FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 19

Performance Plan Summary

Looking Ahead and Addressing Challenges

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

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

Excellent Education for All

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

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

new National Center for Education Statistics data. 

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

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

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

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

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

from school. 

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

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

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

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

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

 more flexibility for state decision-making; 

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

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

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

affordability and completion. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

schools. 

Data Verification and Validation 

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

of data presented. OMB guidance indicates: 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

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

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

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

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

websites).7

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

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

Reporting on Progress 

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

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

achieving strategic goals and outcomes. Additionally, the Organizational Performance Review 

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

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

improve their efficiency and effectiveness through operational and administration priorities and 

initiatives at the principal office level. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

grantees and contractors as well as in its general operations. 

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

and employing lessons to improve practices. Creating a culture of continuous improvement is at 

the heart of the Department’s efforts to partner with and support educators, administrators, and 

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

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

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

 

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

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

Goal 1. Postsecondary Education, Career and Technical Education, 

and Adult Education: 

Increase college access, affordability, quality, and completion by 

improving postsecondary education and lifelong learning 

opportunities for youths and adults. 

Goal Leader: Ted Mitchell

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

Student Aid (FAFSA) 

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

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

hours worked, and hourly wages of VR consumers) 

Metric 1.1.E: Index of national annual aggregate earnings of Transition-Age Youth 

(based on the number of competitive integrated employment outcomes, hours worked, 

and hourly wages of VR Transition-Age Youth) 

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

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

participate in civic life. Objective Leader: Jon O’Bergh 

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

graduation rates10

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

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

populations. Objective Leader: Jon O’Bergh 

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

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

 

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

and addition of metrics. 

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

and addition of metrics. 

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

removal and addition of metrics. 

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

removal and addition of metrics. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

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

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

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

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

programs. Objective Leader: Russ Shilling

Metric 1.4.A: Number of STEM postsecondary credentials awarded 

Goal 1 Discretionary Resources

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

FY 2015

FY 2016

FY 2017

$29,632

$29,867

$30,148

(Dollars in millions)

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities13 Supporting Goal 1 Performance Metrics 

[Dollars in Millions]

POC Account Obj. Program

FY 2015 

Appropriation

FY 2016 

Appropriation

FY 2017 

President’s 

Budget

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

FSA SAA Student Aid Administration: Servicing Activities 722 855 900

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

OCTAE CTAE 1.1, 

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

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

OPE HE 1.1, 1.3 Federal TRIO programs 840 900 900

OPE HE First in the World 60 0 100

OPE HE 

HBCU and minority-serving institutions (MSI) 

innovation for completion fund (proposed) 0 0 30

Subtotal 26,459 26,627 26,912

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

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

POC = Principal Office Component 

NA = Not applicable. 

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

 

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

removal and addition of metrics. 

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

noncompetitive programs. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

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

Public Benefit

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

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

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

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

learning opportunities. 

Prior to entering postsecondary education, prospective students need easily accessible 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

success in the workplace and in life. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

learning.15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

14 Federal Student Aid Annual Report FY 2015.

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

postsecondary programs. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

postsecondary degree or other postsecondary credential.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

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

Goal 1: Details

U.S. Department 

of Education 

Indicators of 

Success

Baseline

Actuals Current Year 

Target Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals)

2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

1.1.A. Rate of 

increase in net 

price of public fouryear institutions16

AY: 2010–11

1.7%

AY: 2010–11

1.7%

AY:

2011–12

3.1%

AY:

2012–13

0.6%

AY: 2012–13

1.3% MET

1.3%

0.6%

0.0%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

0.8%

1.0%

1.2%

1.4%

1.1.A

NA NA

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

2013 2014 2015

New Metric: 

Federal student 

loan delinquency 

rate

FY: 2015

21.7% NA FY: 201424.0%

FY: 2015

21.7% NA NA

+/- 3–5% 

over prior 

year’s 

actuals

+/- 3–5% 

over prior 

year’s 

actuals

1.1.B. Rate of 

increase in net 

price of public twoyear institutions17

AY: 2010–11

1.7%

AY: 2010–11

1.7%

AY: 

2011–12

3.2%

AY: 

2012–13

0.1%

AY: 2012–13

1.3% MET

1.3%

0.1%

0.0%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

0.8%

1.0%

1.2%

1.4%

1.1.B

NA NA

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

2013 2014 2015

 

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

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

removed were 1.1% and 0.9%, respectively. 

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

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

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

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

U.S. Department 

of Education 

Indicators of 

Success

Baseline

Actuals Current Year 

Target Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals)

2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

New Metric: Web 

traffic to the 

College Scorecard

(as measured by 

unique visitors 

annually)

FY: 2015 

91,011

(Excluding 

new 

Scorecard 

launch on 

Sept. 12, 

2015)

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

New APG Metric: 

Number of data 

points or other 

information reports

released on the 

FSA Data Center18

FY: 2009–14

12 NA NA 12 NA NA 15 30

1.1.C. Percentage 

of high school 

seniors filing a 

FAFSA

SY: 2012–13

59.2%

SY: 2012–13

59.2%

SY: 

2013–14

60.1%

SY: 

2014–15

60.5%

SY 2014–15 

59.1%–

61.1%

MET

59.1%

60.5%

50.0%

51.0%

52.0%

53.0%

54.0%

55.0%

56.0%

57.0%

58.0%

59.0%

60.0%

61.0%

1.1.C

+/- one 

percentage 

point of prior 

year’s

actuals

+/- one 

percentage 

point of prior 

year’s

actuals

55.5%

57.5%

59.5%

61.5%

2013 2014 2015

1.1.D. Index of 

national aggregate 

annual earnings of 

VR consumers 

(based on the 

number of 

competitive 

integrated 

employment 

outcomes, hours 

worked, and hourly 

wages of VR 

consumers)

FY: 

2010

$57,971,317

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

1419

TBD

Data 

available Q1 

FY16

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

61,500,000

61,600,000

61,700,000

61,800,000

61,900,000

2013 2014

 

18 Metric is aligned with an APG. 

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

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

U.S. Department 

of Education 

Indicators of 

Success

Baseline

Actuals Current Year 

Target Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals)

2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

1.1.E. Index of 

national aggregate 

annual earnings of 

Transition-Age 

Youth (based on 

the number of 

competitive 

integrated 

employment 

outcomes, hours 

worked, and hourly 

wages of VR 

Transition-Age 

Youth)

FY:

2010

$15,971,665

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

7620

TBD

Data 

available Q1 

FY16

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

17,500,000

17,700,000

17,900,000

18,100,000

18,300,000

18,500,000

18,700,000

2013 2014

1.2.A. Number of 

low-performing 

institutions with 

high loan default 

rates and low 

graduation rates21

AY: 2010–11

205

AY: 2010–11

205

AY: 

2011–12

91

AY: 

2012–13

55

AY: 2012–13 

155 MET

155

55

0

50

100

150

200

1.2.A

NA NA

0

50

100

150

200

250

2013 2014 2015

New Metric: Pell 

enrollment at IHEs 

with high 

graduation rates22

AY: 2013–14

24.1% NA NA

AY:

2013–14

24.1%

NA NA AY 2014–15

25.0%

AY 2015–16

26.0%

New Metric: 

Number of states 

that develop or 

strengthen career 

pathways policies, 

guidance, or 

legislation

FY: 2015 

8

NA NA 8 NA NA 10 37

 

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

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

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

removed were 135 and 117, respectively. 

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

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

U.S. Department 

of Education 

Indicators of 

Success

Baseline

Actuals Current Year 

Target Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals)

2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

1.3.A. Degree 

attainment among 

25–34-year-old 

age cohort23

Current 

Population 

Survey 

(CPS) Year: 

2012

44.0%

CPS Year: 

2012

44.0%

CPS 

Year: 

2013

44.8%

CPS 

Year: 

2014

45.7%

45.6% MET

45.6

%

45.7

%

45.0%

45.1%

45.2%

45.3%

45.4%

45.5%

45.6%

45.7%

45.8%

1.3.A

46.8% 48.4%

35.0%

37.0%

39.0%

41.0%

43.0%

45.0%

47.0%

2013 2014 2015

1.3.B. Retention 

rate of first-time 

degree-seeking 

undergraduates: 

Full-time24

AY: 2011

71.9%

AY: 2011

71.9%

AY: 2012

71.8%

AY: 2013

72.9% 72.1% MET

72.

1%

72.

9%

45.0%

50.0%

55.0%

60.0%

65.0%

70.0%

75.0%

1.3.B

NA NA

65.0%

67.0%

69.0%

71.0%

73.0%

75.0%

2013 2014 2015

New Metric: 

Enrollment in IHEs 

where students’ 

median earnings 

10 years after 

entering college 

are below a 

minimum earnings 

threshold25

AY: 

2012–13

9.7%

NA NA

AY: 

2012–13

9.7%

NA NA 9.4% 9.0%

 

23 Metric is aligned with an APG. 

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

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

removed were 72.1% and 72.3%, respectively. 

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

$19,000 for less-than-2-year institutions, $26,000 for 2-year institutions, and $35,000 for 4-year institutions. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

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

U.S. Department 

of Education 

Indicators of 

Success

Baseline

Actuals Current Year 

Target Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals)

2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

1.3.C. Retention 

rate of first-time 

degree-seeking 

undergraduates: 

Part-time26

AY: 2011

41.7%

AY: 2011

41.7%

AY: 2012

42.2%

AY: 2013

43.1% 42.6% MET

42.6

%

43.1

%

40.0%

40.5%

41.0%

41.5%

42.0%

42.5%

43.0%

43.5%

1.3.C

NA NA

35.0%

37.0%

39.0%

41.0%

43.0%

45.0%

2013 2014 2015

New Metric:

FAFSA renewal 

rate

FY: 2015

79% NA NA FY: 201579% NA NA

+/- one 

percentage 

point over 

prior year’s 

actual

+/- one 

percentage 

point over 

prior year’s 

actual

1.4.A. Number of 

STEM 

postsecondary 

credentials 

awarded

AY: 2010–11

531,018

AY: 2010–11

531,018

AY: 

2011–12

556,696

AY: 

2012–13

573,911

595,000 NOT 

MET

595,

000

573,

911

500,000

520,000

540,000

560,000

580,000

600,000

1.4.A

638,000 691,000

500,000

520,000

540,000

560,000

580,000

2013 2014 2015

NA = Not applicable. 

TBD = To be determined. 

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

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

Data Sources and Frequency of Collection: 

1.1.A. Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS); annually 

1.1.B. IPEDS; annually 

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

FSA’s Central Processing System and is based on the number of applications during the first nine months of the application cycle that are—as of September 30 of the first year of the 

application cycle—complete (not rejected); first-time filers; incoming freshmen, with or without previous college attendance; age 18 or less as of June 30 of the first year of the 

application cycle; reporting high school diploma attainment; and attended a high school in the fifty states and Washington, DC; annually 

 

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

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

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

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

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

1.1.E. RSA-911; annually 

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

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

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

1.3.B. IPEDS Data Center; annually 

1.3.C. IPEDS Data Center; annually 

1.4.A. IPEDS Data Center; annually 

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

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

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

Analysis and Next Steps by Objective

Objective 1.1: Access and Affordability 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

an outreach effort to encourage institutions to sign on. 

Recognizing that FAFSA completion significantly increases chances that students will actually 

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

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

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

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

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

the FAFSA. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Department’s oversight capabilities. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

renegotiated in the future. 

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

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

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

educational opportunities and help incarcerated individuals successfully transition out of prison 

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

demonstration projects through the Improving Reentry Education grant competition, and 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

subsequently announced in October 2015.) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

these metrics with different metrics for FY 2016. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Employment programs. WIOA places significant emphasis on obtaining competitive integrated 

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

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

most significant disabilities, to achieve competitive integrated employment through customized 

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

continue to track national aggregate annual earnings of Vocational Rehabilitation consumers 

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

actions that the Department will undertake in FY 2016. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

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

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

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

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

communicate information about federal student loan repayment options; conducting rulemaking 

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

proposal for a single income-driven repayment plan. 

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

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

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

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

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

affordable. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Objective 1.2: Quality 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

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

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

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

areas of English language acquisition and vocational rehabilitation for individuals with 

 

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

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

disabilities. Most significantly, the Department implemented the Gainful Employment 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

education. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

grants. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

enforcement-related issues. 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

comprehensive, and sustained service pathways and improving outcomes for disconnected 

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

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

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

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

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

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

international labor unions and labor-management collaborations. 

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

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

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

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

completion certificates. 

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

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

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

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

Scorecard. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

The Department will continue various rulemaking development and implementation activities 

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

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

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

WIOA, Teacher Prep, and cash management regulations.29

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

institutional behavior. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

certificates or degrees in high-demand fields.

Objective 1.3: Completion 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

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

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

incorporated a competitive preference priority to increase postsecondary access, affordability 

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

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

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

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

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

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

designed to improve academic success, including innovative and customized instruction 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

models and practices at the local level. 

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

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

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

time and encourage all institutions to improve their performance. 

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

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

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

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

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

improve developmental education practices across several states. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

underrepresented students, and helping more students complete their degrees. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

dialogue with the federal agencies. 

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

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

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

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

rates overall, the Department proposes alternative metrics to replace 1.3.B and 1.3.C for FY 

2016.

Challenges and Next Steps: 

The Department’s ability to significantly impact completion rates on a large scale nationwide 

depends on Congressional support for programs proposed through the budget process. There is 

also a time lag in that actions and changes initiated in any particular year will take several years 

to show results as the cohort progresses through its educational programs. The Department will 

continue to incorporate postsecondary completion as a competitive preference priority in grant 

competitions where appropriate. 

While the Department achieved its FY 2015 performance target for educational attainment, the 

targets in future years are set to grow at increasingly accelerated rates in order to reach the 

President’s 2020 goal of 60 percent degree attainment. However, while increases in high school 

graduation rates (one of the factors that feed into the attainment rate) are growing, data from the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics show that fewer high school graduates are opting for college than 

they were in 2009—65.9 percent in 2013 and 68.4 percent in 2014, compared to a high point of 

70.1 percent in 2009.30 Total fall enrollment has declined as well, falling by an estimated 3.6 

percent in 2014 from an enrollment surge in 2010.31 These data may be attributable to the 

 

30 Bureau of Labor Statistics, College Enrollment and Work Activity of High School Graduates News Release, April 22, 2014, and 

April 16, 2015: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/hsgec.htm. 

31 National Center for Educational Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics 2014, “Table 303.10. Total fall enrollment in degreegranting postsecondary institutions, by attendance status, sex of student, and control of institution: Selected years, 1947 through 

2024”: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/dt14_303.10.asp. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 38

natural cycle of higher enrollment rates during economic downturns followed by comparatively 

lower rates as the economy improves, but these trends may impact the ability to achieve the 

targeted growth in the attainment rate unless institutions significantly increase the percentage of 

students who complete their programs of study. Despite efforts to support college completion for 

underrepresented students, equity gaps in the attainment rate based on race, ethnicity, and 

disability status have not lessened. 

Subpopulation Breakout for Metric 1.3.A: Degree attainment among 25–34-year-old age 

cohort, by race/ethnicity and disability status* 

White Black Hispanic Asian

Pacific 

Islander

American 

Indian

Two or 

More 

Races Disability

Percentage, 

2012 51.6% 32.6% 22.6% 68.7% 37.2%** 29.3%** 45.7% 20.9%

Percentage, 

2013 52.4% 33.2% 22.7% 70.9% 41.4%** 25.1%** 46.7% 19.1%

Percentage, 

2014 53.6% 33.0% 24.0% 71.5% 30.6%** 21.4%** 44.4% 21.0%

Note: Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. 

* Disability is defined as: deaf; blind; difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions; difficulty walking or climbing stairs; 

difficulty dressing or bathing; difficulty doing errands alone. 

** Interpret with caution; small sample sizes reduce the reliability of these estimates. 

Data Source and Frequency of Collection: NCES tabulations of data from the Current Population Survey, Census; annually

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

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

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

improvement. The number of STEM postsecondary credentials awarded is shaped by actions 

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

by market forces and jobs creation trends. Many external factors impact this objective but the 

Department can nonetheless assert considerable influence to improve quality and access in 

STEM education. The total number of STEM postsecondary credentials awarded reflects a 

mixed response to the President’s call to graduate an additional 1 million STEM majors by 2020. 

To reach that ambitious goal, the target of total credentials established for FY 2015 was 

595,000; the actual number of granted credentials was 573,911. The First in the World program, 

which seeks to address persistent and widespread challenges in postsecondary education for 

high-need students, awarded more than half of the development grants for implementation and 

evaluation of projects to increase success in STEM fields or that utilize education technology to 

enhance learning and assessment. 

OCTAE is leading initiatives seeking to increase knowledge of and access to postsecondary 

STEM opportunities. For example, the CTE makeover challenge will incorporate “making” and 

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

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

career exploration by empowering students with individualized career and education 

information. During this reporting period, the White House Initiative on Historically Black 

Colleges and Universities held its annual conference focused on STEM and entrepreneurship. 

Across the administration, the Committee on STEM Education (CoSTEM) has established a 

task force which is working to enhance the undergraduate experience of STEM majors through 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 39

a formally chartered interagency working group led by the National Science Foundation (NSF). 

The group is focused on four major objectives: 

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

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

between two- and four-year postsecondary institutions; 

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

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

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

introductory math courses at the undergraduate level. 

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

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

We anticipate that increasing the overall pipeline of candidates pursuing postsecondary 

education through community colleges and articulation programs will help address the decline in 

STEM certificates awarded. 

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

participation in STEM. More STEM credentials were awarded in 2012–13 to students of each 

gender and racial/ethnic category—including Hispanic and Black—than in previous years, with 

the exception of American Indian and Alaska Native students. Along with the CoSTEM 

interagency working group focused on broadening participation in STEM, the My Brother’s 

Keeper and Reach Higher initiatives, as well as other targeted efforts, may help expand 

participation of underrepresented groups in postsecondary STEM programs. 

Challenges and Next Steps:

The Office of STEM has been in place since June 2014. As a comparatively new entity one of 

its primary tasks has been to identify programs within the Department and across the federal 

government that are well suited for enhancing and increasing STEM participation through 

strategic use of STEM priorities. For programs that have already implemented STEM strategies, 

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

Department that address STEM degree and credential completion in particular are limited to 

select programs that target minority-serving institutions. As the next grant cycle commences, the 

Department is engaging in planning meetings that will identify areas for strategic leverage—

technical assistance to grantees, preaward support to potential applicants, etc. The Department 

will continue to promote STEM pathway opportunities within the CoSTEM structure that include 

community colleges, as well as engage with specific STEM-focused initiatives led by corporate 

and philanthropic entities that help elevate the quality of STEM programs and advance STEM 

participation (e.g., STEM Learning Ecosystems). 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 40

Subpopulation Breakout for Metric 1.4.A: STEM* postsecondary credentials awarded by 

degree-granting institutions**, by gender and race/ethnicity 

Year Total

Gender Race/Ethnicity

Male Female White Black Hispanic

Asian/Pacific Islander American 

Indian/

Alaska 

Native

Two or 

More 

Races

Nonresident 

Total Asian Alien

Pacific 

Islander

2010–

11 531,018 370,922 160,096 319,327 47,014 45,794 51,461 50,250 1,211 3,601 5,551 58,270

2011–

12 556,696 387,705 168,991 333,652 47,004 49,262 53,670 52,336 1,334 3,600 7,388 62,120

2012–

13 573,911 397,074 176,837 337,191 47,721 52,982 56,984 55,564 1,420 3,580 9,809 65,644

* STEM includes the following fields: Biological and biomedical sciences, Computer and information sciences, Engineering, 

Engineering technologies and engineering-related fields, Mathematics and statistics, and Physical sciences and science 

technologies. Engineering technologies and engineering-related fields excludes “Construction trades” and “Mechanic and repair 

technologies/technicians,” which are listed separately. The baseline has been recalculated from what was reported in the FY 2013 

Annual Performance Report and FY 2015 Annual Performance Plan because of revised IPEDS data. Additionally, last year’s data 

included Military technologies and applied sciences, which is no longer included in the calculation. 

** Degree-granting institutions grant associate’s or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Race 

categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Reported racial/ethnic distributions of students by level of degree, field of degree, 

and sex were used to estimate race/ethnicity for students whose race/ethnicity was not reported. To facilitate trend comparisons, 

certain aggregations have been made of the degree fields as reported in the IPEDS Fall survey: “Agriculture and natural resources” 

includes Agriculture, agriculture operations, and related sciences and Natural resources and conservation; and “Business” includes 

Business management, marketing, and related support services and Personal and culinary services. 

Data Source and Frequency of Collection: IPEDS Data Center; annually 

Selected Strategies to Achieve Goal 1

The Department must ensure that all students—recent high school graduates and adult learners 

alike—are well prepared for college and careers by helping more of them enroll in 

postsecondary education or training and helping to increase the number of those who complete 

programs of study with a degree or certificate. This effort includes continuing to promote STEM 

pathway opportunities that help elevate the quality of STEM programs and advance STEM 

participation. 

The Department continues to help struggling federal student loan borrowers manage their debt. 

Activities planned for FY 2016 include rulemaking to address borrower defense to repayment 

issues; new borrower outreach efforts about repayment options; strengthening loan servicing in 

ways that better serve borrowers; and advocating to simplify income-driven repayment plans. 

FSA is also developing a student aid complaint system that will allow students to submit 

complaints easily. Another FSA initiative, creating an enterprise data warehouse, will provide 

timely, accurate, and consistent access to FSA data. FSA has begun releasing additional 

information and reports to the public and will continue those transparency efforts in FY 2016.

To most effectively impact attainment rates, the Department will implement the President’s 

College Value and Affordability Agenda. One central strategy promotes innovation and 

competition (such as in course redesign and student services, accelerating time to degree by 

fostering dual enrollment and competency-based education). To support innovation and 

competition, the Department will launch Experimental Sites pilots on competency-based 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 41

education, prior learning assessment, dual enrollment, and alternative methods of quality 

assurance; and award P3 for Disconnected Youth.32

A second major strategy holds institutions and students accountable for completion and 

postsecondary outcomes by fostering more informed decision-making by students and wiser 

investment of resources by institutions. To support this strategy, the Department will consider 

enhancements and additional data sources for the College Scorecard; continue implementing 

the Gainful Employment regulations; publish regulations implementing WIOA; and convene 

minority-serving community colleges in an effort to scale up successful practices that lead to 

completion, especially in the area of remedial education. 

The Department will continue to spotlight model state programs and draw on them to shape 

federal strategies. The Department will highlight institutions that are working in noteworthy ways 

to successfully enroll and graduate low-income students. Furthermore, the Department 

continues to implement an evidence-based approach for institutional grants, with, for example, 

the use of competitive priorities in the SIP and the tiered-evidence structure of the First in the 

World grant competition. The net effect of these strategies will be to boost completion rates and, 

by extension, educational attainment. 

 

32 The P3 for Disconnected Youth awards were subsequently announced in October 2015. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

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

Goal 2. Elementary and Secondary Education: 

Improve the elementary and secondary education system’s ability to 

consistently deliver excellent instruction aligned with rigorous 

academic standards while providing effective support services to 

close achievement and opportunity gaps, and ensure all students 

graduate high school college- and career-ready. 

Goal Leader: Ann Whalen

Objective 2.1: Standards and Assessments. Support implementation of internationally 

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

assessments. Objective Leader: Ary Amerikaner 

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

standards34

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

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

standards 

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

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

teachers and leaders.36 Objective Leader: Ary Amerikaner 

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

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

student growth as a significant factor 

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

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

Objective Leader: Heather Rieman 

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

color (youth of color metric) 

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

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

only metric) 

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

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

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

Leader: Ary Amerikaner 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

ESEA Flexibility renewal process. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

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

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

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

and exited priority school status37 

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

and exited focus school status38

 

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

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

Objective Leader: Russ Shilling 

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

as their main assignment who hold a corresponding undergraduate degree 

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

STEM AP exam 

Goal 2 Discretionary Resources

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

FY 2015

FY 2016

FY 2017

$33,369

$34,407

$34,920

(Dollars in millions)

 

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

removal and addition of metrics. 

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

removal and addition of metrics. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

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

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities39 Supporting Goal 2 Performance Metrics 

[Dollars in Millions]

POC Account Obj. Program

FY 2015 

Appropriation

FY 2016 

Appropriation

FY 2017 

President’s 

Budget

OESE ED 2.4 School improvement grants 506 450 0

OESE ED 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 

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

OESE I&I 2.1 State assessments 378 378 403

OESE I&I 2.2 Teacher and school leader incentive 

grants 230 230 250

OESE SIP NA

Student support and academic 

enrichment grants 0 0 500

OESE SIP 2.2

Supporting effective instruction State 

grants 2,350 2,350 2,250

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

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

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

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

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

OII SIP 2.5 Mathematics and science partnerships 153 153 0

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

OPE HE 2.2

Teacher and principal pathways 

(proposed) 0 0 125

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

Subtotal 31,077 32,053 32,484

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

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

POC = Principal Office Component 

NA = Not applicable. 

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

Public Benefit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

redesigning high school education by building stronger connections among secondary 

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

classroom instruction in STEM education. 

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

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

 

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

noncompetitive programs. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

toward kids who need help the most. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and other subjects. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

work.

 

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

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

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

Goal 2: Details

U.S. Department of 

Education

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals

Current 

Year 

Target

Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals)

2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

2.1.A. Number of 

states/territories that have 

adopted college- and careerready standards41

SY: 2012–

13

49, plus 

DC

49, plus 

DC

49, plus 

DC and 

Puerto 

Rico

SY: 

2014–15 

51 (49 

plus DC 

and 

Puerto 

Rico)

50 MET

50

51

40

42

44

46

48

50

52

2.1.A

(49 plus 

D.C.& 

Puerto 

Rico)

52 52

45

47

49

51

53

2013 2014 2015

2.1.B. Number of 

states/territories that are 

implementing nextgeneration reading and 

mathematics assessments, 

aligned with college- and 

career-ready standards42

SY: 2012–

13

0

0 0

SY: 

2014–15

49 (48 

plus DC)

50 NOT 

MET

50

49

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

2.1.B

(Plus 

D.C.)

52 52

2.2.A. Number of states that 

have fully implemented 

teacher and principal 

evaluation and support 

systems that consider 

multiple measures of 

effectiveness, with student 

growth as a significant 

factor43

SY: 2012–

13

6

6 7 8 37 NOT 

MET

37

8

0

10

20

30

40

50

2.2.A

2244 3945

0

2

4

6

8

10

2013 2014 2015

 

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

of territories to align with the APG statement. 

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

43 Metric is aligned with an APG.

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

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

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

U.S. Department of 

Education

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals

Current 

Year 

Target

Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals)

2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

2.3.A. Disparity in the rates 

of out-of-school suspensions 

for students with disabilities 

and youth of color (youth of 

color metric)

SY: 2011–

12

10.7% 

point 

disparity

Not 

Collected

TBD

SY 2013–

14 data 

collected 

in 2015

and 

available 

in 2016

Not 

Collected

NA

Biennial 

Metric

6.7% point 

disparity

NA

Biennial 

Metric

2.3.B. Disparity in the rates 

of out-of-school suspensions 

for students with disabilities 

and youth of color (SWDs, 

IDEA only metric)

SY: 2011–

12

5.7% point 

disparity 

Not 

Collected

TBD

SY 2013–

14 data 

collected 

in 2015

and 

available 

in 2016

Not 

Collected

NA

Biennial 

Metric

2.7% point 

disparity

NA

Biennial 

Metric

2.4.A. Number of 

persistently low graduation 

rate high schools 

SY: 2011–

12

775

SY:

2011–12

775

SY: 

2012–13

737

SY: 

2013–14

680

699 MET

699

680

600

620

640

660

680

700

720

2.4.A

5% annual 

reduction

5% annual 

reduction46

550

600

650

700

750

800

2013 2014 2015

2.4.B. Percentage of Cohort 

1 priority schools that have 

met the state exit criteria and 

exited priority school status47

SY: 2013–

14 

NA

NA 16.3%48 NA 15% NA49 NA NA

 

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

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

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

removed were 20.0% and 25.0%, respectively. 

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

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

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

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

U.S. Department of 

Education

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals

Current 

Year 

Target

Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals)

2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

New Metric: Percentage of 

SIG schools in Cohort 5 that 

are above the 25th

percentile in mathematics, 

as measured by their state 

assessments

SY: 2013–

14 

19.7%

NA NA

SY: 

2013–14

19.7%

NA NA TBD TBD

2.4.C. Percentage of Cohort 

1 focus schools that have 

met the state exit criteria and 

exited focus school status50

SY: 2013–

14

NA

NA 11.9%51 NA 15% NA52 NA NA

New Metric: Percentage of 

SIG schools in Cohort 5 that 

are above the 25th

percentile in 

reading/language arts, as 

measured by their state 

assessments

SY: 2013–

14 

20.1%

NA NA

SY:

2013–14

20.1%

NA NA TBD TBD

2.5.A. Percentage of high 

school and middle school 

teachers who teach STEM 

as their main assignment 

who hold a corresponding 

undergraduate degree

AY: 2011–

12

62.2%

Not 

Collected

Not 

Collected

Not 

Collected NA NA 65.3% 65.3%

2.5.B. Number of public high 

school graduates who have 

taken at least one STEM AP 

exam

AY: 2011–

12

497,922

AY: 

2011–12

497,922

AY: 

2012–13

527,001

AY: 

2013–14

555,119

581,419 NOT 

MET

581,

419

555,

119

500,000

520,000

540,000

560,000

580,000

600,000

2.5.B

632,642 691,541

460,000

480,000

500,000

520,000

540,000

560,000

2013 2014 2015

NA = Not applicable. 

TBD = To be determined. 

 

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

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

removed were 20.0% and 25.0%, respectively. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data Sources and Frequency of Collection: 

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

2.1.B. ESEA Flexibility Monitoring; annually 

2.2.A. ESEA Flexibility Applications and Monitoring; annually 

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

2.3.B. CRDC; biennially 

2.4.A. EDFacts; annually 

2.4.B. EDFacts; annually 

2.4.C. EDFacts; annually 

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis and Next Steps by Objective

Objective 2.1: Standards and Assessments 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

related to the new standards will require continuing support. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

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

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

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

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

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

on the impact of the ESSA. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ensure that all students are prepared for postsecondary success. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 2015. 

Objective 2.2: Effective Teachers and Strong Leaders 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

student learning growth as a significant factor. 

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

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

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

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

evaluation and support systems are unlikely to be successful. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the impact of the ESSA. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

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

Objective 2.3: School Climate and Community 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

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

essential precondition to scalable improvements in the academic achievement, socioemotional 

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

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

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

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

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

to suggest that suspensions and expulsions disproportionately impact minority students and 

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

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

rigors and opportunities of meaningful postsecondary educations and careers requires that 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

actionable strategies to address and eliminate chronic absenteeism within communities. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

practitioners and policymakers do not understand the relationship between conditions for 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Objective 2.4: Turn Around Schools and Close Achievement Gaps: 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

incorporate early learning as a turnaround strategy. 

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

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

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

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

students. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and schools. 

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

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

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

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

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

leaders with the specialized skills needed to turn schools around. 

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

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

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

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

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

Objective 2.5: STEM Teaching and Learning: 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

align with the CoSTEM goals. 

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

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

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

resources to support STEM teacher leadership efforts. 

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

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

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

 

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

informal or formal settings. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

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

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

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

participation (which has been the case since 2002). 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

for students within the entire P-12 spectrum. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Race/Ethnicity Gender

Socioeconomic 

Status

Total

American 

Indian/

Alaska 

Native

Asian, 

Asian 

American, 

Pacific 

Islander

Black or 

African 

American

Hispanic 

or 

Latino White Other

No 

Response Female Male

Low 

Income

Not 

Low 

Income

Number of 

Graduates, 

2012

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

Number of 

Graduates, 

2013

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

Number of 

Graduates, 

2014

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

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

Selected Strategies to Achieve Goal 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

provide more transparent, higher quality, and better differentiated support to states. This new 

structure, which builds on the collaboration that has occurred between OESE, the ISU, and 

OSEP, will better support states in implementing the key reform programs and initiatives that 

support Goal 2, and in transitioning to and implementing the ESSA, and will improve the 

Department’s ability to execute its core priorities. The Department will continue to provide 

technical assistance to states in the areas of college- and career-ready standards and 

assessments, teacher and principal evaluation and support systems, and turning around the 

lowest-performing schools. The Department will begin to implement a revised process for peer 

reviewing state assessments to ensure that they are high-quality and will work with states to 

implement their plans for ensuring equitable access to effective teachers and leaders for all 

students. 

Finally, the Department will explore all opportunities for meaningful guidance and regulations 

under the ESSA that would help states implement the new law and promote the equity and 

excellence objectives that Goal 2 represents. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 57

Goal 3. Early Learning: 

Improve the health, social-emotional, and cognitive outcomes for all 

children from birth through 3rd grade, so that all children, 

particularly those with high needs, are on track for graduating from 

high school college- and career-ready. 

Goal Leader: Ann Whalen 

Objective 3.1: Access to High-Quality Programs and Services. Increase access to highquality early learning programs and comprehensive services, especially for children with high 

needs. Objective Leader: Libby Doggett 

Metric 3.1.A: Number of states with Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (QRIS) 

that meet high-quality benchmarks for child care and other early childhood programs54

Objective 3.2: Effective Workforce. Improve the quality and effectiveness of the early learning 

workforce so that early childhood educators have the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary 

to improve young children’s health, social-emotional, and cognitive outcomes. Objective 

Leader: Libby Doggett 

Metric 3.2.A: Number of states and territories with professional development systems 

that include core knowledge and competencies, career pathways, professional 

development capacity assessments, accessible professional development opportunities, 

and financial supports for child care providers55

Objective 3.3: Measuring Progress, Outcomes, and Readiness. Improve the capacity of 

states and early learning programs to develop and implement comprehensive early learning 

assessment systems. Objective Leader: Libby Doggett 

Metric 3.3.A: Number of states collecting and reporting disaggregated data on the 

status of children at kindergarten entry using a common measure 

 

54 Metric is being removed at the end of the FY 2015 reporting period. Please refer to appendix B for details pertaining to the 

removal and addition of metrics. 

55 Metric is being removed at the end of the FY 2015 reporting period. Please refer to appendix B for details pertaining to the 

removal and addition of metrics. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 58

Goal 3 Discretionary Resources

$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500

FY 2015

FY 2016

FY 2017

$1,068

$1,103

$933

(Dollars in millions)

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities56 Supporting Goal 3 Performance Metrics 

[Dollars in Millions]

POC Account Obj. Program

FY 2015 

Appropriation

FY 2016 

Appropriation

FY 2017 

President’s 

Budget

OESE I&I 3.1 Preschool development grants 250 250 0

57

OSERS SE 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 Grants for infants and families 439 459 504

OSERS SE 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 Preschool grants 353 368 403

Subtotal 1,042 1,077 907

Other Discretionary Programs/Activities 26 26 26

TOTAL, GOAL 3 1,068 1,103 933

POC = Principal Office Component 

NOTES: Many programs may have sub-activities that relate to other goals. Detail may not add to total due to rounding. 

Public Benefit

Each year, about 4 million children enter kindergarten in the United States. They live in cities, 

suburbs, and rural areas. They speak many languages, come from diverse cultures, and have 

differing abilities, which may require individualized services and supports. Parents and 

caregivers send their children to school believing that one day their children will be able to 

pursue their dreams—whether that is teaching, protecting their communities as police officers, 

making scientific discoveries, or helping companies and organizations succeed. All parents 

hope their child will start school ready for success. And many parents turn that hope into action, 

seeking out supportive and high-quality early learning opportunities. Unfortunately, not every 

 

56 All the programs listed are discretionary programs, as distinct from mandatory programs. These include both competitive and 

noncompetitive programs. 

57 Funds are included in the 2017 President’s Budget for the Department of Health and Human Services.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 59

parent finds those opportunities, and access to high-quality early learning opportunities differs 

across states and communities. There are large disparities in enrollment based on geography, 

race, and socioeconomic levels. As a result, too many children enter kindergarten a year or 

more behind their classmates in academic skills and socio-emotional development.58 For some 

children, starting school already behind can trap them in a cycle of continuous catch-up in their 

learning. As a nation, we must ensure that all children, regardless of family circumstance, 

immigration status, the color of their skin, disability, or their zip code, have access to highquality early learning opportunities. 

Advances in education, developmental psychology, neuroscience, medicine, and economics 

have helped to demonstrate the benefits of quality early education for young children and that 

the years from birth to age five are a critical period in children’s learning and development, 

providing the necessary foundation for more advanced skills.59 For example, at kindergarten 

entry, children with bigger vocabularies at an early age have higher reading and mathematics 

achievement and fewer behavior challenges.60 A robust body of research shows that children 

who participate in high-quality preschool programs have better health, social-emotional, and 

cognitive outcomes than those who do not participate. The gains are particularly powerful for 

children from low-income families and those at risk for academic failure who, on average, start 

kindergarten 12 to 14 months behind their peers in preliteracy and language skills.61

Studies also reveal that participating in quality early learning can boost children’s educational 

attainment and earnings later in life.62 Children who attend high-quality preschool programs are 

less likely to utilize special education services or be retained in their grade, and are more likely 

to graduate from high school, go on to college, and succeed in their careers than those who 

have not attended high-quality preschool programs.63 Research also suggests that expanding 

early learning—including high-quality preschool—provides society with a return on investment of 

$8.60 for every $1 spent with half of this benefit from increased earnings and improved health 

outcomes for children when they grow up.64

The Administration began efforts to increase investments in early learning in its first term and 

has continued to request additional funding in each subsequent budget proposal—through Head 

Start, child care, home visiting, IDEA Part C, ELC, and Preschool Development Grants. States 

and local communities have welcomed the opportunity to partner with the federal government 

through these early learning programs. 

From 2011 to 2013, 20 (of the 40 states that applied for ELC) were awarded grants. These 

grantees had committed to align, coordinate, and improve the quality of early learning programs 

 

58 Yoshikawa, Hirokazu, Christine Weiland, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Margaret R. Burchinal, Linda M. Espinosa, William T. Gormley, 

Jens Ludwig, Katherine A. Magnuson, Deborah Phillips, and Martha J. Zaslow. Investing in our future: The evidence base on 

preschool education. Vol. 9. Society for Research in Child Development and Foundation for Child Development, 2013. 

59 Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Burchinal, M., Espinosa, L., Gormley, W., & Zaslow, M. J. (2013). Investing in Our 

Future: The Evidence Base for Preschool Education. Policy brief, Society for Research in Child Development and the Foundation for 

Child Development. Retrieved from the Foundation for Child Development website: fcd-us.org/sites/default/files/Evidence Base on 

Preschool Education FINAL.pdf 

60 Maczuga, S., Morgan, P., Farkas, G., Hammer, C., Hillemeier, M., & Scheffner, C. 24-Month-Old Children With Larger Oral 

Vocabularies Display Greater Academic and Behavioral Functioning at Kindergarten Entry. Child Development, Volume 86, Issue 5, 

pages 1351–1370, September/October 2015. 

61 Committee on Integrating the Science of Early Childhood Development. From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early 

Childhood Development. (2000). Jack P. Shonkoff and Deborah A. Phillips, eds. Board on Children, Youth, and Families, 

Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 

62 See, e.g., Yoshikawa, et.al., Investing in Our Future: The Evidence Base on Preschool Education, 2013. 

63 Center for Public Education. (2008). The Research on Pre-K. Alexandria, VA. 

64 White House Council of Economic Advisors. The Economics of Early Childhood Investments, 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/early_childhood_report1.pdf
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 60

across multiple funding streams supporting children from birth through age 5 and serve as 

model early learning and development systems. By December 2014, nearly 14,000 early 

childhood programs are ranked in the highest quality tiers of the 20 ELC states’ rating 

systems—a 63 percent increase since the states applied for their grants—with significantly more 

children enrolled in the highest quality-rated early learning programs than ever before.65

National technical assistance is also available to help all states in building such systems. 

In 2013, the President’s Budget proposed a landmark investment to expand access to highquality preschool, Preschool for All. The President’s overarching vision has been captured in the 

bipartisan Strong Start for America’s Children Act reintroduced in the 114th Congress. This

legislation would fund voluntary, high-quality preschool for all four-year old children from families 

earning below 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Line in a state-federal partnership, and 

encourage states to spend their own funds to support preschool for young children with family 

incomes above that income level. The legislation would also expand Early Head Start-child care 

partnerships to help raise the quality of services for infants and toddlers and increase IDEA 

funding for young children with disabilities. 

In addition, Strong Start includes authorization for Preschool Development Grants, which were 

first funded by Congress in 2014. Last year 18 states (of the 36 that applied) were awarded 

grants to create or expand high-quality preschool programs for 4-year-olds in over 200 highneed communities. This program builds on the achievements of ELC by expanding access to 

preschool programs that include the following nationally recognized standards: high staff 

qualifications; professional development for teachers and staff; low staff-child ratios; small class 

sizes; full-day programs; developmentally appropriate, culturally and linguistically responsive 

instruction and evidence-based curricula and learning environments that are aligned with states’

early learning standards; inclusive programs for children with disabilities; employee salaries that 

are comparable to those for K–12 teaching staff; ongoing program evaluation to ensure 

continuous improvement; strong family engagement; and onsite comprehensive services for 

children. 

Providing children, including children with disabilities and those who are ELs, with quality early 

education experiences is essential to strengthening our nation’s economy. Significant new 

investments to expand access to high-quality early learning, improve the early childhood 

workforce, and support comprehensive assessment systems are necessary to help states, local 

communities, and parents close the school readiness gaps between disadvantaged children and 

their more advantaged peers. Only then can we ensure that all children graduate from high 

school prepared to succeed in college, careers, and life.

 

65 At a Glance: Race to the Top - Early Learning Challenge Year 2014 Progress Update http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetopearlylearningchallenge/2014apr/rtt-elc-2014-apr-progress.pdf 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 61

Goal 3: Details

U.S. Department of 

Education

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals

Current 

Year 

Target

Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals)

2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

3.1.A. Number of states with 

Quality Rating and 

Improvement Systems 

(QRIS) that meet high 

quality benchmarks for child 

care and other early 

childhood programs66

SY: 2010

17 27 2967 NA 32 NA68 NA NA

0

10

20

30

40

2012 2013 2014

New APG Metric: Percent 

of 4-year olds enrolled in 

state preschool programs69

SY: 2013–

14 

29.1%

NA

SY:

2013–14 

29.1%

NA NA NA 33.0% 35.0%

New APG Metric: Number 

of states with high-quality 

preschool program 

standards70

SY: 2013–

14 

15

NA

SY:

2013–14 

15

NA NA NA 19 21

3.2.A. Number of states and 

territories with professional 

development systems that 

include core knowledge and 

competencies, career 

pathways, professional 

development capacity 

assessments, accessible 

professional development 

opportunities, and financial 

supports for child care 

providers71

SY: 2011

30 30 Not Collected NA 38 NA72 NA NA

 

66 Metric being removed at the end of the FY 2015 reporting period and being replaced with the metric identified as “New Metric” directly below it. If there is no corresponding “New 

Metric” identified, new metric TBD. Please refer to appendix B for details pertaining to the removal and addition of metrics. The proposed FY 2016 and 2017 targets for the metric being 

removed were 35 and 37, respectively. 

67 Metric reported as TBD in the 2014 APR. 2014 actuals show the 2014 target was “Met.”

68 This is an HHS metric and out of the Department's control or influence. Please refer to footnote 66 for additional information. 

69 Metric is aligned with an APG. 

70 Metric is aligned with an APG. 

71 Metric being removed at the end of the FY 2015 reporting period and being replaced with the metric identified as “New Metric” directly below it. If there is no corresponding “New 

Metric” identified, new metric TBD. Please refer to appendix B for details pertaining to the removal and addition of metrics. The proposed FY 2016 and 2017 targets for the metric being 

removed were both NA. 

72 Please refer to footnote 68. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 62

U.S. Department of 

Education

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals

Current 

Year 

Target

Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals)

2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

New Metric: Number of 

states that require a teacher 

with a bachelor’s degree in a 

state preschool program

SY: 2013–

14

15

NA

SY: 

2013–14

15

NA NA NA 19 20

3.3.A. Number of states 

collecting and reporting 

disaggregated data on the 

status of children at 

kindergarten entry using a 

common measure

SY: 2010

2

3 5

73 1174 9 MET

9

11

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

3.3.A

14 1675

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2013 2014 2015

NA = Not applicable. 

TBD = To be determined. 

Academic Year (AY) is a collegiate year spanning August–May; School Year (SY) spans August–July and is aligned with a P–12 school year; Fiscal Year (FY) corresponds to a federal 

fiscal year; Calendar Year (CY) spans January–December. 

Data Sources and Frequency of Collection: 

3.1.A. Child Care Development Fund (CCDF) Report of State Plans with annual updates from states and territories (HHS/Office of Childcare); annually 

3.2.A. CCDF Report of State Plans (HHS/Office of Childcare); biennially 

3.3.A. Race to the Top (RTT)-Early Learning Challenge (ELC) Technical Assistance Center; annually 

Note on performance metrics and targets: These metrics were established as a part of the FY 2014–18 Strategic Plan. Metrics may be updated or revised to 

reflect awareness of more accurate data or clarifications. Such updates or revisions are identified in footnotes. 

 

73 Five ELC states implemented their KEA (OR, KY, VT, MD, and OH) in the 2014–15 school year. One state (DE) had planned to implement its KEA in 2014–15 year, but later 

adjusted its timeline to implement during the 2015–16 school year. As such, the FY14 actual is revised from six to five states. 

74 Eleven ELC states (CA, CO, DE, KY, MD, MA, MI, NC, OH, OR, and VT) are implementing their KEAs in the 2015–16 school year. The remaining eight states that chose to 

implement KEAs (GA, IL, MN, NJ, NM, PA, RI, WA) will begin after the 2015–16 school year. Wisconsin did not select to implement a KEA, but is implementing a statewide literacy 

assessment and is exploring the development and use of a KEA. 

75 There will be difficulty collecting ELC data in out-years because some grantees will no longer be reporting APR data. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 63

Analysis and Next Steps by Objective

Objective 3.1: Access to High-Quality Programs and Services 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

While states and the federal government both invest in early learning, these efforts have fallen 

short of what is needed to ensure that all children can access a high-quality early education that 

will prepare them for success. Across the nation, 58 percent of 4-year-olds and 85 percent of 

3-year-olds are not enrolled in publicly funded preschool programs through state preschool, 

Head Start, and preschool special education services.76 Even fewer are enrolled in the highestquality programs.77 Overall, during 2011–13, 4.4 million 3- and 4-year-olds were not attending 

any preschool at all, representing more than half (54 percent) of all children in that age group.78 

Children’s access to preschool also varies significantly by family income level and geographic 

region.79 As of the 2013–14 school year, 41 states and the District of Columbia offered

voluntary, state preschool programs for some children.80 In 2015–16, three states (Indiana, New 

Hampshire, and North Dakota) had small pilot programs. Hawaii now has a program reaching 

public school students and their Preschool Development Grant will serve children in the public 

charter school system. Montana’s Preschool Development Grant has provided that state’s first 

state preschool program, which by 2018 will provide high-quality preschool to over 5,000 

children from low-income families in sixteen communities, eight of which are on Indian lands. 

Twenty-nine percent of America’s 4-year-olds were enrolled in a state-funded preschool 

program in the 2013–14 school year. While total enrollment for 4-year-olds increased by 8,535, 

nearly half this increase was required to recoup the loss of 4,000 seats in 2012–13. At the May 

release of the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) Yearbook, Secretary 

Duncan noted, “The current pace of change is far too incremental...We have to think about 

transformational change.” In fact, as NIEER researchers observed, “at the 2013–2014 growth 

rate it would take about 75 years for states to reach 50 percent enrollment at age 4 and 

150 years to reach 70 percent enrollment.”

While states enroll a total of 1.35 million 3- and 4-year-olds in state preschool, enrollment in 

individual state programs significantly varies.81 For example, Florida, Oklahoma, Vermont, and 

the District of Columbia served more than 70 percent of their 4-year-olds in state-funded 

preschool, whereas 11 states with programs served fewer than 10 percent of 4-year-olds. These 

states are: Alabama; Alaska; Arizona; Delaware; Minnesota; Missouri; Nevada; Ohio; Oregon; 

 

76 Barnett, W.S., Carolan, M.E., Squires, J.H., Clarke Brown, K., & Horowitz, M. (2015). The state of preschool 2014: State 

preschool yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research. 

77 Nores, M., & Barnett, W.S. (2014). Access to High Quality Early Care and Education: Readiness and Opportunity Gaps in 

America (CEELO Policy Report). New Brunswick, NJ: Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes. 

78 Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2015). KIDS COUNT data center. Baltimore, MD: Author. http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/aecf2015kidscountdatabook-2015.pdf

79 Cascio, E.U., Whitmore Schanzenbach, D. Expanding Preschool Access for Disadvantaged Children 

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/06/19_hamilton_policies_addressing_poverty/expand_preschool_acc

ess_cascio_schanzebach.pdf

80 Barnett, W.S., Carolan, M.E., Squires, J.H., Clarke Brown, K., & Horowitz, M. (2015). The state of preschool 2014: State 

preschool yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research. 

81 Barnett, W.S., Carolan, M.E., Squires, J.H., Clarke Brown, K., & Horowitz, M. (2015). The state of preschool 2014: State 

preschool yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 64

Rhode Island; and Washington. Local Head Start programs serve another approximately half 

million 4-year-olds from the lowest-income families.82 

While Latinos are the fastest growing and largest minority group in the United States, making up 

a quarter of 3- and 4-year-olds, Latinos demonstrate the lowest preschool participation rates of 

any major ethnicity or race with 63 percent of 3- and 4-year-olds not in any preschool 

programs.83 The rates were also low for American Indians (59 percent). More than half of 

African-American and non-Hispanic white 3- and 4-year-olds were not in any preschool 

programs, which was nearly the same for Asian and Pacific Islander children (48 percent). While 

most children who have access to preschool attend moderate-quality programs, African 

American children and children from low-income families are the most likely to attend low-quality 

preschool programs and the least likely to attend high-quality preschool programs.84 About 

one-third of children served by state preschool programs live in the two states with the lowest 

quality standards from the NIEER—Florida and Texas.85 Forty percent of preschoolers—more 

than half a million—attend programs that meet few of the quality NIEER benchmark standards. 

Children with disabilities also have difficulty accessing inclusive preschool programs. In 2013, 

across all states, 55.6 percent of preschool children served under Part B, section 619 of IDEA 

participated in at least 10 hours of a general early childhood program. Fewer than half (43.5 

percent) of preschool children with disabilities received special education services in their 

general early childhood programs.86 

In coordination with the Early Learning Challenge Technical Assistance Center (ELC TA) and 

Preschool Development Grants Technical Assistance Center (PDG TA), the Department, in 

coordination with HHS, is supporting efforts to expand access to high-quality early learning 

programs for the 20 ELC and 18 Preschool Development Grants states, as well as nongrantee 

states, through online early learning communities, technical assistance webinars, briefs, and 

reports. Additionally, OESE’s national comprehensive center, the Center on Enhancing Early 

Learning Outcomes (CEELO) and OSEP technical assistance (TA) centers provide support for 

all states, including around issues of access and quality. 

A critical driver of quality in all early learning and development programs has been the states’

QRIS (or Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (TQRIS) for ELC states). This reform 

metric helps states set progressively higher program standards and provides supports to 

programs so they can meet those higher standards. Once programs are enrolled in a state’s 

TQRIS, the state helps them improve their quality and their ranking. States provide technical 

assistance, professional development opportunities, and program improvement grants that allow 

programs to make the necessary quality improvements. Nearly half of all children who live in 

low-income families in the Unites States reside in the 20 ELC states. ELC states have increased 

the number of early learning and development programs participating in their TQRIS and are 

implementing strategies to improve the quality of those programs. The 20 ELC states’

cumulative state data show that the number of early childhood programs included in the states’

 

82 Head Start Program Facts Fiscal Year 2014. http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/data/factsheets/docs/hs-program-fact-sheet2014.pdf 

83 Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2015). KIDS COUNT data center. Baltimore, MD: Author. http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/aecf2015kidscountdatabook-2015.pdf

84 Center for American Progress. Why We Need a Federal Preschool Investment in 6 Charts. December 9, 2014. 

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/early-childhood/news/2014/12/09/102737/why-we-need-a-federal-preschool-investmentin-6-charts/

85 Barnett, W.S., Carolan, M.E., Squires, J.H., Clarke Brown, K., & Horowitz, M. (2015). The state of preschool 2014: State 

preschool yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research. 

86 2013 Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Data File. Accessed on 4/17/15 at: 

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/osepidea/618-data/state-level-data-files/index.html
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 65

TQRIS has nearly doubled from 38,642 at the start of their grants to 72,281 programs in 2014, 

an increase of 87 percent. 

The 20 ELC states also reported on the number of children in various types of early learning 

and development programs that are in top tiers of their state’s TQRIS in 2014. The report shows 

a 176 percent increase in the number of children with high needs enrolled in state preschool 

programs in the top tiers of their state’s TQRIS from the time the states received their grants. 

More than 200,000 children are now enrolled in these programs, an increase of more than 

127,000 children. As a result of the ELC program, there is a 75 percent increase in the number 

of children enrolled in high-quality programs supported through the Child Care Development 

Fund (CCDF or child care subsidy). 228,760 children with high needs are now enrolled in 

CCDF-funded programs in the top tiers of their TQRIS, an increase of almost 100,000 children. 

151,676 children with high needs are now enrolled in Head Start/Early Head Start programs in 

the top tiers of their TQRIS, an increase of more than 78,000 children. 

In his 2014 State of the Union address, President Obama called upon Congress to expand 

access to high-quality preschool for every child in America, proposing investments that would 

support a continuum of early learning opportunity from birth through kindergarten entry. He 

challenged more Americans—elected officials, business leaders, philanthropists, and the 

public—to help more children access the early education they need to succeed in school and in 

life. On December 10, 2014, the President convened state and local policymakers, mayors, 

school superintendents, corporate and community leaders, and advocates for the White House 

Summit on Early Education, highlighting collective leadership in support of early education for 

America’s children. Leaders shared best practices in building the public-private partnerships that 

are expanding early education in communities across the country. Participants discussed 

effective strategies and programs that support and bring high-quality early childhood education 

to scale. 

Leading private and philanthropic organizations made commits to new actions to spur greater 

access to high-quality early learning programs. Together with federal awards, this amounts to a 

collective investment of over $1 billion in the education and development of America’s youngest 

learners. It includes: 

 Over $340 million in new actions from corporate and philanthropic leaders to expand the 

reach and enhance the quality of early education for thousands of additional children. 

 Up to $750 million in new federal grant awards announced by Secretaries Duncan and 

Burwell, to support early learning for over 63,000 additional children across the country 

for Preschool Development Grants and the Early Head Start-Child Care Partnerships. 

 The launch of Invest in US, a new initiative created by the First Five Years Fund, a 

bipartisan nonprofit organization, in partnership with private philanthropic leaders, in 

response to the President’s call to action. 

 New private and philanthropic resources and support for Early Learning Communities, 

an initiative of Invest in US. Invest in US is working to connect communities and states 

interested in expanding early learning programs and opportunities with 10 leading 

partners that have committed to helping connect leaders with resources, planning 

grants, technical assistance, and other support for their youngest learners. 

Since the Summit, significant progress has been made, and bipartisan cooperation has led to a 

substantial increase in public-private investments in early education. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 66

Congress took an important step in 2014 to address inequities in access to high-quality 

preschool by supporting the Preschool Development Grants program, a 4-year, federal-state 

partnership to expand the number of children enrolled in high-quality preschool programs in 

high-need communities. There was significant bipartisan interest from state governors in this 

program. Thirty-five states and Puerto Rico applied and the Department made grants to 

18 states. During the 2015–16 school year, these states are serving approximately 

33,000 4-year-olds from low- and moderate-income families in more than 200 communities in 

high-quality preschool programs. The diversity of the 18 states that received grants reflects the 

fact that increasing access to preschool is a bipartisan priority across the country. From 

Massachusetts and Montana to Alabama and Hawaii, Preschool Development Grants are 

designed to help states move forward with high-quality preschool, whether that means 

expanding an already successful preschool program or helping to build state-level capacity and 

put in place quality improvements to serve more children in high-quality settings. 

While the Preschool Development Grants will not reach every child in the funded states and 

there remains a huge unmet need, these states will be another step closer to the goal of 

expanding access to high-quality early learning across the country. Over the 4-year grant 

period, and with continued funding from Congress, these states are expecting to enroll an 

additional 177,000 children in high-quality preschool programs, which will help put children on a 

path to success in school and in life. About 285,000 preschoolers could have been served in the 

18 states that did not receive a Preschool Development Grant. For four years, the Obama 

administration has requested formula funding to address the enormous unmet need for highquality preschool and provide preschool for all 4-year-olds from low- to moderate-income 

families. In addition, the Administration’s FY 2017 budget request includes funding for 

continuation grants to support current states, as well as additional dollars to expand Preschool 

Development Grants to more states, the Bureau of Indian Education, tribal educational 

agencies, territories, and the Outlying Areas. 

The Department is also engaging in specific activities to ensure that infants, toddlers, and 

preschool children with disabilities and their families have access to high-quality programs and 

services. OSEP began implementing an RDA system to hold states accountable for both 

improving results for children with disabilities and complying with requirements in IDEA. As part 

of RDA, states are being asked to develop a SSIP to focus and drive their efforts to improve 

results for children with disabilities. Phase 1 of the SSIP was submitted to OSEP in April 2015. 

States were required to submit SSIPs for both Part B and C of IDEA. The SSIPs included a 

measurable child result that states will be working to achieve over the next 5 years, and the 

infrastructure that they will need to have in place to support local programs in delivering highquality services to meet the state-identified child result. Another component of RDA is ensuring 

that determinations reflect state performance on results, as well as compliance. OSEP must 

annually determine if a state “Meets Requirements,” “Needs Assistance,” or “Needs 

Intervention.” In July 2015, OSEP used child outcome data for the first time in making 

determinations for Part C programs. 

In addition to accountability activities, OSEP is supporting states through technical assistance. 

Three of OSEP’s national centers specifically focus on supporting states in enhancing their Part 

C and Part B, section 619 programs, as well as other early learning programs, to increase the 

quality of services provided to children with disabilities and their families. These centers are 

working with Part C and Part B, section 619 programs to develop effective and efficient 

infrastructures, including data and personnel systems, to deliver high-quality services to infants, 

toddlers, and preschool age children with disabilities and their families. The centers have 

developed a systems framework that states can use to assess their infrastructure and work 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 67

towards improving it. In addition, the centers are working with the Division of Early Childhood 

(DEC) to promote the use of the recently released DEC Recommended Practices, which 

provide guidance to practitioners and families about the most effective ways to improve the 

learning outcomes and promote the development of young children, birth through age 5, who 

have or are at risk for developmental delays or disabilities.

The Department and HHS released two major early childhood policy statements. Policy 

Statement on Expulsion and Suspension Practices in Early Childhood Settings was released 

December 10, 2014. The statement has influenced local and state efforts to assist states and 

their public and private local early childhood programs in preventing and severely limiting 

expulsions and suspensions in early learning settings. A second policy statement, Policy 

Statement on Inclusion of Children with Disabilities in Early Childhood Programs, released on 

September 14, 2015, supports the goal that all young children with disabilities should have 

access to inclusive high-quality early childhood programs, where they are provided with 

individualized and appropriate support in meeting high expectations. In addition, the Department 

and HHS, in partnership with Too Small to Fail, have created the Talk, Read, and Sing Together 

Every Day tip sheets. Made specifically for families, caregivers and early educators, these 

resources can help enrich a child’s early language experiences by providing research-based 

tips for talking, reading, and singing with young children every day beginning from birth. The 

Departments are also collecting public input on policy statements around family engagement in 

early learning settings and health and wellness promotion in early childhood settings. Each of 

these efforts contributes to the goal of improving the quality of early learning programs. 

In October 2015, the Departments held a three-day annual grantee meeting for the 20 ELC and 

18 Preschool Development Grants states. In addition, nongrantee states were invited to attend. 

In all, over 300 persons participated, and over 35 states were represented. Sessions focused on 

meeting the needs of states around improving quality in programs, measuring child outcomes, 

and supporting birth to third grade systems and other reforms. 

Metrics in Goal 3 are influenced most by actions taken by states or grantees in response to 

state and federal policy initiatives, but they are also influenced by factors that are beyond the 

control of states, LEAs, or the Department of Education. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

Expanding access to high-quality preschool is critically important to ensuring that every child in 

America has the opportunity for lifelong success. On December 10, 2015, President Obama 

signed the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), reauthorizing the ESEA. ESSA includes a new 

Preschool Development Grants program designed to improve coordination of early childhood 

programs and expand access to high-quality preschool. It is not certain how many additional 

children will have access to high-quality preschool under the new program. Also in December 

2015, President Obama signed the FY 2016 spending bill, which provides funding for year 3 of 

the Preschool Development Grants. The Departments will be working to secure funding for the 

fourth and final year of the current Preschool Development Grants program in FY 2017. Pulling 

these funds away from states and communities would jeopardize their plans to serve over 

50,000 children in high-quality preschool programs during the last year of the grants.87

 

The President has made it a priority to expand educational opportunity for our nation’s children, 

starting with our youngest learners, and has put forward a vision that would support the healthy 

 

87 This estimate assumes that the elimination of Preschool Development Grants in 2016 would prevent states from serving the 

additional children proposed in their applications for the final two years of the grant. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 68

development and growth of children from birth to kindergarten entry. The President’s FY 2017 

Budget builds on the good work underway in states and local communities, and calls for 

expanding support to additional grantees to improve program alignment and coordination and to 

expand access to services. Preschool Development Grants are a critical step toward voluntary, 

universal access to high-quality early learning that gives all children a strong start in school and 

life. 

ELC states face many challenges in developing a rating and monitoring process for their 

TQRIS. Providers must be informed about the process, so as to make them more likely to 

participate. The observation and rating tool must be a true measure of different levels of quality; 

it must give the same rating results in many different settings, and it has to be easy to use. 

Validating the effectiveness of a TQRIS ensures that it is measuring and assessing program 

quality in ways that make sense to state policy makers, early learning and education programs, 

and families with young children. Both the Departments of Education and Health and Human 

Services are providing support so ELC states have the knowledge and best research for 

improving their TQRIS. This technical assistance is provided directly to the states in addition to 

peer learning groups on various topics of interest such as best ways to validate a TQRIS system 

or to ensure families understand the difference in the quality tiers. The Departments are helping 

ELC states to validate their systems, ensure consistency in the reporting of TQRIS ratings, and 

develop data system linkages between their TQRIS and other systems with data on young 

children and the early childhood workforce. As states begin to report on evaluations of their 

TQRIS, there must be a recognition that the systems are still not mature and may not yet reflect 

their true impact. OSEP-funded technical assistance also supports states in thinking about how 

to intentionally include children with disabilities across all levels of the TQRIS system, as some 

states only have optional indicators for children with disabilities, only include children with 

disabilities at some levels of the TQRIS, or do not intentionally include children with disabilities. 

Additionally, IES is also doing a study of the TQRIS systems and plans to make results 

available in 2016. 

The Department committed $5 million in Preschool Development Grants national activities funds 

to add to a multiyear investment by IES funding to expand the work of the network to support 

the work of the Preschool Development Grants states and other states advancing preschool and 

addressing the need for a new quality assessment tool. The Early Learning Network will 

comprise five Research Teams that will conduct in-depth, exploratory research in states, 

regions, cities, or school districts that are providing preschool opportunities for children from 

disadvantaged backgrounds. Each Research Team will conduct three complementary, 

prospective studies: (1) a descriptive study of systems-level policies and practices that support 

early learning; (2) a classroom observation study to identify teaching practices and other 

classroom-level malleable factors associated with children’s school readiness and achievement 

in preschool and early elementary school; and (3) a longitudinal study to identify malleable 

factors associated with early learning and school achievement over time from preschool through 

the early elementary school grades (e.g., kindergarten through third grade). The Research 

Teams will also provide support to the Early Learning Assessment Team in piloting and 

validating a classroom observation tool that is designed for practitioners to use. 

Funding continues to be a challenge for IDEA programs. Part C programs in particular are 

stretched thin as data shows that the number of children receiving services under Part C over 

the years has been steadily increasing. However, federal funding for Part C has not increased at 

the same rate so there has been a decrease in federal per-child funding for Part C services. To 

address fiscal challenges, some states have narrowed or restricted eligibility criteria, 

implemented or increased family fees for services, and reduced provider reimbursements. All of 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 69

these can reduce access to services for infants and toddlers who could benefit from them. 

OSEP-funded TA centers will provide TA to states on building their state infrastructure, which 

includes their financial system, to support states in using their funding as efficiently as possible. 

Additionally, OSEP-funded TA centers will continue to work with states to enhance the quality of 

services that they provide under IDEA Parts C and B, section 619. 

Objective 3.2: Effective Workforce 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

Securing a well-trained and properly supported early learning workforce is an essential element 

of high-quality early learning programs. Significant headway has been made in describing and 

conceptualizing what teachers do in the classroom that results in learning, which is a critical first 

step in getting teachers into those positions. 

On April 1, 2015, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and National Research Council (NRC) released 

Transforming the Workforce for Children Birth through Age 8: A Unifying Foundation, which was 

commissioned by both the Departments of Education and HHS and four philanthropic 

foundations. The study explores the science of child development, particularly looking at 

implications for the professionals who work with children birth through age 8. The committee 

found that much is known about how children learn and develop, as well as the qualifications of 

the early childhood workforce and the supports they need. However, this knowledge is not fully 

reflected in the current capacities and practices of the workforce, the settings in which they 

work, and the qualifications and professional learning that is most effective. 

The IOM/NRC Study outlines a blueprint for action based on 13 recommendations for local, 

state, and national governmental agencies, nongovernmental organizations, philanthropic 

funders, and the business sector to support improvements to the quality of professional practice 

for early learning professionals who work with children from birth through age 8 and the 

environments in which they work. The study makes recommendations on improving the quality 

of the early learning workforce, including higher levels of education such as a bachelor’s degree 

for lead educators, qualifications based more strongly on competencies and knowledge, and the 

use of evidence-based practices and strategies. Additionally, the study recommends fair 

compensation to recognize the professionalization of the workforce, as well as other improved 

supports for educators in their work environments. In the months following the release, 

additional communication materials were developed and distributed to the field through 

conferences, webinars, meetings, and in-service trainings. 

ELC states are creating quality professional development systems to improve the skills of 

current and aspiring early learning teachers, directors, and assistant teachers. Fourteen ELC 

states are specifically working to provide and expand access to professional development 

opportunities that are aligned with their Workforce Knowledge and Competency Framework and 

that tightly link training with professional development approaches, such as coaching and 

mentoring (CO, DE, GA, KY, MD, MN, NJ, NM, OH, OR, PA, RI, WA, and WI). These states are 

also using incentives, such as scholarships, compensation and wage supplements, tiered 

reimbursement rates, other financial incentives and strategies to promote professional 

improvement and career advancement. These other strategies include management 

opportunities, and they promote professional improvement and career advancement along an 

articulated career pathway that is based on the state’s Workforce Knowledge and Competency 

Framework. Fifteen ELC states are working to support educators in improving their knowledge, 

skills and abilities (CA, CO, DE, GA, IL, MD, MA, MI, MN, NM, NC, OR, PA, RI, VT). 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 70

The Preschool Development Grants program sets a high bar for workforce quality in the 

18 grantee states. High-quality preschool programs require, for example, high staff 

qualifications, including a teacher with a bachelor’s degree in early childhood education or a 

bachelor’s degree in any field with a state-approved alternate pathway, which may include 

coursework, clinical practice, and evidence of knowledge of content and pedagogy relating to 

early childhood, and teaching assistants with appropriate credentials. In addition, instructional 

staff salaries are required to be comparable to the salaries of local K-12 instructional staff, and 

programs must provide high-quality professional development for all staff. 

Four states (Delaware, Iowa, Kansas, and Oregon) are finishing up working with the OSEPfunded Early Childhood Personnel Center (ECPC). This work centered on enhancing the 

personnel system within the states to ensure that personnel have the knowledge and skills to 

provide services to young children with disabilities and their families. These states developed 

and are implementing a plan to align their personnel standards with national professional 

organization personnel standards; develop partnerships with universities and community 

colleges to ensure that their curriculum is aligned to state personnel standards and to support 

better alignment between pre-service preparation and in-service professional development; and 

implement evidence-based practices within in-service professional development. ECPC is in the 

process of selecting four more states to work with over the next two years. In addition to 

providing intensive TA with states, ECPC held Leadership Institutes for 20 states. These 

Leadership Institutes provides strategies for Part C and Part B, section 619 coordinators and 

leaders within early childhood agencies to work together to develop the workforce so that they 

have the competencies to serve young children with disabilities and their families. Additionally, 

ECPC has facilitated national professional organizations coming together to identify a set of 

competencies that personnel need to serve young children with disabilities. Those organizations 

include including DEC, the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), 

the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, the American Occupational Therapy 

Association, and the American Physical Therapy Association. Through this work, DEC and 

NAEYC are in the process of developing an agreement to align their personnel standards. 

During the fiscal year OSEP, also funded 7 new awards to universities to prepare personnel to 

work in early intervention and early childhood special education. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

On December 10, 2015, President Obama signed ESSA, reauthorizing the ESEA. ESSA 

includes a new Preschool Development Grants program designed to improve coordination of 

early childhood programs and expand access to high-quality preschool, which may positively 

affect the early childhood workforce with expanded opportunities for professional development 

and improved conditions. ESSA also includes language explicitly stating that Title II dollars can 

be used for early childhood educators. Also in December 2015, President Obama signed the 

FY 2016 spending bill, which provides funding for year 3 of the Preschool Development Grants. 

The Departments will be working to secure funding for the fourth and final year of the current 

Preschool Development Grants program in FY 2017. 

There are challenges in developing an effective early learning workforce. States have hiring 

challenges, due in part to a lack of available well-trained and effective personnel across multiple 

disciplines. Some states have experienced high turnover of early childhood educators and 

consultants due to low wages, attractive offers in other states, challenging financial times, and 

program management. States that can sustain programs for longer periods have less difficulty 

recruiting and retaining strong early childhood educators. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 71

The Department and its technical assistance providers are working to address some of these 

challenges through webinars, peer learning, and pointing out promising practices, such as 

mentoring and coaching. For example, a study examining career pathways to be released in FY 

2016 will provide states with an overview of how these systems are working in a handful of 

leading states. Reducing duplication of efforts and promoting promising practices is necessary 

for creating an early learning workforce that can deliver on the promise of these programs. 

ECPC is currently working with Part C and Part B, Section 619 coordinators to identify additional 

states with which to work to improve their personnel systems. A challenge that Part C and Part 

B, section 619 personnel experience is that they are often not included within workforce 

initiatives within states. To address this, ECPC will continue to hold Leadership Institutes as a 

way to provide Part C and Part B, section 619 coordinators strategies to engage and become 

decision makers in workforce initiatives within their states. 

Building on the positive reception from the release of the Transforming the Workforce for 

Children Birth Through Age 8: A Unifying Foundation, the Departments are developing a plan to 

fund additional activities addressing the implementation of the recommendations, including 

funding a study on financing of preschool and convening with IHEs. The study will examine how 

to fund early care and education for 3- and 4-year-old preschool children that is accessible, 

affordable to families, and of high quality, including a well-qualified and adequately supported 

workforce consistent with the vision outlined in the Study. Over the course of 20 months, an ad 

hoc committee will review and synthesize the available research and analysis on the resources 

needed to meet the true costs of high-quality early care and education, including resources for 

improving the quality, affordability and accessibility of higher education; improving the quality 

and availability of professional learning during ongoing practice; and supporting well-qualified 

educators and administrators with adequate compensation through complete wage and benefit 

packages that are comparable across ages and settings. 

The committee will gather information and review the available evidence on funding 

mechanisms that are currently being employed successfully on a large scale as well as 

illustrative examples of funding strategies that are being employed on a smaller scale but have 

promise for expansion. The committee will also take into consideration lessons that can be 

drawn from financing of early care and education in other countries and from workforce 

development in sectors other than education. The committee will produce a report that 

synthesizes the information gathered and, based on their analysis and interpretation, draws 

conclusions about and makes recommendations for concrete, implementable funding strategies 

in the public and private sectors at the national, state, and local levels. 

Objective 3.3: Measuring Progress, Outcomes, and Readiness 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

The Department, in consultation with OMB, has determined that performance toward this 

objective is making noteworthy progress. As part of ELC, 11 states chose to use funds to 

address the use of comprehensive assessment systems, though all ELC states include 

comprehensive assessments as part of their program standards on which their TQRIS is based. 

These states are doing the difficult work of creating coordinated and comprehensive 

assessment systems that organize information to help early childhood educators, families, 

program directors, administrators, and policymakers to make informed instructional and 

programmatic decisions. A comprehensive assessment system coordinates the various types of 

valid and reliable screening, diagnostic, formative, and summative assessments that children 

are likely to receive throughout their early learning years, such as screenings for possible 

developmental delays, assessments of ongoing developmental progress, diagnostic 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 72

assessments, and measures that examine children’s accomplishments on developmentally 

appropriate standards-based benchmarks. As they create these comprehensive systems, states 

are updating and selecting screening and assessment tools that are valid and appropriate for 

the populations being served; educating users about the purposes of each assessment; 

coordinating assessments to avoid duplication; training early childhood educators to administer, 

interpret, and use the results of assessments; and involving parents in decisions regarding 

learning and development strategies for their children. 

In addition, 19 ELC states are or will be using KEAs that cover all the essential domains of 

school readiness and are aligned with their states’ early learning and development standards. 

Wisconsin did not elect to direct ELC funds toward the development of a comprehensive KEA, 

though they are funding an exploratory study. As part of a KEA, information is collected through 

observations, one-on-one discussions, small group activities, and through the use of 

technology. Results help early childhood educators better understand the status of children’s 

learning and development when they enter kindergarten so the educators can individualize 

instruction. Educators can share information with parents so that they can make informed 

decisions about their children’s education. Educators are using findings from the KEA to inform 

to inform instruction and help close the readiness gap at kindergarten and in the early 

elementary school grades. 

The Department surpassed the 2015 performance target of 9 states collecting and reporting 

disaggregated data on the status of children at kindergarten entry using a common measure. 

Eleven ELC states (CA, CO, DE, KY, MD, MA, MI, NC, OH, OR, and VT) are implementing their 

KEAs in the 2015–16 school year. The remaining eight states that chose to implement KEAs 

(GA, IL, MN, NJ, NM, PA, RI, WA) will begin after the 2015–16 school year. The 18 Preschool 

Development Grants states are required to report on the school readiness of the children 

participating in their high-quality preschool programs, with strong encouragement to use a KEA. 

We expect to have this data in spring 2017 for the second year of the grant. 

On April 7, 2015, ELC TA cohosted a webinar with CEELO and the Council of Chief State 

School Officers (CCSSO) focusing on the essential elements of a comprehensive assessment 

system, promising implementation strategies, key capacity-building considerations, and tools 

that can support this work at the state level. On June 6, 2015, ELC TA held the National 

Working Meeting on Early Learning Assessment in New Orleans, Louisiana. The one-day 

working meeting provided states with the opportunity to work together to address persistent 

problems associated with the implementation of comprehensive early learning assessment 

systems with a specific focus on child assessments, including KEAs. In August, 2015 ELC TA 

released a brief, statewide KEA Data Collection and Reporting in ELC states, in response to a 

request from a ELC state for information about issues that need to be considered in planning 

and implementing a statewide KEA data collection and reporting system. The report includes 

information on practices in five ELC states (Kentucky, Maryland, Oregon, Pennsylvania, 

Vermont and Washington). 

On August 27, 2015, the Department posted EDFacts Data Set: Kindergarten Entry Assessment 

Data Collection through EDFacts Metadata and Process System (EMAPS) as part of the Annual 

Mandatory Collection of Elementary and Secondary Education Data through EDFacts to explain 

the data that will be collected through EMAPS for KEAs in the School Year (SY) 2016–17, 

SY 2017–18, and SY 2018–19 EDFacts package. The team will address public comments 

received, post responses for 30 days, and then post a final regulation. 

In FY 2013, the Department made EAG awards to support the development and enhancement 

of KEAs. Texas and two state consortia, one led by Maryland and the other led by North 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 73

Carolina, were awarded EAG grants. KEAs under this program should be aligned with state 

early learning standards and cover all essential domains of school readiness. Three additional 

ELC grantees are participating in the Maryland consortium (Massachusetts, Michigan, and 

Ohio) as well as a number of non-ELC states. Eight states are partnering with North Carolina: 

Delaware, Iowa, Maine, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Washington, 

DC. Together the ELC and EAG programs support 29 states in creating incentives for states to 

implement KEAs. 

On an annual basis through their APRs, OSEP continues to require state Part C and Part B, 

section 619 programs to report on child outcomes for children that received at least 6 months of 

IDEA services. OSEP funds a technical assistance center to support states in collecting highquality data within their outcomes measurement system and in using that data for program 

improvement. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

Assessment in early learning is in its infancy. Many states are starting from scratch developing 

valid and reliable measures for KEAs. As a result, constructing and testing these instruments 

and implementing them across every school in the state will be challenging and will take time. In 

addition, states will need to ensure that the KEAs are implemented in a balanced way that does 

not result in the loss of a significant amount of instructional time. Additionally, two of the three 

EAG grantees that are consortia may experience challenges coordinating across states due to 

differences in their policies and procedures. Preschool Development Grants states are required 

to report on the status of children in kindergarten served by the grants in the high-need 

communities, but they are not required to use a KEA, and funding may be a challenge at the 

federal, state and local levels. The Departments are working with these grantees to minimize 

these coordination challenges. 

The Departments of Education and HHS will continue to reach out to CEELO, Education 

Commission on the States, CCSSO, NIEER, and other organizations that share our interest in 

advancing quality KEAs, share resources, and develop strategies that might increase our 

collective impact. The Departments are using national activities funds to develop case studies of 

four states’ approaches to KEAs through the Department of Education’s Office of Planning, 

Evaluation and Policy Development Policy. The objectives of this study are to document the 

processes, accomplishments, challenges, and solutions of four states (Maryland, Oregon, 

Pennsylvania, and Washington) implementing KEAs and to share what they have learned with 

federal and state policymakers and the field. Of particular interest was identifying what is 

working well and what lessons have been learned in these states that were early adopters of 

KEAs. Data collection occurred between January and June 2015 in the four case study states, 

12 districts, and 23 schools in the study. The final report is expected in July 2016. CEELO and 

ELC TA will continue to monitor state progress in development and implementation of KEAs and 

highlight best practices through webinars and meetings. 

This year OSEP used Part C child outcomes data in making annual determinations of 

performance based on state performance plans and annual performance reports. OSEP-funded 

TA centers will continue to work with states to support them collecting high-quality child 

outcomes data that is reliable and valid, and using this data for program improvement efforts. 

Selected Strategies to Achieve Goal 3

The Department is using a multipronged approach to improve the health, social-emotional, and 

cognitive outcomes for all children from birth through 3rd grade, so that all children, particularly 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 74

those with high needs, are on track for graduating from high school college- and career-ready. 

Through technical assistance by Department staff and contractors, technical assistance centers, 

monitoring, research networks and reports, grantee meetings, and use of social media and the 

bully pulpit, the Department expects to reach its goal. One tool that supports the Departments in 

the management of this goal is an electronic monitoring and reporting tool that it uses to assess 

the progress in all ELC and Preschool Development Grants states and deploy specialized 

technical assistance as quickly as possible to ensure progress continues. Further, the 

Departments work with the ELC TA, PDG TA, CEELO, and OSEP-funded TA centers to provide 

targeted technical assistance, establish learning communities and provide webinars, briefs, and 

reports on key topics. The Departments’ annual grantee meeting allows us to highlight key 

promising practices, discuss major challenges, and better understand state and local 

challenges. OSEP will be reviewing states’ Phase II SSIPs for Part C in April 2016 and will be 

supporting them through technical assistance to develop plans that have improvement 

strategies to build or enhance their infrastructure, collect and use high-quality data, and improve 

services to enhance results for young children with disabilities and their families. 

The Department of Education’s efforts are aimed at increasing access to high-quality, effective 

programs—served by an effective early learning workforce—for children from birth to school 

entry and beyond (including children with disabilities and those who are ELs). Comprehensive 

assessment systems will measure our success, helping us to enhance the quality of all early 

learning programs, and reach the ultimate goal of improving children’s outcomes. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 75

Goal 4. Equity: 

Increase educational opportunities for underserved students and 

reduce discrimination so that all students are well-positioned to 

succeed. 

Goal Leader: Catherine Lhamon 

Objective 4.1: Equitable Educational Opportunities. Increase all students’ access to 

educational opportunities with a focus on closing achievement gaps, and remove barriers that 

students face based on their race, ethnicity, or national origin; sex; sexual orientation; gender 

identity or expression; disability; English language ability; religion; socioeconomic status; or 

geographical location. Objective Leader: Bob Kim 

Metric 4.1.A: National high school graduation rate 

Objective 4.2: Civil Rights Compliance. Ensure educational institutions’ awareness of and 

compliance with federal civil rights obligations and enhance the public’s knowledge of their civil 

rights. Objective Leader: Bob Kim 

Metric 4.2.A: Percentage of proactive civil rights investigations launched annually that 

address areas of concentration in civil rights enforcement 

Metric 4.2.B: Percentage of proactive civil rights investigations resolved annually that 

address areas of concentration in civil rights enforcement

Goal 4 Discretionary Resources

$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500

FY 2015

FY 2016

FY 2017

$1,409

$1,440

$1,684

(Dollars in millions)
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 76

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities88 Supporting Goal 4 Performance Metrics 

[Dollars in Millions] 

FY 2017 

FY 2015 FY 2016 President’s 

POC Account Obj. Program Appropriation Appropriation Budget

OCR OCR Office for Civil Rights 100 107 138

OESE ED 4.1 State agency programs: Migrant 375 375 375

OESE IE NA Indian Education: Grants 

education agencies 

to local 

100 100 100

OESE IE NA Indian Education: Special programs 

for Indian children 18 38 68

OESE SIP NA Alaska Native education 31 32 32

OESE SIP NA Native Hawaiian education 32 33 33

OESE SIP 4.1, 4.2 Training and advisory services 7 7 7

OESE/OELA ELA 4.1, 4.2 English Language Acquisition 737 737 800

OII I&I 4.1, 2.4 Stronger together (proposed) 0 0 120

OSERS SE NA Special Olympics education programs 8 10 10

TOTAL, GOAL 4 1,409 1,440 1,684

POC = Principal Office Component 

NA = Not applicable. 

NOTES: Many programs may have sub-activities that relate to other goals. Detail may not add to total due to rounding. 

Public Benefit 

Equity of opportunity is the foundation of the American dream, and equity in education is a 

cornerstone to building a strong, globally competitive workforce. From birth through adulthood, 

in institutions of early learning, P–12 schools, career and technical education, postsecondary 

education, adult education, workforce development, and independent living programs, the 

Department’s goal is to ensure that all of our nation’s students have access to the educators, 

resources, and opportunities to succeed. Accordingly, the Department is committed to improving 

outcomes for all students—regardless of income, home language, zip code, age, sex, sexual 

orientation, gender identity, race, or disability—through its major education initiatives. Moreover, 

the Department also recognizes the need to increase educational opportunities systemically for 

underserved populations, including by exploring ways to increase equitable access to resources 

and effective teachers within states and districts. 

To foster equitable access to early learning education, through the Preschool Development 

Grants program, the Department, together with the Administration for Children and Families at 

HHS, is providing access to high-quality preschool for thousands of children from low- and

moderate-income families in hundreds of communities across the nation. With the inclusion of 

this program in the ESSA, which reauthorized the ESEA, the Department will continue to foster 

increased access to high-quality preschool for the neediest children. 

In P–12 education, through the SIG program, ESEA, and other federal programs, the 

Department is providing significant resources to dramatically improve the nation’s lowestachieving schools by using turnaround interventions and strategies and identifying the lowachieving schools that are showing strong evidence of successfully turning around. The 

Department is focused on supporting innovation, not just compliance monitoring, and is focused 

on spurring growth in achievement, not just absolute achievement measures as done in the 

past. In FY 2015, Department launched programs and initiatives designed to study and address 

chronic absenteeism and high school dropouts as well as to promote best practices in improving 

 

88 All the programs listed are discretionary programs, as distinct from mandatory programs. These include both competitive and 

noncompetitive programs.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 77

the rates of high school completion and graduation. The Department also started interagency 

planning to encourage greater socioeconomic diversity in schools and to provide greater 

educational opportunity for disconnected youth. 

The Department worked to increase the number of low-income high school students who are 

prepared to enter and succeed in postsecondary education. Building on partnerships with the 

Department of Labor and other federal agencies, the Department continued to expand career 

pathways for youth and adults by increasing access to high-quality secondary and 

postsecondary CTE programs, registered apprenticeship programs, and other forms of 

advanced technical training. 

In higher education, the Department developed the President’s America’s College Promise 

proposal to make two years of community college free for eligible students. Through the First in 

the World program, the Department also awarded grants to IHEs to promote evidence-based 

strategies and practices for college access and completion, focusing on low-income students. 

Through SIP, the Department is supporting IHEs to help them become self-sufficient and 

expand their capacity to serve low-income students through improvements in academic quality, 

institutional management, and fiscal stability. 

Civil rights data collection, policy development and enforcement are the tools for ensuring that 

recipients of federal funding provide educational opportunities absent discriminatory barriers. 

The Department’s OCR continues to address issues of equity in educational opportunity through 

both its policy and enforcement work by issuing detailed policy guidance; conducting vigorous 

complaint investigations; procuring strong systemic remedies; pursuing aggressive monitoring of 

resolution agreements; launching targeted and proactive compliance reviews and technical 

assistance activities; collecting and publicizing school-level data on important civil rights 

compliance indicators; and participating in intra- and interagency work groups to share expertise 

and best practices. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 78

Goal 4: Details

U.S. Department of 

Education

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals

Current 

Year 

Target Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target

2015 Out-Year Targets

Trend Line

(Actuals)

2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

4.1.A. National high school 

graduation rate89

SY: 

2011–12

80.0%

SY: 

2011–12

80.0%

SY: 

2012–13 

81.4%

SY: 

2013–14

82.3%

83.0%90 NOT MET

83.0

% 82.3

%

65.0%

67.5%

70.0%

72.5%

75.0%

77.5%

80.0%

82.5%

85.0%

4.1.A

84.5% 85%

75.0%

77.0%

79.0%

81.0%

83.0%

2013 2014 2015

New APG Metric: Gap in 

the graduation rate between 

students from low-income 

families and all students91

SY: 

2013–14 

7.7%

SY: 

2011–12

8.3%

SY: 

2012–13 

8.1%

SY: 

2013–14

7.7%

NA NA 7.6%92 7.4%

New APG Metric: Number 

of schools that do not have a 

gap or that decreased the 

gap between students from 

low-income93 families and 

the state average of all 

students94

SY: 

2013–14 

80%

SY: 

2011–12

77.6%

SY: 

2012–13 

78.8%

SY: 

2013–14

80%

NA NA 81.2%95 82.4%

 

89 Metric is aligned with an APG. 

90 SY 2013–14 actuals are being used to compare against the FY 2015 target. 

91 Metric is aligned with an APG. 

92 SY 2014–15 actuals are being used to compare against the FY 2016 target; FY 2016 (SY 2015–16) data not available until 2017. 

93 For purposes of this metric, eligibility for Free or Reduced Price Lunches (FRPL) under the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) is the primary source of data for identifying 

economically disadvantaged (low-income) students for reporting on student outcomes, including graduation rates. The Department is currently considering options for redefining 

“economically disadvantaged” students for student outcomes reporting and other uses. Should the Department make such a change, data on economically disadvantaged students 

may not be entirely comparable with data for previous years. 

94 Metric is aligned with an APG. 

95 SY 2014–15 actuals are being used to compare against the FY 2016 target; FY 2016 (SY 2015–16) data not available until 2017. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 79

U.S. Department of 

Education

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals

Current 

Year 

Target Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target

2015 Out-Year Targets

Trend Line

(Actuals)

2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

4.2.A. Percentage of 

proactive civil rights 

investigations launched 

annually that address areas 

of concentration in civil rights 

enforcement 

FY: 2013

7% 7% 21% 16% 10% MET

10.0

%

16.0

%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

4.2.A

12% 15%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

2013 2014 2015

4.2.B. Percentage of 

proactive civil rights 

investigations resolved 

annually that address areas 

of concentration in civil rights 

enforcement

FY: 2013

8% 8% 15% 20% 10% MET

10.0

%

20.0

%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

4.2.B

12% 16%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

2013 2014 2015

NA = Not applicable. 

TBD = To be determined. 

Academic Year (AY) is a collegiate year spanning August–May; School Year (SY) spans August–July and is aligned with a P–12 school year; Fiscal Year (FY) corresponds to a federal 

fiscal year; Calendar Year (CY) spans January–December.

Data Sources and Frequency of Collection: 

4.1.A. EDFacts; annually

4.2.A. Office for Civil Rights’ (OCR) Case Management System (CMS) and Document Management (DM) systems; quarterly 

4.2.B. OCR CMS and DM systems; quarterly 

Note on performance metrics and targets: These metrics were established as a part of the FY 2014–18 Strategic Plan. Metrics may be updated or revised to 

reflect awareness of more accurate data or clarifications. Such updates or revisions are identified in footnotes. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 80

Analysis and Next Steps by Objective

Objective 4.1: Equitable Educational Opportunities 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

Throughout FY 2015, the Department continued its efforts to expand equitable educational 

opportunities through its budget priorities, grants, and initiatives in the P–12 and postsecondary 

spaces, as well as through interagency collaborations and taskforces. 

The Department has placed increased emphasis on ensuring educational equity through 

forward-looking strategies, such as FY 2016 budget development. For example, the Department 

proposed investing in equity measures in its FY 2016 budget, with $2.7 billion or almost 

12 percent increase for ESEA programs and substantial increases across many programs. 

P–12 Education 

The Office of Early Learning in the Department’s OESE and the Administration for Children and 

Families at HHS awarded grants to launch high-quality preschool for 33,000 children from lowto moderate-income families in over 200 communities in the 18 Preschool Development Grants 

states. The 20 Race to the Top-ELC states have finalized their Annual Performance Reports 

showing their states’ progress in developing or enhancing their early learning systems. OCR 

also worked with HHS to develop a policy statement on discipline in early learning 

environments. 

The Department continued to support the SIG program, ESEA Flexibility renewal, and the 

Excellent Educators for All initiative. On February 9, 2015, the Department published a notice of 

final regulations (NFRs) for SIG, incorporating changes from the FY 2014 appropriations act and 

lessons learned from implementation, so that SIG can better support turnaround efforts in the 

lowest-performing schools. The SIG NFR made slight adjustments to the four historical SIG 

models and includes three new SIG models: an early learning model, an evidence-based, whole 

school reform model, and a state-determined whole school reform model. 

The Department released guidance for the Excellent Educators for All initiative during FY 2015. 

The initiative is directly tied to the goal of closing achievement gaps and ensuring equal 

educational opportunities; it is a three-pronged attempt to support states and districts as they 

work to ensure that low income students and students of color have equal access to effective 

and qualified educators. First, the Department required states to submit new Plans to Ensure 

Equitable Access to Excellent Educators (State Plans) in June 2015 and has reviewed and 

approved the plans of all 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico. Second, the Department is currently 

implementing a $4.2 million effort to support an Equitable Access Support Network (EASN) that 

provides meaningful technical assistance to states in developing and then implementing high 

quality plans. The Department also created and released state-specific Educator Equity Profiles. 

The Department sent each state a copy of its CRDC file to facilitate additional state-level data 

analysis. The Department held a number of webinars with states to ensure they understood how 

the data could help in developing equity plans. 

Also, several offices across the Department continue to be involved in the White House My 

Brother’s Keeper initiative, which aims to improve educational and other outcomes and reduce 

involvement with the juvenile and criminal justice systems for boys and young men of color. 

OSERS worked with OESE to identify districts with the highest numbers of males of color 

dropping out of school with the goal of providing these districts with technical assistance to 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 81

support high needs students. OSERS also led a multistate convening to address 

disproportionate discipline rates for students of color. “Rethink Discipline,” a day-long 

conference at the White House, was convened by the Department and DOJ in July 2015, 

bringing together education professionals from across the country to work on strategies for 

creating positive school climates and implementing effective discipline practices to reduce the 

overuse of unnecessary out-of-school suspensions and expulsions and replace these practices 

with positive alternatives that keep students in school and engaged in learning, but also ensure 

accountability. 

OESE helped launch a new White House Administration initiative, Every Student, Every Day: A 

National Initiative to Address and Eliminate Chronic Absenteeism. Led by the White House, the 

Department, HHS, HUD, and DOJ, the administration announced new steps to combat chronic 

absenteeism and called on states and local communities across the country to join in taking 

immediate action to address and eliminate chronic absenteeism by at least 10 percent each 

year, beginning in the current school year (2015–16). 

OELA has been working with the White House Task Force on New Americans, particularly on 

highlighting promising practices for serving ELs, immigrants and refugees. In April, the Task 

Force released a new report that outlines the federal government’s goals to strengthen its 

integration efforts nationwide and build welcoming communities. Additionally, the Task Force 

has launched an “Educational and Linguistic Integration Webinar Series,” which has highlighted 

the work of researchers and practitioners who are working to support these populations. OELA 

has also partnered with the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for African 

Americans to launch a set of fact sheets on Black ELs to develop awareness for targeted 

actions to ensure that group of student receive appropriate attention and support. 

The Office of the Secretary supported the White House Initiative on American Indian and Alaska 

Native Education in its efforts to coordinate across federal agencies to execute Generation 

Indigenous, or Gen I, an interagency initiative to support Native youth. 

OCTAE continued to coordinate the implementation of the P3 initiative, a unique cross-agency 

initiative that gives state, local, and tribal governments greater flexibility in using their 

discretionary funds to test innovative strategies for improving results for disconnected youth. 

The first nine pilots were announced in October 2015. For the next round of P3, OCTAE has 

published a Notice of Proposed Priorities (NPP). The NPP includes proposed priorities for 

disconnected youth who are unemployed and not enrolled in education; ELs; individuals with 

disabilities; homeless; in foster care; involved with the justice system; or immigrants or refugees. 

While ESSA will certainly impact much of the Department’s work to promote equity in 

educational opportunity, the ultimate impacts of the new law are still being evaluated, and plans 

for implementation have yet to be fully developed. The FY 2016 APR will provide additional 

detail on the impact of the ESSA. 

Higher Education 

In FY 2015, OPEPD worked with the Office of the Under Secretary and other offices to develop 

the America’s College Promise to make two years of community college free for eligible 

students. OCTAE worked on preparing two solicitations related to reentry education. 

The Department published a notice announcing a First in the World grant competition on 

May 11, 2015. The program is designed to promote evidence-based strategies and practices for 

college access and completion, focusing on high-need students. The $60 million appropriated 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 82

for this program was used to make 18 grants to IHEs, including 9 grants to minority-serving 

institutions totaling $30 million. Two of the awards were Validation grants designed to replicate 

strategies proven to be successful in earlier evaluations. 

SIP supports eligible IHEs in becoming self-sufficient and expanding their capacity to serve lowincome students by providing funds to improve and strengthen the institution’s academic quality, 

institutional management, and fiscal stability. 

In an effort to scale up successful practices that lead to completion, especially in the area of 

remedial education, the Department developed communities of practice among minority-serving 

community colleges. Lead institutions have been identified, recruited, and trained. Two 

communities of practice have been launched as of October 2015. The Department convened 

these communities of practice and others in November 2015 for the Student Success at Minority 

Serving Institutions conference. 

OCR and FSA continue to support the President’s Sexual Assault Task Force to improve 

coordination, transparency, and effectiveness in responding to sexual violence in colleges and 

universities. The Task Force released a Resource Guide in September 2015, and is developing 

plans for the coming months, including a focus on technical assistance/regional convenings, 

research initiatives, and training/prevention at the P–12 level. 

OCTAE and OCR are developing joint guidance to assist high schools, community colleges, 

other CTE providers, and state agencies in meeting their obligations under federal law to 

administer and oversee CTE programs, without discriminating on the basis of gender. OCTAE is 

working as well with FSA to promote greater awareness of new ability to benefit provisions that 

enable adults who lack a high school diploma or its equivalent to access student financial aid if 

they are enrolled in qualifying career pathway program. 

Subpopulation Breakout for Metric 4.1.A: National high school graduation rate by 

race/ethnicity, other characteristics* 

SY Total

American 

Indian/

Alaska 

Native

Asian/

Pacific 

Islander

Hispa

nic Black White

Economically 

Disadvantaged

Limited 

English 

Proficiency

Students 

with 

Disabilities

2011–12 80% 67% 88% 73% 69% 86% 72% 59% 61%

2012–13 81.4% 69.7% 88.7% 75.2% 70.7% 86.6% 73.3% 61.1% 61.9%

2013–14 82.3% 69.6%** 89.4% 76.3% 72.5% 87.2% 74.6% 62.6% 63.1%

* Data are reported based on the requirements for individual states in the Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR). 

** The United States 4-year ACGR for American Indian/Alaska Native students was estimated using both the reported 4-year ACGR 

data from 49 states and the District of Columbia and using imputed data for Virginia. Available at: 

http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/tables/ACGR_RE_and_characteristics_2013-14.asp. 

Data Source and Frequency of Collection: EDFacts universe collection, annual reports; annually 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

The following items delineate future challenges and next steps as the Department works to 

enhance educational opportunities for underserved populations. 

As with all budget requests, the new and continuing proposals related to equity described above 

are dependent on final appropriations. Offices across the Department will maximize alignment 

with the Department’s issues of equity. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 83

Staff worked diligently to approve state educator equity plans and to oversee implementation of 

the Excellent Educators for All initiative, addressing the urgency of progress on educator equity 

and the capacity of states to meet new data and planning requirements. OESE is managing a 

large technical assistance effort around the plans that will allow all states to receive intensive 

support. A cross-agency group is working to ensure this technical assistance includes 

stakeholders from the civil rights community to help states improve consultation efforts. 

In FY 2015, the Department also promoted this goal through continued implementation of ESEA 

Flexibility. The ESEA Flexibility renewal guidance, issued on November 13, 2014, focused on 

improving educational outcomes for all students, closing achievement gaps, increasing equity, 

and improving the quality of instruction. As part of the SEA’s process of ensuring that schools 

were accountable for the performance of all subgroups of students, in its renewal request, each 

SEA had to demonstrate that a school could not receive the highest rating in the SEA’s 

differentiated recognition, accountability, and support system if there are significant 

achievement or graduation rate gaps across subgroups that are not closing in the school. States 

were also encouraged, through the renewal process, to identify and address existing opportunity 

gaps that may contribute to achievement gaps. 

The ESSA continues the ESEA’s focus on ensuring that states and school districts account for 

the progress of all students, take meaningful actions to improve the lowest-performing schools, 

and ensure equitable access to excellent educators. However, the provisions and ultimate 

impact of the new law are still being evaluated, and plans for implementation have yet to be fully 

developed. The FY 2016 APR will provide additional detail on the impact of the ESSA. 

Objective 4.2: Civil Rights Compliance 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

The Department, in consultation with OMB, has determined that performance toward this 

objective is making noteworthy progress. OCR has dramatically increased the efficiency and 

accuracy of the CRDC by launching a newly developed and improved data collection tool. Many 

new features of the data collection tool contributed to the increased efficiency and data 

accuracy, including the ability of LEAs and schools to (1) preview future CRDC questions that 

will be mandatory for the 2015–16 CRDC and to submit data voluntarily (optional) for these 

questions early, as part of the 2013–14 collection; (2) receive automated, customized edit 

checks of data entries prior to final data submission/ certification; (3) obtain individualized 

district feedback reports that summarize the 2013–14 data submitted; and (4) benefit from the 

prepopulation of some survey data items from 8 SEAs to reduce approximately 2,000 LEAs’

reporting burden. As a result, 17,000 LEAs can receive real-time summary reports of their 

2013–14 CRDC data up to 8 months earlier and at least 2,000 LEAs’ burden to comply with 

data violation to launching an investigation by as much as one year, thus bringing speedier relief 

to complainants. Data for the 2013–14 CRDC will be available in the spring of 2016. 

In FY 2015, OCR, in collaboration with OELA, supported major investments in the quality of the 

CRDC data, including the disaggregated data for ELs in all public schools. This new feature of 

the CRDC website allows access to individual district or school level EL profiles that include 

information about the demographics of EL students and their participation in early childhood, 

gifted and talented, AP, SAT, college and career readiness, math and science courses, and 

discipline. OCR worked with OELA to develop and publish the EL Toolkit to support the 

implementation of EL Guidance. The toolkit was launched nationally at the end of April and all 

ten chapters are now available online. OCR continues to promote the EL guidance and toolkit 

through speaking engagements and technical assistance. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 84

In the policy arena, in FY 2015, OCR released nine guidance documents of critical importance 

to the Department, schools, civil rights stakeholders and the public—the most issued in one 

fiscal year in OCR history—concerning: (1) the Title VI requirements around resource equity 

and resource comparability; (2) obligations of elementary and secondary schools to respond to 

the bullying of SWDs; (3) schools’ obligations surrounding effective communication for SWDs; 

(4) questions and answers on Title IX and single-sex elementary and secondary classes and 

extracurricular activities; (5) applicability of federal civil rights laws to juvenile justice residential 

facilities; (6) implementing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Ebola guidance for 

schools; (7) schools’ obligations to ensure that EL students can participate meaningfully and 

equally in school and to communicate information to limited English proficient parents in a 

language they can understand; (8) addressing the risk of measles in schools and school 

obligations to SWDs medically unable to obtain vaccinations; and (9) the importance and role of 

Title IX coordinators.

In order to further disseminate and deliver the message of these policy guidance documents to 

communities nationwide, OCR provided more than 220 technical assistance sessions to 

recipients and other stakeholders. These sessions were conducted by employees from all of 

OCR’s twelve regional and enforcement offices throughout the nation, and from headquarters, 

including Program Legal Group staff.

In FY 2015, OCR received a new record-high number of complaints (10,394, vs. 9,983 in 

FY 2014) and resolved 9,232 complaints (compared to 9,864 in FY 2014)—including a higher 

number of complex and systemic case resolutions than in FY 2014—despite experiencing the 

lowest staffing levels in OCR history (average of 539). 

Additionally, OCR increased the transparency of its work to the public by making available a list 

of colleges and universities currently being investigated under Title IX related to sexual violence; 

posting hundreds of resolution agreements with educational institutions on its website; and

overhauling the website to make more easily accessible information about OCR’s civil rights 

enforcement work (including resolution letters and agreements from FY 2014 forward); policy 

guidance documents; frequently asked questions about the laws OCR enforces; and a robust 

reading room with publications, pamphlets, and other materials. In total, there are now more 

than 800 cases available on the website. OCR’s customer service team responded to 

7,430 hotline calls, answered 3,397 public inquiries, and fulfilled 8,775 publication requests for 

OCR documents to ensure the public has accurate information about civil rights laws and policy 

to promote equity in education. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

In FY 2015, OCR again received a new record-high number of complaints despite experiencing 

the lowest staffing levels in OCR history—continuing a trend that has existed for decades and 

has accelerated during this administration.

To create greater efficiency in our work, OCR overhauled its case processing guidelines, 

increased use of technology, eliminated peripheral practices such as reviewing appeals of 

dismissals or retaining cases over which other agencies have joint jurisdiction, and successfully 

used its internal audit program to foster greater consistency, quality and systemic relief in its 

enforcement efforts. 

The complaint volume and lack of resources continue to have an impact on OCR’s ability to 

conduct and resolve proactive investigations and to conduct proactive technical assistance. 

OCR’s ability to conduct proactive activities is also impacted by limited staffing and resources. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 85

Selected Strategies to Achieve Goal 4

The Department will continue to work in FY 2016 to expand access to high-quality preschool, 

close achievement and graduation gaps, foster equitable access to educational resources and 

excellent educators, ensure all students have the opportunity to attain a high-quality education 

in a supportive and nondiscriminatory environment, and foster greater college access and 

completion. In doing so, the Department will continue to integrate the support for underserved or 

at-risk students, children and youth—including high-need students, students of color, ELs, and 

children and youth with disabilities—across its programs and initiatives. 

As mentioned above, ESSA continues the ESEA’s focus on ensuring that states and school 

districts account for the progress of all students, including students from low-income families 

and students of color; take meaningful actions to improve the lowest-performing schools; and 

ensure equitable access to excellent educators. The Department is developing approaches to 

best support the implementation of the ESSA, and the FY 2016 APR will provide additional 

detail on the impact of the ESSA for the Department’s work.

The Department will continue to support a robust early learning agenda that includes building 

state and local capacity to expand access to high-quality preschool programs, improving the 

workforce, aligning preschool systems, and supporting comprehensive assessment systems. 

The Department will work with the White House, other agencies, states and local communities 

to implement Every Student, Every Day: A National Initiative to Address and Eliminate Chronic 

Absenteeism. 

The Department will implement the National Professional Development program to increase well 

prepared teachers and other educators to serve ELs. 

The Department will advance programs that serve homeless, foster, disconnected, incarcerated, 

and migrant youth, including through implementing the P3 program.

The Department will support the My Brother’s Keeper initiative to improve educational and other 

outcomes and reduce involvement with the juvenile and criminal justice systems for boys and 

young men of color, and to address disproportionate discipline rates for students of color and 

SWDs. 

The Department will work with the White House Initiative on American Indian and Alaska Native 

Education to implement Gen I. 

The Department will explore ways to work collaboratively with other federal agencies to increase 

socioeconomic and racial integration and diversity in schools. 

The Department will continue to issue civil rights policy guidance documents that address 

schools’ obligations to ensure equity for students, investigate civil rights complaints, launch 

targeted and proactive civil rights compliance reviews and technical assistance activities, 

provide more transparency about civil rights processes and resolutions on its website, and issue 

new CRDC data that illuminate equity and opportunity gaps in our nation’s schools. 

The Department will foster more equity in career, technical, and adult education programs, 

including through the Advancing Equity in CTE project to reduce inequities in CTE access, 

participation, completion, and post-program outcomes for girls and women, individuals with 

disabilities, and students of color. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 86

The Department will promote evidence-based strategies and practices to increase college 

access and completion and expand colleges’ capacity to support low-income students through 

the First in the World program and SIP.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 87

Goal 5. Continuous Improvement of the U.S. Education System: 

Enhance the education system’s ability to continuously improve 

through better and more widespread use of data, research and 

evaluation, evidence, transparency, innovation, and technology. 

Goal Leader: Amy McIntosh

Objective 5.1: Data Systems and Transparency. Facilitate the development of interoperable 

longitudinal data systems for early learning through employment to enable data-driven, 

transparent decision-making by increasing access to timely, reliable, and high-value data. 

Objective Leader: Ross Santy 

Metric 5.1.A: Number of public data sets included in ED Data Inventory and thus linked 

to Data.gov or ED.gov websites 

Metric 5.1.B: Number of states linking K–12 and postsecondary data with workforce 

data 

Metric 5.1.C: Number of states linking K–12 with early childhood data 

Objective 5.2: Privacy. Provide all education stakeholders, from early childhood to adult 

learning, with technical assistance and guidance to help them protect student privacy while 

effectively managing and using student information. Objective Leader: Kathleen Styles 

Metric 5.2.A: Average time to close “cases” (PTAC + FPCO)96

Objective 5.3: Research, Evaluation, and Use of Evidence. Invest in research and evaluation 

that builds evidence for education improvement; communicate findings effectively; and drive the 

use of evidence in decision-making by internal and external stakeholders. Objective Leaders: 

Ruth Neild and Margo Anderson 

Metric 5.3.A: Percentage of select new97 (noncontinuation) competitive grant dollars that 

reward evidence 

Metric 5.3.B: Number of peer-reviewed, full-text resources in the Education Resources 

Information Center (ERIC) 

Metric 5.3.C: Number of reviewed studies in the WWC database98

Objective 5.4: Technology and Innovation. Accelerate the development and broad adoption 

of new, effective programs, processes, and strategies, including education technology. 

Objective Leader: Joseph South

 

96 Privacy Technical Assistance Center (PTAC) and Family Policy Compliance Office (FPCO). 

97 “New competitive grant dollars that reward evidence” includes all dollars awarded based on the existence of at least “evidence of 

promise” in support of a project, per the framework in the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (34 CFR Part 

75). Consideration of such evidence appears through: eligibility threshold (e.g., in the i3); absolute priority; competitive priority 

(earning at least one point for it); or selection criteria (earning at least one point for it). The percentage is calculated compared to the 

total new grant dollars awarded, excluding awards made by the IES, the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, 

and technical assistance centers, with some exceptions. 

98 Metric is being removed at the end of the FY 2015 reporting period. Please refer to appendix B for details pertaining to the 

removal and addition of metrics. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 88

Metric 5.4.A: Percentage of schools in the country that have actual Internet bandwidth 

speeds of at least 100 Megabits per second (Mbps) 

Goal 5 Discretionary Resources

$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500

FY 2015

FY 2016

FY 2017

$814

$861

$1,024

(Dollars in millions)

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities99 Supporting Goal 5 Performance Metrics 

[Dollars in Millions]

POC Account Obj. Program

FY 2015 

Appropriation

FY 2016 

Appropriation

FY 2017 

President’s 

Budget

IES IES 5.3 National assessment 129 149 149

IES IES 5.3 Regional educational laboratories 54 54 54

IES IES 5.3 Research in special education 54 54 54

IES IES 5.3 Research, development, and dissemination 180 195 209

IES IES 5.1, 5.2 Statewide longitudinal data systems 35 35 81

IES IES 5.3 Statistics 103 112 125

OII I&I 5.3 Education innovation and research 120 120 180

Subtotal 675 719 853

Other Discretionary Programs/Activities 139 142 171

TOTAL, GOAL 5 814 861 1,024

POC = Principal Office Component 

NOTES: Many programs may have sub-activities that relate to other goals. Detail may not add to total due to rounding. 

Public Benefit

Education stakeholders, ranging from students and parents, to teachers and principals, to 

superintendents and the Secretary, need access to timely, appropriate, relevant, and actionable 

information. Information sources, which can range from datasets to rigorous evaluations and 

research studies, must be accessible through reliable technology and must reach needed 

 

99 All the programs listed are discretionary programs, as distinct from mandatory programs. These include both competitive and 

noncompetitive programs.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 89

audiences through dissemination, while applying appropriate controls to protect student privacy. 

The Department must continue to invest in its information resources so that internal and 

external stakeholders can use this information to make evidence-based decisions. 

States continue to develop systems that will collect, manage, and appropriately report the valid, 

reliable data that are essential to achieving improvements across education, but there is much 

more work to do. The Department continues ongoing efforts to develop effective SLDS, design 

voluntary Common Education Data Standards (CEDS) to increase interoperability, and develop 

the capacity of institutions and staff to utilize data to improve teaching and learning outcomes. It 

is not enough to support only the development of the systems and structures that will provide 

education agencies across the nation with the data necessary to generate accurate pictures of 

student performance and other critical elements, from early learning programs through 

postsecondary institutions and the workforce. The Department must continue to lead the 

national discussion of how these systems are best and most appropriately used to support 

students, improve instruction, address inequities, develop future teachers, and inform practice; 

all while ensuring the privacy of the nation’s students is safely protected. 

Additionally, the Department must serve as a model for how data are disseminated. Information 

that SEAs and LEAs report to the Department should be made accessible, where possible, to 

inform the public and help with local decision-making, but these data must be shared in ways 

that protect student privacy and that are in compliance with federal and state privacy laws. The 

collection, storage, maintenance, and use of data must be responsible and must appropriately 

protect student privacy. Stewards and users of data must remember that these data describe 

real people and ensure that systems protect the rights of those people. The Department will 

help practitioners in the field ensure they are properly protecting privacy and communicating 

with parents and students about the proper use and management of student data. 

The Department continues to prioritize the use of “evidence-based” practices through its 

competitive programs while supporting the creation of new evidence through rigorous project 

evaluations. This approach helps ensure that scarce dollars have their intended impact and also 

empowers states and districts to become more dynamic learning organizations, especially in 

areas with little existing rigorous evidence. Additionally, the Department continues to provide 

tools to stakeholders that help them understand what types of which strategies and 

interventions are effective for various “problems of practice.”

Better use of information, both for policy-makers, but also educators, depends on access to 

reliable technology. The Department’s vision for 21st-century learning requires that schools 

have a 21st-century technology infrastructure anchored around high-speed Internet to allow for 

innovation and personalization in the classroom. This vision is supported by the remarkable 

progress we have made towards the President’s ConnectED initiative goal to connect 

99 percent of students in the nation’s schools to high-speed broadband by 2018. States, 

districts, and schools must have such infrastructure to incorporate cutting-edge methods for 

strengthening curriculum quality and delivery to meet more rigorous college- and career-ready 

standards; improving student access and engagement; developing comprehensive, formative, 

and summative assessment systems; and enhancing data management systems. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 90

Goal 5: Details

Continuous Improvement 

of the U.S. Education 

System

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals

Current 

Year 

Target

Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals)

2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

5.1.A. Number of public 

data sets included in ED 

Data Inventory and thus 

linked to Data.gov or 

ED.gov websites

FY: 2013

55 55 66 79 79 MET

79 79

0

20

40

60

80

100

5.1.A

94 104

0

20

40

60

80

100

2013 2014 2015

5.1.B. Number of states 

linking K–12 and 

postsecondary data with 

workforce data

FY: 2013

12 12 20 24 22 MET

22

24

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

5.1.B

25 25

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2013 2014 2015

5.1.C. Number of states 

linking K–12 with early 

childhood data

FY: 2013

19 19 26 32 27 MET

27

32

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

5.1.C

29 32

0

10

20

30

40

2013 2014 2015
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 91

Continuous Improvement 

of the U.S. Education 

System

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals

Current 

Year 

Target

Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals)

2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

5.2.A. Average time to close 

“cases” (PTAC + FPCO)

FY: 2013 

10 days 10 9 4.9 8 days MET

8.0

4.9

0

2

4

6

8

10

5.2.A

7.2100 6.48101

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2013 2014 2015

5.3.A. Percentage of select 

new (noncontinuation) 

competitive grant dollars 

that reward evidence102

FY: 2012

6.5% 9.35% 15.9% 29.4% 11.0% MET

11.0

%

29.4

%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

5.3.A

18%103 20%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

2013 2014 2015

New APG Metric: Number 

of completed project 

evaluations from grantees 

from select discretionary 

grant programs in a given 

fiscal year that meet What 

Works Clearinghouse 

(WWC) Evidence 

Standards104

FY: 2015

2

NA NA 2 NA NA 10 20

 

100 Target is being updated to reflect the goal of a 10% reduction from the prior year. 

101 Target is being updated to reflect the goal of a 10% reduction from the prior year. 

102 Metric is aligned to an APG. 

103 The out-year performance targets are increased from what was reported in the FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan. 

104 Metric is aligned to an APG. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 92

Continuous Improvement 

of the U.S. Education 

System

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals

Current 

Year 

Target

Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line

(Actuals)

2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

5.3.B. Number of peerreviewed, full-text resources 

in the Education Resources 

Information Center (ERIC)

FY: 2013

23,512 23,512 27,292 36,197 31,192 MET 31,1

92

36,1

97

25,000

27,000

29,000

31,000

33,000

35,000

37,000

5.3.B

35,692 40,892

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

2013 2014 2015

5.3.C. Number of reviewed 

studies in the What Works 

Clearinghouse (WWC) 

database105

FY: 2013

9,535 9,535 10,310 10,889 10,235 MET

10,2

35

10,8

89

8,500

8,800

9,100

9,400

9,700

10,000

10,300

10,600

10,900

11,200

5.3.C

NA NA

8,500

9,000

9,500

10,000

10,500

11,000

2013 2014 2015

New Metric: Number of 

visits to the What Works 

Clearinghouse (WWC) 

website

FY: 2015

1,822,000 NA NA 1,822,000 NA NA 1,967,760 2,164,536

5.4.A. Percentage of 

schools in the country that 

have actual Internet 

bandwidth speeds of at least 

100 Mbps

FY: 2013

20% 20% 41% 55% 50% MET

50.0

%

55.0

%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

55.0%

60.0%

5.4.A

70% 80%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

2013 2014 2015

NA = Not applicable. 

 

105 Metric being removed at the end of the FY 2015 reporting period and being replaced with the metric identified as “New Metric” directly below it. If there is no corresponding “New 

Metric” identified, new metric TBD. Please refer to appendix B for details pertaining to the removal and addition of metrics. The proposed FY 2016 and 2017 targets for the metric being 

removed were 10,585 and 10,935, respectively. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 93

TBD = To be determined. 

Academic Year (AY) is a collegiate year spanning August–May; School Year (SY) spans August–July and is aligned with a P–12 school year; Fiscal Year (FY) corresponds to a federal 

fiscal year; Calendar Year (CY) spans January–December. 

Data Sources and Frequency of Collection:

5.1.A. Data Strategy Team Data Inventory and the public ED Data Inventory at http://datainventory.ed.gov; quarterly 

5.1.B. State Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS) grant monitoring (monthly updates from states, annual performance reports, final performance reports, and site visits); quarterly 

5.1.C. SLDS grant monitoring (monthly updates from states, annual performance reports, final performance reports, and site visits); quarterly 

5.2.A. Case Tracking System (CTS); quarterly 

5.3.A. Forecast Report issued by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) and final Funding Reports from relevant programs; annually 

5.3.B. Education Resources Information Center (ERIC); quarterly 

5.3.C. What Works Clearinghouse (WWC); quarterly 

5.4.A. Education Superhighway (for baseline), Consortium for School Networking (CoSN)/AASA E-rate Infrastructure Survey (for FY 2014 actual data); annually 

Note on performance metrics and targets: These metrics were established as a part of the FY 2014–18 Strategic Plan. Metrics may be updated or revised to 

reflect awareness of more accurate data or clarifications. Such updates or revisions are identified in footnotes. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 94

Analysis and Next Steps by Objective

Objective 5.1: Data Systems and Transparency 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

The Department continues to focus upon providing technical assistance to the field to support 

the development and use of longitudinal data systems that serve the education needs of the 

states. In recent years a core focus for this work has been upon implementing and sustaining 

connections that span the complete student lifecycle. For example, the SLDS grant program

works with a State Support Team (SST) of experienced government and industry experts in the 

area of data systems development, connection and maintenance. The technical assistance 

provided by the SST is available to all states, not only to active grantees of the SLDS grant 

program. This level of support has enabled better conversations across states, sharing of both 

technical and business process best practices, and helped bring to life the number of new K-12 

and postsecondary to workforce connections and P–12 to early childhood data connections that 

surpassed our targets for FY 2015 on both metrics. 

Collaboration is key to the success of this objective. SLDS staff work frequently with other 

Department programs, including the ELC, as well as coordinating with Department of Labor’s 

Workforce Data Quality Information program. The Department continues to collaborate with 

technical experts, standards organizations and key stakeholders in the maintenance, 

enhancement and roll-out of CEDS. In FY 2015, in addition to successfully completing a new 

grant round and awarding 16 new SLDS grants to support collaborative data uses, a new 

contract was awarded to support CEDS enhancements, tools and uses over the next two years. 

States, postsecondary institutions and independent research groups continue to use the online 

CEDS tools to map their data systems, data uses and data models to CEDS. 

The Department continues to model the transparency we are working to develop in the field by 

updating and expanding the ED Data Inventory. While work to improve the functionality and 

connections of the ED Data Inventory system have stalled due to budgetary limitations, the work 

to improve and enhance the Inventory’s content continues to move forward. Collections and 

reports from Department programs within seven different Principal Office Components are now 

represented in the Inventory. This resulted in 74 distinct publicly available datasets across the 

Department being connected to an Inventory entry. The Inventory continues to provide source 

information to data.gov on a regular basis. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

As with previous years, state support for longitudinal data system development continues to be 

the largest dependency and area of risk for progress in this area. Several states have 

experienced increased political pressures over the past year to reduce collection and 

management of longitudinal student data. The most effective strategies towards building support 

within states for continuing to support longitudinal data system initiatives is to enable a strong 

set of best practice uses for the data that deliver value to stakeholders at multiple levels. The 

16 new awards made in the SLDS FY 2015 grant competition are all focused upon data use. A 

key challenge that is being addressed right now is to develop a consistently applied and agreed 

upon metric (or set of metrics) for measuring and documenting good data use. The SLDS team 

has been driving work forward in this area as monitoring practices and protocols are set up for 

FY 2015 grantees. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 95

Formalizing new phases for CEDS and the ED Data Inventory work will be very important in the 

coming months. As FY 2015 came to a close a new vehicle was put in place to support the 

development and use of CEDS for the next two years. As we start FY 2016, work is now getting 

back up to speed to engage the field in the continued development of the standards, and to 

support use of the online tools that enable agencies and interested individuals to interact with 

CEDS. Having the vehicle in place for two years will be helpful, as gaps in the work seen during 

both FY 2014 and FY 2015 should not occur. The ED Data Inventory is also at a critical juncture 

in its development. While the content of the inventory continues to be supported and enhanced, 

the technical work that was getting started at the beginning of FY 2015 to better integrate the 

Inventory and the collection clearance process systems at the Department had to be put on 

hold. Although, this should not cause problems for meeting the established goals connecting 

public data sets with entries within the Inventory in FY 2016, if the funding and integration 

issues are not resolved further progress into FY 2017 and FY 2018 may be threatened. 

In FY 2016, the Department is launching the InformED initiative. InformED is the Department’s 

groundbreaking effort to transform how the Department makes information available—and 

actionable—for internal users and for the public, building on lessons learned from the new 

College Scorecard. The InformED initiative would replicate across the education spectrum, from 

early childhood to adult education, what the Scorecard accomplished for higher education. Each 

of these Scorecard-like sites or “information hubs” would pull together the Department’s diverse 

array of information on a particular topic, make it accessible with intuitive tools for decisionmaking, and allow open data access to unlock answers to pressing education questions and 

needs. As with the College Scorecard, the release of these data will enable external developers 

to create innovative new tools to further serve students. The Department is working to identify 

several key themes around which to center information and will develop new iterations of the 

College Scorecard. InformED will empower decision-makers by providing the full set of 

information, both data and studies that currently live in disparate locations, into one location with 

analysis and reporting tools and open data access to address relevant education questions. To 

support open access to education data and centralized dissemination of other evidence, the 

Department must invest in its underlying data infrastructure for managing the collection, quality, 

release, and analysis of data. 

The Department is also continuing to improve its own internal data management practices 

through the maturation of the DST. What started as primarily a communication tool has evolved 

to document the key hurdles that prevent better data practices within the Department and to 

make recommendations to address them. Leadership of the DST is currently reviewing a drafted 

Directive on Departmental Data Management Practices. The Directive, if implemented, would 

formally unite existing data strategy and data governance practices while also outlining the roles 

and responsibilities for offices that steward key data on behalf of the Department. This work is 

continuing the evolution of DST from a volunteer, collaborative organization to a true 

governance body that can effect change and implement better practice across the Department. 

Objective 5.2: Privacy 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

Educational institutions rely on student data to improve decision-making, to personalize 

learning, and to target additional support to at-risk students, and the Department itself relies on 

student data for key administration initiatives. Increases in the collection and use of student 

data, however, have fueled public concern about student privacy, and important gains are at risk 

due to public concern. Throughout FY 2015, student privacy was an extremely hot topic and as 

a result the Department had to begin, to some degree, pulling away from our long term 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 96

improvement plans to respond to immediate Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act 

(FERPA) and privacy issues providing substantial, recurring technical assistance to the Hill on 

dozens of proposed bills dealing with student privacy. In addition, the Department responded to 

public and congressional criticism over the privacy of students’ medical treatment records in the 

wake of a recent sexual assault case by issuing a draft Dear Colleague letter on the protection 

of student privacy in campus medical records. The Department was publicly commended for 

publishing the letter in draft format, to obtain public input before finalizing it in FY 2016. 

While adjusting to these changing demands, there has been consistent, steady improvement in 

office metrics specific to privacy since we began tracking these numbers about two years ago. 

Our strategy has been to rely when appropriate on contractor resources, both within the office 

and from the contractors that staff the PTAC. These efforts in addressing the high degree of 

public interest in student privacy included the implementation of a new more user-friendly 

website, and the release of our Model Terms of Service guidance and teacher training video. 

Another strategy that continues to pay off is increased coordination with other Department 

offices engaged in privacy technical assistance as the Department expanded PTAC’s work to 

include early childhood programs, particularly through the creation of new online resource page 

that curates a vast array of technical assistance resources on the privacy and security of early 

childhood (EC) data from across the Department’s disparate EC technical assistance centers. 

Through PTAC and the Department’s Office of the Chief Privacy Officer (OCPO), the 

Department conducted a number of targeted technical assistance activities on early childhood 

issues, including a site visits, webinars, and workshops and provided extensive internal 

technical assistance on privacy issues relating to the Preschool Development Grants program. 

As a result of this focus on efficiencies and resource utilization, using metrics to improve 

performance and relying on a case tracking system that manages workload and content for both 

our contractor and federal staff, the average time to respond to cases was under 5 days, 

meeting the Department’s FY 2015 performance target of by having an average turnaround time 

of less than 8 days. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

As we move forward into FY 2016, the Department again anticipates a significant amount of 

activity in the field on student privacy issues, from new state statutes, to policy statements, 

continued industry pledges and coordination with other enforcement agencies. The challenge 

for this area is to be proactive, when limited resources mandate reactivity. We are 

fundamentally realigning privacy processes and policy at the Department, while continuing to 

run a compliance and technical assistance program. It is challenging to continue to run basic 

operations, while redesigning processes and building for the future. 

While we continued to make considerable strides in FY 2015, we still face an inherent challenge 

regarding inquiries seeking guidance on issues for which the Department has no answer. For 

example, video recording is increasingly being utilized in the educational arena (e.g., for 

surveillance, or remote classroom observation), and application of the regulatory framework to 

these situations is complicated. The Department, specifically the OCPO, will continue to use the 

biweekly meetings with the Department’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) and OPEPD to 

examine those issues that may require regulatory or statutory change to provide answers. Now 

having senior support for increased resources, there is the hope that even greater strides will be 

realized moving forward into FY 2016 with the addition of these resources and as part of a 

contract recompetition, to transform and restructure PTAC from an external, contractor-run TA 

center, to an integral part of the OCPO. The new contract, awarded in September 2015 will 

improve the Department’s privacy technical assistance by leveraging and integrating the 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 97

expertise and support of PTAC’s contractor subject-matter experts with the legal and policy 

expertise of the Department’s federal staff. 

Objective 5.3: Research, Evaluation, and Use of Evidence 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

Systemic improvement requires research and evaluation so that decision makers at the 

national, state, and local levels have reliable evidence to inform their actions. While the 

Department’s research programs are its primary driver for learning what works, the Department 

also seeks to build evidence by incorporating grantee-led evaluations into other programs. 

Requiring that more discretionary grants build on and generate evidence of effectiveness will 

increase the likelihood that scarce program dollars have a positive impact on student outcomes. 

A list of evaluations completed in FY 2015, as well as a summary of other relevant upcoming 

evaluations, can be found in appendix E. 

The Department’s Evidence Planning Group (EPG) continues to identify opportunities for 

discretionary grant programs to use evidence-related priorities or selection criteria in 

competitions. In FY 2015, a total of eight competitions in OII, OESE, and OPE encouraged 

evidence-based projects through eligibility requirements, competitive preference priorities, and 

selection criteria. In addition, nine competitions in OII, OESE, and OPE asked that applicants 

design evaluations of their proposed projects that will produce evidence. The Department 

surpassed the FY 2015 performance target for programs rewarding evidence in grant 

competitions. In addition, the EPG has met with each of the Department’s grant-making offices 

to discuss appropriate uses of evidence in FY 2016 competitions. The Department projects that 

over 10 competitions will reward evidence in their FY 2016 competitions. 

The metric above tracks the Department’s progress in incentivizing applicants to build on 

evidence of “what works” and to generate new evidence in the course of their grants. Two other 

metrics—one related to the WWC and one to ERIC—track the Department’s progress in 

reviewing studies of education effectiveness against rigorous standards and in making highquality education research widely available and easily accessible. The Department believes that 

progress in these metrics will contribute to the information flow that is essential to promoting 

promising areas of education research and development. 

The WWC reviews and summarizes studies of the effectiveness of education interventions. 

During FY 2015, the WWC surpassed the Department’s target by reviewing more than 

600 studies. Reviews of studies submitted by applicants to Department grant competitions 

contributed to the larger-than-anticipated number of studies reviewed. In addition to its regular 

reviews of IES-funded research studies, in FY 2015 the WWC also began to review studies 

produced by the i3 program’s first cohort of grantees. These grantees, originally funded in 2010, 

began to share their results of the independent evaluations of their projects this past year. The 

WWC also expanded its capacity to review higher volumes of studies by offering additional 

reviewer training and awarding a new contract for grant-related study reviews. 

Likewise, in FY 2015, ERIC continued to prioritize acquisition of peer-reviewed, full-text 

education research and secured many new agreements with content providers to enable ERIC 

to acquire the full text of peer-reviewed research articles supported with FY 2012 or later 

research funding from IES. This work contributed to surpassing the FY 2015 annual 

performance target by more than 5,000 full-text, peer-reviewed resources. ERIC also has 

incorporated a search function that allows users to identify studies in the ERIC database that 

were reviewed by the WWC and that met standards. In this way, the greater integration of the 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 98

Department’s WWC and ERIC investments contributes to the “virtuous cycle” of using and 

producing research evidence. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

The process to collect data and track progress against the goal is iterative, and properly using 

evidence to award competitive grants entails a shift in culture and capacity building across the 

Department. Building evidence into competitions is also resource-intensive in terms of program 

staff capacity, grantee capacity, availability of sufficient numbers of WWC-certified reviewers, 

and the review process. Grantees vary in their comfort with and understanding of evaluation and 

use of evidence, yet the Department has limited resources to support grantees in conducting 

rigorous evaluations that would produce evidence of effectiveness. Finally, targets for this 

objective are based on reasonable projections about which competitive grant programs may 

make new awards in this fiscal year, but the actual dollar amount awarded will depend on final 

appropriation amounts and other funding decisions and trade-offs, so performance targets may 

not increase in a linear fashion each year. 

The Department’s leadership will continue explaining to internal stakeholders how the new 

evidence framework in Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) 

can be used in upcoming discretionary grant competitions to reward evidence. For example: 

 EPG is meeting with program offices throughout the Department to identify ways to 

incorporate evidence into discretionary grant competitions. 

 EPG is also exploring ways to support program offices that choose to incorporate 

evidence and build capacity departmentwide. For example, EPG worked to establish a 

departmentwide contract that would provide for technical assistance to grantees on their 

evaluations, particularly impact evaluations that are intended to produce studies that 

meet WWC standards. This contract vehicle is now operational for programs planning 

FY 2016 competitions. Additionally, IES has collaborated with program offices to recruit 

peer reviewers familiar with the WWC standards, which will increase scrutiny of 

applicants’ proposed plans for rigorous evaluations. Finally, OII and IES are providing 

training to Department staff on logic models and other elements of the evidence 

framework to better inform our work at the Department and to provide better assistance 

to our grantees. 

 IES continues to use its various resources intentionally to support program design and 

evaluation. For example, in FY 2015, IES managed the development of a guide for 

planning and conducting strong quasi-experiments and offered a webinar on the topic. 

Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast will offer a five-part webinar series FY 2016 

on designing strong studies of the impact of professional development. The series is 

geared toward applicants to the Department’s discretionary grant programs that require 

evidence. 

To increase the number of individuals who are certified WWC reviewers, the WWC has been 

developing an on-demand online reviewer certification course. Previously, all training was held 

in-person and offered a few times per year. Demand is high for this credential, and the WWC 

has not been able to train all interested individuals. This new approach will allow anyone to take 

the training online and complete a multiple-choice exam on WWC standards. This system will 

allow many more individuals to receive training, at a considerably reduced per-person cost. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 99

Objective 5.4: Technology and Innovation 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

The Department, in consultation with OMB, has determined that performance toward this 

objective is making noteworthy progress. The Department made many successes during 

FY 2015, including a call to the country’s 16,000 superintendents who lead district, charter, and 

private schools to join the Department in taking the Future Ready District Pledge. By taking this 

pledge, superintendents commit to develop, implement, and share technology plans with other 

districts so they can learn from successes and challenges along the way. The Future Ready 

District Pledge offers a roadmap to achieve successful personalized digital learning for every 

student and affirms a commitment by districts to move as quickly as possible toward the shared 

vision of preparing students for success in college, careers, and citizenship. 

To support the work of the superintendents, the Department collected a series of best practices 

for connecting schools, providing devices, and preparing teachers to use technology effectively. 

These practices were published in guides released at the “ConnectED to the Future” 

superintendent summit: Future Ready Schools: Empowering Educators through Professional 

Learning and Future Ready Schools: Building Technology Infrastructure for Learning. The 

Department also issued a Dear Colleague letter to state and local superintendents to clarify that 

technology and digital learning can be an allowable use of more than $27 billion in federal funds 

under the ESEA and IDEA. Moreover, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 

modernized School and Libraries (E-rate) program, raising the E-rate cap an additional $1.5 

billion per year and reprioritizing internal connectivity. With that added funding, E-rate will now 

provide up to $3.9 billion per year to schools and libraries for both connectivity to and bandwidth 

within these institutions. 

In April 2015, former Secretary Duncan announced the release of the Ed Tech Developer’s 

Guide: A Primer for Developers, Startups and Entrepreneurs—the first guidance from the 

Department specifically for developers of educational software. This guide addresses key 

questions about the education ecosystem and highlights critical needs and opportunities to 

develop digital tools and apps for learning that will help close equity gaps in our schools. Written 

with input from knowledgeable educators, developers, and researchers who were willing to 

share what they have learned, the guide is designed to help entrepreneurs apply technology in 

smart ways to solve persistent problems in education. The release was followed by a national 

Ed Tech Developers Tour, spawning more than twenty events around the country to promote 

the guide and highlight administration priorities regarding the creation and use of educational 

technology in schools. This guide is now the most downloaded publication from the 

Department’s Office of Educational Technology. 

In September 2015, the Department announced the hiring of the first ever open education 

adviser to lead a national effort to expand schools’ access to high-quality, openly licensed 

learning resources. In support of the President’s ConnectED goal for high-quality, low-cost 

digital learning resources, the open education advisor will focus on helping both P–12 and 

higher education connect with teaching, learning and research resources in the public domain 

that are freely available to anyone over the web. With this position filled, the Department is able 

to work with tool providers and developers, district and state leaders, and educators to expand 

the use of openly licensed educational resources at scale in districts and states. Open 

educational resources are an important element of an infrastructure for learning and ranges 

from podcasts to digital libraries to textbooks and games. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 100 

Also in September, the Department awarded a contract to develop approaches for evaluating 

educational apps to help schools and parents make evidence-based decisions when choosing 

which apps to use with their students. This project will establish a standard for low-cost, quick 

turnaround evaluations of apps, and field test rapid-cycle evaluations to understand how to 

improve outcomes of ESEA and now ESSA programs. In addition to generating evidence on 

specific apps, the project will help develop protocol tools for conducting rapid cycle evaluations 

of apps that practitioners, developers, and researchers can use beyond the scope of this 

evaluation. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

In November 2015, Education Superhighway, a nonprofit dedicated to reaching the President’s 

connectivity goal, released data based on application data from the FCC’s E-rate program. It 

includes data from 6,781 public school districts, representing over 25 million students in 

approximately 49,000 schools. It estimates that 59 percent of schools have reached the 

President’s connectivity goal this year. This estimate falls within 4 percentage points of that 

reported by the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN) survey. It further points out that 

future roadblocks to progress include access to needed fiber, especially in rural areas; 

affordability of broadband, especially in smaller districts that are not buying large quantities; and 

fully utilizing E-rate funds, since districts have to provide a percentage match to every E-rate 

dollar they receive. Each of these barriers could slow the rapid deployment of broadband to 

schools in coming years, since to varying degrees they fall outside the direct control of schools. 

Several challenges remain in meeting the goals of this objective, including the need to educate 

the public about privacy and data security (leading to setbacks in the ability to use data to create 

personalized learning systems), difficulty measuring effectiveness without a robust evaluation 

program, and difficulty showing impact without data collection. 

Selected Strategies to Achieve Goal 5

Several themes run across Goal 5 implementation strategies. Collaboration will be a key 

strategy needed to implement all objectives, including collaboration within the Department, 

collaboration within government, and collaboration with the education community as a whole. 

Sufficient resources are also key to all objectives in Goal 5, both federal resources and (in the 

case of the SLDS program) state resources as well. Privacy is both a stand-alone objective and 

a theme in other objectives. The Department must address valid privacy concerns and dispel 

privacy myths. 

Another theme for success in Goal 5 is developing sustainable, scalable solutions for using data 

and evidence in decision-making, which will require the Department to be both efficient and 

effective. Building off Department resources, the Department is working to identify ways to make 

its data more accessible and actionable for the public. The recent release of the College 

Scorecard has shown the power of both user-friendly data tools and improved data access for 

researchers and developers through Application Program Interfaces. Department staff will 

leverage existing resources to improve the way that key datasets are located, accessed, and 

made usable. Another vital information resource is the WWC, helping identify the quality of 

various studies. Carefully reviewing studies against WWC standards is painstaking work and 

challenging to carry out at scale and in a short time frame. The Department is taking deliberate 

steps to increase the number of reviewers who are certified to carry out WWC reviews and to 

procure contracts that allow the Department to act nimbly to obtain these reviews.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 101 

Goal 6. U.S. Department of Education Capacity: 

Improve the organizational capacities of the Department to 

implement the Strategic Plan. 

Goal Leader: Andrew Jackson 

Objective 6.1: Effective Workforce. Continue to build a skilled, diverse, and engaged 

workforce within the Department. Objective Leader: Cassandra Cuffee-Graves 

Metric 6.1.A: Staffing gaps percentage106

 

Metric 6.1.B: EVS Employee Engagement Index107

Metric 6.1.C: Time to hire108

Metric 6.1.D: Effective Communication Index109

Objective 6.2: Risk Management. Improve the Department’s program efficacy through 

comprehensive risk management, and grant and contract monitoring. Objective Leaders: Phil 

Maestri and Jim Ropelewski 

Metric 6.2.A: Percentage of A-133 Single Audits Overdue for resolution 

Metric 6.2.B: Compliance rate of contractor evaluation performance reports110

Objective 6.3: Implementation and Support. Build Department capacity and systems to 

support states’ and other grantees’ implementation of reforms that result in improved outcomes, 

and keep the public informed of promising practices and new reform initiatives. Objective 

Leader: Heather Rieman 

Metric 6.3.A: Percentage of states who annually rate the Department’s technical 

assistance as helping build state capacity to implement education reforms 

Objective 6.4: Productivity and Performance Management. Improve workforce productivity 

through information technology enhancements, telework expansion efforts, more effective 

process performance management systems, and state-of-the-art leadership and knowledge 

management practices. Objective Leaders: Danny Harris, Cassandra Cuffee-Graves, and 

Denise Carter

 

106 Percent resulting from dividing number of all agency positions into unfilled agency vacancies. Metric is being removed at the end 

of the FY 2015 reporting period. Please refer to appendix B for details pertaining to the removal and addition of metrics. 

107 Based on positive Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS, also referred to as “EVS”) responses.

108 The Department’s target for completing hiring actions is 90 days (as measured from Request to Recruit date to Tentative Offer 

date). This metric measures the percentage of hiring actions completed within 90 days. An increase in the time to hire rate means 

more hiring actions are completed within the target timeframe, the hiring process is more efficient, and vacancies are filled on a 

more timely basis. 

109 Based on positive FEVS responses. 

110 As reported in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) reporting tool at www.ppirs.gov. Government use of 

PPIRS is required by Federal Acquisition Regulation Subpart 42.15, and government wide annual reporting performance targets are 

set by the Office of Management and Budget in the March 6, 2013, memorandum titled, “Improving the Collection and Use of 

Information about Contractor Performance and Integrity.” The PPIRS compliance metric “calculates the number of completed 

evaluations against the contract actions that should have had an evaluation completed. This number is displayed as a percentage”

(https://www.cpars.gov/pdfs/Improving_Compliance.pdf).
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 102 

Metric 6.4.A: Number of Department information technology (IT) security incidents 

Metric 6.4.B: EVS Results-Oriented Performance Culture Index111

Metric 6.4.C: EVS Leadership and Knowledge Management Index112

Metric 6.4.D: Total usable square footage 

Metric 6.4.E: Rent cost

Goal 6 Discretionary Resources

$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500

FY 2015

FY 2016

FY 2017

$469

$491

$537

(Dollars in millions)

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities113 Supporting Goal 6 Performance Metrics 

[Dollars in Millions]

POC Account Obj. Program

FY 2015 

Appropriation

FY 2016 

Appropriation

FY 2017 

President’s 

Budget

OIG OIG Office of Inspector General 58 59 62

PA PA Program Administration: Building 

modernization 0 1 24

PA PA Program Administration: Salaries and 

expenses 411 431 450

TOTAL, GOAL 6 469 491 537

POC = Principal Office Component 

NOTES: Many programs may have sub-activities that relate to other goals. Detail may not add to total due to rounding. 

 

111 Based on positive FEVS responses. 

112 Based on positive FEVS responses. 

113 All the programs listed are discretionary programs, as distinct from mandatory programs. These include both competitive and 

noncompetitive programs. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 103 

Public Benefit 

To ensure the achievement of the Department’s mission critical objectives, grants and contract 

management remain a strategic focus for improvement in long- and short-term initiatives. 

Additionally, fortifying human capital strategies, competencies and resources, along with the 

continuous improvement of IT security and technologically enhanced work environments, 

continue to be priorities. These activities support grantees, schools, students, families, and 

communities in achieving their educational and economic goals, while also continuing to hold 

recipients of the Department’s funding accountable to clear financial requirements and legal 

obligations. 

The Department continues to focus on human capital management to acquire and develop its 

workforce; increase diversity and inclusion and improve employee engagement; rethink how it 

monitors and intervenes with high-risk grantees and contractors; enhance workforce productivity 

through information technology; safeguard its assets and stakeholders from cybersecurity 

threats; continue to improve and integrate effective performance management; and transform 

the way the Department interacts with states, districts, IHEs, and other grantees and 

stakeholders. These efforts will improve performance results, increase stakeholder 

collaboration, and lead to greater employee engagement. 

In FY 2015, the Department was a leader in the broader grant community to implement 

successfully the new Uniform Guidance regulations prescribed and updated by the President’s 

Office of Management and Budget. The Department created an online repository of resources 

and conducted frequent outreach to help grantees follow the new rules, which reduce burden 

while strengthening controls against waste, fraud, and abuse. 

Using a strategic approach in FY 2015, the Department strengthened Human Resources (HR) 

operations by reducing hiring lead times, improving executive recruitment strategies, revising 

outdated HR policies, expanding training opportunities, and improving management practices.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 104 

Goal 6: Details

U.S. Department of 

Education 

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals

Current 

Year 

Target

Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line 

(Actuals)

2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

6.1.A. Staffing gaps 

percentage114

FY: 2013

15% 15% 4% 4.3% 15% MET

15.

0%

4.3

%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

6.1.A

NA NA

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

2013 2014 2015

New Metric

Percent of selections made 

per job opportunity 

announcement (JOA)

FY:

2015

46.4%

NA NA 46.4% NA NA 48.7% 51.2%

6.1.B. EVS Employee 

Engagement Index

FY: 2012

64.7% 66% 67% 68% 69% NOT 

MET

69.

0%

68.

0%

60.0%

61.0%

62.0%

63.0%

64.0%

65.0%

66.0%

67.0%

68.0%

69.0%

6.1.B

71% 72%

61.0%

63.0%

65.0%

67.0%

69.0%

2013 2014 2015

6.1.C. Time to hire FY: 2013

65% 65% 85% 67.6% 68% NOT 

MET

68.

0%

67.

6%

55.0%

56.0%

57.0%

58.0%

59.0%

60.0%

61.0%

62.0%

63.0%

64.0%

65.0%

66.0%

67.0%

68.0%

69.0%

6.1.C

69% 70%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

201320142015

 

114 Metric being removed at the end of the FY 2015 reporting period and being replaced with the metric identified as “New Metric” directly below it. If there is no corresponding “New 

Metric” identified, new metric TBD. Please refer to appendix B for details pertaining to the removal and addition of metrics. The proposed FY 2016 and 2017 targets for the metric being 

removed were both NA. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 105 

U.S. Department of 

Education 

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals

Current 

Year 

Target

Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line 

(Actuals)

2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

6.1.D. Effective 

Communication Index

FY: 2012

48% 49.6% 50% 51% 50% MET

50.

0%

51.

0%

45.0%

46.0%

47.0%

48.0%

49.0%

50.0%

51.0%

6.1.D

51% 52%

48.0%

49.0%

50.0%

51.0%

52.0%

2013 2014 2015

6.2.A. Percentage of A-133 

Single Audits Overdue for 

resolution

FY: 2012

57% 52% 37% 20% 43% MET

43.

0%

20.

0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

6.2.A

37% 31%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

2013 2014 2015

6.2.B. Compliance rate of 

contractor evaluation 

performance reports

FY: 2013

85% 85% 97% 98% 100% NOT 

MET

100

.0%

98.

0%

75.0%

80.0%

85.0%

90.0%

95.0%

100.0%

6.2.B

100% 100%

75.0%

80.0%

85.0%

90.0%

95.0%

100.0%

2013 2014 2015
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 106 

U.S. Department of 

Education 

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals

Current 

Year 

Target

Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line 

(Actuals)

2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

6.3.A. Percentage of states 

who annually rate the 

Department’s technical 

assistance as helping build 

state capacity to implement 

education reforms115

FY: 2013

54% 54% 75% 69% 67% MET

67.

0%

69.

0%

55.0%

57.0%

59.0%

61.0%

63.0%

65.0%

67.0%

69.0%

71.0%

6.3.A

77% 85%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

2013 2014 2015

6.4.A. Number of

Department IT security 

incidents

FY: 2012

756 755 445 580 682 MET

682

580

500

520

540

560

580

600

620

640

660

680

700

6.4.A

551116 523117

0

200

400

600

800

2013 2014 2015

6.4.B. EVS ResultsOriented Performance 

Culture Index

FY: 2012

53% 54% 56% 57% 56% MET

56.

0%

57.

0%

50.0%

52.0%

54.0%

56.0%

58.0%

6.4.B

57% 58%

52.0%

53.0%

54.0%

55.0%

56.0%

57.0%

58.0%

2013 2014 2015

 

115 In FY 2016, the metric’s data source will be changed to the 2015 Grantee Satisfaction Survey. Thus, in FY 2016, the baseline and targets will be updated to reflect the change. 

There is also variability with this metric due to ESEA reauthorization and the impact on the programs included. 

116 FY 2016 target was reduced based on actual incidents reported in FY 2015 and then reducing that actual by 5%. 

117 FY 2017 target was reduced by 5% from the FY 2016 target. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 107 

U.S. Department of 

Education 

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals

Current 

Year 

Target

Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target

2015 Out-Year Targets Trend Line 

(Actuals)

2013 2014 2015 2015

Missed Exceeded

2016 2017

6.4.C. EVS Leadership and 

Knowledge Management 

Index

FY: 2012

60% 61% 61% 62% 62% MET

62.

0%

62.

0%

50.0%

52.0%

54.0%

56.0%

58.0%

60.0%

62.0%

64.0%

6.4.C

63% 64%

55.0%

56.0%

57.0%

58.0%

59.0%

60.0%

61.0%

62.0%

63.0%

2013 2014 2015

6.4.D. Total usable square 

footage

FY: 2012

1,563,641 1,573,317 1,533,239 1,530,864 1,525,937 NOT 

MET

1,52

5,93

7

1,53

0,86

4

1,450,000

1,456,500

1,463,000

1,469,500

1,476,000

1,482,500

1,489,000

1,495,500

1,502,000

1,508,500

1,515,000

1,521,500

1,528,000

1,534,500

1,541,000

6.4.D

1,459,937 TBD

1,500,000

1,515,000

1,530,000

1,545,000

1,560,000

1,575,000

1,590,000

201320142015

6.4.E. Rent cost FY: 2014

$74.3M $71.7M $74.1M $72.7M $80.3M MET

$80

,30

0,0

00

$72

,72

0,0

99

68,000,000

70,000,000

72,000,000

74,000,000

76,000,000

78,000,000

80,000,000

82,000,000

6.4.E

$80,300,000 TBD

70,000,000

71,000,000

72,000,000

73,000,000

74,000,000

75,000,000

201320142015

NA = Not applicable. 

TBD = To be determined. 

Academic Year (AY) is a collegiate year spanning August–May; School Year (SY) spans August–July and is aligned with a P–12 school year; Fiscal Year (FY) corresponds to a federal 

fiscal year; Calendar Year (CY) spans January–December. 

Data Sources and Frequency of Collection: 

6.1.A. Mission Critical Occupation (MCO) Staffing Gap Report; quarterly 

6.1.B. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS); annually 

6.1.C. Federal Personnel/Payroll System (FPPS) Datamart; quarterly 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 108 

6.1.D. OPM FEVS; annually 

6.2.A. Office of the Chief Financial Officer’s (OCFO) Audit Accountability & Resolution Tracking System (AARTS); annually 

6.2.B. Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) www.ppirs.gov “PPIRS Compliance Report”; annually

6.3.A. Baseline is from the Race to the Top State Lead Survey, n=19. Future data will come from the Annual Grantee Satisfaction Survey; annually 

6.4.A. Operational Vulnerability Management Solution (OVMS) System; quarterly 

6.4.B. OPM FEVS; annually 

6.4.C. OPM FEVS; annually 

6.4.D. Department’s Master Space Management Plan; annually 

6.4.E. Department’s Master Space Management Plan; annually 

Note on performance metrics and targets: These metrics were established as a part of the FY 2014–18 Strategic Plan. Metrics may be updated or revised to 

reflect awareness of more accurate data or clarifications. Such updates or revisions are identified in footnotes. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 109 

Analysis and Next Steps by Objective

Objective 6.1: Effective Workforce 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

The Department’s staffing gaps have been successfully reduced and continue to maintain a 

stable, minimum level of 4–5 percent, which is well below the FY 2015 target level of 

15 percent. The Department also continues to reduce hiring lead times and completed 

approximately 68 percent of hiring actions within 90 days from the date the action was received 

to the tentative job offer. In FY 2015, the Department opened a new career center to assist 

employees in reaching their career development goals and successfully developed, marketed 

and deployed a boot-camp style supervisory training course for supervisors and managers. This 

mandatory three-day Supervisor Essentials course is facilitated by Department subject matter 

experts and provides new and existing supervisors with the essential tools in a participatory 

environment that encourages students to develop cross-component networks to share best 

practices. Additionally, the Department received full OPM certification for its Senior Executive 

Service performance management program for the first time in eight years. 

The Department’s strategic goals are vast: supporting postsecondary education, CTE, adult 

education, elementary and secondary education, early learning, equity, and continuous 

improvement of the education system. To achieve its objectives, the Department’s workforce 

must have the right skills and be led by skilled and engaging supervisors and managers. The 

Department is enhancing employee productivity by aligning priorities and goals at every level in 

the organization with the Department’s strategic objectives. The Department has achieved 

consistent, incremental progress in Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) results. Since 

2010, the Department has improved scores in the Employee Engagement Index of the FEVS 

from 62.6 percent to 68 percent in 2015. In FY 2015, the Department implemented a successful 

engagement strategy that resulted in 50 percent of subcomponents increasing their employee 

engagement scores between 1 and 12 percent, and 72 percent of subcomponents achieving 

employee engagement scores above the governmentwide average. 

The Office of Human Resources (OHR) worked with all Departmental offices to prioritize the 

revision and updating of key human capital policies, conducted extensive outreach efforts to 

hiring managers, and expanded supervisory and managerial training and development 

opportunities. 

Human capital management plays a critical role in the Department’s ability to fulfill its mission. 

By effectively planning for workforce changes, addressing skill gaps, and providing timely

guidance and hands-on options for recruitment, staffing, and retention, the Department can 

provide consistent oversight, execution, and support for its programs. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

The Department has improved managers’ awareness of key hiring activities and timelines. 

Classification and hiring activities have been automated for real-time tracking, which allows HR 

staff to focus on more complex questions. In FY 2016, the Department will continue outreach 

efforts to hiring managers on personnel flexibilities and improve HR tracking tools to support 

managers in hiring the best employees for their positions. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 110 

Objective 6.2: Risk Management 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

Risk management focuses on creating an environment where grant and loan funds are used for 

the right purpose and achieve program success. The Department has worked to increase its 

ability to provide the right technical assistance and oversight to help grantees achieve program 

goals. Some of that work is accomplished through improving the quality and thoroughness of 

risk assessments conducted by the Department assuring that grantees are ready to manage the 

funds awarded. During FY 2015 the Department conducted preaward risk reviews for 

100 percent of competitive grant programs. Other work has included improving the program 

staffs’ skills in the area of fiscal monitoring through training and technical assistance. In 

FY 2015, the Department far exceeded its goal of timely audit resolution—the target was set at 

no more than 43 percent resolved overdue, and the actual percentage achieved was 

20 percent. This was achieved by focusing on timeliness and fostering close working 

relationships with programs and support offices. In addition, a comprehensive training program 

to support the implementation of the new Uniform Guidance was developed and implemented 

for both grantees and Department staff, which included a strand on audit-related requirements. 

Risk management is also an essential aspect of contract monitoring, which is achieved by 

actively assessing program and performance risks inherent in contracts through oversight and 

support and issuance of policy and guidance to program and contract officials. The Department 

has sustained high performance in compliance with contractor performance reporting 

requirements, leading the government with a 98 percent compliance rate for FY 2015. Only four 

agencies reached a compliance rate of 90 percent in FY 2015, and the average compliance rate 

of all 64 agencies reported was only 30 percent.118

 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

The Department will continue to monitor contractor performance reporting requirements and 

work to attain the 100 percent compliance goal set by OMB. 

The Department will continue collaborating with offices to reduce the number of overdue audits 

and leverage audit follow-up data to manage grantee risk by providing additional technical 

assistance and training on audit requirements related to the Uniform Guidance. The Department 

will focus its work with program offices to increase understanding and application of the results 

of Entity Risk Reviews related to audit data, with an emphasis on strategies to mitigate risk 

through effective and timely corrective action and follow-up. 

Collecting quantitative data on the risk posed by grant recipients, and the extent to which the 

Department makes progress building capacity to address this risk, remains a challenge. Building 

the capacity of the Department to conduct more sophisticated analysis of data, both structured 

and unstructured, will be critical to addressing that challenge. The Department will work toward 

building quality, accessible sources of data on grant and grantee performance, sharing 

information about risks and mitigation across program offices, and building the grant staff 

capacity—in both knowledge and numbers—to monitor the financial and administrative 

components of grant performance. 

These efforts will ultimately improve the capacity of our grantees to provide quality programs 

and services. 

 

118 Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) (www.ppirs.gov) “PPIRS Compliance Report.”
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 111 

Objective 6.3: Implementation and Support 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

2015 was the first year of implementation for OESE’s new Office of State Support (OSS). The 

reorganization was approved in the fourth quarter of FY 2014 and OSS was created in early 

October. OSS is designed to provide improved state-centered support across related 

Department programs and offer more transparent, higher quality, and better differentiated 

support to meet the varied needs among states. The matrix organization model adopted by OSS 

ensures that a state has a primary contact within the Department and this individual serves as 

the liaison across key state-administered grant programs and major federal funding streams that 

flow to each state and district. By consolidating processes and technical assistance, the 

Department will be able to more effectively customize its outreach to individual states and model 

the critical partnerships that states should have with their respective districts. 

The office is working to deepen staff knowledge and build or pilot systems and routines that 

allow OSS to support states with implementation through a systemic approach to technical 

assistance and the design and implementation of key processes, such as performance 

management and knowledge management, in order to ensure sustainability. 

Educator equity is one area of increased attention and support during the past year. In July 

2014, the Department announced the Excellent Educators for All initiative designed to move 

America toward the day when every student in every public school is taught by excellent 

educators. An Equitable Access Support Network (EASN) was set up to provide support and 

technical assistance to states to ensure that they had strong plans and targeted strategies so 

that students in poverty and minority children are not taught at higher rates than other children 

by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

Transitioning to the new OSS is a significant change that will take time to implement fully. OESE 

and OSS leadership are still establishing new processes and procedures, and the transition will 

take place gradually. Compounded by budget constraints, continuing challenges include 

staffing, appropriate professional development, and support for staff. 

Building new and stronger relationships with states and stakeholders requires significant 

outreach and effort. The Department continues to communicate with stakeholders and 

grantees—through printed publications, the PROGRESS blog, OSS technical assistance, 

YouTube videos, and speeches—and broadly share lessons learned across grantees and 

nongrantees and with the general public about the reforms being implemented at the state and 

local levels. Next steps also include launching an updated state performance review, 

implementing against a new strategic technical assistance plan, and adjusting plans to prepare 

for ESSA implementation.

Objective 6.4: Productivity and Performance Management 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

The Department takes pride in fostering a culture where managers and employees have the 

information and technology to perform their jobs well even when they are not physically 

onsite.The Department instituted tools and techniques for managers and employees to make 

performance goal setting, tracking, and feedback a regular work practice throughout the year. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 112 

Additionally, some supervisors used a best practice performance feedback worksheet with 

questions tied to FEVS results which enhanced proactive communication and built trust within 

work teams. The Department also developed a revised telework training course, How to Make 

Telework Really Work. Training sessions incorporated discussion on changes to the 

Department’s updated telework policy and provided a forum for managers and employees to 

ask questions about telework and any concerns regarding space reduction and modernization 

plans. The Department saw an increase in the use of telework as a viable and effective tool that 

enabled employees to meet professional responsibilities while also offering a mechanism to 

reduce work/life stress.

To improve efficiencies and reduce costs associated with the Grant Award Notification process, 

the Department issued a Grant Bulletin establishing policy and guidance to support e-signature 

for formula grants. 

In FY 2015, the Department implemented the second year of the ED Space Modernization 

Initiative, finalized space designs for two major subcomponents, and worked with the General 

Services Administration (GSA) to develop an aggressive construction schedule for the first 

major phase of the initiative in the Department’s headquarters building. The Department 

identified business requirements, conducted market research with a broad group of 

stakeholders, and completed procurement for an automated hoteling and conference room 

reservation system. Department staff in San Francisco and Chicago were engaged in the 

process of redefining requirements for new space when current leases expire and worked with 

GSA to find federally owned space in San Francisco to avoid a large rent increase in 2014; the 

resulting solution will save the Department $15 million in avoided rent and construction costs in

2017–18. The Department worked closely with its labor union partners to address space 

challenges in Washington, DC and regional office locations. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

The Department adopted a creative and dramatic response to reduce overall administrative 

expenses through emergency space consolidation in the Washington, DC area. As a result, the 

Department will achieve substantial cost avoidance in FY 2016 and FY 2017. Though the 

strategy was developed with full collaboration and commitment of Department leadership, the 

affected principal offices, OCIO, and GSA, potential challenges include maintaining morale and 

productivity and sustaining recent gains in employee engagement. 

Selected Strategies to Achieve Goal 6

The Department will build on the success of HR improvements of FY 2015 by continuing to 

strengthen HR operations, improving executive recruitment strategies, revising outdated HR 

policies, expanding training opportunities in critical areas, and improving labor relations 

management practices. 

While continued focus on the IT automated response capabilities has led to reductions in the 

number of security incidents in FY 2016 and FY 2017, additional training for the Department’s 

third-party partners will reduce the potential for personally identifiable information disclosures 

and ensure the proper protection of our customers’ information. The Department’s cybersecurity 

focus will remain on data protection and control. The Department will continue implementing 

various capabilities to control the flow of sensitive information, and prevent access to related 

systems, data, or other critical information and infrastructure by unauthorized individuals. These 

new capabilities with existing protective measures will ensure the protection of employee and 

customer data. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 113 

Finally, the Department must continue its work in developing customized change management 

strategies necessary to successful space redesign and reduce the Department’s physical 

footprint. By consolidating units, renegotiating leases, and making reductions in the needed 

space, the Department will save rent costs. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 114 

Management Priorities and Challenges

The Department continues to make notable progress in capacity and infrastructure in support of 

mission delivery. Year after year, the Department has demonstrated its commitment to 

employees through investments in technology innovation and cybersecurity, by transforming the 

human resources systems and hiring processes, introducing helpful tools, and updating policies 

and procedures. Delivering on Goal 6 of the Strategic Plan is critical to achieving the other 

mission-focused goals. The continuing challenge, however, is in converting and applying 

increased and improved capacity in ways that help the Department overcome its longstanding 

management challenges, particularly in IT security and management, as well as in the 

administration and delivery of the student financial aid system. 

The recent data breach at OPM in FY 2015 reiterated that agencies need to continue working 

towards cybersecurity. While the Department has focused significant resources toward the 

governmentwide “sprint” exercises and other strategic assessments of the Department’s IT 

security posture, critical work remains to be done. Numerous and continuous efforts are 

underway across the government and the Department to secure critical infrastructure and 

valued assets. To address noted areas of concern and vulnerability, key actions have resulted 

in the enhancement and increase of two-factor authentication as a requirement for accessing 

Departmental systems and peripherals. Additionally, there has been an intentional campaign to 

significantly decrease the number of privileged user accounts that are activated. Finally, the 

Department’s Chief Information Office continues to aggressively educate and test employees to 

help protect against phishing and other known schemes aimed at extracting personally 

identifiable information or other valuable data, and is helping other partners who must regularly 

or intermittently access and utilize our systems as well. 

The Department continues to enhance its hiring, staffing, training, and culture. Following efforts 

begun in FY 2014, the Department has streamlined hiring, and bolstered employee and labor 

relations and human capital policy development. OHR has introduced innovative strategies to 

expand the hiring tools used by managers, which reduced the time to hire, and allowed the team 

to focus on other critical customer issues and capacity concerns. For example, the 

Department’s human resource team is producing much-needed policy guidance at a faster rate 

than in the previous three years—publishing pivotal guidance, such as those related to the 

telework program, alternative work schedules, and the merit promotion plan—a clear result of 

improved staff technical and leadership capability. 

In FY 2015, the Department continued bolstering its impact in the people and culture element, 

with an agencywide campaign to address employee engagement in each of the Department’s 

offices. The campaign included employee engagement planning, a roadmap of essential and 

best practices, and support from top-level management in each office. Additionally, the 

Department met OPM’s newly mandated performance standard, with every senior executive 

addressing employee engagement as a part of their annual performance agreement. Final 

participation rates resulting from the 2015 OPM Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey show 

significant gains in this area, with a 73 percent survey response rate—3 percent above the 

Department’s target—and over 9 percentage points more than the 2014 response rate. 

The Department’s efforts to reduce significantly its real estate “footprint” and space inventory

will have a major impact on management and culture. While reduction of the overall square 

footage is the primary goal, this is a long-term endeavor and the Department recognizes that it 

must manage several other indirect dependencies that can derail the expected progress. 

However, as noted above, the Department has made significant progress toward the first phase 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 115 

of its headquarters building modernization and is completing plans to effect the move of two 

regional offices from more expensive leased space to less expensive federally owned space. 

Other elements critical to sound management are showing positive trends and results as well. 

The Department reduced the cost of managing accounts receivables by outsourcing the 

management of most of that portfolio to a federal shared service provider, significantly reducing 

the cost per transaction. The Department recently launched a new initiative to migrate to 

100 percent electronic vendor invoicing by FY 2018, which will both improve customer service 

and significantly reduce the internal processing costs of invoices. The Department’s percent of 

compliance with contractor performance reporting requirements is the best in government, 

currently over 98 percent. To put these numbers in greater context, this performance ranks the 

Department as one of only four agencies that have compliance rates of 90 percent or more. 

These efforts, taken as a whole, are positioning the Department to benefit from and leverage 

continuous improvement to increase its overall capacity, protect its assets, and support its 

employees. 

Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) Management Challenges

OIG works to promote efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity in the programs and operations of 

the Department. Through audits, inspections, investigations, and other reviews, OIG continues 

to identify areas of concern within the Department’s programs and operations and recommend 

actions the Department should take to address these weaknesses. The Reports Consolidation 

Act of 2000 requires the OIG to identify and report annually on the most serious management 

challenges the Department faces. The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 requires the 

Department to include in its agency performance plan information on its planned actions, 

including performance goals, indicators, and milestones, to address these challenges. 

The Department remains committed to improved governance and better business processes. 

Management has worked closely with OIG to gain its perspective about the Department’s most 

significant management and performance challenges. Last year OIG presented five 

management challenges. The Department provided to the OIG a high-level summary 

assessment, actions taken, and planned actions for each of the management challenge areas. 

The FY 2016 management challenges are: 

(1) Improper Payments, 

(2) Information Technology Security, 

(3) Oversight and Monitoring, 

(4) Data Quality and Reporting, and 

(5) Information Technology System Development and Implementation. 

These challenges reflect continuing vulnerabilities and emerging issues faced by the 

Department as identified though OIG’s recent audit, inspection, and investigative work. 

The full report, to include how the Department is addressing each management challenge area, 

is published by the OIG. To view the full report, go to: 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/managementchallenges.html. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 116 

Lower-Priority Program Activities 

The Cuts, Consolidations and Savings volume of the President’s Budget identifies the lowerpriority program activities, where applicable, as required under the GPRA Modernization Act of 

2010, 31 U.S.C. 1115(b)(10). The public can access the volume at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget.