PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 42

Goal 2. Elementary and Secondary Education: 

Improve the elementary and secondary education system’s ability to 

consistently deliver excellent instruction aligned with rigorous 

academic standards while providing effective support services to 

close achievement and opportunity gaps, and ensure all students 

graduate high school college- and career-ready. 

Goal Leader: Ann Whalen

Objective 2.1: Standards and Assessments. Support implementation of internationally 

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

assessments. Objective Leader: Ary Amerikaner 

Metric 2.1.A: Number of states/territories33 that have adopted college- and career-ready 

standards34

Metric 2.1.B: Number of states/territories35 that are implementing next-generation 

reading and mathematics assessments, aligned with college- and career-ready 

standards 

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

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

teachers and leaders.36 Objective Leader: Ary Amerikaner 

Metric 2.2.A: Number of states that have fully implemented teacher and principal 

evaluation and support systems that consider multiple measures of effectiveness, with 

student growth as a significant factor 

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

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

Objective Leader: Heather Rieman 

Metric 2.3.A: Disparity in the rates of out-of-school suspensions for SWDs and youth of 

color (youth of color metric) 

Metric 2.3.B: Disparity in the rates of out-of-school suspensions for students with 

disabilities and youth of color, SWDs, Individuals with Disabilties Education Act (IDEA) 

only metric) 

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

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

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

Leader: Ary Amerikaner 

 

33 Revising metric language to include “states/territories” to align with the 2014–15 APG statement.

34 College- and career-ready standards included in this metric are in the fields of reading/language arts and math. 

35 Revising metric language to include “states/territories” to align with the 2014–15 APG statement.

36 States with approved ESEA Flexibility requests were initially required to implement teacher and principal evaluation and support 

systems by 2014–15 or 2015–16, depending on the school year of initial approval. Through ESEA Flexibility renewal in fall 2014, the 

Department committed to working with states that need to make adjustments to implementation timelines or sequencing through the 

ESEA Flexibility renewal process. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 43

Metric 2.4.A: Number of persistently low graduation rate high schools 

Metric 2.4.B: Percentage of Cohort 1 priority schools that have met the state exit criteria 

and exited priority school status37

 

Metric 2.4.C: Percentage of Cohort 1 focus schools that have met the state exit criteria 

and exited focus school status38 

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

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

Objective Leader: Russ Shilling 

Metric 2.5.A: Percentage of high school and middle school teachers who teach STEM 

as their main assignment who hold a corresponding undergraduate degree 

Metric 2.5.B: Number of public high school graduates who have taken at least one 

STEM AP exam 

Goal 2 Discretionary Resources

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

FY 2015

FY 2016

FY 2017

$33,369

$34,407

$34,920

(Dollars in millions)

 

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

removal and addition of metrics. 

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

removal and addition of metrics. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 44

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities39 Supporting Goal 2 Performance Metrics 

[Dollars in Millions]

POC Account Obj. Program

FY 2015 

Appropriation

FY 2016 

Appropriation

FY 2017 

President’s 

Budget

OESE ED 2.4 School improvement grants 506 450 0

OESE ED 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 

2.4 Title I Grants to local education agencies 14,410 14,910 15,360

OESE I&I 2.1 State assessments 378 378 403

OESE I&I 2.2 Teacher and school leader incentive 

grants 230 230 250

OESE SIP NA

Student support and academic 

enrichment grants 0 0 500

OESE SIP 2.2

Supporting effective instruction State 

grants 2,350 2,350 2,250

OESE SSS NA 21st century community learning centers 1,152 1,167 1,000

OII I&I 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 Charter schools grants 253 333 350

OII I&I 2.2, 2.3, 2.6 Magnet schools assistance 92 97 115

OII I&I 2.1, 2.4, 2.5 Next generation high schools (proposed) 0 0 80

OII I&I 2.2 Teach to lead (proposed) 0 0 10

OII SIP 2.5 Mathematics and science partnerships 153 153 0

OII SSS 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 Promise Neighborhoods 57 73 128

OPE HE 2.2

Teacher and principal pathways 

(proposed) 0 0 125

OSERS SE 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 Special Education grants to states 11,498 11,913 11,913

Subtotal 31,077 32,053 32,484

Other Discretionary Programs/Activities 2,292 2,354 2,437

TOTAL, GOAL 2 33,369 34,407 34,920

POC = Principal Office Component 

NA = Not applicable. 

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

Public Benefit

The goal for America’s elementary and secondary educational system is clear: every student 

should graduate from high school ready for college and a career. Every student should have 

meaningful opportunities from which to choose upon graduation from high school. Over the past 

several years, states, districts, and schools have initiated groundbreaking reforms and 

innovations to try to meet this goal. For the first time, almost every state is supporting higher 

standards that will demonstrate that students who meet those standards are truly college- and 

career-ready. Many states are implementing assessments that are not only aligned with these 

new standards, but also gauge essential skills such as critical thinking, problem solving, and the 

application of knowledge. At the same time, states, districts, and schools are working to meet 

the challenges of ensuring that every classroom has an excellent teacher and every school has 

a strong and effective leader; building local capacity to support successful school turnarounds; 

redesigning high school education by building stronger connections among secondary 

education, postsecondary education, and the workplace; and improving teacher preparation and 

classroom instruction in STEM education. 

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

achievement, there is also broad agreement that the United States education system fails to 

 

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

noncompetitive programs. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 45

consistently provide all students with the excellent education necessary to achieve college- and 

career-readiness. The result is that too many of our students are failing to reach their full 

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

low-income students scored 24 to 28 points below their more advantaged peers. The 

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

achievement gaps between Hispanic and white students were between 18 and 24 points.40

Many children, particularly children from low-income families, students with disabilities (SWDs), 

ELs, and children of color, confront not only an achievement gap, but also an opportunity gap. 

Today, a student attending a high school with high minority enrollment is much less likely to be 

offered calculus and physics than a student in a high school with low minority enrollment. 

Closing the opportunity gap will require that school resources, talent, and spending be targeted 

toward kids who need help the most. 

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

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

instruction for all students. The foundation of these reforms is a system for improving learning 

and teaching that aligns with college- and career-ready standards, high-quality formative and 

summative assessments, and engaging and effective instructional content. Ensuring that U.S. 

students have the critical thinking skills and other tools they need to be effective in the 21stcentury economy means improving teaching and learning in all content areas—from language 

arts and STEM to history, civics and government, geography, foreign languages, the arts, 

economics and financial literacy, environmental education, computer science, health education, 

and other subjects. 

On December 10, 2015, the President signed a reauthorization of the ESEA, the ESSA. The law 

requires that all students in America be taught to high academic standards that will prepare 

them to succeed in college and careers and that vital information is provided to educators, 

families, students, and communities through annual statewide assessments that measure 

students’ progress toward those high standards. It also continues the ESEA’s focus on ensuring 

that states and school districts account for the progress of all students, take meaningful actions 

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

The Department is developing approaches to best support the implementation of the ESSA. The 

FY 2016 APR will provide additional detail on the impact of the ESSA for the Department’s 

work.

 

40 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 

2015 Reading and Mathematics Assessments, http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2015/#/
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 46

Goal 2: Details

U.S. Department of 

Education

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals

Current 

Year 

Target

Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals)

2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

2.1.A. Number of 

states/territories that have 

adopted college- and careerready standards41

SY: 2012–

13

49, plus 

DC

49, plus 

DC

49, plus 

DC and 

Puerto 

Rico

SY: 

2014–15 

51 (49 

plus DC 

and 

Puerto 

Rico)

50 MET

50

51

40

42

44

46

48

50

52

2.1.A

(49 plus 

D.C.& 

Puerto 

Rico)

52 52

45

47

49

51

53

2013 2014 2015

2.1.B. Number of 

states/territories that are 

implementing nextgeneration reading and 

mathematics assessments, 

aligned with college- and 

career-ready standards42

SY: 2012–

13

0

0 0

SY: 

2014–15

49 (48 

plus DC)

50 NOT 

MET

50

49

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

2.1.B

(Plus 

D.C.)

52 52

2.2.A. Number of states that 

have fully implemented 

teacher and principal 

evaluation and support 

systems that consider 

multiple measures of 

effectiveness, with student 

growth as a significant 

factor43

SY: 2012–

13

6

6 7 8 37 NOT 

MET

37

8

0

10

20

30

40

50

2.2.A

2244 3945

0

2

4

6

8

10

2013 2014 2015

 

41 Revising metric language to include “states/territories” to align with the 2014–15 APG statement. 2014 Metric reported as “Not Met.” However, metric was “Met” given the inclusion 

of territories to align with the APG statement. 

42 Metric is aligned with an APG. Revising metric language to include “states/territories” to align with the 2014–15 APG statement. 

43 Metric is aligned with an APG.

44 The out-year performance targets are revised to reflect updated information provided by states through ESEA Flexibility renewal requests regarding implementation timelines. 

45 The out-year performance targets are revised to reflect updated information provided by states through ESEA Flexibility renewal requests regarding implementation timelines.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 47

U.S. Department of 

Education

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals

Current 

Year 

Target

Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals)

2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

2.3.A. Disparity in the rates 

of out-of-school suspensions 

for students with disabilities 

and youth of color (youth of 

color metric)

SY: 2011–

12

10.7% 

point 

disparity

Not 

Collected

TBD

SY 2013–

14 data 

collected 

in 2015

and 

available 

in 2016

Not 

Collected

NA

Biennial 

Metric

6.7% point 

disparity

NA

Biennial 

Metric

2.3.B. Disparity in the rates 

of out-of-school suspensions 

for students with disabilities 

and youth of color (SWDs, 

IDEA only metric)

SY: 2011–

12

5.7% point 

disparity 

Not 

Collected

TBD

SY 2013–

14 data 

collected 

in 2015

and 

available 

in 2016

Not 

Collected

NA

Biennial 

Metric

2.7% point 

disparity

NA

Biennial 

Metric

2.4.A. Number of 

persistently low graduation 

rate high schools 

SY: 2011–

12

775

SY:

2011–12

775

SY: 

2012–13

737

SY: 

2013–14

680

699 MET

699

680

600

620

640

660

680

700

720

2.4.A

5% annual 

reduction

5% annual 

reduction46

550

600

650

700

750

800

2013 2014 2015

2.4.B. Percentage of Cohort 

1 priority schools that have 

met the state exit criteria and 

exited priority school status47

SY: 2013–

14 

NA

NA 16.3%48 NA 15% NA49 NA NA

 

46 The baseline data for this performance metric were recalculated from what was reported in the FY 2013 APR and FY 2015 APP. The targets remain at a 5% reduction each year. 

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

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

removed were 20.0% and 25.0%, respectively. 

48 Metric reported as TBD in the 2014 APR. 2014 actuals show the 2014 target was “Met.”

49 The FY 2015 data for this metric are not available. Further, the Department has decided to remove this metric due to unforeseen challenges in using the data provided by states. 

These challenges are discussed in more detail in appendix B of this report. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 48

U.S. Department of 

Education

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals

Current 

Year 

Target

Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals)

2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

New Metric: Percentage of 

SIG schools in Cohort 5 that 

are above the 25th

percentile in mathematics, 

as measured by their state 

assessments

SY: 2013–

14 

19.7%

NA NA

SY: 

2013–14

19.7%

NA NA TBD TBD

2.4.C. Percentage of Cohort 

1 focus schools that have 

met the state exit criteria and 

exited focus school status50

SY: 2013–

14

NA

NA 11.9%51 NA 15% NA52 NA NA

New Metric: Percentage of 

SIG schools in Cohort 5 that 

are above the 25th

percentile in 

reading/language arts, as 

measured by their state 

assessments

SY: 2013–

14 

20.1%

NA NA

SY:

2013–14

20.1%

NA NA TBD TBD

2.5.A. Percentage of high 

school and middle school 

teachers who teach STEM 

as their main assignment 

who hold a corresponding 

undergraduate degree

AY: 2011–

12

62.2%

Not 

Collected

Not 

Collected

Not 

Collected NA NA 65.3% 65.3%

2.5.B. Number of public high 

school graduates who have 

taken at least one STEM AP 

exam

AY: 2011–

12

497,922

AY: 

2011–12

497,922

AY: 

2012–13

527,001

AY: 

2013–14

555,119

581,419 NOT 

MET

581,

419

555,

119

500,000

520,000

540,000

560,000

580,000

600,000

2.5.B

632,642 691,541

460,000

480,000

500,000

520,000

540,000

560,000

2013 2014 2015

NA = Not applicable. 

TBD = To be determined. 

 

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

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

removed were 20.0% and 25.0%, respectively. 

51 Metric reported as TBD in the 2014 APR. 2014 actuals show the 2014 target was “Met.”

52 The FY 2015 data for this metric are not available. Further, the Department has decided to remove this metric due to unforeseen challenges in using the data provided by states. 

These challenges are discussed in more detail in appendix B of this report. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 49

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

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

Data Sources and Frequency of Collection: 

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

2.1.B. ESEA Flexibility Monitoring; annually 

2.2.A. ESEA Flexibility Applications and Monitoring; annually 

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

2.3.B. CRDC; biennially 

2.4.A. EDFacts; annually 

2.4.B. EDFacts; annually 

2.4.C. EDFacts; annually 

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

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

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

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

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 50

Analysis and Next Steps by Objective

Objective 2.1: Standards and Assessments 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

States have recognized the need to improve the rigor and quality of their standards and 

assessments. With standards in place, educators are designing instructional strategies to 

engage students and implementing support systems to strengthen college- and career-ready 

skills for all students, including those with disabilities and ELs. 

Results for this metric are most influenced by actions taken by states and LEAs, but also are 

influenced by other factors. For example, the complexity of developing appropriate assessment 

instruments and approaches for students poses significant challenges, especially for children 

from low-income families, children who are ELs, and children with disabilities. Developing and 

administering college- and career-ready assessments and supporting teachers through training 

related to the new standards will require continuing support. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

On December 10, 2015, the President signed a reauthorization of the ESEA, the ESSA. The law 

requires that all students in America be taught to high academic standards that will prepare 

them to succeed in college and careers and that vital information is provided to educators, 

families, students, and communities through annual statewide assessments that measure 

students’ progress toward those high standards. The FY 2016 APR will provide additional detail 

on the impact of the ESSA. 

While the Department evaluates how it will best implement the requirements of the new law, 

where applicable, it will continue to leverage federal investments, including Titles I, II, and III of 

the ESSA, as well as IDEA, and provide guidance and technical assistance to states to ensure 

that teachers and principals are well prepared and students have the resources and support 

needed to graduate from high school ready for college and careers. 

A key challenge facing the Department over the next two years relates to the changes states 

may make to their currently adopted college- and career-ready standards due to decisions 

implemented by state leadership or state legislatures. Another key challenge is supporting 

states with the implementation of their college- and career-ready aligned assessments for all 

students, including ELs, SWDs, and economically disadvantaged and low-achieving students, to

ensure that all students are prepared for postsecondary success. 

The Department is taking steps to address these challenges by developing and targeting 

technical assistance activities that will, in part, increase state capacity to leverage limited 

resources and continue to identify promising practices across multiple states. First, the 

Department has released its Title I assessment peer review guidance, which highlights the 

requirements for a high-quality assessment to help support state assessment development; in 

FY 2016, the Department will begin conducting peer review of state assessment systems. The 

Department will also build a library of resources (i.e., a central location for practitioners looking 

for best practices) to assist state educational agencies (SEAs) in transitioning to college- and 

career-ready standards, leveraging work that has occurred during RTT with other partner 

organizations such as Achieve, Student Achievement Partners, National Parent Teacher 

Association, and others. In addition, the Department is working internally to coordinate the 

provision of technical assistance across OESE, OSEP, and other related offices and programs. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 51

The Department also funds a Center on Standards and Assessments Implementation (part of 

the Comprehensive Centers program) that helps build the capacity of state educational 

agencies to implement college- and career-ready standards. The Department will continue to 

work with states by taking such steps as providing technical assistance and guidance to states 

as they implement the next steps outlined in the President’s Testing Action Plan announced in 

November 2015. 

Objective 2.2: Effective Teachers and Strong Leaders 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

Over the past several years, states and school districts have made educator effectiveness a key 

priority in their reform efforts. States and districts are working on the development and 

implementation of high-quality teacher and principal evaluation and support systems, as well as 

broader human capital management systems that use the results of evaluation systems to 

inform targeted educator development and support opportunities, placement, retention, 

promotion, compensation, and other personnel decisions. The Department has supported the 

work of states and districts in this area through key programs and initiatives such as Title I, 

Title II, RTT, Teacher Incentive Fund, ESEA Flexibility, Excellent Educators for All, and the 

Comprehensive Center on Great Teachers and Leaders (in addition to the other regional and 

content comprehensive centers), and using these programs and initiatives to provide resources 

and technical assistance to states and districts so that they can move forward with successful 

implementation. In 2015, more states and districts are implementing teacher and principal 

evaluation and support systems that are based on multiple measures, including evidence of 

student learning growth as a significant factor. 

Similar to objective 2.1, the results of this metric are greatly influenced by state and district 

actions, as well as other factors not in the Department’s control. As teacher and school leader 

evaluation and support systems are governed by state and local policies, without revisions in 

state policies and new partnerships with teacher and principal organizations, reforms of existing 

evaluation and support systems are unlikely to be successful. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

Implementation of teacher and leader evaluation and support systems has proven to be very 

challenging work for states and districts, particularly during the time of transition to new 

standards and assessments, and has caused states to need to adjust timelines and sequencing 

of implementation steps. In order to mitigate these risks, the Department has provided flexibility 

to states regarding the use of student growth based on statewide assessments during the 

transition to new assessments, as well as other changes that are outside their original 

implementation timelines and plans under ESEA Flexibility. The Department is working to 

connect all states to experts who can provide technical assistance in this area. There are also 

challenges associated with teacher and principal support for the new systems. The Department 

is continuing to work with states to help them engage with educators and develop plans focused 

on continuous improvement so that they can make adjustments as needed. 

Under ESSA, ESEA Flexibility waivers, including Principle 3—supporting effective instruction 

and leadership—expire on August 1, 2016. The FY 2016 APR will provide additional detail on 

the impact of the ESSA. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 52

Objective 2.3: School Climate and Community 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

Strengthening school and classroom climate in preschool through 12th-grade settings is an 

essential precondition to scalable improvements in the academic achievement, socioemotional 

wellbeing, and college and career readiness of American public school students. While states, 

districts, and schools across the country have made real strides reforming approaches to school 

discipline and climate in order to ensure effective environments for more students, significant 

challenges remain to guaranteeing safe and supportive schools in which to learn and grow for 

all students. More than one in five students report being bullied in school; national data continue 

to suggest that suspensions and expulsions disproportionately impact minority students and 

SWDs; and too few schools are employing school climate data and interventions as part of their 

continuous improvement strategies. Maximizing instructional time to prepare all students for the 

rigors and opportunities of meaningful postsecondary educations and careers requires that 

these issues are addressed at every level of the P–12 system. 

During FY 2015, the Department has pursued a vigorous strategy to improve school climate and 

community and encourage the nationwide adoption of evidence-based practices to ensure safe 

and supportive learning environments for all students. In June 2015, the Department hosted a 

two-day convening for 19 high-needs school districts to support their local implementation of 

“early warning systems” to identify and support students at-risk of falling behind in school and/or 

dropping out. This convening served to highlight effective local practices to use data 

strategically to identify students in need of additional support. To shine a light on effective 

reforms in school discipline policy and practice, and in support of the administration’s My 

Brother’s Keeper initiative, the Department sponsored—in collaboration with the White House 

and DOJ—a major summit on school climate and discipline, entitled “Rethink Discipline,” on 

July 22, 2015. This summit brought to the White House over 45 school districts and a coalition 

of public and private partners to elevate effective reforms of school discipline in schools, with 

the goal of highlighting best practices in eliminating disproportionalities and bias in the 

administration of school discipline. At the summit, the Department also released a new resource 

for school district superintendents and their leadership teams—“Rethink Discipline: A Resource 

Guide for Superintendent Action”—that provides suggested action steps and links to free 

resources to support communitywide efforts to reform and improve the efficacy of local school 

discipline and climate policy and practice. The Department also supported the development of 

new school climate survey resources that states, districts, and schools can use, free of charge, 

to systematically collect and act on school climate data from multiple stakeholders, including 

students, teachers, noninstructional school staff, and parents and families (to be released in 

FY 2016). The Department also laid significant groundwork for the launch of “Every Student, 

Every Day: A National Initiative to Address and Eliminate Chronic Absenteeism,” which aims to 

raise nationwide awareness of and encourage action to combat the serious problem of chronic 

absenteeism affecting between five and seven and a half million students each year. In 

collaboration with HHS, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), DOJ, 

and a coalition of public and private partners, the Department released on October 7, 2015, a 

Dear Colleague letter and community toolkit for states, districts, and schools that includes 

actionable strategies to address and eliminate chronic absenteeism within communities. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

Improving school discipline and climate policy and practice nationwide remains a significant 

challenge given the many differentiated contexts in which this work must unfold. There simply is 

no one right way to approach the challenge of ensuring safe and supportive learning 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 53

environments for all students, and a spirit of experimentation and innovation is critical to 

sustaining motivation for and persistence in tackling what are often extraordinary challenges at 

the state, district, and school levels. Challenges to improving school discipline and climate 

include a lack of funding for and focus on this work, which can often be treated as “extra” or 

“additional” work not necessarily related to the core functions of school systems. When 

practitioners and policymakers do not understand the relationship between conditions for 

learning and student achievement, it is difficult to enshrine effective school discipline and 

climate practice and policy. To meet this challenge, the Department continues to advance the 

Supportive School Discipline Initiative in partnership with DOJ, offering technical assistance to 

states and districts that are working to reduce bias and disproportionalities in the administration 

of school discipline. Moreover, the Department also continues to pursue a vigorous strategy to 

improve school discipline and climate that includes a major focus on the upcoming release of 

the 2013–14 CRDC, which will include updates to national school discipline data as well as the 

first-ever national data on chronic absenteeism. The Department will leverage the data on 

chronic absenteeism to promote effective cross-sector efforts to meet student needs in order to 

ensure that student are able and ready to attend and succeed in school every day. 

Objective 2.4: Turn Around Schools and Close Achievement Gaps: 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

Turning around the lowest-performing schools, closing achievement gaps, increasing high 

school graduation rates, and decreasing disparities in graduation rates are critical to achieving 

the President’s goal of once again having the highest proportion of college graduates in the 

world. States and districts have assumed the challenge of focusing on their lowest-performing 

schools, and directing significant resources and support in order to improve student outcomes 

dramatically. Since 2009, more than 1,700 schools have received up to $2 million per year for 

three years through the School Improvement Grant (SIG) program to implement rigorous 

intervention models intended to turn these schools around. Nearly two-thirds of the schools in 

the first two cohorts and over half of schools in the third cohort have made progress in 

improving student achievement in reading, and a similar percentage have shown improvement 

in math. However, some participating schools have also shown decreases in performance, and 

more work is needed to ensure that the progress is sustained. To assist states in this 

challenging work, the Department strengthened the SIG program in FY 2015 by, among other 

things, including three new models, including an evidence-based, whole school reform model, 

and allowing additional time for planning and implementation. The Department also continued to 

partner with the Corporation for National and Community Service to support the School 

Turnaround AmeriCorps program grantees, and partnered with the President’s Council on Arts 

and Humanities to support the Turnaround Arts Initiative, including expanding that initiative to 

incorporate early learning as a turnaround strategy. 

In addition, the nation has made significant progress in increasing overall graduation rates, but 

gaps between rates for different student groups continue to persist. See also the Explanation 

and Analysis of Progress for objective 4.1 for additional information on the Department’s efforts 

to improve the national high school graduation rate and to close gaps between groups of 

students. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

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

years to show progress and success. As a result, there are challenges in communicating that 

this is a long-term process, not a short-term fix, and managing expectations of what success 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 54

looks like along the way. Additionally, as major grant programs are ending, such as RTT and 

SIG, there may be fewer resources available in states and districts to support school 

turnaround. Sustaining successful school turnaround is a major challenge for states, districts, 

and schools. 

In addition to financial resources, sustaining successful school turnaround requires effective 

technical assistance and support from the Department. In particular, there is a significant need 

for effective turnaround leaders for the lowest-performing schools, which the Department is 

attempting to address through its Turnaround School Leaders program, a program focused on 

helping districts, in partnership with states, IHEs, and nonprofit or for-profit partners, develop 

leaders with the specialized skills needed to turn schools around. 

The ESSA continues the ESEA’s focus on ensuring that states and school districts account for 

the progress of all students, take meaningful actions to improve the lowest-performing schools, 

and ensure equitable access to excellent educators. However, the provisions and ultimate 

impact of the new law are still being evaluated, and plans for implementation have yet to be fully 

developed. The FY 2016 APR will provide additional detail on the impact of the ESSA. 

Objective 2.5: STEM Teaching and Learning: 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

The Department, in consultation with OMB, has highlighted this objective as a focus area for 

improvement. Efforts such as the expansion of 100Kin10, the nonprofit organization created in 

response to the call to recruit 100,000 STEM teachers from 2011 to 2021, and the recent 

awards made to support effective STEM teachers via the Supporting Effective Educator 

Development Grant program show continued attention and progress toward the Department’s 

goal of increasing the number and quality of STEM teachers. Across the administration, there 

has been a significant emphasis on improving STEM instruction, most directly through the 

CoSTEM Education’s interagency working groups. The Department leads this formally 

chartered group on P-12 STEM Instruction, which includes regular participation from the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National 

Institutes of Health, NSF, Department of Defense, and White House (Office of Science and 

Technology Policy and OMB). All participating agencies have committed to align efforts to 

support the preparation of high-quality STEM teachers and to support authentic STEM 

experiences53 for P-12 educators. Not only do these agencies work together within the context 

of the CoSTEM Education, but the goals of the interagency working groups align to the CAP 

Goal for STEM Education across the administration. All activities that are being undertaken by 

the interagency working groups feed into the CAP process, and all milestones for that process 

align with the CoSTEM goals. 

In addition, through the Teacher Incentive Fund national activities the STEM office is engaged in 

work around STEM Teacher Leadership and STEM Master Teachers that will continue into 

FY 2016. Six research action clusters will be convening every couple of months and developing 

resources to support STEM teacher leadership efforts. 

2014 data from the College Board shows an overall increase in the number of graduating high 

school students taking Advanced Placement (AP) STEM exams: 555,119 compared to 527,001 

in 2013 data. In all subgroups, the total number of participants increased, ranging from an 

 

53 Authentic STEM experiences means laboratory, research-based, or experiential learning opportunities in a STEM subject in 

informal or formal settings. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 55

approximate 15 percent increase for Hispanic/Latino students to a 3 percent increase for 

Black/African American students. Females still outnumber males in terms of AP STEM exam 

participation (which has been the case since 2002). 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

While efforts continue to support P-12 STEM instruction, only two current federal programs are 

focused on preparing new STEM teachers—the Teacher Quality Partnerships program at the 

Department and the Noyce Scholarship program at NSF. Proposals for a dedicated program to 

prepare new STEM teachers have not yet been acted on by Congress, and the majority of 

teachers are prepared at colleges and universities that do not receive direct NSF or Department 

funding aimed specifically at STEM teacher preparation. The Mathematics and Science 

Partnership (MSP) program, which is no longer authorized under ESSA, does not have a 

national activities set-aside to provide technical assistance and, although each project within 

MSP must complete an evaluation for the state, these evaluations are not submitted to the 

Department. While the overall numbers of students taking STEM AP exams have increased—

including through Department-supported programs such as the Investing in Innovation (i3) 

program—AP courses are only one way to provide students with rich STEM learning 

experiences. Additional support should be given to both formal and informal STEM opportunities 

for students within the entire P-12 spectrum. 

In FY 2016 and beyond, continued collaboration within the Department to better coordinate 

awards made to support STEM educator development will be important. In addition, ESSA 

authorizes new activities for STEM educator preparation. For example, the new STEM Master 

Teacher Corps program provides an opportunity for states to utilize their STEM master 

educators in the development of new STEM educators. Further, ESSA authorizes states and 

districts to use funds to provide all students access to advanced STEM coursework through the 

Student Support and Academic Enrichment grants. There is opportunity to infuse STEM into 

other Department priorities, including for example a possible collaboration with the Office of 

Early Learning to support P-3 STEM educators, as well as continued collaboration across 

agencies like NSF to support educator development and support, especially in disciplines like 

engineering and computer science. Disparities in computer science are emblematic of the large 

gaps in student access and engagement in STEM courses overall; only half of high schools 

offer calculus, and only 63 percent offer physics. The 2017 Budget provides resources to 

empower states and districts to create high-quality computer science learning opportunities in 

grades P-8 and access to computer science courses in high school, dedicating $100 million in 

discretionary funding at the Department of Education for Computer Science for All Development 

Grants to help school districts, alone or in consortia, execute ambitious computer science 

expansion efforts, particularly for traditionally underrepresented students. Lastly, absent direct 

funding streams to support the preparation of new STEM educators, continued work with 

nongovernment partners like 100Kin10 who are making progress against the goal of preparing 

100,000 STEM educators will be essential. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 56

Subpopulation Breakout for Metric 2.5.B: Number of Graduates Taking an AP STEM 

Exam during High School: U.S. Public Schools, 2012–14

Race/Ethnicity Gender

Socioeconomic 

Status

Total

American 

Indian/

Alaska 

Native

Asian, 

Asian 

American, 

Pacific 

Islander

Black or 

African 

American

Hispanic 

or 

Latino White Other

No 

Response Female Male

Low 

Income

Not 

Low 

Income

Number of 

Graduates, 

2012

2,363 73,503 36,689 64,237 298,859 15,001 7,270 256,705 241,217 114,658 383,264 497,922

Number of 

Graduates, 

2013

2,918 78,886 37,816 74,015 312,917 16,785 3,664 271,217 255,784 128,782 398,219 527,001

Number of 

Graduates, 

2014

3,103 83,412 41,108 82,595 323,887 17,723 3,291 287,424 267,695 142,307 412,812 555,119

Data Source and Frequency of Collection: College Board/AP administrative records; annually 

Selected Strategies to Achieve Goal 2

During FY 2015, the Department implemented a reorganization in OESE that incorporates a 

new (and aforementioned) Office of State Support, which replaces and enhances services 

previously provided by the units formerly known as the Office of Student Achievement and 

School Accountability, Office of School Turnaround, and the Implementation and Support Unit 

(ISU). This reorganization integrates key state-administered programs in a new office that will 

provide improved state-centered support across programs. The Department is using this 

reorganization to rethink, redesign, and rebuild core grant administration functions in order to 

provide more transparent, higher quality, and better differentiated support to states. This new 

structure, which builds on the collaboration that has occurred between OESE, the ISU, and 

OSEP, will better support states in implementing the key reform programs and initiatives that 

support Goal 2, and in transitioning to and implementing the ESSA, and will improve the 

Department’s ability to execute its core priorities. The Department will continue to provide 

technical assistance to states in the areas of college- and career-ready standards and 

assessments, teacher and principal evaluation and support systems, and turning around the 

lowest-performing schools. The Department will begin to implement a revised process for peer 

reviewing state assessments to ensure that they are high-quality and will work with states to 

implement their plans for ensuring equitable access to effective teachers and leaders for all 

students. 

Finally, the Department will explore all opportunities for meaningful guidance and regulations 

under the ESSA that would help states implement the new law and promote the equity and 

excellence objectives that Goal 2 represents.