90.0%

95.0%

100.0%

6.2.B

100% 100%

75.0%

80.0%

85.0%

90.0%

95.0%

100.0%

2013 2014 2015
APPENDICES

SUMMARY TABLE

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 158 

U.S. Department 

of Education 

Indicators of 

Success

Baseline

Actuals Current Year 

Target Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals) 2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

6.3.A. Percentage 

of states who 

annually rate the 

Department’s 

technical 

assistance as 

helping build state 

capacity to 

implement 

education reforms*

FY: 2013

54% 54% 75% 69% 67% MET

67.

0%

69.

0%

55.0%

57.0%

59.0%

61.0%

63.0%

65.0%

67.0%

69.0%

71.0%

6.3.A

77% 85%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

2013 2014 2015

6.4.A. Number of 

Department IT 

security incidents

FY: 2012

756 755 445 580 682 MET

682

580

500

520

540

560

580

600

620

640

660

680

700

6.4.A

551† 523‡

0

200

400

600

800

2013 2014 2015

6.4.B. EVS 

Results-Oriented 

Performance 

Culture Index

FY: 2012

53% 54% 56% 57% 56% MET

56.

0%

57.

0%

50.0%

52.0%

54.0%

56.0%

58.0%

6.4.B

57% 58%

52.0%

53.0%

54.0%

55.0%

56.0%

57.0%

58.0%

2013 2014 2015

*

In FY 2016, the metric’s data source will be changed to the 2015 Grantee Satisfaction Survey. Thus, in FY 2016, the baseline and targets will be updated to reflect the change. There

is also variability with this metric due to ESEA reauthorization and the impact on the programs included. 

† FY 2016 target was reduced based on actual incidents reported in FY 2015 and then reducing that actual by 5%. 

‡ FY 2017 target was reduced by 5% from the FY 2016 target. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY TABLE

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 159 

U.S. Department 

of Education 

Indicators of 

Success

Baseline

Actuals Current Year 

Target Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2015 Trend Line

(Actuals) 2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

6.4.C. EVS 

Leadership and 

Knowledge 

Management 

Index

FY: 2012

60% 61% 61% 62% 62% MET

62.

0%

62.

0%

50.0%

52.0%

54.0%

56.0%

58.0%

60.0%

62.0%

64.0%

6.4.C

63% 64%

55.0%

56.0%

57.0%

58.0%

59.0%

60.0%

61.0%

62.0%

63.0%

2013 2014 2015

6.4.D. Total usable 

square footage

FY: 2012

1,563,641 1,573,317 1,533,239 1,530,864 1,525,937 NOT 

MET

1,52

5,93

7

1,53

0,86

4

1,450,000

1,456,500

1,463,000

1,469,500

1,476,000

1,482,500

1,489,000

1,495,500

1,502,000

1,508,500

1,515,000

1,521,500

1,528,000

1,534,500

1,541,000

6.4.D

1,459,937 TBD

1,500,000

1,515,000

1,530,000

1,545,000

1,560,000

1,575,000

1,590,000

201320142015

6.4.E. Rent cost FY: 2014

$74.3M $71.7M $74.1M $72.7M $80.3M MET

$80

,30

0,0

00

$72

,72

0,0

99

68,000,000

70,000,000

72,000,000

74,000,000

76,000,000

78,000,000

80,000,000

82,000,000

6.4.E

$80,300,000 TBD

70,000,000

71,000,000

72,000,000

73,000,000

74,000,000

75,000,000

201320142015

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. 

Out-Year Targets
APPENDICES

SUMMARY TABLE

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 160 

Data Sources and Frequency of Collection: 

1.1.A. Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS); annually 

1.1.B. IPEDS; 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). 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 fifty states and Washington, DC; annually 

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

1.1.E. RSA-911; annually 

1.2.A. FSA Cohort Default Rate (CDR) Report, September 2014, and IPEDS Data Center; annually 

1.3.A. NCES Digest of Education Statistics, Table 104.30 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_104.30.asp), Number of persons age 18 and over, by highest level of 

educational attainment, sex, race/ethnicity, and age: 2013. Tabulated from Current Population Survey (CPS) data, U.S. Census; annually 

1.3.B. IPEDS Data Center; annually 

1.3.C. IPEDS Data Center; annually 

1.4.A. IPEDS Data Center; annually 

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

2.1.B. ESEA Flexibility 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. EDFacts; annually 

2.4.B. EDFacts; annually 

2.4.C. EDFacts; annually 

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

2.5.B. College Board/AP administrative records; annually 

3.1.A. Child Care Development Fund (CCDF) Report of State Plans with annual updates from states and territories (HHS/Office of Childcare); annually 

3.2.A. CCDF Report of State Plans (HHS/Office of Childcare); biennially 

3.3.A. Race to the Top (RTT)-Early Learning Challenge (ELC) Technical Assistance Center; annually 

4.1.A. 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 

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); 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); quarterly 

5.4.A. Education Superhighway (for baseline), Consortium for School Networking (CoSN)/AASA E-rate Infrastructure Survey (for FY 2014 actual data); annually 

6.1.A. Mission Critical Occupation (MCO) Staffing Gap Report; quarterly 

6.1.B. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS); annually 

6.1.C. Federal Personnel/Payroll System (FPPS) Datamart; quarterly 

6.1.D. OPM FEVS; annually 

6.2.A. Office of the Chief Financial Officer’s (OCFO) Audit Accountability & Resolution Tracking System (AARTS); annually
APPENDICES

SUMMARY TABLE

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 161 

6.2.B. Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) www.ppirs.gov “PPIRS Compliance Report”; annually

6.3.A. Baseline is from the Race to the Top State Lead Survey, n=19. Future data will come from the Annual Grantee Satisfaction Survey; annually 

6.4.A. Operational Vulnerability Management Solution (OVMS) System; 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; 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. 
APPENDICES

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 162 

Appendix D: 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 HE 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 1,2,3 Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education

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 NA International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs 

OPE HE NA 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 Office Component 
APPENDICES

ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS BY GOAL

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 163 

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 reestimate of existing 

loans (non-add)

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 reestimate of existing loans (nonadd)

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 reestimate 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 reestimate 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 reestimate 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 reestimate 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 reestimate of existing loans (non-add)

FSA TEACH 1 TEACH Grants: Net reestimate of existing loans (non-add)

FSA TEACH 1 TEACH Grants: New loan subsidy

FSA TEACH 1 TEACH Grants: Upward reestimate of existing loans 

OPE HE 1,2,3 Aid for institutional development: Mandatory strengthening tribally controlled colleges 

and universities 

OPE HE 1,2 America’s college promise (proposed)

OPE HE College housing and academic facilities loans liquidating account 

OPE HE College housing loans liquidating account 

OPE HE College opportunity and graduation bonus (proposed)

OPE HE Higher education facilities loans liquidating account 

OPE HE Historically Black college and university capital financing program account: 

Reestimate 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 reestimate of loan subsidies

SFA FDSL downward modification/negative loan subsidies

SFA FDSL downward reestimate of loan subsidies

SFA FFEL downward modification/negative loan subsidies

SFA FFEL downward reestimate of loan subsidies

SFA General receipts, not otherwise specified 

SFA HBCU capital financing downward reestimate of loan subsidies 

SFA HEAL downward reestimate of loan subsidies 
APPENDICES

ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS BY GOAL

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 164 

POC Account Objective Program

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

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 5 Computer science for all development grants (proposed)

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 SIP 2 Supporting effective educator development (SEED)

OESE SSS 3 Elementary and secondary school counseling 

OESE SSS 3 Physical education program 

OESE SSS 3 School safety national activities

OII I&I NA American history and civics academies

OII I&I NA Arts in education

OII I&I 1,2,3 Full-service community schools

OII I&I NA Javits gifted and talented education

OII I&I 3 Non-cognitive skills initiative

OII I&I 2 School leader recruitment and support 

OII I&I 5 STEM master teacher corps

OII I&I 2 Teacher quality partnerships

OII I&I 2 Transition to teaching 

OII/OESE I&I NA Fund for the improvement of education: Programs of national significance 

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 Office Component 

Mandatory programs supporting Goal 2 include: 

POC Account Objective Program

OII I&I 5 Computer science for all (proposed)

OII I&I 2 RESPECT: Best job in the world (proposed)
APPENDICES

ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS BY GOAL

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 165 

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 Office Component 

Mandatory programs supporting Goal 3 include: 

POC Account Objective Program

OESE I&I 3.1 Preschool for all (proposed)

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

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 ED 3 Evaluation 

OESE IE 2 Indian Education: National activities 

OESE SIP 1,3,4 Comprehensive centers 

OSERS SE 1,2,3,4 Technical assistance and dissemination 

Goal 6: U.S. Department of Education Capacity 

Mandatory programs supporting Goal 6 include:

POC Account Objective Program

Contributions 
APPENDICES

ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS BY GOAL

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 166 

Other

Programs/activities supporting other performance metrics include: 

(Dollars in millions) 

POC Account Program

FY 2015 

Appropriation

FY 2016 

Appropriation

FY 2017 

President’s 

Budget

OSERS REHAB Assistive technology programs 33 0 0

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 9 10 10

OSERS REHAB Independent living centers 78 0 0

OSERS REHAB Independent living services for older blind 

individuals 33 33 35

OSERS REHAB Independent living state grants 23 0 0

OSERS REHAB

National Institute on Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research 104 0 0

OSERS REHAB Protection and advocacy of individual rights 18 18 18

OSERS REHAB Supported employment state grants 28 28 31

OSERS REHAB Training 30 30 30

College housing and academic facilities 

loans program account: Reestimate of 

existing loan subsidies 0 0 0

TOTAL, OTHER 375 138 143

Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding. 
APPENDICES

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 167 

Appendix E: Summary of Performance Evaluations Conducted 

During FY 2015 and Expected During FY 2016–17 

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 2015

National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance

School Choice 

Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: An Early Look at Applicants and 

Participating Schools Under the SOAR Act 

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 2013–16). 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 will be released. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The first descriptive report—describing the 

characteristics of participating schools and program applicants—was released in October 

2014. A second descriptive report is scheduled for release in early 2016 and a third in early 

spring 2016. The first impact report is scheduled for completion in summer 2016. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 168 

5. Key Findings from the First Report:

 Just over half of all DC private schools participated in the OSP, with current schools 

more likely to have published tuition rates above the OSP scholarship amounts than did 

participating schools in the past. 

 OSP applicants under the SOAR Act represent between 3 and 4 percent of the 

estimated 53,000 children in DC who meet the eligibility criterion. 

 A number of awarded scholarships go unused, with students from disadvantaged 

schools and families using awarded scholarships at lower rates than others. 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20154000/pdf/20154000.pdf 

Students with Disabilities 

School Practices and Accountability for Students with Disabilities 

1. Study Purpose: The focus of this study was on the inclusion of students with disabilities 

(SWDs) in school accountability systems and the variation in school practices in schools 

accountable and schools not accountable for the performance of the SWDs subgroup under 

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 To what extent are schools accountable for the performance of the SWDs subgroup, and 

how does this accountability vary across schools and over time? 

 To what extent have schools accountable for the SWDs subgroup been identified as 

needing improvement? 

 How does school accountability for the SWDs subgroup relate to regular and special 

education practices for SWDs? 

3. Design: The evaluation relied on descriptive statistics to study patterns of school 

accountability across states and over time and to examine how school practices vary with 

school accountability for the SWDs subgroup. Data sources for the evaluation include extant 

data from the Department’s EDFacts database and 2011 surveys of principals and special 

education designees from elementary and middle schools in 12 states. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The first two research questions for the study were 

addressed in an interim report released in May 2012 and an update of the 2012 interim 

report released in October 2013. A third report, addressing the third research question, was 

released in February 2015. 

5. Key Findings: This report addressed the first two key questions listed above for this study: 

 Across the 44 states with relevant data and DC, 35 percent of public schools were 

accountable for the performance of the SWDs subgroup in the 2009–10 school year, 

representing 59 percent of SWDs in those states. In those same 44 states and DC, 

62 percent of middle schools were accountable for SWDs performance, while 32 percent 

of elementary schools and 23 percent of high schools were accountable. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 169 

 In 31 states with relevant data, 56 percent of public schools were not accountable for the 

SWDs subgroup in any of the 4 years examined, in comparison with 23 percent of 

schools that were consistently accountable in each of the 4 years. 

 Among schools that were consistently accountable for the performance of the SWDs 

subgroup across 22 states during the 4 years, 56 percent were never identified for 

school improvement over this time period. By comparison, among schools that were 

consistently not accountable for SWDs subgroup performance in these states, 

80 percent were never identified for improvement. 

 When surveyed in 2011, elementary schools accountable for the SWDs subgroup were 

15.8 percentage points more likely than never-accountable elementary schools to report 

moving SWDs from self-contained settings to regular classrooms over the previous five 

years. Middle schools accountable for the SWDs subgroup were 16.7 percentage points 

more likely than never-accountable middle schools to report moving SWDs from selfcontained settings to regular classrooms over the previous five years. 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20154006/ 

Evaluation of the Teacher Incentive Fund: Implementation and Impacts of Pay-forPerformance After Two Years 

1. Study Purpose: The Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) is authorized by Title V, Part D of ESEA 

and annual appropriations acts. 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 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? 

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. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 170 

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. 

5. Key Findings: The main findings among all TIF districts with 2010 awards are: 

 Ninety percent of all TIF districts in 2012–13 reported implementing at least 3 of the 4 

required components for teachers, and only about one-half (52 percent) reported 

implementing all four. This was a slight improvement from the first year of 

implementation. 

 Near the end of the second year of implementation, 65 percent of TIF districts reported 

that sustainability of the program was a major challenge. In contrast, no more than onethird of districts reported that other activities related to their program were a major 

challenge. 

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: 

 Few evaluation districts structured pay-for-performance bonuses to align well with TIF 

guidance in the grant competition notice. 

 Educators’ understanding of key program components improved from the first to the 

second year, but many teachers still did not understand that they were eligible for a 

bonus. They also continued to underestimate how much they could earn from 

performance bonuses. 

 Offering educators pay-for-performance had small, positive impacts on their students’

reading achievement; impacts on students’ math achievement were not statistically 

significant but similar in magnitude. 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20154020/ 

New Findings on the Retention of Novice Teachers from Teaching Residency Programs 

1. Study Purpose: Teaching Residency Programs (TRPs) involve a year-long “clinical” 

experience (the “residency”) shadowing and co-teaching with an experienced mentor. TRPs 

also provide continued support and mentoring after participants become teachers of record. 

Before and during their residencies, participants in TRPs take coursework. The evaluation of 

TRPs, which focused on residency programs that received grants from the Teacher Quality 

Partnership (TQP) program, provides important descriptive and implementation information 

on TRPs, as well as information on the teacher retention outcomes of teachers who 

participate in TRPs. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 What are the characteristics of TRPs (e.g., length of overall program, criteria for 

selecting program participants)? What are the characteristics of participants in TRPs? 

 What are the retention rates of novice TRP teachers and their novice colleagues who did 

not go through TRPs? 

3. Design: Descriptive information concerning TQP grantees operating TRPs was collected 

through a survey administered in spring 2012. More detailed implementation information 

was collected through TRP program director interviews and surveys of residents and 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 171 

mentors, conducted within a subset of TRPs during spring 2012. Teacher mobility was 

tracked through district records and teacher surveys in order to examine retention in the 

profession, district, and school, among novice TRP and novice non-TRP teachers in a 

subset of six districts. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: A study report was released in November 2014. The 

follow-up evaluation brief was released in August 2015. 

5. Key Findings: The study’s evaluation brief updates the retention findings included in the 

study’s report. It examines the rates at which the residency teachers were retained in the 

same district and the same school as of fall 2013, thereby tracking two successive cohorts 

of teachers into their third or fourth year as a teacher of record. It found that: 

 TRP teachers were more likely to remain teaching in the same district than non-TRP 

teachers with similar teaching placements. Eighty-two percent of residency teachers and 

72 percent of other teachers remained in the same district from spring 2012 to fall 2013. 

 School-retention rates were similar between the two groups of teachers. Approximately 

61 percent of teachers in both groups remaining in the same school from spring 2012 to 

fall 2013. 

 TRP teachers who moved to different schools in the same district tended to join ones 

where a similar proportion of students were from low-income families, a lower 

percentage were black, and achievement was higher. 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20154015/

Teaching Residency Programs: A Multisite Look at a New Model to Prepare Teachers for 

High-Need Schools 

1. Study Purpose: Teaching Residency Programs (TRPs) involve a year-long “clinical” 

experience (the “residency”) shadowing and co-teaching with an experienced mentor. TRPs 

also provide continued support and mentoring after participants become teachers of record. 

Before and during their residencies, participants in TRPs take coursework. The evaluation of 

TRPs, which focused on residency programs that received grants from the Teacher Quality 

Partnership (TQP) program, provides important descriptive and implementation information 

on TRPs, as well as information on the teacher retention outcomes of teachers who 

participate in TRPs. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 What are the characteristics of TRPs (e.g., length of overall program, criteria for 

selecting program participants)? What are the characteristics of participants in TRPs? 

 What are the retention rates of novice TRP teachers and their novice colleagues who did 

not go through TRPs? 

3. Design: Descriptive information concerning TQP grantees operating TRPs was collected 

through a survey administered in spring 2012. More detailed implementation information 

was collected through TRP program director interviews and surveys of residents and 

mentors, conducted within a subset of TRPs during spring 2012. Teacher mobility was 

tracked through district records and teacher surveys in order to examine retention in the 

profession, district, and school, among novice TRP and novice non-TRP teachers in a 

subset of six districts. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 172 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The study report was released in November 2014. A 

follow-up evaluation brief was released in August 2015. 

5. Key Findings: The study’s report provides descriptive information regarding residency 

programs’ activities and participants. It also examines early teacher retention outcomes. It 

found that: 

 The residency programs provided a fieldwork experience, typically with a trained and 

experienced mentor teacher, along with integrated coursework. On average, teaching 

residents reported being fully in charge of instruction for 21 days during the first half of 

the residency and 37 days during the second half. Most mentor teachers had substantial 

teaching experience (10 years, on average), were trained by the residency program 

(averaging 37 hours of training), and had prior mentoring experience (an average of 

3.5 semesters). The residency programs included the equivalent of 10 courses on 

average, and most residents (83 percent) reported that their fieldwork reinforced what 

they learned in their coursework. 

 The residency programs somewhat broadened the pool of people entering the teaching 

profession in the participating districts. Novice teachers from the residency programs 

were more likely to report having worked in a full-time job other than teaching as 

compared to novice teachers from other preparation programs (72 percent versus 

63 percent). However, the groups had similar demographic characteristics (sex, 

race/ethnicity, and age). 

 Novice teachers from residency programs had similar retention rates to other novice 

teachers. Approximately 90 percent of teachers from both groups reported staying in the 

same district from spring 2012 to fall 2012; about 5 percent were no longer teaching. 

6. Links to Additional Information:

http://ies.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=NCEE20154002 

Other 

Are Low-Performing Schools Adopting Practices Promoted by School Improvement 

Grants (SIGs) ? 

1. Study Purpose: The SIG program is authorized through Title I of ESEA and provides 3-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 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (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. Previous research provides evidence that low-performing 

schools adopt some practices promoted by the four models, but little is known about how 

schools combine these practices. This study describes the individual SIG-promoted 

improvement practices adopted by low-performing schools. 

2. Key Questions Addressed: This report describes both the individual SIG-promoted 

improvement practices and the combinations of these practices that low-performing schools 

reported adopting. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 173 

3. Design: Findings are based on spring 2013 survey responses from 480 school 

administrators in 60 districts and 22 states. The 480 schools are all low-performing schools, 

with some receiving SIG and others not. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The report was released in October 2014. 

5. Key Findings:

 Schools on average reported adopting 20 of 32 improvement practices promoted by the 

SIG transformation or turnaround models. 

 No school reported adopting all practices required under the transformation or 

turnaround models. 

 More than 96 percent of schools reported adopting each of the three most commonly 

adopted individual practices: using data to inform and differentiate instruction, increasing 

technology access for teachers or using computer-assisted instruction, and providing 

ongoing professional development that involves teachers working collaboratively or is 

facilitated by school leaders. 

 For 16 of the 32 practices examined, schools implementing a SIG model were 

statistically significantly more likely than schools not implementing one to report adopting 

that practice. 

 Almost every school reported adopting a unique combination of practices, but certain 

practices (for example, the three most commonly adopted practices listed above) were 

much more likely than others (for example, using financial incentives to recruit and retain 

effective teachers and principals) to be included in these combinations. 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20154001/

Building Teacher Capacity to Support English Language Learners in Schools Receiving 

SIGs 

1. Study Purpose: 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 lowest-achieving schools. To qualify for the three-year 

grant, schools must (among other requirements) be 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 SIG schools 

with high proportions of English Language Learner (ELL) students that are receiving SIG in 

the first cohort to implement an intervention model beginning in the 2010–11 school year. 

2. Key Questions Addressed: This brief describes the efforts of SIG schools with high 

proportions of ELLs to improve teachers’ capacity for serving ELLs through staffing 

strategies and professional development. 

