FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 10

Performance Plan Summary

Looking Ahead and Addressing Challenges 

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

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

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

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

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

members. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

encouraged. 

Therefore, over the next year, the Department will: 

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

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

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

demonstrated. 

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

identify opportunities for additional flexibility and support. 

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

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

mission of educating their students. 

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

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

society. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and build knowledge. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

simply a single job. 

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

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

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

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

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

postsecondary education more accessible and more affordable to all. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data Verification and Validation 

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

of data presented. OMB guidance indicates: 

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

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

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

websites).2

 

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

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

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

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

Reporting on Progress 

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

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

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

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

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

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

obtaining better outcomes for all students. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

through FY 2016. 

 

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

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

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

 

Fiscal 

Year

Total 

External 

Metrics

External 

Metrics 

Met

% 

Met

Year/Year 

Change

2014 48 31 64.6%

2015 46 31 67.4% 4.3%

2016 52 27 51.9% -23.0%
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

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

Goal 1. Postsecondary Education, Career and Technical Education, 

and Adult Education: 

Increase college access, affordability, quality, and completion by 

improving postsecondary education and lifelong learning 

opportunities for youths and adults. 

Goal Leader: Under Secretary 

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

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

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

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

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

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

participate in civic life. 

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

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

populations. 

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

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

programs. 

Public Benefit

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

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

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

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

learning opportunities. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

postsecondary education, training, and employment. 

The Department developed resources, including the College Affordability and Transparency 

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

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

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

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

 

4

 Federal Student Aid Annual Report FY 2016. 

5

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

allocated for postsecondary CTE programs.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

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

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

future borrowers. 

Goal 1 Discretionary Resources

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

FY 2016

FY 2017

FY 2018

$29,866

$29,811

$28,089

(Dollars in millions)

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities6 Supporting Goal 1 Performance 

Metrics [Dollars in Millions] 

POC Account Obj. Program 

FY 2016 

Appropriation 

FY 2017 

Annualized 

CR7

FY 2018 

President’s 

Budget 

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

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

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

OCTAE CTAE 1.1, 

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

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

OPE HE 1.1, 1.3 Federal TRIO programs 900 898 808

Subtotal 26,625 26,576 26,374 

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

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

POC = Principal Operating Component. 

CR = Continuing Resolution. 

NA = Not applicable. 

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

 

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

noncompetitive/formula programs. 

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

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

provided by the continuing resolution. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 16 

Goal 1: Details

U.S. Department 

of Education 

Indicators of 

Success Baseline

Actuals

Current 

Year 

Target

Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2016 Out-Year Targets

Trend Line 

(Actuals) Indicator 

Measurement 

Direction 

2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed8 Exceeded9

2017 2018

1.1.A. Federal 

student loan 

delinquency rate

FY: End of 

FY 2014–15

21.7%

FY: 2013–14

24.0% 

FY: 

2014–15

21.7% 

FY: 2015–

16

19.4%

FY: 2015–

16

21.0%

MET

 

18.8% >= 3 

% points 

below 

previous 

year’s actual

 DECREASE 

1.1.B. Web traffic 

to the College 

Scorecard10 

09/12/2014–

9/11/201511

91,011

(Excluding 

new 

Scorecard 

launch on 

Sept. 12, 

2015)

NA FY: 2015 

91,011 

FY: 2016

1,427,797

FY: 2016

1,500,000

NOT MET

 

1,800,000 TBD 

 

INCREASE

 

8

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

9

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. Department 

of Education 

Indicators of 

Success Baseline

Actuals

Current 

Year 

Target

Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2016 Out-Year Targets

Trend Line

(Actuals) Indicator 

Measurement

Direction

2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed8 Exceeded9

2017 2018

1.1.C. Percentage 

of first-time 

FAFSA filers 

among high 

school seniors12

SY: 

2012–13

59.2%

SY: 

2013–14

60.1% 

SY: 

2014–15

60.5% 

SY: 2015–

16

57.5%

SY: 2015–

16

59.5%–

61.5%

NOT MET

 

NA NA

INCREASE 

 

New Metric: 

Number of firsttime FAFSA filers 

among high 

school seniors 

Application 

Cycle 

Applicants 

5-Year 

Average 

2012/13–

2016/17 

2,016,304 

AY: 2014–15 

(FY: 2014) 

2,021,691 

AY: 

2015–16 

(FY: 

2015)

2,009,155 

AY: 2016–

17

(FY: 2016)

2,015,138

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

 

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

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

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

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

U.S. Department 

of Education 

Indicators of 

Success Baseline

Actuals

Current 

Year 

Target

Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2016 Out-Year Targets

Trend Line

(Actuals) Indicator 

Measurement

Direction

2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed8 Exceeded9

2017 2018

1.1.D. Index of 

national 

aggregate annual 

earnings of VR 

consumers 

(based on the 

number of 

competitive 

integrated 

employment 

outcomes, hours 

worked, and 

hourly wages of 

VR consumers) 

FY: 

2010

$57,971,317

FY: 2014 

$61,800,214 

FY: 2015 

$64,688,3

2013

FY: 2016

$66,791,9

33

FY: 2016

$65,608,8

96

MET

 

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

 

INCREASE 

 

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

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

U.S. Department 

of Education 

Indicators of 

Success Baseline

Actuals

Current 

Year 

Target

Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2016 Out-Year Targets

Trend Line

(Actuals) Indicator 

Measurement

Direction

2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed

8 Exceeded9

2017 2018

1.1.E. Index of 

national 

aggregate annual 

earnings of 

Transition-Age 

Youth (based on 

the number of 

competitive 

integrated 

employment 

outcomes, hours 

worked, and 

hourly wages of 

VR TransitionAge Youth) 

FY: 

2010

$15,971,665

FY: 2014

$18,540,576 

FY: 2015 

$19,579,0

7414

FY: 2016

$19,980,9

56

FY: 2016

$19,476,8

18

MET

 

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

 

INCREASE 

 

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

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

U.S. Department 

of Education 

Indicators of 

Success Baseline

Actuals 

Current 

Year 

Target 

Current 

Year 

Results 

Actual-to-Target 

2016 Out-Year Targets 

Trend Line 

(Actuals) Indicator 

Measurement 

Direction 

2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed8 Exceeded9

2017 2018

1.1.F. Number of 

data points or 

other information 

reports released 

on the FSA Data 

Center15

FY: 2009–14 

Aggregate 

12

NA FY: 

2014–15

12

FY: 2015–

16

15

FY: 2015–

16

15

MET

 

1516 TBD 

 

INCREASE 

1.2.A. Pell 

enrollment at 

IHEs with high 

graduation rates17

AY: 2013–14

24.1% 

NA AY: 

2013–14

24.1% 

AY 2014–

15

24.5%

AY 2014–

15

25.0%

NOT MET

 

AY 2015–16

26.0% 

AY: 2016–17

27.0% 

 

INCREASE 

 

15 Metric is aligned with an Agency Priority Goal. 

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

releases. 

17

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

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

U.S. Department 

of Education 

Indicators of 

Success Baseline 

Actuals 

Current

Year 

Target 

Current 

Year 

Results 

Actual-to-Target 

2016 Out-Year Targets 

Trend Line 

(Actuals) Indicator 

Measurement

Direction 

2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed8 Exceeded9

2017 2018

1.2.B. Number of 

states that 

develop or 

strengthen career 

pathways 

policies, 

guidance, or 

legislation 

FY: 2015 

8

NA FY: 2015 

8 

FY: 2016

20

FY: 2016

10

MET

 

37 50

 

INCREASE 

1.3.A. Degree 

attainment 

among 25–34-

year-old age 

cohort18

Current 

Population 

Survey 

(CPS) Year: 

2012

44.0% 

CPS 

Year: 2013 

44.8% 

CPS 

Year: 

2014

45.7% 

CPS 

Year: 

2015

46.5%

CPS 

Year: 

2015

46.8%

NOT MET

 

48.4% 50.5% 

 

INCREASE 

 

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

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

U.S. Department

of Education

Indicators of

Success Baseline

Actuals

Current

Year 

Target

Current

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target

2016 Out-Year Targets

Trend Line

(Actuals) Indicator 

Measurement

Direction

2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed

8 Exceeded9

2017 2018

1.3.B. Enrollment 

in IHEs below the 

minimum 

earnings 

threshold19,20

AY: 

2012–13

9.7%

NA AY: 

2012–13

9.7% 

AY: 

2013–14

10.7%

AY: 

2013–14

9.4%

NOT MET

 

NA NA

 

DECREASE 

 

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

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

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

20

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

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

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

U.S. Department

of Education

Indicators of

Success Baseline

Actuals

Current

Year 

Target

Current

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target

2016 Out-Year Targets

Trend Line

(Actuals) Indicator 

Measurement

Direction

2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed

8 Exceeded9

2017 2018

1.3.C. 

Persistence 

among first-time 

filing aid 

recipients21

FY: 2015 

79.5%22

FY: 2014 

79.6% 

FY: 2015 

79.5% 

FY: 2016

79.7%

FY: 2016

78.5%-

80.5%

MET

 

78.7%–

80.7% 

+/- one % 

point over 

prior year’s 

actual 

 

INCREASE 

1.4.A. Number of 

STEM 

postsecondary 

credentials 

awarded 

AY: 2010–11

531,018 

AY: 2011–12

556,696 

AY: 

2012–13

573,911 

AY: 2013–

14

578,583

AY: 2013–

14

608,980

NOT MET

 

637,67223 TBD 

 

INCREASE 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goal 1 FY 2016 Indicator Performance Summary 

6 (50.0%)

6 (50.0%)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Met Not Met

12 Total Indicators

NA = Not applicable. 

TBD = To be determined. 

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

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

Data Sources and Frequency of Collection: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

50 states and Washington, DC; annually 

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

1.1.E. RSA-911; annually 

1.1.F. FSA Data Center; annually 

1.2.A. Data from College Scorecard; annually 

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

(CLASP); annually 

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

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

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

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

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

1.4.A. IPEDS; annually 

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

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

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 26

Analysis and Next Steps by Objective

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

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

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

school diplomas, etc.). 

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

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

Department made progress toward strategic objective 1.1. 

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

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

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

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

related to student aid. 

FY 2016 Barriers to Success

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

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

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

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

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

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

information from an already-completed tax return. 

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

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

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

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

schools monitor their progress. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

in 2010 to 11 percent in 2013. 

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

enhanced disclosures to borrowers and strengthened consumer protections. The recompetition 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

report about feedback system data. 

The Department announced institutional participants in four experiments under the Experimental 

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

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

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

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

December 2016. 

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

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

participate in civic life.

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

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

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

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

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

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

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

about successful evidence-based programs and strategies. 

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

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

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

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

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity. 

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

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

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

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

problematic institutions or programs. 

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

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

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

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

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

the public workforce development system through enhanced coordination and collaboration 

across education and training programs, including employment and training programs 

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

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

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

enhancing performance accountability for education and employment outcomes, strengthening 

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

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

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

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

performance accountability, and the one-stop system. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

service pathways and improving outcomes for disconnected youth. 

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

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

disadvantaged populations.

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

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

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

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

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

increases, may be difficult to achieve. 

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

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

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

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

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

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

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

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

educational program. 

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

low-income students. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

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

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

Increase STEM pathway opportunities that enable access to and completion of 

postsecondary programs.

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

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

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

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

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

following strategies to support this objective: 

 strengthening the Department’s existing STEM programs; 

 enhancing interagency collaboration focused on STEM by fostering stronger linkages 

across agencies that have STEM education programming and collaborating with other 

agencies; 

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

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

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

 partnering with nongovernment strategic partners to support STEM; and 

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

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

education. 

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

advance STEM participation, such as STEM Learning Ecosystems. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

science and engineering education and employment. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

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

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

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

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

NSF. The group is focused on four major objectives: 

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

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

two- and four-year postsecondary institutions; 

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

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

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

introductory math courses at the undergraduate level. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

career exploration by empowering students with individualized career and education 

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

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

supporting and retaining students in STEM fields. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

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

Goal 2. Elementary and Secondary Education: 

Improve the elementary and secondary education system’s ability to 

consistently deliver excellent instruction aligned with rigorous 

academic standards while providing effective support services to 

close achievement and opportunity gaps, and ensure all students 

graduate high school college- and career-ready. 

Goal Leader: Assistant Secretary, Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education (OESE)

Objective 2.1: Standards and Assessments. Support implementation of internationally 

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

assessments. 

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

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

teachers and leaders. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Benefit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18 and 24 points. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

locally determined efforts to turn around low-performing schools.

Goal 2 Discretionary Resources

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

FY 2016

FY 2017

FY 2018

$34,407

$34,342

$30,876

(Dollars in millions)
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

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

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities24 Supporting Goal 2 Performance 

Metrics [Dollars in Millions]

POC Account Obj. Program 

FY 2016 

Appropriation 

FY 2017 

Annualized 

CR25

FY 2018 

President’s 

Budget 

OESE ED 2.4 School improvement grants 450 449 -- 

OESE ED 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 

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

OESE I&I 2.2 Teacher and school leader incentive 

grants 230 230 200

OESE SIP 2.5 Mathematics and science partnerships 153 152 --

OESE SIP 2.1 State assessments 378 377 377 

OESE SIP 2.2 

Supporting effective instruction state 

grants 2,256 2,252 -- 

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

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

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

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

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

Subtotal 31,959 31,898 29,005 

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

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

POC = Principal Operating Component. 

CR = Continuing Resolution. 

NA = Not applicable. 

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

 

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

noncompetitive/formula programs. 

