FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 

U.S. Department of Education 

Arne Duncan 

Secretary 

February 2, 2015 

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission to 

reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of Education, Fiscal Year 2014 

Annual Performance Report and Fiscal Year 2016 Annual Performance Plan: Washington D.C., 2015. 

This report is available on the Department’s website at: http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/index.html. On 

request, the report also is available in alternative formats, such as Braille, large print, or computer diskette. For more 

information, please contact our Alternate Format Center at (202) 260-0852 or by contacting the 504 coordinator via 

email at om_eeos@ed.gov. 

To become connected to the Department through social media, please visit the Department’s website at: 

www.ed.gov. 

Notice to Limited English Proficient Persons 

Notice of Language Assistance: If you have difficulty understanding English, you may request language 

assistance services, free of charge, for this Department information by calling 1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327) 

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

[SPANISH] 

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

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

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

Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov. 

[CHINESE] 

給英語能力有限人士的通知: 如果您不懂英語,

或者使用英语有困难,您可以要求獲得向大眾提供的語言協助服務,幫助您理解教育部資訊。這些語言協助服務均可

免費提供。如果您需要有關口譯或筆譯服務的詳細資訊,請致電 1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327) 

(聽語障人士專線:1-800-877-8339),或電郵: Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov。 

[VIETNAMESE] 

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

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

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

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

Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov. 

[KOREAN] 

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

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

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

또는 이메일주소 Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov 으로 연락하시기 바랍니다.
FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 

[TAGALOG] 

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

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

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

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

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

[RUSSIAN] 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

APP_APRComments@ed.gov or: 

U.S. Department of Education 

Performance Improvement Officer 

400 Maryland Ave, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20202 

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

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan:

For general layout and web design: ICF Macro
FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education ii

Foreword 

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

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

Plan. The United States Department of Education’s (the Department’s) Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 Annual 

Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan presents to Congress, the President, and the 

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

objectives and performance metrics, in addition to providing information on Departmental efforts in FY 2016. 

This report accompanies the administration’s budget request to Congress. The complete budget request for 

the Department will be available at http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/focus/performance.html. 

This year, the Department is consolidating its FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and the FY 2016 Annual 

Performance Plan to report on its U.S. Department of Education Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2014–2018. 

The data for the FY 2014–18 Strategic Plan metrics are the most current data available to the Department. 

Unless noted, targets are based upon the most current data the Department expects to have available at the 

time of the Annual Performance Report. The Department’s FY 2014 annual reporting includes these three 

documents: 

FY 2014 Summary of Performance and Financial 

Information [available February 2015]

This document provides an integrated overview of 

performance and financial information that consolidates 

the FY 2014 Agency Financial Report (AFR) and the 

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report (APR) and FY 2016 

Annual Performance Plan (APP) into a user-friendly 

format.

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and 

FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan

[available February 2015]

This report is produced in conjunction with the FY 2016

President’s Budget Request and provides more detailed 

performance information and analysis of performance 

results.

FY 2014 Agency Financial Report (AFR) [published November 14, 2014]

The AFR is organized into three major sections:

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

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

accomplishments for the fiscal year, and management and performance challenges facing the Department.

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

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

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

requirements.

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

http://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/index.html. 
FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education iii

Contents 

Mission and Organizational Structure 

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

Our Organization in Fiscal Year 2014 ......................................................................................... 4 

Overview 

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

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

FY 2014 Financial Highlights and Information ............................................................................. 5 

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

Performance Results Details 

Performance Management Framework ....................................................................................... 7 

FY 2014–18 Strategic Plan .........................................................................................................8

The Department’s Agency Priority Goals...................................................................................10

Cross-Agency Priority Goals .....................................................................................................17 

The Department’s Approach to Data Collection and Analysis....................................................18 

The Department’s Evaluation and Evidence Planning Initiatives ...............................................18 

Performance Plan Summary 

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

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

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

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

Education ...................................................................................................................21

Goal 2. Elementary and Secondary Education........................................................................34

Goal 3. Early Learning ............................................................................................................45 

Goal 4. Equity ......................................................................................................................... 54 

Goal 5. Continuous Improvement of the U.S. Education System............................................. 64 

Goal 6. U.S. Department of Education Capacity ..................................................................... 75 

Management Priorities and Challenges..................................................................................... 83 

Lower-Priority Program Activities .............................................................................................. 84 

Appendices 

Appendix A: Data Validity and Verification ............................................................................. 87 

Appendix B: Additional Programs by Goal ...........................................................................115

Appendix C: Summary of Performance Evaluations Conducted During FY 2014 and 

Expected During FY 2015–16 .......................................................................... 120

Appendix D: Selected Department Web Links and Education Resources ............................157 

Appendix E: Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations .........................................................161 
FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education iv

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

FY 2014 Annual Performance 

Report and FY 2016 Annual 

Performance Plan
FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 2 

Mission and Organizational Structure

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

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

data. The Department was established as a cabinet-level agency in 1979. Today, the 

Department supports programs that address every area and level of education. 

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

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

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

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

federal laws prohibiting discrimination in programs that receive federal funds. 

Our Public Benefit. The Department is committed to helping to ensure that all students 

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

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

the Department supports efforts to employ highly qualified teachers and administrators, 

establish challenging content and achievement standards, and monitor students’ progress 

against those standards. 

The Department’s largest asset is a portfolio of student loans. Grants to states are the second 

largest item on the balance sheet, mostly for elementary and secondary education, awarded 

based on legislated formulas. The third biggest item is student aid to help pay for college 

through Pell Grants, Work Study, and other campus-based programs. The Department also 

carries out competitive grant programs to promote innovation, performs research, collects 

education statistics, and enforces civil rights statutes. 

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

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

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

The offices of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), Innovation and Improvement (OII), English Language 

Acquisition (OELA), Postsecondary Education (OPE), and Career, Technical, and Adult 

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

local educational agencies and institutions of higher education for reform, strategic investment, 

and innovation in education. 

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

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

practice and policy and share this information broadly. By identifying what works, what doesn’t, 

and why, IES aims to improve educational outcomes for all students, particularly those at risk of 

failure. Its goal is to transform education into an evidence-based field in which decision makers 

Our Mission

The U.S. Department of Education’s mission is to promote student 

achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering 

educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

Our Mission

The U.S. Department of Education’s mission is to promote student 

achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering 

educational excellence and ensuring equal access.
MISSION AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 3 

routinely seek out the best available research and data before adopting programs or practices 

that will affect significant numbers of students. 

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

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

serves student populations facing discrimination and the advocates and institutions promoting 

systemic solutions to civil rights issues. 

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

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

measurement and evaluation, and budget processes and proposals. Two major components, 

the Budget Service and the Policy and Program Studies Service (PPSS), are housed within 

OPEPD. 

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

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

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

Under Secretary; Office of Legislative and Congressional Affairs; Office of the Chief Financial 

Officer; Office of the Chief Information Officer; Risk Management Services; and Office of 

Communications and Outreach. 

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

assistance for schools, parents, and citizens. Regional offices offer support through 

communications, civil rights enforcement, and federal student aid services to promote efficiency, 

effectiveness, and integrity in the programs and operations of the Department. 

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

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

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 4 

Our Organization in Fiscal Year 2014

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

Education. Interactive and text versions of the coordinating structure of the Department 

are available. 
FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 5 

Overview 

About This Report

The United States Department of Education’s (the Department’s) FY 2014 Annual Performance 

Report (APR) and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan (APP) provide information relative to the 

FY 2014–18 Strategic Plan. 

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

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

2016 fiscal year. Because the Department has a delay of at least one year in the collection of 

data for many of the performance metrics, trend data are not available for all metrics. 

About the Agency Financial Report

The FY 2014 Agency Financial Report (AFR), released in November 2014, provides detailed 

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

resources. 

The Secretary has outlined accomplishments, ongoing initiatives, and management challenges 

for the Department in FY 2014 and certified that the Department’s performance data are 

fundamentally complete and reliable in his letter published in the AFR. 

FY 2014 Financial Highlights and Information

The Department significantly expanded information in the Financial Highlights section of the 

AFR to provide a more comprehensive depiction of its key financial activities for FY 2014 and to 

identify and explain significant trends. 

As a 10-time recipient of the Association of Government Accountants Certificate of Excellence 

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

13 consecutive years, the Department has demonstrated its commitment to continuous 

improvement in its financial management, operations, and reporting. 

For an overview and analysis of the Department’s sources of funds and financial position, 

including a section on trend analysis, please go to 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/2014report/2014-afr-2e-mda-financial-highlights.pdf. 

To review the Department’s financial summary and complete financial statements—including 

required supplementary stewardship information and notes to the principal financial statements 

for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2014, and September 30, 2013—please go to 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/2014report/2014-afr-3-financial.pdf. 

Analysis of Controls, Systems, and Legal Compliance 

The balance sheet of the Department now exceeds $1.0 trillion in assets. These are primarily 

from Credit Program Receivables (loans) and the Fund Balance with the Department of the 

Treasury (Treasury). The Department had $924 billion in loans outstanding at the end of the 

year. This included new loans made in 2014 and the balances of old loans less collections of 

interest and principal. The Department is the smallest of 15 cabinet-level agencies in terms of 

 

1

“Unmodified” has the same meaning as the previous terminology, “unqualified.”
OVERVIEW

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 6 

government staff, with approximately 4,100 employees, yet it has the third-largest grant portfolio 

among the 26 federal grant-making organizations. In order to demonstrate effective stewardship 

of these resources, the Department has to implement effective controls over operations, 

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

Compliance section of the Agency Financial Report. 

For more information on management assurances regarding compliance with the Federal 

Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-255) (FMFIA) and Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) Circular A-123, Management’s Responsibility for Internal Control, as well as an 

analysis of the Department’s controls, systems, and legal compliance, go to 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/2014report/2014-afr-2f-mda-analysis.pdf. 

For information on improper payments reporting details, which includes a risk assessment of 

certain programs, please go to http://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/2014report/2014-afr4a-otherinfo-improper-pymts.pdf. 
FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 7 

Performance Results Details

Performance Management Framework 

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

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

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

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

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

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

and Annual Performance Reports.

The FY 2014–18 Strategic Plan is comprised of six strategic goals that influence the day-to-day 

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

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

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

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 8 

FY 2014–18 Strategic Plan 
PERFORMANCE RESULTS DETAILS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 9 
PERFORMANCE RESULTS DETAILS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 10

The Department’s Agency Priority Goals

The Department identified six APGs for FY 2014–15 that serve to focus its activities, with a 

particular emphasis over the next two years. These goals are consistent with the Department’s 

five-year strategic plan, which will be used to monitor and report regularly on progress, reflect 

the Department’s cradle-to-career education strategy, and help concentrate efforts on the 

importance of teaching and learning at all levels of the education system. Quarterly updates for 

the APGs are available on performance.gov. 

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

Overview: In 2009, the President set a goal that the United States will have the highest 

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

Americans to earn a postsecondary degree by the end of this decade. The President’s focus on 

the educational attainment among adults ages 25–34 allows the Department to assess progress 

in preparing the next generation of workers and to benchmark for international comparisons. 

In August 2013, the President outlined an ambitious new agenda to combat rising college costs 

and make college affordable for American families. The Department’s strategy to implement the 

President’s College Value and Affordability Agenda comprises three areas of focus: (1) 

promoting evidence-based innovation and competition so that colleges offer students a greater 

range of affordable, high-quality options; (2) fostering institutional and student accountability in 

tandem with better consumer awareness; and (3) helping borrowers who are struggling with 

their student loan debt. These strategies aim to support college attainment by reducing the cost 

and amount of time necessary to attain a degree; measuring college performance and providing 

consumer information about access, affordability, and outcomes; supporting the use of open 

educational low-cost textbooks; and incentivizing state, institutional, and student behavior to 

increase college access and success. 

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

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

year above the four-year historical average of 0.7 percentage points. Based on this projection, 

the Department established performance targets of 44.7 percent for 2014 and 45.6 percent for 

2015. The Department is on pace to achieve this APG as 44.8 percent of adults ages 25–34 

have an associate’s degree or higher, exceeding the 2014 performance target (note that the 

rate reflects prior year data, in this case from 2013, but is reported in 2014 when data are 

available). Examples of the Department’s activities that support this goal include collaborating 

with the White House to plan and host College Opportunity Summits that announced 

institutional commitments to expand college opportunity; updating and refining the College 

Scorecard; announcing regulations that will bring accountability to institutions offering career 

training programs; developing draft regulations to help ensure teacher training programs are 

preparing educators who are ready to succeed in the classroom; expanding the reach of the 

Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) Completion Initiative; implementing a new 

Agency Priority Goal: Increase college degree attainment in America

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

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

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

Supports Strategic Goal 1.
PERFORMANCE RESULTS DETAILS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 11

First in the World grant program to support college access and completion through innovation 

and evidence-based practices; and redesigning existing programs to encourage efforts to 

improve college fit, reduce the need for remediation, increase the availability of open 

educational resources, and implement evidence-based practices. These activities promote 

innovation, competition, and accountability in the postsecondary sector, which will boost 

completion rates and educational attainment.

Opportunities and Challenges: The administration’s landmark investments in Pell Grants, 

coupled with the creation of more generous tax credits and loan repayment options, have 

helped more Americans access a college education. However, the Department is concerned 

that federal student aid may not be able to keep pace with rising college costs indefinitely. 

Instead, systemic state and institutional reforms are necessary to address the root causes 

affecting college affordability, while also creating incentives to provide greater quality at a lower 

cost to students. This task is not one that the federal government can take on alone. As such, 

success will also depend largely on the extent to which states invest in higher education and 

whether institutions pursue practices and policies that will help improve affordability and student 

outcomes. Specifically, whether and to what extent states and institutions (a) implement policies 

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

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

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

transitions from secondary to postsecondary education and among higher education institutions 

will influence the Department’s success in achieving this APG. While some of the Department’s 

budgetary proposals that would more fully address these areas have not received traction in 

Congress, the Department has some limited leverage to influence states’ policies and the 

practices of postsecondary institutions, and the Department will use its available resources, 

including grant programs and technical assistance, and the ability to convene stakeholders to 

encourage collaboration and best practices. 

Overview: The adoption of internationally benchmarked college- and career-ready standards is 

the foundation to improving educational outcomes for all students and a fundamental step 

toward increasing the number of college graduates in the United States. Moreover, these 

standards must be coupled with high-quality formative and summative assessments that will 

measure the extent to which students are mastering them. 

Progress: Most states have adopted college- and career-ready standards and have developed

assessments aligned with those standards. The Race to the Top - Assessment (RTTA) 

consortia and the consortia developing alternate assessments based on alternate academic 

achievement standards completed the field testing of their assessments in preparation for 

operational administration in spring 2015. The Department supported states in addressing 

challenges in this area in their Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Flexibility 

extension requests, through which an SEA can request renewal of its ESEA Flexibility request 

for an additional three or four years.

Agency Priority Goal: Support implementation of college- and career-ready 

standards and assessments

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

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

standards.

Supports Strategic Goal 2.
PERFORMANCE RESULTS DETAILS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 12

Opportunities and Challenges: State capacity to develop and implement college- and careerready standards and assessments aligned with those standards varies. To provide support in 

this area, the Department is developing and targeting technical assistance activities that will, in 

part, increase state capacity to leverage resources effectively and continue to identify promising 

practices across multiple states. For example, the Department will build a “bank” of resources 

that support the implementation of college- and career-ready standards. Included in such a bank 

will be materials to assist in full and effective transition to college- and career-ready standards. 

The Department will continue to leverage the ESEA Flexibility monitoring and renewal process 

to support implementation of college- and career-ready standards and aligned, valid, and 

reliable assessments. By using the ESEA Flexibility monitoring process, the Department can 

work with states to support implementation and identify areas where technical assistance is 

needed. This approach follows the different kind of relationship the Department has built 

internally across its offices and externally with states during the ESEA Flexibility approval 

process, including the use of cross-Departmental teams, which reduces burden and duplication 

between other Department programs and ESEA Flexibility. 

Overview: Teacher and principal evaluation and support systems enable the development and 

identification of effective educators and provide information to improve the educator workforce. 

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

has an effective leader, and every teacher and leader has access to the preparation, ongoing 

support, recognition, and collaboration opportunities he or she needs to succeed. The 

Department will help strengthen the profession by focusing on meaningful feedback, support, 

and incentives at every stage of a career, based on fair evaluation and support systems that 

look at multiple metrics, including, in significant part, student growth. 

The Department will support the development and adoption of state requirements for 

comprehensive teacher and principal evaluations and support systems as well as the district 

development and implementation of comprehensive evaluation systems. This additional support 

is necessary, for example, in helping teachers and educator evaluators develop and use student 

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

tools. 

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

that states were required to meet under their original ESEA Flexibility requests, which indicated 

that 37 states were expected to implement high-quality systems by September 30, 2015. 

However, as states and districts are moving forward, they are encountering challenges with 

implementation of these systems. As a result, they are making adjustments to timelines, 

sequencing, and implementation steps that may not align with their original plans but will 

ultimately result in the implementation of high-quality teacher and principal evaluation and 

Agency Priority Goal: Improve learning by ensuring that more students 

have effective teachers and leaders

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

implemented teacher and principal evaluation and support systems that consider multiple 

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

Supports Strategic Goal 2.
PERFORMANCE RESULTS DETAILS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 13

support systems. As of September 30, 2014, seven states have fully implemented teacher and 

principal evaluation and support systems.2 

Opportunities and Challenges: Providing support to states to do this work well is resourceintensive. In a September 2013 letter, the Department outlined ways in which SEAs and LEAs 

can use Title I, Title II, and IDEA funds to conduct activities related to implementing teacher and 

principal evaluation and support systems, such as training evaluators, providing professional 

development to assist teachers in using evaluation data to improve instruction, and recruiting 

and retaining effective and highly qualified teachers using differential pay. Additionally, states 

have experienced a range of political challenges to their original plans for this work and with 

further changes in leadership, those challenges are likely to continue. However, as states 

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

continue to provide robust technical assistance. In addition to monitoring, the Department 

designed and implemented a one-year ESEA Flexibility extension process for Windows 1 and 2 

states. Through that process, the Department committed to working with states that have 

requested changes to their timelines or sequencing of implementation to ensure that they are 

continuing to make progress toward full implementation of their evaluation systems. 

Overview: Kindergarten Entry Assessments (KEAs) should be included in a state’s 

comprehensive early learning assessment system. When properly designed and implemented, 

KEAs may improve student outcomes, increase program effectiveness, and inform professional 

development and support to improve the early learning workforce. KEAs also can inform 

instruction and support students’ educational success by identifying the early learning needs of 

each child. Further, KEAs can provide an opportunity for teachers and families to understand 

the status of children when they enter kindergarten and an opportunity to provide policy makers 

with information needed to support high-quality early learning programs that ensure children 

enter school prepared for success. 

Progress: The Department is on track to achieve this APG. As of June 30, 2014, the Early 

Learning Challenge Technical Assistance Center (ELC TAC) reported that six states are 

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

a common measure. Additionally, the Department’s Office of Early Learning conducted an 

analysis of the Race to the Top - Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC) grantees’ annual 

performance reports and found that four states are in the process of revising their current 

statewide KEAs, five other states are beginning a phased-in implementation of KEAs, and six 

 

Agency Priority Goal: Support comprehensive early learning 

assessment systems

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

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

common measure.

Supports Strategic Goal 3.

2

“Fully implemented” is defined as the school year in which teachers and principals receive effectiveness ratings, 

which include data on student growth for all students as a significant factor for all teachers and principals, and other 

measures of professional practice. Note that the Department reported 10 states having fully implemented systems in 

the FY 2014 AFR based on data available as of Quarter 3 of FY 2014. However, subsequent to that reporting, the 

Department provided flexibility to states regarding the timing of their implementation and three states elected to delay 

full implementation until the 2015–16 school year. As such, the FY 2014 APR reports 7 states instead of 10 states. 
PERFORMANCE RESULTS DETAILS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 14

others are pilot testing their KEAs. Although there are challenges with the implementation of 

KEAs, the Department is on track to achieve the APG. 

Opportunities and Challenges: In December 2014, the Departments of Education and Health 

and Human Services (Departments) released an annual report about RTT-ELC grantees that 

includes information on how states are engaging stakeholders in KEA development, providing 

more professional development to teachers, and evaluating what is and is not working in order 

to improve the KEA process. The sharing of these lessons learned will advance progress toward 

this goal. Additionally, the Departments will reach out to external organizations that share our 

interest in advancing quality KEAs to develop strategies that may increase our collective impact. 

Because assessment in early learning is evolving, many states are in the early stages of 

developing valid and reliable measures for KEAs. Constructing and testing these instruments 

and implementing them across every school in the state will be challenging and will take time. In 

addition, new measures and systems require significant investment, and state budget cuts could 

impact deployment. The Departments will continue to convene states and share resources that 

support states in their collecting and reporting of disaggregated data on the status of children at 

kindergarten entry using a common statewide measure, in an effort to continue the push for 

progress in this area.

Overview: Equality of opportunity is a core American value. All students in this country—

regardless of their race, ethnicity, or national origin; sex; sexual orientation; gender identity or 

expression; disability; English language ability; religion; socioeconomic status; or geographical 

location—must have the chance to learn and achieve. Through Race to the Top (RTT), the 

School Improvement Grant (SIG) program, ESEA Flexibility, and other federal initiatives, the 

Department dedicates significant effort and resources to improve the nation’s lowest-achieving 

schools dramatically by using intensive turnaround models and targeted interventions, and also 

by identifying the low-achieving schools that are successfully turning around their performance. 

The Department continues to focus on supporting innovation and data-driven decision-making, 

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

achievement measures, as was done in the past. 

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

rate among minority students, students with disabilities, English learners, and students in 

poverty is critical not only to ensure greater attainment in secondary education but also a 

necessary step toward achieving the President’s college graduation goal. The nation has made 

significant progress in increasing high school graduation rates, but gaps between rates for 

different student groups continue to persist. This APG aims to reduce that gap.

Agency Priority Goal: Ensure equitable educational opportunities

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

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

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

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

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

decrease.

Supports Strategic Goal 4.
PERFORMANCE RESULTS DETAILS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 15

Progress: Although the Department just missed the FY 2014 performance targets for the two 

metrics associated with this APG, the Department has taken a number of steps to ensure 

equitable educational opportunities and increase graduation rates for all students. For example, 

the Department announced the Excellent Educators for All initiative, a 50-state strategy to 

support state efforts to ensure that low-income students and students of color have equal 

access to qualified and effective teachers and leaders. This initiative includes a new technical 

assistance network, educator equity data profiles for every state, and guidance for states on 

developing plans to ensure equitable access to excellent educators. Recognizing that inequities 

in educational opportunities begin early, the Department also has dedicated significant 

resources to increase access to early childhood education through programs such as RTT-ELC 

and Preschool Development Grants. The Department also granted extensions of ESEA 

Flexibility for the 2014–15 school year for 34 states, ensuring that those states continue to hold 

districts and schools accountable for subgroup performance, including graduation rates. The 

Department has also issued policy guidance and enforced civil rights laws to encourage civil 

rights awareness and compliance and remove barriers to high school graduation, such as 

discriminatory discipline practices, sexual violence, or inequitable access to school resources. A 

more thorough description of programs contributing to student academic achievement and 

attainment appears in the Explanation and Analysis of Progress for objective 4.1. 

Opportunities and Challenges: One key challenge in achieving this APG is providing 

differentiated support to states based on their current status and progress in increasing 

graduation rates. While all states have room for improvement, some states are farther behind 

than others, particularly for different subgroups of students. Recently, the Department 

addressed one major barrier, which was the incomparability of graduation rate data across 

states. All states are now required to use an adjusted cohort graduation rate, and the 

Department is releasing these data at the state, district, and school levels. However, differences 

in how states define a regular high school diploma, and other technical features of their 

calculations, continue to make comparisons challenging. The Department will continue to 

improve its data release processes to ensure that data on graduation rates are released to the 

public on a regular schedule, and on a timely basis, to help states and districts better use data 

to drive improvement. The Department will also use the upcoming ESEA Flexibility renewal 

process as an opportunity to support states in continuously improving their systems of 

differentiated recognition, accountability, and support to ensure that they are effectively 

supporting schools with low graduation rates for all students and for particular subgroups of 

students. 

Another challenge for this APG is sustaining the reforms in schools after SIG and RTT funding 

ends. Insufficient focus or funding for comprehensive turnaround efforts at the state and local 

levels compounds this challenge. As such, the Department recently proposed new requirements 

for the SIG program that, among other things, proposed parameters for implementing recent 

legislative changes to the SIG program that extended the length of the SIG grants that a state 

educational agency (SEA) can award to its local educational agencies (LEAs). The proposed 

requirements gave SEAs the flexibility to use the additional time for planning and sustainability 

activities during the grant period. Once the Department issues final requirements, it will develop 

and disseminate guidance and technical assistance on the requirements, including sustainability 

strategies to help states and districts continue reforms after federal funding ends. 
PERFORMANCE RESULTS DETAILS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 16

Overview: There is an increasing emphasis from the Department and among stakeholders on 

the importance of using evidence to support government program funding decisions. In support 

of this APG, the Department is increasing its internal capacity to make competitive grant awards 

based on the existing strength of evidence. For example, with the inclusion of a common 

evidence framework in the Education Department General Administrative Regulations 

(EDGAR), the Department may select from four tiers of evidence to use as priorities3

 or 

selection criteria in competitive grant programs, as appropriate. Additionally, through its mix of 

grants, contracts, and internal analytic work, the Department aims to support the use of 

research methods and rigorous study designs of grants to contribute to the evidence base. 

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

percentage of select new (non-continuation) discretionary grant dollars that reward evidence. In 

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

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

incentivizing evidence through eligibility requirements, competitive preference priorities, and 

selection criteria. 

Opportunities and Challenges: The Department is exploring ways to support and build the 

capacity of program offices as they shift to evidence-based funding models. For example, the 

Department shares the Regional Educational Laboratories’ (RELs) resources about logic 

models and evaluation design with applicants, grantees, and program offices. Although these 

resources support both internal and external stakeholders, the Department has limited 

resources for providing direct and targeted technical assistance to applicants and grantees, 

which vary in their comfort with and understanding of evaluation and use of evidence. To 

continue building the capacity of the education field to use and generate evidence, it is 

important that the Department is able to provide appropriate technical assistance to its grantees 

and applicants. 

 

Agency Priority Goal: Enable evidence-based decision making

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

Supports Strategic Goal 5.

3

 The Department may use a priority as an absolute priority, meaning applicants must propose projects that meet it to 

be eligible to receive funds, or as a competitive preference priority, meaning applicants may choose to address it and 

could receive additional points depending on how well the priority is addressed. 
PERFORMANCE RESULTS DETAILS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 17

Cross-Agency Priority Goals 

In accordance with the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, Cross-Agency Priority Goals (CAP 

Goals) were published on performance.gov in March 2014. The CAP Goals are divided into two 

categories: 

Mission CAP Goals Management CAP Goals

 Cybersecurity

 Climate Change (federal actions)

 Insider Threat and Security Clearance

 Job-creating Investment

 Infrastructure Permitting Modernization

 STEM Education

 Service Member and Veterans Mental 

Health 

 Customer Service

 IT Delivery

 Strategic Sourcing

 Shared Services

 Benchmarking and Mission-support 

Operations

 Open Data

 Lab-to-Market

 People and Culture

Each CAP Goal has a goal leader(s) and deputy goal leader(s) who will manage the processes 

by which goals are executed. Goal leaders are given flexibility when managing CAP Goals and 

are encouraged to leverage existing structures as much as practicable (e.g., existing working 

groups, interagency policy committees, councils). Every CAP Goal will have a governance team 

chaired by the goal leader, a deputy goal leader, and representatives from agencies contributing 

to the goal, OMB, and others as determined by the goal leader. Each governance team will 

develop an action plan explaining how the federal government will execute on the goal, 

including agencies’ contributions, areas where cross-agency coordination is needed, and 

anticipated risks or obstacles. The action plan will be updated as experience is gained and new 

information is learned.4 

The Department currently contributes to the following CAP Goals: 

Customer Service: Deliver world-class customer services to citizens by making it faster and 

easier for individuals and businesses to complete transactions and have a positive experience 

with government. 

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) Education: In support of the 

President’s goal that the United States have the highest proportion of college graduates in the 

world, the federal government will work with education partners to improve the quality of STEM 

education at all levels to help increase the number of well-prepared graduates with STEM 

degrees, the number of STEM teachers with corresponding undergraduate degrees, and 

students’ access to quality STEM learning experiences.

Real time information on Cross-Agency Priority Goals is available at performance.gov. The CAP 

Goal Leader, the Performance Improvement Council (PIC), and OMB coordinate quarterly 

updates to the website, which will reflect the overall action plan and will describe how the 

agency’s goals and objectives contribute to the CAP Goal.5

 

4

 OMB Circular A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget, Part 6, Section 220.9, 2014. 

5

 OMB Circular A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget, Part 6, Section 220.5, 2014. 
PERFORMANCE RESULTS DETAILS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 18

The Department’s Approach to Data Collection and Analysis 

In FY 2014, the Department continued to support programs to help the education system by 

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

education information for the improvement of student outcomes. 

EDFacts. The EDFacts system enables the consolidation of separate data collections and 

reduces the reporting burden for states by eliminating redundant data requests. 

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

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

to aid SEAs in developing and implementing longitudinal data systems. Most SLDS funds are 

awarded as state grants, but a portion of the funds are used for activities to improve data 

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

program, the Privacy Technical Assistance Center, and work on common education data 

standards. 

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

coordinated and consistent data strategies among the various principal offices within the 

Department. The mission of the DST is to coordinate the Department’s public-facing data 

initiatives by building cohesiveness in internal processes and data policies and by improving 

transparency in matters related to the Department’s collection of data. 

Civil Rights Data Collection. The Department collects data on key education and civil rights 

issues in our nation’s public schools for use by OCR in its enforcement and monitoring efforts, 

by other Department offices, and by policymakers and researchers outside of the Department. 

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

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

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

responses to customer inquiries. 

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

 To increase accountability through improved financial management. 

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

receive proper training on the new system. 

The Department’s Evaluation and Evidence Planning Initiatives

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

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

information for the field. For a list of evaluations completed in FY 2014 and of those planned 

through FY 2016, see appendix C. 
FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 19

Performance Plan Summary

Looking Ahead and Addressing Challenges

Quality education continues to be a vital component to the nation’s long-term economic 

prosperity and recent economic gains. It is an investment that is valued highly by Americans, for 

both present needs and its future promise. The Department continues to support state and 

district formula grant programs while supporting the creation of exemplary education models 

through competitive programs, including Race to the Top, Promise Neighborhoods, Investing in 

Innovation, Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge, Preschool Development Grants, and a 

redesigned School Improvement Grants program. Those commitments are bolstered by 

increasing the extent to which evidence is used in programs and strategic decision-making. 

Going forward, the Department will build on what it has already established: 

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

 high-quality early learning for more children from low- and moderate-income families; 

 more flexibility for state decision-making; 

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

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

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

affordability and completion. 

Additionally, the Department will continue to strengthen the support systems necessary for all 

students to succeed. This includes promoting high-quality preschool access for all students, 

K-12 strategic reforms, and college affordability. Ultimately, the Department looks to create 

ladders of opportunity to help all students. 

Data Verification and Validation 

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

of data presented. OMB guidance indicates: 

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

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

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

websites). Agencies should discuss their verification and validation techniques with their 

respective OMB Resource Management Office, if necessary. The transmittal letter 

included in Annual Performance Reports must contain an assessment by the agency 

head of the completeness and reliability of the performance data presented and a 

description of agency plans to improve completeness, reliability, and quality, where 

needed.6

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. 

 

6

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

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 20

Reporting on Progress 

The Department continues to use tools and processes, such as quarterly performance reviews, 

to assess progress toward achieving strategic goals and outcomes. Additionally, the 

Organizational Performance Review (OPR) contributes to the Department’s compliance with the 

GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 by conducting data-driven performance discussions, and

serving as a tool for principal offices to improve their efficiency and effectiveness, by focusing 

on infrastructure and capacity-building, through operational 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 data, including evaluations and performance metrics, 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 will invest in the continuous 

improvement of its workforce and employ comprehensive risk management to ensure prudent 

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

contractors. 

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. 

Legislative challenges and fiscal constraints may impact the Department’s ability to provide the 

necessary incentives and resources to increase quality, transparency, and accountability. 

Accomplishing all of the goals of the Strategic Plan will require strong coordination and 

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

levels, and other stakeholders. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 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 institutions 

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

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 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 employment outcomes, hours worked, and hourly 

wages of VR Transition-Age Youth) 

Metric 1.1.F: Number of peer-reviewed publications resulting from National Institute on 

Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR)-supported grantee projects 

Metric 1.1.G: Number of VR state directors and other state VR personnel who express 

knowledge of NIDRR grantee research 

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 rates 

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-time 

Metric 1.3.C: Retention rate of first-time degree-seeking undergraduates: Part-time
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 22

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 2014

FY 2015

FY 2016

$29,752

$29,699

$30,283

(Dollars in millions)

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities7 Supporting Goal 1 Performance Metrics 

[Dollars in Millions]

POC Account Obj. Program

FY 2014

Appropriation

FY 2015 

Appropriation

FY 2016 

President’s 

Budget

FSA DM/SAA Student Aid Administration: Salaries and 

expenses 

663 675 727

FSA DM/SAA Student Aid Administration: Servicing 

Activities 503 772 855

FSA SFA 1.1 Federal Pell grants: Discretionary 22,778 22,475 22,475

OCTAE CTAE 1.1, 1.2, 

1.3

Adult basic and literacy education 

state grants 564 569 569

OCTAE CTAE n/a Career and technical education state grants 1,118 1,118 1,318

OPE HE 1.1, 1.3 Federal TRIO programs 838 840 860

OSERS REHAB 1.1 Supported employment state grants 28 28 31

Subtotal 26,492 26,426 26,834

Other Discretionary Programs/Activities 3,260 3,273 3,449

TOTAL, GOAL 1 29,752 29,699 30,283

n/a = Not available. 

NOTES: Many programs may have sub-activities that relate to other goals. 

Detail may not add to total due to rounding. 

 

7

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

competitive and non-competitive programs. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 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 are matters that require equal 

parts information, motivation, and opportunity to be successful. 

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 default; labor market outcomes and demand projections; loan repayment and 

management options; and other subjects crucial to understanding the affordability and value of 

the postsecondary institutions and programs of study they are considering. 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 the main way the 

Department supports college access, affordability, quality, and completion. In FY 2014, the 

Department delivered nearly $134 billion in grants, work-study, and loan assistance to 

approximately 13 million postsecondary students and their families.8 These students attended 

more than 6,100 institutions of postsecondary education. In addition, the Department 

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

college readiness, and nearly $2 billion more in grant funds for Career and Technical Education 

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

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

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

quality, and completion. Through the SAFRA, passed as part of the Health Care and Education 

Reconciliation Act of 2010 (HCERA), Congress ended student loan subsidies to banks, saving 

billions of dollars, which shifted more than $60 billion in savings back to students. 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 

(https://studentaid.ed.gov), and new loan counseling and financial literacy resources, now 

provide students and families with tools for informed decision-making. In addition, the 

Department has simplified the FAFSA so it is easier and faster for students to apply for aid and 

has created—in partnership with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)—the IRS Data Retrieval 

tool, which enables millions of students and families to access the IRS tax return information 

needed to complete the FAFSA and transfer the data directly into their FAFSA from the IRS 

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

background, will have the opportunity to access and complete an affordable postsecondary 

degree or other postsecondary credential. 

 

8 Federal Student Aid Annual Report FY 2014
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 24

Goal 1: Details

Postsecondary 

Education, Career 

and Technical 

Education, and Adult 

Education Indicators 

of Success

Baseline

Actuals Targets

2012 2013 2014 2014 2015 2016

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.).

1.1.A. Rate of increase 

in net price of public 

four-year institutions 

Year: 2010–

11

1.7%

Year: 

2009–10

-1.2%

Year: 

2010–11

1.7%

Year: 

2011–12

3.1%

1.5%

NOT MET 1.3% 1.1%

1.1.B. Rate of increase 

in net price of public 

two-year institutions

Year: 2010–

11

1.7%

Year: 

2009–10

-3.1%

Year: 

2010–11

1.7%

Year: 

2011–12

3.2%

1.5%

NOT MET 1.3% 1.1%

1.1.C. Percentage of 

high school seniors 

filing a FAFSA1

Year: 2013

59.2%

58.4% 59.2%

Year: 

2014

60.1%

58.8%–

60.8% 

MET

59.1%–

61.1%

Within 1 

percentage 

point (+/-) of 

the previous 

year’s 

calculation

1.1.D. Index of national 

aggregate annual 

earnings of VR 

consumers (based on 

the number of 

competitive 

employment outcomes, 

hours worked, and 

hourly wages of VR 

consumers)

2

Year: 2010

$57,971,317 $61,537,760 $61,824,728

TBD

Data 

from 

states 

due Nov 

30

$62,750,000

TBD $64,322,447 $65,608,896

1.1.E. Index of national 

aggregate annual 

earnings of TransitionAge Youth (based on 

the number of 

competitive 

employment outcomes, 

hours worked, and 

hourly wages of VR 

Transition-Age Youth)

3

Year: 2010

$15,971,665 $17,731,129 $18,353,441

TBD

Data 

from 

states 

due Nov 

30

$18,700,000

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

1.1.F. Number of 

peer-reviewed 

publications resulting 

from NIDRR-supported 

grantee projects4

Year: 2012

484 484 472 472 489NOT MET 0 0

1.1.G. Number of VR 

state directors and 

other state VR 

personnel who express 

knowledge of NIDRR 

grantee research5

Year: 2014

TBD

Not 

Collected

Not 

Collected

Not 

Collected

Baseline 

year (0 

increase)

NA

35% 47%

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.

1.2.A. Number of lowperforming institutions 

with high loan default 

rates and low 

graduation rates6

Year: 2010–

11

205

Not 

Collected

Year: 

2010–11

205

Year: 

2011–12

91

178

MET 155 135

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.

1.3.A. Degree 

attainment among 25–

34-year-old age cohort7

Year: 2012

44.0%

Year: 2011

43.1%

Year: 2012

44.0%

Year: 

2013

44.8%

44.7%

MET 45.6% 46.8%
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 25

Postsecondary 

Education, Career 

and Technical 

Education, and Adult 

Education Indicators 

of Success

Baseline

Actuals Targets

2012 2013 2014 2014 2015 2016

1.3.B. Retention rate of 

first-time degreeseeking 

undergraduates: Fulltime8

Year: 2011

71.9%

Year: 2010

72.1%

Year: 2011

71.9%

Year: 

2012

71.8%

71.9%

NOT MET 72.1% 72.1%

1.3.C. Retention rate of 

first-time degreeseeking 

undergraduates: Parttime9

Year: 2011

41.7%

Year: 2010

42.1%

Year: 2011

41.7%

Year: 

2012

42.2%

41.9%

MET 42.6% 42.9%

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

that enable access to and completion of postsecondary programs.

1.4.A. Number of 

STEM postsecondary 

credentials awarded10

Year: 2010–

11

531,018

Year: 

2009–10

500,783

Year: 

2010–11

531,018

Year: 

2011–12

556,696

560,000

NOT MET 595,000 638,000

NA = Not applicable. 

TBD = To be determined. 

NOTE: Unless otherwise noted, data correspond to the heading year in the Actuals column.

1 The baseline and actuals have been revised due to an update in the National Center for Education Statistics’ projection for the 

number of high school seniors, which is used in the calculation of this metric. 

2 The baseline, actuals, and targets have been revised due to a recalculation that is more accurately calculated by: outcomes times 

hours/week times hourly wage. Targets are set at an increase of 2% annually. 

3 The baseline, actuals, and targets have been revised due to a recalculation that is more accurately calculated by: outcomes times 

hours/week times hourly wage. Targets are set at an increase of 2% annually. 

4

 The Department is removing this metric because NIDRR and all of its functions are moving to the Administration for Community 

Living in the Department of Health and Human Services. 

5

 The Department planned to collect baseline data in FY 2014, to be reported in FY 2015, but is considering removing this metric 

because the data may not be available. 

6 Low-performing institutions are defined as Title IV participating institutions—public, private nonprofit, and private for-profit—having 

a 3-year Cohort Default Rate (CDR) of 30% or greater and a 150% of normal time completion rate (graduation rate plus transfer out 

rate) that is less than the average rate for its type (four-year, two-year, and less-than-two-year). The Department was unable to 

precisely recalculate the baseline. One small but contributing factor is that institutions of higher education (IHEs) are able to appeal 

their published cohort default rates and, if the appeal is successful, the new rate will be reflected in subsequent reports. The 

Department will revisit the possibility of revising the baseline and targets when there is an additional year’s worth of data and a 

clearer understanding of how the data are trending. 

7

 This metric is aligned with an Agency Priority Goal. Note that there is a year lag in the data (i.e., the baseline data are from 2012 

but are reported in 2013). 

8

 The baseline and targets for this performance metric were recalculated from what was reported in the FY 2013 Annual 

Performance Report and FY 2015 Annual Performance Plan because the original numbers could not be reproduced using a uniform 

methodology. The targets for 2015 and 2016 appear to be identical because of rounding and the fact that the 2016 target is 

calculated based on a reference year when the retention rate decreased. 

9

 The baseline and targets for this performance metric were recalculated from what was reported in the FY 2013 Annual 

Performance Report and FY 2015 Annual Performance Plan because the original numbers could not be reproduced using a uniform 

methodology. 

10 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. 

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
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 26

first year of the application cycle; reporting high school diploma attainment; and attended a high school in the fifty states and 

Washington, DC; annually 

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

1.1.E. RSA-911; annually 

1.1.F. NIDRR Annual Performance Report (APR) Accomplishments Database; annually 

1.1.G. New VR state director survey; biennially 

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 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. 

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 maximum Pell 

Grant award was increased from $5,645 for 2013–14 to $5,730 for 2014–15. In collaboration 

with Treasury, the Department produced a fact sheet in June 2014 clarifying how Pell Grant 

recipients may claim the American Opportunity Tax Credit. The number of institutions of higher 

education agreeing to utilize the Financial Aid Shopping Sheet grew from around 600 in 

2012–13 to more than 2,000 in 2013–14 following the release of a “Dear Colleague” letter in 

November 2013. The Department is also developing a college rating system as a step toward 

greater transparency and accountability. In addition, 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. 

Recognizing that FAFSA completion significantly increases chances that students will actually 

enroll in college, in FY 2014 the Department issued guidance clarifying that state entities may 

share FAFSA completion data with local education authorities, TRIO and 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 already taken a number of actions to help struggling federal student loan 

borrowers manage their debt. In order to mitigate delinquency and default risk, FSA conducted 

an email campaign during which more than 3 million borrowers were contacted (borrowers 

whose grace periods were ending, who had fallen behind on their student loan payments, who 

had higher-than-average debts, and who were in deferment or forbearance because of financial 

hardship or unemployment). Utilization of income-driven repayment plans has increased 

40 percent since the Department and Treasury expanded awareness campaigns and outreach 

efforts. Additionally, the Department renegotiated performance-based contracts with its loan 

servicing contractors to ensure high-quality service and incentivize repayment of loans, and the 

Under Secretary is overseeing a process to collect feedback from student borrowers and loan 

servicers in order to strengthen such contracts when they are renegotiated in the future. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 27

Another aspect of affordability is access to open educational resources (OER). According to 

figures compiled by the Association of Research Libraries Scholarly Publishing and Academic 

Resources Coalition, OER have saved postsecondary students in excess of $100 million during 

the last few years. The accelerating adoption of these resources puts college students on track 

to pocket $1 billion in savings in the coming years. The Department has championed the 

development and use of OER, particularly by citing OER development as an example of 

improving productivity in one of the Secretary’s Supplemental Priorities for discretionary grant 

programs, as a possible activity under a competitive priority in the TRIO Training grant 

competition, and in the Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training 

(TAACCCT) grant competition conducted by the Department of Labor with the Department of 

Education’s assistance. The Departments of Education and Labor are jointly working to develop 

an Online Skills Academy in FY 2015 to leverage the OER products that have been developed 

through the TAACCCT grants. 

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. Nonetheless, the Department initiated a number of 

activities to address these metric subject areas, as explained below. 

Regarding metrics 1.1.A and 1.1.B, the Department did not achieve its FY 2014 performance 

target to slow the increase in average net price at public institutions. States continue to fund 

higher education at the lowest levels per full-time equivalent student in 25 years, which places 

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

specific programs such as the proposed State Higher Education Performance Fund discussed 

in objective 1.3, the Department has little influence over state funding decisions and is limited in 

its ability to ensure progress against these metrics. 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, dual enrollment, remedial education reforms, and improved 

articulation between institutions. 

Regarding metric 1.1.C, the Department achieved its FY 2014 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 since 2011 in the American Council on Education’s National College 

Application Week initiative, 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 Department will make the FY 2014 data available to the public in spring 

2015. 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 disabilities, many served by the State VR 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 VR consumers and 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 28

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

that the Department will undertake. 

Data for metric 1.1.F indicates no change in the number of peer-reviewed publications resulting 

from NIDRR-supported grantee projects in FY 2014 from FY 2013. However, WIOA transfers 

NIDRR and all of its functions from the Department of Education to the Administration for 

Community Living in the Department of Health and Human Services. For that reason, the 

Department is removing metric 1.1.F as initially established in the FY 2014–18 Strategic Plan. 

Similarly, the Department is considering removing metric 1.1.G for which the collection of 

baseline data was initially planned for FY 2015 because the data may not be available. 

Challenges and Next Steps:

The Department plans to take additional actions to help struggling federal student loan 

borrowers manage their debt. To expand the Pay As You Earn repayment program to all 

student borrowers with Direct Loans, as instructed in the President’s June 2014 Executive 

Order, the Department held two public hearings on October 23 and November 4, 2014, and will 

begin negotiated rulemaking in February 2015 with a goal of making the new plan available to 

borrowers by December 2015. Specifically, this new repayment option, which will include new 

features to target the plan to struggling borrowers, will be made available to students with older 

loans (those who borrowed before October 2007 or who have not borrowed since October 

2011), who are currently ineligible for Pay As You Earn. This executive action is expected to 

help up to 5 million struggling borrowers. 

Furthermore, the Department will develop, evaluate, and implement new targeted 

communication strategies to reach struggling borrowers. The Department also plans to 

renegotiate performance-based contracts with loan servicing companies in 2016 to ensure highquality service and incentivize repayment of loans. 

President Obama’s America’s College Promise proposal, announced in January 2015, would 

allow students to attend community colleges tuition-free if they attend half-time, are making 

satisfactory academic progress to a degree, and maintain a 2.5 GPA. If all states participate and 

provide quality programs, the plan could benefit nearly 9 million students by making a higher 

education more affordable. 

Additionally, the President has proposed reducing the burden of student loan debt and 

expanding a middle-class tax cut for college. 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. 

Finally, in response to the Presidential Memorandum to federal agencies directing them to take 

action to address job-driven training for the nation’s workers, the Department funded, at 

$9 million over the next three years, the Job-Driven Vocational Rehabilitation Technical 

Assistance (TA) Center at the University of Massachusetts-Boston, which will assist state 

vocational rehabilitation agencies in developing training and employment opportunities for 

individuals with disabilities that meet the needs of today’s employers and the demands of the 

local economy. 

Objective 1.2: Quality 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress:

The Department supported or initiated a number of efforts related to this objective in FY 2014. 

For example, the Department conducted a series of negotiated rulemaking sessions on several 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 29

program integrity issues such as Gainful Employment, Adverse Credit standards for PLUS 

loans, Cash Management and College Debit Cards, and State Authorization. The release of 

final rules on Gainful Employment is a particularly significant development for institutional 

quality. 

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 published a notice in July 2014 soliciting proposals 

for 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 also hosted an Education Datapalooza event in January 2014 to encourage 

innovations that increase quality while reducing costs. More than 650 participants attended, 

showcasing tools and services that were developed for the event and that highlighted innovative 

practices in the field. 

Twenty-four grants were awarded under the new First in the World Program, which focuses on 

low-income students and promotes evidence-based strategies and practices for college access 

and completion. Funded projects include redesigning courses to incorporate more project-based 

learning and technology tools that improve student learning and engagement; redesigning largelecture STEM courses to engage students through active learning interventions; and 

strengthening curriculum through an integrated set of tools to increase student engagement, 

especially for high-risk students. The Department will evaluate these projects at their 

conclusion, and those showing evidence of success will serve as models for possible 

dissemination or could be eligible for future validation and scale-up grants. 

The Department surpassed its FY 2014 target for reducing the number of low-performing 

institutions—i.e., those with high cohort default rates and below average completion rates. With 

the publication of the annual cohort default rates in September 2014, sanctions became 

effective against institutions with high cohort default rates under a revised methodology that 

includes tracking borrowers for three years after graduation rather than two. (Sanctions apply to 

institutions based on the cohort default rate, not on completion rate data.) The Department 

accommodated institutions with reasonable flexibility during the multiyear phase-in of the new 

methodology for calculating the rate. 

Challenges and Next Steps:

During FY 2014, the Department planned for several rulemaking actions that were subsequently 

accomplished during the first two months of FY 2015. These include updating regulations 

regarding Adverse Credit in the PLUS Loan Program (published October 22, 2014) and

regulations on Gainful Employment (published October 29, 2014), and issuing a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking on Teacher Preparation (published November 25, 2014). The 

Department postponed implementation of State Authorization regulations to provide additional 

time to finalize processes for institutions to be able to comply with certain state provisions. The 

Department will likely propose a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in FY 2015 for Cash 

Management.

The Department continues to seek input from the field regarding the development of a college 

rating system and planned the announcement of a proposed framework for public comment 

(subsequently published on December 19, 2014), with implementation slated for 2015. The 

Department is also developing specifications for the FY 2015 First in the World grant 

competition. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 30

Objective 1.3: Completion

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

In addition to the actions described below, the Department incorporated a competitive priority in 

the GEAR-UP State and Partnership grant competitions to encourage applicants to propose 

postsecondary success strategies, including those that support attention to remedial education 

needs prior to enrollment in college. 

The Department developed a new project for FY 2015 that will involve more states in the 

development and implementation of career pathways, and a new project on employability skills 

by (1) upgrading the Department’s interactive employability skills model and (2) aligning the 

Department’s employability skill standards with “demand side standards” set by the National 

Association of Business and Industry Associations. The Department also published a Career 

Pathways Request for Information to inform the Department about models that are improving 

the college and career readiness of youths and adults. 

The Department coordinated with the Department of Veterans Affairs to increase the number of 

institutions of higher education from 400 to over 1,000 that have committed to implementing the 

8 Keys to Veterans Success, which provides specific strategies to support veterans and their 

successful program completion. 

The Department achieved its FY 2014 target for metric 1.3.A with an attainment rate of 

44.8 percent. However, the targets in future years are set to grow at increasingly accelerated 

rates in order to reach the President’s goal of 60 percent degree attainment. While increases in 

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

recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that fewer high school graduates are 

opting for college—65.9 percent in 2013 compared to a high point of 70.1 percent in 2009.9

These data may be attributable to the natural cycle of higher enrollment rates during economic 

downturns followed by lower rates as the economy improves, but the declining enrollment rate 

may impact the ability to achieve the targeted growth in the attainment rate. Equity gaps in the 

attainment rate based on race, ethnicity, and disability status have not improved. 

With regard to metrics 1.3.B and 1.3.C, the Department did not achieve the retention target for 

full-time students, but did achieve the retention target for part-time students. These rates tend to 

fluctuate slightly each year, with the overall trend showing incremental growth over the past five 

years, so the Department does not consider whether or not this year’s targets were met to be 

indicative of overall performance. Although the Department funds a number of grant programs 

that support activities which influence retention, the number of students directly served by these 

programs is not large enough to significantly affect retention across the board. Nonetheless, the 

Department is hopeful that efforts through programs such as First in the World, Minority-Serving 

Institution grants under Titles III and V, and TRIO Student Support Services, along with 

initiatives to improve remedial education in community colleges, will have an impact in future 

years. 

Challenges and Next Steps:

The White House and the Department jointly held a second College Opportunity Summit on 

December 4, 2014, which focused on completion and affordability, as well as partnerships 

 

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

2014: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/hsgec.htm.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 31

between K-12 and higher education, to promote educational quality and seamless transitions 

from high school to college. The Department is also planning to convene minority-serving 

community colleges in FY 2015 in an effort to scale up successful practices in remedial 

education that lead to completion. 

The WIOA aligns federal investments to support job seekers and employers and promotes 

transitions from adult education to postsecondary education and training through career 

pathways. The act includes many changes that are designed to strengthen and improve 

employment for individuals with disabilities. In early 2015, the Department will collaborate with 

the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services to publish a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking to implement WIOA, with the intent to publish final rules in early 2016.

The administration proposed a State Higher Education Performance Fund that would incentivize 

states to base institutional funding on performance and reward states that have a strong record 

of investment in, and show a commitment to, increasing funding support for higher education. 

The Department included this new grant program in the FY 2015 budget. 

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

cohort, by race/ethnicity and disability status,* 2014 (data from 2012 and 2013)

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%

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 of Education, in consultation with OMB, has highlighted this objective as a 

focus area of improvement. Despite the fact that many external factors impact this objective, the 

Department continues to assert its influence and levers to get results in the area of STEM 

education. Actions taken by postsecondary institutions, by state and local agencies regarding 

funding decisions, and by market forces and jobs creation trends all contribute to the number of 

STEM postsecondary credentials awarded. The total number of STEM postsecondary 

credentials awarded illustrates a mixed response to the President’s call to graduate an 

additional 1 million STEM majors. The target set for FY 2014 was 560,000 total credentials, with 

an actual of 556,696. While STEM educational certificates declined, from 66,649 in 2010–11 to 

60,304 in 2011–12, STEM two- and four-year degrees increased. STEM two-year degrees 

increased from 86,031 in 2010–11 to 92,464 in 2011–12, and four-year degrees increased from 

267,480 to 286,788 in the same timeframe. STEM post-bachelor’s degrees only slightly 

increased from 110,858 in 2010–11 to 117,140 in 2011–12. 

Across the administration, all of the members of the Committee on STEM Education (CoSTEM) 

are working to enhance the undergraduate experience of STEM majors through a formally 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 32

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. 

In particular, representatives from the Department have been instrumental in bringing new focus 

on the role of community colleges in the overall spectrum of support for undergraduate STEM 

education. This focus may help to address the decline seen in STEM certificates awarded. 

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

participation in STEM. More Hispanics attained STEM credentials, but fewer Black and slightly 

fewer American Indian/Alaska Native students completed STEM degrees or certificates. Along 

with the Committee on STEM Education interagency working group focused on broadening 

participation in STEM, the work of the My Brother’s Keeper and Reach Higher initiatives, as well 

as other targeted efforts from the White House-led initiatives, can be used to help expand 

participation of underrepresented groups in postsecondary STEM programs. 

Challenges and Next Steps:

As the Department’s Office of STEM is newly formed, one of the first tasks is to better identify 

programs both within the Department and across the federal government in which to emphasize 

STEM priorities. 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 to 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. 

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

degree-granting institutions**, by gender and race/ethnicity, 2010–11 and 2011–12

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

* 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 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 33

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 and helping to increase the number of those who complete programs 

of study with a degree or certificate. 

To spur reforms at the state level and 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, pilot projects, and competency-based 

education), facilitated by a reduction in federal regulatory requirements that may constrain 

innovation. To support innovation and competition, the Department has implemented the First in 

the World grant program, launched a series of Experimental Sites pilots through Federal 

Student Aid, incorporated dual enrollment in the program of study definition in the GEAR-UP 

grant competition, hosted an Education Datapalooza event in January 2014 to encourage 

innovations that increase quality while reducing costs, and released a Request for Information 

seeking feedback on potential uses for Application Program Interfaces (API) for the purpose of 

making data and processes in higher education and student aid more open and accessible to 

students and families. A second major strategy fosters better investment in college education 

and holds institutions and students accountable for completion and postsecondary outcomes 

through a college rating system that will help students compare value (e.g., access, affordability, 

and student outcomes) and eventually tie financial aid to performance and improvement. The 

Department has collected extensive public input through hearings, forums, meetings, and 

electronically submitted feedback over the past year to guide the development of this college 

rating system. 

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

federal strategies. Furthermore, the Department is shifting to an evidence-based approach for 

institutional grants, with, for example, the use of competitive priorities in the Strengthening 

Institutions Program 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. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 34

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: Deb Delisle

Objective 2.1: Standards and Assessments. Support implementation of internationally 

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

assessments. Objective Leader: Scott Sargrad 

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

Metric 2.1.B: Number of states 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.10 Objective Leader: Scott Sargrad 

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 students with 

disabilities 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 (students with disabilities (SWD), 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: Scott Sargrad 

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 status 

 

10 States with approved ESEA Flexibility requests are required to implement teacher and principal evaluation and 

support systems by 2014–15 or 2015–16, depending on the school year of initial approval. Under previously 

announced additional flexibility, personnel decisions based on those systems are not required until the 2016–17

school year. Additionally, the Department committed to working with states that need to make adjustments to 

implementation timelines or sequencing through the ESEA Flexibility renewal process in early 2015. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 35

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

and exited focus school status 

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 2014

FY 2015

FY 2016

$33,301

$33,202

$35,169

(Dollars in millions)

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities11 Supporting Goal 2 Performance Metrics 

[Dollars in Millions]

POC Account Obj. Program

FY 2014

Appropriation

FY 2015 

Appropriation

FY 2016 

President’s 

Budget

OESE ED 2.4 School improvement grants 506 506 556

OESE ED 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 

2.4

Title I Grants to local educational 

agencies 14,385 14,410 15,410

OESE I&I 2.1 State assessments 378 378 403

OESE SIP 2.2 Improving teacher quality state grants 2,350 2,350 2,350

OESE SSS n/a 21st century community learning centers 1,149 1,152 1,152

 

11 All the programs listed are discretionary programs, as distinct from mandatory programs. These include both 

competitive and non-competitive programs.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 36

POC Account Obj. Program

FY 2014

Appropriation

FY 2015 

Appropriation

FY 2016 

President’s 

Budget

OII SSS 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 

2.4 Promise Neighborhoods 57 57 150

OSERS SE 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 Special Education grants to states 11,473 11,498 11,673

Subtotal 30,297 30,350 31,693

Other Discretionary Programs/Activities 3,004 2,852 3,476

TOTAL, GOAL 2 33,301 33,202 35,169

n/a = Not available. 

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 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 few 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. States are 

implementing the next generation of 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 

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. According to the 2009 McKinsey report, The Economic Impact of the Achievement 

Gap in American Schools, recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores 

show that low-income students are “roughly two years of learning behind the average better-off 

student of the same age” and, on average, “black and Latino students are roughly two to three 

years of learning behind white students of the same age.” 

Many children, particularly children from low-income families, students with disabilities, English 

learners, 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 internationally benchmarked 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 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 37

be effective in the 21st-century economy means improving teaching and learning in all content 

areas—from literacy, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics to history, civics and 

government, geography, foreign languages, the arts, economics and financial literacy, 

environmental education, computer science, health education, and other subjects. 

Goal 2: Details

Elementary and Secondary

Indicators of Success Baseline

Actuals Targets

2012 2013 2014 2014 2015 2016

Objective 2.1: Standards and Assessments. Support implementation of internationally benchmarked college- and career-ready standards, 

with aligned, valid, and reliable assessments.

2.1.A. Number of states that have 

adopted college- and career-ready 

standards1

Year: 2013

49, plus DC

Not 

Collected

49, plus 

DC

49, plus 

DC and 

Puerto 

Rico

50

NOT MET 50 50

2.1.B. Number of states that are 

implementing next-generation 

reading and mathematics 

assessments, aligned with collegeand career-ready standards1

Year: 2013

0

Not 

Collected 0 0

0

NA 50 50

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.

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 

factor1,2

Year: 2013

6

Not 

Collected 6 7

18

NOT MET 37 43

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.

2.3.A. Disparity in the rates of outof-school suspensions for students 

with disabilities and youth of color 

(youth of color metric)3

Year: 2012

10.7% point 

disparity

10.7% point 

disparity

Not 

Collected

TBD

2014 data 

collected 

in 2015

8.7% point 

disparity

TBD

NA 6.7% point 

disparity

2.3.B. Disparity in the rates of outof-school suspensions for students 

with disabilities and youth of color 

(SWD, IDEA only metric)3

Year: 2012

5.7% point 

disparity 

5.7% point 

disparity 

Not 

Collected

TBD

2014 data 

collected 

in 2015

4.2% point 

disparity

TBD

NA 2.7% point 

disparity

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.

2.4.A. Number of persistently low 

graduation rate high schools1,4,5

Year: 2011–

12

7754

NA

Year: 

2011–12

775

Year: 

2012–13

737

736

NOT MET 699 5% annual reduction

2.4.B. Percentage of Cohort 1 

priority schools that have met the 

state exit criteria and exited priority 

school status3

Year: 2013

NA NA NA

TBD

2014 data 

will be 

available 

in 2015

10%

TBD 15% 20%

2.4.C. Percentage of Cohort 1 focus 

schools that have met the state exit 

criteria and exited focus school 

status3

Year: 2013

NA NA NA

TBD

2014 data 

will be 

available 

in 2015

10%

TBD 15% 20%
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 38

Elementary and Secondary

Indicators of Success Baseline

Actuals Targets

2012 2013 2014 2014 2015 2016

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.

2.5.A. Percentage of high school 

and middle school teachers who 

teach STEM as their main 

assignment who hold a 

corresponding undergraduate 

degree3,6

Year: 2011–

12

62.2%

62.2% Not 

Collected

Not 

Collected NA NA 65.3%

2.5.B. Number of public high school 

graduates who have taken at least 

one STEM AP exam7

Year: 2012

497,922

Not 

Collected

Year: 2012

497,922

Year: 2013

527,001

536,810

NOT MET 581,419 632,642

NA = Not applicable. 

TBD = To be determined. 

1

 This metric is aligned with an Agency Priority Goal. 

2

 In the FY 2013 APR and FY 2015 APP, the Department reported a baseline of seven states, initially including DE, FL, IN, LA, MI, 

RI, and TN. In Quarter 2 of FY 2014, the Department recalculated the baseline and determined it to be 6 states (DE, FL, IN, LA, TN, 

and DC—removing MI and RI, adding DC). 

3

 Targets for this metric are based on what the Department expects will occur in a given fiscal year. 

4

 Persistently low graduation rate high schools are defined as regular and vocational high schools with an average minimum cohort 

size of 65 or more, and an average adjusted cohort graduation rate (ACGR) of 60% or less over three years. The 2011–12 baseline 

and actual only included two years of data because the Department did not collect ACGR data until 2010–11. 

5

 The baseline data for this performance metric were recalculated from what was reported in the FY 2013 Annual Performance 

Report and FY 2015 Annual Performance Plan. The targets remain at a 5% reduction each year.

6 Data are produced every four years; thus the Department will only receive one set of data (collected in 2015–16) during this 

Strategic Plan cycle. 

7 STEM Advanced Placement (AP) fields include Biology, Calculus, Chemistry, Computer Science, Environmental Science, Physics, 

and Statistics. 

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. Civil Rights Data Collection; biennially 

2.4.A. EDFacts; annually 

2.4.B. EDFacts; annually 

2.4.C. EDFacts; annually 

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

2.5.B. College Board/AP administrative records; annually 

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. 

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. Since 2009, 43 states and the District of Columbia have adopted common, 

internationally benchmarked college- and career-ready standards in English, language arts, and 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 39

mathematics that were developed through a state-led effort. Six states and Puerto Rico are 

implementing their own college- and career-ready standards that have been approved by their 

state’s network of institutions of higher education. With such 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 

English learners. The Department will continue to leverage federal investments, including Titles 

I, II, and III of ESEA, as well as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (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. For those states whose ESEA Flexibility expired at the 

end of the 2013–2014 school year, the Department worked to extend those waivers through the 

2014–2015 school year. As part of this process, the Department determined that each of those 

states was on track to implementing college- and career-ready standards and that a plan was in 

place to implement an assessment aligned with those standards according to the timeline 

established. 

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

influenced by factors that are beyond the control of the LEAs, the states, or the Department. 

Developing appropriate assessment instruments and approaches for young students poses 

significant challenges, especially for children from low-income families, children who are English 

learners, and children with disabilities. Developing and administering the next generation of 

assessments and supporting teachers through training related to the new standards will require 

continuing financial support. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

A challenge facing the Department over the next two years is effectively supporting states in 

their plans to implement these college- and career-ready standards and aligned assessments 

for all students, including English learners, students with disabilities, and low-achieving 

students. 

The Department is taking steps to develop and target technical assistance activities that will 

help increase state capacity to identify and implement best and promising practices. For 

example, the Department will build a publicly accessible library of resources that support the 

implementation of college- and career-ready standards. This library will draw on resources 

across the Department to develop and identify materials to assist in a full and effective transition 

to college- and career-ready standards. Resources developed by the technical assistance arm 

of the former Implementation and Support Unit (ISU) (now part of the Office of State Support 

(OSS)) and by IDEA-funded technical assistance centers will be added to the library. The 

Department is also working internally to coordinate the provision of technical assistance across 

OESE, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), and other related offices and 

programs. In the most recent Comprehensive Centers competition, the Department created a 

Center on Standards and Assessments Implementation and a Center on College and Career 

Readiness and Success, which will help build the capacity of state educational agencies to 

implement college- and career-ready standards. The Department also recently funded the 

Center on Improving Transition to Postsecondary Education and Employment for Students with 

Disabilities. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 40

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, differential performance-based compensation, and other personnel decisions. The 

Department is supporting 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, and using 

these programs and initiatives to provide resources and technical assistance to states and 

districts so that they can move forward with high-quality implementation. In 2014, more states 

and districts are implementing teacher and principal evaluation and support systems that are 

based on multiple measures, including student growth as a significant factor, and nearly all 

states are continuing to work toward implementation of these systems over the next two to three 

years. 

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 systems and compensation decisions are governed by state and local policies, 

without revisions in state policies and new partnerships with teacher and education leaders’ 

organizations, reforms of existing evaluation and compensation 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 is providing 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. 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, as well as the challenge that these systems 

may not work as intended. 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.

Objective 2.3: School Climate and Community

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

As states and local districts across the country move to increase rigor in schools and improve 

the college and career readiness of all students, there is a growing recognition in the field that 

safe and supportive school climates are a necessary precondition of large-scale improvements 

in student achievement. Central to ensuring safe and supportive school climates for all students 

is the reform of school discipline policy and practice. Research has repeatedly found, and the 

Department’s Civil Rights Data Collection confirms, that school discipline as applied in many 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 41

public schools often negatively and disproportionately impacts minority students and students 

with disabilities without resulting in any appreciable improvements in school safety or student 

achievement. Such practices contribute greatly to the loss of instructional time and opportunities 

for affected students and to a school-to-prison pipeline that involves tens of thousands of young 

people in the juvenile justice system each year. Since 2011, the Department, in collaboration 

with the Department of Justice (DOJ), has focused states and local districts on understanding 

the elements of safe and supportive school climates and the deleterious effects of zero 

tolerance discipline policies. In the summer of 2011, the Department and DOJ launched the 

Supportive School Discipline Initiative (SSDI) with a central goal of reducing disproportionalities 

in the application of school discipline, especially as it pertains to minority students (metric 2.3.A) 

and students with disabilities (metric 2.3.B). Through the SSDI, the Department released a 

“Dear Colleague” letter signed by Secretary Duncan and Attorney General Holder, which 

provides extensive guidance on reforming school discipline policies; convened a national 

summit, which included more than 20 states that are working to reform state law and policy 

related to student discipline and youth involvement in the juvenile justice system; and continued 

to facilitate the Supportive School Discipline Community of Practice to support states 

implementing student discipline reforms. The Department is also supporting improvements in 

school climate through $43 million in FY 2014 School Climate Transformation Grants to states 

and local districts. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

School discipline reform is challenging on multiple levels, as it often necessitates changes in 

state law and local district policy that practitioners on the ground must then understand and 

implement. Building awareness among local practitioners of research on the effects of zero 

tolerance discipline policies and the disproportionalities that often result is particularly 

challenging for states because they oversee hundreds, if not thousands, of autonomous local 

districts, each with their own unique cultures, policies, and practices as they relate to school 

discipline. To meet the informational and organizational challenges of reforming school 

discipline policies, the Department and DOJ are working with 22 states through the SSDI to 

advance broad adoption of supportive school discipline policies and reduce disciplinary practice 

that results in disproportionalities among the students affected. The Department is developing a 

new school climate survey for schools to be released in September 2015 and is working with the 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) at the Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS) and DOJ on the implementation of the School Climate 

Transformation Grants. 

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 SIG program to implement rigorous intervention models intended to turn 

these schools around. Nearly two-thirds of the schools in the first two cohorts have made 

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

improvement in math. However, some of this population of schools has also shown decreases 

in performance, and more work is needed to ensure that the progress is sustained. In addition, 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 42

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 

looks like along the way. Additionally, 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 new program focused on helping districts, in 

partnership with states, institutions of higher education, and nonprofit or for-profit partners, 

develop pipelines of effective leaders. Additionally, as major grant programs are ending for 

specific states, districts, and schools, such as RTT and SIG, there may be fewer resources 

available in some states and districts to support school turnaround. Sustaining successful 

school turnaround is a major challenge for states, districts, and schools, and the Department is 

both providing technical assistance and making changes to the SIG program in order to better 

support sustainability. 

Objective 2.5: STEM Teaching and Learning: 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

Efforts such as the 100kin10 organization’s expansion and the recent awards made to prepare 

STEM teachers via the Teacher Quality Partnerships program ($35 million in FY 2014) 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 the formally chartered group on P-12 STEM Instruction, 

which includes regular participation from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Energy 

(DOE), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), NSF, 

Department of Defense (DoD), 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 experiences 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. 

Programs such as the Department’s Mathematics and Science Partnerships (MSP) program, 

along with numerous other programs aimed at the professional development of STEM teachers, 

also contribute to this goal but, because we do not have national activities money available 

within the MSP formula-based grant program, we do not have national program-level data 

available to help measure the effect on the overall STEM teaching population. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 43

2013 data from the College Board shows an overall increase in the number of graduating high 

school students taking Advanced Placement (AP) STEM exams12—527,001 overall students 

compared to 497,922 in 2012. In all subgroups, total number of participants increased, ranging 

from an 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, the dedicated federal efforts to prepare 

new STEM teachers are limited to just two programs—the Teacher Quality Partnerships 

program at the Department (which did utilize a STEM priority, but is not a STEM-dedicated 

program) and the Noyce Scholarship program at NSF. Requests for funding of a dedicated 

program to prepare STEM teachers have not been fulfilled, 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 MSP program does not currently have a 

national activities set-aside to provide technical assistance or perform program-wide evaluation 

(each project within MSP must complete an evaluation for the state, but 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 i3—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. The Office of STEM, within OII, will continue to explore opportunities to 

blend these environments, made possible in part by the appointment of a two-year Robert 

Noyce Foundation-funded Informal STEM Fellow. 

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

Exam during High School: U.S. Public Schools, 2012 and 2013

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

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

Selected Strategies to Achieve Goal 2

The Department is currently implementing a reorganization in OESE that incorporates a new 

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

provided by the Office of Student Achievement and School Accountability (SASA), Office of 

 

12 STEM exams include: Calculus AB, Calculus BC, Computer Science A, Computer Science AB*, and Statistics; 

Biology, Chemistry, Environmental Science, Physics B, Physics C: Electricity and Magnetism, and Physics C: 

Mechanics.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 44

School Turnaround, and 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 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 finalize and implement a revised process for peer reviewing state assessments 

to ensure that they are high-quality and will work with states to develop and implement their 

plans for ensuring equitable access to effective teachers and leaders for all students. The 

Department will also implement changes to the SIG program in order to better support states 

and districts in turning around their lowest-performing schools. 

A strong reauthorization of the ESEA that reinforces and extends the progress already being 

made to strengthen the quality of elementary and secondary education would further this goal. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 45

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: Deb Delisle

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 programs 

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 providers 

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 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 46

Goal 3 Discretionary Resources

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

FY 2014

FY 2015

FY 2016

$1,110

$1,116

$1,724

(Dollars in millions)

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities13 Supporting Goal 3 Performance Metrics 

[Dollars in Millions]

POC Account Obj. Program

FY 2014

Appropriation

FY 2015 

Appropriation

FY 2016 

President’s 

Budget

OESE SR 3.1 School Readiness: Preschool 

development grants 250 250 750

OSERS SE 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 Grants for infants and families 438 439 504

OSERS SE 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 Preschool grants 353 353 403

Subtotal 1,042 1,042 1,657

Other Discretionary Programs/Activities 68 74 68

TOTAL, GOAL 3 1,110 1,116 1,724

NOTES: Many programs may have sub-activities that relate to other goals. 

Detail may not add to total due to rounding. 

Public Benefit

An extensive body of research in education, developmental psychology, neuroscience, 

medicine, and economics shows that high-quality early learning programs produce better 

education, health, economic, and social outcomes for children, families, and the nation. Too 

many of our children start school inadequately prepared to succeed. Gaps in cognitive, 

linguistic, social, and emotional skills due to unequal opportunities become evident well before 

children enter kindergarten. The resulting achievement gap widens as children progress through 

school, despite strong efforts at remediation. The long-term consequences include high rates of 

 

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

competitive and non-competitive programs.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 47

school failure, grade repetition, inappropriate special education placements, and dropout; 

involvement in risky behaviors and crime; and even higher risk for adult chronic disease.14 

Children from low-income families, on average, start kindergarten 12–14 months behind their 

peers in pre-reading and language skills. Early findings from the Kindergarten Round of the 

“Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11,” suggest that scores on 

reading and math were lowest for kindergartners in households with incomes below the federal 

poverty level and for children coming from homes with a primary home language other than 

English.15 By increasing access to high-quality early learning programs and services, the 

country can provide children the foundation they need for success in school and address 

educational gaps before children enter kindergarten. 