3. Design: This study employs a school-level case study design. A sample of 11 SIG schools 

with high percentages of ELLs (a median of 45 percent ELs) was purposively selected from 

four states to represent a range of geographic regions, urbanicities, school sizes, 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 174 

racial/ethnic compositions, socioeconomic statuses, SIG intervention models, and SIG 

funding levels, among other factors. Findings are based on ELL case study data collected in 

fall 2011, spring 2012, and fall 2012. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The report was released in November 2014. 

5. Key Findings:

 Few schools reported leveraging staffing strategies to improve teacher capacity for 

serving ELLs. Administrators in 3 of the 11 schools reported considering ELL expertise 

and experience when hiring classroom teachers, while respondents in 2 of the 

11 schools reported that teachers’ ELL expertise and experience purposefully factored 

into assignment of teachers to specific classrooms. 

 Most teacher survey respondents (54 to 100 percent) in all 11 schools reported 

participating in ELL-related PD during the 2011–12 school year. On average, teachers 

reported that ELL-related PD accounted for less than 20 percent of their total PD hours. 

 Teacher survey respondents in schools that reported a greater PD focus on ELL-related 

topics, such as instructional strategies for advancing English proficiency or instructional 

strategies to use for ELLs within content classes, also generally appeared more likely to 

report that PD improved their effectiveness as teachers of ELLs. 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20154004/

Evaluation of the Regional Educational Laboratories: Final Report 

1. Study Purpose: The Regional Educational Laboratories (RELs) are a networked system of 

10 organizations that serve the educational needs of 10 designated regions across the 

United States. The Department is authorized by the Education Sciences Reform Act (ESRA) 

to award contracts to 10 RELs to support applied research, development, wide 

dissemination, and technical assistance activities. The REL program is administered by the 

Knowledge Utilization Division of NCEE. The FY12 appropriation for the REL program was 

$57.426 million. The national evaluation of the RELs is mandated under ESRA. 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

 What activities did the RELs undertake to fulfill the missions specified in ERSA? 

 What were the technical quality and relevance of REL Fast Response Project reports 

published by IES and of the corresponding proposals? 

 What were the technical quality and relevance of REL impact study reports published by 

IES and of the corresponding proposals? 

 How relevant and useful were the REL technical assistance products to the needs of the 

states, localities, and policymakers in their regions? 

3. Design: This descriptive study relied on a combination of extant data, FY 2010 interviews 

with REL directors, and FY 2012 surveys of potential REL customers from state and local 

education agencies. Panels of experts met during FY 2010 and FY 2012 and rated the 

quality and relevance of REL Fast Response Project proposals and final reports and REL 

impact study proposals and final reports. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 175 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: An interim report, based on interviews with REL 

directors and expert reviews of REL Fast Response Projects (FRPs), was released in 

September 2013. A final report, including findings from surveys of REL customers and 

expert reviews of REL impact studies, was released in April 2015. 

5. Key Findings from the Interim and Final Reports:

 REL staff members reported activities under each of the ten missions of the REL 

program specified in ESRA. The statement of work (SOW) for the REL contracts in place 

between 2006 and 2011 aligned explicitly with six of the ten statutory missions for the 

REL program. Four additional statutory missions were not explicitly in the SOW for the 

RELs, but RELs reported activities under those missions as well. 

 By December 1, 2009, the ten RELs had submitted 297 proposals to IES to conduct 

FRPs, of which 46 percent (137) were accepted for performance under the REL 

contracts. 

 The IES-published FRP reports received a mean quality rating of 3.81 on a 5-point 

scale, while the corresponding proposals received a mean quality rating of 3.24. Both of 

these means fell between the categories of “adequate” and “strong” quality. 

 The IES-published FRP reports received a mean relevance rating of 3.64 on a 5-point 

scale, while the corresponding proposals received a mean relevance rating of 3.39. Both 

of these means fell between the categories of “adequate” relevance and “relevant.”

 Expert panelists rated the 8 impact study reports selected for review as, on average, 

between “strong” and “very strong” in quality (4.10 on a 5-point scale, with 5 being the 

highest value), and between “relevant” and “very relevant” (4.06 on a 5-point scale). 

 Eighty-six percent of state educational agency administrators and 52 percent of school 

district administrators reported being “very familiar,” “somewhat familiar,” or “a little 

familiar” with the REL program. 

 Fifty percent of state administrators and 26 percent of district administrators who were at 

least “a little familiar” with the REL program were “very satisfied” with it. 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20154008/

State Capacity to Support the Turnaround of Low-Performing Schools 

1. Study Purpose: One objective of the Department’s SIG and Race to the Top (RTT) program 

is to help states enhance their capacity to support the turnaround of low-performing schools. 

This capacity may be important, given how difficult it is to produce substantial and sustained 

achievement gains in low-performing schools. There is limited existing research on the 

extent to which states have the capacity to support school turnaround and are pursuing 

strategies to enhance that capacity. This report documents states’ capacity to support 

school turnaround as of spring 2012 and spring 2013. It examines capacity issues for all 

states and for those that reported both prioritizing turnaround and having significant gaps in 

expertise to support it. 

2. Key Questions Addressed: This report documents states’ capacity to support school 

turnaround as of spring 2012 and spring 2013. It examines capacity issues for all states and 

for those that reported both prioritizing turnaround and having significant gaps in expertise to 

support it. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 176 

3. Design: Findings are based on interviews in spring 2012 and 2013 with administrators from 

49 states and the District of Columbia (12 Round 1 and 2 RTT states, 7 Round 3 RTT 

states, and 31 non-RTT states). 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The report was released in May 2015. 

5. Key Findings:

 More than 80 percent of states made turning around low-performing schools a high 

priority, but at least 50 percent found it very difficult to turn around low-performing 

schools. 

 38 states (76 percent) reported significant gaps in expertise for supporting school 

turnaround in 2012, and that number increased to 40 (80 percent) in 2013. 

 More than 85 percent of states reported using strategies to enhance their capacity to 

support school turnaround, with the use of intermediaries decreasing over time and the 

use of organizational or administrative structures increasing over time. 

 States that reported both prioritizing school turnaround and having significant gaps in 

expertise to support it were no more likely to report using intermediaries than other 

states but all 21 of these states reported having at least one organizational or 

administrative structure compared with 86 percent (25 of 29) of all other states. 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20154012/

State, District, and School Level Implementation of Reforms Promoted Under the 

Recovery Act 

1. Study Purpose: The Recovery Act provided an unprecedented $100 billion of funding for the 

Department. While the initial goal of this money was to deliver emergency funding for 

education and government services, the Recovery Act is also being used as an opportunity 

to spur innovation and reform at different levels of the education system. In turn, the 

Recovery Act provides a unique opportunity to foster school improvements and to learn from 

reform efforts. Although funds are being distributed through different grant programs, their 

goals and strategies are complementary, if not overlapping, as are likely recipients. For this 

reason, data collection and analysis took place across grant programs (i.e., was 

“integrated”), rather than separately for each set of grantees, allowing for a broad 

assessment of the Recovery Act as a whole. The Department seeks to understand through 

this evaluation how states, districts, and schools are working to implement the education 

reforms promoted by the Recovery Act. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

Funding report: 

 At the state and local levels, who were the recipients of Recovery Act funds? To what 

extent did child poverty, state fiscal condition, student achievement, and other variables 

relate to funding? 

Interim and final reports: 

 To what extent were states, districts, and schools implementing the key education 

reform strategies promoted by the Recovery Act in 2010–11 in the areas of standards 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 177 

and assessment, data systems, educator workforce development, and support for low 

performing schools? 

 To what extent did 2010–11 implementation of key education reforms reflect progress 

since the Recovery Act funds were initially distributed in 2009–10?

 What were the greatest challenges experienced by states, districts, and schools working 

to implement key education reforms in the 2010–11 school year? 

3. Design: This study is primarily based on data from surveys of all 50 state education 

agencies (SEAs) and DC, and a nationally representative sample of school districts 

administered between spring 2011 and 2012. Survey respondents were the chief state 

school officer or other state agency officials designated by the chief as most knowledgeable 

about the topics in the survey. Descriptive and correlational analyses are used to answer the 

study’s research questions. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: A first report, titled “State and District Receipt of 

Recovery Act Funds,” was released in 2012. An interim report focused on state level 

implementation was released in January 2014. The final report focused on state, district, 

and school level implementation was released in September 2015. 

5. Key Findings: 

 At the state level, there was progress from 2009–10 to 2011–12 in each of the four areas 

of reform examined. Among the reforms measured, progress was greatest for SEA 

support for use of student achievement gains for principal evaluation (from 6 in 2009–10 

to 22 in 2011–12). However, in 2011–12 many more SEAs were carrying out reforms 

related to standards and assessments than were carrying out reforms related to 

educator evaluation and compensation or improving low-performing schools. 

 At the district and school levels, progress was uneven and varied by the reform area 

being examined. During the study period, there was an increase in the percentage of 

districts and schools that reported implementing standards-and-assessments-related 

reforms. However, there was a decrease in the percentage of districts that reported 

implementing reforms related to educator evaluation and compensation, and at the 

school level, implementation of these reforms largely remained flat. School-level but not 

district-level progress was seen for data-system-related reforms. 

 Across all levels, the most frequently reported reform implementation challenges were 

related to educator evaluation and compensation. The majority of SEAs reported 

difficulty measuring student growth for teachers of subjects with no standardized tests as 

a major challenge. Large percentages of districts and schools rated insufficient funding 

to provide performance-based compensation or differentiated compensation as major 

challenges. 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20154016/ 

Usage of Policies and Practices Promoted by Race to the Top and SIGs 

1. Study Purpose: RTT and SIG are signature Department programs in the Obama 

Administration, and both programs received substantial funding through the Recovery Act. 

As part of OMB’s FY 2010 Evaluation Initiative, IES proposed to conduct an impact 

evaluation of the RTT and SIG programs, focusing on the initial general state competition for 

RTT and the first cohort of SIG schools implementing intervention models beginning in the 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 178 

2010–11 school year. This is the first evaluation report of the Impact and Implementation 

Evaluation of RTT and SIG. 

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? 

 Are SIG-funded schools using the improvement strategies promoted by the four SIG 

intervention models, and how do they compare to strategies in schools not implementing 

a SIG-funded intervention model?

3. Design: The RTT sample includes all 49 states and DC. Data from spring 2012 interviews 

with all states and DC will inform the first key question. The SIG sample is purposively 

selected and includes about 470 schools in 60 districts from 22 states. Data from spring 

2012 state and district interviews, as well as spring 2012 school surveys from the SIG 

sample, will inform the second key question. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The report was released in September 2015. 

5. Key Findings:

 Early (Round 1 and 2) RTT states used more policies and practices than non-RTT states 

in five of six areas examined: state capacity, standards and assessments, data systems, 

teachers and leaders, and charter schools (school turnaround was the exception). Later 

(Round 3) RTT states used more policies and practices than non-RTT states in just one 

area: teachers and leaders. 

 Use of policies and practices across RTT and non-RTT states was highest in the state 

capacity and data systems areas and lowest in the teachers and leaders area. 

 SIG schools used more practices than non-SIG schools in all four areas examined: 

comprehensive instructional reforms, teacher and principal effectiveness, learning time 

and community-oriented schools, and operational flexibility and support. 

 Use of practices among SIG and non-SIG schools was highest in the comprehensive 

instructional reforms area and lowest in the operational flexibility and support area. 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20154018/

Policy and Program Studies Service (PPSS)

Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT) Enrolled in Alternative Routes to Certification and 

Licensure 

1. Study Purpose: Title I of ESEA requires that all teachers of core academic subjects be 

highly qualified—meaning they have a bachelor’s degree, full state certification, and 

demonstrate expertise in the subject matter they teach—and that states work to ensure that 

poor and minority students are not taught by teachers who are inexperienced, out-of-field, or 

unqualified at higher rates than their peers. Under federal regulations (34 CFR § 200.56), 

the Department allows teachers who are enrolled in programs that provide alternate routes 

to certification or licensure to be considered highly qualified before meeting full state 

certification requirements. At the same time, alternate route programs have traditionally 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 179 

been used to address shortages, which are especially acute in urban areas, special 

education, and in certain content areas such as mathematics and science. This 

congressionally mandated report examines the extent to which students in four different 

subgroups are taught by teachers enrolled in alternative certification programs and classified 

as “highly qualified” under the ESEA: (1) students with disabilities, (2) English learners, 

(3) students in rural areas, and (4) students from low-income families. 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

 What percentage of highly qualified teachers across the nation, in each state, and in 

each district are enrolled in an alternative certification program? 

 What percentage of highly qualified special education teachers across the nation, in 

each state, and in each district are enrolled in an alternative certification program? 

 What percentage of highly qualified Title III teachers across the nation, in each state, 

and in each district are enrolled in an alternative certification program? 

 What percentage of highly qualified teachers working in rural areas across the nation 

and in each state are enrolled in an alternative certification program? 

 What percentage of HQTs working in high-poverty areas across the nation and in each 

state are enrolled in an alternative certification program? 

3. Design: This report provides a descriptive analysis of data collected by the Department from 

states in summer and fall 2014 on the numbers of all teachers, special education teachers, 

and Title III teachers who are enrolled in alternative certification programs and deemed 

highly qualified. 

4. Actual Completion Date: The final report was released in June 2015. 

5. Key Findings: 

 While most states employed some HQTs who were enrolled in alternative route teacher 

preparation programs, these teachers made up a small proportion of total HQTs, both 

overall as well as for the four subgroups of HQTs examined in this study. 

 Overall, across 48 states and the District of Columbia, 1.5 percent of HQTs were 

enrolled in alternative route programs. The average percentage of HQTs enrolled in 

alternative route programs was 1.9 percent for special education teachers, 1.3 percent 

for Title III teachers, 2.3 percent for high-poverty school districts, and 1.3 percent for 

rural school districts. 

 A majority of the responding states reported that less than 1 percent of all HQTs were 

enrolled in alternative route programs. Four states reported that none of their HQTs were 

in alternative route programs, while 12 states had one or more HQT subgroups in which 

4 percent or more were enrolled in alternative route programs. 

 Most LEAs had no HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs. In the LEAs that did 

have such teachers, most had fewer than five such teachers, and they usually 

accounted for less than 4 percent of all HQTs in the LEA. 

 High-poverty school districts had higher percentages of HQTs enrolled in alternative 

route programs (2.3 percent), on average, than districts with low poverty rates 

(1.0 percent). 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 180 

 Across all rural school districts, there was a lower percentage of HQTs enrolled in 

alternative route programs than in all urban districts (1.3 percent vs. 2.2 percent, 

respectively). 

6. Link to Additional Information: 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#tq

State and District Implementation of Education for Homeless Children and Youth 

Program 

1. Study Purpose: The Education for Homeless Children and Youth (EHCY) program provides 

grants to states and other grantees with the goal of ensuring that homeless children and 

youth have access to the same free, appropriate public education as do other children and 

youth. This study examined the implementation of the EHCY program at the state and 

school district levels based on surveys and analysis of extant data. 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

 How do states allocate EHCY funds? 

 What are the roles and responsibilities of the state coordinator and district liaison? What 

services do districts provide to homeless children and youth? 

 How do states monitor and provide technical assistance to districts as part of the EHCY 

program? What technical assistance needs do state coordinators and district liaisons 

report? 

 What data do states and districts collect about homeless children and youth? 

 What do state coordinators and district liaisons perceive as barriers to school success 

for homeless children and youth? 

3. Design: The study surveyed all state coordinators for the ECHY program and a sample of 

448 district liaisons of EHCY districts for the 2010–11 school years. The study also 

examined state-submitted data on homeless children and youth. 

4. Actual Completion Date: The final report was released in February 2015. 

5. Key Findings:

 Sixteen states used a regional approach to suballocating EHCY funds; these 16 states 

accounted for 84 percent of all school districts that received EHCY funds and services. 

 State coordinators reported spending the most time on providing technical assistance to 

districts and coordinating with other organizations, while district liaisons reported 

spending the most time on identifying eligible students and ensuring that homeless 

students and families receive services. 

 District liaisons indicated that transportation, school supplies, and tutoring and 

supplemental instruction accounted for the largest expenditures of EHCY funds. 

 State coordinators were more likely to report using site visits and integrated monitoring 

visits in 2012 than in 1998, and the number who reported monitoring non-EHCY districts 

more than doubled. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 181 

 In addition to collecting required data such as homeless students’ achievement on state 

assessments, many states also collected other data such as graduation rates and 

attendance rates. 

 Barriers to school enrollment and attendance for homeless students that were most 

frequently identified by district liaisons were transportation and family or student 

preoccupation with survival needs. Other barriers included delays in obtaining school 

records and inability to complete school assignments because of the lack of an 

appropriate study area. 

6. Link to Additional Information: 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#homeless

Evaluation of the Carol White Physical Education Program 

1. Study Purpose: The Carol M. White Physical Education Program (PEP) provides grants to 

school districts or community-based organizations (CBOs) to initiate, expand, and improve 

physical education for students in kindergarten through grade 12. In 2010, the Department 

revised PEP regulations to: include an increased focus on healthy eating habits and 

nutrition; require projects to conduct a needs assessment, and require that districts use four 

designated modules of the Centers for Disease Control’s School Health Index (SHI); use 

this assessment to develop project goals and plans to address identified weaknesses; 

encourage grantees to establish partnerships with community entities; encourage grantees 

to collect and use body mass index (BMI) data; and establish new performance measures 

and standard data collection methods. This report provides the results of the implementation 

study of the 76 projects (64 district-led and 12 CBO-led) funded by FY 2010 PEP grant 

awards—the first cohort of grantees under the revised PEP. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 What were the results of PEP grantees’ self-assessments of their physical activity, 

health, and nutrition policies and practices? 

 What physical activity and nutrition policy efforts did PEP grantees report? 

 What types of physical fitness and nutrition activities did PEP grantees report? 

 What role did community partnerships play in PEP projects? 

 What were PEP grantees’ experiences collecting and using BMI data?

 What implementation challenges and lessons learned did PEP grantees report? 

3. Design: This study used a mixed-methods research design that included surveys and case 

studies. Surveys of project directors were conducted in 2011 and 2013, the first and third 

years of the grant period. Case studies of five PEP projects (three districts and two CBOs) 

gathered more in-depth information from 59 interviewees regarding grantees’ experiences 

with community partners and BMI data collection. 

4. Actual Completion Date: The final report was released in February 2015. 

5. Key Findings: 

 Grantees most often reported weaknesses in their policies and programs related to the 

Health Education (43 percent) and Physical Education (32 percent) SHI modules. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 182 

 The greatest percentage of grantees made significant changes to physical activity 

policies concerning the use of a standards-based sequential physical education 

curriculum (59 percent) and policies involving recommendations or offers of physical 

activity through before- or after-school programs (55 percent). 

 About one-third of grantees made significant changes to nutrition policies aimed at 

reducing the availability of foods of minimal nutritional value, restricting the marketing of 

unhealthy foods at school, and requiring the adoption and implementation of strong 

nutritional standards for all foods sold and served in schools. 

 Grantees implemented more physical fitness, physical education, and nutrition-related 

activities during the PEP grant compared with before receipt of the grant, particularly in 

the areas of improving instruction, staff professional development, student engagement 

in physical activity, and curricula revisions. 

 The most frequently reported benefits of PEP partnerships were access to additional 

resources (reported by 90 percent of grantees with partnerships) and the ability to build 

on grantees’ own knowledge bases (86 percent). 

 Sixty-one percent of grantees that collected BMI data provided or planned to provide 

parents with information about their children’s BMI scores to help them take appropriate 

action. 

 The most common implementation challenge reported was executing the revised 

requirements for collecting data on the performance measures (83 percent). 

6. Link to Additional Information: 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#safe

Summary of Performance Evaluations Expected During FY 2016 and 

FY 2017 

National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance

Literacy 

Early Childhood Language Development 

1. Study Purpose: Differences between the reading skills of disadvantaged children and their 

more advantaged peers have been measured nationally as early as kindergarten entry in 

the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. The focus of this evaluation is the identification of 

classroom practices that are associated with improved student language development and 

comprehension. Such practices could be used in a future rigorous evaluation of these 

strategies. 

2. Key Question Addressed: 

 What classroom practices are associated with children’s development of language skills, 

background knowledge, and comprehension in prekindergarten through third grade? 

3. Design: The evaluation will analyze the relationships between the study’s observational 

measures of classroom practices and direct assessments of students collected during the 

2011–12 school year in 83 Title I schools. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 183 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The final report is expected in 2016. 

5. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/literacy_lang.asp 

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 ten 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 summaries the results of this systematic review of the 

evaluations. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The final report was released on October 27, 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, four of the ten 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. 

6. Link to Additional Information: 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/assistance_readers.asp

Pathways to Career or College 

Enhancing Advising to Improve College Fit in Upward Bound: Impacts on College 

Applications and Enrollment Intentions 

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 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 184 

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 will receive the training and 

packets a year later to use with rising 2016–17 seniors (the control group). A survey 

administered in spring 2016 to seniors in both sets of projects will collect information about 

their college planning including the number of applications and acceptances. The study will 

also examine those seniors’ later enrollment and persistence in college. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The first report on early impacts is expected in late 

2017.

5. Link to Additional Information:

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/pathways_upward.asp 

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? 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 185 

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 early 2016. 

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 is expected in early 2016. 

5. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/pathways_trio.asp 

School Choice 

Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: An Early Look at Applicants and 

Participating Schools Under the SOAR Act 

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 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 186 

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 2013–16). 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 will be released. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The first descriptive report—describing the 

characteristics of participating schools and program applicants—was released in October 

2014. The second descriptive report is scheduled for release in late 2015 and the third in 

spring 2016. The first impact report is expected in summer 2016. 

5. Key Findings from the First Report:

 Just over half of all DC private schools participated in the OSP, with current schools 

more likely to have published tuition rates above the OSP scholarship amounts than did 

participating schools in the past. 

 OSP applicants under the SOAR Act represent between 3 and 4 percent of the 

estimated 53,000 children in DC who meet the eligibility criterion. 

 A number of awarded scholarships go unused, with students from disadvantaged 

schools and families using awarded scholarships at lower rates than others. 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20154000/pdf/20154000.pdf 

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. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 187 

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? How should 

transportation options and location be conveyed?) 

 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. 

Students with Disabilities 

Evaluation of Response to Intervention Practices for Elementary School Reading 

1. Study Purpose: The focus of this evaluation is the implementation and impact of Response 

to Intervention (RtI) practices for struggling readers in elementary school. Response to 

Intervention (RtI) is a multistep approach to providing early and more intensive intervention 

and monitoring within the general education setting. IDEA permits some Part B special 

education funds to be used for “early intervening services” such as RtI, and also permit 

districts to use RtI to inform decisions regarding a child’s eligibility for special education 

under the category of specific learning disabilities. 

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 to children 

based on student benchmark reading performance? 

 What are the effects on grade 1–3 reading achievement of providing intensive 

interventions to children who are on the margin of identification for reading difficulties? 

3. Design: The evaluation is relying on a combination of descriptive data collection from school 

staff and regression discontinuity methods to address the research questions, and is 

focusing on practices in place during the 2011–12 school year. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The final report was released in November 2015.
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 188 

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: 

o 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. 

o 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/projects/evaluation/disabilities_rti.asp

National Evaluation of the IDEA Technical Assistance and Dissemination Program: 

Interim Report 

1. Study Purpose: IDEA, which was most recently reauthorized in 2004, provides funds to 

assist states and local eduational 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. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 What are the primary technical assistance activities of the TA&D program? 

 What are states’ and other stakeholders’ needs for technical assistance and to what 

extent are these needs addressed by TA&D centers or other sources? 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 189 

 To what extent are states and other stakeholders satisfied with the products and 

services received from TA&D program centers? 

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 techincal 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: An interim report was released in October 2013. The 

final report is expected in October 2016. 

5. Key Findings from the Interim Report:

 TA&D centers most commonly reported providing technical assistance on the topics of 

parent and family involvement and data systems and use of data for improvement. 

States identified (a) “General Supervision/Monitoring,” (b) “early childhood transition,” 

(c) “financing of services/financing for special education,” and (d) “Response to 

Intervention” as the topics for which they had the greatest need for technical assistance 

in 2010–11.

 Many TA&D centers provide technical assistance on similar topics. For example, 

14 states received “high intensity” technical assistance (i.e., frequent training or 

consultation) on the same topic from 5 different centers. This evaluation was unable to 

establish whether such cases are indicators of inefficiency or of complementary and 

coordinated services. 

 State staff rated the majority of technical assistance experiences they had with TA&D 

centers as “very satisfactory” (71 percent). On average, customers receiving high 

intensity technical assistance were significantly more satisfied than those receiving lower 

intensity (i.e., infrequent training and consultation or web-only support). Satisfaction did 

vary to some degree depending on the special education topic being addressed. 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20144000/pdf/20144000.pdf 

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. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 190 

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? 

 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. 

Three reports describing the survey results are expected in summer 2016. 

5. Key Findings from the First Report: A systematic review of the evidence on transition 

strategies was conducted, to inform development of the surveys and interpretation of the 

survey results. The review found: 

 Only 16 studies were designed and carried out with sufficient rigor to meet IES’ WWC 

standards. 

 Based on these studies, community-based work programs were found to have mixed 

effects on students’ employment outcomes and potentially positive effects on 

postsecondary education outcomes. Functional life skills development programs were 

found to have potentially positive effects on independent living outcomes although the 

extent of evidence was small. 

6. Link to Additional Information: 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/disabilities_ideatrans.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 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 191 

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. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: A descriptive report on the survey findings is 

expected in 2017. 

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 does early intervention service delivery vary across states? 

 How do special education and related services received by children and youth vary over 

time, across states, and by school characteristics? 

 How does the distribution of personnel providing special education services vary over 

time, across states, and by school characteristics? 

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. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 192 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The report is expected in summer 2016. 

5. Link to Additional Information: 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/disabilities_persserv.asp 

Teacher Effectiveness 

Elementary School Math Professional Development Impact Evaluation 

1. Study Purpose: Title II, Part A of the current ESEA provides monetary resources to improve 

teacher quality through professional development (PD). Currently there is relatively little 

rigorous empirical evidence on the components of an effective PD 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 PD 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 6 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, fourthgrade teachers were randomly assigned to receive either the PD intervention or businessas-usual PD. Data collection includes measures of teacher knowledge and practice, and 

student achievement obtained from administrative records. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The report is expected in 2016. 

5. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_mathpd.asp

Evaluation of the Teacher Incentive Fund 

1. Study Purpose: The Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) is authorized by Title V, Part D of ESEA 

and annual appropriations acts. 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. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 193 

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? 

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: The first report was released in September 2014. The 

second report was released in September 2015. The third and fourth reports, which will 

include updated impacts, are expected in 2016 and 2017. 

5. Key Findings from the Second Report:

The main findings among all TIF districts with 2010 awards are: 

 Ninety percent of all TIF districts in 2012–13 reported implementing at least 3 of the 

4 required components for teachers, and only about one-half (52 percent) reported 

implementing all four. This was a slight improvement from the first year of 

implementation. 

 Near the end of the second year of implementation, 65 percent of TIF districts reported 

that sustainability of the program was a major challenge. In contrast, no more than onethird of districts reported that other activities related to their program were a major 

challenge. 

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: 

 Few evaluation districts structured pay-for-performance bonuses to align well with TIF 

guidance in the grant competition notice. 

 Educators’ understanding of key program components improved from the first to the 

second year, but many teachers still did not understand that they were eligible for a 

bonus. They also continued to underestimate how much they could earn from 

performance bonuses. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 194 

 Offering educators pay-for-performance had small, positive impacts on their students’

reading achievement; impacts on students’ math achievement were not statistically 

significant but similar in magnitude. 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_incentive.asp

Impact Evaluation of Teacher and Leader Performance Evaluation Systems 

1. Study Purpose: Through the Race to the Top and Teacher Incentive Fund grant programs, 

as well the ESEA Flexibility waivers, the Department has emphasized the policy of 

evaluating educator effectiveness and providing educators useful and timely feedback 

needed to improve practice and, ultimately, student achievement. The current study is an 

intervention study designed to examine the implementation and impacts of a package of 

performance evaluation system components that include features that are currently 

promoted in policy discussions. The evaluation system components include measures of 

student achievement growth, classroom observations and measures of principal leadership. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 What is the impact of the performance evaluation system on student achievement? On 

teachers’ classroom practices? On teacher mobility? 

 What are districts’ and educators’ experiences with implementation? 

3. Design: Eight districts participated in the study. Within each district, a subset of 

approximately 15 schools were randomly assigned to receive the study’s treatment during 

2012–13 and 2013–14 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, based on the Framework for 

Teaching or the CLASS, depending on district preference. Teachers also received valueadded scores in math and/or reading, when possible. Principals in study schools received 

feedback on their performance based on the VAL-ED, which was administered twice per 

study year. Data were collected on teacher and principal professional development 

experiences during 2012–13 and 2013–14, as well as their perceptions of the usefulness of 

performance feedback received. The study also collected student achievement data from 

district records for 2012–13 and 2013–14 and conducted classroom observations in 2013–

14. Teacher mobility and retention were measured through fall 2014. Implementation data 

collected include measures such as the frequency with which teachers were observed and 

received feedback, and the percentage of teachers who participated in a 360-degree 

assessment that is part of the principal performance evaluation system, in each of the two 

implementation years. The study will also look at the characteristics of the observation 

measures, VAL-ED ratings, and value-added scores, including the extent to which the 

measures differentiate performance. 

4. Estimated Completion Date: A report on the study’s first year of implementation is expected 

in 2016. A report on the study’s second year of implementation and impacts is expected in 

2017.

5. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_performance.asp
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 195 

Study of the Distribution of Effective Teaching 

1. Study Purpose: Recent Department of Education initiatives, such as Race to the Top, the 

Teacher Incentive Fund, and the ESEA Flexibility policy, are designed in part to ensure that 

disadvantaged students have equal access to effective teaching. This study provides 

information about the extent that disadvantaged students receive less effective teaching 

than other students. The study also examines teacher mobility in participating districts and 

how patterns of mobility might contribute to unequal access. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 To what extent do disadvantaged students have equal access to effective teaching 

within school districts, and how does this change over time? 

 Is access to effective teaching related to different patterns of teacher hiring, retention, 

and mobility for high- and low-poverty schools? 

3. Design: The study is descriptive. It documents the distribution of effective teaching, as 

measured by value added, and changes in the distribution of effective teaching across the 

2008–09 through 2012–13 school years. The study also describes district polices designed 

to address inequitable distribution of effective teaching implemented during those years. 

Lastly, the study will examine teacher mobility patterns within participating districts. Data 

collection included the annual collection of district administrative records, including student 

achievement, to conduct value-added analyses as well as annual semi-structured interviews 

with district leadership to provide information on district policies. Data collection also 

included district personnel data to examine teacher mobility within participating districts. The 

study will be conducted in 29 geographically dispersed school districts. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The first report on school years 2008–09 through 

2010–11 was released in November 2013. The final report on school years 2008–09 

through 2012–13 is expected in 2016. 

5. Key Findings from the First Report:

 The first report focused on access to effective teaching in 29 geographically dispersed 

school districts and found that: 

 On average, disadvantaged students had less access to effective teaching than 

relatively more advantaged students. Providing equal access to effective teaching for 

disadvantaged and other students would reduce the student achievement gap from 

28 percentile points to 26 percentile points in English/language arts (ELA) and from 

26 percentile points to 24 percentile points in math in a given year. 

 Access to effective teaching patterns for disadvantaged students were similar over the 

three years studied, 2008–09 through 2010–11. 

 Access to effective teaching varied across study districts. Access ranged from districts 

with equal access to districts with differences in access as large as 0.106 standard 

deviations of student test scores in ELA and 0.081 standard deviations of student test 

scores in math, favoring relatively more advantaged students. 

 Access to effective teaching was more related to the school assignment of students and 

teachers than the way that students were assigned to teachers within schools. 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_distribution.asp
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 196 

Study of Teacher Preparation Experiences and Early Teacher Effectiveness 

1. Study Purpose: A primary focus of Title II, Part A, the Improving Teacher State Formula 

Grants program, is on the improvement of teacher quality Little research exists, however, to 

inform how best to prepare teachers for the classroom. The current study explores the 

variation in teachers’ preparation experiences. If feasible, it will examine whether the 

instructional skills that teachers learn about and have opportunities to practice in their 

preparation programs are associated with novice teachers’ effectiveness 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 teachers from grades 4 through 6 who are responsible 

for language arts and/or math instruction participated in the study. The study defines novice 

teachers as those in their first three years in the profession. 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. If 

feasible, the study will 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. Among novice teachers who have 

five or more English language learners in their classroom, the study will also examine the 

relationships between these teachers’ preparation experiences and teacher value added 

scores based on achievement of their English language learners, if feasible.

4. Estimated Completion Date: The report on this study is expected in 2017. 

5. Link to Additional Information: 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_teacherprep_early.asp

Other 

Case Studies of Schools Receiving SIGs: Final Report 

1. Study Purpose: SIGs are authorized by Title I, Section 1003(g) of 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 lowest-achieving schools. To qualify for the three-year 

grant, schools must (among other requirements) be 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. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 197 

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: Two descriptive reports were release in May 2011 

and October 2012. A report on the first year of SIG implementation was released in May 

2014. The final report is expected in spring 2016. 

5. Key Findings from the First Report: 

 The 25 schools differed in their community and fiscal context, their performance and 

reform history, and their interpretation of the causes of—and potential solutions for—

their performance problems. 

 Approaches to leadership varied across the 25 schools, with most principals exhibiting a 

mix of transformational, instructional, and strategic leadership qualities. 

 The 25 schools identified 11 improvement strategies and actions, most often increasing 

professional development activities, replacing the principal, and increasing learning time. 

Most of the schools did not perceive SIG as the primary impetus for change: just 7 of the 

25 schools experienced a disruption from past practice, and in 19 of the 25 schools, the 

improvement strategies and actions in the first year of SIG were a continuation of 

activities or plans that predated SIG. 

 All but one of the 25 schools perceived improvement in at least some areas, most often 

a safe and orderly school climate, and teacher collaboration. Schools that perceived the 

most improvements were more likely to have experienced a disruption from past 

practice, and to have principals with higher levels of strategic leadership. 

6. Link to Additional Information:

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/other_schoolturnaround.asp
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 198 

Evaluation of Investing in Innovation 

1. Study Purpose: Investing in Innovation (i3) is a competitive grant program that funds 

entitites 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 implemnetation, 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? 

 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 and will focus primarily on 

findings for the first cohort (FY 2010), is expected in 2016. 

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 (NAGB), 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 is 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. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 199 

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 is focusing on the achievement levels used in reporting NAEP results for 

the reading and mathematics assessments in grades 4, 8, and 12. Specifically, the study is 

reviewing 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 is relying on an independent 

committee of experts with a broad range of expertise related to assessment, statistics, social 

science, and education policy. The project is receiving oversight from the Board on Testing 

and Assessment (BOTA) and the Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT) of the 

National Research Council. 

4. Estimated Completion Date: The report for this study is expected in 2016.

5. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/other_naep.asp

Implementation and Impact Evaluation of Race to the Top and SIGs: 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. The SIG program is authorized through Title I of the ESEA

and provides three-year awards to support turnaround in the nation’s persistently lowestachieving 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. 

Both RTT and SIG received substantial funding through the Recovery Act. This study will 

examine the implementation and impacts of RTT and SIG, focusing on the initial general 

state competition for RTT and the first cohort of SIG schools implementing intervention 

models beginning in the 2010–11 school year. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 200 

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? 

 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 RTT sample will include all 50 states and DC. Data from interviews with all 

states and DC will inform the first evaluation question. The second evaluation question will 

be 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. The SIG sample will include 

about 500 schools in 60 districts from 22 states. This sample will be 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 will inform the third and 

fifth evaluation questions. Student- and school-level achievement data will also be 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 first report was released in September 2015. The 

final report is expected in fall 2016. 

5. Key Findings from the First Report:

 Early (Round 1 and 2) RTT states used more policies and practices than non-RTT states 

in five of six areas examined: state capacity, standards and assessments, data systems, 

teachers and leaders, and charter schools (school turnaround was the exception). Later 

(Round 3) RTT states used more policies and practices than non-RTT states in just one 

area: teachers and leaders. 

 Use of policies and practices across RTT and non-RTT states was highest in the state 

capacity and data systems areas and lowest in the teachers and leaders area. 

 SIG schools used more practices than non-SIG schools in all four areas examined: 

comprehensive instructional reforms, teacher and principal effectiveness, learning time 

and community-oriented schools, and operational flexibility and support. 

 Use of practices among SIG and non-SIG schools was highest in the comprehensive 

instructional reforms area and lowest in the operational flexibility and support area. 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/other_racetotop.asp
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 201 

Implementation of Title I/II Program Initiatives 

1. Study Purpose: 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 which 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, through the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 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. Historically, 

there has been a congressionally mandated study of Title I that has also included 

information about Title II. Now that ESEA has been reauthorized, the second data collection 

for this study will be augmented to collect baseline information to evaluate the 

implementation of the new Title I and Title II provisions of ESSA. 

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, a nationally representative sample of districts and schools, and teachers within 

those schools through surveys in the 2013–14 school year. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The first interim report, based on the findings from the 

baseline data collection, is expected in 2016. 

5. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/other_titleI.asp

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, 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 202 

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, 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 

2016.

5. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/other_rtt.asp

Policy and Program Studies Service (PPSS)

Study of the Early Implementation of the ESEA Flexibility Provision 

1. Study Purpose: On September 23, 2011, President Obama announced the opportunity for 

states to request flexibility of certain ESEA provisions to help states move forward with 

efforts to improve student achievement and the quality of instruction in their schools. With 

input from broad and diverse stakeholders, the Department designed the ESEA Flexibility 

initiative so that states could build on their existing reform efforts to: (1) transition to collegeand career-ready standards and aligned assessments; (2) implement new systems of 

differentiated recognition, accountability, and support for schools; (3) evaluate and support 

teacher and principal effectiveness in more robust ways; and (4) reduce duplication and 

unnecessary burden on school districts by removing any duplicative and burdensome 

reporting requirements. The early implementation study will provide documentation of early 

state- and local-level implementation of the flexibility provision. This information is intended 

to inform federal and state policymakers and to support the Department’s monitoring and 

technical assistance to states. 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 prior experiences and rationales guided state approaches to accountability and 

support under the ESEA Flexibility initiative, including states’ selection of AMOs? 

 What are the primary components of state accountability and support systems under 

ESEA Flexibility? 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 203 

 What modes of communication did states and districts use to inform and build local-level 

understanding of state systems under ESEA Flexibility? To what extent were these 

communication efforts perceived as effective? 

 How did local-level officials perceive state accountability systems under ESEA Flexibility, 

including the criteria being used to identify low-performing schools? 

 What approaches are states taking to identify and intervene in low-performing schools 

and districts? What improvement strategies did principals report implementing? 

 What structures or mechanisms were states and districts using to support lowperforming schools, and how did principals perceive these supports? 

 How did states and districts perceive their capacity to implement ESEA Flexibility 

provisions, and what factors did states and districts report as challenging and supporting 

their implementation efforts? 

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. Estimated Completion Date: The final report is scheduled for completion in winter 2015–16. 

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. Estimated Completion Date: The final report is scheduled for completion in winter 2015–16. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 204 

Evaluation of the Teacher Incentive Fund: Final Report 

1. Study Purpose: This study examines program implementation in the first two cohorts of TIF 

grantees (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 

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. Estimated Completion Date: The final report is scheduled for completion in winter 2015–16.

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 are the purposes of the new teacher evaluation systems? With what stakeholders 

did districts consult and what measures were included when designing the new 

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 achievement and other data to evaluate teacher 

performance? 

 How did the districts use teacher evaluation results to make personnel decisions? 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 205 

 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 districts, 

principals, and teachers? 

3. Design: This descriptive study relies 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. Estimated Completion Date: The final report is scheduled for completion in winter 2015–16. 

National Evaluation of Title III Implementation: A Description of English Learner Student 

Achievement in Four Jurisdictions 

1. Study Purpose: Under ESEA Title III accountability provisions, annual measurable 

achievement objectives (AMAOs) are used to provide district-level and state-level summary 

information about EL students’ progress in attaining English proficiency and meeting state 

standards in English/language arts and mathematics. However, AMAOs provide only a 

partial understanding of EL performance because they do not control for the compositional 

shifts in the EL student population, disaggregate performance by subgroup characteristics 

(e.g., level of English language proficiency, poverty status), or provide continuous measures 

of student achievement. This report uses longitudinally linked student-level assessment data 

in four jurisdictions—New York, Texas, and two school districts in California—to examine 

student progress for consistent cohorts of ELs, former ELs, and non-ELs who could be 

followed for three years. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 Are EL students making progress in learning English? Does the amount of progress vary 

by student characteristics? 

 How long does it take for EL students to attain proficiency on the state ELP 

assessments, and to be redesignated as former English learners (ELs)? 

 Are EL students making progress toward meeting achievement targets on state content 

assessments in English/language arts and mathematics? 

 Are achievement gaps narrowing for EL students and for former EL students? 

3. Design: The study analyzed consistent cohorts of those students who were tested in the 

base year and in each of the two subsequent years (i.e., those with three consecutive years 

of assessment data). Most analyses examined a three-year period, from 2006–07 through 

2008–09 for New York and from 2005–06 through 2007–08 for the other three jurisdictions. 

The analytic sample of students is not representative of all students served by the four 

jurisdictions. Therefore, the findings cannot be generalized to all ELs, non-ELs, or former ELs 

in those states and districts, or to the nation as a whole. 

4. Estimated Completion Date: The final report is scheduled for completion in winter 2015–16. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 206 

Study of English Learners with Special Needs 

1. Study Purpose: The purpose of this study is to describe, on an exploratory scale, common 

issues in the identification of ELs for special education. The report will focus on four topics: 

procedures and practices used in identification; assessment data and instruments used to 

help determine ELs eligibility for special education; personnel, qualifications, and 

professional development to assist in identification; and criteria on which decisions are 

made to exit ELs with disabilities out of their language instruction programs. 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

 What procedures and instruments are used to evaluate and identify ELs with disabilities? 

 What personnel are involved in the assessment and identification of ELs with disabilities 

(as distinct from non-ELs) and what are their roles? 

 What are typical criteria for exiting ELs with disabilities from language instruction 

educational programs? 

 What procedures, practices, and instruments are used to assess and identify ELs with 

disabilities, and how do these differ from those used with non-ELs? 

 What are the roles, backgrounds, and qualifications of school and district personnel 

involved in the assessment and identification of ELs with disabilities? 

 What challenges do districts and schools encounter in the assessment and identification 

of disabilities among ELs and what strategies do they use to overcome these 

challenges? 

 What procedures and practices do districts and schools use to exit ELs with disabilities 

from language instruction educational programs, and what are the challenges they face? 

3. Design: The study relied on a purposive sample of a diverse group of six case study 

districts, containing 18 schools total, which the study team visited in spring 2013. Study 

methods onsite largely consisted of interviews of a large number and variety of stakeholders 

involved in ESL, special education, and related support services at both the school district 

and school levels. Other data collected included special education data; published reports, 

guides, and regulations related to identification; and data on district and school websites. 

The data were coded to one or more of the three key questions and the findings were 

compared to those from a prior review of research. 

4. Estimated Completion Date: The final report is scheduled for completion in spring 2016. 

Feasibility Study on Improving the Quality of School-Level Expenditure Data 

1. Study Purpose: This feasibility study explores options for improving the completeness, 

consistency, and accuracy of school-level expenditures that would be most appropriate to 

include for assessing equity, as well as technical and operational challenges for including 

certain types of expenditures. The study also examines the experiences of states and 

districts that currently track school-level expenditures, including variations in definitions and 

practices used in these jurisdictions, the types of changes to accounting systems and 

practices that are required, and the potential cost of implementing such strategies. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 207 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

 In states and districts that currently track expenditures at the school level, what types of 

personnel and nonpersonnel expenditures are included in the school-level data? 

 What is the quality of existing school-level expenditure data? What specific steps could 

be taken to improve the completeness, consistency, and accuracy of these data? 

 What changes would states and districts need to make to track expenditures at the 

school level if they do not currently do so? What costs have states and districts incurred 

to implement such data systems? 

3. Design: The study will explore options for improving the completeness, consistency, and 

accuracy of school-level expenditure reporting by: (1) convening an expert panel to identify 

specific challenges and potential solutions; (2) interviewing fiscal staff in five states and four 

school districts that have finance systems that track school-level finance data; and 

(3) collecting and analyzing available school-level expenditure data in the selected states 

and districts. 

4. Estimated Completion Date: The final report is scheduled for completion in summer 2016. 

Study of High School Strategies to Improve Graduation Rates 

1. Study Purpose: This nationally representative survey of high school administrators is 

examining strategies that schools are using 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 what schools are implementing what activities with what students 

under what circumstances or conditions. The final report will use the survey data to describe 

the use and prevalence of various high school reform strategies to support at-risk youth and 

will compare high schools with high and low graduation rates. 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

 What strategies are high schools implementing to help students stay in school and 

graduate? Do these strategies very 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: The final report is scheduled for completion in summer 2016. 

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 document 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. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 208 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 How have KEAs been developed and adopted by four states that were early to adopt a 

comprehensive KEA? 

 How are KEAs being implemented by 12 school districts within four states that were 

early adopters? 

 How do these four states and their districts and schools communicate and use KEA 

results to inform policy and practice? 

 What lessons did states, districts, and schools learn about KEA adoption, 

implementation, and use? 

3. Design: The nested sample design includes four states, 12 districts, and 24 schools. Data 

collection will include review of state and local documents, phone interviews with SEA 

preschool directors and professional development staff who facilitate district-level training, 

and in-person interviews with district administrators, principals, kindergarten teachers, and 

other staff involved in local administration of KEAs. 

4. Estimated Completion Date: The final report is scheduled for completion in summer 2016.

Study of Experiences and Needs of Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP) 

Grantees and Subgrantees 

1. Study Purpose: The purpose of this descriptive study is to examine how grantees and 

subgrantees use REAP funds provided through the Small, Rural School Achievement 

(SRSA) and Rural and Low-Income Schools (RLIS) programs—on their own or in 

combination with other federal funds—as well as to explore technical assistance needs 

related to REAP. The study will inform program operations, technical assistance to grantees, 

and future reauthorization of the programs. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 What are REAP grantees’ experiences of grant eligibility determination? To what extent 

do districts contact, or are they contacted by, the SEA regarding eligibility? 

 On what types of activities are REAP funds spent and in what proportions? What are 

grantees’ experiences of deciding how to target funds (e.g., processes and factors, 

personnel and stakeholders involved, integration in larger spending decisions)? Do 

districts perceive a need for greater flexibility in the use of federal Title VI funds? How 

does this vary by grantee characteristic? 

 How do grantees use REAP funds in combination with other federal program funds? To 

what extent are other Department or other federal programs (e.g., E-Rate, USDA Rural 

Development grants) considered or integrated? What are the challenges in spending 

REAP funds? 

 How many SRSA-eligible grantees use REAP flexibility? Does the use of flexibility differ 

by grantee characteristics? If flexibility is not used, why not? Exactly how do SRSA 

grantees tend to use flexibility? 

 What are the major challenges and technical assistance needs that REAP grantees face 

(e.g., eligibility determination and compliance with program requirements)? Are there 

technical assistance needs that grantees perceive to be unaddressed? For what? What 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 209 

is the frequency of technical assistance use by grantees? What is the purpose of such 

assistance, and who offers it? 

 Is there anything that districts or states would recommend changing about the REAP 

program administration or design? 

3. Design: The study consists 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 

states receiving REAP funds. Data collection will begin in winter 2015 and is expected to be 

completed by spring 2015. At the state level, the study will include 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 will 

include 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 will include questions about program 

administration, technical assistance needs, and recommendations for changing the REAP 

program to better meet the needs of rural districts. 

4. Estimated Completion Date: The final report is scheduled for completion in fall 2016. 

A Study of Practices to Improve Learning in Kindergarten Through Third Grade 

1. Study Purpose: This study will summarize 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 will 

conduct case studies of five programs that help improve cognitive, social-emotional, and/or 

academic outcomes for disadvantaged students in grades K-3 and that may build on the 

positive effects of preschool by using policies, programs, and practices from the two topic 

areas (a and b above). 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

 What practices do educators and policymakers use to align preschool through thirdgrade (PK-3) education, and what considerations should stakeholders take into account 

when designing such PK-3 initiatives? 

 What are the findings and quality of research on the impact of differentiated instruction 

on children in kindergarten and first grade? 

 What are the characteristics (e.g., resources, personnel, staff characteristics, training, 

setting, population serviced) of PK-3 or differentiated instruction programs that aim to 

increase cognitive, social-emotional, or academic outcomes of students? 

 On what research, theory, and/or experiences did the designers of these programs base 

the program structure and content? 

 What are the challenges of implementing these programs, and how have staff and 

leaders tried to overcome these challenges? 

 How does the organization implementing the program ensure its sustainability? 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 210 

3. Design: The literature review covers two topics: (1) preschool and K–3 alignment, and (2) 

differentiated instruction in kindergarten and first grade. The case studies will examine five 

sites that are implementing PK-3 education or differentiating instruction in kindergarten and 

first grade. The research time will interview principals, teachers, evaluators, and funders to 

understand programs’ characteristics, challenges and solutions, and the sustainability of the 

programs. 

4. Estimated Completion Date: The final case study report is scheduled for completion in winter 

2016–17.

Implementation Study of the Turnaround School Leaders Program 

1. Study Purpose: This study will examine the implementation of the Turnaround School 

Leaders Program (TSLP). The study will provide information on how grantees identify, 

develop, and support leaders and aspiring leaders of low-performing schools. The study will 

also examine how grantees: (1) maintain fidelity to the plans set forth in their original 

proposals; (2) use data to examine progress; and (3) work with project partners to meet 

goals. 

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? 

 To what extent is grantee implementation of their projects consistent with their original 

proposals? 

 How are grantees measuring the success of their TSLP projects, and do early outcome 

data show promising results? 

3. Design: The study will include case studies of five TSLP grantees, including each grantees’ 

partners; an analysis of extant data, including grantee applications, early outcomes data, 

and other relevant project-specific data; and surveys of all local coordinators of TSLP 

projects. 

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 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? 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 211 

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 final report is scheduled for completion in fall 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? 

3. Design: The study will include both in-depth case studies and surveys of a nationally 

representative sample of 470 districts and 1,410 schools. The case studies will include 

approximately 30 Title I schools including both schoolwide and targeted assistance 

programs and data collection for the case studies will include telephone interviews as well 

as extant documents and data, including Title I budgets and plans. 

4. Estimated Completion Date: The final report is scheduled for completion in fall 2017. 

Study of Digital Learning Resources for Instructing English Learners (ELs) 

1. Study Purpose: This study will examine the use of digital learning resources (DLRs) to 

support the English language acquisition and academic achievement of ELs in K-12 

education. Specifically, the study will focus on DLRs that may be considered “apps” for 

enhancing instruction for EL students, including computer software, online programs, 

websites, mobile applications, and mobile computing devices. 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

 How do districts and schools make decisions regarding investments in digital learning 

resources to support ELs, and how do they identify and select specific DLRs for ELs? 

What DLRs are most commonly used to support ELs? 

 How do teachers of EL students use DLRs in the instruction of ELs? Do they receive 

professional development or coaching in effective use of DLRs? If so, what professional 

development approaches do they find to be most helpful? 

 What barriers inhibit ELs’ use of existing DLRs in the classroom and at home, and how 

can districts, schools, and DLR developers address those issues? 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 212 

 How do districts and schools define and measure the success of their use of technology 

to support ELs? 

 How could developers of DLRs and practitioners improve the usefulness of these tools 

for teaching EL students? 

3. Design: The study will explore the range of such apps that are available for use with EL 

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 EL 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 final report is scheduled for completion in fall 2017. 

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 ELs 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? 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 213 

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 final report is scheduled for completion in fall 2017. 

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? 

 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 agencies assist students in transitioning to districts 

and schools, including those outside their jurisdictions? 

 How do state correctional facilities plan and implement institutionwide Part D projects? 

 How do grantees assess the educational outcomes of students participating in Part Dfunded 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 final report is scheduled for completion in fall 2017.
APPENDICES

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 214 

Appendix F: Selected Department Web Links and Education 

Resources

College Cost Lists 

The Department provides college affordability and transparency lists under the Higher 

Education Opportunity Act of 2008. Each list is broken out into nine different sectors to allow 

students to compare costs at similar types of institutions, including career and technical 

programs. http://collegecost.ed.gov/catc/

College Navigator 

The Department provides a multidimensional review of higher education options for students 

and provides links to other sites. http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/

Open Government Initiative 

The Department’s Open Government Initiative is designed to improve the way the Department 

shares information, learns from others, and collaborates to develop the best solutions for 

America’s students. http://www2.ed.gov/about/open.html 

College Scorecard 

The College Scorecard tool in the Department’s College Affordability and Transparency Center 

makes it easier to find out more about a college’s affordability and value. The College Scorecard 

has been redesigned as a tool that further commits to the administration’s Open Data Initiative 

and incorporates direct input from students, families, and their advisers to provide the clearest, 

most accessible, and most reliable national data on college cost, graduation, debt, and 

postcollege earnings. The old way of assessing college choices relied on static ratings lists 

compiled by someone who was deciding what value to place on different factors. The new way 

of assessing college choices, with the help of technology and open data, makes it possible for 

anyone—a student, a school, a policymaker, or a researcher—to decide which factors to 

evaluate. http://collegecost.ed.gov/scorecard/index.aspx

One-Stop Shopping for Student Loans 

The Department provides a site from which students can manage their loans. 

http://studentloans.gov/

College Preparation Checklist 

This Departmental tool gives prospective college students step-by-step instructions on how to 

prepare academically and financially for education beyond high school. Each section is split into 

subsections for students and parents, explaining what needs to be done and which publications 

or websites might be useful to them. http://studentaid.ed.gov 

Additional resources within the checklist assist students in finding scholarships and grants. 

http://studentaid.ed.gov/students/publications/checklist/main.html

https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/types/grants-scholarships/finding-scholarships
APPENDICES

SELECTED DEPARTMENT WEB LINKS AND EDUCATION RESOURCES

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 215 

College Completion Toolkit 

The College Completion Toolkit provides information that governors and other state leaders can 

use to help colleges in their state increase student completion rates. It highlights key strategies 

and offers models to learn from, as well as other useful resources. http://www.ed.gov/collegecompletion/governing-win 

Resources for Adult and Career and Technical Education 

The Department, through the Perkins Collaborative Resource Network, offers resources and 

tools for the development and implementation of comprehensive career guidance programs. 

This includes guides for students, parents, teachers, counselors, and administrators across 

relevant topics, such as planning and exploring careers, selecting institutions, finances, and 

guidance evaluation. This source is an example of interdepartmental cooperation between the 

Department and the U.S. Department of Labor. 

http://cte.ed.gov/nationalinitiatives/gandctools.cfm?&pass_dis=1

The Literacy Information and Communication System (LINCS) is a Department Initiative that 

seeks to expand evidence-based practice in the field of adult literacy. LINCS provides highquality, on-demand educational opportunities to practitioners of adult education in order to help 

adult learners successfully transition to postsecondary education and employment. LINCS is 

comprised of three components: 1) the LINCS Resource Collection provides free online access 

to high-quality, evidence-based materials and self-access courses to help practitioners and 

state and local staff improve programs, services, instruction, and teacher quality; 2) LINCS 

Regional Professional Development Centers work with states to offer practitioners training and 

professional development activities; and 3) LINCS Community provides an online social learning 

space (a community of practice) for networking, information sharing, and collaboration among 

adult education leadership, professional developers, administrative staff, and practitioners 

across the country. http://lincs.ed.gov/

Program Inventory 

The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, P.L. 111-352, requires that OMB establish a single 

website with a central inventory of all federal programs, including the purpose of each program 

and its contribution to the mission and goals of the Department. The initial Federal Program 

Inventory was published in May 2013. The Department described each program within 27 

budgetary accounts, as well as how the programs support the Department’s broader Strategic 

Goals and Objectives. 

Since that time, Congress passed the Data Accountability and Transparency Act (DATA Act) 

requiring new public reporting requirements, which impact the definition of program used in this 

guidance. OMB is currently working with agencies to merge the implementation of the DATA Act 

and the Federal Program Inventory requirements to the extent possible to avoid duplicative 

efforts. While OMB and agencies determine the right implementation strategy, the initial Federal 

Program Inventory remains available on performance.gov or at 

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/inventory.pdf. 

Grants Information and Resources 

In addition to student loans and grants, the Department offers other discretionary grants. These 

are awarded using a competitive process, and formula grants, which use formulas determined 
APPENDICES

SELECTED DEPARTMENT WEB LINKS AND EDUCATION RESOURCES

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 216 

by Congress with no application process. This site lists Department discretionary grant 

competitions previously announced, as well as those planned for later announcement, for new 

awards organized according to the Department’s principal program offices. 

http://www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/find/edlite-forecast.html 

For more information on the Department’s programs, see http://www2.ed.gov/programs.

Practice Guides for Educators 

The Department offers guides that help educators address everyday challenges faced in 

classrooms and schools. Developed by a panel of nationally recognized experts, practice guides 

consist of actionable recommendations, strategies for overcoming potential roadblocks, and an 

indication of the strength of evidence supporting each recommendation. The guides themselves 

are subjected to rigorous external peer review. Users can sort by subject area, academic level, 

and intended audience to find the most recent, relevant, and useful guides. 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications_reviews.aspx 

Performance Data 

EDFacts is a Department initiative and data repository to put performance data at the center of 

policy, management, and budget decisions for all K–12 educational programs. 

http://www.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/edfacts/index.html 

Condition of Education and Digest of Education Statistics 

The Condition of Education is a congressionally mandated annual report that summarizes 

developments and trends in education using the latest available statistics. The report presents 

statistical indicators containing text, figures, and data from early learning through graduate-level 

education. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/ 

The primary purpose of the Digest of Education Statistics is to provide a compilation of 

statistical information covering the broad field of American education from prekindergarten 

through graduate school. The Digest includes a selection of data from many sources, both 

government and private, and draws especially on the results of surveys and activities carried out 

by the NCES. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/ 

Projections of Education Statistics to 2021 

For the 50 states and the District of Columbia, the tables, figures, and text in this report contain 

data on projections of public elementary and secondary enrollment and public high school 

graduates to the year 2021. The report includes a methodology section that describes the 

models and assumptions used to develop national and state-level projections. 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2013008 

National Assessment of Educational Progress 

The National Assessment of Educational Progress assesses samples of students in grades 4, 8, 

and 12 in various academic subjects. Results of the assessments are reported for the nation 

and states in terms of achievement levels—Basic, Proficient, and Advanced.

http://nationsreportcard.gov/ 
APPENDICES

SELECTED DEPARTMENT WEB LINKS AND EDUCATION RESOURCES

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 217 

Government Accountability Office 

The Government Accountability Office supports Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and helps improve the performance and accountability of the federal government 

for the benefit of the American people. http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/agency.php 

Office of Inspector General 

The Office of Inspector General conducts independent and objective audits, investigations, 

inspections, and other activities to promote the efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity of the 

Department’s programs and operations. http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/index.html 

For a list of recent reports, go to: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/reports.html. 
APPENDICES

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 218 

Appendix G: Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations

AARTS Audit Accountability and Resolution Tracking System 

ABCP Asset-Backed Commercial Paper 

ADA Anti-Deficiency Act

AFR Agency Financial Report 

AP Advanced Placement 

APG Agency Priority Goals 

APP Annual Performance Plan 

APR Annual Performance Report 

BIE Bureau of Indian Education (U.S. Department of the Interior)

AY Academic Year 

CAP Goals Cross-Agency Priority Goals 

CCDF Child Care Development Fund 

CCDR Cohort Default Rate 

CCSO Council of Chief State School Officers 

CEDS Common Education Data Standards 

CFO Chief Financial Officer 

CFO Act Chief Financial Officers’ Act of 1990

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CoSN Consortium for School Networking 

CPS Current Population Survey 

CRDC Civil Rights Data Collection 

CY Calendar Year

DATA Act Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 

DEC Division of Early Childhood 

DM Document Management 

DOI U.S. Department of the Interior 

DOJ U.S. Department of Justice
APPENDICES

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 219 

DST Data Strategy Team 

EAG Enhanced Assessment Grants 

EASN Equitable Access Support Network 

EC Early Childhood 

ECPC Early Childhood Personnel Center 

ECS Education Commission on the States 

EDGAR Education Department General Administrative Regulations 

ELC Early Learning Challenge 

ELC TA Early Learning Challenge Technical Assistance Center 

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 

FPCO Family Policy Compliance Office 

FSA Federal Student Aid 

FY Fiscal Year 

GEAR UP Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs 

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
APPENDICES

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 220 

HEAL Health Education Assistance Loans 

HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

HR Human Resources 

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 

IOM Institute of Medicine 

IPEDS Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 

ISU Implementation and Support Unit 

IT Information Technology 

JOA Job Opportunity Announcement 

KEA Kindergarten Entry Assessment 

LEA Local Education Agency 

LINCS Literacy Information and Communication Systems 

MCO Mission Critical Operation 

MSP Mathematics and Science Partnerships 

NA Not Applicable 

NAEP National Assessment of Educational Progress 

NCER National Center for Education Research 

NCES National Center for Educational Statistics 

NIEER National Institute for Early Education Research 

NPP Notice of Proposed Priorities 

NSF National Science Foundation 

OCFO Office of the Chief Financial Officer 

OCIO Office of the Chief Information Officer 

OCPO Office of the Chief Privacy Officer 

OCR Office for Civil Rights 
APPENDICES

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 221 

OCTAE Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education

OELA Office of English Language Acquisition 

OESE Office of Elementary and Secondary Education 

OET Office of Educational Technology 

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 

OSS Office of State Support 

P3 Performance Partnership Pilots 

PDG TA Preschool Development Grant Technical Assistance 

POC Principal Office Component 

PPIRS Past Performance Information Retrieval System 

PPSS Policy and Program Studies Service 

QRIS Quality Rating and Improvement Systems 

RDA Results Driven Accountability 

RELs Regional Educational Laboratories

RTT Race to the Top 

RTTA Race to the Top-Assessment 

SASA Student Achievement and School Accountability 

SASS Schools and Staffing Survey 

SEA State Education Agency 
APPENDICES

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 222 

SFA Student Financial Assistance 

SIG School Improvement Grant 

SIP Strengthening Institutions Program 

SLDS Statewide Longitudinal Data System 

SOAR Act Scholarships and Opportunities for Results Act

SSIP State Systemic Improvement Plan 

SST State Support Team

STEM Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 

SWD Students with Disabilities 

SY School Year 

TA Technical Assistance 

TBD To Be Determined 

TEACH Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grant 

TQRIS Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System 

Treasury U.S. Department of Treasury 

TRIO Federal TRIO Programs 

U.S. United States 

VR Vocation Rehabilitation 

WIOA Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 
APPENDICES

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 223 

This page intentionally left blank. 
OUR MISSION IS TO PROMOTE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND PREPARATION FOR 

GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS BY FOSTERING EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE AND 

ENSURING EQUAL ACCESS. 

WWW.ED.GOV