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

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

provided by the continuing resolution.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 35

Goal 2: Details

U.S. Department of 

Education 

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals

Current 

Year 

Target

Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2016 Out-Year Targets

Trend Line 

(Actuals) Indicator Measurement 

Direction 2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed26 Exceeded27 2017 2018

2.1.A. Number of 

states/territories that have 

adopted college- and 

career-ready standards28

SY: 2012–

13

49, plus 

DC

SY: 

2013–14

51 (49 

plus D.C. 

and 

Puerto 

Rico)29

SY: 

2014–15 

51 (49 

plus D.C. 

and 

Puerto 

Rico) 

SY: 

2015–16

51

(49 plus 

D.C. and 

Puerto 

Rico)

SY: 

2015–16

52

NOT 

MET

 

52 50 

INCREASE 

2.1.B. Number of 

states/territories that are 

implementing nextgeneration reading and 

mathematics 

assessments, aligned with 

college- and career-ready 

standards30

SY: 2012–

13

0 

0 SY: 

2014–15

49 (48 

plus DC) 

SY: 

2015–16

47

SY: 

2015–16

52

NOT 

MET

 

52 50

 

INCREASE 

 

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

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

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

transition to the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). 

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

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

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

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

U.S. Department of 

Education 

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals 

Current 

Year 

Target 

Current 

Year 

Results 

Actual-to-Target 

2016 Out-Year Targets 

Trend Line 

(Actuals) Indicator Measurement 

Direction 2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed26 Exceeded27 2017 2018

2.2.A. Number of states 

that have fully 

implemented teacher and 

principal evaluation and 

support systems that 

consider multiple 

measures of effectiveness, 

with student growth as a 

significant factor31

SY: 2012–

13

6

SY: 

2013–14

7 

SY: 

2014–15

8 

SY: 

2015–16

8

SY: 

2015–16

22

NOT 

MET

 

NA NA

 

INCREASE 

2.3.A. Disparity in the rates 

of out-of-school 

suspensions for students 

with disabilities and youth 

of color (youth of color 

metric)

SY: 2011–

12

10.7 

% 

point 

disparity 

SY 2013–

14

10.6 

% point 

disparity32

Not 

Collected 

TBD

SY 

2014–15 

data 

collected 

in 2016 

and 

available 

in 2017

SY: 

2014–15

6.7

% point 

disparity

TBD TBD NA

Biennial 

Metric 

4.7 

% point 

disparity 

 

DECREASE 

 

31 Retiring metric at conclusion of FY 2016. Please see appendix B for additional information pertaining to the metric’s retirement. The FY 2017 and 2018 targets were 39 and 42, 

respectively. 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of 

Education 

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals 

Current 

Year 

Target 

Current 

Year 

Results 

Actual-to-Target

2016 Out-Year Targets 

Trend Line 

(Actuals) Indicator Measurement 

Direction 2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed26 Exceeded27 2017 2018

2.3.B. Disparity in the rates 

of out-of-school 

suspensions for students 

with disabilities and youth 

of color (SWDs, IDEA only 

metric)

SY: 2011–

12

5.7 

% point 

disparity 

SY 2013–

14

6.6 

% point 

disparity33

Not 

Collected 

TBD

SY 

2014–15 

data 

collected 

in 2016 

and 

available 

in 2017

SY: 

2014–15

2.7

% point 

disparity

TBD TBD NA

Biennial 

Metric 

1.2 

% point 

disparity 

 

DECREASE 

2.4.A. Number of 

persistently low 

graduation rate high 

schools34

SY: 2011–

12

775

SY: 

2012–13

737

SY: 

2013–14

680

SY: 

2014–15

605

SY: 

2014–15

664

MET

 

630 598

 

DECREASE 

2.4.B. Percentage of SIG 

schools in Cohort 5 that 

are above the 25th 

percentile in mathematics, 

as measured by their state 

assessments 

SY: 2013–

14 

19.7% 

NA SY: 

2013–14

19.7% 

SY: 

2014–15

21%

SY: 

2014–15

21.0%

MET 23.3% 25.6% 

 

INCREASE 

 

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

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

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

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

U.S. Department of

Education

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals

Current

Year 

Target

Current

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target

2016 Out-Year Targets

Trend Line

(Actuals) Indicator Measurement

Direction 2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed

26 Exceeded27 2017 2018

2.4.C. Percentage of SIG 

schools in Cohort 5 that 

are above the 25th 

percentile in 

reading/language arts, as 

measured by their state 

assessments 

SY: 2013–

14

20.1% 

NA SY: 

2013–14

20.1% 

SY: 

2014–15

19.5%

SY: 

2014–15

23.0%

NOT 

MET

 

25.9% 27.8% 

 INCREASE 

2.5.A. Percentage of high 

school and middle school 

teachers who teach STEM 

as their main assignment 

who hold a corresponding 

undergraduate degree35

SY: 2011–

12

62.2% 

Not 

Collected 

Not 

Collected 

TBD

Q1 of FY 

2018

65.3% NA NA NA NA NA

INCREASE 

 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of 

Education 

Indicators of Success

Baseline 

Actuals 

Current 

Year 

Target 

Current 

Year 

Results 

Actual-to-Target 

2016 Out-Year Targets 

Trend Line

(Actuals) Indicator Measurement 

Direction 2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed26 Exceeded27 2017 2018

2.5.B. Number of public 

high school graduates 

who have taken at least 

one STEM AP exam36

SY: 2011–

12

497,922 

SY: 

2013–14

555,11937

SY: 

2014–15

592,41038

SY: 

2015–16

622,553

SY: 

2015–16

632,642

NOT 

MET 

691,541 759,381 

 INCREASE 

 

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

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

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

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

Goal 2 FY 2016 Indicator Performance Summary 

12

10 Total Indicators

10 1 (10.0%)

8 2 (20.0%)

6

5 (50.0%) 4

2

2 (20.0%)

0

Met Not Met TBD NA

NA = Not applicable. 

TBD = To be determined. 

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

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

Data Sources and Frequency of Collection: 

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

2.1.B. ESEA Monitoring; annually 

2.2.A. ESEA Flexibility Applications and Monitoring; annually 

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

2.3.B. CRDC; biennially 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 42

Analysis and Next Steps by Objective

Objective 2.1: Standards and Assessments. Support implementation of internationally 

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

assessments.

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

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

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

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

making recommendations to the Department regarding whether the state has sufficiently 

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

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

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

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

2016.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

assessments, graduation rates, and early childhood outcomes. 

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

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

reviewed documentation regarding approximately 38 state assessment systems. The 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

distribution of effective teachers and leaders.

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

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

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

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

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

compensation, and other considerations. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

years. 

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

systems. 

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

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

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

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

implement their Educator Equity Plans. 

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

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

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

Educator Equity Plan. 

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

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

the ESSA on August 1, 2016. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

engagement.

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

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

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

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

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

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

operate. 

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

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

schools receiving School Improvement Grants (SIG). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

released by the Department and HHS in January 2016. 

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

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

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

systems of support for chronically absent students. 

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

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

and achievement in the nation’s schools include: 

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

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

currently supporting the National Student Attendance, Engagement, and Success 

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

establishing early warning prevention and intervention systems that aim to link 

chronically absent students with supportive services to improve student attendance and 

youth success in school and in life. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

inquiries. 

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

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

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

schools.

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

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

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

award competitive subgrants to school districts. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

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

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

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

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

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

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

states transition to the implementation of the law. 

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

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

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

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

implementing the ESSA.

 

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

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

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

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

for students to access rich STEM learning experiences.

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

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

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

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

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

for students to access rich STEM learning experiences. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Groups and actively participates in the Engagement Interagency Working Group. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

more than 200 sites across 25 states in 2016. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

support, and retention of STEM educators. 

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

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

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

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

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

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

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

for early active STEM learning. 

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

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

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

Goal 3. Early Learning: 

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

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

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

high school college- and career-ready. 

Goal Leader: Assistant Secretary, Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education (OESE) 

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

needs. 

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

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

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

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

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

assessment systems. 

Public Benefit

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

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

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

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

and social-emotional development.41 

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

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

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

at risk for academic failure who, on average, start kindergarten 12 to 14 months behind their 

peers in preliteracy and language skills.42 Studies also reveal that participating in quality early 

learning can boost children’s educational attainment and earnings later in life.43 

In FY 2016, the Department’s investments in early learning included IDEA Part C and Preschool 

Development Grants (PDG).

41 Yoshikawa, Hirokazu, Christine Weiland, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Margaret R. Burchinal, Linda M. Espinosa, William T. Gormley, 

Jens Ludwig, Katherine A. Magnuson, Deborah Phillips, and Martha J. Zaslow. Investing in Our Future: The Evidence Base on 

Preschool Education. Vol. 9. Society for Research in Child Development and Foundation for Child Development, 2013. 

42 Committee on Integrating the Science of Early Childhood Development. From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early 

Childhood Development. (2000). Jack P. Shonkoff and Deborah A. Phillips, eds. Board on Children, Youth, and Families, 

Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 

43 See, e.g., Yoshikawa, et.al., Investing in Our Future: The Evidence Base on Preschool Education, 2013. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 49

Goal 3 Discretionary Resources

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

FY 2016

FY 2017

FY 2018

$1,103

$1,100

$825

(Dollars in millions)

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities44 Supporting Goal 3 Performance 

Metrics [Dollars in Millions]

POC Account Obj. Program

FY 2016 

Appropriation 

FY 2017 

Annualized 

CR45

FY 2018 

President’s 

Budget 

OESE I&I 3.1 Preschool development grants 250 250 --

OSERS SE 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 Grants for infants and families 459 458 458

OSERS SE 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 Preschool grants 368 368 368

Subtotal 1,077 1,075 825

Other Discretionary Programs/Activities 26 26 0 

TOTAL, GOAL 3 1,103 1,100 825

POC = Principal Operating Component. 

CR = Continuing Resolution. 

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

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

noncompetitive/formula programs. 

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

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

provided by the continuing resolution.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 50

Goal 3: Details

U.S. Department of 

Education 

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals

Current 

Year 

Target

Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target

2016 Out-Year Targets

Trend Line 

(Actuals) Indicator Measurement 

Direction 2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed46 Exceeded47 2017 2018

3.1.A. Percentage of 4-year 

olds enrolled in state 

preschool programs48

SY: 

2015–16 

(FY: 2016) 

85.5% 

NA NA SY: 

2015–

16

(FY: 

2016)

85.5%

NA NA NA 92.7% 100% NA

INCREASE 

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

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

48 Metric is aligned with an Agency Priority Goal (APG). This metric is being revised from what was reported in the 2015 Annual Performance Report (APR) to focus on the 

18 Preschool Development Grants (PDG)-funded states (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada,

New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia) and more accurately reflect the grants’ impact. The data source has also been changed from National Institute 

for Early Education Research (NIEER) Yearbook to the states’ annual performance reports: Preschool Development Grants Annual Performance Reports, Data Workbook, Table A(1)

(a) and (b). 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 51

U.S. Department of 

Education 

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals

Current 

Year 

Target 

Current 

Year 

Results 

Actual-to-Target 

2016 Out-Year Targets 

Trend Line 

(Actuals) Indicator Measurement 

Direction 2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed46 Exceeded47 2017 2018

INCREASE 

SY: 

2014–15

(FY: 

2015)

8 

SY: 

2015–

16

(FY: 

2016)

Q3 of 

Following FY

SY:

2015–16

(FY: 

2016)

10

 

3.2.A. Number of states 

that require a teacher with 

a bachelor’s degree in a 

state preschool program50

SY: 2013–

14

(FY: 2014) 

1151

SY: 

2013–14

(FY: 

2014)

11

SY: 

2014–15

(FY: 

2015)

1152

SY: 

2015–

16

(FY: 

2016)

TBD

Q3 of 

Following FY

SY:

2015–16

(FY: 

2016)

15

TBD TBD 18 TBD 

INCREASE 

50 This metric is being revised to focus on the 18 PDG-funded states (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 

Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia) and more accurately gauge the grants’ impact. All of the data have been revised from what

was reported in the 2015 Annual Performance Report. The data source is being updated to reflect the column from which the data are pulled: National Institute for Early Education 

Research (NIEER) Yearbook, Workforce Supplement, Table 3: Preschool Teacher Qualifications and Salary, Column “BA Required.” 

51 For the baseline year/data, the NIEER SY 2013–14 Yearbook did not have a Workforce section, which is where the data for this metric should be pulled. Thus the “Teacher has a 

BA” column was used and the 11 states that met the criteria were: Alabama, Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and 

Tennessee. 

52 In SY 2014–15 (FY 2015) the column changed to “BA Required,” so if a state reported on more than one program, and all programs did not require a BA, then the state was not 

included in the count for the state requiring a teacher with a bachelor’s degree in a state preschool program. Where a state reported on more than one program, all programs in that 

state must require a BA in the state preschool program to be included in the data count. PDG-funded states meeting criteria include: Alabama, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, 

Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Tennessee. 

 

3.1.B. Number of states 

with high-quality 

preschool program 

standards49

SY: 2013–

14

(FY: 2014) 

8 

SY: 

2013–14

(FY: 

2014)

8 

TBD TBD 12 TBD 

49 Metric is aligned with an APG. This metric is being revised from what was reported in the 2015 APR to focus on the 18 PDG-funded states (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, 

Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia) and more 

accurately gauge the grants’ impact. The data source is being updated to reflect the column from which the data are pulled: NIEER Yearbook Table 1: State Ranking and Quality 

Checklist Sums, Column “Quality Checklist Sums.”
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 52

U.S. Department of 

Education 

Indicators of Success

Baseline 

Actuals 

Current

Year 

Target 

Current

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2016 Out-Year Targets 

Trend Line 

(Actuals) Indicator Measurement

Direction 2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed46 Exceeded47 2017 2018

3.3.A. Number of states 

collecting and reporting 

disaggregated data on the 

status of children at 

kindergarten entry using a 

common measure 

SY: 2010 

(FY: 2010) 

2 

SY: 

2013–14

(FY: 

2014)

5

53

SY: 

2014–15

(FY: 

2015)

1154

SY: 

2015–

16

(FY: 

2016)

17

SY:

2015–16

(FY: 

2016)

14

MET

 

1655 TBD56

 

INCREASE 

53 Five ELC states implemented their KEA (OR, KY, VT, MD, and OH) in the 2014–15 school year. One state (DE) had planned to implement its KEA in 2014–15 year, but later 

adjusted its timeline to implement during the 2015–16 school year. As such, the FY 2014 actual is revised from six to five states. 