The administration began efforts to increase investments in early learning in the first term and 

has continued to request more funding. RTT-ELC, a program jointly administered by the 

Department and HHS, funds 20 states to raise the bar on the quality of their early learning 

programs; establish higher standards; and provide critical links with health, nutrition, mental 

health, and family support. RTT-ELC states serve as model early learning and development 

systems, and national technical assistance is available to help all states build coordinated early 

learning systems. 

Part of the President’s overarching vision for early learning is his Preschool for All initiative, a 

new partnership investment with states to fund preschool for all 4-year-olds from low- and 

moderate-income families. The program would create incentives for states to expand publicly 

funded preschool to middle-class families above 200 percent of the federal poverty level and 

promote access to high-quality, full-day kindergarten and early learning programs for children 

under the age of 4. The vision also includes continued support for high-quality services for 

infants, toddlers, and preschool children with disabilities and their families through IDEA Parts B 

and C services. 

A down payment toward that vision was provided through the Preschool Development Grants, 

which will support state efforts to both establish the infrastructure for high-quality preschool and 

build more programs for 4-year-olds from low- and moderate-income families in high-need 

communities. This new program builds on RTT-ELC achievements and further defines quality 

programs to include 12 nationally recognized standards such as: high staff qualifications; 

professional development for teachers and staff; low staff-child ratios and small class sizes; fullday programs; developmentally appropriate, evidence-based curricula and learning 

environments that are aligned with states’ early learning standards; inclusive programs; 

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. 

To enhance the quality of all early learning programs and services and improve outcomes for all 

children, including children with disabilities and those who are English learners, the Department 

will promote initiatives that increase access to high-quality, effective programs; improve the 

quality of the early childhood workforce; and support comprehensive assessment systems. 

 

14

“Early Childhood Investments Substantially Boost Adult Health,” Science, March 28, 2014:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6178/1478. 

15 Mulligan, G.M., McCarroll, J.C., Flanagan, K.D., and Potter, D. (2014). Findings From the First-Grade Rounds of 

the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11 (ECLS-K:2011) (NCES 2015-109). National 

Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. 

Retrieved January 14, 2015, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 48

Goal 3: Details

Early Learning

Indicators of Success Baseline

Actuals Targets

2012 2013 2014 2014 2015 2016

Objective 3.1: Access to High-Quality Programs and Services. Increase access to high-quality early learning programs and 

comprehensive services, especially for children with high needs.

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 

programs1,2

Year: 2010

17 19 27

2014

data to be 

available 

in 2015

29

TBD 32 NA

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.

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 providers1

Year: 2011

30

Not 

Collected 30 Not Collected NA 38 NA

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.

3.3.A. Number of states collecting 

and reporting disaggregated data 

on the status of children at 

kindergarten entry using a 

common measure3,4

Year: 2010

2

0 3 6

2

MET 9 14

NA = Not applicable. 

TBD = To be determined. 

1

 This metric, including baseline and targets, is part of the Department of Health and Human Services’ FY 2015 Annual Performance 

Report and Performance Plan. The 2014 data will not be available until 2015. 

2 The FY 2015 performance target is changed to reflect information from the Department of Health and Human Services’ FY 2015 

Annual Performance Report and Performance Plan. For more information about this metric, see 

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/olab/sec2c_ccdf_2015cj_complete.pdf. 

3

 This metric is aligned with an Agency Priority Goal. 

4

 Targets for this metric are based on what the Department expects will occur in a given fiscal year. 

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. Child Care Development Fund (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. 

Analysis and Next Steps by Objective

Objective 3.1: Access to High-Quality Programs and Services 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

No state has sufficient high-quality programs to meet the demand for high-quality early learning 

programs and services, but all states, especially the 20 states receiving RTT-ELC grants, are 

working to address the issue using a Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (TQRIS). 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 49

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. RTT-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 14 RTT-ELC 

states that reported data this year (six other states had only received their funding a few months 

prior to the reporting deadline and were not required to submit reports this year) increased the 

number of programs enrolled in their TQRIS from 31,321 to 54,157, showing a 73 percent 

increase from the baseline year. 

The 14 RTT-ELC states also showed a substantial increase in the number of children with high 

needs enrolled in state-funded preschool programs (175 percent increase), in programs that 

receive funding from the Child Development Fund (43 percent increase), and in Head Start’s 

Early Head Start programs (83 percent increase) that are in the top tiers of the respective 

states’ TQRIS.

Some states are also identifying specific high-need communities or “zones” where they will 

implement a set of initiatives aimed at building local capacity to support the workforce, engage 

families, and serve more children with high needs. OSEP has three national centers that 

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 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. 

Additionally, OSEP recently began implementing a Results Driven Accountability (RDA) system 

for states. As part of this system, states are being asked to develop a State Systemic 

Improvement Plan (SSIP) to focus and drive their efforts to improve results for children with 

disabilities. Within these plans, Part C and Part B, section 619 programs will be working to 

ensure that children with disabilities have access to high-quality services to support them in 

meeting their developmental and learning outcomes. 

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. 

Challenges and Next Steps:

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. 

The Department is providing support so 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 Department is helping 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 50

RTT-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. OSEP-funded technical assistance also supports 

states in thinking about how to include children with disabilities within the TQRIS system. 

Additionally, IES is also doing a study of the TQRIS systems and plans to make results 

available in 2016. 

It is anticipated that states will continue to examine the quality of the services supported by 

funding made available under Parts B and C of the IDEA to meet the needs of young children 

with disabilities. OSEP TA centers will continue to work with states to enhance the quality of 

services that they provide. 

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. The quality of teacher-child interactions is the 

mechanism responsible for learning. 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. Children benefit most when teachers engage in 

interactions that stimulate learning while being emotionally nurturing.16 These interactions foster 

engagement in and enjoyment of learning. Critical to assuring quality are continuous 

improvement systems that support teachers in the implementation of evidence-based curricula 

focused on specific areas of learning and socio-emotional development. In-classroom coaching 

and mentoring is a successful approach to providing this support. In addition, salaries 

commensurate with comparably prepared K-12 colleagues could stem the flight of teachers 

away from early learning. 

States are addressing the challenge of an effective workforce through legislation regarding staff 

qualifications, developing workforce frameworks, and funding better support for teachers in 

classrooms. Only 23 states have passed legislation requiring that all teachers in preschool 

programs meet certain qualifications. Even these states are struggling to improve the quality of 

their broader workforce in child care and private settings with limited funding. 

One way the Department is helping states address this challenge is through the development of 

a Workforce Knowledge and Competency Framework, which outlines what early childhood 

educators should know and be able to teach young children. RTT-ELC provides funding for 

activities such as surveys of courses offered in higher education institutions and through 

ongoing in-service education, meetings to collect information and develop consensus to support 

change, and development of documents. The frameworks provide the foundation for a wellqualified and prepared early childhood education workforce and can guide postsecondary 

institutions in the development of curricula and professional development providers in the 

provision of training, mentoring, and coaching in the community. It can also support individual 

professional development efforts for early childhood educators. As teachers move from a Child 

Development Associate (CDA) credential or state credential, to an associate degree, to a 

bachelor’s degree and beyond, early childhood educators should be building on commonly 

defined, previously learned information and skills. 

 

16 Barnett, W. Steven. “Better Teachers, Better Preschools: Student Achievement Linked to Teacher Qualifications.” 

NIEER Preschool Policy Matters, Issue 2. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED480818
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 51

Eleven RTT-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. These states are also using incentives, such as scholarships, 

compensation and wage supplements, tiered reimbursement rates, other financial incentives, 

and other strategies. 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. 

States that require all programs receiving some sort of federal or state subsidy to enroll in the 

TQRIS system are leading this work. States that have not linked the TQRIS system to licensing 

are experiencing more challenges with enrolling programs. 

Four states (Delaware, Iowa, Kansas, and Oregon) are specifically working with the OSEPfunded Early Childhood Personnel Center (ECPC) to develop and enhance the personnel 

system within their states to ensure that personnel have the knowledge and skills to provide 

services to young children with disabilities and their families. States are making progress in 

aligning their personnel standards with national professional organization personnel standards; 

developing 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 implementing evidence-based 

practices within in-service professional development. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

Challenges abound in developing an effective early learning workforce. States have hiring 

challenges, due in part to a lack of available well-trained and effective personnel. 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 have had programs in place for longer periods are having less difficulty recruiting and 

retaining strong early educators. 

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 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. 

Objective 3.3: Measuring Progress, Outcomes, and Readiness

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

The Department, in consultation with OMB, has determined that there has been noteworthy 

progress toward this objective. KEAs are important tools for determining what children know and 

are able to do by the time they reach kindergarten. Results of the KEAs provide information to 

help close the school readiness gap at kindergarten entry and to inform instruction in the early 

elementary school grades. They also inform parents about their children’s learning and 

development and involve them in decisions about their children’s education. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 52

Nineteen RTT-ELC states17 are working to have in place a KEA that covers multiple 

developmental domains, including language and literacy, cognition and general knowledge, 

approaches toward learning, physical well-being and motor development, and social and 

emotional development. Even though the 19 RTT-ELC states that selected to implement 

statewide KEAs are at different stages in implementing new or revised assessments, all are 

making progress. 

States are collaborating with and learning from one another as they tackle the complexities and 

challenges of developing and implementing their KEAs. For example, Illinois and California are 

using the same tool and collaborating to enhance and improve it. Maryland and Ohio have 

partnered to develop formative and summative assessments that are based on their individual 

state standards. According to The Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge Year Two 

Progress Report, states are also realizing the importance of first working with kindergarten 

teachers and administrators when planning to implement a KEA and then providing training and 

support as teachers begin implementing the KEAs and interpreting and sharing the results. One 

state, Oregon, fully implemented a statewide KEA in the first quarter of FY 2014 (i.e., fall of 

2013). It is using the lessons learned from that KEA to improve the next round of assessments 

and strengthen data interpretation and reporting. Some areas identified for improvement are the 

provision for additional guidance on successful kindergarten assessment practices for Spanishspeaking English learners and streamlined mechanisms for data entry and reporting. 

In FY 2013, the Department awarded Enhanced Assessment Grants (EAG) to support the 

development and enhancement of KEAs. Texas and two state consortia, one led by Maryland 

and the other led by North 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 RTT-ELC grantees are participating in the Maryland consortium 

(Massachusetts, Michigan, and Ohio) as well as a number of non-RTT-ELC states. Eight states 

are partnering with North Carolina: Delaware, Iowa, Maine, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode 

Island, South Carolina, and Washington, DC. 

On an annual basis through their annual performance reports, 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 high-quality data within their outcomes measurement system and in using that data 

for program improvement. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

The field of early learning is increasingly embracing the importance of measuring and 

monitoring children’s progress due to historical lack of good metrics and the variability of young 

children’s development. That is changing with the introduction of KEAs through RTT-ELC and 

state policies. The Department and its early childhood technical assistance center are 

supporting both RTT-ELC grantee states and non-grantee states by establishing learning 

communities and providing technical assistance webinars, briefs, and a recent report on 

progress states are making in implementing KEAs. 

In order to better understand the challenges states are facing and progress they are making, the 

Department has funded a study which will report on how leading states are implementing KEAs 

as a learning tool. Results will be available late in 2015. 

 

17 One state, Wisconsin, did not choose to implement a KEA as a part of its RTT-ELC work.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 53

OSEP is investigating ways to use the Part C child outcomes data in FY 2015 when making 

annual determinations of performance based on state performance plans and annual 

performance reports. 

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 

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 reports, an annual grantee meeting, and use of the bully pulpit, the 

Department expects to reach its goal. One tool that supports the Department in its management 

of this goal is an electronic monitoring and reporting tool that it uses to assess the progress in 

all RTT-ELC states and deploy specialized technical assistance as quickly as possible to ensure 

progress continues. Further, the Department works with the ELC TA Center and the Center on 

Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes (CEELO) to provide targeted technical assistance, 

establishing learning communities and providing webinars, briefs, and reports on key topics. 

The Department’s 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’ SSIPs for Part C in April 2015 and will be supporting them through technical 

assistance to their infrastructure, data quality, and services and interventions to enhance results 

for young children with disabilities and their families. 

All our 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 English learners). 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 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 54

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 2014

FY 2015

FY 2016

$1,485

$1,500

$1,619

(Dollars in millions)
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 55

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities18 Supporting Goal 4 Performance Metrics 

[Dollars in Millions]

POC Account Obj. Program

FY 2014

Appropriation

FY 2015 

Appropriation

FY 2016 

President’s 

Budget

OCR OCR 4.2 Office for Civil Rights 98 100 131

OESE ED 4.1 State agency programs: Migrant 375 375 375

OESE IE 4.1 Indian Education: Grants to local 

educational agencies 100 100 100

OESE IE 4.1 Indian Education: Special programs for 

Indian children 18 18 68

OESE SIP 4.1 Alaska Native education equity 31 31 32

OESE SIP 4.1 Education for Native Hawaiians 32 32 33

OESE SIP 4.1, 4.2 Training and advisory services 7 7 7

OESE/OELA ELA 4.1, 4.2 English Language Acquisition 723 737 773

OII I&I 4.1 Magnet schools assistance 92 92 92

OSERS SE n/a Special Olympics education programs 8 8 8

TOTAL, GOAL 4 1,485 1,500 1,619

n/a = Not available. 

NOTES: Many programs may have sub-activities that relate to other goals. 

Detail may not add to total due to rounding. 

Public Benefit

The Department is committed to pursuing equity at all stages of education, from birth through 

adulthood, in institutions of early learning, K–12 schools, career and technical and 

postsecondary education, adult education, workforce development, and independent living 

programs. The Department’s goal is to ensure that all—not just a subset—of the nation’s 

children, youths, and adults graduate from high school and obtain the skills necessary to 

succeed in college, in the pursuit of a meaningful career, and in their lives. 

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. Studies show that having a strong teacher is 

the single most important in-school contributor to a student’s success. Because of this, and 

regardless of how teacher effectiveness is defined, it is critical that the nation eliminate 

disparities in the access to effective teachers between high-need students—including 

low-income students, English learners, and students with disabilities—and all other students. By 

fostering improved teacher evaluation and support systems and talent pipelines from 

recruitment to retention, the Department aims to elevate the teaching profession as a whole 

while also working to ensure that all students—no matter their geographic locations—have 

equitable access to effective teachers. 

Finally, civil rights enforcement is pivotal to ensuring that recipients of federal funding at the 

preschool, K–12, and postsecondary levels eliminate acts of discrimination that, left unchecked, 

would otherwise negatively impact students’ achievement and access to educational 

opportunities. The Department’s OCR uses a variety of tools to ensure compliance with federal 

civil rights laws, including 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 

 

18 All the programs listed are discretionary programs, as distinct from mandatory programs. These include both 

competitive and non-competitive programs.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 56

compliance indicators; and participating in intra- and inter-agency work groups to share 

expertise and best practices. OCR also engages students, parents, recipients of federal funding, 

and other stakeholders to inform them about applicable federal civil rights laws and policies so 

that they are equipped to identify and address civil rights issues at the earliest stages. 

OCR has increased the transparency of its work to the public by posting nearly all resolution 

letters and agreements reached in FY 2014 and beyond on its website. In addition, OCR has 

released the results of the 2011–12 Civil Rights Data Collection, which it has expanded to 

include a wealth of new data to assist the Department, states, districts, teachers, administrators, 

researchers, students, and parents in identifying civil rights trends and issues at the local, state, 

and national levels. 

Goal 4: Details

Equity

Indicators of Success Baseline

Actuals Targets

2012 2013 2014 2014 2015 2016

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.

4.1.A. National high school 

graduation rate1,2

Year: 

2011–12

80.0%

Year: 

2010–11

79%

Year: 

2011–12

80.0%

81% 81.5%

NOT MET 83.0% 84.5%

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.

4.2.A. Percentage of proactive civil 

rights investigations launched 

annually that address areas of 

concentration in civil rights 

enforcement 

Year: 2013

7%

Not 

Collected 7% 21% 7%MET 10% 12%

4.2.B. Percentage of proactive civil 

rights investigations resolved 

annually that address areas of 

concentration in civil rights 

enforcement

Year: 2013

8%

Not 

Collected 8% 15% 8%MET 10% 12%

1

 This metric is aligned with an Agency Priority Goal. Data for the 2012–13 school year will be available during the second quarter of 

FY 2015. Data for the 2013–14 school year will be available during the second quarter of FY 2016. 

2

 The data for the 2012–13 Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR) are available at http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/tables/ACGR_2010-

11_to_2012-13.asp. Note that the current disclosure protection methodology limits reporting to whole number percentages. 

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. Office for Civil Rights’ (OCR) Case Management System (CMS) and Document Management (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. 

Analysis and Next Steps by Objective

Objective 4.1: Equitable Educational Opportunities 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

The Department made progress toward expanding equitable educational opportunities. As 

explained below, the Department took aggressive steps in FY 2014 through policy development, 

grant-making, program management, and legal enforcement to close achievement and 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 57

opportunity gaps that present barriers to learning or achievement at all levels of the educational 

system, from early education to K–12 to postsecondary. Such barriers include the lack of 

access to challenging courses, effective teachers and school leaders, sufficient resources and 

other supports, and safe and healthy learning environments. 

Budget 

The Department developed an FY 2015 budget that included a new proposed $300 million RTTEquity and Opportunity competition. While Congress did not provide funding for this program, 

the Department is working through other programs and actions to further its goals related to 

ensuring equitable access to rigorous courses, effective educators, and support services in 

high-need communities into future grant competitions, programs, and initiatives.

Preschool–Grade 12 (P-12) Education 

Much of the Department’s P-12 work aims to improve opportunities for students. Along with 

HHS, the Department has significantly increased funding for early learning. More than $1 billion 

in RTT-ELC funding is improving the quality of early learning settings in 20 states, and the 

Department and HHS designed and awarded $250 million in new Preschool Development 

Grants to states to expand access to high-quality preschool programs for children from low- to 

moderate-income families in high-need communities in order to close educational gaps between 

disadvantaged children and their peers and ensure that all children have an equal opportunity to 

succeed when they enter kindergarten. The Preschool Development Grants will serve more 

than 33,000 4-year-olds in 18 states in 2015–16 alone. The administration has requested 

$500 million in FY 2015 to continue high-quality preschool programs in current grantee states 

and expand to new communities. 

The Department granted extensions of ESEA Flexibility for the 2014–15 school year for 

34 states, ensuring that those states continue to implement college- and career-ready standards 

for all students, hold districts and schools accountable for subgroup performance, and 

implement evaluation and support systems for teachers and principals that, ultimately, can be 

used to monitor and improve equitable access to effective educators. 

The Department also developed and launched the Excellent Educators for All initiative. This 

initiative is specifically designed to ensure that students of color and students from low-income 

families have equitable access to excellent educators. The Department will work with states to 

implement the initiative in the coming year (see next steps section below). 

The Department helped to advance the President’s ConnectED initiative, which aims to enrich 

K-12 education for every student in America through technology (see also the Explanation and 

Analysis of Progress for objective 5.4). The initiative seeks to provide high-speed broadband 

and Wi-Fi to schools covering 99 percent of our nation’s students by 2018, provide every 

student with access to a device suitable for digital learning, enable creation of more high-quality 

and accessible digital content, and provide resources and support for school leaders and 

educators to learn to use technology effectively. Since ConnectED’s launch, the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC) has worked to modernize the E-rate program to improve 

broadband and Wi-Fi access in schools across the country. In addition, we have provided 

guidance to the field to clarify the ability to use federal funds to support the transition to digital 

learning and share models for effective use of technology to transform learning. In 2015, the 

Department will release an updated National Educational Technology Plan to set the national 

vision for how technology can support learning and close equity gaps. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 58

The Department continued to implement the National Professional Development (NPD) program

to prepare teachers to work with English learners and the Native American and Alaska Native 

children in Schools (NAM) program to provide support to Native American English learners, in 

addition to the formula grants to SEAs for English learners (ELs) under Title III of the ESEA. The 

Department also commissioned a study by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and the National 

Academy of Sciences (NAS) on the development of young ELs and Dual Language Learners 

(DLLs) and on best practices to support education success across diverse settings and 

institutions from birth through the end of high school. 

The Department published a Request for Information seeking public comment and guidance on 

state obligations under IDEA to address significant disproportion by race or ethnicity within 

districts in the identification, placement, or discipline of students with disabilities. The 

Department also announced a new framework known as Results-Driven Accountability, under 

which the Department will consider multiple educational results and outcomes for students with 

disabilities—including their participation in state assessments, their proficiency levels as 

compared to all students, and their performance in reading and math on the National 

Assessment of Educational Progress—to produce a more comprehensive and thorough picture 

of the performance of children with disabilities in each state and to inform its annual 

determinations with respect to each state under IDEA. 

In order to help keep students safe and improve their learning environments, the Department 

awarded more than $70 million in grants to 130 grantees in 38 states, including School Climate 

Transformation Grants to help create positive school climates that support effective education 

for all students and Project Prevent grants to help LEAs break the cycle of violence through 

expanded access to school-based strategies that prevent future violence. 

The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) working group, convened jointly by Education Secretary 

Duncan and Interior Secretary Jewell, issued a Blueprint for Reform to improve outcomes in BIE 

schools. The Department provided technical assistance and continued grant awards under the 

Indian Education Demonstration Grants program, the Professional Development program, and 

the State Tribal Education Partnership program, in addition to ESEA Title VII formula grants to 

LEAs for services to American Indian/Alaska Native students. In addition, the Department has 

been working to identify policies and programs that will support achievement for all Native 

youth. In conjunction with OCR, the White House Initiative on American Indian and Alaska 

Native Education conducted a listening tour to address concerns about school climate and 

Indian mascots in public schools. The Department also joined with HHS and DOI to convene a 

Languages Summit to discuss best practices in preserving and revitalizing Native languages for 

children and youth. 

The Department incorporated a competitive priority in the GEAR-UP State and Partnership 

grant competitions to encourage applicants to propose postsecondary success strategies, 

including those that support early attention to remedial education needs prior to enrollment in 

college. GEAR-UP provides services at high-poverty middle and high schools to help lowincome students prepare for and succeed in postsecondary education. Addressing remedial 

education prior to college increases the likelihood that students will persist. 

The Department released the results of the 2011–12 Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), which 

was expanded to include a wealth of new data to assist the Department, states, districts, 

teachers, administrators, researchers, students, and parents in identifying civil rights trends and 

issues at the local, state, and national levels. The CRDC disaggregates data by race, sex, 

disability, and English proficiency status (as well as by grade level for certain items). The 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 59

2015–16 collection will include new data to help measure incidents of bullying or harassment 

based on religion or sexual orientation in public schools. 

Higher Education 

The Department distributed $31.6 billion in Pell Grant awards to approximately 9 million 

students in FY 2014. The maximum Pell award was increased from $5,645 for the 2013–14 

award year (July 1, 2013–June 30, 2014) to $5,730 for the 2014–15 award year (July 1, 2014–

June 30, 2015), which helped cover a greater portion of college costs for low-income students to 

support college access goals. The Department also awarded 24 First in the World grants 

totaling $75 million to institutions of higher education, including $20 million to six Minority 

Serving Institutions, to spur the development of innovations that improve educational outcomes 

and make college more affordable for students and families and to develop an evidence base of 

effective practices. The Department continued to support the White House Task Force to 

Protect Students from Sexual Assault to improve coordination, transparency, and effectiveness 

in responding to sexual violence in colleges and universities. 

The Department’s Migrant Education State Program (MEP), the High School Equivalency 

Program (HEP) projects, and the College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) continue to 

address the educational needs of students from migrant and seasonal farmworker families as a 

part of investments in equity and opportunity. HEP and CAMP projects helped 3,292 migrant 

students obtain high school equivalency and 1,410 migrant students successfully complete their 

first year of college. 

As noted earlier in this report, President Obama’s America’s College Promise proposal, 

announced in January 2015, would allow students to attend community colleges tuition-free if 

they attend half-time, are making satisfactory academic progress to a degree, and maintain a 

2.5 GPA. If enacted by Congress, this plan would benefit nearly 9 million students by making a 

higher education more affordable and would particularly impact students of color as community 

colleges enroll larger percentages of students of color. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

The following items delineate future challenges and next steps as the Department works to 

enhance educational opportunities for underserved populations: 

New and continuing proposals related to equity described above are dependent on final 

appropriations. The Department will work to ensure that programs with high equity focus receive 

priority attention to the extent possible.

The Department continues to see gaps for students of color and low-income students in 

important equity metrics such a postsecondary attainment, involvement in STEM, teacher 

equity, and access to educational resources. The Department will work with the CoSTEM 

Education interagency working group, the My Brother’s Keeper and Reach Higher initiatives, 

and other targeted efforts from the White House Initiatives to help expand participation of 

underrepresented groups in postsecondary STEM. 

The Department is working to improve equity of access to excellent educators through a number 

of efforts. The Department published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on teacher preparation 

in November 2014. Also in fall 2014, the Department released guidance on new State Plans to 

Ensure Equitable Access to Excellent Educators and launched a support network designed to 

help states develop and implement comprehensive plans. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 60

The Department continues to seek to use Title I and the ESEA Flexibility Framework to close 

achievement gaps. In its FY 2016 budget, the Department is requesting a major increase in 

Title I funding to improve access to standards, aligned assessments, and excellent educators in 

Title I schools. The Department has developed ESEA Flexibility renewal guidance and FAQs

that focus on ensuring that underrepresented students have access to standards and 

assessments and that states maintain accountability and teacher evaluation systems that will 

help measure progress in schools serving the most high-need students. The Department will 

finalize new regulations for the School Improvement Grants program to incorporate changes 

from the FY 2014 appropriations act and lessons learned from four years of SIG 

implementation, as well as provide three new models, including an early learning model, so that 

SIG will better support turnaround efforts in the lowest-performing schools. 

To support its efforts to improve outcomes for our most vulnerable students, the Department, as 

part of the My Brother’s Keeper initiative, will launch targeted technical assistance initiatives to 

assist high-need districts struggling with high student dropout rates, particularly among students 

of color, and with overuse of and disparities in school discipline practices. A complementary 

White House initiative, Bridging the Word Gap, will support families and caregivers to help 

ameliorate the language disparities that exist for children from low-income families. 

The Department, through OCTAE, will continue to work with Congress on the reauthorization of 

the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (Perkins). As described in 

Investing in America’s Future: A Blueprint for Transforming Career and Technical Education,

equity is a cross-cutting theme in the Department’s plan for the Perkins reauthorization. The 

proposal would require states to improve their data collection systems for Perkins by using 

commonly defined participation and performance indicators, which would lead to increased 

transparency and accountability for equity gaps. In addition, states would be required to track 

data at the local level to ensure that CTE programs are serving diverse student populations and 

communities statewide. The proposal also encourages the use of technology-enabled learning 

solutions that are accessible to, and usable by, students with disabilities and English learners to 

create access to high-quality learning opportunities, including to technical courses and virtual 

work experiences. 

The Department will propose a new Statewide Longitudinal Data System competition in 

FY 2015 that focuses on requiring states to justify their need for SLDS funds to address a small 

number of high-priority policy issues, including financial and resource equity, teacher 

preparation, early learning, and college and career readiness. 

While overall graduation rates have increased, graduation rates for students of color continue to 

lag behind white students. For the graduating class of 2012, the National Adjusted Cohort 

Graduation Rate was 69 percent for black students and 73 percent for Latino students 

compared to 86 percent for white students.

The Department—in collaboration with the Departments of Labor and HHS, the Corporation for 

National and Community Service, and the Institute of Museum and Library Sciences—will 

establish up to 10 Performance Partnership agreements with states, localities, or tribes that 

provide additional flexibility in using non-mandatory funds that support programs that serve 

disconnected youth (i.e., individuals between the ages of 14 and 24 who are homeless, in foster 

care, involved in the juvenile justice system, unemployed, or not enrolled in or at risk of dropping 

out of an educational institution). States and localities that seek to participate in these pilots will 

commit to achieve significant improvements for disconnected youth in educational, employment, 

and other key outcomes in exchange for this new flexibility. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 61

In December 2014, through a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Department announced a 

new priority for Indian Education Demonstration Grants, entitled Native Youth Community 

Projects. This program will fund projects in a select number of Native communities to support 

culturally relevant strategies designed to improve the college- and career-readiness of Native 

children and youth. These projects would support a coordinated intervention strategy chosen by 

the local community, recognizing that tribal communities are best-positioned to improve 

outcomes for American Indian/Alaska Native students. 

The Department will continue to support postsecondary institutions receiving First in the World 

grants. For example, funding was provided to a Historically Black University to redesign courses 

to entail more project-based learning and technology tools that improve student learning and 

engagement. At a Hispanic-Serving Institution, funds will be used to strengthen curriculum 

through an integrated set of tools to increase student engagement, especially for high-risk 

students. Projects will be evaluated at their conclusion, and those showing evidence of success 

will serve as models for wider dissemination. 

Subpopulation Breakout for Metric 4.1.A: National high school graduation rate by 

race/ethnicity, other characteristics*: School year 2011–121

Total

American 

Indian/

Alaska 

Native

Asian/

Pacific 

Islander Hispanic Black White

Economically 

Disadvantaged

Limited 

English 

Proficiency

Students 

with 

Disabilities

Percentage 80 67 88 73 69 86 72 59 61

* Data are reported based on the requirements for individual states in the Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR). 

1 School year 2012–13 data will be available by Quarter 2 of FY 2015. 

Data Source and Frequency of Collection: EDFacts universe collection, annual reports; annually

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. The Department increased the breadth, depth, and 

transparency of its civil rights enforcement work while maintaining the quality and pace of 

resolutions. In FY 2014, OCR received a record high number of complaints (9,989) and resolved 

more than 9,400 complaints. (By comparison, in 1985 OCR received just 2,199 complaints—

80 percent fewer than what OCR now receives in a typical year.) OCR resolved 94 percent of 

complaints within 180 days of receiving them. It accomplished this with fewer staff than ever 

before in OCR history. OCR launched 38 proactive investigations (i.e., compliance reviews and 

directed inquiries) in FY 2014, an increase of 27 percent from FY 2013. OCR resolved 

27 proactive investigations—an increase of 59 percent from FY 2013. As OCR achieved this, it 

expanded the scope of investigations in some of the most pressing civil rights areas—including 

discipline, sexual violence, and access to college- and career-preparatory courses and 

opportunities—to ensure it protected all impacted students in its investigations. 

The Department released six comprehensive policy guidance documents addressing urgent and 

complex questions related to sexual assault on campuses; schools’ obligation not to 

discriminate in discipline policies or practices based on race, color, or national origin; equitable 

access to resources, including strong educators, textbooks, college-preparatory courses, 

extracurricular activities, technology, and facilities; the duty of schools to enroll and remove 

barriers to enrollment for immigrant and undocumented students; the continuing ability and 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 62

discretion of schools to consider race in their programs, outreach, and admissions following the 

Supreme Court’s Schuette decision; and the obligation of charter schools to adhere to the 

federal civil rights laws. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

The Department is experiencing record-high civil rights complaint volume while its OCR staffing 

level continues to reach new historic lows. These trends will likely continue in FY 2015. The 

Department expects continued or increased activity and record volumes in resource equity, 

sexual violence, and discipline cases following the recent release of related guidance on these 

topics. 

The Department will take steps in FY 2015 to ensure that, within budget limitations, its OCR 

staff are as well supported as possible through training, support, and increased communications 

and that engagement around how work is conducted enables staff to maximize the pace and 

efficiency of their work. The Department has requested a significant increase in appropriations 

in its FY 2016 budget request to address the challenges described above to ensure and 

maintain robust civil rights compliance and awareness pursuant to this objective. 

Selected Strategies to Achieve Goal 4

The Department will implement a number of strategies in FY 2015 intended to reach the goal of 

closing achievement gaps, ensuring equitable access to the educational resources students 

need to be prepared for college and career, and ensuring all students have the opportunity to 

attain a high-quality education provided in a supportive and non-discriminatory environment. 

The Department’s strategies span the P-20 spectrum. 

With regard to early education, the Department will support a robust early learning agenda 

aimed at supporting universal access to high-quality preschool and building state capacity to 

implement high-quality preschool programs. 

The Department will advance its goal of greater access to effective teachers through the review 

and monitoring of state plans and providing technical assistance pursuant to the Excellent 

Educators for All initiative. The Department will also issue final regulations related to the 

performance of teacher preparation programs. 

The Department stands ready to work with Congress on strong ESEA reauthorization that 

ensures opportunity for every child in this country; strengthens our nation economically; and 

expands support for schools, teachers, and principals, as well as accountability for the progress 

of all students. The Department’s ESEA Flexibility renewal strategy will enable the Department 

to continue to push for rapid closing of achievement gaps even in the absence of a reauthorized 

ESEA. The Department’s ESEA Flexibility renewal guidance continues to emphasize high-need 

students in priority, focus, and other Title I schools and ensuring that underserved or 

disadvantaged students have access to standards and assessments. In addition, the 

Department will seek to advance new proposals for the SLDS and SIG programs to improve 

student outcomes and attainment. 

The Department will also pursue specific initiatives aimed at supporting historically underserved 

students, such as low-income students, English learner students, and students with disabilities. 

The Department will support the My Brother’s Keeper initiative by launching targeted technical 

assistance initiatives to assist high-need districts. The Department will support new initiatives 

designed to improve teaching and learning in STEM subjects for teachers and students in our 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 63

nation’s schools. The Department will seek to maximize the potential impact of increased 

access to broadband and Wi-Fi for high-needs students through the ConnectED initiative. The 

Department will explore ways to increase school safety, improve the conduciveness of school 

environments to learning, and reduce racial and socioeconomic isolation in schools. The 

Department will continue to pursue additional research, teacher preparation, and support for 

English learners. The Department will pursue equity and support for students with disabilities 

through IDEA and civil rights enforcement. The Department will advance programs that serve 

homeless, foster, disconnected, incarcerated, and migrant youth.

In an effort to protect students from discrimination, the Department will increase the number of 

civil rights policy guidance documents it issues, continue its vigorous investigation of 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 expand the Civil Rights Data Collection while providing greater assistance to 

participating institutions to improve the quality of data submissions. 

The Department will foster more equity in career, technical, and adult education programs and 

support college innovation, affordability, outcomes, and completion, including through issuing 

new regulations, Pell Grants, and the First in the World program. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 64

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: Jim Shelton

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)19

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, Melanie Muenzer, and Margo Anderson 

Metric 5.3.A: Percentage of select new20 (non-continuation) 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 What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) 

database 

Objective 5.4: Technology and Innovation. Accelerate the development and broad adoption 

of new, effective programs, processes, and strategies, including education technology. 

Objective Leader: Richard Culatta

 

19 Privacy Technical Assistance Center (PTAC) and Family Policy Compliance Office (FPCO). 

20 “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 Investing in Innovation program); 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 Institute of Education Sciences, the National Institute on Disability 

and Rehabilitation Research, and technical assistance centers, with some exceptions. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 65

Metric 5.4.A: Percentage of schools in the country that have actual Internet bandwidth 

speeds of at least 100 Mbps 

Goal 5 Discretionary Resources

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

FY 2014

FY 2015

FY 2016

$867

$842

$1,348

(Dollars in millions)

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities21 Supporting Goal 5 Performance Metrics 

[Dollars in Millions]

POC Account Obj. Program

FY 2014

Appropriation

FY 2015 

Appropriation

FY 2016 

President’s 

Budget

IES IES 5.3 National assessment 132 129 150

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 180 180 202

IES IES 5.1, 5.2 Statewide longitudinal data systems 35 35 70

IES IES 5.3 Statistics 103 103 125

OII I&I 5.3 Investing in innovation (proposed legislation) 142 120 300

Subtotal 699 675 955

Other Discretionary Programs/Activities 167 167 393

TOTAL, GOAL 5 867 842 1,348

NOTES: Many programs may have sub-activities that relate to other goals. 

Detail may not add to total due to rounding. 

Public Benefit

The foundation for improving systemic capacity is an infrastructure that supports data-driven 

decision-making. Stakeholders must have access to relevant, useful data in a timely fashion, 

and they need the skills to better understand and make use of the data. With relevant and 

actionable data and the ability to use it, policymakers and educators will be able to appraise 

 

21 All the programs listed are discretionary programs, as distinct from mandatory programs. These include both 

competitive and non-competitive programs.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 66

how states, districts, schools, and students are currently performing; measure progress; pinpoint 

gaps; improve practice; better address student needs; and make sound decisions. States are 

developing systems that will yield the valid, reliable data that are essential to achieving these 

purposes, but there is much more work to do. The Department will continue ongoing efforts to 

develop effective statewide longitudinal data systems, design voluntary common data standards 

to increase interoperability, and develop the capacity of institutions and staff to utilize data to 

improve teaching and learning. These activities will help to ensure that education agencies 

across the nation have timely access to the data necessary in order to generate an accurate 

picture of student performance and other critical elements, from early learning programs through 

postsecondary institutions and the workforce. 

The collection, storage, maintenance, and use of data must be responsible and must 

appropriately protect student privacy. The necessity of achieving responsible data management 

is highlighted by the passage in the past year of student privacy legislation in 35 different states. 

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. 

Systemic improvement also requires research and evaluation so that decision makers at the 

national, state, and local levels have reliable evidence to inform their actions. The Department 

aims to support evidence-building so that states, districts, and schools have the information they 

need to identify effective practices and so they can build evidence about emerging practices and 

issues. Using evidence to direct funds will ensure scarce dollars are more likely to have the 

intended impact and empowers states and districts to become more dynamic learning 

organizations. 

The Department’s vision for 21st-century learning also requires that schools have a 21st-century 

technology infrastructure anchored around high-speed Internet to allow for innovation and 

personalization in the classroom. 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. 

Goal 5: Details

Continuous Improvement of the 

U.S. Education System

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals Targets

2012 2013 2014 2014 2015 2016

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.

5.1.A. Number of public data sets 

included in ED Data Inventory and 

thus linked to Data.gov or ED.gov 

websites1

Year: 2013

55 NA 55 66 66MET 79 94

5.1.B. Number of states linking K–12 

and postsecondary data with 

workforce data2

Year: 2013

12 5 12 20

14

MET 22 25

5.1.C. Number of states linking K–12 

with early childhood data2

Year: 2013

19 8 19 26 23MET 27 29

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.

5.2.A. Average time to close “cases” 

(PTAC + FPCO)3

Year: 2013 

10 days

Not 

Collected 10 9

9 days

MET 8 days 8 days
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 67

Continuous Improvement of the 

U.S. Education System

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals Targets

2012 2013 2014 2014 2015 2016

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.

5.3.A. Percentage of select new3(noncontinuation) competitive grant dollars 

that reward evidence4,5

Year: 2012

6.5% 6.5% 9.35% 15.9% 9.0%MET 11.0% 14.0%

5.3.B. Number of peer-reviewed, fulltext resources in the Education 

Resources Information Center (ERIC)2

Year: 2013

23,512 NA 23,512 27,292 24,712MET 31,192 35,692

5.3.C. Number of reviewed studies in 

the What Works Clearinghouse 

(WWC) database

Year: 2013

9,535 NA 9,535 10,310 9,885MET 10,235 10,585

Objective 5.4: Technology and Innovation. Accelerate the development and broad adoption of new, effective programs, processes, and strategies, 

including education technology.

5.4.A. Percentage of schools in the 

country that have actual Internet 

bandwidth speeds of at least 100 

Mbps6

Year: 2013

20% NA 20% 41% 30%MET 50% 70%

NA = Not applicable. 

1

 The data sets are available on Data.gov, www.ed.gov, NCES.ed.gov, studentaid.ed.gov, or other ed.gov subdomain websites. 

2

 The Department is revising the performance targets established in the FY 2013 Annual Performance Report and FY 2015 Annual 

Performance Plan for later years to be more ambitious. 

3

 Privacy Technical Assistance Center (PTAC) and Family Policy Compliance Office (FPCO). 

4

“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 program); 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 Institute of Education Sciences, the National 

Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, and technical assistance centers, with some exceptions. 

5

 This metric is aligned with an Agency Priority Goal. 

6 The data source is changed from what was reported for the FY 2013 Annual Performance Report and FY 15 Annual Performance 

Plan. This change was made because the Department anticipates the Consortium for School Networking E-rate and Infrastructure 

Survey will be conducted annually and the results are publicly released. The reason this data source was not used last year is 

because the survey collected data on this metric for the first time this year. 

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. Department calculations based upon multiple Department-controlled data sources, including G5; 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 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 68

Analysis and Next Steps by Objective

Objective 5.1: Data Systems and Transparency 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

The implementation strategy for this objective is focused on providing technical assistance to 

states to help them successfully implement data systems that will serve their education needs. 

The Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems program works with a State Support Team (SST) of 

experienced government and industry experts in the area of data systems development. Much 

of the work needed for this objective is dependent upon state actions to implement SLDS grant 

plans. SLDS program staff assist by reviewing state plans and reports, deploying targeted 

technical assistance, and monitoring states’ progress. Weekly status report meetings are used 

to keep all Program Officers and Program Analysts aware of developments, and to focus 

needed resources on the states with the greatest need at that point in time.

Collaboration is key to the success of this objective. SLDS staff work frequently with other 

Department programs, including the RTT-ELC, as well as coordinate with Department of Labor’s 

Wage Data Quality Information (WDQI) Program. 

A secondary implementation strategy is for the Department to model good data practices. For 

this reason, several performance metrics for objective 5.1 are designed around the Department 

rather than the states. The Department sets an example by highlighting its efforts to make data 

more accessible, as well as measuring the amount of web traffic on a specific data-centric web 

page. 

The Department’s DST also supports this objective through its sponsorship of the ED Data 

Inventory and Common Education Data Standards (CEDS). As noted previously, the DST is an 

intra-agency group of volunteers who coordinate Department data activities. The Department 

received favorable publicity in FY 2014 for publishing an enhanced data inventory. While the 

inventory is a work in progress, the public may consult it to explore data that the Department 

holds. 

CEDS successes in FY 2014 included staff work in conjunction with SLDS’ SST staff to assist 

state efforts to map data models to CEDS. The Department awarded a task order to continue 

technical support for CEDS later than initially planned, resulting in a gap in support services 

during the fiscal year. Despite this support interruption, the activities of CEDS related to this 

objective were successfully completed. 

The Department is modeling transparency by publishing the ED Data Inventory. The system 

provides a new interface for public users to understand data collected and released by the 

Department. After the initial launch in November 2013 (i.e., the first quarter of FY 2014), work 

on the inventory has focused upon increasing the links between items in the inventory and 

publicly available Department data sets and upon improving functionality that will enable 

program offices to more directly interact with the inventory to ensure accurate representation of 

their data. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

State support for longitudinal data system development remains the largest dependency and 

area of risk for progress in this area. The SLDS grant program was not designed to provide 

complete support for state system development and operations. Rather, SLDS program 

objectives depend upon additional state commitments. In FY 2014 several states spent time and 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 69

resources addressing internal forces threatening their continued support of the developing 

systems. Key barriers and challenges include districts’ and states’ limited resources; state 

procurement practices; lack of engagement with needed district and state stakeholders; 

difficulties with cross-agency governance and data sharing; ongoing leadership changes at 

SEAs, partner agencies, and at the state level; misconceptions about data collection and the 

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), state laws, and other regulations related to 

privacy and confidentiality; lack of training on how to use data to make policy and instructional 

decisions; and concerns from stakeholders about the long-term sustainability of data systems 

without long-term federal funding. 

Cross-sector linkages between K-12, early childhood, postsecondary, and workforce typically 

require a champion outside the SEA (e.g., a governor’s office), but political support for 

widespread data collection and linkage varies. Additionally, state education and labor agencies 

are relatively new partners so they are in the process of figuring out how to work together. 

SLDS progress in FY 2014 included steps by many American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

of 2009 (ARRA) and FY 2009 grantees to complete their grants. FY 2012 grantees still maintain 

active grants, and a new competition will be held in FY 2015. That competition will focus on the 

actual use of SLDS data within the state, built around policy “use cases” to meet state needs in 

topics ranging from the need to connect early childhood data to understanding return-oninvestment for K-12 investments. Additional infrastructure and development costs will be 

included in the grant only when those “build” activities are essential to support or enable the 

state’s proposed use(s) of the system. 

This year the Department made great strides with the ED Data Inventory and secured contractor 

resources for FY 2015 to support the development of a system to “feed” future data collections. 

Future plans also include a process for integrating all existing data collections. 

The DST should continue connecting program officers from multiple offices across the 

Department that would benefit from state development or use of SLDS systems. Building such 

collaborations, possibly coordinated by the DST, could be beneficial to the Department for 

ensuring that progress continues to be made on objective 5.1. 

Finally, the good practice that the Department wants to model to the states would be enhanced 

were the Department to take the DST to the next level in governance. Currently the DST is a 

volunteer organization that only coordinates data, rather than a true governance body. 

Objective 5.2: Privacy 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

The Department has focused on ramping up technical assistance around privacy to schools, 

districts, states, and third-party online educational services providers. Over the past year, the 

Department issued guidance regarding educational technology and transparency and provided

technical assistance to states. Data collection on the completion of inquiries began in a 

structured fashion in 2013, creating a baseline of 10 days to respond to “cases,” which refers to 

requests for quick, informal responses to routine questions related to student privacy. While 

complex questions relating to FERPA, data security, and data management may necessitate 

internal discussion and research, less complex inquiries can now be addressed more quickly 

with recently released guidance. During the first half of FY 2014, a review of existing workflow 

processes specific to providing both formal and informal responses to requests for guidance and 

technical assistance led to process improvements in workflow efficiency. These new processes 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 70

included establishing a new preliminary triage step to better match inquiries and complaints to 

the appropriate staff and contractor resources, improving the case tracking and reporting 

metrics, and better collaboration and workflow management. The Department made selective 

use of contractor resources in support of federal efforts. As a result, the average time to 

respond to cases decreased from 10 to 9 days, meeting the Department’s FY 2014 performance 

target. 

Additionally, the Department has multiple offices and TA centers providing assistance around 

privacy to the field. The Privacy, Information, and Records Management Services (PIRMS) 

office assisted in coordinating work among offices and TA centers. For example, the 

Department implemented biweekly meetings with partners such as the Office of Education 

Technology to present a coherent public position about privacy protections in personalized 

learning and with OSERS to provide TA around IDEA confidentiality provisions. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

Resource constraints present a number of challenges in providing TA to approximately 

14,000 school districts and several thousand institutions of higher education. While the primary 

target audience for TA is schools and school districts, the Department also provides support on 

a limited basis to the third-party vendor community. By working directly with vendors, schools 

and districts are afforded a greater assortment of privacy-friendly resources. 

An additional challenge remains in updating systems and redesigning processes, both for 

technical assistance and complaints. FY 2014 was the first year the Department had significant 

metrics for evaluating service delivery, and the Department will continue to use these metrics to 

improve assistance provided to education stakeholders. 

While the Department met the FY 2014 performance target in this area, continued progress is 

limited by resources and by the slowness of resolution for major policy issues relating to 

FERPA. Activity in the field on student privacy issues, from new state statutes, to policy 

statements, to pledges, to coordinating with other enforcement agencies presents a challenge in

mobilizing proactive efforts. 

Objective 5.3: Research, Evaluation, and Use of Evidence 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

The Department, in consultation with OMB, has determined that performance toward this 

objective is making noteworthy progress. Systemic improvement requires research and 

evaluation so that decision makers at the national, state, and local levels have reliable evidence 

to identify the effective practices and to inform their actions. Supporting more discretionary 

grants with evidence will ensure scarce dollars are more likely to have the intended impact and 

will empower states and districts to become more dynamic learning organizations. 

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 2014, a total of five competitions in OII, OESE, and OPE incentivized 

evidence in competitions through eligibility requirements, competitive preference priorities, and 

selection criteria. In addition, four competitions asked that applicants design evaluations of their 

proposed projects that will produce evidence. The Department surpassed the FY 2014 

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 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 71

evidence in FY 2015 competitions. Projections include, at a minimum, the following 

discretionary grant programs that will reward evidence in their FY 2015 competitions: 

 Supporting Effective Educator Development 

 First in the World 

 Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools 

 i3

 TRIO—Student Support Services 

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 the ERIC—track the Department’s progress in 

providing unbiased, rigorous assessments of “what works” and in making 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 pushing forward in promising areas of 

education research and development. 

The WWC reviews and summarizes studies of the effectiveness of education interventions and, 

during FY 2014, surpassed by 4.3 percent the Department’s target for the number of studies 

reviewed. Reviews of studies submitted by applicants to Department grant competitions 

contributed to the larger-than-anticipated number of studies reviewed. 

Likewise, in FY 2014, the Department updated its ERIC selection policy to prioritize acquisition 

of peer-reviewed, full-text education research and began renegotiating agreements with content 

providers to enable ERIC to acquire the full text of peer-reviewed articles from research 

supported with FY 2012 or later funding from the Department’s IES. This work contributed to 

surpassing the FY 2014 annual performance target by 3.9 percent for the number of full-text, 

peer-reviewed resources in ERIC. 

Challenges and Next Steps:

The process to collect data and track progress against the goal is still under development, and 

using evidence to award competitive grants entails a shift in culture and capacity building across 

the Department to do it well. Building evidence into competitions is also resource intensive in 

terms of program staff capacity, grantee capacity, and the review process. Additionally, goal 

targets 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. 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. 

The Department’s leadership will continue explaining to internal stakeholders how the new 

evidence framework in 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 and in formula programs, 

particularly SIG. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 72

 EPG is also exploring ways to support program offices that choose to incorporate evidence 

and build capacity departmentwide. For example, EPG is exploring the establishment of 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. 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. 

 The Department’s RELs continue to develop resources and conduct webinars on the 

creation of logic models to support program design and evaluation. 

 EPG has compiled several evidence and evaluation resources and is in the process of 

identifying a central location in which to house them so that all Department staff can access 

them. 

As the pace of evidence generation quickens, a key challenge for the WWC is to quickly update 

Intervention Reports—that is, summaries of all of the research on a given intervention (not just a 

summary of one study)—with new findings as they become available. With this in mind, the 

Department has begun a major effort to improve the WWC databases in order to support 

dynamically generated reports that can auto-update when a new study of an intervention is 

reviewed. The Department also intends for the WWC to use this database to create simpler, 

more graphic summaries of evidence for practitioner and policymaker audiences. 

Next steps for the Department’s ERIC investment include incorporating 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 Department’s WWC and ERIC 

investments will contribute to the “virtuous cycle” of using and producing research evidence that 

also is supported by grant programs that incentivize use of research. 

Objective 5.4: Technology and Innovation

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

The Department of Education, in consultation with OMB, has determined that performance 

toward this objective is making noteworthy progress. The Department had many successes 

during FY 2014, 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. 

Based on input from the superintendents, the White House hosted a “ConnectED to the Future” 

superintendent summit that recognized superintendents from across the country for their 

leadership and provided opportunities for leaders to share lessons learned and help 

disseminate promising approaches for transforming learning through technology from across the 

nation. 

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” 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 73

superintendent summit: Future Ready Schools: Empowering Educators through Professional 

Learning and Future Ready Schools: Building Technology Infrastructure for Learning. The 

Department also issued guidance 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. 

The Department provided direct support to the President’s ConnectED Initiative, which sets four 

clear goals to transition to digital learning across the country in five years: Upgraded 

Connectivity, Access to Learning Devices, Supported Teachers, and Digital Learning Resources 

(see Explanation and Analysis of Progress for objective 4.1 for more information). As part of that 

effort, the FCC is investing $2 billion over the next two years to expand high-speed Internet 

connectivity dramatically for America’s schools and libraries and another $2 billion for wireless 

connectivity within schools—connecting 20 million more students to next-generation broadband 

and wireless. In addition, private sector companies have also committed more than $2 billion to 

deliver cutting-edge technologies to classrooms, including devices, free software, teacher 

professional development, and home wireless connectivity. 

In November 2014, the Department co-hosted, with the White House Office of Science and 

Technology Policy, a convening at the White House on innovation in higher education, which 

focused on providing expert guidance in technology models and issues relevant to 

postsecondary education, competency-based education, and workforce development. This 

kicked off an intensive collaboration with the White House and other agencies to conceptualize 

an Online Skills Academy in anticipation of a Department of Labor grant solicitation. 

Finally, in response to the President’s call to action to create compelling educational software, in 

collaboration with the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Department 

hosted the first-ever White House Education Game Jam, the culminating event of an education 

games week. Over the weekend of September 6–7, 2014, more than 100 game developers and 

dozens of teachers, learning researchers, and students gathered to develop fun, innovative 

ways to address content that teachers and students had previously identified as particularly 

difficult to teach and learn via traditional approaches. This will be followed by the creation of an 

app developer’s toolkit—the first guidance from the Department specifically for developers of 

educational software. The Department’s goal through the Game Jam and the development of 

the toolkit is to increase interest in the development of highly engaging tools and apps for 

education and show that college- and career-ready standards can be achieved in creative and 

engaging ways. 

Challenges and Next Steps:

Several challenges remain in meeting the goals of this objective, including the fact that there is 

no ongoing funding for activities to support the development and adoption of new technologies. 

External barriers to success include educating 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. 

Risk mitigation strategies include requesting ongoing budget funding, seeking external 

foundation funding to support the work, and proposing rapid evaluation of effectiveness of 

technologies through the pooled evaluation fund authority. Concerns around privacy and data 

security are more difficult to predict, but continue to be addressed through outreach and 

communication efforts. Although external data sources indicate that the established FY 2014 

performance target was met, more reliable and robust surveys of the state of the field in regards 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 74

to the appropriate and effective use of connectivity and technology will be key to accurately 

assessing the Department’s contributions to this goal. 

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. 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 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 75

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 percentage22 

Metric 6.1.B: EVS engagement index23

Metric 6.1.C: Time to hire 

Metric 6.1.D: Effective Communication Index24

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 reports25

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

Metric 6.4.A: Number of ED information technology (IT) security incidents 

 

22 Percent resulting from dividing number of all agency positions into unfilled agency vacancies.

23 Based on positive Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS, also referred to as “EVS”) responses.

24 Based on positive FEVS responses.

25 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 governmentwide 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/cparsfiles/pdfs/Improving_Compliance.pdf).
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 76

Metric 6.4.B: EVS Results-Based Performance Culture Index26

Metric 6.4.C: EVS Leadership and Knowledge Management Index27

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 2014

FY 2015

FY 2016

$481

$469

$533

(Dollars in millions)

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities28 Supporting Goal 6 Performance Metrics 

[Dollars in Millions]

POC Account Obj. Program

FY 2014

Appropriation

FY 2015 

Appropriation

FY 2016 

President’s 

Budget

OIG OIG Office of Inspector General 58 58 59

DM/PA Program Administration: Building modernization - - 14

DM/PA Program Administration: Salaries and expenses 423 411 460

TOTAL, GOAL 6 481 469 533

NOTES: Many programs may have sub-activities that relate to other goals. 

Detail may not add to total due to rounding. 

Public Benefit 

To ensure the achievement of the Department’s mission critical objectives, grants and contract 

management will remain a strategic focus for improvement in long- and short-term initiatives. 

Additionally, strengthening human capital strategies, competencies and resources, along with 

 

26 Based on positive FEVS (also referred to as “EVS”) responses.

27 Based on positive FEVS responses.

28 All the programs listed are discretionary programs, as distinct from mandatory programs. These include both 

competitive and non-competitive programs.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 77

the continuous improvement of IT security and technologically enhanced work environments, 

continue to be priorities needed to support those objectives. The stated initiatives aim to 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 will also continue to focus on human capital management and acquire and 

build a skilled and knowledgeable workforce; rethink how it monitors and intervenes with highrisk grantees, as well as contractors; enhance workforce productivity through information 

technology and performance management; and transform the way the Department interacts with 

states, districts, institutions of higher education, and other grantees and stakeholders across the 

country. The expected transformation will result in improved performance results, increased 

stakeholder collaboration, and greater employee engagement. 

In FY 2014, the Department developed a new approach to workforce and succession planning 

and used a strategic approach to identify organizational capabilities, establish areas of expertise 

and challenges, and to continue building a sustainable, skilled workforce. 

Goal 6: Details

U.S. Department of 

Education Capacity

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals Targets

2012 2013 2014 2014 2015 2016

Objective 6.1: Effective Workforce. Continue to build a skilled, diverse, and engaged workforce within the Department.

6.1.A. Staffing gaps 

percentage

Year: 2013

15%

Not 

Collected 15% 4%

15%

MET 15% 15%

6.1.B. EVS engagement 

index1

Year: 2012

64.7% 64.7% 66% 67% 66.0%MET 69% 71%

6.1.C. Time to hire2 Year: 2013

65%

Not 

Collected 65% 85%

66%

MET 68% 69%

6.1.D. Effective 

Communication Index3

Year: 2012

48% 48% 49.6% 50% 49%MET 50% 51%

Objective 6.2: Risk Management. Improve the Department’s program efficacy through comprehensive risk management and 

grant and contract monitoring.

6.2.A. Percentage of A133 Single Audits 

Overdue for resolution

Year: 2012

57% 57% 52% 37% 50%MET 43% 37%

6.2.B. Compliance rate of 

contractor evaluation 

performance reports

Year: 2013

85%

Not 

Collected 85% 97%

95%

MET 100% 100%

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.

6.3.A. Percentage of 

states who annually rate 

the Department’s 

technical assistance as 

helping build state 

capacity to implement 

education reforms

Year: 2013

54%

Not 

Collected 54% 75% 58%MET 67% 77%

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.

6.4.A. Number of ED IT 

security incidents4

Year: 2012

756 756 755 445 718MET 682 648

6.4.B. EVS ResultsBased Performance 

Culture Index

Year: 2012

53% 53% 54% 56% 54%MET 56% 57%

6.4.C. EVS Leadership 

and Knowledge 

Management Index

Year: 2012

60% 60% 61% 61% 61%MET 62% 63%
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 78

U.S. Department of 

Education Capacity

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals Targets

2012 2013 2014 2014 2015 2016

6.4.D. Total usable 

square footage5

Year: 2012

1,563,641 1,563,641 1,573,317 1,533,239 1,525,937NOT MET 1,525,937 1,459,937

6.4.E. Rent cost6 Year: 2014

$74.3M $64.6M $71.7M $74.1M $74.3MMET $80.3M $80.3M

NA = Not applicable. 

1

 The Department is revising the performance targets established in the FY 2013 Annual Performance Report and FY 2015 Annual 

Performance Plan for later years to be more ambitious. 

2

 Time from the date the hiring request is received in HCCS to the initial employment offer. 2013 data are based on OPM’s 80-day 

model. During Quarter 3 of FY 2014, the Department began basing time-to-hire on 90 days, which factors in position classification at 

the beginning of the hiring cycle, to provide greater accuracy and improve reengineering effort to gain efficiencies. The baseline data 

are not being changed due to the nominal difference in the time-to-hire when reviewing the number of actions processed in each 

quarter. 

3

 Positive response rate to FEVS (also referred to as “EVS”) questions 53, 58, and 64. 

4

 An incident, as defined under federal guidelines, is a violation of computer (cyber) policy or practices. Some incidents, by nature, 

are significant and require reporting to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) United States Computer Emergency Readiness 

Team (US-CERT). The significant reportable incidents are associated with unauthorized access; successful denial of service 

attacks; successful installation and execution of malicious code; and improper usage—i.e., personally identifiable information (PII) 

breaches. 

5

 Baseline updated to reflect previous year’s data. 

6

 The Department of Education currently leases 27 buildings, occupying 1,533,239 usable square feet of space, costing $74.3M in 

FY 2014. By FY 2018, the Department will reduce its number of leases to 25 and its space footprint from 1,533,239 to 1,202,319 

(21%). Without the above footprint reductions, the Department’s FY 2018 rent costs would escalate to $91M; however, the Space

Modernization Initiative reduces the FY 2018 cost by $23.5 million (25.7%) to $67.8M. Rent savings in FY 2015–17 are offset by 

rent escalations in those fiscal years. Assumptions: 1) All leased buildings: 2% is applied for anticipation of CPI (Consumer Price 

Index) annual increases on the anniversary date of the active lease/occupancy agreement (OA); and 2.5% is applied for anticipation 

of annual tax increases; 2) All federal buildings: 2.5% is applied for operating cost escalations on the anniversary date of the active 

OA; 3) 20% is applied to all federal buildings after an OA has expired and a new OA is unavailable. (Projected increase on the 

appraisal); 4) 40% is applied to all leased buildings after an OA has expired and a new OA is unavailable. (Projected increase on the 

market rent); 5) If a new OA is unavailable, 3 months early rent is applied to all buildings that are relocating due to possible 

Department delays. Example: Changes made to the designs after space specifications are completed; and 6) 3 months late rent is 

applied to all buildings that are relocating due to possible Department delays. Example: Delays in returning space back to rentable 

condition. Actual for FY 2014 varies slightly from baseline to reflect 4th quarter data versus baseline established in 1st quarter. 

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. Workforce Transformation Tracking System (WTTS) and Entrance on Duty System (EOS); quarterly 

6.1.D. OPM Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (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. The Reform Support Network Annual State and CoP Leads Survey (administered Q3 2014); 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 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 79

Analysis and Next Steps by Objective

Objective 6.1: Effective Workforce 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress:

The Department’s strategic goals support postsecondary education, career and technical 

education, adult education, elementary and secondary education, early learning, equity, and 

continuous improvement of the United States education system. To accomplish this, the 

Department’s workforce must be in the right position, at the right time, and with the right skills, 

led by skilled and engaging supervisors and managers. The Department is revising supervisory 

training to expand core skills such as human capital management, budgeting, and information 

technology, and it will be published by the end of FY 2015. The Department is focusing on 

enhancing employee productivity by aligning priorities and goals at every level in the 

organization with the Department’s strategic objectives. The Department has seen incremental 

progress in FEVS results. Since 2010, the Department has improved scores in the Employee 

Engagement Index of the FEVS from 62.6 percent to 66.6 percent in 2014. In FY 2015, the 

Department will implement a 12-month engagement strategy based on the FEVS results and 

monitor progress continuously. 

The Department has an important role to play in providing differentiated support and technical 

assistance to those pursuing this challenging work—even while continuing to improve the 

quality and reduce the burden of its fundamental stewardship function. To do so, the Human 

Capital Office worked with all Departmental offices to use the Workforce Transformation and 

Tracking System (WTTS). This system allows the Department to track the hiring of employees 

with the right skills. In conjunction with the Department’s Talent Management System, career 

paths and developmental plans help retain and train Department employees. 

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 options for 

recruitment, staffing, and retention, the Department is better poised to provide consistent 

oversight, execution, and support for its various programs. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

The Department and its principal offices (POs) will evaluate offices’ current and future

competency needs and begin recruiting and hiring to meet those needs. Each PO must continue 

its efforts of evaluating each position prior to its becoming vacant to determine where there are 

opportunities to begin internal job sharing or training, while building pipelines for entry level 

personnel. The Department will continue working with POs to ensure current staff are receiving 

the right training to meet the mission needs and future hiring of staff is based on those needs. 

The Department realizes the challenge of budget constraints coupled with low attrition, which 

can limit the ability to hire under current employee ceilings.

Objective 6.2: Risk Management 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

Risk management plays a critical role in enhancing the capacity of grantees to implement 

needed reforms. It helps assess the ability of applicants to fulfill grant requirements, focus grant 

monitoring efforts, and identify performance challenges that can be addressed through 

measures such as enhanced technical assistance. Risk management is also an essential 

aspect of contract monitoring, which is achieved by actively assessing program and 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 80

performance risks inherent in contracts through oversight and support and issuance of policy 

and guidance to program and contract officials. 

The Department significantly reduced the number of overdue audits by resolving more audits 

timely and reducing the backlog of existing overdue audits. Of all A-133 audits that were 

unresolved at the end of FY 2014, only 37 percent were overdue. The Department also greatly 

increased compliance with contractor evaluation performance reporting requirements, and has 

the best compliance rate in the federal government with 97 percent. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

The Department will continue supporting offices with the greatest number of overdue audits to 

reduce the number of overdue audits. In addition, the Department will increase compliance with 

contractor evaluation performance reporting requirements. In FY 2014, the system for recording 

past performance changed to allow contractors a 60-day comment period instead of the 

previous 30-day period. Unless the contractor comments earlier, the agency receives credit for 

compliance only after this 60-day comment period. In FY 2015, every Government agency’s 

compliance target is 100 percent, even though only two agencies met their FY 2014 

performance targets (Departments of Education and Housing and Urban Development), and the 

Department of Education was the only agency to exceed 95 percent. Based on performance to 

date and the change to the contractor comment period, reaching the remaining 5 percent to 

achieve the 100 percent target will be a challenge and require significant Department resources. 

The Departmental management will work with Contracting Officers to ensure that Past 

Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) compliance metrics reflect accurate 

information on outstanding contractor evaluation performance reports.

Objective 6.3: Implementation and Support 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

One of the primary challenges facing SEAs today is the shift from a compliance focus to one of 

building capabilities and capacity needed to lead education reform initiatives effectively and 

support school districts and schools with performance management. Over the past 12 years, 

SEAs have taken on stronger leadership and policy development roles, and key federal 

programs, such as programs under the ESEA as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 

2001 (NCLB), including SIG, as well as programs under ARRA, such as RTT, have also helped 

to create a more robust role for SEAs and their increasing role of supporting districts and 

schools. 

In response to this new environment, the Department recently implemented a reorganization of 

OESE to consolidate a number of offices into the new OSS. The OSS is designed to provide 

improved state-centered support across related Department 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. The 

reorganization was approved in the fourth quarter of FY 2014 and the OSS was created on 

October 5, 2014. The matrix organization model adopted by the OSS ensures that a state has a 

primary contact within the Department and this individual serves as the liaison across key stateadministered 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 OSS builds on the state-focused 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 81

support work that the Department has undertaken over the past several years through RTT, 

SIG, and ESEA Flexibility. 

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 establishing new processes and procedures, and the transition will take 

place gradually over the next year. Challenges include clear delegation of responsibilities, 

appropriate professional development and support for staff, and relevant outreach and

communication internally and externally. 

Building new and stronger relationships with states and stakeholders who are affected by 

Department reforms and grants requires significant outreach and effort. The Department will 

have continuous communication with stakeholders and grantees to share lessons learned 

across grantees and non-grantees and with the general public. The Department will use its 

communications channels, such as its printed publications, the Homeroom blog site, the 

PROGRESS blog, the Education Reform Hub, an OSS technical assistance site, YouTube 

videos, and speeches to tell the stories of success so that the public can learn from reforms 

being implemented at the state and local levels.

Objective 6.4: Productivity and Performance Management

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

The Department of Education, in consultation with OMB, has highlighted this objective as a 

focus area of improvement. The Department’s workforce must be in the right position, at the 

right time, with the right skills, and at the right cost, led by skilled and engaging supervisors and 

managers to support its mission. The Department is focusing on enhancing employee 

productivity and aligning performance management practices with Departmental strategic 

objectives by aligning priorities and goals at every level in the organization. The Department 

must manage changing technology, a more mobile workforce, and increased efficiency of 

workspace. 

To date, the Department eliminated staffing classification backlogs, reduced the shortage of 

trained human capital practitioners, and established performance metrics to align with 

competency-based training. The Department established performance metrics for all Office of 

Management employees to include customer service, operations or production work, and 

general project management. In addition, the performance metrics established a link to all 

federal certification programs. All employees’ certification programs are part of their Individual 

Development Plans and are tailored to their areas of responsibility. Both employees and 

managers are held accountable for performance standards at their grade level. 

The Department reduced the number of reportable IT security incidents during FY 2014. The 

reduction is due to a better educated workforce, improved IT security response capabilities, and 

the introduction of new automated capabilities that intercept a hostile cyber activity or alert IT 

security response teams before such an adverse event becomes an actual IT security incident. 

The Department completed development of a five-year project plan and a business case of the 

Department’s Space Modernization Program. Such a major project involves many underlying 

elements to ensure success, including training managers for transition, improving management 

of a more remote workforce, and changing the nature of a performance culture. The Department 

revised the related internal guidance document with targets for space utilization rates consistent 

with OMB and the General Services Administration’s (GSA) Freeze the Footprint program 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 82

requirements. The Department is also updating its telework policies and helping managers learn 

to oversee employees when they are not in the office physically. The Department has started to 

implement a more robust telework program by providing mobile workers with 21st century IT 

tools, strengthening performance management practices, promoting cultural acceptance of a 

mobile workforce, and offering a new practical training workshop on how to implement telework 

policies effectively. Finally, the Department increased records management assistance to POs 

as they assessed their current records inventory and identified records that could be purged, 

archived, or digitized to reduce their file space footprint. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

POs should focus on developing and achieving measurable results within their human capital 

performance metrics. Training managers on writing meaningful performance metrics, providing 

ongoing feedback, and providing clear examples of accomplishments for each performance 

level will be critical for both managers and employees. Future metrics must align with the 

Department’s strategic plan and should cascade from executive, to manager and supervisor, 

and to the workforce, ensuring that all Department employees have performance metrics that 

link to the strategic plan.

The Department continued implementation and optimization of its automated response 

capabilities. These efforts will reduce the number of security incidents in FY 2015 and FY 2016. 

Additional training for the Department’s third-party partners will reduce the potential for 

Personally Identifiable Information (PII) disclosures and ensure the proper protection of our 

customers’ information.

Employee engagement is a critical component in supporting the changes to workspace, work 

patterns, and technology. The General Services Administration will continue to provide support 

through its National Workplace Engagement program. The Department will work with each PO 

to make the overall transition successful. Continued development of a robust telework program 

by the Department will add to the success of the overall program. 

Selected Strategies to Achieve Goal 6

The Department must support the learning and development of its leaders so that they can 

assess employee competency gaps and developmental needs, distinguish performance versus 

conduct issues, and provide meaningful and ongoing feedback to employees so that employees 

are accountable for producing or exceeding the expected results. 

The 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. 

Finally, the Department must work with POs to develop customized change management 

strategies necessary to successful redesign and reduction of the Department’s space. By 

consolidating units, renegotiating leases, and making reductions in the needed space, the 

Department will cut its overall space footprint by more than half. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 83

Management Priorities and Challenges

The Department continues to make a substantive commitment and investment in improving its 

working capacity and infrastructure. Goal 6 of the Strategic Plan (U.S. Department of Education 

Capacity: Improve the organizational capacities of the Department to implement the Strategic 

Plan) supports those aims by ensuring that the Department’s hiring, staffing, training, culture, 

systems, and procedures enable the Department to deliver programs and resources in ways 

that are faster, smarter, and better year after year. Thus, the commitment and the investments 

are both short- and long-range in nature. 

Examples of the Department’s employee-focused strategies are seen in prioritizing greater 

employee engagement, diversity, and inclusion, and on expanding leadership and knowledge 

management efforts in mission-support operations such as IT customer service. Because the 

Department aims to be a best place to work, the Department has created a workgroup on 

employee engagement to work on key areas for improvement, including formalized supervisor 

and peer recognition, intensive manager training and development pilots, increased 

development and usage of telework policies and flexibilities, and employee wellness, lifestyle 

balance, and volunteerism campaigns. 

IT delivery is another area where the Department has committed considerable resources. The 

Office of the Chief Information Officer has pushed for greater technology innovation to improve 

the workload capacity for employees. Efforts to improve security, gain efficiency in storage, 

improve network service and responsiveness, increase system speed, and increase the 

footprint of Wi-Fi and other wireless and mobility solutions in the Department’s facilities and for 

those working remotely, have significantly improved the employee computing experience. These 

efforts have clarified the Department’s needs and provide a clear vision for how technology can 

help employees in their work. 

The Department has also made significant progress on Cybersecurity, one of the President’s 

mission CAP goals. During FY 2014, the Department significantly reduced the number of threats 

and risks, including security breaches. For example, the technology group saw a nearly 

150 percent increase in the number of grantees who now use personal identity verification (PIV) 

to electronically sign grant award notices. These advances resulted from the Department’s 

proactive strategies to seek innovation. 

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. 

Last year OIG presented five management challenges. Although OIG noted some progress by 

the Department in addressing these areas, each remains as a management challenge for 

FY 2015. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 84

The FY 2015 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 is published by the OIG. To view the full report, go to: 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/managementchallenges.html. 

OIG noted some progress by the Department in addressing the FY 2014 management 

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.

Lower-Priority Program Activities 

The Cuts, Consolidations and Savings volume of the President’s Budget identifies the lowerpriority program activities, where applicable, as required under the GPRA Modernization Act of 

2010, 31 U.S.C. 1115(b)(10). The public can access the volume at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget. 
FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 85

Appendices 
FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 86

This page intentionally left blank. 
APPENDICES

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 87

Appendix A: Data Validity and Verification

The Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010 requires 

agencies to describe the accuracy and reliability of data presented. During 2014, the

Department continued to strengthen its approach to data verification and validation. 

Specifically, the Department improved its documentation of the processes used to 

collect, verify, and validate data. The Department also reassessed the quality and 

limitations of the data. Details of how the Department assesses the completeness 

and reliability of the data reported are presented as part of this Appendix. Known 

limitations of the data are also included. 

To my knowledge, the data verification and validation process and the data sources 

used provide, to the extent possible, complete and reliable performance data 

pertaining to goals and objectives in our FY 2014–18 Strategic Plan. 

Through a process of continuous improvement, the Department continues to assess 

its validation process and welcomes input from stakeholders. 

/s/ 

Arne Duncan 

February 2, 2015 
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION 

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 88

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

of data presented. OMB guidance indicates: 

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

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

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

websites). Agencies should discuss their verification and validation techniques with their 

respective OMB Resource Management Office, if necessary. The transmittal letter 

included in Annual Performance Reports must contain an assessment by the agency 

head of the completeness and reliability of the performance data presented and a 

description of agency plans to improve completeness, reliability, and quality, where 

needed.

29

The data presented in the Department’s FY 2013 Annual Performance Report and FY 2015 

Annual Performance Plan were described as being obtained from five basic sources (i.e., 

statistical data, program and enforcement data collections, monitoring and grant applications, 

management information systems or business operations, and external (nonstatistical) data 

sources). Although these types of data may still apply to the performance metrics, in this year’s 

report the metrics are presented by goal instead of being categorized by data source. 

Below is a list of metrics with information on data quality, limitations, and improvements. 

 

29 OMB Circular A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget, Part 6, Section 260.9, 2014. 
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION 

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 89

FY 2014–18 Strategic Plan Public-Facing Metrics

GOAL 1: POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION, CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION, AND ADULT EDUCATION.

Increase college access, affordability, quality, and completion by improving postsecondary education 

and lifelong learning opportunities for youths and adults.

# Metric Data Source Data Quality, Limitations, and Improvements

1.1.A Rate of increase in net price of

public four-year institutions

Integrated 

Postsecondary 

Education Data System 

(IPEDS) Data Center

Average net price is calculated only on the universe of students who 

receive financial aid. It does not include students who are attending 

college without financial aid. Thus, the metric represents the average 

net price for a subset of students and is not representative of the cost 

of college for all students.

Data quality and limitations are identified in IPEDS First Look 

Publications, “Data Collection Procedures,” and IPEDS methodology 

available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014067.pdf. 

Graduation Rates for Selected Cohorts, 2005–10; and Student 

Financial Aid in Postsecondary Institutions, Academic Year 2012–13: 

First Look (Provisional Data) NCES 2014—NCES Number: 2014105

Release Date: November 20, 2014 available at: 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2014105.

Postsecondary Institutions and Price of Attendance in 2013–14; 

Degrees and Other Awards Conferred: 2012–13; and 12-Month 

Enrollment: 2012–13: First Look (Provisional Data), available at: 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2014066rev.

1.1.B Rate of increase in net price of

public two-year institutions

IPEDS Data Center

1.1.C Percentage of high school seniors 

filing a FAFSA

The denominator is the 

number of graduating 

seniors according to the 

most recent projection 

by NCES. The 

numerator is from 

Federal Student Aid’s 

(FSA’s) Central 

Processing System and 

is based on the number 

of applications during 

the first nine months of 

Since the FAFSA does not ask the year of high school graduation, 

several assumptions and criteria are made (such as age of applicant) 

to identify those likely to be high school seniors. These assumptions 

and criteria are applied consistently across all baseline year and future 

calculations.

These calculations also restrict the application period to the first nine 

months of the application cycle (the close of the fiscal year), rather 

than the entire 18 months. Because most applicants, including high 

school seniors, file their FAFSA prior to the start of the upcoming 

academic year (usually before fiscal year end), this decision better 

aligns the performance metric with the fiscal year where most of the 
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 90

# Metric Data Source Data Quality, Limitations, and Improvements

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.

performance occurred. The alternative is waiting for the close of the 

18-month cycle, where a performance metric would mostly reflect 

performance from an earlier fiscal year.

1.1.D Index of national annual aggregate 

earnings of VR consumers (based 

on the number of competitive 

employment outcomes, hours 

worked, and hourly wages of VR 

consumers)

Rehabilitation Services 

Administration (RSA)-

911

Instructions for submitting the RSA-911 data are provided to agencies. 

Agency questions for coding particular data elements are provided by 

Data Unit staff on a case-by-case basis. 

RSA provides the agencies with the edit program that we use and are 

encouraged to run their data using the program often, at least 

quarterly, during the year. In addition, agencies have edits in their own 

systems which run additional checks.

1.1.E Index of national annual aggregate 

earnings of Transition-Age Youth 

(based on the number of 

competitive employment outcomes, 

hours worked, and hourly wages of 

VR Transition-Age Youth)

RSA-911

1.1.F Number of peer-reviewed 

publications resulting from NIDRRsupported grantee projects

NIDRR—Annual 

Performance Report 

(APR) Accomplishments 

Database

The data are self-reported by grantees in the Department’s APR 

system. Included in the baseline are all manuscripts generated by 

NIDRR grantees that are accepted for or published in a peer reviewed 

journal by the end of the evaluation period.

The verification occurs at the grantee level, the project officer level, 

and the contractor level. The validation occurs as part of the strategic 

planning with NIDRR’s data group in consultation with the contractor.

The Workforce Improvement and Opportunity Act (WIOA) transfers the 
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 91

# Metric Data Source Data Quality, Limitations, and Improvements

NIDRR from the Department to Health and Human Services. For that 

reason, the Department is considering removing this metric.

1.1.G Number of VR state directors and 

other state VR personnel who 

express knowledge of NIDRR 

grantee research

New VR state director 

survey

This data collection effort is planned to be an annual survey item. 

However, the baseline data are not yet collected as the contract and 

process for collecting the data are not finalized and may not be.

The Workforce Improvement and Opportunity Act (WIOA) transfers the 

NIDRR from the Department to Health and Human Services (HHS).

The Department does not know if HHS will choose to collect these 

data. For that reason, the Department is considering removing this 

metric.

1.2.A Number of low-performing 

institutions with high loan default 

rates and low graduation rates

FSA Cohort Default Rate 

(CDR) Report, 

September 2014

IPEDS Data Center

The number of low-performing Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) 

is calculated by first identifying institutions with a cohort default rate of 

30% or higher (the threshold that jeopardizes an institution’s access to 

federal financial aid if that level is sustained for three consecutive 

years). The graduation rate within 150% of normal time for each of 

those IHEs is then extracted from IPEDS, along with the transfer-out 

rate, if applicable, and the two rates are combined to create a 

“completion rate.” If the completion rate is below the average 

completion rate for similar types of U.S. Title-IV eligible IHEs—

separately categorized as four-year, two-year, and less-than-twoyear—then the IHE is included in the number of low-performing 

institutions. Community colleges that offer a limited number of 

bachelor’s degrees, which are categorized as four-year (primarily 

associate’s degree-granting) institutions in IPEDS, are treated as twoyear IHEs in terms of calculating graduation rates and the comparable 

average completion rate. For four-year IHEs, the graduation rate is 

based on the degree- or certificate-seeking cohort, not the bachelor’sseeking cohort, since many four-year IHEs offer certificates and 

associate’s degrees in addition to bachelor’s degrees, and thus the 

broader cohort is more indicative of their performance. Institutions 

which do not have a graduation rate cohort (degree-seeking, first-time, 

full-time students) and thus no comparable graduation/completion rate 

are not included in the count. The calculation includes an assumption 

that the cohort default rates for all institutions for the baseline year will 

not change. In actuality, institutions can appeal their rates after 

publication and, if justified, those rates may be changed, thus changing 

the record from one year to the next. This means the baseline number, 

or the number in any given year, may not be replicable using revised 
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 92

# Metric Data Source Data Quality, Limitations, and Improvements

data in subsequent reports.

Graduation rate data quality and limitations are identified in IPEDS 

First Look Publications, “Data Collection Procedures,” and IPEDS 

methodology available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014067.pdf.

Data are checked by NCES for consistency.

CDR data quality and limitations are available at 

http://ifap.ed.gov/DefaultManagement/finalcdrg.html.

The cohort default rate data, which serves as the basis of the 

spreadsheet, is verified by FSA prior to publication. Because the 

process for manually entering the completion rate data is so laborintensive, there is not a process for Independent Verification and 

Validation (IV&V) verifying the accuracy of the process for extracting 

the data from IPEDS or the accuracy of the data that has been entered 

into the spreadsheet.

1.3.A Degree attainment among 25–34-

year-old age cohort

NCES Digest of 

Education Statistics, 

Table 104.30 

(http://nces.ed.gov/progr

ams/digest/d13/tables/dt

13_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 data, U.S. 

Census

Data quality and limitations are documented in 

http://www.census.gov/cps/files/Source%20and%20Accuracy.pdf. 

NCES tabulates the data, which is verified prior to publication 

according to NCES guidelines. 

1.3.B Retention rate of first-time degreeseeking undergraduates; Full-timeIPEDS Data Center The retention rate is calculated based on degree-seeking, first-time 

undergraduates at degree-granting U.S. institutions that participate in 

Title IV.

Institutions employ a variety of methods for determining degreeseeking status to determine which students to include in the cohort, but 

none of these methods is foolproof. Furthermore, a student who 

transfers to another institution in the second year will be considered as 

not retained, suppressing the aggregate rate. (Retention in this context 

1.3.C Retention rate of first-time degreeseeking undergraduates; Part-timeIPEDS Data Center
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 93

# Metric Data Source Data Quality, Limitations, and Improvements

is at the reporting institution so transfer-outs are not retained at the 

institution.) Consequently, the retention rate is only an approximation 

of true retention. 

Data quality and limitations are identified in IPEDS First Look 

Publications, “Data Collection Procedures,” and IPEDS methodology 

available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014067.pdf. Data are 

checked by NCES for consistency.

1.4.A Number of STEM postsecondary 

credentials awarded

IPEDS Data Center IPEDS collects completions by Classification of Instructional Programs 

(CIP) Code which may be aggregated into STEM and non-STEM 

counts. The Department of Education does not currently have a single 

definition for which CIP codes are STEM.

Data quality and limitations are identified in IPEDS First Look 

Publications, “Data Collection Procedures,” and IPEDS methodology 

available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014067.pdf. Data are 

checked by NCES for consistency.
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 94

GOAL 2: ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION. Improve the elementary and secondary education 

system’s ability to consistently deliver excellent instruction aligned with rigorous academic standards 

while providing effective support services to close achievement and opportunity gaps, and ensure all 

students graduate high school college- and career-ready.

# Metric Data Source Data Quality, Limitations, and Improvements

2.1.A Number of states that have adopted 

college- and career-ready 

standards

Elementary and 

Secondary Education 

Act (ESEA) 

Flexibility Monitoring

The Office of Elementary and Secondary Education’s (OESE) new 

(and aforementioned) Office of State Support, which replaces and 

enhances services previously provided by the Office of Student 

Achievement and School Accountability (SASA), the Office of School 

Turnaround, and the Implementation and Support Unit (ISU), will count 

the number of states that either (a) have a memorandum of 

understanding in place to implement the Common Core or (b) have a 

letter from an Institute for Higher Education in their state certifying that 

their state has college- and career-ready standards. There are no 

known data limitations.

2.1.B Number of states that are 

implementing next-generation 

reading and mathematics 

assessments, aligned with collegeand career-ready standards

ESEA Flexibility 

Monitoring

The Office of Elementary and Secondary Education’s (OESE) OSS,

which replaces and enhances services previously provided by the 

SASA, the Office of School Turnaround, and the ISU, monitors states 

that receive ESEA Flexibility waivers in three phases over the threeyear waiver. Monitoring includes desk monitoring and on-site 

monitoring. OSS state leads use a monitoring protocol and rubric to 

ensure that monitoring is consistent across all states. OSS state leads 

work with their Group Leader to finalize monitoring reports. All reports 

are reviewed by both the Group Leader for Monitoring and Technical

Assistance and the OSS Director for consistencies across states. 

States have an opportunity to review the draft report before the final 

report is issued. There are no known data limitations.
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 95

# Metric Data Source Data Quality, Limitations, and Improvements

2.2.A Number of states that have fully 

implemented teacher and principal 

evaluation and support systems that 

consider multiple measures of 

effectiveness, with student growth 

as a significant factor

ESEA Flexibility 

Applications and 

Monitoring

The Office of Elementary and Secondary Education’s (OESE) OSS, 

which replaces and enhances services previously provided by the 

SASA, the Office of School Turnaround, and the ISU, monitors states 

that receive ESEA Flexibility waivers. Monitoring includes desk 

monitoring and on-site monitoring. OSS state leads use a monitoring 

protocol and rubric to ensure that monitoring is consistent across all 

states. OSS state leads work with their Group Leader to finalize 

monitoring reports. All reports are reviewed by both the Group Leader 

for Monitoring and Technical Assistance and the OSS Director for 

consistencies across states. States have an opportunity to review the 

draft report before the final report is issued.

Additionally, Chief State School Officers must sign each state’s ESEA 

Flexibility request before it is approved. There are no known data 

limitations.

2.3.A Disparity in the rates of out-ofschool suspensions for students 

with disabilities and youth of color 

(youth of color metric)

Civil Rights Data 

Collection (CRDC)

The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) strives to ensure CRDC data are an 

accurate and comprehensive depiction of student access to 

educational opportunities in school districts. The submission system 

includes a series of embedded edit checks to ensure significant data 

errors are corrected before the district submits its data. Additionally, 

each district is required to certify the accuracy of its submission. Only a 

district superintendent, or the superintendent’s designee, may certify 

the CRDC submission. Ultimately, the quality of the CRDC data 

depends on accurate collection and reporting by the participating 

districts.

2.3.B Disparity in the rates of out-ofschool suspensions for students 

with disabilities and youth of color 

(SWD, IDEA only metric)

CRDC
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 96

# Metric Data Source Data Quality, Limitations, and Improvements

2.4.A Number of persistently low 

graduation rate high schools

EDFacts EDFacts works with the data stewards (in this case OESE) to 

determine the appropriate business rule checks for these data. The 

checks that were done on these data include:

 File validation and format checks: Identifies file submissions that 

don’t conform with the file format (unable to be processed), the data 

universe (school/LEA/state directory), or the reporting requirements 

(mandatory reporting fields).

 SAS Data Quality Reviews: Post submission checks to determine 

completeness, consistency, and comparability.

 DataFlux Data Quality Rules: Post submission checks to determine 

completeness, consistency, and comparability.

 Submission Edit Business Rules: While not utilized for the 2012–13 

data collection, several of the post-submission business rule checks 

performed in SAS and DataFlux for 2012–13 have been 

implemented against the 2013–14 submission (and beyond).

At the end of a collection period these rules are run against the 

submitted data and presented to the program office. It is the 

responsibility of the program office (OESE in this case), in consultation 

with the EDFacts staff, to determine which errors should be escalated 

to the state for further review. Many of these errors were sent along to 

the state for remediation (data explanation/update/correction). OESE 

should be considered the point-of-contact for identifying which rules 

were escalated and the result of those escalations.

Data concerns from 2011–12 were documented in the NCES data 

release report 

(http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2014391). The 

data limitations for the 2012–13 are not yet complete and neither 

NCES nor OESE are prepared, at this time, to identify the data quality 

concerns with the 2012–13 submission. If these data are once again 

released by NCES, then work will be done to impute any missing data 

for states and to produce a national estimate. The imputation 

methodology and data limitations will be documented at that time as 

was done for the 2011–12 data release. This work is still pending and 

any discussion of the data limitations and/or concerns at this time 

would be premature.
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 97

# Metric Data Source Data Quality, Limitations, and Improvements

Path to public release and national rates: For each collection cycle 

states report their calculated cohort counts and ACGR graduation 

rates. These counts and rates are tested against a number of business 

rules for format, consistency, completeness, and comparability. Those 

business rule checks are delivered to the Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education (OESE) for follow-up correspondence with the 

state(s). The program office, in consultation with NCES EDFacts staff 

and other stakeholders, meet to determine which issues identified by 

the business rules should be raised with the state for explanation, 

update, or correction. Following that review, data are then aggregated 

to the national level for the purpose of calculating and publishing a 

national rate. NCES processes these data to force conformity of 

reporting categories (mapping reported “Major Racial/Ethnic Groups” 

to the traditional 5 racial/ethnic groups) and imputes any missing data 

(3 states were imputed for 2011–12, 1 will be for 2012–13, no 

imputations are expected to be necessary for 2013–14 forward). After 

imputations are made, NCES produces a weighted national average 

rate for the country as a whole; a rate which is representative of every 

state. Once produced, NCES documents any remaining issues with 

these data, and the aggregation and imputation methodology in a 

release report. That report, documentation, and the associated data 

tables are put through several stages of review including independent 

reviews at the division (Administrative Data), center (NCES), and 

agency (IES) levels prior to public dissemination.

2.4.B Percent of Cohort 1 priority schools 

that have met the state exit criteria 

and exited priority school status

EDFacts ESEA Flexibility plans do not allow for one standard methodology to 

determine whether or not a school “met the state exit criteria.” This will 

need to be looked at manually, state-by-state, once the list of schools 
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 98

# Metric Data Source Data Quality, Limitations, and Improvements

2.4.C Percent of Cohort 1 focus schools 

that have met the state exit criteria 

and exited focus school status

EDFacts exiting priority status has been identified.

EDFacts works with the data stewards (in this case OESE) to 

determine the appropriate business rule checks for these data. The 

checks that were done on these data include:

 File validation and format checks: Identifies file submissions that 

don’t conform with the file format (unable to be processed), the 

data universe (school/LEA/state directory), or the reporting 

requirements (mandatory reporting fields).

 SAS Data Quality Reviews: Post submission checks to determine 

completeness, consistency, and comparability.

 DataFlux Data Quality Rules: Post submission checks to determine 

completeness, consistency, and comparability.

 Submission Edit Business Rules: While not utilized for the 2012–

13 data collection, several of the post-submission business rule 

checks performed in SAS and DataFlux for 2012–13 have been 

implemented against the 2013–14 submission (and beyond).

At the end of a collection period these rules are run against the 

submitted data and presented to the program office. It is the 

responsibility of the program office (OESE in this case), in consultation 

with the EDFacts staff, to determine which errors should be escalated 

to the state for further review. Many of these errors were sent along to 

the state for remediation (data explanation/update/correction). OESE 

should be considered the point-of-contact for identifying which rules 

were escalated and the result of those escalations.

Data concerns from 2011–12 were documented in the NCES data 

release report 

(http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2014391). The 

data limitations for the 2012–13 are not yet complete and neither 

NCES nor OESE are prepared, at this time, to identify the data quality 

concerns with the 2012–13 submission. If these data are once again 

released by NCES, then work will be done to impute any missing data 

for states and to produce a national estimate. The imputation 

methodology and data limitations will be documented at that time as 
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 99

# Metric Data Source Data Quality, Limitations, and Improvements

was done for the 2011–12 data release. This work is still pending and 

any discussion of the data limitations and/or concerns at this time 

would be premature.

Path to public release and national rates: For each collection cycle 

states report their calculated cohort counts and ACGR graduation 

rates. These counts and rates are tested against a number of business 

rules for format, consistency, completeness, and comparability. Those 

business rule checks are delivered to the Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education (OESE) for follow-up correspondence with the 

state(s). The program office, in consultation with NCES EDFacts staff 

and other stakeholders, meet to determine which issues identified by 

the business rules should be raised with the state for explanation, 

update, or correction. Following that review, data are then aggregated 

to the national level for the purpose of calculating and publishing a 

national rate. NCES processes these data to force conformity of 

reporting categories (mapping reported “Major Racial/Ethnic Groups” 

to the traditional 5 racial/ethnic groups) and imputes any missing data 

(3 states were imputed for 2011–12, 1 will be for 2012–13, no 

imputations are expected to be necessary for 2013–14 forward). After 

imputations are made, NCES produces a weighted national average 

rate for the country as a whole; a rate which is representative of every 

state. Once produced, NCES documents any remaining issues with 

these data, and the aggregation and imputation methodology in a 

release report. That report, documentation, and the associated data 

tables are put through several stages of review including independent 

reviews at the division (Administrative Data), center (NCES), and 

agency (IES) levels prior to public dissemination.

2.5.A Percentage of high school and 

middle school teachers who teach 

STEM as their main assignment 

who hold a corresponding 

undergraduate degree

Schools and Staffing 

Survey (SASS), NCES

The methods report for the 2011–12 SASS is not yet released. Study 

documentation from the 2007–08 survey is available at 

http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/methods0708.asp.
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 100 

# Metric Data Source Data Quality, Limitations, and Improvements

2.5.B Number of public high school 

graduates who have taken at least 

one STEM AP exam

College Board/AP 

administrative records

The College Board does not collect or report race/ethnicity based on 

the federal guidelines. Examinees are asked to select one of the 

options noted in the data. The College Board Public School List is 

updated annually by state educational agencies; thus small changes to 

the list over time are to be expected as schools open, close, and/or 

merge. Students are assigned to graduating cohorts based on selfreported information (i.e., grade level and/or graduation year) provided 

at the time of registration (in the case of SAT) or test administration (in 

the case of AP and PSAT). The College Board matches students’ data 

across programs to identify the most recent valid value when assigning 

students to cohorts.
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 101 

GOAL 3: EARLY LEARNING. Improve the health, social-emotional, and cognitive outcomes for all 

children from birth through 3rd grade, so that all children, particularly those with high needs, are on 

track for graduating from high school college- and career-ready.

# Metric Data Source Data Quality, Limitations, and Improvements

3.1.A Number of states with Quality 

Rating and Improvement Systems 

(QRIS) that meet high quality 

benchmarks for child care and other 

early childhood programs

Child Care 

Development Fund 

(CCDF) Report of 

States Plans with 

annual updates from 

states and territories 

(HHS/Office of 

Childcare)

The data are self-reported by the states in their CCDF state plans. In 

addition, the data do not take into account the participation or coverage 

of the QRIS systems.

3.2.A Number of states and territories with 

professional development systems 

that include core knowledge and 

competencies, career pathways, 

professional development capacity 

assessments, accessible 

professional development 

opportunities, and financial support 

for childcare providers

Child Care 

Development Fund 

(CCDF) Report of State 

Plans (HHS/Office of 

Childcare)

The data are self-reported by the states in their CCDF state plans. In 

addition, the data do not take into account the participation or coverage 

of the professional development systems.

3.3.A Number of states collecting and 

reporting disaggregated data on the 

status of children at kindergarten 

entry using a common measure

Race to the Top (RTT)-

Early Learning 

Challenge Technical 

Assistance Center (ELC 

TA)

The data are limited to the 20 RTT-ELC states. 

Department staff has requested KEA data be collected in the 2015–16 

academic year as part of the National Center for Education Statistics 

(NCES) State of Preschool data collection and has requested to add 

KEA data reporting in EDFacts. In addition, the new Preschool 

Development Grants will provide data on additional states.
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 102 

GOAL 4: EQUITY. Increase educational opportunities for underserved students and reduce 

discrimination so that all students are well-positioned to succeed.

# Metric Data Source Data Quality, Limitations, and Improvements

4.1.A National high school graduation rate EDFacts EDFacts works with the data stewards (in this case OESE) to 

determine the appropriate business rule checks for these data. The 

checks that were done on these data include:

 File validation and format checks: Identifies file submissions that 

don’t conform with the file format (unable to be processed), the 

data universe (school/LEA/state directory), or the reporting 

requirements (mandatory reporting fields).

 SAS Data Quality Reviews: Post submission checks to determine 

completeness, consistency, and comparability.

 DataFlux Data Quality Rules: Post submission checks to 

determine completeness, consistency, and comparability.

 Submission Edit Business Rules: While not utilized for the 2012–

13 data collection, several of the post-submission business rule 

checks performed in SAS and DataFlux for 2012–13 have been 

implemented against the 2013–14 submission (and beyond).

At the end of a collection period these rules are run against the 

submitted data and presented to the program office. It is the 

responsibility of the program office (OESE in this case), in consultation 

with the EDFacts staff, to determine which errors should be escalated 

to the state for further review. Many of these errors were sent along to

the state for remediation (data explanation/update/correction). OESE 

should be considered the point-of-contact for identifying which rules 

were escalated and the result of those escalations.

Data concerns from 2011–12 were documented in the NCES data 

release report 

(http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2014391). The 

data limitations for the 2012–13 are not yet complete and neither 

NCES nor OESE are prepared, at this time, to identify the data quality 

concerns with the 2012–13 submission. If these data are once again

released by NCES, then work will be done to impute any missing data 
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 103 

# Metric Data Source Data Quality, Limitations, and Improvements

for states and to produce a national estimate. The imputation 

methodology and data limitations will be documented at that time as 

was done for the 2011–12 data release. This work is still pending and 

any discussion of the data limitations and/or concerns at this time 

would be premature.

Path to public release and national rates: For each collection cycle 

states report their calculated cohort counts and ACGR graduation 

rates. These counts and rates are tested against a number of business 

rules for format, consistency, completeness, and comparability. Those 

business rule checks are delivered to OESE for follow-up 

correspondence with the state(s). The program office, in consultation 

with NCES EDFacts staff and other stakeholders, meet to determine 

which issues identified by the business rules should be raised with the 

state for explanation, update, or correction. Following that review, data 

are then aggregated to the national level for the purpose of calculating 

and publishing a national rate. NCES processes these data to force 

conformity of reporting categories (mapping reported “Major 

Racial/Ethnic Groups” to the traditional 5 racial/ethnic groups) and 

imputes any missing data (3 states were imputed for 2011–12, 1 will 

be for 2012–13, no imputations are expected to be necessary for 

2013–14 forward). After imputations are made, NCES produces a 

weighted national average rate for the country as a whole; a rate 

which is representative of every state. Once produced, NCES 

documents any remaining issues with these data, and the aggregation 

and imputation methodology in a release report. That report, 

documentation, and the associated data tables are put through several 

stages of review including independent reviews at the division 

(Administrative Data), center (NCES), and agency (IES) levels prior to 

public dissemination.

4.2.A Percentage of proactive civil rights 

investigations launched annually 

that address areas of concentration 

in civil rights enforcement

Office for Civil Rights’ 

(OCR) Case 

Management System 

(CMS) and Document 

Management (DM) 

systems

The Contracts and Acquisition Management/Case Management 

database utilized to collect data for this metric has built-in validation 

checks (such as requiring certain data elements and valid date 

entries), as well as automated entries based on other information 

entered into the system by staff, to reduce errors in data entry. OCR 

also employs additional safeguards to ensure data accuracy such as 
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 104 

# Metric Data Source Data Quality, Limitations, and Improvements

4.2.B Percentage of proactive civil rights 

investigations resolved annually 

that address areas of concentration 

in civil rights enforcement

Office for Civil Rights’ 

(OCR) Case 

Management System 

(CMS) and Document 

Management (DM) 

systems

(1) periodic monthly checks to address missing or inconsistent entries, 

(2) publication of guidance materials including data entry 

requirements, codes, definitions, checklist and protocol for staff 

responsible for entering data; and (3) additional training and support 

for primary users inputting the data.
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 105 

GOAL 5: CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT OF THE U.S. EDUCATION SYSTEM. Enhance the education 

system’s ability to continuously improve through better and more widespread use of data, research and 

evaluation, evidence, transparency, innovation, and technology.

# Metric Data Source Data Quality, Limitations, and Improvements

5.1.A Number of public data sets included in ED 

Data Inventory and thus linked to Data.gov or 

ED.gov websites

Data Strategy Team Data 

Inventory and the public 

ED Data Inventory at 

http://datainventory.ed.gov

The data are validated with a crosswalk between Inventory 

entries and the listing of public Department datasets, 

ensuring that the data described in the ED Data Inventory 

is publicly available at the identified web address.

5.1.B Number of states linking K-12 and 

postsecondary data with workforce data

State Longitudinal Data 

Systems (SLDS) grant 

monitoring (monthly 

updates from states, 

annual performance 

reports, final performance 

reports, and site visits)

Data are collected through monitoring of states with active 

SLDS grants. The data are limited to this population. While 

47 states and territories have received these grants over 

time, by June 2015, there will be fewer than 25 states with 

active grants, which leads to incomplete and not up-to-date 

data from states that either have not receive grants or that 

do not have active grants.
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 106 

# Metric Data Source Data Quality, Limitations, and Improvements

5.1.C Number of states linking K-12 with early 

childhood data

SLDS grant monitoring 

(monthly updates from 

states, annual 

performance reports, final 

performance reports, and 

site visits)

States project teams report data based on current grants. If 

the state is focusing on an early childhood data system, the 

state’s reporting might reflect only those development 

efforts, and not statewide P20W (preschool to college 

workforce) development efforts. There are additional 

sources for information about state data linkages in the 

field. For example the Data Quality Campaign (DQC) 

conducts surveys of state capacity to collect, store, link, 

and use data. Because the Department does not use the 

same definitions as DQC, our figures tend to be lower than 

theirs. For example, we require that a state possess the 

capacity to follow its own students in order for us to report 

that the state has the linkage in place. Similarly, we enable 

states to report on whether particular linkages are planned, 

in progress, or complete, and report that a state has a 

linkage when the state reports that the project is complete; 

DQC might give a state credit for an “in progress” or pilotstage linkage.

A survey administered to the universe of states and 

territories would enable more systematically collect data 

about all states’ capacity for data linkages and data use.

There is a concern, however, that if those data were to be 

used for public reporting, states might begin to overstate 

their capacities, particularly on data that are also publicly 

reported by organizations such as DQC. Currently, data 

from monitoring is used in an iterative, formative approach 

to program improvement; our technical assistance program 

is designed to support states’ efforts to improve their 

systems. This relies on states being honest about their own 

internal capacities.
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 107 

# Metric Data Source Data Quality, Limitations, and Improvements

5.2.A Average time to close “cases” (PTAC + 

FPCO)

Case Tracking System 

(CTS)

The term “case” refers to requests for quick, informal 

responses to routine questions related to student privacy.

These requests are received via email, the Family Policy 

Compliance Office (FPCO)/Privacy Technical Assistance 

Center (PTAC) resource website, or by telephone and 

subsequently entered into the Case Tracking System 

(CTS).

The preliminary data for this metric are reviewed at least 

weekly for verification. If anomalous data are identified in 

the periodic reviews or when anomalies are suspected, 

individual cases are examined individually to identify if they 

were properly closed or if their status was entered 

incorrectly. When appropriate, corrections are made. Staff 

responsible for entering data into the CTS will continue to 

be trained on policies and procedures. Quarterly monitoring 

of data entered will be conducted to assure completeness 

and reliability of data and to recommend any improvements 

to the CTS or modifications to the standard operating 

procedures.

5.3.A Percentage of select new (non-continuation) 

discretionary grant dollars that reward 

evidence

Department calculations 

based upon multiple 

Department-controlled 

data sources, including 

G5

In determining which discretionary grants are considered 

“evidence-based” (i.e., the numerator when calculating the 

percentage), the Department includes all programs that 

rewarded applicants with supporting evidence of promise or 

better (per the EDGAR evidence framework). This could be 

done through a competitive preference or absolute priority, 

an eligibility requirement, or a selection factor. Only the 

amounts of the grants awarded for those projects were 

counted. In determining what counts as discretionary 

funding (i.e., the denominator when calculating the 

percentage), the Department includes all programs for 

which the EDGAR evidence framework could conceivably 

work. Specifically, we determined that NIDRR and RSA are

unlikely to find the evidence framework useful, and did not 

count funding for those programs in the denominator.
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 108 

# Metric Data Source Data Quality, Limitations, and Improvements

5.3.B Number of peer-reviewed, full-text resources 

in the Education Resources Information 

Center (ERIC)

Education Resources 

Information Center (ERIC)

To be counted as a full-text, peer-reviewed article in ERIC, 

the document had to be indexed in ERIC and designated 

with a “peer-reviewed” and “full-text” flag, both of which are 

available on the public ERIC website.

The ERIC contractor uses specified quality assurance 

procedures. In addition, the IES program officer pays close 

attention to the metric in their review of deliverables.

5.3.C Number of reviewed studies in the What 

Works Clearinghouse (WWC) database

What Works 

Clearinghouse (WWC)

To be counted as a reviewed study, the study had to be 

listed in the What Works Clearinghouse’s publicly available 

Database of Reviewed Studies. 

The What Works Clearinghouse contractors use specified 

quality assurance procedures. In addition, the IES program

officers pay close attention to the metric in their review of 

deliverables.

5.4.A Percentage of schools in the country that 

have actual internet bandwidth speeds of at 

least 100 Mbps

Education Superhighway, 

CoSN/AASA E-rate 

Infrastructure Survey

The Department uses an external data source for this 

metric and relies on the external, third party’s verification 

and validation methodology. Based on the information 

provided (http://cosn.org/cosns-second-annual-e-rate-andinfrastructure-survey), the response rate for this survey 

may not be sufficient to ensure that the data are 

representative of all districts in the country. The 

Department is exploring the feasibility of collecting data on 

access to and use of education technology from a 

representative sample of schools and districts across the 

country. In the meantime, we believe these data are the 

best currently available and provide useful information to 

gauge progress on this metric.
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 109 

GOAL 6: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CAPACITY. Improve the organizational capacities of 

the Department to implement this strategic plan.

# Metric Data Source Data Quality, Limitations, and Improvements

6.1.A Staffing gaps percentage Mission Critical 

Occupation (MCO) 

Staffing Gap Report

The Department’s Budget Service obtains the staffing gap 

data from the Department’s Federal Personnel and Payroll 

System (FPPS) Datamart roster and separations reports. 

As FPPS is a user-driven system, the data used for the 

Mission Critical Occupation (MCO) Staffing Gap Report are 

only as reliable as the data that are entered into FPPS. 

Human Capital and Client Services (HCCS) intends to 

improve data in FPPS by updating standard operating 

procedures, implementing process maps, and training 

customers and HCCS staff to follow these new processes 

when entering data into the system.

6.1.B EVS Engagement Index Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) 

Federal Employee 

Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) 

results

Any questionable FEVS data points are brought to the 

attention of OPM. In turn, the OPM point of contact 

responds to the inquiry. Further, if there are questions 

regarding the FEVS data, the Department works with the 

OPM point of contact to obtain clarity.

The 2013 appendix A indicated that the Department would 

work to increase the participation rate to reduce nonresponse bias in the FEVS data. However, in 2014 the 

participation rate decreased from 68.9% in 2013 to 63.3% 

in 2014.
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 110 

# Metric Data Source Data Quality, Limitations, and Improvements

6.1.C Time to hire Workforce Transformation 

Tracking System (WTTS) 

and Entrance on Duty 

System (EOS)

Data are pulled biweekly and tested. Results are tracked 

and analyzed for consistency and monitored for patterns or 

trends; anomalies are identified and explored to determine 

root cause and then corrected (or work-around developed 

and noted pending further analysis/correction). The data 

are entered into the systems by Department customers and 

Human Capital and Client Services (HCCS) staff, so quality 

of data, and in-turn the quality of the final calculations, are 

only as reliable as the information entered into the system.

As HCCS continues to reduce the shortage of trained 

human capital practitioners and staff become more 

proficient leveraging systems’ capabilities and streamlining 

processes, we expect data quantity and quality will 

increase which will negate the need to have an order of 

precedence for substitute/back up data when measured 

data points are missing.

Even though the 90 Day Model’s time to hire methodology 

was successfully advanced from initial concept to a stable, 

sustainable agency-wide process in less than a year, it has 

not undergone peer review or independent verification and 

validation to validate its rigor. Facilitated peer review is the 

recommended next step to ensure continued Departmentwide application of this metric as a meaningful measure. 

6.1.D Effective Communication Index Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) 

Federal Employee 

Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) 

results

Any questionable FEVS data points are brought to the 

attention of OPM. In turn, the OPM point of contact 

responds to the inquiry. Further, if there are questions 

regarding the FEVS data, the Department works with the 

OPM point of contact to obtain clarity.

The 2013 appendix A indicated that the Department would 

work to increase the participation rate to reduce nonresponse bias in the FEVS data. However, in 2014 the 

participation rate decreased from 68.9% in 2013 to 63.3% 

in 2014. 
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 111 

# Metric Data Source Data Quality, Limitations, and Improvements

6.2.A Percentage of A-133 Single Audits Overdue 

for resolution

Office of the Chief 

Financial Officer’s (OCFO) 

Audit Accountability & 

Resolution Tracking 

System (AARTS)

Calculations for this metric are determined by dividing the 

total number of audits that are overdue at the end of the 

Department’s fiscal year by the total number of audits in the

Department’s inventory. 

Access rights to the AARTS database are managed by 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) and all users 

receive annual IT security training to help ensure data 

integrity. A Quality Control reviewer initiates a weekly 

upload of A-133 audit data to AARTS through a file 

submission directly from the Federal Audit Clearinghouse

(FAC). An AARTS administrator (separate from the Quality 

Control reviewer) must verify the uploaded data with the 

actual audits. Data for individual programs are verified by 

Principal Offices (POs) through periodic review by 

Responsible Managers and Audit Liaison Officials. In 

addition, the specific data for this metric are verified by POs 

each month as part of monthly Dashboard reports.

Data are validated by OCFO monthly. Staff work to 

reconcile data reported on the Dashboards with any 

discrepancies reported by the POs.

6.2.B Compliance rate of contractor evaluation 

performance reports

Past Performance 

Information Retrieval 

System, www.ppirs.gov, 

“PPIRS Compliance 

Report”

Compliance rates of contractor performance evaluations 

are set by OMB and are calculated by use of a Government 

wide reporting tool available in the PPIRS (www.ppirs.gov).

Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) staff analyzes 

the PPIRS report weekly to ensure that each contractor 

performance evaluation reflected on that report should 

appear on that report, and to rectify any errors on the 

report.
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 112 

# Metric Data Source Data Quality, Limitations, and Improvements

6.3.A Percentage of states who annually rate the 

Department’s technical assistance as helping 

build state capacity to implement education 

reforms.

The Reform Support 

Network Annual State and 

CoP Leads Survey 

(administered Q3 2014)

The source for the data is the Race to the Top (RTT)

Annual Leads Survey, which was sent to all 19 Race to the 

Top Phase 1, 2 and 3 states. Because RTT is a 

discretionary program, we only surveyed grantee states 

who received direct technical assistance.

The data collection process includes online survey software 

with questions in which respondents click on the 

appropriate response choice and data is then downloaded 

directly to analysis software. By configuring the online 

software and downloading the data directly, we reduce the 

opportunities for human error in data entry. Additionally, we 

utilize data quality assurance procedures which include 

having analysts review the data by hand upon download 

and run basic descriptive statistics to illustrate downloading 

issues, sample size concerns, variable integrity, data types, 

and other potential data concerns. We then merge with 

existing data files using established syntax which provides 

a further check to identify potential data errors. Merged 

data is examined again for potential data concerns. These 

procedures are used across a number of federal projects 

and are well-established and effective for verifying data 

integrity.

6.4.A Number of ED IT security incidents Operational Vulnerability

Management Solution 

(OVMS) System

Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) has standard 

operating procedures (SOP) to verify and validate the data: 

1) OVMS SOP, 2) Incident Response Tracking SOP, and 

3) OVMS Checklist. This process is executed on a weekly 

basis.

6.4.B EVS Results-Based Performance Culture 

Index

Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) 

Federal Employee 

Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) 

results

Any questionable FEVS data points are brought to the 

attention of OPM. In turn, the OPM point of contact 

responds to the inquiry. Further, if there are questions 

regarding the FEVS data, the Department works with the 

OPM point of contact to obtain clarity.

The 2013 appendix A indicated that the Department would 

work to increase the participation rate to reduce nonresponse bias in the FEVS data. However, in 2014 the 

participation rate decreased from 68.9% in 2013 to 63.3% 

in 2014.

6.4.C EVS Leadership and Knowledge 

Management Index

Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) 

Federal Employee 

Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) 

results
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 113 

# Metric Data Source Data Quality, Limitations, and Improvements

6.4.D Total usable square footage Department’s Master 

Space Management Plan

Because usable square footage relates directly to rent 

costs, the Department uses the same data verification and 

validation procedures. Specifically, the data are collected 

directly from Occupancy Agreements and rent bills per 

building.

The data are derived from historic examples and relevant 

experience. Department leadership has agreed to a set of 

assumptions by which the data are based. Leadership has 

reached out to subject matter experts to broaden the scope 

of the data set, and lower risks of missing contingencies 

that may affect the data. At each step, the data are 

reviewed independently to double check the work of each 

team member and provide quality control. These processes 

help ensure the data’s completeness and reliability. 

For the baseline data, the Department made the following 

assumptions: 

1) All leased buildings: 2% is applied for anticipation of CPI 

(Consumer Price Index) annual increases on the 

anniversary date of the active lease/occupancy agreement 

(OA); and 2.5% is applied for anticipation of annual tax 

increases. 

2) All federal buildings: 2.5% is applied for operating cost 

escalations on the anniversary date of the active OA. 

3) 20% is applied to all federal buildings after an OA has 

expired and a new OA is unavailable. (Projected increase 

on the appraisal.) 

4) 40% is applied to all leased buildings after an OA has 

expired and a new OA is unavailable. (Projected increase 

on the market rent.) 

5) If a new OA is unavailable, 3-months early rent is applied 

to all buildings that are relocating due to possible 

Department delays. Example: Changes made to the 

designs after Scope of Work (SOW) is completed. 
APPENDICES

DATA VALIDITY AND VERIFICATION

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 114 

# Metric Data Source Data Quality, Limitations, and Improvements

6) 3-months late rent is applied to all buildings that are 

relocating due to possible Department delays. For example, 

delays in returning space back to a rentable condition. 

The Department reconciles its rent bills per building on a 

monthly basis.

6.4.E Rent cost Department’s Master 

Space Management Plan

The rent is based on the above assumptions. Data are 

collected directly from Occupancy Agreements and rent 

bills per building. The actual rent may vary significantly if 

the Department relocates to a new leased building and/or 

signs short lease extensions. The Department is leveraging 

the examples and experience of the mobility labs and 

building consolidations programs.

The Department reconciles its rent bills per building on a 

monthly basis. Every six months, leadership will re-evaluate 

the data, the assumptions on which it is based, and 

incorporate actual costs and project schedules. These 

steps will become part of our quality assurance program 

and procedures. Leadership looks to improve 

completeness, reliability, and quality of the data at these 

milestones.
APPENDICES

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 115 

Appendix B: Additional Programs by Goal

Most of the Department’s 100-plus programs are funded through discretionary appropriation 

acts enacted each fiscal year. However, there are many education programs—some of them 

large—that are funded directly through their authorizing statutes. For many budgeting purposes, 

these programs are classified as mandatory. For the purposes of this document, resources by 

goal are discretionary funds only. Mandatory programs that contribute to each goal are listed 

below. 

Goal 1: Postsecondary Education, Career and Technical Education, 

and Adult Education

Other discretionary Goal 1 programs/activities include the following: 

POC Account Objective Program

FSA DM/SAA Health Education Assistance Loans program 

FSA SFA 1.1 Federal supplemental educational opportunity grants 

FSA SFA 1.1 Federal work-study 

OCTAE HE 1.3 Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions 

OESE HE n/a Special programs for migrant students 

OPE HE 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 Aid for institutional development: Strengthening institutions

OPE HE 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 Aid for institutional development: Strengthening tribally controlled colleges and 

universities 

OPE HE 1.1, 1.3 Child care access means parents in school 

OPE HE College Housing and Academic Facilities Loans Program Account: Federal 

administration 

OPE HE 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 Developing Hispanic-serving institutions 

OPE HE 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 First in the World/College Completion Initiative

OPE HE 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education

OPE HE 1.1 Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs (GEAR UP)

OPE HE 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 GPRA data/HEA program evaluation 

OPE HE 1.3 Graduate assistance in areas of national need 

OPE HE Historically Black College and University Capital Financing Program Account: Federal 

administration 

OPE HE Historically Black College and University Capital Financing Program Account: Loan 

subsidies

OPE HE Howard University Hospital 

OPE HE 1.2, 1.3 Howard University: General support 

OPE HE n/a International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs 

OPE HE n/a International education and foreign language studies: Overseas programs 

OPE HE 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 Minority science and engineering improvement 

OPE HE 1.1, 1.2 Model transition programs for students with intellectual disabilities into higher 

education

OPE HE 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 Promoting post-baccalaureate opportunities for Hispanic Americans

OPE HE 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 Strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions 

OPE HE 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 Strengthening Asian American- and Native American Pacific Islander-serving 

institutions 

OPE HE 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 Strengthening HBCUs 

OPE HE 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 Strengthening historically Black graduate institutions 

OPE HE 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 Strengthening Native American-serving nontribal institutions 

OPE HE 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 Strengthening predominately Black institutions 

OPE HE Training for real-time writers 

OSERS GU 1.2, 1.3 Gallaudet University

OSERS NTID 1.2, 1.3 National Technical Institute for the Deaf

OSERS REHAB 1.1 Helen Keller National Center for Deaf-Blind Youths and Adults

OSERS REHAB 1.1 VR Training

n/a = Not available. 
APPENDICES

ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS BY GOAL

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 116 

Mandatory programs supporting Goal 1 include: 

POC Account Objective Program

FSA DM/SAA Student Aid Administration: Not-for-profit servicers

FSA FDSL 1.1 Federal Direct Student Loans Program Account: Downward modification of existing 

loans (non-add)

FSA FDSL 1.1 Federal Direct Student Loans Program Account: Downward re-estimate of existing 

loans (non-add)

FSA FDSL 1.1 Federal Direct Student Loans Program Account: Net re-estimate of existing loans 

(non-add)

FSA FDSL 1.1 Federal Direct Student Loans Program Account: Net re-estimate of existing loans 

(non-add)

FSA FDSL 1.1 Federal Direct Student Loans Program Account: New net loan subsidy (non-add)

FSA FDSL 1.1 Federal Direct Student Loans Program Account: Upward modification 

FSA FDSL 1.1 Federal Direct Student Loans Program Account: Upward re-estimate of existing loans

FSA FFEL 1.1 Federal Family Education Loans Liquidating Account: Pre-1992 student loans

FSA FFEL 1.1 Federal Family Education Loans Program Account: Downward modification of existing 

loans (non-add)

FSA FFEL 1.1 Federal Family Education Loans Program Account: Downward re-estimate of existing 

loans (non-add)

FSA FFEL 1.1 Federal Family Education Loans Program Account: Net modification of existing loans 

(non-add)

FSA FFEL 1.1 Federal Family Education Loans Program Account: Net re-estimate of existing loans 

(non-add)

FSA FFEL 1.1 Federal Family Education Loans Program Account: New net loan subsidies (non-add)

FSA FFEL 1.1 Federal Family Education Loans Program Account: Upward modification of existing 

loans

FSA FFEL 1.1 Federal Family Education Loans Program Account: Upward re-estimate of existing 

loans

FSA FPL 1.1 Federal Perkins Loan Program 

FSA HEAL 1.1 Health Education Assistance Loans Liquidating Account 

FSA SFA 1.1 Federal Pell grants: Mandatory 

FSA SFA 1.1 Federal Pell grants: Mandatory funding for discretionary program costs 

FSA SFA 1.1 Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grants 

FSA TEACH 1.1 TEACH Grants: Downward re-estimate of existing loans (non-add)

FSA TEACH 1.1 TEACH Grants: Net re-estimate of existing loans (non-add)

FSA TEACH 1.1 TEACH Grants: New loan subsidy

FSA TEACH 1.1 TEACH Grants: Upward re-estimate of existing loans 

OPE HE 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 Aid for institutional development: Mandatory strengthening tribally controlled colleges 

and universities 

OPE HE 1.1, 1.2 America's college promise (proposed legislation)

OPE HE 1.1 College access challenge grant program 

OPE HE College Housing and Academic Facilities Loans Liquidating Account 

OPE HE College Housing and Academic Facilities Loans Program Account Re-estimate of 

existing loan subsidies

OPE HE College Housing Loans Liquidating Account 

OPE HE College opportunity and graduation bonus (proposed legislation)

OPE HE Higher Education Facilities Loans Liquidating Account 

OPE HE Historically Black College and University Capital Financing Program Account: Reestimate of existing loan subsidies

OPE HE 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 Mandatory developing HSI STEM and articulation programs 

OPE HE 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 Mandatory promoting post-baccalaureate opportunities for Hispanic Americans 

OPE HE 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 Mandatory strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions 

OPE HE 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 Mandatory strengthening Asian American- and Native American Pacific Islanderserving institutions 

OPE HE 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 Mandatory strengthening HBCUs 

OPE HE 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 Mandatory strengthening Native American-serving nontribal institutions 

OPE HE 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 Mandatory strengthening predominantly Black institutions 

OPE HE 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 Masters degree programs at HBCUs and predominantly Black institutions 

OSERS REHAB 1.1 Vocational rehabilitation, Grants to Indians

OSERS REHAB 1.1 Vocational rehabilitation, state grants

SFA CHAFL downward re-estimate of loan subsidies
APPENDICES

ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS BY GOAL

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 117 

POC Account Objective Program

SFA FDSL downward modification/negative loan subsidies

SFA FDSL downward re-estimate of loan subsidies

SFA FFEL downward modification/negative loan subsidies

SFA FFEL downward re-estimate of loan subsidies

SFA General receipts, not otherwise specified 

SFA HBCU capital financing downward re-estimate of loan subsidies 

SFA HEAL downward reestimate of loan subsidies

SFA Perkins Institutional fund recall (mandatory)

SFA Perkins loan negative loan subsidies 

SFA 1.1 Perkins loan repayments

SFA Proprietary receipts

SFA Student Financial Assistance debt collection 

SFA 1.1 TEACH downward modification/negative loan subsidies

SFA TEACH downward reestimate of loan subsidies

Goal 2: Elementary and Secondary Education

Other discretionary Goal 2 programs/activities include the following: 

POC Account Objective Program

OESE ED 2.4 High school graduation initiative 

OESE ED n/a State agency programs: Neglected and delinquent

OESE ED 2.2, 2.4 Striving readers 

OESE I&I n/a Advanced Placement 

OESE I&I 2.2 Excellent educators grants

OESE I&I Leveraging What Works (proposed legislation)

OESE I&I 2.2 Teacher and principal pathways (proposed legislation)

OESE IA 2.3 Impact Aid, Construction

OESE IA 2.3 Impact Aid, Facilities maintenance

OESE IA 2.2, 2.3 Impact Aid, Payments for federal property 

OESE IA 2.2, 2.3 Impact Aid, Payments for federally connected children: Basic support payments

OESE IA 2.2, 2.3 Impact Aid, Payments for federally connected children: Payments for children with 

disabilities

OESE SIP n/a Education for homeless children and youth education

OESE SIP 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 Rural education 

OESE SIP Supplemental education grants 

OESE SSS 2.3 Elementary and secondary school counseling 

OESE SSS 2.3 Physical education program 

OESE SSS 2.3 Safe and drug-free schools and communities national programs

OII I&I n/a Arts in Education

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

OII I&I 2.5 Next generation high schools (proposed legislation)

OII I&I 2.2 School leadership 

OII I&I 2.2 Teacher quality partnership 

OII I&I 2.2 Transition to teaching 

OII SIP 2.5 Mathematics and science partnerships 

OSERS APBH 2.1 American Printing House for the Blind 

OSERS SE 2.3 Parent information centers 

OSERS SE 2.2 Personnel preparation 

OSERS SE 2.2 State personnel development 

n/a = Not available. 

Mandatory programs supporting Goal 2 include: 

POC Account Objective Program

OII I&I 2.2 Teaching for tomorrow (proposed legislation)
APPENDICES

ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS BY GOAL

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 118 

Goal 3: Early Learning

Other discretionary Goal 3 programs/activities include the following: 

POC Account Objective Program

OII I&I n/a Ready-to-learn television 

OII/

OESE

I&I n/a Fund for the improvement of education: Programs of national significance

n/a = Not available. 

Mandatory programs supporting Goal 3 include: 

POC Account Objective Program

OESE SR 3.1 School Readiness: Preschool for all

Goal 4: Equity

No additional programs. 

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

Other discretionary Goal 5 programs/activities include the following: 

POC Account Objective Program

IES IES 5.3 National Assessment Governing Board

IES IES 5.3 Special education studies and evaluations

OCTAE CTAE 5.1, 5.3 Adult education national leadership activities 

OCTAE CTAE 5.3 Career and technical national programs 

OESE ED 5.3 Evaluation 

OESE IE 5.1, 5.3 Indian Education: National activities 

OESE SIP 5.1, 5.3, 5.4 Comprehensive centers 

OESE SIP 5.4 Educational technology state grants

OSERS SE 5.4 Educational technology, media, and materials

OSERS SE 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 Technical assistance and dissemination 

Goal 6: U.S. Department of Education Capacity 

Mandatory programs supporting Goal 6 include: 

POC Account Objective Program

Contributions 
APPENDICES

ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS BY GOAL

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 119 

Other

Programs/activities supporting other performance metrics include: 

(Dollars in millions) 

POC Account Program

FY 2014

Appropriation

FY 2015 

Appropriation

FY 2016 

President’s 

Budget

OSERS REHAB Assistive technology programs 33 33 -

OSERS REHAB Client assistance state grants 12 13 13

OSERS REHAB Demonstration and training programs 6 6 6

OSERS REHAB Independent living centers 78 78 -

OSERS REHAB Independent living services for older blind 

individuals 33 33 33

OSERS REHAB Independent living state grants 23 23 -

OSERS REHAB Migrant and seasonal farmworkers 1 - -

OSERS REHAB National Institute on Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research 104 104 -

OSERS REHAB Protection and advocacy of individual rights 18 18 18

TOTAL, OTHER 308 308 70

Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding. 
APPENDICES

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 120 

Appendix C: Summary of Performance Evaluations Conducted 

During FY 2014 and Expected During FY 2015–16

For a complete list of program evaluations and studies from the Office of Planning, Evaluation 

and Policy Development, please visit 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html. For a complete list of evaluation 

studies of the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, please visit 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/index.asp. 

Evaluation Reports From FY 2014

National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance

School Choice 

Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: An Early Look at Applicants and 

Participating Schools Under the SOAR Act 

1. Study Purpose: The April 2011 Scholarships and Opportunities for Results Act (SOAR Act) 

provided for a five-year continuation of a school choice program for low-income residents of 

Washington, DC. The program, still titled the Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP), now 

provides annual scholarships of $8,000 (for grades K–8) or $12,000 (for grades 9–12) to enable 

low-income students to attend private schools in DC in lieu of the public schools already 

available to them. The new law also mandated another independent, rigorous evaluation of the 

effectiveness of the program. This report explores implementation of the DC OSP in the first two 

years after the reauthorization. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 Private schools: How many participate in the OSP and what are their characteristics? 

 Applicants: What is the nature of the demand being generated for the program among 

eligible students and families? What motivates families to apply to the OSP? How 

dissatisfied were they with schools before applying and what do they want most in a new 

school for their child? 

 Scholarships: To what extent is the OSP enabling students to enroll in private schools? 

3. Design: This descriptive report relies entirely on the application forms parents filled out when 

they applied to the OSP, school characteristics from the program operator’s school directory 

and NCES databases, and scholarship award and use records from the program operator. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The final report was released in October 2014. 

5. Key Findings: 

 Just over half of all DC private schools participated in the OSP, with current schools more 

likely to have published tuition rates above the OSP scholarship amounts than did 

participating schools in the past. 

 OSP applicants under the SOAR Act represent between 3 and 4 percent of the estimated 

53,000 children in DC who meet the eligibility criterion. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 121 

 A number of awarded scholarships go unused, with students from disadvantaged schools 

and families using awarded scholarships at lower rates than others. 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20154000/pdf/20154000.pdf 

Students with Disabilities 

Evaluation of the Personnel Development Program to Improve Services and Results for 

Children with Disabilities 

1. Study Purpose: This descriptive evaluation is of the Personnel Development Program (PDP) 

funded under IDEA, Title I, Part D, Subpart 2, Sec. 662. Projects funded under the program are 

designed to help address state-identified needs for personnel in special education, and help 

ensure that special education personnel are highly qualified and that teachers have the 

necessary knowledge and skills to provide appropriate instruction to students with disabilities. A 

portion of PDP grants is awarded to National Centers, which are to provide national capacitybuilding and scientifically based products and services to a variety of audiences. Grants are also 

awarded to specific institutions of higher education to develop courses of study for special 

education teachers and other service providers. These training grants can be used to improve 

the quality of personnel preparation programs and for stipends that support students enrolled in 

the programs. The PDP was funded at $88.299 million in FY 2012. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 What products were developed and services provided by the PDP National Centers funded 

between FY 2001 and FY 2007, and at what cost? 

 What were the quality and relevance/usefulness of documented materials and technical 

assistance provided by PDP National Centers funded between FY 2001 and FY 2007? 

 What were the characteristics of funded courses of study at IHEs awarded PDP training 

grants in FY 2006 or FY 2007? 

 How did funded courses of study use PDP training grant funding? 

 How many scholars enrolled in the funded courses of study, completed their programs, or 

dropped out before completion? 

 What were the quality and relevance/usefulness of new or significantly modified components 

for funded courses of study? 

 What became of courses of study that did not receive PDP training grant funding? 

3. Design: The evaluation relied on a combination of extant data and surveys of PDP grantees 

and applicants. Panels of experts rated the quality and relevance/usefulness of products and 

services from 12 National Centers and course-of-study components developed or significantly 

modified by recipients of PDP training grants awarded in FY 2006 or FY 2007. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The report was released in winter 2014. 

5. Key Findings:

 For 15 products identified by national technical assistance center staff as their signature 

works and reviewed by independent panels of experts, the mean rating (on a scale of 1–5, 

with 5 being the highest) was 4.13 for quality and 4.25 for relevance/usefulness. For 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 122 

86 nonsignature products, the mean rating was 4.11 for quality and 3.91 for 

relevance/usefulness. 

 For 134 new or significantly modified components from 99 courses of study supported by 

PDP training grants, the mean quality rating (on a scale of 1–5, with 5 being the highest) 

was 3.71. 

 Thirty-four percent of courses of study that were not funded through FY 2006 and FY 2007 

training grant competitions were developed or maintained without PDP funding. 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20144007/

National Evaluation of the IDEA Technical Assistance and Dissemination Program: 

Interim Report 

1. Study Purpose: IDEA, which was most recently reauthorized in 2004, provides funds to assist 

states and local eduational agencies in making available a free, appropriate public education for 

children with disabilities. Funded at $12.6 billion in FY 2010, IDEA supports early intervention 

services for infants and toddlers, special education and related services for children ages 3 

through 21, and early intervening services for students not in special education but in need of 

academic or behavioral support. IES is conducting studies under Section 664 of IDEA to assess 

the implementation and effectiveness of key programs and services supported under the law. 

As specified in IDEA Part D, the Technical Assistance and Dissemination (TA&D) Program is to 

provide technical assistance, support model demonstration projects, disseminate useful 

information, and implement activities that are supported by scientifically based research to meet 

the needs of children with disabilities. The National Evaluation of the IDEA TA&D Program is 

designed to describe the products and services provided by the TA&D Program grantees, state 

and local needs for technical assistance, and the role that the TA&D Program plays in meeting 

these needs and supporting implementation of IDEA. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 What are the primary technical assistance activities of the TA&D Program? 

 What are states’ needs for technical assistance and to what extent are these needs 

addressed by TA&D centers or other sources? 

 For selected topics, to what extent are states satisfied with the products and services 

received from TA&D Program centers? 

3. Design: Data collection included administering surveys to TA&D Program grantees, all state 

IDEA Part B and Part C administrators, and a sample of state-level special education program 

staff. Data were collected between November 2012 and March 2013. State-level administrators 

and staff reported on their receipt of techincal assistance from TA&D Program grantees during 

the 2010–11 school year. Grantees reported on their goals and activities from the beginning of 

their current grant through the interview date. The funding period for the centers included in the 

interim report varied, with the earliest end date in 2012 and the latest in 2014. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: An interim report was released in October 2013. The 

final report is scheduled for completion in October 2016.
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 123 

5. Key Findings of Interim Report: 

 TA&D centers most commonly reported providing technical assistance on the topics of 

parent and family involvement and data systems and use of data for improvement. States 

identified (a) “General Supervision/Monitoring,” (b) “early childhood transition,” (c) “financing 

of services/financing for special education,” and (d) “Response to Intervention” as the topics 

for which they had the greatest need for technical assistance in 2010–11. 

 Many TA&D centers provide technical assistance on similar topics. For example, 14 states 

received “high intensity” technical assistance (i.e., frequent training or consultation) on the 

same topic from 5 different centers. This evaluation was unable to establish whether such 

cases are indicators of inefficiency or of complementary and coordinated services. 

 State staff rated the majority of technical assistance experiences they had with TA&D 

centers as “very satisfactory” (71 percent). On average, customers receiving high intensity 

technical assistance were significantly more satisfied than those receiving lower intensity 

(i.e., infrequent training and consultation or web-only support). Satisfaction did vary to some 

degree depending on the special education topic being addressed. 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20144000/pdf/20144000.pdf 

The Inclusion of Students with Disabilities in School Accountability Systems: An Update 

1. Study Purpose: The focus of this study is on the inclusion of students with disabilities (SWDs) 

in school accountability systems and the variation in school practices in schools accountable 

and schools not accountable for the performance of the SWD subgroup under ESEA.

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 To what extent are schools accountable for the performance of the SWD subgroup, and how 

does this accountability vary across schools and over time? 

 To what extent have schools accountable for the SWD subgroup been identified as needing 

improvement? 

 How does school accountability for the SWD subgroup relate to regular and special 

education practices for students with disabilities? 

3. Design: The evaluation is relying on descriptive statistics to study patterns of school 

accountability across states and over time and to examine how school practices vary with 

school accountability for the SWD subgroup. Data sources for the evaluation include extant data 

from the Department’s EDFacts database and 2011 surveys of principals and special education 

designees from elementary and middle schools in 12 states. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: This report, an update of the 2012 interim report, was 

released in October 2013. A third report, which will address the third key question listed above, 

will be released in winter 2015. 

5. Key Findings: 

This report addressed the first two key questions listed above for this study: 

 Across the 44 states with relevant data and DC, 35 percent of public schools were 

accountable for the performance of the SWD subgroup in the 2009–10 school year, 

representing 59 percent of SWDs in those states. In those same 44 states and DC, 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 124 

62 percent of middle schools were accountable for SWD performance, while 32 percent of 

elementary schools and 23 percent of high schools were accountable. 

 In 31 states with relevant data, 56 percent of public schools were not accountable for the 

SWD subgroup in any of the 4 years examined, in comparison with 23 percent of schools 

that were consistently accountable in each of the 4 years. 

 Among schools that were consistently accountable for the performance of the SWD 

subgroup across 22 states during the 4 years, 56 percent were never identified for school 

improvement over this time period. By comparison, among schools that were consistently 

not accountable for SWD subgroup performance in these states, 80 percent were never 

identified for improvement. 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20134017/

Teacher Quality 

Access to Effective Teaching for Disadvantaged Students 

1. Study Purpose: Recent Department of Education initiatives, such as RTT, the Teacher 

Incentive Fund, and the ESEA Flexibility policy, are designed in part to ensure that 

disadvantaged students have equal access to effective teaching. This study provides 

information about the extent that disadvantaged students receive less effective teaching than 

other students. The study also examines teacher mobility in participating districts and how 

patterns of mobility might contribute to unequal access. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 To what extent do disadvantaged students have equal access to effective teaching within 

school districts, and how does this change over time? 

 Is access to effective teaching related to different patterns of teacher hiring, retention, and 

mobility for high- and low-poverty schools? 

 What policies are districts implementing that could promote an equitable distribution of 

effective teachers? 

3. Design: The study is descriptive. It documents the distribution of effective teaching, as 

measured by value added, and changes in the distribution of effective teaching across the 

2008–09 through 2012–13 school years. The study also describes district polices designed to 

address inequitable distribution of effective teaching implemented during those years. Lastly, 

the study will examine teacher mobility patterns within participating districts. Data collection 

included the annual collection of district administrative records, including student achievement, 

to conduct value-added analyses as well as annual semi-structured interviews with district 

leadership to provide information on district policies. Data collection also included district 

personnel data to examine teacher mobility within participating districts. The study will be 

conducted in 29 geographically dispersed school districts. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The report was released in November 2013. 

5. Key Findings:

 On average, disadvantaged students had less access to effective teaching than relatively 

more advantaged students. Providing equal access to effective teaching for disadvantaged 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 125 

and other students would reduce the student achievement gap from 28 percentile points to 

26 percentile points in English/language arts (ELA), and from 26 percentile points to 

24 percentile points in math, in a given year. 

 Access to effective teaching patterns for disadvantaged students were similar over the three 

years studied, 2008–09 through 2010–11. 

 Access to effective teaching varied across study districts. Access ranged from districts with 

equal access to districts with differences in access as large as 0.106 standard deviations of 

student test scores in ELA and 0.081 standard deviations of student test scores in math, 

favoring relatively more advantaged students. 

 Access to effective teaching was more related to the school assignment of students and 

teachers than the way that students were assigned to teachers within schools. 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20144001/pdf/20144001.pdf

Do Disadvantaged Students Get Less Effective Teaching? Key Findings from Recent 

Institute of Education Sciences Studies 

1. Study Purpose: Recent Department of Education initiatives, such as RTT, the Teacher 

Incentive Fund, and the ESEA Flexibility policy, are designed in part to ensure that 

disadvantaged students have equal access to effective teaching. This brief provides information 

about the extent that disadvantaged students receive less effective teaching than other students 

by synthesizing findings from several IES-funded studies, including the report, “Access to 

Effective Teaching for Disadvantaged Students.” 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 What do three IES-funded studies on teacher distribution conclude about equitable access 

to effective teaching? 

3. Design: This evaluation brief synthesizes the descriptive findings from three IES-funded 

studies on teacher distribution that have been peer-reviewed. The brief presents the findings 

from each study using the same approach, measuring whether disadvantaged students had less 

effective teaching on average than other students. The sample, collectively, spans 17 states. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The evaluation brief was released in January 2014. 

5. Key Findings:

 Disadvantaged students received less effective teaching on average. Based on data from 

29 districts in grades 4–8 and two states in grades 4 and 5, disadvantaged students 

received less effective teaching in a given year than other students in those grades. The 

average disparity in teaching effectiveness was equivalent to about four weeks of learning 

for reading and two weeks for math. For context, the overall achievement gap for 

disadvantaged students in grades four through eight is equivalent to about 24 months in 

reading and 18 months in math. Study authors estimate differences in teaching 

effectiveness for one year represent 4 percent of the existing gap in reading and 2 to 

3 percent in math. 

 Access to effective teaching varied across districts. The size of the differences in effective 

teaching in a given year between disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged students varied 

across the 29 districts studied. The disparities for each district ranged from no statistically 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 126 

significant difference to a difference equivalent to 14 weeks of learning in reading and math 

in grades 4 through 8. 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20144010/pdf/20144010.pdf

Evaluation of the Teacher Incentive Fund: Implementation and Early Impacts of Pay-forPerformance After One Year 

1. Study Purpose: The Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) is authorized by Title V, Part D of ESEA 

and annual appropriations acts. The purpose of the TIF program is to develop and implement 

performance-based compensation systems (PBCSs) for teachers, principals, and other 

personnel in high-need schools. Research indicates that high quality teachers are critical to 

raising student achievement in low-performing schools, but schools most in need often have 

difficulty in attracting and retaining high-quality teachers. Performance pay is a policy promoted 

by the TIF program to improve the quality of teachers in high-need schools. This evaluation 

studies performance pay that provides substantial and differentiated bonus pay to highperforming teachers in low-performing schools with high-need students. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 What are the characteristics of all TIF grantee districts and their performance-based 

compensation systems? What implementation experiences and challenges did TIF districts 

encounter? 

 How do teachers and principals in schools that did or did not offer pay-for-performance 

bonuses compare on key dimensions, including their understanding of TIF program 

features, exposure to TIF activities, allocation of time, and attitudes toward teaching and the 

TIF program? 

 What is the impact of pay-for-performance bonuses on students’ achievement on state 

assessments of math and reading? 

 How do pay-for-performance bonuses affect educator mobility, including whether mobility 

differs by educator effectiveness? 

 What performance-based compensation system features are associated with student 

achievement or educator mobility? 

3. Design: Study schools were randomly assigned within a grant to either implement all 

components of the PBCS or the PBCS with a 1 percent across-the-board bonus in place of the 

differentiated effectiveness incentive component of the PBCS. Data collection will include a 

grantee survey, a survey of teachers and principals, teacher and principal school assignment 

records, student record information (such as student demographics and student test scores), 

and grantee interviews to document implementation information, as well as to conduct impact 

analyses. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The first report was released in September 2014. The 

second report, which will include impacts, is scheduled for completion in 2015. 

5. Key Findings: 

 Fewer than half of all 2010 TIF districts reported implementing all four required components 

of the TIF program, although most implemented three of the four components. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 127 

 Across all 2010 TIF grantees, districts expected to award a pay-for-performance bonus to 

more than 90 percent of eligible educators, with the average payout about 4 percent of the 

average educators’ salary. The districts expected a maximum pay-for-performance bonus 

for teachers that was twice as large as the average bonus, and a maximum bonus for 

principals that was 50 percent larger than the average bonus. 

 Many educators demonstrated a misunderstanding of the performance measures and the 

pay-for-performance bonuses used for TIF. 

 Most teachers and principals reported being satisfied with their professional opportunities, 

school environment, and the TIF program. Educators in schools that offered pay-forperformance bonuses tended to be less satisfied than those in schools that did not offer 

such bonuses. However, educators in schools offering pay-for-performance bonuses were 

more satisfied with the opportunity to earn additional pay, and a greater percentage 

indicated feeling increased pressure to perform due to the TIF program. 

6. Links to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20144019/pdf/20144019.pdf

Transfer Incentives for High-Performing Teachers: Final Results from a Multisite 

Randomized Experiment 

1. Study Purpose: This evaluation studies implementation of a policy, known to participating 

study school districts as the Talent Transfer Initiative (TTI), that provides incentives to identified 

high value-added teachers to teach in low-performing schools with high-need students. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 What can we learn from the implementation of TTI? Specifically, what can we learn about 

timing and scale of implementation, who transfers, and from where they transfer? 

 What were the intermediate impacts on participating schools? Specifically, how did TTI 

affect the dynamics within the school, such as the allocation of resources, staffing patterns, 

assignment of students to teachers and courses, and school climate? 

 What was TTI’s impact on student test scores? 

 What was TTI’s impact on teacher retention? 

3. Design: The study is being conducted in 10 school districts (168 school-grade teams in 

112 schools), and the design consists of segmenting the schools within districts to those eligible 

and not eligible for the treatment (the pay incentive). The treatment-eligible schools are 

randomly assigned to receive the treatment or not. Using value-added analysis, high-performing 

teachers teaching in the non-eligible schools are identified. The two-year treatment, conducted 

in school years 2009–10 and 2010–11 (in seven of the districts) and 2010–11 and 2011–12 (in 

an additional three districts), consists of hiring among the pool of those identified as high 

performing and interested in teaching in the treatment schools. The control schools follow 

normal hiring practices. Program transfer teachers receive a transfer incentive of $10,000 for 

each of the two years that they remain in the treatment school. Existing teachers in studyeligible schools that meet program criteria and remain in their school receive a retention 

payment of $5,000 a year. Data collection includes measures of teacher characteristics and 

hiring experiences, district/school hiring experiences and practices, and student achievement 

obtained from administrative records. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The final report was released in November 2013. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 128 

5. Key Findings: The report examined the willingness of teachers to transfer when offered an 

incentive, teacher retention in the schools to which they transferred, and the impact on student 

achievement at the low-performing schools. The study found that: 

 The transfer incentive successfully attracted high value-added teachers to fill targeted 

vacancies. 

 The transfer incentive had a positive impact on teacher-retention rates during the payout 

period; retention of the high-performing teachers who transferred was similar to their 

counterparts in the fall immediately after the last payout. 

 The transfer incentive had a positive impact on math and reading achievement at the 

elementary school level in each of the two years after transfer. These impacts were 

equivalent to raising achievement by between 4 and 10 percentile points relative to all 

students in their home state. 

 There were no impacts—positive or negative—on achievement in middle schools. 

 Author calculations suggest that this transfer incentive intervention in elementary schools 

would save approximately $13,000 per grade per school compared to the cost of class size 

reduction aimed at generating the same size impacts. However, overall cost effectiveness 

can vary depending on a number of factors, such as teacher retention rates after the last 

installments of the incentive are paid out after the second year. 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20144003/pdf/20144003.pdf

Other 

Case Studies of Schools Receiving School Improvement Grants: Findings After the First 

Year of Implementation 

1. Study Purpose: School Improvement Grants are authorized by Title I, Section 1003(g) of the 

ESEA. The purpose of the grants—awarded based on the Title I funding formula to states, 

which then competitively distribute the funds to districts applying on behalf of their eligible 

schools—is to support the turnaround of the nation’s persistently lowest-achieving schools. To 

qualify for the three-year grant, schools must (among other requirements) be willing to 

implement one of four prescribed intervention models: turnaround, restart, closure, or 

transformation. About $546 million was allocated in FY 2009 for SIG with a supplement of 

$3 billion from ARRA. With the possibility of rollover funds, this amounts to a $3.5 billion 

injection into the SIG program during the 2010–11, 2011–12, and 2012–13 school years. This 

study will provide descriptively rich, primarily qualitative information for a small set of schools 

receiving SIG in the first cohort to implement an intervention model beginning in the 2010–11 

school year. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 What is the background and context of these persistently lowest-achieving schools? How do 

the leadership and staff in these schools define the performance problem, and to what do 

they attribute their problems? 

 What leadership styles do the principals of these persistently lowest-achieving schools 

exhibit? What actions do these schools engage in to try to improve their history of low 

performance? 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 129 

 What is the change process in these persistently lowest-achieving schools, particularly in 

terms of school climate and staff capacity? 

 What improvements do school stakeholders perceive during the three-year course of SIG, 

and do these improvements appear to be sustainable? 

3. Design: This study employs a school-level case study design. A core sample of 25 SIG 

schools was purposively selected from six states to represent a range of geographic regions, 

urbanicities, school sizes, racial/ethnic compositions, socioeconomic statuses, SIG intervention 

models, and SIG funding levels, among other factors. Data collection took place over three 

school years, beginning in spring 2011 and concluding in spring 2013, and included interviews 

with each state’s SIG leaders, a teacher survey, and site visits to the case study schools, which 

included an analysis of fiscal records, as well as interviews and focus groups with district 

officials, principals, teachers, parents, union officials, external support providers, and students. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The first report, based on the first year of data, was 

released in 2014. The final report, based on the second and third year of data, is scheduled for 

completion in 2015. 

5. Key Findings:

 Findings after the first year of implementation in the 25 “core” sample schools reveal that 

while all were low-performing, the schools differed in their community and fiscal contexts, 

performance and reform histories, interpretations of the causes of—and potential solutions 

for—their performance problems, and perceptions of improvement after the first year of SIG. 

 However, most schools did report that their improvement strategies and actions during the 

first year of SIG were a continuation of activities or plans that predated SIG, and few schools 

appeared to have experienced a disruption from past practice as of spring 2011. 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20144015/pdf/20144015.pdf 

A Focused Look at Rural Schools Receiving School Improvement Grants 

1. Study Purpose: School Improvement Grants are authorized by Title I, Section 1003(g) of the 

ESEA. The purpose of the grants—awarded based on the Title I funding formula to states, 

which then competitively distribute the funds to districts applying on behalf of their eligible 

schools—is to support the turnaround of the nation’s persistently lowest-achieving schools. To 

qualify for the three-year grant, schools must (among other requirements) be willing to 

implement one of four prescribed intervention models: turnaround, restart, closure, or 

transformation. About $546 million was allocated in FY 2009 for SIG with a supplement of 

$3 billion from ARRA. With the possibility of rollover funds, this amounts to a $3.5 billion 

injection into the SIG program during the 2010–11, 2011–12, and 2012–13 school years. This 

report will provide descriptively rich, primarily qualitative information for a small set of rural 

schools receiving SIG in the first cohort to implement an intervention model beginning in the 

2010–11 school year. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 What are the context and challenges of these rural SIG schools that are trying to turn 

around a history of low performance? 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 130 

 How did these rural SIG schools perceive their rural context to influence the recruitment and 

retention of teachers and the engagement of parents, and what improvement actions did 

they implement in these two areas? 

3. Design: This study employs a school-level case study design. A sample of nine SIG schools 

located in rural areas was purposively selected from four states to represent a range of 

geographic regions, school sizes, racial/ethnic compositions, socioeconomic statuses, SIG 

intervention models, and SIG funding levels, among other factors. Data were collected in spring 

2012, and included interviews with each state’s SIG leaders, a teacher survey, and site visits to 

the case study schools, which included analysis of fiscal records, as well as interviews and 

focus groups with district officials, principals, teachers, parents, union officials, external support 

providers, and students. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The report was released in 2014.

5. Key Findings: 

 Although rural SIG schools reported some challenges that nonrural SIG schools have also 

reported, such as low student motivation and staff morale, the rural schools reported 

additional challenges resulting from their schools’ remote locations and large catchment 

areas. For example, respondents reported that these rural characteristics affected the 

recruitment or retention of teachers and, to a lesser extent, parents’ involvement in the 

schools. 

 School and district administrators in eight of the nine schools suggested that long teacher 

commutes or isolated communities posed challenges to recruiting or retaining teachers. To 

counter these challenges, respondents in two schools reported offering direct support for 

teacher commutes (for example, gas stipends or vans), and respondents in three schools 

reported offering signing bonuses to incoming teachers. 

 School and district administrators and teaching staff in the nine schools mentioned multiple 

factors limiting parent involvement in school-based activities. Respondents from five schools 

perceived that a lack of access to transportation limited parent involvement, whereas 

respondents from three schools noted that the distance between schools and parents’

homes was a contributing factor. Four schools focused on hiring or expanding the role of 

parent liaisons to increase parent involvement. 

6. Links to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20144013/pdf/20144013.pdf 

A Focused Look at Schools Receiving School Improvement Grants That Have High 

Percentages of English Language Learner Students 

1. Study Purpose: School Improvement Grants are authorized by Title I, Section 1003(g) of the 

ESEA. The purpose of the grants—awarded based on the Title I funding formula to states, 

which then competitively distribute the funds to districts applying on behalf of their eligible 

schools—is to support the turnaround of the nation’s persistently lowest-achieving schools. To 

qualify for the three-year grant, schools must (among other requirements) be willing to 

implement one of four prescribed intervention models: turnaround, restart, closure, or 

transformation. About $546 million was allocated in FY 2009 for SIG with a supplement of 

$3 billion from ARRA. With the possibility of rollover funds, this amounts to a $3.5 billion 

injection into the SIG program during the 2010–11, 2011–12, and 2012–13 school years. This 

report will provide descriptively rich, primarily qualitative information for a small set of schools 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 131 

with high percentages of EL students, that are receiving SIG in the first cohort to implement an 

intervention model beginning in the 2010–11 school year. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 What are the context and challenges of these high-EL SIG schools that are trying to turn 

around a history of low performance? 

 How did these high-EL SIG schools approach the improvement process, and what supports 

did they provide to their ELs? 

 What capacity did these high-EL SIG schools have to address the unique needs of their 

ELs? 

3. Design: This study employs a school-level case study design. A sample of 11 SIG schools 

with high percentages of ELs was purposively selected from four states to represent a range of 

geographic regions, urbanicities, school sizes, racial/ethnic compositions, socioeconomic 

statuses, SIG intervention models, and SIG funding levels, among other factors. Data were 

collected in fall 2011, and included interviews with each state’s SIG leaders, a teacher survey, 

and site visits to the case study schools, which included analysis of fiscal records, as well as 

interviews and focus groups with district officials, principals, teachers, parents, union officials, 

external support providers, and students. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The report was released in spring 2014. 

5. Key Findings: 

 Although all 11 schools reported providing specialized supports for EL students, the schools’ 

approaches to improvement during the initial phase of SIG appeared to include only 

moderate or limited attention to the unique needs of ELs.

 District and school administrators perceived challenges related to teachers’ expertise and 

skills in meeting the unique needs of ELs; however, teachers’ perceptions of their own 

capacity were more mixed. The capacity of the schools’ district offices to support ELs 

appeared to vary as well, with two small districts reporting no district-level staff with EL

training or experience and seven larger districts reporting district-level English-as-a-secondlanguage (ESL) departments with multiple trained staff members. 

 Schools that appeared to provide stronger attention to the unique needs of ELs in their 

improvement process were more likely to report having school staff dedicated to EL needs, 

such as EL coordinators, EL coaches, and ESL/bilingual teachers and tutors. Such schools 

also were more likely to be located in districts that reportedly provided expertise and an 

explicit focus on ELs within the context of SIG. 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20144014/pdf/20144014.pdf

Operational Authority, Support, and Monitoring of School Turnaround 

1. Study Purpose: The federal SIG program, to which $3 billion were allocated under ARRA, 

supports schools attempting to turn around a history of low performance. School turnaround 

also is a focus of RTT, another ARRA-supported initiative, which involved a roughly $4 billion 

comprehensive education reform grant competition for states. Given the size of these federal 

investments, in 2010 IES began to conduct a large-scale evaluation of RTT and SIG to better 

understand the implementation and impacts of these programs. The SIG component, in 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 132 

particular, focuses on a purposive sample of SIG-eligible schools, including (1) a group of 

schools that received SIG to implement one of four intervention models specified by the U.S. 

Department of Education and (2) a comparison group of schools from the same districts that 

were not implementing one of these four intervention models with SIG support. Though the 

results from this evaluation of SIG are not necessarily generalizable to SIG schools nationwide, 

they are nonetheless important because they add to the limited knowledge base about the 

implementation and impacts of SIG-funded school turnaround efforts. 

2. Key Questions Addressed: This report focuses on the implementation of SIG by examining 

three interrelated levers for school improvement: (1) school operational authority, (2) state and 

district support for turnaround, and (3) state monitoring of turnaround efforts. 

3. Design: SIG principles emphasize that school leaders should be given the autonomy to 

operate on matters such as staffing, calendars, and budgeting, but then also be appropriately 

supported and monitored by states and districts to ensure progress. It is thus of interest to 

document the actual policies and practices related to these three levers, and to see whether 

there are differences between study schools implementing a SIG-funded intervention model and 

comparison schools not implementing a SIG-funded intervention model. Findings are based on 

spring 2012 survey responses from 450 school administrators and interviews with 

administrators in the 60 districts and 21 of the 22 states where these schools are located. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The report was released in January 2014. 

5. Key Findings:

 The most common area in which schools implementing and not implementing a SIG-funded 

intervention model reported having primary responsibility was their budgets (55 percent and 

54 percent). Fewer than half of the schools in both groups reported primary responsibility in 

the other seven operational areas examined, such as student discipline policies (38 percent 

and 35 percent), staffing (37 percent and 46 percent), assessment policies (25 percent and 

21 percent), and curriculum (18 percent and 16 percent). 

 The most common technical assistance and other supports for turnaround that states 

reported providing related to developing school improvement plans (20 of the 21 states 

interviewed) and identifying effective improvement strategies (19 of the 21 states 

interviewed). These two supports were also the ones districts and schools most frequently 

reported receiving. Schools implementing a SIG-funded intervention model were no more 

likely than non-implementing schools to report receiving supports in nine of twelve areas 

examined, including working with parents, school improvement planning, and recruiting or 

retaining teachers. 

 All 21 of the states interviewed reported being responsible for monitoring low-performing 

schools, although just 13 of them reported that districts were also responsible. State 

monitoring almost universally took the form of analyzing student data (21 states) and 

conducting site visits (20 states), and to a lesser extent having discussions with 

parents/community (16 states) and surveying school staff (12 states). Most states also 

reported that monitoring not only served accountability purposes, but also was used for 

formative purposes, such as to assess implementation fidelity (14 states) and identify 

additional supports for schools (14 states). 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20144008/
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 133 

State Implementation of Reforms Promoted Under the Recovery Act 

1. Study Purpose: ARRA provided an unprecedented $100 billion of funding for the U.S. 

Department of Education. While the initial goal of this money was to deliver emergency funding 

for education and government services, ARRA is also being used as an opportunity to spur 

innovation and reform at different levels of the education system. In turn, ARRA provides a 

unique opportunity to foster school improvements and to learn from reform efforts. Although 

funds are being distributed through different grant programs, their goals and strategies are 

complementary, if not overlapping, as are likely recipients. For this reason, data collection and 

analysis took place across grant programs (i.e., was “integrated”), rather than separately for 

each set of grantees, allowing for a broad assessment of ARRA as a whole. The Department 

seeks to understand through this evaluation how states, districts, and schools are working to 

implement the education reforms promoted by ARRA. 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

First report: 

 At the state and local levels, who were the recipients of ARRA funds? To what extent did 

child poverty, state fiscal condition, student achievement, and other variables relate to 

funding? 

Interim report: 

 To what extent did SEAs report implementing key reform strategies promoted by the 

Recovery Act in the 2010–11 school year? 

 How much of the 2010–11 school year implementation reflects progress since the Recovery 

Act? 

 What were the greatest reform implementation challenges for SEAs in the 2010–11 school 

year? 

Final report: 

 To what extent were states implementing the key education reform strategies promoted by 

the Recovery Act in 2010–11 in the areas of standards and assessment, data systems, 

educator workforce development, and support for low performing schools? 

 To what extent did 2010–11 implementation of key education reforms reflect progress since 

the Recovery Act funds were initially distributed in 2009–10?

 What were the greatest challenges experienced by states working to implement key 

education reforms in the 2010–11 school year? 

3. Design: This study is primarily based on data from surveys of all 50 SEAs and DC, and a 

nationally representative sample of school districts administered between spring 2011 and 

2012. Survey respondents were the chief state school officer or other state agency officials 

designated by the chief as most knowledgeable about the topics in the survey. Descriptive and 

correlational analyses are used to answer the study’s research questions.

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: A first report, titled “State and District Receipt of 

Recovery Act Funds,” was released in 2012. An interim report was released in January 2014. 

The final report is scheduled for release in 2015. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 134 

5. Key Findings of Interim Report: 

 Almost all SEAs provided guidance for choosing and implementing one of the four school 

intervention models the Department recommended to improve low performing schools, while 

only two reported supporting teacher evaluation models that included the complete set of 

criteria (e.g., use of student achievement gains) that the Recovery Act promoted. 

 Difficulty in measuring student growth for teachers of non-tested subjects was the challenge 

reported by the largest number of SEAs. 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20144011/pdf/20144011.pdf

State Requirements for Teacher Evaluation Policies Promoted by Race to the Top 

1. Study Purpose: Congress appropriated approximately $5.05 billion for the RTT program 

between 2009 and 2012, including approximately $4.35 billion through ARRA. The RTT initiative 

encouraged states to implement education policies in six core areas, including teacher 

evaluations. Evaluations are an important strategy to assess teacher quality, and there is 

growing consensus about the need for evaluation systems that could yield higher-quality 

information to improve teacher performance. An increasing body of evidence also suggests that 

some of the teacher evaluation policies promoted by RTT, such as using multiple measures and 

multiple rating categories, could help to produce more valid and reliable estimates of teacher 

quality. Given the substantial federal investment in RTT to promote certain teacher evaluation 

policies, it is important to learn about the policies that states are actually requiring. Many states 

have started to alter their policies, but knowledge of their progress remains limited. 

2. Key Questions Addressed: This brief describes the extent to which states required teacher 

evaluation policies aligned with the RTT initiative as of spring 2012.

3. Design: This brief examines the presence of state-level requirements for certain practices but 

not the actual district- or school-level implementation of such practices. Findings are based on 

interviews with administrators from 49 states and the District of Columbia (12 Round 1 and 2 

RTT states, 7 Round 3 RTT states, and 31 non-RTT states). 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The report was released in April 2014. 

5. Key Findings:

 States, on average, reported requiring less than half of eight teacher evaluation policies 

aligned with RTT priorities, although the number of policies required by RTT states was 

higher than non-RTT states (3.7 policies for Round 1 and 2 RTT states, 3.6 for Round 3 RTT 

states, and 2.2 for non-RTT states). 

 States’ reported teacher evaluation policies were most aligned with RTT priorities focused 

on using multiple measures to evaluate teacher performance (30 states); using multiple 

rating categories to classify teacher performance (31 states); and conducting annual 

evaluations (25 states). 

 States’ reported teacher evaluation policies were least aligned with RTT priorities focused 

on using evaluation results to inform decisions regarding career advancement (one state) 

and compensation (six states for annual salary increases, and five states for performancebased compensation). 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20144016/pdf/20144016.pdf
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 135 

Policy and Program Studies Service (PPSS)

National Assessment of Career and Technical Education: Final Report

1. Study Purpose: The Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (Perkins IV)

was intended to raise the academic and technical rigor of secondary and postsecondary CTE 

instruction in order to prepare students for entry into high-skill, high-wage, or high-demand 

occupations. Perkins IV introduced new accountability requirements as well as a requirement 

that local subgrantees offer one or more programs of study (POS)—career pathways that help 

students make the transition from secondary to postsecondary education while pursuing an 

industry-recognized credential, postsecondary certificate, or degree. This final report of the 

congressionally mandated National Assessment of Career and Technical Education (NACTE) 

summarizes the most recent available data on the implementation of Perkins IV, as well as 

student participation and outcomes for CTE more generally. 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

 Has student participation in CTE programs changed?

 How were Perkins IV funds allocated and used? 

 How were states and local subgrantees developing and implementing POS? 

 How were states implementing accountability provisions, and what measurement issues 

affect the validity and reliability of the accountability data that were reported? 

 Are educational and employment outcomes showing positive results for CTE participants? 

3. Design: This report summarizes data from studies commissioned for the NACTE, reviews of 

existing research, and analyses of extant data from state performance reports and from the 

National Center for Education Statistics. A study of Perkins IV implementation included surveys 

of all states and a representative sample of 2,041 LEAs and 1,006 IHEs in fall 2009. 

4. Completion Date: The final report was released in September 2014. 

5. Key Findings: 

 Secondary CTE coursetaking declined slightly from 1990 to 2009, while academic 

coursetaking increased. Some occupational areas saw large increases in CTE coursetaking, most notably health sciences and public services. 

 Subgrantees most commonly used Perkins IV funds for equipment, career guidance, and 

academic counseling. 

 Both state and local CTE directors reported incomplete compliance, as of 2008–09, with 

requirements that POS link secondary and postsecondary education by aligning course 

sequences. 

 States and local subgrantees are not required to report on POS participation and outcomes, 

and there are no national data on the number of students participating in POS or the 

outcomes they achieve. 

 States showed substantial variation in their definitions of CTE concentrators and in the 

specific measures they used for performance indicators. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 136 

 Studies that used quasi-experimental methods to control for student background found little 

or no relationship between CTE coursetaking and academic achievement. 

 Education and employment outcomes varied considerably by CTE field. For example, 

completion of a postsecondary degree or certificate in the same field was most common 

among high school graduates who concentrated in health sciences. 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/sectech/nacte/careertechnical-education/final-report.pdf

Summary of Performance Evaluations Expected During FY 2015 and 

FY 2016

National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance

Literacy 

Effectiveness of Interventions for Improving Reading Achievement of Struggling 

Adolescent Readers: An Assessment and Summary of the Evidence 

1. Study Purpose: Striving Readers is a discretionary grant program focused on raising reading 

achievement of middle school and high school students through intensive interventions for 

struggling readers and enhancing the quality of literacy instruction across the curriculum. The 

2006 and 2009 cohorts of grantees were required to conduct rigorous, experimental 

evaluations. This study summarizes the evidence of the effectiveness of interventions aimed at 

struggling adolescent readers, including—but not limited to—the evaluations of the 16 Striving 

Readers grantees. 

2. Key Question Addressed: 

 What is the evidence of the effectiveness of interventions aimed at struggling adolescent 

readers? 

3. Design: The study is descriptive; it provided technical assistance to the local evaluations of 

Striving Readers grantees and also reviewed existing literature on interventions to raise reading 

achievement among struggling adolescent readers. The report will synthesize the evidence of 

the effectiveness of these interventions. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The final report is scheduled for completion in winter 

2015.

Early Childhood Language Development 

1. Study Purpose: Differences between the reading skills of disadvantaged children and their 

more advantaged peers have been measured nationally as early as kindergarten entry in the 

Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. The focus of this evaluation is the identification of 

classroom practices that are associated with improved student language development and 

comprehension. Such practices could be used in a future rigorous evaluation of these 

strategies. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 137 

2. Key Question Addressed: 

 What classroom practices are associated with greater student progress in language 

development, background knowledge, and comprehension in prekindergarten through third 

grade? 

3. Design: The evaluation will analyze the relationships between the study’s observational 

measures of classroom practices and direct assessments of students collected during the 

2011–12 school year in 83 Title I schools. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The final report is scheduled for completion in 2015. 

Evaluation of Response to Intervention Practices for Elementary School Reading 

1. Study Purpose: The focus of this evaluation is the implementation and impact of Response to 

Intervention (RtI) practices for struggling readers in elementary school. Response to 

Intervention (RtI) is a multistep approach to providing early and more intensive intervention and 

monitoring within the general education setting. IDEA permits some Part B special education 

funds to be used for “early intervening services” such as RtI, and also permit districts to use RtI 

to inform decisions regarding a child’s eligibility for special education under the category of 

specific learning disabilities. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 How do RtI practices for early-grade reading vary across schools? 

 How do schools experienced with RtI vary the intensity of reading instruction to children 

based on student benchmark reading performance? 

 What are the effects on grade 1–3 reading achievement of providing intensive interventions 

to children who are on the margin of identification for reading difficulties? 

3. Design: The evaluation is relying on a combination of descriptive data collection from school 

staff and regression discontinuity methods to address the research questions, and is focusing 

on practices in place during the 2011–12 school year. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The final report from this evaluation is scheduled for 

completion in 2015. 

Pathways to Career or College

Upward Bound at 50: Reporting on Implementation Practices Today 

1. Study Purpose: Upward Bound is the oldest and largest of the federal college access 

programs targeted to low-income students and those who would represent the first-generation 

of college completers in their families. First established in 1965, the program currently serves 

more than 60,000 high school students at a cost of about $4,300 per youth with a wide array of 

academic and college transition support services. While much about the structure of Upward 

Bound and the services to be offered are prescribed in legislation, little is currently known about 

the intensity, duration, and mix of services provided by projects or about how they are delivered. 

Because of the importance of its mission, and the comprehensiveness and costs of its services, 

Upward Bound has long been of interest to policymakers. This report describes the approaches 

to providing program services as reported by Upward Bound project directors. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 138 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

 Within the core service areas of the program, where do projects focus their efforts? 

 How are services delivered to Upward Bound participants? 

 In what ways does the focus or delivery of services vary across different Upward Bound 

projects? 

3. Design: This descriptive report relies primarily on findings from a summer 2013 survey of all 

regular Upward Bound project directors. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The report is scheduled for completion in 2015. 

School Choice 

Evaluation of Conversion Magnet Schools 

1. Study Purpose: Since the mid-1970s, magnet schools have been critical to school districts’

efforts to implement voluntary desegregation plans and, in some cases, court desegregation 

orders. More recently, they have become an important component of public school choice as 

well as a strategy used by districts aiming to improve the achievement of all students, 

particularly students who are disadvantaged. Since 1985, the Office of Innovation and 

Improvement’s (OII) Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP; funded at $100 million in 

FY 2010) has provided grants to school districts to support magnet programs with the specific 

goals of reducing, eliminating, or preventing minority group isolation, improving student 

achievement, and promoting diversity and increasing choice in public schools through the 

development of innovative educational methods and practices. 

Despite the popularity and longevity of this educational strategy, there have been few rigorous 

studies of the effects on important student outcomes, with mixed results. Drawing broad 

conclusions is particularly challenging because the structure and target population of magnet 

school programs are varied. This more targeted evaluation of magnet schools focuses on a 

single, common category of school receiving funding through MSAP: elementary schools that 

convert to become whole-school magnets. 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

 How did student composition change, in terms of diversity and achievement, in 

neighborhood schools that converted to magnet schools? 

 To what extent were changes in diversity and achievement in these schools related to 

magnet conversion? 

3. Design: A feasibility study determined that there was a sufficient number of neighborhood 

schools that converted to magnet schools (conversion magnets) funded in the two most recent 

grant cycles to focus on these schools. School records data (student achievement scores, 

demographic characteristics, and school attended) were collected for the 2005–06 through 

2010–11 school years, three years before and up to four years after the magnet school 

conversion. Descriptive analyses are being conducted to examine changes in diversity and 

achievement before versus after conversion for the entire student population in the schools in 

our sample, as well as for relevant subgroups within the schools. We will also compare changes 

over time for the conversion magnet schools to those for other neighborhood schools in their 

districts (comparative interrupted time series analysis) to explore the hypothesis that any 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 139 

changes we see are associated with the conversion itself and not other efforts underway in the 

districts. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The final report is scheduled for completion in 2015. 

Students with Disabilities 

Preparing for Life After High School 

1. Study Purpose: The National Longitudinal Transition Study 2012 (NLTS 2012), also referred 

to as the Study of Transition Outcomes for Youth with Disabilities, is the third in a series 

examining the characteristics and school experiences of a nationally representative sample of 

youth with disabilities. NLTS 2012 focuses on youth ages 13 to 21 (in December 2011), but also 

includes a small sample of students without disabilities to enable direct comparisons of students 

with and without individualized education programs (IEPs). It is part of the congressionally 

mandated National Assessment of the IDEA and is supported with funds authorized under 

Section 664 of IDEA. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 What are the personal, family, and school characteristics of youth with disabilities in public 

schools across the country? 

 What regular education, special education, transition planning, and other relevant services 

and accommodations do youth with disabilities receive? 

 How do the services and accommodations differ from those of youth not served under IDEA, 

including those identified for services under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act? 

 How do the services and accommodations for youth with disabilities vary with the 

characteristics of youth? 

 How much have the services and accommodations of youth with disabilities changed over 

time? 

3. Design: Phase I of the study collects survey data (spring 2012–summer 2013) on a 

nationwide sample of 12,000 youth in school, of which 10,000 are students with IEPs across the 

federal disability categories. Surveys of both youth and their parents/guardians will be 

administered. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: Two reports are scheduled for completion in summer 

2015. 

Teacher Quality 

Teaching Residency Programs: Description of a New Model for Preparing Teachers for 

High-Need Schools 

1. Study Purpose: Teaching Residency Programs (TRPs) involve a year-long “clinical” 

experience (the “residency”) shadowing and co-teaching with an experienced mentor. TRPs 

also provide continued support and mentoring after participants become teachers of record. 

Before and during their residencies, participants in TRPs take coursework. The evaluation of 

TRPs, which focuses on residency programs that have received grants from the Teacher 

Quality Partnership (TQP) Program, will provide important descriptive and implementation 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 140 

information on TRPs, as well as information on the teacher retention outcomes of teachers who 

participate in TRPs. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 What are the characteristics of TRPs (e.g., length of overall program, criteria for selecting 

program participants)? What are the characteristics of participants in TRPs? 

 What are the retention rates of novice TRP teachers and their novice colleagues who did not 

go through TRPs? 

3. Design: Descriptive information concerning TQP grantees operating TRPs was collected 

through a survey administered in spring 2012. More detailed implementation information was 

collected through TRP program director interviews and surveys of residents and mentors, 

conducted within a subset of TRPs during spring 2012. Teacher mobility will be tracked through 

district records and teacher surveys in order to examine retention in the profession, district, and 

school, among novice TRP and novice non-TRP teachers in a subset of six districts. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The first report was released in November 2014. A 

follow-up evaluation brief is expected in 2015. 

5. Key Findings:

 In keeping with their intended purpose and the grant requirements, the residency programs 

provided a fieldwork experience, typically with a trained and experienced mentor teacher, 

along with integrated coursework. Residents reported an increase in the number of days 

fully in charge of instruction between the first and second halves of their residency 

(21 versus 37 days, on average). Most TRP mentors had substantial teaching experience 

(10 years, on average), were trained by the residency program (averaging 37 hours of 

training), and had prior mentoring experience (an average of 3.5 semesters). TRPs included 

the equivalent of 10 courses, on average, with core emphasis on content and pedagogy, 

classroom management, and student assessment and a lesser emphasis on child 

development and education philosophy. Most residents reported that their fieldwork 

reinforced what they learned in their coursework and that their coursework was wellintegrated with their residency classroom experiences (83 and 68 percent of residents, 

respectively). 

 The residency programs somewhat broadened the pool of people entering the teaching 

profession in the participating districts. Novice teachers in the study who had completed a 

TRP appeared more likely than their non-TRP peers to have made a distinct career change 

when they joined their programs. For example, they were more likely than non-TRP teachers 

to report having worked in a full-time job other than teaching (72 percent versus 63 percent). 

However, novice TRP and non-TRP teachers had similar demographic characteristics (sex, 

race/ethnicity, and age). 

 Novice teachers from residency programs had similar retention rates to other novice 

teachers. Focusing on teachers after their first or second years of teaching, about 

92 percent of TRP teachers and 90 percent of non-TRP teachers reported staying in the 

same district from spring 2012 to fall 2012; about 4 percent of TRP teachers and 6 percent 

of non-TRP teachers were no longer teaching. None of these were statistically significant 

differences. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 141 

Other 

Adoption of Policies and Practices Promoted by Race to the Top and School 

Improvement Grants 

1. Study Purpose: RTT and SIG are signature Department programs in the Obama 

Administration, and both programs received substantial funding through ARRA. As part of 

OMB’s FY 2010 Evaluation Initiative, IES proposed to conduct an impact evaluation of the RTT 

and SIG programs, focusing on the initial general state competition for RTT and the first cohort 

of SIG schools implementing intervention models beginning in the 2010–11 school year. This is 

the first evaluation report of the Impact and Implementation Evaluation of RTT and SIG. 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

 Which policies and practices promoted by the RTT program do RTT states report adopting, 

and how do they compare to the policies and practices that non-RTT states report adopting? 

 Is receipt of an RTT grant related to improvement in student outcomes? 

 Are SIG-funded schools adopting the improvement or turnaround strategies promoted by the 

four SIG intervention models, and how do they compare to strategies in schools not 

implementing a SIG-funded intervention model? How are states and districts supporting 

such efforts? 

 Does receipt of SIG funding to implement a school intervention model have an impact on 

outcomes for low-performing schools? 

 Is implementation of the four school intervention models and the strategies prescribed by 

those models related to improvement in outcomes for low-performing schools? 

3. Design: The RTT sample will include all 50 states and DC. Data from interviews with all 

states and DC will inform the first evaluation question. The second evaluation question will be 

addressed using a short interrupted time series design with state-level NAEP data comparing, 

before and after the RTT competition, states that were awarded an RTT grant to states that 

applied for but were not awarded an RTT grant. 

The SIG sample will include about 525 schools in 60 districts from 22 states. This sample will be 

purposively selected to support a regression discontinuity design to address the fourth 

evaluation question, exploiting cutoff rules that states used to identify their persistently lowestachieving schools as eligible for SIG to implement one of the four intervention models. Data 

from state and district interviews, as well as school surveys from the SIG sample, will inform the 

third and fifth evaluation questions. Student- and school-level achievement data will also be 

collected from administrative records up to the 2012–2013 school year to inform the fourth and 

fifth evaluation questions. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The first report on early implementation findings for 

SIG and RTT is scheduled for completion in 2015. The final report on implementation and 

impacts is expected in 2016. 

Are Low-Performing Schools Adopting Practices Promoted by School Improvement 

Grants? 

1. Study Purpose: The SIG program is authorized through Title I of ESEA and provides 3-year 

awards to support turnaround in the nation’s persistently lowest-achieving schools. In FY 2009, 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 142 

the $546 million SIG appropriation was supplemented by $3 billion through ARRA, for a total of 

$3.5 billion. SIG funds are distributed to states by formula based on Title I allocations. States 

then competitively award funds to districts applying on behalf of their eligible schools. Schools 

receiving SIG must implement one of four prescriptive intervention models: turnaround, 

transformation, closure, or restart. Previous research provides evidence that low-performing 

schools adopt some practices promoted by the four models, but little is known about how 

schools combine these practices. This study describes the individual SIG-promoted 

improvement practices adopted by low-performing schools. 

2. Key Questions Addressed: This brief describes both the individual SIG-promoted 

improvement practices and the combinations of these practices that low-performing schools 

reported adopting. 

3. Design: Findings are based on spring 2013 survey responses from 480 school administrators 

in 60 districts and 22 states. The 480 schools are all low-performing schools, with some 

receiving SIG and others not. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The report was released in October 2014. 

5. Key Findings: 

 Schools on average reported adopting 20 of 32 improvement practices promoted by the SIG 

transformation or turnaround models. 

 No school reported adopting all practices required under the transformation or turnaround 

models. 

 More than 96 percent of schools reported adopting each of the three most commonly 

adopted individual practices: using data to inform and differentiate instruction, increasing 

technology access for teachers or using computer-assisted instruction, and providing 

ongoing professional development that involves teachers working collaboratively or is 

facilitated by school leaders. 

 For 16 of the 32 practices examined, schools implementing a SIG model were statistically 

significantly more likely than schools not implementing one to report adopting that practice. 

 Almost every school reported adopting a unique combination of practices, but certain 

practices (for example, the three most commonly adopted practices listed above) were much 

more likely than others (for example, using financial incentives to recruit and retain effective 

teachers and principals) to be included in these combinations. 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/other_racetotop.asp 

Building Teacher Capacity to Support ELLs in Schools Receiving SIG 

1. Study Purpose: School Improvement Grants are authorized by Title I, Section 1003(g) of the 

ESEA. The purpose of the grants—awarded based on the Title I funding formula to states, 

which then competitively distribute the funds to districts applying on behalf of their eligible 

schools—is to support the turnaround of the nation’s persistently lowest-achieving schools. To 

qualify for the three-year grant, schools must (among other requirements) be willing to 

implement one of four prescribed intervention models: turnaround, restart, closure, or 

transformation. About $546 million was allocated in FY 2009 for SIG with a supplement of 

$3 billion from ARRA. With the possibility of rollover funds, this amounts to a $3.5 billion 

injection into the SIG program during the 2010–11, 2011–12, and 2012–13 school years. This 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 143 

study will provide descriptively rich, primarily qualitative information for a small set of SIG 

schools with high proportions of EL students that are receiving SIG in the first cohort to 

implement an intervention model beginning in the 2010–11 school year. 

2. Key Questions Addressed: This brief describes the efforts of SIG schools with high 

proportions of ELs to improve teachers’ capacity for serving ELs through staffing strategies and 

professional development. 

3. Design: This study employs a school-level case study design. A sample of 11 SIG schools 

with high percentages of ELs (a median of 45 percent ELs) was purposively selected from four 

states to represent a range of geographic regions, urbanicities, school sizes, racial/ethnic 

compositions, socioeconomic statuses, SIG intervention models, and SIG funding levels, among 

other factors. Findings are based on EL case study data collected in fall 2011, spring 2012, and 

fall 2012. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The report is scheduled for completion in spring 2015. 

Case Studies of Schools Receiving School Improvement Grants: Final Report 

1. Study Purpose: School Improvement Grants are authorized by Title I, Section 1003(g) of 

ESEA. The purpose of the grants—awarded based on the Title I funding formula to states, 

which then competitively distribute the funds to districts applying on behalf of their eligible 

schools—is to support the turnaround of the nation’s persistently lowest-achieving schools. To 

qualify for the three-year grant, schools must (among other requirements) be willing to 

implement one of four prescribed intervention models: turnaround, restart, closure, or 

transformation. About $546 million was allocated in FY 2009 for SIG with a supplement of 

$3 billion from ARRA. With the possibility of rollover funds, this amounts to a $3.5 billion 

injection into the SIG program during the 2010–11, 2011–12, and 2012–13 school years. This 

study will provide descriptively rich, primarily qualitative information for a small set of schools 

receiving SIG in the first cohort to implement an intervention model beginning in the 2010–11 

school year. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 What is the background and context of these persistently lowest-achieving schools? How do 

the leadership and staff in these schools define the performance problem, and to what do 

they attribute their problems? 

 What leadership styles do the principals of these persistently lowest-achieving schools 

exhibit? What actions do these schools engage in to try to improve their history of low 

performance? 

 What is the change process in these persistently lowest-achieving schools, particularly in 

terms of school climate and staff capacity? 

 What improvements do school stakeholders perceive during the three-year course of SIG, 

and do these improvements appear to be sustainable? 

3. Design: This study employs a school-level case study design. A core sample of 25 SIG 

schools was purposively selected from six states to represent a range of geographic regions, 

urbanicities, school sizes, racial/ethnic compositions, socioeconomic statuses, SIG intervention 

models, and SIG funding levels, among other factors. Data collection took place over three 

school years, beginning in spring 2011 and concluding in spring 2013, and included interviews 

with each state’s SIG leaders, a teacher survey, and site visits to the case study schools, which 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 144 

included analysis of fiscal records, as well as interviews and focus groups with district officials, 

principals, teachers, parents, union officials, external support providers, and students. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The first report, based on the first year of data, was 

released in 2014. The final report, based on the second and third year of data, is scheduled for 

completion in 2015. 

5. Key Findings from the Interim Report:

 Findings after the first year of implementation in the 25 “core” sample schools reveal that 

while all were low-performing, the schools differed in their community and fiscal contexts, 

performance and reform histories, interpretations of the causes of—and potential solutions 

for—their performance problems, and perceptions of improvement after the first year of SIG. 

 However, most schools did report that their improvement strategies and actions during the 

first year of SIG were a continuation of activities or plans that predated SIG, and few schools 

appeared to have experienced a disruption from past practice as of spring 2011. 

6. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20144015/pdf/20144015.pdf 

Evaluation of the Regional Educational Laboratories: Final Report 

1. Study Purpose: The RELs are a networked system of 10 organizations that serve the 

educational needs of 10 designated regions across the United States. The Department is 

authorized by the Education Sciences Reform Act (ESRA) to award contracts to 10 RELs to 

support applied research, development, wide dissemination, and technical assistance activities. 

The REL program is administered by the Knowledge Utilization Division of the National Center 

for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEERA) within the Department’s IES, 

which was established by ESRA in 2002. The FY 2012 appropriation for the REL program was 

$57.426 million. 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

 What activities did the RELs undertake to fulfill the missions specified in ESRA? 

 What were the technical quality and relevance of REL Fast Response Project reports 

published by IES and of the corresponding proposals? 

 What were the technical quality and relevance of REL impact study reports published by IES 

and of the corresponding proposals? 

 How relevant and useful were the REL technical assistance products to the needs of the 

states, localities, and policymakers in their regions? 

3. Design: This descriptive study is relying on a combination of extant data, FY 2010 interviews 

with REL directors, and FY 2012 surveys of potential REL customers from state and local 

educational agencies. Panels of experts met during FY 2010 and FY 2012 and rated the quality 

and relevance of REL Fast Response Project proposals and final reports and REL impact study 

proposals and final reports. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: An interim report was released in 2013. The final 

report is scheduled for completion in winter 2015. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 145 

5. Key Findings from the Interim Report: 

 REL staff members reported activities under each of the 10 missions of the REL program 

specified in ESRA. The statement of work (SOW) for the REL contracts in place between 

2006 and 2011 aligned explicitly with 6 of the 10 statutory missions for the REL program. 

Four additional statutory missions were not explicitly in the SOW for the RELs, but RELs 

reported activities under those missions as well. 

 As of December 1, 2009, the 10 RELs had submitted 297 proposals to IES to conduct Fast 

Response Projects (FRPs), of which 46 percent (137) were accepted for performance under 

the REL contracts. 

 The IES-published FRP reports received a mean quality rating of 3.81 on a 5-point scale, 

while the corresponding proposals received a mean quality rating of 3.24. Both of these 

means fell between the categories of “adequate” and “strong” quality.

 The IES-published FRP reports received a mean relevance rating of 3.64 on a 5-point scale, 

while the corresponding proposals received a mean relevance rating of 3.39. Both of these 

means fell between the categories of “adequate” relevance and “relevant.”

6. Link to Additional Information: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20134014/ 

Implementation and Impact Evaluation of Race to the Top and School Improvement 

Grants 

1. Study Purpose: RTT is a competitive grant program of the Department that funds states and 

districts planning to implement comprehensive education reform in one or more core areas. 

Since its first awards in 2010, RTT has funded general state competitions, state competitions 

focused on early learning, and district competitions focused on personalized learning. With 

funds from ARRA, the general state competition awarded approximately $4 billion to states in 

support of comprehensive K–12 education reform in four core areas: teachers and leaders, 

standards and assessments, data systems, and school turnaround. The SIG program is 

authorized through Title I of the ESEA and provides three-year awards to support turnaround in 

the nation’s persistently lowest-achieving schools. In FY 2009, the $546 million SIG 

appropriation was supplemented by $3 billion through ARRA, for a total of $3.5 billion. SIG 

funds are distributed to states by formula based on Title I allocations. States then competitively 

award funds to districts applying on behalf of their eligible schools. Schools receiving SIG must 

implement one of four prescriptive intervention models: turnaround, transformation, closure, or 

restart. Both RTT and SIG received substantial funding through ARRA. This study will examine 

the implementation and impacts of RTT and SIG, focusing on the initial general state 

competition for RTT and the first cohort of SIG schools implementing intervention models 

beginning in the 2010–11 school year. 

2. Key Questions Addressed:

 Which policies and practices promoted by the RTT program do RTT states report adopting, 

and how do they compare to the policies and practices that non-RTT states report adopting? 

 Is receipt of an RTT grant related to improvement in student outcomes? 

 Are SIG-funded schools adopting the improvement or turnaround strategies promoted by the 

four SIG intervention models, and how do they compare to strategies in schools not 

implementing a SIG-funded intervention model? How are states and districts supporting 

such efforts? 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 146 

 Does receipt of SIG funding to implement a school intervention model have an impact on 

outcomes for low-performing schools? 

 Is implementation of the four school intervention models and the strategies prescribed by 

those models related to improvement in outcomes for low-performing schools? 

3. Design: The RTT sample includes all 50 states and DC. Data from interviews with all states 

and DC will inform the first evaluation question. The second evaluation question will be 

addressed using a short interrupted time series design with state-level NAEP data. The SIG 

sample includes about 525 schools in 60 districts from 22 states, purposively selected to 

support a regression discontinuity design to address the fourth evaluation question. Data from 

state/district interviews and school surveys will inform the third and fifth evaluation questions. 

Administrative data on student and school achievement are being collected through the 

2012–13 school year to inform the fourth and fifth evaluation questions. 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The first report is scheduled for completion in 2015, 

and the final report is expected in 2016. 

State Capacity to Support the Turnaround of Low Performing Schools 

1. Study Purpose: RTT is a Department-sponsored competitive grant program that funds states 

and districts planning to implement comprehensive education reform in one or more core areas. 

Since its first awards in 2010, RTT has funded general state competitions, state competitions 

focused on early learning, and district competitions focused on personalized learning. With 

funds from ARRA, the general state competition awarded approximately $4 billion to states in 

support of comprehensive K–12 education reform in four core areas: teachers and leaders, 

standards and assessments, data systems, and school turnaround. This study examines the 

implementation of RTT, focusing on state capacity to support school turnaround. 

2. Key Questions Addressed: This brief describes states’ reported priorities for school 

turnaround, gaps in state-level expertise to support turnaround, and approaches to enhance 

capacity to support school turnaround. Consideration is given to whether these reports have 

changed between 2012 and 2013, and whether they differ for RTT and non-RTT states. 

3. Design: Findings are based on interviews in spring 2012 and 2013 with administrators from 

50 states and the District of Columbia (12 Round 1 and 2 RTT states, 7 Round 3 RTT states, 

and 32 non-RTT states). 

4. Estimated or Actual Completion Date: The report is scheduled for completion in 2015. 

Policy and Program Studies Service (PPSS)

State and District Implementation of Education for Homeless Children and Youth 

Program 

1. Study Purpose: The Education for Homeless Children and Youth (EHCY) program provides 

grants to states and other grantees with the goal of ensuring that homeless children and youth 

have access to the same free, appropriate public education as do other children and youth. This 

study examined the implementation of the EHCY program at the state and school district levels 

based on surveys and analysis of extant data. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 147 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

 How do states allocate EHCY funds? 

 What are the roles and responsibilities of the state coordinator and district liaison? What 

services do districts provide to homeless children and youth? 

 How do states monitor and provide technical assistance to districts as part of the EHCY 

program? What technical assistance needs do state coordinators and district liaisons 

report? 

 What data do states and districts collect about homeless children and youth? 

 What do state coordinators and district liaisons perceive as barriers to school success for 

homeless children and youth? 

3. Design: The study surveyed all state coordinators for the ECHY program and a sample of 

448 district liaisons of EHCY districts for the 2010–11 school year. The study also examined 

state-submitted data on homeless children and youth. 

4. Estimated Completion Date: The final report is scheduled for completion in early 2015.

Evaluation of State and Local Implementation of Title III Standards, Assessment, and 

Accountability Systems 

1. Study Purpose: Under ESEA Title III accountability provisions, annual measurable 

achievement objectives (AMAOs) are used to provide district-level and state-level summary 

information about EL students’ progress in attaining English proficiency and meeting state 

standards in English/language arts and mathematics. This report uses a rigorous method for 

examining the performance and progress of EL students that controls for compositional shifts in 

the EL student population and is able to disaggregate performance by subgroup characteristics 

(e.g., poverty status, level of English language proficiency). 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

 Are EL students making progress in learning English? Does the amount of progress vary by 

student characteristics? 

 How long does it take for EL students to attain proficiency on the state ELP assessments, 

and to be redesignated as former English learners? 

 Are EL students making progress toward meeting achievement targets on state content 

assessments in English/language arts and mathematics? 

 Are achievement gaps narrowing for EL students and for former EL students? 

3. Design: The study used longitudinally linked student-level assessment data in four 

jurisdictions—New York, Texas, and two school districts in California—to examine student 

progress for consistent cohorts of ELs, former ELs, and non-ELs who could be followed over a 

period of at least three years. Most analyses examined a three-year period, from 2006–07 

through 2008–09 for New York and from 2005–06 through 2007–08 for the other three 

jurisdictions. The analytic sample of students is not representative of all students served by the 

four jurisdictions, so the findings cannot be generalized to all ELs, non-ELs, or former ELs in those 

states and districts, or to the nation as a whole. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 148 

4. Estimated Completion Date: The final report is scheduled for completion in early 2015. 

Equitable Distribution of Effective Teachers: State and Local Responses to Federal 

Initiatives 

1. Study Purpose: This report provides a broad overview of state efforts, as of the 2011–12 

school year, to monitor equitable access to qualified and effective teachers among schools; 

develop and adopt multiple measures of teacher performance to rate teachers among at least 

three performance levels; and implement targeted strategies for promoting equitable access to 

qualified and effective teachers in schools serving high proportions of poor and/or minority 

students, including the use of measures of teacher qualifications and teacher performance in the 

implementation of these strategies. 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

 What measures did states use to monitor equitable access to qualified and effective 

teachers among schools? 

 To what extent were states developing or using multiple measures of teacher performance 

to rate teachers among at least three performance levels? 

 What strategies did states use to promote equitable access to qualified and effective 

teachers in schools serving high proportions of poor and/or minority students? 

3. Design: This report is based on telephone interviews with officials in SEAs in all states, the 

District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Study staff also reviewed extant sources including equity 

plans, Consolidated State Performance Reports, reports from federal monitoring visits, and 

other information on state websites. 

4. Estimated Completion Date: The final report is scheduled for completion in early 2015.

Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT) Enrolled in Alternative Routes to Certification and 

Licensure 

1. Study Purpose: Title I of ESEA requires that all teachers of core academic subjects be highly 

qualified—meaning they have a bachelor’s degree, full state certification, and demonstrate 

expertise in the subject matter they teach—and that states work to ensure that poor and 

minority students are not taught by teachers who are inexperienced, out-of-field, or unqualified 

at higher rates than their peers. Under federal regulations (34 CFR § 200.56), the Department 

allows teachers who are enrolled in programs that provide alternate routes to certification or 

licensure to be considered highly qualified before meeting full state certification requirements. At 

the same time, alternate route programs have traditionally been used to address shortages, 

which are especially acute in urban areas, special education, and in certain content areas such 

as mathematics and science. This congressionally mandated report examines the extent to 

which students in four different subgroups are taught by teachers enrolled in alternative 

certification programs and classified as “highly qualified” under the ESEA: (1) students with 

disabilities, (2) English learners, (3) students in rural areas, and (4) students from low-income 

families. 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

 What percentage of HQTs across the nation, in each state, and in each district are enrolled 

in an alternative certification program? 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 149 

 What percentage of highly qualified special education teachers across the nation, in each 

state, and in each district are enrolled in an alternative certification program? 

 What percentage of highly qualified Title III teachers across the nation, in each state, and in 

each district are enrolled in an alternative certification program? 

 What percentage of HQTs working in rural areas across the nation and in each state are 

enrolled in an alternative certification program? 

 What percentage of HQTs working in high-poverty areas across the nation and in each state 

are enrolled in an alternative certification program? 

3. Design: This report provides a descriptive analysis of data collected by the Department from 

states in summer and fall 2014 on the numbers of all teachers, special education teachers, and 

Title III teachers who are enrolled in alternative certification programs and deemed highly 

qualified. 

4. Estimated Completion Date: The final report is scheduled for completion in early 2015. 

Evaluation of the Carol White Physical Education Program 

1. Study Purpose: The Carol M. White Physical Education Program (PEP) provides grants to 

school districts or community-based organizations (CBOs) to initiate, expand, and improve 

physical education for students in kindergarten through grade 12. In 2010, the Department 

revised PEP regulations to: include an increased focus on healthy eating habits and nutrition; 

require projects to conduct a needs assessment, and require that districts use four designated 

modules of the Center for Disease Control’s School Health Index (SHI); use this assessment to 

develop project goals and plans to address identified weaknesses; encourage grantees to 

establish partnerships with community entities; encourage grantees to collect and use body 

mass index (BMI) data; and establish new performance measures and standard data-collection 

methods. This report provides the results of the implementation study of the 76 projects (64 

district-led and 12 CBO-led) funded by FY 2010 PEP grant awards—the first cohort of grantees 

under the revised PEP. 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

 What were the results of PEP grantees’ self-assessments of their physical activity, health, 

and nutrition policies and practices? 

 What physical activity and nutrition policy efforts did PEP grantees report? 

 What types of physical fitness and nutrition activities did PEP grantees report? 

 What role did community partnerships play in PEP projects? 

 What were PEP grantees’ experiences collecting and using BMI data?

 What implementation challenges and lessons learned did PEP grantees report? 

3. Design: This study used a mixed-methods research design that included surveys and case 

studies. Surveys of project directors were conducted in 2011 and 2013, the first and third years 

of the grant period. Case studies of five PEP projects (three districts and two CBOs) gathered 

more in-depth information from 59 interviewees regarding grantees’ experiences with 

community partners and BMI data collection. 

4. Estimated Completion Date: The final report is scheduled for completion in spring 2015. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 150 

Study of the Early Implementation of the ESEA Flexibility Provision 

1. Study Purpose: On September 23, 2011, President Obama announced the opportunity for 

states to request flexibility of certain ESEA provisions to help states move forward with efforts to 

improve student achievement and the quality of instruction in their schools. With input from 

broad and diverse stakeholders, the Department designed the ESEA Flexibility initiative so that 

states could build on their existing reform efforts to: (1) transition to college- and career-ready 

standards and aligned assessments; (2) implement new systems of differentiated recognition, 

accountability, and support for schools; (3) evaluate and support teacher and principal 

effectiveness in more robust ways; and (4) reduce duplication and unnecessary burden on 

school districts by removing any duplicative and burdensome reporting requirements. The early 

implementation study will provide documentation of early state- and local-level implementation 

of the flexibility provision. This information is intended to inform federal and state policymakers 

and to support the Department’s monitoring and technical assistance to states. The study 

includes reviews of state and local documents; interviews with education officials at the state, 

district, and school level in early implementing states; and analysis of baseline student outcome 

and other data obtained through extant data sources. 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

States & Districts: 

 Approaches to accountability and support under ESEA Flexibility. What prior experiences 

and rationales guided state approaches to accountability and support under the ESEA 

Flexibility initiative, including states’ selection of annual measurable objectives (AMOs)? 

 Components of a system of accountability and support under ESEA Flexibility. What are the 

primary components of state accountability and support systems under ESEA Flexibility, 

including state processes for identifying reward schools and for identifying priority, focus, 

and other low-performing schools? 

 Intervention and support for low-performing schools and districts. What interventions and 

supports are states and districts implementing in low-performing schools, and what 

approaches are states taking to identify and intervene in low-performing districts? 

 Issues related to ESEA Flexibility implementation. To what extent and what challenges are 

states and districts experiencing related to ESEA Flexibility implementation, and to what 

extent and in what ways are states and districts communicating with stakeholders regarding 

ESEA Flexibility provisions? 

Schools: 

 To what extent did principals report understanding their state’s accountability system under 

ESEA Flexibility, and how did they perceive the communication efforts of their states and 

districts about the system? 

 How did principals perceive the criteria that their states were using to identify low-performing 

schools under ESEA Flexibility? 

 What improvement strategies did principals describe implementing? 

 What state and district support did principals report receiving to support their improvement 

efforts? 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 151 

 What incentives or recognition for success did principals of reward schools report receiving 

from their states as a result of their reward designation? 

3. Design: The primary data sources for this study included state ESEA Flexibility applications, 

state and district policy documents, and interviews with officials identified by state and district 

leaders as holding primary responsibility for accountability and support systems under ESEA

Flexibility. The sample was purposefully selected to include officials representing 12 states, 

24 districts, and 36 schools. 

4. Estimated Completion Date: The final report is scheduled for completion in spring 2015.

Study of English Learners with Special Needs

1. Study Purpose: The purpose of this study is to describe, on an exploratory scale, common 

issues in the identification of ELs for special education. The report will focus on four topics: 

procedures and practices used in identification; assessment data and instruments used to bring 

ELs into special education; personnel, qualifications, and professional development to assist in 

identification; and instruments on which decisions are often made to exit ELs with disabilities out 

of their language instruction programs. 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

 What procedures, practices, and instruments are used to assess and identify ELs with 

disabilities, and how do these differ from those used with non-ELs? 

 What are the roles, backgrounds, and qualifications of school and district personnel involved 

in the assessment and identification of ELs with disabilities? 

 What challenges do districts and schools encounter in the assessment and identification of 

disabilities among ELs and what strategies do they use to overcome these challenges? 

 What procedures and practices do districts and schools use to exit ELs with disabilities from 

language instruction educational programs, and what are the challenges they face? 

3. Design: The study relied on a purposive sample of a diverse group of six case study districts, 

containing 18 schools total, which the study team visited in spring 2013. Study methods onsite 

largely consisted of interviews of a large number and types of stakeholders involved in ESL, 

special education, and related support services at both the school district and school levels. 

Other data collected included special education data; published reports, guides, and regulations 

related to identification; and data on district and school websites. The data were coded to one or 

more of the four key questions and the findings were compared to those from a prior review of 

research. 

4. Estimated Completion Date: The final report is scheduled for completion in spring 2015.

Evaluation of the Teacher Incentive Fund: Final Report

1. Study Purpose: This study examines program implementation in the first two cohorts of TIF 

grantees (2006 and 2007), which included 33 grantees. All 33 grantees implemented 

performance pay systems for principals and other school administrators; 31 grantees also 

included teachers in their performance pay systems. The final report is a complement to a 2012 

report on early implementation of the program, and analyzes award payouts and educator 

perspectives on a variety of issues related to implementation and sustainability. 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 152 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

 How did the size and composition of incentive awards vary across educators and grantees? 

 How did participating educators perceive the fairness and effectiveness of the performance 

pay systems? 

 Did grantees expect to continue their performance pay projects beyond the life of the TIF 

grant? 

3. Design: Data collection included surveys of a representative sample of teachers and 

principals in schools served by TIF projects; financial data for awards paid to educators; 

interviews with TIF project directors, teachers, principals, and other stakeholders; and reviews 

of extant documents. The surveys were conducted in spring 2011, and the incentive award 

payout data are primarily for the 2010–11 school year. 

4. Estimated Completion Date: The final report is scheduled for completion in spring 2015.

Study of Emerging Teacher Evaluation Systems

1. Study Purpose: This study will provide descriptive information on the design and early 

implementation of teacher evaluation systems in eight school districts. The findings are intended 

to help other districts and states learn from the experiences of eight districts featured in the 

study, and apply the design and implementation lessons to their own work as it relates to 

teacher evaluation and support. 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

 What steps did the districts take to design a teacher evaluation system? What are the 

purported purposes of the new teacher evaluation systems in the case study districts? With 

what stakeholders did district staff consult when designing the new systems? What are the 

types of measures districts included in their teacher evaluation systems and how are each of 

those measures weighted? 

 What steps did the districts take prior to full implementation to test the system and prepare 

teachers and staff to implement it? 

 How do the districts structure and conduct the classroom observation component of their 

teacher evaluation systems? 

 How do the districts analyze student achievement and other data to evaluate teacher 

performance? 

 How do the districts use teacher evaluation results to make human resource decisions? To 

what extent are professional development decisions and opportunities tied to evaluation 

results? 

 What administrative structures do/did districts use to support their new teacher evaluation 

system? 

3. Design: This descriptive study relies on interviews with key district administrators, principals, 

teachers, and representatives of community stakeholder groups, from eight districts, who were 

involved in the development and early implementation of the respective districts’ teacher 

evaluation system. Given the limited sample, the findings cannot be generalized to other 

districts.
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 153 

4. Estimated Completion Date: The final report is scheduled for completion in spring 2015.

Feasibility Study on Improving the Quality of School-Level Expenditure Data 

1. Study Purpose: This feasibility study explores options for improving the completeness, 

consistency, and accuracy of school-level expenditures that would be most appropriate to 

include for assessing equity, as well as technical and operational challenges for including 

certain types of expenditures. The study also examines the experiences of states and districts 

that currently track school-level expenditures, including variations in definitions and practices 

used in these jurisdictions, the types of changes to accounting systems and practices that are 

required, and the potential cost of implementing such strategies. 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

 In states and districts that currently track expenditures at the school level, what types of 

personnel and non-personnel expenditures are included in the school-level data? 

 What is the quality of existing school-level expenditure data? What specific steps could be 

taken to improve the completeness, consistency, and accuracy of these data? 

 What changes would states and districts need to make to track expenditures at the school 

level if they do not currently do so? What costs have states and districts incurred to 

implement such data systems? 

3. Design: The study will explore options for improving the completeness, consistency, and 

accuracy of school-level expenditure reporting by: (1) convening an expert panel to identify 

specific challenges and potential solutions; (2) interviewing fiscal staff in five states and four 

school districts that have finance systems that track school-level finance data; and (3) collecting 

and analyzing available school-level expenditure data in the selected states and districts. 

4. Estimated Completion Date: The final report is scheduled for completion in summer 2015. 

National High School Reform Study 

1. Study Purpose: This nationally representative survey of high school administrators is 

examining strategies that schools are using to reduce students’ likelihood of dropping out of 

high school and to increase their likelihood of attaining a high school credential. The study 

examines dropout prevention strategies used by high schools, with an emphasis on those 

supported by the High School Graduation Initiative, authorized under Title I, Part H of ESEA, as 

amended. The survey seeks information on what schools are implementing what activities with 

what students under what circumstances or conditions. 

Data from the National High School Reform Study will inform a descriptive report on the 

strategies that high schools are using to help students graduate from high school, especially 

students at risk for dropping out and students in high schools with low graduation rates. 

Information from the survey will fill critical information gaps about the use and prevalence of 

high school reform strategies to support at-risk youth. 

2. Key Question Addressed: 

 What are the prevalence and characteristics of key high school reforms, especially dropout 

prevention strategies, operating in the nation’s public high schools, overall and in high 

schools with low graduation rates? 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 154 

3. Design: A 30-minute survey administered online to a nationally representative sample of 

approximately 2,000 high school administrators.

4. Estimated Completion Date: Data collection is scheduled to begin in early 2015 and continue 

through June 2015. The final report is scheduled for completion in spring 2016. 

Study of Experiences and Needs of Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP) 

Grantees and Subgrantees 

1. Study Purpose: The purpose of this descriptive study is to examine how grantees and 

subgrantees use REAP funds provided through the Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) 

and Rural and Low-Income Schools (RLIS) programs—on their own or in combination with other 

federal funds—as well as to explore technical assistance needs related to REAP. The study will 

inform program operations, technical assistance to grantees, and future reauthorization of the 

programs. 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

 What are REAP grantees’ experiences of grant eligibility determination? To what extent do 

districts contact, or are they contacted by, the SEA regarding eligibility? 

 On what types of activities are REAP funds spent and in what proportions? What are 

grantees’ experiences of deciding how to target funds (e.g., processes and factors, 

personnel and stakeholders involved, integration in larger spending decisions)? Do districts 

perceive a need for greater flexibility in the use of federal Title VI funds? How does this vary 

by grantee characteristic? 

 How do grantees use REAP funds in combination with other federal program funds? To 

what extent are other Department or other federal programs (e.g., E-Rate, USDA Rural 

Development grants) considered or integrated? What are the challenges in spending REAP 

funds? 

 How many SRSA-eligible grantees use REAP flexibility? Does the use of flexibility differ by 

grantee characteristics? If flexibility is not used, why not? Exactly how do SRSA grantees 

tend to use flexibility? 

 What are the major challenges and technical assistance needs that REAP grantees face 

(e.g., eligibility determination and compliance with program requirements)? Are there 

technical assistance needs that grantees perceive to be unaddressed? For what? What is 

the frequency of technical assistance use by grantees? What is the purpose of such 

assistance, and who offers it? 

 Is there anything that districts or states would recommend changing about the REAP 

program administration or design? 

3. Design: The study consists of: 1) a survey of a sample of approximately 1,000 SRSA 

grantees and RLIS subgrantee districts; 2) telephone interviews with a sample of 30 SRSA 

grantees and RLIS subgrantees; and 3) telephone interviews with REAP coordinators in all 

states receiving REAP funds. Data collection will begin in winter 2015 and is expected to be 

completed by spring 2015. At the state level, the study will include interviews with all state 

REAP coordinators about state goals and priorities, the planning process for use of RLIS funds, 

the eligibility process for districts, management and distribution of SRSA and RLIS funds, and 

recommendations for the program. At the school district level, the study will include an online 

survey of a nationally representative sample of REAP coordinators about the REAP eligibility 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 155 

determination process, administration of REAP, and challenges and technical assistance needs 

related to REAP, as well as telephone interviews with a subsample of 30 districts. The 

interviews will include questions about program administration, technical assistance needs, and 

recommendations for changing the REAP program to better meet the needs of rural districts. 

4. Estimated Completion Date: The final report is scheduled for completion in spring 2016. 

Case Studies of the Implementation and Use of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 

1. Study Purpose: The purpose of the KEAs implementation case studies is to document the 

processes, accomplishments, challenges, and solutions of four states implementing KEAs and 

to share what they have learned with federal and state policymakers and the field. Of particular 

interest is to identify what is working well in states that are early adopters of KEAs. This 

information is needed to support the technical assistance efforts of the Department and to 

inform KEA efforts across the nation. 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

 How have KEAs been developed and adopted by four states that were early to adopt a 

comprehensive KEA? 

 How are KEAs being implemented by 12 school districts within four states that were early 

adopters? 

 How do these four states and their districts and schools communicate and use KEA results 

to inform policy and practice? 

 What lessons did states, districts, and schools learn about KEA adoption, implementation, 

and use? 

3. Design: The nested sample design includes four states, 12 districts, and 24 schools. Data 

collection will include review of state and local documents, phone interviews with SEA preschool 

directors and professional development staff who facilitate district-level training, and in-person 

interviews with district administrators, principals, kindergarten teachers, and other staff involved 

in local administration of KEAs. 

4. Estimated Completion Date: The final report is scheduled for completion in spring 2016.

Study on Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool 

1. Study Purpose: This study will accomplish two goals: (1) summarize what is known about 

policies, programs, and practices that can help students in grades K–3 build on the positive 

effects of preschool or make cognitive, social-emotional, and academic gains; and (2) provide 

detailed case study descriptions of five innovative programs that aim to help disadvantaged 

students sustain and build upon preschool’s positive effects. 

2. Key Questions Addressed: 

 What is known about policies, programs, and practices that can help students in 

grades K–3 build on the positive effects of preschool or make cognitive, social-emotional, 

and academic gains? 
APPENDICES

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 156 

 What are the characteristics of innovative programs (including school-based interventions, 

district-wide approaches, and comprehensive state policies) that sustain the positive effects 

of preschool for students, particularly for disadvantaged students? 

 Based on what research or experiences did the designers of these programs develop the 

program structures and content? 

 What are some of challenges of implementing these programs and how have staff and 

leaders tried to overcome these challenges? 

3. Design: The literature review consists of a two-stage systematic review of three topics: 

(1) preschool and K–3 alignment, (2) differentiated instruction, and (3) interventions to sustain 

the effects of preschool. Stage 1 will be a descriptive mapping review. Stage 2 will be an 

evidence review and will only apply for studies of the three topics that employed a rigorous 

design. The case studies will examine five sites at the elementary (K–3) level that are 

implementing policies, programs, or strategies related to one of the above three topic areas and 

have successfully demonstrated gains for disadvantaged students (e.g., economically 

disadvantaged children; children who are learning English as their second language; and 

children who come from homeless, neglected, or migrant populations) in cognitive, socialemotional, or academic domains. 

4. Estimated Completion Date: The literature review is scheduled for completion in summer 

2015. The final case study report is scheduled for completion in fall 2016. 
APPENDICES

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 157 

Appendix D: Selected Department Web Links and Education 

Resources

College Cost Lists 

The Department provides college affordability and transparency lists under the Higher 

Education Opportunity Act of 2008. Each list is broken out into nine different sectors to allow 

students to compare costs at similar types of institutions, including career and technical 

programs. http://collegecost.ed.gov/catc/

College Navigator

The Department provides a multidimensional review of higher education options for students 

and provides links to other sites. http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/

College Scorecards

College Scorecards in the Department’s College Affordability and Transparency Center make it 

easier to find out more about a college’s affordability and value. 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/higher-education/college-score-card

One-Stop Shopping for Student Loans 

The Department provides a site from which students can manage their loans. 

http://studentloans.gov/

College Preparation Checklist 

This Departmental tool gives prospective college students step-by-step instructions on how to 

prepare academically and financially for education beyond high school. Each section is split into 

subsections for students and parents, explaining what needs to be done and which publications 

or websites might be useful to them. http://studentaid.ed.gov 

Additional resources within the checklist assist students in finding scholarships and grants. 

http://studentaid.ed.gov/students/publications/checklist/main.html

http://studentaid.ed.gov/students/publications/checklist/MoreSourcesOfStudentAid.html 

College Completion Toolkit 

The College Completion Toolkit provides information that governors and other state leaders can 

use to help colleges in their state increase student completion rates. It highlights key strategies 

and offers models to learn from, as well as other useful resources. 

http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/cc-toolkit.pdf 
APPENDICES

SELECTED DEPARTMENT WEB LINKS AND EDUCATION RESOURCES

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 158 

Resources for Adult and Career and Technical Education 

The Department, through the Perkins Collaborative Resource Network, offers resources and 

tools for the development and implementation of comprehensive career guidance programs. 

This includes guides for students, parents, teachers, counselors, and administrators across 

relevant topics, such as planning and exploring careers, selecting institutions, finances, and 

guidance evaluation. This source is an example of interdepartmental cooperation between the 

Department and the U.S. Department of Labor. 

http://cte.ed.gov/nationalinitiatives/gandctools.cfm?&pass_dis=1

The Literacy Information and Communication System (LINCS) is a Department initiative that 

seeks to expand evidence-based practice in the field of adult literacy. LINCS provides highquality, on-demand educational opportunities to practitioners of adult education in order to help 

adult learners successfully transition to postsecondary education and employment. LINCS is 

comprised of three components: 1) the LINCS Resource Collection provides free online access 

to high-quality, evidence-based materials and self-access courses to help practitioners and 

state and local staff improve programs, services, instruction and teacher quality; 2) LINCS 

Regional Professional Development Centers work with states to offer practitioners training and 

professional development activities; and 3) LINCS Community provides an online social learning 

space (a community of practice) for networking, information sharing, and collaboration among 

adult education leadership, professional developers, administrative staff, and practitioners 

across the country. http://lincs.ed.gov/

Program Inventory 

The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, P.L. 111-352, requires that OMB establish a single 

website with a central inventory of all federal programs, including the purpose of each program 

and its contribution to the mission and goals of the Department. The initial Federal Program 

Inventory was published in May 2013. The Department described each program within 27 

budgetary accounts, as well as how the programs support the Department’s broader strategic 

goals and objectives. 

Since that time, Congress passed the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act (DATA Act) 

requiring new public reporting requirements, which impact the definition of program used in this 

guidance. OMB is currently working with agencies to merge the implementation of the DATA Act 

and the Federal Program Inventory requirements to the extent possible to avoid duplicative 

efforts. While OMB and agencies determine the right implementation strategy, the initial Federal 

Program Inventory remains available on the Department’s website and at Performance.gov. 

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/inventory.pdf 

Grants Information and Resources 

In addition to student loans and grants, the Department offers other discretionary grants. These 

are awarded using a competitive process, and formula grants, which use formulas determined 

by Congress. This site lists Department discretionary grant competitions previously announced, 

as well as those planned for later announcement, for new awards organized according to the 

Department’s principal program offices. http://www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/find/edlite-forecast.html 

Additional program information is available. http://www2.ed.gov/programs/gtep/gtep.pdf 
APPENDICES

SELECTED DEPARTMENT WEB LINKS AND EDUCATION RESOURCES

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 159 

Federal Registry for Educational Excellence 

Federal Registry for Educational Excellence (FREE) provides easily accessible resources in a 

wide gamut of subjects for educators. The tool breaks resources into categories ranging from art 

and music to science and mathematics. FREE is built on the Learning Registry, an open 

database for sharing educational resources. It also offers a wide variety of primary documents, 

photos, and videos. In addition, FREE allows educators to follow via Twitter, a social network, 

which facilitates the sharing of ideas. This tool acts as a library of digital resources for educators 

to help them enrich their lessons. http://free.ed.gov/

Practice Guides for Educators 

The Department offers guides that help educators address everyday challenges faced in 

classrooms and schools. Developed by a panel of nationally recognized experts, practice guides 

consist of actionable recommendations, strategies for overcoming potential roadblocks, and an 

indication of the strength of evidence supporting each recommendation. The guides themselves 

are subjected to rigorous external peer review. Users can sort by subject area, academic level, 

and intended audience to find the most recent, relevant, and useful guides. 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications_reviews.aspx 

Performance Data 

EDFacts is a Department initiative to put performance data at the center of policy, management, 

and budget decisions for all K-12 educational programs. 

http://www.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/edfacts/index.html 

Condition of Education and Digest of Education Statistics 

The Condition of Education is a congressionally mandated annual report that summarizes 

developments and trends in education using the latest available statistics. The report presents 

statistical indicators containing text, figures, and data from early learning through graduate-level 

education. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/ 

The primary purpose of the Digest of Education Statistics is to provide a compilation of 

statistical information covering the broad field of American education from pre-kindergarten 

through graduate school. The Digest includes a selection of data from many sources, both 

government and private, and draws especially on the results of surveys and activities carried out 

by the National Center for Education Statistics. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/ 

Projections of Education Statistics to 2021 

For the 50 states and the District of Columbia, the tables, figures, and text in this report contain 

data on projections of public elementary and secondary enrollment and public high school 

graduates to the year 2021. The report includes a methodology section that describes the 

models and assumptions used to develop national and state-level projections. 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2013008 
APPENDICES

SELECTED DEPARTMENT WEB LINKS AND EDUCATION RESOURCES

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 160 

Open Government Initiative 

The Department’s Open Government Initiative is designed to improve the way the Department 

shares information, learns from others, and collaborates to develop the best solutions for 

America’s students. http://www2.ed.gov/about/open.html 

National Assessment of Educational Progress 

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) assesses samples of students in 

grades 4, 8, and 12 in various academic subjects. Results of the assessments are reported for 

the nation and states in terms of achievement levels—basic, proficient, and advanced. 

http://nationsreportcard.gov/ 

Government Accountability Office 

The Government Accountability Office supports Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and helps improve the performance and accountability of the federal government 

for the benefit of the American people. http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/agency.php 

Office of Inspector General 

The Office of Inspector General conducts independent and objective audits, investigations, 

inspections, and other activities to promote the efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity of the 

Department’s programs and operations. http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/index.html 

A list of reports is available. http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/reports.html
APPENDICES

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 161 

Appendix E: Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations

AARTS Audit Accountability and Resolution Tracking System 

AFGR Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate 

AFR Agency Financial Report 

AP Advanced Placement

APG Agency Priority Goal 

API Application Program Interfaces 

APP Annual Performance Plan

APR Annual Performance Report 

ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) 

CAMP College Assistance Migrant Program 

CAP Goals Cross-Agency Priority Goals 

CDA Child Development Associate 

CEDS Common Education Data Standards 

CEELO Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes 

CHAFL College Housing and Academic Facilities Loan Program 

CMS Case Management System 

CoSTEM Committee on STEM Education 

CRDC Civil Rights Data Collection 

CTE Career and Technical Education 

CTS Case Tracking System 

DLL Dual Language Learner 

DM Document Management 

DoD Department of Defense 

DOJ Department of Justice 

DST Data Strategy Team 

EAG Enhanced Assessment Grant 

ECPC Early Childhood Personnel Center 
APPENDICES

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 162 

EDGAR Education Department General Administrative Regulations 

ELC TAC Early Learning Challenge Technical Assistance Center 

ERIC Education Resources Information Center 

ESEA Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 

FAFSA Free Application for Federal Student Aid 

FCC Federal Communications Commission 

FERPA Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act 

FEVS Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey

FFEL Federal Family Education Loan 

FMFIA Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 1982

FPCO Family Policy Compliance Office

FREE Federal Registry for Educational Excellence 

FSA Federal Student Aid 

FY Fiscal Year 

G5 Grants Management System 

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 

GPRAMA GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 

GSA General Services Administration 

HBCUs Historically Black Colleges and Universities 

HCERA Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010

HEA Higher Education Act of 1965

HEAL Health Education Assistance Loans 

HEP High School Equivalency Program 

HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

HSGI High School Graduation Initiative 

i3 Investing in Innovation Fund 

IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

IES Institute of Education Sciences 

IHE Institution of Higher Education 
APPENDICES

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 163 

IOM Institute of Medicine

IPEDS Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 

ISU Implementation and Support Unit (reorganized into the Office of State Support) 

IT Information Technology 

KEA Kindergarten Entry Assessment 

LEA Local Educational Agency 

LEP Limited English Proficiency 

MEP Migrant Education State Program 

MSP Mathematics and Science Partnerships 

NAEP National Assessment of Educational Progress 

NAM Native American and Alaska Native Children in Schools 

NAS National Academy of Sciences 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NCES National Center for Education Statistics 

NCLB No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

NIDRR National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research 

NIH National Institutes of Health

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NPD National Professional Development 

NSF National Science Foundation 

OCFO Office of the Chief Financial Officer 

OCR Office for Civil Rights 

OCTAE Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education 

OELA Office of English Language Acquisition 

OESE Office of Elementary and Secondary Education 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

OII Office of Innovation and Improvement 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OPE Office of Postsecondary Education 
APPENDICES

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 164 

OPEPD Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development 

OPM Office of Personnel Management 

OSEP Office of Special Education Programs 

OSERS Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services 

OSS Office of State Support (formerly the Implementation and Support Unit) 

PIC Performance Improvement Council 

PO Principal Office 

PPIRS Past Performance Information Retrieval System 

PTAC Privacy Technical Assistance Center 

QPR Quarterly Performance Review 

QRIS Quality Rating and Improvement Systems 

RDA Results-Driven Accountability 

RELs Regional Educational Laboratories 

RSA-911 Rehabilitation Services Administration-911

RTT Race to the Top 

RTTA Race to the Top-Assessment 

RTT-ELC Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge 

SAFRA Student Aid and Financial Responsibility Act 

SAMHSA Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 

SAT Senior Assessment Team 

SEA State Educational Agency 

SFA Student Financial Assistance 

SIG School Improvement Grant 

SLDS Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems 

SPFI Summary of Performance and Financial Information 

SSDI Supportive School Discipline Initiative 

SSIP State Systemic Improvement Plan 

SST State Support Team 

STEM Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 
APPENDICES

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 165 

SY School Year 

TA Technical Assistance 

TAACCCT Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training 

TEACH Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grant 

TQRIS Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement Systems 

Treasury U.S. Department of Treasury 

U.S. United States 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

VR Vocational Rehabilitation 

WDQI Wage Data Quality Information Program 

WIOA Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 

WTTS Workforce Transformation and Tracking System 

WWC What Works Clearinghouse
OUR MISSION IS TO PROMOTE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND PREPARATION FOR 

GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS BY FOSTERING EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE AND 

ENSURING EQUAL ACCESS. 

WWW.ED.GOV