FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 7 

Performance Results Details

Performance Management Framework 

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

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

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

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

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

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

and Annual Performance Reports.

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

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

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

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

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

FY 2014–18 Strategic Plan 
PERFORMANCE RESULTS DETAILS

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

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

The Department’s Agency Priority Goals

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

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

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

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

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

the APGs are available on performance.gov. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

increase college access and success. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agency Priority Goal: Increase college degree attainment in America

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

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

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

Supports Strategic Goal 1.
PERFORMANCE RESULTS DETAILS

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

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

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

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

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

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

completion rates and educational attainment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

transitions from secondary to postsecondary education and among higher education institutions 

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

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

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

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

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

encourage collaboration and best practices. 

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

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

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

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

measure the extent to which students are mastering them. 

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

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

consortia and the consortia developing alternate assessments based on alternate academic 

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

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

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

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

for an additional three or four years.

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

standards and assessments

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

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

standards.

Supports Strategic Goal 2.
PERFORMANCE RESULTS DETAILS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

between other Department programs and ESEA Flexibility. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

development and implementation of comprehensive evaluation systems. This additional support 

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

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

tools. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agency Priority Goal: Improve learning by ensuring that more students 

have effective teachers and leaders

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

implemented teacher and principal evaluation and support systems that consider multiple 

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

Supports Strategic Goal 2.
PERFORMANCE RESULTS DETAILS

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

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

principal evaluation and support systems.2 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

enter school prepared for success. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Agency Priority Goal: Support comprehensive early learning 

assessment systems

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

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

common measure.

Supports Strategic Goal 3.

2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

progress in this area.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

achievement measures, as was done in the past. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agency Priority Goal: Ensure equitable educational opportunities

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

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

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

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

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

decrease.

Supports Strategic Goal 4.
PERFORMANCE RESULTS DETAILS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

more thorough description of programs contributing to student academic achievement and 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

students. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

evidence framework in the Education Department General Administrative Regulations 

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

 or 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

incentivizing evidence through eligibility requirements, competitive preference priorities, and 

selection criteria. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and applicants. 

 

Agency Priority Goal: Enable evidence-based decision making

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

Supports Strategic Goal 5.

3

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

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

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

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

Cross-Agency Priority Goals 

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

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

categories: 

Mission CAP Goals Management CAP Goals

 Cybersecurity

 Climate Change (federal actions)

 Insider Threat and Security Clearance

 Job-creating Investment

 Infrastructure Permitting Modernization

 STEM Education

 Service Member and Veterans Mental 

Health 

 Customer Service

 IT Delivery

 Strategic Sourcing

 Shared Services

 Benchmarking and Mission-support 

Operations

 Open Data

 Lab-to-Market

 People and Culture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

information is learned.4

 

The Department currently contributes to the following CAP Goals: 

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

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

with government. 

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

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

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

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

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

students’ access to quality STEM learning experiences.

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

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

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

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

 

4

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

5

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

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

The Department’s Approach to Data Collection and Analysis 

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

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

education information for the improvement of student outcomes. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

standards. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

responses to customer inquiries. 

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

 To increase accountability through improved financial management. 

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

receive proper training on the new system. 

The Department’s Evaluation and Evidence Planning Initiatives

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

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

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

through FY 2016, see appendix C.