54 Eleven ELC states (CA, CO, DE, KY, MD, MA, MI, NC, OH, OR, and VT) are implementing their KEAs in the 2015–16 school year. The remaining eight states that chose to 

implement KEAs (GA, IL, MN, NJ, NM, PA, RI, WA) will begin after the 2015–16 school year. Wisconsin did not select to implement a KEA, but is implementing a statewide literacy 

assessment and is exploring the development and use of a KEA. 

55 There will be difficulty collecting ELC data in out-years because some grantees will no longer be reporting APR data. 

56 In FY 2017, the data source will change from RTT-ELC to EDFacts. However, the data will not be available until FY 2018 Q3 with a collection commencement timeframe of 

December 2017. Nine (9) of 19 RTT-ELC states that wrote to this optional area will have completed their grants and the Department will only have 10 states reporting in FY 2017. KEA 

data collection has been added to EDFacts. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 53

Goal 3 FY 2016 Indicator Performance Summary 

 

NA = Not applicable. 

TBD = To be determined. 

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

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

Data Sources and Frequency of Collection: 

3.1.A. Preschool Development Grants Annual Performance Reports, Data Workbook, Table A(1)(a) and (b); annually 

3.1.B. National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) Yearbook Table 1: State Ranking and Quality Checklist Sums, Column “Quality Checklist Sums”; annually 

3.2.A. NIEER Yearbook, Workforce Supplement, Table 3: Preschool Teacher Qualifications and Salary, Column “BA Required”; annually 

3.3.A. Race to the Top (RTT)-Early Learning Challenge (ELC) Technical Assistance Center; annually 

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

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

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 54

Analysis and Next Steps by Objective

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

high needs. 

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

In 2010, the Department and HHS formed an Early Learning Interagency Policy Board (IPB) to 

advise the Secretaries on how to better align programs and systems, and improve coordination 

and administration of federally funded early learning programs serving children from birth to 

age 8 (e.g., Head Start, Child Care, Home Visiting, and early learning programs funded under 

Title I, Part A of the ESEA and IDEA). Meeting quarterly, the IPB has provided a venue for 

developing policy recommendations and improving program coordination and quality across 

federally funded early learning and development programs. Through the work of the IPB, 

several policy statements were released that focus on improving the quality of early childhood 

programs. 

Improving access to high-quality early learning programs has been a priority for the Department. 

In FY 2016, the key programs on which the Department focused are the PDG and IDEA 

programs serving children from birth through age 5. Other efforts to improve the quality of early 

childhood programs focused on activities such as reducing suspensions and expulsions, 

addressing chronic absenteeism, promoting family engagement and inclusive settings, and 

supporting STEM for early learners. 

Preschool Development Grant Technical Assistance (PDG TA)—the technical assistance 

provider for the PDG grantees—held a number of webinars in FY 2016, providing information on 

communicating with families to prevent chronic absenteeism, supporting young children 

demonstrating difficult behaviors, and avoiding suspension and expulsion in early childhood 

programs. 

In order to improve the quality of early learning programs from birth through third grade, the 

Department and HHS collaborated with the National Center for Education Research (NCER) at 

the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) and leveraged $20.5 million of NCER resources with 

$5.5 million of PDG national activities funds to support the $26 million Early Learning Research 

Network. 

Several webinars and documents were produced in FY 2016 to provide the tools and resources 

to support families and their engagement with children’s learning and development including 

resources on supporting children and families living in poverty in rural areas and family 

engagement. 

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

As PDG program administration transitions to HHS under the ESSA, the Department and HHS 

will work together to continue to support existing grantees and ensure that they are able to 

successfully meet their commitments during the project period. 

Despite a recent increase in federal funding, IDEA Part C systems within many states were 

stretched thin because of high demand for early intervention services. Some states have 

narrowed their definition of developmental delay as part of their eligibility requirements for 

serving children with disabilities and their families. Staff and Department-funded centers support 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 55

states in using their resources most efficiently. This was the first time in many years that there 

was an increase in Part B, Section 619 funding, yet because there has been an increase in the 

number of children served in the program over the years, the funding increase did not 

substantially increase the historic per child funding for the program. 

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

OSERS and its technical assistance centers have been supporting states on implementing and 

evaluating their State Systematic Improvement Plans (SSIPs) to improve results for children 

with disabilities. As OESE, OSERS, and HHS developed policy statements, the Department 

conducted input sessions with multiple stakeholder groups to ensure their perspectives were 

included and to get their input on additional resources that would be of benefit. 

In October 2016, the Department and HHS held their annual meeting for the 29 Race to the 

Top – Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC) and PDG grantees—11 RTT-ELC and 18 PDG—to 

share best practices and lessons learned. In February 2017, the Institute of Medicine/National 

Research Council (NRC) released a new report, “Fostering School Success for English 

Learners: Toward New Directions in Policy, Practice, and Research,” and in July 2016, 

“Supporting the Parents of Young Children” was released. Both were funded by the Department, 

HHS, and philanthropic partners. 

The Department also may consider revising this objective and/or strategies for achieving the 

objective to reflect changes to early learning programs made by the Congress in the ESSA. 

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

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

abilities necessary to improve young children’s health, social-emotional, and cognitive 

outcomes.

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

A number of activities were held to support states in building and strengthening the early 

learning workforce, including a joint webinar with HHS and a Peer Learning Exchange entitled, 

“Cultivating Excellence: Developing and Strengthening Your Early Childhood Workforce.” 

The new PDG program under the ESSA will provide continued support for the early learning 

workforce. The Department participated in meetings and planning regarding implementation of 

the new PDG under the ESSA, including working with HHS, OMB, and the Domestic Policy 

Council on creating an agreement between the Department and HHS to implement the program. 

The nonregulatory guidance developed by the Department will help ensure that administrators, 

teachers, and paraeducators are supported as they work to improve outcomes for young 

children in early learning programs. 

In addition, OSERS funds the Early Childhood Personnel Center (the Center) to work with 

states to improve their personnel systems to increase the quality and effectiveness of the early 

learning workforce to serve children with disabilities. The Center recently finished providing 

intensive technical assistance to a cohort of four states, targeted technical assistance to six 

states, and chose six more states for intensive technical assistance. The Center also held 

leadership institutes for IDEA Part C and Part B, Section 619 coordinators. OSERS also 

continues to fund personnel preparation grants. The Center was supplemented to develop 

online modules on evidence-based practices for use by faculty and professional development 

providers preparing personnel that will serve young children with disabilities and their families. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 56

On October 27, 2015, the Department and HHS released a report that summarizes the progress 

of professional development systems in the RTT-ELC states. In November 2015, the Early 

Learning Challenge Technical Assistance Program (ELC TA) released a report, Articulation 

Strategies in RTT-ELC States, to highlight best practices in supporting future practitioners in 

transferring from two-year colleges to four-year universities. In December 2015, ELC TA 

released a report, RTT-ELC Grantees That Incorporate Business Trainings for Child Care 

Providers in Their Scope of Work. In January 2016, ELC TA published a report, Scholarships for 

Early Childhood Educators in RTT-ELC States. In June 2016, the Department and HHS 

released Credentialing in the Early Care and Education Field Report. 

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

While the ESSA includes language explicitly stating that Title II dollars can be used for early 

childhood educators, it remains unclear whether or how that will affect the workforce. 

Challenges abound in developing an effective early learning workforce. States that can sustain 

programs for longer periods have less difficulty recruiting and retaining strong early childhood 

educators. 

In FY 2016, the Department and its technical assistance providers worked to address some of 

these challenges through webinars, peer learning, and highlighting promising practices, such as 

mentoring and coaching. 

Limited resources are a risk to achieving this strategic objective. The IDEA Part C and Part B, 

Section 619 programs report personnel shortages, specifically related to service providers who 

have specialized knowledge and skills in serving young children with disabilities and their 

families (e.g., speech-language pathologists, physical therapists). Additionally, there is an 

increased demand for resources under Part D that can address personnel shortages and 

improve the quality of the workforce serving young children with disabilities and their families. 

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

During May 2016, the Office of Early Learning (OEL) worked with HHS to develop a plan for the 

National Academies of Science to review and synthesize available research and analysis on the 

resources needed to meet the true costs of high-quality early care and education. The 

committee will produce a report that synthesizes the information gathered and, based on their 

analysis and interpretation, draw conclusions about and make recommendations for concrete, 

implementable funding strategies in the public and private sectors at the national, state, and 

local levels. In addition, an early childhood workforce case study is progressing well. 

During September 2016, the Department’s Policy and Program Studies Service (PPSS) office 

worked with HHS to develop a plan for a study on articulation from two-year to four-year 

colleges. The American Institutes for Research (AIR) is contracted to complete the study and is 

supported by PDG national activities funds. The report is expected to be released late next year. 

The Department may also consider revising this objective and/or strategies for achieving the 

objective to reflect changes to early learning programs made by the Congress in the ESSA as 

well as related budget proposals by the new administration. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 57

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

states and early learning programs to develop and implement comprehensive early 

learning assessment systems.

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

The Department will continue to reach out to the Education Commission of the States (ECS), 

the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), the National Institute for Early Education 

Research (NIEER), and other organizations that share its interest in advancing quality 

kindergarten entry assessments (KEAs), share resources, and develop strategies that might 

increase its collective impact. 

OESE staff are working with Enhanced Assessment Grants (EAG) staff in supporting the three 

EAG grantees developing KEAs, paying particular attention to the RTT-ELC and PDG 

overlapping states. The Department has reviewed the applications submitted for the PDG 

competition that discuss the states’ assessment practices, and will use the PDG TA contractor’s 

electronic grant monitoring tool, GRADS 360, and other means to monitor and report on 

KEA/assessment progress. OESE is working with the national comprehensive center, CEELO, 

to provide targeted technical assistance on KEA development or enhancement. 

The Department, HHS, and ELC TA support both the RTT-ELC states and many voluntary 

nongrantee states and PDG states through an online early learning community. In October 

2015, the ELC TA center updated its brief, “Kindergarten Entry Assessments in ELC Grantee 

States.” 

On August 27, 2015, the Department posted for comment the EDFacts Data Set “Kindergarten 

Entry Assessment Data Collection through EMAPS” as part of the Annual Mandatory Collection 

of Elementary and Secondary Education Data. The Department is reviewing and responding to 

comments received and expects to post the final data collection in FY 2017. The data collection 

will fill a void left when RTT-ELC KEA data collection diminishes as states finish their grant 

periods. 

To support implementation of the high-quality preschool program components, the Department 

and HHS reviewed the PDG and RTT-ELC APR data collected through February 2016. The 

PDG TA center published a brief, “State Technical Assistance Report: Comprehensive 

Assessment Systems in Preschool Development and Expansion Grant States.” In September 

2016, the ELC TA center updated its report, Kindergarten Entry Assessments in RTT-ELC 

States. Project officers continue to work with grantees to support implementation of high-quality, 

coordinated early learning systems and continued monthly calls with grantees to provide 

technical assistance. 

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

Some states have challenges implementing their KEAs due to funding constraints and local 

district decisions. For example, in Maryland, one of three EAG grantees, a new law restricts the 

Maryland Kindergarten Readiness Assessment to sampling, rather than assessing all children 

when they enter kindergarten. A district may still voluntarily choose to assess all its 

kindergarteners. 

Key Milestones and Future Actions

On October 27, 2015, the Department and HHS released a report that shows the Department 

surpassed the 2015 performance target of nine states collecting and reporting disaggregated 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 58

data on the status of children at kindergarten entry using a common measure. Eleven ELC 

states (CA, CO, DE, KY, MD, MA, MI, NC, OH, OR, and VT) are implementing their KEAs in the 

2015–16 school year. The remaining eight states that chose to implement KEAs (GA, IL, MN, 

NJ, NM, PA, RI, and WA) will begin after the 2015–16 school year. 

The 2015 APRs for 19 states—WI did not choose to spend funds on a KEA—show that all 

states have made progress in moving towards implementing their KEAs. The 18 PDG states are 

required to report on the school readiness of the children participating in their high-quality 

preschool programs, with encouragement to use a KEA. States describe the assessment they 

will use in the 2016 APR to report the school readiness of the first PDG cohort of children. The 

Department expects to have data in spring 2017 for the second year of the grant. The 18 states 

reported serving 28,000 4-year-olds in high-quality preschool programs. In the 2016 APR for 

PDG, the Department will collect data on school readiness. 

The individual state RTT-ELC APRs and Progress Reports were posted on September 1, 2016. 

Seventeen of the 19 states that used RTT-ELC funds for KEAs are either phasing in 

implementation (7 states) or fully implementing (10 states) their KEA in the 2016–17 school 

year. Rhode Island and Georgia are piloting their KEA. 

The Department also may consider revising this objective and/or strategies for achieving the 

objective to reflect changes to early learning programs made by the Congress in the ESSA as 

well as the policy priorities of the new administration. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 59

Goal 4. Equity: 

Increase educational opportunities for underserved students and 

reduce discrimination so that all students are well-positioned to 

succeed. 

Goal Leader: Assistant Secretary for Office for Civil Rights (OCR) 

Objective 4.1: Equitable Educational Opportunities. Increase all students’ access to 

educational opportunities with a focus on closing achievement gaps, and remove barriers that 

students face based on their race, ethnicity, or national origin; sex; sexual orientation; gender 

identity or expression; disability; English language ability; religion; socioeconomic status; or 

geographical location.

Objective 4.2: Civil Rights Compliance. Ensure educational institutions’ awareness of and 

compliance with federal civil rights obligations and enhance the public’s knowledge of their civil 

rights. 

Public Benefit

Equal access to equitable opportunities in education permeates every facet of the Department’s 

work and is the cornerstone of the mission to promote student achievement and preparation for 

global competitiveness. Through grant programs, loans, technical assistance, and civil rights 

enforcement, the Department improves educational opportunities and outcomes for all 

students—regardless of income, home language, ZIP code, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender 

identity, race, or disability. 

The Department works to serve students from their very first instructional experiences through 

early learning investments and to serve P-12 students through the implementation of the ESSA, 

which was signed into law in December 2015 and goes into effect with the 2017–18 school year. 

The ESSA continues the ESEA’s longstanding focus on providing resources and supports for 

students from low-income families, students with disabilities, English learners, and students who 

are migrant, homeless, or in foster care. The ESSA also focuses on providing support and 

interventions for the lowest-achieving schools as well as providing equal access to excellent 

educators for low-income and minority students. 

In addition to enhancing educational opportunities, the Department also works to eliminate 

discriminatory barriers that might prevent students from achieving their fullest potential. One 

way that the Department continues to monitor progress toward closing equity gaps in the 

nation’s schools is through the biennial CRDC. In FY 2016, the Department released its 

2013–14 CRDC report, demonstrating that despite significant work from districts across the 

country, persistent disparities remain, highlighting the need for a continued focus on educational 

equity. Another way is through continued efforts in OCR to address issues of equity in 

educational opportunity through both its policy and robust enforcement work. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 60

Goal 4 Discretionary Resources

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

FY 2016

FY 2017

FY 2018

$1,440

$1,437

$1,362

(Dollars in millions)

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities57 Supporting Goal 4 Performance 

Metrics [Dollars in Millions]

POC Account Obj. Program 

FY 2016 

Appropriation 

FY 2017 

Annualized 

CR58

FY 2018 

President’s 

Budget 

OCR OCR Office for Civil Rights 107 107 107

OESE ED 4.1 State agency programs: Migrant 375 374 374

OESE IE NA Indian Education: Grants to local 

educational agencies 100 100 100

OESE IE NA Indian Education: Special programs 

for Indian children 38 38 38

OESE SIP NA Alaska Native education 32 32 --

OESE SIP NA Native Hawaiian education 33 33 --

OESE SIP 4.1, 4.2 Training and advisory services 7 7 7 

OESE/OELA ELA 4.1, 4.2 English Language Acquisition 737 736 736

OSERS SE NA Special Olympics education programs 10 10 --

TOTAL, GOAL 4 1,440 1,437 1,362 

POC = Principal Operating Component. 

CR = Continuing Resolution. 

NA = Not applicable. 

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

 

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

noncompetitive/formula programs. 

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

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

provided by the continuing resolution.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 61

Goal 4: Details

U.S. Department of 

Education 

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals

Current 

Year 

Target

Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target

2016 Out-Year Targets

Trend Line 

(Actuals) Indicator Measurement 

Direction 2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed59 Exceeded60 2017 2018

4.1.A. National high school 

graduation rate61

SY: 

2011–12

80.0% 

SY: 

2012–13 

81.4% 

SY: 

2013–14

82.3% 

SY: 

2014–15

83.2%

FY: 

2016

84.5%62

NOT MET

 

85.0% 85.3% 

 

INCREASE 

4.1.B. Gap in the 

graduation rate between 

students from low-income 

families and all students63

SY: 

2013–14 

7.7% 

SY: 

2012–13 

8.1% 

SY: 

2013–14

7.7% 

SY: 

2014–15

7.1%

FY: 

2016

7.6%64

MET

 

7.4% 6.8% 

 

DECREASE 

 

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

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

61 Metric is aligned with an Agency Priority Goal (APG). 

62 SY 2014–15 actuals are being used to compare against the FY 2016 target; SY 2015–16 (aligns with FY 2016) data not available until 2017. 

63 Metric is aligned with an APG. 

64 SY 2014–15 actuals are being used to compare against the FY 2016 target; SY 2015–16 (aligns with FY 2016) data not available until 2017. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 62

U.S. Department of

Education

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals

Current

Year 

Target

Current

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target

2016 Out-Year Targets

Trend Line

(Actuals) Indicator Measurement

Direction

2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed

59 Exceeded60 2017 2018

4.1.C. Number of schools 

that do not have a gap or 

that decreased the gap 

between students from 

low-income65 families and 

the state average of all 

students66, 67

SY: 2013–

14

13,048 

NA SY: 

2013–14

13,048 

SY: 

2014–15

13,158

FY: 

2016

13,24468

NOT MET 13,442 13,487 

 

INCREASE 

4.2.A. Percentage of 

proactive civil rights 

investigations launched 

annually that address 

areas of concentration in 

civil rights enforcement69 

FY: 2013 

7.0% 

FY: 2014 

21.0% 

FY: 

2015

16.0% 

FY: 

2016

20.0%

FY: 

2016

12.0%

MET

 

15.0% 15.0% 

 INCREASE 

 

65 For purposes of this metric, eligibility for Free or Reduced Price Lunches (FRPL) under the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) is the primary source of data for identifying 

economically disadvantaged (low-income) students for reporting on student outcomes, including graduation rates. The Department is currently considering options for redefining 

“economically disadvantaged” students for student outcomes reporting and other uses. Should the Department make such a change, data on economically disadvantaged students 

may not be entirely comparable with data for previous years. 

66 Metric is aligned with an Agency Priority Goal (APG). 

67 This measure is calculated as the number of schools in which the ACGR for low-income students was equal to or greater than the statewide ACGR for all students PLUS the number 

of schools with a gap that reduced the size of this gap by 5 percent or more. Initially the data points in the 2015 APR were for a percentage calculation versus the number. 

68 SY 2014–15 actuals are being used to compare against the FY 2016 target; SY 2015–16 (aligns with FY 2016) data not available until 2017. 

69 Retiring metric at conclusion of FY 2016. Please see appendix B for additional information pertaining to the metric’s retirement. If a new metric is being proposed, the new metric will 

be directly below the indicator measurement direction of the metric being retired. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 63

U.S. Department of 

Education 

Indicators of Success

Baseline 

Actuals 

Current

Year 

Target 

Current 

Year 

Results 

Actual-to-Target 

2016 Out-Year Targets

Trend Line 

(Actuals) Indicator Measurement 

Direction 2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed59 Exceeded60 2017 2018

New Metric: Average 

number of cases 

substantively70 resolved, 

per investigative staff 

member 

FY: 2016 

5.17 

NA NA FY: 

2016

5.17

NA NA NA 5.27 5.32 NA

4.2.B. Percentage of 

proactive civil rights 

investigations resolved 

annually that address 

areas of concentration in 

civil rights enforcement71

FY: 2013 

8.0% 

FY: 

2014

15.0% 

FY: 

2015

20.0% 

FY: 

2016

33.0%

FY: 

2016

12.0%

MET

 

16.0% 18.0% 

 

INCREASE 

New Metric: Number of 

technical assistance 

presentations and press 

releases on Office for Civil 

Rights’ work

FY: 2016 

317

NA NA FY: 

2016

317

NA NA NA 333 341 NA

 

70 “Substantively” resolved includes cases with the following outcomes: finding of insufficient evidence, closure through early complaint resolution (ECR) process, cases that resulted in 

change without an agreement, and cases that resulted in change with a resolution agreement. The ultimate disposition of a case (that is, the case outcome) is tracked in OCR’s 

database and includes the above categories. For example, an outcome that is considered not substantive would be a dismissal. 

71 Retiring metric at conclusion of FY 2016. Please see appendix B for additional information pertaining to the metric’s retirement. If a new metric is being proposed, the new metric will 

be directly below the indicator measurement direction of the metric being retired. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 64

Goal 4 FY 2016 Indicator Performance Summary 

3 (60.0%)

2 (40.0%)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Met Not Met

5 Total Indicators 12 Total Indicators

NA = Not applicable. 

TBD = To be determined. 

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

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

Data Sources and Frequency of Collection: 

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

4.1.B. NCES EDFacts; annually 

4.1.C. NCES EDFacts; annually

4.2.A. Office for Civil Rights’ (OCR) Case Management System (CMS) and Document Management (DM) systems; quarterly 

4.2.B. OCR CMS and DM systems; quarterly 

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

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

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 65

Analysis and Next Steps by Objective

Objective 4.1: Equitable Educational Opportunities. Increase all students’ access to 

educational opportunities with a focus on closing achievement gaps, and remove 

barriers that students face based on their race, ethnicity, or national origin; sex; sexual 

orientation; gender identity or expression; disability; English language ability; religion; 

socioeconomic status; or geographical location. 

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

The Department is committed to pursuing equity at all stages of education, from birth through 

adulthood, by supporting institutions of: early learning; elementary and secondary education; 

career and technical, and postsecondary education; adult education; workforce development; 

and independent living programs. The Department’s goal is to ensure that all—not just a 

subset—of the nation’s children have access to high-quality preschool, graduate high school, 

and obtain the skills necessary to succeed in college, in the pursuit of a meaningful career, and 

in their lives. Accordingly, the equity goal incorporates programs and initiatives across the 

Department. 

In December 2015, Congress passed the ESSA, which reauthorized and amended the ESEA. 

The ESSA continued the ESEA’s longstanding commitment to equal opportunity for all students 

with its focus on ensuring that students from low-income families and students of color have 

equitable access to excellent educators and its requirement that meaningful actions are taken to 

improve the lowest-performing schools. Throughout FY 2016, the Department worked diligently 

to analyze the changes to the ESEA made by the ESSA and provide guidance and technical 

assistance to states, districts, and the public on the new law, as well as on the transition to the 

new law. The Department coordinated this support across offices, including OESE, OSERS, the 

Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA), OII, and the Office of Planning, Evaluation and 

Policy Development (OPEPD). 

In addition to supporting states as they prepare to implement the ESSA, the Department also 

worked to improve equitable access by removing discretionary barriers to education. In 

FY 2016, OCR continued its work to enhance equitable opportunity for students through the 

development of civil rights guidance materials and by enforcing federal civil rights laws to 

remove discriminatory barriers to education. 

OCR and the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) continued to support the equity goal of 

increasing educational opportunities for underserved students and reducing discrimination by 

representing the Department in litigation. In FY 2016, OGC worked with attorneys from OCR 

and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to file 13 statements of interest and amicus curiae briefs in 

federal courts to clarify the government’s interpretation of civil rights laws. 

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

A key challenge is the continued implementation of the changes to the ESEA made by the 

ESSA in addition to managing the transition from the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Limited 

resources are a risk to achieving this strategic objective, and pose challenges to 

implementation. 

As SIG ends, limited capacity at the state, district, and school levels could impact the 

sustainability of reforms in schools and support for the implementation of school-based 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 66

interventions. Ensuring quality and completeness of data at the state and local levels to enable 

better measurement of success also remains a challenge. 

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

Staff will continue to support states on their Educator Equity Plans. In FY 2017, the Department 

intends to host additional Educator Equity Labs and to continue to provide support for states 

through OESE program officers and the EASN. 

On October 11, 2016, the Department announced awards to expand opportunity in CTE and 

dual language programs under the PFS Initiative. Additionally, the Department awarded a 

technical assistance grant to the Boston-based Social Finance Inc., in partnership with Jobs for 

the Future, in order to improve outcomes for underserved, high-need youth, through the 

development of PFS projects to implement new or scale up existing high-quality CTE

opportunities. The Department also awarded a contract to the Washington, DC-based AIR to 

identify effective strategies to improve outcomes for children learning English. The study 

focuses on early learning-dual language programs for English learners from pre-K to grade 3. 

The Department also may consider revising its strategies for achieving the objective to reflect 

changes to programs made by the Congress in the ESSA as well as the policy priorities of the 

new administration. 

Objective 4.2: Civil Rights Compliance. Ensure educational institutions’ awareness of 

and compliance with federal civil rights obligations and enhance the public’s knowledge 

of their civil rights.

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

OCR’s implementation strategy for this strategic objective involves the issuance of policy 

guidance, robust data collection, vigorous enforcement through investigations and monitoring, 

proactive technical assistance and engagement with stakeholders through interagency working 

groups, and the dissemination of information and response to public inquiries to enhance the 

public’s knowledge of their civil rights. In the policy arena, in FY 2016, OCR issued five policy 

guidance documents. 

In FY 2016, OCR unveiled its 2013–14 CRDC, published a First Look document detailing 

preliminary findings, and, for the first time ever, released the full, privacy-protected data set for 

the 2013–14 CRDC, which is available for direct download from the Department’s webpage. 

OCR continues to work with other offices in the Department to prepare and publish data sheets 

based on the CRDC 2013–14 data findings, including the rollout of chronic absenteeism data

and website, which were published in June.

In FY 2015, OCR overhauled its website to increase usability and to provide more information to 

the public, and in FY 2016, OCR continued to update its website with case resolution 

agreements and letters, policy guidance documents, technical assistance materials, and 

information about OCR’s enforcement processes. 

OCR continued to provide excellent customer service to enhance the public’s knowledge of their 

civil rights by responding to public inquiries for information. Through the Customer Service 

Team, OCR responded to 5,025 incoming correspondence inquiries and answered 8,019 OCR 

“Hotline” call inquiries in FY 2016. The Department also distributed 701 copies of selected OCR 

publications in response to inquiries from advocacy groups, educational institutions, state and 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 67

local educational agencies, parents, students, members of the general public, and enforcement 

offices. 

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

In FY 2016, OCR received a record-high number of complaints (16,720) and resolved 

8,631 complaints despite challenges facing its operations, including a massive long-term 

staffing shortage and compressing and moving office space. Complaint volume and limited 

resources impacted OCR’s ability to conduct and resolve proactive investigations and to 

conduct proactive technical assistance. OCR continues to leverage all resources, both staffing 

and technological, to ensure that its enforcement and outreach efforts are timely, efficient, and 

effective, and used the minimal budgetary relief provided in FY 2016 to recruit, hire, and 

on-board new staff to support the more than 60 percent increase in complaint volume. 

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

In FY 2017, OCR will continue its focus on improving the quality and efficiency of investigations 

through training, technology, innovation, and strategic partnerships; expanding transparency; 

increasing proactive efforts to highlight the full range of OCR’s work through the release of data 

and materials to the public; and expanding technical assistance available to the public. In 

December 2016, OCR released its FY 2016 Annual Report, detailing efforts to protect students’ 

civil rights. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

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

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

Enhance the education system’s ability to continuously improve 

through better and more widespread use of data, research and 

evaluation, evidence, transparency, innovation, and technology. 

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

Policy Development (OPEPD)

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

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

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

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

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

effectively managing and using student information. 

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

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

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

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

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

Public Benefit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

higher education, and students and parents. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

student privacy legislation, while also expanding data use. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

areas with little existing rigorous evidence. 

Goal 5 Discretionary Resources

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

FY 2016

FY 2017

FY 2018

$861

$859

$1,129

(Dollars in millions)

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities72 Supporting Goal 5 Performance 

Metrics [Dollars in Millions] 

POC Account Obj. Program

FY 2016 

Appropriation 

FY 2017 

Annualized 

CR73

FY 2018 

President’s 

Budget 

IES IES 5.3 National assessment 149 149 149 

IES IES 5.3 Regional educational laboratories 54 54 54 

 

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

noncompetitive/formula programs. 

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

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

provided by the continuing resolution.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

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

POC Account Obj. Program

FY 2016 

Appropriation 

FY 2017 

Annualized 

CR73

FY 2018 

President’s 

Budget 

IES IES 5.3 Research in special education 54 54 54 

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

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

IES IES 5.3 Statistics 112 112 112 

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

Subtotal 719 718 968

Other Discretionary Programs/Activities 142 141 161

TOTAL, GOAL 5 861 859 1,129 

POC = Principal Operating Component. 

CR = Continuing Resolution. 

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

 

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

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

Goal 5: Details

Continuous Improvement 

of the U.S. Education 

System 

Indicators of Success Baseline

Actuals 

Current 

Year 

Target 

Current 

Year 

Results 

Actual-to-Target 

2016 Out-Year Targets 

Trend Line 

(Actuals) Indicator Measurement 

Direction 2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed75 Exceeded76

2017 2018

5.1.A. Number of public 

data sets included in ED 

Data Inventory and thus 

linked to Data.gov or 

ED.gov websites

FY: 2013 

55

FY: 2014 

66

FY: 

2015

79

FY: 2016 

94

FY: 2016 

94

MET

 

104 110

 

INCREASE 

5.1.B. Number of states 

linking K–12 and 

postsecondary data with 

workforce data

FY: 2013 

12

FY: 2014 

20

FY: 

2015

24

FY: 2016 

28

FY: 2016 

25

MET

 

25 28

 

INCREASE 

 

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

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

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

Continuous Improvement

of the U.S. Education 

System

Indicators of Success Baseline

Actuals

Current

Year 

Target

Current

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target

2016 Out-Year Targets

Trend Line

(Actuals) Indicator Measurement 

Direction 2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed

75 Exceeded76

2017 2018

5.1.C. Number of states 

linking K–12 with early 

childhood data77

FY: 2013 

19

FY: 

2014

26

FY: 

2015

32

FY: 

2016

35

FY: 

2016

29

MET

 

NA NA

 

INCREASE 

New Metric: Number of 

states actively using data 

systems to support and 

inform improvements 

FY: 2012 

7 

18 28 32 NA NA NA 2678 35 NA

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

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

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

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

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

Continuous Improvement 

of the U.S. Education 

System 

Indicators of Success Baseline

Actuals 

Current

Year 

Target 

Current

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2016 Out-Year Targets 

Trend Line 

(Actuals) Indicator Measurement 

Direction 2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed75 Exceeded76

2017 2018

5.2.A. Average time to 

close “cases” (PTAC + 

FPCO)

FY: 2013 

10 days 

FY: 2014 

9 days 

FY: 

2015

4.9 

days 

FY: 2016

6.06 days

FY: 2016 

7.2 days 

MET

 

6.70979 10.0 

 

DECREASE 

5.3.A. Percentage of select 

new (noncontinuation) 

competitive grant dollars 

that reward evidence80

FY: 2012 

6.5% 

FY: 2014 

15.9% 

FY: 

2015

29.4% 

FY: 2016 

29.9% 

FY: 2016 

18.0% 

MET

 

20.0% 30.0% 

 

INCREASE 

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

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

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

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

Continuous Improvement

of the U.S. Education 

System

Indicators of Success Baseline

Actuals

Current

Year 

Target

Current

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target

2016 Out-Year Targets

Trend Line

(Actuals) Indicator Measurement 

Direction 2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed

75 Exceeded76

2017 2018

5.3.B. Number of peerreviewed, full-text 

resources in the 

Education Resources 

Information Center (ERIC)

FY: 2013 

23,512 

FY: 2014 

27,292 

FY: 

2015

36,197 

FY: 2016 

47,573 

FY: 2016 

35,692 

MET

 

40,892 46,892 

 

INCREASE 

5.3.C. Number of visits to 

the What Works 

Clearinghouse (WWC) 

website 

FY: 2015

1,822,000 

NA FY: 

2015

1,822,0

00

FY: 2016 

3,756,724 

FY: 2016 

1,967,76

0 

MET

 

2,164,536 2,380,989 

 

INCREASE 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

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

Continuous Improvement 

of the U.S. Education 

System 

Indicators of Success Baseline 

Actuals 

Current 

Year 

Target 

Current 

Year 

Results 

Actual-to-Target 

2016 Out-Year Targets 

Trend Line 

(Actuals) Indicator Measurement 

Direction 2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed75 Exceeded76

2017 2018

5.3.D. Number of 

completed project 

evaluations from grantees 

from select discretionary 

grant programs in a given 

fiscal year that meet What 

Works Clearinghouse 

(WWC) Evidence 

Standards81

FY: 2015 

2 

NA FY: 

2015

2 

FY: 2016 

20

FY: 2016 

10

MET

 

1082 30

 

INCREASE 

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

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

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

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

Continuous Improvement

of the U.S. Education 

System

Indicators of Success Baseline

Actuals

Current

Year 

Target

Current

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target

2016 Out-Year Targets

Trend Line

(Actuals) Indicator Measurement 

Direction 2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed

75 Exceeded76

2017 2018

5.4.A. Percentage of 

schools in the country 

that have actual Internet 

bandwidth speeds of at 

least 100 Mbps

FY: 2013 

20.0% 

41.0% 55.0% 80.9% 70.0% MET

 

80.0% 90.0% 

INCREASE 

 

Goal 5 FY 2016 Indicator Performance Summary 

 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

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

NA = Not applicable. 

TBD = To be determined. 

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

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

Data Sources and Frequency of Collection: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

School Superintendents Association) E-rate Infrastructure Survey; annually 

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

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

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

Analysis and Next Steps by Objective

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

interoperable longitudinal data systems for early learning through employment to enable 

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

high-value data.

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

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

were centered on three goals: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

states, through the SLDS program website. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

metrics with InformED activities. 

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

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

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

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

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

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

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

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

advance its open data and transparency efforts. 

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

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

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

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

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

redefining success in terms of web traffic. 

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

The Department reached a number of key milestones, including: 

 launching CEDS Mapping Toolkit;

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

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

additional opportunities available to all states; and

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

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

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

organized by Chief State School Officers (CSSOs) at their fall meeting about explicit actions 

they would be willing to take in support of CEDS. There was consensus among the members in 

attendance at the fall meeting that strong messaging to establish CEDS as the standard listing 

of elements, definitions, and relationships upon which they rely was needed. In addition to that 

messaging, the network of CIOs of CSSOs is drafting a set of “action steps” that member states 

can choose to implement. 

The SLDS program team spent much of FY 2016 preparing a new data collection proposal to 

enable gathering information on data system and transparency capability from all states, not just 

grantee states. 

Objective 5.2: Privacy. Provide all education stakeholders, from early childhood to adult 

learning, with technical assistance and guidance to help them protect student privacy 

while effectively managing and using student information.

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

The past several years have seen significant activity on student privacy issues. News stories 

abound about data collection in schools from emerging technologies, and the majority of states 

have passed student privacy legislation. Various federal student privacy statutes were 

introduced as well, though none of them were enacted. Resources devoted to student privacy 

increased in FY 2016, with five new full-time equivalents being added to these operations, and 

with the introduction of privacy “Fellows” in the Office of the Chief Privacy Officer. These new 

resources have enabled the Department to continue to meet the growing cry for technical 

assistance on privacy matters. The addition of these new resources, and a desire to focus on 

policy development and enforcement, prompted the Department to reorganize its student 

privacy functions, effective January 8, 2017. Two divisions have been created under the Chief 

Privacy Officer. The Family Policy Compliance Office (FPCO) will continue with its traditional 

function of investigating and responding to complaints from parents and eligible students, as 

well as providing technical assistance to school officials related to those complaints. A new 

division, the Student Privacy Policy and Assistance Division (SPPAD), will lead efforts to 

develop Departmental policy and coordinate technical assistance. 

The Department continues to refine the efficiency of its technical assistance delivery through 

use of metric management, relying on a case tracking system that manages workload and 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 80

content for both contractor and Department staff. These gains were further expanded during 

implementation of the restructured Privacy and Technical Assistance Center (PTAC) contract 

during the first quarter of the fiscal year, which increased contractor resource utilization by 

housing the helpdesk function within headquarters. 

Throughout the fiscal year, the Department made progress reducing turnaround time for cases 

and providing targeted technical assistance. Reducing the backlog of complaints and inquiries 

required devising and implementing a new approach in assigning and tracking cases. In 

addition, the Department completed a comprehensive review of the data in the tracking system, 

and worked to address a data entry delay uncovered during third-quarter reporting regarding 

average age of open “correspondence and complaints” and quality control for closing cases. 

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

The Department faces two primary barriers to success: 

 While the Department made progress on policy development in FY 2016, significant

work is still required to answer emerging and longstanding policy questions on privacy

topics related to video recording, e-mails, and permissible use.

 The Department’s student privacy caseload continues to increase, as does the complaint

backlog in FPCO. Process improvements and expanded proactive technical assistance

helped to mitigate the impact of this growth, but the sharp increase in new complaints

resulted in a modest increase in the complaint backlog of 21 percent over the same

timeframe. While the new resources and reorganization should help, limited resources

present a challenge to support student privacy technical assistance and enforcement

activities.

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

During FY 2016 and in prior fiscal years, the Department demonstrated expected progress on 

the metrics related to technical assistance delivery. Turnaround time for cases averaged only 

6.06 days, exceeding the goal of less than 7.2 days by more than a day. Proactive technical 

assistance goals were achieved through site visits, presentations, webinars, and regional 

meetings. To focus efforts on improving response time, and as noted in the FY 2015 APR, the 

metric regarding “average time to close correspondence and complaints” was retired and 

replaced with the “average age of correspondence and complaints.” 

In achieving the metric goals, the Department accomplished several additional milestones. In 

FY 2015, the Department responded to public and Congressional criticism over the privacy of 

students’ medical treatment records in the wake of a recent sexual assault case by issuing a 

draft Dear Colleague Letter to obtain public input on the protection of student privacy in campus 

medical records. After extensive collaboration not only across the Department, but also with 

partners in HHS, in FY 2016, the Department released and was publicly commended for the 

final version of this important Dear Colleague Letter. 

Another significant accomplishment was the Department’s collaboration with DOL in providing 

needed guidance to state agencies, educational agencies and institutions, and service providers 

on performance reporting and evaluation requirements under WIOA. 

In addition to these formal guidance documents, the Department also offered technical 

assistance through a variety of short, informative videos targeting both school personnel and 

parents. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 81

Objective 5.3: Research, Evaluation, and Use of Evidence. Invest in research and 

evaluation that builds evidence for education improvement; communicate findings 

effectively; and drive the use of evidence in decision making by internal and external 

stakeholders.

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

In FY 2016, the Evidence Planning Group (EPG), which consists of representatives from OII, 

IES, and OPEPD, followed a similar implementation strategy to that of past years. Prior to the 

start of FY 2016, EPG met with various programs to discuss whether it would be appropriate to 

move toward an evidence-based model in their competitions. In the first quarter of FY 2016, 

programs worked with EPG to finalize their plans for using evidence once funding levels 

became certain. In addition, EPG began to review the ESSA carefully to determine which 

programs would be the best candidates for evidence, as well as how the Department’s current 

evidence definitions are aligned with the ESSA’s “evidence-based” definition, which appears in 

several programs. In the fourth quarter of FY 2016, the Department released guidance for states 

and districts that suggests steps for effective decision-making using evidence and recommends 

criteria and considerations for each of the four levels of evidence in the ESSA. Additionally, the 

Department’s Office of Educational Technology (OET), in partnership with IES, contracted 

Mathematica Policy Research and SRI International to build an online platform called the Ed 

Tech Rapid Cycle Evaluation (RCE) Coach to support school and district leaders to collect more 

evidence when making decisions about educational technologies. The need for evidence-based 

decision-making found in the ESSA prompted this work, and the platform is now available and 

free for educators to use. 

The Department exceeded the FY 2016 target for number of peer-reviewed, full-text resources 

in the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC). In the first quarter, ERIC completed a 

new source selection round and approved new sources to be in ERIC. In addition, IES engaged 

the i3 program to encourage its grantees to submit the studies from their project evaluations to 

ERIC, achieving two important goals for the i3 program: (1) ensuring that all studies from the i3 

program are publicly available and (2) ensuring that studies are made available for WWC review 

in a systematic way. 

In FY 2016, the Department exceeded the planned target for number of reviewed studies in the 

WWC database. In the first quarter, to continue to increase the number of visitors to the WWC 

website, the WWC continued to expand the database of reviewed studies through reviews 

conducted for WWC products (e.g., intervention reports, practice guides, single study reviews, 

and quick reviews). Studies submitted as part of a grant application for the Department’s 

evidence-based grant competitions were also a source of evidence reviewed by the WWC. 

During the first quarter, the WWC reviewed studies for grant competitions and publicized the 

use of its study findings dataset, which is a resource that reports all available data for studies 

that meet standards and either have a WWC report or were reviewed for a grant competition. In 

addition, in the fourth quarter of FY 2016, the WWC released a redesigned “Find What Works” 

tool that allows users to search for studies by topic area, such as math or science, to find 

studies where there is evidence of positive effects. The “Students Like Yours” feature of this tool 

also allows users to specify characteristics of their students to better identify what research has 

been conducted on similar populations. This resource continues to be widely used among the 

research community. To ensure success for this metric, IES continually collaborated with staff 

from OII, the Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), and OELA to coordinate evidence 

reviews for evidence-based competitions. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 82

In FY 2016, the Department exceeded the target for number of completed project evaluations 

from grantees of select discretionary grant programs that meet WWC evidence standards. The 

main implementation strategy for this indicator involved checking the WWC database of 

reviewed studies to determine whether any new studies from Department-funded competitive 

grants were in the database and met WWC standards. Bolstering performance for this metric is 

the Department’s understanding that effective technical assistance is necessary to ensure 

grantees tasked with conducting rigorous evaluations of their projects stay on track. 

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

The EPG continues to consider whether the current approach to this work is sustainable. Based 

on lessons learned, the Department has determined that focus must be strategic so that the use 

of evidence is in select programs rather than continuing to scale at the current rate. With limited 

resources, it is crucial that the Department focus on high-quality work in programs where using 

evidence is most likely to be impactful, as opposed to putting evidence priorities in every 

competitive program without strong fidelity of implementation. 

It is important to note that these efforts are also complemented by the work of the Department’s 

Comprehensive Centers and Regional Educational Laboratories, which are designed to provide 

high-quality resources to the field. 

While the Department surpassed its target for the number of studies conducted as part of a 

discretionary grant-funded project that are determined to meet WWC evidence standards in 

FY 2016, this work may not be sustainable. One lesson from the i3 program is that, even when 

employing very sophisticated evaluators, substantial technical assistance from the Department 

is essential in order to keep the project evaluations on track to meet rigorous standards. While 

most discretionary grant programs do not have the resource flexibility to focus on rigorous 

evaluation standards, EPG has worked to create a contracting option for programs that need 

help with evaluation expertise, with a few programs entering into that contract for FY 2016. 

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

Looking forward to FY 2017, the Department continues to consider ways to streamline and 

improve upon its evidence review process for discretionary grant competitions. 

To increase the number of visits to the WWC website in FY 2017, the Department will continue 

to expand social media presence, point competitive grant applicants to the WWC website, and 

produce products like intervention reports, quick reviews, single study reviews, and practice 

guides. 

Objective 5.4: Technology and Innovation. Accelerate the development and broad 

adoption of new, effective programs, processes, and strategies, including education 

technology.

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

The Department’s many successes during FY 2016 include expanded technical support and 

assistance to support state and district leaders across the country working to improve teaching 

and learning through the effective use of technology. Over 25 states and the District of 

Columbia have joined the effort and committed to supporting district leadership teams in 

planning for digital learning. In addition, 3,000 superintendents from across the country have 

committed to foster and lead a culture of digital learning in their districts by signing the Future 

Ready District Pledge. The Department, in partnership with the Alliance for Excellent Education 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 83

and with support from a coalition of over 50 national and regional partners, supports district 

leaders with specific tools and guidance to plan and implement personalized, research-based 

digital learning strategies in order to prepare students for success in college, career, and 

citizenship. 

To support the work of the superintendents, OET continued to collect examples of best 

practices for connecting schools, providing devices, and preparing teachers to use technology 

effectively. These regularly updated resources were posted on the Department’s website, blog,

and YouTube channel and shared via Twitter and Facebook. 

In October 2015, OET launched #GoOpen, a national movement that supports states, school 

districts, and educators transitioning to openly licensed educational materials to transform 

teaching and learning. Openly licensed educational resources have enormous potential to 

increase access to high-quality educational opportunities in the United States when they are 

accessible via high-speed broadband. 

#GoOpen was launched on October 29, 2015, at the Open Education Symposium, an event that 

brought together district leaders, state leaders, nonprofits, foundations, and private sector 

companies. As of September 30, 2016, 76 districts committed to transitioning to the use of 

openly licensed educational resources to replace traditional, static instructional materials, and 

16 states committed to providing guidance and leadership for districts making this transition, as 

well as developing a statewide repository to search and discover resources. 

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

Although much progress has been made in connecting schools to high speed broadband, future 

roadblocks to progress include access to needed fiber optic cable, especially in rural areas; 

affordability of broadband, especially in smaller and rural districts that are not eligible for bulk 

pricing discounts; and fully utilizing E-rate funds, since some districts still struggle to provide a 

percentage match to every E-rate dollar they receive. Several challenges remain in meeting the 

goals of this objective, including the need to educate the public about privacy and data security 

(leading to setbacks in the ability to use data to create personalized learning systems), difficulty 

measuring effectiveness without a robust evaluation program, and difficulty showing impact 

without data collection. 

Limited resources may prevent OET from meeting its legislative mandate to provide technical 

assistance to states, districts, and programs across the Department and the federal 

government. This technical assistance has included research and evaluation, updating critical 

guidance documents, and providing ongoing partnership support to organizations to leverage 

technology to improve teaching and learning and in support of states and districts working to 

increase connectivity for students. 

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

Strategies for reaching this goal have included updating federal government policies and 

guidance, encouraging significant private sector commitments, and engaging in national 

outreach efforts to states, districts, technology providers, and nonprofit organizations. 

Collaboration within the Department, with other government agencies, and the education 

community as a whole is also key to success, as is developing sustainable, scalable solutions 

for using data and evidence in decision-making. Some strategies, especially around support for 

teachers adopting innovative approaches, evaluating effectiveness of technology-based 

approaches, and establishing best practices for maintaining student privacy, are dependent on 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 84

funding and staffing. The Department is working to identify ways to make its data more 

accessible and actionable for the public. 

In the coming year, the Future Ready District Infrastructure Guide will be updated with an 

expanded connectivity section. OET will continue to collect examples of best practices for 

connecting schools, providing devices, and preparing teachers to use technology effectively and 

share them via its social media channels. 

Work will continue on the Ed Tech RCE Coach tool during FY 2017. With the implementation of 

ESSA, the need for evidence-based decision-making has increased significantly. The goal is to 

fundamentally change the procurement and implementation process to include evidence-based 

decision-making throughout. 

During FY 2017, OET will collect new examples from the field to add to the National Educational 

Technology Plan. This is based on the office’s commitment to refresh the plan more frequently 

than the previous five-year cycle in order to better respond to the needs of the field. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 85

Goal 6. U.S. Department of Education Capacity: 

Improve the organizational capacities of the Department to 

implement the Strategic Plan. 

Goal Leader: Assistant Secretary, Office of Management (OM) 

Objective 6.1: Effective Workforce. Continue to build a skilled, diverse, and engaged 

workforce within the Department. 

Objective 6.2: Risk Management. Improve the Department’s program efficacy through 

comprehensive risk management, and grant and contract monitoring. 

Objective 6.3: Implementation and Support. Build Department capacity and systems to 

support states’ and other grantees’ implementation of reforms that result in improved outcomes, 

and keep the public informed of promising practices and new reform initiatives. 

Objective 6.4: Productivity and Performance Management. Improve workforce productivity 

through information technology enhancements, telework expansion efforts, more effective 

process performance management systems, and state-of-the-art leadership and knowledge 

management practices. 

Public Benefit 

The Department continues to focus on acquiring and developing its workforce through human 

capital management; increasing diversity and inclusion and improving employee engagement; 

rethinking how it monitors and intervenes with high-risk grantees and contractors; enhancing 

workforce productivity through IT; safeguarding its assets and stakeholders from cybersecurity 

threats; continuing to improve and integrate effective performance management; and 

transforming the way the Department interacts with states, districts, institutions of higher 

education, and other grantees and stakeholders. These efforts aim to improve performance 

results, increase stakeholder collaboration, and lead to greater employee engagement. 

The Department continues to build Department capacity and systems to support states’ and 

other grantees’ implementation of reforms that result in improved outcomes, and keep the public 

informed of promising practices and new reform initiatives. By consolidating processes, the 

Department has been able to more effectively customize its outreach to individual states and 

model the critical partnerships states should have with their respective districts. 

Beyond building Department capacity to support states and other grantees, throughout 

FY 2016, the Department provided strategic training courses to strengthen leadership and 

knowledge management throughout the Department, with a special emphasis on ensuring 

managers and supervisors have the essentials they needed to effectively manage and lead. The 

Department also recognized the important role that technology and facilities contribute to 

supporting productivity. As a result, the Department continued to build on the success of its ED 

Space Modernization plan, including the deployment of critical IT to support telework and 

leverage wireless connectivity.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 86

Goal 6 Discretionary Resources

$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500

FY 2016

FY 2017

FY 2018

$491

$490

$499

(Dollars in millions)

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities83 Supporting Goal 6 Performance 

Metrics [Dollars in Millions] 

POC Account Obj. Program

FY 2016

Appropriation 

FY 2017 

Annualized 

CR84

FY 2018 

President’s 

Budget 

OIG OIG Office of Inspector General 59 59 61

DM/PA DM/PA Program Administration: Building 

modernization 1 -- --

DM/PA DM/PA Program Administration: Salaries and 

expenses 431 431 438

TOTAL, GOAL 6 491 490 499

POC = Principal Operating Component. 

CR = Continuing Resolution. 

NOTES: Many programs may have sub-activities that relate to other goals. Detail may not add to total due to rounding. 

83 All the programs listed are discretionary programs, as distinct from mandatory programs. These include both competitive and 

noncompetitive/formula programs. 

84 A full-year 2017 appropriation was not enacted at the time the FY 2018 Budget was prepared; therefore, the Budget is built off of 

the Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L. 114–254). The amounts included for 2017 reflect the annualized level 

provided by the continuing resolution.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 87

Goal 6: Details

U.S. Department of 

Education 

Indicators of Success

Baseline 

Actuals 

Current 

Year 

Target 

Current 

Year 

Results 

Actual-to-Target 

2016 Out-Year Targets 

Trend Line 

Indicator (Actuals) 

Measurement 

Direction 

2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed85 Exceeded86 2017 2018

6.1.A. Percent of 

selections made per job 

opportunity 

announcement (JOA) 

FY: 

2015

46.4% 

NA FY: 2015 

46.4% 

FY 2016: 

70.0% 

FY: 2016

48.7% 

MET 

 

51.2% 53.7% 

INCREASE 

 

6.1.B. EVS Employee 

Engagement Index 

FY: 2012 

64.7% 

FY: 2014 

67.0% 

FY: 2015 

68.0% 

FY 2016: 

67.0% 

FY: 2016 

71.0% 

NOT 

MET

 72.0% 73.0% 

INCREASE 

 

6.1.C. Time to hire FY: 2013 

65.0% 

FY: 2014 

85.0% 

FY: 2015 

67.6% 

FY: 2016 

79.1% 

FY: 2016 

69.0% 

MET

 

70.0% 71.0% 

 

INCREASE 

85 Missed target by <=1, or if percentage, <=1.3 percentage points. 

86 Surpassed target; not just met the target. If a diminishing target, the actual was below the reduction target set.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 88

U.S. Department of 

Education 

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals 

Current 

Year 

Target 

Current

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2016 Out-Year Targets 

Trend Line 

Indicator (Actuals) 

Measurement 

Direction 

2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed85 Exceeded86 2017 2018

6.1.D. Effective 

Communication Index 

FY: 2012 

48.0% 

FY: 2014 

50.0% 

FY: 2015 

51.0% 

FY: 2016 

50.0% 

FY: 2016 

51.0% 

NOT 

MET

 

52.0% 53.0% 

 

INCREASE 

6.2.A. Percentage of 

A-133 Single Audits 

Overdue for resolution87

FY: 2012 

57.0% 

FY: 2014 

37.0% 

FY: 2015 

20.0% 

FY: 2016 

10.0% 

FY: 2016 

37.0% 

MET

 

NA NA

DECREASE 

 

 

87 Retiring metric at conclusion of FY 2016. Please see appendix B for additional information pertaining to the metric’s retirement. The FY 2017 and 2018 targets were 31.0% and 

25.0%, respectively. If a new metric is being proposed, the new metric will be directly below the indicator measurement direction of the metric being retired. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 89

U.S. Department of 

Education 

Indicators of Success

Baseline 

Actuals 

Current

Year 

Target 

Current 

Year 

Results 

Actual-to-Target 

2016 Out-Year Targets 

Trend Line 

Indicator (Actuals) 

Measurement 

Direction 

2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed85 Exceeded86 2017 2018

New Metric: Percentage 

of Department Grant 

Recipients without any 

Single Audit Findings

FY: 2014–

2016 

Average 

85.4%88

NA NA 86.1% NA NA NA 86.1% 86.6% NA

6.2.B. Compliance rate of 

contractor evaluation 

performance reports 

FY: 2013 

85.0% 

FY: 2014

97.0% 

FY; 2015 

98.0% 

FY: 2016 

95.8% 

FY: 2016 

100.0% 

NOT 

MET

 

100.0% 100.0% 

 INCREASE 

 

88 The baseline data is based on an average of Department grantees with no single audit findings over the past three fiscal years, 2014–16.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 90

U.S. Department of 

Education 

Indicators of Success

Baseline 

Actuals 

Current 

Year 

Target 

Current

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2016 Out-Year Targets 

Trend Line 

Indicator (Actuals) 

Measurement 

Direction 

2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed85 Exceeded86 2017 2018

6.3.A. Overall average 

impact score of the 

Department’s technical 

assistance in helping 

build State capacity to 

implement education 

reforms89

FY: 2015 

7.73 

NA FY: 2015 

7.73 

FY: 2016 

7.58 

FY: 2016 

8.00 

NOT 

MET

 

7.75 8.00 

 

INCREASE 

 

89 Metric has been revised from tracking the “percentage of states” to tracking the “overall average impact score” of the states that rate the Department’s technical assistance via the 

Grantee Satisfaction Survey, which is a more meaningful metric for the Department. The baseline and subsequent data points have been revised from the 2015 APR to reflect the 

change in the metric. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 91

U.S. Department of 

Education 

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals

Current 

Year 

Target 

Current

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2016 Out-Year Targets

Trend Line 

Indicator (Actuals) 

Measurement 

Direction 

2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed85 Exceeded86 2017 2018

6.4.A. Number of ED IT 

security incidents 

FY: 2012 

756

FY: 2014 

445

FY: 2015 

580

FY: 2016 

291

FY: 2016 

551

MET

 

29190 27791

 

DECREASE 

6.4.B. EVS ResultsOriented Performance 

Culture Index 

FY: 2012 

53.0% 

FY; 2014 

56.0% 

FY: 2015 

57.0% 

FY: 2016 

56.0% 

FY: 2016 

57.0% 

NOT 

MET

 

58.0% 59.0% 

 

INCREASE 

 

90 FY 2017 target was reduced significantly to aim at a continual decrease in incidents by more than the 5 percent reduction from the initially proposed FY 2016 target in the 2015 APR. 

91 Reduction of 5 percent from previous year’s actual to align with a more aggressive approach to reducing security incidents. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 92

U.S. Department of 

Education 

Indicators of Success

Baseline 

Actuals 

Current

Year 

Target 

Current

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2016 Out-Year Targets 

Trend Line 

Indicator (Actuals) 

Measurement 

Direction 

2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed85 Exceeded86 2017 2018

6.4.C. EVS Leadership 

and Knowledge 

Management Index

FY: 2012 

60.0% 

FY: 2014 

61.0% 

FY: 2015 

62.0% 

FY: 2016 

61.0% 

FY: 2016 

63.0% 

NOT 

MET

 64.0% 65.0% 

 

INCREASE 

6.4.D. Total usable 

square footage 

FY: 2012 

1,563,641 

FY: 2014 

1,533,239 

FY: 2015 

1,530,864 

FY: 2016 

1,367,000 

FY: 2016 

1,459,937 

MET

 

TBD TBD 

 

DECREASE 

6.4.E. Rent cost FY: 2014 

$74.3M 

FY: 2014 

$74.1M 

FY: 2015 

$72.7M 

FY: 2016 

72,149,82

8 

FY: 2016 

$80.3M 

MET

 

$74,470,439 TBD 

DECREASE 

 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 93

Goal 6 FY 2016 Indicator Performance Summary 

 

NA = Not applicable. 

TBD = To be determined. 

Academic Year (AY) is a collegiate year spanning August–May; School Year (SY) spans August–July and is aligned with a P–12 school year; Fiscal Year (FY) corresponds to a federal 

fiscal year; Calendar Year (CY) spans January–December. 

Data Sources and Frequency of Collection: 

6.1.A. EDHires (Monster’s electronic hiring management system); annually 

6.1.B. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS); annually 

6.1.C. Federal Personnel/Payroll System (FPPS) Datamart; annually 

6.1.D. OPM FEVS; annually 

6.2.A. Office of the Chief Financial Officer’s (OCFO) Audit Accountability & Resolution Tracking System (AARTS); annually

6.2.B. Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) www.ppirs.gov “PPIRS Compliance Report”; annually

6.3.A. Annual Grantee Satisfaction Survey; annually 

6.4.A. Cyber Security Assessment and Management (CSAM) and RSA Security Operations management (SecOps); quarterly 

6.4.B. OPM FEVS; annually 

6.4.C. OPM FEVS; annually 

6.4.D. Department’s Master Space Management Plan; annually 

6.4.E. Department’s Master Space Management Plan; quarterly 

Note on performance metrics and targets: These metrics were established as a part of the FY 2014–18 Strategic Plan. Metrics may be updated or revised to 

reflect awareness of more accurate data or clarifications. Such updates or revisions are identified in footnotes. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 94

Analysis and Next Steps by Objective

Objective 6.1: Effective Workforce

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

In FY 2016, the Department continued to improve its time-to-hire performance, fill missioncritical positions, and offer viable options to the competitive process while ensuring hiring 

managers continue to receive a high caliber of applicants from which to select. These 

successes continue to be relayed during Supervisor Training 101, at collaboration meetings with 

hiring managers and HR Specialists, and in meetings with the Department’s Senior Leaders. 

The Department’s enhanced engagement activities resulted in the Department exceeding the 

government average Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) response rate by 

30.4 percentage points. The Department’s 2016 response rate increased 3.5 points to 

76.2 percent. Nine offices met or exceeded the Department’s 2016 response rate goal of 

80 percent. Fourteen offices exceeded their prior year participation rate; seven exceeded by 

double digits. The Department’s unwavering and focused championing of engagement has 

resulted in the Department achieving a 1 percent increase in the Employee Engagement Index 

annually since 2012. 

Diversity and inclusion has been empirically and positively associated with greater talent 

utilization, better employee retention, increased innovation, and higher performance. The 

Department continues to build capacity at all levels of the Department, working through the 

Department’s Diversity and Inclusion Council, the Diversity Change Agent Program, and various 

training opportunities. The Department has designed a “Diversity and Inclusion Dashboard” for 

internal use that serves as a tool to provide senior leaders with demographic diversity data 

about hiring, attrition, retention, and a host of other data-driven accountability measures to 

assist in diversity planning. The Department continues to participate in the governmentwide 

Federal Diversity in Government Council. 

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

There are challenges to educating managers on the numerous hiring flexibilities of the 

recruitment process and engaging subject matter experts (SMEs) where it would be most 

beneficial. Some hiring managers found reworking recruitment packages to include 

strengthening specialized experience statements or reworking self-assessment questions to be 

a challenge. The Department mitigates this risk by building partnerships up front, utilizing other 

avenues to hire, and providing consistent briefings from top to bottom. 

The Department’s employee engagement initiative relies heavily on principal office prioritization 

and implementation. The Office of Management (OM) offered and will continue to offer training 

courses, access to expert consultants, and senior-level engagement meetings to assist principal 

offices in successfully implementing employee engagement programs and activities. OM also 

communicated to principal offices about the support services available to the principal offices to 

assist them in the engagement planning and implementation process. 

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

The Department has entered into an agreement with Monster Government Solutions to utilize 

the assessment tool and position classification modules within its hiring system. This agreement 

expands the Department’s ability to standardize position descriptions and provide more support 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 95

in the efforts to shorten timeframes. In addition, the Department will continue to promote the 

effective use of noncompetitive hiring authorities and advocate HR Specialists directly 

partnering with hiring officials at the onset of the process. 

In the area of employee engagement, OM will continue outreach to principal offices and work 

through the Monthly Operations Forum to shape annual engagement focus areas, raise 

awareness of best practices and information sharing, incorporate engagement best practices 

into day-to-day operations, and strive to increase the Department’s Employee Engagement 

Index. 

Currently, the Department plans to continue hosting regularly scheduled Diversity and Inclusion 

Council meetings, participating in the governmentwide Diversity and Inclusion Council, and 

providing diversity and inclusion training opportunities. 

Objective 6.2: Risk Management 

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

Through risk management, the Department identifies, sets priorities, and takes action on 

challenges affecting the successful use of grant, loan, and contract funds, in order to forward 

the achievement of its mission and strategic goals. During FY 2016, the Department’s risk 

management work included improving the audit resolution process, conducting grantee risk 

assessments, increasing oversight and technical assistance with targeted grantees, recording 

past performance information on contractors, and monitoring grants and contracts. 

This year, the Department improved its use of audit data to identify grantee management 

challenges. Our continued improvement in the audit resolution and closure process enables the 

Department to provide feedback and technical assistance to audited grantees that helps them 

improve the management and outcomes of their grant-funded activities. 

During FY 2016, the Department conducted a preaward risk review of all organizations slated 

for new awards or continuation awards from competitive grant programs. This process helped 

identify grantees that had not completed audits, as required for all grantees expending $750,000 

or more during the fiscal year, and resulted in many organizations completing their audits. The 

number of grantees the Department identified as missing audits declined by two-thirds between 

2012 and 2015. In addition, the Department’s program officers provided targeted oversight of 

and technical assistance to grantees to address issues identified during the preaward risk 

reviews. The Department formula grant programs reviewed the financial management and 

performance information of grantees and used this information to guide technical assistance to 

the field, as well as monitoring and oversight of specific grantees. 

Contract monitoring was improved this year by partnership between the contracts office and 

program staff to ensure that both the contractor fulfillment of requirements and successful 

outcomes and deliverables were achieved. Program offices conducted ongoing monitoring of 

grants, targeting programs and grantees that pose the greatest risk to program success. 

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

Although the Department did not encounter barriers to success in risk management, there are 

ongoing challenges that must be addressed on a regular basis. These include the resources 

available for monitoring and the agency’s dependence on direct grant recipients to monitor the 

ultimate recipients, who spend the grant funds. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 96

The staff levels in Department program offices, FSA, the contracts office, and other Department 

offices largely determine the limits of monitoring and oversight activities. To address this 

challenge, the Department continues to explore ways to make the process more efficient, such 

as targeting oversight based on risk, automating the analysis of audit and past performance 

information, and using telecommunication and web-based technology to communicate with 

grantees. 

Because most Department funds flow through direct grant recipients to the agencies and 

individuals who ultimately use the funds, good oversight of Department funds depends on the 

“pass through agency” that distributes funds to the ultimate recipient agencies and beneficiaries. 

State agencies that sub-award Department grants to local agencies are crucial participants in 

grant oversight. Control over student aid funds is dependent on participating institutions. Most of 

these partners in administering Department programs are also challenged to find sufficient staff 

resources to conduct rigorous oversight of grant programs. 

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

In 2016, the Department launched Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) to meet the 

requirements of OMB Circular No. A-123, “Management’s Responsibility for Enterprise Risk 

Management and Internal Control.” Over the next year, the Department will formulate ERM 

plans by coordinating and expanding current risk management activities into an agencywide 

strategy to address its highest priority risks. 

To address capacity for grant, contract, and student financial aid oversight, the Department will 

continue to improve upon its risk-based monitoring planning and provide professional 

development for contract and grant officers. The number and skills of the staff responsible for 

monitoring will be assessed through ERM. 

To improve the usefulness of audits to the Department as well as the audited organization, the 

Department will continue to work toward improving the audit process. The Department is 

developing guidance for grantees on audit readiness, and plans to continue to promote quality 

audits by working with the national auditor community. The Department will continue to improve 

the process for resolving audits and will revise its procedures for audit resolution and closure. 

Objective 6.3: Implementation and Support 

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

The OSS within OESE is designed to provide more transparent, higher quality, and better 

differentiated support to states. The matrix organization model adopted by the OSS ensures that 

a state has two primary contacts within the office, and these individuals serve as the liaisons 

across key state-administered grant programs and major federal funding streams that flow to 

each state and district. By consolidating processes and technical assistance, the Department 

will be able to more effectively customize its outreach to individual states and model the critical 

partnerships that states should have with their respective districts. 

In FY 2016, the office focused on continuing professional learning and increasing staff 

knowledge and capacity in the program areas and office functions, as well as supporting states 

in implementing programs administered by the OSS. The OSS is working to deepen staff 

knowledge and build and pilot systems and routines that allow staff to support states with 

implementation through a systemic approach to performance review, policy coordination, data 

review, and technical assistance. In early 2016, the OSS launched staff Professional Learning 

Communities to provide OSS staff opportunities to deepen knowledge of new ESSA provisions. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 97

The OSS is also working to create a culture of data use. In FY 2016, OSS staff reviewed and 

validated state data reported on the consolidated state performance report (CSPR). Staff used 

this and other outcome data from the state to better understand state context when conducting 

performance progress review calls. Additionally, leadership used data from the employee 

viewpoint survey, as well as focus group findings, to determine areas of strength and 

weaknesses of the OSS. As a result of these data, leadership began a strategic planning 

process, with input from staff. 

The OSS continued implementing its performance review system. This new system covers all 

OSS programs through a single, streamlined process that encourages SEAs to develop and 

effectively implement integrated and coherent state plans. OSS restructured the comprehensive 

performance review system implementation timeline by elevating support to SEAs preparing for 

full implementation of the ESSA and its requirements in SY 2017–18. As a result, during this 

transition period the OSS implemented, in phases, a comprehensive performance review 

system. 

In FY 2016, OSS implemented several new routines to ensure ongoing coordination with 

internal and external partners. OSS began monthly conversations with the CCSSO to increase 

information sharing and coordination of ESSA transition support to states. Additionally, OSS and 

School Support and Rural Programs have regular meetings to increase coordination and 

communication between state program officers and Department-funded Comprehensive 

Centers. 

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

Transitioning to the new OSS structure is a significant change that will take time to implement 

fully. OESE and OSS leadership are still establishing new processes and procedures, and the 

transition will take place gradually. Continuing challenges include staffing, appropriate 

professional development and support for staff, and relevant outreach and communication 

internally and externally. Additional challenges for the upcoming year include the launch of an 

updated state performance review and implementing against a new strategic technical 

assistance plan. State capacity to implement new ESSA provisions also continues to be a 

challenge. 

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

In launching the OSS performance review system, the Department deepened its collaborative 

relationship with the states with the quarterly progress checks on a common topic, piloted a riskbased fiscal review, conducted several shadowing trips to better understand the work of SEA 

staff, and hosted two collaborative calls that brought several states together to discuss common 

problems and share their approaches. To support continuous improvement of this process, OSS 

surveyed each fiscal review pilot state to gather feedback on the prototype tiered protocol that 

was developed in partnership with the Management and Support Unit of OESE. 

The OSS kicked off the State Support Network, a new four-year, $10 million technical 

assistance contract that will support states as they intervene in the lowest-achieving schools. 

The State Support Network continues to work collaboratively with the Comprehensive Centers 

and other partners to help states. In FY 2017, the State Support Network will provide universal 

support through broadly shared school improvement resources organized in a user-friendly 

website; collective support for technical assistance delivered in person, virtually, and shared by 

multiple organizations; and individual support focused on direct technical assistance from 

providers delivered in person and virtually to address specific state and district needs. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 98

The OSS restarted an assessment peer review process. After a four-year hiatus, and releasing 

new guidance in fall 2015, the OSS led a peer review process for 38 states in spring and 

summer 2016. From those reviews, the OSS began to develop feedback to states, with the goal 

of providing peer review notes and feedback letters to all reviewed states by the first quarter of 

FY 2017. Having good, actionable data from the assessment system is paramount to having a 

strong accountability system and providing schools, teachers, parents, and the public with the 

information they need to help all kids reach their potential. 

Objective 6.4: Productivity and Performance Management 

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

Cybersecurity continues to be a priority at the Department with the implementation of new, and 

the optimization of existing, capabilities to control the flow of sensitive information and prevent 

access to information systems, data, and critical information and infrastructure by unauthorized 

individuals. The ongoing measurement and analysis of cybersecurity incidents and privacy 

breaches, in accordance with OMB and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) guidelines, 

identifies areas for improvement and working with critical stakeholders to implement best 

practices. 

The Department continued its focus on the implementation and utilization of new security tools, 

and fine-tuning existing tools to meet the security needs of the IT environment. Our progress 

demonstrated the effectiveness of the installed capabilities by identifying unauthorized business 

practices and inappropriate handling of sensitive information. The Department increased its 

emphasis on the training of the cybersecurity workforce, to address identified discrepancies, 

and published new standard operating procedures (SOPs). In another effort to expand and 

strengthen its IT security posture, the Department implemented Two-Factor Authentication 

(2FA) for external users of the Grant Management System (G5), in compliance with Homeland 

Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12). 

The Department continued its implementation efforts to maximize the utilization of electronic 

signature functionality for discretionary and formula grants. The Department performed 

continuous monitoring of discretionary and formula grant activities in the G5 system to evaluate 

adoption of the electronic signature functionality by the program offices. 

The Department focused on applying the lessons learned, testing of the automation changes, 

and implementation of additional process to improve the Department’s overall incident 

response. To reduce the response time, additional resources were assigned and a surge 

capacity has been identified using Department and DHS assets. 

The Department also continues to improve the performance management system to strengthen 

and clarify performance expectations and ensure alignment with organizational goals to support 

a results-oriented performance culture. This effort keeps performance management at the 

forefront of Departmental news on a regular and recurring basis. 

Ensuring staff have the facilities and space to perform is an important part of supporting 

productivity. Through an aggressive strategy of relocating staff and reconfiguring space, as well 

as leveraging wireless connectivity, telework, desk sharing, and “hoteling” seating 

arrangements, the Department achieved the FY 2016 goals in reducing overall footprint (Usable 

Square Feet/USF) and rent costs. The immediate reductions in FY 2016 were mainly due to the 

Rapid Rent Reduction initiative (R3), which compressed personnel into existing Lyndon B. 

Johnson (LBJ) and Potomac Center Plaza (PCP) locations, allowing the release of three 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 99

commercial leases: 1990 K Street, Capitol Place, and L’Enfant Plaza. This strategy supported 

an overall plan that will further reduce the overall USF and rent costs in FY 2017, FY 2018, and 

beyond. Significant progress was made in FY 2016 that will generate further reductions in space 

and commercial leases. 

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

During FY 2016, the Department continued to address challenges that included the availability 

of a skilled cybersecurity workforce, and the ability to rapidly implement automated 

cybersecurity capabilities. Additionally, OCIO is working with its IT services provider to provide 

qualified staff and accelerate planned implementations. 

While data assurance and visibility increased, processes and technology continually need to be 

refined to reduce the risk to the Department. The Department met the FY 2016 performance 

target of 234 for IT security incidents and 120 for IT security breaches. To reduce the response 

time, additional resources were assigned and a surge capacity has been identified using 

Department and DHS assets. The Department’s efforts resulted in reducing the cybersecurity 

response time to 22 minutes for the final quarter of FY 2016. 

The use of the electronic signature functionality was heavily promoted during the fourth quarter 

of FY 2016. The outcome was an increase in use by program offices. The Department found 

that only through continued change management efforts will the use of the functionality be fully 

accepted. Change management is an important theme in the Department’s efforts in leadership 

and knowledge management and maintaining a results-oriented performance culture. However, 

employees need time to participate in training opportunities, even online learning opportunities. 

Managers and employees need to be engaged in training and performance management; risks 

are mitigated by senior leadership emphasis and support for the program. Also, risks are 

mitigated by holding managers accountable for completing the process. 

In the areas of space and rent, while the commitment is strong to reduce the amount of space 

and the rent bill, there are several factors that affect the Department’s implementation of these 

plans. One challenge is the availability of funds in the near term, as it will require an initial 

investment to realize the longer-term savings. 

Another challenge is identifying program areas that may grow or shrink in coming years, based 

on both policy and changes in resources and environment. One way to mitigate this is to provide 

flexibilities both in furnishings and layout, but also to leverage increased telework, desk sharing, 

and technology to increase the flexibility and usage of space. 

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

As noted earlier, the Department achieved a 97 percent establishment rate for performance 

plans. The Department continues to make strides toward 100 percent completion of 

performance plans. The involvement and commitment from senior leaders was essential to the 

increase in the percentage of performance plans completed this year and is essential moving 

forward. Performance management and training are critical to employees and supervisors. 

Throughout FY 2016, OM continued to market and educate supervisors on the initial and annual 

requirements for supervisory/managerial training. This effort and the provision of a robust set of 

course offerings for employees will continue in FY 2017. 

In the area of space and rent, the Department will continue with projects and plans to 

consolidate our footprint. The General Services Administration (GSA) is currently performing the 

PCP/LBJ Program of Requirements (POR)/Feasibility study for the renovation, space 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 100 

optimization, and consolidation of a significant portion of the PCP-leased space into the LBJ 

Headquarters Building. The consolidation will reduce the overall utilization rate by reducing 

space allocations in the two locations. Once the Department has the study results, it will 

incorporate the space reductions into its out-year space plan. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 101 

Management Priorities and Challenges 

The mission of the Department is to promote student achievement and preparation for global 

competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. 

Continuous Improvement & Accountability in Department Operations

To support the work of the Department’s policy agenda, a sound infrastructure and strategic 

allocation of and investments in human resource capacity are critical. The Department uses 

data-driven reviews as a mechanism to bring together the people, resources, and analysis 

needed to drive progress, reinforce priorities, and establish a culture of continuous 

improvement. Also, again in FY 2016, the Department participated in the President’s 

Management Agenda Benchmarking effort and reviewed the data during the Department’s 

FedStat meeting with OMB to discuss organizational performance management, gauge the 

impact of operations, and talk about risk mitigation strategies and the path forward.

The Department has collaborated with both government and private sector partners to explore 

solutions to payment and data integrity issues, address fraud risk, and provide better oversight 

of its programs. More information on these efforts, including the use of shared services and 

managing enterprise risk, was reported in the FY 2016 Agency Financial Report. 

In FY 2018, the Department’s management priorities will focus on improvements to achieve the 

goals established in the President’s Management Agenda. These include: 

1. managing programs and delivering critical services more effectively; 

2. devoting a greater percentage of taxpayer dollars to mission achievement rather than 

costly, unproductive compliance activities; 

3. increasing effectiveness and efficiency in supporting program outcomes; and 

4. increasing accountability for improving performance. 

Addressing Management Challenges

As summarized in the FY 2016 Agency Financial Report, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) 

has identified five management challenges for the Department in FY 2017. These challenges 

are detailed in the FY 2017 Management Challenges Report. 

In FY 2016, the Department began a new effort to address these challenges. The Office of the 

Deputy Secretary initiated a detailed review of the five management challenges, assigned

senior managers to be accountable for each, and assembled a workgroup of other senior 

managers throughout the Department to address the noted challenges. This effort underway 

has helped identify systemic root causes to ensure that the Department’s actions produce 

results. The OIG has stated that it considers this initiative to be a positive step towards 

addressing long-standing management challenges and encouraged the Department to continue 

to explore approaches that result in targeted focus within each of the areas. 

While these challenges reflect continuing vulnerabilities and emerging issues, the Department 

remains committed to improved governance and better business processes. Management has 

worked closely with OIG to gain its perspective about the Department’s most significant 

management and performance challenges. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 102 

In FY 2018, the Department will continue implementing coordinated actions to address the root 

causes of management challenges. The Government Performance and Results Modernization 

Act of 2010 requires the Department to include in its APP the following information on those 

planned actions, including performance goals, indicators, and milestones, to address these 

challenges: 

Management 

Challenge

Accountable 

Official Planned Actions Performance Goals/Indicators/ Milestones

Improper 

Payments 

Chief 

Financial 

Officer (FSA)

 Continue to coordinate with 

OMB on refinements to 

estimation methodology for 

student aid programs 

 Continue to improve grant and 

contract risk assessments 

 Continuous monitoring of 

processes and systems to 

strengthen controls, including 

work with IRS to implement 

system upgrades and 

reactivate the Data Retrieval 

Tool to enable applicants to 

securely obtain necessary 

financial information to 

complete the FAFSA or apply 

for an income-driven 

repayment (IDR) plan 

 Goal: Minimize the risk of 

improper payments without 

unduly burdening students

 Indicators: Strengthened 

controls, improved risk 

assessments and estimates 

 Key milestones: Engage 

OMB and Congress, revise 

risk assessment and 

estimation methodologies, 

implement actions intended 

to help achieve FY 2018 

targets including reactivation 

of IRS Data Retrieval Tool 

Information 

Technology 

Security 

Chief 

Information 

Security 

Officer (OCIO)

 Complete ED cybersecurity 

workforce assessment to 

identify current gaps in 

Department cybersecurity 

workforce 

 Develop ED Cybersecurity 

Workforce Development Plan 

to address gaps identified in 

the ED cybersecurity 

workforce assessment 

 Establish Department/FSA 

Cybersecurity Committee 

 Develop ED Cybersecurity 

Strategy and Implementation 

Plan (ED-CSIP) 

 Goal: Mature the 

Department’s cybersecurity 

operations to achieve the 

next level of effectiveness as 

defined by the FISMA 

maturity model 

 Indicators: Updated plans 

and strategies, tools 

acquired, increased detection 

and reporting of system 

breaches 

 Key milestones: FY 2018 and 

FY 2019 budget submissions, 

deployment phases through 

FY 2018 

Oversight and 

Monitoring 

Director, Risk 

Management 

(FSA)

 Increase expertise among 

Department staff to effectively 

monitor student aid program 

participants and grant 

recipients 

 Improve monitoring and 

support processes, including 

increased information-sharing 

across offices and more 

integrated and targeted 

monitoring approaches 

 Expand data analysis 

capabilities and develop better 

 Goal: Improve program 

compliance and grant 

outcomes through highquality and timely monitoring 

and support 

 Indicators: Increased use of 

data to identify higher-risk 

program participants, 

improved internal controls to 

ensure efficient and effective 

monitoring, improved 

customer feedback 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 103 

Management 

Challenge

Accountable 

Official Planned Actions Performance Goals/Indicators/ Milestones

ways to identify higher-risk 

program participants to detect 

potential misuse of funds 

 Highlight areas of ambiguity 

or common misunderstanding 

for program participants and 

provide additional technical 

assistance in those areas 

 Key milestones: update risk 

assessments for student aid 

participants; gather feedback 

from annual student aid 

conference attendees; 

implement FY 2018 

Enterprise Risk Management 

requirements; implement riskbased, tiered, and virtual 

monitoring approaches for 

grant recipients; strengthen 

electronic records for grant 

monitoring; develop skills in 

staff 

Data Quality 

and Reporting 

Director, Risk 

Management 

Service (ODS)

 Implement tracking tool using 

key elements from 

Consolidated State 

Performance Reports (CSPR) 

to improve monitoring and 

correction of data quality 

issues 

 Finalize data management 

strategy and continuation with 

principal offices stewarding 

data quality, as part of the 

EDFacts Data Governance 

Board 

 Adopt new standard 

certification language in each 

data collection system; require 

states to provide additional 

justification for questionable 

data

 Identify promising practices in 

monitoring grantee controls 

over data accuracy and share 

across principal offices 

 Leverage Single Audits to 

help assess grantee data 

quality 

 Goal: Strengthen data quality 

and reporting to better enable 

evidence-based decisionmaking 

 Indicators: Improved 

governance of data quality, 

fewer data quality audit 

findings, increased use of 

data to improve program 

outcomes 

 Key milestones: Expand use 

of data tracking tool, 

disseminate promising 

practices, revise FY 2018 

Compliance Supplement 

Information 

Technology 

System 

Development 

and 

Implementation 

Director, 

Information 

Technology 

Program 

Services 

(OCIO)

 Establish a governing OCIObased Project Management 

Office capability to begin 

integrating and optimizing 

resources to review project 

work plans, methods, and 

deliverables and provide 

support, review, and oversight 

to Department IT project 

managers 

 Consolidate and standardize 

current LCM/LMM structure 

and governance to monitor, 

 Goal: Mature the 

Department’s compliance 

with FITARA requirements 

 Indicators: Improved 

governance and capabilities, 

fewer audit findings 

 Key milestones: Implement 

new governance structure 

and LCM/LMM reporting, 

target dates through FY 2018 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 104 

Management 

Challenge

Accountable 

Official Planned Actions Performance Goals/Indicators/ Milestones

manage, and enforce IT 

project management practices 

and IT solution delivery 

methods 

 Educate systems owners on 

LCM/LMM processes by 

forming an internal community 

of practice 

 Develop Department 

Guidance on Software 

Development Best Practices 

Lower-Priority Program Activities 

The Cuts, Consolidations and Savings volume of the President’s Budget identifies the lowerpriority program activities, where applicable, as required under the GPRA Modernization Act of 

2010, 31 U.S.C. 1115(b)(10). The public can access the volume at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget.