FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 19

Performance Plan Summary

Looking Ahead and Addressing Challenges

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

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

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

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

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

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

redesigned School Improvement Grants program. Those commitments are bolstered by 

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

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

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

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

 more flexibility for state decision-making; 

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

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

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

affordability and completion. 

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

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

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

ladders of opportunity to help all students. 

Data Verification and Validation 

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

of data presented. OMB guidance indicates: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

needed.6

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

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

 

6

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

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

Reporting on Progress 

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

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

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

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

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

on infrastructure and capacity-building, through operational priorities and initiatives at the 

principal office level. 

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

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

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

high-quality and timely data, including evaluations and performance metrics, throughout the 

lifecycle of policies and programs. 

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

capacity and funding. In addressing capacity, the Department will invest in the continuous 

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

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

contractors. 

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

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

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

policy makers. 

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

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

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

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

levels, and other stakeholders. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 21

Goal 1. Postsecondary Education, Career and Technical Education, 

and Adult Education: 

Increase college access, affordability, quality, and completion by 

improving postsecondary education and lifelong learning 

opportunities for youths and adults.

Goal Leader: Ted Mitchell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Student Aid (FAFSA) 

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

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

worked, and hourly wages of VR consumers) 

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

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

wages of VR Transition-Age Youth) 

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

Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR)-supported grantee projects 

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

knowledge of NIDRR grantee research 

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

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

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

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

graduation rates 

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

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

populations. Objective Leader: Jon O’Bergh

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

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

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

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

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

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

programs. Objective Leader: Russ Shilling

Metric 1.4.A: Number of STEM postsecondary credentials awarded 

Goal 1 Discretionary Resources

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

FY 2014

FY 2015

FY 2016

$29,752

$29,699

$30,283

(Dollars in millions)

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities7 Supporting Goal 1 Performance Metrics 

[Dollars in Millions]

POC Account Obj. Program

FY 2014

Appropriation

FY 2015 

Appropriation

FY 2016 

President’s 

Budget

FSA DM/SAA Student Aid Administration: Salaries and 

expenses 

663 675 727

FSA DM/SAA Student Aid Administration: Servicing 

Activities 503 772 855

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

OCTAE CTAE 1.1, 1.2, 

1.3

Adult basic and literacy education 

state grants 564 569 569

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

OPE HE 1.1, 1.3 Federal TRIO programs 838 840 860

OSERS REHAB 1.1 Supported employment state grants 28 28 31

Subtotal 26,492 26,426 26,834

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

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

n/a = Not available. 

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

Detail may not add to total due to rounding. 

 

7

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

competitive and non-competitive programs. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 23

Public Benefit

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

education and lifelong learning opportunities for youths and adults are matters that require equal 

parts information, motivation, and opportunity to be successful. 

Prior to entering postsecondary education, prospective students need easily accessible 

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

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

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

the postsecondary institutions and programs of study they are considering. Students deserve to 

know that, whether they enter a college, university, career training program, or adult education 

program, the credential they earn will be affordable and its value will be recognized as an 

indication that they possess the necessary knowledge and skills for success in the workplace 

and in life. 

Providing federal student aid in a simple, reliable, and efficient manner is the main way the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

developed by the Department, such as the College Affordability and Transparency Center, the 

Financial Aid Shopping Sheet, the College Scorecard, a consolidated student aid website 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

degree or other postsecondary credential. 

 

8 Federal Student Aid Annual Report FY 2014
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

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

Goal 1: Details

Postsecondary 

Education, Career 

and Technical 

Education, and Adult 

Education Indicators 

of Success

Baseline

Actuals Targets

2012 2013 2014 2014 2015 2016

Objective 1.1: Access and Affordability. Close the opportunity gap by improving the affordability of and access to college and/or 

workforce training, especially for underrepresented and/or underprepared populations (e.g., low-income and first-generation students, 

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

1.1.A. Rate of increase 

in net price of public 

four-year institutions 

Year: 2010–

11

1.7%

Year: 

2009–10

-1.2%

Year: 

2010–11

1.7%

Year: 

2011–12

3.1%

1.5%

NOT MET 1.3% 1.1%

1.1.B. Rate of increase 

in net price of public 

two-year institutions

Year: 2010–

11

1.7%

Year: 

2009–10

-3.1%

Year: 

2010–11

1.7%

Year: 

2011–12

3.2%

1.5%

NOT MET 1.3% 1.1%

1.1.C. Percentage of 

high school seniors 

filing a FAFSA1

Year: 2013

59.2%

58.4% 59.2%

Year: 

2014

60.1%

58.8%–

60.8% 

MET

59.1%–

61.1%

Within 1 

percentage 

point (+/-) of 

the previous 

year’s 

calculation

1.1.D. Index of national 

aggregate annual 

earnings of VR 

consumers (based on 

the number of 

competitive 

employment outcomes, 

hours worked, and 

hourly wages of VR 

consumers)

2

Year: 2010

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

TBD

Data 

from 

states 

due Nov 

30

$62,750,000

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

1.1.E. Index of national 

aggregate annual 

earnings of TransitionAge Youth (based on 

the number of 

competitive 

employment outcomes, 

hours worked, and 

hourly wages of VR 

Transition-Age Youth)

3

Year: 2010

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

TBD

Data 

from 

states 

due Nov 

30

$18,700,000

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

1.1.F. Number of 

peer-reviewed 

publications resulting 

from NIDRR-supported 

grantee projects4

Year: 2012

484 484 472 472 489NOT MET 0 0

1.1.G. Number of VR 

state directors and 

other state VR 

personnel who express 

knowledge of NIDRR 

grantee research5

Year: 2014

TBD

Not 

Collected

Not 

Collected

Not 

Collected

Baseline 

year (0 

increase)

NA

35% 47%

Objective 1.2: Quality. Foster institutional value to ensure that postsecondary education credentials represent effective preparation 

for students to succeed in the workforce and participate in civic life.

1.2.A. Number of lowperforming institutions 

with high loan default 

rates and low 

graduation rates6

Year: 2010–

11

205

Not 

Collected

Year: 

2010–11

205

Year: 

2011–12

91

178

MET 155 135

Objective 1.3: Completion. Increase degree and certificate completion and job placement in high-need and high-skill areas, 

particularly among underrepresented and/or underprepared populations.

1.3.A. Degree 

attainment among 25–

34-year-old age cohort7

Year: 2012

44.0%

Year: 2011

43.1%

Year: 2012

44.0%

Year: 

2013

44.8%

44.7%

MET 45.6% 46.8%
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

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

Postsecondary 

Education, Career 

and Technical 

Education, and Adult 

Education Indicators 

of Success

Baseline

Actuals Targets

2012 2013 2014 2014 2015 2016

1.3.B. Retention rate of 

first-time degreeseeking 

undergraduates: Fulltime8

Year: 2011

71.9%

Year: 2010

72.1%

Year: 2011

71.9%

Year: 

2012

71.8%

71.9%

NOT MET 72.1% 72.1%

1.3.C. Retention rate of 

first-time degreeseeking 

undergraduates: Parttime9

Year: 2011

41.7%

Year: 2010

42.1%

Year: 2011

41.7%

Year: 

2012

42.2%

41.9%

MET 42.6% 42.9%

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

that enable access to and completion of postsecondary programs.

1.4.A. Number of 

STEM postsecondary 

credentials awarded10

Year: 2010–

11

531,018

Year: 

2009–10

500,783

Year: 

2010–11

531,018

Year: 

2011–12

556,696

560,000

NOT MET 595,000 638,000

NA = Not applicable. 

TBD = To be determined. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4

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

Living in the Department of Health and Human Services. 

5

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

because the data may not be available. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

clearer understanding of how the data are trending. 

7

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

but are reported in 2013). 

8

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

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

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

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

9

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

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

methodology. 

10 The baseline has been recalculated from what was reported in the FY 2013 Annual Performance Report and FY 2015 Annual 

Performance Plan because of revised IPEDS data. Additionally, last year’s data included Military technologies and applied sciences, 

which is no longer included in the calculation. 

Data Sources and Frequency of Collection:

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

1.1.B. IPEDS; annually 

1.1.C. The denominator is the number of graduating seniors according to the most recent projection by the National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES). The numerator is from FSA’s Central Processing System and is based on the number of applications 

during the first nine months of the application cycle that are—as of September 30 of the first year of the application cycle—complete 

(not rejected); first-time filers; incoming freshmen, with or without previous college attendance; age 18 or less as of June 30 of the
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

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

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

Washington, DC; annually 

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

1.1.E. RSA-911; annually 

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

1.1.G. New VR state director survey; biennially 

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

1.3.A. NCES Digest of Education Statistics, Table 104.30 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_104.30.asp), 

Number of persons age 18 and over, by highest level of educational attainment, sex, race/ethnicity, and age: 2013. Tabulated from 

Current Population Survey data, U.S. Census; annually 

1.3.B. IPEDS Data Center; annually 

1.3.C. IPEDS Data Center; annually 

1.4.A. IPEDS Data Center; annually 

Note on performance metrics and targets: These metrics were established as a part of the FY 2014–18 Strategic 

Plan. Metrics may be updated or revised to reflect awareness of more accurate data or clarifications. Such updates or 

revisions are identified in footnotes. 

Analysis and Next Steps by Objective

Objective 1.1: Access and Affordability 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

greater transparency and accountability. In addition, the Department continues to seek ways to 

simplify the FAFSA so it is easier and faster for students and families to apply for financial aid. 

Recognizing that FAFSA completion significantly increases chances that students will actually 

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

share FAFSA completion data with local education authorities, TRIO and GEAR-UP grantees, 

tribal education authorities, and Indian organizations so those entities can maximize the number 

of their students that complete the FAFSA. 

The Department has already taken a number of actions to help struggling federal student loan 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

through the TAACCCT grants. 

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

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

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

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

market forces and job creation trends. Nonetheless, the Department initiated a number of 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

its ability to ensure progress against these metrics. Despite these challenges, the Department 

will continue to highlight institutions that are taking steps to ensure affordability for families and 

will support practices that reduce cost by reducing the time taken to earn a degree, such as 

competency-based education, dual enrollment, remedial education reforms, and improved 

articulation between institutions. 

Regarding metric 1.1.C, the Department achieved its FY 2014 performance target to increase 

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

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

Department’s participation since 2011 in the American Council on Education’s National College 

Application Week initiative, likely contributed to success with this target. 

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

fiscal year. As such, the Department will make the FY 2014 data available to the public in spring 

2015. The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), signed by the President in July 

2014, reforms the public workforce system by strengthening alignment and access to 

employment, training, education, and support services needed to succeed in the labor market. 

In particular, the WIOA includes many changes that are designed to strengthen and improve 

employment for individuals with disabilities, many served by the State VR Services and 

Supported Employment programs. WIOA places significant emphasis on obtaining competitive 

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

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

individuals with the most significant disabilities, to achieve competitive integrated employment 

through customized employment, supported employment, and other individualized services. The 

Department will continue to track national aggregate annual earnings of VR consumers and 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

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

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

that the Department will undertake. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Challenges and Next Steps:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

help up to 5 million struggling borrowers. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

education more affordable. 

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

expanding a middle-class tax cut for college. The Department continues to seek ways to simplify 

the FAFSA so it is easier and faster for students and families to apply for financial aid. 

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

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

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

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

vocational rehabilitation agencies in developing training and employment opportunities for 

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

local economy. 

Objective 1.2: Quality 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress:

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

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

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

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

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

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

quality. 

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

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

Experimental Sites initiative, the Department published a notice in July 2014 soliciting proposals 

for experiments in the areas of competency-based learning, Federal Work Study, and prior 

learning assessments. The results of these experiments will guide future policy decisions. The 

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

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

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

practices in the field. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

methodology for calculating the rate. 

Challenges and Next Steps:

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

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

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

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

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

Department postponed implementation of State Authorization regulations to provide additional 

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

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

Management.

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

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

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

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

competition. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

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

Objective 1.3: Completion

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

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

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

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

needs prior to enrollment in college. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

the college and career readiness of youths and adults. 

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

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

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

successful program completion. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

years. 

Challenges and Next Steps:

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

education that lead to completion. 

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

transitions from adult education to postsecondary education and training through career 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

White Black Hispanic Asian

Pacific 

Islander

American 

Indian

Two or 

More 

Races Disability

Percentage, 

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

Percentage, 

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

Note: Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. 

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

difficulty dressing or bathing; difficulty doing errands alone. 

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

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

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

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

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

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

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

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

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

STEM postsecondary credentials awarded. The total number of STEM postsecondary 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

is focused on four major objectives: 

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

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

two- and four-year postsecondary institutions; 

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

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

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

math courses at the undergraduate level. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

as other targeted efforts from the White House-led initiatives, can be used to help expand 

participation of underrepresented groups in postsecondary STEM programs. 

Challenges and Next Steps:

As the Department’s Office of STEM is newly formed, one of the first tasks is to better identify 

programs both within the Department and across the federal government in which to emphasize 

STEM priorities. The investments at the Department that address STEM degree and credential 

completion in particular are limited to select programs that target minority-serving institutions. As 

the next grant cycle commences, the Department is engaging in planning meetings to identify 

areas for strategic leverage—technical assistance to grantees, preaward support to potential 

applicants, etc. The Department will continue to promote STEM pathway opportunities within the 

CoSTEM structure that include community colleges. 

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

degree-granting institutions**, by gender and race/ethnicity, 2010–11 and 2011–12

Year Total

Gender Race/Ethnicity

Male Female White Black Hispanic

Asian/Pacific Islander American 

Indian/

Alaska 

Native

Two or 

More 

Races

Nonresident 

Total Asian Alien

Pacific 

Islander

2010–

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

2011–

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

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

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

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

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

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 33

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Selected Strategies to Achieve Goal 1

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

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

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

of study with a degree or certificate. 

To spur reforms at the state level and most effectively impact attainment rates, the Department 

will implement the President’s College Value and Affordability Agenda. One central strategy 

promotes innovation and competition (such as in course redesign and student services, 

accelerating time to degree by fostering dual enrollment, pilot projects, and competency-based 

education), facilitated by a reduction in federal regulatory requirements that may constrain 

innovation. To support innovation and competition, the Department has implemented the First in 

the World grant program, launched a series of Experimental Sites pilots through Federal 

Student Aid, incorporated dual enrollment in the program of study definition in the GEAR-UP 

grant competition, hosted an Education Datapalooza event in January 2014 to encourage 

innovations that increase quality while reducing costs, and released a Request for Information 

seeking feedback on potential uses for Application Program Interfaces (API) for the purpose of 

making data and processes in higher education and student aid more open and accessible to 

students and families. A second major strategy fosters better investment in college education 

and holds institutions and students accountable for completion and postsecondary outcomes 

through a college rating system that will help students compare value (e.g., access, affordability, 

and student outcomes) and eventually tie financial aid to performance and improvement. The 

Department has collected extensive public input through hearings, forums, meetings, and 

electronically submitted feedback over the past year to guide the development of this college 

rating system. 

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

federal strategies. Furthermore, the Department is shifting to an evidence-based approach for 

institutional grants, with, for example, the use of competitive priorities in the Strengthening 

Institutions Program and the tiered-evidence structure of the First in the World grant 

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

extension, educational attainment. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 34

Goal 2. Elementary and Secondary Education: 

Improve the elementary and secondary education system’s ability to 

consistently deliver excellent instruction aligned with rigorous 

academic standards while providing effective support services to 

close achievement and opportunity gaps, and ensure all students 

graduate high school college- and career-ready. 

Goal Leader: Deb Delisle

Objective 2.1: Standards and Assessments. Support implementation of internationally 

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

assessments. Objective Leader: Scott Sargrad 

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

Metric 2.1.B: Number of states that are implementing next-generation reading and 

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

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

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

teachers and leaders.10 Objective Leader: Scott Sargrad 

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

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

student growth as a significant factor 

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

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

Objective Leader: Heather Rieman 

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

disabilities and youth of color (youth of color metric) 

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

disabilities and youth of color (students with disabilities (SWD), IDEA only metric) 

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

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

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

Leader: Scott Sargrad 

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

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

and exited priority school status 

 

10 States with approved ESEA Flexibility requests are required to implement teacher and principal evaluation and 

support systems by 2014–15 or 2015–16, depending on the school year of initial approval. Under previously 

announced additional flexibility, personnel decisions based on those systems are not required until the 2016–17

school year. Additionally, the Department committed to working with states that need to make adjustments to 

implementation timelines or sequencing through the ESEA Flexibility renewal process in early 2015. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 35

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

and exited focus school status 

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

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

Objective Leader: Russ Shilling 

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

as their main assignment who hold a corresponding undergraduate degree 

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

STEM AP exam 

Goal 2 Discretionary Resources

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

FY 2014

FY 2015

FY 2016

$33,301

$33,202

$35,169

(Dollars in millions)

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities11 Supporting Goal 2 Performance Metrics 

[Dollars in Millions]

POC Account Obj. Program

FY 2014

Appropriation

FY 2015 

Appropriation

FY 2016 

President’s 

Budget

OESE ED 2.4 School improvement grants 506 506 556

OESE ED 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 

2.4

Title I Grants to local educational 

agencies 14,385 14,410 15,410

OESE I&I 2.1 State assessments 378 378 403

OESE SIP 2.2 Improving teacher quality state grants 2,350 2,350 2,350

OESE SSS n/a 21st century community learning centers 1,149 1,152 1,152

 

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

competitive and non-competitive programs.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 36

POC Account Obj. Program

FY 2014

Appropriation

FY 2015 

Appropriation

FY 2016 

President’s 

Budget

OII SSS 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 

2.4 Promise Neighborhoods 57 57 150

OSERS SE 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 Special Education grants to states 11,473 11,498 11,673

Subtotal 30,297 30,350 31,693

Other Discretionary Programs/Activities 3,004 2,852 3,476

TOTAL, GOAL 2 33,301 33,202 35,169

n/a = Not available. 

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

Detail may not add to total due to rounding. 

Public Benefit

The goal for America’s educational system is clear: every student should graduate from high 

school ready for college and a career. Every student should have meaningful opportunities from 

which to choose upon graduation from high school. Over the past few years, states, districts, 

and schools have initiated groundbreaking reforms and innovations to try to meet this goal. For 

the first time, almost every state is supporting higher standards that will demonstrate that 

students who meet those standards are truly college- and career-ready. States are 

implementing the next generation of assessments that are not only aligned with these new 

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

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

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

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

redesigning high school education by building stronger connections among secondary 

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

classroom instruction in STEM education. 

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

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

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

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

potential. According to the 2009 McKinsey report, The Economic Impact of the Achievement 

Gap in American Schools, recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores 

show that low-income students are “roughly two years of learning behind the average better-off 

student of the same age” and, on average, “black and Latino students are roughly two to three 

years of learning behind white students of the same age.” 

Many children, particularly children from low-income families, students with disabilities, English 

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

gap. Today, a student attending a high school with high minority enrollment is much less likely 

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

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

toward kids who need help the most. 

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

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

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

and teaching that aligns with internationally benchmarked college- and career-ready standards, 

high-quality formative and summative assessments, and engaging and effective instructional 

content. Ensuring that U.S. students have the critical thinking skills and other tools they need to 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 37

be effective in the 21st-century economy means improving teaching and learning in all content 

areas—from literacy, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics to history, civics and 

government, geography, foreign languages, the arts, economics and financial literacy, 

environmental education, computer science, health education, and other subjects. 

Goal 2: Details

Elementary and Secondary

Indicators of Success Baseline

Actuals Targets

2012 2013 2014 2014 2015 2016

Objective 2.1: Standards and Assessments. Support implementation of internationally benchmarked college- and career-ready standards, 

with aligned, valid, and reliable assessments.

2.1.A. Number of states that have 

adopted college- and career-ready 

standards1

Year: 2013

49, plus DC

Not 

Collected

49, plus 

DC

49, plus 

DC and 

Puerto 

Rico

50

NOT MET 50 50

2.1.B. Number of states that are 

implementing next-generation 

reading and mathematics 

assessments, aligned with collegeand career-ready standards1

Year: 2013

0

Not 

Collected 0 0

0

NA 50 50

Objective 2.2: Effective Teachers and Strong Leaders. Improve the preparation, recruitment, retention, development, support, evaluation, 

recognition, and equitable distribution of effective teachers and leaders.

2.2.A. Number of states that have 

fully implemented teacher and 

principal evaluation and support 

systems that consider multiple 

measures of effectiveness, with 

student growth as a significant 

factor1,2

Year: 2013

6

Not 

Collected 6 7

18

NOT MET 37 43

Objective 2.3: School Climate and Community. Increase the success, safety, and health of students, particularly in high-need schools, and 

deepen family and community engagement.

2.3.A. Disparity in the rates of outof-school suspensions for students 

with disabilities and youth of color 

(youth of color metric)3

Year: 2012

10.7% point 

disparity

10.7% point 

disparity

Not 

Collected

TBD

2014 data 

collected 

in 2015

8.7% point 

disparity

TBD

NA 6.7% point 

disparity

2.3.B. Disparity in the rates of outof-school suspensions for students 

with disabilities and youth of color 

(SWD, IDEA only metric)3

Year: 2012

5.7% point 

disparity 

5.7% point 

disparity 

Not 

Collected

TBD

2014 data 

collected 

in 2015

4.2% point 

disparity

TBD

NA 2.7% point 

disparity

Objective 2.4: Turn Around Schools and Close Achievement Gaps. Accelerate achievement by supporting states and districts in turning 

around low-performing schools and closing achievement gaps, and developing models of next-generation high schools.

2.4.A. Number of persistently low 

graduation rate high schools1,4,5

Year: 2011–

12

7754

NA

Year: 

2011–12

775

Year: 

2012–13

737

736

NOT MET 699 5% annual reduction

2.4.B. Percentage of Cohort 1 

priority schools that have met the 

state exit criteria and exited priority 

school status3

Year: 2013

NA NA NA

TBD

2014 data 

will be 

available 

in 2015

10%

TBD 15% 20%

2.4.C. Percentage of Cohort 1 focus 

schools that have met the state exit 

criteria and exited focus school 

status3

Year: 2013

NA NA NA

TBD

2014 data 

will be 

available 

in 2015

10%

TBD 15% 20%
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 38

Elementary and Secondary

Indicators of Success Baseline

Actuals Targets

2012 2013 2014 2014 2015 2016

Objective 2.5: STEM Teaching and Learning. Increase the number and quality of STEM teachers and increase opportunities for students to 

access rich STEM learning experiences.

2.5.A. Percentage of high school 

and middle school teachers who 

teach STEM as their main 

assignment who hold a 

corresponding undergraduate 

degree3,6

Year: 2011–

12

62.2%

62.2% Not 

Collected

Not 

Collected NA NA 65.3%

2.5.B. Number of public high school 

graduates who have taken at least 

one STEM AP exam7

Year: 2012

497,922

Not 

Collected

Year: 2012

497,922

Year: 2013

527,001

536,810

NOT MET 581,419 632,642

NA = Not applicable. 

TBD = To be determined. 

1

 This metric is aligned with an Agency Priority Goal. 

2

 In the FY 2013 APR and FY 2015 APP, the Department reported a baseline of seven states, initially including DE, FL, IN, LA, MI, 

RI, and TN. In Quarter 2 of FY 2014, the Department recalculated the baseline and determined it to be 6 states (DE, FL, IN, LA, TN, 

and DC—removing MI and RI, adding DC). 

3

 Targets for this metric are based on what the Department expects will occur in a given fiscal year. 

4

 Persistently low graduation rate high schools are defined as regular and vocational high schools with an average minimum cohort 

size of 65 or more, and an average adjusted cohort graduation rate (ACGR) of 60% or less over three years. The 2011–12 baseline 

and actual only included two years of data because the Department did not collect ACGR data until 2010–11. 

5

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

Report and FY 2015 Annual Performance Plan. The targets remain at a 5% reduction each year.

6 Data are produced every four years; thus the Department will only receive one set of data (collected in 2015–16) during this 

Strategic Plan cycle. 

7 STEM Advanced Placement (AP) fields include Biology, Calculus, Chemistry, Computer Science, Environmental Science, Physics, 

and Statistics. 

Data Sources and Frequency of Collection: 

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

2.1.B. ESEA Flexibility Monitoring; annually 

2.2.A. ESEA Flexibility Applications and Monitoring; annually 

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

2.3.B. Civil Rights Data Collection; biennially 

2.4.A. EDFacts; annually 

2.4.B. EDFacts; annually 

2.4.C. EDFacts; annually 

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

2.5.B. College Board/AP administrative records; annually 

Note on performance metrics and targets: These metrics were established as a part of the FY 2014–18 Strategic 

Plan. Metrics may be updated or revised to reflect awareness of more accurate data or clarifications. Such updates or 

revisions are identified in footnotes. 

Analysis and Next Steps by Objective

Objective 2.1: Standards and Assessments

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

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

assessments. Since 2009, 43 states and the District of Columbia have adopted common, 

internationally benchmarked college- and career-ready standards in English, language arts, and 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 39

mathematics that were developed through a state-led effort. Six states and Puerto Rico are 

implementing their own college- and career-ready standards that have been approved by their 

state’s network of institutions of higher education. With such standards in place, educators are 

designing instructional strategies to engage students and implementing support systems to 

strengthen college- and career-ready skills for all students, including those with disabilities and 

English learners. The Department will continue to leverage federal investments, including Titles 

I, II, and III of ESEA, as well as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and 

provide guidance and technical assistance to states to ensure that teachers and principals are 

well prepared and students have the resources and support needed to graduate from high 

school ready for college and careers. For those states whose ESEA Flexibility expired at the 

end of the 2013–2014 school year, the Department worked to extend those waivers through the 

2014–2015 school year. As part of this process, the Department determined that each of those 

states was on track to implementing college- and career-ready standards and that a plan was in 

place to implement an assessment aligned with those standards according to the timeline 

established. 

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

influenced by factors that are beyond the control of the LEAs, the states, or the Department. 

Developing appropriate assessment instruments and approaches for young students poses 

significant challenges, especially for children from low-income families, children who are English 

learners, and children with disabilities. Developing and administering the next generation of 

assessments and supporting teachers through training related to the new standards will require 

continuing financial support. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

A challenge facing the Department over the next two years is effectively supporting states in 

their plans to implement these college- and career-ready standards and aligned assessments 

for all students, including English learners, students with disabilities, and low-achieving 

students. 

The Department is taking steps to develop and target technical assistance activities that will 

help increase state capacity to identify and implement best and promising practices. For 

example, the Department will build a publicly accessible library of resources that support the 

implementation of college- and career-ready standards. This library will draw on resources 

across the Department to develop and identify materials to assist in a full and effective transition 

to college- and career-ready standards. Resources developed by the technical assistance arm 

of the former Implementation and Support Unit (ISU) (now part of the Office of State Support 

(OSS)) and by IDEA-funded technical assistance centers will be added to the library. The 

Department is also working internally to coordinate the provision of technical assistance across 

OESE, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), and other related offices and 

programs. In the most recent Comprehensive Centers competition, the Department created a 

Center on Standards and Assessments Implementation and a Center on College and Career 

Readiness and Success, which will help build the capacity of state educational agencies to 

implement college- and career-ready standards. The Department also recently funded the 

Center on Improving Transition to Postsecondary Education and Employment for Students with 

Disabilities. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 40

Objective 2.2: Effective Teachers and Strong Leaders

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

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

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

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

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

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

promotion, differential performance-based compensation, and other personnel decisions. The 

Department is supporting the work of states and districts in this area through key programs and 

initiatives such as Title I, Title II, RTT, Teacher Incentive Fund, ESEA Flexibility, Excellent 

Educators for All, and the Comprehensive Center on Great Teachers and Leaders, and using 

these programs and initiatives to provide resources and technical assistance to states and 

districts so that they can move forward with high-quality implementation. In 2014, more states 

and districts are implementing teacher and principal evaluation and support systems that are 

based on multiple measures, including student growth as a significant factor, and nearly all 

states are continuing to work toward implementation of these systems over the next two to three 

years. 

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

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

evaluation systems and compensation decisions are governed by state and local policies, 

without revisions in state policies and new partnerships with teacher and education leaders’ 

organizations, reforms of existing evaluation and compensation systems are unlikely to be 

successful. 

Challenges and Next Steps:

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

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

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

of implementation steps. In order to mitigate these risks, the Department is providing flexibility to 

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

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

implementation timelines and plans. The Department is working to connect all states to experts 

who can provide technical assistance in this area. There are also challenges associated with 

teacher and principal support for the new systems, as well as the challenge that these systems 

may not work as intended. The Department is continuing to work with states to help them 

engage with educators and develop plans focused on continuous improvement so that they can 

make adjustments as needed.

Objective 2.3: School Climate and Community

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

As states and local districts across the country move to increase rigor in schools and improve 

the college and career readiness of all students, there is a growing recognition in the field that 

safe and supportive school climates are a necessary precondition of large-scale improvements 

in student achievement. Central to ensuring safe and supportive school climates for all students 

is the reform of school discipline policy and practice. Research has repeatedly found, and the 

Department’s Civil Rights Data Collection confirms, that school discipline as applied in many 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 41

public schools often negatively and disproportionately impacts minority students and students 

with disabilities without resulting in any appreciable improvements in school safety or student 

achievement. Such practices contribute greatly to the loss of instructional time and opportunities 

for affected students and to a school-to-prison pipeline that involves tens of thousands of young 

people in the juvenile justice system each year. Since 2011, the Department, in collaboration 

with the Department of Justice (DOJ), has focused states and local districts on understanding 

the elements of safe and supportive school climates and the deleterious effects of zero 

tolerance discipline policies. In the summer of 2011, the Department and DOJ launched the 

Supportive School Discipline Initiative (SSDI) with a central goal of reducing disproportionalities 

in the application of school discipline, especially as it pertains to minority students (metric 2.3.A) 

and students with disabilities (metric 2.3.B). Through the SSDI, the Department released a 

“Dear Colleague” letter signed by Secretary Duncan and Attorney General Holder, which 

provides extensive guidance on reforming school discipline policies; convened a national 

summit, which included more than 20 states that are working to reform state law and policy 

related to student discipline and youth involvement in the juvenile justice system; and continued 

to facilitate the Supportive School Discipline Community of Practice to support states 

implementing student discipline reforms. The Department is also supporting improvements in 

school climate through $43 million in FY 2014 School Climate Transformation Grants to states 

and local districts. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

School discipline reform is challenging on multiple levels, as it often necessitates changes in 

state law and local district policy that practitioners on the ground must then understand and 

implement. Building awareness among local practitioners of research on the effects of zero 

tolerance discipline policies and the disproportionalities that often result is particularly 

challenging for states because they oversee hundreds, if not thousands, of autonomous local 

districts, each with their own unique cultures, policies, and practices as they relate to school 

discipline. To meet the informational and organizational challenges of reforming school 

discipline policies, the Department and DOJ are working with 22 states through the SSDI to 

advance broad adoption of supportive school discipline policies and reduce disciplinary practice 

that results in disproportionalities among the students affected. The Department is developing a 

new school climate survey for schools to be released in September 2015 and is working with the 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) at the Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS) and DOJ on the implementation of the School Climate 

Transformation Grants. 

Objective 2.4: Turn Around Schools and Close Achievement Gaps: 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

three years through the SIG program to implement rigorous intervention models intended to turn 

these schools around. Nearly two-thirds of the schools in the first two cohorts have made 

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

improvement in math. However, some of this population of schools has also shown decreases 

in performance, and more work is needed to ensure that the progress is sustained. In addition, 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 42

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

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

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

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

Challenges and Next Steps: 

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

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

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

looks like along the way. Additionally, there is a significant need for effective turnaround leaders 

for the lowest-performing schools, which the Department is attempting to address through its 

Turnaround School Leaders Program, a new program focused on helping districts, in 

partnership with states, institutions of higher education, and nonprofit or for-profit partners, 

develop pipelines of effective leaders. Additionally, as major grant programs are ending for 

specific states, districts, and schools, such as RTT and SIG, there may be fewer resources 

available in some states and districts to support school turnaround. Sustaining successful 

school turnaround is a major challenge for states, districts, and schools, and the Department is 

both providing technical assistance and making changes to the SIG program in order to better 

support sustainability. 

Objective 2.5: STEM Teaching and Learning: 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

Efforts such as the 100kin10 organization’s expansion and the recent awards made to prepare 

STEM teachers via the Teacher Quality Partnerships program ($35 million in FY 2014) show 

continued attention and progress toward the Department’s goal of increasing the number and 

quality of STEM teachers. Across the administration, there has been a significant emphasis on 

improving STEM instruction, most directly through the CoSTEM Education’s interagency 

working groups. The Department leads the formally chartered group on P-12 STEM Instruction, 

which includes regular participation from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Energy 

(DOE), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), NSF, 

Department of Defense (DoD), and White House (Office of Science and Technology Policy and 

OMB). All participating agencies have committed to align efforts to support the preparation of 

high-quality STEM teachers and to support authentic STEM experiences for P-12 educators. 

Not only do these agencies work together within the context of the CoSTEM Education, but the 

goals of the interagency working groups align to the CAP Goal for STEM Education across the 

administration. All activities that are being undertaken by the interagency working groups feed 

into the CAP process, and all milestones for that process align with the CoSTEM goals. 

Programs such as the Department’s Mathematics and Science Partnerships (MSP) program, 

along with numerous other programs aimed at the professional development of STEM teachers, 

also contribute to this goal but, because we do not have national activities money available 

within the MSP formula-based grant program, we do not have national program-level data 

available to help measure the effect on the overall STEM teaching population. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 43

2013 data from the College Board shows an overall increase in the number of graduating high 

school students taking Advanced Placement (AP) STEM exams12—527,001 overall students 

compared to 497,922 in 2012. In all subgroups, total number of participants increased, ranging 

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

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

participation (which has been the case since 2002). 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

While efforts continue to support P-12 STEM instruction, the dedicated federal efforts to prepare 

new STEM teachers are limited to just two programs—the Teacher Quality Partnerships 

program at the Department (which did utilize a STEM priority, but is not a STEM-dedicated 

program) and the Noyce Scholarship program at NSF. Requests for funding of a dedicated 

program to prepare STEM teachers have not been fulfilled, and the majority of teachers are 

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

aimed specifically at STEM teacher preparation. The MSP program does not currently have a 

national activities set-aside to provide technical assistance or perform program-wide evaluation 

(each project within MSP must complete an evaluation for the state, but these evaluations are 

not submitted to the Department). While the overall numbers of students taking STEM AP 

exams have increased—including through Department-supported programs such as i3—AP 

courses are only one way to provide students with rich STEM learning experiences. Additional 

support should be given to both formal and informal STEM opportunities for students within the 

entire P-12 spectrum. The Office of STEM, within OII, will continue to explore opportunities to 

blend these environments, made possible in part by the appointment of a two-year Robert 

Noyce Foundation-funded Informal STEM Fellow. 

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

Exam during High School: U.S. Public Schools, 2012 and 2013

Race/Ethnicity Gender

Socioeconomic 

Status

Total

American 

Indian/

Alaska 

Native

Asian, 

Asian 

American, 

Pacific 

Islander

Black or 

African 

American

Hispanic 

or Latino White Other

No 

Response Female Male

Low 

Income

Not 

Low 

Income

Number of 

Graduates, 

2012

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

Number of 

Graduates, 

2013

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

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

Selected Strategies to Achieve Goal 2

The Department is currently implementing a reorganization in OESE that incorporates a new 

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

provided by the Office of Student Achievement and School Accountability (SASA), Office of 

 

12 STEM exams include: Calculus AB, Calculus BC, Computer Science A, Computer Science AB*, and Statistics; 

Biology, Chemistry, Environmental Science, Physics B, Physics C: Electricity and Magnetism, and Physics C: 

Mechanics.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 44

School Turnaround, and ISU. This reorganization integrates key state-administered programs in 

a new office that will provide improved state-centered support across programs. The 

Department is using this reorganization to rethink, redesign, and rebuild core grant 

administration functions in order to provide more transparent, higher quality, and better 

differentiated support to states. This new structure, which builds on the collaboration that has 

occurred between OESE, the ISU, and OSEP, will better support states in implementing the key 

reform programs and initiatives that support Goal 2, and will improve the Department’s ability to 

execute its core priorities. The Department will continue to provide technical assistance to states 

in the areas of college- and career-ready standards and assessments, teacher and principal 

evaluation and support systems, and turning around the lowest-performing schools. The 

Department will finalize and implement a revised process for peer reviewing state assessments 

to ensure that they are high-quality and will work with states to develop and implement their 

plans for ensuring equitable access to effective teachers and leaders for all students. The 

Department will also implement changes to the SIG program in order to better support states 

and districts in turning around their lowest-performing schools. 

A strong reauthorization of the ESEA that reinforces and extends the progress already being 

made to strengthen the quality of elementary and secondary education would further this goal. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 45

Goal 3. Early Learning: 

Improve the health, social-emotional, and cognitive outcomes for all 

children from birth through 3rd grade, so that all children, 

particularly those with high needs, are on track for graduating from 

high school college- and career-ready.

Goal Leader: Deb Delisle

Objective 3.1: Access to High-Quality Programs and Services. Increase access to highquality early learning programs and comprehensive services, especially for children with high 

needs. Objective Leader: Libby Doggett 

Metric 3.1.A: Number of states with Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (QRIS) 

that meet high-quality benchmarks for child care and other early childhood programs 

Objective 3.2: Effective Workforce. Improve the quality and effectiveness of the early learning 

workforce so that early childhood educators have the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary 

to improve young children’s health, social-emotional, and cognitive outcomes. Objective 

Leader: Libby Doggett 

Metric 3.2.A: Number of states and territories with professional development systems 

that include core knowledge and competencies, career pathways, professional 

development capacity assessments, accessible professional development opportunities, 

and financial supports for child care providers 

Objective 3.3: Measuring Progress, Outcomes, and Readiness. Improve the capacity of 

states and early learning programs to develop and implement comprehensive early learning 

assessment systems. Objective Leader: Libby Doggett 

Metric 3.3.A: Number of states collecting and reporting disaggregated data on the 

status of children at kindergarten entry using a common measure 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 46

Goal 3 Discretionary Resources

$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500

FY 2014

FY 2015

FY 2016

$1,110

$1,116

$1,724

(Dollars in millions)

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities13 Supporting Goal 3 Performance Metrics 

[Dollars in Millions]

POC Account Obj. Program

FY 2014

Appropriation

FY 2015 

Appropriation

FY 2016 

President’s 

Budget

OESE SR 3.1 School Readiness: Preschool 

development grants 250 250 750

OSERS SE 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 Grants for infants and families 438 439 504

OSERS SE 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 Preschool grants 353 353 403

Subtotal 1,042 1,042 1,657

Other Discretionary Programs/Activities 68 74 68

TOTAL, GOAL 3 1,110 1,116 1,724

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

Detail may not add to total due to rounding. 

Public Benefit

An extensive body of research in education, developmental psychology, neuroscience, 

medicine, and economics shows that high-quality early learning programs produce better 

education, health, economic, and social outcomes for children, families, and the nation. Too 

many of our children start school inadequately prepared to succeed. Gaps in cognitive, 

linguistic, social, and emotional skills due to unequal opportunities become evident well before 

children enter kindergarten. The resulting achievement gap widens as children progress through 

school, despite strong efforts at remediation. The long-term consequences include high rates of 

 

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

competitive and non-competitive programs.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 47

school failure, grade repetition, inappropriate special education placements, and dropout; 

involvement in risky behaviors and crime; and even higher risk for adult chronic disease.14 

Children from low-income families, on average, start kindergarten 12–14 months behind their 

peers in pre-reading and language skills. Early findings from the Kindergarten Round of the 

“Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11,” suggest that scores on 

reading and math were lowest for kindergartners in households with incomes below the federal 

poverty level and for children coming from homes with a primary home language other than 

English.15 By increasing access to high-quality early learning programs and services, the 

country can provide children the foundation they need for success in school and address 

educational gaps before children enter kindergarten. 

The administration began efforts to increase investments in early learning in the first term and 

has continued to request more funding. RTT-ELC, a program jointly administered by the 

Department and HHS, funds 20 states to raise the bar on the quality of their early learning 

programs; establish higher standards; and provide critical links with health, nutrition, mental 

health, and family support. RTT-ELC states serve as model early learning and development 

systems, and national technical assistance is available to help all states build coordinated early 

learning systems. 

Part of the President’s overarching vision for early learning is his Preschool for All initiative, a 

new partnership investment with states to fund preschool for all 4-year-olds from low- and 

moderate-income families. The program would create incentives for states to expand publicly 

funded preschool to middle-class families above 200 percent of the federal poverty level and 

promote access to high-quality, full-day kindergarten and early learning programs for children 

under the age of 4. The vision also includes continued support for high-quality services for 

infants, toddlers, and preschool children with disabilities and their families through IDEA Parts B 

and C services. 

A down payment toward that vision was provided through the Preschool Development Grants, 

which will support state efforts to both establish the infrastructure for high-quality preschool and 

build more programs for 4-year-olds from low- and moderate-income families in high-need 

communities. This new program builds on RTT-ELC achievements and further defines quality 

programs to include 12 nationally recognized standards such as: high staff qualifications; 

professional development for teachers and staff; low staff-child ratios and small class sizes; fullday programs; developmentally appropriate, evidence-based curricula and learning 

environments that are aligned with states’ early learning standards; inclusive programs; 

employee salaries that are comparable to those for K–12 teaching staff; ongoing program 

evaluation to ensure continuous improvement; strong family engagement; and onsite 

comprehensive services for children. 

To enhance the quality of all early learning programs and services and improve outcomes for all 

children, including children with disabilities and those who are English learners, the Department 

will promote initiatives that increase access to high-quality, effective programs; improve the 

quality of the early childhood workforce; and support comprehensive assessment systems. 

 

14

“Early Childhood Investments Substantially Boost Adult Health,” Science, March 28, 2014:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6178/1478. 

15 Mulligan, G.M., McCarroll, J.C., Flanagan, K.D., and Potter, D. (2014). Findings From the First-Grade Rounds of 

the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11 (ECLS-K:2011) (NCES 2015-109). National 

Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. 

Retrieved January 14, 2015, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 48

Goal 3: Details

Early Learning

Indicators of Success Baseline

Actuals Targets

2012 2013 2014 2014 2015 2016

Objective 3.1: Access to High-Quality Programs and Services. Increase access to high-quality early learning programs and 

comprehensive services, especially for children with high needs.

3.1.A. Number of states with 

Quality Rating and Improvement 

Systems (QRIS) that meet high 

quality benchmarks for child care 

and other early childhood 

programs1,2

Year: 2010

17 19 27

2014

data to be 

available 

in 2015

29

TBD 32 NA

Objective 3.2: Effective Workforce. Improve the quality and effectiveness of the early learning workforce so that early childhood 

educators have the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to improve young children’s health, social-emotional, and cognitive outcomes.

3.2.A. Number of states and 

territories with professional 

development systems that include 

core knowledge and 

competencies, career pathways, 

professional development 

capacity assessments, accessible 

professional development 

opportunities, and financial 

supports for child care providers1

Year: 2011

30

Not 

Collected 30 Not Collected NA 38 NA

Objective 3.3: Measuring Progress, Outcomes, and Readiness. Improve the capacity of states and early learning programs to develop 

and implement comprehensive early learning assessment systems.

3.3.A. Number of states collecting 

and reporting disaggregated data 

on the status of children at 

kindergarten entry using a 

common measure3,4

Year: 2010

2

0 3 6

2

MET 9 14

NA = Not applicable. 

TBD = To be determined. 

1

 This metric, including baseline and targets, is part of the Department of Health and Human Services’ FY 2015 Annual Performance 

Report and Performance Plan. The 2014 data will not be available until 2015. 

2 The FY 2015 performance target is changed to reflect information from the Department of Health and Human Services’ FY 2015 

Annual Performance Report and Performance Plan. For more information about this metric, see 

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/olab/sec2c_ccdf_2015cj_complete.pdf. 

3

 This metric is aligned with an Agency Priority Goal. 

4

 Targets for this metric are based on what the Department expects will occur in a given fiscal year. 

Data Sources and Frequency of Collection: 

3.1.A. Child Care Development Fund (CCDF) Report of State Plans with annual updates from states and territories (HHS/Office of 

Childcare); annually 

3.2.A. Child Care Development Fund (CCDF) Report of State Plans (HHS/Office of Childcare); biennially 

3.3.A. Race to the Top (RTT)-Early Learning Challenge (ELC) Technical Assistance Center; annually 

Note on performance metrics and targets: These metrics were established as a part of the FY 2014–18 Strategic 

Plan. Metrics may be updated or revised to reflect awareness of more accurate data or clarifications. Such updates or 

revisions are identified in footnotes. 

Analysis and Next Steps by Objective

Objective 3.1: Access to High-Quality Programs and Services 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

No state has sufficient high-quality programs to meet the demand for high-quality early learning 

programs and services, but all states, especially the 20 states receiving RTT-ELC grants, are 

working to address the issue using a Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (TQRIS). 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 49

This reform metric helps states set progressively higher program standards and provides 

supports to programs so they can meet those higher standards. Once programs are enrolled in 

a state’s TQRIS, the state helps them improve their quality and their ranking. States provide 

technical assistance, professional development opportunities, and program improvement grants 

that allow programs to make the necessary quality improvements. RTT-ELC states have 

increased the number of early learning and development programs participating in their TQRIS 

and are implementing strategies to improve the quality of those programs. The 14 RTT-ELC 

states that reported data this year (six other states had only received their funding a few months 

prior to the reporting deadline and were not required to submit reports this year) increased the 

number of programs enrolled in their TQRIS from 31,321 to 54,157, showing a 73 percent 

increase from the baseline year. 

The 14 RTT-ELC states also showed a substantial increase in the number of children with high 

needs enrolled in state-funded preschool programs (175 percent increase), in programs that 

receive funding from the Child Development Fund (43 percent increase), and in Head Start’s 

Early Head Start programs (83 percent increase) that are in the top tiers of the respective 

states’ TQRIS.

Some states are also identifying specific high-need communities or “zones” where they will 

implement a set of initiatives aimed at building local capacity to support the workforce, engage 

families, and serve more children with high needs. OSEP has three national centers that 

specifically focus on supporting states in enhancing their Part C and Part B, section 619 

programs, as well as other early learning programs, to increase the quality of services provided 

to children with disabilities and their families. These centers are working with Part C and Part B, 

section 619 programs to develop effective and efficient infrastructures to deliver high-quality 

services to infants, toddlers, and preschool age children with disabilities and their families. The 

centers have developed a systems framework that states can use to assess their infrastructure. 

Additionally, OSEP recently began implementing a Results Driven Accountability (RDA) system 

for states. As part of this system, states are being asked to develop a State Systemic 

Improvement Plan (SSIP) to focus and drive their efforts to improve results for children with 

disabilities. Within these plans, Part C and Part B, section 619 programs will be working to 

ensure that children with disabilities have access to high-quality services to support them in 

meeting their developmental and learning outcomes. 

Metrics in Goal 3 are influenced most by actions taken by states or grantees in response to 

state and federal policy initiatives, but they are also influenced by factors that are beyond the 

control of states, LEAs, or the Department. 

Challenges and Next Steps:

States face many challenges in developing a rating and monitoring process for their TQRIS. 

Providers must be informed about the process, so as to make them more likely to participate. 

The observation and rating tool must be a true measure of different levels of quality; it must give 

the same rating results in many different settings, and it has to be easy to use. Validating the 

effectiveness of a TQRIS ensures that it is measuring and assessing program quality in ways 

that make sense to state policy makers, early learning and education programs, and families 

with young children. 

The Department is providing support so states have the knowledge and best research for 

improving their TQRIS. This technical assistance is provided directly to the states in addition to 

peer learning groups on various topics of interest such as best ways to validate a TQRIS system 

or to ensure families understand the difference in the quality tiers. The Department is helping 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 50

RTT-ELC states to validate their systems, ensure consistency in the reporting of TQRIS ratings, 

and develop data system linkages between their TQRIS and other systems with data on young 

children and the early childhood workforce. OSEP-funded technical assistance also supports 

states in thinking about how to include children with disabilities within the TQRIS system. 

Additionally, IES is also doing a study of the TQRIS systems and plans to make results 

available in 2016. 

It is anticipated that states will continue to examine the quality of the services supported by 

funding made available under Parts B and C of the IDEA to meet the needs of young children 

with disabilities. OSEP TA centers will continue to work with states to enhance the quality of 

services that they provide. 

Objective 3.2: Effective Workforce 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

Securing a well-trained and properly supported early learning workforce is an essential element 

of high-quality early learning programs. The quality of teacher-child interactions is the 

mechanism responsible for learning. Significant headway has been made in describing and 

conceptualizing what teachers do in the classroom that results in learning, which is a critical first 

step in getting teachers into those positions. Children benefit most when teachers engage in 

interactions that stimulate learning while being emotionally nurturing.16 These interactions foster 

engagement in and enjoyment of learning. Critical to assuring quality are continuous 

improvement systems that support teachers in the implementation of evidence-based curricula 

focused on specific areas of learning and socio-emotional development. In-classroom coaching 

and mentoring is a successful approach to providing this support. In addition, salaries 

commensurate with comparably prepared K-12 colleagues could stem the flight of teachers 

away from early learning. 

States are addressing the challenge of an effective workforce through legislation regarding staff 

qualifications, developing workforce frameworks, and funding better support for teachers in 

classrooms. Only 23 states have passed legislation requiring that all teachers in preschool 

programs meet certain qualifications. Even these states are struggling to improve the quality of 

their broader workforce in child care and private settings with limited funding. 

One way the Department is helping states address this challenge is through the development of 

a Workforce Knowledge and Competency Framework, which outlines what early childhood 

educators should know and be able to teach young children. RTT-ELC provides funding for 

activities such as surveys of courses offered in higher education institutions and through 

ongoing in-service education, meetings to collect information and develop consensus to support 

change, and development of documents. The frameworks provide the foundation for a wellqualified and prepared early childhood education workforce and can guide postsecondary 

institutions in the development of curricula and professional development providers in the 

provision of training, mentoring, and coaching in the community. It can also support individual 

professional development efforts for early childhood educators. As teachers move from a Child 

Development Associate (CDA) credential or state credential, to an associate degree, to a 

bachelor’s degree and beyond, early childhood educators should be building on commonly 

defined, previously learned information and skills. 

 

16 Barnett, W. Steven. “Better Teachers, Better Preschools: Student Achievement Linked to Teacher Qualifications.” 

NIEER Preschool Policy Matters, Issue 2. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED480818
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 51

Eleven RTT-ELC states are specifically working to provide and expand access to professional 

development opportunities that are aligned with their Workforce Knowledge and Competency 

Framework and that tightly link training with professional development approaches, such as 

coaching and mentoring. These states are also using incentives, such as scholarships, 

compensation and wage supplements, tiered reimbursement rates, other financial incentives, 

and other strategies. These other strategies include management opportunities, and they 

promote professional improvement and career advancement along an articulated career 

pathway that is based on the state's Workforce Knowledge and Competency Framework. 

States that require all programs receiving some sort of federal or state subsidy to enroll in the 

TQRIS system are leading this work. States that have not linked the TQRIS system to licensing 

are experiencing more challenges with enrolling programs. 

Four states (Delaware, Iowa, Kansas, and Oregon) are specifically working with the OSEPfunded Early Childhood Personnel Center (ECPC) to develop and enhance the personnel 

system within their states to ensure that personnel have the knowledge and skills to provide 

services to young children with disabilities and their families. States are making progress in 

aligning their personnel standards with national professional organization personnel standards; 

developing partnerships with universities and community colleges to ensure that their curriculum 

is aligned to state personnel standards and to support better alignment between pre-service 

preparation and in-service professional development; and implementing evidence-based 

practices within in-service professional development. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

Challenges abound in developing an effective early learning workforce. States have hiring 

challenges, due in part to a lack of available well-trained and effective personnel. Some states 

have experienced high turnover of early childhood educators and consultants due to low wages, 

attractive offers in other states, challenging financial times, and program management. States 

that have had programs in place for longer periods are having less difficulty recruiting and 

retaining strong early educators. 

The Department and its technical assistance providers are working to address some of these 

challenges through webinars, peer learning, and pointing out promising practices, such as 

mentoring and coaching. For example, a study examining career pathways will provide states 

with an overview of how these systems are working in a handful of leading states. Reducing 

duplication of efforts and promoting promising practices is necessary for creating an early 

learning workforce that can deliver on the promise of these programs. ECPC is currently 

working with Part C and Part B, Section 619 coordinators to identify additional states with which 

to work to improve their personnel systems. 

Objective 3.3: Measuring Progress, Outcomes, and Readiness

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

The Department, in consultation with OMB, has determined that there has been noteworthy 

progress toward this objective. KEAs are important tools for determining what children know and 

are able to do by the time they reach kindergarten. Results of the KEAs provide information to 

help close the school readiness gap at kindergarten entry and to inform instruction in the early 

elementary school grades. They also inform parents about their children’s learning and 

development and involve them in decisions about their children’s education. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 52

Nineteen RTT-ELC states17 are working to have in place a KEA that covers multiple 

developmental domains, including language and literacy, cognition and general knowledge, 

approaches toward learning, physical well-being and motor development, and social and 

emotional development. Even though the 19 RTT-ELC states that selected to implement 

statewide KEAs are at different stages in implementing new or revised assessments, all are 

making progress. 

States are collaborating with and learning from one another as they tackle the complexities and 

challenges of developing and implementing their KEAs. For example, Illinois and California are 

using the same tool and collaborating to enhance and improve it. Maryland and Ohio have 

partnered to develop formative and summative assessments that are based on their individual 

state standards. According to The Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge Year Two 

Progress Report, states are also realizing the importance of first working with kindergarten 

teachers and administrators when planning to implement a KEA and then providing training and 

support as teachers begin implementing the KEAs and interpreting and sharing the results. One 

state, Oregon, fully implemented a statewide KEA in the first quarter of FY 2014 (i.e., fall of 

2013). It is using the lessons learned from that KEA to improve the next round of assessments 

and strengthen data interpretation and reporting. Some areas identified for improvement are the 

provision for additional guidance on successful kindergarten assessment practices for Spanishspeaking English learners and streamlined mechanisms for data entry and reporting. 

In FY 2013, the Department awarded Enhanced Assessment Grants (EAG) to support the 

development and enhancement of KEAs. Texas and two state consortia, one led by Maryland 

and the other led by North Carolina, were awarded EAG grants. KEAs under this program 

should be aligned with state early learning standards and cover all essential domains of school 

readiness. Three additional RTT-ELC grantees are participating in the Maryland consortium 

(Massachusetts, Michigan, and Ohio) as well as a number of non-RTT-ELC states. Eight states 

are partnering with North Carolina: Delaware, Iowa, Maine, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode 

Island, South Carolina, and Washington, DC. 

On an annual basis through their annual performance reports, OSEP continues to require state 

Part C and Part B, section 619 programs to report on child outcomes for children that received 

at least 6 months of IDEA services. OSEP funds a technical assistance center to support states 

in collecting high-quality data within their outcomes measurement system and in using that data 

for program improvement. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

The field of early learning is increasingly embracing the importance of measuring and 

monitoring children’s progress due to historical lack of good metrics and the variability of young 

children’s development. That is changing with the introduction of KEAs through RTT-ELC and 

state policies. The Department and its early childhood technical assistance center are 

supporting both RTT-ELC grantee states and non-grantee states by establishing learning 

communities and providing technical assistance webinars, briefs, and a recent report on 

progress states are making in implementing KEAs. 

In order to better understand the challenges states are facing and progress they are making, the 

Department has funded a study which will report on how leading states are implementing KEAs 

as a learning tool. Results will be available late in 2015. 

 

17 One state, Wisconsin, did not choose to implement a KEA as a part of its RTT-ELC work.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 53

OSEP is investigating ways to use the Part C child outcomes data in FY 2015 when making 

annual determinations of performance based on state performance plans and annual 

performance reports. 

Selected Strategies to Achieve Goal 3

The Department is using a multipronged approach to improve the health, social-emotional, and 

cognitive outcomes for all children from birth through 3rd grade, so that all children, particularly 

those with high needs, are on track for graduating from high school college- and career-ready. 

Through technical assistance by Department staff and contractors, technical assistance centers, 

monitoring, research reports, an annual grantee meeting, and use of the bully pulpit, the 

Department expects to reach its goal. One tool that supports the Department in its management 

of this goal is an electronic monitoring and reporting tool that it uses to assess the progress in 

all RTT-ELC states and deploy specialized technical assistance as quickly as possible to ensure 

progress continues. Further, the Department works with the ELC TA Center and the Center on 

Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes (CEELO) to provide targeted technical assistance, 

establishing learning communities and providing webinars, briefs, and reports on key topics. 

The Department’s annual grantee meeting allows us to highlight key promising practices, 

discuss major challenges, and better understand state and local challenges. OSEP will be 

reviewing states’ SSIPs for Part C in April 2015 and will be supporting them through technical 

assistance to their infrastructure, data quality, and services and interventions to enhance results 

for young children with disabilities and their families. 

All our efforts are aimed at increasing access to high-quality, effective programs—served by an 

effective early learning workforce—for children from birth to school entry and beyond (including 

children with disabilities and those who are English learners). Comprehensive assessment 

systems will measure our success, helping us to enhance the quality of all early learning 

programs, and reach the ultimate goal of improving children’s outcomes.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 54

Goal 4. Equity: 

Increase educational opportunities for underserved students and 

reduce discrimination so that all students are well-positioned to 

succeed. 

Goal Leader: Catherine Lhamon

Objective 4.1: Equitable Educational Opportunities. Increase all students’ access to 

educational opportunities with a focus on closing achievement gaps, and remove barriers that 

students face based on their race, ethnicity, or national origin; sex; sexual orientation; gender 

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

geographical location. Objective Leader: Bob Kim 

Metric 4.1.A: National high school graduation rate 

Objective 4.2: Civil Rights Compliance. Ensure educational institutions’ awareness of and 

compliance with federal civil rights obligations and enhance the public’s knowledge of their civil 

rights. Objective Leader: Bob Kim 

Metric 4.2.A: Percentage of proactive civil rights investigations launched annually that 

address areas of concentration in civil rights enforcement 

Metric 4.2.B: Percentage of proactive civil rights investigations resolved annually that 

address areas of concentration in civil rights enforcement 

Goal 4 Discretionary Resources

$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500

FY 2014

FY 2015

FY 2016

$1,485

$1,500

$1,619

(Dollars in millions)
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 55

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities18 Supporting Goal 4 Performance Metrics 

[Dollars in Millions]

POC Account Obj. Program

FY 2014

Appropriation

FY 2015 

Appropriation

FY 2016 

President’s 

Budget

OCR OCR 4.2 Office for Civil Rights 98 100 131

OESE ED 4.1 State agency programs: Migrant 375 375 375

OESE IE 4.1 Indian Education: Grants to local 

educational agencies 100 100 100

OESE IE 4.1 Indian Education: Special programs for 

Indian children 18 18 68

OESE SIP 4.1 Alaska Native education equity 31 31 32

OESE SIP 4.1 Education for Native Hawaiians 32 32 33

OESE SIP 4.1, 4.2 Training and advisory services 7 7 7

OESE/OELA ELA 4.1, 4.2 English Language Acquisition 723 737 773

OII I&I 4.1 Magnet schools assistance 92 92 92

OSERS SE n/a Special Olympics education programs 8 8 8

TOTAL, GOAL 4 1,485 1,500 1,619

n/a = Not available. 

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

Detail may not add to total due to rounding. 

Public Benefit

The Department is committed to pursuing equity at all stages of education, from birth through 

adulthood, in institutions of early learning, K–12 schools, career and technical and 

postsecondary education, adult education, workforce development, and independent living 

programs. The Department’s goal is to ensure that all—not just a subset—of the nation’s 

children, youths, and adults graduate from high school and obtain the skills necessary to 

succeed in college, in the pursuit of a meaningful career, and in their lives. 

The Department also recognizes the need to increase educational opportunities systemically for 

underserved populations, including by exploring ways to increase equitable access to resources 

and effective teachers within states and districts. Studies show that having a strong teacher is 

the single most important in-school contributor to a student’s success. Because of this, and 

regardless of how teacher effectiveness is defined, it is critical that the nation eliminate 

disparities in the access to effective teachers between high-need students—including 

low-income students, English learners, and students with disabilities—and all other students. By 

fostering improved teacher evaluation and support systems and talent pipelines from 

recruitment to retention, the Department aims to elevate the teaching profession as a whole 

while also working to ensure that all students—no matter their geographic locations—have 

equitable access to effective teachers. 

Finally, civil rights enforcement is pivotal to ensuring that recipients of federal funding at the 

preschool, K–12, and postsecondary levels eliminate acts of discrimination that, left unchecked, 

would otherwise negatively impact students’ achievement and access to educational 

opportunities. The Department’s OCR uses a variety of tools to ensure compliance with federal 

civil rights laws, including issuing detailed policy guidance; conducting vigorous complaint 

investigations; procuring strong systemic remedies; pursuing aggressive monitoring of 

resolution agreements; launching targeted and proactive compliance reviews and technical 

assistance activities; collecting and publicizing school-level data on important civil rights 

 

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

competitive and non-competitive programs.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 56

compliance indicators; and participating in intra- and inter-agency work groups to share 

expertise and best practices. OCR also engages students, parents, recipients of federal funding, 

and other stakeholders to inform them about applicable federal civil rights laws and policies so 

that they are equipped to identify and address civil rights issues at the earliest stages. 

OCR has increased the transparency of its work to the public by posting nearly all resolution 

letters and agreements reached in FY 2014 and beyond on its website. In addition, OCR has 

released the results of the 2011–12 Civil Rights Data Collection, which it has expanded to 

include a wealth of new data to assist the Department, states, districts, teachers, administrators, 

researchers, students, and parents in identifying civil rights trends and issues at the local, state, 

and national levels. 

Goal 4: Details

Equity

Indicators of Success Baseline

Actuals Targets

2012 2013 2014 2014 2015 2016

Objective 4.1: Equitable Educational Opportunities. Increase all students’ access to educational opportunities with a focus on closing 

achievement gaps, and remove barriers that students face based on their race, ethnicity, or national origin; sex; sexual orientation; gender 

identity or expression; disability; English language ability; religion; socioeconomic status; or geographical location.

4.1.A. National high school 

graduation rate1,2

Year: 

2011–12

80.0%

Year: 

2010–11

79%

Year: 

2011–12

80.0%

81% 81.5%

NOT MET 83.0% 84.5%

Objective 4.2: Civil Rights Compliance. Ensure educational institutions’ awareness of and compliance with federal civil rights obligations 

and enhance the public’s knowledge of their civil rights.

4.2.A. Percentage of proactive civil 

rights investigations launched 

annually that address areas of 

concentration in civil rights 

enforcement 

Year: 2013

7%

Not 

Collected 7% 21% 7%MET 10% 12%

4.2.B. Percentage of proactive civil 

rights investigations resolved 

annually that address areas of 

concentration in civil rights 

enforcement

Year: 2013

8%

Not 

Collected 8% 15% 8%MET 10% 12%

1

 This metric is aligned with an Agency Priority Goal. Data for the 2012–13 school year will be available during the second quarter of 

FY 2015. Data for the 2013–14 school year will be available during the second quarter of FY 2016. 

2

 The data for the 2012–13 Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR) are available at http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/tables/ACGR_2010-

11_to_2012-13.asp. Note that the current disclosure protection methodology limits reporting to whole number percentages. 

Data Sources and Frequency of Collection: 

4.1.A. EDFacts; annually

4.2.A. Office for Civil Rights’ (OCR) Case Management System (CMS) and Document Management (DM) systems; quarterly 

4.2.B. Office for Civil Rights’ (OCR) Case Management System (CMS) and Document Management (DM) systems; quarterly 

Note on performance metrics and targets: These metrics were established as a part of the FY 2014–18 Strategic 

Plan. Metrics may be updated or revised to reflect awareness of more accurate data or clarifications. Such updates or 

revisions are identified in footnotes. 

Analysis and Next Steps by Objective

Objective 4.1: Equitable Educational Opportunities 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

The Department made progress toward expanding equitable educational opportunities. As 

explained below, the Department took aggressive steps in FY 2014 through policy development, 

grant-making, program management, and legal enforcement to close achievement and 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 57

opportunity gaps that present barriers to learning or achievement at all levels of the educational 

system, from early education to K–12 to postsecondary. Such barriers include the lack of 

access to challenging courses, effective teachers and school leaders, sufficient resources and 

other supports, and safe and healthy learning environments. 

Budget 

The Department developed an FY 2015 budget that included a new proposed $300 million RTTEquity and Opportunity competition. While Congress did not provide funding for this program, 

the Department is working through other programs and actions to further its goals related to 

ensuring equitable access to rigorous courses, effective educators, and support services in 

high-need communities into future grant competitions, programs, and initiatives.

Preschool–Grade 12 (P-12) Education 

Much of the Department’s P-12 work aims to improve opportunities for students. Along with 

HHS, the Department has significantly increased funding for early learning. More than $1 billion 

in RTT-ELC funding is improving the quality of early learning settings in 20 states, and the 

Department and HHS designed and awarded $250 million in new Preschool Development 

Grants to states to expand access to high-quality preschool programs for children from low- to 

moderate-income families in high-need communities in order to close educational gaps between 

disadvantaged children and their peers and ensure that all children have an equal opportunity to 

succeed when they enter kindergarten. The Preschool Development Grants will serve more 

than 33,000 4-year-olds in 18 states in 2015–16 alone. The administration has requested 

$500 million in FY 2015 to continue high-quality preschool programs in current grantee states 

and expand to new communities. 

The Department granted extensions of ESEA Flexibility for the 2014–15 school year for 

34 states, ensuring that those states continue to implement college- and career-ready standards 

for all students, hold districts and schools accountable for subgroup performance, and 

implement evaluation and support systems for teachers and principals that, ultimately, can be 

used to monitor and improve equitable access to effective educators. 

The Department also developed and launched the Excellent Educators for All initiative. This 

initiative is specifically designed to ensure that students of color and students from low-income 

families have equitable access to excellent educators. The Department will work with states to 

implement the initiative in the coming year (see next steps section below). 

The Department helped to advance the President’s ConnectED initiative, which aims to enrich 

K-12 education for every student in America through technology (see also the Explanation and 

Analysis of Progress for objective 5.4). The initiative seeks to provide high-speed broadband 

and Wi-Fi to schools covering 99 percent of our nation’s students by 2018, provide every 

student with access to a device suitable for digital learning, enable creation of more high-quality 

and accessible digital content, and provide resources and support for school leaders and 

educators to learn to use technology effectively. Since ConnectED’s launch, the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC) has worked to modernize the E-rate program to improve 

broadband and Wi-Fi access in schools across the country. In addition, we have provided 

guidance to the field to clarify the ability to use federal funds to support the transition to digital 

learning and share models for effective use of technology to transform learning. In 2015, the 

Department will release an updated National Educational Technology Plan to set the national 

vision for how technology can support learning and close equity gaps. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 58

The Department continued to implement the National Professional Development (NPD) program

to prepare teachers to work with English learners and the Native American and Alaska Native 

children in Schools (NAM) program to provide support to Native American English learners, in 

addition to the formula grants to SEAs for English learners (ELs) under Title III of the ESEA. The 

Department also commissioned a study by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and the National 

Academy of Sciences (NAS) on the development of young ELs and Dual Language Learners 

(DLLs) and on best practices to support education success across diverse settings and 

institutions from birth through the end of high school. 

The Department published a Request for Information seeking public comment and guidance on 

state obligations under IDEA to address significant disproportion by race or ethnicity within 

districts in the identification, placement, or discipline of students with disabilities. The 

Department also announced a new framework known as Results-Driven Accountability, under 

which the Department will consider multiple educational results and outcomes for students with 

disabilities—including their participation in state assessments, their proficiency levels as 

compared to all students, and their performance in reading and math on the National 

Assessment of Educational Progress—to produce a more comprehensive and thorough picture 

of the performance of children with disabilities in each state and to inform its annual 

determinations with respect to each state under IDEA. 

In order to help keep students safe and improve their learning environments, the Department 

awarded more than $70 million in grants to 130 grantees in 38 states, including School Climate 

Transformation Grants to help create positive school climates that support effective education 

for all students and Project Prevent grants to help LEAs break the cycle of violence through 

expanded access to school-based strategies that prevent future violence. 

The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) working group, convened jointly by Education Secretary 

Duncan and Interior Secretary Jewell, issued a Blueprint for Reform to improve outcomes in BIE 

schools. The Department provided technical assistance and continued grant awards under the 

Indian Education Demonstration Grants program, the Professional Development program, and 

the State Tribal Education Partnership program, in addition to ESEA Title VII formula grants to 

LEAs for services to American Indian/Alaska Native students. In addition, the Department has 

been working to identify policies and programs that will support achievement for all Native 

youth. In conjunction with OCR, the White House Initiative on American Indian and Alaska 

Native Education conducted a listening tour to address concerns about school climate and 

Indian mascots in public schools. The Department also joined with HHS and DOI to convene a 

Languages Summit to discuss best practices in preserving and revitalizing Native languages for 

children and youth. 

The Department incorporated a competitive priority in the GEAR-UP State and Partnership 

grant competitions to encourage applicants to propose postsecondary success strategies, 

including those that support early attention to remedial education needs prior to enrollment in 

college. GEAR-UP provides services at high-poverty middle and high schools to help lowincome students prepare for and succeed in postsecondary education. Addressing remedial 

education prior to college increases the likelihood that students will persist. 

The Department released the results of the 2011–12 Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), which 

was expanded to include a wealth of new data to assist the Department, states, districts, 

teachers, administrators, researchers, students, and parents in identifying civil rights trends and 

issues at the local, state, and national levels. The CRDC disaggregates data by race, sex, 

disability, and English proficiency status (as well as by grade level for certain items). The 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 59

2015–16 collection will include new data to help measure incidents of bullying or harassment 

based on religion or sexual orientation in public schools. 

Higher Education 

The Department distributed $31.6 billion in Pell Grant awards to approximately 9 million 

students in FY 2014. The maximum Pell award was increased from $5,645 for the 2013–14 

award year (July 1, 2013–June 30, 2014) to $5,730 for the 2014–15 award year (July 1, 2014–

June 30, 2015), which helped cover a greater portion of college costs for low-income students to 

support college access goals. The Department also awarded 24 First in the World grants 

totaling $75 million to institutions of higher education, including $20 million to six Minority 

Serving Institutions, to spur the development of innovations that improve educational outcomes 

and make college more affordable for students and families and to develop an evidence base of 

effective practices. The Department continued to support the White House Task Force to 

Protect Students from Sexual Assault to improve coordination, transparency, and effectiveness 

in responding to sexual violence in colleges and universities. 

The Department’s Migrant Education State Program (MEP), the High School Equivalency 

Program (HEP) projects, and the College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) continue to 

address the educational needs of students from migrant and seasonal farmworker families as a 

part of investments in equity and opportunity. HEP and CAMP projects helped 3,292 migrant 

students obtain high school equivalency and 1,410 migrant students successfully complete their 

first year of college. 

As noted earlier in this report, President Obama’s America’s College Promise proposal, 

announced in January 2015, would allow students to attend community colleges tuition-free if 

they attend half-time, are making satisfactory academic progress to a degree, and maintain a 

2.5 GPA. If enacted by Congress, this plan would benefit nearly 9 million students by making a 

higher education more affordable and would particularly impact students of color as community 

colleges enroll larger percentages of students of color. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

The following items delineate future challenges and next steps as the Department works to 

enhance educational opportunities for underserved populations: 

New and continuing proposals related to equity described above are dependent on final 

appropriations. The Department will work to ensure that programs with high equity focus receive 

priority attention to the extent possible.

The Department continues to see gaps for students of color and low-income students in 

important equity metrics such a postsecondary attainment, involvement in STEM, teacher 

equity, and access to educational resources. The Department will work with the CoSTEM 

Education interagency working group, the My Brother’s Keeper and Reach Higher initiatives, 

and other targeted efforts from the White House Initiatives to help expand participation of 

underrepresented groups in postsecondary STEM. 

The Department is working to improve equity of access to excellent educators through a number 

of efforts. The Department published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on teacher preparation 

in November 2014. Also in fall 2014, the Department released guidance on new State Plans to 

Ensure Equitable Access to Excellent Educators and launched a support network designed to 

help states develop and implement comprehensive plans. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 60

The Department continues to seek to use Title I and the ESEA Flexibility Framework to close 

achievement gaps. In its FY 2016 budget, the Department is requesting a major increase in 

Title I funding to improve access to standards, aligned assessments, and excellent educators in 

Title I schools. The Department has developed ESEA Flexibility renewal guidance and FAQs

that focus on ensuring that underrepresented students have access to standards and 

assessments and that states maintain accountability and teacher evaluation systems that will 

help measure progress in schools serving the most high-need students. The Department will 

finalize new regulations for the School Improvement Grants program to incorporate changes 

from the FY 2014 appropriations act and lessons learned from four years of SIG 

implementation, as well as provide three new models, including an early learning model, so that 

SIG will better support turnaround efforts in the lowest-performing schools. 

To support its efforts to improve outcomes for our most vulnerable students, the Department, as 

part of the My Brother’s Keeper initiative, will launch targeted technical assistance initiatives to 

assist high-need districts struggling with high student dropout rates, particularly among students 

of color, and with overuse of and disparities in school discipline practices. A complementary 

White House initiative, Bridging the Word Gap, will support families and caregivers to help 

ameliorate the language disparities that exist for children from low-income families. 

The Department, through OCTAE, will continue to work with Congress on the reauthorization of 

the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (Perkins). As described in 

Investing in America’s Future: A Blueprint for Transforming Career and Technical Education,

equity is a cross-cutting theme in the Department’s plan for the Perkins reauthorization. The 

proposal would require states to improve their data collection systems for Perkins by using 

commonly defined participation and performance indicators, which would lead to increased 

transparency and accountability for equity gaps. In addition, states would be required to track 

data at the local level to ensure that CTE programs are serving diverse student populations and 

communities statewide. The proposal also encourages the use of technology-enabled learning 

solutions that are accessible to, and usable by, students with disabilities and English learners to 

create access to high-quality learning opportunities, including to technical courses and virtual 

work experiences. 

The Department will propose a new Statewide Longitudinal Data System competition in 

FY 2015 that focuses on requiring states to justify their need for SLDS funds to address a small 

number of high-priority policy issues, including financial and resource equity, teacher 

preparation, early learning, and college and career readiness. 

While overall graduation rates have increased, graduation rates for students of color continue to 

lag behind white students. For the graduating class of 2012, the National Adjusted Cohort 

Graduation Rate was 69 percent for black students and 73 percent for Latino students 

compared to 86 percent for white students.

The Department—in collaboration with the Departments of Labor and HHS, the Corporation for 

National and Community Service, and the Institute of Museum and Library Sciences—will 

establish up to 10 Performance Partnership agreements with states, localities, or tribes that 

provide additional flexibility in using non-mandatory funds that support programs that serve 

disconnected youth (i.e., individuals between the ages of 14 and 24 who are homeless, in foster 

care, involved in the juvenile justice system, unemployed, or not enrolled in or at risk of dropping 

out of an educational institution). States and localities that seek to participate in these pilots will 

commit to achieve significant improvements for disconnected youth in educational, employment, 

and other key outcomes in exchange for this new flexibility. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 61

In December 2014, through a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Department announced a 

new priority for Indian Education Demonstration Grants, entitled Native Youth Community 

Projects. This program will fund projects in a select number of Native communities to support 

culturally relevant strategies designed to improve the college- and career-readiness of Native 

children and youth. These projects would support a coordinated intervention strategy chosen by 

the local community, recognizing that tribal communities are best-positioned to improve 

outcomes for American Indian/Alaska Native students. 

The Department will continue to support postsecondary institutions receiving First in the World 

grants. For example, funding was provided to a Historically Black University to redesign courses 

to entail more project-based learning and technology tools that improve student learning and 

engagement. At a Hispanic-Serving Institution, funds will be used to strengthen curriculum 

through an integrated set of tools to increase student engagement, especially for high-risk 

students. Projects will be evaluated at their conclusion, and those showing evidence of success 

will serve as models for wider dissemination. 

Subpopulation Breakout for Metric 4.1.A: National high school graduation rate by 

race/ethnicity, other characteristics*: School year 2011–121

Total

American 

Indian/

Alaska 

Native

Asian/

Pacific 

Islander Hispanic Black White

Economically 

Disadvantaged

Limited 

English 

Proficiency

Students 

with 

Disabilities

Percentage 80 67 88 73 69 86 72 59 61

* Data are reported based on the requirements for individual states in the Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR). 

1 School year 2012–13 data will be available by Quarter 2 of FY 2015. 

Data Source and Frequency of Collection: EDFacts universe collection, annual reports; annually

Objective 4.2: Civil Rights Compliance 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

The Department, in consultation with OMB, has determined that performance toward this 

objective is making noteworthy progress. The Department increased the breadth, depth, and 

transparency of its civil rights enforcement work while maintaining the quality and pace of 

resolutions. In FY 2014, OCR received a record high number of complaints (9,989) and resolved 

more than 9,400 complaints. (By comparison, in 1985 OCR received just 2,199 complaints—

80 percent fewer than what OCR now receives in a typical year.) OCR resolved 94 percent of 

complaints within 180 days of receiving them. It accomplished this with fewer staff than ever 

before in OCR history. OCR launched 38 proactive investigations (i.e., compliance reviews and 

directed inquiries) in FY 2014, an increase of 27 percent from FY 2013. OCR resolved 

27 proactive investigations—an increase of 59 percent from FY 2013. As OCR achieved this, it 

expanded the scope of investigations in some of the most pressing civil rights areas—including 

discipline, sexual violence, and access to college- and career-preparatory courses and 

opportunities—to ensure it protected all impacted students in its investigations. 

The Department released six comprehensive policy guidance documents addressing urgent and 

complex questions related to sexual assault on campuses; schools’ obligation not to 

discriminate in discipline policies or practices based on race, color, or national origin; equitable 

access to resources, including strong educators, textbooks, college-preparatory courses, 

extracurricular activities, technology, and facilities; the duty of schools to enroll and remove 

barriers to enrollment for immigrant and undocumented students; the continuing ability and 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 62

discretion of schools to consider race in their programs, outreach, and admissions following the 

Supreme Court’s Schuette decision; and the obligation of charter schools to adhere to the 

federal civil rights laws. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

The Department is experiencing record-high civil rights complaint volume while its OCR staffing 

level continues to reach new historic lows. These trends will likely continue in FY 2015. The 

Department expects continued or increased activity and record volumes in resource equity, 

sexual violence, and discipline cases following the recent release of related guidance on these 

topics. 

The Department will take steps in FY 2015 to ensure that, within budget limitations, its OCR 

staff are as well supported as possible through training, support, and increased communications 

and that engagement around how work is conducted enables staff to maximize the pace and 

efficiency of their work. The Department has requested a significant increase in appropriations 

in its FY 2016 budget request to address the challenges described above to ensure and 

maintain robust civil rights compliance and awareness pursuant to this objective. 

Selected Strategies to Achieve Goal 4

The Department will implement a number of strategies in FY 2015 intended to reach the goal of 

closing achievement gaps, ensuring equitable access to the educational resources students 

need to be prepared for college and career, and ensuring all students have the opportunity to 

attain a high-quality education provided in a supportive and non-discriminatory environment. 

The Department’s strategies span the P-20 spectrum. 

With regard to early education, the Department will support a robust early learning agenda 

aimed at supporting universal access to high-quality preschool and building state capacity to 

implement high-quality preschool programs. 

The Department will advance its goal of greater access to effective teachers through the review 

and monitoring of state plans and providing technical assistance pursuant to the Excellent 

Educators for All initiative. The Department will also issue final regulations related to the 

performance of teacher preparation programs. 

The Department stands ready to work with Congress on strong ESEA reauthorization that 

ensures opportunity for every child in this country; strengthens our nation economically; and 

expands support for schools, teachers, and principals, as well as accountability for the progress 

of all students. The Department’s ESEA Flexibility renewal strategy will enable the Department 

to continue to push for rapid closing of achievement gaps even in the absence of a reauthorized 

ESEA. The Department’s ESEA Flexibility renewal guidance continues to emphasize high-need 

students in priority, focus, and other Title I schools and ensuring that underserved or 

disadvantaged students have access to standards and assessments. In addition, the 

Department will seek to advance new proposals for the SLDS and SIG programs to improve 

student outcomes and attainment. 

The Department will also pursue specific initiatives aimed at supporting historically underserved 

students, such as low-income students, English learner students, and students with disabilities. 

The Department will support the My Brother’s Keeper initiative by launching targeted technical 

assistance initiatives to assist high-need districts. The Department will support new initiatives 

designed to improve teaching and learning in STEM subjects for teachers and students in our 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 63

nation’s schools. The Department will seek to maximize the potential impact of increased 

access to broadband and Wi-Fi for high-needs students through the ConnectED initiative. The 

Department will explore ways to increase school safety, improve the conduciveness of school 

environments to learning, and reduce racial and socioeconomic isolation in schools. The 

Department will continue to pursue additional research, teacher preparation, and support for 

English learners. The Department will pursue equity and support for students with disabilities 

through IDEA and civil rights enforcement. The Department will advance programs that serve 

homeless, foster, disconnected, incarcerated, and migrant youth.

In an effort to protect students from discrimination, the Department will increase the number of 

civil rights policy guidance documents it issues, continue its vigorous investigation of civil rights 

complaints, launch targeted and proactive civil rights compliance reviews and technical 

assistance activities, provide more transparency about civil rights processes and resolutions on 

its website, and expand the Civil Rights Data Collection while providing greater assistance to 

participating institutions to improve the quality of data submissions. 

The Department will foster more equity in career, technical, and adult education programs and 

support college innovation, affordability, outcomes, and completion, including through issuing 

new regulations, Pell Grants, and the First in the World program. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 64

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

Enhance the education system’s ability to continuously improve 

through better and more widespread use of data, research and 

evaluation, evidence, transparency, innovation, and technology. 

Goal Leader: Jim Shelton

Objective 5.1: Data Systems and Transparency. Facilitate the development of interoperable 

longitudinal data systems for early learning through employment to enable data-driven, 

transparent decision-making by increasing access to timely, reliable, and high-value data. 

Objective Leader: Ross Santy 

Metric 5.1.A: Number of public data sets included in ED Data Inventory and thus linked 

to Data.gov or ED.gov websites 

Metric 5.1.B: Number of states linking K–12 and postsecondary data with workforce 

data 

Metric 5.1.C: Number of states linking K–12 with early childhood data 

Objective 5.2: Privacy. Provide all education stakeholders, from early childhood to adult 

learning, with technical assistance and guidance to help them protect student privacy while 

effectively managing and using student information. Objective Leader: Kathleen Styles 

Metric 5.2.A: Average time to close “cases” (PTAC + FPCO)19

Objective 5.3: Research, Evaluation, and Use of Evidence. Invest in research and evaluation 

that builds evidence for education improvement; communicate findings effectively; and drive the 

use of evidence in decision-making by internal and external stakeholders. Objective Leaders: 

Ruth Neild, Melanie Muenzer, and Margo Anderson 

Metric 5.3.A: Percentage of select new20 (non-continuation) competitive grant dollars 

that reward evidence 

Metric 5.3.B: Number of peer-reviewed, full-text resources in the Education Resources 

Information Center (ERIC) 

Metric 5.3.C: Number of reviewed studies in the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) 

database 

Objective 5.4: Technology and Innovation. Accelerate the development and broad adoption 

of new, effective programs, processes, and strategies, including education technology. 

Objective Leader: Richard Culatta

 

19 Privacy Technical Assistance Center (PTAC) and Family Policy Compliance Office (FPCO). 

20 “New competitive grant dollars that reward evidence” includes all dollars awarded based on the existence of at 

least “evidence of promise” in support of a project, per the framework in the Education Department General 

Administrative Regulations (34 CFR Part 75). Consideration of such evidence appears through: eligibility threshold 

(e.g., in the Investing in Innovation program); absolute priority; competitive priority (earning at least one point for it); or 

selection criteria (earning at least one point for it). The percentage is calculated compared to the total new grant 

dollars awarded, excluding awards made by the Institute of Education Sciences, the National Institute on Disability 

and Rehabilitation Research, and technical assistance centers, with some exceptions. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 65

Metric 5.4.A: Percentage of schools in the country that have actual Internet bandwidth 

speeds of at least 100 Mbps 

Goal 5 Discretionary Resources

$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500

FY 2014

FY 2015

FY 2016

$867

$842

$1,348

(Dollars in millions)

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities21 Supporting Goal 5 Performance Metrics 

[Dollars in Millions]

POC Account Obj. Program

FY 2014

Appropriation

FY 2015 

Appropriation

FY 2016 

President’s 

Budget

IES IES 5.3 National assessment 132 129 150

IES IES 5.3 Regional educational laboratories 54 54 54

IES IES 5.3 Research in special education 54 54 54

IES IES 5.3 Research, development, and dissemination 180 180 202

IES IES 5.1, 5.2 Statewide longitudinal data systems 35 35 70

IES IES 5.3 Statistics 103 103 125

OII I&I 5.3 Investing in innovation (proposed legislation) 142 120 300

Subtotal 699 675 955

Other Discretionary Programs/Activities 167 167 393

TOTAL, GOAL 5 867 842 1,348

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

Detail may not add to total due to rounding. 

Public Benefit

The foundation for improving systemic capacity is an infrastructure that supports data-driven 

decision-making. Stakeholders must have access to relevant, useful data in a timely fashion, 

and they need the skills to better understand and make use of the data. With relevant and 

actionable data and the ability to use it, policymakers and educators will be able to appraise 

 

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

competitive and non-competitive programs.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 66

how states, districts, schools, and students are currently performing; measure progress; pinpoint 

gaps; improve practice; better address student needs; and make sound decisions. States are 

developing systems that will yield the valid, reliable data that are essential to achieving these 

purposes, but there is much more work to do. The Department will continue ongoing efforts to 

develop effective statewide longitudinal data systems, design voluntary common data standards 

to increase interoperability, and develop the capacity of institutions and staff to utilize data to 

improve teaching and learning. These activities will help to ensure that education agencies 

across the nation have timely access to the data necessary in order to generate an accurate 

picture of student performance and other critical elements, from early learning programs through 

postsecondary institutions and the workforce. 

The collection, storage, maintenance, and use of data must be responsible and must 

appropriately protect student privacy. The necessity of achieving responsible data management 

is highlighted by the passage in the past year of student privacy legislation in 35 different states. 

Stewards and users of data must remember that these data describe real people and ensure 

that systems protect the rights of those people. The Department will help practitioners in the 

field ensure they are properly protecting privacy and communicating with parents and students 

about the proper use and management of student data. 

Systemic improvement also requires research and evaluation so that decision makers at the 

national, state, and local levels have reliable evidence to inform their actions. The Department 

aims to support evidence-building so that states, districts, and schools have the information they 

need to identify effective practices and so they can build evidence about emerging practices and 

issues. Using evidence to direct funds will ensure scarce dollars are more likely to have the 

intended impact and empowers states and districts to become more dynamic learning 

organizations. 

The Department’s vision for 21st-century learning also requires that schools have a 21st-century 

technology infrastructure anchored around high-speed Internet to allow for innovation and 

personalization in the classroom. States, districts, and schools must have such infrastructure to 

incorporate cutting-edge methods for strengthening curriculum quality and delivery to meet 

more rigorous college- and career-ready standards; improving student access and engagement; 

developing comprehensive, formative, and summative assessment systems; and enhancing 

data management systems. 

Goal 5: Details

Continuous Improvement of the 

U.S. Education System

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals Targets

2012 2013 2014 2014 2015 2016

Objective 5.1: Data Systems and Transparency. Facilitate the development of interoperable longitudinal data systems for early learning through 

employment to enable data-driven, transparent decision-making by increasing access to timely, reliable, and high-value data.

5.1.A. Number of public data sets 

included in ED Data Inventory and 

thus linked to Data.gov or ED.gov 

websites1

Year: 2013

55 NA 55 66 66MET 79 94

5.1.B. Number of states linking K–12 

and postsecondary data with 

workforce data2

Year: 2013

12 5 12 20

14

MET 22 25

5.1.C. Number of states linking K–12 

with early childhood data2

Year: 2013

19 8 19 26 23MET 27 29

Objective 5.2: Privacy. Provide all education stakeholders, from early childhood to adult learning, with technical assistance and guidance to help them 

protect student privacy while effectively managing and using student information.

5.2.A. Average time to close “cases” 

(PTAC + FPCO)3

Year: 2013 

10 days

Not 

Collected 10 9

9 days

MET 8 days 8 days
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 67

Continuous Improvement of the 

U.S. Education System

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals Targets

2012 2013 2014 2014 2015 2016

Objective 5.3: Research, Evaluation, and Use of Evidence. Invest in research and evaluation that builds evidence for education improvement; 

communicate findings effectively; and drive the use of evidence in decision-making by internal and external stakeholders.

5.3.A. Percentage of select new3(noncontinuation) competitive grant dollars 

that reward evidence4,5

Year: 2012

6.5% 6.5% 9.35% 15.9% 9.0%MET 11.0% 14.0%

5.3.B. Number of peer-reviewed, fulltext resources in the Education 

Resources Information Center (ERIC)2

Year: 2013

23,512 NA 23,512 27,292 24,712MET 31,192 35,692

5.3.C. Number of reviewed studies in 

the What Works Clearinghouse 

(WWC) database

Year: 2013

9,535 NA 9,535 10,310 9,885MET 10,235 10,585

Objective 5.4: Technology and Innovation. Accelerate the development and broad adoption of new, effective programs, processes, and strategies, 

including education technology.

5.4.A. Percentage of schools in the 

country that have actual Internet 

bandwidth speeds of at least 100 

Mbps6

Year: 2013

20% NA 20% 41% 30%MET 50% 70%

NA = Not applicable. 

1

 The data sets are available on Data.gov, www.ed.gov, NCES.ed.gov, studentaid.ed.gov, or other ed.gov subdomain websites. 

2

 The Department is revising the performance targets established in the FY 2013 Annual Performance Report and FY 2015 Annual 

Performance Plan for later years to be more ambitious. 

3

 Privacy Technical Assistance Center (PTAC) and Family Policy Compliance Office (FPCO). 

4

“New competitive grant dollars that reward evidence” includes all dollars awarded based on the existence of at least “evidence of 

promise” in support of a project, per the framework in the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (34 CFR Part 

75). Consideration of such evidence appears through: eligibility threshold (e.g., in the i3 program); absolute priority; competitive 

priority (earning at least one point for it); or selection criteria (earning at least one point for it). The percentage is calculated 

compared to the total new grant dollars awarded, excluding awards made by the Institute of Education Sciences, the National 

Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, and technical assistance centers, with some exceptions. 

5

 This metric is aligned with an Agency Priority Goal. 

6 The data source is changed from what was reported for the FY 2013 Annual Performance Report and FY 15 Annual Performance 

Plan. This change was made because the Department anticipates the Consortium for School Networking E-rate and Infrastructure 

Survey will be conducted annually and the results are publicly released. The reason this data source was not used last year is 

because the survey collected data on this metric for the first time this year. 

Data Sources and Frequency of Collection: 

5.1.A. Data Strategy Team Data Inventory and the public ED Data Inventory at http://datainventory.ed.gov; quarterly 

5.1.B. State Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS) grant monitoring (monthly updates from states, annual performance reports, final 

performance reports, and site visits); quarterly 

5.1.C. SLDS grant monitoring (monthly updates from states, annual performance reports, final performance reports, and site visits); 

quarterly 

5.2.A. Case Tracking System (CTS); quarterly 

5.3.A. Department calculations based upon multiple Department-controlled data sources, including G5; annually 

5.3.B. Education Resources Information Center (ERIC); quarterly 

5.3.C. What Works Clearinghouse (WWC); quarterly 

5.4.A. Education Superhighway (for baseline), Consortium for School Networking (CoSN)/AASA E-rate Infrastructure Survey (for 

FY 2014 actual data); annually 

Note on performance metrics and targets: These metrics were established as a part of the FY 2014–18 Strategic 

Plan. Metrics may be updated or revised to reflect awareness of more accurate data or clarifications. Such updates or 

revisions are identified in footnotes. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 68

Analysis and Next Steps by Objective

Objective 5.1: Data Systems and Transparency 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

The implementation strategy for this objective is focused on providing technical assistance to 

states to help them successfully implement data systems that will serve their education needs. 

The Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems program works with a State Support Team (SST) of 

experienced government and industry experts in the area of data systems development. Much 

of the work needed for this objective is dependent upon state actions to implement SLDS grant 

plans. SLDS program staff assist by reviewing state plans and reports, deploying targeted 

technical assistance, and monitoring states’ progress. Weekly status report meetings are used 

to keep all Program Officers and Program Analysts aware of developments, and to focus 

needed resources on the states with the greatest need at that point in time.

Collaboration is key to the success of this objective. SLDS staff work frequently with other 

Department programs, including the RTT-ELC, as well as coordinate with Department of Labor’s 

Wage Data Quality Information (WDQI) Program. 

A secondary implementation strategy is for the Department to model good data practices. For 

this reason, several performance metrics for objective 5.1 are designed around the Department 

rather than the states. The Department sets an example by highlighting its efforts to make data 

more accessible, as well as measuring the amount of web traffic on a specific data-centric web 

page. 

The Department’s DST also supports this objective through its sponsorship of the ED Data 

Inventory and Common Education Data Standards (CEDS). As noted previously, the DST is an 

intra-agency group of volunteers who coordinate Department data activities. The Department 

received favorable publicity in FY 2014 for publishing an enhanced data inventory. While the 

inventory is a work in progress, the public may consult it to explore data that the Department 

holds. 

CEDS successes in FY 2014 included staff work in conjunction with SLDS’ SST staff to assist 

state efforts to map data models to CEDS. The Department awarded a task order to continue 

technical support for CEDS later than initially planned, resulting in a gap in support services 

during the fiscal year. Despite this support interruption, the activities of CEDS related to this 

objective were successfully completed. 

The Department is modeling transparency by publishing the ED Data Inventory. The system 

provides a new interface for public users to understand data collected and released by the 

Department. After the initial launch in November 2013 (i.e., the first quarter of FY 2014), work 

on the inventory has focused upon increasing the links between items in the inventory and 

publicly available Department data sets and upon improving functionality that will enable 

program offices to more directly interact with the inventory to ensure accurate representation of 

their data. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

State support for longitudinal data system development remains the largest dependency and 

area of risk for progress in this area. The SLDS grant program was not designed to provide 

complete support for state system development and operations. Rather, SLDS program 

objectives depend upon additional state commitments. In FY 2014 several states spent time and 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 69

resources addressing internal forces threatening their continued support of the developing 

systems. Key barriers and challenges include districts’ and states’ limited resources; state 

procurement practices; lack of engagement with needed district and state stakeholders; 

difficulties with cross-agency governance and data sharing; ongoing leadership changes at 

SEAs, partner agencies, and at the state level; misconceptions about data collection and the 

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), state laws, and other regulations related to 

privacy and confidentiality; lack of training on how to use data to make policy and instructional 

decisions; and concerns from stakeholders about the long-term sustainability of data systems 

without long-term federal funding. 

Cross-sector linkages between K-12, early childhood, postsecondary, and workforce typically 

require a champion outside the SEA (e.g., a governor’s office), but political support for 

widespread data collection and linkage varies. Additionally, state education and labor agencies 

are relatively new partners so they are in the process of figuring out how to work together. 

SLDS progress in FY 2014 included steps by many American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

of 2009 (ARRA) and FY 2009 grantees to complete their grants. FY 2012 grantees still maintain 

active grants, and a new competition will be held in FY 2015. That competition will focus on the 

actual use of SLDS data within the state, built around policy “use cases” to meet state needs in 

topics ranging from the need to connect early childhood data to understanding return-oninvestment for K-12 investments. Additional infrastructure and development costs will be 

included in the grant only when those “build” activities are essential to support or enable the 

state’s proposed use(s) of the system. 

This year the Department made great strides with the ED Data Inventory and secured contractor 

resources for FY 2015 to support the development of a system to “feed” future data collections. 

Future plans also include a process for integrating all existing data collections. 

The DST should continue connecting program officers from multiple offices across the 

Department that would benefit from state development or use of SLDS systems. Building such 

collaborations, possibly coordinated by the DST, could be beneficial to the Department for 

ensuring that progress continues to be made on objective 5.1. 

Finally, the good practice that the Department wants to model to the states would be enhanced 

were the Department to take the DST to the next level in governance. Currently the DST is a 

volunteer organization that only coordinates data, rather than a true governance body. 

Objective 5.2: Privacy 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

The Department has focused on ramping up technical assistance around privacy to schools, 

districts, states, and third-party online educational services providers. Over the past year, the 

Department issued guidance regarding educational technology and transparency and provided

technical assistance to states. Data collection on the completion of inquiries began in a 

structured fashion in 2013, creating a baseline of 10 days to respond to “cases,” which refers to 

requests for quick, informal responses to routine questions related to student privacy. While 

complex questions relating to FERPA, data security, and data management may necessitate 

internal discussion and research, less complex inquiries can now be addressed more quickly 

with recently released guidance. During the first half of FY 2014, a review of existing workflow 

processes specific to providing both formal and informal responses to requests for guidance and 

technical assistance led to process improvements in workflow efficiency. These new processes 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 70

included establishing a new preliminary triage step to better match inquiries and complaints to 

the appropriate staff and contractor resources, improving the case tracking and reporting 

metrics, and better collaboration and workflow management. The Department made selective 

use of contractor resources in support of federal efforts. As a result, the average time to 

respond to cases decreased from 10 to 9 days, meeting the Department’s FY 2014 performance 

target. 

Additionally, the Department has multiple offices and TA centers providing assistance around 

privacy to the field. The Privacy, Information, and Records Management Services (PIRMS) 

office assisted in coordinating work among offices and TA centers. For example, the 

Department implemented biweekly meetings with partners such as the Office of Education 

Technology to present a coherent public position about privacy protections in personalized 

learning and with OSERS to provide TA around IDEA confidentiality provisions. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

Resource constraints present a number of challenges in providing TA to approximately 

14,000 school districts and several thousand institutions of higher education. While the primary 

target audience for TA is schools and school districts, the Department also provides support on 

a limited basis to the third-party vendor community. By working directly with vendors, schools 

and districts are afforded a greater assortment of privacy-friendly resources. 

An additional challenge remains in updating systems and redesigning processes, both for 

technical assistance and complaints. FY 2014 was the first year the Department had significant 

metrics for evaluating service delivery, and the Department will continue to use these metrics to 

improve assistance provided to education stakeholders. 

While the Department met the FY 2014 performance target in this area, continued progress is 

limited by resources and by the slowness of resolution for major policy issues relating to 

FERPA. Activity in the field on student privacy issues, from new state statutes, to policy 

statements, to pledges, to coordinating with other enforcement agencies presents a challenge in

mobilizing proactive efforts. 

Objective 5.3: Research, Evaluation, and Use of Evidence 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

The Department, in consultation with OMB, has determined that performance toward this 

objective is making noteworthy progress. Systemic improvement requires research and 

evaluation so that decision makers at the national, state, and local levels have reliable evidence 

to identify the effective practices and to inform their actions. Supporting more discretionary 

grants with evidence will ensure scarce dollars are more likely to have the intended impact and 

will empower states and districts to become more dynamic learning organizations. 

The Department’s Evidence Planning Group (EPG) continues to identify opportunities for 

discretionary grant programs to use evidence-related priorities or selection criteria in 

competitions. In FY 2014, a total of five competitions in OII, OESE, and OPE incentivized 

evidence in competitions through eligibility requirements, competitive preference priorities, and 

selection criteria. In addition, four competitions asked that applicants design evaluations of their 

proposed projects that will produce evidence. The Department surpassed the FY 2014 

performance target for programs rewarding evidence in grant competitions. In addition, the EPG 

has met with each of the Department’s grant-making offices to discuss appropriate uses of 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 71

evidence in FY 2015 competitions. Projections include, at a minimum, the following 

discretionary grant programs that will reward evidence in their FY 2015 competitions: 

 Supporting Effective Educator Development 

 First in the World 

 Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools 

 i3

 TRIO—Student Support Services 

The metric above tracks the Department’s progress in incentivizing applicants to build on 

evidence of “what works” and to generate new evidence in the course of their grants. Two other 

metrics—one related to the WWC and one to the ERIC—track the Department’s progress in 

providing unbiased, rigorous assessments of “what works” and in making education research 

widely available and easily accessible. The Department believes that progress in these metrics 

will contribute to the information flow that is essential to pushing forward in promising areas of 

education research and development. 

The WWC reviews and summarizes studies of the effectiveness of education interventions and, 

during FY 2014, surpassed by 4.3 percent the Department’s target for the number of studies 

reviewed. Reviews of studies submitted by applicants to Department grant competitions 

contributed to the larger-than-anticipated number of studies reviewed. 

Likewise, in FY 2014, the Department updated its ERIC selection policy to prioritize acquisition 

of peer-reviewed, full-text education research and began renegotiating agreements with content 

providers to enable ERIC to acquire the full text of peer-reviewed articles from research 

supported with FY 2012 or later funding from the Department’s IES. This work contributed to 

surpassing the FY 2014 annual performance target by 3.9 percent for the number of full-text, 

peer-reviewed resources in ERIC. 

Challenges and Next Steps:

The process to collect data and track progress against the goal is still under development, and 

using evidence to award competitive grants entails a shift in culture and capacity building across 

the Department to do it well. Building evidence into competitions is also resource intensive in 

terms of program staff capacity, grantee capacity, and the review process. Additionally, goal 

targets are based on reasonable projections about which competitive grant programs may make 

new awards in this fiscal year, but the actual dollar amount awarded will depend on final 

appropriation amounts and other funding decisions and trade-offs. Grantees vary in their 

comfort with and understanding of evaluation and use of evidence, yet the Department has 

limited resources to support grantees in conducting rigorous evaluations that would produce 

evidence of effectiveness. 

The Department’s leadership will continue explaining to internal stakeholders how the new 

evidence framework in EDGAR can be used in upcoming discretionary grant competitions to 

reward evidence. For example: 

 EPG is meeting with program offices throughout the Department to identify ways to 

incorporate evidence into discretionary grant competitions and in formula programs, 

particularly SIG. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 72

 EPG is also exploring ways to support program offices that choose to incorporate evidence 

and build capacity departmentwide. For example, EPG is exploring the establishment of a 

departmentwide contract that would provide for technical assistance to grantees on their 

evaluations, particularly impact evaluations that are intended to produce studies that meet 

WWC standards. Additionally, IES has collaborated with program offices to recruit peer 

reviewers familiar with the WWC standards, which will increase scrutiny of applicants’ 

proposed plans for rigorous evaluations. Finally, OII and IES are providing training to 

Department staff on logic models and other elements of the evidence framework to better 

inform our work at the Department and to provide better assistance to our grantees. 

 The Department’s RELs continue to develop resources and conduct webinars on the 

creation of logic models to support program design and evaluation. 

 EPG has compiled several evidence and evaluation resources and is in the process of 

identifying a central location in which to house them so that all Department staff can access 

them. 

As the pace of evidence generation quickens, a key challenge for the WWC is to quickly update 

Intervention Reports—that is, summaries of all of the research on a given intervention (not just a 

summary of one study)—with new findings as they become available. With this in mind, the 

Department has begun a major effort to improve the WWC databases in order to support 

dynamically generated reports that can auto-update when a new study of an intervention is 

reviewed. The Department also intends for the WWC to use this database to create simpler, 

more graphic summaries of evidence for practitioner and policymaker audiences. 

Next steps for the Department’s ERIC investment include incorporating a search function that 

allows users to identify studies in the ERIC database that were reviewed by the WWC and that 

met standards. In this way, the greater integration of the Department’s WWC and ERIC 

investments will contribute to the “virtuous cycle” of using and producing research evidence that 

also is supported by grant programs that incentivize use of research. 

Objective 5.4: Technology and Innovation

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

The Department of Education, in consultation with OMB, has determined that performance 

toward this objective is making noteworthy progress. The Department had many successes 

during FY 2014, including a call to the country’s 16,000 superintendents who lead district, 

charter, and private schools to join the Department in taking the Future Ready District Pledge. 

By taking this pledge, superintendents commit to develop, implement, and share technology 

plans with other districts so they can learn from successes and challenges along the way. The 

Future Ready District Pledge offers a roadmap to achieve successful personalized digital 

learning for every student and affirms a commitment by districts to move as quickly as possible 

toward the shared vision of preparing students for success in college, careers, and citizenship. 

Based on input from the superintendents, the White House hosted a “ConnectED to the Future” 

superintendent summit that recognized superintendents from across the country for their 

leadership and provided opportunities for leaders to share lessons learned and help 

disseminate promising approaches for transforming learning through technology from across the 

nation. 

To support the work of the superintendents, the Department collected a series of best practices 

for connecting schools, providing devices, and preparing teachers to use technology effectively. 

These practices were published in guides released at the “ConnectED to the Future” 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 73

superintendent summit: Future Ready Schools: Empowering Educators through Professional 

Learning and Future Ready Schools: Building Technology Infrastructure for Learning. The 

Department also issued guidance to state and local superintendents to clarify that technology 

and digital learning can be an allowable use of more than $27 billion in federal funds under the 

ESEA and IDEA. 

The Department provided direct support to the President’s ConnectED Initiative, which sets four 

clear goals to transition to digital learning across the country in five years: Upgraded 

Connectivity, Access to Learning Devices, Supported Teachers, and Digital Learning Resources 

(see Explanation and Analysis of Progress for objective 4.1 for more information). As part of that 

effort, the FCC is investing $2 billion over the next two years to expand high-speed Internet 

connectivity dramatically for America’s schools and libraries and another $2 billion for wireless 

connectivity within schools—connecting 20 million more students to next-generation broadband 

and wireless. In addition, private sector companies have also committed more than $2 billion to 

deliver cutting-edge technologies to classrooms, including devices, free software, teacher 

professional development, and home wireless connectivity. 

In November 2014, the Department co-hosted, with the White House Office of Science and 

Technology Policy, a convening at the White House on innovation in higher education, which 

focused on providing expert guidance in technology models and issues relevant to 

postsecondary education, competency-based education, and workforce development. This 

kicked off an intensive collaboration with the White House and other agencies to conceptualize 

an Online Skills Academy in anticipation of a Department of Labor grant solicitation. 

Finally, in response to the President’s call to action to create compelling educational software, in 

collaboration with the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Department 

hosted the first-ever White House Education Game Jam, the culminating event of an education 

games week. Over the weekend of September 6–7, 2014, more than 100 game developers and 

dozens of teachers, learning researchers, and students gathered to develop fun, innovative 

ways to address content that teachers and students had previously identified as particularly 

difficult to teach and learn via traditional approaches. This will be followed by the creation of an 

app developer’s toolkit—the first guidance from the Department specifically for developers of 

educational software. The Department’s goal through the Game Jam and the development of 

the toolkit is to increase interest in the development of highly engaging tools and apps for 

education and show that college- and career-ready standards can be achieved in creative and 

engaging ways. 

Challenges and Next Steps:

Several challenges remain in meeting the goals of this objective, including the fact that there is 

no ongoing funding for activities to support the development and adoption of new technologies. 

External barriers to success include educating the public about privacy and data security 

(leading to setbacks in the ability to use data to create personalized learning systems), difficulty 

measuring effectiveness without a robust evaluation program, and difficulty showing impact 

without data collection. 

Risk mitigation strategies include requesting ongoing budget funding, seeking external 

foundation funding to support the work, and proposing rapid evaluation of effectiveness of 

technologies through the pooled evaluation fund authority. Concerns around privacy and data 

security are more difficult to predict, but continue to be addressed through outreach and 

communication efforts. Although external data sources indicate that the established FY 2014 

performance target was met, more reliable and robust surveys of the state of the field in regards 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 74

to the appropriate and effective use of connectivity and technology will be key to accurately 

assessing the Department’s contributions to this goal. 

Selected Strategies to Achieve Goal 5

Several themes run across Goal 5 implementation strategies. Collaboration will be a key 

strategy needed to implement all objectives, including collaboration within the Department, 

collaboration within government, and collaboration with the education community as a whole. 

Sufficient resources are also key to all objectives in Goal 5, both federal resources and (in the 

case of the SLDS program) state resources as well. Privacy is both a stand-alone objective and 

a theme in other objectives. The Department must address valid privacy concerns and dispel 

privacy myths. 

Another theme for success in Goal 5 is developing sustainable, scalable solutions for using data 

and evidence in decision-making, which will require the Department to be both efficient and 

effective. Carefully reviewing studies against WWC standards is painstaking work and 

challenging to carry out at scale and in a short time frame. The Department is taking deliberate 

steps to increase the number of reviewers who are certified to carry out WWC reviews and to 

procure contracts that allow the Department to act nimbly to obtain these reviews.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 75

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

Improve the organizational capacities of the Department to

implement the Strategic Plan. 

Goal Leader: Andrew Jackson

Objective 6.1: Effective Workforce. Continue to build a skilled, diverse, and engaged 

workforce within the Department. Objective Leader: Cassandra Cuffee-Graves 

Metric 6.1.A: Staffing gaps percentage22 

Metric 6.1.B: EVS engagement index23

Metric 6.1.C: Time to hire 

Metric 6.1.D: Effective Communication Index24

Objective 6.2: Risk Management. Improve the Department’s program efficacy through 

comprehensive risk management, and grant and contract monitoring. Objective Leaders: Phil 

Maestri and Jim Ropelewski 

Metric 6.2.A: Percentage of A-133 Single Audits Overdue for resolution 

Metric 6.2.B: Compliance rate of contractor evaluation performance reports25

Objective 6.3: Implementation and Support. Build Department capacity and systems to 

support states’ and other grantees’ implementation of reforms that result in improved outcomes, 

and keep the public informed of promising practices and new reform initiatives. Objective 

Leader: Heather Rieman 

Metric 6.3.A: Percentage of states who annually rate the Department’s technical 

assistance as helping build state capacity to implement education reforms 

Objective 6.4: Productivity and Performance Management. Improve workforce productivity 

through information technology enhancements, telework expansion efforts, more effective 

process performance management systems, and state-of-the-art leadership and knowledge 

management practices. Objective Leaders: Danny Harris, Cassandra Cuffee-Graves, and 

Denise Carter

Metric 6.4.A: Number of ED information technology (IT) security incidents 

 

22 Percent resulting from dividing number of all agency positions into unfilled agency vacancies.

23 Based on positive Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS, also referred to as “EVS”) responses.

24 Based on positive FEVS responses.

25 As reported in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) reporting tool at www.ppirs.gov. 

Government use of PPIRS is required by Federal Acquisition Regulation Subpart 42.15, and governmentwide annual 

reporting performance targets are set by the Office of Management and Budget in the March 6, 2013, memorandum 

titled, “Improving the Collection and Use of Information about Contractor Performance and Integrity.” The PPIRS 

compliance metric “calculates the number of completed evaluations against the contract actions that should have had 

an evaluation completed. This number is displayed as a percentage” 

(https://www.cpars.gov/cparsfiles/pdfs/Improving_Compliance.pdf).
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 76

Metric 6.4.B: EVS Results-Based Performance Culture Index26

Metric 6.4.C: EVS Leadership and Knowledge Management Index27

Metric 6.4.D: Total usable square footage 

Metric 6.4.E: Rent cost

Goal 6 Discretionary Resources

$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500

FY 2014

FY 2015

FY 2016

$481

$469

$533

(Dollars in millions)

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities28 Supporting Goal 6 Performance Metrics 

[Dollars in Millions]

POC Account Obj. Program

FY 2014

Appropriation

FY 2015 

Appropriation

FY 2016 

President’s 

Budget

OIG OIG Office of Inspector General 58 58 59

DM/PA Program Administration: Building modernization - - 14

DM/PA Program Administration: Salaries and expenses 423 411 460

TOTAL, GOAL 6 481 469 533

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

Detail may not add to total due to rounding. 

Public Benefit 

To ensure the achievement of the Department’s mission critical objectives, grants and contract 

management will remain a strategic focus for improvement in long- and short-term initiatives. 

Additionally, strengthening human capital strategies, competencies and resources, along with 

 

26 Based on positive FEVS (also referred to as “EVS”) responses.

27 Based on positive FEVS responses.

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

competitive and non-competitive programs.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 77

the continuous improvement of IT security and technologically enhanced work environments, 

continue to be priorities needed to support those objectives. The stated initiatives aim to support 

grantees, schools, students, families, and communities in achieving their educational and 

economic goals, while also continuing to hold recipients of the Department’s funding 

accountable to clear financial requirements and legal obligations. 

The Department will also continue to focus on human capital management and acquire and 

build a skilled and knowledgeable workforce; rethink how it monitors and intervenes with highrisk grantees, as well as contractors; enhance workforce productivity through information 

technology and performance management; and transform the way the Department interacts with 

states, districts, institutions of higher education, and other grantees and stakeholders across the 

country. The expected transformation will result in improved performance results, increased 

stakeholder collaboration, and greater employee engagement. 

In FY 2014, the Department developed a new approach to workforce and succession planning 

and used a strategic approach to identify organizational capabilities, establish areas of expertise 

and challenges, and to continue building a sustainable, skilled workforce. 

Goal 6: Details

U.S. Department of 

Education Capacity

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals Targets

2012 2013 2014 2014 2015 2016

Objective 6.1: Effective Workforce. Continue to build a skilled, diverse, and engaged workforce within the Department.

6.1.A. Staffing gaps 

percentage

Year: 2013

15%

Not 

Collected 15% 4%

15%

MET 15% 15%

6.1.B. EVS engagement 

index1

Year: 2012

64.7% 64.7% 66% 67% 66.0%MET 69% 71%

6.1.C. Time to hire2 Year: 2013

65%

Not 

Collected 65% 85%

66%

MET 68% 69%

6.1.D. Effective 

Communication Index3

Year: 2012

48% 48% 49.6% 50% 49%MET 50% 51%

Objective 6.2: Risk Management. Improve the Department’s program efficacy through comprehensive risk management and 

grant and contract monitoring.

6.2.A. Percentage of A133 Single Audits 

Overdue for resolution

Year: 2012

57% 57% 52% 37% 50%MET 43% 37%

6.2.B. Compliance rate of 

contractor evaluation 

performance reports

Year: 2013

85%

Not 

Collected 85% 97%

95%

MET 100% 100%

Objective 6.3: Implementation and Support. Build Department capacity and systems to support states’ and other grantees’ 

implementation of reforms that result in improved outcomes, and keep the public informed of promising practices and new reform 

initiatives.

6.3.A. Percentage of 

states who annually rate 

the Department’s 

technical assistance as 

helping build state 

capacity to implement 

education reforms

Year: 2013

54%

Not 

Collected 54% 75% 58%MET 67% 77%

Objective 6.4: Productivity and Performance Management. Improve workforce productivity through information technology 

enhancements, telework expansion efforts, more effective process performance management systems, and state-of-the-art 

leadership and knowledge management practices.

6.4.A. Number of ED IT 

security incidents4

Year: 2012

756 756 755 445 718MET 682 648

6.4.B. EVS ResultsBased Performance 

Culture Index

Year: 2012

53% 53% 54% 56% 54%MET 56% 57%

6.4.C. EVS Leadership 

and Knowledge 

Management Index

Year: 2012

60% 60% 61% 61% 61%MET 62% 63%
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 78

U.S. Department of 

Education Capacity

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals Targets

2012 2013 2014 2014 2015 2016

6.4.D. Total usable 

square footage5

Year: 2012

1,563,641 1,563,641 1,573,317 1,533,239 1,525,937NOT MET 1,525,937 1,459,937

6.4.E. Rent cost6 Year: 2014

$74.3M $64.6M $71.7M $74.1M $74.3MMET $80.3M $80.3M

NA = Not applicable. 

1

 The Department is revising the performance targets established in the FY 2013 Annual Performance Report and FY 2015 Annual 

Performance Plan for later years to be more ambitious. 

2

 Time from the date the hiring request is received in HCCS to the initial employment offer. 2013 data are based on OPM’s 80-day 

model. During Quarter 3 of FY 2014, the Department began basing time-to-hire on 90 days, which factors in position classification at 

the beginning of the hiring cycle, to provide greater accuracy and improve reengineering effort to gain efficiencies. The baseline data 

are not being changed due to the nominal difference in the time-to-hire when reviewing the number of actions processed in each 

quarter. 

3

 Positive response rate to FEVS (also referred to as “EVS”) questions 53, 58, and 64. 

4

 An incident, as defined under federal guidelines, is a violation of computer (cyber) policy or practices. Some incidents, by nature, 

are significant and require reporting to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) United States Computer Emergency Readiness 

Team (US-CERT). The significant reportable incidents are associated with unauthorized access; successful denial of service 

attacks; successful installation and execution of malicious code; and improper usage—i.e., personally identifiable information (PII) 

breaches. 

5

 Baseline updated to reflect previous year’s data. 

6

 The Department of Education currently leases 27 buildings, occupying 1,533,239 usable square feet of space, costing $74.3M in 

FY 2014. By FY 2018, the Department will reduce its number of leases to 25 and its space footprint from 1,533,239 to 1,202,319 

(21%). Without the above footprint reductions, the Department’s FY 2018 rent costs would escalate to $91M; however, the Space

Modernization Initiative reduces the FY 2018 cost by $23.5 million (25.7%) to $67.8M. Rent savings in FY 2015–17 are offset by 

rent escalations in those fiscal years. Assumptions: 1) All leased buildings: 2% is applied for anticipation of CPI (Consumer Price 

Index) annual increases on the anniversary date of the active lease/occupancy agreement (OA); and 2.5% is applied for anticipation 

of annual tax increases; 2) All federal buildings: 2.5% is applied for operating cost escalations on the anniversary date of the active 

OA; 3) 20% is applied to all federal buildings after an OA has expired and a new OA is unavailable. (Projected increase on the 

appraisal); 4) 40% is applied to all leased buildings after an OA has expired and a new OA is unavailable. (Projected increase on the 

market rent); 5) If a new OA is unavailable, 3 months early rent is applied to all buildings that are relocating due to possible 

Department delays. Example: Changes made to the designs after space specifications are completed; and 6) 3 months late rent is 

applied to all buildings that are relocating due to possible Department delays. Example: Delays in returning space back to rentable 

condition. Actual for FY 2014 varies slightly from baseline to reflect 4th quarter data versus baseline established in 1st quarter. 

Data Sources and Frequency of Collection: 

6.1.A. Mission Critical Occupation (MCO) Staffing Gap Report; quarterly 

6.1.B. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS); annually 

6.1.C. Workforce Transformation Tracking System (WTTS) and Entrance on Duty System (EOS); quarterly 

6.1.D. OPM Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS); annually 

6.2.A. Office of the Chief Financial Officer’s (OCFO) Audit Accountability & Resolution Tracking System (AARTS); annually 

6.2.B. Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) www.ppirs.gov “PPIRS Compliance Report”; annually 

6.3.A. The Reform Support Network Annual State and CoP Leads Survey (administered Q3 2014); annually 

6.4.A. Operational Vulnerability Management Solution (OVMS) System; quarterly 

6.4.B. OPM FEVS; annually 

6.4.C. OPM FEVS; annually 

6.4.D. Department’s Master Space Management Plan; annually 

6.4.E. Department’s Master Space Management Plan; annually 

Note on performance metrics and targets: These metrics were established as a part of the FY 2014–18 Strategic 

Plan. Metrics may be updated or revised to reflect awareness of more accurate data or clarifications. Such updates or 

revisions are identified in footnotes. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 79

Analysis and Next Steps by Objective

Objective 6.1: Effective Workforce 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress:

The Department’s strategic goals support postsecondary education, career and technical 

education, adult education, elementary and secondary education, early learning, equity, and 

continuous improvement of the United States education system. To accomplish this, the 

Department’s workforce must be in the right position, at the right time, and with the right skills, 

led by skilled and engaging supervisors and managers. The Department is revising supervisory 

training to expand core skills such as human capital management, budgeting, and information 

technology, and it will be published by the end of FY 2015. The Department is focusing on 

enhancing employee productivity by aligning priorities and goals at every level in the 

organization with the Department’s strategic objectives. The Department has seen incremental 

progress in FEVS results. Since 2010, the Department has improved scores in the Employee 

Engagement Index of the FEVS from 62.6 percent to 66.6 percent in 2014. In FY 2015, the 

Department will implement a 12-month engagement strategy based on the FEVS results and 

monitor progress continuously. 

The Department has an important role to play in providing differentiated support and technical 

assistance to those pursuing this challenging work—even while continuing to improve the 

quality and reduce the burden of its fundamental stewardship function. To do so, the Human 

Capital Office worked with all Departmental offices to use the Workforce Transformation and 

Tracking System (WTTS). This system allows the Department to track the hiring of employees 

with the right skills. In conjunction with the Department’s Talent Management System, career 

paths and developmental plans help retain and train Department employees. 

Human capital management plays a critical role in the Department’s ability to fulfill its mission. 

By effectively planning for workforce changes, addressing skill gaps, and providing options for 

recruitment, staffing, and retention, the Department is better poised to provide consistent 

oversight, execution, and support for its various programs. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

The Department and its principal offices (POs) will evaluate offices’ current and future

competency needs and begin recruiting and hiring to meet those needs. Each PO must continue 

its efforts of evaluating each position prior to its becoming vacant to determine where there are 

opportunities to begin internal job sharing or training, while building pipelines for entry level 

personnel. The Department will continue working with POs to ensure current staff are receiving 

the right training to meet the mission needs and future hiring of staff is based on those needs. 

The Department realizes the challenge of budget constraints coupled with low attrition, which 

can limit the ability to hire under current employee ceilings.

Objective 6.2: Risk Management 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

Risk management plays a critical role in enhancing the capacity of grantees to implement 

needed reforms. It helps assess the ability of applicants to fulfill grant requirements, focus grant 

monitoring efforts, and identify performance challenges that can be addressed through 

measures such as enhanced technical assistance. Risk management is also an essential 

aspect of contract monitoring, which is achieved by actively assessing program and 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 80

performance risks inherent in contracts through oversight and support and issuance of policy 

and guidance to program and contract officials. 

The Department significantly reduced the number of overdue audits by resolving more audits 

timely and reducing the backlog of existing overdue audits. Of all A-133 audits that were 

unresolved at the end of FY 2014, only 37 percent were overdue. The Department also greatly 

increased compliance with contractor evaluation performance reporting requirements, and has 

the best compliance rate in the federal government with 97 percent. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

The Department will continue supporting offices with the greatest number of overdue audits to 

reduce the number of overdue audits. In addition, the Department will increase compliance with 

contractor evaluation performance reporting requirements. In FY 2014, the system for recording 

past performance changed to allow contractors a 60-day comment period instead of the 

previous 30-day period. Unless the contractor comments earlier, the agency receives credit for 

compliance only after this 60-day comment period. In FY 2015, every Government agency’s 

compliance target is 100 percent, even though only two agencies met their FY 2014 

performance targets (Departments of Education and Housing and Urban Development), and the 

Department of Education was the only agency to exceed 95 percent. Based on performance to 

date and the change to the contractor comment period, reaching the remaining 5 percent to 

achieve the 100 percent target will be a challenge and require significant Department resources. 

The Departmental management will work with Contracting Officers to ensure that Past 

Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) compliance metrics reflect accurate 

information on outstanding contractor evaluation performance reports.

Objective 6.3: Implementation and Support 

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

One of the primary challenges facing SEAs today is the shift from a compliance focus to one of 

building capabilities and capacity needed to lead education reform initiatives effectively and 

support school districts and schools with performance management. Over the past 12 years, 

SEAs have taken on stronger leadership and policy development roles, and key federal 

programs, such as programs under the ESEA as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 

2001 (NCLB), including SIG, as well as programs under ARRA, such as RTT, have also helped 

to create a more robust role for SEAs and their increasing role of supporting districts and 

schools. 

In response to this new environment, the Department recently implemented a reorganization of 

OESE to consolidate a number of offices into the new OSS. The OSS is designed to provide 

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

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

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

reorganization was approved in the fourth quarter of FY 2014 and the OSS was created on 

October 5, 2014. The matrix organization model adopted by the OSS ensures that a state has a 

primary contact within the Department and this individual serves as the liaison across key stateadministered grant programs and major federal funding streams that flow to each state and 

district. By consolidating processes and technical assistance, the Department will be able to 

more effectively customize its outreach to individual states and model the critical partnerships 

that states should have with their respective districts. The OSS builds on the state-focused 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 81

support work that the Department has undertaken over the past several years through RTT, 

SIG, and ESEA Flexibility. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

Transitioning to the new OSS is a significant change that will take time to implement fully. OESE 

and OSS leadership are establishing new processes and procedures, and the transition will take 

place gradually over the next year. Challenges include clear delegation of responsibilities, 

appropriate professional development and support for staff, and relevant outreach and

communication internally and externally. 

Building new and stronger relationships with states and stakeholders who are affected by 

Department reforms and grants requires significant outreach and effort. The Department will 

have continuous communication with stakeholders and grantees to share lessons learned 

across grantees and non-grantees and with the general public. The Department will use its 

communications channels, such as its printed publications, the Homeroom blog site, the 

PROGRESS blog, the Education Reform Hub, an OSS technical assistance site, YouTube 

videos, and speeches to tell the stories of success so that the public can learn from reforms 

being implemented at the state and local levels.

Objective 6.4: Productivity and Performance Management

Explanation and Analysis of Progress: 

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

focus area of improvement. The Department’s workforce must be in the right position, at the 

right time, with the right skills, and at the right cost, led by skilled and engaging supervisors and 

managers to support its mission. The Department is focusing on enhancing employee 

productivity and aligning performance management practices with Departmental strategic 

objectives by aligning priorities and goals at every level in the organization. The Department 

must manage changing technology, a more mobile workforce, and increased efficiency of 

workspace. 

To date, the Department eliminated staffing classification backlogs, reduced the shortage of 

trained human capital practitioners, and established performance metrics to align with 

competency-based training. The Department established performance metrics for all Office of 

Management employees to include customer service, operations or production work, and 

general project management. In addition, the performance metrics established a link to all 

federal certification programs. All employees’ certification programs are part of their Individual 

Development Plans and are tailored to their areas of responsibility. Both employees and 

managers are held accountable for performance standards at their grade level. 

The Department reduced the number of reportable IT security incidents during FY 2014. The 

reduction is due to a better educated workforce, improved IT security response capabilities, and 

the introduction of new automated capabilities that intercept a hostile cyber activity or alert IT 

security response teams before such an adverse event becomes an actual IT security incident. 

The Department completed development of a five-year project plan and a business case of the 

Department’s Space Modernization Program. Such a major project involves many underlying 

elements to ensure success, including training managers for transition, improving management 

of a more remote workforce, and changing the nature of a performance culture. The Department 

revised the related internal guidance document with targets for space utilization rates consistent 

with OMB and the General Services Administration’s (GSA) Freeze the Footprint program 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 82

requirements. The Department is also updating its telework policies and helping managers learn 

to oversee employees when they are not in the office physically. The Department has started to 

implement a more robust telework program by providing mobile workers with 21st century IT 

tools, strengthening performance management practices, promoting cultural acceptance of a 

mobile workforce, and offering a new practical training workshop on how to implement telework 

policies effectively. Finally, the Department increased records management assistance to POs 

as they assessed their current records inventory and identified records that could be purged, 

archived, or digitized to reduce their file space footprint. 

Challenges and Next Steps: 

POs should focus on developing and achieving measurable results within their human capital 

performance metrics. Training managers on writing meaningful performance metrics, providing 

ongoing feedback, and providing clear examples of accomplishments for each performance 

level will be critical for both managers and employees. Future metrics must align with the 

Department’s strategic plan and should cascade from executive, to manager and supervisor, 

and to the workforce, ensuring that all Department employees have performance metrics that 

link to the strategic plan.

The Department continued implementation and optimization of its automated response 

capabilities. These efforts will reduce the number of security incidents in FY 2015 and FY 2016. 

Additional training for the Department’s third-party partners will reduce the potential for 

Personally Identifiable Information (PII) disclosures and ensure the proper protection of our 

customers’ information.

Employee engagement is a critical component in supporting the changes to workspace, work 

patterns, and technology. The General Services Administration will continue to provide support 

through its National Workplace Engagement program. The Department will work with each PO 

to make the overall transition successful. Continued development of a robust telework program 

by the Department will add to the success of the overall program. 

Selected Strategies to Achieve Goal 6

The Department must support the learning and development of its leaders so that they can 

assess employee competency gaps and developmental needs, distinguish performance versus 

conduct issues, and provide meaningful and ongoing feedback to employees so that employees 

are accountable for producing or exceeding the expected results. 

The cybersecurity focus will remain on data protection and control. The Department will 

continue implementing various capabilities to control the flow of sensitive information, and 

prevent access to related systems, data, or other critical information and infrastructure by 

unauthorized individuals. These new capabilities with existing protective measures will ensure 

the protection of employee and customer data. 

Finally, the Department must work with POs to develop customized change management 

strategies necessary to successful redesign and reduction of the Department’s space. By 

consolidating units, renegotiating leases, and making reductions in the needed space, the 

Department will cut its overall space footprint by more than half. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 83

Management Priorities and Challenges

The Department continues to make a substantive commitment and investment in improving its 

working capacity and infrastructure. Goal 6 of the Strategic Plan (U.S. Department of Education 

Capacity: Improve the organizational capacities of the Department to implement the Strategic 

Plan) supports those aims by ensuring that the Department’s hiring, staffing, training, culture, 

systems, and procedures enable the Department to deliver programs and resources in ways 

that are faster, smarter, and better year after year. Thus, the commitment and the investments 

are both short- and long-range in nature. 

Examples of the Department’s employee-focused strategies are seen in prioritizing greater 

employee engagement, diversity, and inclusion, and on expanding leadership and knowledge 

management efforts in mission-support operations such as IT customer service. Because the 

Department aims to be a best place to work, the Department has created a workgroup on 

employee engagement to work on key areas for improvement, including formalized supervisor 

and peer recognition, intensive manager training and development pilots, increased 

development and usage of telework policies and flexibilities, and employee wellness, lifestyle 

balance, and volunteerism campaigns. 

IT delivery is another area where the Department has committed considerable resources. The 

Office of the Chief Information Officer has pushed for greater technology innovation to improve 

the workload capacity for employees. Efforts to improve security, gain efficiency in storage, 

improve network service and responsiveness, increase system speed, and increase the 

footprint of Wi-Fi and other wireless and mobility solutions in the Department’s facilities and for 

those working remotely, have significantly improved the employee computing experience. These 

efforts have clarified the Department’s needs and provide a clear vision for how technology can 

help employees in their work. 

The Department has also made significant progress on Cybersecurity, one of the President’s 

mission CAP goals. During FY 2014, the Department significantly reduced the number of threats 

and risks, including security breaches. For example, the technology group saw a nearly 

150 percent increase in the number of grantees who now use personal identity verification (PIV) 

to electronically sign grant award notices. These advances resulted from the Department’s 

proactive strategies to seek innovation. 

Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) Management Challenges

OIG works to promote efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity in the programs and operations of 

the Department. Through audits, inspections, investigations, and other reviews, OIG continues 

to identify areas of concern within the Department’s programs and operations and recommend 

actions the Department should take to address these weaknesses. The Reports Consolidation 

Act of 2000 requires the OIG to identify and report annually on the most serious management 

challenges the Department faces. The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 requires the 

Department to include in its agency performance plan information on its planned actions, 

including performance goals, indicators, and milestones, to address these challenges. 

Last year OIG presented five management challenges. Although OIG noted some progress by 

the Department in addressing these areas, each remains as a management challenge for 

FY 2015. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 84

The FY 2015 management challenges are: 

(1) Improper Payments, 

(2) Information Technology Security, 

(3) Oversight and Monitoring, 

(4) Data Quality and Reporting, and 

(5) Information Technology System Development and Implementation. 

These challenges reflect continuing vulnerabilities and emerging issues faced by the 

Department as identified though OIG’s recent audit, inspection, and investigative work. 

The full report is published by the OIG. To view the full report, go to: 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/managementchallenges.html. 

OIG noted some progress by the Department in addressing the FY 2014 management 

challenges. The Department remains committed to improved governance and better business 

processes. Management has worked closely with OIG to gain its perspective about the 

Department’s most significant management and performance challenges.

Lower-Priority Program Activities 

The Cuts, Consolidations and Savings volume of the President’s Budget identifies the lowerpriority program activities, where applicable, as required under the GPRA Modernization Act of 

2010, 31 U.S.C. 1115(b)(10). The public can access the volume at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget.