U.S. Department of Education

FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Message from the Secretary i

Message from the 

Secretary

President Donald Trump, former Secretary 

Betsy DeVos, and I are fighting for more 

learning options for every student, every 

family, and every teacher in America. 

Now, more than ever, parents need the 

freedom to decide which education 

setting best serves the unique needs of 

each of their children. The future of our 

students—and, ultimately, of our nation—

depends on education freedom. The 

U.S. Department of Education’s Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years [FY] 2018–22

reflects this Administration’s commitment to students, families, and teachers. 

I have been assured that the performance 

data included in this FY 2020 Annual Performance Report are complete and reliable 

in accordance with federal requirements.

During the COVID-19 pandemic under the 

leadership of then-Secretary DeVos, we 

redoubled our efforts to help students of all

ages by promoting digital learning; putting 

out extra guidance to help K-12 schools, 

colleges, and universities; and helping 

students with disabilities get the services 

they need. Former Secretary DeVos also 

pursued effective governance for the 

Department itself by lifting burdensome 

regulations and rightsizing the federal 

role in education because education is—

and always has been—a fundamentally 

local concern. 

In response to the pandemic, the Department promptly made available emergency 

taxpayer funds authorized by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security 

(CARES) Act, provided a streamlined 

process for states to submit waivers to opt 

out of federal testing requirements for the 

2019–2020 school year, and took steps 

to continue learning for all students. We 

delivered timely information to support 

states, school districts, K–12 schools, 

colleges, and universities so that they 

could provide much-needed assistance to

educators, students, and families.

The CARES Act provided almost 

$31 billion for this effort. In addition to the 

Governor’s Emergency Education Relief 

Fund (almost $3 billion), the Elementary and 

Secondary Emergency Relief Fund (more 

than $13 billion), and the Higher Education 

Emergency Relief Fund ($14 billion), this 
ii FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

law also provided relief for federal student 

loan borrowers and allowed K–12 schools 

to repurpose funds for technology infrastructure and training in distance education.

The President’s FY 2021 budget boldly 

proposed that Congress consolidate nearly 

all federal K–12 programs into a single block 

grant with fewer federal strings so that states 

could target funds where needed the most. 

The budget proposal included a request for 

a $5 billion annual federal tax credit for 

voluntary donations to state-based scholarship programs. Education Freedom 

Scholarships would empower K–12 students 

and their families to choose the educational 

setting that works best for them regardless 

of where they live, who they know, how 

much they earn, or how they best learn. 

We also worked closely with states as they 

implemented the Strengthening Career 

and Technical Education Act for the 21st 

Century Act (Perkins V). These efforts 

included offering flexibilities for career 

and technical education (CTE) leaders who 

were required to submit their state CTE plan 

for FY 2020–2023, enabling them to focus 

on serving students during the COVID-19 

pandemic with high-quality, career-focused

education.

To strengthen America’s competitiveness, 

we launched a series of prize competitions 

to expand the capacity of CTE and adult 

education. For example, the Rethink Adult 

Ed Challenge invited adult education 

providers to design programs that better 

prepare learners for apprenticeships and 

beyond. Additionally, CTE Mission: 

CubeSat invited high schools to bring 

space missions to students by designing 

and building CubeSat prototypes, while 

our Rural Tech Project invited high schools 

and school districts to propose technology 

education programs that use competencybased distance learning.

The Department’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES) promoted strong, 

evidence-based learning approaches for 

students from preschool to postsecondary. 

This year, IES offered educators proven 

strategies for both in-person and remote 

teaching and learning.

The Department has continued to give 

priority to further modernizing Federal Student Aid (FSA). Next Gen FSA provides a 

centralized hub to retrieve student aid information and improves the means by which 

students, parents, and borrowers interact 

with and access benefits administered by 

FSA. StudentAid.gov provides information about available types of student aid and 

payment plans, offers loan counseling, and 

provides access to the Free Application for 

Federal Student Aid® form. We also updated 

and improved the College Scorecard to help 

students find personalized, accessible, and 

relevant data about the debt one might incur 

attending certain schools and the anticipated earnings based on fields of study.

The Department invited a new cohort of 

67 schools to participate in our Second 

Chance Pell experiment in April 2020, 

providing need-based Federal Pell 

Grants to individuals incarcerated in 

federal and state prisons. More than 

4,000 credentials—including postsecondary certificates, associate degrees, 
Message from the Secretary iii

and bachelor’s degrees—have been 

awarded to Second Chance Pell students 

over the past three years. We appreciate the opportunity to have worked with 

Congress on this issue and the historic 

step taken in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, to authorize Pell Grants 

for incarcerated individuals; it is no longer 

an experimental program.

To ensure that we manage our programs 

effectively, we also focused on improving 

our internal operations. Every office within 

the Department is expected to use the 

best available evidence in conducting 

its work, with grantees and contractors 

conducting or commissioning rigorous 

evaluations of their activities and reporting their findings to the Department and 

the public. To that end, we released our 

Evaluation Policy in August 2020. We 

remain committed to ensuring that student 

privacy is protected in all of our data 

collection activities.

We continue to rewrite, replace, and remove 

burdensome rules and regulations as part of 

this Administration’s commitment to regulatory reform. We have also reviewed and 

removed outdated requirements that place 

undue burdens on students and teachers.

Finally, we improved our cybersecurity 

operations at the Department to ensure 

uninterrupted services during the pandemic. Through these challenging times, 

our employees have continued to work 

effectively to provide services to states, 

school districts, K–12 schools, colleges, 

universities, educators, and students and 

their families.

Students—their needs and their unlimited 

potential—are central to everything we 

do. We will continue to empower states, 

communities, and families to transform 

learning in order to meet the realities of 

a global economy. If students are free to 

pursue the education that fits them, they 

will be prepared to meet any challenge and 

seize any opportunity.

Mitchell M. Zais, Ph.D.

Acting Secretary of Education
This page is intentionally left blank.
Table of Contents v

Table of Contents

Highlights 1

Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

About the Department. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

National Landscape. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

About the Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Strategic Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Performance Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Goal 1: P–12 Education 19

Objective 1.1: Educational Options for Students and Parents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Objective 1.2: Access to High-Quality Educational Opportunities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Objective 1.3: Transition to College and Career. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Objective 1.4: Implementation of Evidence-Based Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Goal 2: Postsecondary Education 57

Objective 2.1: Access and Completion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Objective 2.2: Using Evidence-Based Strategies or Other Promising Practices. . . . . . . . . 67

Objective 2.3: Innovative and Affordable Pathways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Objective 2.4: Federal Student Aid Customer Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Objective 2.5: Federal Student Loan Repayment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Goal 3: Data Management, Use, and Protection 87

Objective 3.1: Internal Data Governance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Objective 3.2: Privacy Protections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Objective 3.3: Access and Use of Education Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Goal 4: Management and Reform 103

Objective 4.1: Regulatory Relief and Improved Processes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Objective 4.2: Enterprise Risk Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Objective 4.3: Cybersecurity at the Department. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Objective 4.4: Engaged and Prepared Workforce. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Appendices 133

Appendix A: Data Validity and Verification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Appendix B: Performance Metric Changes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

Appendix C: Programs by Goal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Appendix D: Summary of Performance Evaluations Conducted During 

FY 2019 and Expected During FY 2020 and FY 2021. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

Appendix E: Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
This page is intentionally left blank.
Highlights

Executive Summary | About the Department | National Landscape | 

About the Report | Strategic Framework | Performance Assessment
This page is intentionally left blank.
Executive Summary 3

Executive Summary

As a precursor to this annual report, in 

February 2018, the Department issued 

its U.S. Department of Education Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years [FY] 2018–22 

(Strategic Plan). The Strategic Plan 

establishes four broad, overarching 

goals—one goal each in the areas of K–12 

education, postsecondary education and 

training, data quality and accessibility, and 

the effectiveness and accountability of the 

Department. Each goal, in turn, has within 

it separate strategic objectives that state a 

specific manner in which the Department 

will accomplish the goal.

The Government Performance and Results 

Act Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) 

(Pub. L. No. 111-352) updated the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 

(GPRA) (Pub. L. No. 103-62) and provides 

the legal basis for the Strategic Plan, goals, 

and strategic objectives. In accordance with 

GPRAMA, the Deputy Secretary serves as 

the Chief Operating Officer of the Department and leads the Department’s work in 

achieving its goals.

This year’s annual report, the FY 2020 

Annual Performance Report, summarizes 

the results of the Department’s third year 

executing its Strategic Plan.

As shown in this report, the Department 

made significant strides on several 

fronts—proposing a new initiative to 

promote education freedom for students 

and families, encouraging students and 

families to rethink the traditional American 

education model to consider a variety 

of postsecondary options, modernizing 

Federal Student Aid’s (FSA’s) infrastructure 

to improve the ways FSA connects with 

students throughout their time in higher 

education and throughout the full life of 

their student loan payments, helping states 

and school districts comply with recent 

federal laws, making the Department’s 

data more transparent and available for the 

public, and reorganizing the Department to 

make its corporate structure more efficient 

to better respond to current needs.

Using the standards it set for itself—that is, 

the set of 54 measures with annual targets 

that gauge the Department’s performance 

in FY 2020, the Department met its targets

for 37 measures (68.5 percent). The Department did not meet its targets for 17 of the 

54 measures (31.5 percent). There were 

10 measures in FY 2020 that did not have 

annual targets given the Department used 

that time to gather data to set a baseline and 

establish targets for future years. One measure was still pending data availability 

as of the date of publication of this report.

Accomplishing the goals of the Strategic 

Plan is about much more than meeting 
4 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

targets for measures, encompassing a wide 

array of activities. This report discusses 

the accomplishments of the Department 

during FY 2020 as well as the challenges 

encountered.
About the Department 5

About the Department

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.

The Department accomplishes its mission 

by administering programs that provide 

services from early intervention services 

to employment training programs. Many 

of these programs provide grants to states 

or local educational agencies and support 

students and families from vulnerable 

populations, including children with 

disabilities and those from disadvantaged 

backgrounds. These programs also provide 

grants and loans to postsecondary students 

and facilitate research that examines 

ways that states, schools, districts, and 

postsecondary institutions can improve 

America’s education system. In addition, 

the Department fulfills its mission through 

the enforcement of civil rights laws that 

provide equal access to Department 

programs for all individuals.
6 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

FY 2020 Organization Structure

The following shows the coordinating structure used in fiscal year (FY) 2020.

Office of

Finance

and Operations

Office of

the Chief

Information

Officer

Office of

Elementary

and Secondary

Education

Office of

English

Language

Acquisition

Office of Special

 Education and

 Rehabilitative

Services

Office for

Civil Rights

Office of the 

Secretary and

Deputy Secretary1

Institute of

Education

Sciences

Office of

Inspector

General

Office of the 

Under Secretary

Office of

Postsecondary

Education

Office of Career,

Technical, and

Adult Education

Federal

Student Aid

Office of

Planning,

Evaluation,

and Policy

Development

Office of

Communications

and Outreach

White House

Initiatives

Office of the

General Counsel

Office of

Legislation and

Congressional

Affairs

1

The Deputy Secretary is the Chief Operating Officer of the agency. As Chief Operating Officer, the Deputy 

Secretary is responsible for improving the management and performance of the agency and providing 

overall organizational management to improve agency performance and achieve the mission and goals 

of the agency through the use of strategic and performance planning, measurement, analysis, regular 

assessments of progress, and use of performance information to improve the results achieved. Government 

Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-352, January 4, 2011, 124 Stat 

3866; 31 U.S.C.A. §§ 1123 (a) and (b)(1).
National Landscape 7

National Landscape

Meeting the COVID-19 Challenge: 

Spurring Personalization and Innovation in Education

Education in the United States changed 

irrevocably in 2020. Now, more than ever, 

parents and families are much more aware 

of what their children are—and are not—

learning. And while the nationwide pivot 

from in-person to remote instruction has 

worked for a few, for too many, it has 

produced frustration and failure.

The cause of this profound change in the 

nation’s education landscape is, of course, 

COVID-19. On January 22, 2020, the first 

laboratory-confirmed case of the disease 

in the United States was reported to the 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Between March 12 and March 24, 

governors in 50 states announced plans to 

shutter school buildings. In the weeks that 

followed, parents, educators, and policymakers faced an unparalleled challenge: 

how to safely educate learners in the midst 

of a pandemic that upended modern life.

While the country is still gleaning important lessons, much of what COVID-19 has 

already taught Americans about education is not pleasant. Too many students 

do not have access to broadband internet, thereby limiting their ability to learn 

remotely or otherwise benefit from the 

wealth of resources made available via the 

internet. Too many teachers, even those 

who are otherwise enthusiastic adopters 

of technology in their classrooms, do 

not have the training or supports needed 

to pivot to a mostly (or fully) online 

environment. Also, too many parents, 

attempting to meet the needs of their 

children while making ends meet for their 

entire families, have been at the mercy 

of special interests that are not focused 

on doing what is right for students. The consequences of these frailties, although not 

yet fully known, are likely to be severe: by 

some estimates, up to half a year of learning 

in mathematics and nearly two-thirds of a 

year of learning in reading could have been 

wiped away.

Despite all of this, the response to 

COVID-19 has stood as a reminder 

of the determination and resilience of 

Americans everywhere. Community-based 

organizations have opened their doors 

to support the continuity of learning 

and services to students who could 

not otherwise attend school in person. 

Parents and families—students’ first 

teachers—have found ways to continue 

learning at home in ways that only months 

before would have been virtually unimaginable. And the pandemic has demonstrated 

just how critical it is to empower families 
8 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

to choose the learning environments that 

meet the needs of their children. COVID-19 

has made it clear to families that not only 

do they have more choice in when, where, 

and how their children are educated than 

they might have otherwise realized but 

also how essential personalizing that 

education truly is to students’ success.

After a difficult year, many are eager to 

put COVID-19 in the rearview mirror 

and see schools and institutions return 

to normal. However, if Americans want 

education in the United States to change 

for the better, new approaches will need 

to be embraced. The country must innovate by bringing imagination, ingenuity, 

and resolve to the challenge of doing right 

by students of all ages.

State and local leaders and families will 

meet this challenge head on. The Department can come alongside those closest to 

students to support what they need. Some 

examples of Department support from this 

past school year include the following:

• Reimagining K–12 Education:

This Administration proposed the 

most transformative K–12 policy 

ever: Education Freedom Scholarships. A bipartisan bill was approved 

by a majority in the U.S. Senate to 

directly fund students and their families as they pursue the education that 

is right for them. The Department also 

awarded more than $180 million in 

new grant funds to 11 states willing 

to rethink how to better serve students 

and families. Awardees will undertake 

work in one of three areas including: 

(1) microgrants that ensure families 

have access to technology and services 

needed to take full advantage of 

remote learning; (2) statewide course 

access and virtual learning programs 

that increase students’ access to subjects that might not be available at 

their home school; and (3) remote 

education models that better prepare students for successful careers 

and lives.

• Expanding Career Pathways, Career 

Training, and Opportunities for 

Entrepreneurship: The Department 

awarded more than $126 million in 

new grant funds to eight states through 

their workforce boards who, in the 

face of the COVID-19 pandemic, 

reimagined workforce preparation and 

supported entrepreneurship. Activities 

include new short-term training 

programs to support dislocated workers; 

the design of state-wide systems of 

micro-credentialing, badging, and 

licensing; business incubators and entrepreneurship bootcamps; and innovative 

technologies, including augmented and 

virtual reality, to provide in-demand 

training to remote learners.

• Supporting Innovative Schools:

The Department invested more than 

$131 million in new grant funds to 

support the creation and expansion of 

high-quality public charter schools. 

Analyses published by the National 

Alliance for Public Charter Schools

suggest that public charter schools 

were more likely than traditional 

districts to establish and maintain 

high expectations for learning despite 
National Landscape 9

the challenges of the pandemic, 

including expecting teachers to continue instruction during COVID-19 

closures (74 percent versus 47 percent),

to provide real-time instruction 

(37 percent versus 22 percent), and 

require that teachers check in with 

students (54 percent versus 37 percent).

Notably, 90 percent of grant funds support projects located in Opportunity 

Zones, which are economically distressed areas that may especially benefit 

from federal education investments.

• Investing in Discovery: The Department’s Institute of Education 

Sciences (IES) announced more than 

$278 million in new grant awards to 

support discovery leading to the next 

generation of innovative education 

practices, programs, and policies that 

will improve access to high-quality 

education and the academic achievement of all learners from early childhood 

through adulthood, particularly those 

who are at risk of failure. Of these 

funds, $77 million support research 

focused on students with or at risk of 

disabilities, and $10 million support the 

Department’s Small Business Innovation Research Program. As a whole, the

Department made $578 million in new 

and continuing investments that support science, technology, engineering, 

and mathematics (STEM).

• Supporting Evidence-based Practices in Continuity of Learning and 

School Reopening: Offices across the 

Department, including the Office of 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

(OESE); the Office of Special Education 

and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS); 

the Office of Postsecondary Education; 

the Office of Career, Technical, and 

Adult Education; IES; and the Office 

for Civil Rights, were among the first 

to respond to the needs of families and 

educators who, almost overnight, were 

forced to pivot to remote learning. Since 

mid-March, more than 120 resources 

for families and educators have been 

developed by the Department to support 

providers, including OESE’s Comprehensive Centers, IES’ Regional 

Educational Laboratories, and OSERS’ 

technical assistance centers, filling 

critical resource gaps for parents and 

teachers alike.

The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated 

that families need more education options. 

The Department must continue to remove 

regulatory barriers to parental choice and 

empower those closest to students and 

students themselves. Critically, this work 

depends on strong partnerships with state 

and local leaders committed to putting the 

needs of students and families first.
This page is intentionally left blank.
About the Report 11

About the Report

Strategic Process Building Blocks

The following graphic demonstrates how the Department’s structures facilitate strategic 

planning, goal setting, reporting, and monitoring to improve operations and achieve the 

agency’s mission.

Strategic Plan

Framework for implementing 

the Administration’s vision 

for improving education

4

Strategic Goals

What the Department 

wants to achieve

16

Strategic Objectives

Strategies the Department will 

undertake in pursuit of its Strategic Goals

Agency 

Priority Goals

Top performance 

improvement priorities 

with results to be 

achieved in 

FY 2020 and FY 2021

65

Performance 

Measures

Quantifiable indicators to 

assess progress in meeting 

strategic objectives 

or Strategic Goals 
12 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

How to Read Performance Data

Performance metrics are presented at the end of each strategic objective section in standardized tabular and graphic format. This page explains the design elements on those pages.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

The following acronyms and abbreviations are regularly used throughout the measures:

N/A = not applicable, TBD = to be determined, SY = school year (i.e., August to July and is aligned with a P–12 school 

year), FY = fiscal year (i.e., federal fiscal year), and — = not available.

Numeric measures are set at zero and 

range to the FY 2020 actual or target, 

whichever is higher.

FY 2020

Actual

(3,630)

Target

(3,719)

FY 2020

Actual

(1,608,691)

Target

(1,634,800)

Color banding 

accompanies 

the arrow and 

is coordinated 

to match the 

color selection 

from the icon.

3,630 1,608,691

Not met, improved from previous year No or negative improvement

Worst Best

35%

Target and

 FY 2020 Actual

(35%)

FY 2020

Actual

(16.6%)

Target

(18.4%)

Percentages are shown on a 

0 to 100 percent scale.

Odometers are oriented to show performance 

from worst to best, left to right.

Ranges are inverted for metrics where 

lower numbers show improved performance.

16.6%

Baseline measure Met or exceeded target Met or exceeded target

Needle and 

center number 

identify FY 2020 

actual value.

XXXX

Title

Identifies the performance elements being measured.

Icon:

Provides a 

quick visual 

assessment of 

performance 

against the 

established 

target for 

FY 2020.

Odometer:

Provides graphical representation of the 

FY 2020 target and actual performance.

Note:

Identifies 

trends and data 

availability.

Data Source:

Indicates the 

source for 

the data.

FY 2020 

Period of 

Performance: 

Indicates the 

time period the 

data reference.

Odometers and Icon Examples
Strategic Framework 13

Strategic Framework

FY 2018–2022 Strategic Goals and Objectives

The following tables show the Department’s fiscal years (FY) 2018–2022 Strategic Goals 

and objectives. 

Strategic Goal 1: Support state and local efforts to improve learning outcomes for all P–12 students 

in every community.

Strategic Objective 1.1 Increase high-quality educational options and empower students and parents to choose an education 

that meets their needs.

Strategic Objective 1.2 Provide all P–12 students with equal access to high-quality educational opportunities.

Strategic Objective 1.3 Prepare all students for successful transitions to college and careers by supporting access to dual 

enrollment, job skills development and high-quality science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

Strategic Objective 1.4 Support agencies and institutions in the implementation of evidence-based strategies and practices 

that build the capacity of school staff and families to support students’ academic performance.

Strategic Goal 2: Expand postsecondary educational opportunities, improve outcomes to foster 

economic opportunity and promote an informed, thoughtful and productive citizenry.

Strategic Objective 2.1 Support educational institutions, students, parents and communities to increase access and completion 

of college, lifelong learning and career, technical and adult education.

Strategic Objective 2.2 Support agencies and educational institutions in identifying and using evidence-based strategies or 

other promising practices to improve educational opportunities and successfully prepare individuals 

to compete in the global economy.

Strategic Objective 2.3 Support agencies and educational institutions as they create or expand innovative and affordable 

paths to relevant careers by providing postsecondary credentials or job-ready skills.

Strategic Objective 2.4 Improve quality of service for customers across the entire student aid life cycle.

Strategic Objective 2.5 Enhance students’ and parents’ ability to repay their federal student loans by providing accurate and 

timely information, relevant tools and manageable repayment options.

Strategic Goal 3: Strengthen the quality, accessibility and use of education data through better 

management, increased privacy protections and transparency.

Strategic Objective 3.1 Improve the Department’s data governance, data life cycle management and the capacity to support 

education data.

Strategic Objective 3.2 Improve privacy protections for, and transparency of, education data both at the Department and in the 

education community.

Strategic Objective 3.3 Increase access to, and use of, education data to make informed decisions both at the Department and 

in the education community.

Strategic Goal 4: Reform the effectiveness, efficiency and accountability of the Department.

Strategic Objective 4.1 Provide regulatory relief to educational institutions and reduce burden by identifying time-consuming 

regulations, processes and policies and working to improve or eliminate them, while continuing to 

protect taxpayers from waste and abuse.

Strategic Objective 4.2 Identify, assess, monitor and manage enterprise risks.

Strategic Objective 4.3 Strengthen the Department’s cybersecurity by enhancing protections for its information technology 

infrastructure, systems and data.

Strategic Objective 4.4 Improve the engagement and preparation of the Department’s workforce using professional 

development and accountability measures.
14 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

FY 2020 and FY 2021 Agency Priority Goals

Agency Priority Goals (APGs) state results 

to be achieved in a 24-month period. The 

Department identified five APGs for fiscal 

year (FY) 2020 and FY 2021. These goals 

seek to increase education choices, enhance 

multiple pathways for student success in 

career and job-ready skills, improve the 

Department’s Federal Student Aid customer service, improve student privacy 

protection and cybersecurity at institutions 

of higher education, and provide regulatory 

relief and burden reduction to stakeholders.

APG: Education Freedom: Improve awareness of and access 

to high-quality K–12 education opportunities for students 

and families. Related Strategic Objective: 1.1

By September 30, 2021, the Department will increase both the 

number and percentage of total charter school students and total 

scholarship students nationwide:

• Charter school student enrollment will increase from 

3.29 million to 3.51 million (6.90 percent of all students 

in public schools).

• The number of scholarship students, including participants in 

state-based vouchers, tax-credit scholarships, and education 

savings accounts programs, will increase from 482,000 to 

579,250 (1.10 percent of the total school-age population).

• The number of parents who receive support and engagement 

through technical assistance and other resources will increase 

by 5 percent per year.

Increase high-quality educational 

options and empower students and 

parents to choose an education that 

meets their needs.

APG: Multiple Pathways to Success: Improve nationwide 

awareness of and access to career pathways that support job 

skills development and career readiness. 

Related Strategic Objectives: 

1.3 and 2.3

By September 30, 2021, the Department will, through programs 

such as the Career and Technical Education and Adult Education 

State Grants: 

• Support the creation and expansion of integrated education 

and training (IET) programs in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and 

the District of Columbia. 

• Increase enrollment of participants in IET programs 

to 56,000.

• Support the enrollment of Career and Technical Education 

concentrators in science, technology, engineering and 

mathematics (STEM) fields. 

• Increase by 25,000 the number of federal financial aid 

recipients who earn a postsecondary credential in STEM.

Prepare all students for successful 

transitions to college and careers 

by supporting access to dual 

enrollment, job skills development 

and high-quality science, 

technology, engineering and 

mathematics (STEM). 

Support agencies and educational 

institutions as they create or 

expand innovative and affordable 

paths to relevant careers by 

providing postsecondary 

credentials or job-ready skills.
Strategic Framework 15

APG: Federal Student Aid Customer Service: Leverage the 

Next Generation Financial Services Environment (Next Gen 

FSA) to improve and personalize customers’ experience with 

Federal Student Aid (FSA). Related Strategic Objective: 2.4

By September 30, 2021, FSA will transform its relationship 

with prospective and current customers through deployment 

of significant components of the Next Gen FSA that result in a 

personalized experience: 

• The number of individuals submitting a Free Application for 

Federal Student Aid® (FAFSA®) through a mobile device 

will increase to 2.6 million. 

• The overall customer satisfaction level throughout the 

student aid life cycle, as measured by the FSA Customer 

Satisfaction score1, will increase.

Improve quality of service for 

customers across the entire student 

aid life cycle.

1

The Federal Student Aid Customer Satisfaction Score is an annual composite metric that measures the 

overall customer satisfaction level throughout the student aid life cycle for Free Application for Federal 

Student Aid® applicants (mobile and fafsa.gov), Title IV aid recipients in school, and borrowers in 

repayment. The score is based on the American Customer Satisfaction Index surveys.

APG: Student Privacy and Cybersecurity: Improve student 

privacy and cybersecurity at institutions of higher education 

(IHEs) through outreach and compliance efforts. Related Strategic Objective: 3.2

By September 30, 2021, the Department will participate 

in 12 engagements with sector-related non-governmental 

organizations to inform the development of five best practice 

programmatic improvements.

Improve privacy protections for, 

and transparency of, education data 

both at the Department and in the 

education community.

APG: Regulatory Reform: Provide regulatory relief to 

education stakeholders as necessary and appropriate. Related Strategic Objective: 4.1

By September 2021, the Department will provide regulatory 

relief for education stakeholders by taking no fewer than 

eight deregulatory actions, which includes reduction in 

paperwork burden.

Provide regulatory relief to 

educational institutions and reduce 

burden by identifying timeconsuming regulations, processes 

and policies and working to 

improve or eliminate them, while 

continuing to protect taxpayers 

from waste and abuse.
16 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Cross-Agency Priority Goals

In addition to the Agency Priority Goals, the 

Department contributes to Cross-Agency 

Priority (CAP) Goals established by the 

Administration in the President’s Management Agenda (PMA) of March 2018. These 

CAP Goals are used to accelerate progress 

on Presidential priority areas that require 

active collaboration among multiple agencies to ensure successful implementation.

The PMA includes 14 CAP Goals. The 

following three CAP Goals are identified 

as key drivers of transformation: (1) Information Technology (IT) Modernization; 

(2) Data, Accountability, and Transparency; 

and (3) People—Workforce for the Future. 

The remaining CAP Goals are organized as 

either cross-cutting or functional priority

areas. The Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) is leading various initiatives 

to advance all the CAP Goals and coordinating with agencies as appropriate.

The Department co-leads efforts on CAP 

Goal 8 (Results-Oriented Accountability 

for Grants) and CAP Goal 10 (Improving 

Outcomes Through Federal IT Spending 

Transparency). It supports CAP Goal 8 

through its participation in working groups, 

such as OMB’s Performance Management 

Workgroup. The workgroup researched, 

analyzed, and collected performance management practices employed by grant 

programs across the federal government, 

including 36 of the Department’s programs. 

From the inventory, best practices were 

selected to serve as examples in version 1 

of Managing for Results: The Performance 

Management Playbook for Federal Awarding Agencies (i.e., The Playbook). The 

Playbook represents an important milestone 

in bringing federal grant-awarding agencies 

one step closer to the achievement of CAP 

Goal 8 (Results-Oriented Accountability 

for Grants). Additionally, the Department’s Technology Business Management 

(TBM) Solution initiative directly supports 

CAP Goal 10. The Department intends 

to leverage TBM beyond the minimum 

reporting requirements to encompass the 

full implementation of the cost accounting 

framework. The Department is refining 

the TBM efforts to assist with cost analysis and accounting, specifically as they 

relate to providing information to improve 

tracking and reporting of operations and 

services costs to help mitigate cost variances on IT spending. The Department 

also supports CAP Goal 2 through its 

active participation on the federal Chief 

Data Officer Council and other initiatives codified in the Federal Data Strategy. 

The Department’s Chief Data Officer 

regularly shares effective implementation strategies on Federal Data Strategy’s 

2020 Action Plan milestones, including 

the Department’s agency-wide data maturity assessment and staff data skills survey 

with other federal Chief Data Officers. This 

informs government-wide best practices 

and advances the shared mission of leveraging federal data as a strategic asset to best 

deliver on mission, serve the public, and 

steward resources while protecting privacy 

and confidentiality. The Department also 

continues to support CAP Goal 6, shifting 

from low-value to high-value work. One of 

the ways in which this is evident is the Regulatory Reform Task Force’s work, which 

led to more than 1,300 outdated guidance 

documents being rescinded.

Please refer to Performance.Gov for the 

Department’s contributions to those goals 

and progress, where applicable.
Performance Assessment 17

Performance Assessment

STRATEGIC GOALS 

1. Support state and local efforts to 

improve learning outcomes for all 

P–12 students in every community.

2. Expand postsecondary educational 

opportunities, improve outcomes 

to foster economic opportunity and 

promote an informed, thoughtful 

and productive citizenry.

3. Strengthen the quality, 

accessibility and use of 

education data through better 

management, increased privacy 

protections and transparency.

4. Reform the effectiveness, 

efficiency and accountability 

of the Department.

Performance Assessment Overview 

The following provides an overview of the Department’s performance across its four Strategic Goals.

Performance Measure Overview

In fiscal year (FY) 2020, the Department had 65 measures. Of 

these, 37 metric targets were met or exceeded, 7 measures showed 

improvement in performance from the prior year but did not meet the 

established targets, and 9 measures performed below both this year’s 

target and the prior year’s performance. One measure did not meet 

the annual target and does not have prior year data for comparison. 

Additionally, 10 measures did not have an established target and are 

baselined in FY 2020 or later and 1 measure is pending data.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Number of Measures

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4

23

24

25

26

27

28

FY 2020 baseline measure

Met or exceeded the FY 2020 target

Improved from prior year but did not meet the FY 2020 target

Did not meet the FY 2020 target or prior year performance 

To be determined
This page is intentionally left blank.
Strategic Goal 1

Support state and local efforts to improve learning 

outcomes for all P–12 students in every community.
20 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Goal 1 

Spotlight

GOAL LEADER: 

Assistant Secretary, Office of 

Elementary and Secondary 

Education

GOAL 1 OBJECTIVES: 

1.1 Increase high-quality educational 

options and empower students and 

parents to choose an education that 

meets their needs.

 1.2 Provide all P–12 students with 

equal access to high-quality 

educational opportunities.

1.3 Prepare all students for successful 

transitions to college and careers 

by supporting access to dual 

enrollment, job skills development 

and high-quality science, 

technology, engineering and 

mathematics (STEM).

1.4 Support agencies and institutions 

in the implementation of evidencebased strategies and practices that 

build the capacity of school staff 

and families to support students’ 

academic performance.

When historians chronicle 2020, a notation 

will undoubtedly 

be affixed to it, 

signaling that this was no ordinary 

year. After all, this is the year of the 

novel coronavirus, which has caused a 

pandemic and the COVID-19 disease. This has been a year 

of stunning sorrow and unprecedented disruption. Inspiration can still be found in a simple truth: students matter.

When more than 130,000 public and private schools 

were closed in the early phases of the pandemic—suddenly 

disrupting learning for nearly 51 million K–12 students—

the foresight needed to rethink schools and America’s antiquated approach to education was never more apparent. 

Now, the need for parental choice and personalized learning 

has taken on renewed relevance and urgency. The coronavirus pandemic has made it clearer than ever that families need 

the freedom to choose where, when, and how children learn. 

Far too many students, particularly the most vulnerable, 

have fallen further behind because the one-size-fits-all 

approach to education could not transition and adapt to 

meet their needs. A bright spot has been high-quality 

public charter schools, many of which pivoted quickly 

to keep learning going and engage families throughout 

the process. In fact, when comparing schools within districts, public charter schools had stronger expectations 

for teachers to provide real-time instruction and to check 

in with students and families. Many of these teachers, 

schools, and communities have provided successful and 

safe examples for continued learning opportunities in 

person. It is with the holistic health of school communities 

in mind that the American Academy of Pediatrics heralded 

that “...all policy considerations for the coming school 

year should start with a goal of having students physically 

present in school.”

Thus, this Administration continues to expand 

support for public charter schools and for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education 
Performance Assessment—Goal 1 21

and differentiated instruction. The Department is thrilled that the total number of 

scholarships for students nationwide has 

also increased. Similarly, this report highlights significant progress and improvement 

in transparency about the performance 

of schools. While a substantial number 

of schools have begun to transition back 

to more in-person or hybrid instructional 

formats, the demand for technology in education continues to surge, making support for 

increases in internet bandwidth speeds and 

greater connectivity to broadband infrastructure for rural schools essential. Undoubtedly, 

the emphasis for better virtual and remote 

readiness and instructional continuity will 

matter even more as the country continues to 

seek alternatives in managing the pandemic 

and in responding to growing devastation 

caused by all-hazard emergencies. 

Note the progress made in helping adult 

education participants thrive under the 

Workforce Improvement and Opportunity Act. Also, see how the Department’s 

resolve to improve student achievement in 

mathematics and English for grades 3 

through 8 remains essential. The Department 

is providing quality technical assistance 

and sharing best practices learned from 

partnerships and evidence derived from 

grantees. Finally, the Department is proud 

of its response to help the nation combat 

the worst of the pandemic and impact of 

COVID-19. Through its dispatch in making 

more than $30 billion from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act

funding available to schools, students, and 

the communities that support them, the 

Department is optimistic that these resources 

and its ongoing commitment will continue 

to make students matter most.

The following pages discuss the Department’s major accomplishments of the past 

fiscal year—October 1, 2019, through 

September 30, 2020—to achieve Goal 1 

and its four underlying strategic objectives. 

While everything the Department accomplished within this timeframe is too vast to 

include, the following provides a snapshot. 

Performance Measure Overview

In fiscal year (FY) 2020, the Department 

had 28 measures for this goal. Of these 

28 measures, 12 metric targets were 

met or exceeded, 5 measures showed 

improvement in performance from the 

prior year but did not meet the established 

targets, and 6 measures performed below 

both this year’s target and prior year’s 

performance. Four measures did not have 

an established target and are baselined in 

FY 2020. One measure is pending data.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Number of Measures

Objective 1.1 Objective 1.2 Objective 1.3 Objective 1.4

FY 2020 baseline measure

Met or exceeded the FY 2020 target

Improved from prior year but did not meet the FY 2020 target

Did not meet the FY 2020 target or prior year performance 

To be determined
22 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Goal 1 Discretionary Resources

The following table shows examples of select major discretionary programs and activities 

supporting Goal 1.

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities Supporting Goal 1 in Thousands

POC ACCT Objective Program

FY 2020 

Appropriation

OESE ED 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies $16,309,802 

OESE I&I 1.3, 1.4 Education Innovation and Research $190,000 

OESE I&I 1.2, 1.4 Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants $200,000 

OESE I&I 1.1, 1.2 Charter Schools Grants $440,000 

OESE I&I 1.1, 1.2 Magnet Schools Assistance $107,000 

OESE SIP 1.2, 1.4 State Assessments $378,000

OESE SSCE 1.2 School Safety National Activities $105,000

OESE/OELA ELA 1.2 English Language Acquisition $787,400 

OSERS SE 1.1, 1.2, 1.4 Special Education Grants to States $12,764,392 

Other N/A N/A All Other Programs $9,432,726

Note:

Discretionary resources listed here include Department programs that may contribute to multiple goals. A list of programs by 

goal is provided in appendix C.

Acronyms and Definitions:

POC = Principal Operating Component; ACCT = Account; OESE = Office of Elementary and Secondary Education; ED = U.S. 

Department of Education; I&I = Innovation and Improvement; SIP = Strengthening Institutions Program; SSCE = Safe Schools 

and Citizenship Education; OELA = Office of English Language Acquisition; ELA = English Language Acquisition; OSERS = 

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; SE = Special Education; and N/A = Not Applicable.
Performance Assessment—Goal 1 23

Increase high-quality educational options and empower 

students and parents to choose an education that meets 

their needs.

Strategic Objective 1.1

OBJECTIVE LEADER: 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Programs for the Office of Elementary 

and Secondary Education

Overview

The Department continues to support 

greater state and local flexibility in elementary and secondary education and 

encourages states and local educational 

agencies (school districts) to provide 

meaningful school choice options. Parents 

and students should be able to select the 

educational experience that best suits 

students’ needs. To encourage opportunities and choices, states and school districts 

should ensure that all interested parties 

have knowledge and understanding of all 

available education options.

The Department supported improved 

learning outcomes for prekindergarten 

through grade 12 students by awarding 

approximately $40 billion annually in 

formula and discretionary grants (through 

a competitive process) to states, school 

districts, and nonprofit organizations. 

Additionally, in March 2020, the enactment of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, 

and Economic Security Act provided 

$13 billion towards the Elementary and

Secondary Emergency Relief Fund. States 

can support increased educational options

through a variety of ways, including open 

enrollment policies, virtual schools, homeschooling, customized learning, and dual 

enrollment.

Several offices across the Department 

support this strategic objective, including 

the Office of Elementary and Secondary 

Education; the Office of Special Education 

and Rehabilitative Services; the Office for 

Civil Rights; the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education; the Institute 

of Education Sciences; and the Office of 

English Language Acquisition. 

FY 2020 Performance 

Summary and Analysis

There are nine performance measures in this 

strategic objective. Of the nine, five met or 

exceeded their annual metric targets. These 

measures involved the Department’s federal 

programs for charter schools, gauging the 

number of such schools (1.1.A) and the 

number of students enrolled in them (1.1.B). 

Also included was a measure gauging the 

number of evidence-based resources on 
24 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

school choice that the Department releases 

each year (1.1.C), a measure gauging the 

number of students enrolled in schools supported by the Department’s federal program 

for magnet schools (1.1.D), and a measure 

gauging the number of scholarships provided through state-based vouchers, tax 

credit scholarships, and education savings 

account programs (1.1.H).

Two performance measures in this strategic 

objective—measure 1.1.E, which gauges 

the growth in all charter schools nationwide, including those not participating in 

the Department’s Charter Schools Program 

(CSP), and measure 1.1.F, which gauges 

the number of students attending all charter schools nationwide—did not meet the 

annual metric targets but did grow from the 

previous year’s results. 

Two measures in this strategic objective 

baselined in fiscal year (FY) 2020: 1.1.I, 

which gauges the number of parents receiving support and engagement on school 

choice options, and 1.1.G, which gauges the 

number of students in all magnet schools 

nationwide. 

The Department established an Agency 

Priority Goal (APG) for FY 2020 and 

FY 2021 to increase school choice options 

through multiple avenues and better support parents with technical assistance and 

other resources. The Department aims 

to increase the number and percentage 

of total charter school students and total 

scholarship students nationwide by September 30, 2021. In FY 2020, there was 

an increase in the number of students 

enrolled in charter schools. In addition, 

the number of students receiving statebased vouchers, tax credit scholarships, 

and education savings account programs 

was 539,000, which is 0.957 percent of the 

total school-aged population (56,300,000). 

The key success and opportunities discussed below have been significant in 

progressing to achieve the APG. The Office 

of Elementary and Secondary Education 

(OESE) exceeded its targeted performance 

for four of the five key indicators, and all 

milestones scheduled for FY 2020 were 

either completed or are in progress. Information on the quarterly progress of APGs 

is available on Performance.Gov. 

Key Successes and Opportunities

Charter Schools. The Department made 

significant strides in its efforts to expand 

school choice when it launched in 

October 2019 a new competition to promote the creation and expansion of 

high-quality public charter schools in 

economically distressed areas throughout 

the country. These distressed areas, known 

as Qualified Opportunity Zones, are designated by the Secretary of the Treasury as 

regions needing economic development 

and new jobs. More than 70 percent of the 

zones did not have a single charter school 

option for families living there.

The creation or expansion of school choice 

in such areas began with awarding a contract to a private firm to conduct outreach 

and provide technical assistance to current and prospective high-quality charter 

operators to open charter schools in the designated zones. The Department announced 

in November 2019 that it would prioritize 
Performance Assessment—Goal 1 25

Strategic Objective 1.1

charter schools operating in these zones 

for significant portions of the Department’s 

charter school grant dollars. By April 2020, 

the Department’s CSP had awarded 

$65 million to 13 charter management 

organizations that proposed to replicate or 

expand more than 100 high-quality public 

charter schools in 8 states over the next 

several years. More than 75 percent of this 

funding will go to charter schools operating 

in the Qualified Opportunity Zones.

“The focus on opening charter 

schools in designated Opportunity 

Zones will have a long-lasting 

impact, and I’m looking forward to 

seeing how charter school leaders, 

nonprofit organizations, and others 

utilize the Qualified Opportunity 

Fund to invest in students and 

improve outcomes.”

U.S. Secretary of Education 

Betsy DeVos

This initiative is a follow-up to FY 2019 

efforts—in the four FY 2019 competitions that either provided bonus points or 

established a separate competition track 

for applicants proposing to serve Qualified Opportunity Zones, the Department 

awarded more than $30 million to support 

states, school districts, and other organizations working to improve educational 

outcomes in Qualified Opportunity Zones.

In FY 2020, the Department continued 

to explore innovative approaches to 

maximizing the ability of charter schools 

to leverage additional financing for the construction or renovation of their facilities. 

The Department responded to a request 

from the U.S. Department of Treasury’s 

Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund regarding statutory, 

regulatory, or other prohibitions with 

regard to the use of the funds from the 

Department’s Credit Enhancement Program for other federal financing to 

include the repayment of another federal debt in the event of a default. In 

response, the Department submitted a 

letter to the Department of Treasury indicating, “there is no prohibition on the 

use of the funds as a credit enhancement 

for Federal financing.” Hence, the CDFI 

Fund included in its March Notice of 

Guarantee Availability that qualified 

issuers could provide bond loans to eligible CDFI and secondary loans for 

charter schools, among other asset classes 

(e.g., daycare centers, healthcare facilities, 

and rural infrastructure). Each bond has a 

guarantee of $100 million to $500 million.

Also in March 2020, the Department’s 

National Charter School Resource Center 

released a report, Charter School Facilities: 

Emerging Trends, which describes three key 

trends that will likely impact the charter 

school facilities’ landscape for the next 

5 to 10 years. These trends are: (1) geographic and population changes, such as 

shifts in student enrollment and population migration (which are expected to 

create changes in urban and rural charter school markets); (2) more mature 
26 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

facilities finance markets and investments 

(which are expected to benefit charter 

schools); and (3) changing academic 

strategies, community partnerships, and 

21st century career preparation (which 

will create the need for more innovative 

facilities models). The report also underscores that acquisition and financing 

of adequate school facilities continue 

to be major barriers for school operators 

and continued growth in the number of 

charter schools. 

The National Charter School Resource 

Center also released The SMART Objectives Toolkit to support prospective and 

current CSP grantees in developing successful initiatives. The toolkit combines 

planning principles with CSP grant 

requirements, and it provides examples 

of CSP-funded project objectives and 

performance measures that are Specific, 

Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and 

Timebound (i.e., SMART).

An analysis of the funding the Department has provided for its CSP programs 

shows most of the funding has gone to 

charter schools that are still open and operating. CSP awarded a total of $2.4 billion

to 5,838 schools (and prospective schools) 

since 2006. In school year (SY) 2019–

2020, 65.0 percent of these schools were 

still open (i.e., 3,796 schools), another 

20.6 percent were closed (1,204 schools), 

and 11.5 percent had not yet opened

(672 schools). Of the schools that had

not yet opened, the Department expects 

that 22 percent (145 schools) will open 

within the next two years. The remaining 

2.2 percent (126 schools) had converted 

back to traditional public schools, and the 

last 0.7 percent (40 schools) opened but 

not as charter schools. These schools may 

have received CSP planning awards but 

never converted to charter schools or were 

not classified as charter schools when they 

opened (according to the Common Core 

of Data).

Since 2006, just under 19 percent 

($449,844,431) of CSP’s total funding 

to schools was allocated to charter 

schools that had closed by SY 2019–2020. 

Of the 1,204 schools that were closed, 

736 (61 percent) closed by their fifth year 

of operation. These schools received a 

total of $267,386,578, which accounted 

for 59 percent of the funds to closed

schools. The remaining $182,457,853 

was distributed to schools that remained 

in operation anywhere from 6 to 20 years. 

The closure of charter schools does not 

necessarily indicate failure but rather 

accountability as the schools are required 

to meet the mandates of their charters in 

order to continue operation. 

Magnet Schools. Ultimately, charter 

schools are only one facet of the Department’s efforts to promote school choice. 

In March, the Department issued a Notice 

Inviting Applications for the Magnet 

Schools Assistance Program (MSAP). 

It will fund activities designed to eliminate, 

reduce, or prevent minority group isolation in elementary and secondary schools 

and improve students’ academic achievement, including the acquisition of books, 

materials, technology, and equipment to 

support a rigorous, theme-based academic 

program. This notice also included a 
Performance Assessment—Goal 1 27

competitive preference priority for MSAP 

projects located in Qualified Opportunity Zones. The application period was 

extended to June 2020 to take into account 

the impact of COVID-19 on applicants’ 

ability to compile the required data for their 

submissions. New awards under this competition are scheduled for FY 2021.

Additional School Choice Efforts. In addition to furthering both charter schools and 

magnet schools in Qualified Opportunity 

Zones, the Department also furthered school 

choice when Secretary DeVos amended 

regulations that govern the Demonstration Grants for Indian Children and Youth 

Program. The final regulations, which took 

effect in August 2020, amended the priorities, application requirements, and selection 

criteria for applicants proposing to empower 

tribes and families to decide which education services will best support their 

children to succeed in college and careers.

Strategic Objective 1.1

“Access to high-quality, innovative 

education options is fundamental 

to the long-term success of not 

only students but also entire 

communities.”

U.S. Secretary of Education 

Betsy DeVos

In September 2020, the Department

awarded 40 new Accessing Choices in 

Education grant awards totaling $24 million 

for the first year of the grants to expand 

education options for American Indian and 

Alaska Native students. These grants help 

Native American communities set up a 

variety of education options and services, 

including additional course options, 

apprenticeships, tutoring, and many other 

programs, from which parents or students 

can choose. Projects will support activities 

such as culturally relevant career exploration, including skills development, 

on-the-job training, hands-on learning, 

counseling and mentorships, family 

engagement, and test preparation. The

list of awards is available on the OESE 

website.

Also in September, the Department 

awarded funding for the Well-Rounded 

Education Through Student-Centered 

Funding Demonstration Grants Program, 

which allows funding to follow individual students so that school districts can 

allocate resources in a way that provides 

a customized approach to education that 

considers individual needs in order to 

improve academic achievement. The program provides more than $1 million to 

two local educational agencies (LEAs) to 

demonstrate model programs for providing well-rounded education opportunities 

through the development and implementation of student-centered funding systems. 

The goal of the program is to help LEAs 

develop models for expanding and 

enhancing delivery of such opportunities 

for educationally disadvantaged students. 

Additionally in September, the Department 

announced the Expanding Access to WellRounded Courses Demonstration Grants 

Program to support school districts’ efforts 

to develop distance learning opportunities, 

expand their course offerings, and ensure 

students have access to a broad range of 
28 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

advanced, career or technical, and other 

courses.

In addition to distributing grants, the 

Department promoted school choice by 

visiting states to discuss ways states and 

LEAs can implement choice. For example, 

in FY 2020, senior officials of the Department made more than 120 visits to states 

in which education freedom scholarships, 

state-based vouchers, tax-credit scholarships, and education savings accounts 

programs were discussed.

The Department also released informational resources to provide guidance for 

these issues. For example, the National 

Charter School Resource Center published 

a multimedia school case study regarding New York City’s Charter High School 

for Architecture, Engineering, and Construction Industries (AECI). The report, 

Preparation for Replication: Case Study 

of AECI, considers the key decisions and 

processes that contributed to the establishment of a second high school in 

SY 2019–2020 (i.e., AECI 2) located in the 

Bronx, NY. The case study includes videos 

and tools to guide other charter school 

stakeholders through decision-making 

processes.

In July 2020, the National Center for Education Statistics published Parent and 

Family Involvement in Education: 2019. 

The report presented new data from the 

Parent and Family Involvement Survey of 

the National Household Education Surveys 

program, and it focused on various aspects 

of parent involvement in education, such as 

help with homework, family activities, and 

parent involvement at school, including 

attending a school or class event. The 

report also identified factors that parents 

of K–12 students rate as “very important” 

when choosing a school. In SY 2018–2019, 

for example, 36 percent of students in the 

evaluation had parents who indicated they 

had considered multiple schools for their 

children. Among these students, 79 percent 

had parents who indicated the quality of 

teachers, principals, or other school staff 

was very important. Other factors that a 

majority of students’ parents indicated 

as being very important included safety, 

including student discipline (71 percent), 

and curriculum focus or unique academic 

programs (e.g., language immersion and/or 

focus on science, technology, engineering, 

and mathematics (STEM)) (59 percent).

COVID-19. In FY 2020, the COVID-19 

pandemic spread and prompted fundamental changes to the ways the Department 

sought to achieve this strategic objective. 

Some planned activities had to be shifted 

to a remote format. In addition to pursuing 

its traditional responsibilities and planned 

courses of action, the Department had to 

take on new measures. This included the 

issuance of new grants.

For example, on July 29, 2020, awards for 

the Education Stabilization Fund—Rethink 

K–12 Education Models grant program 

were announced. More than $180 million 

in new grant funding was awarded to 

11 states to rethink education to better 

serve students during the COVID-19 pandemic. The awards ranged from $6 million 

to $20 million.
Performance Assessment—Goal 1 29

The grant program also included the 

development and issuance of new sets of 

resources. Some of these new resources 

came from the Comprehensive Centers 

Program’s Comprehensive Center Network, which is a source of support for 

the 20 Comprehensive Centers nationwide, helping them to provide capacitybuilding services to state educational 

agencies (SEAs), regional educational 

agencies, LEAs, and schools—all with the 

aim of improving educational outcomes for 

all students, closing achievement gaps, and 

improving the quality of instruction. The 

Comprehensive Center Network compiled 

more than 140 resources to support educators, school leaders, and families as they 

rapidly transitioned from traditional classroom learning settings to learning from 

home through online resources. Among 

these resources were nine curated topical 

resource collections (COVID-19 Education Resources) that aimed to help families, 

educators, school leaders, districts, and 

SEAs facilitate online and distance learning.

In July, OESE launched a new resource 

page to support parents, families, schools, 

districts, and states as they navigate K–12 

education during the challenging times 

of COVID-19. The resources represent 

a collection of work being done across 

OESE Technical Assistance Centers and 

are grouped by topic and target audience. 

The initial collections include topics most 

relevant to support learning during the 

pandemic: continuity of learning; learning 

at home; safe school environments; social, 

emotional, and behavioral support; special 

populations support; and returning to 

school. Parents and families, for example, 

may find useful resources to support their 

students’ unique educational learning needs 

in remote environments or the best ways to 

support literacy and mathematics instruction at home. OESE anticipates that it will 

continue to develop and update the page on 

an ongoing basis. These efforts are in addition to the other offices in the Department 

that have developed COVID-19 resources 

for the education community. 

The Department’s Equity Assistance 

Centers developed a set of resources to 

facilitate equitable learning opportunities 

in virtual educational environments. These 

tools (e.g., webinars and policy briefs) 

address a variety of topics, including best 

practices for teaching online, designing of 

equitable online lesson plans, bridging of 

the digital divide to ensure the continuity of 

learning in under-resourced communities, 

effective strategies for teaching English 

language learners, and recommendations for connecting students experiencing 

homelessness and temporary housing to 

distance learning opportunities. Further, 

the National Charter Schools Resource 

Center created a regularly updated webpage of resources targeted to charter school 

grantees to assist them with the pandemic.

Strategic Objective 1.1
30 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Performance Measures

Table 1.1.A. Number of open and operating charter schools supported by the Charter Schools 

Program (CSP). 

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — 3,599 3,595 3,670 3,862 3,820 4,012

Notes: (1) Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2017. (2) Through the FY 2020 Annual 

Performance Report, the Department has amended the period of performance in the FY 2019 Annual 

Performance Report to school year (SY) 2017–2018. See appendix B for details.

Data Source: National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data and grantee annual 

performance reports.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: SY 2018–2019.

Target

FY 2020 

Actual

Table 1.1.B. Number of students enrolled in charter schools supported by the Charter Schools 

Program (CSP). 

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — 1,556,017 1,609,880 1,624,564 1,733,365 1,649,564 1,743,365

Notes: (1) Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2017. (2) Through the FY 2020 Annual 

Performance Report, the Department has amended the period of performance in the FY 2019 Annual 

Performance Report to school year (SY) 2017–2018. See appendix B for details.

Data Source: National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data and grantee annual 

performance reports.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: SY 2018–2019.

FY 2020 

Actual

Target

Table 1.1.C. Number of new resources on evidence-based and promising practices related 

to school choice disseminated.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

0 0 3 5 3 4 4 4

Note: Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2017.

Data Source: National Charter School Resource Center and Institute for Education Sciences-sponsored 

materials.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: September 2019 through October 2020.

Target and 

FY 2020 

Actual
Performance Assessment—Goal 1 31

Table 1.1.D. Number of students enrolled in federally funded magnet schools. 

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — 81,963 81,342 84,296 120,925 85,982 122,134

Notes: (1) Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2017. (2) Through the FY 2020 Annual 

Performance Report, the Department has amended the period of performance in the FY 2019 Annual 

Performance Report to school year (SY) 2017–2018. See appendix B for details.

Data Source: Magnet Schools Assistance Program grantee annual performance reports.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: SY 2018–2019.

FY 2020 

Actual

Target

Table 1.1.E. Number of open and operating public charter schools. 

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

7,304 7,288 7,137 7,335 7,393 7,434 7,443 7,493

Notes: (1) The number of public charter schools in operation includes the number of Charter Schools 

Program-funded schools in operation. (2) Through the FY 2020 Annual Performance Report, the 

Department has amended the period of performance in the FY 2019 Annual Performance Report to 

school year (SY) 2017–2018. See appendix B for details.

Data Source: National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: SY 2018–2019.

FY 2020 

Actual Target

Table 1.1.F. Number of students enrolled in public charter schools. 

Strategic Objective 1.1

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

2,522,202 2,722,013 2,844,654 3,010,152 3,144,229 3,291,403 3,400,701 3,510,000

Notes: (1) The number of students enrolled in public charter schools includes the number of students 

enrolled in Charter Schools Program-funded schools. (2) Through the FY 2020 Annual Performance 

Report, the Department has amended the performance data reported in the FY 2019 Annual 

Performance Report. See appendix B for details.

Data Source: National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: SY 2018–2019.

FY 2020 

Actual

Target
32 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Table 1.1.G. Number of students enrolled in public magnet schools. 

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target

2,557,811 2,610,228 2,605,134 2,538,036 2,666,691 2,673,408 2,698,408

Notes: (1) The definition of “magnet school” from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 

Common Core of Data is more expansive than those eligible for assistance through the Magnet Schools 

Assistance Program. (2) Through the FY 2020 Annual Performance Report, the Department has 

amended the performance data reported in the FY 2019 Annual Performance Report. See appendix B 

for details.

Data Source: NCES Common Core of Data.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: SY 2018–2019.

FY 2020 

Actual

Table 1.1.H. Number of scholarships provided through state-based vouchers, tax credit 

scholarships, and education savings account programs. 

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— 399,280 446,000 466,000 482,000 539,000 538,464 579,250

Note: Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2016.

Data Source: EdChoice, The ABCs of School Choice. The targets for FY 2020 and FY 2021 are 

imputed by the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education based on EdChoice reported data for the 

last three years.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: SY 2019–2020.

Target

FY 2020

Actual

Table 1.1.I. Number of parents receiving support and engagement on school choice options 

through technical assistance and other resources (new). 

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target

— — — — — 1,296,336 1,309,299

Note: This is a new measure for fiscal year (FY) 2020. No data are available prior to FY 2020.

Data Source: Internal Department outreach data and performance reports from Department-funded 

technical assistance centers.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: October 1, 2018, through September 30, 2019.

FY 2020

Actual
Performance Assessment—Goal 1 33

Provide all P–12 students with equal access to 

high-quality educational opportunities. 

Strategic Objective 1.2

OBJECTIVE LEADER: 

Assistant Secretary for the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

Overview

Every child, regardless of zip code or 

family income, should have access to a 

high-quality education. With schools closed 

due to the COVID-19 pandemic, access to 

a high-quality education often requires that 

students have home access to high-speed 

internet and that schools use technology 

accessible to all students. The National 

Center for Education Statisticsreported that 

in 2018, 88 percent of 3- to 18-year-olds 

had home internet access through a computer, an additional 6 percent had access 

to the internet only through a smartphone, 

and the remaining 6 percent had no access 

to the internet at home. Access varied 

by race and family income. The Department is committed to improving access to 

high-quality educational opportunities for 

every prekindergarten through grade 12 

student, and it will support educational 

institutions, parents, and communities in 

developing such opportunities as well as 

their capacity to improve the outcomes for 

every student. 

Several offices across the Department 

support this strategic objective, including 

the Office of Elementary and Secondary 

Education; the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; the Office 

for Civil Rights; the Office of Career, 

Technical, and Adult Education; and the 

Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy 

Development.

FY 2020 Performance 

Summary and Analysis

There are 10 performance measures for 

this strategic objective. Of these 10, 5 met 

their annual metric targets. These cover a 

range of issues, including a performance 

measure that gauges the availability of 

high-speed internet in K–12 schools 

(1.2.D) as well as a measure that gauges 

rural schools connected to broadband 

infrastructure that are capable of scaling 

to 10 gigabits per second (1.2.E). It also 

includes a performance measure (1.2.G) 

that gauges the percentage of monitored 

states publicly reporting information on 

each indicator in the state’s accountability 

system, including the list of schools identified for comprehensive or targeted support 

and improvement. Two performance measures that were new for fiscal year (FY) 2020 

and were introduced mid-year to gauge the 
34 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Department’s performance in implementing 

the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic 

Security (CARES) Act (1.2.H and 1.2.I) 

also met their annual targets.

Four performance measures did not meet 

their annual metric targets in FY 2020. 

Two of these gauge increases in proficiency 

in reading and mathematics for students 

in select subgroups enrolled in grades 

3 through 8 (1.2.A and 1.2.B, respectively). 

Both performance measures are based on 

state-administered tests given once a year.1

The third measure in this strategic objective that did not meet its annual metric 

target gauges the percentage of states with 

80 percent or more of preschoolers with 

disabilities that show greater than expected 

growth in social-emotional skills by the time 

they exit certain disability services (1.2.C). 

The Department reduced the FY 2021 target, 

as performance for this measure is expected 

to be lower than the previously established 

target due to the impact of COVID-19. 

Many local educational agencies (LEAs) 

have been challenged with how to support 

preschool children with disabilities through 

distance learning or remote service delivery, 

as it is not developmentally appropriate for 

3- and 4-year-old children to participate in 

virtual learning for extended periods of time, 

and many preschool children with disabilities are not able to attend to or participate 

in services over a computer. Interacting 

with peers and establishing relationships 

with peers is a big part of children’s socialemotional development and one of the outcome indicators that is part of measure 

1

Data for FY 2020 is culled from school year (SY) 2018–2019 and were not affected by the COVID-19 

school closures. However, data for SY 2019–2020 were impacted by COVID-19 school closures and will 

affect data reported for FY 2021–2023, as annual targets are based on a three-year trend.

1.2.C. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, many preschool children with

disabilities are receiving fewer services, 

different services, or remote services, and 

some families opted not to participate in 

remote services. All of these factors impact 

how children meet outcome measures on 

social-emotional development. Additionally, data from the field have shown that 

fewer children are being referred for evaluation for special education services because 

well-child visits were not being carried out, 

and early childhood programs were closed, 

so there has been less opportunity for discussion with parents on their concerns related 

to their children’s development.

The fourth measure that did not meet 

its annual metric target gauges the percentage of stakeholder inquiries related 

to COVID-19 that are closed within 

30 business days (1.2.J). The Department

had set a target of 80 percent but only 

achieved 57 percent at the end of the 

performance period.

At the time of publishing this report, the 

Department did not yet have data for 

performance measure 1.2.F, which gauges 

the percentage of states publishing report 

cards in a timely manner.

Key Successes and Opportunities

Student Assessments and Accountability.

Assessments of students, as administered 

by states, can be indicators of progress 

made in learning mathematics, reading, 

and other core subjects. Analyses of the 

results of annual assessments are used to 

target improvements. 
Performance Assessment—Goal 1 35

Strategic Objective 1.2

In FY 2020, the Department approved 

11 states—Colorado, Delaware, Georgia,

Indiana, Massachusetts, North Carolina, 

North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont, and Wisconsin—to participate in the 

Education Flexibility Program (Ed-Flex), 

which was updated by the Every Student 

Succeeds Act (ESSA). Ed-Flex encourages local innovation and returns power to 

states by allowing them to waive certain 

federal statutory or regulatory requirements 

under the law. Participating states proposed 

to use the additional flexibility granted to 

release school districts from potentially 

burdensome federal requirements in favor 

of a locally driven approach.

In January 2020, the Department also 

issued a Notice of Proposed Priorities 

for the Competitive Grants for State 

Assessments (CGSA) Program, which supports states’ efforts to improve the technical 

quality of their assessment systems—both 

the quality of individual state assessments 

and the overall field of state assessments—

by encouraging states to develop new 

forms of (or formats for) administering test 

items or assessment designs. The priorities 

given in the grant competition are intended 

to increase the number of states using flexibilities in order to provide opportunities for 

state educational agencies (SEAs) to pilot 

new and innovative approaches to assessments by first implementing them in a 

subset of schools or LEAs and then scaling 

up over a period of five years to be used

by other schools and LEAs and replace the 

statewide assessment. By May 1, 2020, 

the Department’s Office of Elementary 

and Secondary Education (OESE) had 

issued a Notice of Final Priorities and a 

Notice Inviting Applications for the CGSA 

Program. In September, approximately 

$12.3 million were awarded to five states.

As the COVID-19 pandemic spread and 

shuttered school buildings, the Department needed to provide flexibility to all 

states and the Bureau of Indian Education 

for assessment and accountability requirements and related reporting requirements 

under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). Providing this 

flexibility substantially reduced burdens for 

states unable to administer their statewide 

assessments to students. All 50 states, the 

District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the 

Bureau of Indian Education received initial 

approval of these waivers within 24 hours 

of submitting a request to the Department. 

Formal approval letters for those waivers 

were issued by April 1, 2020, and the letters 

are published on OESE’s website. 

Tracking Other Data on Student Achievement. In addition to state-administered 

assessments of students, other data can 

help show whether students are provided equal educational opportunities. 

The Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate 

(ACGR), for example, is the percentage of 

students in a designated group who graduate within four years with a regular high 

school diploma. SEAs calculate the ACGR 

by identifying the cohort of first-time 

ninth graders in a particular school year. 

The Department’s National Center for Education Statistics reported in March 2020 that 

the national ACGR for SY 2017–2018 was 

85.3 percent, an increase of 0.7 percentage 

points from SY 2016–2017 and the highest 

the rate has been since it was first tracked 
36 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

in SY 2010–2011. OESE publicly released 

state- and district-level ACGR data on its 

ED Data Express website, and it updated 

an interactive map that enables the public 

to easily review graduation rates for all 

students and economically disadvantaged 

students by state and district. 

OESE also reviews the websites of all 

states to better understand state-level 

implementation of the report card requirements in ESSA. Reports cards, which track 

the performance and progress of schools, 

are essential for providing timely information to parents and other stakeholders about 

overall school and state performance. 

Monitoring for High-Quality Educational Opportunities. The Department 

also monitors other state implementation 

efforts. Its Office of Special Education 

and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), 

for example, conducted five on-site differentiated monitoring and support visits 

and one technical assistance visit as part 

of Results Driven Accountability (RDA). 

Under RDA, the Department emphasizes 

monitoring and support focused on both 

compliance and improving results for 

children with disabilities. 

To support young children with disabilities’ 

social-emotional development, OSERS’ 

Technical Assistance Centers provided 

evidence-based assistance and resources 

to states, LEAs, early childhood programs, 

and families. Through coaching and innovations in systems building, the centers 

offered technical assistance to states on 

strengthening program-wide implementation of the Pyramid Model, which is 

a tiered intervention model made up of 

evidenced-based practices. At the base 

(tier 1) are the universal supports for all children; these are provided through nurturing 

and responsive relationships and highquality environments. The second tier 

(tier 2) is made up of prevention practices 

that target social and emotional strategies to 

prevent problems. The final tier (tier 3) consists of practices related to individualized 

intensive interventions for children with 

pervasive challenging behavior who need 

more than tier 1 and 2 support and practices.

Civil Rights. A new center focused on providing technical assistance and support to 

recipients and the public to ensure better 

awareness of the requirements and protections under federal civil rights laws, 

launched in January 2020. The Office for 

Civil Rights (OCR) created the Outreach, 

Prevention, Education and Non-discrimination (OPEN) Center to focus on 

strengthening civil rights compliance 

through voluntary, proactive, and targeted support to recipients and the public 

regarding the federal civil rights laws OCR 

enforces prohibiting discrimination on the 

basis of sex, disability, age, race, color, and 

national origin. Through the OPEN Center, 

OCR is able to work more proactively with 

recipients—prior to a complainant filing a 

complaint—and ensure that schools, institutions, educators, families, and students 

have a greater understanding of federal 

non-discrimination laws. OCR’s OPEN 

Center continues to help recipients achieve 

compliance with the laws OCR enforces,

including helping recipients of federal 

financial assistance as they implement the 

Department’s new Title IX Final Rule, 

which went into effect in August 2020.
Performance Assessment—Goal 1 37

In addition to its outreach and technical assistance activities, during FY 2020, 

OCR continued to achieve timely and 

effective case resolutions protective of 

civil rights and benefiting tens of thousands of students across the nation. During 

FY 2020, OCR received 9,711 complaints 

containing 15,350 allegations of discrimination under federal civil rights laws. OCR 

resolved 10,185 complaints containing 

17,583 allegations of discrimination. 

Of the 10,185 complaints resolved in 

FY 2020, OCR resolved 1,362 complaints 

by requiring recipients to take corrective 

action protective of students’ civil rights 

(i.e., resolutions with change). In addition to resolving the 10,000+ complaints 

filed by individuals, OCR also initiated 

45 proactive investigations and resolved 

more than 300 proactive investigations 

that were initiated in prior years.

School Safety. In collaboration with 

the Departments of Homeland Security, 

Health and Human Services, and Justice, 

in February 2020, the Department launched 

schoolsafety.gov, a website that provides 

schools and districts with actionable recommendations to create safe and supportive 

learning environments, as well as resources 

on a variety of topics (e.g., school security 

personnel, mental health, and emergency 

planning). The website was developed in 

response to a recommendation included 

in the final report of the Federal Commission on School Safety. Thus far, there 

have been more than 195,000 views of the 

schoolsafety.gov website by its more than 

70,000 visitors.

The Department continued to update the 

website throughout the fiscal year. For 

example, it added a new resource tool, the 

State Information Sharing Tool, to allow 

users to search for state-specific school 

safety resources. Continued efforts to coordinate with states and territories across 

the nation to further develop the tool are 

ongoing; partnerships have been established with 11 states thus far. Ultimately, the

tool has the potential to reach 17.6 million 

students, 32,000 schools, and 4,850 school 

districts. 

In October 2019, the Department announced

$71.6 million in new funding to enhance 

safety in schools and improve student access 

to mental health resources. The Department 

made the awards under four grant programs, 

which support recommendations identified in the final report issued by the Federal 

Commission on School Safety.

“All students deserve a safe 

learning environment, and 

the Federal School Safety 

Clearinghouse is an essential 

resource for information and best 

practices.”

U.S. Secretary of Education 

Betsy DeVos

Strategic Objective 1.2

Private Schools. In October 2019, the

Department released updates to clarify 

existing statutory obligations of LEAs to 

provide equitable educational services 

to eligible private school students, their 

teachers, and their families under Title I, 
38 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Part A of ESEA, as amended by ESSA. 

The updates reflect changes to the statutory 

provisions governing equitable services 

by ESSA, emphasize collaboration and 

consultation between public and private 

school officials to provide needed services 

to eligible students, and consolidate information previously spread across multiple 

documents.

Updated topics include allowable uses of 

funds, consultation between public and 

private school officials, obligation of funds 

to ensure services occur in a timely manner, 

carryover of unobligated funds to provide 

services in the next year, and the calculation of the share of Title I funds available 

for equitable services. The updates also 

clarify the permissibility of religious organizations serving as third-party contractors 

to provide equitable services.

Providing Informational Resources and 

Technical Assistance. Several Department 

offices collaborated to write and publish 

blog posts that cover topics ranging from 

home internet access to distance learning. 

OESE fielded more than 400 inquiries from 

COVID-19@ed.gov and sent more than 

300 responses to stakeholders.

In May 2020, OESE issued two fact sheets. 

The first, Fact Sheet: Addressing the Risk of 

COVID-19 While Serving Migratory Children, responded to stakeholder questions on 

topics such as identification and recruitment 

(e.g., whether program staff can conduct 

interviews with migratory families by telephone/video conferencing) and service 

provision (e.g., whether program staff can 

deliver virtual lessons to eligible migratory 

children during the day while schools are 

closed). The second, Fact Sheet: Providing 

Services to English Learners During the 

COVID-19 Outbreak, responded to more 

than 90 stakeholder questions on topics 

related to English learners (ELs) and school 

closures, such as service provisions (e.g., 

whether LEAs must provide equitable services to eligible ELs enrolled in private 

schools) and use of funds (e.g., whether 

Title III funds could be used to support 

Wi-Fi hotspots). Additional fact sheets and 

program information related to the coronavirus are available at https://www.ed.gov/

coronavirus/program-information. 

In addition, in May 2020, the Office of 

Educational Technology (OET) hosted 

5 state digital equity calls with state EdTech 

leaders from 24 states, aiming to better 

understand the digital equity issues that 

were magnified as a result of school closures 

and to identify the immediate and long-term 

actions states were taking to address these 

challenges, including home internet access 

for students. OET also compiled information for the U.S. Department of Commerce 

Federal Funding for Broadband Guide on 

the Department’s programs that can be used 

to support internet/broadband infrastructure, such as support for mobile hotspots. 

The information is available on the BroadbandUSA website. OET also facilitated and 

hosted a convening on pandemic related 

school data compiled by the American 

Institutes for Research.

Other efforts to assist states and school 

districts through the pandemic included 

providing information about COVID-19’s 

potential civil rights impact. In March 2020, 
Performance Assessment—Goal 1 39

OCR issued a letter to education leaders 

on preventing and addressing potential 

discrimination associated with COVID-19, 

aiming to address an increasing number of 

news reports of harassment or bullying of 

students perceived to be of Asian descent. 

Also in March, OCR issued a video webinar, entitled “Online Education and 

Website Accessibility,” discussing how to 

ensure web accessibility for students with 

disabilities for schools utilizing online 

learning during the COVID-19 outbreak. 

In addition, OCR published two fact sheets 

for education leaders (one of which was 

issued jointly with OSERS) that provided 

information on the rights of students with 

disabilities during school closures. The 

facts sheet also provided tools to assist 

schools in facilitating distance learning for 

all students. Finally, as a result of inquiries received by the OPEN Center, OCR 

also provided technical assistance tailored 

to different types of educational institutions 

and concerning schools’ civil rights obligations more generally. These resources 

included questions and answers documents, 

blog posts, and a second webinar entitled 

“Civil Rights and COVID-19.”

Grants. In April 2020, the Department 

announced that nearly $3 billion would 

quickly be made available to governors to 

ensure education continues for students of 

all ages. The Governor’s Emergency Education Relief Fund, authorized by the CARES 

Act, is a flexible emergency block grant 

designed to enable governors to decide how 

best to meet the needs of students, schools 

(including charter schools and non-public 

schools), postsecondary institutions, and 

other education-related organizations. In 

an effort to get these emergency funds to 

states as quickly as possible, the Department streamlined the application process 

and reduced the delays typically associated with the award of federal grant funds; 

all that was required to receive a grant was 

the completion of a brief certification and 

agreement.

“Now is the time to truly rethink 

education and to get creative about 

how we meet each student’s unique 

needs. The funding made available 

today has very few bureaucratic 

strings attached and empowers 

local education leaders to do just 

that. I encourage them to focus on 

investing in the technology, distance 

learning resources, training and 

long-term planning that will 

help education continue for both 

teachers and students, no matter 

where learning takes place.”

U.S. Secretary of Education 

Betsy DeVos

Strategic Objective 1.2

The Department made, for both K–12 

and higher education, approximately 

7,900 grants (totaling $25 billion of the

almost $31 billion appropriated) in the 

eight weeks after enactment of the CARES 

Act. To put this feat in perspective, the 

Department’s regular grant-making 

averaged approximately 13,700 grants 

(totaling $45 billion) per year over the last 

three years. 
40 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Due to the urgency to allocate CARES Act 

funds timely, operations were simplified, 

allowing 98 percent of approved applications to be awarded within 7 business days 

or less and 97 percent of appropriated funds

made available to eligible entities within 

30 days of the passage of the CARES Act. 

In addition, lessons learned from CARES 

Act processes enhanced the efficiency of 

regular grant funding processes.

In May 2020, the Department solicited 

applications from governors and SEAs in 

the outlying areas for funding under the 

Education Stabilization Fund (ESF). The 

ESF Outlying Areas Program awards funds 

to American Samoa, the Northern Mariana 

Islands, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands 

for the purpose of providing SEAs, LEAs, 

institutions of higher education, and other 

education-related entities with emergency 

assistance as a result of the COVID-19 

pandemic.

Also in May, OESE issued a Notice Inviting 

Applications for the School-Based Mental 

Health Services Grant Program. The purpose of the program is to provide grants 

to SEAs to increase the number of school 

counselors, social workers, psychologists, 

or other service providers who provide 

school-based mental health services to 

students in LEAs with demonstrated need. 

More than $11 million were awarded to 

six SEAs.

COVID-19. Like many other aspects of 

life, the COVID-19 pandemic has also presented challenges for the Department’s 

programming. For example, OET had to 

cancel its 2020 Regional Digital Equity 

Summits that were originally scheduled to occur between May and August in 

California, Illinois, Montana, Pennsylvania, 

Arkansas, and Texas. These regional digital equity summits bring together education 

leaders and community collaborators to 

explore opportunities to address digital 

equity challenges, such as student access to 

high-speed, reliable, and affordable internet 

at school and at home. In lieu of in-person 

events, OET has maintained the Keep Calm 

and Connect All Students blog series and 

organized, participated in, and/or presented 

to virtual convenings regarding broadband 

access and the use of digital learning during 

the pandemic while producing the Parent 

and Family Digital Learning Guide. 

Additionally, OESE’s formula and discretionary grant programs postponed most 

of their FY 2020 monitoring activities

until further notice. OESE had initially 

selected four states for consolidated monitoring of a range of programs, including 

Title I, Part A; Title I, Part B; Title I, Part C; 

Title II, Part A; Title III, Part A; Title IV, 

Part B; and Title V, Part B, Subpart 2. In 

August 2020, OESE was able to proceed 

with consolidated monitoring for Kentucky 

and has scheduled monitoring in Nevada for 

January 2021 and Tennessee in April 2021. 

The Department also mobilized in response 

to the pandemic, creating resources to help 

LEAs address challenges and giving them 

new grants, in addition to the regular slate 

of grants, to help them do so. 
Performance Assessment—Goal 1 41

Performance Measures

Table 1.2.A. Percentage of states that show improvement across a three-year trend in the 

percentage of students in grades 3 through 8 scoring at or above proficient on state assessments 

in reading in the following subgroups: economically disadvantaged, children with disabilities, 

English learners, migrant, homeless, and major racial and ethnic groups.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — 24% 20% 17% 16% 21% N/A

Notes: (1) The fiscal year (FY) 2020 actual data represent 8 out of 50 states. (2) Data are not available 

prior to FY 2017. (3) Due to the Secretary’s waiver of school year (SY) 2019–2020 testing, no data 

will be reported for SY 2019–2020, which is the period of performance for FY 2021.

Data Source: The Department’s annual Assessment Data File that includes state-reported data pulled 

from EDFacts files C175, C178, C185, and C188.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: SY 2018–2019.

Target

FY 2020

Actual

Table 1.2.B. Percentage of states that show improvement across a three-year trend in the 

percentage of students in grades 3 through 8 scoring at or above proficient on state assessments 

in mathematics in the following subgroups: economically disadvantaged, children with 

disabilities, English learners, migrant, homeless, and major racial and ethnic groups.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — 37% 24% 17% 12% 21% N/A

Notes: 1) The fiscal year (FY) 2020 actual data represent 6 out of 50 states. (2) Data are not available 

prior to FY 2017. (3) Due to the Secretary’s waiver of school year (SY) 2019–2020 testing, no data will 

be reported for SY 2019–2021, which is the period of performance for FY 2021.

Data Source: The Department’s annual Assessment Data File that includes state-reported data pulled 

from EDFacts files Cl75, Cl78, Cl85, and Cl88.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: SY 2018–2019.

Target

FY 2020

Actual

Strategic Objective 1.2
42 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Table 1.2.C. Percentage of states with 80 percent or more of preschoolers with disabilities 

that showed greater than expected growth in social-emotional skills by the time they exit 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B, Section 619 services. 

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — 55% 55% 60% 51% 55% 55%

Note: Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2017.

Data Source: IDEA Part B state annual performance reports.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: School year 2018–2019.

FY 2020 Target

Actual

Table 1.2.D. Percentage of students in the country who have internet bandwidth at school 

of at least 100 kbps per student.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — 88% 96% 98% 99% 99% 99%

Note: Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2017.

Data Source: EducationSuperHighway.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: October 2019 through September 2020.

Target 

and 

FY 2020

Actual

Table 1.2.E. Percentage of rural schools connected to a broadband infrastructure capable 

of scaling to 10 gigabits per second.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — 94% 97% 98% 99% 99% 99%

Note: Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2017.

Data Source: EducationSuperHighway.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: October 2019 through September 2020.

Target and 

FY 2020

Actual
Performance Assessment—Goal 1 43

Strategic Objective 1.2

Table 1.2.F. Percentage of states publishing report cards on the preceding school year in a 

timely manner (i.e., by January 15th of the year following the reporting year). 

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — 68% 75% TBD ≥75% ≥75%

Note: Fiscal year (FY) 2020 actual data will be available in March 2021.

Data Source: Consolidated State Performance Report.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: School year 2019–2020.

Table 1.2.G. Percentage of monitored states publicly reporting information on each indicator 

in the state’s accountability system, including the list of schools identified for comprehensive 

or targeted support and improvement.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — — 100% 100% 100% ≥75%

Note: Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2019.

Data Source: The Office of Elementary and Secondary Education’s Office of School Support and 

Accountability monitors state compliance with Title I requirements, including the requirement to 

publish state and local report cards.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: School year 2019–2020.

Target and 

FY 2020

Actual 

Table 1.2.H. Percentage of the total appropriation made available to eligible entities within 

30 days of the passage of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act

(April 27, 2020) (new).

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 97% 90% N/A

Note: This is a new measure for fiscal year (FY) 2020 developed as part of the CARES Act activities. 

This measure has been discontinued after the FY 2020 period of performance.

Data Source: Appropriation and program office communications to eligible entities.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: March 27, 2020, through April 27, 2020.

FY 2020

Actual 

Target 
44 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Table 1.2.I. Percentage of approved applications awarded within seven business days (new).

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 98% 85% N/A

Note: This is a new measure for fiscal year (FY) 2020 developed as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, 

and Economic Security Act activities. This measure has been discontinued after the FY 2020 period of 

performance.

Data Source: The Department’s end-to-end Grants Management System.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: March 27, 2020, through September 30, 2020.

FY 2020

Actual 

Target

Table 1.2.J. Percentage of stakeholder inquiries related to COVID-19 that are closed within 

30 business days (new).

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 57% 80% N/A

Notes: (1) This is a new measure for fiscal year (FY) 2020 developed as part of the Coronavirus Aid, 

Relief, and Economic Security Act activities. (2) These inquiries were subject to unique and customized 

policy review, on a case-by-case basis, which may have impacted the planned timing. (3) This measure 

has been discontinued after the FY 2020 period of performance.

Data Source: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education program offices.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: March 1, 2020, through September 30, 2020.

FY 2020

Actual 

Target
Performance Assessment—Goal 1 45

Prepare all students for successful transitions to college 

and careers by supporting access to dual enrollment, job 

skills development and high-quality science, technology, 

engineering and mathematics (STEM).

Strategic Objective 1.3

OBJECTIVE LEADER: 

Assistant Secretary for the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education

Overview

The most recently available data on graduation rates (school year 2017–2018) indicate 

that 85 percent of public school students 

graduate within four years of starting 

high school. To take full advantage of the 

growing universe of opportunities available 

to them following graduation, the nation’s 

elementary and secondary school students 

need stronger preparation in science, 

technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and more options like 

“We must expand our thinking about 

what education actually is, as well as 

resist the urge to expect all students 

to follow the same track. There 

should be many pathways because 

there are many types of students with 

many different interests and many 

kinds of opportunities with varying 

requirements.”

U.S. Secretary of Education 

Betsy DeVos

youth apprenticeship and dual enrollment 

to get a head start on achieving their goals.

To support this strategic objective, the 

Department is working to expand the practical and affordable options available to 

students and parents for successful transition from high school to postsecondary 

education and careers, including dual or 

concurrent enrollment programs; access to 

accelerated coursework, such as Advanced 

Placement and International Baccalaureate 

courses to earn postsecondary credit while 

still in high school; high-quality STEM 

instruction, including computer science; 

and job skills development through career 

and technical and adult education programs. 

These options are critical for students as 

they prepare for the transition to college and 

careers and the quickly changing demands 

of the technology-driven global economy.

Several offices across the Department 

support this strategic objective, including the Office of Career, Technical, and 

Adult Education; the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education; the Office 

of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development; the Office for Civil Rights; the 
46 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Office of Postsecondary Education; the 

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; and the Institute of 

Education Sciences.

FY 2020 Performance 

Summary and Analysis

There are eight performance measures 

in this strategic objective. Of these, only 

one met its annual metric target (1.3.A), 

which gauges the number of discretionary grant notices with science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics (STEM) as a 

priority. The Department had set an annual 

target of 10, and the year-end result was 13. 

Five performance measures in this strategic objective did not meet their annual 

targets. Two of these measures gauge the 

participation of high school students in 

taking Advanced Placement (AP) exams in 

STEM courses (1.3.B and 1.3.C). The fiscal 

year (FY) 2021 targets for both of these 

measures have been reduced due to high 

school students taking fewer AP exams and 

instead opting for dual enrollment courses. 

An additional two performance measures that did not meet their annual targets 

involve goals for adults gaining skills for 

future employment opportunities (1.3.D 

and 1.3.G). The FY 2021 targets for both

of these measures have been reduced due 

to the challenges of delivering service 

during the COVID-19 pandemic. More 

specifically, performance measure 1.3.D 

gauges the number of Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) adult 

education participants who achieve a measurable skill gain. The year-end result was 

nearly 10 percent below the target set for 

FY 2020. Due to the challenges of offering 

virtual integrated education and training 

during the COVID-19 pandemic, performance next year is expected to be more 

than 30 percent below the previously set 

target for FY 2021. The Department has 

therefore lowered the FY 2021 target for 

this measure. Performance measure 1.3.G 

gauges the number of WIOA adult education participants enrolled in an integrated 

education and training program. The yearend performance was 7.3 percent below 

the annual target. As a result, the FY 2021 

target has also been decreased. 

The fifth performance measure that did not 

meet its annual target gauges the number of 

secondary career and technical education 

(CTE) concentrators enrolling in STEM 

(1.3.J). The year-end result of 1.29 million 

was nearly 13 percent below the target set 

for FY 2020. The FY 2021 target has been 

decreased, as social distance guidelines 

make it challenging to provide hands-on 

in-person courses. 

Because strategies are not having the 

intended impact on outcomes, the Department has designated strategic objective 1.3 

as a “Focus Area for Improvement,” a designation derived from legal guidance for 

federal agencies that is published by the 

Office of Management and Budget. The 

guidance requires that every year, each 

agency designate at least one of its strategic objectives for this category. 

Two performance measures in this strategic objective, 1.3.E and 1.3.H, which 

both gauge progress of adult education 
Performance Assessment—Goal 1 47

Strategic Objective 1.3

participants, were not assessed, as they 

baselined in FY 2020. More specifically, 

1.3.E gauges the number of WIOA adult 

education participants who obtain a 

secondary school diploma or its equivalent 

and are employed or enrolled in an education or training program within one year 

following exit, while measure 1.3.H gauges 

the number of WIOA adult education participants who advance one educational 

functioning level in mathematics.

At the end of Quarter 2, the Department 

retired two measures in this strategic objective: 1.3.F, which measured the number of 

secondary CTE concentrators who attained 

a secondary school diploma, a General Education Development credential, or another 

state-recognized equivalent, and 1.3.I, 

which measured the percentage of secondary 

CTE concentrators placed in employment, 

further training, or the military. Both measures were applicable to Perkins IV but not 

Perkins V, which the President signed into 

law in 2018 as the Strengthening Career 

and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. No. 115-224).

Key Successes and Opportunities 

Improving Instruction in Adult Education. 

This past year has been filled with challenges in meeting the goals of this strategic 

objective. Longstanding trends in how high 

schoolers choose to further their education or training impacted achievement, as 

did the COVID-19 pandemic’s closing of 

many community colleges and job training facilities. Because of these factors, the 

Department has lowered targets for the 

next two years for multiple performance 

measures in this strategic objective.

The field of mathematics is one of the 

building blocks of STEM. To improve 

mathematics instruction in adult education, the Office of Career, Technical, and 

Adult Education’s (OCTAE’s) Numeracy 

Initiative completed outlines for six training modules for adult education teachers. 

The outlines built on available evidence on 

high-quality professional development and 

mathematics instruction. A pilot via online 

delivery is expected in spring 2021.

OCTAE also recruited 12 local adult education programs in four states (Arizona, 

Indiana, Kentucky, and Oregon) to pilot 

technology-based coaching strategies to 

support student retention and outcomes 

while programs operate remotely during 

the pandemic. The states will develop, 

implement, and document the intervention. Initial work with additional states 

began this fiscal year but ultimately had to 

be postponed due to COVID-19.

Additionally, in FY 2020, OCTAE awarded 

more than $1.48 million in Perkins national 

activities funds for nine Perkins Innovation & Modernization grants. These grants 

will operate for a three-year period, with 

an opportunity for two additional years. 

The purpose of the grants is to identify, 

support, and evaluate evidence-based 

strategies for improving CTE and helping 

students succeed in the workplace. All nine 

projects will focus on improving student 

achievement in STEM education, which 

was one of three competitive priorities on 

which the grants could focus their efforts. 

Three of the funded projects will serve 

students rural communities, and all 

nine projects will serve students in 

Qualified Opportunity Zones.
48 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Engaging High School Students. Efforts 

to achieve the goals of the strategic 

objective—to prepare all students for 

successful transitions to college and 

careers—included high schools, postsecondary institutions, and training facilities. 

For example, in October 2019, the Department announced 31 awards, totaling 

$20.1 million, under the Teacher Quality 

Partnership (TQP) Program. Recipients 

included more than 24 school districts, 

institutions of higher education (IHEs), 

and nonprofit organizations. To be eligible, 

an applicant was required to form a partnership that included a high-need school 

district, an IHE, and a program of education 

within a partner institution. Partnerships 

could also include nonprofit organizations. 

More than two-thirds of the funded projects 

are specifically designed to better prepare 

teachers for teaching STEM and computer 

science, using innovative ideas such as 

enabling teachers to earn micro-credentials 

in the field of computer science. Nearly 

half of the funded projects will take place 

in Qualified Opportunity Zones, which are 

designed to spur economic development 

and job creation in distressed communities 

throughout the country and U.S. possessions by providing tax benefits to those who 

invest eligible capital in these communities. In September 2020, the program made 

10 awards totaling $7.3 million. More than 

two-thirds of the funded projects are new 

to the TQP Program and will receive their 

first TQP award from this FY 2020 competition. Additionally, all funded projects will 

take place in a Qualified Opportunity Zone.

OCTAE also launched the CTE: CubeSat

challenge in August 2020. CubeSat is 

a national challenge to build technical 

skills for careers in space and beyond. The 

Department invites high schools to design 

and build cube satellite prototypes that aid 

in space research, a growing career field. 

Pre-employment Transition Services. The 

Department’s work in this strategic objective includes improving the transition 

from high school or postsecondary institutions to employment. FY 2020 marks the 

100th anniversary of the Vocational 

Rehabilitation (VR) Program. As part of its 

many activities to commemorate the milestone, the Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) developed guidance and activities for transition 

and pre-employment transition services. 

For example, on February 28, 2020, OSERS 

published a notice of policy statement and 

request for comment concerning a change 

in policy on the use of federal VR funds 

reserved for pre-employment transition 

services (85 FR 11848). The comment 

period was reopened on June 1, 2020. The 

policy explains when VR funds may be 

used for auxiliary aids and services and the 

other VR services needed by students with 

disabilities to participate in, and benefit 

from, pre-employment transition services.

COVID-19. In June 2020, the Department launched the Rural Tech Project, a 

national challenge for high schools and 

local educational agencies (LEAs) to 

advance rural technology education using 

competency-based distance learning. At its 

core is an effort to find ways to successfully continue to educate students who are 

not physically in a classroom. The project 

has a total cash prize pool of $600,000 and 
Performance Assessment—Goal 1 49

Strategic Objective 1.3

invites high schools and LEAs to develop 

competency-based distance-learning 

programs that enable students to master 

skills at their own pace, with the goal 

of preparing them for well-paying, 

in-demand jobs. 
50 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Performance Measures

Table 1.3.A. Number of discretionary grant notices with science, technology, engineering, 

and mathematics as a priority.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — 3 12 15 13 10 12

Note: Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2017.

Data Source: Program offices holding discretionary grant competitions each year, including the Office 

of Elementary and Secondary Education; the Office of Innovation and Improvement; the Office of 

Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; the Office of Postsecondary Education; the Office of 

Career, Technical, and Adult Education; the Institute of Education Sciences; and the Office of English 

Language Acquisition.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: October 2019 through September 2020.

Target

FY 2020

Actual

Table 1.3.B. Number of public high school students by graduating cohort who have taken at 

least one Advanced Placement science, technology, engineering, and mathematics exam 

while in high school.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

555,119 592,410 622,553 644,485 677,702 677,859 711,587 691,416

Data Source: College Board.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: School year 2018–2019.

Target

FY 2020

Actual

Table 1.3.C. Number of public high school students by graduating cohort who have taken at least 

one Advanced Placement science, technology, engineering, and mathematics exam while in 

high school and scored a 3 or better.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

312,421 325,329 339,784 348,322 370,231 375,017 388,743 382,517

Data Source: College Board.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: School year 2018–2019.

Target

FY 2020

Actual
Performance Assessment—Goal 1 51

Table 1.3.D. Number of adult education participants who achieved a measurable skill gain.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — 676,178 654,853 590,851 655,508 596,760

Notes: (1) The number of adult education participants refers to participants in Workforce Innovation 

and Opportunity Act Title II programs. (2) Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2018.

Data Source: National Reporting System for Adult Education.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: July 2018 through June 2019.

Target

FY 2020

Actual

Strategic Objective 1.3

Table 1.3.E. Number of adult education participants who obtained a secondary school diploma 

tor its equivalent and are employed or enrolled in an education or training program within 

one year following exit.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target

— — — Pre-baseline 37,365 37,192 37,509

Notes: (1) The number of adult education participants refers to participants in Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act Title II programs. (2) Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2019.

Data Source: National Reporting System for Adult Education.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: July 2018 through June 2019.

FY 2020 

Actual

Table 1.3.G. Number of adult education participants enrolled in an integrated education 

and training program.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — 23,307 43,904 51,915 56,000 56,000

Notes: (1) The number of adult education participants refers to participants in Workforce Innovation 

and Opportunity Act Title II programs. (2) Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2018.

Data Source: National Reporting System for Adult Education.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: July 2018 through June 2019.

Target

FY 2020

Actual
52 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Table 1.3.H. Number of adult education participants who advanced one educational 

functioning level in mathematics (new).

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target

— — — — 114,473 66,427 43,064

Notes: (1) The number of adult education participants refers to participants in Workforce Innovation 

and Opportunity Act Title II programs.

Data Source: National Reporting System for Adult Education.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: July 2018 through June 2019.

FY 2020

Actual

Table 1.3.J. Number of secondary career and technical education concentrators enrolling in 

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

992,302 1,020,914 1,154,916 1,251,886 1,409,668 1,293,673 1,480,151 1,240,508

Data Source: State Consolidated Annual Reports for the Strengthening Career and Technical 

Education for the 21st Century Act (Perkins V).

FY 2020 Period of Performance: School year 2018–2019.

Target

FY 2020

Actual
Performance Assessment—Goal 1 53

Support agencies and institutions in the implementation 

of evidence-based strategies and practices that build the 

capacity of school staff and families to support students’ 

academic performance.

Strategic Objective 1.4

OBJECTIVE LEADER: 

Assistant Secretary for the Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development

Overview

Focusing on evidence of what works 

as it relates to education will better 

serve students, families, and communities. This strategic objective aims to support 

the development of evidence about what 

works in prekindergarten through grade 12 

education, primarily through expanded support for states and local educational agencies 

(school districts) as they implement provisions in the Every Student Succeeds Act that 

require the use of evidence-based interventions whenever practicable.

Several offices across the Department support this strategic objective, including the 

Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy 

Development; the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; the Office 

of Elementary and Secondary Education; 

and the Institute of Education Sciences.

FY 2020 Performance 

Summary and Analysis

There is only one performance measure 

for this strategic objective (1.4.A), which 

gauges the number of technical assistance 

engagements, events, or related activities 

or products focused on grantees’ use of evidence in prekindergarten through grade 12 

education. This measure met its annual 

metric target.

Key Successes and Opportunities

Providing Evidence-Based Resources.

Beginning in March 2020, the Regional 

Education Laboratories Program in the 

Institute of Education Sciences began 

responding to state educational agency 

(SEA) and local educational agency (LEA) 

requests for support with managing remote 

learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

The program re-released a series of 

evidence-based resources in 11 topic areas, 

including accountability, early childhood, 

English learner students, equitable learning 

opportunities, resources for parents and 

families, postsecondary education and transitions, remote learning strategies, returning 

to school, social and emotional learning and 

mental health, students with disabilities, and 

teacher workforce and preparation. In total, 

more than 135 resources—including tools, 

events, infographics, and blogs—were 

created and made available to the public. 

Notable resources include two new family 
54 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

and caregiver-facing websites, Teaching 

Math to Young Children and Supporting 

Your Child’s Reading at Home, each of 

which brings together videos, quick tips, 

and activities caregivers can use to support 

foundational math and reading skills.

Developing Teachers. In July 2020, the 

Department announced a new funding priority under the Education Innovation and 

Research Program that aimed at assisting 

teachers in rethinking their professional 

development. Under the priority, teachers 

can use stipends to pay for professional 

learning opportunities that are relevant 

to their personal needs or career goals. 

It is a way to personalize their professional development by choosing the right 

direction for their professional growth. 

Traditionally, teachers have had to use a 

generic set of professional development 

activities that were chosen by their SEA or 

LEA. The program’s purpose is to improve 

academic achievement for high-need students. By funding projects under this 

priority, the Department is seeking to learn 

whether personalized professional development has a positive effect on instructional 

practice and, in turn, a positive effect on 

student achievement. Awards will be made 

in December 2020. In this manner, the 

program continues to be part of an umbrella 

of efforts to assess performance based on 

the outcomes produced.

In September 2020, the Department 

announced nearly $100 million in grant 

awards to school districts, institutions of 

higher education, and nonprofit organizations that build on the Department’s 

commitment to elevating the teaching 

profession and empowering teachers. 

The three grant competitions announced in 

fiscal year 2020 were Teacher and School 

Leader Incentive Program, Supporting 

Effective Educator Development Program, 

and Teacher Quality Partnership Program.

Increasing Transparency on School 

Spending. The Department launched a 

new website, studentspending.ed.gov, 

that shows how much money each school 

spends per student. The tool displays the 

breakdown of federal, state, and local funds 

that make up the per pupil expenditure for 

each school and district beginning with the 

2018–2019 school year—the first year that 

these data were required to be reported on state 

and local report cards under Every Student 

Succeeds Act. 

“This new web tool clearly displays 

per pupil student funding at the 

building level so parents can see 

how their money is being spent 

on students. This is the level of 

transparency that states and 

districts should aspire to and that 

parents deserve.”

U.S. Secretary of Education 

Betsy DeVos

Establishing Communities of Practice.

A key part of the Department’s efforts 

to achieve the goals of this strategic 

objective is establishing communities 

of practice (CoPs) in which experts on a 

particular subject gather—either online 
Performance Assessment—Goal 1 55

or in person—share ideas and learn how 

to improve their skills by interacting with 

each other.

In January 2020, the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) 

launched the Networked Improvement 

Implementation CoP with participants 

from six states that focused on supporting 

up to a dozen SEAs in building and 

implementing Network Improvement 

Communities (NICs) within and among 

districts and schools. NICs will enable 

SEAs and districts to share expertise and 

ideas, provide diverse contexts within 

which to test those ideas, and provide 

the social connections that can accelerate 

testing and adoption. The CoP also aimed 

to foster innovative approaches to generating and using evidence for continuous 

improvement. A summary is available on 

the State Support Network website.

OESE launched another CoP in 

January 2020, which also included participants from six states. It focused 

on supporting SEAs in learning about 

research design across the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act’s four tiers 

of evidence: strong evidence, moderate 

evidence, promising evidence, and demonstrates rationale. Participants also focus on 

approaches to district monitoring and evaluation as well as building an evidence base. 

This CoP enables SEAs to build research 

partnerships and develop systems and 

protocols for collecting, interpreting, and 

organizing evidence. A summary is available on the State Support Network website.

Developing and Engaging Staff. In 

October 2019, the Department held an 

Evidence Summit event, which provided 

an opportunity for employees to learn about 

key evidence topics from experts at the

Department and from the Office of Management and Budget and to hear from grantees 

about their experience in implementing 

evidence-based projects and rigorous 

program evaluations funded through 

grant programs. Since then, the Department

has conducted internal learning sessions 

for staff on the Evidence Act and ways to 

advance the use of evidence in their work.

Strategic Objective 1.4
56 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Performance Measures

Table 1.4.A. Number of technical assistance engagements, events or related activities, or products 

focused on grantees’ use of evidence in prekindergarten through grade 12 education. 

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — 672 1,008 1,355 1,109 1,422

Note: Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2018.

Data Source: Department offices that deliver technical assistance.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: October 2019 through September 2020. Target

FY 2020

Actual
Expand postsecondary educational opportunities, improve outcomes to 

foster economic opportunity and promote an informed, thoughtful and 

productive citizenry.

Strategic Goal 2
58 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Goal 2 

Spotlight

GOAL LEADER: 

Assistant Secretary for 

Postsecondary Education

GOAL 2 OBJECTIVES: 

2.1 Support educational institutions, 

students, parents and communities 

to increase access and completion 

of college, lifelong learning 

and career, technical and adult 

education.

2.2 Support agencies and educational 

institutions in identifying and using 

evidence-based strategies or other 

promising practices to improve 

educational opportunities and 

successfully prepare individuals to 

compete in the global economy.

2.3 Support agencies and educational 

institutions as they create or expand 

innovative and affordable paths 

to relevant careers by providing 

postsecondary credentials or 

job-ready skills.

2.4 Improve quality of service for 

customers across the entire 

student aid life cycle.

2.5 Enhance students’ and parents’

ability to repay their federal student 

loans by providing accurate and 

timely information, relevant tools 

and manageable repayment options.

The traditional four-year 

degree is no longer seen 

as the singular pathway 

to success. The average 

$20,000 price tag for one year of 

tuition, fees, and room and board at a 

public four-year institution of higher 

education is outpacing inflation, leaving too many students 

and families with a considerable financial burden. Many 

students and families must turn to loans to cover the 

increasing costs of pursuing education beyond high 

school. In fiscal year (FY) 2020, the impact of the 

COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically changed the entire 

landscape of higher education. The need to improve 

customer service and transform the loan servicing program 

has never been a more important goal for the Department. 

The principal office that oversees this effort is Federal 

Student Aid (FSA). Even though student financial needs 

and borrowing behavior have changed over time, FSA has 

not met the demand. Its structure is antiquated and begs 

for an update. Under the leadership of Secretary Betsy 

DeVos, the Department began to rethink how FSA needs to 

deliver better services to customers, including students. In 

FY 2018, FSA launched an initiative called Next Generation Financial Services Environment (or Next Gen FSA), 

aiming to transform nearly every aspect of FSA programs by 

streamlining student aid systems and processes, strengthening 

cybersecurity, modernizing the organizational structure and 

management, and making operations more efficient.

Each year, FSA provides more than $120 billion in federal loans, grants, and work-study funds to approximately 

10 million students attending approximately 5,700 postsecondary institutions. The size of the federal student 

loan portfolio, now exceeding $1.5 trillion, requires 

steady leadership, active management, and transparency. 

The office is becoming a more student-focused, agile 

organization that can respond more quickly to customers’ 

needs, increase stakeholder confidence, and effectively 

manage shifts in public policy. Still, as recommended in the 

Department’s FY 2021 Budget, Congress should consider 
Performance Assessment—Goal 2 59

making FSA a standalone government 

agency, run by a professional, expert, and 

apolitical board of governors. 

The amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1998 also made FSA the federal 

government’s first performance-based 

organization (PBO). That directed FSA to 

not only improve service to customers and 

modernize its technology but also to set the 

expectation to reduce operating costs and 

restore integrity to the systems and processes that deliver programs.

To prepare students and families to make 

informed choices from the Free Application for Federal Student Aid® to loan 

repayment, FSA has begun to modernize the way it connects with customers 

in today’s world. This modernization has 

led to the introduction of new tools on its 

StudentAid.gov website, including the 

Annual Student Loan Acknowledgment 

(i.e., Loan Simulator) and the myStudentAid mobile app. These tools are a response 

to present and future customer expectations, including the growing interest in 

lower cost alternatives, such as community colleges, apprenticeships, accelerated 

degree programs, career and technical 

education, and short-term programs. 

For this reason, a primary goal of Next 

Gen FSA is to provide customers with the 

necessary resources as well as literacy and 

financial tools to help them make practical lifelong educational plans, leading 

to more informed borrowing, less longterm debt, and better repayment outcomes. 

To continue this effort, in FY 2021, FSA 

will enhance entrance and exit counseling 

for borrowers, launch a new partner portal 

for streamlined interactions with institutions, and release a series of updates to the 

myStudentAid mobile app to increase customer engagement. To meet the broad range 

of expectations, FSA will continue to align 

its vision and path forward with the goals 

set when the PBO legislation was enacted.

The following pages discuss the Department’s major accomplishments of the past 

fiscal year—October 1, 2019, through 

September 30, 2020—to achieve Goal 2 

and its five underlying strategic objectives. 

While everything the Department accomplished within this timeframe is too vast to 

include, the following provides a snapshot.

Performance Measure Overview

In fiscal year (FY) 2020, the Department 

had 23 measures for this goal. Of these 

23 measures, 14 metric targets were 

met or exceeded, 2 measures showed 

improvement in performance from the 

prior year but did not meet the established 

targets, and 3 measures performed below 

this year’s target and previous year’s 

performance. One measure was below the 

target but does not have previous year’s 

data for comparison. Three measures did 

not have an established target and were 

baselined in FY 2020 or later. 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Number of Measures

Objective 2.1 Objective 2.2 Objective 2.3 Objective 2.4 Objective 2.5

FY 2020 baseline measure

Met or exceeded the FY 2020 target

Improved from prior year but did not meet the FY 2020 target

Did not meet the FY 2020 target or prior year performance 

8
60 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Goal 2 Discretionary Resources

The following table shows examples of select major discretionary programs and activities 

supporting Goal 2.

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities Supporting Goal 2 in Thousands

POC ACCT Objective Program

FY 2020 

Appropriation

FSA SFA 2.1, 2.3 Federal Pell Grants: Discretionary $22,475,352

OCTAE CTAE 2.1, 2.3 Career and Technical Education State Grants $1,282,598

OPE HE 2.1 Strengthening HBCUs $324,792

OPE HE 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 Federal TRIO Programs $1,090,000

Other N/A N/A All Other Programs $6,467,752

Note:

Discretionary resources listed here include Department programs that may contribute to multiple goals. A list of programs 

by goal is provided in appendix C.

Acronyms and Definitions:

POC = Principal Operating Component; ACCT = Account; FSA = Federal Student Aid; SFA = Student Financial Assistance; 

OCTAE = Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education; CTAE = Career, Technical, and Adult Education; OPE = Office 

of Postsecondary Education; HE = Higher Education; HBCU = Historically Black College and University; and N/A = Not 

Applicable.
Performance Assessment—Goal 2 61

Support educational institutions, students, parents and 

communities to increase access and completion of college, 

lifelong learning and career, technical and adult education.

Strategic Objective 2.1

OBJECTIVE LEADER: 

Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education

Overview

The Department continues to recognize 

that effective grant making is in the best 

interests of the students the grants serve, 

is critical to responsible stewardship of 

public dollars, and can yield measurable 

returns to society as a whole in the long 

term. In fiscal year 2020, the Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) issued more 

than 5,200 discretionary grants designed 

to strengthen the capacity of colleges and 

universities to promote reform, innovation, and improvement in postsecondary 

education; promote and expand access to 

postsecondary education; and increase 

college completion rates for America’s students. These grants will also broaden global 

competencies that drive the economic 

success and competitiveness of the nation.

OPE is also pursuing more outcomes-based 

performance monitoring, as evidenced by 

the development of a new strategic plan 

performance measure for the Gaining Early 

Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate 

Programs (GEAR UP), which serve more 

than 560,000 students enrolled in more than 

3,525 secondary schools across 45 states.

Several offices across the Department 

contribute to this strategic objective, 

including OPE; Federal Student Aid; the

Office of Career, Technical, and Adult 

Education; and the Office of Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services.

FY 2020 Performance 

Summary and Analysis

There are four performance measures 

for this strategic objective. Three of 

the four measures did not meet their 

annual metric targets, while the fourth 

completed a baseline assessment in fiscal 

year (FY) 2020, which will be used to set 

targets for future years. 

Two of the measures that did not meet 

their annual metric targets (2.1.B and 

2.1.C) were heavily impacted by the 

COVID-19 pandemic, which led to a significant decrease in the number of students 

electing to attend college. As a result, 

fewer students were applying for financial 

assistance to help them fund postsecondary 

education or training. More specifically, 

performance measure 2.1.B, which gauges 

the percentage of first-time filers of Free 
62 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Application for Federal Student Aid® 

(FAFSA®) among high school seniors, 

ended the fiscal year at 63.8 percent, which 

was short of its annual target even though 

performance was at its highest level since 

the Department introduced the measure 

in FY 2017. The FY 2021 target has been 

decreased due to the effects of COVID-19 

on college enrollment. Performance 

measure 2.1.C, which gauges the persistence of FAFSA® filers in completing 

their applications, also fell short of its 

target, with a fiscal year-end result of 

81 percent; this was the lowest level of 

persistence recorded since the Department introduced this measure in FY 2017. 

The FY 2021 target for measure 2.1.C

has also been decreased due to the effects 

of COVID-19 on college enrollment. 

The third performance measure in this 

strategic objective that did not meet its 

annual metric target (2.1.D) gauges the 

percentage of total appropriated funds 

made available to institutions of higher 

education (IHEs) within 30 days of the 

passage of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and 

Economic Security (CARES) Act. The Department set an ambitious target of disbursing 

100 percent of the $14 billion appropriated 

by Congress for IHEs within 30 days of 

passage of the act in March 2020. Ultimately, 

the Department disbursed 90 percent of the 

funds within 30 days and the remaining 

10 percent within the 3 days that followed. 

This grant-making activity resulted in a 

134 percent increase in the number of grants 

awarded (from 5,018 in FY 2019 to 11,779 in 

FY 2020) and a 457 percent increase (from 

$2.4 billion in FY 2019 to $13.5 billion 

in FY 2020) in total grant funding.

The fourth performance measure in this 

strategic objective (2.1.A) is new and baselined in FY 2020; it gauges the percentage 

of Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness 

for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) 

participants who obtain a secondary school 

diploma or its equivalent and, within 

18 months, are enrolled in postsecondary 

education. This new measure exemplifies 

a heightened focus in the Department on 

outcomes-based performance measurement.

Key Successes and Opportunities

Regulatory Activities. The Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) continues to 

develop federal postsecondary education 

policy and regulations, including policy 

that supports FSA and other programs 

authorized by the Higher Education Act of 

1965, as amended (HEA).

“We’ve made tremendous progress 

during the last three years, 

challenging everyone in the higher 

education community to rethink 

how we approach education with an 

eye toward putting students at the 

center of everything that we do.”

U.S. Secretary of Education 

Betsy DeVos

Major milestones included the July 2020 

amendment of regulations for the Teacher 

Education Assistance for College and 

Higher Education (TEACH) Grant Program, which was established in 2007 to 

increase the number of teachers serving in 
Performance Assessment—Goal 2 63

Strategic Objective 2.1

high-need fields in low-income schools. The 

program provides a grant of up to $4,000 

for each year in which an undergraduate or 

graduate student is enrolled in an eligible 

program that prepares him or her to teach 

in a high-need area in a low-income school; 

recipients are required to teach for a minimum of four years in such a position. If 

they do not fulfill this pledge, the grant is 

converted to a loan, with interest backdated 

to the disbursement of the grant.

In the past, many teachers who missed a 

paperwork filing deadline were dismayed 

to have their grants converted to loans 

even though they had complied with all 

other rules. OPE amended the regulations 

to minimize the number of TEACH grants 

that are converted to loans. Addressing this 

issue through amended regulations was 

a follow-up to activities the Department 

conducted in 2018–2019 to restore and to 

correct the status of TEACH grants that had 

been improperly converted to loans due to 

a variety of administrative issues. It was 

also one part of Secretary DeVos’ agenda 

for Rethinking Higher Education, which 

included a call to reform regulations as part 

of a wider effort to create new and different types of postsecondary options to help 

more students obtain the skills they need 

to be competitive in changing job markets. 

In addition to adopting the amended 

regulations for the TEACH program, in 

July 2020, OPE also finalized regulations

on the eligibility of faith-based entities 

to participate in federal student financial 

aid programs and GEAR UP as well as 

the eligibility of students to obtain certain 

benefits under those programs. These were 

the Equal Participation of Faith-Based 

Organizations in Department of Education 

Programs and Activities: Implementation 

of Executive Order13831 and Eligibility 

of Faith-Based Entities and Activities—

Title IV Programs amended regulations.

Previously, the regulations could be interpreted to discriminate against otherwise 

eligible students and faith-based entities 

by disqualifying them from the programs 

solely because of their religious beliefs 

or status, in violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the 

United States Constitution. For example, 

in the past, a student loan borrower who 

worked for employers that engage in religious instruction, worship services, or 

proselytizing could not qualify for federal 

public service loan forgiveness benefits 

like borrowers who worked for employers 

who were not religiously affiliated.

In addition to these amended regulations; 

regulations adopted in November 2019 

became effective in July 2020 allowing for 

more individualized accrediting standards 

to recognize that no single set of standards or requirements can determine each 

institution’s potential contributions. The 

regulations empowered accreditors to act 

early when an institution is at risk for closure 

and to hold institutions to higher levels 

of accountability, while still allowing institutions to take the necessary corrective actions. 

When an institution must close, these 

regulations authorize accreditors to act.

Evaluations. In FY 2020, the Department 

continued conducting two studies related to 

the Adult Education and Family Literacy 
64 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Act (AEFLA). The first study, on the implementation of AEFLA, seeks to understand 

how state and local educational agencies 

are putting in place policies and practices 

promoted by the law, as well as how common 

challenges are being met. Collection of statelevel data was temporarily suspended due 

to COVID-19 but had resumed by the time 

the fiscal year ended. The second study 

seeks to identify one or more promising 

adult education interventions and make 

plans to evaluate them at scale. 

COVID-19. In FY 2020, with the addition 

of the CARES Act Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund, the number of grants 

that OPE administers more than tripled 

from more than 5,000 in FY 2019 to almost 

17,000. OPE had to build a temporary 

staffing structure and create new positions 

to manage the administration and oversight of these programs.

The Department has also provided 

guidance, via a regularly updated electronic announcement, to IHEs on how to 

comply with Title IV of HEA while being 

flexible to assist students whose activities 

are impacted by COVID-19. The guidance addresses five potential student and 

campus issues that may prompt an IHE 

to have compliance concerns: (1) revised 

academic calendars/academic year length/

overlapping terms, (2) expanded use of 

distance education, (3) return of Title IV

funds waivers, (4) approved leaves of 

absence, and (5) federal work-study 

for students unable to work due to the 

COVID-19 pandemic. 
Performance Assessment—Goal 2 65

Performance Measures

Table 2.1.A. Percentage of Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate 

Programs (GEAR UP) participants who obtain a secondary school diploma or its equivalent 

and, within 18 months, are enrolled in postsecondary education (new).

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target

— — — — — 50% 51%

Notes: (1) This is a new measure for fiscal year (FY) 2020. (2) No data are available prior to FY 2020.

Data Source: GEAR UP annual performance reports.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: August 2018–August 2019.

FY 2020 

Actual

Table 2.1.B. Percentage of first-time Free Application for Federal Student Aid® filers among 

high school seniors.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

60.5% 57.5% 60.2% 67.4% 65.9% 63.8% 66.0% 66.25%

Data Source: Federal Student Aid’s Central Processing System.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: October 2019 through September 2020. Target

FY 2020 

Actual

Table 2.1.C. Persistence among first-time filing aid recipients.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

79.5% 79.7% 82.6% 82.5% 82.8% 81.0% 83.0% 83.0%

Data Source: Federal Student Aid’s Common Origination and Distribution System.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: October 2019 through September 2020.

Target

FY 2020 

Actual

Strategic Objective 2.1
66 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Table 2.1.D. Percentage of total appropriation made available to institutions of higher 

education within 30 days of the passage of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic 

Security (CARES) Act (April 27, 2020) (new).

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 90% 100% N/A

Note: This new measure for fiscal year (FY) 2020 was developed as part of the CARES Act activities 

and has been discontinued after the fiscal year (FY) 2020 period of performance.

Data Source: The Department’s end-to-end Grants Management System.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: Quarter 3 of FY 2020.

Target

FY 2020 

Actual
Performance Assessment—Goal 2 67

Support agencies and educational institutions in identifying 

and using evidence-based strategies or other promising 

practices to improve educational opportunities and successfully 

prepare individuals to compete in the global economy.

Strategic Objective 2.2

OBJECTIVE LEADER: 

Assistant Secretary for the Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development

Overview

The Department is committed to improving 

educational opportunities for the existing 

and future workforce. As such, this strategic objective promotes the identification 

and use of evidence in federal programs 

that provide educational opportunities, 

training, and support services focused 

on the workforce. It is also essential that 

the Department fulfills its commitment to 

individuals with disabilities by working 

with state and local agencies to provide 

job-driven training and support services 

consistent with the Workforce Innovation 

and Opportunity Act.

To increase the likelihood that these programs achieve their goals, the Department 

supports the use of evidence across multiple programs that address postsecondary 

education and workforce outcomes.

Several offices across the Department 

support this strategic objective, including 

the Office of Postsecondary Education; 

the Office of Planning, Evaluation, and 

Policy Development; the Institute of 

Education Sciences; the Office of Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services; 

and the Office of Career, Technical, and 

Adult Education.

FY 2020 Performance 

Summary and Analysis

There are four performance measures for 

this strategic objective. Of these four, 

one performance measure met its annual 

metric target and one did not, while two 

successfully completed a baseline assessment. The measure that met its annual 

target (2.2.B) gauges the percentage of 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act adult education program participants 

who are in unsubsidized employment 

during the second quarter after exiting the 

program. The fiscal year (FY) 2021 target 

for measure 2.2.B has been reduced as the 

employment rate has been affected by the 

COVID-19 pandemic.

Performance measure 2.2.A did not meet 

its annual target; it gauges the number of 

technical assistance events or activities and 

products focused on the use of evidence 

in federal programs that promote educational opportunities, training, and support 
68 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

services for the workforce. Performance 

on this measure had been, largely, on track 

prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Performance measure 2.2.C, which gauges 

the percentage of Vocational Rehabilitation 

(VR) Program participants who were in 

unsubsidized employment during the second 

quarter after exiting the program continued 

to establish a baseline. The Department 

successfully baselined measure 2.2.D, 

which gauges the percentage of VR program participants who, during a program 

year, are in an education or training program 

that leads to a recognized postsecondary 

credential or employment and who are 

achieving measurable skill gains, defined 

as documented academic, technical, occupational, or other forms of progress, toward 

such a credential or employment. A target 

has been established for FY 2021.

Key Successes and Opportunities

Providing Evidence of What Works.

Disruptions caused by the COVID-19 

pandemic presented a greater-than-ever 

need for educators to know what works, 

based on promising practices or evidence, 

to help them make decisions about where 

to invest limited resources. Through the 

efforts of this strategic objective, the 

Department aims to provide such evidence.

Critical to this work is ensuring that information about the efficacy of new and 

popular interventions is widely shared. To 

that end, the What Works Clearinghouse

released reviews of popular and well-known 

postsecondary interventions, providing 

educators with greater evidence when 

making investments in student success 

programs. This included reviews of the 

Open Learning Initiative, which provides 

online courses and learning materials to 

college instructors and learners at low or 

no cost; the Accelerated Study in Associate Program, which is designed to remove 

barriers to college success and completion for students seeking associate degrees; 

and Inside Track Coaching, which provides 

proactive and personalized coaching to

help postsecondary students overcome 

barriers to college success. Early college 

high schools, integrated planning and 

advising, college re-enrollment campaigns, 

and multiple measures assessment and 

placement programs were also highlighted.

Building Evidence Through Grant 

Programs. The Department is also working 

on building evidence through its grant 

competitions and included evidence components in several grant competitions in 

FY 2020. For example, in September 2020, 

the Department launched a new effort to 

provide funding to a subset of Gaining 

Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) State 

grantees that proposed plans to track the 

postsecondary success of former GEAR 

UP participants in the six years following 

high school graduation. This effort will 

help the Department and grantees gain a 

better understanding of the longer-term 

post-secondary retention and completion 

outcomes for GEAR UP participants after 

the grant activities end.

Applied Research and Evaluation.

Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) 

Appalachia released a report titled

Assessing the Alignment between West 
Performance Assessment—Goal 2 69

Strategic Objective 2.2

Virginia’s High School Career and Technical 

Education Programs and the Labor Market.

The study quantitatively assessed the alignment between West Virginia’s high school 

career and technical education programs 

and the labor market, with a focus on alignment to regional high-demand occupations 

that require moderate occupational preparation. REL Northwest completed similar 

work related to career- and college-ready 

requirements for high school graduation in 

Washington.

COVID-19. The Office of Special Education 

Programs in the Office of Special Education 

and Rehabilitative Services released sets 

of questions and answers (Q&A) on the 

implementation of the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B 

and Part C during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

These included: IDEA Part C Evaluation 

and Assessment Timelines Q&A, IDEA 

Part B Procedural Safeguards Q&A, IDEA 

Part C Procedural Safeguards Q& A, IDEA 

Part B Use of Funds Q&A, IDEA Part C 

Use of Funds Q&A, IDEA Part B Dispute 

Resolution Procedures Q&A, IDEA Part C 

Dispute Resolution Procedures Q&A, and 

Flexibility in IDEA Part B Fiscal Requirements Q&A.
70 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Performance Measures

Table 2.2.A. Number of technical assistance events or activities and products focused on 

the use of evidence in federal programs that promote educational opportunities, training, 

and support services for the workforce.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — 77 188 160 207 168

Note: Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2018.

Data Source: Departmental offices that deliver technical assistance.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: October 2019 through September 2020.

Target

FY 2020

Actual

Table 2.2.B. Percentage of adult education program participants who were in unsubsidized 

employment during the second quarter after exiting the program.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — — 25.6% 27.5% 27.0% 19.1%

Notes: (1) The number of adult education participants refers to participants in Workforce Innovation 

and Opportunity Act Title II programs. (2) Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2019.

Data Source: National Reporting System annual state reports.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: July 2018 through June 2019. Target

FY 2020

Actual

Table 2.2.C. Percentage of Vocational Rehabilitation Program participants who were 

in unsubsidized employment during the second quarter after exiting the program.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target

— — — — 50.4% 51.3% TBD

Note: Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2019.

Data Source: Rehabilitation Services Administration’s 911 Vocational Rehabilitation Case Service Report.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: Program year 2019.

FY 2020

Actual
Performance Assessment—Goal 2 71

Table 2.2.D. Percentage of Vocational Rehabilitation Program participants who, during a program 

year, are in an education or training program that leads to a recognized postsecondary credential 

or employment and who are achieving measurable skill gains, defined as documented academic, 

technical, occupational, or other forms of progress, toward such a credential or employment.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — 21.1% 23.4% 31.4% N/A 25.1%

Note: Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2018.

Data Source: Rehabilitation Services Administration’s 911 Vocational Rehabilitation Case Service 

Report.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: Program year 2019.

FY 2020 

Actual

Strategic Objective 2.2
72 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Support agencies and educational institutions as they 

create or expand innovative and affordable paths to 

relevant careers by providing postsecondary credentials 

or job-ready skills.

Strategic Objective 2.3

OBJECTIVE LEADER:

Assistant Secretary for the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education

Overview

It is critical that the Department helps 

ensure the nation’s workforce is prepared 

to meet the challenges of tomorrow with 

the skills and credentials that employers 

require. Postsecondary credentials and jobready skills for in-demand industries may 

be obtained by students through a wide 

variety of education providers, such as 

traditional institutions of higher education, 

non-traditional education providers, and providers of self-guided learning. Through this 

strategic objective, the Department will provide grant funding and technical assistance 

resources to develop, evaluate, and replicate 

practices and programs that expand access 

to viable education and career pathways.

Several offices across the Department 

support this strategic objective, including 

the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult 

Education; the Office of Postsecondary 

Education; and the Office of Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services.

FY 2020 Performance 

Summary and Analysis

There are two performance measures for 

this strategic objective. One measure, 2.3.A, 

met its annual metric target on the number 

of technical assistance activities sponsored 

by the Department intended to expand or 

enhance the integration of workforce preparation activities within academic instruction 

in adult education classrooms. The fiscal 

year-end performance for this measure was 

53, and the annual target was 15. The other 

measure for this strategic objective, 2.3.C, 

which gauges the number of postsecondary science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics (STEM) degrees and certificates conferred, did not meet the fiscal year 

(FY) 2020 annual target. The originally established FY 2021 target for measure 2.3.C has 

been reduced due to many post-secondary 

institutions shifting to virtual learning due 

to the COVID 19 pandemic and the impact 

this will have on students who do not have 

broadband access. 

At the mid-fiscal year point, the Department retired a third performance measure 

for this strategic objective, 2.3.B, which 

assessed the percentage of postsecondary career and technical education (CTE) 

concentrators who received an industry-recognized credential, certificate, or degree. 
Performance Assessment—Goal 2 73

Strategic Objective 2.3

This measure was applicable to Perkins 

IV but not Perkins V, which the President 

signed into law in 2018 as the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 

21st Century Act (Pub. L. No. 115-224).

The Department established an Agency 

Priority Goal (APG) for FY 2020 and 

FY 2021 to improve nationwide awareness of and access to career pathways that 

support job skills development and career 

readiness. This APG is also supported by 

strategic objective 1.3. The Department 

aimed to support the creation and expansion 

of integrated education and training, support the enrollment of CTE concentrators 

in STEM fields, and increase the number 

of federal financial aid recipients who 

earn a postsecondary credential in STEM. 

However, the Department did not meet the 

initially established FY 2020 targets for 

key indicators for the APG. Targets have 

been decreased for FY 2021, as the Office 

of Career, Technical, and Adult Education (OCTAE) determined that the impact 

of COVID-19 will negatively affect future 

year performance as well. Information on 

the quarterly progress of APGs is available 

on Performance.Gov.

Key Successes and Opportunities

Expanding Career Pathways. Through this 

strategic objective, the Department aims to 

look beyond traditional means of helping 

secondary students find their way to jobs 

and careers that pay livable wages. 

OCTAE continued providing technical 

assistance activities to improve the job 

readiness of adult education participants. 

For example, its Teaching Skills That 

Matter project supports the integration of 

employability skills development with 

academic instruction. In FY 2020, the project pilot tested its training materials with 

teams of teachers and professional developers from five states (Arizona, Arkansas, 

Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Virginia). The 

project also conducted a two-day virtual 

symposium for more than 1,000 teachers 

nationwide. OCTAE is converting the pilot 

training materials to an online platform to 

provide the project to additional states.

In addition, OCTAE’s Literacy Information and Communication System (LINCS) 

continued to prioritize the integration of 

workforce preparation activities into academic instruction. It had to cancel several 

scheduled face-to-face trainings due to 

COVID-19 but still managed to provide 

5 online trainings for 243 adult educators. 

Additionally, 306 adult educators enrolled 

in 6 LINCS online courses related to workforce preparation activities. LINCS also 

conducted eight online discussions on 

the integration of workforce preparation 

activities into academic instruction.

The Department developed technical assistance materials to support participants in 

its reTHINK Adult Education Challenge. 

This program includes a $750,000 prize 

pool and targets the development of more 

than 100 new pre-apprenticeship programs 

involving partnerships between adult 

education providers, sponsoring apprenticeship organizations, and employers.
74 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

“In our dynamic and changing 

economy, learning must be a 

life-long pursuit. Educational 

opportunities for adults should 

reflect this reality, but all too often, 

students, particularly adult learners, 

encounter barriers to changing 

careers and learning new skills. 

This pre-apprenticeship challenge 

gives local education leaders the 

opportunity and encouragement they 

need to rethink adult education to 

match this new reality and ensure 

students are prepared for success.”

U.S. Secretary of Education 

Betsy DeVos

Providing Technical Assistance. The 

Workforce Innovation Technical Assistance 

Center provided targeted or intensive technical assistance to all 78 state vocational 

rehabilitation (VR) agencies nationwide.

The VR Technical Assistance Center 

Targeted Communities supported implementation of sustainability plans in 11 of 

12 states participating in VR Technical 

Assistance Center Targeted Communities. 

It provided ongoing intensive technical assistance and monthly community 

of practice meetings that provided experienced-based ideas and approaches to 

expand and sustain, beyond the life of a 

grant, a project’s promising or evidencebased practices that promote increased VR 

participation and employment outcomes.

OCTAE launched the Pathways to Credentials initiative to provide intensive 

technical assistance to 10 community and 

technical colleges to help them embed 

stackable, industry-recognized credentials 

within technical associate degree programs. By awarding credit for a range of 

education, training, workplace learning, 

and skill-building experiences that “stack” 

toward associate degrees, stackable credential programs help working students develop 

the skills they need to simultaneously 

advance on the job and earn credentials that 

enable further study. Such programs accelerate credit attainment and may increase 

the likelihood of degree completion.

The Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services’ VR Technical 

Assistance Center–Youth held three webinars, including “Supporting Youth who are 

Experiencing Homelessness: Achieving 

Employment through Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Partners.”

COVID-19. OCTAE’s pre-apprenticeship 

challenge, which is designed to spur the 

development of 100 new pre-apprenticeship 

programs for low-skilled adults, has been 

postponed indefinitely due to COVID-19.
Performance Assessment—Goal 2 75

Performance Measures

Table 2.3.A. Number of technical assistance activities sponsored by the Department 

intended to expand or enhance the integration of workforce preparation activities within 

academic instruction in adult education classrooms.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — 3 23 24 53 15 18

Note: Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2017.

Data Source: Contractor quarterly progress reports.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: October 2019 through September 2020.

FY 2020 

Actual

Target

Table 2.3.C. Number of postsecondary science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 

degrees and certificates conferred.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

635,800 668,091 704,580 586,992 612,589 638,866 662,000 589,600

Note: Through the FY 2020 Annual Performance Report, the Department has amended the performance 

data reported in the FY 2019 Annual Performance Report. See Appendix B for details.

Data Source: The National Center for Education Statistics’ Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System Completions component.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: School year 2018–2019.

FY 2020 

Actual

Target

Strategic Objective 2.3
76 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Improve quality of service for customers across the entire 

student aid life cycle.

Strategic Objective 2.4

OBJECTIVE LEADER: 

Chief Operating Officer for Federal Student Aid

Overview

The Department’s Federal Student Aid 

(FSA) manages one of the largest loan portfolios in the nation and delivers more than 

$120 billion in financial aid each year to 

students and their families. FSA also has 

the responsibility for oversight of approximately 5,700 postsecondary institutions 

that receive Title IV aid. Over the past fiscal 

year, FSA has worked diligently to modernize its systems and operations to deliver 

world-class customer and partner experiences. This effort is not only to improve 

the quality of service for customers but also 

to be the most trusted and reliable source 

of student financial aid information and 

services in the nation.

FSA leads the effort for this strategic 

objective with support from several offices 

across the Department, including the 

Office of the Under Secretary and the 

Office of Postsecondary Education.

FY 2020 Performance 

Summary and Analysis

There are eight performance measures in 

this strategic objective, and all but one met

its annual metric target. The performance 

measures meeting their targets cover a 

range of efforts to gauge the success of 

Federal Student Aid’s (FSA’s) Next Generation Financial Services Environment 

(Next Gen FSA) enterprise transformation. 

In this wide-ranging program, the Department seeks to modernize all aspects of FSA 

programs, from the beginning of the process when high school students and others 

first seek financing for their postsecondary 

education and training to graduation and 

beyond, when the repayment of student 

loans will begin for many borrowers.

Next Gen FSA launched in early fiscal 

year (FY) 2018, and FSA has sought to 

expand and improve it every year. Those 

efforts were evident in the performance 

this year, with nearly every measure in 

the strategic objective meeting its annual 

target despite the impact of the COVID-19 

pandemic.

In FY 2019, only four of eight performance 

measures met their annual metric targets 

(seven measures had annual targets, while 

one measure was baselining and thus had 

no target). In FY 2018, only two of eight 

performance measures met their annual 

metric targets (four measures had annual 
Performance Assessment—Goal 2 77

Strategic Objective 2.4

targets that year, while the other four were 

baselining to gather data to set targets for 

future years). Accordingly, in FY 2018, 

the Department designated this strategic 

objective as a “Focused Area for Improvement,” consistent with legal guidelines for 

federal agencies issued by the Office and 

Management and Budget (OMB).

Two years later, in FY 2020, the scope of the 

innovations and performance improvement 

in Next Gen FSA have led the Department 

to designate this strategic objective as an 

“Area Demonstrating Noteworthy Progress.” This designation is derived from the 

OMB guidance that requires that every 

year, each agency designates at least one 

of its strategic objectives for this category. 

The designation is reserved for strategic objectives that meet at least one of the 

official criteria for recognition of noteworthy performance, including that “[n]ew 

innovations in strategy, program design, 

risk mitigation, or operations have led to 

notable improvements in outcomes, risk 

reductions, and/or cost reductions and 

promise greater impact in the future.”

Customers of FSA—including students 

who are first time applicants for financial aid, those currently enrolled in a 

post-secondary institution or training program, and those in repayment of their 

loans—recognized the progress this fiscal 

year, with FSA achieving its annual target 

for its assessment in the American Customer 

Satisfaction Index Survey (2.4.C). Further, the score of 73.5 achieved this fiscal 

year was the highest score since the 

Department began tracking this performance 

measure in FY 2017. In FY 2019, FSA did 

not meet its annual target for this measure.

The Department established an Agency 

Priority Goal (APG) for FY 2021 and 

FY 2021 to leverage Next Gen FSA to 

improve and personalize customers’ 

experience with FSA. The Department 

aims to transform its relationship with 

prospective and current customers through 

deployment of significant components of 

the Next Gen FSA that result in a personalized experience. FSA exceeded all of 

the key indicators and achieved all FY 2020 

milestones in support of this APG. Information on the quarterly progress of APGs 

is available on Performance.Gov.

Key Successes and Opportunities

Digital Enhancements to Improve Customer Service. In the past year, FSA 

made a wide array of updates to technology improvements it had introduced in 

the two prior years. In December 2019, it 

consolidated its four most-visited websites 

“Federal Student Aid’s customers 

visit our websites more than 

120 million times each year. By 

centralizing the information they 

need on one website, providing one 

singular phone number to call, and 

continually improving our mobile 

app, we can better serve students 

and cut down on the confusion 

of navigating the federal student 

aid process.”

U.S. Secretary of Education 

Betsy DeVos
78 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

into a single website, StudentAid.gov. 

It then rolled out a series of improvements 

to the website.

In February 2020, FSA launched the Make 

a Payment Pilot. This pilot program allows 

borrowers whose federally managed loans 

are in repayment and assigned to servicers 

Great Lakes or Nelnet to schedule upcoming monthly payments on StudentAid.gov. 

By FY 2023– 2024, the pilot will have 

expanded to include all Direct Loan borrowers. Also in February, FSA launched the 

Aid Summary on StudentAid.gov, which 

provides authenticated users with an aid 

summary dashboard that displays information about all of the federal financial aid they 

have received. Customers are able to “drill 

down” to view detailed information about 

each individual grant, loan, and aid overpayment, and they are able to keep track of 

their remaining eligibility for Direct Subsidized and Federal Pell Grants and Iraq and 

Afghanistan Service Grants. In addition, 

by using dropdown menu options to navigate to other sections of their aid summary, 

users can view detailed information about 

their demographic/contact data, campus/

program enrollment, and lender/lender 

servicer access authorizations.

In April 2020, FSA launched the Annual 

Student Loan Acknowledgment. This tool is 

designed to help new student loan borrowers get a sense of what their loan balance, 

monthly payment, and expected salary 

could be based on the college they plan to 

attend and their chosen program of study. 

For seasoned borrowers, the tool will show 

the amount borrowed to date, how close 

the borrower is to the lifetime borrowing 

cap, and what they can expect their future 

monthly payments to be. Use of the tool 

will be required beginning with school year 

2021–2022. Also in April, FSA integrated 

the Federal Student Aid Feedback System, 

which is an online portal established in 

2016 that allows federal student aid 

customers to submit complaints, provide 

positive feedback, and report allegations 

of suspicious activity regarding their 

experience with FSA programs.

In June 2020, FSA enhanced the Loan 

Simulator to feature additional repayment 

plan scenarios specifically for borrowers 

who have a variety of loans, such as a combination of Direct Loans, Perkins Loans, 

and Federal Family Education Loan Program loans. Included in the enhancements 

was a new module that allows customers 

experiencing economic hardship to determine the best method for managing 

their loans. Also in June, FSA added an 

employer database to the Public Service 

Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program’s PSLF 

Help Tool. With the employer database, 

borrowers can input their Employer Identification Number to know if their employer 

is eligible, ineligible, or likely ineligible to 

meet the qualifying employment criterion 

for PSLF.

In addition to these enhancements to 

StudentAid.gov, in December 2019, FSA 

launched the “Aidan” pilot. “Aidan” is a 

virtual assistant designed to improve the 

way FSA customers, including students, 

parents, borrowers, schools, and partners, 

interact with and manage FSA programs. 

“Aidan” can answer questions about federal 

student aid by using advanced technology 
Performance Assessment—Goal 2 79

Strategic Objective 2.4

(e.g., artificial intelligence and natural 

language processing). Usage of “Aidan” 

increased from 10 percent of authenticated users in Quarter 1 of FY 2020 to 

50 percent of authenticated users by the 

end of FY 2020. The fiscal year-end

number of users was 545,763, far in 

excess of the annual target of 25,000.

Another pilot FSA launched in the past 

year was myFSApay. It provides federal 

aid recipients at five colleges (Purdue University, University of California–Riverside, 

University of Georgia, Jackson State University, and National University) with a 

co-branded campus debit card. The debit 

card provides users with an alternative 

method for managing credit balance funds 

and seeks to eliminate the costs associated 

with school- and bank-sponsored accounts.

Answering Customer Telephone Calls 

and Inquiries. Having call service centers 

around the country, staffed by contractors 

who respond to inquiries about student 

loans and other forms of federal financial 

assistance, is the Department’s traditional 

approach to providing customer service. 

FSA continues to use centers as it continues 

to develop the technology of Next Gen FSA. 

This year, FSA revised the makeup of the 

centers it uses, adding five new centers and 

eliminating two. Staffing across the centers 

became a challenge in Quarter 2 of FY 2020 

due to call volumes increasing in the latter 

part of the quarter. The increase was due 

to the implementation of the Coronavirus 

Aid, Relief, and Economic Security 

(CARES) Act as well as servicers working 

to make their staff available to work 

remotely due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Since then, call volumes have decreased, 

likely due to the CARES Act allowing for 

forbearance periods for payment on many 

federal student loans. FSA worked with 

its loan servicers to ensure all eligible 

borrowers received personalized communications informing them of the benefits 

afforded to them under the CARES Act 

(e.g., suspension of interest and payments). 

As new borrowers received student loans 

and entered repayment, servicers notified 

them of these same benefits.

By March 2020, FSA was monitoring key 

milestones daily, including operational 

reporting from vendors, web analytics, 

and complaint and social media tracking 

covering areas such as vendor operations, 

customer listening, call volumes, answer 

times, number of calls dropped, and 

abandonment rates, among others. This 

provided FSA leadership with insight into 

areas needing improvement and informed 

decision-making on various operational issues.

COVID-19. FSA issued a series of regularly updated guidance, beginning 

in March 2020, to help its customers, 

including, students, parents, and institutions of higher education, navigate the 

effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.
80 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Performance Measures

Table 2.4.A. Average speed to answer incoming calls to Federal Student Aid’s call centers.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — 77 seconds 66 seconds 139 seconds 59 seconds ≤60 seconds ≤60 seconds

Note: Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2017.

Data Source: Federal servicers’ quarterly reports.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: October 2019 through September 2020.

Target

FY 2020 

Actual

Table 2.4.B. Average abandon rate for incoming calls to Federal Student Aid’s call centers.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — 3.8% 3.9% 6.5% 3.6% ≤2.0% ≤2.0%

Note: Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2017.

Data Source: Federal servicers’ quarterly reports.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: October 2019 through September 2020.

Target

FY 2020 

Actual

Table 2.4.C. American Consumer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) Surveys.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — 70 71 70 73.5 73 74

Note: Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2017.

Data Source: ACSI.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: October 2019 through September 2020.

FY 2020 

Actual

Target
Performance Assessment—Goal 2 81

Table 2.4.D. Number of downloads of the myStudentAid mobile app.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,226,234 1,657,608 1,300,000 1,400,000

Note: Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2019.

Data Source: Federal Student Aid’s online platform analytics.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: October 2019 through September 2020.

FY 2020 

Actual

Target

Table 2.4.E. Number of customers checking loan balances via the myStudentAid mobile app.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

N/A N/A N/A N/A 65,718 133,417 70,000 1,500,000

Note: Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2019.

Data Source: Federal Student Aid’s online platform analytics.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: October 2019 through September 2020.

FY 2020 

Actual

Target

Table 2.4.F. Number of customers submitting a Free Application for Federal Student Aid® 

via a mobile platform—the myStudentAid mobile app or fafsa.gov.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — 0 2,201,000 2,505,293 2,400,000 2,600,000

Note: Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2019.

Data Source: Federal Student Aid’s online platform analytics.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: October 2019 through September 2020.

Target

FY 2020 

Actual

Strategic Objective 2.4
82 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Table 2.4.G. Number of visits (sessions) demonstrating adoption of the updated 

StudentAid.gov site.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — 44,500,000 183,700,000 217,299,306 190,000,000 210,000,000

Note: Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2018.

Data Source: Federal Student Aid’s online platform analytics.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: October 2019 through September 2020.

Target

FY 2020 

Actual

Table 2.4.H. Number of users of “Aidan,” the StudentAid.gov virtual assistant (new).

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 545,763 25,000 500,000

Notes: (1) This is a new measure for fiscal year (FY) 2020. (2) Data are not available for prior to FY 2020.

Data Source: Federal Student Aid’s online platform analytics.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: October 2019 through September 2020.

Target

FY 2020 

Actual
Performance Assessment—Goal 2 83

Enhance students’ and parents’ ability to repay their federal 

student loans by providing accurate and timely information, 

relevant tools and manageable repayment options.

Strategic Objective 2.5

OBJECTIVE LEADER: 

Chief Operating Officer for Federal Student Aid

Overview

In fiscal year 2020, the Department 

continued to execute its comprehensive 

framework for student aid management 

that allows students to understand and 

access information about college options 

and associated costs, loan counseling 

and guidance, support for retention, loan 

repayment options, and borrower benefits.

Through increased collaboration and 

collective action, offices across the Department led by Federal Student Aid (FSA) 

and the Office of Postsecondary Education 

(OPE) will further advance information 

and materials that inform students and 

parents about federal student loan repayment options, both before and throughout 

the student aid life cycle. 

FSA leads the effort for this strategic 

objective with support from several offices 

across the Department, including the Office 

of the Under Secretary and OPE.

FY 2020 Performance 

Summary and Analysis

There are five performance measures for 

this strategic objective, all of which not only 

met but exceeded their annual metric targets this year. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, 

and Economic Security (CARES) Act, legislation enacted to combat the devastation 

of the COVID-19 pandemic, may have had 

a beneficial effect on performance for two 

of these measures (2.5.A and 2.5.B) since 

the act gave federal student loan borrowers 

an extended forbearance period in which 

they did not have to repay their federal student loans. Consequently, after the CARES 

Act went into effect on March 27, 2020, 

the percentage of student loan delinquencies improved significantly and, with it, the 

performance on both measures.

The Department’s Federal Student Aid 

(FSA) also met, and exceeded, all targets 

for the three new performance measures 

that were added at the mid-point this fiscal 

year to gauge performance in meeting new 

duties required by the CARES Act. These 

measures gauge the percentage of eligible 

borrowers placed on a 0 percent interest 

rate (2.5.C), the percentage of involuntary 

payments refunded (2.5.D), and the percentage of initial borrower notifications 

completed (2.5.E).
84 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

The Department had planned to introduce a 

new performance measure in Quarter 4 of 

fiscal year (FY) 2020 to assess the percentage of initial repayment notifications made 

to borrowers on or after August 1, 2020. 

However, since an Executive Order from 

President Trump extended the forbearance period from September 30, 2020, to 

January 31, 2021, the Department will 

delay introduction of this performance 

measure to FY 2021.

Key Successes and Opportunities

Delinquent Student Loan Borrowers. Even 

before the enactment of the CARES Act

in March 2020, the Department was performing better than its annual targets for 

both performance measures that assess 

the rates of delinquency in repayment of 

federal student loans (2.5.A and 2.5.B). 

For example, performance in every quarter in FY 2020 bested the annual target. 

Further, despite the forbearance allowed by 

the act, approximately 300,000 borrowers 

have opted out of the forbearance and have 

continued to pay.

New Measures to Assess Implementation 

of the CARES Act. Following the passage of the CARES Act in March 2020,

the Department began reducing the interest

rate for all federally held student loan

borrowers to 0 percent (2.5.C). The result 

was that in FY 2020, 99.49 percent of

such borrowers had their loans reduced to 

0 percent interest; the remaining loans of 

such borrowers were newly disbursed 

loans that entered the systems at the statutorily required rates and were immediately 

adjusted down to 0 percent for the duration of the CARES Act suspension period 

(which was originally scheduled to end on 

September 30, 2020, and was extended by 

Executive Order to December 31, 2020). 

The Department automatically also placed 

all borrowers in administrative forbearance status, which allowed them to 

temporarily stop making monthly loan 

payments. Once the payment suspension 

period ends, all non-defaulted borrowers 

in the federal student loan portfolio will 

be in a current repayment status.

FSA has refunded more than 99 percent 

of payments made by borrowers with 

defaulted loans who are subject to having 

certain Department of Treasury offsets or 

wages garnished (2.5.D), and it notified 

a few small businesses that continued to 

garnish wages against FSA directions. FSA 

worked with its loan servicers to ensure 

all eligible borrowers received personalized communications informing them of 

the benefits afforded to them under the 

CARES Act (e.g., suspension of interest 

and suspension of payments (2.5.E)). As 

new borrowers received student loans and 

entered repayment, servicers notified them 

of these same benefits.
Performance Assessment—Goal 2 85

Performance Measures

Table 2.5.A. Percentage of borrowers who are more than 30 days delinquent. 

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

21.4% 19.0% 18.4% 17.2% 16.6% 7.6% 16.6% 17.10%

Data Source: Federal Student Aid’s data warehouse.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: October 2019 through September 2020.

Target

FY 2020

Actual

Table 2.5.B. Percentage of borrowers who are more than 90 days delinquent.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

13.0% 11.2% 10.9% 10.1% 9.8% 4.8% 9.8% 10.1%

Data Source: Federal Student Aid’s data warehouse.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: October 2019 through September 2020.

FY 2020 

Actual

Target

Table 2.5.C. Percentage of eligible borrowers placed on a 0 percent interest rate (new).

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 99.49% 98% N/A

Notes: (1) This is a new measure for fiscal year (FY) 2020 developed as part of the Coronavirus Aid, 

Relief, and Economic Security Act activities. (2) This measure has been discontinued after the FY 2020 

period of performance.

Data Source: Federal Student Aid’s National Student Loan Data System®.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: March 2020 through September 30, 2020.

FY 2020 

Actual

Target

Strategic Objective 2.5
86 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Table 2.5.D. Percentage of involuntary payments refunded (new).

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 99.25% 98% N/A

Notes: (1) This is a new measure for fiscal year (FY) 2020 developed as part of the Coronavirus Aid, 

Relief, and Economic Security Act activities. (2) This measure has been discontinued after the FY 2020 

period of performance.

Data Source: Federal Student Aid’s Debt Management and Collection System. 

FY 2020 Period of Performance: March 2020 through September 30, 2020.

FY 2020 

Actual

Target

Table 2.5.E. Percentage of initial borrow notifications completed (new).

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 99.50% 98% N/A

Notes: (1) This is a new measure for fiscal year (FY) 2020 developed as part of the Coronavirus Aid, 

Relief, and Economic Security Act activities. (2) This measure has been discontinued after the FY 2020 

period of performance.

Data Source: Federal Student Aid’s loan servicers.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: March 2020 through June 2020.

FY 2020 

Actual

Target
Strengthen the quality, accessibility and use of education data through 

better management, increased privacy protections and transparency.

Strategic Goal 3
88 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Goal 3 

Spotlight

GOAL LEADER: 

Chief Data Officer

GOAL 3 STRATEGIC 

OBJECTIVES:

3.1 Improve the Department’s data 

governance, data life cycle 

management and the capacity 

to support education data.

3.2 Improve privacy protections for, 

and transparency of, education 

data both at the Department and 

in the education community.

3.3 Increase access to, and use of, 

education data to make informed 

decisions both at the Department 

and in the education community.

I

n fiscal year (FY) 2020, the 

Department continued to 

make significant progress in 

executing a comprehensive 

federal data management strategy and 

remains a federal agency forerunner 

in implementing the Foundations 

for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act’s (Evidence Act’s) 

requirements on agency data governance and management, 

ensuring privacy protections, and expanding public awareness about and access to the data assets of the Department.

In November 2019, the Department established an 

agency-level Data Governance Board (DGB), chaired by 

the Chief Data Officer, with participation from senior-level 

staff from each of the Department’s principal offices, and 

began the process for the timely development of a formalized data strategy. DGB sponsors agency-wide actions to 

develop an open-data culture and works to improve the 

Department’s capacity to leverage data as a strategic asset 

for evidence building and operational decisions, including 

developing the data skills of staff throughout the agency.

In accordance with the Federal Data Strategy’s 2020 Action 

Plan and the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) 

guidance on the Evidence Act, in spring 2020, DGB conducted an agency-wide data maturity assessment. As existing 

data maturity models did not completely account for the 

Department’s context, DGB created a hybrid data maturity 

model. DGB improved on the initial assessment through a 

pilot and then conducted facilitated assessments. In addition to an assessment of the agency overall, the assessment 

was conducted within each principal operating component 

(POC). The assessment analyzed all aspects of agency policies, procedures, and operations related to data and data 

infrastructure, including data governance, data management, data culture, data systems and tools, data quality, data 

analytics, staff skills and capacity, resource capacity, and 

compliance with law and policy. The Department was one 

of the first agencies to complete its data maturity assessment, which was conducted in a fully virtual environment 
Performance Assessment—Goal 3 89

due to COVID-19. The results will provide 

the baseline for the Department and POCs 

to measure progress and growth in FY 2021, 

be used to guide the creation of the agency’s 

inaugural data strategy, inform principal 

office investment decisions, and provide 

agency leadership with the ability to track 

year-over-year return on those investments. 

The 2020 Action Plan also directed agencies 

to identify opportunities to increase staff 

data skills, beginning with an assessment 

of staff data literacy and data competencies. 

In July 2020, the Office of the Chief Data 

Officer partnered with the Institute of Education Sciences to launch the Department’s 

first-ever Data and Evidence Use Survey in 

accordance with these OMB requirements. 

Notably, the federal Chief Data Officers 

Council asked the Department to present its 

survey to chief data officers from among its 

member agencies, resulting in requests for 

additional information to support their own 

assessments from the U.S. Departments of 

Health and Human Services, Commerce, 

and Labor as well as the U.S. Air Force. 

The Department intends to make several 

advancements in FY 2021 and beyond, 

including strengthening data governance 

within the agency to ensure, among other 

things, data investments are made strategically and efficiently to improve operations 

and evidence building. It also includes 

a continued and expanded focus on the 

protection of financial and personally identifiable student information, including data 

maintained by postsecondary institutions 

across the country. To be more responsive 

to grantees, the public, and other stakeholders, the Department must also make 

enhancements to its own data infrastructure and legacy systems, such as those used 

for grants management (known as G5) 

and Freedom of Information Act requests. 

System enhancements such as these also 

improve data accessibility so that, when 

combined with a more analytically skilled 

workforce, the agency is better equipped to 

strategically use its data to improve student 

outcomes.

The following pages discuss the Department’s major accomplishments of the 

past fiscal year—October 1, 2019, through 

September 30, 2020—to achieve Goal 3 

and its three underlying strategic objectives. These accomplishments illustrate the 

progress made over this past fiscal year in 

improving the quality, accessibility, and 

public use of the Department’s data assets. 

Performance Measure Overview

In fiscal year (FY) 2020, the Department 

had five measures for this goal. Of these 

five measures, three met or exceeded the 

established targets, while two measures 

did not have an established target and were 

baselined in FY 2020. 

1

2

3

Number of Measures

Objective 3.1 Objective 3.2 Objective 3.3

FY 2020 baseline measure

Met or exceeded the FY 2020 target

Improved from prior year but did not meet the FY 2020 target

Did not meet the FY 2020 target or prior year performance 
90 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Goal 3 Discretionary Resources

The following table shows examples of select major discretionary programs and activities 

supporting Goal 3.

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities Supporting Goal 3 in Thousands

POC ACCT Objective Program

FY 2020 

Appropriation

IES IES 3.3 Research, Development, and Dissemination $195,877

IES IES 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 Statistics $110,500

IES IES 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 National Assessment $153,000

Other N/A N/A All Other Programs $97,245

Note:

Discretionary resources listed here include Department programs that may contribute to multiple goals. A list of programs 

by goal is provided in appendix C.

Acronyms and Definitions:

POC = Principal Operating Component; ACCT = Account; IES = Institute of Education Sciences; and N/A = Not Applicable.
Performance Assessment—Goal 3 91

Improve the Department’s data governance, data 

life cycle management and the capacity to support 

education data.

Strategic Objective 3.1

OBJECTIVE LEADER: 

Associate Commissioner, Administrative Data Division, National Center for 

Education Statistics, Institution of Education Sciences

Overview

This strategic objective focuses primarily 

on opportunities to develop the Department’s data management framework and 

internal capacity regarding collected and 

acquired data. The main goal of improving 

data management is to define the common 

standards, operating policies, implementation roles, and procedures needed across 

the Department to improve the integrity 

and quality of the data used by the Department and released to the public.

While supported by all principal offices 

across the Department, two offices steer 

efforts for this strategic objective: the 

National Center for Education Statistics 

within the Institute of Education Sciences 

and the Office of the Chief Data Officer 

within the Office of Planning, Evaluation, 

and Policy Development.

FY 2020 Performance 

Summary and Analysis

There is only one measure in this strategic 

objective, 3.1.A, which gauges the percentage of principal offices assessed as having 

higher data maturity year over year based on 

the Department’s data maturity assessment 

tool. The initial data maturity assessment 

was completed, and the measure was successfully baselined in fiscal year (FY) 2020, 

which now provides a basis for establishing 

targets for future years. The target for 

FY 2021 will be 25 percent of principal 

offices assessed as having higher data maturity (compared to the baseline established 

in FY 2020) based on the Department’s data 

maturity assessment tool.

Of note, in FY 2020, for this strategic objective, the Department substantially revised 

its performance measures by retiring two 

previous performance measures and successfully baselining a new performance 

measure. These changes were prompted 

by the Foundations for Evidence-Based 

Policymaking Act of 2018.

Key Successes and Opportunities

Enhancing Data Governance. The Office 

of the Chief Data Officer (OCDO) completed “discovery” interviews with office 

leaders and front-line data staff throughout the Department to identify agency and 
92 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

office data challenges. These were then 

shared with the Department’s Data Governance Board (DGB). The three categories 

with the most identified challenges were 

data access and availability, data governance, and coordination and planning. 

OCDO and DGB will prioritize challenges, 

identify potential solutions, and collaborate 

in implementing those solutions as both 

individual efforts and in concert with the 

Department’s Data Strategy.

DGB continues to meet regularly to inform 

the development of the Department’s Data 

Strategy based on the “discovery” interviews 

and the data maturity assessment. DGB 

approved a hybrid Data Maturity Assessment 

Model based on two existing assessments 

used by industry and national governments. 

To support this effort, it conducted a pilot 

with two of the Department’s offices prior to 

Department-wide implementation.

In FY 2020, DGB executed a process to 

develop the Department’s data strategy to 

realize the full potential of data to improve 

education outcomes. This Department-wide 

effort included agency-wide discussions 

about data priorities that will help improve 

data maturity and focus on the Department’s 

capabilities to leverage data, operationalize 

and optimize data governance, and drive 

cultural change for the benefit of all stakeholders. DGB identified the following four 

goal areas to guide data modernization: 

(1) strengthening agency-wide data governance; (2) building human capacity to 

leverage data; (3) advancing the strategic 

use of data; and (4) improving data access, 

transparency, and privacy.

Enhancing Data Culture Within the 

Department. Every principal office in 

the Department completed a data maturity assessment covering 7 categories and 

18 process areas. In addition to individual 

principal office assessments, the Department also conducted an assessment looking 

across the entire agency. The assessments 

will provide baseline data to establish 

annual targets for FY 2021 and future 

years to measure agency and principal 

office data maturity improvements.

The Data Strategy Team (DST) continued 

to meet monthly to discuss existing efforts 

and available tools to broaden staff awareness and knowledge of data and data uses 

across the Department. Through DST meetings, principal operating component (POC) 

representatives were able to review the new 

Federal Student Aid Unified Data Platform 

and learn about the benefits of such a platform for data management and access, hear 

how Department staff are using specific 

software tools in the use and management 

of collected data, and discuss efforts to make 

data and data documentation more accessible internally across offices and publicly.

OCDO and the Institute of Education 

Sciences’ National Center for Educational 

Evaluation administered the Data and Evidence Use Survey to respond to requirements 

of the Foundations for Evidence-Based 

Policymaking Act of 2018 and the Federal 

Data Strategy. The results will be used to 

target staff training to improve data literacy 

and the capacity to use evidence.
Performance Assessment—Goal 3 93

Strategic Objective 3.1

Enhancing Data Collection and Use With 

Stakeholders. OCDO launched a partnership with Budget Service, the Grants 

Policy Office, and the Office of Acquisition and Grants Administration to improve 

the quality and use of Government and 

Performance Results Act measures. As 

part of this initiative, OCDO supported the 

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) and the Office of Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services in 

the development of new and updated measures for grant programs. Additionally, the 

Department launched a new annual performance reporting tool in FY 2020 for OESE 

formula grantees, providing an online 

system for grantees to submit responses 

and review data in a user-friendly format. 

The tool sought to reduce reporting burden 

and improve data quality by using data 

previously submitted to EDFacts to pre-fill 

responses and match the format needed for 

the performance indicators. The new reporting tool meets current security standards 

and addresses usability issues identified 

with prior tools.

Additionally, the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education completed 

state-level data collection and validation 

guides for both Perkins V and adult education data. The guides include annual 

timelines and step-by-step descriptions 

of the data collection processes, and they 

serve as documentation of existing protocols, help identify parts of the process that 

could use improvement, and aid in internal 

succession planning.
94 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Performance Measures

Table 3.1.A. Percentage of principal offices assessed as having higher data maturity year 

over year based on the Department’s data maturity assessment tool (new). 

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target

— — — — — — 25%

Notes: (1) This is a new measure for fiscal year (FY) 2020. (2) No data are available prior to FY 2020. (3) The Department successfully 

baselined in FY 2020, which will serve as the foundation for future years’ assessments.

Data Source: The Department’s Annual Data Maturity Assessment.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: October 2019 through September 2020.
Performance Assessment—Goal 3 95

Improve privacy protections for, and transparency 

of, education data both at the Department and in 

the education community

Strategic Objective 3.2

OBJECTIVE LEADER: 

Chief Information Officer

Overview

The Department is committed to protecting 

student privacy. While education data can 

be used to inform and drive transformative efforts, the vast amount and sensitivity 

of these data make it imperative that the 

Department and the education institutions 

that maintain student data take steps to 

adequately protect it. This strategic objective focuses on improving student privacy 

protections through the administration of 

the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, developing and disseminating 

privacy and security training, and making 

technical assistance available to states, 

districts, and institutions of higher education (IHEs). This strategic objective also 

focuses on improving student privacy and 

cybersecurity at IHEs.

All Department offices have a role in supporting this strategic objective. Primary 

stakeholder offices include the Office of 

the Chief Information Officer; the Office of 

Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development (OPEPD); OPEPD’s Student Privacy 

Policy Office and its Office of the Chief 

Data Officer; Federal Student Aid; the Institute of Education Sciences; and the Office 

of the General Counsel.

FY 2020 Performance 

Summary and Analysis

There are three performance measures for 

this strategic objective, all of which met 

their annual metric targets.

Two of the performance measures (3.2.A 

and 3.2.B) assess aspects of the Department’s efforts to improve cybersecurity 

at institutions of higher education (IHEs). 

More specifically, 3.2.A gauges the number 

of IHEs that have an audit of Gramm-LeachBliley Act (GLBA)-related information 

security safeguards which result in no 

significant findings. In the two years prior 

to fiscal year (FY) 2020, there was no 

performance on this measure, and the 

Department designated it as a “Focus Area 

for Improvement,” consistent with legal 

guidelines for federal agencies issued by 

the Office and Management and Budget 

(OMB). This year, performance significantly exceeded the annual target, aided by 

OMB’s issuance of guidelines in July 2019 

to assist auditors in conducting the audits. 

The Department has not determined that 

each audit reported for this measure 

included a specific review of the cybersecurity protocols associated with the

GLBA, but the Department is taking steps 
96 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

to ensure that audits reported with no 

GLBA findings actually review for GLBA 

issues. The other cybersecurity-related 

measure, 3.2.B, gauges the number of 

outreach activities targeting data privacy 

and information technology (IT) security 

requirements of IHEs. The number of such 

activities in FY 2020 (56) was more than 

double the annual target.

The third performance measure in this 

strategic objective (3.2.C) assesses the 

Department’s progress in reviewing the 

websites of local school districts to see 

if they include transparency best practices and comply with legal requirements 

relating to third-party contracting.

The Department established an Agency 

Priority Goal (APG) for FY 2020 and 

FY 2021 to improve student privacy and 

cybersecurity at IHEs through outreach 

and compliance efforts. The Department 

aims to participate in 12 engagements 

with sector-related non-governmental 

organizations to inform the development of five best practice programmatic 

improvements. In FY 2020, the Department exceeded the targets for both of the 

key indicators supporting this APG, and 

the FY 2020 milestones are completed 

or in progress. Information on the quarterly progress of APGs is available on 

Performance.Gov.

Key Successes and Opportunities

Improving Cybersecurity Issues at 

Institutions of Higher Education. The 

Department’s efforts to improve cybersecurity issues at IHEs was wide-ranging. It collaborated with IHEs to respond

to 318 cybersecurity incidents, provide 

technical assistance to remediate problems, 

and improve overall cybersecurity postures.

In addition, Federal Student Aid’s (FSA’s) 

postsecondary cybersecurity team updated 

the way it operates so that it could provide 

IHEs with immediate feedback when they 

submit a breach report or request for help. 

The team’s new process provides immediate acknowledgment that the Department 

has received the IHE’s report, and it gives 

periodic communications of the status of 

the case with the frequency of these communications responsive to the criticality of 

the report (e.g., each day, week, or month). 

The team also lets IHEs know of the Department’s final disposition of their report.

Over the course of the year, the Department 

also participated in meetings with education associations and groups in the higher 

education community to discuss their cybersecurity obligations if they participate in 

Title IV federal financial aid programs, 

which most colleges do. For example, 

the Department held outreach conference 

calls with three IHEs to work through specific threat intelligence information from 

possible account compromises. Additionally, the Department has conducted calls 

with numerous higher education associations and IHEs representing all sectors. The 

Department worked collaboratively with the 

Office of Inspector General’s Technology 

Crimes Division to reach out to 465 IHEs 

that may have been potentially at risk due 

to a list of 2,511 compromised accounts 

that were provided through external law 

enforcement channels.

In March 2020, the Student Privacy Policy 

Office (SPPO) provided technical assistance to the Data Governance Council of the 
Performance Assessment—Goal 3 97

Strategic Objective 3.2

Southern Regional Education Board, which 

works with 16 member states. While additional conferences scheduled for March were 

canceled due to COVID-19, through its Privacy Technical Assistance Center (PTAC), 

SPPO conducted two virtual training activities that included IHEs as part of the target 

audience: one of these activities was an 

event on responding to a data breach, and 

the second focused on the use of educational 

applications/educational technology.

Protecting Student Privacy and Information at K–12 Schools. SPPO continued 

reviewing local educational agency (LEA) 

websites for transparency of information 

about student privacy (e.g., inclusion of 

the annual Family Education Rights and 

Privacy Act (FERPA) notice and directory 

information). By the end of FY 2020, SPPO 

reviewed 60 percent of the 1,504 LEA 

websites in a nationally representative 

sample, putting the office on track to complete its four-year plan of reviewing all of 

the sample websites. At the conclusion of 

the review of each LEA website, SPPO 

issues a notification letter to the LEA that 

includes technical assistance on implementing better transparency practices, such 

as improving its website accessibility for 

FERPA annual notifications and directory 

policies. In addition, over the latter half of 

FY 2020, SPPO began delivering virtual 

comprehensive technical assistance activities to targeted subsets of LEAs based on 

data gleaned from the FY 2019 reviews. 

Future activities will be coordinated following the completion of the FY 2020 

report during Quarter 1 of FY 2021.

COVID-19. The Department participated

in three campus cybersecurity meetings 

with EDUCAUSE, a nonprofit association 

and the largest community of technology, 

academic, industry, and campus leaders 

advancing higher education through the use 

of IT. Discussions included the notice on 

Information for Financial Aid Professionals

regarding GLBA and COVID-19-related 

responses from IHEs. Other GLBA outreach and associated IHE-focused activities 

were put on hold to minimize burdens on 

IHEs trying to operate under COVID-19. 

FSA’s cybersecurity team is preparing 

notification and corrective action requests 

for distribution to non-compliant IHEs 

once pandemic restrictions are lifted.

Beginning in March 2020, SPPO’s privacy 

help desk received a sharp increase in the 

number of technical assistance inquiries, 

likely due to increases in virtual learning 

because of COVID-19. Accordingly, prior 

to the end of March, SPPO conducted a 

presentation, “FERPA and Virtual Learning During COVID-19.” As a follow-up 

to that presentation, SPPO issued the 

FERPA and the Coronavirus Disease 

2019 (COVID-19) frequently asked questions document and a resource listing on 

FERPA and virtual learning. Throughout 

FY 2020, SPPO, supported by PTAC, was 

able to process more than 3,000 requests 

for informal technical assistance with 

an average response time of 5.31 days 

while maintaining the primary focus and 

allocation of resources on complaint operations. Finally, in September 2020, SPPO 

issued a post on the Department’s blog 

entitled, “May Schools Disclose Information about Cases of COVID-19?,” to 

provide a plain-language explanation for 

schools and districts regarding the appropriateness of releasing information about 

COVID-19 cases to the public and the 

education community.
98 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Performance Measures

Table 3.2.A. Number of institutions of higher education (IHEs) that have an audit of 

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act-related information security safeguards that result in no 

significant findings (new).

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,541 77 154

Notes: (1) This is a new measure for fiscal year (FY) 2020. (2) No data are available prior to FY 2020.

Data Source: IHE-provided auditor reports.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: October 2019 through September 2020.

Target

FY 2020

Actual

Table 3.2.B. Number of outreach activities targeting data privacy and information 

technology security requirements of institutions of higher education.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — 12 63 40 56 20 20

Note: No data are available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2017.

Data Source: Outreach activity records maintained by the Privacy Technical Assistance Center.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: October 2019 through September 2020.

Target

FY 2020

Actual

Table 3.2.C. Percentage of local educational agency (LEA) websites from a statistically 

representative sample reviewed for inclusion of transparency best practices.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

N/A N/A N/A N/A 35% 60% 60% 85%

Note: Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2019.

Data Source: Selected LEA public websites.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: October 2019 through September 2020.

Target and 

FY 2020

Actual
Performance Assessment—Goal 3 99

Increase access to, and use of, education data to 

make informed decisions both at the Department 

and in the education community.

Strategic Objective 3.3

OBJECTIVE LEADER: 

Deputy Chief Data Officer for Governance and Strategy, Office of the Chief 

Data Officer

Overview

For education data to inform decisions, the 

Department must continue to develop and 

implement methods to analyze, interpret, 

and disseminate education data and support 

education stakeholders in doing the same. 

This strategic objective focuses on increasing access to education data at all levels 

and improving the tools necessary to support the appropriate use of education data 

for decision-making by the Department and 

its stakeholders.

Several principal offices across the 

Department support this strategic objective, including the Institute of Education 

Sciences; the Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development (OPEPD); 

OPEPD’s Office of the Chief Data Officer 

and its Office of Educational Technology; the Office for Civil Rights; and the 

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.

FY 2020 Performance 

Summary and Analysis

There is only one performance measure for this strategic objective in fiscal 

year (FY) 2020, 3.3.A, which gauges 

the number of data assets listed in a 

comprehensive data inventory that are 

made available to the Federal Data Catalogue with official determinations regarding 

open-by-default requirements. This measure baselined in FY 2020 and recorded a 

fiscal year-end result of 487. In FY 2021, 

the annual target will be set at a 15 percent 

increase from this baseline.

Of note, the Department substantially 

revised its performance measures for 

this strategic objective this fiscal year. 

In FY 2019, this strategic objective had 

four performance measures, including 

what is now 3.3.A. The Department retired 

the three other performance measures in 

FY 2019, in part because the requirements 

of the Foundations for Evidence-Based 

Policymaking Act of 2018 subsumed some 

of the measures that had been tracked.

Key Successes and Opportunities

Making Data Available to the Education 

Community. One of the most important, and 

expansive, ways the Department can make 

its vast store of data available to students, 

parents, schools, colleges, and others, such 
100 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

as researchers in the education community, 

is by cataloging all of its data and putting 

the most useful data in one central, publicly 

accessible place. The Office of the Chief 

Data Officer (OCDO) completed the initial round of populating the Department’s 

new Open Data Platform after program 

offices verified data accuracy and updated 

metadata.

Data published on the platform are organized by category, such as special education, 

K–12, student demographics, safety/bullying, and suspension/discipline. Data 

profiles included on the platform include 

award information for select Department 

grant programs, budgets for a range of 

Department programs, Freedom of Information Act annual reports, and information 

on upcoming Department contracts. To 

help users navigate the platform, OCDO 

provided technical assistance and developed user tools, including access forms, 

user guides, and presentations.

Another Department website, ED Data 

Express, features more targeted data. 

Specifically, it includes participation and 

performance data on select formula grant 

programs in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 for school 

year (SY) 2010–2011 to SY 2017–2018. 

These programs are Title I, Part A; Title I,

Part C; Title I, Part D; Title III; and the 

McKinney-Vento. In the past fiscal year, 

the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education continued to expand the 

website by releasing more than 300 stateand district-level datasets.

In FY 2020, the Department updated its 

College Scorecard website, which allows 

users to research information on alternative pathways to careers and, if they 

are considering college, find information 

about colleges based on cost of attendance, 

graduation rates, and the salary ranges of 

graduates. The website was enhanced by 

adding new functionality that allows users 

to search and compare individual fields of 

study. Additionally, the National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES) worked with 

the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau 

of Labor Statistics to release an updated 

crosswalk between the Classification of 

Instructional Programs and the Standard 

Occupational Codes. 

NCES worked with the Census Bureau to 

develop education-related items for the 

“ For the first time, students will 

be able to find data on debt and 

potential earnings by field of study. 

For example, if a student wants 

to study psychology, he can see 

what other graduates in the field 

are earning and how much debt 

they took on to earn that degree 

from different institutions. And for 

the first time, College Scorecard 

offers information on all types 

of higher education options 

including traditional degrees, 

two-year programs, certificates, 

apprenticeships, and even some 

graduate programs.”

U.S. Secretary of Education 

Betsy DeVos
Performance Assessment—Goal 3 101

Census Household Pulse survey. The Pulse 

survey has been used to collect information 

on the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic 

on household experiences. The education 

items on the Pulse survey include data 

on the method and availability of home 

internet access for K–12 educational use, 

information on the presence and source 

of computers for K–12 education use, and 

information on changes to postsecondary 

students’ fall 2020 enrollment plans. 

Finally, to assist policymakers and the 

public with gaining access to a popular 

topic of interest during the COVID-19 pandemic, NCES updated its School District 

Demographic Dashboard by adding an indicator for the percentage of households with 

broadband internet access. The updated 

dashboard provides users with the ability 

to look at Census Bureau data on economic 

and demographic indicators for any public 

school district in the country. NCES also 

added 12 new geo-enabled web services 

with application programming interfaces 

that provide hundreds of indicators about 

school districts’ social, economic, housing, 

and demographic conditions.

Federal Recognition for the Department’s 

Work in Data. As required by the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act 

of 2018, the White House established an 

Advisory Committee on Data for Evidence 

Building. The committee aims to review, 

analyze, and make recommendations on 

how to promote the use of federal data for 

evidence building. The Department’s Chief 

Data Officer and Evaluation Officer were 

both selected to serve on the committee. 

COVID-19. EDFacts worked with 

grant-making offices to evaluate the 

SY 2019–2020 data impact of the 

COVID-19 pandemic. It also evaluated 

the technical impact of unplanned remote 

work for EDFacts data stewards. As a 

result, the Department revised its Information Collection Request package for 

clearance with the Office of Management 

and Budget to reflect waiver decisions, 

and it offered flexibility in data processing for late data submissions in certain 

instances. Similarly, the Office for Civil 

Rights (OCR) monitored how COVID-19 

impacted its own data collection, the Civil 

Rights Data Collection (CRDC). Due to the 

effect the COVID-19 pandemic has had on 

state educational agencies, local educational agencies (LEAs), and schools, and in 

response to the numerous inquiries received 

from LEAs and the input received from 

several pertinent stakeholders, OCR proposed shifting the collection of the CRDC 

by one year, from the 2019–2020 academic 

year to the 2020–2021 academic year.

Strategic Objective 3.3
102 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Performance Measures

Table 3.3.A. Number of data assets listed in a comprehensive data inventory that are made 

available to the Federal Data Catalogue with official determinations regarding “open-bydefault” requirements (new).

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target

— — — — — 487 560

Notes: (1) This is a new measure for fiscal year (FY) 2020. (2) No data are available prior to FY 2020.

Data Source: The Department’s comprehensive data inventory.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: October 2019 through September 2020.

FY 2020

Actual
Reform the effectiveness, efficiency and accountability of the Department.

Strategic Goal 4
104 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Goal 4 

Spotlight

GOAL LEADER: 

Acting Assistant Secretary, 

Office of Finance and Operations

GOAL 4 OBJECTIVES: 

4.1 Provide regulatory relief 

to educational institutions 

and reduce burden by 

identifying time-consuming 

regulations, processes and 

policies and working to 

improve or eliminate them, 

while continuing to protect 

taxpayers from waste 

and abuse.

4.2 Identify, assess, monitor 

and manage enterprise risks.

4.3 Strengthen the Department’s 

cybersecurity by enhancing 

protections for its 

information technology 

infrastructure, systems 

and data.

4.4 Improve the engagement 

and preparation of the 

Department’s workforce 

using professional 

development and 

accountability measures.

Making grants that promote student success 

across the continuum 

of lifelong learning is 

one of the central ways the Department executes its mission. With a 

grant portfolio of approximately 

14,000 awards totaling more than $45 billion per year, 

this Administration has prioritized common-sense solutions to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of grants 

management. These improvements are essential to help 

address the broader national challenges with stagnant 

student outcomes.

Compared to a decade ago, scores from the 2019 National 

Assessment of Educational Progress mathematics and 

reading assessments for students in grades 4 and 8 were 

unchanged or lower for lower-performing students at the 

10th and 25th percentiles in both subjects. For too many 

students, scores continue to decline. The 2019 scores for 

students in grade 12 decreased in mathematics and reading 

for lower-performing students compared to 2015. Despite 

the more than $1 trillion in taxpayer spending at the federal 

level alone over the last 40 years, the gaps between higherand lower-performing students appear to be widening.

The Department is addressing this problem by restoring 

power to those closest to students and to students 

themselves. In fiscal year (FY) 2020, numerous grant competitions contained key policy priorities, including priorities 

for education freedom (9 percent); Qualified Opportunity 

Zones (13 percent); science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics (STEM) (11 percent); rural areas (7 percent); 

and new potential grantees (10 percent). In addition, the 

Department reduced barriers to participation in its programs by disseminating tools to help new applicants 

apply for grants while also reducing application rejections 

based on technicalities.

The Department’s focus on administrative improvements also enabled it to respond swiftly to the COVID-19 
Performance Assessment—Goal 4 105

pandemic, which brought unprecedented 

disruption to education instruction nationwide. Following enactment of the 

Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic 

Security Act, the Department quickly developed grant application and certification 

documents, communicated information 

about the varying grant opportunities, 

implemented appropriate electronic processing tools and the programming of such 

tools, and redeployed staff who were in the 

midst of regular grant-making activities. 

In a matter of weeks, the Department successfully awarded more than $30 billion to 

approximately 5,000 institutions of higher 

education, governors, and state educational 

agencies, with most funds distributed to 

school districts. 

Embedded in this work were the resolution 

of legal issues and the making of complex 

policy judgments. Department staff implemented rigorous quality control processes 

to move money as quickly as possible 

into the hands of qualified grantees while 

ensuring proper accountability so that the 

risk of waste, fraud, and abuse was as low 

as possible.

During this unprecedented year, Department 

staff demonstrated exemplary teamwork 

and critical leadership in support of state 

and school administrators. The Department 

implemented and continues to update grant 

policy and guidance to provide the necessary 

flexibilities, administrative relief, and support for grant applicants and recipients. The 

Department’s ongoing efforts are focused on 

ensuring American students receive the education and support needed to be successful.

The following pages discuss the Department’s major accomplishments of the past 

fiscal year—October 1, 2019, through 

September 30, 2020—to achieve Goal 4 

and its four underlying strategic objectives. These accomplishments illustrate 

the progress made over this past fiscal year 

in improving the effectiveness, efficiency, 

and accountability of the Department.

Performance Measure Overview

In fiscal year (FY) 2020, the Department 

had nine measures for this goal. Of these 

nine measures, eight met or exceeded the 

established metric targets, and one measure 

did not have an established target and is 

baselined in FY 2020 or later.

1

2

3

4

5

Number of Measures

Objective 4.1 Objective 4.2 Objective 4.3 Objective 4.4

FY 2020 baseline measure

Met or exceeded the FY 2020 target

Improved from prior year but did not meet the FY 2020 target

Did not meet the FY 2020 target or prior year performance 
106 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Goal 4 Discretionary Resources

The following table shows examples of select major discretionary programs and activities 

supporting Goal 4.

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities Supporting Goal 4 in Thousands

POC ACCT Objective Program

FY 2020 

Appropriation

All DM/PA N/A Program Administration: Salaries and Expenses $430,000

OCR OCR N/A Office for Civil Rights $130,000

Other N/A N/A All Other Programs $63,000

Note:

Discretionary resources listed here include Department programs that may contribute to multiple goals. A list of programs by 

goal is provided in appendix C.

Acronyms and Definitions:

POC = Principal Operating Component; ACCT = Account; DM/PA = Departmental Management/Program Administration; 

N/A = Not Applicable; and OCR = Office for Civil Rights.
Performance Assessment—Goal 4 107

Provide regulatory relief to educational institutions and 

reduce burden by identifying time-consuming regulations, 

processes and policies and working to improve or eliminate 

them, while continuing to protect taxpayers from waste and abuse.

Strategic Objective 4.1

OBJECTIVE LEADER: 

Senior Counselor to the Secretary and the Deputy General Counsel for Ethics, 

Legislative Counsel, and Regulatory Services

Overview

Reducing regulatory burden on education stakeholders and improving internal 

decision-making processes will help ensure 

greater efficiencies in Department operations and more effective and efficient 

services to the public. 

Given the importance of protecting taxpayers from waste and abuse, all Department 

offices support this strategic objective.

FY 2020 Performance 

Summary and Analysis

The five performance measures for this 

strategic objective met their annual metric 

targets despite the significant additional 

work required to meet the challenges 

of responding to the COVID-19 pandemic (4.1.A, 4.1.B, 4.1.C, 4.1.D, and 

4.1.F). During the COVID-19 pandemic 

(March 2020 through September 30, 2020), 

the Department continued to identify new 

deregulatory actions in addition to the ones 

that it had already been planning.

All performance measures in this strategic 

objective involve aspects of Department 

regulatory and deregulatory work. Such 

efforts in the past year produced a cost 

savings estimated at–$113.5 million

(annualized) and –$1.622 billion (present 

value), both over a perpetual time horizon. 

The present value reflects cost savings over 

the entirety of the action taken. The reduction in cost savings from the previous year 

is reflective of the work the Department has 

done in the past to reduce costs. Given the 

directive at the beginning of the Administration to reduce costs, the Department did 

so as expeditiously as possible, resulting in 

greater cost savings in the earlier years of 

the Administration.

The Department established an Agency Priority Goal (APG) for FY 2020 and FY 2021 

to provide regulatory relief to education 

stakeholders as necessary and appropriate 

by taking no fewer than eight deregulatory 

actions, which includes reduction in paperwork burden. The Department exceeded 

targeted performance for all key indicators 

supporting this APG and completed the 

three milestones scheduled for FY 2020. 

Information on the quarterly progress of 

APGs is available on Performance.Gov. 
108 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Key Successes and Opportunities

Achieving Major Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. In May 2020, the 

Department achieved one of its most 

significant regulatory actions in the past 

four years with the publication of the final 

Title IX regulations in the Federal Register. Title IX of the Education Amendments 

of 1972 prohibits discrimination on the 

basis of sex in education programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance; 

the amended regulations revamped decades 

of varying interpretations of the statute.

For the first time ever, the Title IX regulations define sexual harassment, including 

sexual assault, as unlawful sex discrimination. They also hold schools and institutions 

of higher education (IHEs) accountable for 

failure to respond equitably and promptly 

to sexual misconduct incidents and ensures 

a more reliable adjudication process that is 

fair to all students. Addressing these issues 

had become one of Secretary DeVos’ 

primary interests shortly after taking the 

helm of the Department in February 2017.

Adoption of the new regulations came after 

years of wide-ranging research, careful 

deliberation, and critical input from survivors, advocates, falsely accused students, 

school administrators, Title IX coordinators, and the public. In all, the Department 

received more than 124,000 public comments in response to the notice of proposed 

rulemaking. In coordination with the publication of the regulations, and to assist in 

understanding the changes, the Department, 

through its Office for Civil Rights, also 

released a package of materials, including 

a webinar, an overview of the Final Rule, 

and fact sheets.

“ Every student should know 

that their school will be held 

accountable for responding to 

incidents of sexual misconduct and 

that it must treat all students fairly. 

This rule, as courts have recently 

noted, restores balance to the scales 

of justice in our schools, ending one 

of the most infamous and damaging 

overreaches of the previous 

administration.”

U.S. Secretary of Education 

Betsy DeVos

Another significant action by the Department in the past year was the publication 

of final regulations for ensuring student 

access to high-quality and innovative postsecondary educational programs (Distance 

Education and Innovation). Crafted by a 

diverse group of experts during the Department’s FY 2019 negotiated rulemaking, 

the regulations were forged by historic 

rulemaking consensus to enhance educational quality and reduce barriers to 

innovation while maintaining safeguards 

to limit the risks to students and taxpayers. Through this final rule, the Department 

amended the general establishing eligibility, maintaining eligibility, and losing 

eligibility sections of the Institutional 

Eligibility regulations issued under 

the Higher Education Act of 1965, as 
Performance Assessment—Goal 4 109

Strategic Objective 4.1

amended, related to distance education and 

innovation.

While work on the Distance Education 

and Innovation regulations started more 

than one year ago, the COVID-19 national 

emergency underscores the need for students to have access to high-quality remote 

learning options.

Regulatory Reform Task Force. The work 

of the Department in producing these regulatory actions is helmed by its Regulatory 

Reform Task Force. In the past fiscal year, 

the Department made structural changes 

and improvements to the task force. Following a change in structure, the task force 

now consists of two groups with different 

roles: a working group (which will be the 

initial vetting unit for regulatory and deregulatory actions as well as modifications or 

rescissions of important guidance) and a 

leadership council (to which the working 

group will present recommendations for 

decision-making).

The task force working group played a 

pivotal role in the implementation of Executive Order 13891, Promoting the Rule of 

Law Through Improved Agency Guidance 

Documents. Under the working group’s 

direction, each principal operating component in the Department completed an 

inventory of its guidance to determine 

which documents should be rescinded as 

well as to make sure that all active guidance 

documents that are posted to the Department’s guidance portal are well-organized 

and are easily accessible to the public. Due 

to the task force’s work, the Department 

published a notice in the Federal Register 

on August 31, 2020, rescinding more than 

1,300 outdated guidance documents.

The Department published its interim 

final rule on Rulemaking and Guidance 

Procedures (85 FR 62597). This rule, promulgated in part to implement Executive 

Order 13891, sets forth the processes the 

Department will follow when engaging 

in rulemaking or issuing guidance. The 

rule requires the Regulatory Reform Task 

Force’s involvement in these actions.

Issuing Sub-regulatory Actions. The 

Department’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) 

had significant sub-regulatory achievements. In October 2019, it issued a policy 

statement and frequently asked questions 

(FAQs) granting prior approval for two 

direct cost categories: participant support 

costs and equipment. This prior approval 

meant that grantees no longer needed to 

submit separate individual requests for 

prior approval for the costs described in the 

FAQs. In February 2020, OSERS issued 

and sought comment on an interpretation

to clarify current policy and announce a 

change in policy regarding the use of federal vocational rehabilitation (VR) funds 

reserved for pre-employment transition 

services. The policy change explained the 

circumstances in which federal VR grant 

funds may be used to pay for additional 

VR services needed by eligible students 

with disabilities to participate in preemployment transition services.

COVID-19. The COVID-19 pandemic, 

and the resulting government-wide effort 

to prioritize getting emergency assistance 
110 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

to states and local communities, presented 

challenges to the Department’s planned 

regulatory agenda. Resources that would 

have been devoted to rulemaking and 

deregulatory efforts were significantly 

diverted toward disseminating more than 

$30 billion allocated under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act

to states, students, IHEs, and other entities. For instance, regulatory items, such 

as the Impact Aid and Indian Education 

Professional Development packages, were 

developed quickly after the pandemic 

began and required staff resources that 

otherwise could have been devoted to previously planned regulatory matters. 

The Department also issued two final 

deregulatory actions to help stakeholders 

manage the challenges presented by the 

COVID-19 pandemic. 

The first such deregulatory action, published 

in May 2020, extended the application 

amendment period for Impact Aid Program 

applications. Since 1950, the Impact Aid 

Program has assisted local school districts 

that either have lost property tax revenue 

due to the presence of tax-exempt federal 

property on their lands or that have experienced increased expenditures due to the 

enrollment of federally connected children, 

including children living on Indian lands.

The other deregulatory action, published 

in June 2020, addressed the pandemic’s 

impact on the Indian Education Professional 

Development Program, which provides 

grants to train American Indian individuals to become teachers or administrators in 

school districts that serve a high proportion 

of American Indian students. Individuals 

trained under this program must perform 

work related to their training that benefits 

American Indian students in a local educational agency that serves a high proportion 

of American Indian students or repay all or 

a prorated part of the assistance received. 

The deregulatory action issued in June 

provides additional time (24 months, as 

opposed to 12 months) for participants to 

find qualifying employment or complete 

their work-related payback obligation. 
Performance Assessment—Goal 4 111

Performance Measures

Table 4.1.A. Number of evaluations to identify potential Executive Order 13771 

deregulatory actions that included opportunity for public input and/or peer review.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

N/A N/A N/A 6 2 4 3 3

Note: Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2018.

Data Source: Department records.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: October 2019 through September 2020.

FY 2020 

Actual

Target

Strategic Objective 4.1

Table 4.1.B. Number of Executive Order 13771 deregulatory actions recommended by the 

Regulatory Reform Task Force to the agency head consistent with applicable law. 

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

N/A N/A N/A 44 14 46 3 7

Note: Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2018.

Data Source: Department records.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: October 2019 through September 2020.

FY 2020 

Actual Target

Table 4.1.C. Number of Executive Order 13771 deregulatory actions issued that address 

recommendations by the Regulatory Reform Task Force.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

N/A N/A N/A 23 18 46 3 7

Note: Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2018.

Data Source: Federal Register and https://www.ed.gov/.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: October 2019 through September 2020.

FY 2020 

Actual

argetT
112 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Table 4.1.D. Number of Executive Order (EO) 13771 regulatory actions and, separately, 

EO 13771 deregulatory actions issued.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

N/A N/A N/A 27 18 49 4 4

Notes: (1) Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2018. (2) In addition to the deregulatory 

actions listed in the above table, the Department also issued two regulatory actions in FY 2020.

Data Source: Federal Register and https://www.ed.gov/.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: October 2019 through September 2020.

FY 2020 Target Actual

Table 4.1.F. Number of deregulatory actions submitted to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB).

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

N/A N/A N/A 24 16 46 4 7

Note: Data are not available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2018.

Data Source: Reginfo.gov and emails between the Department and OMB.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: October 2019 through September 2020.

FY 2020 

Target Actual
Performance Assessment—Goal 4 113

Identify, assess, monitor and manage enterprise risks.

Strategic Objective 4.2

OBJECTIVE LEADER: 

Assistant Secretary for the Office of Finance and Operations

Overview

The Department further continues to 

develop its Enterprise Risk Management 

(ERM) Program to strategically align risk 

management efforts with the agency’s overall mission, objectives, and priorities. The 

Department’s approach to ERM is to focus 

on the complete spectrum of the organization’s significant risks and the combined 

impact of those risks as an interrelated 

portfolio rather than simply addressing risks within silos. This coordinated 

approach leverages data and analytical 

solutions to identify, measure, and assess 

challenges related to mission delivery and 

resource management. Through ERM, the 

Department seeks to embed a systematic 

and deliberate view of risk into its management practices, ultimately yielding 

more effective performance and operational outcomes. 

To this end, in fiscal year 2020, the 

Department established the Office of 

Enterprise Data Analytics and Risk Management (OEDARM) within the Office of 

Finance and Operations. OEDARM formally integrates ERM and operational 

internal controls activities and aims to 

provide leadership with actionable insights 

powered by data analytics.

The newly established office supports a 

culture of continuous process improvement 

in which data and awareness of enterprise 

risk are used to objectively inform strategic and operational decisions and optimize 

agency performance. Federal Student Aid 

(FSA) has an established ERM program. 

OEDARM works directly with FSA’s ERM 

office to coordinate activities and reporting.

Due to the inherent cross-cutting nature of 

ERM, all Department offices support this 

strategic objective. 

FY 2020 Performance 

Summary and Analysis

There is only one performance measure 

for this strategic objective, 4.2.A, which 

gauges whether the maturity level of Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) improved. 

In fiscal year (FY) 2019, the Department 

met its annual target for this performance 

measure. However, in FY 2020 in anticipation of joining a federal pilot with the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 

which would require the Department to 
114 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

take a different look at how it approaches 

assessing ERM maturity, the Department 

did not quantitatively assess whether the 

maturity level of its ERM was improving.

In the second half of FY 2020, the Department became a leader in the federal pilot 

program, and, internally, the Department 

began a deeper examination of its operations to determine the criteria it would use 

to assess its ERM program maturity within 

the pilot guidelines. The Department is 

expected to complete a baseline assessment 

in FY 2021. 

Key Successes and Opportunities

Developing New Criteria to Assess Enterprise Risk. By definition, ERM means that 

the Department is taking a comprehensive 

approach to addressing both internal and 

external risks by understanding the possible impact such risks could have on the 

Department, particularly if one risk were to 

exacerbate the effects of another risk. The 

Department—along with four other federal 

agencies—is participating in OMB’s pilot 

of the Federal ERM Maturity Model. The 

model consists of the following five functional categories: (1) ERM Program

Attributes, (2) Key Practices, (3) ERM 

Risk Culture, (4) Organizational Benefits, 

and (5) Executive Engagement. Each category can be scaled up through five levels 

of maturity.

In the latter half of the fiscal year and continuing into FY 2021, the Department will 

assess its performance in each of these categories (after determining the criteria to 

do so), which will then be consolidated to 

produce a singular maturity score indicating 

the Department’s overall ERM program 

maturity.

Improving the Department’s Approach 

to ERM. In addition to joining the federal pilot and revamping how it will assess 

whether its risk level is improving, in the 

past fiscal year, the Department sought to 

improve its approach to ERM. It established a new ERM Leadership Team within 

its Office of Enterprise Data Analytics and 

Risk Management (OEDARM). The team 

was charged with leading Department-wide 

efforts to further develop the Department’s 

ERM Program, with an emphasis on data 

analytics and internal controls integration. 

The Department also established and convened an ERM Working Group composed 

of some of its most senior leaders. 

Projects undertaken during the year included 

integrating ERM with key management processes (e.g., budget formulation, strategic 

planning, and performance management) 

to ensure appropriate alignment and accelerate progress toward strategic objectives 

in an accountable setting. OEDARM also 

leveraged partnerships with leadership in 

Federal Student Aid’s (FSA’s) ERM office 

and with the Department’s Performance 

Improvement Officer, Office of the Chief 

Data Officer, and Senior Management 

Council in order to identify, measure, and 

assess challenges related to the development of actionable response plans and to 

ensure objective accountability.

COVID-19. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the ERM Leadership Team reviewed 

all enterprise risks to assess previously identified risk categories and risk responses for 

appropriate modification in order to ensure 

the Department has a comprehensive and 

strategic approach to risk management 

during a national health emergency or other 
Performance Assessment—Goal 4 115

crisis that could adversely impact continuity of operations.

Management Challenges

The Department has taken a number of significant steps to address the persistent and 

evolving challenges documented by the 

Office of Inspector General (OIG) and has 

identified opportunities to incorporate ERM 

practices into strategic initiatives aimed at 

managing programmatic and operational 

risk in a coordinated, cohesive manner. 

Specifically, the Department made progress 

toward the four areas of risk that continue 

to pose the most significant challenges, as 

identified in the U.S. Department of Education FY 2020 Management Challenges

report. This report, issued in November 

2019 by OIG, identified the same four areas 

of risk as a similar FY 2019 report by OIG. 

The four areas of risk identified include: 

• Improper payments.

• Information technology (IT) 

security.

• Oversight and monitoring.

• Data quality and reporting.

The Department’s responses to each of the 

risk areas are described in the following 

sections.

Management Challenge 1—

Improper Payments

The Department provides billions of dollars 

to support students and must work with 

states and schools to ensure funds reach the 

intended recipients in the right amounts.

Most of the assistance that the federal government provides to students comes through 

its student loan programs and the Federal 

Pell Grant Program. Primary causes of 

improper payments are the Pell Grant and 

Direct Loan Programs. The Department is 

addressing this management challenge on 

several fronts.

The Office of Finance and Operations 

(OFO)/Office of Financial Management 

(OFM) continued to perform Improper 

Payments Elimination and Recovery Act

compliance activities in FY 2020, including 

improper payment estimation of programs 

deemed susceptible to significant improper 

payments, as well as qualitative and quantitative improper payment risk assessments 

for programs and activities in scope. The 

Department reviewed and revised its methodology for the Emergency Impact Aid 

Program and implemented the revised 

methodology in FY 2020. Written procedures are in development and due at the end 

of December 2020. The Department also 

strengthened its risk assessment process 

to include an improper payment threshold 

analysis of all its programs and activities. 

In September 2020, FSA implemented 

a daily pre-payment interface with the 

Department of Treasury’s Do Not Pay

web service that matches intended recipients with multiple data sources to identify 

potential improper payments. OFO/OFM 

is also participating in a pilot with the Do 

Not Pay analytics team to research possible payment integrity checks that could be 

applied to the Department’s payment data.

Lastly, FSA continued to refine the 

statistically valid methodology it 

implemented in FY 2019 to estimate 

Strategic Objective 4.2
116 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

improper payments, including random 

sampling from a population of more 

than 5,700 schools. It used improper 

payment data from Single Audit Act

compliance audits of the sampled 

schools. FSA worked with OMB to gain 

increased understanding for using compliance audit data for improper payment 

estimation and added requirements for 

compliance auditors to provide FSA 

with population and sample information 

necessary to estimate improper payments. FSA also collaborated with OMB 

to revise and clarify the requirements in 

Appendix C of OMB Circular A-123 for 

statistically valid and rigorous improper 

payment estimation methodologies. The 

Payment Integrity Information Act of 

2019 requires inspector generals (IGs), 

in performing their annual audits, to 

evaluate the adequacy of sampling 

and estimation methodology plans 

when determining program compliance 

and whether the improper payment estimate is representative of the 

program’s annual improper payments. 

If the IG determines that a program is 

non-compliant for this criterion, the 

final IG report must provide concrete 

recommendations regarding the specific 

actions and steps the program must take 

to achieve compliance with this criterion. 

FSA also implemented enhanced quality 

control procedures over its improper 

payment estimation process to increase 

validation of compliance audit data and 

calculations and ensure only sustained 

questioned costs, rather than questioned 

costs, identified in compliance audits 

are used in improper payment estimates.

Management Challenge 2—

Information Technology Security

Department systems contain data that must 

remain accessible to the Department’s 

partners while protected from threats.

The Department has made significant progress in addressing the ongoing challenge 

of IT security. To gauge specific progress 

in this area, the Department established 

an improved methodology for quarterly 

cybersecurity performance improvement 

metric scoring and dashboarding capabilities, leveraging the Federal IT Acquisition 

Reform Act cyber scoring methodology 

(i.e., the Department’s Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) 

Risk Management Assessment/IG FISMA 

maturity score). The new methodology 

encompasses composite scoring from 

the Quarterly Risk Management Assessment score, the Cybersecurity Framework 

(CSF) Risk Scorecard results, the previous 

year’s IG FISMA maturity score, and the 

Department of Homeland Security’s Cyber 

Hygiene Scorecard, to determine the overall percentage of achievement towards the 

Department’s cybersecurity objectives.

Significant progress has been made to 

maintain an accurate system inventory, 

communicate the impact of identified 

cybersecurity risks, and actively manage 

the Plans of Actions and Milestones 

(POA&Ms) (i.e., the management tools 

for tracking the mitigation of cybersecurity program and system-level findings 

and weaknesses). The Department’s Office 

of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) 

publishes CSF Risk Scorecards that serve 
Performance Assessment—Goal 4 117

as a tool to prioritize and mitigate risks 

to the Department’s information systems. 

The Scorecard was recently enhanced to 

include privacy scoring and daily reporting, 

enabling stakeholders to manage cybersecurity risks more effectively in near-real 

time and in concert with privacy risks to 

further reinforce the relationship between 

the Department’s Information Security 

and Privacy Program. To that end, OCIO 

leaders also engaged with the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology’s 

Security and Privacy Implementation Collaboration Tiger Team to promote more 

effective integration of cybersecurity and 

privacy across government.

To increase communication and build 

capacity for Department stakeholders, 

OCIO has provided targeted briefings on 

a variety of subjects, including CSF Risk 

Scorecard results, phishing exercises, and 

current cyber threats. Through continued 

outreach and communication with principal office leadership and operational 

stakeholders, the Department saw the average time to close a POA&M reduced from 

167 days in FY 2019 to 47 days in FY 2020. 

The number of accepted risks POA&Ms 

also dropped from 53 to 29 during the same 

time period. At the closing of FY 2020, 

the Department achieved a 68 percent net 

reduction in past-due POA&Ms since starting the reporting period on October 1, 2019. 

These positive metrics are direct indicators 

of the progress achieved in maturing risk 

management capabilities and reduction 

capabilities. The Department significantly 

improved its phishing readiness. 

The Department deployed Data Loss 

Prevention (DLP) desktop agents on 

Department endpoint devices to further 

enhance the identification of personally 

identifiable information, such as Social 

Security and credit card numbers. Following the passive monitoring phase of the 

deployment, additional DLP policies will 

become operational and further enhance 

overall DLP capabilities.

Notable progress has been demonstrated 

in the development of an enterprise Identity 

Credential and Access Management solution. This solution is expected to provide 

the ability to manage enterprise identity, 

user accounts, and user roles centrally and 

securely within and across Department 

systems and applications. In FY 2020, 

the Department began identifying system 

candidates to build out identities. The 

deployment of single sign-on integration is 

planned for FY 2021.

Lastly, to mitigate impacts of the 

COVID-19 pandemic on remote stakeholders, OCIO acted promptly to ensure 

the appropriate infrastructure was in 

place to support the shift to a fully virtual work environment. To that end, OCIO 

identified, analyzed, and recommended 

a cloud-based solution to provide rapid 

expansion of the Department’s virtual private network capacity to support extensive 

teleworking capabilities. Additionally, the 

Department delivered an alternative multifactor authentication solution to provide 

continuity of critical business functions 

during the pandemic. OCIO provided targeted outreach to proactively address 

threats to teleworking employees (e.g., 

warning them of increased phishing 

attempts and other cybercriminal scams 

that target largely at-home workers).

Strategic Objective 4.2
118 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Management Challenge 3—

Oversight and Monitoring 

The Department must provide effective 

oversight and monitoring of participants in 

the student financial assistance programs 

under the Higher Education Act to ensure 

that the programs are not subject to fraud, 

waste, abuse, and mismanagement; such 

monitoring and oversight are also essential for ensuring that grantees meet grant 

requirements and achieve program goals 

and objectives.

Student Financial Assistance Programs 

To improve oversight and monitoring of 

institutions of higher education (IHEs) 

participating in Title IV programs, FSA 

has worked to address weaknesses in the 

single audit process in order to improve 

its use as an oversight and monitoring tool 

for IHEs’ disbursements of Pell Grants and 

Direct Loans. In FY 2020, FSA deployed 

an analytical model to continually monitor partner data and performance. This will 

improve the ability to identify the most 

at-risk IHEs and allow more effective use 

of oversight resources by informing and 

prioritizing support for IHEs.

Over the next several years, the Department will implement additional risk-based 

procedures to evaluate an accrediting agency’s ability to effectively determine and 

measure IHE compliance with accreditation standards and to identify accrediting 

agencies at higher risk of failing to meet 

statutory and regulatory requirements and 

additional procedures to prioritize oversight of those higher-risk agencies.

FSA implemented an improved model for 

verification selection and evaluation of 

data elements from the Free Application 

for Federal Student Aid® (FAFSA®) that 

allows the Department to better identify 

applicants for whom errors will result in a 

change in their federal aid award, potentially reducing improper payments.

The President signed the Fostering 

Undergraduate Talent by Unlocking 

Resources for Education (FUTURE) Act

in December 2019, which helps ensure the 

accuracy of income information used for 

determining Pell Grant eligibility. One of 

the primary causes of improper payments 

in the Pell Grant program and the William 

D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) 

program is failure to accurately verify financial data. The FUTURE Act provides an 

exemption from Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code to allow the Department 

to more easily receive income tax data from 

the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), thereby 

simplifying and improving the accuracy of 

FAFSA® filing by prepopulating certain 

fields. This exemption will also allow borrowers to automatically recertify their 

income to stay enrolled in Income-Driven 

Repayment plans. At this time, Congress 

has not provided funding to support implementation of the FUTURE Act.

Grantees

To improve grants monitoring and oversight, the Department is focused on 

proactively mitigating risk, concentrating 

on outcomes while ensuring compliance, 

leveraging single audits, resolving audit 

findings, and identifying and expanding 

strong practices while building evidence. 
Performance Assessment—Goal 4 119

The Department has prioritized building the 

capacity of grants staff to provide appropriate oversight and monitoring practices to 

be effective stewards of taxpayer funded 

investments. In FY 2020, the Department 

created a competency model, career map, 

and training plans for the grants management job series/category. This initiative 

aims to identify core and technical competencies and the respective training 

opportunities needed to achieve competency gap closure. The Department is in the 

process of identifying a tool to assess and 

track proficiency levels.

The Department recently revised the Handbook for the Discretionary Grants Process, 

an Administrative Communications System 

Directive, to provide a more robust, comprehensive guide for administering grants 

in a standardized manner across program 

offices. To support consistent interpretation 

and implementation of the revised policies 

and procedures, the Department has developed and provided comprehensive training 

resources and continuing education workshops (e.g., monitoring for outcomes 

and success, risk assessment and mitigation, financial management, and use of a 

consistent grant slate memorandum) for 

program office staff and technical assistance resources related to internal controls 

requirements for grant recipients.

To learn from and expand strong practices, 

the Department examined monitoring practices and needs with all program offices 

and identified best practices across program offices while also surfacing ideas 

for improvement. In FY 2021, the Department will continue to support cross-office 

information sharing and may pilot the use 

of optional generic monitoring protocols. 

In FY 2020, the Department also piloted 

an approach to learning about the use of 

evidence in a grant competition and found 

that the evidence-based project components were central to the grantees’ project 

implementation in that program. 

In addition, the Department reviewed the 

continuation award process to promote 

cross-office alignment and provided early 

training on competition planning to support making earlier awards, which will 

promote a stronger continuation funding 

process (i.e., if grantees receive awards 

well in advance of the start of a school 

year, they will be better positioned to begin 

work when school begins, and their annual 

progress reports will better align with continuations decisions).

The most recent efforts to build grant staff 

capacity allowed the Department to respond 

swiftly to the COVID-19 pandemic and 

provisions and requirements of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security 

(CARES) Act. Given the transition to telework for most Department staff and many 

grantees due to the COVID-19 pandemic, 

the Department continues to leverage virtual monitoring approaches to provide 

necessary oversight and support to grant 

recipients. The Department has already 

shifted focus to support grant staff to conduct all monitoring activities in a virtual 

environment. In this light, the Department updated a resource related to virtual 

monitoring and procured a contract solution to develop a standard virtual grantee 

monitoring program for the Department’s 

Strategic Objective 4.2
120 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

discretionary and formula grant programs. 

The contractor will perform a comprehensive assessment of the Department’s 

current state that includes documentation, 

interviews, and a comparative/gap analysis; provide draft recommendations; work 

with a stakeholder group to define final recommendations to achieve the target state 

(i.e., a Department-wide, standard, virtual grantee monitoring program to include 

practices, processes, and virtual collaboration tools); and develop and deliver a 

training course that is based on the actual 

practices, processes, and tools to be used by 

staff when implementing the entire virtual 

grantee monitoring program.

Program offices are reimaging monitoring 

to meet the moment. Some offices have 

dedicated teams that focus on common 

monitoring needs across programs. Teams 

are considering ways to learn from grantee 

progress while minimizing burden and 

maximizing efficiency.

The Department also established a grants 

management acquisition program to resolve 

non-inherently governmental grant award 

and administrative service gaps experienced by program offices. The program is 

anchored by the Education Grants Management Support Services-Blanket Purchase 

Agreement, which sourced a cadre of grant 

services contractors with capacity and 

know-how to support a range of functions 

related to program offices’ monitoring and 

oversight responsibilities.

In addition to the steps taken to enhance 

monitoring and oversight capabilities of 

staff responsible for managing grants, the 

Department has implemented a number of 

initiatives aimed at ensuring grants management data systems can similarly provide 

the support necessary to collect grantee 

data, analyze performance, and detect risks.

To effectively address the needs of 

users—and to maximize the return on the 

Department’s existing investment in the 

Department’s Grants Management System 

(G5)—the Department conducted a business process re-engineering analysis to 

inform next steps in the G5 Modernization Initiative. The Department envisions a 

modern, modular, secure, and user-friendly 

G5 that meets the grants management needs 

of internal and external users. 

The Department prioritized the reduction 

of grantee reporting burden by developing 

an approach to standardizing data collection across various information requests. 

The data elements across a collection of 

24 unique discretionary grantee annual 

performance reports (APRs) were streamlined and standardized into a single grantee 

APR. The grantee APR can be used for 

programs as appropriate. The implementation of the single grantee APR furthers the 

Department’s priority, while providing staff 

with common and accessible data sets to 

monitor grantees’ progress in meeting program objectives as well as standard data 

requirements for an enterprise APR tool, 

as part of the G5 Modernization Initiative.

Additionally, the Department has continued 

to enhance its Entity Risk Review (ERR) 

capabilities to conduct risk assessments for 

grant applicants recommended for initial or 

continuation funding, in accordance with 
Performance Assessment—Goal 4 121

2 CFR 200.205. The ERR application 

supports Department staff in assessing 

applicant and/or grantee risks by providing administrative, financial, and internal 

controls information by linking disparate 

data sets and applying business logic to 

the data. The data are used to inform the 

Department’s grant administration, oversight, and monitoring through the use of a 

standardized set of risk indicators; facilitate 

program offices’ efforts to analyze grantee 

risk prior to making awards and during 

the life of a grant project; make singleaudit findings and other information about 

organizations’ fiscal health available and 

accessible to program staff; and facilitate data sharing across grant programs 

and among Department offices.

The Department continues to assess 

technology solutions and other best 

practices for improving monitoring capabilities across the grants life cycle. OMB 

Memorandum M-19-16, Centralized 

Mission Support Capabilities for the Federal Government, created the Quality 

Service Management Offices (QSMOs) 

for select mission-support functions, 

tasking QSMOs with offering and managing a marketplace of effective and efficient 

solutions to be implemented across the 

government. The Department of Health 

and Human Services was pre-designated as 

the Grants Management QSMO to transform government-wide grants management 

end-to-end, and the Department has been 

actively involved in these collaborative 

efforts to share its unique perspectives and 

help identify best practices and process 

improvements. 

Management Challenge 4—

Data Quality and Reporting

The Department, states, and schools must 

have effective controls to ensure that 

reported data are accurate, reliable, and 

accessible to improve the use of that data 

at the Department and in the education 

community.

In response to additional authorities 

granted by the President and Congress to 

manage education data as a strategic asset, 

the Department is developing a coherent 

and coordinated approach to data governance, data management, and data quality 

to ensure that education data provide high 

value for internal decision-makers and 

external stakeholders. To specifically 

improve the quality and accuracy of data 

collected from grantees, the Department 

has taken comprehensive steps to promote 

cohesive data governance initiatives, build 

staff capacity around data, and improve 

data management practices and systems.

An agency-wide Data Governance Board 

(DGB) was established and met for the first 

time in November 2019. DGB is charged 

with taking agency-wide action to develop 

an open data culture, improve the Department’s capacity to leverage data as a strategic 

asset for evidence building and operational 

decisions, and develop the data skills of staff 

throughout the agency. In spring 2020, DGB 

initiated the Department’s first data maturity assessment (DMA), conducted both at 

the agency and individual principal office 

level. These assessments allow the Department to evaluate itself against documented 

best practices, determine gaps, and identify priority areas for improvement. DMA 

Strategic Objective 4.2
122 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

assessed maturity levels for data quality 

across three process areas: (1) data quality strategy, (2) data quality assessments, 

and (3) data cleansing. These process areas 

describe best practices for detecting, assessing, and cleansing data defects to ensure 

fitness for intended uses in business operations, decision-making, and planning. The 

results of DMA will provide the baseline for 

the Department and principal offices to measure progress and growth in FY 2021 and 

will be used to guide the creation of the agency’s inaugural data strategy, inform principal 

office investment decisions, and provide 

agency leadership with the ability to track 

year-over-year return on those investments.

The Department also identified a multipronged approach to address root causes 

and improve data quality during FY 2020. 

The approach includes ensuring grantees are aware of their data responsibilities 

under the conditions of their grants and 

of the credible consequences for noncompliance—ranging from additional 

informal monitoring through termination 

of the grant. It also includes provisions to 

improve the varying capacity of grantees in 

reporting data and varying capacity among 

Department staff in reviewing granteereported data. When fully deployed, this 

effort is largely expected to take the form 

of technical assistance to grantees, additional resources for the Department for data 

quality review, and expanded use of technological solutions to automate and reduce 

the need for manual reporting and review.

Exigent circumstances, the volume of new 

grant funds, and other challenging environmental factors led the Department to 

immediately deploy a variation of that 

strategy for key data collections associated with the Education Stabilization 

Fund—specifically, the Higher Education 

Emergency Relief, the Governor’s Emergency Education Relief, the Elementary 

and Secondary School Education Relief, 

and equivalent Outlying Area funds. The 

Department executed a contract to develop 

a data collection portal, implement a data 

management solution to support internal and external reporting, and launch 

a public transparency website. In addition to early communications to grantees 

about expectations for data quality, several 

components of the data collection process 

include explicit data quality components, 

including auto-population of known data 

values in the collection instrument, help 

desk services for grantees submitting 

performance data, a data management 

platform that imposes business rules to 

improve data quality, and established 

phases for opening, closing, and reopening the tool for grantees to submit data 

quality corrections.

During summer 2020, DGB also initiated a 

process to develop a Department data strategy to realize the full potential of data to 

improve education outcomes. Finalization 

and adoption of that formal data strategy 

is expected in FY 2021. This Department-wide effort includes agency-wide 

discussions about data priorities that will 

help improve data maturity and will focus 

on the Department’s capabilities to leverage data, operationalize and optimize data 

governance, and drive cultural change for 

the benefit of all stakeholders. DGB identified the following four goal areas to guide 
Performance Assessment—Goal 4 123

data modernization, improvement efforts, 

and future investments: (1) strengthening agency-wide data governance; 

(2) building human capacity to leverage 

data; (3) advancing the strategic use of 

data; and (4) improving data access, transparency, and privacy. At least one objective 

within this strategy is expected to focus on 

data quality and development of an action 

plan to deploy the multi-pronged approach.

These coordinated, cross-agency efforts are 

in addition to a variety of system-specific 

or office-specified efforts accomplished 

in FY 2020. OCDO launched a partnership with OFO’s Budget Service, Grants 

Policy Office, and the Office of Acquisition and Grants Administration to improve 

the quality and use of Government and 

Performance Results Act measures. As 

part of this initiative, OCDO supported 

the Office of Elementary and Secondary 

Education and the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services in the 

development of new and updated measures for grant programs. Additionally, the 

Department launched a new annual performance reporting tool in FY 2020 for 

the Office of Special Education Programs 

formula grantees, providing an online 

system to submit responses and review data 

in a user-friendly format. The tool reduces 

reporting burden and improves data quality 

by using EDFacts to pre-populate data and 

match the format needed for the performance indicators. It meets current security 

standards and addresses issues identified 

with prior tools.

Through its Next Generation Financial Services Environment initiative (also known 

as Next Gen FSA), FSA began to develop 

and implement the Enterprise Data Management and Analytics Platform Services 

(EDMAPS), which will provide a central unified data platform for FSA aid life 

cycle data. In FY 2020, FSA implemented a 

master data management platform (pMDM) 

and a Data Lake for the swift ingestion, 

presentation, and management of structured and unstructured data from various 

internal and external sources. In FY 2021, 

FSA will co-locate pMDM, Data Lake, and 

the Enterprise Data Warehouse and Analytics into the single EDMAPS system hosted 

in the FSA Cloud General Support Services 

in Amazon Web Services. This effort will 

provide FSA a central hub for system data 

and enable the re-engineering of FSA siloed 

legacy systems, such as National Student 

Loan Data System, the Central Processing 

System, and the Debt Management and 

Collection System, as well as the consolidation of the multiple loan servicers into one 

Department-owned servicing system. In 

collaboration with IRS, FSA also initiated 

changes to its programs to help ensure the 

accuracy of income information used for 

determining Pell Grant eligibility, which 

are now possible as a result of the FUTURE 

Act. As indicated previously, the FUTURE 

Act was signed into law in December 2019, 

and implementation of the act will allow 

FSA to receive income tax data directly 

from IRS, which would simplify FAFSA® 

filing and improve accuracy.

Strategic Objective 4.2
124 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Performance Measures

Table 4.2.A. Improve maturity level of Enterprise Risk Management (ERM).

Baseline will be established in fiscal year (FY) 2021.

Note: In fiscal year (FY) 2020, the Department joined an Office of Management and Budget pilot for assessing ERM. New measures and 

methodologies are being developed and will not be comparable to previous data.

Data Source: Office of Finance and Operations, Office of Enterprise Data Analytics, and risk management calculations.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: October 2019 through September 2020.
Performance Assessment—Goal 4 125

Strengthen the Department’s cybersecurity by enhancing 

protections for its information technology infrastructure, 

systems and data.

Strategic Objective 4.3

OBJECTIVE LEADER: 

Chief Information Officer

Overview

Improved cybersecurity is a key contributor to ensuring the Department’s systems 

and data are protected, which will provide 

a strong foundation for the Department’s 

information technology infrastructure. 

As such, the Department will provide 

proactive cybersecurity services, monitor 

and enhance threat intelligence capabilities, explore shared services and cloud 

capabilities, and improve its cybersecurity workforce.

All Department offices support this strategic 

objective, given its focus on cybersecurity.

FY 2020 Performance 

Summary and Analysis

There is only one performance measure 

for this strategic objective, 4.3.A, which 

gauges the percentage of the Department’s 

information technology (IT) security functions that improved at least one maturity 

level. This measure met its annual metric 

target in fiscal year (FY) 2020 after having 

not met it since the beginning of the current 

Strategic Plan in FY 2018.

Of note, at the mid-FY 2020 point, the 

Department revised its methodology for 

assessing this performance measure so 

that it could encompass composite scoring, 

which includes several additional indicators to better determine overall progress 

in achieving or exceeding the established 

target. This revised methodology provided 

a more thorough, accurate, and timely view 

of cybersecurity performance across the 

Department.

Key Successes and Opportunities

Cybersecurity Framework Risk Scorecard Enhancements. The Office of the 

Chief Information Officer (OCIO) undertook many wide-ranging initiatives to 

improve the Department’s internal security 

functions. These included revamping the 

Department’s Cybersecurity Framework 

(CSF) Risk Scorecard, which aligns with 

the National Institutes of Standards and 

Technology’s (NIST’s) CSF and provides a 

common platform to convey cybersecurity 

risk from the executive level to the operational and tactical levels.

One of the enhancements made to the 

scorecard was to add NIST privacy control compliance risk scoring. This addition 
126 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

enables Department authorizing officials, 

information system owners, privacy stakeholders, and information system security 

officers to manage cybersecurity risks more 

effectively in concert with privacy risks, and 

it further reinforces the relationship between 

the Department’s information security and 

privacy programs. The Department also 

added security authorization documentation 

status scoring to the scorecard; this enabled 

Department stakeholders to manage system-level security planning documentation 

and processes more effectively.

In addition, the Department added incident 

response plan testing scores to the scorecard to emphasize the importance of testing 

incident response plans and ensure system 

stakeholder preparedness in the event 

of a cyber incident. Department-level, 

system-tailored Incident Response and 

Contingency Plan testing tabletop exercises 

held this fiscal year involved 161 systems, 

118 of which are Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA) reportable 

systems (enabling the Department to ensure 

100 percent of the Department’s FISMA 

reportable systems have conducted annual 

contingency plan testing).

Improving Internal Controls and Cybersecurity. The Department released a Plan 

of Actions and Milestones [POA&M] Standard Operating Procedure to improve the 

POA&M workflow process and generate 

new reports on a weekly basis. POA&Ms 

are utilized by the Department to manage 

and track risk remediation activities. The 

new procedure was used to enhance outreach with the Department’s information 

system security officers and information 

systems officers to drive remediation priorities and actions. These efforts resulted 

in a 14.8 percent net reduction in overall 

POA&Ms and a 94.7 percent net reduction 

in past-due POA&Ms.

Additionally, OCIO implemented Microsoft Office 365 (O365) email Data Loss 

Prevention (DLP) capabilities and codified 

the standards for safeguarding personally 

identifiable information (PII) within the 

O365 applications. It also implemented 

additional DLP enhancements to further 

protect PII, such as social security and 

credit card numbers.

A popular new feature of the past year was 

the introduction of a “Report Phishing” 

button available to all users of the Department’s internal email system. Clicking 

the button upon seeing a suspicious email 

enables users to easily make reports to the 

Department of Education Security Operations Center with a single click of a button. 

Prior to deploying the phishing button, 

the average reporting rate in FY 2019 for 

phishing exercises was 15.21 percent. 

After deploying the button, the Department 

achieved a 52.5 percent reporting rate, with 

94.3 percent of those reporting using the 

“Report Phishing” button. This was the 

highest reporting rate since the Phishing 

Program’s inception in FY 2014.

In addition, the Department completed 

testing and began to implement a new Application Programming Interface to automate 

data capture capabilities from the Department’s authoritative source of system 

security documentation, the Cybersecurity Assessment and Management system. 
Performance Assessment—Goal 4 127

This automation enabled the Department 

to achieve near-real time risk scoring and 

reporting. It also began publishing monthly 

State of IT reports to agency leadership 

that incorporate cybersecurity data, trends, 

metrics, and key insights to enable leadership to take appropriate actions and make 

informed risk-based decisions. 

OCIO also held five cybersecurity high 

value asset briefings with information 

system security officers and information 

system owners to emphasize risk management and risk reduction. It also held six 

cybersecurity risk management workshops 

to train stakeholders in cybersecurity risk 

management processes and policy changes. 

Strengthening External Security Controls. In December 2019, the Department 

incorporated cybersecurity and personnel security requirements in its acquisition 

regulations. The Office of Acquisition Management issued Acquisition Alert 2020-01, 

Education Acquisition Regulation Class 

Deviation: Cyber and Personnel Security Requirements for Contractors. This 

publication ensures active contracts, solicitations, and future contracts communicate 

the Department’s cybersecurity and personnel security requirements to contractors 

and prospective contractors.

OCIO also engaged in inter-agency forums 

to strengthen government-wide cybersecurity. For example, it actively participated 

in NIST’s Security and Privacy Implementation Collaboration Tiger Team to 

more effectively de-centralize and integrate cybersecurity and privacy across the 

government and promote collaborative 

working relationships between security and 

privacy regardless of organizational structure or reporting. OCIO also supported 

the Department of Homeland Security’s 

Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management Initiative Cybersecurity Standards 

Innovation Group to provide input into 

capabilities and requirements for government-wide shared services.

COVID-19. OCIO was crucial in ensuring the Department was able to function 

remotely, with nearly all staff working from 

home or off-site due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This was possible, in part, due to 

the technological improvements OCIO has 

spent years rolling out. In addition, when 

COVID-19 became a pandemic, OCIO leveraged cloud-based technologies to rapidly 

expand the Department’s virtual private 

network capacity. It implemented an alternative multi-factor authentication solution 

to provide continuity of critical business 

functions when Department users could 

not obtain the Personal Identity Verification cards that are typically required to log 

into the Department’s computer network.

Ensuring the cybersecurity of the Department’s operations during the pandemic’s 

increased reliance on technology was crucial. OCIO increased internal outreach 

to educate and warn Department users 

of increased phishing attempts and other 

cybercriminal scams that target largely 

at-home workers (e.g., stimulus checks, 

spoofing of legitimate government health 

organizations, etc.). It also provided guidance to Department users on the safe and 

effective use of commercial collaboration 

tools, particularly when they are interacting with external partners.

Strategic Objective 4.3
128 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Performance Measures

Table 4.3.A. Percentage of the Department’s information technology (IT) security functions 

that improved at least one maturity level.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — — — — 84.50% 80% 80%

Note: Data from previous years are not included, as the methodology and target for this measure was revised in 

fiscal year (FY) 2020. 

Data Source: Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s) CyberScope quarterly risk management assessment, 

the Department’s Cybersecurity Framework Risk Scorecard, the previous fiscal year’s Office of Inspector 

General Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 maturity score, and DHS Cyber Hygiene 

reports.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: October 2019 through September 2020.

FY 2020 

Actual

Target
Performance Assessment—Goal 4 129

Improve the engagement and preparation of the 

Department’s workforce using professional 

development and accountability measures.

Strategic Objective 4.4

OBJECTIVE LEADER: 

Chief Human Capital Officer

Overview

In fiscal year 2020, the Department implemented a data-driven human capital 

strategy focused on improving employee 

engagement, performance, and competency development. The Department will 

continue to build the skills and knowledge 

of its workforce and will transition from 

identifying competency gaps to prioritizing 

learning and development opportunities and 

identifying best practices for closing competency gaps. Furthermore, the Department 

will focus on improving Federal Employee 

Viewpoint Survey scores, particularly the 

Employee Engagement Index.

Given the focus on the Department’s workforce, all Department offices support this 

strategic objective.

FY 2020 Performance 

Summary and Analysis

There are two performance measures for 

this strategic objective. Both measures met 

their annual metric targets (4.4.A and 4.4.C).

The first measure that met its target, 4.4.A, 

gauges the Department’s performance in 

raising its Federal Employee Viewpoint 

Survey employee engagement index score. 

The other measure that met its target, 4.4.C, 

gauges the percentage of the Department’s 

managers with employee engagement 

included in their performance agreements. 

The annual target of 100 percent was met 

by Quarter 3 of fiscal year (FY) 2020.

Of note, for FY 2020, the Department 

retired a previous performance measure 

in this strategic objective, which tracked 

the percentage of positions with competencies identified.

Key Successes and Opportunities

Enhancing Employee Engagement.

A key strategy the Department adopted 

to improve the collective engagement of 

its employees was requiring that all of its 

principal offices adopt plans outlining the 

steps they would undertake to improve the 

engagement of their own employees. In 

FY 2020, the Office of Human Resources 

(OHR) collected 13 out of 14 principal 

office Employee Engagement Action Plans 

and consulted with 8 principal offices to 

provide feedback and share best practices. 
130 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

The next step was to establish a National 

Engagement Strategy for the entire Department. A strategy team began meeting in 

June 2020 and will set targeted goals with 

measurable outcomes. In addition, the team 

analyzed trends and commonalities from 

the action plans of the principal offices to 

create the four focus areas for the Department-wide plan. The first focus area, Leaders 

Lead, is for senior leaders to demonstrate 

honesty and integrity while motivating 

and communicating with employees effectively. The second focus area, Collaborative 

Management, is to illustrate the importance of a management style that promotes 

and supports collaborative communication 

and teamwork in completing projects and 

accomplishing goals and objectives. The 

third focus area, Merit Systems Principles, is 

to ensure that personnel management practices support fairness and protect employees 

from arbitrary actions, personnel favoritism, 

political coercion, and reprisal. The fourth 

focus area, Training and Development, 

is to increase employee capacity to perform by assessing training needs, targeting 

opportunities to improve skills, enhancing professional development, and building 

employee capacity.

OHR also created a template to capture the Department’s requirement that 

all supervisors have a critical element 

in their performance plans for employee 

engagement. The template is used in USA 

Performance, which is the automated 

performance management system for 

non-executives, and it will auto-populate 

into all supervisors’ next plans (i.e. new 

plans created post-FY 2020 for midpoint reviews for new supervisors and 

in FY 2021 for all existing supervisors). 

OHR conducted an audit of supervisors in 

the USA Performance system to ensure the 

employee engagement element is included 

in 100 percent of the performance plans of 

supervisors covered by the Department’s 

central employee ratings system.

Workforce Planning. The Department is 

conducting a strategic assessment using 

workforce data to identify gaps in areas 

such as employee competency as well as 

mitigation strategies that will be captured 

and tracked through the development of 

workforce action plans. In addition, the 

Department adopted a workforce planning 

maturity model to track workforce planning maturity levels across the Department. 

Action plans will be finalized and implemented in Quarter 1 of FY 2021.

Employee Competencies. OHR launched

an agency-wide competency program 

focused on two functional areas: grants and 

information technology. It met with executive sponsors in these functional areas to 

identify subject-matter experts to validate 

competencies from the FY 2019 initiative 

and create career and training maps that 

will be accessible via the Department’s 

intranet. OHR is also identifying a repeatable process for gap-closure assessments.
Performance Assessment—Goal 4 131

Performance Measures

Strategic Objective 4.4

Table 4.4.A. Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) employee engagement index score.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

68% 67% 67% 63% 62% 72% 65% 66%

Data Source: Office of Personnel Management FEVS.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: October 2019 through September 2020. FY 2020 

Actual

Target

Table 4.4.C. Percentage of supervisors and managers with a performance plan critical 

element related to employee engagement.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Actual Actual Target Target

— — 5% 35% 56% 100% 100% 100%

Note: No data are available prior to fiscal year (FY) 2017.

Data Source: The Department’s Talent Management System and USA Performance.

FY 2020 Period of Performance: October 2019 through September 2020.

Target and 

FY 2020 

Actual
This page is intentionally left blank.
Appendices

Appendices A–E
This page is intentionally left blank.
Appendix A. Data Validation and Verification 135

Data Validation and Verification

Appendix A

Appendix A provides data validation and verification information for all performance 

measures found across the Department’s four Strategic Goals.

Strategic Goal 1: Support state and local efforts to improve 

learning outcomes for all P–12 students in every community.

1.1.A. Number of open and operating charter schools supported by the Charter Schools Program 

(CSP).

Data Source: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD) and 

grantee annual performance reports.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

CSP staff and contractors review reported data for anomalies and compare annual 

performance reports with NCES CCD to confirm reporting accuracies. Grantees 

are questioned about any identified inconsistencies and must confirm or update 

reporting. NCES CCD undergo a rigorous and well-documented review process. 

More information can be found at https://nces.ed.gov/ccd.

1.1.B. Number of students enrolled in charter schools supported by the Charter Schools Program 

(CSP).

Data Source: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD) and 

grantee annual performance reports.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

CSP staff and contractors review reported data for anomalies and compare annual 

performance reports with NCES CCD to confirm reporting accuracies. Grantees 

are questioned about any identified inconsistencies and must confirm or update 

reporting. NCES CCD undergo a rigorous and well-documented review process. 

More information can be found at https://nces.ed.gov/ccd.

1.1.C. Number of new resources on evidence-based and promising practices related to school choice 

disseminated.

Data Source: National Charter School Resource Center and Institute for Education Sciences (IES)-

sponsored materials.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Applicable resources and publications are posted on the websites of the Office of 

Innovation and Improvement and IES. Charter Schools Program staff review these 

two websites to ensure resources are available and meet the requisite criteria for this 

measure throughout the year.
136 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

1.1.D. Number of students enrolled in federally funded magnet schools.

Data Source: Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP) grantee annual performance reports.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The MSAP contractor conducts data reviews of grantee performance data. The 

contractor is responsible for locating, assessing, and recording annual performance 

data. Review protocols include checking and documenting the presence and 

completeness of performance measure data for analysis. The contractor’s research 

staff discuss anomalous data with grantees, who verify or correct submissions. 

Valid anomalies are documented. The Parental Options and Improvement Programs 

Director is responsible for certifying the data are accurate.

1.1.E. Number of open and operating public charter schools.

Data Source: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD).

Data Validation 

and Verification:

NCES CCD undergo a rigorous and well-documented review process. More 

information can be found at https://nces.ed.gov/ccd.

1.1.F. Number of students enrolled in public charter schools.

Data Source: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD).

Data Validation 

and Verification:

NCES CCD undergo a rigorous and well-documented review process. More 

information can be found at https://nces.ed.gov/ccd.

1.1.G. Number of students enrolled in public magnet schools.

Data Source: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD).

Data Validation 

and Verification:

NCES CCD undergo a rigorous and well-documented review process. More 

information can be found at https://nces.ed.gov/ccd.

1.1.H. Number of scholarships provided through state-based vouchers, tax credit scholarships, and 

education savings account programs.

Data Source: EdChoice, The ABCs of School Choice. The targets for fiscal year (FY) 2020 and 

FY 2021 are imputed by the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education based 

on EdChoice reported data for the last three years.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

EdChoice addresses data quality issues for its annual publications. Imputations and 

projections are based on EdChoice historic data. Qualifying scholarships include 

education savings accounts, vouchers, tax-credit scholarships, and individual tax 

credits and deductions as defined by EdChoice.

1.1.I. Number of parents receiving support and engagement on school choice options through 

technical assistance and other resources (new).

Data Source: Internal Department outreach data and performance reports from Department-funded 

technical assistance centers.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) and the Office of 

Special Education Programs (OSEP) staff conduct data reviews of grantee data from 

the Statewide Family Engagement Centers program and the Parent Training and 

Information Program. OESE and OSEP staff are responsible for locating, assessing, 

and recording annual performance data. Review protocols include checking and 

documenting the presence and completeness of performance measure data for 

analysis. OESE and OSEP staff discuss anomalous data with grantees, who verify or 

correct submissions. Valid anomalies are documented. Data are reviewed by OESE 

and OSEP prior to being submitted.
Appendix A. Data Validation and Verification 137

1.2.A. Percentage of states that show improvement across a three-year trend in the percentage of 

students in grades 3 through 8 scoring at or above proficient on state assessments in reading in 

the following subgroups: economically disadvantaged, children with disabilities, English learners, 

migrant, homeless, and major racial and ethnic groups.

Data Source: The Department’s annual Assessment Data File that includes state-reported data 

pulled from EDFacts files C175, C178, C185, and C188.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

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

Education Programs (OSEP), and EDFacts conduct a thorough, coordinated 

data quality review of the assessment data submitted by states. OSEP reviews 

this set of assessment data files to ensure compliance with the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act Section 618, and OESE reviews this set of assessment 

data files for the Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR). Reviews focus 

on three areas: timeliness, completeness, and accuracy. OESE, OSEP, and EDFacts

conduct two data quality reviews of states’ assessment data submissions. The first 

data quality review results in data quality inquiries, comments, and questions for 

state respondents. States may respond through resubmission, written response, or 

data notes. The second data quality review is conducted to ensure published data 

meet established data quality criteria. OESE, OSEP, and EDFacts hold conference 

calls with states to gain a better understanding of identified anomalies and provide 

technical assistance to empower states to submit higher-quality assessment data. 

Data quality reviews are conducted following each due date/resubmission date. 

Outstanding questions regarding accuracy may result in data suppression. Note that 

this measure is impacted by changes to state assessment systems. If states change 

assessments, performance levels, or cut scores, among others, it will invalidate the 

year-to-year analysis to identify states that showed improvements in the percentage 

of students proficient. Since statewide assessment systems have been in flux for 

the last few years, it makes it challenging to establish baselines and set targets. 

States sign a certification when submitting their CSPR. If questions remain upon 

completion of the Department’s data quality review process regarding whether the 

data submitted by a state are accurate, the Department may decide not to publish or 

use the data.
138 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

1.2.B. Percentage of states that show improvement across a three-year trend in the percentage of 

students in grades 3 through 8 scoring at or above proficient on state assessments in mathematics in 

the following subgroups: economically disadvantaged, children with disabilities, English learners, 

migrant, homeless, and major racial and ethnic groups.

Data Source: The Department’s annual Assessment Data File that includes state-reported data 

pulled from EDFacts files Cl75, Cl78, Cl85, and Cl88.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

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

Education Programs (OSEP), and EDFacts conduct a thorough, coordinated data 

quality review of the assessment data submitted by states. OSEP reviews this set 

of assessment data files to ensure compliance with Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act Section 618, and OESE reviews this set of assessment data files 

for the Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR). Reviews focus on 

three areas: timeliness, completeness, and accuracy. OESE, OSEP, and EDFacts

conduct two data quality reviews of states’ assessment data submissions. The first 

data quality review results in data quality inquiries, comments, and questions for 

state respondents. States may respond through resubmission, written response, or 

data notes. The second data quality review is conducted to ensure published data 

meet established data quality criteria. OESE, OSEP, and EDFacts hold conference 

calls with states to gain a better understanding of identified anomalies and provide 

technical assistance to empower states to submit higher-quality assessment data. 

Data quality reviews are conducted following each due date/resubmission date. 

Outstanding questions regarding accuracy may result in data suppression. Note that 

this measure is impacted by changes to state assessment systems. If states change 

assessments, performance levels, or cut scores, among others, it will invalidate the 

year-to-year analysis to identify states that showed improvements in the percentage 

of students proficient. Since statewide assessment systems have been in flux for 

the last few years, it makes it challenging to establish baselines and set targets. 

States sign a certification when submitting their CSPR. If questions remain upon 

completion of the Department’s data quality review process regarding whether the 

data submitted by a state are accurate, the Department may decide not to publish or 

use the data.

1.2.C. Percentage of states with 80 percent or more of preschoolers with disabilities that showed 

greater than expected growth in social-emotional skills by the time they exit Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B, Section 619 services.

Data Source: IDEA Part B state annual performance reports.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The Office of Special Education Programs’ (OSEP’s) state leads review each state’s 

annual performance report for data quality. The Monitoring and State Improvement 

Planning Division Data Implementation Team and OSEP’s Early Childhood 

Technical Assistance Center, which has expertise in early childhood outcome 

measurement systems, review the full set of data for anomalies and other data 

quality concerns. The number of states collecting high-quality data has increased 

over time as states continue to build their capacity to collect valid and reliable 

data. These efforts are supported by the Technical Assistance Center, which helps 

states build and improve their outcome measurement systems, collect and analyze 

data, and use data to make program improvements. States certify that the data they 

turn in to OSEP are accurate. The OSEP Director signs the determination letter for 

each state.
Appendix A. Data Validation and Verification 139

1.2.D. Percentage of students in the country who have internet bandwidth at school of at least 100 

kbps per student.

Data Source:

Data Validation 

and Verification:

EducationSuperHighway.

Verification and validation of data are managed by EducationSuperHighway. The 

process for checking for anomalous data is managed by EducationSuperHighway. 

The Office of Education Technology is responsible for certifying the data are accurate.

1.2.E. Percentage of rural schools connected to a broadband infrastructure capable of scaling to 10 

gigabits per second.

Data Source: EducationSuperHighway.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Verification and validation of data are managed by EducationSuperHighway and 

documented at https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/esh-sots-pdfs/methodology_2017_

state_of_the_states.pdf. The process for checking for anomalous data is managed by 

EducationSuperHighway. The Office of Education Technology is responsible for 

certifying the data are accurate.

1.2.F. Percentage of states publishing report cards on the preceding school year in a timely manner 

(i.e., by January 15th of the year following the reporting year).

Data Source: Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR).

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The Every Student Succeeds Act report card data metrics are new to states, 

beginning with report cards published in school year (SY) 2018–2019 based on 

data from SY 2017–2018. Some states may be working through the programming 

necessary to report them and therefore may be delayed for the first couple of years 

of implementation in the release of their data. Office of Elementary and Secondary 

Education (OESE) staff are reviewing state educational agency websites to 

determine if the report cards have been published by January 15 with data from the 

previous school year. Going forward, states will include in the CSPR the link where 

the report cards are located. There is a formal, extensive process for the verification 

and validation of any information submitted through EDFacts/CSPR that occurs 

annually, beginning immediately following the submission due date in a series of 

review windows between December and May. Data are reviewed by staff. Due to 

the scope and complexity of the process, most data included in the CSPR are not 

considered final and available for use until May. However, since the review of the 

report cards’ links will only involve navigating to the web locations and confirming 

that the current report cards are posted, OESE staff are able to use preliminary 

data, which are available earlier in the year, to produce this measure. Data will be 

reviewed by OESE prior to being submitted. Anomalous data will be checked and 

verified by OESE or other supporting offices.

1.2.G. Percentage of monitored states publicly reporting information on each indicator in the 

state’s accountability system, including the list of schools identified for comprehensive or targeted 

support and improvement.

Data Source: The Office of Elementary and Secondary Education’s (OESE’s) Office of School 

Support and Accountability monitors state compliance with Title I requirements, 

including the requirement to publish state and local report cards.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data are collected during Title I monitoring by OESE. Monitoring reports are 

reviewed internally by OESE staff and submitted to states as part of the monitoring 

process. Program officers doing the monitoring are trained for consistent and 

standard application of monitoring protocols. Anomalous data will be checked and 

verified by OESE or other supporting offices. OESE is responsible for monitoring the 

Title I program and follows the protocols necessary to ensure the data are accurate.
140 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

1.2.H. Percentage of the total appropriation made available to eligible entities within 30 days of the 

passage of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (April 27, 2020) (new).

Data Source:

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Appropriation and program office communications to eligible entities.

Program staff calculate and verify the number of business days between enactment 

and the date that application materials are posted to the Department’s website.

1.2.I. Percentage of approved applications awarded within seven business days (new).

Data Source: The Department’s end-to-end Grants Management System (G5).

Data Validation 

and Verification:

G5 is a U.S. federal government computer system intended to be solely accessed by 

individual users expressly authorized to access the system by the Department. Usage 

can be monitored, recorded, and/or subject to audit. All users requiring access to 

G5 must register with the Department to obtain individual user IDs and passwords. 

In addition, all payees receiving grant award funds must submit signed and 

properly validated paperwork supporting their individual registrations. Application 

approvals are recorded by the program office and recorded in G5. Obligations are 

automatically timestamped in G5. Program staff calculate and verify the number of 

business days between application approval and award obligation.

1.2.J. Percentage of stakeholder inquiries related to COVID-19 that are closed within 30 business 

days (new).

Data Source: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education program offices.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Program staff calculate and verify the number of inquiries received and closed 

within five business days in the COVID-19@ed.gov mailbox. The cumulative 

number of inquiries received and closed by staff within the quarter is also calculated.

1.3.A. Number of discretionary grant notices with science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics as a priority.

Data Source: Program offices holding discretionary grant competitions each year, including 

the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education; the Office of Innovation and 

Improvement; the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; the 

Office of Postsecondary Education; the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult 

Education; the Institute of Education Sciences; and the Office of English Language 

Acquisition.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Reports can be checked against the Notice Inviting Applications for each 

competition. Each program office listed in the data source is responsible for 

certifying the data are accurate.

1.3.B. Number of public high school students by graduating cohort who have taken at least one 

Advanced Placement science, technology, engineering, and mathematics exam while in high school.

Data Source: College Board.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

College Board addresses all data quality issues and is responsible for certifying that 

all data are accurate.

1.3.C. Number of public high school students by graduating cohort who have taken at least one 

Advanced Placement science, technology, engineering, and mathematics exam while in high school 

and scored a 3 or better.

Data Source: College Board.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

College Board addresses all data quality issues and is responsible for certifying that 

all data are accurate.
Appendix A. Data Validation and Verification 141

1.3.D. Number of adult education participants who achieved a measurable skill gain.

Data Source: National Reporting System for Adult Education.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data are verified through federal review of state data submissions via desk 

monitoring, on-site reviews, and technical assistance.

1.3.E. Number of adult education participants who obtained a secondary school diploma or its 

equivalent and are employed or enrolled in an education or training program within one year

following exit.

Data Source: National Reporting System for Adult Education.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data are verified through federal review of state data submissions via desk 

monitoring, on-site reviews, and technical assistance.

1.3.G. Number of adult education participants enrolled in an integrated education and training 

program.

Data Source: National Reporting System for Adult Education.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data are verified through federal review of state data submissions via desk 

monitoring, on-site reviews, and technical assistance.

1.3.H. Number of adult education participants who advanced one educational functioning level in 

mathematics (new).

Data Source: National Reporting System for Adult Education.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data are verified through federal review of state data submissions via desk 

monitoring, on-site reviews, and technical assistance.

1.3.J. Number of secondary career and technical education concentrators enrolling in science, 

technology, engineering, and mathematics.

Data Source: State Consolidated Annual Reports for the Strengthening Career and Technical 

Education for the 21st Century Act (Perkins V).

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data are verified through federal review of state data submissions via desk 

monitoring, on-site reviews, and technical assistance.

1.4.A. Number of technical assistance engagements, events or related activities, or products focused 

on grantees’ use of evidence in prekindergarten through grade 12 education.

Data Source: Department offices that deliver technical assistance.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Program offices review activities and apply established qualification criteria. The 

Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development’s Grants Policy Office 

reviews submissions and follows up with offices to address any anomalous data. 

Each program office identifies the point of contact responsible for certifying 

accuracy of the data.
142 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Strategic Goal 2: Expand postsecondary educational 

opportunities, improve outcomes to foster economic 

opportunity and promote an informed, thoughtful and 

productive citizenry.

2.1.A. Percentage of Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR 

UP) participants who obtain a secondary school diploma or its equivalent and, within 18 months, 

are enrolled in postsecondary education (new).

Data Source: GEAR UP annual performance reports.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data are verified through federal review of state data submissions via desk 

monitoring, on-site reviews, and technical assistance.

2.1.B. Percentage of first-time Free Application for Federal Student Aid® (FAFSA®) filers among 

high school seniors.

Data Source: Federal Student Aid’s (FSA’s) Central Processing System.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

FSA operational systems have procedures in place to address potential data quality 

issues. The process for querying system data is consistent and disciplined. A 

separate data analyst from a different office within FSA validates the accuracy of 

the query and the resulting data and validates any anomalous data. Queries and 

calculations are simultaneously conducted on data from previous years by FSA’s 

Business Intelligence Team to ensure technical definitions remain consistent. The 

Customer Analytics Group is responsible for the primary calculation of the metric 

as well as the technical validation of the metric, which is done by reviewing for 

accuracy the query used to pull the data and all calculations made with the data. 

Finally, the Financial Reporting and Analysis Branch is responsible for ensuring 

that documentation is complete and archived. These calculations also restrict the 

application period to the first nine months of the application cycle (through the close 

of the fiscal year) rather than the entire 18 months. Since 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 

measure with the fiscal year where most of the performance occurred.

2.1.C. Persistence among first-time filing aid recipients.

Data Source: Federal Student Aid’s Common Origination and Distribution System.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data results are ascertained through standardized system queries. These queries are 

used to rerun and match calculations for earlier cycles as part of the verification and 

validity assessment.

2.1.D. Percentage of total appropriation made available to institutions of higher education within 

30 days of the passage of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (April 27, 2020) 

(new).

Data Source: The Department’s end-to-end Grants Management System (G5).

Data Validation 

and Verification:

G5 is a U.S. federal government computer system intended to be solely accessed by 

individual users expressly authorized to access the system by the Department. Usage 

can be monitored, recorded, and/or subject to audit. All users requiring access to G5 

must register with the Department to obtain individual user IDs and passwords. In 

addition, all payees receiving grant award funds must submit signed and properly 

validated paperwork supporting their individual registrations.
Appendix A. Data Validation and Verification 143

2.2.A. Number of technical assistance events or activities and products focused on the use of 

evidence in federal programs that promote educational opportunities, training, and support 

services for the workforce.

Data Source: Department offices that deliver technical assistance.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Criteria for and examples of technical assistance events/activities and products are 

provided to program office representatives. The criteria are flexible to accommodate 

different technical assistance offerings provided across the Department. The Office 

of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development’s Grants Policy Office reviews 

program offices’ submission to address any anomalous data. The Department 

conducts level-setting meetings with staff charged with reporting from each program 

office to support the collection of standard and meaningful data. Contacts in each 

program office are responsible for certifying accuracy of the data.

2.2.B. Percentage of adult education program participants who were in unsubsidized employment 

during the second quarter after exiting the program.

Data Source: National Reporting System annual state reports.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data are verified through federal review of state data submissions that includes desk 

monitoring, on-site reviews, and technical assistance.

2.2.C. Percentage of Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) Program participants who were in 

unsubsidized employment during the second quarter after exiting the program.

Data Source: Rehabilitation Services Administration’s (RSA’s) 911 Vocational Rehabilitation Case 

Service Report (RSA-911).

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data are verified through federal review of state data submissions via desk 

monitoring, on-site reviews, and technical assistance. In accordance with 

Section 506(b) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), the 

performance accountability system requirements of Section 116 of WIOA took 

effect on July 1, 2016. However, the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services (OSERS) and RSA recognized that state VR agencies may have difficulty 

implementing the new data requirements quickly enough to submit reports 

containing the new data elements for program year (PY) 2016. Therefore, the 

Department exercised its transition authority under Section 503 of WIOA to ensure 

the orderly transition from the requirements under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 

amended by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, to the requirements of WIOA. 

With the issuance of RSA-PD-16-04 on June 14, 2017, OSERS/RSA revised 

RSA-911 to begin collecting WIOA data for the VR Program effective in PY 2017, 

which began July 1, 2017. Data related to the percentage of VR Program participants 

who were in unsubsidized employment during the second quarter after exit for 

PY 2018 reflect those participants who exited the VR Program in PY 2017.
144 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

2.2.D. Percentage of Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) Program participants who, during a program 

year, are in an education or training program that leads to a recognized postsecondary credential 

or employment and who are achieving measurable skill gains, defined as documented academic, 

technical, occupational, or other forms of progress, toward such a credential or employment.

Data Source: Rehabilitation Services Administration’s (RSA’s) 911 Vocational Rehabilitation Case 

Service Report (RSA-911).

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data are verified through federal review of state data submissions via desk 

monitoring, on-site reviews, and technical assistance. In accordance with 

Section 506(b) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), the 

performance accountability system requirements of Section 116 of WIOA took 

effect on July 1, 2016. However, the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services (OSERS) and RSA recognized that state VR agencies may have difficulty 

implementing the new data requirements quickly enough to submit reports 

containing the new data elements for program year (PY) 2016. Therefore, the 

Department exercised its transition authority under Section 503 of WIOA to ensure 

the orderly transition from the requirements under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 

amended by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, to the requirements of WIOA. 

With the issuance of RSA-PD-16-04 on June 14, 2017, OSERS/RSA revised 

RSA-911 to begin collecting WIOA data for the VR Program effective in PY 2017, 

which began July 1, 2017. Data related to the percentage of VR Program participants 

who were in unsubsidized employment during the second quarter after exit for 

PY 2018 reflect those participants who exited the VR Program in PY 2017.

2.3.A. Number of technical assistance activities sponsored by the Department intended to expand 

or enhance the integration of workforce preparation activities within academic instruction in adult 

education classrooms.

Data Source: Contractor quarterly progress reports.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education (OCTAE) staff vet all event 

materials prior to actual events. For virtual events, the contractor provides relevant 

analytics as supporting documentation. For face-to-face events, the contractor 

collects sign-in sheets and event evaluation forms. OCTAE staff review contractor 

documentation for anomalous or unclear submissions and follow up with the 

appropriate contractor(s). The Deputy Director of the Division of Adult Education 

and Literacy within OCTAE is responsible for certifying the data are accurate.

2.3.C. Number of postsecondary science, technology, engineering, and mathematics degrees and 

certificates conferred.

Data Source: The National Center for Education Statistics’ (NCES’) Integrated Postsecondary 

Education Data System (IPEDS) Completions component.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

NCES’ IPEDS undergoes a rigorous and well-documented review process. More 

information on that process can be found at https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds.
Appendix A. Data Validation and Verification 145

2.4.A. Average speed to answer incoming calls to Federal Student Aid’s (FSA’s) call centers.

Data Source: Federal servicers’ quarterly reports.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The verification and validation of performance by the nondefault federal student 

loan servicers will be conducted by FSA and will include (but not be limited to): 

(1) review and validation of federal servicer reports, (2) ongoing/recurring quality 

assurance discussion with federal servicers, (3) site visits to federal servicer call 

center sites, and (4) documented on-phone (“mystery caller”) evaluations of services. 

Because the agency directive is succinct and builds on current contractor operational 

capabilities, FSA does not anticipate anomalous data or issues with implementation. 

However, in cases where verification and validation detect anomalies that suggest 

less-than-complete information, FSA will address any deficiencies through direct 

contact with federal servicers, requests for information, audits, site visits, and/

or other assessment measures of performance, as applicable. FSA’s Business 

Operations Officer, who oversees all of FSA’s nondefault federal student loan 

servicers, is responsible for certifying the data are accurate.

2.4.B. Average abandon rate for incoming calls to Federal Student Aid’s (FSA’s) call centers.

Data Source: Federal servicers’ quarterly reports.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The verification and validation of performance by the nondefault federal student 

loan servicers will be conducted by FSA and will include (but not be limited to): 

(1) review and validation of federal servicer reports, (2) ongoing/recurring quality 

assurance discussion with federal servicers, (3) site visits to federal servicer call 

center sites, and (4) documented on-phone (“mystery caller”) evaluations of services. 

Because the agency directive is succinct and builds on current contractor operational 

capabilities, FSA does not anticipate anomalous data or issues with implementation. 

However, in cases where verification and validation detect anomalies that suggest 

less-than-complete information, FSA will address any deficiencies through direct 

contact with federal servicers, requests for information, audits, site visits, and/

or other assessment measures of performance, as applicable. FSA’s Business 

Operations Officer, who oversees all of FSA’s nondefault federal student loan 

servicers, is responsible for certifying the data are accurate.

2.4.C. American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) Surveys.

Data Source: ACSI.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

This measure is a direct reflection of the data collected through the ACSI Aid Life 

Cycle Survey. FSA monitors to ensure the system is secure and the query results are 

consistent.

2.4.D. Number of downloads of the myStudentAid mobile app.

Data Source: Federal Student Aid’s (FSA’s) online platform analytics.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

This measure is a direct reflection of the data platform analytics. FSA monitors to 

ensure the system is secure and the query results are consistent.

2.4.E. Number of customers checking loan balances via the myStudentAid mobile app.

Data Source: Federal Student Aid’s (FSA’s) online platform analytics.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

This measure is a direct reflection of the data platform analytics. FSA monitors to 

ensure the system is secure and the query results are consistent.
146 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

2.4.F. Number of customers submitting a Free Application for Federal Student Aid® via a mobile 

platform—the myStudentAid mobile app or fafsa.gov.

Data Source: Federal Student Aid’s (FSA’s) online platform analytics.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

This measure is a direct reflection of the data platform analytics. FSA monitors to 

ensure the system is secure and the query results are consistent.

2.4.G. Number of visits (sessions) demonstrating adoption of the updated StudentAid.gov site.

Data Source: Federal Student Aid’s (FSA’s) online platform analytics.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

This measure is a direct reflection of the data platform analytics. FSA monitors to 

ensure the system is secure and the query results are consistent.

2.4.H. Number of users of “Aidan,” the StudentAid.gov virtual assistant (new).

Data Source: Federal Student Aid’s (FSA’s) online platform analytics.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

This measure is a direct reflection of the data platform analytics. FSA will monitor to 

ensure the system is secure and the query results are consistent.

2.5.A. Percentage of borrowers who are more than 30 days delinquent.

Data Source: Federal Student Aid’s (FSA’s) data warehouse.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data are collected on a quarterly basis from FSA’s data warehouse. Verification 

and validation of the rate(s) of delinquency are conducted by FSA’s Office of 

Performance Management. FSA does not anticipate anomalous data or issues with 

interpretation; however, in cases where verification and validation detect anomalies 

that suggest less-than-complete information, FSA addresses any deficiencies 

through collaboration with subject-matter experts within the Office of Performance 

Management. No limitations, other than macro-economic situations (i.e., economic 

downturn), have been identified. FSA’s Deputy Chief Operating Officer is 

responsible for certifying the data are accurate.

2.5.B. Percentage of borrowers who are more than 90 days delinquent.

Data Source: Federal Student Aid’s (FSA’s) data warehouse.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data are collected on a quarterly basis from FSA’s data warehouse. Verification 

and validation of the rate(s) of delinquency are conducted by FSA’s Office of 

Performance Management. FSA does not anticipate anomalous data or issues with 

interpretation; however, in cases where verification and validation detect anomalies 

that suggest less-than-complete information, FSA addresses any deficiencies 

through collaboration with subject-matter experts within the Office of Performance 

Management. No limitations, other than macro-economic situations (i.e., economic 

downturn), have been identified. FSA’s Deputy Chief Operating Officer is 

responsible for certifying the data are accurate.

2.5.C. Percentage of eligible borrowers placed on a 0 percent interest rate (new).

Data Source: Federal Student Aid’s (FSA’s) National Student Loan Data System® (NSLDS®).

Data Validation 

and Verification:

NSLDS® is the Department’s central record database for student aid. It contains data 

from schools, guaranty agencies, the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan program, and 

other Department programs. NSLDS® provides a centralized, integrated view of federal 

student aid loans and grants that are tracked through their entire life cycle, from aid 

approval through disbursement and repayment (if applicable). FSA’s quality assurance 

teams have tested and validated the relevant NSLDS® data to ensure FSA is correctly 

reporting the percentage of eligible borrowers placed on a 0 percent interest rate.
Appendix A. Data Validation and Verification 147

2.5.D. Percentage of involuntary payments refunded (new).

Data Source: Federal Student Aid’s (FSA’s) Debt Management and Collection System (DMCS).

Data Validation 

and Verification:

DMCS is the largest component of collections within FSA. It provides a vehicle 

for the storage, retrieval, and editing of debtor information. Payments on defaulted 

accounts are processed through the National Payment Center as part of this system. 

In addition, official correspondence to debtors from the Department, collection 

agencies, and other interested parties is provided by this system. Collection agency 

reporting, treasury offset, administrative wage garnishment, and credit bureau 

reporting efforts are other parts of this system. FSA’s quality assurance teams have 

tested and validated the relevant DMCS data to ensure the percentage of involuntary 

payments refunded is being reported correctly.

2.5.E. Percentage of initial borrower notifications completed (new).

Data Source: Federal Student Aid’s (FSA’s) loan servicers.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The process of validating and verifying data includes reviews and validation of 

federal servicer reports and ongoing/recurring quality assurance discussions with 

federal servicers. Because the agency directive is succinct and builds on current 

contractor operational capabilities, FSA did not anticipate anomalous data or issues 

with implementation. However, in cases where verification and validation detected 

anomalies that suggested less-than-complete information, FSA addressed any 

deficiencies through direct contact with federal servicers, requests for information, 

audits, site visits, and/or other assessment measures of performance, as applicable. 

FSA’s Business Operations Officer, who oversees all of FSA’s nondefault federal 

student loan servicers, is responsible for certifying the data are accurate.

Strategic Goal 3: Strengthen the quality, accessibility and 

use of education data through better management, increased 

privacy protections and transparency.

3.1.A. Percentage of principal offices assessed as having higher data maturity year over year based 

on the Department’s data maturity assessment tool (new).

Data Source: The Department’s Annual Data Maturity Assessment.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The Department’s Annual Data Maturity Assessment is administered by the Data 

Governance Board (DGB) support contractor. Meeting minutes from DGB meetings, 

held every two months or as needed, are developed by the DGB support contractor. 

Information presented in support of this measure will be reviewed and accepted 

by the DGB program management office. Interactions between the DBG support 

contractor and the DGB program management office occur regularly between 

DGB meetings, providing both the DGB support contractor and the DGB program 

management office with an opportunity to review and finalize documentation of the 

DGB meeting in a timely fashion and before a subsequent DGB meeting is held. Any 

data identified by the DGB program management office as anomalous are discussed 

by the DGB support contractor and program management office. Anomalous data are 

researched using the original meeting notes from the monthly meeting in question 

and followed up with calls from the DGB program management office and to any 

office points of contact whose data are in question. The DGB program management 

office is responsible for certifying the data are accurate.
148 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

3.2.A. Number of institutions of higher education (IHEs) that have an audit of Gramm-Leach-Bliley 

Act-related information security safeguards that result in no significant findings.

Data Source: IHE-provided auditor reports.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The data are verified and validated by Federal Student Aid’s (FSA’s) Senior Advisor 

for Cybersecurity in collaboration with the Department’s Chief Privacy Officer on 

at least a quarterly basis and compared to report data, FSA records, and ongoing 

compliance and investigations regarding data breaches. FSA’s Deputy Chief 

Operating Officer certifies that all data are accurate.

3.2.B. Number of outreach activities targeting data privacy and information technology security 

requirements of institutions of higher education.

Data Source: Outreach activity records maintained by the Privacy Technical Assistance Center.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The data are verified and validated by Federal Student Aid’s (FSA’s) Senior Advisor 

for Cybersecurity in collaboration with the Department’s Chief Privacy Officer on 

at least a quarterly basis and are compared to report data, FSA records, and ongoing 

compliance and investigations regarding data breaches. There are no identified 

nuances or limitations to the data. FSA’s Deputy Chief Operating Officer certifies all 

data are accurate.

3.2.C. Percentage of local educational agency (LEA) websites from a statistically representative 

sample reviewed for inclusion of transparency best practices.

Data Source: Selected LEA public websites.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The data are verified and validated by the Director of the Student Privacy Policy 

Office (SPPO) on at least a quarterly basis. Anomalous data are noted in the 

comments field, and staff and contractors are questioned to ensure that district 

website reviews are accurate and complete. No limitations are anticipated. The 

Director of SPPO is responsible for certifying the data are accurate.

3.3.A. Number of data assets listed in a comprehensive data inventory that are made available to 

the Federal Data Catalogue with official determinations regarding “open-by-default” requirements 

(new).

Data Source: The Department’s comprehensive data inventory.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The Chief Data Officer is responsible for establishing the Department’s 

comprehensive data inventory. The Department’s newly created Office of the Chief 

Data Officer (OCDO) will establish an Open Data Platform that will meet the needs 

of the statutorily required comprehensive data inventory and be capable of tracking 

new and existing data assets. OCDO will be responsible for calculating these 

numbers and establishing an independent validation process.

Strategic Goal 4: Reform the effectiveness, efficiency and 

accountability of the Department.

4.1.A. Number of evaluations to identify potential Executive Order 13771 deregulatory actions that 

included opportunity for public input and/or peer review.

Data Source: Department records.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The Division of Regulatory Services monitors the data and verifies numbers. The 

Deputy General Counsel for Ethics, Legislative Counsel, and Regulatory Services 

verifies the data are accurate.
Appendix A. Data Validation and Verification 149

4.1.B. Number of Executive Order 13771 deregulatory actions recommended by the Regulatory 

Reform Task Force to the agency head consistent with applicable law.

Data Source: Department records.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The Division of Regulatory Services monitors the data and verifies numbers. The 

Deputy General Counsel for Ethics, Legislative Counsel, and Regulatory Services 

verifies the data are accurate.

4.1.C. Number of Executive Order 13771 deregulatory actions issued that address 

recommendations by the Regulatory Reform Task Force.

Data Source: Federal Register and https://www.ed.gov/.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The Division of Regulatory Services monitors the data and verifies numbers. The 

Deputy General Counsel for Ethics, Legislative Counsel, and Regulatory Services 

verifies the data are accurate.

4.1.D. Number of Executive Order (EO) 13771 regulatory actions and, separately, EO 13771 

deregulatory actions issued.

Data Source: Federal Register and https://www.ed.gov/.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The Division of Regulatory Services monitors the data and verifies numbers. The 

Deputy General Counsel for Ethics, Legislative Counsel, and Regulatory Services 

verifies the data are accurate.

4.1.F. Number of deregulatory actions submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Data Source: Reginfo.gov and emails between the Department and OMB.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The Division of Regulatory Services monitors the data and verifies numbers. The 

Deputy General Counsel for Ethics, Legislative Counsel, and Regulatory Services 

verifies the data are accurate.

4.2.A. Improve maturity level of Enterprise Risk Management (ERM).

Data Source: Office of Finance and Operations, Office of Enterprise Data Analytics, and risk 

management calculations.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The maturity of the Department’s ERM Program is assessed against the federal ERM 

Maturity Model through participation in the Office of Management and Budget’s 

Federal ERM Maturity Model pilot during fiscal year (FY) 2020 and FY 2021. 

The model has five distinct levels and five functional categories for each level. The 

Office of Enterprise Data Analytics and Risk Management (OEDARM) is leading 

the development of specific performance indicators to ensure consistently repeatable 

data collection and trend analysis over time. With quantitative measures in place, 

the Department’s maturity can be reliably assessed using a standard methodology. 

OEDARM is responsible for certifying the data are accurate for the Department and 

will work directly with Federal Student Aid’s ERM Office to certify any applicable 

data, accordingly.
150 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

4.3.A. Percentage of the Department’s information technology (IT) security functions that 

improved at least one maturity level.

Data Source: Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s) CyberScope quarterly risk 

management assessment (RMA), the Department’s Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 

Risk Scorecard, the previous fiscal year’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) Federal 

Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 (FISMA) maturity score, and DHS 

Cyber Hygiene reports.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Information derived from the data sources follows a formalized review process to 

ensure accuracy and timeliness of the information for the purposes of measuring the 

Department’s progress across these areas. Specifically:

• DHS’s quarterly RMA: The Department receives and reviews the draft 

RMA report. Department approvals are then submitted through CyberScope. 

The RMA factor is calculated by averaging the security domain completion 

percentage results within each CSF function to determine the overall percentage 

of completion at the CSF function level. Peer reviews are conducted to ensure 

mathematical accuracy prior to finalizing this factor. 

• The Department’s CSF Risk Scorecard: Department risk scores are compiled 

via Microsoft Power BI and verified based on the CSF Risk Scorecard standard 

operating procedure. Scores are continuously reviewed for accuracy prior to 

releases. 

• The previous fiscal year’s OIG FISMA maturity score: The current FISMA 

capability maturity levels (1–5) correlate to a percentage of completion toward 

the desired goal of achieving level 5-optimized or 100% of the achievable 

outcomes. Peer reviews are conducted to ensure mathematical accuracy prior to 

finalizing this factor.

• DHS Cyber Hygiene reports: The Department receives and reviews the DHS 

reports. After Department confirmation, percentages are averaged to determine 

the overall scoring percentage for the Cyber Hygiene factor. Peer reviews are 

also conducted to ensure mathematical accuracy prior to finalizing the reports.

4.4.A. Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) employee engagement index score.

Data Source: Office of Personnel Management (OPM) FEVS.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data verification and validation processes are integrated into the OPM FEVS results 

validation process. Any questionable or anomalous FEVS results identified are 

brought to the attention of OPM. The Department then works with the OPM point of 

contact to obtain clarity or resolve the results. There are no known data limitations. 

OPM is responsible for certifying the data are accurate.

4.4.C. Percentage of supervisors and managers with a performance plan critical element related to 

employee engagement.

Data Source: The Department’s Talent Management System and USA Performance.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

To ensure quality control, verification processors self-check and cross check each 

other. The validation and affirmation of final numbers is performed by the principal 

office leadership through system report reconciliation. The Director of Workforce 

Relations Division is responsible for certifying the data are accurate.
Appendix B. Performance Measure and Metric Target Changes 151

Performance Measure and Metric Target Changes

Appendix B

Appendix B includes performance measures that were added or removed and metric targets 

that were changed in the Department’s Strategic Plan since publication of the FY 2019 

Annual Performance Report and the FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan.

Strategic Goal 1: Support state and local efforts to improve 

learning outcomes for all P–12 students in every community.

Measure 1.1.A Status: Changed

Type of Change: Fiscal year (FY) 2020 period of performance edited from school year (SY) 2019–

2020 to SY 2018–2019. 

Current Title: Number of open and operating charter schools supported by the Charter Schools 

Program (CSP).

Justification: The period of performance for FY 2020 data is SY 2018–2019. This FY 2020 Annual 

Performance Report amends the period of performance in the FY 2019 Annual 

Performance Report to SY 2017–2018.

Measure 1.1.B Status: Changed

Type of Change: Fiscal year (FY) 2020 period of performance edited from school year (SY) 2019–

2020 to SY 2018–2019, Additionally, the FY 2021 target decreased from prior year 

+ 25,000 to prior year + 10,000.

Current Title: Number of students enrolled in charter schools supported by the Charter Schools 

Program (CSP).

Justification: The period of performance for FY 2020 data is SY 2018–2019. This FY 2020 

Annual Performance Report amends the period of performance in the FY 2019 

Annual Performance Report to SY 2017–2018. Additionally, due to the challenges 

of offering in-classroom learning during the COVID-19 pandemic, the number 

of students enrolled in charter schools will be affected in school year 2019–2020, 

which is reported in FY 2021.

Measure 1.1.D Status: Changed

Type of Change: Decrease in fiscal year 2021 target from prior year plus 2 percent to prior year plus 1 

percent.

Current Title: Number of students enrolled in federally funded magnet schools.

Justification: Social distancing requirements implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic 

affected the number of new resources on evidence-based and promising practices.
152 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Measure 1.1.E Status: Changed

Type of Change: Fiscal year (FY) 2020 period of performance edited from school year (SY) 2019–

2020 to SY 2018–2019.

Current Title: Number of open and operating public charter schools.

Justification: The period of performance for FY 2020 data is SY 2018–2019. This FY 2020 Annual 

Performance Report amends the period of performance in the FY 2019 Annual 

Performance Report to SY 2017–2018.

Measure 1.1.F Status: Changed

Type of Change: Fiscal year (FY) 2020 period of performance edited from school year (SY) 2019–

2020 to SY 2018–2019.

Current Title: Number of students enrolled in public charter schools.

Justification: The period of performance for FY 2020 data is SY 2018–2019. This FY 2020 Annual 

Performance Report amends the performance data reported in the FY 2019 Annual 

Performance Report to SY 2017–2018.

Measure 1.1.G Status: Changed

Type of Change: Fiscal year (FY) 2020 period of performance edited from school year (SY) 2019–

2020 to SY 2018–2019.

Current Title: Number of students enrolled in public magnet schools.

Justification: The period of performance for FY 2020 data is SY 2018–2019. This FY 2020 Annual 

Performance Report amends the performance data reported in the FY 2019 Annual 

Performance Report to SY 2017–2018.

Measure 1.2.C Status: Changed

Type of Change: Decrease in fiscal year 2021 target from 58 percent to 55 percent.

Current Title: Percentage of states with 80 percent or more of preschoolers with disabilities that 

showed greater than expected growth in social-emotional skills by the time they exit 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B, Section 619 services.

Justification: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many local educational agencies have been 

challenged with how to support preschool children with disabilities through distance 

learning or remote service delivery. It is not developmentally appropriate for 

3- and 4-year-old children to be in front of a computer for extended periods of time, 

and many preschool children with disabilities are not able to attend or participate 

in services over a computer. Interacting with peers and establishing relationships 

with them is a big part of children’s social-emotional development and one of the 

outcome indicators that is part of 1.2.C. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, 

preschool children with disabilities are receiving less services, different services, 

and remote services, while some families opted not to be in remote services. All of 

these are factors that will impact how children meet outcome measures on socialemotional development. Additionally, data from the field have shown that fewer 

children are being referred for evaluation for special education services because 

well-child visits were not being carried out, and early childhood programs were 

closed, so there has been less opportunity for discussion with parents on their 

concerns related to their children’s development.
Appendix B. Performance Measure and Metric Target Changes 153

Measure 1.2.H Status: New

Type of Change: New measure added for performance period of March 27, 2020–April 27, 2020.

Current Title: Percentage of the total appropriation made available to eligible entities within 

30 days of the passage of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security 

(CARES) Act (April 27, 2020).

Justification: On April 10, 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued M-20-21, 

with guidance to federal agencies regarding the legislation enacted in response to 

COVID-19 and the supplemental funding. OMB required that the performance 

measures be integrated into the Department’s Strategic Plan, with a focus on the 

administration of CARES Act funding.

Measure 1.2.I Status: New

Type of Change: New measure added for performance period of March 27, 2020–September 30, 2020.

Current Title: Percentage of approved applications awarded within seven business days.

Justification: On April 10, 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued M-20-21, 

with guidance to federal agencies regarding the legislation enacted in response to 

COVID-19 and the supplemental funding. OMB required that the performance 

measures be integrated into the Department’s Strategic Plan, with a focus on the 

administration of Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act funding.

Measure 1.2.J Status: New

Type of Change: New measure added for performance period of March 1, 2020–September 30, 2020.

Current Title: Percentage of stakeholder inquiries related to COVID-19 that are closed within 

30 business days.

Justification: On April 10, 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued M-20-21, 

with guidance to federal agencies regarding the legislation enacted in response to 

COVID-19 and the supplemental funding. OMB required that the performance 

metrics be integrated into the Department’s Strategic Plan, with a focus on the 

administration of Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act funding.

Measure 1.3.B Status: Changed

Type of Change: Decrease in fiscal year 2021 target from 711,752 to 691,416. 

Current Title: Number of public high school students by graduating cohort who have taken at least 

one Advanced Placement science, technology, engineering, and mathematics exam 

while in high school.

Justification: Dual enrollment opportunities offered by community colleges and four-year colleges 

and universities are becoming more prevalent than Advancement Placement tests as 

the popular strategy among high school students for earning college credit. 

Measure 1.3.C Status: Changed

Type of Change: Decrease in fiscal year 2021 target from 393,768 to 382,517 students. 

Current Title: Number of public high school students by graduating cohort who have taken at least 

one Advanced Placement science, technology, engineering, and mathematics exam 

while in high school and scored a 3 or better.

Justification: Dual enrollment opportunities offered by community colleges and four-year colleges 

and universities are becoming more prevalent than Advancement Placement tests as 

the popular strategy among high school students for earning college credit. 
154 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Measure 1.3.D Status: Changed

Type of Change: Decrease in fiscal year (FY) 2021 target from 649,936 to 203,515 students.

Current Title: Number of adult education participants who achieved a measurable skill gain.

Justification: The inability to administer pre-/post-testing during the COVID-19 pandemic 

affected the performance period of July 2019 through June 2020, which is reported 

in FY 2021. 

Measure 1.3.F Status: Removed

Type of Change: Measure removed at the end of Quarter 2 of fiscal year 2020.

Current Title: Number of secondary career and technical education (CTE) concentrators who 

attained a secondary school diploma, a General Education Development credential, 

or another state-recognized equivalent.

Justification: On July 31, 2018, the President signed into law the Strengthening Career and 

Technical Education for the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. No. 115-224), which 

reauthorized and amended the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education 

Act of 2006. States are transitioning to the new accountability requirements of the 

Perkins V statute, including updating their measurement approaches and gathering 

baseline data for the Perkins V core indicators of performance.

Measure 1.3.G Status: Changed

Type of Change: Decrease in fiscal year (FY) 2021 target from 70,000 to 56,000.

Current Title: Number of adult education participants enrolled in an integrated education and 

training program.

Justification: Due to the challenges of offering virtual integrated education training (IET) 

programs during the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act adult participants enrolled in IET programs have been affected in 

school year 2019–2020, which is reported in FY 2021.

Measure 1.3.I Status: Removed

Type of Change: Measure removed at the end of Quarter 2 of fiscal year 2020.

Current Title: Percentage of secondary career and technical education (CTE) concentrators placed 

in employment, further training, or the military.

Justification: On July 31, 2018, the President signed into law the Strengthening Career and 

Technical Education for the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. No. 115-224), which 

reauthorized and amended the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education 

Act of 2006. States are transitioning to the new accountability requirements of the 

Perkins V statute, including updating their measurement approaches and gathering 

baseline data for the Perkins V core indicators of performance.

Measure 1.3.J Status: Changed

Type of Change: Decrease in fiscal year (FY) 2021 target from 1,550,635 to 1,240,508.

Current Title: Number of secondary career and technical education concentrators enrolling in 

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

Justification: Social distancing requirements implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic 

affected the ability of career and technical education (CTE) program providers to 

offer hands-on courses that require an in-person mentor for students. As a result, 

the number of secondary CTE concentrators enrolling in science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics have been affected in school year 2019–2020, which 

is reported in FY 2021.
Appendix B. Performance Measure and Metric Target Changes 155

Strategic Goal 2: Expand postsecondary educational 

opportunities, improve outcomes to foster economic 

opportunity and promote an informed, thoughtful and 

productive citizenry.

Measure 2.1.A Status: Changed

Type of Change: Measure reporting period changed, and measure identifier changed from 2.1.F to 

2.1.A in fiscal year (FY) 2020.

Original Title: Percentage of Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs 

(GEAR UP) participants who obtain a secondary school diploma or its equivalent 

and, within one year, are enrolled in postsecondary education.

Current Title: Percentage of Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs 

(GEAR UP) participants who obtain a secondary school diploma or its equivalent 

and, within 18 months, are enrolled in postsecondary education. 

Justification: This measure identifier changed from 2.1.F to 2.1.A in FY 2020. Additionally, social 

distancing requirements implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic have 

affected postsecondary institutions’ in-class learning. As a result, students may 

decide, for example, to postpone postsecondary education plans for a semester or 

more in order to avoid virtual classes. 

Measure 2.1.B Status: Changed

Type of Change: Measure identifier changed from 2.1.D to 2.1.B in fiscal year (FY) 2020.

Original Title: Percentage of first-time Free Application for Federal Student Aid® filers among 

high school seniors.

Justification: This measure identifier changed from 2.1.D to 2.1.B in FY 2020. No other changes 

were made.

Measure 2.1.C Status: Changed

Type of Change: Decrease in fiscal year (FY) 2021 target from 84.0 percent to 83.0 percent, and 

measure identifier changed from 2.1.E to 2.1.C in FY 2020.

Current Title: Persistence among first-time filing aid recipients.

Justification: Postsecondary education enrollment decreased due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Therefore, fewer students are expected to apply for financial assistance. Additionally, 

this measure identifier changed from 2.1.E to 2.1.C in FY 2020.

Measure 2.1.D Status: New

Type of Change: New measure added for Quarter 3 of fiscal year 2020.

Current Title: Percentage of total appropriation made available to institutions of higher education 

within 30 days of the passage of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security 

(CARES) Act (April 27, 2020).

Justification: On March 27, 2020, the CARES Act was passed by Congress and signed by the 

President. This bill allotted approximately $14 billion to the Office of Postsecondary 

Education as the Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund. As a result, the records 

of the dates that various Higher Education Emergency Relief programs and their 

appropriation levels were announced to the public and an application process was 

made available.
156 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Measure 2.2.B Status: Changed

Type of Change: Decrease in fiscal year (FY) 2021 target from 28.5 percent to 19.1 percent.

Original Title: Percentage of adult education program participants who were in unsubsidized 

employment during the second quarter after exiting the program.

Justification: Social distancing requirements implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic 

affected the general employment rate. Subsequently, the employment rate of 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act participants have also been affected in 

program year 2020, which is reported in FY 2021.

Measure 2.3.B Status: Removed

Type of Change: Measure removed at the end of Quarter 2 of fiscal year 2020.

Current Title: Percentage of postsecondary career and technical education concentrators who 

received an industry-recognized credential, certificate, or degree.

Justification: On July 31, 2018, the President signed into law the Strengthening Career and 

Technical Education for the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. No. 115-224), which 

reauthorized and amended the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education 

Act of 2006. States are transitioning to the new accountability requirements of the 

Perkins V statute, including updating their measurement approaches and gathering 

baseline data for the Perkins V core indicators of performance.

Measure 2.3.C Status: Changed

Type of Change: Fiscal year (FY) 2020 period of performance edited from school year (SY) 2019–

2020 to SY 2018–2019. Additionally, FY 2021 target decreased from 737,000 to 

589,600.

Current Title: Number of postsecondary science, technology, engineering and mathematics degrees 

and certificates conferred.

Justification: The period of performance for FY 2020 data is SY 2018–2019. This FY 2020 Annual 

Performance Report amends the period of performance in the FY 2019 Annual 

Performance Report to SY 2017–2018. Additionally, social distancing requirements 

implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic have affected postsecondary 

institutions’ in-class learning, resulting into a shift to virtual learning, which has had 

a direct impact on students without broadband access. 

Measure 2.4.H Status: Changed

Type of Change: Increase fiscal year (FY) 2021 target from 100,000 to 500,000.

Current Title: Number of users of “Aidan,” the StudentAid.gov virtual assistant.

Justification: The FY 2020 actual result significantly exceeded the FY 2020 target. It is expected 

that the use of the virtual assistance, “Aidan,” will continue to grow.

Measure 2.5.C Status: New

Type of Change: New measure added for performance period of March 27, 2020–December 31, 2020.

Current Title: Percentage of eligible borrowers placed on a 0 percent interest rate.

Justification: In accordance with the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act

Section 3513, interest shall not accrue on a loan described under subsection for 

which a payment was suspended for the period of the suspension. As a result, 

eligible borrowers who have active loans (i.e., loans with balances) have been placed 

on a 0 percent interest rate.
Appendix B. Performance Measure and Metric Target Changes 157

Measure 2.5.D Status: New

Type of Change: New measure added for performance period of March 27, 2020–December 31, 2020.

Current Title: Percentage of involuntary payments refunded.

Justification: In accordance with the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act

Section 3513, during the period in which the Secretary suspends payments on a loan, 

the Secretary shall suspend all involuntary collection related to the loan. As a result, 

borrowers who had Treasury Offset Program/Administrative Wage Garnishment 

payment involuntarily taken on their defaulted account were refunded those 

payments. 

Measure 2.5.E Status: New

Type of Change: New measure added for Quarters 2 and 3 of fiscal year 2020.

Current Title: Percentage of initial borrower notifications completed.

Justification: In accordance with the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act

Section 3513, borrowers must be informed of the actions taken in accordance with 

this section and ensure an effective transition. The Department was required to 

inform borrowers of their loan being placed in administrative forbearance and that 

interest would be suspended during the forbearance period. 

Strategic Goal 3: Strengthen the quality, accessibility and 

use of education data through better management, increased 

privacy protections and transparency.

Measure 3.1.A Status: Changed

Type of Change: Measure identifier changed from 3.1.C to 3.1.A in fiscal year (FY) 2020.

Current Title: Percentage of principal offices assessed as having higher data maturity year over 

year based on the Department’s data maturity assessment tool.

Justification: This measure identifier changed from 3.1.C to 3.1.A in FY 2020. No other changes 

were made.

Measure 3.2.C Status: Changed

Type of Change: Measure title changed for fiscal year 2021. 

Original Title: Percentage of local educational agency (LEA) websites from a statistically 

representative sample reviewed for inclusion of transparency best practices and 

compliance with legal requirements relating to third-party contracting.

Current Title: Percentage of local educational agency (LEA) websites from a statistically 

representative sample reviewed for inclusion of transparency best practices.

Justification: This metric captures the Study Privacy Policy Office’s (SPPO’s) review of LEA 

websites that SPPO conducts to better understand LEA practices and potentially 

inform future SPPO best practices. However, the original language (compliance 

with legal requirements) has given the impression that the purpose of the measure is 

to evaluate LEAs’ compliance or to enforce specific requirements. The title change 

will retain the existing measure while removing the unnecessary and misleading 

language about its purpose. The title change will not result in a new way to calculate 

the metric target results.
158 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Measure 3.3.A Status: Changed

Type of Change: Measure identifier changed from 3.3.D to 3.3.A in fiscal year (FY) 2020.

Current Title: Number of data assets listed in a comprehensive data inventory that are made 

available to the Federal Data Catalogue with official determinations regarding 

“open-by default” requirements.

Justification: This measure identifier changed from 3.1.C to 3.3.A in FY 2020. No other changes 

were made.

Strategic Goal 4: Reform the effectiveness, efficiency and 

accountability of the Department.

Measure 4.1.E Status: Removed

Type of Change: Removed for fiscal year 2020 forward.

Original Title: Total incremental cost of all Executive Order (EO) 13771 regulatory actions and 

EO 13771 deregulatory actions (including costs or cost savings carried over from 

previous fiscal years).

Justification: The Department needs to establish the level of performance to be achieved 

during a performance period. The timeline for regulatory processes, including the 

development of regulatory impact analyses, makes it challenging to establish timely 

targets for gauging performance.

Measure 4.3.A Status: Changed

Type of Change: Methodology changed for determining information technology security functions’ 

maturity level to reflect the actual risk posture of the Department.

Original Title: Percentage of the Department’s information technology (IT) security functions that 

improved at least one maturity level.

Justification: The Department revised its methodology for assessing this measure to encompass 

composite scoring that provides a more thorough, accurate, and timely view of 

cybersecurity performance across the Department.
Appendix C. Programs by Goal 159

Programs by Goal

Appendix C

Strategic Goal 1: Support state and local efforts to improve 

learning outcomes for all P-12 students in every community.

Goal 1 Other Discretionary Programs and Activities

POC ACCT Objective Program

IES IES 1.4, 2.2 Regional Educational Laboratories

IES IES 1.2, 2.2 Special Education Studies and Evaluations

OESE ED 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies 

OESE ED 1.2, 1.4 Comprehensive Literacy Development Grants 

OESE ED 1.2 State Agency Programs: Migrant 

OESE ED 1.2 State Agency Programs: Neglected and Delinquent

OESE ED 1.2, 2.1 Special Programs for Migrant Students 

OESE IA 1.2 Impact Aid, Payments for Federally Connected Children: 

Basic Support Payments 

OESE IA 1.2 Impact Aid, Payments for Federally Connected Children: 

Payments for Children with Disabilities 

OESE IA 1.2 Impact Aid, Facilities Maintenance 

OESE IA 1.2 Impact Aid, Construction 

OESE IA 1.2 Impact Aid, Payments for Federal Property 

OESE IE 1.2 Indian Education: Grants to Local Educational Agencies 

OESE IE 1.2 Indian Education: Special Programs for Indian Children 

OESE IE 1.2 Indian Education: National Activities 

OESE I&I 1.3, 1.4 Education Innovation and Research

OESE I&I 1.2, 1.4 Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants 

OESE I&I 1.1, 1.2 Charter Schools Grants 

OESE I&I 1.1, 1.2 Magnet Schools Assistance 

OESE I&I 1.2, 1.4 Innovative Approaches to Literacy

OESE I&I 1.2 Full-Service Community Schools

OESE I&I 1.2 American History and Civics Education 

OESE I&I 1.2, 2.3 Teacher Quality Partnership 

OESE I&I 1.2, 1.4 Supporting Effective Educator Development

OESE I&I 1.2 Ready to Learn Programming

OESE I&I 1.2 Arts in Education

OESE I&I 1.2 Javits Gifted and Talented Education
160 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

POC ACCT Objective Program

OESE I&I 1.2, 1.4 Statewide Family Engagement Centers 

OESE SIP 1.2, 1.4 State Assessments 

OESE SIP 1.2, 1.4 Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants 

OESE SIP 1.2, 1.4 21st Century Community Learning Centers 

OESE SIP 1.2 Education for Homeless Children and Youth Education 

OESE SIP 1.2 Native Hawaiian Education

OESE SIP 1.2 Alaska Native Education

OESE SIP 1.2 Training and Advisory Services 

OESE SIP 1.2 Rural Education 

OESE SIP 1.2 Supplemental Education Grants 

OESE SIP 1.2 Comprehensive Centers 

OESE SIP 1.2 Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants 

OESE SSCE 1.2 School Safety National Activities

OESE SSCE 1.2 Promise Neighborhoods 

OESE/OLEA ELA 1.2 English Language Acquisition 

OSERS SE 1.1, 1.2, 1.4 Special Education Grants to States 

OSERS SE 1.1, 1.2 Preschool Grants 

OSERS SE 1.1 Grants for Infants and Families 

OSERS SE 1.1, 1.2, 1.4 Technical Assistance and Dissemination 

OSERS SE 1 Parent Information Centers 

OSERS SE 1.3 Education Technology, Media, and Materials 

OSERS SE 1.2 Special Olympics Education Programs 

OCTAE CTAE 1.3, 2.1 Adult Basic and Literacy Education State Grants 

OCTAE CTAE 1.3, 2.1 Adult Education National Leadership Activities 

Acronyms and Definitions:

POC = Principal Operating Component; ACCT = Account; IES = Institute of Education Sciences; OESE = Office of Elementary 

and Secondary Education; ED = U.S. Department of Education; IA = Impact Aid; IE = Indian Education; I&I = Innovation and 

Improvement; SIP = Strengthening Institutions Program; SSCE = Safe Schools and Citizenship Education; OELA = Office of 

English Language Acquisition; ELA = English Language Acquisition; OSERS = Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services; SE = Special Education; OCTAE = Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education; and CTAE = Career, Technical 

and Adult Education. 

Mandatory Programs Supporting Goal 1

No additional programs.
Appendix C. Programs by Goal 161

Strategic Goal 2: Expand postsecondary educational 

opportunities, improve outcomes to foster economic 

opportunity and promote an informed, thoughtful and 

productive citizenry.

Goal 2 Other Discretionary Programs and Activities

POC ACCT Objective Program

FSA DM/SAA N/A Student Aid Administration: Salaries and Expenses 

FSA DM/SAA N/A Student Aid Administration: Servicing Activities

FSA SFA 2.1, 2.3 Federal Pell Grants: Discretionary 

FSA SFA 2.1, 2.3 Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants 

FSA SFA 2.1, 2.3 Federal Work-Study 

IES IES 1.4, 2.2 Regional Educational Laboratories 

IES IES 1.2, 2.2 Special Education Studies and Evaluations

OCTAE CTAE 2.1, 2.3 Career and Technical Education State Grants 

OCTAE CTAE 2.1, 2.4 Career and Technical National Programs 

OCTAE CTAE 1.3, 2.1 Adult Basic and Literacy Education State Grants 

OCTAE CTAE 1.3, 2.1 Adult Education National Leadership Activities 

OCATE HE 2.1 Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Career and Technical 

Institutions 

OESE ED 1.2, 2.1 Special Programs for Migrant Students 

OESE I&I 1.2, 2.3 Teacher Quality Partnership 

OPE HE 2.1 Strengthening HBCUs 

OPE HE 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 Federal TRIO Programs

OPE HE 2.1, 2.2 Aid for Institutional Development: Strengthening Institutions

OPE HE 2.1 Aid for Institutional Development: Strengthening Tribally 

Controlled Colleges and Universities 

OPE HE 2.1 Strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving 

Institutions 

OPE HE 2.1 Strengthening Historically Black Graduate Institutions 

OPE HE 2.1 Strengthening HBCU Master’s Program 

OPE HE 2.1 Strengthening Predominately Black Institutions 

OPE HE 2.1 Strengthening Asian American- and Native American Pacific 

Islander-Serving Institutions 

OPE HE 2.1 Strengthening Native American-Serving Nontribal 

Institutions 

OPE HE 2.2, 2.3 Minority Science and Engineering Improvement 

OPE HE 2.1 Aid for Hispanic-Serving Institutions: Developing HispanicServing Institutions 

OPE HE 2,1 Aid for Hispanic-Serving Institutions: Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans
162 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

POC ACCT Objective Program

OPE HE 2.1 International Education and Foreign Language Studies: 

Domestic Programs 

OPE HE 2.1 International Education and Foreign Language Studies: 

Overseas Programs 

OPE HE 2.1 Model Transition Programs for Students with Intellectual 

Disabilities into Higher Education

OPE HE 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate 

Programs (GEAR UP)

OPE HE 2.3 Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need 

OPE HE 2.1 Childcare Access Means Parents in School 

OPE HE 2.1, 2.3 Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education

OPE HE 2.1 Howard University: General Support 

OPE HE 2.1 Howard University Hospital 

OPE HE N/A College Housing and Academic Facilities Loans Program 

Account: Federal Administration 

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 — Historically Black College and University Capital Financing 

Program Account: Modification of Existing Loan Subsidies

OSERS APH 2.1, 2.3 American Printing House for the Blind 

OSERS GU 2,1, 2.3 Gallaudet University

OSERS NTID 2.1, 2.2 National Technical Institute for the Deaf

OSERS REHAB 2.1 Client Assistance State Grants 

OSERS REHAB 2.1, 2.2 VR Training 

OSERS REHAB 2.1, 2.2 Demonstration and Training Programs 

OSERS REHAB 2.1 Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights 

OSERS REHAB 2.1, 2.3 Supported Employment State Grants 

OSERS REHAB 2.2 Independent Living Services for Older Blind Individuals 

OSERS REHAB 2.2 Helen Keller National Center for Deaf-Blind Youths and 

Adults 

OSERS SE 2 State Personnel Development 

OSERS SE 2 Personnel Preparation 

Acronyms and Definitions:

POC = Principal Operating Component; ACCT = Account; FSA = Office of Federal Student Aid; DM = Departmental 

Management; SAA = Student Aid Administration; N/A = Not Applicable; SFA = Student Financial Assistance; IES = Institute 

of Education Sciences; OCTAE = Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education; CTAE = Career, Technical, and Adult 

Education; HE = Higher Education; OESE = Office of Elementary and Secondary Education; ED = U.S. Department of 

Education; I&I = Innovation and Improvement; OPE = Office of Postsecondary Education; HBCU = Historically Black College 

and University; OSERS = Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; — = not available; APH = American Printing 

House for the Blind; GU = Gallaudet University; NTID = National Technical Institute for the Deaf; REHAB = Rehabilitation 

Services and Disability Research; VR = Vocational Rehabilitation; and SE = Special Education.
Appendix C. Programs by Goal 163

Mandatory Programs Supporting Goal 2

POC ACCT Objective Program

FSA FDSL 2.1, 2.3 Federal Direct Student Loans Program Account: New Loan 

Subsidies

FSA FDSL 2.1, 2.3 Federal Direct Student Loans Program Account: New Net 

Loan Subsidy (non-add)

FSA FDSL 2.1, 2.3 Federal Direct Student Loans Program Account: Upward 

Reestimate of Existing Loans

FSA FDSL 2.1, 2.3 Federal Direct Student Loans Program Account: Downward 

Reestimate of Existing Loans (non-add)

FSA FDSL 2.1, 2.3 Federal Direct Student Loans Program Account: Net 

Reestimate of Existing Loans (non-add)

FSA FDSL 2.1, 2.3 Federal Direct Student Loans Program Account: Upward 

Modification of Existing Loans

FSA FFEL 2.1 Federal Family Education Loans Program Account: Upward 

Reestimate of Existing Loans

FSA FFEL 2.1 Federal Family Education Loans Program Account: 

Downward Reestimate of Existing Loans (non-add)

FSA FFEL 2.1 Federal Family Education Loans Program Account: Net 

Reestimate of Existing Loans (non-add)

FSA FFEL 2.1 Federal Family Education Loans Program Account: Upward 

Modification of Existing Loans

FSA FFEL 2.1 Federal Family Education Loans Program Account: 

Downward Modification of Existing Loans (non-add)

FSA FFEL 2.1 Federal Family Education Loans Program Account: Net 

Modification of Existing Loans (non-add)

FSA FFEL 2.1 Federal Family Education Loans Liquidating Account: 

Pre-1992 Student Loans

FSA HEAL 2.1 Health Education Assistance Loans Liquidating Account 

FSA SFA 2.1, 2.3 Federal Pell Grants: Mandatory 

FSA SFA 2.1, 2.3 Federal Pell Grants: Mandatory Funding for Discretionary 

Program Costs 

FSA SFA 2.1, 2.3 Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grants 

FSA TEACH 2.1, 2.3 TEACH Grants: New Loan Subsidy

FSA TEACH 2.1, 2.3 TEACH Grants: Upward Reestimate of Existing Loans 

FSA TEACH 2.1, 2.3 TEACH Grants: Downward Reestimate of Existing Loans 

(non-add) 

FSA TEACH 2.1, 2.3 TEACH Grants: Net Reestimate of Existing Loans (non-add) 

OPE HE 2.1 Aid for Institutional Development: Mandatory Strengthening 

Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities 

OPE HE 2.1 Mandatory Strengthening Alaska Native and Native 

Hawaiian-Serving Institutions 

OPE HE 2.1 Mandatory Strengthening HBCUs 

OPE HE 2.1 Mandatory Strengthening Predominantly Black Institutions 
164 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

POC ACCT Objective Program

OPE HE 2.1 Mandatory Strengthening Asian American- and Native 

American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions 

OPE HE 2.1 Mandatory Strengthening Native American-Serving Nontribal 

Institutions 

OPE HE 2.1, 2.2 Aid for Hispanic-Serving Institutions: Mandatory Developing 

HSI STEM and Articulation Programs 

OPE HE N/A College Housing and Academic Facilities Loans Program 

Account: Reestimate of Existing Loan Subsidies 

OPE HE N/A College Housing and Academic Facilities Loans Liquidating 

Account 

OPE HE N/A Historically Black College and University Capital Financing 

Program Account: Reestimate of Existing Loan Subsidies

OPE HE N/A Higher Education Facilities Loans Liquidating Account 

OPE HE N/A College Housing Loans Liquidating Account 

OSERS REHAB 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 Vocational Rehabilitation, State Grants 

OSERS REHAB 2.1 Vocational Rehabilitation, Grants to Indians 

SFA — 2.1 Perkins Loan Repayments 

SFA — N/A FDSL Downward Reestimate of Loan Subsidies

SFA — N/A FDSL Downward Modification/Negative Loan Subsidies

SFA — N/A FFEL Downward Reestimate of Loan Subsidies

SFA — N/A FFEL Downward Modification/Negative Loan Subsidies

SFA — N/A Student Financial Assistance Debt Collection 

Acronyms and Definitions:

POC = Principal Operating Component; ACCT = Account; FSA = Federal Student Aid; FDSL = Federal Direct Student Loan; 

FFEL = Federal Family Education Loan; HEAL = Health Education Assistance Loan; SFA = Student Financial Assistance; 

TEACH = Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education; OPE = Office of Postsecondary Education; HE 

= Higher Education; HBCU = Historically Black College and University; HSI STEM = Hispanic Serving Institution Science, 

Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Articulation Program; N/A = Not Applicable; OSERS = Office of Special Education 

and Rehabilitative Services; REHAB = Rehabilitation Services and Disability Research; and — = not available.
Appendix C. Programs by Goal 165

Strategic Goal 3: Strengthen the quality, accessibility, and 

use of education data through better management, increased 

privacy protections and transparency.

Goal 3 Other Discretionary Programs and Activities

POC ACCT Objective Program

IES IES 3.3 Research, Development, and Dissemination 

IES IES 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 Statistics 

IES IES 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 National Assessment

Acronyms and Definitions:

POC = Principal Operating Component; ACCT = Account; and IES = Institute of Education Sciences.

Mandatory Programs Supporting Goal 3

No additional programs.

Strategic Goal 4: Reform the effectiveness, efficiency and 

accountability of the Department.

Goal 4 Other Discretionary Programs and Activities

POC ACCT Objective Program

All DM/PA N/A Program Administration: Salaries and Expenses

OCR OCR N/A Office for Civil Rights

OIG OIG N/A Office of Inspector General

Acronyms and Definitions:

POC = Principal Operating Component; ACCT = Account; DM/PA = Departmental Management/Program Administration; 

N/A = Not Applicable; OCR = Office for Civil Rights; and OIG = Office of Inspector General.

Mandatory Programs Supporting Goal 4

No additional programs.
This page is intentionally left blank.
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 167

Summary of Performance Evaluations Completed During 

FY 2020 and Expected During FY 2021 and FY 2022

Appendix D

Appendix D summarizes findings from National Center for Education Evaluation and 

Regional Assistance evaluations completed by the Department during fiscal year (FY) 2020. 

It also details key features of evaluations with products that are expected to be released 

during FY 2021 and FY 2022.

National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional 

Assistance Evaluations Completed in FY 2020

School Improvement

Impact Evaluation of Parent Messaging Strategies on Student Attendance

Study Purpose

Student attendance is a consistent and strong predictor of student success, even in the early 

school years. Yet, particularly in low-income communities, a quarter of all students in 

kindergarten through third grade are chronically absent (defined as missing 10 percent or 

more of school days). One potential way to improve attendance in the early grades, while 

also accounting for limited district budgets, is to use text messaging. This evaluation examined the impact of such a strategy on attendance and achievement among 26,000 elementary 

school students. Specifically, the evaluation tested a strategy that began with low-cost, 

low-burden reminders and notifications to parents and then “adapted” such that parents of 

students who continued to be frequently absent received additional intensified messaging.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What is the impact on student attendance of using text messaging to provide parents with basic information related to attendance? Is it better for the messages to 

emphasize the benefits of regular attendance or the consequences of missing school?

• For parents who do not respond to the lower-cost, basic messages, which higher-cost, intensified messages work better to improve attendance—one that includes 

direct outreach from school staff or one that uses automated methods to improve 

motivation and behavioral skills?

• Do the four combinations of fall and spring messages (i.e., the four adaptive versions 

of the messaging strategy) have effects on end-of-year attendance and achievement 

when compared to each other and to business-as-usual?

• How is the messaging strategy implemented and what are its costs?
168 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Design

The evaluation used a sequential, multiple assignment, randomized trial design to measure the effectiveness of two “basic” messaging approaches in the fall, two “intensified” 

approaches in the spring, and the four resulting versions of the overall adaptive messaging 

strategy during the entire school year. In the fall, the study team randomly assigned families within 108 elementary schools in four large purposively selected urban districts to 

receive one of two types of basic messages or to the “business-as-usual” condition. The 

basic messages emphasized either the benefits of regular attendance or the consequences 

of missing school and included same-day notifications when children missed school. 

During the spring, parents who were “responsive” (i.e., had children with low absence 

rates) continued receiving their basic messages. Parents who were “non-responsive” were 

re-randomized to receive intensified messages that consisted of either school staff directly 

texting parents or frequent automated messages that encouraged parents to commit to perfect attendance goals.

Information gathered from extant district records were collected to examine the impact of 

the overall strategy on student attendance and achievement. Information gathered from the 

text messaging vendor and a brief school staff log were used to assess how well the intervention was implemented and to examine its costs.

Key Findings

• All four versions of the adaptive text messaging strategy reduced chronic absence. 

The messaging lowered the expected chronic absence rate by 2 to 7 percentage 

points, with the larger reduction for students with a prior history of high absence.

• The two approaches to basic messaging were similarly effective at reducing chronic 

absence, but one approach to intensified messaging was better than the other for certain students. The basic messaging focused on either the benefits of attending school 

or the consequences of being absent—both approaches were equally effective. But 

for those that received intensified messaging and had a prior history of high absence, 

having school staff directly text parents reduced chronic absence rates in the spring 

more than the other more automated intensified approach.

• The text messaging strategy did not improve achievement. The reading and mathematics achievement of students in grades 3 through 5 was similar for students whose 

parents did and did not receive text messages during the year the text messaging 

was under way.

Actual Completion Date

A report, titled Can Texting Parents Improve Attendance in Elementary School? A Test of 

an Adaptive Messaging Strategy, was released in September 2020.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/other_messaging.asp#
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 169

Implementation of Title I/Title II, Part A Program Initiatives

Study Purpose

Each time the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) is reauthorized, there is 

a shift in federal policies related to K–12 schooling, including in ESEA’s two core programs. Accounting for about $19 billion of $26 billion in ESEA funds in FY 2020, Title 

I and Title II, Part A encourage equal access to education by providing financial assistance to schools and districts with a high percentage of students from low-income families 

(Title I) and by improving teacher and principal quality (Title II, Part A).

ESEA’s latest reauthorization as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in 2015 shifts 

authority over many education decisions and rules from the Department to states and 

localities. The new law also retains some federal requirements from prior versions of ESEA 

to help ensure that states focus on providing a high-quality education to disadvantaged students. How states and localities respond to this combination of flexibility and requirements 

will determine whether ESSA stimulates educational improvement as intended.

This study provides a national portrait of Title I and Title II, Part A implementation at 

several key time points, including:

• School year (SY) 2013–2014, when the Department had already begun to provide states with waivers from key requirements under ESSA’s predecessor, the No 

Child Left Behind Act, in exchange for commitments to specific reform principles, 

colloquially known as “ESEA flexibility.”

• SY 2017–2018, when the Department approved most states’ ESSA plans, marking 

a transition year to fully implementing ESSA’s core components.

• SY 2020–2021, the first full school year following the initial COVID-19 pandemic, 

which may affect state and local plans for implementing ESSA.

• SY 2021–2022, when ESSA implementation is expected to be in a more mature 

phase.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What content standards and high school graduation requirements are states adopting, 

and what materials and resources are provided to support implementation?

• What types of assessments do states and districts use, and what materials and 

resources are provided to support the implementation of assessments and use of 

assessment data?

• What elements are included in states’ accountability systems? How do states and 

districts identify and support their lowest-performing schools?

• How do states and districts evaluate educator effectiveness and assess equitable distribution of educators, and what supports are provided to improve educator effectiveness?

• How has student achievement changed over time?
170 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Design

National data will be collected at times that correspond to the key points described in the 

Study Purpose section. In any year, these data may include surveys of all state Title I and 

Title II coordinators and nationally representative samples of districts, schools, and teachers. 

The evaluation also draws on existing data, such as state-level student academic proficiency 

that states report to the Department, state-level mathematics and reading achievement data 

from the Department’s National Assessment of Educational Progress, and information from 

ESSA state plans.

Responses to survey questions will be tabulated into descriptive statistics (such as 

percentages) and simple statistical tests (such as tests for differences between percentages). 

These tabulations provide a snapshot at each time point as well as aggregate changes over 

time. The study is descriptive and not designed to estimate the impact of federal policies 

on state and local actions. 

Key Findings

From a snapshot describing state and district support for evidence use in lowest-performing 

schools based on data collected during SY 2017–2018 (transition to ESSA):

• Most states pointed districts and schools to evidence on improvement strategies, 

but few required schools to choose from an approved strategy list. Most states used 

approaches that included providing information directly, making referrals to organizations that rate evidence, and setting grant funding criteria to incentivize evidence.

• Most districts (9 in 10) reported that evidence of effectiveness was a “very important” 

consideration when choosing improvement strategies. But the evidence districts 

relied on probably varies in quality. Most districts reported obtaining information 

on improvement strategies from peers and vendors, while fewer got information 

from sources designed to rate and share evidence.

From the first report based on data collected during SY 2013–2014 (prior to ESSA):

• Most states adopted and most principals and teachers reported implementing 

state standards that focused on college and career readiness. All but one state had 

committed to implementing college- and career-ready standards by SY 2013–2014.

• Many state assessments incorporated more sophisticated response formats to better 

assess students’ college and career readiness. Depending on grade level, 24 to 

36 states reported using extended constructed-response assessment formats to assess 

higher-order thinking skills in reading/English language arts; 19 states reported 

doing so in mathematics.

• States used ESEA flexibility to reset their accountability goals and target a narrower set of schools for additional support. States with ESEA flexibility identified 

15 percent of Title I schools as either lowest performing or as having substantial 
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 171

student achievement gaps. In non-flexibility states, 43 percent of Title I schools 

were identified as lowest performing.

• Almost all states adopted new laws or regulations related to educator evaluation 

systems between 2009 and 2014, and most districts reported full or partial implementation in SY 2013–2014. However, few districts reported using evaluation 

system measures consistent with emerging research.

• Proficiency rates on the National Assessment of Educational Progress slightly 

increased from 2005 to 2015, with the largest increases in 4th and 8th grades 

and smaller or no increases in 12th grade. Overall proficiency rates increased by 

4 to 5 percentage points in 4th and 8th grade reading and mathematics and by 

2 percentage points in 12th grade reading.

• Additional reports and snapshots are anticipated based on the data collected during 

SY 2017–2018, SY 2020–2021, and SY 2021–2022. The key findings will be 

updated when those products are released.

Actual Completion Date

A snapshot, titled How States and Districts Support Evidence Use in School Improvement, 

was released in June 2020.

The first report, titled Implementation of Title I and II-A Program Initiatives: Results from 

2013–14, was released in January 2017.

The second report, which will be based on data collected during SY 2017–2018 (to inform the 

transition to ESSA), is expected in 2020 and will be announced on https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/.

A restricted-use file containing de-identified data is available for the purposes of replicating 

study findings and secondary analysis.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/other_titleI.asp#

Teachers and Leaders

Impact Evaluation of Support for Principals

Study Purpose

Title II, Part A of ESEA provides funding to improve the quality and effectiveness of 

educators. The program includes a broad array of allowable activities for principals and 

teachers, such as intensive professional development. Helping principals improve their 

leadership practices is one way to improve instruction and student achievement. This 

evaluation assesses one approach to supporting principals’ instructional leadership—

primarily through principals conducting structured observations of teachers’ classroom 

instruction and providing targeted feedback based on those observations.
172 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What are the professional development experiences of principals?

• What are the initial impacts on school climate and educator behaviors of providing 

principals structured and intensive professional development?

• What are the impacts on teacher and principal retention and student achievement 

of providing principals with structured and intensive professional development?

Design

Within 10 districts, the study team randomly assigned a total of 100 elementary schools to 

receive the professional development program or not. All principals continued to have access 

to any regular district-provided professional development. The University of Washington’s 

Center for Educational Leadership was competitively selected and provided the professional development program during SY 2015–2016 and SY 2016–2017. The professional 

development supported principals’ instructional leadership—primarily through principals conducting structured observations of teachers’ classroom instruction and providing 

targeted feedback based on those observations.

Data collection in both years of implementation includes information about the professional 

development delivered and experienced by the principals participating in the intervention; 

teacher and principal surveys and periodic logs of principal daily activities to document 

intermediate outcomes such as principal behaviors and school climate; and administrative 

records to document teacher retention and student outcomes, such as achievement, behavior, 

and attendance.

Key Findings

• Principals’ practices did not change in ways intended by the program. Although the 

program was implemented as planned, principals did not increase the number of 

times they observed teachers. In fact, teachers whose principals received the professional development reported receiving less frequent instructional support and 

feedback than teachers whose principals did not receive the professional development. In addition, teachers whose principals received the program were no more 

likely to report positive perceptions of the usefulness of the feedback provided.

• The program did not improve students’ achievement. On average, students had 

similar achievement in English language arts and mathematics whether they 

were in schools that received the principal professional development or not. 

Students in each group scored near the 40th percentile on their state assessments in each subject.

Actual Completion Date

The study report, titled The Effects of a Principal Professional Development Program 

Focused on Instructional Leadership, was released in October 2019.
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 173

A study snapshot on principal time use is expected in 2021 and will be announced on 

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_principals.asp#

Technical Assistance to Evaluators or States

Evaluation of the Comprehensive Technical Assistance Centers for FY 2012 

Grantees

Study Purpose

The Comprehensive Technical Assistance Centers is a federal grant program authorized 

under the Educational Technical Assistance Act of 2002. The purpose of the Centers is to 

help state educational agencies (SEAs) build capacity to implement state-level initiatives 

and to support district- and school-level initiatives that improve educational outcomes for 

all students, close achievement gaps, and improve the quality of instruction. As of 2018, 

there were 15 regional centers that provided technical assistance to specific states and 

7 content centers that provided content-area expertise in seven topics: standards and assessments implementation, great teachers and leaders, school turnaround, enhancement of early 

learning outcomes, college- and career-readiness and success, building of state capacity 

and productivity, and innovations in learning.

Since 2002, two sets of centers have been funded, one starting in FY 2005 and one starting 

in FY 2012. The 22 centers from the FY 2012 cohort received a total of nearly $350 million 

in federal funding between 2012 and 2018. The Educational Technical Assistance Act of 

2002 mandates a national evaluation of the program. The Institute of Education Sciences 

(IES) previously conducted an evaluation of the Comprehensive Technical Assistance 

Centers for FY 2005 grantees. The current evaluation focused on the FY 2012 grantees.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• How did the centers define capacity building in their theories of action?

• How did the centers assess the needs of their constituents and develop work plans 

to address those needs?

• What strategies did the centers employ to achieve their outcomes?

• To what extent and how did the centers collaborate with each other?

• What challenges did the centers face, and how did they respond?

• Did the centers achieve their expected capacity-building outcomes, and how did 

they know?

• What strategies were perceived to be most effective and why?

Design

All 22 centers were included in the sample. Data on the centers’ technical assistance 

design, implementation, and outcomes were collected over three years (from 2015 through 
174 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

2017) primarily through: (1) the centers’ work plans and technical assistance activity data; 

(2) interviews with staff from each center; (3) interviews with technical assistance recipients; (4) surveys of center staff; and (5) surveys of technical assistance recipients. This 

approach yielded rich and diverse data that were analyzed and summarized using qualitative research methods and simple quantitative tabulations.

Key Findings

• States that received technical assistance reported improvements in their capacity, 

particularly related to building knowledge and skills.

• Centers shared similar approaches to the design and implementation of their work. 

Common principles of capacity-building included fostering ownership, long-term 

change, and organizational process changes. Common strategies to implement 

these principles included thought partnering, cross-state sharing, and modeling new 

practices.

• Centers and states considered multiple forms of assistance to be instrumental to 

building capacity, including support for gathering stakeholder input on policy, strategies for navigating transitions in state leadership, and various products and tools.

• Centers and states pointed to a few areas for program improvement, including 

clarifying the role of the Centers and expected outcomes related to their work with 

local educational agencies (LEAs).

Actual Completion Date

The final report, titled National Evaluation of the Comprehensive Centers Program Final 

Report, was released in October 2019.

A restricted-use file containing de-identified data is available for the purposes of replicating study findings and secondary analysis.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/other_techcenters12.asp#

National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional 

Assistance Evaluations Expected in FY 2021 and FY 2022

Literacy and English Learners

Academic Language Impact Evaluation

Study Purpose

Academic language skills are critical supports for reading and understanding for all 

students, particularly for English learners (ELs) and disadvantaged native English speakers 

whose achievement typically lags behind their peers. For example, nationally, fourth-grade 

ELs continue to score significantly lower on reading and mathematics assessments 
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 175

compared to their non-EL counterparts. Because districts and policymakers need information 

about what works to close these gaps, this evaluation examines whether a promising 

supplemental academic language program is effective when implemented at a large scale. 

The program includes 12 two-week teaching units that introduce five to six high-frequency 

academic vocabulary words used across English language arts, mathematics, science, and 

social studies. Each unit provides students with repeated, authentic opportunities to practice 

using academic language in the classroom.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What is the impact of the academic language program on student achievement?

• What is the impact of the academic language program on classroom instruction?

• Is there variation in the implementation or impact of the program? What implementation and sample characteristics are associated with variation in impacts?

Design

The study team recruited 70 schools and randomly assigned them to either receive the 

program’s training and materials or continue their instruction as usual. Program schools 

were offered summer training and ongoing support to implement the academic language 

program with their fourth- and fifth-grade teachers and students during SY 2017–2018.

Data collection includes study-administered assessments of students’ academic language 

skills and reading comprehension, classroom observations to document the instructional 

contrast between teachers and classrooms that received the program training and those that 

did not, and administrative records to document student English proficiency and progress.

Estimated Completion Date

The study report is expected in 2021 and will be announced on http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/ell_ali.asp#

Impact Evaluation of Training in Multi-tiered Systems of Support for 

Reading in Early Elementary School

Study Purpose

A third of U.S. students fail to develop foundational reading skills by fourth grade that 

are necessary to succeed academically. In addition, the achievement gap is growing, as 

demonstrated by The Nation’s Report Card. To address these concerns, ESSA promotes 

the use of evidence-based literacy interventions. Also, the Department has made supporting educators with the knowledge, skills, professional development, and materials 

necessary to improve reading instruction a key priority. The Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA) similarly encourages high-quality instruction along with better 
176 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

identification of students needing extra support to prevent or mitigate student reading 

issues. This study will provide much-needed evidence by evaluating two professional 

development strategies for bolstering core reading instruction and supplemental supports, 

guided by data, within a multi-tiered system of support for reading (MTSS-R) framework. 

These strategies were competitively selected based on prior evidence of effectiveness. 

MTSS-R is a widely used framework for providing high-quality reading instruction for 

all students, identifying students needing supplemental or more intensive support, and 

providing the additional support for those who need it. The first strategy builds teachers’ 

knowledge in the science of reading development and provides resources and materials 

with support on when to use them. For struggling students, staff are provided and trained 

to use a supplemental reading curriculum. The second strategy trains teachers to use 

scripted lessons that complement the core reading curriculum. For struggling students, 

staff are trained to pre-teach the core reading curriculum lessons.

 Key Question(s) Addressed

• What are the impacts on student literacy for all students? What are the impacts for 

struggling students?

• What are the impacts on classroom practice in core reading instruction for all 

students and supplemental instruction for struggling students?

Design

This study provides support for two professional development strategies implemented 

in grades 1 and 2. Approximately 150 schools will be randomly assigned to one of the 

professional development strategies or a business-as-usual control group. The study’s professional development will be provided across three school years (SY 2021–2022 through 

SY 2023–2024). 

Data collection includes documentation of training delivery, a teacher survey, a reading 

specialist survey, site visits, training provider logs and fidelity data, coach logs and team 

minutes, classroom and supplemental support observations, records data for students in 

grades K–5, and individual student testing. These data will be analyzed to answer the study’s 

primary research questions. In addition, the study will include supplemental products that 

focus on practical information learned from implementing the strategies and focus on 

special topics to help practitioners understand and address students’ reading needs.

Estimated Completion Date

The first report for the study is expected in 2023 and will be announced on http://ies.

ed.gov/ncee/.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/literacy_multitiered.asp
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 177

National Evaluation of the Comprehensive Literacy State Development 

Grant Program

Study Purpose

Many U.S. students still do not acquire even basic literacy skills. Students living in poverty, 

students with disabilities, and ELs are especially at risk. For fourth graders, the National 

Assessment of Educational Progress shows a substantial gap in reading achievement 

between students from high-income families (average score at about the 65th percentile) 

and students from low-income families (average score at about the 35th percentile).

To narrow the gap in literacy between disadvantaged students and other students, in 2011, 

the federal government launched the Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy (SRCL) 

program. SRCL is a discretionary grant program authorized as part of Title III of Division 

H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 (Pub. L. No. 114-113) under the Title I 

demonstration authority (Part E, Section 1502 of ESEA). 

The most recent reauthorization of ESEA created the Comprehensive Literacy State 

Development (CLSD) program (Title I, Part B, Subpart 2, Section 2222 of ESEA as amended 

by ESSA). The CLSD program is the successor program to SRCL and will competitively 

award grants to SEAs that will then provide subgrants to LEAs and early-learning providers. 

Both the SRCL and CLSD programs intend subgrantees to implement evidence-based comprehensive literacy instruction. The ultimate goal of both programs is to advance literacy 

skills for students from birth through grade 12, with an emphasis on disadvantaged students. 

Both programs include a congressionally mandated national evaluation.

Key Question(s) Addressed

The questions to be addressed by the implementation evaluation of the SRCL program 

include:

• How do SEAs make subgrant award decisions?

• What technical assistance do SEAs provide to their subgrantees?

• How do SEAs inform continuous improvement and evaluate subgrantees’ projects?

• How do subgrantees target SRCL program awards to eligible schools and 

early-learning programs? 

• What literacy interventions and practices are used by SRCL schools and earlylearning programs? 

• To what extent are SRCL-funded practices supported by evidence?

• What are the literacy outcomes for students in SRCL schools and early learning 

programs?

The questions to be addressed by the impact design/feasibility study for CLSD include:

• Does the subgrant award process from SEAs to LEAs provide any opportunities for 

a random assignment impact evaluation design?
178 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

• What are the most policy-relevant impact questions that can be credibly answered 

about the CLSD program?

• What are the most credible and feasible study designs for each of the relevant 

impact questions?

The questions to be addressed by the optional impact evaluation of CLSD are:

• What is the impact of the CLSD program or CLSD-funded practices on classroom 

reading instruction?

• What is the impact of the CLSD program or CLSD-funded practices on student 

reading outcomes?

Design

There are three major components of this requirement: an implementation evaluation of the 

SRCL program, an impact design/feasibility study for the CLSD program, and an optional 

impact evaluation of the CLSD program.

The SRCL implementation evaluation will include grant application reviews, annual grantee 

interviews, surveys of all subgrantees in spring 2019, surveys of principals and teachers 

in a representative sample of 500 funded schools in spring 2019 and spring 2020, and a 

collection of state and local extant reading/language arts assessment data. The evaluation 

will also conduct evidence reviews of practices commonly funded by SRCL and conduct 

observations and interviews to measure classroom instruction more in-depth in a sample of 

100 classrooms in 50 schools.

The impact design/feasibility study will include interviews with up to nine SEA grantees 

and up to nine LEA subgrantees in winter 2019.

Estimated Completion Date

The first report for the study, which will summarize SRCL implementation, is expected in 

2021 and will be announced on http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/literacy_comprehensive.asp#

Pathways to Career or College

Assessing Evidence of Effectiveness in Adult Education Design Study

Study Purpose

Higher-level skills are increasingly required to succeed in the American workforce, yet many 

adults in the United States lack them. More than 25 million adults have not earned a high 

school diploma or its recognized equivalent. Even among those with at least a secondary 
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 179

credential, a lack of proficiency with the English language can be a significant barrier to a 

family-sustaining income and to full integration as citizens.

Congress has sought to help individuals address these challenges—and the nation’s workforce 

development needs—through Title II of the 2014 Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act

(WIOA). Title II authorizes funding to states that then fund local programs designed to assist 

adults in obtaining the education credentials, knowledge, and skills necessary for employment and economic self-sufficiency. Title II also mandates that the Department carry out an 

independent evaluation of adult education programs and services. Under a National Assessment of Adult Education, IES will examine the effectiveness of adult education and literacy 

activities, starting with a feasibility and design study. This feasibility and design study will 

summarize what is known about effective adult education activities and services, identify 

policy-relevant activities or services that are feasible and appropriate to evaluate rigorously, 

and present design options for evaluating those activities or services.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What is known about the effectiveness of adult education programs, activities, and 

services?

• What adult education programs, activities, and/or services are feasible to examine 

with an impact study?

• What are design options for impact studies, including the most feasible and policyrelevant counterfactual, the most feasible unit of random assignment, the required 

sample sizes, and the most credible outcome measures?

Design

A systematic evidence review will be conducted to summarize existing studies of adult 

education. The contractor will draw on the evidence review and interviews with state 

and local directors of adult education to identify a set of promising adult education activities or services that could feasibly be evaluated. The contractor will also develop study 

design options. The Department may elect to conduct up to two impact studies, beginning 

as early as 2021.

Estimated Completion Date

The systematic evidence review is expected in 2021 and will be announced on https://ies.

ed.gov/ncee/.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/pathways_evidence.asp#

Effectiveness of Promising Strategies in Federal College Access Programs: 

A Study of Financial Aid Supports for GEAR UP Students

Study Purpose

Scholarships to support college enrollment and persistence can be critical for low-income 

students, including those in high-need schools that participate in Gaining Early Awareness 
180 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP). Providing scholarships distinguishes GEAR UP from other federal college access programs, but little is known about 

how and to whom state grantees distribute the aid. The 2008 Higher Education Act (HEA) 

changed some requirements for this GEAR UP component, restricting it in some ways but 

giving states more flexibility in other ways. HEA also requires the Department to evaluate 

the scholarship component, a mandate this study will fulfill.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• To what extent do state grantee policies and practices emphasize access to scholarships for GEAR UP students?

• How do state grantees allocate their resources between scholarships and other state 

and local GEAR UP efforts? 

• What challenges do state grantees face in administering GEAR UP scholarships 

and other aspects of the program?

Design

This descriptive study will focus on interviews with state grantee project directors and scholarship administrators, if relevant, who oversee approximately 42 state GEAR UP grants. 

The interviews will begin later in 2020. Data on the total number of students receiving 

scholarships and scholarship amounts will also be collected. These data will be analyzed 

to address the study’s three research questions.

Estimated Completion Date

The first report for the study is expected in 2022 and will be announced on https://ies.

ed.gov/ncee/.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/pathways_gearupscholarship.asp#

Effectiveness of Promising Strategies in Federal College Access Programs: 

Study of College Transition Text Messaging in GEAR UP

Study Purpose

The complex process of applying to, enrolling in, and staying in college is one of many 

barriers to postsecondary success that low-income students face. Emerging research suggested that customized text message reminders that also connect students to advisors could 

help. This demonstration evaluated a promising text messaging strategy that addressed hurdles that are both procedural—registering, making course selection, making tuition payments, 

getting to office hours, refiling Free Application for Federal Student Aid® (FAFSA®)—

and psychological, such as concerns about fitting in and doing well. The strategy was offered 

to seniors in a group of high schools participating in GEAR UP, a Department college access 

program that serves students in high-need schools beginning in seventh grade. The messaging helped the schools take advantage of a new opportunity, introduced in the 2008 

amendments to HEA, for GEAR UP grantees to support a first year of college transition.
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 181

Key Question(s) Addressed

• Does the text messaging and advisor support improve students’ rates of college 

enrollment and persistence?

• For which types of students is the strategy more or less beneficial?

Design

The demonstration recruited high schools in GEAR UP that were the first eligible to support a year of post-high school services. Across about 80 schools, almost 5,000 seniors in 

SY 2015–2016 or SY 2016–2017 were randomly assigned to receive the college transition 

services grantees originally proposed in their applications or those services plus the personalized reminders and advisor support through text messages. Reminders and support 

began at the end of students’ high school senior year and continued into the spring of their 

expected first year of college. The study team administered a survey before the reminder 

messaging began to collect information on students’ experiences with college advising and 

their intended college (so that the messages could be tailored to individual schools’ deadlines and requirements). College enrollment and persistence, as well as FAFSA® renewal, 

were tracked into students’ expected second year of college using administrative records.

Estimated Completion Date

The report for the study is expected in early 2021 and will be announced on https://ies.

ed.gov/ncee/.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/pathways_gearup.asp#

Effectiveness of Promising Strategies in Federal College Access Programs: 

Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Study Purpose

Growing concern over college enrollment, completion, and costs has heightened interest 

in how to help low-income students, including those in college access programs funded by 

the Department. One concern is the extent of “under-matching,” when high school students 

fail to enroll in any postsecondary program or in a college that is well aligned with their 

qualifications and talents. This study tested whether adding a low-cost, enhanced college 

advising approach into the federal Upward Bound program improves students’ college fit 

and persistence. The approach included customized packages with information about college-going and costs, text messaging of key application and financial aid deadlines tailored 

to students’ intended choice, and specialized training for the students’ advisors. The study 

fulfills a requirement in the 2008 Higher Education Opportunity Act to conduct a rigorous 

“promising practices” study.
182 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Key Question(s) Addressed

• Can the enhanced college advising approach increase the number of colleges to 

which students apply, the quality/selectivity of the colleges in which they enroll, 

and their persistence in college? 

• In what types of grantees is this approach most effective and with what types of 

students?

Design

About 200 Upward Bound grantees that volunteered were randomly assigned in spring 

2015 so that half were able to use the enhanced advising materials and training with 

their rising SY 2015–2016 seniors and half were not (though they did receive access to 

the enhanced advising later). In both sets of grantees, the evaluation team administered 

surveys to the rising SY 2015–2016 seniors in spring 2015 (end of junior year) before 

grantees were randomly assigned and then again in spring 2016 (end of senior year) to 

collect information about their college plans. The evaluation assessed the impacts of 

the enhanced advising on (1) early indicators, such as the number of college applications submitted and students’ completion of the FAFSA® and (2) if and where students 

enrolled in college (college “fit” or “match”) and whether they were still enrolled after 

three years.

Estimated Completion Date

The final report for the study is expected in 2021 and will be announced on https://ies.

ed.gov/ncee/.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/pathways_upward.asp

Evaluations of Federal Financial Aid Information and Delivery Strategies: 

An Experiment Requiring Additional Loan Counseling for Student Borrowers

Study Purpose

Roughly two out of three students take out loans to pay for college, requiring them to make 

consequential decisions about how much to borrow and which type of loans. But many students lack the financial knowledge and skills to make good choices, underscored by the 

more than 500,000 who default on their loans each year. Colleges can only require federal loan borrowers to complete short, one-time counseling before receiving their loans 

(“entrance”) and when they leave school (“exit”). To help these borrowers manage their 

debt, Federal Student Aid (FSA), under the Experimental Sites Initiative authorized by 

Section 487A(b) of HEA of 1965, is allowing colleges to require student borrowers to participate in additional annual loan counseling in the years between the already mandated 

entrance and exit counseling. IES is assessing the effectiveness of these waivers on students’ 

borrowing and college progress and, later, loan repayment.
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 183

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What types of colleges participated in the Loan Counseling Experiment, and what 

kinds of additional loan counseling did they require?

• Are student borrowers who receive three years of additional loan counseling more 

likely than their peers who do not receive additional loan counseling to take loans 

with better terms, borrow an affordable amount, and persist in college?

• Do the effects of requiring three years of additional loan counseling vary by key characteristics of the students, the colleges they attend, or the kind of counseling provided?

Design

A total of 35 colleges volunteered to participate in the Loan Counseling Experiment. These 

schools estimated identifying approximately 100,000 students who were eligible to participate in the experiment between the 2017–2018 and 2018–2019 financial aid award years. 

Students were randomly assigned to either complete the additional required loan counseling 

(once per year) or not complete any additional counseling. Participating colleges had discretion over the content, and delivery of the loan counseling they could require, and report 

on it through an annual survey conducted by FSA. Students’ borrowing and school progress will be measured using administrative records from FSA. These data will be analyzed 

to address the evaluation’s three research questions.

Estimated Completion Date

The first report for the study is expected in 2021 and will be announced on https://ies.

ed.gov/ncee/.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/pathways_loancounseling.asp#

Evaluation of the Pell Grant Experiments Under the Experimental Sites 

Initiative

Study Purpose

Federal Pell grants are considered the foundation of higher education financial aid for 

low-income students. However, under current rules, otherwise income-eligible students 

who already have a bachelor’s degree (BA) or who want to enroll in short-term (less than 

15 weeks and 600 hours) programs are restricted from obtaining these grants. Given unemployment rates above 8.5 percent in 2011 and reports of unfilled openings for skilled jobs in 

some occupations, postsecondary institutions called for expanding Pell grants to help fill the 

skill training gap for low-income workers. In response, FSA, under the Experimental Sites 

Initiative authorized by Section 487A(b) of HEA of 1965, is conducting demonstrations to 

test the impacts of eliminating the BA restriction (Experiment #1) and significantly lowering the minimum clock hours/duration restriction (Experiment #2) for students interested 
184 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

in vocational training in high-demand fields. IES designed and is overseeing a rigorous 

evaluation of these experiments.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• Does expanding Pell grant eligibility to include income-eligible students with a BA 

(Experiment #1) and/or to cover shorter-term programs (Experiment #2) improve 

access to job training?

• Does expanding Pell grant eligibility to these groups affect financial aid receipt and/

or student debt?

• Do these two Pell grant experiments improve persistence and completion rates?

Design

Close to 50 institutions of higher education (IHEs) volunteered to participate and identified 

nearly 3,000 students eligible for the experiments between the 2012–2013 and 2016–2017 

financial aid award years. Students were randomly assigned to receive a Pell grant or not to 

receive a Pell grant in their financial aid package. Student administrative data from participating IHEs were collected in fall 2016, 2017, and 2018 to allow for the maximum number 

of study participants to complete their programs. Data collection also included student 

administrative records on financial aid receipt from FSA. These data will be analyzed to 

address the three research questions.

Estimated Completion Date

The report for the study is expected in late 2020 and will be announced on http://ies.

ed.gov/ncee/.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/pathways_pell.asp#

National Evaluation of Career and Technical Education Under Perkins V

Study Purpose

Even with constant change in the nature of work and the economy, the education decisions students make today will influence their later career direction and success. Helping 

secondary and postsecondary students develop skills that have value in the workplace is the 

key goal of career and technical education (CTE). Congress has supported CTE for more 

than a century, most recently through the reauthorization of the Carl D. Perkins Career 

and Technical Education Act in 2018 (Perkins V). Many provisions of the prior Perkins 

Act remain, but Perkins V includes some changes designed to: (1) enhance CTE program 

quality through new mechanisms for program improvement and labor market alignment, 

(2) increase flexibility in Perkins funding and accountability, and (3) promote equity by 

expanding exposure to and participation in CTE for all students. Perkins V also requires 

IES to conduct this national evaluation to assess CTE programs under the new law.
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 185

Key Question(s) Addressed

• How, and to what extent, does current CTE implementation reflect key policy goals 

and objectives of Perkins V? 

• What challenges do State agencies and local recipients face in administering and 

delivering CTE services, particularly the newly introduced provisions in Perkins V?

• In what important ways has CTE implementation evolved since the prior version 

of the Perkins Act?

• How are CTE participation and outcomes changing?

• What is known about the effectiveness of CTE strategies and practices, particularly 

those that are allowable under Perkins V?

Design

The national evaluation will draw on a variety of data sources and studies for its assessment of CTE, though the design is still being finalized. New surveys of all state directors 

of CTE and a nationally representative sample of district coordinators of CTE will be conducted in FY 2022 to collect information about Perkins implementation. Trends in CTE 

participation and outcomes will be obtained by analyzing other national data, including 

those from the National Center for Education Statistics, state-submitted Perkins V performance reports, and labor market repositories. To identify and report on the effectiveness 

of key CTE strategies, the evaluation will review rigorously conducted research, where 

it already exists, and consider conducting new studies of CTE approaches deemed most 

critical to the field’s improvement.

Estimated Completion Date

IES is required to report to Congress on results from the evaluation every two years. An 

interim report is currently due in 2021, a report is due in 2023, and biennial updates are 

expected thereafter. These publications will be announced on https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/pathways_nectep.asp#

National Study of the Implementation of Adult Education Under the 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act

Study Purpose

Higher-level skills are increasingly required to succeed in the American workforce, and 

yet many adults in the United States lack them. More than 25 million adults have not 

earned a high school diploma or General Educational Development. Even among those 

with at least a secondary credential, a lack of proficiency with the English language can 

be a significant barrier to a family-sustaining income and to full integration as citizens. 

Congress has sought to help individuals address these challenges—and the nation’s workforce development needs—by providing funds for adult education. Most recently, Title II of 
186 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

the 2014 WIOA provides funding to states that fund local programs designed to assist adults 

in obtaining the education credentials, knowledge, and skills necessary for employment 

and economic self-sufficiency. The programs serve adults with varying levels of literacy, 

English proficiency, and educational attainment. The FY 2017 appropriation for Title II 

was approximately $580 million. In program year (PY) 2015, 1,525,878 eligible individuals were served through programs receiving Title II funding.

WIOA is a departure from its legislative predecessor (the Workforce Investment Act of 

1998) in several ways. For instance, in specifying state and local responsibilities and 

program features, WIOA now includes a clearer link between adult education and workforce development, an expansion in opportunities to serve particular subpopulations of 

adults (such as ELs), and greater emphasis on performance accountability and program 

effectiveness information.

WIOA mandates an independent national evaluation of adult education programs funded 

under Title II. A part of the national evaluation, this study is designed to provide implementation information on such programs, with a focus on how the changes contained in WIOA 

appear to be shaping the services provided by adult education programs and the populations such programs serve. 

Key Question(s) Addressed

• How—and to what extent—are the changes to adult education policies and practices 

promoted by WIOA being implemented?

• Beyond the changes to adult education promoted by WIOA, in what other important 

ways has implementation evolved since prior to the enactment of the law?

• What challenges do state agencies and local providers currently face in administering and delivering adult education services?

Design

The study is descriptive and primarily involves collection and tabulation of data from 

surveys. It includes a survey of adult education state directors and a survey of adult education providers in the states and the District of Columbia that received federal funds 

in PY 2018–2019. Some key findings from the provider survey will be compared with 

findings from an earlier national survey of providers conducted in 2003. This will allow 

for an assessment of the extent to which adult education programs have evolved since 

prior to the enactment of WIOA. The study will also include analyses of extant data 

such as state- and provider-level data collected for the Office of Career, Technical, and 

Adult Education’s (OCTAE’s) National Reporting System. This includes information on 

adult education programs funded, populations served, and participant outcomes achieved. 

These data will be used to provide further contextual information about adult education 

programs and populations.
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 187

Estimated Completion Date

The study’s first report is expected in 2021 and will be announced on http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/pathways_wioa.asp#

Text Ed: A Study of Text Messaging to Improve College Enrollment Rates 

Among Disadvantaged Adults

Study Purpose

Postsecondary education is associated with later economic success, but individuals who 

are low income or potential first-generation college goers are less likely to enroll in college 

compared to their more advantaged peers. The Department’s Educational Opportunity 

Centers (EOCs) program—one of the Federal TRIO programs—awards grants, typically 

to IHEs, aimed at increasing the number of disadvantaged adults who enroll in postsecondary education. EOC grantees provide informational services related to college admissions and financial aid options. Each EOC project serves a minimum of 1,000 individuals 

per year, with these individuals generally spread over a wide geographic area. In FY 2015, 

the Department awarded 126 grants totaling $46.6 million. On average, grantees spent 

$246 per participant.

The study examines a promising strategy designed to help EOC grantees meet the program’s 

goal of increasing college enrollment. It tests the effectiveness of a low-cost enhancement 

to grantee services—a systematic set of text messages that include timely, personalized 

information concerning college enrollment activities and deadlines, resources for overcoming common barriers to enrollment, and an easy way to connect EOC participants with 

center staff to answer questions and provide further assistance.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• Does providing personalized text messages to EOC participants increase FAFSA® 

completion rates?

• Do the messages increase the likelihood of EOC participants enrolling in postsecondary education?

Design

Approximately 20 EOC grantees are participating in the study. Within each grantee site, 

eligible participants will be randomly assigned to receive either the grantee’s typical 

services or to receive the study’s messages in addition to the grantee’s typical services. 

Random assignment will occur on a rolling basis from spring 2018 through spring 2020, 

with approximately 6,000 participants in total. Participant background information, as well 

as information required for the customization of messages (e.g., the postsecondary institution at which the participant wishes to enroll), will be obtained from grantee records. 
188 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

FAFSA® completion will be measured using administrative records from the Department 

for fall 2018 through fall 2020 and be used to address the first research question. Whether 

participants enroll in college will be measured based on National Student Clearinghouse 

records for fall 2018 through fall 2020 and be used to address the second research question.

Estimated Completion Date

The report for the study is expected in 2022 and will be announced on http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/pathways_postsec.asp#

School Choice

Evaluating the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program After the 2017 

Reauthorization

Study Purpose

The DC Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP) provides low-income students in 

Washington, DC, with scholarships to attend one of the district’s participating private 

schools. OSP is the nation’s only federally funded private school voucher program.

This third congressionally mandated evaluation of OSP intends to use different research 

methodologies and address different issues than the ones that came before. The previous 

evaluations (completed in 2011 and 2019) relied on lotteries to award private school scholarships, creating the conditions for a random assignment study to determine the effectiveness 

of the program. Together, those earlier evaluations raised some questions about how well 

the program was improving student achievement and parent and student satisfaction with 

their schools. The current study reflects the prohibition on using lotteries for evaluation in 

the 2017 reauthorization of OSP and interest in understanding how the program works and 

could be improved. The first phase will focus on designing an implementation study and a 

study of student outcomes.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What role does the program operator play in OSP, and how is their work carried out?

• What is the experience of applying for a scholarship and to participating private 

schools? Who uses/or does not use vouchers once one is offered and why?

• What is the experience using an OSP voucher? What are the challenges encountered 

and the support available for overcoming them?

• What are the characteristics of teachers and the instruction they provide in the 

participating private schools versus in the public schools OSP users would otherwise attend?
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 189

• How do students using OSP vouchers to attend private schools perform and 

progress on mathematics and reading assessments?

• How do parents of students using OSP vouchers and the students themselves rate 

their children’s school in terms of safety and satisfaction?

Design

The contractor will develop study design options to answer questions about both program 

implementation and about student outcomes.

Estimated Completion Date

Information about the estimated completion date for the study’s first report, focused on 

implementation of the OSP, is still to be determined. It will be announced on http://ies.

ed.gov/ncee/.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/choice_dcchoice2017.asp

Impact Study of Magnet Schools

Study Purpose

Magnet schools are an important component of public school choice as well as a strategy used by districts with the aim of improving student achievement and school diversity. 

Approximately 2.5 million students currently attend magnet schools in the United States. 

Since 1985, the Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP) has provided federal discretionary grants to school districts to support magnet programs with the goals of reducing, 

eliminating, or preventing minority group isolation; improving student achievement; and 

increasing choice in public schools. MSAP was most recently reauthorized in December 2015 

as part of ESSA (Title IV, Part D) and received nearly $190 million in appropriations 

between FY 2016 and FY 2017.

Despite the popularity of and the support for these schools, there is limited evidence about 

their effectiveness. The primary goal of this evaluation is to provide credible estimates 

of the impact of magnet schools on student outcomes by relying on random-assignment 

lotteries that some schools may use to admit students.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What is the impact of the magnet programs on relevant student outcomes (achievement and/or other relevant measures of student success such as persistence in school 

or graduation)?

• What is the impact of the magnet programs on the characteristics of the schools that 

the students attend, including whether they are higher performing or more diverse?

• To what extent is there a relationship between school characteristics, including 

diversity, and student outcomes?
190 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Design

Schools in districts receiving FY 2016 and FY 2017 MSAP that used lotteries to admit 

their students will be included in the evaluation. It is expected that the evaluation will 

involve comparing the outcomes of approximately 4,000 students who entered lotteries 

and were or were not offered admission to the magnet schools for enrollment in fall 2018 

or fall 2019.

School district records will be collected for three to four follow-up years for each of the two 

cohorts. These will include data on student characteristics, school enrollment, test scores, 

and other relevant data such as attendance, persistence, and graduation. Each year, principals at the magnet schools as well as the schools attended by students not offered admission 

to the magnet schools will be asked to provide information about the schools’ organization 

and instruction through a survey. These data will be analyzed to address the evaluation’s 

three research questions.

Estimated Completion Date

The first report for the study is expected in 2024 and will be announced on http://ies.

ed.gov/ncee/.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/choice_impactmagnet.asp

Study of Charter School Admission Practices and Barriers to Growth 

Study Purpose

Policymakers are interested in understanding why charter school growth has recently 

slowed, especially given the more than $400 million annual federal investment in 

expanding the sector. For example, the number of new charter schools increased by 

7 percent—compared to the prior school year—in SY 2012–2013 and SY 2013–2014 but 

by only 3 percent in SY 2015–2016 and SY 2016–2017, with enrollment mirroring the 

trend. At the same time, there are reports that many charter schools have more applications than available seats. This study will examine where demand is greatest, how schools 

admit students when they cannot serve all those interested, and barriers to growth among 

charter schools both supported and not supported by the Department’s Charter Schools 

Program (CSP).

Key Question(s) Addressed

• How often are charter school admissions part of a larger choice process? What proportion participate in common applications and unified lotteries that include other 

charter schools and/or other choice options?
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 191

• When charter schools have more applicants than they can admit, how do they 

use admission preferences? Which schools have demand? How do these schools 

prioritize particular students, if at all?

• What barriers to expansion do charter schools face?

Design

This study will be descriptive, based on a new nationally representative survey of 2,000 charter schools that are funded and not funded by CSP. The survey will likely be conducted in 

early spring 2021.

Estimated Completion Date

The report for the study is expected in 2022 and will be announced on https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/choice_charter_growth.asp#

School Improvement

Evaluation of Departmentalized Instruction in Elementary Schools

Study Purpose

Finding creative ways to redeploy existing teachers in the classroom may yield academic 

benefits to students at little cost. One such strategy is departmentalized instruction, where 

each teacher specializes in teaching one subject to multiple classes of students instead 

of teaching all subjects to a single class of students (self-contained instruction). While 

nearly ubiquitous in secondary schools, departmentalization has only recently become 

more popular in upper elementary grades. This evaluation is examining the implementation and outcomes of teachers and students as they departmentalize in fourth and fifth 

grades. In doing so, it will generate valuable evidence on an improvement strategy that 

low-performing elementary schools identified under ESSA may consider adopting.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• After one and two years of departmentalizing instruction, how do elementary 

teachers’ and students’ outcomes compare to those of similar teachers and students 

in self-contained schools?

• How do schools structure departmentalization, and what challenges and benefits 

do principals and teachers perceive in switching from self-contained classrooms to 

departmentalization?

Design

A total of 90 elementary schools in 12 districts across the country were initially recruited 

to participate in the study. All schools were using self-contained classrooms during 
192 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

SY 2018–2019. Beginning with SY 2019–2020, approximately half of these schools elected 

to switch to departmentalized instruction in fourth and fifth grades for up to two years, while 

the remaining schools continued with self-contained classrooms.

Data collection will include principal interviews to learn how teacher assignments were 

made and how departmentalization was structured; a teacher survey to examine teachers’ 

perceptions of and approaches to departmentalization; and extant district data on teacher 

retention and on students’ mathematics and reading achievement, attendance, and disciplinary incidents. These data, combined with a quasi-experimental “matched comparisons” 

design, will allow the study team to describe the implementation of departmentalization 

and compare teacher and student outcomes between departmentalized schools and similar 

self-contained schools.

Estimated Completion Date

The report for the study is expected in 2022 and will be announced on http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/other_departmentalized.asp#

Study of School Improvement Plans and Their Implementation

Study Purpose

Decades of educational reforms have demonstrated that turning around the lowestperforming schools in the U.S. remains a complex challenge. Federal policies, including 

ESSA of 2015, seek to boost these efforts by requiring that states identify those schools 

needing comprehensive support and improvement (CSI), have them create a plan for 

improvement, and provide additional support to help the schools expand capacity and 

student progress. Compared with prior laws, ESSA allows states and districts greater 

flexibility to shape their approach to school improvement. This study will examine implementation of ESSA’s CSI provisions in order to understand how states, districts, and schools 

are responding to the new requirements.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What are the characteristics of the first CSI schools identified (based on SY 2017–

2018 outcome data) nationally and within each state?

• How are CSI plans developed, implemented, and supported?

• How are states and school districts monitoring implementation?

Design

This descriptive study will examine state policy documents and data on CSI schools in 

all states as well as review CSI plans from a nationally representative sample of 400 CSI 

schools. In addition, it will use school survey data collected in spring 2022 through a separate IES study of the implementation of the Title I and Title II programs. Finally, the study 
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 193

will conduct interviews with about 40 CSI schools to obtain more in-depth information 

about how they are implementing their school improvement plans.

Estimated Completion Date

A first report, describing the characteristics of CSI schools, is expected in 2021. The study’s 

final report is expected in 2023 and will be announced on http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/. 

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/csi.asp

Evaluation of Promise Neighborhoods

Study Purpose

The federal Promise Neighborhoods program supports nonprofit organizations, IHEs, Indian 

tribes, and their partners in providing comprehensive, coordinated services for children, 

their families, and others in distressed communities. The broad range of possible services 

and focus on coordination are meant to build a pipeline of educational and developmental 

supports from “cradle to career” for children and to benefit the community at large. These 

services may be directed at improving academic, social, health and mental health, family 

and community engagement, crime prevention and rehabilitation, and workforce readiness 

outcomes.

The program is authorized by Title IV of ESEA, as amended by ESSA. The Department 

has invested $506 million to support Promise Neighborhoods grantees since grants were 

first awarded in 2010. This first ever national evaluation of Promise Neighborhoods is 

mandated by ESSA.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What does Promise Neighborhoods look like in the field? What services are offered 

and by whom? How are services connected and coordinated? How many students 

and their families receive each service? What is the total cost per year per participant? What challenges do grantees face, and how are they addressed?

• How do the services compare to those offered prior to the Promise Neighborhoods 

grant and to those offered in other, similar neighborhoods without grants?

• Do children in Promise Neighborhoods have greater improvements in outcomes 

over time than children from other, similar neighborhoods without grants? 

Design

This study will describe how the program is implemented using surveys of grantees and 

data from grantee annual reporting to the Department.

The study will also compare outcomes in Promise Neighborhoods before and after the grant 

award to the same outcomes for other neighborhoods that were similar but not served by 
194 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

a Promise Neighborhood grant. The outcomes will be collected through state birth records

(to identify children living in the neighborhoods over time) and administrative student 

records such as student test scores on state assessments, attendance, and high school 

graduation rates.

Estimated Completion Date

The report is expected in 2022 and will be announced on https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/promise_neighborhoods.asp#

Evaluation of Title I Pilots That Provide Flexibility Under the Every Student 

Succeeds Act

Study Purpose

ESEA, as amended by ESSA, is the signature federal law for K–12 education, and Title I 

is by far the largest of its programs, with about $16 billion in annual funding. The goal of 

Title I is to provide all children with significant opportunities to receive a fair, equitable, 

and high-quality education and to close educational achievement gaps. It primarily does so 

by requiring states to hold districts and schools accountable for their students’ achievement 

(e.g., through annual testing).

While ESSA retains a number of core requirements that were introduced in the prior 

reauthorization of ESEA (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001), it also seeks to give states 

and districts more flexibility overall. The idea is that this approach will allow states and 

districts to better tailor education policies to their unique needs and to promote diverse 

experimentation around the country. The Innovative Assessment Demonstration Authority

(IADA) under Title I exemplifies this approach. IADA allows up to seven states to pilot 

an innovative assessment system for three years in some districts, with the goal of refining and ultimately scaling up the system to the entire state for accountability purposes. By 

participating, states can avoid having to double-test students in pilot districts, although 

states still have to demonstrate that the innovative assessment is valid, reliable, and comparable to the existing state assessment.

States must have already done much of the assessment development and be ready to start 

piloting. Although they can use existing funds from sources such as Title I, Part B (state 

assessment grants) to support the pilot, IADA does not provide any additional federal funds. 

This pilot is primarily about providing flexibility by relaxing some of the federal requirements that might otherwise impede these entities from trying out alternative approaches to 

testing students.
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 195

ESSA mandates an evaluation of IADA. The evaluation will chart pilot sites’ progress and 

identify lessons learned for developing and implementing alternative assessments.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• Why are states developing an innovative assessment system, and how are they 

expecting the system to accomplish their goals? How does the system compare to 

their existing assessments?

• Have states’ innovative assessment systems been implemented with fidelity and met 

the core requirements of the federal pilot program after three years? To what extent 

have teachers, principals, and other school leaders demonstrated a commitment and 

capacity to implement the innovative assessment system?

• What were the key challenges to developing an innovative assessment system, 

piloting it, and scaling it up? How were the challenges addressed, and how did 

participation in the federal pilot program facilitate or impede the process?

• How have districts, schools, and teachers perceived and adapted to the innovative 

assessment system? How have practices related to instruction, professional development, and burden under the innovative assessment system compared to practices 

under the states’ existing assessments?

Design

This implementation study will focus on the four pilot states: Louisiana and New Hampshire (approved in 2018) and Georgia and North Carolina (approved in 2019). The study 

will address the four sets of primary research questions by collecting and descriptively summarizing the following data over three years:

• Annual progress reports and other relevant documents from the four pilot states.

• Interviews with the four pilot states and up to five other states who considered 

applying for IADA but did not ultimately do so.

• Survey of all pilot districts in the four IADA states.

• Survey of a representative sample of pilot schools in the four IADA states.

• Survey of a representative sample of teachers in the four IADA states.

Estimated Completion Date

The first report for the study is expected in 2022 and will be announced on https://ies.

ed.gov/ncee/.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/title1_pilots.asp#

Implementation of Key Federal Policies in the Wake of Coronavirus Pandemic 

Study Purpose

The coronavirus pandemic is continuing to significantly disrupt K–12 educational systems 

across the country during SY 2020–2021. State agencies and local leaders appear to be 
196 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

taking unprecedented action in the wake of the pandemic to manage continuity in school 

operations, tackle learning loss, and address concerns about increasing equity gaps for 

particularly vulnerable students. This quick turnaround study focuses on how education 

officials are carrying out, and are supported by, federal policies like those associated with 

ESSA and the new Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. 

Key Question(s) Addressed

• How did the coronavirus pandemic affect key school operations during 

SY 2020–2021? 

• How is the pandemic influencing ESSA implementation?

• How is CARES Act funding being used to support recovery?

• To what extent are states and districts addressing equity in their recovery efforts?

Design

The study is descriptive. It will be based on spring 2021 surveys of state representatives 

from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico as well as a nationally 

representative survey of 550 school districts.

Estimated Completion Date

The study’s report is expected in 2022 and will be announced on https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/other_covid.asp

National Implementation Study of Student Support and Academic Enrichment 

Grants (Title IV, Part A) 

Study Purpose

Changes to education law in 2015 consolidated several programs to give states and districts greater flexibility in how they use federal funds. The resulting Student Support and 

Academic Enrichment Grant Program (Title IV, Part A of ESEA of 1965, as amended by 

ESSA) tries to maintain the different purposes of the original programs by prioritizing and 

requiring spending in three broad areas: (1) providing students with a well-rounded education, (2) ensuring a positive school environment, and (3) improving and personalizing 

learning through technology. The new law also requires districts to consult with stakeholders, distribute Title IV, Part A funds to high-need schools and, in certain instances, to 

conduct comprehensive needs assessments and use evidence from research to pick strategies to fund. This evaluation will assess how this new program is being carried out across 

the country, particularly the ways in which it supports school systems as they seek to recover 

from the coronavirus pandemic during SY 2021–2022.
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 197

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What guidance and technical assistance did states provide to districts to assist in 

local implementation of the Title IV, Part A program?

• How do districts decide how to use Title IV, Part A funds?

• What are the primary services and activities districts are implementing with Title IV, 

Part A funds?

Design

The study is descriptive. It will be based on a survey of Title IV, Part A coordinators from all 

50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico and a nationally representative survey 

of Title IV, Part A coordinators in 1,200 school districts.

Estimated Completion Date

The study’s report is expected in 2023 and will be announced on https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/other_titleiv.asp

Study of District and School Uses of Federal Education Funds

Study Purpose

Federal funds, which account for less than 10 percent of K–12 education spending nationally, can play an important role, particularly in communities that are lower-income or have 

lower-performing schools. Although each federal education program has unique goals and 

provisions, they often allow funds to be used for similar purposes and services or overlapping populations. Congress provided SEAs and LEAs greater flexibility in their use of 

federal funds through the 2015 reauthorization of ESEA. Congress also created the CARES 

Act to provide funding and flexibilities for states and districts to respond to the COVID-19 

emergency in K–12 schools.

Policymakers remain interested in how federal dollars are spent. This study will examine how funds are distributed and used from the CARES Act as well as five major federal 

education programs: Part A of Titles I, II, III, and IV of ESEA and Title I, Part B of IDEA. 

Together, the non-CARES Act programs account for about 80 percent of total funding for 

the Department’s elementary-secondary programs, or $32 billion.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• Where does the money go? To what extent are federal funds—including those from 

the CARES Act—reaching the districts and schools with the greatest needs?

• What do federal programs add? How much do the federal programs in this study 

increase the level of per-pupil funding over what is provided through state and local 

sources? How does this vary across districts and schools? 
198 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

• What does the money buy? To what extent do districts and schools use federal 

funds for instructional staff, professional development, technology, student support 

services, and other resources? How does spending from federal funds differ from 

state and local spending? How do local agencies use funding from different sources 

to support, for example, the education of students with disabilities?

• To what extent do districts make use of flexibilities provided through ESEA, IDEA, 

and the CARES Act?

Design

This descriptive study will collect detailed fiscal data from the data systems of a nationally 

representative sample of 400 school districts, including revenue, expenditure, and personnel 

and payroll data, for up to four consecutive school years: SY 2018–2019, SY 2019–2020, 

SY 2020–2021, and SY 2021–2022. In addition, the study will collect data on federal funding allocations from states to school districts and from districts to schools, and conduct 

interviews in a smaller set of districts to examine how districts and schools use various 

funding sources to meet the needs of students with disabilities.

Estimated Completion Date

The study’s report is expected in 2024 and will be announced on https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/. 

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/usesoffunds.asp

Students with Disabilities

Evaluation of Preschool Special Education Practices

Study Purpose

Experiences in early childhood programs can help young children, including those with 

disabilities, develop skills important for classroom learning. But many children need help 

to strengthen their social-emotional skills and facilitate their engagement in classroom 

activities. Currently, there is limited evidence on how to effectively integrate these kinds 

of supports into the general curriculum, particularly in classrooms where children with 

disabilities are served alongside their peers as promoted by IDEA. This study will test the 

efficacy of a coordinated set of evidence-based strategies, with multiple levels of intensity depending on student needs. The approach includes programs for classroom-wide 

instruction of social and emotional skills and supports targeting children who demonstrate 

risk for social-emotional delays or persistent behavior challenges with the general preschool curriculum. If the efficacy study shows promise, a large-scale impact evaluation may 

be conducted in the future.
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 199

Key Question(s) Addressed

• Are teachers able to successfully implement a new approach that integrates targeted 

instructional supports for children who demonstrate risk for social-emotional delays 

or persistent behavior challenges with instruction for all children?

• What are the impacts of this approach on the classroom environment and the 

social-emotional, behavioral, and language skills of children with and without 

disabilities inclusive preschool classrooms? 

Design

To help plan for the efficacy study, the study collected descriptive information in spring/

summer 2015 on the programs, curricula, and extra supports available to children ages 

3 through 5 identified for special education services. This collection was based on surveys of state agency staff coordinating grants and services under IDEA Part B Section 619 

and a nationally representative sample of district preschool special education coordinators. The

study will randomly assign 34 inclusive preschool classrooms in 29 schools from 

three districts to either receive training and coaching support to implement the study’s program integration approach or continue with the teachers’ regular program and practices. 

The addition and integration of the programs will begin in 2019 and data on participating 

preschool students will be collected for two school years. These data include documentation of training to teachers, classroom observations to assess how program components are 

being implemented, teacher surveys, and measures of children’s social skills.

Estimated Completion Date

The report for the efficacy study is expected in 2022 and will be announced on http://ies.

ed.gov/ncee/.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/disabilities_preschool.asp#

Evaluation of Transition Support for Youths with Disabilities

Study Purpose

Students with disabilities continue to lag their peers in high school graduation, enrollment 

in postsecondary education, and employment more than a decade after the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA. A central goal of IDEA is to help students with disabilities prepare for 

their transition from secondary school to further education, work, and independent living. 

To achieve this goal, IDEA requires the provision of transition services focused on improving students’ academic and functional achievement in accordance with their individualized 

education program. Although studies suggest the importance of certain types of preparation for students with disabilities, there is limited evidence about the effectiveness of those 

or other strategies to promote post high school outcomes.
200 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What is known about the effectiveness of transition strategies? And for whom?

• What transition strategies are feasible to examine with an impact study?

• What are possible parameters for designing rigorous impact studies?

Design

The study will summarize available evidence on the effectiveness of transition supports 

and interview transition stakeholders to identify promising transition strategies and methods for studying them. The Department will make a decision in FY 2021 about conducting 

an impact study based on this work. 

Estimated Completion Date

The systematic evidence review is expected in FY 2021 and will be announced on http://

ies.ed.gov/ncee/.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/disabilities_transition.asp#

Impact Evaluation of Training in Multi-Tiered Systems of Support for 

Behavior

Study Purpose

IDEA 2004 is the most recent reauthorization of a law passed in 1975 to promote a free appropriate public education for children with disabilities. Districts are able to use a portion of their 

IDEA funds to provide services to students who are not identified as needing special education but who need additional support to succeed in a general education environment. Training 

school staff in supporting the behavior of all students—a potential use of these funds—is 

becoming increasingly attractive to districts and schools as a vehicle for school improvement.

Implementation of multi-tiered systems of support for behavior (MTSS-B) is an approach 

to improving school and classroom climate as well as student outcomes. MTSS-B is a 

systematic framework for teaching and reinforcing behavior for all students as well as for 

providing additional support to those who need it. More than one-third of U.S. districts 

report implementing MTSS-B at the elementary school level. Recent small-scale studies 

have shown the promise of MTSS-B. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of MTSS-B in a larger-scale setting.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What is the impact on school staff practices, school climate, and student outcomes of 

providing training in the MTSS-B framework plus universal (tier I) positive behavior supports and a targeted (tier II) intervention?

• What are the impacts for relevant subgroups (e.g., at-risk students)?

• What MTSS-B trainings and support were provided? What MTSS-B activities 

occurred in the schools receiving MTSS-B training? How do these activities differ 

from those in schools that do not receive the training?
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 201

Design

This is a randomized controlled trial of the impact of training in MTSS-B on school climate, 

school staff practice, and student outcomes. The contractor, with assistance and input from 

the Department, and in consultation with a panel of experts, competitively selected an 

MTSS-B training provider, the Center for Social Behavior Support, which is a collaboration 

between the Illinois–Midwest Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) Network 

at the School Association for Special Education in DuPage, IL, and the PBIS Regional 

Training and Technical Assistance Center at Sheppard Pratt in Baltimore, MD. Approximately 90 elementary schools were randomly assigned to either training in MTSS-B, 

including universal supports (tier I) plus targeted interventions for at-risk students (tier II) 

or a business-as-usual control group. Treatment schools received training in MTSS-B prior 

to and across two school-years, SY 2015–2016 (tier I) and SY 2016–2017 (tiers I and II), 

and implementing MTSS-B across these two years.

Data collection includes a staff survey, teacher ratings of student behavior, classroom 

observations, site visits, and student records data. These data are being collected from 

SY 2015–2016 through SY 2017–2018 and will be analyzed to answer the study’s impact 

(first and second) and implementation (third) research questions.

Estimated Completion Date

The first report for the study is expected in 2021 and will be announced on http://ies.

ed.gov/ncee/.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/disabilities_MTSSB.asp#

State and Local Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act of 2004

Study Purpose

IDEA 2004 is the most recent reauthorization of a law passed in 1975 to promote a free 

appropriate public education for children with disabilities. Funded at $12.9 billion in 

FY 2017, IDEA supports early intervention services for infants and toddlers identified as 

having a disability or at risk of substantial developmental delay. IDEA also supports special education and related services for children and youths ages 3 through 21 identified as 

having a disability, as well as coordinated early intervening services for children and youths 

who are not identified as needing special education but who need additional support to 

succeed in a general education environment.

The most recent national IDEA implementation study provided a picture of state agency 

and school district implementation of IDEA in 2009. Since then, although IDEA has 

not been reauthorized, developments in key areas may have influenced the context and 
202 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

implementation of special education and early intervention. Relevant court decisions were 

issued including Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, and educational legislation 

was passed, including the reauthorization of ESEA. Importantly, the Department’s Office of 

Special Education Programs has released IDEA regulations and guidance. For example, the 

“Equity in IDEA” rule requires that states use a standardized methodology to determine disproportionality in the identification, placement, and discipline of students with disabilities 

based on race or ethnicity. This regulation could influence how states evaluate disproportionality as well as the policies and practices implemented to address this issue. Finally, the 

knowledge base on effective and promising policies and practices has grown.

This study will provide a national picture of IDEA implementation 10 years after the most 

recent national IDEA implementation study. While this study will update information from 

the 2009 study on state and district implementation, the study will also describe policies 

and supports provided at the school level.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• How do states and districts identify infants, toddlers, children, and youths for early 

intervention and special education services? How do they measure disproportionate identification and what policies and practices have been implemented with the 

goal of addressing disproportionate identification?

• What policies and programs do states and districts have in place to support infants, 

toddlers, children, and youths identified for early intervention or special education 

services? How have these policies and programs changed over time?

• To what extent do states and districts rely on evidence on the effectiveness of policies, 

programs, and supports for infants, toddlers, children, and youths with disabilities?

• How do states and districts allocate resources—including funding and personnel—

to support infants, toddlers, children, and youths with disabilities?

• What types of supports do schools provide to children and youths with disabilities to support their academic and behavioral learning, both within and outside of 

general education classrooms?

Design

Data collection will include surveys of state administrators from all states, the District of 

Columbia, and territories receiving IDEA funding, as well as surveys of a nationally representative sample of school districts and schools during SY 2019–2020 and, potentially, 

SY 2021–2022. The data from these surveys will be analyzed descriptively to answer the 

study’s research questions.

Estimated Completion Date

The first report for the study is expected in FY 2021 and will be announced on http://ies.

ed.gov/ncee/.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/disabilities_localidea.asp#
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 203

Teachers and Leaders

Impact Evaluation to Inform the Teacher and School Leader Incentive Program

Study Purpose

Effective school leadership and teaching are at the heart of school improvement. Human 

capital management—the way in which a district makes and implements preparation, recruitment, hiring, placement, retention, dismissal, compensation, professional development, 

and tenure and promotion decisions—can play an important role in supporting effective 

educators. The purpose of the Teacher and School Leader (TSL) Incentive Program is to 

develop and implement performance-based compensation systems or human capital management systems to improve student achievement. Grantees plan to implement multiple 

strategies, with a role for teacher leaders being the one strategy that is the most common 

among the 2017 awards. This mandated evaluation will provide implementation information from all 2017 grantees, with particular attention to teacher leader selection, roles, and 

supports. In addition, the study will estimate the impact on student achievement and teacher 

satisfaction and retention of using teacher leaders to improve student achievement.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What are the implementation experiences of the FY 2017 TSL grantees? What 

are their educator satisfaction, recruitment and retention experiences with TSL, 

particularly among those grantees funding teacher leader roles?

• What is the effect on student achievement, educator satisfaction, recruitment, 

and retention of a teacher leader role strategy? Is the teacher leader strategy cost 

effective?

Design

The mandated evaluation will provide implementation information from all 2017 grantees, 

including information about funded strategies. For those grantees supporting a teacher 

leader role, information will include teacher leader responsibilities and their teaching load, 

the stipend amount, and how grantees select and train their teacher leader, the types of 

teachers targeted for support, and district and school contexts that facilitate or hinder the 

teacher leader role implementation.

In addition, a total of approximately 90 schools in 8 districts across the country were initially recruited to participate in an impact evaluation of funding teacher leaders for two 

years to support their peers using activities similar to that funded within the TSL grantees. 

About half of the schools within each district were assigned by lottery to implement the 

teacher leader model beginning in SY 2020–2021. These schools will be compared to the 

other schools that are continuing with business-as-usual to estimate the causal impact of the 

teacher leader model on teacher and student outcomes.
204 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Data collection will include a TSL grantee survey of all 14 TSL grantees receiving awards in 

2017 to gather information about their TSL program, teacher and principal surveys to collect 

program implementation information as well as educator satisfaction and teacher recruitment activities and outcomes, teacher leader activity forms to provide information about 

teacher leader roles and activities, teacher and principal school assignment records to look 

at mobility and retention, and student administrative records to look at student outcomes.

Estimated Completion Date

The first report for the study is expected in 2021 and will be announced on http://ies.

ed.gov/ncee/.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_leader.asp#

Impact Study of Feedback for Teachers Based on Classroom Videos

Study Purpose

Research has consistently found that novice teachers perform at a level substantially lower 

than their more experienced colleagues. In addition, although teachers’ effectiveness typically improves with experience, there is substantial variation in teacher effectiveness 

at a given experience level. However, there is too little evidence about which teaching 

experiences and practices are most likely to improve teachers’ effectiveness, particularly 

early in their career. Title II, Part A of ESEA provides funding to improve the quality and 

effectiveness of educators. High-quality, personalized professional development that is 

evidence-based is one of the allowable uses of these funds.

This study, designed to inform the effectiveness of individualized coaching for teachers at 

various stages in their career, has the potential to inform teacher preparation and professional development practice more generally. The evaluation will provide individualized 

coaching to teachers of various experience levels based on videos of their classroom practices. Several recent small-scale studies suggest that individualized teacher supports may 

be an effective strategy for improving teachers’ instruction and their students’ achievement.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What is the impact on teaching practices and student achievement of providing 

teachers with multiple rounds (eight) of written feedback and one-on-one coaching 

based on videos of their classroom practices?

• What is the impact on teaching practices and student achievement of providing 

teachers with multiple rounds (five) of written feedback and one-on-one coaching 

based on videos of their classroom practices?

Design

The study team will recruit approximately 400 fourth or fifth grade teachers from 10–12 districts across the country to participate in the study.
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 205

In 2018–2019, schools will be randomly assigned to receive either: (1) eight rounds of 

written feedback plus one-on-one coaching for teachers in grade 4 or 5, (2) five rounds of 

written feedback plus one-on-one coaching, or (3) the district’s usual supports and professional development. Teachstone was competitively selected as the provider for this study, 

and their staff will provide the coaching. Coaching, based on individual teacher needs, will 

focus on foundational teaching practices such as classroom management and time use as 

well as more advanced classroom practices such as ways to lead discussions that build a 

deeper understanding of academic content.

Data collection includes information on fidelity of implementation of the coaching and 

feedback; a teacher survey focusing on teacher preparation and professional development 

experiences; measures of classroom practices based on pre- and post-treatment classroom 

videos; and state mathematics and English language arts assessment data for SY 2016–2017 

to SY 2018–2019 and possibly SY 2019–2020. 

Estimated Completion Date

The report for the study, which will examine the impact of the intervention for teachers, 

is expected in 2021 and will be announced on http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_videos.asp#

Study of Title II, Part A Use of Funds

Study Purpose

Under ESSA, Title II, Part A provides grants to states and subgrants to LEAs. The grants 

are a primary source of federal funding to improve the quality and effectiveness of teachers, 

principals and other school leaders. A broad range of activities is permissible at both the 

state and district level under this program. The funding is also intended to provide lowincome and minority students greater access to effective teachers, principals, and other 

school leaders. In contrast to the prior authorization, the law does not specify teacher 

effectiveness but rather leaves it for each state to define. This study is designed to provide 

relevant information about how states and districts use these funds.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What activities do SEAs support with their Title II, Part A funds?

• What activities do LEAs support with their Title II, Part A funds?

Design

This is a descriptive study based on an annual survey of all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The study also includes an annual survey of a nationally representative 

sample of charter districts and a state representative sample of LEAs.
206 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Survey information includes transfers to or from Title II, Part A and other programs allowed 

under ESEA section 5103; activities funded by Title II, Part A; types of professional development activities and the areas of focus supported by Title II, Part A; and strategies for 

identifying and addressing inequity in the distribution of teacher quality or effectiveness.

Estimated Completion Date

The first report for the study is expected in early 2021 and will be announced on https://

ies.ed.gov/ncee/.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_titletwo_a.asp#

Non-National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional 

Assistance Evaluations Completed in FY 2020 (Formerly in 

Policy and Program Studies Service)

Evaluation of the Title VI Indian Education Formula Grants Program

Study Purpose

This study examined the implementation of the Indian Education Formula Grants to LEAs 

(school districts) program authorized under Title VI of ESEA. More specifically, the study 

examines school district and tribal-level implementation of the grants, including the activities 

supported with formula funds, the processes used to identify and count eligible children, 

and how grantees establish program priorities and implement grant-funded services.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What services do Indian Education Formula Grants support?

• How do grantees work with stakeholders to identify program-eligible children and 

plan services to meet the needs of those children?

• How do grantees measure progress toward meeting their Title VI project objectives?

Design

This study is based on a survey of 1,304 local grant coordinators and case studies of 

9 grantees, as well as a review of relevant literature and analysis of extant data.

Key Findings

• The most common Title VI-funded services were academic support, cultural enrichment, and parent involvement. 

• Most grantees supported culturally responsive education by incorporating American 

Indian and Alaska Native history and culture into the curriculum and employing 

American Indian and Alaska Native teachers and support staff. 

• Most grantees relied on three strategies to identify eligible students: (1) including 

questions about students’ American Indian and Alaska Native status in the school 
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 207

registration process, (2) including Title VI student eligibility certification forms 

in enrollment packets, and (3) generating reports for students who identified as 

American Indian and Alaska Native on enrollment forms. 

• Most grantees collected information about students’ needs from the Title VI Parent 

Advisory Committee and other stakeholder groups, commonly through public 

hearings, convenings with stakeholder groups, and surveys. 

• Grantees reported using multiple data sources for project planning, including 

administrative data and information from parents, teachers, administrators, and 

public hearings. 

• Most grantees used state standardized assessment scores, attendance data, and graduation or dropout data to measure progress toward their Title VI project objectives. 

Actual Completion Date

A report, titled Implementation of the Title VI Indian Education Formula Grants Program, 

Volume I: Final Report, was released in October 2019.

Link to Additional Information 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#amind-aknat-students

Title IV State Survey

Study Purpose

This study provides an initial overview of how states and school districts are using 

their Student Support and Academic Enrichment grants (Title IV, Part A), a new stateadministered grant program created through the 2016 ESSA. This program has the goal 

of improving student academic achievement by increasing the capacity of states, school 

districts, schools, and local communities to: (1) provide all students with access to a wellrounded education (Section 4107), (2) improve school conditions for student learning 

(Section 4108), and (3) improve the use of technology to improve the academic achievement and digital literacy of all students (Section 4109). This study will produce a program 

brief based on a survey of states that provides early information about the extent to which 

states, and school districts are using Title IV, Part A funds for the wide range of permissible activities. 

Key Question(s) Addressed

• How many school districts received Title IV, Part A grants? To what extent do 

districts participate through consortia? How many subgrantees are required to 

conduct a comprehensive needs assessment because they receive a subgrant of at 

least $30,000? 

• How are school districts using their Title IV, Part A grants? To what extent are they 

using the funds for each main purpose? What types of services and activities are 

they supporting under each area? 
208 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

• How are states using Title IV, Part A funds reserved at the state level to support 

school districts in meeting the program’s three main purposes—well-rounded educational opportunities, safe and healthy students, and effective use of technology? 

• What are the greatest challenges that state officials perceive regarding the use of 

Title IV, Part A funds? 

Design

The report is based on a survey of all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico 

conducted in late spring 2019 to obtain information about the types of activities that states 

and school districts are supporting with FY 2018 Student Support and Academic Enrichment funds during SY 2018–2019.

Completion Date

A report, titled Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants: A First Look at 

Activities Supported Under Title IV, Part A, was released in February 2020.

Link to Additional Information

https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/esea/title-iv-first-look-2020.pdf

Non-National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional 

Assistance Evaluations Expected in FY 2021 and FY 2022 

(Formerly in Policy and Program Studies Service)

Profiles of Selected Practices of Charter Schools, Charter Management 

Organizations, and Charter School Authorizers

Study Purpose

The Expanding Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools Program (i.e., CSP), 

authorized under ESEA, is intended to support innovation in public education, including the dissemination of best practices regarding charter schools. This study will result in 

11 profiles describing innovative practices that are being implemented by charter schools, 

charter management organizations (CMOs), and charter school authorizers (CSAs), with 

a priority on CSP grantees and subgrantees and authorizers serving those grantees and 

subgrantees. The profiles will be disseminated to practitioners serving both charter and 

traditional public schools.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What are the key features of each innovative practice for charter schools, CMOs, 

and CSAs?
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 209

• How do charter schools, CMOs, and CSAs decide what practices to implement? 

To what extent do they consider criteria for identifying evidence-based practices 

based on each of ESSA’s four evidence levels?

• What, if any, challenges do charter schools, CMOs, and CSAs encounter in implementing innovative practices, and what strategies do they use to overcome these 

challenges?

• What evidence exists to suggest that the practices are successfully implemented? 

To what extent do state assessment results, leading indicators, or other quantitative 

data show improving outcomes? Are there any qualitative signs of progress?

• What factors do charter schools, CMOs, and CSAs believe are most important to 

the successful implementation of the practices? How do they support the replication of innovative practices?

Design

The study will include a review of relevant research, an expert panel, an analysis of school 

achievement data of charter schools that are candidates for site visits, and 30 site visits to 

charter schools, CMOs, and CSAs to collect information about their practices.

Estimated Completion Date

The profiles are scheduled for completion in spring 2021.

Study of Career and Technical Education Teacher Pathways Initiative

Study Purpose 

This study is examining the implementation of the CTE Teacher Pathways Initiative (TPI) 

Grant Program. The Department’s OCTAE awarded grants to five entities across the country 

to implement strategies to prepare, recruit, and retain secondary CTE teachers. The purpose is to inform the Department’s continuous improvement efforts and to support efforts 

of grantees. The purpose of the study is not to evaluate the grant or grantees but to identify 

successes and challenges related to the implementation of strategies. 

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What do grantees see as the major factors contributing to shortages of secondary 

CTE teachers in their state or community? 

• How have the grantees used TPI funding to alleviate CTE teacher shortages? 

• What challenges have grantees experienced in implementing their TPI activities, 

and what strategies are they using to overcome those challenges? 

• Are there early indicators of success in alleviating CTE teacher shortages?

Design

During the first year of 2018–2019, interviews were conducted with grant coordinators. In 

October, the interviews focused on initial grant implementation plans. In spring 2019, site 
210 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

visits were conducted with grantee partner organizations to learn more about detailed, on-theground experiences with CTE TPI implementation. During these site visits, interviews were 

held to learn more about root causes of CTE teacher shortages, how the grantees have implemented strategies to alleviate CTE teacher shortages, what challenges grantees have faced 

in implementing TPI activities, and what indicators of success grantees have experienced. A 

second round of interviews will take place starting in spring 2021 or fall 2021 in order to capture activities under economic conditions potentially changed by the coronavirus pandemic.

Estimated Completion Date

The report is scheduled for completion in summer 2022.

Study of Unsafe School Choice Option

Study Purpose

This study is examining state implementation of federal requirements to provide an Unsafe 

School Choice Option (USCO) that permits students attending a persistently dangerous 

public elementary or secondary school, or students who become victims of a violent criminal offense while in or on the grounds of a public school that they attend, be allowed to 

attend a safe public school within the school district, including a public charter school. 

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What are states’ processes for developing and reviewing USCO-related policies 

about student and school safety?

• How do states ensure that the data used to make determinations of persistently 

dangerous schools are accurate?

• For states with appeal processes for determinations of persistently dangerous 

schools, how have those appeals worked in practice?

• What guidance do states provide to districts on how to comply with the USCO 

provisions, including offering transfer to a victim of a violent criminal offense?

• How do states monitor district compliance with USCO provisions, including 

offering transfer to victims of a violent criminal offense while in or on the grounds 

of a public school they attend?

• What challenges have states encountered in implementing the USCO provisions, 

and how can they be addressed?

Design

This study includes interviews with state representatives in all 50 states, the District of 

Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the outlying areas that are most familiar with the implementation of the USCO provision. The study also includes analysis of extant documents.

Estimated Completion Date

The report is scheduled for completion in late 2020.
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 211

Study of Preventing Aiding and Abetting of Sexual Abuse in Schools

Study Purpose 

This study is examining how SEAs are implementing laws and policies to prohibit aiding 

and abetting sexual misconduct in schools in response to requirements under Section 8546 

of ESSA. The study will also describe the challenges states have encountered implementing the ESSA requirements and how they have addressed these challenges. The study is not 

intended to determine the extent to which each state is complying with Section 8546, but 

rather, to inform the Department’s technical assistance efforts by improving understanding 

of how states are implementing these provisions.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• To what extent do states have statutes, legislation, or regulations that prohibit aiding 

and abetting continued employment of school employees, contractors, or agents who 

have engaged or allegedly engaged in sexual misconduct with a student or minor?

• How did states develop statutes, legislation, regulations, and/or policies to address 

Section 8546?

• How are SEAs implementing statutes, regulations, and/or policies that prohibit 

aiding and abetting continued employment of school employees, contractors, or 

agents who have engaged in sexual misconduct with a student or minor?

• What challenges have SEAs faced in implementing the requirements of 

Section 8546?

Design

The study involves telephone interviews with knowledgeable staff in all 50 states, the 

District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the island territories (American Samoa, Guam, 

Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) about their jurisdiction’s laws and 

policies to prohibit aiding and abetting of sexual misconduct in schools. In preparation 

for these interviews, the study team conducted a systematic review of publicly available 

documents related to Section 8546, including state statutes, pending legislation, and regulations. The study team will produce a final report that will aggregate findings from 

interviews and document reviews across states. The report may also include state-by-state 

tables based on an analysis of documents. States will have the opportunity to review and 

verify these tables before the report’s release. 

Estimated Completion Date

The report is scheduled for completion in spring 2021.
This page is intentionally left blank.
Appendix E. Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations 213

Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations

Appendix E

Acronym Definition

ACCT Account

ACGR Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate

ACSI American Consumer Satisfaction Index

AECI Architecture, Engineering, and Construction Industries

AEFLA Adult Education and Family Literacy Act

AP Advanced Placement

APG Agency Priority Goal

APH American Printing House for the Blind

APR Annual Performance Report

BA Bachelor’s Degree

CAP Cross-Agency Priority

CARES Act Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act

CCD Common Core of Data

CDFI Community Development Financial Institutions

CGSA Competitive Grants for State Assessments

CLSD Comprehensive Literacy State Development

CMO Charter Management Organization

CoP Community of Practice

CRDC Civil Rights Data Collection

CSA Charter School Authorizer

CSF Cybersecurity Framework

CSI Comprehensive Support and Improvement

CSP Charter Schools Program

CSPR Consolidated State Performance Report

CTAE Career, Technical, and Adult Education

CTE Career and Technical Education

DGB Data Governance Board

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DLP Data Loss Prevention

DM Departmental Management
214 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Acronym Definition

DMA Data Maturity Assessment

DMCS Debt Management and Collection System

DST Data Strategy Team

ED U.S. Department of Education

Ed-Flex Education Flexibility Program

EDMAPS Enterprise Data Management and Analytics Platform 

Services

EL English Learner

ELA English Language Acquisition

EO Executive Order

EOC Educational Opportunity Center

ERM Enterprise Risk Management

ERR Entity Risk Review

ESEA Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965

ESF Education Stabilization Fund

ESSA Every Student Succeeds Act

FAFSA® Free Application for Federal Student Aid®

FAQ Frequently Asked Question

FDSL Federal Direct Student Loan

FERPA Family Education Rights and Privacy Act

FEVS Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey

FFEL Federal Family Education Loan

FISMA Federal Information Security Management Act

FSA Federal Student Aid

FUTURE Act Fostering Undergraduate Talent by Unlocking Resources for 

Education Act

FY Fiscal Year

G5 Grants Management System

GEAR UP Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate 

Programs

GLBA Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act of 1993

GPRAMA Government Performance and Results Act Modernization 

Act of 2010

GU Gallaudet University

HBCU Historically Black College and University

HE Higher Education
Appendix E. Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations 215

Acronym Definition

HEA Higher Education Act

HEAL Health Education Assistance Loan

HSI STEM Hispanic Serving Institution Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Mathematics Articulation Program

I&I Innovation and Improvement

IA Impact Aid

IADA Innovative Assessment Demonstration Authority

IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

IE Indian Education

IHE Institutions of Higher Education

IES Institute of Education Sciences

IET Integrated Education and Training

IG Inspector General

IPEDS Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System

IRS Internal Revenue Service

IT Information Technology

LEA Local Educational Agency

LINCS Literacy Information and Communication System

MSAP Magnet Schools Assistance Program

MTSS-B Multi-tiered System of Support for Behavior

MTSS-R Multi-tiered System of Supports for Reading

N/A Not Applicable

NCES National Center for Education Statistics

Next Gen FSA Next Generation Financial Services Environment

NIC Network Improvement Community

NIST National Institutes of Standards and Technology

NSLDS® National Student Loan Data System®

NTID National Technical Institute for the Deaf

O365 Microsoft Office 365

OCDO Office of the Chief Data Officer

OCIO Office of the Chief Information Officer

OCR Office for Civil Rights

OCTAE Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education

OEDARM Office of Enterprise Data Analytics and Risk Management

OELA Office of English Language Acquisition

OESE Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

OET Office of Educational Technology
216 FY 2020 Annual Performance Report

Acronym Definition

OFM Office of Financial Management

OFO Office of Finance and Operations

OHR Office of Human Resources

OIG Office of Inspector General

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPE Office of Postsecondary Education

OPEN Outreach, Prevention, Education and Non-discrimination

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

OSP Opportunity Scholarship Program

PA Program Administration

PBIS Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports

PBO Performance-based Organization

PII Personally Identifiable Information

PMA President’s Management Agenda

pMDM Master Data Management Platform

POA&M Plan of Action and Milestone

POC Principal Operating Component

PSLF Public Service Loan Forgiveness

PTAC Privacy Technical Assistance Center

PY Program Year

Q&A Questions and Answers

QSMO Quality Service Management Office

RDA Results Driven Accountability

REHAB Rehabilitation Services and Disability Research

REL Regional Educational Laboratory

RMA Risk Management Assessment

RSA Rehabilitation Services Administration

SAA Student Aid Administration

SE Special Education

SEA State Educational Agency

SFA Student Financial Assistance

SIP Strengthening Institutions Program

SMART Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Timebound

SPPO Student Privacy Policy Office
Appendix E. Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations 217

Acronym Definition

SRCL Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy

SSCE Safe Schools and Citizenship Education

STEM Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics

SY School Year

TBD To Be Determined

TBM Technology Business Management

TEACH Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher 

Education

TPI Teacher Pathways Initiative

TSL Teacher and School Leader 

TQP Teacher Quality Partnership

USCO Unsafe School Choice Option

VR Vocational Rehabilitation

WIOA Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
This page is intentionally left blank.
U.S. Department of Education 

Mitchell M. Zais, Ph.D.

Acting Secretary

January 15, 2021

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 2020 Annual Performance Report: Washington, 

D.C., 20202.

Notice of Availability of Alternate Formats

This report is available at http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/index.html. On request, 

the report also is available in alternative formats, such as Braille, large print or compact 

disk. For more information, please contact our Alternate Format Center at 1-202-260-0852 

or 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. Our Twitter page is at @usedgov, and our blog is at Homeroom.

Notice to Limited English Proficient Persons

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

request language assistance services, free of charge, for this Department information by 

calling 1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327) or TTY: 1-800-877-8339 or by emailing us 

at Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov.

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

improve its usefulness to PIO@ed.gov or write to:

U.S. Department of Education Performance Improvement Officer 

400 Maryland Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20202