FY 2018 

Annual 

Performance 

Report and 

FY 2020 

Annual 

Performance 

Plan

U.S. Department 

of Education
U.S. Department of Education 

Betsy DeVos

Secretary

March 18, 2019

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

permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be:

U.S. Department of Education, Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Performance Report and Fiscal Year 2020 

Annual Performance Plan: Washington, D.C., 2019.

Notice of Availability of Alternate Formats

This report is available at http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/index.html. On request, the report also 

is available in alternative formats, such as Braille, large print or compact disk. For more information, 

please contact our Alternate Format Center at 1-202-260-0852 or the 504 coordinator via email at om_

eeos@ed.gov.

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

www.ed.gov. Our Twitter page is at @usedgov, and our blog is at Homeroom.

Notice to Limited English Proficient Persons

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

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

(1-800-872-5327) or TTY: 1-800-877-8339 or by emailing us at Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov.

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

usefulness to PIO@ed.gov or write to:

U.S. Department of Education Performance Improvement Officer 

400 Maryland Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20202
Table of Contents i

Table of Contents

Message from 

the Secretary

iii

About the 

Department

1

Mission........................................................1

FY 2018 Organization Structure .................1

National Landscape

3

Strategic 

Framework

11

FY 2018–22 Strategic Goals 

and Objectives..............................11

Agency Priority Goals..................12

Cross-Agency Priority Goals.......13

Performance Assessment 

and Planning

15

Strategic Goal 1................17

Strategic Goal 2................49

Strategic Goal 3................77

Strategic Goal 4................93

Appendices

117

Appendix A: Data Validity and Verification ....................117

Appendix B: Performance Metric Changes.....................133

Appendix C: Programs by Goal.......................................139

Appendix D: Summary of Performance Evaluations 

Conducted During FY 2018 and Expected During 

FY 2019–20......................................................................145

Appendix E: Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations..191
ii FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

This page is intentionally left blank.
Message from the Secretary iii

Message from the Secretary

In the U.S. Department of Education’s Strategic Plan 

for fiscal year (FY) 2018–22, we laid out a vision for 

bold reforms that reflect President Trump’s priority to 

ensure all students in America have access to learning 

environments that fit their unique needs and prepare 

them for successful careers and meaningful lives. We 

have challenged everyone, including ourselves, to 

“rethink school.” That means everyone must question 

everything we do to ensure nothing limits students from 

being prepared for what comes next. While there is still 

much work to be done, we have made great strides in 

the last year.

By the end of FY 2018, all 50 states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico submitted 

their required plans for improving student achievement under the Every Student Succeeds Act 

(ESSA). All 52 plans met the requirements of the law and were approved. But an ESSA plan is 

just the beginning. States must embrace the new flexibilities afforded in ESSA to lead the way 

in improving education for the students they serve. Ultimately, all students, regardless of where 

they live or their parents’ salaries, should have the opportunity to pursue an education that is 

right for them.

Expanding freedom and flexibility is also a top priority in postsecondary education. Students 

should have access to a multitude of education pathways. Whether they want to pursue a 

traditional four-year college degree, earn a certification in an in-demand field or participate in an 

earn-and-learn apprenticeship, nothing should limit any student from pursuing the option that is 

right for him or her. Following the passage of Perkins V, the Department has worked closely with 

States to encourage them to “rethink” career and technical education (CTE) and develop bold 

goals and innovative practices that will align CTE programs with locally identified, in-demand 

career fields. 

One of my first acts as Secretary was to work with Congress to restore year-round Pell so that 

students can graduate more quickly and with less debt. In the coming year, the Department will 

also focus on making college more affordable and freeing up some of the constraints that are 

holding back innovation in higher education through negotiated rulemaking on accreditation, 

distance learning and state authorization, among other topics.

This Administration has also worked to provide students with relevant, transparent and accurate 

information on their post-high school education options. Over the last year, the Department has 

updated the College Scorecard to make the information and comparison tools more relevant and 

useful for students. It is our goal in FY 2019 to provide students with program-level data so they 

can make apples-to-apples comparisons when assessing their higher education options.
The Department also marked a major milestone when, for the first time ever, it launched a mobile 

app, myStudentAid, to coincide with the release of the FY 2019–20 Free Application for Federal 

Student Aid®. The app is part of a greater initiative, the Next Generation Financial Services 

Environment, which will fundamentally change the nature of federal financial aid. For too 

long, the customer experience for acquiring and paying off student loans has been cumbersome 

and confusing. We are well on our way to greatly enhancing the customer experience while 

protecting taxpayers.

Finally, it is important for the Department to not only look for avenues where we can help 

but also examine whether we are creating unnecessary burdens on educators, administrators 

and, most importantly, families. We want to foster a culture of innovation in education and 

that begins by reviewing and removing those regulations that limit education leaders, teachers 

and students. As the President’s Executive Order on regulatory reform directs, the Department 

continues to review all of our regulations and guidance documents to ensure they truly advance 

the Department’s mission. After the initial review, we rescinded more than 600 outdated 

subregulatory guidance documents.

Ultimately, our focus has been and will remain on putting students first. We will continue to be 

their advocates and work to ensure nothing limits them from pursuing their lifelong learning 

journeys.

Betsy DeVos

Secretary of Education

iv FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan
About the Department 1

About the Department

Mission and Statutory Structure

Mission

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

for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

The Department accomplishes its mission by administering programs that provide services 

from early intervention services to employment programs. Many of these programs provide 

grants to states or local educational agencies and support students and families from vulnerable 

populations, including children with disabilities and those from disadvantaged backgrounds. 

These programs also provide grants and loans to postsecondary students and facilitate research 

that examines ways that states, schools, districts and postsecondary institutions can improve 

America’s education system. In addition, the Department fulfills its mission through the 

enforcement of civil rights laws that provide equal access to Department programs for all 

individuals.

FY 2018 Organization Structure

The coordinating structure used in fiscal year (FY) 2018 is available online.

1

1

In March 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13781, directing agencies to propose reform plans, 

including opportunities to reorganize to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and accountability of the executive 

branch. The Department created a Reform Steering Committee that ultimately proposed a set of internal 

reorganizations and developed the packages for those reorganizations throughout FY 2018, with an effective 

date of January 2019. The organization and coordinating structures in place in FY 2018 and presented in this 

report do not reflect these changes.
2 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

This page is intentionally left blank.
National Landscape 3

National Landscape

State of Education in the United States and Internationally

A great education is the key to unlocking personal potential to succeed in careers and to lead a 

meaningful life. Accordingly, education is best addressed by those closest to students—parents 

and teachers. The proper Federal role in education should be to come alongside teachers, parents, 

and students in ensuring every student has opportunities to pursue the education that works for 

them.

However, for too many American students, education is limited by how they learn, by where 

they live, or by their parents’ income. These limitations are borne out in the numbers. When the 

Program for International Student Assessment compared most of the world, America was ranked 

24th in reading, 25th in science and 40th in mathematics.1

 Furthermore, although overall results 

from the National Assessment of Education Progress are unremarkable, scores for our lowest 

performers have been in decline since school year (SY) 2013-14 (see figures on pages 6 and 7). 

But that’s not because our students aren’t capable. They are.

That’s why the Department is focused on expanding education freedom for students, their 

families, and their teachers. The Department’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 

estimates that 55.8 million students were enrolled in public and private elementary and 

secondary schools in fall 2018, including 39.5 million students in prekindergarten through grade 

8 and 16.4 million students in grades 9 through 12.2,3

The Department is committed to improving educational outcomes for every student and has 

encouraged states to increase options for families. For example, during SY 2016–17, 7,100 

public charter schools enrolled just over 3 million students, which is an increase of 1,826 schools 

and 1.2 million students since SY 2010-114

 (see charter school figures on page 8 and magnet 

school figures on page 9). 

1

See https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/pisa2015/index.asp. See page 5 of this report for the U.S. rankings across the 

Group of Seven (G7) countries.

2

See https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_203.10.asp. 3

See https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_105.30.asp. 4

See https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_216.90.asp.
4 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

A student’s education journey is life-long and doesn’t simply end at any graduation. Just as in 

kindergarten through grade12, a student’s postsecondary education should work for him or her. 

That could mean enrolling in traditional four-year degree-granting institutions, which for fall 

2018 was projected at 20.7 million, with about three-quarters attending public institutions. But 

these figures underestimate overall participation in postsecondary education, given that data 

on career and technical training and adult education participation have not been systematically 

collected. The Department supports improved data collection efforts that will more completely 

quantify all postsecondary options because all students should be able to choose from multiple 

pathways to success.

In SY 2015–16, students earned nearly 3.9 million degrees and 940,000 certificates in the 

nation’s postsecondary institutions (see figure on page 10). Nineteen percent of degrees and 

certificates were earned in the fields of health and medicine. Roughly 15 percent each were 

earned in each of the following categories: business; arts and humanities; social sciences and 

science, technology, engineering and mathematics. The degrees and certificates earned in trades 

and personal services, collectively, represent fewer than seven percent of the total. Although 

these data do not capture all the various forms of training in these fields, such as apprenticeships, 

they do highlight the opportunity for postsecondary institutions to increase available 

opportunities that prepare students for trades and personal services careers.

This Department is committed to recognizing its limited role in education while empowering 

those who should not be limited: teachers, parents and, most importantly, students.
National Landscape 5

Program for International Student Assessment Average Test Scores 

for 15-Year-Olds Across the G-7 Countries: Survey Year 2015

Mathematics Literacy

460 480 500 520 540

Average Scale

United States

United Kingdom

France

Italy

Japan

Germany

Canada

440

470

490*

492*

493*

506*

516*

532*

Science Literacy

460 480 500 520 540

Average Scale

Italy

United States

United Kingdom

France

Japan

Germany

Canada

440

481*

495

496

509*

509*

528*

538*

Reading Literacy

460 480 500 520 540

Average Scale

Italy

United Kingdom

France

United States

Canada

Germany

Japan

440

485*

497

498

499

509*

516*

527*

*Score is statistically different from the United States average score at a 0.05 level of statistical significance.

Note: G-7 is composed of seven of the largest advanced economies. Scores are reported on a scale from 0 to 1,000.

Data Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Program for International Student Assessment, 2015. See Digest 

of Education Statistics 2016, table 602.70.
6 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

National Assessment of Educational Progress

Fourth Grade Reading Scores

0

160

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

270

500

2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017

Scale Score

Assessment Year

10th Percentile 50th Percentile 90th Percentile

263 264 263 264 264 264 265 266 267

221 221 221

170 169 171 174 175 174 174 174 171

Advanced (268)

Proficient (238)

Basic (208)

224 225 226 226 224 223

Eighth Grade Reading Scores

2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017

0

210

220

230

240

250

260

270

280

290

300

310

320

330

500

Scale Score

305

220

306 305 305 305 307 308

266 265 265

217 216 217 219 221 223 220 219

Advanced (323)

Proficient (281)

Basic (243)

269 268 269

Assessment Year

10th Percentile 50th Percentile 90th Percentile

267 267 267

310 310
National Landscape 7

Fourth Grade Mathematics Scores

2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017

Scale Score

Proficient (249)

Basic (214)

0

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

270

280

290

227

184

265

Advanced (282) 279

236

197 200 198

500

239 242 241 242 243 242 241

273 275 275 276 278 277

Assessment Year

10th Percentile 50th Percentile 90th Percentile

202 202 203 203 202

270

Eighth Grade Mathematics Scores

2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017

0

220

230

240

250

260

270

280

290

300

310

320

330

340

500

Scale Score

275

223

Proficient (299)

Basic (262)

Advanced (333) 333 327 329 329 331 329 323 324

279 280

230 231 235 236

283 284 285

237 237 235 233

283 283 286

320

Assessment Year

10th Percentile 50th Percentile 90th Percentile

Note: Percentile analysis shows how achievement trends differ across different performance groups. The highest performers are in the 

90th percentile, while the lowest performers occupy the 10th percentile. The 50th percentile represents the median achievement. The dotted 

lines represent proficiency cut points. For more details on what the categories of Advanced, Proficient and Basic mean, please review 

additional resources provided on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) website at https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/. 

Data Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 

2013, 2015 and 2017 Reading and Mathematics Assessments.
8 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Charter and Magnet Schools and Students by State in SY 2016–17

Number of Public Charter Schools

IA

MO

WI

IL IN

MI

OH

KY

TN

SC

NC

VA WV

PA

NY

ME

KS

NE

SD

ND MT

WY

AZ NM

CO

OK

LA

MS AL GA

AR

CA

FL

NV

TX

MN

UT

OR

WA

ID

AK

HI

753

550

1,248

49

124

238

5

57

124

8

99

28

48

10

49

220

237

3

72

75

3 1

655

84

70

167

8

63 93 362

376

179

267

9

151

VT

0 0

0

0

0

0

DC 110

MD 49

104 DE 27

NJ 88

CT 24

RI 30

MA 78

NH 31

34

Percentage of Students in Public Charter Schools

KY

WV

SD

MT ND

AL

IA

MO

WI

IL IN

MI

OH

TN

SC

NC

VA

PA

NY

ME

KS

NE

WY

AZ

NM

CO

OK

LA

MS GA

AR

CA

FL

NV

TX

MN

UT

OR

WA

ID

AK

HI

VT

0% 0%

0%

0%

0%%%

0%

DC 44%

MD 3%

3% DE 11%

NJ 3%

CT 2%

RI 6%

MA 4%

NH 2%

5%

10%

17% 7%

6% 11%

4%

4%

5%

8%

#

6%

10%

13%

11%

8%

6%

1%

#

3%

1% 2%

6%

5%

10%

7% 3% 4%

7%

1%

6%

#

6%

0%

#

0%
National Landscape 9

Number of Magnet Schools

0 0

SC 

NC 

GA

FL 

DC

MD

DE

NJ

CT

RI

MA

NH

VT

IA

WI 

MI 

OH*

WV VA

PA 

NY

ME

NE

SD

ND

MN 

MO 

IL IN

KY

TN

KS

MT

WY

AZ* NM

CO 

OK

LA

MS AL

AR

CA 

NV 

TX 

UT

OR

WA*

ID

AK 

HI

0

0

0

0 0

0

0

19

48

512

22 29

32

261 44 

30 

148 29

30

82

8

378

30 66 

1 134 

51

121

1

6 

96 

 127 3 

87 

1

2

17 40 15

122

157

564

0 0

0

0

Percentage of Students in Magnet Schools

0%

0% 0%

SD

MT ND

IA

MO 

WI

IL IN

MI

KS

NE

WY

AZ* NM

CO 

OK

LA

AR

CA

NV

TX

MN

UT 

OR

WA*

ID

AK 

KY

WV

AL

OH*

TN

SC

NC

VA

MS GA

FL 

PA

NY 

ME

DC

MD

DE

NJ

CT

RI

MA

NH

VT

HI

0%

0%

0

0%

0%

4%

1%

3% 2%

3%

1% 3%

4%

22%

#

12%

1%

7%

# 11%

2%

3%

9%

12%

9%

#

4%

5% 

10% 

2%

7% 

#

1%

#

5%

2%

13%

3%

8%

16%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

#Rounds to zero.

*No data available. State is unable to distinguish its magnet schools.

Data Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data, “State Nonfiscal Survey 

of Public Elementary/Secondary Education,” 2016–17 (updated August 1, 2018, with Charter Schools Program and Magnet School 

Assistance Program data).
10 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Certificate/Degree Type for SY 2015–16

Number of Certificates/Degrees for All Subject Divisions

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

<1-Year

Certificates

1–4-Year

Certificates

Associates Bachelors Masters Doctorate

485,034 454,209

1,014,341

1,920,718

785,595

177,867

Certificate/Degree Type

Total Number

Subject Division Percentages by Certificate/Degree Type

Trades and Personal 

Services Social Sciences Science, Mathematics 

and Technology Public and Social Services

Arts and Humanities B Business Health and Medicine D Multi-/Interdisciplinary Studies

E F G H

A C

A

B

C

E D

F

G

A

B

C

E D

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

H

E

F

G

A

B

C

D

E

F

G H

A B

C

D

E

F

A G

B

C

D

F

G

E

12%

2% 12%

28%

4%

5%

3%1%

1%

34%

4%

7% 13%

4%

10%

1%

17%

2%

2%

24%

18%

19%

7%

21%

3%

<1-Year

Certificates

1–4-Year

Certificates Associates

Bachelors Masters Doctorate

13%

36%

31%

7%

12%

24%

11%

12%

14%

26%

23%

41%

11%

5%

6% 39%

20%

6%

3%

5%

Note: For Bachelors, Masters and Doctorate degrees, Trades and Personal Services (category H) round to 0 percent.

Data Source: Mobile Digest of Education Statistics, 2017 (NCES 2018-138) U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. National 

Center for Education Statistics. Tables 320.10, 321.30, 322.10, 323.10 and 324.10.
Strategic Framework 11

Strategic Framework

FY 2018–22 Strategic Goals and Objectives and 

Priority Goals

FY 2018–22 Strategic Goals and Objectives

The following presents the Department’s fiscal year (FY) 2018–22 Strategic Goals and Objectives.

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

students in every community.

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

that meets their needs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

other promising practices to improve educational opportunities and successfully prepare individuals 

to compete in the global economy.

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

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

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

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

timely information, relevant tools and manageable repayment options.

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

management, increased privacy protections and transparency.

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

education data.

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

the education community.

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

in the education community.

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

Strategic Objective 4.1 Provide regulatory relief to educational institutions and reduce burden by identifying timeconsuming regulations, processes and policies and working to improve or eliminate them, while 

continuing to protect taxpayers from waste and abuse.

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

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

infrastructure, systems and data.

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

development and accountability measures.
12 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Agency Priority Goals

The Department identified four Agency Priority Goals (APGs) for FY 2018–19. These APGs 

are goals that demonstrate results to be achieved in a 24-month period. They aim to increase 

educational choice, improve the customer service the Department provides, ensure students are 

protected and provide regulatory relief to education stakeholders. The effective implementation 

of the Department’s APGs will depend, in part, on the effective use of high-quality and timely 

data, including evaluations and performance measures. Quarterly updates for the APGs are 

available at www.performance.gov.

APG: Improve the access to and the quality and transparency of 

school choice options for K–12 students. Related Strategic Objective: 1.1

By September 30, 2019, the Charter Schools Program (CSP) will support 

the creation and expansion of 300 new charter schools nationally. CSP 

will also support the enrollment of 50,000 students in new charter schools. 

Additionally, by September 30, 2019, the Department will disseminate 

eight resources, at least one per quarter, on evidence-based and promising 

practices related to school choice.

Increase high-quality educational 

options and empower students and 

parents to choose an education that 

meets their needs.

APG: Improve borrowers’ access to quality customer service. Related Strategic Objective: 2.4

By September 30, 2019, the Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA) 

will advance the adoption of the Next Generation Financial Services 

Environment, enabling over 1.8 million customers to submit their Free 

Application for Federal Student Aid through the FSA mobile platform 

and 30,000 customers to use the mobile platform to check on their loan 

balances.1

Improve quality of service for 

customers across the entire student 

aid life cycle.

1

APG changed in Quarter 1 of FY 2019 with the Department’s transition to a new paradigm of student loan 

processing.

APG: Improve student privacy and data security at Institutions of 

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

By September 30, 2019, the Department will increase information security 

program outreach activities to IHEs by 40 percent in order to help protect 

information technology systems and data privacy and commence audits of 

IHEs subject to A-133 and Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), resulting in 

36 IHEs (from a baseline of zero), completing an audit of GLBA-related 

information security safeguards with no significant findings.

Improve privacy protections for, 

and transparency of, education data 

both at the Department and in the 

education community.

APG: Provide regulatory relief to education stakeholders. Related Strategic Objective: 4.1

By September 30, 2019, the Department will reduce the regulatory burden 

on education stakeholders by submitting to the Office of Management and 

Budget no less than 25 deregulatory actions (against a baseline of 0 for 

FY 2015 and FY 2016).

Provide regulatory relief to 

educational institutions and 

reduce burden by identifying 

time-consuming regulations, 

processes and policies and 

working to improve or eliminate 

them, while continuing to protect 

taxpayers from waste and abuse.
Strategic Framework 13

Cross-Agency Priority Goals

In addition to the APGs, the Department contributes to Cross-Agency Priority (CAP) Goals 

established by the Administration in the President’s Management Agenda (PMA) published 

in March 2018.2

 These CAP Goals are used to accelerate progress on a limited number of 

Presidential priority areas that require active collaboration among multiple agencies to 

ensure successful implementation.

The PMA includes 14 CAP goals. Three CAP goals are identified as key drivers of 

transformation: (1) Information Technology (IT) Modernization, (2) Data, Accountability and 

Transparency and (3) People—Workforce for the Future. The remaining CAP goals are organized 

as either cross-cutting or functional priority areas. The Office of Management and Budget is 

leading various initiatives to advance all of the CAP goals and coordinating with agencies as 

appropriate.

The Department co-leads efforts on CAP Goal 8 (Results-Oriented Accountability for Grants) 

and CAP Goal 10 (Improving Outcomes Through Federal IT Spending Transparency). The 

Department supports CAP Goal 8 through its participation in working groups. For example, 

the Single Audit Workgroup is looking for a unified solution for audit work across all federal 

agencies, with a focus on documenting the specific steps in the process (from intake through 

audit resolution and closure). Additionally, the Department’s Technology Business Management 

Solution initiative directly supports CAP Goal 10. By understanding the total cost to run an 

application or business service, leadership will further understand the cost and value received as 

the Department modernizes its IT through FY 2022. Using industry best practices, the federal 

government can leverage data decisions and analyze trade-offs between cost, quality and value 

as it strategically modernizes its IT portfolio. In addition to supporting the CAP Goals it coleads, the Department also contributes to other goals of the PMA. For example, the Department 

supports CAP Goal 2 by contributing leadership and staff for working groups developing the 

Federal Data Strategy, which articulates a vision for leveraging federal data as a strategic asset to 

better deliver on mission, serve the public and steward resources.

Please refer to www.performance.gov for the Department’s contributions to those goals and 

progress, where applicable.

2

The PMA is available online at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/

ThePresidentsManagementAgenda.pdf.
14 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

This page is intentionally left blank.
Performance Assessment and Planning 15

Performance Assessment 

and Planning

Performance Assessment Overview and Strategic Goals

STRATEGIC GOALS

Support state and local efforts 

to improve learning outcomes 

for all P–12 students in every 

community.

Expand postsecondary educational opportunities, improve 

outcomes to foster economic 

opportunity and promote an 

informed, thoughtful and 

productive citizenry.

Strengthen the quality, 

accessibility and use of 

education data through better 

management, increased 

privacy protections and 

transparency.

Reform the effectiveness, 

efficiency and accountability 

of the Department.

1

2

3

4

Performance Assessment Overview 

The following provides an overview of the Department’s 

performance across its four Strategic Goals.

Performance at a Glance

Across all goals, of the Department’s 64 metrics, 23 met or exceeded the 

established targets, 5 displayed improvement from the prior year but did 

not meet the established target threshold and 10 performed at or below 

the prior year’s performance. The remaining 26 metrics are baselined 

in FY 2018 or later. 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4

Metrics

13

14

Baseline, target not applicable

Met or exceeded target

Improved from prior year

No or negative improvement

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Performance Results for All Strategic Goals
16
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 1 17

Strategic Goal 1

Support state and local efforts to improve learning 

outcomes for all P–12 students in every community.

GOAL LEADER:

Assistant Secretary for Elementary 

and Secondary Education

GOAL 1 OBJECTIVES

Increase high-quality 

educational options and 

empower students and parents 

to choose an education that 

meets their needs.

Provide all P–12 students with 

equal access to high-quality 

educational opportunities.

Prepare all students for 

successful transition to college 

and careers by supporting 

access to dual enrollment, job 

skills development and highquality science, technology, 

engineering and mathematics.

Support agencies and 

institutions in the 

implementation of 

evidence-based strategies 

and practices that build the 

capacity of school staff and 

families to support students’ 

academic performance.

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

“Nothing short of excellence should be 

our common theme and refrain...We 

should not rest until every child has an 

equal opportunity to learn and thrive.” 

–U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos

Performance at a Glance

Of the Department’s 22 metrics for this goal, 5 met or exceeded the 

established targets, 3 displayed improvement from the prior year but did 

not meet the established target threshold and 4 performed at or below 

the prior year’s performance. The remaining 10 metrics are baselined in 

FY 2018 or later.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Objective 1.1 Objective 1.2 Objective 1.3 Objective 1.4

Metrics

13

14

Baseline, target not applicable

Met or exceeded target

Improved from prior year

No or negative improvement

Performance Results for Strategic Goal 1
18 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Goal 1 Discretionary Resources

The following figure and table show total Goal 1 discretionary resources and examples of select 

major discretionary programs and activities supporting the goal, respectively.

Goal 1 Discretionary Resources

$0 $20 $40

Dollars (in billions)

$10 $30

$34.5

$39.5

$39.1

FY 2020 President’s Budget

FY 2019 Appropriation

FY 2018 Appropriation

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities Supporting Goal 1 in Thousands

POC ACCT Objective # Program

FY 2018 

Appropriation

FY 2019 

Appropriation

FY 2020 

President’s Budget

OESE ED 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 Title I Grants to Local 

Educational Agencies 

 $15,759,802 $15,859,802 $15,859,802 

OESE I&I 1.2, 1.4 Teacher and School 

Leader Incentive Grants 

 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 

OESE SIP 1.2, 1.4 State Assessments $378,000 $378,000 $378,000 

OESE SSCE 1.2 School Safety National 

Activities

 $90,000 $95,000 $200,000 

OESE/

OELA

ELA 1.2 English Language 

Acquisition 

 $737,400 $737,400 $737,400 

OII I&I 1.1, 1.2 Charter Schools Grants $400,000 $440,000 $500,000 

OII I&I 1.1, 1.2 Magnet Schools 

Assistance 

 $105,000 $107,000 $107,000 

OII I&I 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 Education Innovation 

and Research

 $120,000 $130,000 $300,000 

OSERS SE 1.1, 1.2, 1.4 Special Education 

Grants to States 

 $12,277,848 $12,364,392 $12,364,392 

Other N/A N/A All Other Programs $9,056,103 $9,214,403 $3,893,942

Note:

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

provided in appendix C.

Acronyms and Definitions:

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

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

Education; OLEA = Office of English Language Acquisition; ELA = English Language Acquisition; OII = Office of Innovation and 

Improvement (this office is part of the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education effective January 6, 2019); OSERS = Office of 

Special Education and Rehabilitative Services and SE = Special Education.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 1 19

Strategic Objective: 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 

Increase high-quality educational options and empower 

students and parents to choose an education that meets their 

needs.

Objective Leader: Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Programs for the Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education1

Overview

The Department continues to support greater state and local flexibility in elementary and 

secondary education and encourages states and local educational agencies (LEAs) to provide 

for meaningful school choice. Parents and students should be able to select the educational 

experience that best suits their needs. To encourage opportunities and choices, states and local 

districts should ensure knowledge and understanding of the educational options that are available 

to all interested parties. 

The Department supports improved learning outcomes for all prekindergarten through grade 12 

students by awarding approximately $40 billion annually in formula and competitive grants to 

states, LEAs and nonprofit organizations. With these funds, states and LEAs have discretion on 

how to best meet the needs of their students. States can support increased educational options 

through a variety of ways, including open enrollment policies, virtual schools, customized 

learning and dual enrollment. The Department continues to support greater state and local 

flexibility in elementary and secondary education and encourages states and LEAs to provide for 

meaningful school choice. Several offices across the Department support this Strategic Objective, 

including the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, the Office of Innovation and 

Improvement2

, the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, the Office for Civil 

Rights and the Office of English Language Acquisition.

FY 2018 Activities and Results

Parents, students and families should have more educational choices available to them—

beginning with the school a student may attend. Choice is not limited to the physical place 

of learning. The talents, abilities, interests, potential and familial support of the students are 

1

The leader for this Strategic Objective during FY 2018 was the Acting Assistant Deputy Secretary for the 

Office of Innovation and Improvement.

2

This office is integrated into the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education effective January 6, 2019.
20 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

important factors when choosing among possible options. The two primary strategies used by 

the Department under this Strategic Objective are the administration of federal programs that 

increase educational options (e.g., the Charter Schools Program (CSP) and the Magnet Schools 

Assistance Program (MSAP)) and the provision of technical assistance. These strategies are 

meant to leverage existing programs and funding to expand educational options for all students 

and, particularly, for those attending low-performing schools.

Through CSP, the Department supported 138 new charter schools in 

school year (SY) 2017–18, and preliminary data suggest that more than 

1.6 million students are enrolled in schools that have received CSP 

support since SY 2006–07. In FY 2018, CSP awarded eight grants for 

approximately $78 million3

 to state entities; two of the eight awards 

were to grantees in states that had not previously received a grant under 

this program. CSP awarded 32 grants for approximately $16 million4

under the Developer Grant program. Developer grants can support either 

the opening of a new charter school or the replication or expansion of a 

high-quality charter school. Additionally, CSP awarded eight grants for 

approximately $6.5 million5

 under the National Dissemination program: 

four focused on disseminating best practices related to high-quality 

authorizing and four focused on disseminating best practices related to 

facilities and facilities financing. In addition, CSP also awarded four 

grants under the Credit Enhancement Competition; this program helps 

charter schools access private-sector and other non-federal capital in 

order to acquire, construct and renovate facilities at a reasonable cost. 

CSP completed the FY 2018 rule-making process and is running the 

grant competition for Charter Management Organization grants in 

order to make awards by March 2019.

In FY 2018, the Department awarded four new grants for projects in Texas, Florida, Indiana

and Minnesota totaling approximately $10.9 million. Over the next four years, the Department 

intends to award approximately $49.6 million in continuation grants to continue these projects. 

These MSAP projects include 21 schools offering innovative, theme-based curriculum in science, 

technology, engineering, arts and mathematics and college- and career-integrated learning 

pathways. Additionally, the Department provided more than $93 million in continuation awards 

to 31 MSAP grantees for their second year of an approved five-year project period.

3

Additional information on the FY 2018 State Entities Awards is available at https://innovation.ed.gov/what-we- do/

charter-schools/state-entities/awards/. 4

Additional information on the FY 2018 Developer awards is available at https://innovation.ed.gov/what-we-do/

charter-schools/charter-schools-program-non-state-educational-agencies-non-sea-planning-program-design-andinitial-implementation-grant/. 5

Additional information on the FY 2018 National Dissemination Awards is available at https://innovation.ed.gov/

what-we-do/charter-schools/expanding-opportunity-through-quality-charter-schools-program-csp-nationaldissemination-grants/.

“Through CSP, 

the Department 

supported 

138 new charter 

schools in 

SY 2017–18, 

and preliminary 

data suggest that

more than 1.6 

million students 

are enrolled in 

schools that have 

received CSP 

support since 

SY 2006–07.”
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 1 21

In FY 2018, the Department also developed and disseminated resources on evidence-based 

and promising practices related to school choice. For example, the Department published 

three intervention reports on the effects on academic performance of three charter school 

networks (Knowledge Is Power Program, Green Dot Public Schools and Harlem Children’s 

Zone Promise Academy Charter Schools), as well as case studies on technology-focused charter 

schools and community engagement and human capacity building. Additionally, the Department 

awarded the National Research and Development Centers contract to develop the National 

Longitudinal School Choice Database. The contract will carry out a set of 34 qualitative and 

quantitative studies examining five types of state and district policies on school choice to identify 

structural changes that can help improve educational outcomes for disadvantaged students.

The Department published new and additional nonregulatory guidance for those who develop 

and distribute school directories, school choice-related websites and progress report cards 

to support them in helping parents and families better understand their choices and possible 

flexibilities provided under ESSA. An example of such guidance is Presenting School Choice 

Information to Parents: An Evidence-Based Guide. More information about other Department 

resources and publications related to ESSA-required state assessment plans and report cards is 

provided in Strategic Objective 1.2.

In addition to the dissemination of resources to the public, the Department provides technical 

assistance directly to its grantees. In FY 2018, the Department conducted two webinars 

focused on strengthening charter school authorizing, provided targeted authorizer evaluation 

and technical assistance to authorizers in five states, produced a white paper on the impact 

of the provisions on charter school authorizing required by the Every Student Succeeds Act

(ESSA), which reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), 

and supported CSP state grantees in refining their state plans to improve authorizing. In addition, 

the Department supported MSAP grantees in their creation of project implementation plans. 

As part of this work, the Department developed and trained MSAP grantees on the use of the 

implementation plans through webinars, information sessions at project directors meetings and a 

tiered coaching model. For example, the Department provided MSAP grantees with the following:

• Information dissemination on the dual role and utility of implementation plans to be used 

by grantees to track project development and to be used by the Department to monitor 

grantee progress.

• Targeted technical assistance provided by the Office for Civil Rights to grantees on 

various civil rights issues, including English learner (EL) services and the use of 

lotteries in student admissions.

• Technical assistance to ensure alignment with grant activities and the project’s logic 

model and performance measures.

• Technical support on the use and maintenance of the implementation plan in the 

online platform.
22 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

The Department also implemented and provided technical assistance on new initiatives. In 

February 2018, the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) announced the 

Student-Centered Funding Pilot. This pilot, authorized under ESEA Section 1501, allows a 

school district to consolidate its eligible federal education funds with state and local funds to 

develop a student-centered funding system based on weighted per-pupil allocations for lowincome students, ELs and otherwise disadvantaged students. Participation in this pilot requires 

districts to substantially revise the method by which they allocate funds to schools. Due to the 

complexity of the pilot, the Department released answers to frequently asked questions, posted 

webinars and opened a rolling application window in an effort to generate additional high-quality 

applications. The Department approved the application of one LEA planning to implement it in 

SY 2018–19. One LEA submitted an application for SY 2019–20. The Department approved the 

latter applicant and a deferment for the former applicant to participate beginning in SY 2019–20.

Several Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS)-funded technical 

assistance projects supported families and providers in increasing high-quality options and 

empowering students and parents. OSERS’s Center on Parent 

Information Resources supported technical assistance to nearly 

575,000 individuals, disseminated more than 10 million copies 

of its newsletter and had more than 9 million webpage views in 

FY 2018. As part of that effort, OSERS provided information and 

technical assistance to parents, especially parents of children with 

disabilities, to support them in choosing high-quality education 

options for their children. OSERS’s Parent Program social media 

postings were viewed more than 31.7 million times. Evaluations 

of the Parent Program completed by parents and other experts as 

part of the annual review found support from the parent centers 

to be at high levels of relevance (97 percent) and usefulness 

(93 percent). Additionally, another OSERS-funded technical 

assistance center provided support to states in ensuring that the 

rights of children with disabilities are protected and that funds 

are appropriately distributed to all LEAs, including charter 

school LEAs.

OSERS’s Center on 

Parent Information 

Resources supported 

technical assistance 

to nearly 575,000 

individuals, 

disseminated more 

“

than 10 million copies 

of its newsletter 

and had more than 

9 million webpage 

views in FY 2018. ”
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 1 23

Looking Forward

In FY 2019, OESE and the Office of Innovation and Improvement will combine into a 

single office that will implement many of the Department’s kindergarten through grade 12

programs and allow the Department to be more responsive to its customers, provide stronger 

support for innovation and expand the use of evidence-based practices to improve outcomes 

across all programs administered by this new office. It also will allow the Department to be a 

more stakeholder-centric entity. During FY 2019 and FY 2020, the Department will:

• Expand the number of grant programs incorporating the Secretary’s Supplemental 

Priority on educational choice.

• Apply effective oversight of CSP and MSAP on grant performance.

• Leverage studies of charter schools and school choice to provide targeted technical 

assistance.

• Develop and disseminate a framework and strategy for monitoring, assessing and 

mitigating risk related to charter school contractual relationships with charter 

management organizations.

• Develop and disseminate quarterly resources on evidence-based and promising practices 

related to school choice.

• Deliver technical assistance to states and communities on school choice topics.

• Provide information to states to ensure that the rights of children with disabilities are 

protected and that federal funds under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

are appropriately distributed to all LEAs, including charter LEAs.

• Provide information and technical assistance to support parents, including parents of 

children with disabilities, in choosing a high-quality education option for their child.
24 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Performance Measures

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

Program (CSP).

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Actual Target Target

3,599 3,595 3,749 3,761

Prior 

Year + 

150

Prior 

Year + 

150

Prior 

Year + 

150

Notes: (1) Data represent the prior school year (SY). For example, 2018 data represent SY 2017–18. 

(2) Data revised following the FY 2017 Annual Performance Report and FY 2019 

Annual Performance Plan reporting.

Data Source: National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data (CCD) (used to 

identify all charter schools and enrollees) and grantee annual performance reports (used to identify 

the subset of charter schools in CCD that receive CSP support).

Frequency of Collection: Annually.

Target

Baseline

FY 2018

Actual

1.1-A Performance.

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

Program (CSP).

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Actual Target Target

1,556,017 1,609,880 1,581,017 1,634,880

Prior 

Year + 

25,000

Prior 

Year + 

25,000

Prior 

Year + 

25,000

Notes: (1) Data represent the prior school year (SY). For example, 2018 data represent 

SY 2017–18. (2) Data revised following the FY 2017 Annual Performance Report and FY 2019 

Annual Performance Plan reporting. (3) FY 2018 performance data (i.e., SY 2017–18) are preliminary.

Data Source: National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data (CCD) (used to identify 

all charter schools and enrollees) and grantee annual performance reports (used to identify the subset 

of charter schools in CCD that receive CSP support).

Frequency of Collection: Annually.

Target

FY 2018

Actual

Baseline

1.1-B Performance.

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

to school choice disseminated.

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Actual Target Target

3 5 4 4 4 4 4

Notes: (1) Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018. (2) Data 

revised following the FY 2017 Annual Performance Report and FY 2019 Annual Performance Plan

reporting.

Data Source: National Charter School Resource Center and Institute of Education Sciencessponsored materials.

Frequency of Collection: Quarterly.

Baseline

Target

FY 2018

Actual

1.1-C Performance.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 1 25

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

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Target

81,963 83,602 85,274 86,979 88,719

Notes: (1) Data represent the prior school year (SY). For example, 2018 data represent SY 2017–18.

(2) Targets revised following the FY 2017 Annual Performance Report and FY 2019 Annual 

Performance Plan reporting. 

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

Frequency of Collection: Annually.

FY 2018

Actual

1.1-D Performance.

Acronyms and Definitions:

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

FY = fiscal year (i.e., federal fiscal year).

Target icons and odometer colors are defined as follows: green = performance meets or exceeds the established target, yellow = performance 

shows improvement from the prior year but does not meet the established target threshold, red = performance is at or below prior year’s 

performance and gray = metric is baselined in FY 2018 or later.
26 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Strategic Objective: 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 

Provide all P–12 students with equal access to high-quality 

educational opportunities.

Objective Leader: Assistant Secretary for the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

Overview

Every child, regardless of ZIP code or family income, should have access to a high-quality 

education. The Department is committed to improving access to high-quality prekindergarten 

through grade 12 education opportunities for every student and will support educational 

institutions, parents and communities in developing such opportunities as well as their capacity 

to improve the outcomes for every student. Several offices across the Department support this 

Strategic Objective, including the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education; the Office 

of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; the Office for Civil Rights; the Office of 

Education Technology; the Office of Career, Technical and Adult Education and the Office of 

Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.

FY 2018 Activities and Results

The discussion of educational freedom is not only about the gifts, interests and potential of a 

student, but it is also about possibilities available for the planners and providers of educational 

opportunities. The implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which 

reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 

is essential to this Strategic Objective. In fiscal year (FY) 2018, the 

Department completed the review and approval of consolidated state 

plans for all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. States 

will use their approved plans to manage their accountability systems 

and identify the first cohort of schools for comprehensive and targeted 

support and improvement in school year 2018–19. It would be easy to 

only measure the success of FY 2018 in terms of the tactical completion 

and approval of the 52 state plans. However, a more relevant gauge 

can be drawn by a qualitative review of the choices that states made 

in developing ESSA and how they execute those plans. The statewide 

assessments reveal persistent achievement gaps that require states 

to identify and implement innovative approaches. The Department 

“The Department 

completed the 

review and 

approval of 

consolidated 

state plans for 

all 50 states, 

the District of 

Columbia and 

Puerto Rico.

”
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 1 27

is working to encourage and support states in using the flexibilities provided by ESSA to 

incentivize local innovations that improve student outcomes and close achievement gaps.

To support states as they developed their plans, the Department hosted eight events to frame 

discussions involving academic achievement, financial education and school safety. Additionally, 

the Department led 12 meetings with state officials to address regional concerns and highlight 

state-level educational challenges. The Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) 

established several communities of practice around key implementation challenges. Each of 

these communities brings together a small group of states to work together to address solutions 

to common challenges. In FY 2018, the Department established communities of practice on 

topics such as English learners in accountability systems; design of state and local report 

cards, including the issue of how to support enhanced transparency around fiscal reporting 

requirements; cultivation and support of effective rural school leaders; data quality; state 

ombudsmen for equitable services for private schools; school identification and improvement 

and school quality and student success indicators. The Department also recently released two 

publications as resources to help parents better understand ESSA, particularly the flexibility 

afforded in the law and key aspects of accountability systems and report cards: Understanding 

the Every Student Succeeds Act: A Parent’s Guide to the Nation’s Landmark Education Law and 

A Parent’s Guide to State and Local Report Cards. Regular communication and communities of 

practices around key ESSA implementation topics is and will continue to be essential as states 

begin implementing their accountability and support systems.

The Department also designed and released a framework that 

prioritizes rethinking all aspects of how the Office of Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) supports states in 

serving infants, toddlers, children, youth and adults with disabilities. 

The framework highlights OSERS’ commitment to supporting 

states in their work to raise expectations and improve outcomes for 

individuals with disabilities, provide states with the flexibility to 

implement their programs within the constructs of the law and partner 

with parents, individuals with disabilities and diverse stakeholders. 

Additionally, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) 

created monitoring and technical assistance plans for 30 states under 

Part B and 32 states under Part C, as identified under the Individuals 

with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) based on state needs. In 

June 2018, OSEP completed and issued all annual determinations (i.e., 

60 under Part B and 56 under Part C) under IDEA sections 616(d) and 

642 regarding whether each state meets the requirements and purposes 

of IDEA or needs assistance, intervention or substantial intervention.

The Department provided technical assistance to states, districts, schools and families on 

multi-tiered systems of support, individualized education programs (IEPs), literacy instruction 

“The Department 

also designed 

and released 

a framework 

that prioritizes 

rethinking all 

aspects of how 

OSERS supports 

states in serving 

infants, toddlers, 

children, youth 

and adults with 

disabilities. 

”
28 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

and other supports for students and children with disabilities. For example, the Department 

funded the National Center on Improving Literacy, which is a technical assistance center that 

provides support to states and local educational agencies in implementing evidence-based 

literacy interventions and assessment strategies to assist them in improving reading/language 

arts results. OSERS also conducted two symposia that provided more than 1,000 participants 

the opportunity to hear from experts about how to develop IEPs that meet the unique needs of 

children with disabilities. More than 90 percent of participants reported that concepts presented 

would be implemented into their current work. Also, OSERS continues to ensure that students 

who are blind, visually impaired or print disabled have accessible digital instructional materials. 

Over the course of FY 2018, nearly 227,000 accessible digital instructional materials were 

downloaded.

OSEP funded multiple investments focused on early childhood, including the Early Childhood 

Technical Assistance Center (ECTA) and the National Center for Pyramid Model Innovations 

(NCPMI) that support states in implementing systems and evidence-based practices to improve 

preschool children’s outcomes, including social-emotional skills and an early childhood science, 

technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) center to infuse STEM concepts in early 

childhood instruction targeted toward preschool children with disabilities. These investments 

produce resources and invite states and practitioners to engage in targeted and intensive technical 

assistance. For example, the OSEP-funded Center for IDEA Early Childhood Data Systems and 

ECTA held a national conference in August 2018—the Improving Data, Improving Outcomes 

Conference. The intended outcomes of the conference were to increase participants’ knowledge 

about how to improve the quality of state and local data and data systems (including data on 

family and child outcomes), improve data analysis and use data for program improvement. There 

were sessions focused on collecting data on children’s social-emotional skills and implementing 

evidence-based social-emotional practices. About 460 attendees from 59 states and territories 

participated in the conference and gave it high ratings (over 90 percent) for quality, relevance 

and usefulness.

Access to and effective use of technology can provide high-quality educational opportunities. In 

May 2018, the Department hosted a meeting with representatives from federal agencies on the 

Broadband Interagency Working Group, including the Federal Communications Commission 

and the Department of Agriculture, to identify opportunities to coordinate outreach about federal 

funding opportunities supportive of broadband access for students. Additionally, the Office 

of Educational Technology, in partnership with the National Center for Education Statistics, 

awarded a contract to conduct a national survey to measure progress in the effective use of 

technology to improve learning opportunities. Survey findings will be critical for monitoring and 

assessing progress on the National Education Technology Plan, developing future updates to the 

plan, and providing Department grantees with unbiased data to support educational technology 

planning, training and purchasing decisions.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 1 29

In FY 2018, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) investigated 900 cases involving prekindergarten 

through grade 12 federally funded recipients that resulted in resolution agreements with change. 

In these cases, OCR required recipients to take specific actions to come into compliance 

with federal civil rights laws. There were also notable increases from FY 2017 to FY 2018 in 

resolutions with change in two of OCR’s statutory jurisdictional areas. Specifically, Title VI, 

which protects against discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin in programs or 

activities receiving federal financial assistance, increased from 108 to 184, and Title IX, which 

protects against discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs or activities receiving 

federal financial assistance, increased from 150 to 269.

Finally, it is essential that learning environments are safe. During FY 2018, the Department 

focused on the safety and security of students, teachers and other members of the education 

community. One major effort was the Federal Commission on School Safety (FCSS) chaired by 

Secretary DeVos. The Department worked with the Department of Health and Human Services, 

the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice to conduct a series of 

meetings, field visits and listening sessions to explore a range of issues, including school-based 

threat assessments, access to mental health treatment, violence prevention strategies, effective 

school safety infrastructure, age restrictions pertaining to the sale of firearms, youth consumption 

of violent entertainment and the effect of media coverage on mass shootings, among others. In 

FY 2018, the commission held five formal meetings, four field visits and four listening sessions. 

The Department utilized its engagement communications tools (e.g., newsletters, media 

advisories and live video streams) to amplify the FCSS activities, which resulted in more 

than 140,000 engagements with FCSS content. The Department fielded more than 570 calls, and 

FCSS reviewed more than 1,400 comments from the public who expressed interest in school 

safety via safety@ed.gov. Many resources from these events are available on the FCSS website, 

including live streams, meeting readouts and the final report, which provided states and school 

districts with recommendations on how to improve school safety. The report recognizes that a 

universal school safety plan that will work for every school across the country does not exist. 

FCSS focused instead on learning more about, and raising awareness of, ideas that are already 

working for communities across the country. These ideas and resources fall in the categories of 

preventing school violence, protecting students and teachers, mitigating the effects of violence 

and responding to and recovering from attacks. Rather than mandate what schools must do, this 

report serves to identify options that policymakers may choose to explore and test over time.

Over the past two years, the United States has been subjected to a range of devastating natural 

disasters that have significantly disrupted state and local educational systems. An elevated level 

of interagency collaboration and support has been required to help communities devastated by 

hurricanes, typhoons and fires of unprecedented scale. The Department provided substantial 

support to ensure that states, Puerto Rico and the insular areas received the necessary 

funding, technical assistance and flexibility based on their specific recovery needs. Extensive 
30 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

collaboration continues between the Department, the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

and Department of Health and Human Services to develop comprehensive strategic plans that 

result in building local capacity and addressing specific technical assistance needs that are 

not typically agency specific. The Department also awarded significant kindergarten through 

grade 12 disaster recovery funding provided by Congress through the Immediate Aid to Restart 

School Operations, Project SERV, Assistance for Homeless Children and Youth and Temporary 

Emergency Impact Aid for Displaced Youth programs. The Department is considering and 

developing ways to help state and local communities and schools build better infrastructure to 

anticipate, mitigate and improve their preparedness for all hazards.

Looking Forward

Collaboration across multiple offices in the Department will continue during FY 2019 and 

FY 2020 to ensure that all children have access to high-quality educational opportunities. 

The Department is committed to supporting states and districts as they strive to better meet the 

needs of individual students. Implementation and oversight of ESSA plans will be an important 

strategy to getting appropriate support to states and districts. During FY 2019 and FY 2020, 

the Department will:

• Support and monitor states in their implementation of their approved ESSA plans, 

including compliance with report card requirements. Specifically, the Department will 

monitor several states in FY 2019; publish guidance documents on key issues (e.g., report 

cards, equitable services for students in private schools and supplement not supplant 

requirements in Title I); start several additional communities of practice, and convene 

individuals to improve the quality and accessibility of State report cards.

• Provide a formal process for states to submit proposed amendments to their 

approved plans.

• Coordinate and conduct a Combined Federal Programs Meeting that brings together 

state leaders to discuss federal programs and learn from one another.

• Provide targeted and intensive monitoring and support as well as general technical 

assistance based on risk assessments to states, including states participating in 

IDEA Parts B and C.

• Prepare and disseminate studies on kindergarten through grade 12 program or policy 

issues that could inform or support state implementation of ESSA state plans across 

programs as well as specific strategies designed to improve student achievement and 

educator performance. 

• Provide states, districts, schools and families with technical assistance and resources 

as follows: 

The Increasing Time, Instructional Effectiveness, Engagement and StateSupported for Inclusive Practices Center will continue to provide technical 

assistance and resources to ensure students with the most significant disabilities 

have appropriately ambitious IEP goals and challenging objectives.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 1 31

The Literacy for Leaders Center will focus on school and district leadership that 

can best support effective literacy instruction. In addition, through accountability 

work, OSERS will continue to support states in improving reading instruction.

ECTA and NCPMI will continue to provide technical assistance to support states 

and districts in improving social emotional outcomes for preschool children with 

disabilities.

• Continue work with other federal agencies to establish a coordinated communications 

strategy to ensure that stakeholders are connected with information about relevant 

funding and technical assistance opportunities that might support broadband connectivity.

• Develop and convene a Tribal Broadband Summit of community leaders with 

information, resources and support and identify opportunities to leverage public- and 

private-sector commitments to close the connectivity gap in schools and libraries on 

tribal lands. 

• Coordinate the drafting and release of the FCSS report in December 2019.

• Continue to disseminate federal resources on school safety and implement 

recommendations in the FCSS report.

• Continue to implement safety-related programs and collaborate with other federal 

agencies on safety matters.

• Provide accessible digital instructional materials to blind, visually impaired and printdisabled students.

• Provide evidence-based literacy instructional and screening strategies to states, districts, 

schools and families.

• Provide feedback to states on their State Systemic Improvement Plan submissions 

focused on improving results for children and youth with disabilities.

• Support states in improving early childhood outcomes, literacy and mathematics 

proficiency.

• Use National Assessment of Educational Progress mathematics and reading participation 

and proficiency scores as factors in calculating states’ annual determinations under 

Section 616(d) of IDEA.

• Support states by disseminating products, tools and strategies to address special education 

teacher shortages.

• Provide technical assistance to schools, districts and states to develop, implement and 

sustain multi-tiered systems of behavioral support and intervention strategies to reduce 

inappropriate school behavior and improve school conditions.
32 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Performance Measures

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

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

in reading in all of the following subgroups: economically disadvantaged, children with 

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

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Actual Target Target

24% 20% 24% 24%

Prior 

year + 

4 percentage 

points

Prior 

year + 

4 percentage 

points

Prior 

year + 

4 percentage 

points

Notes: (1) Data are lagged. For example, trends are based on data from school years 2014–15, 

2015–16 and 2016–17. (2) Metric revised following the FY 2017 Annual Performance Report 

and FY 2019 Annual Performance Plan reporting; see appendix B for details. (3) The original 

methodology resulted in 17 percent of states showing improvement across all subgroups.

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

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

Frequency of Collection: Annually.

FY 2018

Actual

Baseline 

and Target

1.2-A Performance.

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

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

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

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

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Actual Target Target

37% 24% 37% 30%

Prior 

year + 

4 percentage 

points

Prior 

year + 

4 percentage 

points

Prior 

year + 

4 percentage 

points

Notes: (1) (1) Data are lagged. For example, FY 2018 trends are based on data from school years 

2014–15, 2015–16 and 2016–17. (2) Metric revised following the FY 2017 Annual Performance 

Report and FY 2019 Annual Performance Plan reporting; see appendix B for details. (3) The 

original methodology resulted in 17 percent of states showing improvement across all subgroups.

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

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

Frequency of Collection: Annually.

FY 2018

Actual

Baseline 

and Target

1.2-B Performance.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 1 33

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

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

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

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Actual Target Target

55% 55% 56% 56% 57% 57% 57%

Notes: (1) Data represent the fiscal year (FY) lagged two years. For example, 2018 data represent 

FY 2016. (2) Targets revised following the FY 2017 Annual Performance Report and FY 2019 

Annual Performance Plan reporting. (3) Title revision does not reflect or result in any changes 

to the actual metric.

Data Source: IDEA Part B state annual performance reports.

Frequency of Collection: Annually.

FY 2018

Actual

Target

Baseline

1.2-C Performance.

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

of at least 100 kbps per student.

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Actual Target Target

88% 96% 94% 98% 99% 99% 99%

Notes: (1) Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018. 

(2) Metric revised following the FY 2017 Annual Performance Report and FY 2019 Annual 

Performance Plan reporting; see appendix B for details. (3) The original methodology resulted in 

96 percent of students in schools with Internet bandwidth of at least 100 Mbps.

Data Source: Education SuperHighway.

Frequency of Collection: Annually.

FY 2018

Actual

Baseline

Target

1.2-D Performance.

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

scaling to 10 gigabits per second.

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Actual Target Target

94% 95% 96% 98% 99% 99% 99%

Note: Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018.

Data Source: Education SuperHighway.

Frequency of Collection: Annually.

FY 2018

Actual

Baseline

Target

1.2-E Performance.
34 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

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

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

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Target

68% 68%

Greater than 

or equal 

percentage 

of states than 

prior year

Greater than 

or equal 

percentage 

of states than 

prior year

Greater than 

or equal 

percentage 

of states than 

prior year

Notes: (1) Data represent the prior school year (SY). For example, 2018 data represent SY 2017–18.

Data Source: Consolidated State Performance Report. (2) Data represent the 50 states, the District 

of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Bureau of Indian Education (53 total education agencies).

Frequency of Collection: Annually.

FY 2018

Actual

1.2-F Performance.

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

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

targeted support and improvement.

B

Metric will be baselined in FY 2019.

Notes: (1) Data represent the school year (SY) lagged two years. For example, 2018 data represent SY 2016–17. (2) Title revision does not 

reflect or result in any changes to the actual metric.

Data Source: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education Title I monitoring reports of Every Student Succeeds Act state report cards.

Frequency of Collection: Annually.

Acronyms and Definitions:

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

FY = fiscal year (i.e., federal fiscal year).

Target icons and odometer colors are defined as follows: green = performance meets or exceeds the established target, yellow = performance 

shows improvement from the prior year but does not meet the established target threshold, red = performance is at or below prior year’s 

performance and gray = metric is baselined in FY 2018 or later.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 1 35

Strategic Objective: 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 

Prepare all students for successful transition to college and 

careers by supporting access to dual enrollment, job skills 

development and high-quality Science, Technology, 

Engineering and Mathematics (STEM).

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

Overview

The most recently available data on graduation rates (school year 2016–17) indicate 85 percent 

of public school students graduate within four years of starting high school.6

 In a June 2018 

speech at the National Leadership and Skills Conference, Secretary DeVos noted that “there 

are many avenues to earn what individual students want and what employers need: industryrecognized certificates, two-year degrees, stackable credits, credentials, licenses, advanced 

degrees, badges, four-year degrees, micro-degrees, apprenticeships and so on. All of these 

are valid pursuits. Each should be embraced . . .” This observation stresses the importance of 

informed decision-making as students transition to college and careers.

To support this Strategic Objective, the Department is working to expand the menu of practical 

and affordable options available to students and parents when it comes to successful transition 

to postsecondary education, including through dual or concurrent enrollment programs, access 

to accelerated coursework such as Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate courses 

to earn postsecondary credit while still in high school and high-quality science, technology, 

engineering and mathematics (STEM) and job skills development through career and technical 

and adult education programs. All of these options are critical for students as they prepare for the 

transition to college and career and the constantly changing career demands of the technologydriven global economy.

Several offices across the Department support this Strategic Objective, including the Office of 

Career, Technical and Adult Education; the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education; the 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development; the Office for Civil Rights; the Office 

6

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Consolidated State Performance 

Report, 2016–17.
36 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

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

Institute of Education Sciences.

FY 2018 Activities and Results

Choice goes beyond educational options in kindergarten through grade 12, including how 

students and families prepare for postsecondary options, including careers. Additionally, the 

increasing demand for STEM-based jobs is critical to the economic growth of the United States. 

The President called for the Department to invest $200 million in 

high-quality STEM education. To meet this charge, the Department 

used the Secretary’s Supplemental Priority on STEM in discretionary 

grant programs when appropriate and consistent with the program’s 

authorizing statute. Specifically, the Department used the priority 

on STEM in 12 programs to award more than $279 million in grant 

awards. Further, the Department partnered with the Office of Science 

and Technology Policy at the White House and other federal sciencemission agencies to support the inaugural State/Federal STEM Summit. 

The Department also partnered with the Smithsonian’s National Air and 

Space Museum to launch the inaugural She Can STEM Summer Camp 

to inspire an interest in STEM as a future career. Sixty middle school girls from Title I schools 

in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia participated in the camp to learn about the 

science of flight and the diverse careers in aviation. 

In September 2018, the Office of Career, Technical and Adult Education (OCTAE) awarded 

six new competitive grants to states to establish career and technical education (CTE)/STEM 

apprenticeships at the high school level. Grantees include Nebraska, Kentucky, Maryland, Rhode 

Island, Tennessee and Oregon, with an average award size of approximately $600,000 per state. 

Through these awards, states will be partnering with high schools, private industry and colleges 

to strengthen the connections between high school CTE programs and competency-based 

apprenticeship opportunities in STEM fields while increasing the number of high school CTE 

students who enter such apprenticeships during high school. In addition, OCTAE is working 

with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to conduct a challenge for high 

school CTE students to build cube satellites, with a goal to launch satellites that are designed and 

assembled entirely by high school students. OCTAE awarded a contract in April 2018 to begin 

mapping the specific tasks to be performed by students, level of industry engagement and details 

of the open innovation prize competition. Further announcements are expected as the planning 

process continues.

Under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act (WIOA), enacted 2014, state vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies are required to reserve 

no less than 15 percent of their state’s federal VR program funds for pre-employment transition 

“The Department 

used the priority 

on STEM in 

12 programs to 

award more than 

$279 million in 

grant awards. 

”
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 1 37

services to students with disabilities. This requirement has dramatically increased the state VR 

agencies’ communication and project development with local educational agencies (LEAs). The 

expectation of earlier delivery of services by VR counselors to students with disabilities, often 

in educational settings, is just one of the areas where state VR agencies, states, LEAs and VR 

offices are collaborating. However, even in states that have a history of collaboration between 

their two state agencies, the depth of collaboration required to align service implementation is a 

continuing challenge. In response, the Department conducted technical assistance events on preemployment transition services for students with disabilities to support state special education 

and VR staff who are responsible for providing transition services and pre-employment transition 

services to youth with disabilities. One example is that in May 2018, more than 300 special 

and vocational education stakeholders attended a capacity-building institute (CBI) where 

the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services provided technical assistance on 

transition services. State teams that attended the CBI refined their state plans for coordinated 

implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and VR services. In 

addition, the Workforce Innovation Technical Assistance Center, funded by the Rehabilitation 

Services Administration (RSA), developed Explore-Work.Com, a series of web-based modules 

for students with disabilities specific to the five required pre-employment transition service 

activities. Lastly, PowerPoints and resources developed by RSA continue to update and support 

state educational agencies, LEAs and state VR agencies with their implementation of IDEA and 

WIOA.

The Department also provided significant technical assistance to Perkins CTE recipients on 

best practices for establishing apprenticeships that respond to local labor market needs through 

such tools as the Work-Based Learning Toolkit, the Planning Guide for Aligning CTE and 

Apprenticeship and the Stackable Credentials Toolkit. Additionally, the Institute of Education 

Sciences awarded a new CTE research network, which will advance the research base in the field 

of CTE by increasing the number of rigorous CTE-related evaluations that meet the What Works 

Clearinghouse standards.

In adult education, through the Literacy Information and Communication System Professional 

Development Center, OCTAE offered approximately 20 STEM-related training opportunities in 

response to individual state requests. These opportunities included both face-to-face trainings 

and facilitated online courses. For example, the Power in Numbers project, led two teacher 

user groups through the process of developing and curating open educational resources for 

adult education classrooms and developed three videos where former adult learners shared their 

experiences with mathematics in the adult education classroom, along with the benefits of the 

mathematics instruction they received. Additionally, the Office of Elementary and Secondary 

Education (OESE) and the Department’s National Center for Homeless Education provided 

coordinated technical assistance and evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration 

Program led by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. By 2018, this program 

doubled the number of demonstration sites to 20.
38 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Looking Forward

The Department will continue to support a variety of activities that are intended to help prepare 

all students for successful transitions to college and careers by supporting access to dual 

enrollment, job skills development and high-quality STEM. The Department’s 21st Century 

Community Learning Centers program has four interagency agreements in development with 

NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Institute of Museum and 

Library Services and the National Park Service for collaborations in programming. Discussions 

on additional program collaborations with the National Science Foundation, the Smithsonian 

Institution, the Department of Energy and the Patent and Trade Office are ongoing. 

Finally, the Department is a participating agency in the Federal Partners in Transition 

Workgroup. The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) will promote 

and inform the Federal Partners in Transition Workgroup about the Department’s activities that 

help prepare all students for successful transitions to college and careers by supporting access to 

dual enrollment, job skills development and high-quality STEM. In addition, OSERS intends to 

consult with the other participating federal agencies to determine if the workgroup could develop 

possible guidance and activities to prepare students with disabilities for successful transitions to 

college and careers.

Also, during fiscal year (FY) 2019 and FY 2020, the Department will:

• Publish STEM Innovation Spotlights through the Office of Education Technology.

• Announce a number of new competitive grant competitions that prioritize STEM 

activities.

• Develop guidance and activities regarding transition services and pre-employment 

transition services for students and youth with disabilities.

• Provide technical assistance to support state special education and VR staff to provide 

transition services and pre-employment transition services to youth with disabilities.

• Support effective implementation of the Title IV, Part A Student Support and Academic 

Enrichment Grants program through OESE. This program supports state and local 

efforts to expand access to well-rounded educational opportunities, including Advanced 

Placement and International Baccalaureate programs, dual or concurrent enrollment and 

STEM offerings.

• Continue to promote the expansion of apprenticeships to the high school level and 

officially announce the CTE Cube Satellite nationwide challenge for high school 

students.

• Initiate a significant new effort to support states in their ongoing efforts to ensure 

high-quality, evidence-based mathematics instruction for adult learners.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 1 39

Performance Measures

Table 1.3-A. Number of discretionary grant notices with Science, Technology, 

Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) as a priority.

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Actual Target Target

3 12 8 9 10 TBD TBD

Note: Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018.

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

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

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

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

Office of English Language Acquisition.

Frequency of Collection: Quarterly.

Baseline

FY 2018

Actual

Target

1.3-A Performance.

Table 1.3-B. Number of public high school students by graduating cohort 

who have taken at least one Advanced Placement (AP) Science, Technology, 

Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) exam while in high school. 

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Actual Target Target

622,553 644,485 653,681 676,709

Prior 

Year + 

5%

TBD TBD

Note: Data represent the school year (SY) lagged two years. For example, 2018 data represent 

SY 2016–17.

Data Source: College Board.

Frequency of Collection: Annually.

Baseline Target

FY 2018

Actual

1.3-B Performance.

Table 1.3-C. Number of public high school students by graduating cohort 

who have taken at least one Advanced Placement (AP) Science, Technology, 

Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) exam while in high school and scored 

a 3 or better.

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Actual Target Target

339,784 348,322 356,773 365,738

Prior 

Year + 

5%

TBD TBD

Note: Data represent the school year (SY) lagged two years. For example, 2018 data represent 

SY 2016–17.

Data Source: College Board.

Frequency of Collection: Annually.

FY 2018

Actual

Baseline

Target

1.3-C Performance.
40 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Table 1.3-D. Number of adult education participants who achieve a measurable 

skill gain. B

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Target

676,178 676,900 Prior year + 

0.1%

Prior year + 

0.1%

Prior year + 

0.1%

Notes: (1) Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018. (2) Metric 

revised following the FY 2017 Annual Performance Report and FY 2019 Annual Performance Plan

reporting; see appendix B for details. (3) The FY 2018 performance represents 44 percent of the 

1,537,160 eligible adult education participants in adult basic education programs.

Data Source: National Reporting System for Adult Education.

Frequency of Collection: Annually.

FY 2018

Actual

1.3-D Performance.

Table 1.3-E. Number of adult education participants who obtain a secondary 

school diploma or its equivalent and are employed or enrolled in an education 

or training program within one year following exit. B

Metric will be baselined in FY 2019.

Notes: (1) Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018. (2) Metric revised following the FY 2017 Annual 

Performance Report and FY 2019 Annual Performance Plan reporting; see appendix B for details.

Data Source: National Reporting System for Adult Education.

Frequency of Collection: Annually.

Table 1.3-F. Number of secondary career and technical education (CTE) 

concentrators who attain a secondary school diploma, a General Education 

Development credential or other state-recognized equivalent.

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Actual Target Target

1,093,531 1,112,329 1,111,084

96% of 

CTE 

secondary 

concentrators

96% of 

CTE 

secondary 

concentrators

TBD TBD 

Notes: (1) Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018. (2) Metric 

revised following the FY 2017 Annual Performance Report and FY 2019 Annual Performance 

Plan reporting; see appendix B for details. (3) The FY 2017 and FY 2018 performance represents 

approximately 96 percent of all CTE secondary concentrators (1,141,314 and 1,157,379, respectively). 

(4) The term “CTE concentrator” is commonly used in the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical 

Education Act, and, for the first time, is a defined term in the new Perkins V statute.

Data Source: State Consolidated Annual Reports for the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical 

Education Act.

Frequency of Collection: Annually.

FY 2018

Actual

Baseline Target

1.3-F Performance.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 1 41

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

integrated education and training (IET) program. B

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Target

23,307 5% of IET 

participants

8% of IET 

participants TBD TBD

Notes: (1) Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018. (2) Metric 

revised following the FY 2017 Annual Performance Report and FY 2019 Annual Performance Plan

reporting; see appendix B for details. (3) Twenty-three States report providing IET. (4) FY 2018 

performance represents 1.6 percent of the 1,468,826 eligible adult education learners enrolled in IET. 

(5) This metric was also formerly aligned with Strategic Objective 2.3 and designated 2.3-B.

Data Source: National Reporting System for Adult Education.

Frequency of Collection: Annually.

FY 2018

Actual

1.3-G Performance.

Table 1.3-H. Number of adult education participants who advance 

one educational functioning level in mathematics. B

Metric will be baselined in FY 2019.

Note: Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018.

Data Source: National Reporting System for Adult Education.

Frequency of Collection: Annually.

Table 1.3-I. Number of secondary career and technical education (CTE) 

concentrators placed in employment, further training or the military. B

Note: Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018.

Data Source: State Consolidated Annual Reports for the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act.

Frequency of Collection: Annually.

Metric will be baselined in FY 2020.
42 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Table 1.3-J. Number of secondary career and technical education (CTE) 

concentrators enrolling in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics 

(STEM). B

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Target

1,251,886 1,264,405 1,277,048 Prior year + 

0.1%

Prior year + 

0.1%

Notes: (1) Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018. 

(2) Based on Perkins IV definitions. (3) While STEM is not defined in the statute, this measure 

includes the following subject areas: agriculture, information technology, health and science 

technology. (4) For FY 2018, approximately 34.9 percent (3,582,238) of all CTE concentrators were 

enrolled in STEM.

Data Source: State Consolidated Annual Reports for the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical 

Education Act.

Frequency of Collection: Annually.

FY 2018

Actual

1.3-J Performance.

Acronyms and Definitions:

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

FY = fiscal year (i.e., federal fiscal year). 

Target icons and odometer colors are defined as follows: green = performance meets or exceeds the established target, yellow = performance 

shows improvement from the prior year but does not meet the established target threshold, red = performance is at or below prior year’s 

performance and gray = metric is baselined in FY 2018 or later.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 1 43

Strategic Objective: 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 

Support agencies and institutions in the implementation of 

evidence-based strategies and practices that build the capacity 

of school staff and families to support students’ academic 

performance.

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

Overview

Focusing on evidence of what works for educators will better serve students, families and 

communities. This Strategic Objective aims to support the development of evidence about what 

works in prekindergarten through grade 12 education, primarily through expanded support for 

states and local educational agencies (LEAs) as they implement provisions in the Every Student 

Succeeds Act that require the use of evidence-based interventions whenever practicable. Several 

offices across the Department support this Strategic Objective, including the Office of Planning, 

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

the Office of Innovation and Improvement7

; the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education 

and the Institute of Education Sciences.

FY 2018 Activities and Results

The aim of building a robust evidence base and supporting the implementation of evidence-based 

practices permeates multiple work streams across the Department. The Department continues to 

develop resources to support applicants and grantees in selecting and implementing evidencebased practices. For example, the Office of Innovation and Improvement, in coordination with 

staff from the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) and members of the Department’s Evidence 

Planning Group, developed Evidence Requirements Checklists for the Education Innovation 

and Research Mid-phase and Expansion grant competitions. The checklists are intended to 

help applicants determine what studies to include with their application for the purposes of 

demonstrating that their proposed projects are supported by a specific level of evidence.

7

This office is part of the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education effective January 6, 2019.
44 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

IES released eight What Works Clearinghouse reports for 

educators on effective interventions across a broad range of topics, 

including charter schools, support of students with intellectual 

disabilities, early reading and adolescent literacy, primary and 

secondary mathematics, teacher training and the transition to 

college. In addition to these reports, the clearinghouse released 

two evidence-related video tutorials, including one designed to 

help states and LEAs understand the evidence definitions in the 

Education Department General Administrative Regulations and 

another focused on using the clearinghouse to find interventions 

that are supported by strong or moderate evidence. IES’s Regional 

Educational Laboratory Program hosted more than 100 public 

events, webinars and conference sessions and more than 

600 trainings and coaching activities focused on implementation or evaluation of researchinformed and evidence-based practices designed to improve prekindergarten through grade 12 

student achievement, educator effectiveness and retention and improvements to the use of data 

among state and LEA staff.

Twenty-one education technologies will be developed and pilot tested through IES’ Phase I and 

Phase II fiscal year (FY) 2018 awards for Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR). The 

technologies address the needs of teachers, administrators and students. Through SBIR program 

funding, the Department helped launch more than 40 different game-based learning applications 

still active in FY 2018, with most of these applications serving between 50,000 and 300,000 

students.

In support of initiatives to expand opportunities and improve education for students from early 

childhood to adulthood, the Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development released 

the Pay for Success Feasibility Toolkit: Considerations for State and Local Leaders. This toolkit 

provides information on how the Pay for Success strategy can be used to support evidence-based 

approaches by leveraging private investments. This resource can be particularly helpful as states 

and school districts consider whether to implement Pay for Success models and as they consider 

whether to apply for the new Social Impact Partnerships to Pay for Results Act opportunity that 

will be available through the Department of the Treasury in 2019.

“IES released 

eight What 

Works 

Clearinghouse 

reports for 

educators 

on effective 

interventions 

across a broad 

range of topics.

”
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 1 45

Finally, the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), through the 

innovative Results-Driven Accountability System, supported states in implementing and 

evaluating the efficacy, fidelity of implementation and impact of evidence-based practices to 

improve results for children with disabilities. States selected a measurable result to improve 

and provided their plans, including evidence-based practices, through their State Systemic 

Improvement Plans (SSIPs). OSERS reviewed and provided input on the states’ plans.

Looking Forward

The Department will continue to support agencies and institutions in selecting, implementing 

and sustaining evidence-based practices that meet the needs of their respective prekindergarten 

through grade 12 communities. The offices engaged in this objective will collaborate, as 

appropriate, to further develop the Department’s portfolio of evidence and will provide direct 

technical assistance and other resources to discretionary and formula grantees. Specifically, 

during FY 2019 and FY 2020, the Department will:

• Collaborate with internal and external partners to disseminate resources related to the 

use of evidence, including an internal evidence training agenda to build staff capacity to 

support discretionary and formula grantees.

• Support state work related to SSIPs to promote increased state capacity in evaluating the 

efficacy, fidelity of implementation and impact of evidence-based practices.

• Continue to monitor Phase I and Phase II SBIR projects by ensuring projects make 

adequate progress and have robust dissemination plans to maximize use of the developed 

products.

• Announce and award the FY 2019 funding opportunity for SBIR. 

• Make FY 2019 awards and announce FY 2020 funding opportunities for Education 

Research, Special Education Research and Partnerships and Collaborations Focused on 

Problems of Practice or Policy.
46 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

• Build and promote expanded use of evidence to support more effective preparation of 

effective teachers and school leaders by continuing to require the use of evidence-based 

practices in training programs funded by the Office of Special Education Programs 

(OSEP) Personnel Preparation Program priorities that produce doctoral- and masterslevel teachers and faculty. In addition, OSEP, with its Collaboration for Effective 

Educator Development, Accountability and Reform national technical assistance center, 

will continue to support states and institutions of higher education to reform their teacher 

and leader preparation programs, revise licensure standards to align with reforms, refine 

personnel evaluation systems and realign policy structures and professional learning 

systems.

• Provide parents with technical assistance, information and training about disabilities, 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act rights and protections and evidence-based 

practices through Parent Training and Information Centers.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 1 47

Performance Measures

Table 1.4-A. Number of technical assistance engagements, events or 

related activities or products focused on the grantees’ use of evidence in 

prekindergarten through grade 12 education. B

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Target

672 773 Prior Year + 

10%

Prior Year + 

5%

Prior Year + 

5%

Notes: (1) Data represent the prior school year (SY). For example, 2018 data represent 

SY 2017–18. (2) Metric revised following the FY 2017 Annual Performance Report and FY 2019 

Annual Performance Plan reporting; see appendix B for details.

Data Source: Department offices that deliver technical assistance.

Frequency of Collection: Quarterly.

FY 2018

Actual

1.4-A Performance.

Acronyms and Definitions:

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

FY = fiscal year (i.e., federal fiscal year).

Target icons and odometer colors are defined as follows: green = performance meets or exceeds the established target, yellow = performance 

shows improvement from the prior year but does not meet the established target threshold, red = performance is at or below prior year’s 

performance and gray = metric is baselined in FY 2018 or later.

Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 1 47
48
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 2 49 49

Strategic Goal 2

Expand postsecondary educational opportunities, improve 

outcomes to foster economic opportunity and promote an 

informed, thoughtful and productive citizenry.

GOAL LEADER:

Assistant Secretary for 

Postsecondary Education

GOAL 2 OBJECTIVES

Support educational institutions, 

students, parents and communities to increase access and 

completion of college, lifelong 

learning and career, technical 

and adult education.

Support agencies and educational institutions in identifying 

and using evidence-based 

strategies or other promising 

practices to improve educational 

opportunities and successfully 

prepare individuals to compete 

in the global economy.

Support agencies and educational institutions as they 

create or expand innovative 

and affordable paths to 

relevant careers by providing 

postsecondary credentials or 

job-ready skills.

Improve quality of service for 

customers across the entire 

student aid life cycle.

Enhance students’ and parents’ 

ability to repay their federal 

student loans by providing 

accurate and timely information, 

relevant tools and manageable 

repayment options.

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

“There are a multitude of paths a student 

can pursue in higher education, and each 

should be seen as valid. If a path is the 

right fit for the student, then it’s the right 

education.” 

–U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos

Performance at a Glance

Of the Department’s 21 metrics for this goal, 5 met or exceeded the 

established targets, 1 displayed improvement from the prior year but 

did not meet the established target threshold and 4 performed at or 

below the prior year’s performance. The remaining 11 metrics are 

baselined in FY 2018 or later.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Objective 2.1 Objective 2.2 Objective 2.3 Objective 2.4

Metrics

13

14

Objective 2.5

Baseline, target not applicable

Met or exceeded target

Improved from prior year

No or negative improvement

Performance Results for Strategic Goal 2
50 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Goal 2 Discretionary Resources

The following figure and table show total Goal 2 discretionary resources and examples of select 

major discretionary programs and activities supporting the goal, respectively.

Goal 2 Discretionary Resources

$0 $20 $40

Dollars (in billions)

$10 $30

$28.9

$31.2

$31.0

FY 2020 President’s Budget

FY 2019 Appropriation

FY 2018 Appropriation

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities Supporting Goal 2 in Thousands

POC ACCT

Objective 

# Program

FY 2018 

Appropriation

FY 2019 

Appropriation

FY 2020 

President’s Budget

FSA SFA 2.1, 2.3 Federal Pell Grants: 

Discretionary 

 $22,475,352 $22,475,352 $22,475,352 

OCTAE CTAE 2.1, 2.3 Career and Technical 

Education State Grants 

 $1,192,598 $1,262,598 $1,262,598 

OPE HE 2.1 Strengthening HBCUs $279,624 $282,420 $282,420 

OPE HE 2.1, 2.2, 

2.3

Federal TRIO 

Programs

$1,010,000 $1,060,000 $950,000 

Other N/A N/A All Other Programs $6,047,796 $6,118,166 $3,963,848

Note:

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

in appendix C.

Acronyms and Definitions:

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

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

Education; HE = Higher Education and HBCU = Historically Black College and University.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 2 51

Strategic Objective: 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 

Support educational institutions, students, parents and 

communities to increase access and completion of college, 

lifelong learning and career, technical and adult education.

Objective Leader: Special Assistant for the Office of Postsecondary Education

Overview

The Department recognizes there are many diverse routes to postsecondary education and 

employment and seeks to support access to these educational opportunities and their completion 

for students at all stages of life. During the first year of implementing this Strategic Objective, 

the Department focused on more effective use of discretionary grant funding so that grantees 

can fully achieve program goals and best serve students. The Department also focused on its 

compliance with reporting and other mandated activities. In the coming year, the Department 

will use negotiated rulemaking to improve college affordability and remove constraints that 

limit innovation in higher education. Several offices across the Department support this Strategic 

Objective, including the Office of Postsecondary Education; the Office of Planning, Evaluation 

and Policy Development; the Office of Federal Student Aid and the Office for Civil Rights.

FY 2018 Actions and Results

As required by Executive Orders 13771 and 13777, the Department reviewed its regulations 

to determine whether they were outdated, unnecessary or ineffective or inconsistent with 

regulatory reform initiatives and policies. This review informed the Department’s regulatory 

agenda, including its decision to conduct negotiated rulemaking on Borrower Defense to 

Repayment and Gainful Employment regulations in fiscal year (FY) 2018. Following the 

negotiated rulemaking process, the Secretary proposed new regulations governing the William D. 

Ford Federal Direct Loan Program regarding the standard and process for determining whether 

a borrower has a defense to repayment on a loan based on an act or omission of an institution 

of higher education (IHE). The Department also issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that 

proposed to rescind Gainful Employment as well as the proposed and final rules to delay the 

effective date of the final regulations for state authorization of distance education and foreign 
52 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

This package of 

regulations focused 

on protecting 

student borrowers, 

holding IHEs 

accountable for 

misrepresentation 

and fraud and 

providing taxpayers 

with financial 

protections from 

at-risk institutions.

“

”

locations of domestic institutions. This package of regulations 

focused on protecting student borrowers, holding IHEs 

accountable for misrepresentation and fraud and providing 

taxpayers with financial protections from at-risk institutions. 

Additionally, in September 2018, the Department held three 

public hearings in the District of Columbia, Louisiana and 

Wisconsin to gather input regarding regulations that govern 

programs authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act 

of 1965, as amended (HEA). The Department also posted 

641 comments to www.regulations.gov in response to the 

“Intent to establish negotiated rulemaking committee” Federal

Register notice.

The Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) and the Office 

of Federal Student Aid (FSA) provided technical assistance on 

loan repayment issues and hurricane flexibility. The Department 

expects this type of technical assistance will support a better statutory framework for IHEs and 

agency programs.

The Department’s technical assistance also included interactions with applicants, grantees and 

other education stakeholders. OPE conducted 33 technical assistance webinars (e.g., grants 

management and evaluation), 18 on-site reviews and office visits with prospective applicants and 

grantees. During FY 2018, the Department increased the number of technical assistance webinars 

and on-site reviews and included a more targeted review of grants with large available balances. 

These efforts resulted in improved project performance and a decrease in the number of grantees 

with financial management or compliance concerns, such as grantees not spending funds in 

accordance with their approved budgets, unallowable costs or failure to provide services to the 

approved number of participants. OPE also implemented a discretionary grantee monitoring 

protocol and identified grantees to be monitored using a risk accountability model. Finally, OPE 

completed a comprehensive statutory compliance checklist for all Higher Education Programs as 

well as guidance for staff.

The Department also provided direct support to students as they take their first step in furthering 

their education beyond the secondary level by completing the Free Application for Federal 

Student Aid (FAFSA®). A major component of FSA’s mission is to ensure that all eligible 

individuals have access to federal student aid. In order to achieve this goal, FSA works diligently 

to increase awareness about the availability of student financial assistance and offers guidance 

regarding the responsibility of loan acceptance and repayment. FSA partners with high school 

counselors and others to provide weekly updates of total FAFSAs® filed for every high school in 

the United States with five or more FAFSAs® completed. Schools use these data to increase their 
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 2 53

FAFSA® completion rates. Combined with awareness and outreach efforts, FSA’s monitoring 

resulted in an increase in the number of high school seniors who file a FAFSA®. In FY 2018, 

FSA efforts were supplemented by a nationwide FAFSA® Completion Contest sponsored by 

the National College Access Network and the Kresge Foundation and significant FAFSA® 

completion efforts in populous states such as Florida and Texas.

In FY 2018, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) presented at 142 separate events to provide 

technical assistance activities covering every statute enforced by OCR on topics such as 

harassment and website accessibility in postsecondary and other settings. OCR also conducted 

several presentations covering OCR’s jurisdiction and how it processes cases. OCR launched 

a new technical assistance initiative to assist recipients in making their websites and online 

programs accessible to individuals with disabilities. Through webinars, OCR provided 

information technology professionals with vital information on website accessibility, 

including guidance for making online programs accessible. These webinars reached more 

than 3,000 individuals from more than 100 different locations. In all, OCR organized and led 

19 webinars on website accessibility, a 58 percent increase over the 12 such webinars OCR 

conducted in FY 2017.

Looking Forward

During FY 2019 and FY 2020, the Department will:

• Continue implementing its regulatory agenda to improve student access to innovative 

postsecondary education opportunities through negotiated rulemaking and issuing final 

regulations. Specifically, the Department will conduct negotiated rulemaking on a variety 

of topics and ensure the process is fair, efficient and effective for all affected parties. The 

structure for the negotiated rulemaking will include the Accreditation and Innovation 

Committee (full) and three subcommittees, which will present findings to the full 

committee. The Accreditation and Innovation Committee will consider the core functions 

of accreditation and ways to improve the Department’s accreditor recognition process. 

Each of the following three subcommittees will focus on a specific area and will convene 

in early 2019:

The Distance Learning and Educational Innovation Subcommittee will consider 

regulatory changes to improve the development of innovative programs that 

are responsive to students and employers. It will look at regulatory definitions, 

authorizations and requirements, with the goal of removing barriers to student 

access and completion.

The Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) 

Grants Subcommittee will consider the simplification and clarification of TEACH 

Grant program requirements to minimize the inadvertent grant-to-loan conversions 

and to provide opportunities to correct erroneous conversions. 
54 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

In light of the recent Supreme Court decision in Trinity Lutheran Church 

of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U.S. __ (2017), the Faith-Based Entities 

Subcommittee will consider eligibility of faith-based entities to participate 

in Title IV HEA programs. 

• Release a white paper describing priorities for rethinking higher education that features 

principles for reform under three categories: empowering students, empowering 

institutions and empowering innovators.

• Issue final regulations on Institutional Accountability and Gainful Employment.

• Support students as they make critical life decisions by improving the College Scorecard, 

continuing to release earnings data and incorporating data on academic programs and 

debt to ensure students are well equipped to make these important choices. 

• Strategically expand OCR’s proactive outreach to students, parents, schools, colleges 

and universities to clarify areas of federal civil rights laws and to increase awareness and 

understanding of these laws, support enforcement activities and voluntary compliance 

and more effectively ensure equal access to education for all students.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 2 55

Performance Measures

Table 2.1-A. Percentage of Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) grantees 

with large available balances. B

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Target

0.85% 1% 1% TBD TBD

Notes: (1) Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018. 

(2) Value as of the last day of FY 2018.

Data Source: The Department’s Grants Management System grantee documentation.

Frequency of Collection: Quarterly.

FY 2018

Actual

2.1-A Performance.

Table 2.1-B. Percentage of Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) grantees 

with large available balances that received technical assistance resulting in 

“Resolved with Good Explanation.” B

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Target

100% 100% 100% TBD TBD

Notes: (1) Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018. 

(2) Value as of the last day of FY 2018.

Data Source: The Department’s Grants Management System grantee documentation.

Frequency of Collection: Annually.

FY 2018

Actual

2.1-B Performance.

Table 2.1-C. Percentage of annual statutory requirements for Office of 

Postsecondary Education (OPE) programs that are fulfilled by OPE. B

Metric will be baselined in FY 2019.

Notes: (1) Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018. (2) The FY 2017 Annual Performance Report 

and FY 2019 Annual Performance Plan originally noted the Department would baseline this metric in FY 2018. (3) Due to program 

prioritization, this metric will be baselined in FY 2019.

Data Source: Program specialist and supervisor reviews.

Frequency of Collection: Annually.
56 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Table 2.1-D. Percentage of first-time Free Application for Federal Student Aid 

(FAFSA®) filers among high school seniors.

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Actual Target Target

60.2% 60.8% 66.4% 61.5% TBD TBD TBD

Note: Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018.

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

Frequency of Collection: Annually.

FY 2018

Actual

Baseline

Target

2.1-D Performance.

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

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Actual Target Target

82.6% 82.5% 82.6% 83.0% TBD TBD TBD

Note: Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018.

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

Frequency of Collection: Annually.

FY 2018

Actual

Baseline 

and Target

2.1-E Performance.

Acronyms and Definitions:

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

FY = fiscal year (i.e., federal fiscal year).

Target icons and odometer colors are defined as follows: green = performance meets or exceeds the established target, yellow = performance 

shows improvement from the prior year but does not meet the established target threshold, red = performance is at or below prior year’s 

performance and gray = metric is baselined in FY 2018 or later.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 2 57

Strategic Objective: 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 

Support agencies and educational institutions in identifying and 

using evidence-based strategies or other promising practices 

to improve educational opportunities and successfully prepare 

individuals to compete in the global economy.

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

Overview

The Department is committed to improving educational opportunities for the existing and future 

workforce. As such, this Strategic Objective promotes the administration of federal programs 

that provide educational opportunities, training and support services focused on the workforce. 

In order to best ensure that these activities are effective, the Department is engaged in supporting 

the use of evidence across multiple work streams that address postsecondary education and 

workforce outcomes. 

It is also essential that the Department fulfills its commitment to individuals with disabilities 

by working with state and local agencies to provide job-driven training and support services 

consistent with the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). Several offices 

across the Department support this Strategic Objective, including the Office of Postsecondary 

Education; the Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development; the Institute of 

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

Office of Career, Technical and Adult Education.

FY 2018 Actions and Results

Expanding postsecondary education options and improving outcomes are critical to the success 

of the economy. It is also important to use available evidence to determine which strategies are 

most effective. In fiscal year (FY) 2018, the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) published a 

report summarizing the evidence for postsecondary interventions designed to reduce the number 
58 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

of students admitted to college who fail to matriculate. 

In addition, IES’ National Center for Education Research 

(NCER) started a career and technical education (CTE) 

research network to increase the number of high-quality 

causal studies on CTE practices, policies and programs. 

NCER made the CTE Network Lead award in FY 2018, 

and the project period will run from September 2018 

through August 2023. With the opportunity for up to 

six research teams to become part of the CTE network, NCER anticipates contributing up to 

six additional studies that meet the What Works Clearinghouse design requirements, 

substantially increasing the information available in the clearinghouse on interventions 

designed to support CTE.

To support state vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies in bringing policies and practices into 

alignment with the requirements of WIOA, the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services provided on-site technical assistance to 12 states (Alabama, Nevada, Kansas, North 

Carolina, California, Louisiana, Arizona, New York, Alaska, New Jersey, Utah and Rhode 

Island). The Rehabilitation Services Administration provided the 15 VR agencies in the 12 states 

with technical assistance to improve performance in areas such as transition and pre-employment 

transition services, the Supported Employment program, fiscal accountability and the joint 

provisions under WIOA applicable to all workforce development partners under WIOA.

The Office of Career, Technical and Adult Education provided technical assistance in a number 

of areas to support WIOA implementation, including career pathways, integrated education 

and training (IET) and placement in unsubsidized employment in in-demand industries 

and occupations that lead to economic self-sufficiency. Through national activities funding 

authorized under the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, the Department supported 

technical assistance investments that focus on helping states in their efforts to provide IET. In 

addition, the Department funded the development of an IET Guide to help states assess their 

IET programming implementation outlined in WIOA and hosted a webinar through the Literacy 

Information and Communication System Professional Development Center that explored how 

states can use the IET Guide.

Looking Forward

The Department will continue to support agencies and educational institutions in identifying 

and using evidence-based strategies to successfully prepare individuals, including those with 

disabilities, to compete in the global economy. The offices engaged in this Strategic Objective 

will collaborate, as appropriate, to further develop evidence on what works and provide direct 

technical assistance and other resources to the Department’s discretionary and formula grantees. 

Specifically, during FY 2019 and FY 2020, the Department will:

“IES’ NCER started a 

CTE research network 

to increase the number 

of high-quality causal 

studies on CTE practices, 

policies and programs.”
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 2 59

• Collaborate with internal and external partners to disseminate resources related to the 

use of evidence, including an internal evidence training agenda to build staff capacity to 

support discretionary and formula grantees.

• Initiate high-quality, causal studies on CTE practices, policies and programs through 

the CTE Research Network along with the design of a new national evaluation of the 

implementation of Perkins V, as required by law.

• Provide technical assistance to states and adult education providers on IET along 

with technical assistance to promote the effective implementation of Integrated 

English Literacy and Civics Education program activities that prepare individuals for 

unsubsidized employment in in-demand industries and occupations.

• Make FY 2019 awards and announce FY 2020 funding opportunities for Education 

Research and Special Education Research and Partnerships and Collaborations Focused 

on Problems of Practice or Policy.

• Make awards to high-quality applications focused on CTE for students with disabilities 

under its FY 2019 Special Education Research Grant program.

• Promote promising strategies to support postsecondary enrollment and completion to 

include the following:

Continue collaborations between IES’s National Center for Education Evaluation 

and the Office of Postsecondary Education to identify opportunities to rigorously 

evaluate access-focused strategies within programs such as Upward Bound

and then broadly share findings and practical resources with the college access 

community. 

Support Regional Educational Laboratories to design early warning systems 

to better understand students’ readiness for postsecondary study, explore the 

relationship between participation in “promise programs” and postsecondary 

enrollment and persistence and identify equity gaps in high school-to-college 

and employment pathways. 

Publish a What Works Clearinghouse Practice Guide focused on improving 

postsecondary teaching and learning through evidence-based practices in 

educational technology use.

Revise and implement the FY 2019 VR program monitoring and technical 

assistance process by updating protocol, identifying states to be monitored using 

a risk accountability model and conducting on-site monitoring and technical 

assistance for a minimum of eight states and off-site or targeted monitoring and 

technical assistance for a minimum of four states.
60 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Performance Measures

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

focused on the use of evidence in federal programs that promote educational 

opportunities, training and support services for the workforce.

B

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Target

77 85 Prior Year + 

10%

Prior Year + 

5%

Prior Year + 

5%

Notes: (1) Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018. (2) Targets revised 

following the FY 2017 Annual Performance Report and FY 2019 Annual Performance Plan reporting.

Data Source: Department offices that deliver technical assistance.

Frequency of Collection: Quarterly.

FY 2018

Actual

2.2-A Performance.

Table 2.2-B. Percentage of adult education program participants who are in 

unsubsidized employment during the second quarter after exit from the program. B

Metric will be baselined in FY 2019.

Note: Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018.

Data Source: National Reporting System annual state reports.

Frequency of Collection: Annually.

Table 2.2-C. Percentage of Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) program participants 

who are in unsubsidized employment during the second quarter after exit from 

the program.

B

Metric will be baselined in FY 2020.

Note: Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018.

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

Frequency of Collection: Quarterly.

Table 2.2-D. Percentage of Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) program participants 

who, during a program year, are in an education or training program that leads 

to a recognized postsecondary credential or employment and who are achieving 

measurable skill gains, defined as documented academic, technical, occupational 

or other forms of progress, towards such a credential or employment.

B

Metric will be baselined in FY 2020.

Notes: (1) Data represent the program year. For example, 2018 data represent program year 2018. (2) The program year and fiscal year do 

not align.

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

Frequency of Collection: Quarterly.

Acronyms and Definitions:

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

FY = fiscal year (i.e., federal fiscal year).

Target icons and odometer colors are defined as follows: green = performance meets or exceeds the established target, yellow = performance 

shows improvement from the prior year but does not meet the established target threshold, red = performance is at or below prior year’s 

performance and gray = metric is baselined in FY 2018 or later.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 2 61

Strategic Objective: 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 

Support agencies and educational institutions as they create or 

expand innovative and affordable paths to relevant careers by 

providing postsecondary credentials or job-ready skills.

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

Overview

It is critical that the Department helps ensure that the nation’s workforce is prepared to meet the 

challenges of tomorrow with the skills and credentials that employers require. Postsecondary 

credentials and job-ready skills for in-demand industries may be obtained by students through 

a wide variety of education providers, such as traditional institutions of higher education, 

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

this Strategic Objective, the Department will provide grant funding and technical assistance 

resources to develop, evaluate and replicate practices and programs that expand access to viable 

educational and career pathways that lead to educated citizens with quality careers. Several 

offices across the Department support this Strategic Objective, including the Office of Career, 

Technical and Adult Education; the Office of Postsecondary Education and the Office of Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services.

FY 2018 Actions and Results

Following enactment of the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century 

Act (Perkins V), which amended the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 

2006, the Office of Career, Technical and Adult Education (OCTAE) issued draft guidance to 

assist eligible agencies (i.e., states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands and 

Palau) as they begin the significant task of preparing new Perkins V state plans. This critical 

guidance document will serve as a blueprint for how eligible agencies approach the task of 

developing new state plans under the reauthorized Perkins V law. OCTAE is encouraging eligible 

agencies to “rethink” career and technical education (CTE) by outlining and defining bold goals 

and innovative practices to implement high-quality CTE programs that are aligned to localidentified, in-demand, high-growth and high-wage career fields. 
62 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

In 2018, the Department played a critical role in supporting the White House Apprenticeship 

Expansion Task Force. The task force’s final report and recommendations were published on 

May 10, 2018, and included 26 targeted recommendations to support apprenticeship expansion. 

As part of ongoing technical assistance to states and localities, OCTAE hosted a nationwide 

convening of 16 youth diversion providers in August 2018 through which different local partners 

from across the country shared strategies and best practices to reconnect justice-involved 

youth to CTE and workforce opportunities. The Young Adult Diversion Project is a partnership 

between the Department, the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs and the Bureau 

of Justice Assistance and the Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration. 

Through this partnership, the Department provided technical assistance that supports diversion 

programs for young adults up to age 24. This technical assistance included face-to-face coaching, 

opportunities to learn from peer providers and content provided by subject matter experts. In 

fiscal year (FY) 2018, OCTAE also developed the Young Adult Diversion Toolkit with plans to 

publish it as an online tool in early 2019. It will serve as a hub for partner- and project-specific 

information, containing tools, webinars and other resources that are developed during the project.

Through an online community of practice and technical assistance program, OCTAE also 

provided technical assistance to minority-serving community colleges. This effort was designed 

to support students of color in completing career pathway programs. As part of a webinar series 

supporting this effort, OCTAE hosted the “Minority Serving Community College Plan, Do, 

Study, Act Cycles” webinar on grants management and the “Career Pathways for Students of 

Color” webinar on intentional design and implementation of career pathways at community 

colleges, highlighting Department of Labor resources on creating and strengthening career 

pathways.

The Department’s Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) funds technical assistance 

centers that provide intensive support to state vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies and 

partners. The work of the technical assistance centers is designed to strengthen the capacity 

of VR agencies to improve VR participation and increase competitive integrated employment 

outcomes by helping state VR agencies to implement the provisions of the Workforce Innovation 

and Opportunity Act (WIOA) and reach underserved or at-risk populations. During FY 2018, 

these centers provided intensive and targeted technical assistance to state VR agencies and 

partners on a range of key WIOA provisions designed to improve the performance of VR 

agencies and the employment outcomes of individuals with disabilities. Two of the centers 

focused on VR services for two critical populations: (1) students and youth with disabilities 

and (2) individuals with disabilities living in economically disadvantaged communities. 

The Vocational Rehabilitation Technical Assistance Center–Youth with Disabilities (VRYTAC) is working with states to improve postsecondary education and competitive integrated 

employment outcomes for students with disabilities who are in school and not receiving services 

under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and to youth with disabilities who are no 
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 2 63

longer in school and who are not employed. VR-YTAC provides intensive technical assistance 

to Alaska, Arizona, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Iowa, Kentucky, Virginia and 

New York. It also provides training on assessment and individualized planning, communication 

with youth and trauma-informed practices. The Vocational Rehabilitation Technical Assistance 

Center–Targeted Communities works to address generational barriers to VR participation 

rates and competitive integrated employment outcomes. The center focuses on increasing the 

capacity of VR personnel to provide effective outreach and services to individuals from targeted 

populations. Aggregate VR case services (RSA-911) data for target populations and communities 

across the 12 States show increases in the number of individuals applying to VR, the number of 

eligible applicants with an individualized plan for employment and the number of cases closed 

with competitive integrated employment outcomes after receiving services. 

Two additional technical assistance centers focused on 

supporting states with implementation and evaluation of 

programs administered by state VR agencies. The Workforce 

Innovation Technical Assistance Center (WINTAC) entered 

into 35 agreements with 38 VR agencies to assist them in the 

implementation of the provisions in WIOA. Of the 38 Intensive 

Technical Assistance Agreements (ITAs), 29 ITAs contain the 

topic area of pre-employment transition services. Additionally, 

WINTAC developed seven comprehensive products in this 

topic area, including an Interagency Agreement Toolkit. Further, 

WINTAC provided intensive technical assistance to 12 agencies 

in the topic areas of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Section 

511, which place limitations on the ability of employers to 

pay subminimum wage to workers with disabilities. Finally, the Technical Assistance Center 

for Program Evaluation and Quality Assurance provides an online certificate training program 

that builds upon participants’ existing knowledge and skills and expands capacity to provide 

program evaluation of state VR services and outcomes through intensive education and technical 

assistance. The training program aims to build state VR personnel’s capacity in carrying out 

high-quality program evaluations and quality assurance practices that promote continuous 

program improvement.

Looking Forward

The Department will continue to support agencies and educational institutions as they create 

and expand innovative and affordable paths to relevant careers by providing postsecondary 

credentials or job-ready skills through a variety of evidence-based technical assistance activities. 

During FY 2019 and FY 2020, the Department will:

The Workforce 

Innovation Technical 

Assistance Center 

entered into 

35 agreements with 

38 VR agencies to 

assist them in the 

implementation of 

the provisions in 

WIOA.

“

”
64 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

• Provide critical new technical assistance to support states in their efforts to implement 

the Perkins V law, which was reauthorized in 2018, including multiple sessions for state 

directors on the new statutory reporting requirements as well as innovative practices to 

support new authorized activities.

• Assist state VR agencies to develop the skills and processes needed to meet the 

requirements of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended by WIOA, by providing 

training and technical assistance through various grants to include grants that fund the 

following centers: (1) CINTAX, (2) VR-YTAC, (3) Vocational Rehabilitation Technical 

Assistance Center–Targeted Communities and (4) Technical Assistance Center for 

Program Evaluation and Quality Assurance.

• Continue close collaboration (in FY 2019 and FY 2020) between OSERS, OCTAE and 

the Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration to implement 

the joint provisions of WIOA and provide coordinated technical assistance and other 

resources to the workforce development system. This continued partnership will 

guide OSERS as it works with its grantees (e.g., WINTAC) that also provide technical 

assistance to state VR agencies.

• Assist state adult education providers in developing the tools and additional knowledge 

and capacity needed to meet statutory requirements under Title II of WIOA. These 

investments will emphasize adult education instruction in mathematics, along with 

technical assistance to states and local providers in enhancing and expanding integrated 

education and training (IET). Through these activities, the Department intends to 

develop tools, such as an IET Design Toolkit, and trainings to support adult education 

mathematics instructors in providing instruction that meets the higher-level mathematics 

demands under state-adopted WIOA content standards for adult education.

• Disseminate the Young Adult Diversion Toolkit. The Young Adult Diversion Project 

coaches will also conduct in-person site visits to each project partner, providing on-site 

and virtual technical assistance. Webinars will be held to inform the partners of resources, 

funding availability and best practices.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 2 65

Performance Measures

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

Department intended to expand or enhance the integration of workforce 

preparation activities within academic instruction in adult education classrooms.

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Actual Target Target

3 23 6 12 12 TBD TBD

Note: Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018.

Data Source: Contractor quarterly progress reports.

Frequency of Collection: Quarterly.

FY 2018

Actual

Target

Baseline

2.3-A Performance.

Table 2.3-B. Percentage of postsecondary career and technical education (CTE) 

concentrators who received an industry-recognized credential, certificate or a 

degree.

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Actual Target Target

54.9% 56.4% 55% 56% 56% TBD TBD

Note: Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018.

Data Source: State Consolidated Annual Reports for the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical 

Education Act.

Frequency of Collection: Annually.

FY 2018

Actual

Baseline

argetT

2.3-B Performance.

Acronyms and Definitions:

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

FY = fiscal year (i.e., federal fiscal year).

Target icons and odometer colors are defined as follows: green = performance meets or exceeds the established target, yellow = performance 

shows improvement from the prior year but does not meet the established target threshold, red = performance is at or below prior year’s 

performance and gray = metric is baselined in FY 2018 or later.
66 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Strategic Objective: 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 

Improve quality of service for customers across the entire 

student aid life cycle.

Objective Leader: Chief Operating Officer for the Office of Federal Student Aid

Overview

As the nation’s largest provider of financial aid for education beyond high school, the 

Office of Federal Student Aid delivers more than $120 billion in financial aid each year to 

students and their families. The Office of Federal Student Aid also oversees the approximately 

6,000 postsecondary institutions that participate in federal student aid programs. In every 

interaction with students and their families, the Office of Federal Student Aid strives to be the 

most trusted and reliable source of student financial aid information and services in the nation.

The Department is implementing a plan to transform federal student aid and improve customer 

service by modernizing the technology and operational components supporting federal student 

aid programs. At the November 2017 Federal Student Aid Training Conference, the Department 

announced that it will provide its 43 million customers a seamless, world-class experience 

through a bold initiative known as Next Generation Financial Services Environment (Next 

Gen FSA). In the announcement, the Department pledged to improve customers’ experience 

throughout the entire student aid life cycle and committed to first modernizing capabilities 

related to the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA®) and the servicing and 

repayment of customer loans.

FY 2018 Actions and Results

The Department, in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget, has highlighted 

this objective as a focus area for improvement. The design and implementation of Next Gen 

FSA is focused on strengthening the customer service the Department provides. During fiscal 

year (FY) 2018, the Department took important first steps to modernize and improve customers’

overall experience by developing and making available the Department’s first mobile app, 

myStudentAid. Through the mobile app, students and parents can fill out and submit a FAFSA®, 

view their federal student loan history, compare information about schools and link to other 
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 2 67

services. The Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA) also 

redesigned the fafsa.gov website to make it responsive and 

easier to navigate on a mobile device and integrated the 

FAFSA® site into StudentAid.gov, the primary portal for 

students, parents and borrowers to provide a more seamless 

experience. Additionally, the Department adopted a standard 

annual certification date for all Teacher Education Assistance 

for College and Higher education (TEACH) grant recipients. 

This change, effective in FY 2019, simplified the annual 

certification requirement by having only one certification 

date—October 31—for all TEACH grant recipients.

FSA focused on providing students, parents and borrowers with the right information at the 

right time to help them meet critical deadlines related to applying for, receiving and repaying 

federal student aid. In FY 2018, FSA sent more than 27 million messages to customers utilizing 

an enhanced digital communications tool. While these engagement-centric efforts illustrate how 

Next Gen FSA benefits students, parents and borrowers, the initiative will also provide greater 

value to taxpayers by creating a more agile, flexible operating model that streamlines existing 

operations.

In addition, FSA used a wide array of tools and resources to inform borrowers and student aid 

professionals. Both the StudentAid.gov and StudentLoans.gov websites are sources of vital 

information to assist prospective and current borrowers in making key decisions about the 

management of their student loans. Through financialaidtoolkit.ed.gov, FSA provided financial 

aid officers, high school counselors, college access professionals and other student advocates 

with the tools, information and resources to effectively counsel current and prospective college 

students. 

FSA’s general and targeted outreach campaigns aim to increase awareness of federal aid 

programs among underrepresented current and prospective college student populations. For 

example, FSA held its first annual Minority Serving Institutions Presidential Leadership Summit, 

which focused on Executive-level outreach to higher education leaders as well as addressing 

presidential behaviors and institutional best practices that promote student success and facilitate 

institutional compliance with regulatory and statutory requirements for Title IV aid recipients. 

To measure the overall customer satisfaction level throughout the student aid life cycle, FSA 

calculated a weighted score for the American Customer Satisfaction Index surveys for applicants, 

students in school and borrowers in repayment. The FY 2018 score of 70.6 is higher than the 

FY 2017 score of 69.9 and indicates small improvements across three groups of borrowers that 

span the student aid lifecycle.

“Through the [FSA] 

mobile app, students 

and parents can fill out 

and submit a FAFSA®, 

view their federal 

student loan history, 

compare information 

about schools and link 

to other services.”
68 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Looking Forward

At $1.4 trillion1, FSA administers one of the largest consumer loan portfolios in the country. 

It is critical that FSA provide a customer experience that is on par with world-class financial 

services firms to establish the organization as a trusted brand in the student aid industry. Next 

Gen FSA will enable FSA to realize this vision by modernizing the way FSA connects with its 

customers while streamlining its student aid systems and processes. This broad effort will deliver 

an exceptional customer experience for millions of Americans across the entire student aid life 

cycle, from fostering greater awareness about the availability of financial aid, to applying for aid, 

to successfully repaying loans.

During FY 2019 and FY 2020, FSA will:

• Award contracts that support major elements of Next Gen FSA.

• Begin development of the Next Generation Partner Participation and Oversight (PPO) 

platform, which will transform the way FSA interacts with the thousands of schools, 

financial institutions and other partners that participate in FSA programs. Goals for PPO 

include a single portal through which institutions can access all FSA systems and processes, 

streamlined processes for submitting and reviewing program participation and other 

eligibility materials and improved FSA workflow tools to support faster decision-making.

• Continue to ensure accurate and timely information is available and promoted through 

the Department’s multiple engagement and information dissemination channels (such 

as FSA’s social media properties, customer facing websites, outreach with counselors 

and partners, promotional campaigns, targeted emails, etc.) with a continued focus on 

providing information geared toward the needs of students at each stage of the student 

aid life cycle.

• Oversee and monitor federal student loan servicers to ensure they meet their contractual 

obligations and improve service to borrowers.

• Conduct outreach efforts to student loan borrowers and perform listening sessions of 

customer call center interactions to ascertain areas for continual improvement in service 

and the customer experience.

• Implement a formal reconsideration process for TEACH grant recipients who meet 

requirements and previously had their TEACH grants converted to direct unsubsidized 

loans.

• Post information about the TEACH Grant reconsideration process on StudentAid.gov

and notify financial aid professionals of the reconsideration process through an electronic 

announcement. Outreach efforts also include coordinating with FedLoan Servicing 

to post an alert message about reconsideration on their TEACH Grant web page and 

sending direct email communications to TEACH Grant participants informing them of 

the reconsideration process.

1

This amount includes federal student loan amounts managed by the Department and other entities.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 2 69

Performance Measures

Table 2.4-A. Number of federal loan servicers’ call centers with expanded hours.

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Actual Target Target

0 0 9 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Notes: (1) Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018. (2) Due 

to the prioritization of resources for the Office of Federal Student Aid’s Next Generation Financial 

Services Environment, this metric will not be met or tracked going forward. (3) Several metrics 

tracking FSA’s Next Gen initiative have been added to Strategic Objective 2.4.

Data Source: Federal servicers’ quarterly reports.

Frequency of Collection: Quarterly.

FY 2018

Actual

Baseline Target

2.4-A Performance.

Table 2.4-B. Number of call centers that meet or exceed the quality 

standard for average speed to answer (ASA).

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Actual Target Target

76.9 

seconds

66.0 

seconds

≤70 

seconds

≤70 

seconds TBD TBD TBD

Notes: (1) Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018. 

(2) Targets revised following the FY 2017 Annual Performance Report and FY 2019 Annual 

Performance Plan reporting.

Data Source: Federal servicers’ quarterly reports.

Frequency of Collection: Quarterly.

Baseline

FY 2018

Actual

Target

2.4-B Performance.

Table 2.4-C. Number of call centers that meet or exceed the quality 

standard for average abandon rate (AR) for incoming calls.

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Actual Target Target

3.8% 

(monthly 

average)

3.90% ≤3.5% ≤3.5% TBD TBD TBD

Notes: (1) Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018. 

(2) Targets revised following the FY 2017 Annual Performance Report and FY 2019 Annual 

Performance Plan reporting.

Data Source: Federal servicers’ quarterly reports.

Frequency of Collection: Quarterly.

FY 2018

Actual

Baseline

Target

2.4-C Performance.
70 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Table 2.4-D. American Consumer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) Aid Life 

Cycle Surveys.

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Actual Target Target

69.9 70.6 69.9 71.0 TBD TBD TBD

Note: Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018.

Data Source: The Office of Federal Student Aid’s Customer Satisfaction Survey.

Frequency of Collection: Annually.

FY 2018

Actual

Baseline 

and Target

2.4-D Performance.

Table 2.4-E. Number of downloads of the myStudentAid mobile app. B

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Target

0 1,000,000 TBD TBD TBD

Note: Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018.

Data Source: Metrics from Apple’s App Store and Google Play.

Frequency of Collection: Quarterly.

FY 2018

Actual

2.4-E Performance.

Table 2.4-F. Number of customers checking loan balances via the 

myStudentAid mobile app. B

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Target

0 30,000 TBD TBD TBD

Note: Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018.

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

Frequency of Collection: Quarterly.

FY 2018

Actual

2.4-F Performance.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 2 71

Table 2.4-G. Number of customers submitting a Free Application for Federal 

Student Aid (FAFSA®) via a mobile platform—the myStudentAid mobile app 

or fafsa.gov.

B

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Target

0 1,800,000 TBD TBD TBD

Note: Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018.

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

Frequency of Collection: Quarterly.

FY 2018

Actual

2.4-G Performance.

Table 2.4-H. Number of visits (sessions) demonstrating adoption of the 

updated StudentAid.gov site. B

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Target

44,500,000 150,000,000 TBD TBD TBD

Notes: (1) Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018. 

(2) FY 2018 data represent visits to the StudentAid.gov site before the update went into effect. 

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

Frequency of Collection: Quarterly.

FY 2018

Actual

2.4-H Performance.

Acronyms and Definitions:

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

FY = fiscal year (i.e., federal fiscal year).

Target icons and odometer colors are defined as follows: green = performance meets or exceeds the established target, yellow = performance 

shows improvement from the prior year but does not meet the established target threshold, red = performance is at or below prior year’s 

performance and gray = metric is baselined in FY 2018 or later.
72 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Strategic Objective: 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 

Enhance students’ and parents’ ability to repay their federal 

student loans by providing accurate and timely information, 

relevant tools and manageable repayment options.

Objective Leader: Chief Operating Officer for the Office of Federal Student Aid

Overview

The Department is implementing a comprehensive framework for Student Aid Management 

that allows students to understand and access information about college options and associated 

costs, loan counseling and guidance, support for retention, loan repayment options and borrower 

benefits. The Department will develop and disseminate materials that communicate students’ 

and parents’ options to repay federal student loans before and during the course of pursuing 

a postsecondary credential. Offices across the Department support this Strategic Objective, 

including the Office of Federal Student Aid and the Office of Postsecondary Education.

FY 2018 Actions and Results

A loan becomes delinquent when the borrower misses a payment, and it stays that way until the 

past due balance is repaid or the borrower’s payment plan is adjusted. Therefore, delinquency 

rates are a good indicator of the health of the student loan portfolio held by the Department. 

Federal student loan borrowers face multiple vendors and brands during the life cycle of their 

student aid experience, and borrowers are assigned to one or more of the nine student loan 

servicers. Under the Next Generation Financial Services Environment (Next Gen FSA), a new 

loan servicing platform, the Department will provide a more uniform service for repayment.

During fiscal year (FY) 2018, the Office of Financial Student Aid (FSA) developed a Student 

Aid Management framework to help students understand and access information about potential 

college options and associated costs and outcomes, loan counseling and guidance, support for 

retention, loan repayment options and borrower benefits. The framework takes into account 

financial literacy and targeted borrower outreach. FSA is committed to maintain and improve 

the StudentAid.gov, FinancialAidToolkit.ed.gov and CollegeCost.ed.gov websites and leverage 

digital engagement assets to inform, motivate and respond to students, parents and financial aid 

professionals on the topic of student loans. FSA continues to grow its online assets both in terms 

of usage and content.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 2 73

StudentAid.gov, FSA’s primary online portal for customers, increased 

total site visits from 44.3 million in FY 2017 to 44.5 million in 

FY 2018. FSA also achieved increases in overall subscribership 

across FSA’s most prolific social media channels with approximately 

23,000 new subscribers and a total subscribership of 607,241. These 

performance results demonstrate the success of efforts to increase the 

social media footprint of FSA as it seeks to become the most trusted 

source for accurate and accessible federal student aid information.

Looking Forward

Next Gen FSA aims to create an ideal customer experience. Multiple 

websites, mobile applications, contact centers and other customer 

interfaces will be combined into a simplified, consistent and engaging 

experience, which will be enhanced by standardized training and tools across vendors and 

partners. With a focus on mobile engagement, Next Gen FSA will meet customers where they 

are, letting them connect with FSA on the device of their choice. Customers will access a 

modernized online portal with personalized information that helps them quickly understand their 

options and make informed decisions throughout the financial aid life cycle, including borrowing 

and loan repayment. While Next Gen FSA will cut through the information clutter and provide 

robust self-service, it also will seamlessly connect customers with additional support when 

needed.

In addition to an improved customer experience, Next Gen 

FSA will completely modernize FSA’s back-end systems and 

infrastructure. This transformation will pave the way for improved 

processing and customer management at a lower cost. Vendor and 

partner performance standards and accountability measures will 

be built into Next Gen FSA to ensure customers receive worldclass service while protecting taxpayer dollars. Next Gen FSA will 

integrate state-of-the-art cybersecurity protections across every 

aspect of the student aid experience. Enterprise-wide data analytics 

will drive improved customer service, particularly for students and 

borrowers at risk for default, while also enhancing FSA’s oversight 

of participating postsecondary schools and supporting vendors.

“StudentAid.gov, 

FSA’s primary 

online portal 

for customers, 

increased total 

site visits from 

44.3 million 

in FY 2017 to 

44.5 million 

in FY 2018. ”

“Next Gen FSA 

will integrate 

state-of-the-art 

cybersecurity 

protections across 

every aspect of 

the student aid 

experience. 

”
74 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

During FY 2019 and FY 2020, FSA will enhance students’ and parents’ ability to repay their 

federal student loans by performing the following:

• Continue the phased implementation of Next Gen FSA based, in part, on extensive 

market research with more than 50 industry leaders. This research-based approach 

enabled FSA to identify best-in-industry standards and technical benchmarks and 

will continue to inform the procurement process. FSA will continue a multi-stage 

procurement process designed to identify the vendors most capable of supporting the 

implementation of Next Gen FSA. Final awards are anticipated to be made with the 

goal of beginning to implement consolidated, FSA-branded digital engagement tools— 

including mobile, web and chat capabilities featuring enhanced financial literacy, 

repayment calculator and loan counseling features—in FY 2019.

• Incorporate delinquency and default prevention strategies with Next Gen FSA, such as 

early targeted outreach and counseling for at-risk borrowers, use of mobile and other 

digital engagement tools to maintain contact with borrowers and push information on 

repayment options and other strategies to avoid default and more targeted and intensive 

outreach during the later stages of delinquency, with the goal of increasing students’ and 

parents’ awareness of and access to information, tools and assistance to help them repay 

their loans.

• Evaluate, monitor and report on non-default federal student loan servicers’ performance 

as well as adjusting servicers’ allocation percentages (i.e., volume of new borrowers 

received).

• Operationalize College Scorecard measures in the National Student Loan Data System on 

debt and related federal student aid metrics, automating the provision ensuring valuable 

information is available for prospective and current student aid recipients.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 2 75

Performance Measures

Table 2.5-A. Percentage of borrowers who are more than 30 days delinquent.

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Actual Target Target

18.4% 18.7% 18.0% 18.4% TBD TBD TBD

Notes: (1) Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018. 

(2) Targets revised following the FY 2017 Annual Performance Report and FY 2019 Annual 

Performance Plan reporting.

Data Source: The Office of Federal Student Aid’s data warehouse.

Frequency of Collection: Annually.

FY 2018

Actual

Baseline

Target

2.5-A Performance.

Table 2.5-B. Percentage of borrowers who are more than 90 days delinquent.

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Actual Target Target

8.3% 7.4% 8.1% 7.2% TBD TBD TBD

Notes: (1) Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018. (2) Data 

revised following the FY 2017 Annual Performance Report and FY 2019 Annual Performance Plan

reporting.

Data Source: The Office of Federal Student Aid’s data warehouse.

Frequency of Collection: Annually.

FY 2018

Actual

Baseline

Target

2.5-B Performance.

Acronyms and Definitions:

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

FY = fiscal year (i.e., federal fiscal year).

Target icons and odometer colors are defined as follows: green = performance meets or exceeds the established target, yellow = performance 

shows improvement from the prior year but does not meet the established target threshold, red = performance is at or below prior year’s 

performance and gray = metric is baselined in FY 2018 or later.
76
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 3 77

Strategic Goal 3

Strengthen the quality, accessibility and use of 

education data through better management, 

increased privacy protections and transparency.

GOAL LEADER:

Assistant Secretary for Planning, 

Evaluation and Policy Development

GOAL 3 OBJECTIVES

Improve the Department’s data 

governance, data life cycle 

management and the capacity 

to support education data.

Improve privacy protections 

for, and transparency of, 

education data both at the 

Department and in the 

education community.

Increase access to, and use 

of, education data to make 

informed decisions both at 

the Department and in the 

education community.

3.1

3.2

3.3

“Some parents want to be equipped with 

the information to make a different choice 

for their child, and others want to know 

where their child’s current school needs to 

get better...Parents need information that 

is accessible, relevant and actionable.”

–U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos

Performance at a Glance

Of the Department’s eight metrics for this goal, three met or exceeded 

the established targets and one performed at or below the prior year’s 

performance. The remaining four metrics are baselined in FY 2018 

or later.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Objective 3.1 Objective 3.2 Objective 3.3

Metrics

13

14 Baseline, target not applicable

Met or exceeded target

Improved from prior year

No or negative improvement

Performance Results for Strategic Goal 3
78 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Goal 3 Discretionary Resources

The following figure and table show total Goal 3 discretionary resources and examples of select 

major discretionary programs and activities supporting the goal, respectively.

Goal 3 Discretionary Resources

$0 $100 $300 $400 $600

Dollars (in millions)

$200 500

$510.7

$549.2

$547.2

FY 2020 President’s Budget

FY 2019 Appropriation

FY 2018 Appropriation

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities Supporting Goal 3 in Thousands

POC ACCT Objective # Program

FY 2018 

Appropriation

FY 2019 

Appropriation

FY 2020 

President’s Budget

IES IES 3.3 Research, Development 

and Dissemination 

 $192,695 $192,695 $187,500 

IES IES 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 Statistics $109,500 $109,500 $112,500 

IES IES 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 National Assessment $149,000 $151,000 $149,000 

Other N/A N/A All Other Programs $96,026 $96,026 $61,745

Note:

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

in appendix C. 

Acronyms and Definitions:

POC = Principal Operating Component; ACCT = Account and IES = Institute of Education Sciences. 
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 3 79

Strategic Objective: 3.1 3.2 3.3 

Improve the Department’s data governance, data life cycle 

management and the capacity to support education data.

Objective Leader: Associate Commissioner, Administrative Data Division, National Center for 

Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences

Overview

This Strategic Objective focuses on data that the Department collects as well as opportunities 

to enhance the Department’s data management framework and internal capacity regarding the 

collected data. The main goal of improving data management is to clarify the common standards, 

operating policies and implementation roles and procedures needed across the Department to 

improve the integrity and quality of the data used by the Department and released to the public. 

While supported by all offices across the Department, three offices steer efforts for this Strategic 

Objective, including the Institute of Education Sciences; the Office of Planning, Evaluation and 

Policy Development and the Office of the Chief Information Officer.

FY 2018 Actions and Results

In fiscal year (FY) 2018, the Department committed to improve the nation’s capacity to manage 

and use education data through varied efforts. One notable accomplishment is the continued 

development of an open source data analysis software package called EdSurvey (initially 

available for National Assessment of Educational Progress data). In FY 2018, the Department 

enhanced this tool to include data on international assessments. 

The Institute of Education Sciences’ (IES’s) National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES) completed the development of the 

International Assessment Data Analysis Module for EdSurvey, and 

the new model is available for researchers to access and use.

The Department’s Data Strategy Team (DST) developed and 

delivered 10 distinct sessions to Department offices as part 

of the Department’s efforts to improve data management and 

access to data. Trainings in FY 2018 addressed stewarding and 

governing kindergarten through grade 12 data at the Department, 

developing a data release calendar of events for internal and 

public use; summarizing data quality in accessible reports; 

performing data visualization; discussing the Office of the Chief 

“NCES completed 

development of 

the International 

Assessment 

Data Analysis 

Module for 

EdSurvey, and 

the new model 

is available for 

researchers to 

access and use.

”
80 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Information Officer’s vision and plan for Department information technology systems; putting 

the Department’s public releases, such as the NCES Common Core of Data, the Office for 

Civil Rights’ (OCR’s) Civil Rights Data Collection and Office of Elementary and Secondary 

Education’s Consolidated State Performance Report, to new uses and discussing the Office of 

Communications and Outreach’s data-driven communication vehicles. IES’s NCES delivered 

six sessions and coordinated the development and presentation of a seventh session by an 

external contractor during FY 2018. The Department developed and publicly posted resources 

to support basic understanding of data management and governance in the Department 

(e.g., Introduction to the U.S. Department of Education Data Governance). The Department 

also developed internal resources and distributed them in trainings about topics such as how to 

evaluate and mature existing data quality processes and how to build and use data visualization 

to compel conversations about performance. DST offered data management trainings and 

engaged representatives from 18 Department offices.

The Department’s data governance meetings focused on the role of data stewards and the 

importance of collecting data once and, as appropriate, using it many times. When developing 

the EDFacts Information Collection package, the Department was intentional to review for 

reporting burden, and data stewards identified obsolete or low-priority data collections that were 

retired. In other cases, data stewards affirmed the effective practice of collecting data once and 

using it many times (e.g., NCES collects enrollment counts annually, and most data stewards in 

the Department use the NCES count). Active coordination across data stewards grows out of the 

EDFacts Data Governance Board discussions. Examples from this year include the following:

• NCES and the Charter Schools Program reconciled information about Department charter 

school programs and modified reporting requirements and reporting guidance as a result. 

• NCES and the Magnet Schools Assistance Program identified discrepancies in definitions. 

Reporting requirements were modified and reporting burden will decrease when the new 

reporting is implemented. 

• The Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) and Office of Special 

Education Programs proposed eliminating unused assessment performance level 

information to decrease state reporting burden and improve data use efficiencies. 

• OCR and OESE affirmed the need for one definition for chronic absenteeism. 

NCES also secured a contractor with expertise for improved data management to support DST 

and provide targeted work with individual offices. The contractor team met with offices across 

the Department to identify current data management strengths and areas of needed improvement. 

DST assessed the identified needs and strengths of Department offices and drafted a set of 

guidelines for improved data management at the Department to establish priorities. By the end 

of FY 2018, DST developed and reviewed an initial set of four tools and templates designed to 

support improved data management practices in the Department’s highest priority areas.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 3 81

Looking Forward

DST continues to coordinate and lead the Department’s efforts to improve data governance and 

life cycle management by providing Department offices with learning opportunities and tools 

that support improved practices. As DST works to improve internal practices, it is expected that 

federal grantees and the public will also benefit from more useful data releases, a continually 

improving level of data quality and models of good data management procedures that can be 

adopted by educational agencies and postsecondary institutions. During FY 2019 and FY 2020, 

the Department will:

• Clarify guidelines for office data professionals to use in improving data management 

across the Department.

• Enable richer discussions with offices about data governance and data life cycle 

management improvements that are specific to offices. Outcomes from these discussions 

will be used to shape DST-offered trainings and department-wide templates developed 

throughout FY 2019.

• Deliver training curricula for data professionals across the Department to continue to 

enhance the development of a highly skilled workforce throughout the Department to 

facilitate the accurate and appropriate use of data.

• Explore the impact of improvements to the Department’s operating structure and how 

those changes facilitate better data practice.

• Improve the set of templates and procedures available to data professionals across the 

Department that support the implementation of data management best practices. 

• Develop and implement a Data Quality Plan in FY 2019 to ensure the financial and 

award data reported on USASpending.gov are accurate and reliable to promote open 

data transparency and meet the requirements of the Digital Accountability and 

Transparency Act.
82 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Performance Measures

Table 3.1-A. Number of data management activities for which Department-wide procedures 

or templates have been created and reviewed through the Data Strategy Team (DST).

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Actual Target Target

0 4 3 6 8 TBD TBD

Notes: Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018.

Data Source: Minutes from monthly DST meetings.

Frequency of Collection: Annually.

FY 2018

Actual

Baseline

Target

3.1-A Performance.

Table 3.1-B. Number of Department program offices participating in Data Strategy 

Team (DST)-offered data management training.

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Actual Target Target

11 18 18 20 22 TBD TBD

Notes: (1) Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018. 

(2) Eighteen out of 27 (67 percent) Principal Operating Components (including White House 

Initiatives) have participated.

Data Source: Minutes from monthly DST meetings.

Frequency of Collection: Annually.

FY 2018

Actual Baseline

Target

3.1-B Performance.

Acronyms and Definitions:

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

FY = fiscal year (i.e., federal fiscal year).

Target icons and odometer colors are defined as follows: green = performance meets or exceeds the established target, yellow = performance 

shows improvement from the prior year but does not meet the established target threshold, red = performance is at or below prior year’s 

performance and gray = metric is baselined in FY 2018 or later.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 3 83

Strategic Objective: 3.1 3.2 3.3 

Improve privacy protections for, and transparency of, 

education data both at the Department and in the education 

community.

Objective Leader: Chief Privacy Officer for the Office of Finance and Operations1

Overview

The Department is committed to protecting student privacy. While education data have 

transformative potential, the vast amount and sensitivity of these data make it imperative that 

the Department and educational institutions that maintain student data take steps to protect the 

data adequately. This Strategic Objective focuses on improving privacy protections through 

the administration of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), developing 

and disseminating privacy and security training and making technical assistance available to 

states, local educational agencies (LEAs) and institutions of higher education (IHEs). While 

all Department offices have a role in supporting this Strategic Objective, primary stakeholders 

include the Senior Agency Official for Privacy (i.e., Chief Privacy Officer), Office of Federal 

Student Aid, Institute of Education Sciences, Office of the General Counsel and the Office of 

Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.

FY 2018 Actions and Results

With an increased use of education data to drive program evaluation and policymaking, in fiscal 

year (FY) 2018, the Department focused on support for privacy protection and transparency of 

education data at the Department and in the education community. As part of the Department’s 

five-year plan to assess the overall state of LEAs’ student privacy protections and the 

transparency of LEAs’ data practices, the Department’s Privacy Technical Assistance Center 

(PTAC) developed a review rubric to evaluate LEAs’ websites for their privacy policies and 

notices and for their adoption of transparency best practices. PTAC finalized the content of the 

review rubric after consulting with a diverse group of external stakeholders, including parent 

advocates, school attorneys, state officials and privacy groups. With advice from the National 

Center for Education Statistics and the Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, 

PTAC selected a statistically representative sample of the nation’s LEAs to be reviewed. The 

Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 3 83

1

The Office of Finance and Operations is effective January 6, 2019.
84 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Department will conduct the review of LEA websites for transparency best practices in 

FY 2019–22. This project will allow the Department to better prioritize the development of 

future technical assistance resources for the field and provide general and targeted feedback 

to states and LEAs on ways to improve their practices.

In FY 2018, PTAC responded to more than 3,200 technical 

assistance inquiries on student privacy issues and provided 

online FERPA training to more than 57,000 state and LEA 

officials. The technical assistance the Department provides 

continues to be well received by educational agencies 

and institutions across the country, as measured through 

qualitative and quantitative customer satisfaction surveys and 

unsolicited testimonials. In addition to the aforementioned 

technical assistance, the Department issued 16 FERPA policy 

determinations in FY 2018, including a notable determination

on the application of FERPA to surveillance videos involving 

multiple students.

With regard to the Department’s Agency Priority Goal associated with the Strategic Objective, 

the timing and issuance of new audit standards for Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA)-related 

information security safeguards in the Office of Management and Budget’s compliance 

supplement was delayed, and the Department anticipates the issuance will occur in FY 2019. 

To prepare IHEs and counterparts throughout the education community for this change in the 

coming fiscal years, the Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA) and PTAC collaborated to conduct 

63 outreach activities targeting data privacy and information technology security requirements 

of IHEs. Many of the outreach activities were at large conferences, including the FSA Training 

Conference sessions on the interplay of various Federal privacy laws on student financial aid 

data, and the data security requirements of GLBA. The 2018 FSA Training Conference was 

attended by 5,644 financial aid professionals from more than 2,000 unique schools from all 

50 states, as well as the U.S. territories of Guam, Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands. More 

than 160 foreign school officials attended from countries all over the world.

Also in support of privacy protections and information security, FSA conducted a postsecondary 

institution (PSI) breach response assessment to determine the extent of a potential breach and 

provide the institutions with remediation actions around their protection of FSA data and best 

practices associated with cybersecurity. The assessment provided a list of mandatory actions 

to enhance the cybersecurity posture to protect access and storage of federal data. Additional 

best practices were provided to address other network and access deficiencies discovered as a 

byproduct of the assessment.

“PTAC responded to 

more than 

3,200 technical 

assistance inquiries 

on student privacy 

issues and provided 

online FERPA 

training to more 

than 57,000 state 

and LEA officials.

”
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 3 85

Looking Forward

The Department recognizes the critical importance of ensuring student privacy while leveraging 

student data as a strategic asset at the federal, state and local levels. During FY 2019 and 

FY 2020, the Department will:

• Continue its focus on providing meaningful technical assistance to the field on privacy 

and security issues and will provide additional clarity on unresolved student privacy 

policy issues through additional guidance and updates to the FERPA regulations. 

• Implement new process changes to its FERPA enforcement operations to further improve 

the efficiency and effectiveness of the Department’s administration of federal student 

privacy requirements. 

• Improve the PSI breach process to increase the transparency, responsiveness and 

inclusion of PSIs in a cooperative partnership to address potential personally identifiable 

information breaches.

• Transition to a new electronic complaint management system to track FERPA complaints 

more effectively and facilitate data-driven decision-making about the administration and 

enforcement of FERPA.

• Utilize the results of the LEA review project, as well as qualitative and quantitative 

feedback from the education community, to inform the development and publication of 

technical assistance resources and deliver targeted technical assistance in a manner that 

will have the greatest impact on improving the privacy and security of education data 

across the country.

Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 3 85
86 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Performance Measures

Table 3.2-A. Number of institutions of higher education (IHEs) that have an audit of GrammLeach-Bliley Act (GLBA)-related information security safeguards which result in no significant 

findings.

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Actual Target Target

0 0 18 36 77 TBD TBD

Notes: (1) Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018. 

(2) Timing and issuance of new audit standards for GLBA-related information security safeguards 

have impacted IHEs’ ability to conduct and submit an audited assessment of data security programs.

Data Source: IHE-provided auditor reports.

Frequency of Collection: Quarterly.

Baseline

Target

FY 2018

Actual

3.2-A Performance.

Table 3.2-B. Number of outreach activities targeting data privacy and information 

technology (IT) security requirements of institutions of higher education (IHEs).

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Actual Target Target

12 63 14 17 20 20 20

Notes: Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018.

Data Source: Outreach activity records maintained by the Privacy Technical Assistance Center.

Frequency of Collection: Quarterly.

FY 2018

Actual

Baseline

Target

3.2-B Performance.

Table 3.2-C. Percentage of local educational agency (LEA) websites from a 

statistically representative sample reviewed for inclusion of transparency best 

practices and compliance with legal requirements relating to third-party contracting.

B

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Target

0% 35% 60% TBD TBD

Notes: (1) Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018. 

(2) Efforts in FY 2018 focused on setting up the survey metrics and sample selection. (3) The 

original FY 2019 target from the FY 2019 Annual Performance Plan has not been revised and is 

expected to be met.

Data Source: Selected LEA public websites.

Frequency of Collection: Quarterly.

FY 2018

Actual

3.2-C Performance.

Acronyms and Definitions:

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

FY = fiscal year (i.e., federal fiscal year).

Target icons and odometer colors are defined as follows: green = performance meets or exceeds the established target, yellow = performance 

shows improvement from the prior year but does not meet the established target threshold, red = performance is at or below prior year’s 

performance and gray = metric is baselined in FY 2018 or later.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 3 87

Strategic Objective: 3.1 3.2 3.3 

Increase access to, and use of, education data to make 

informed decisions both at the Department and in the 

education community.

Objective Leader: Director of Policy and Program Studies Service for the Office of Planning, Evaluation 

and Policy Development

Overview

For education data to be used to support informed decisions, the Department needs to continue 

to develop and implement methods to analyze, interpret and disseminate education data and 

support education stakeholders in doing the same. This Strategic Objective focuses on increasing 

access to education data at all levels and improving the tools necessary to support the appropriate 

use of education data for decision-making by the Department and education stakeholders. 

Several offices across the Department support this Strategic Objective, including the Institute 

of Education Sciences; the Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development; the Office 

of Educational Technology; the Office for Civil Rights; the Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services and Office of the Chief Privacy Officer.

FY 2018 Actions and Results

One of the primary functions of the Department is to make data available and accessible to 

the public, parents, educators and other education stakeholders. In fiscal year (FY) 2018, the 

Department released a number of high-value data sets which can be used to inform decisionmaking in education at all levels. One such example is the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 

which is a biennial collection. Since 1968, the Department has conducted CRDC to collect 

data on key education and civil rights issues in the nation’s public schools. CRDC collects 

information, such as student enrollment and educational programs and services, most of which is 

disaggregated by race/ethnicity, sex, limited English proficiency and disability. In FY 2018, the 

Department released the 2015–2016 CRDC, which includes, for the first time, comprehensive 

data regarding incidents of serious offenses reported as occurring in the nation’s public schools, 

including the number and percentage of allegations of harassment or bullying based on religion 

and several new data categories on science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) 

course taking. The Department used CRDC data to produce data briefs on two major topics: 

STEM Course Taking and School Climate and Safety. 

Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 3 87
88 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Another example of high-value data released in FY 2018 is the 2015–2016 School Survey 

on Crime and Safety data file and user manual released by the National Center for Education 

Statistics (NCES). The data file contains detailed information on crime-related topics from 

the perspective of schools, including the frequency of school crime and violence, disciplinary 

actions, the presence and activities of school security staff and school practices related to the 

prevention and reduction of crime. Additionally, the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 

(NPSAS): Student Financial Aid Estimates for 2015–16, released in early 2018, provides a 

comprehensive picture of how postsecondary students finance their education and how financing 

decisions then relate to later career and family plans through follow-up longitudinal studies. 

NPSAS is a comprehensive research dataset, based on student-level records, on financial aid 

provided by the federal government, states, postsecondary institutions, employers and private 

agencies, along with student demographic and enrollment data. 

In FY 2018, the InformED initiative continued to connect people, information and technology to 

maximize data innovation in education. This year, the Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy 

Development (OPEPD) and the Office of English Language Acquisition developed and released 

a series of three data stories focused on the characteristics, educational experiences and academic

outcomes of English learners. These data stories include interactive graphics and accompanying 

narrative text to promote better access and use of Department data by a wider variety of 

stakeholders. 

Additionally, to improve the usefulness of the National Assessment 

of Educational Progress (NAEP) data for informed decisionmaking in the education community, the Institute of Education 

Sciences (IES) generated analysis and reporting of a new type of 

data produced by the new NAEP digitally based assessments. This 

included providing a detailed statistical guide (via an R package), 

which facilitates external researchers’ computation of analytic 

weights. Additionally, IES added 12 longitudinal data sets to the 

DataLab system, which improved access to NCES’ extensive sample 

survey data.

The Department also provides direct support to states and districts. In FY 2018, the Office of 

Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) supported technical assistance centers to 

conduct several conferences to assist states in using their Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act (IDEA) data to make informed decisions. In addition to assisting states to build their capacity 

with collecting, analyzing, reporting and using IDEA data, topical areas included leveraging 

funds to improve results and using early childhood data systems to improve child and family 

outcomes and system practices. The data conferences provided forums for Part B, Section 619 

and Part C data managers as well as state administrators to collaborate and share what is working 

well in their states to ensure the use of high-quality IDEA data.

“IES added 

12 longitudinal 

data sets to the 

DataLab system, 

which improved 

access to NCES’ 

extensive sample 

survey data.”
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 3 89

In July 2018, NCES held its annual STATS-DC Summer Data Conference, which was 

focused this year around the theme “Visualizing the Future of Education through Data.” The 

conference was attended by more than 900 participants and offered 120 sessions on topics 

focusing on education data, including: how and where to access public and restricted use data, 

demonstrations of data products, use of data to drive equity conversations, use of data to track 

and evaluate performance grant funded programs, new research findings identified through data 

visualization, data management and governance and current technology challenges and privacy 

issues. This event highlighted efforts to increase the use of education data in the field.

In addition to the data released and technical assistance provided, the Department also strives 

to reduce burden in its data collections. For example, in FY 2018, the Rehabilitation Services 

Administration (RSA) completed a cross-agency joint elements review of the Departments 

of Education and Labor’s shared data collection form, which captures information needed 

to calculate the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act’s (WIOA’s) Annual Performance 

Report. In addition, RSA has used feedback from vocational rehabilitation agencies to streamline 

and clarify definitions or reporting instructions. The elimination of redundant, duplicative and 

unnecessary data elements decrease reporting burden for states while ensuring the Department 

has access to the information necessary to support decision-making.

Looking Forward

The Department is committed to continuing to promote access to and the use of education data 

to inform decision-making both within the Department and across the field. In FY 2019 and 

FY 2020, the Department will:

• Expand the Department’s open data infrastructure to improve how stakeholders find, 

access and manage the Department’s public data. This will include establishing an 

enterprise open data platform that will make the Department’s public data discoverable 

from a single location and easily searchable by topic. It will also equip every office 

within the Department with a suite of tools for publishing data and tracking user 

analytics.

• Conduct a review of data requests and recommendations for guidelines to researchers to 

aid them in combining NAEP restricted use data sets with administrative data in a manner 

referenced in common data requests. This will support the continued improvement of the 

usefulness of the NAEP data for informed decision-making in the education community.

• Bring multiple offices (including OPEPD, the Office for Civil Rights and the Office of 

Educational Technology) together to release a data story focused on STEM in FY 2019. 

This data story will share the Department’s data in a visually appealing and accessible 

format for nontechnical data users and will leverage CRDC data to highlight access to 

and enrollment in Algebra I, particularly for grade 8 students.
90 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

• Explore opportunities to link the Department’s kindergarten through grade 12 and 

postsecondary education data together to help inform policy decisions and improve 

program implementation.

• Develop and make user-friendly data products publicly available, such as IDEA data 

tables, annual reports to Congress and state data displays that stakeholders within the 

Department and the education community can use to make informed decisions.

• Implement a revised information collection (911 Vocational Rehabilitation Case Service 

Report, or RSA-911) that eliminates the unnecessary and burdensome elements to 

include the revision of 86 and deletion of 66 data elements identified. As part of this 

effort, OSERS will collect and use open-case RSA-911 data to track participants’ 

real-time progress and employment outcomes that will be reflected in the state’s 

annual reports, required by Title I of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended by WIOA.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 3 91

Performance Measures

Table 3.3-A. Number of sessions dedicated to improved data use provided to external grantees 

and stakeholders presented by Department employees or their contractors or occurring at 

Department-hosted events.

B

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Target

106 65 68 71 75

Notes: (1) Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018. 

(2) Targets revised following the FY 2017 Annual Performance Report and FY 2019 Annual 

Performance Plan reporting.

Data Source: Policy and Program Studies Service records collection.

Frequency of Collection: Quarterly.

FY 2018

Actual

3.3-A Performance.

Table 3.3-B. Number of newly added publicly available datasets in machine-readable formats. B

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Target

126 36 40 44 48

Notes: (1) Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018. 

(2) Targets revised following the FY 2017 Annual Performance Report and FY 2019 Annual 

Performance Plan reporting.

Data Source: The Department’s public data listing.

Frequency of Collection: Quarterly.

FY 2018

Actual

3.3-B Performance.

Table 3.3-C. Percentage of discretionary grant competitions that include the requirement to 

openly license to the public copyrightable grant deliverables created with Department grant 

funds.

B

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Target

72.3% 80% 90% 90% 90%

Notes: Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018.

Data Source: Information collection packages.

Frequency of Collection: Annually.

FY 2018

Actual

3.3-C Performance.

Acronyms and Definitions:

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

FY = fiscal year (i.e., federal fiscal year).

Target icons and odometer colors are defined as follows: green = performance meets or exceeds the established target, yellow = performance 

shows improvement from the prior year but does not meet the established target threshold, red = performance is at or below prior year’s 

performance and gray = metric is baselined in FY 2018 or later.
92
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 4 93

Strategic Goal 4

Reform the effectiveness, efficiency and accountability 

of the Department.

GOAL LEADER:

Assistant Secretary for Finance 

and Operations

GOAL 4 OBJECTIVES

Provide regulatory relief to 

educational institutions and 

reduce burden by identifying 

time-consuming regulations, 

processes and policies 

and working to improve 

or eliminate them, while 

continuing to protect taxpayers 

from waste and abuse.

Identify, assess, monitor and 

manage enterprise risks.

Strengthen the Department’s 

cybersecurity by enhancing 

protections for its information 

technology infrastructure, 

systems and data.

Improve the engagement 

and preparation of the 

Department’s workforce using 

professional development and 

accountability measures.

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

“We are fundamentally re-evaluating 

what we do and how we do it.” 

–U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos 

Performance at a Glance

Of the Department’s 13 metrics for this goal, 10 met or exceeded the 

established targets, 1 displayed improvement from the prior year but 

did not meet the established target threshold and 1 performed at or 

below the prior year’s performance. One metric is baselined in FY 2018 

or later.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Objective 4.1 Objective 4.2 Objective 4.3 Objective 4.4

Metrics

13

14 Baseline, target not applicable

Met or exceeded target

Improved from prior year

No or negative improvement

Performance Results for Strategic Goal 4
94 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Goal 4 Discretionary Resources

The following figure and table show total Goal 4 discretionary resources and examples of select 

major discretionary programs and activities supporting the goal, respectively.

Goal 4 Discretionary Resources

$0 $200 $400 $500 $700

Dollars (in millions)

$100 $300 $600

$635.4

$616.1

$608.1

FY 2020 President’s Budget

FY 2019 Appropriation

FY 2018 Appropriation

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities Supporting Goal 4 in Thousands

POC ACCT

Objective 

# Program

FY 2018 

Appropriation

FY 2019 

Appropriation

FY 2020 

President’s Budget

ALL DM/PA N/A Program 

Administration: 

Salaries and Expenses

 $430,000 $430,000 $433,500 

OCR OCR N/A Office for Civil Rights $117,000 $125,000 $125,000 

Other N/A N/A All Other Programs $61,143 $61,143 $76,918

Note:

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

in appendix C.

Acronyms and Definitions:

POC = Principal Operating Component; ACCT = Account; ALL = All; DM/PA = Departmental Management/Program Administration; 

N/A = Not Applicable and OCR = Office for Civil Rights.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 4 95

Strategic Objective: 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 

Provide regulatory relief to educational institutions and reduce 

burden by identifying time-consuming regulations, processes 

and policies and working to improve or eliminate them, while 

continuing to protect taxpayers from waste and abuse.

Objective Leader: Senior Counselor to the Secretary of Education

Overview

Reducing regulatory burden on external stakeholders and improving internal decision-making 

processes will help ensure greater efficiencies in Department operations and more effective and 

efficient service to the public. Given the importance of protecting taxpayers from waste and 

abuse, all Department offices support this Strategic Objective.

FY 2018 Actions and Results

The Department, in consultation with the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB), has determined that performance toward this 

objective is making noteworthy progress. Shortly after the President 

issued Executive Order 13777, the Department established the 

Regulatory Reform Task Force (RRTF) in April 2017. RRTF 

includes a wide cross section of the Department’s senior leaders, 

and, throughout fiscal year (FY) 2018, it worked diligently to 

review and reduce regulatory inefficiencies. In early FY 2018, 

following RRTF’s review of existing guidance documents to 

determine whether they were outdated or superseded by other 

documents, the Department announced that it had rescinded 

approximately 600 guidance documents. RRTF also reviewed and 

identified a number of outdated regulations across Department 

programs that could be updated or rescinded. This resulted in the 

issuance of 23 deregulatory actions, well over the FY 2018 goal 

of 13. Finally, RRTF established and implemented working 

groups in various topic areas, including a group that identified 

21 information collections to discontinue and two to modify. The 

changes to information collections will result in a savings of $11.6 million for the Department.

“RRTF also reviewed 

and identified a 

number of outdated 

regulations across 

Department 

programs that 

could be updated 

or rescinded. This 

resulted in the 

issuance of 

23 deregulatory 

actions, well over 

the FY 2018 

goal of 13.”
96 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

As part of these regulatory reform efforts, the Department also delayed the effective or 

compliance dates for its significant disproportionality regulations and its state authorization 

regulations. The delay of the significant disproportionality rule will provide time for the 

Department to thoughtfully and soundly evaluate the regulations to ensure that all children 

with disabilities are appropriately identified, placed and disciplined. The delay of the state 

authorization rule will allow the Department to address significant fundamental implementation 

issues raised by institutions and other student aid program participants that cannot be 

satisfactorily addressed by informal guidance. The delay will provide time for the Department to 

address those issues through a new rulemaking process. 

The Department also reviewed guidance documents. For example, on July 3, 2018, the 

Department’s Office for Civil Rights, along with the U.S. Department of Justice, issued Dear 

Colleague Letter guidance to withdraw six previously issued guidance documents that purported 

to explain the legal framework that governs the use of race by elementary, secondary and 

postsecondary schools. The Department concluded that the letters advocated policy and positions 

beyond the requirements of the U.S. Constitution, Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

(Title IV) and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI). The withdrawn letters suggested 

to public schools, as well as recipients of federal funding, that they take action or refrain from 

taking action beyond legal requirements and, as such, the documents are inconsistent with 

governing principles for agency guidance documents. 

The Department’s efforts around transparency of regulations and significant guidance are 

also essential for achieving this Strategic Objective. In December 2017, the U.S. House 

of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform requested detailed 

information from federal agencies regarding their nonregulatory guidance issued since 2008. 

Following review of agency submissions, in March 2018, the committee released its report, 

Shining Light on Regulatory Dark Matter, and noted that the Department was one of two 

agencies that had the capability to respond properly, indicating effective and implemented 

information management policies. RRTF subsequently established an internal working group 

to discuss general recommendations from the committee’s report regarding agency practices 

with respect to making guidance documents easily accessible to the public. This working group 

is targeting spring 2019 for the release of an updated web portal for members of the public to 

access the Department’s guidance.

The Department collaborated with OMB to publish the Fall and Spring 2018 Unified Agendas

and the Fall Regulatory Plan for the Department, both available online. These documents 

provide critical information to the public about the Department’s overall deregulatory agenda 

as well as more specific details concerning specific deregulatory actions.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 4 97

Looking Forward

During FY 2019 and FY 2020, the Department will:

• Identify overly burdensome, outdated, unnecessary or ineffective regulations, guidance 

and information collections that could be improved or eliminated. These deregulatory 

efforts will include, among other things, revisions to the Department’s Title IX 

regulations, modification of the borrower defense regulations under the Higher Education 

Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) and review and modification of other HEA regulations in 

critical areas, including accreditation, state authorization for distance education programs 

and other areas that will promote innovation and flexibility for students and institutions. 

• Continue to provide annual reports through RRTF to the Secretary on the Department’s 

regulatory reform efforts for FY 2019 and FY 2020 and make them available to the 

public.

• Examine ways to improve the Department’s grant-making process to advance the 

Secretary’s policy priorities; better build, use and disseminate evidence; attract new 

applicants and make awards earlier in the fiscal year to better support successful 

programs.
98 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Performance Measures

Table 4.1-A. Number of evaluations to identify potential Executive Order (EO) 13771 

deregulatory actions that included opportunity for public input and/or peer review.

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Actual Target Target

0 6 6 2 TBD TBD TBD

Notes: Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018.

Data Source: Department reports to the Office of Management and Budget.

Frequency of Collection: Annually.

FY 2018

Actual

Baseline

Target

4.1-A Performance.

Table 4.1-B. Number of Executive Order (EO) 13771 deregulatory actions recommended 

by the Regulatory Reform Task Force to the agency head consistent with applicable law.

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Actual Target Target

0 44 13 3 TBD TBD TBD

Notes: (1) Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018. 

(2) Targets revised following the FY 2017 Annual Performance Report and FY 2019 Annual 

Performance Plan reporting.

Data Source: Department records.

Frequency of Collection: Department records.

FY 2018

Actual

Baseline

Target

4.1-B Performance.

Table 4.1-C. Number of Executive Order (EO) 13771 deregulatory actions issued that address 

recommendations by the Regulatory Reform Task Force.

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Actual Target Target

0 23 13 8 TBD TBD TBD

Notes: Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018.

Data Source: Federal Register and https://www.ed.gov/.

Frequency of Collection: Biannually.

FY 2018

Actual

Baseline

Target

4.1-C Performance.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 4 99

Table 4.1-D. Number of Executive Order (EO) 13771 regulatory actions and, separately, 

EO 13771 deregulatory actions issued.

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Actual Target Target

0

Regulatory = 0, 

Deregulatory = 

27

TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

Notes: Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018.

Data Source: Federal Register and https://www.ed.gov/.

Frequency of Collection: Biannually.

Baseline

FY 2018

Actual

4.1-D Performance.

Table 4.1-E. Total incremental cost of all Executive Order (EO) 13771 regulatory actions and 

EO 13771 deregulatory actions (including costs or cost savings carried over from previous 

fiscal years).

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Actual Target Target

0

−$5.2 

million 

(annual),

−$85.0 

million 

(present 

value)

−$3 

million 

(annual),

−$49.1 

million 

(present 

value)

−$194 

million 

(annual),

−$3.1

 billion 

(present 

value)

TBD TBD TBD

Notes: (1) Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018. (2) Targets revised following the FY 2017 Annual Performance Report and FY 2019 Annual Performance 

Plan reporting.

Data Source: Department reports to the Office of Management and Budget.

Frequency of Collection: Annually.

FY 2018

Actual

Baseline

Target

4.1-E Performance.

Table 4.1-F. Number of significant deregulatory actions submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), the number of actions reflected on Reginfo.gov. 

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Actual Target Target

0 4 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Notes: (1) Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018. (2) This 

metric will change for FY 2019 forward; see appendix B for details.

Data Source: Reginfo.gov.

Frequency of Collection: Quarterly.

FY 2018

Actual

Baseline

Target

4.1-F Performance.
100 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Table 4.1-G. Number of requests for significance determination of deregulatory actions 

submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) by email.

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Actual Target Target

0 20 13 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Notes: (1) Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018. (2) This 

metric will change for FY 2019 forward; see appendix B for details.

Data Source: Emails between the Department and OMB.

Frequency of Collection: Quarterly.

Baseline

Target

FY 2018

Actual

4.1-G Performance.

Table 4.1-H. Number of deregulatory actions submitted to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB).

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Actual Target Target

0 24 15 3 TBD TBD TBD

Notes: (1) Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018. (2) This 

metric replaces metrics 4.1-F and 4.1-G for FY 2019 forward; see appendix B for details.

Data Source: Reginfo.gov and emails between the Department and OMB.

Frequency of Collection: Quarterly.

FY 2018

Actual

Baseline

Target

4.1-G Performance.

Acronyms and Definitions:

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

FY = fiscal year (i.e., federal fiscal year).

Target icons and odometer colors are defined as follows: green = performance meets or exceeds the established target, yellow = performance 

shows improvement from the prior year but does not meet the established target threshold, red = performance is at or below prior year’s 

performance and gray = metric is baselined in FY 2018 or later.

100 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 4 101

Strategic Objective: 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 

Identify, assess, monitor and manage enterprise risks.

Objective Leader: Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Finance and Operations1

Overview

The Department is leveraging Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) to improve operating 

effectiveness and maximize the Department’s value to taxpayers. The broad implementation 

strategies for this Strategic Objective include building capability to manage risk more effectively 

and managing risk in a strategic and coordinated manner to ensure the Department’s allocation 

of resources and management strategies are aligned to focus on high-value work and the 

achievement of outcomes for students.

Given the focus on enterprise risk, including cross-cutting management challenges, all 

Department offices contribute to this Strategic Objective. The Department measures the success 

of this Strategic Objective by the increasing maturity level of ERM, including progress in key 

risk and performance indicators.

FY 2018 Actions and Results

In fiscal year (FY) 2018, the Department focused on building a top-down understanding of 

and commitment to managing risk more effectively across the organization. The Department 

developed an initial ERM policy, guidance and risk identification 

and reporting tools, leveraging the methodologies and expertise 

from the Office of Federal Student Aid’s (FSA’s) more mature 

ERM program. In addition, the Department developed and 

delivered ERM training for senior leaders and executives. 

Top-level support is critical to culture change. Accordingly, each 

office identified executive champions and risk management liaisons 

to help lead the implementation of this Strategic Objective.

Senior leaders from all offices began participating in enterprise-wide 

risk management discussions to promote risk awareness and coordinated approaches to managing 

cross-cutting challenges. The Department developed a portfolio of risks as well as a dashboard 

of key risk and performance indicators to inform conversations about risk management strategy 

1

The Office of Finance and Operations is effective January 6, 2019.

“The Department 

developed and 

delivered ERM 

training for 

senior leaders 

and executives.”
102 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

and progress. These efforts resulted in notable accomplishments and established a strong baseline 

for improved performance moving forward. Data indicate that the Department’s FY 2018 ERM 

maturity level is 1.5 on a 5.0 scale and that 47 percent of key risk and performance indicators are 

progressing in the desired direction.

In addition to Department-wide efforts, FSA further strengthened its ERM capability by 

designing and implementing an updated ERM framework to include the integration of risk with 

strategy and performance. FSA improved its suite of training, tools and templates to reflect the 

updated approach and procured a software solution to facilitate enhanced risk reporting and 

monitoring. FSA also developed an initial risk appetite statement. In addition, FSA has a fully 

executed governance structure to facilitate risk conversations across all business units.

The Department also began to align actions to address cross-cutting management challenges with 

each office’s risk management. The following tables present the top Department management 

challenges, including FY 2018 accomplishments and planned actions for FY 2019 and FY 2020.

Information Technology (IT) Security: Department systems contain data that must 

remain accessible to the Department’s partners while protected from threats.

Accountable Official: Chief Information Security Officer for the Department of Education

Notable Accomplishments: • Identify: Implemented the use of a risk scorecard as a risk management tool 

and established a quantitative methodology for identifying, analyzing and 

managing system-level cybersecurity risks.

• Protect: Provided cybersecurity training and executed simulated phishing 

exercises, strengthening the Department’s ability to reduce risks and 

resilience to attacks.

• Detect: Completed acquisitions that included a database scanning tool and a 

Security Information Event Management solution and adjusted the network 

access control solution to further limit opportunities for potential malicious 

activity to occur.

• Respond: Increased forensics and vulnerability management capabilities and 

reduced the turnaround time for security analysis through the acquisition and 

implementation of additional tools and hardware.

• Recover: Implemented a new enterprise cybersecurity offering to system 

stakeholders focused on testing system contingency plans and incident 

response processes.

Planned Actions: • Professionalize the Information Systems Security Officer’s duty and align 

resources to better manage and address skillset and ability gaps.

• Consolidate, mature and optimize tier 1 and tier 2 operations of the Security 

Operations Center.

Performance Goals, 

Indicators and Milestones:

• Goal: Mature the Department’s cybersecurity operations to achieve the 

next level of effectiveness as defined by the Federal Information Security 

Modernization Act of 2014 maturity model.

• Indicator: Maturity level score of IT security program and practices.

• Key milestone: Update Information Technology Investment Management 

guidance.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 4 103

Improper Payments: The Department provides billions of dollars to support students and 

must work with States and schools to ensure funds reach the intended recipients in the 

right amounts.

Accountable Official: Chief Financial Officer for the Office of Federal Student Aid

Notable Accomplishments: • Developed a statistically valid methodology to more accurately estimate, set 

targets for and reduce improper payments in Pell Grants and Direct Loans.

• Provided responses to Congressional staff questions regarding legislation that 

would authorize the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to disclose tax return 

information directly to the Department, which would allow for significant 

simplification of and improvement to the administration of student aid 

programs.

Planned Actions: • Apply statistically valid estimation methodology to calculate estimated 

improper payment rates.

• Continue to maintain IRS data retrieval tool to allow users to provide their 

federal tax information directly from IRS to their student aid transactions. If 

enacted, initiate required actions to implement legislation that allows IRS to 

disclose federal tax information directly to FSA.

Performance Goals, 

Indicators and Milestones:

• Goal: Minimize the risk of improper payments without unduly burdening 

students.

• Indicator: Estimated improper payment rates.

• Key milestone: Produce FY 2019 estimated improper rates based on results 

of statistically valid estimation calculations.

Oversight and Monitoring: States, schools and other educational providers need support 

to improve student outcomes, and the Department must balance that support with 

oversight and monitoring to improve overall program performance.

Accountable Official: Chief Enterprise Risk Officer for the Office of Federal Student Aid

Notable Accomplishments: • Initiated Next Gen FSA transformation to bring significant improvements 

to performance of loan servicing and collections, including a business 

intelligence platform to capture and report on performance metrics.

• Provided training covering basic to advanced strategies and resources for 

monitoring formula and discretionary grants, increasing expertise to provide 

effective oversight.

• Implemented a performance review system designed to provide effective 

performance management and support to states in administering Title I and 

other grant programs.

• Collaborated across offices to plan and host two major public events 

to provide states with technical assistance on assessment topics and 

implementing the Every Student Succeeds Act.

• Routinely collaborated across offices in monitoring activities, focusing on 

areas such as assessments, accountability and data reporting.

Planned Actions: • Monitor the timely publishing of state report cards.

• Improve Department processes to provide timely and effective guidance and 

technical assistance to grantees.

• Identify employee skill gaps and develop strategies to close those gaps 

including training, workforce engagement initiatives and succession plans.

• Continue risk-based oversight and monitoring of student financial assistance 

participants and grant recipients, including correction of audit findings.
104 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Performance Goals, 

Indicators and Milestones:

• Goal: Support agencies and educational institutions to improve outcomes for 

students.

• Indicator: Grant recipients making substantial progress.

• Key milestones: Confirm posting of state report cards and employee skill 

gap assessments.

Data Quality and Reporting: The Department, states and schools must have effective 

controls to ensure that reported data are accurate, reliable and accessible to improve the 

use of that data at the Department and in the education community.

Accountable Official: Director of Policy and Program Studies Service for the Office of Planning, 

Evaluation and Policy Development

Notable Accomplishments: • Developed a tool to track data quality concerns and state responses to datarelated questions that contributed to improved data on the Consolidated 

State Performance Report as well as data on the 2015–16 school year and 

graduation rates. 

• Streamlined the process to load Consolidated State Performance Report data 

quality findings into a main repository to reduce burden.

• Worked to improve the data management and verification process to better 

mitigate the risk that the Department might unknowingly accept or use 

inaccurate data.

• Worked on language for the Compliance Supplement that would add focus on 

grant recipients’ internal controls to ensure accurate and reliable performance 

data are reported to the Department.

Planned Actions: • Document strategic management controls and feedback mechanisms for 

Department leadership to monitor data quality risks.

• Assess data quality risks to ensure that performance data accuracy and 

reliability are aligned with desired risk profiles.

• Recommend strategies and related resources to unfunded high-priority data 

quality and analysis efforts that support Department objectives and learning 

agenda.

Performance Goals, 

Indicators and Milestones:

• Goal: Strengthen data management practices to support improved quality and 

efficient reporting to better enable evidence-based decision-making.

• Indicators: Procedures or templates reviewed by the Department Data 

Strategy Team for use across program office collections and data use sessions 

with stakeholders.

• Key milestones: Review data quality risks and controls, identified focal areas 

and data management tools to be used.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 4 105

Looking Forward

The Department measures the efficacy of the ERM program through advancements in risk 

management culture, capability and practice. Progress toward these aims is assessed against 

a maturity model that outlines the key indicators and activities that comprise sustainable and 

effective ERM. At present, the Department’s overall self-assessment reveals a nascent program 

with an emerging strength in the integration of its governance structure. Each principal office is 

engaged in the risk management process. In the near term, the Department will begin to discuss 

issues concerning its risk appetite based on input from individual office assessments. This will 

create additional opportunities for principal offices to further refine their risk management 

strategies and to collaborate on common risks.

During FY 2019 and FY 2020, the Department will:

• Implement the new ERM governance structure, leveraging and expanding such entities 

as the Senior Management Council, and determine the risk appetite to guide risk 

management strategy.

• Develop and maintain an integrated portfolio of risks that includes an updated enterprise 

risk profile.

• Ensure internal control activities are more efficiently focused on highest priority risks.

• Incorporate risk information into decision processes, including resource allocation and 

performance improvement.
106 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Performance Measures

Table 4.2-A. Improve maturity level of Enterprise Risk Management (ERM). B

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Target

1.5 2.5 3.0 3.25 3.5

Notes: (1) Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018. 

(2) Metric revised following the FY 2017 Annual Performance Report and FY 2019 Annual 

Performance Plan reporting; see appendix B for details.

Data Source: Annual (fiscal year) Office of Inspector General Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 Reporting Metrics Audit Report.

Frequency of Collection: Quarterly.

FY 2018

Actual

4.2-A Performance.

Acronyms and Definitions:

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

FY = fiscal year (i.e., federal fiscal year).

Target icons and odometer colors are defined as follows: green = performance meets or exceeds the established target, yellow = performance 

shows improvement from the prior year but does not meet the established target threshold, red = performance is at or below prior year’s 

performance and gray = metric is baselined in FY 2018 or later.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 4 107

Strategic Objective: 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 

Strengthen the Department’s cybersecurity by enhancing 

protections for its information technology infrastructure, 

systems and data.

Objective Leader: Chief Information Officer for the Department of Education

Overview

Improved cybersecurity is a key contributor in ensuring the Department’s systems and data 

are protected, which will support a strong foundation for the Department’s information 

technology (IT) infrastructure. As such, the Department will provide proactive cybersecurity 

services, monitor and enhance threat intelligence capabilities, explore shared services and 

cloud capabilities and improve its cybersecurity workforce. All Department offices support 

this Strategic Objective given the focus on cybersecurity.

FY 2018 Actions and Results

The Department has made significant progress toward securing its enterprise through its ongoing 

implementation of a comprehensive set of solutions focused on strengthening the overall 

cybersecurity of its networks, systems and data as well as integrating cybersecurity into the 

fabric of the Department’s IT governance.

Cybersecurity and IT Governance

The Department continues to enhance its cybersecurity and IT governance through efforts 

to strengthen oversight, guidance, and implementation of the Federal Information Security 

Modernization Act (FISMA). For Quarters 3 and 4 of fiscal year (FY 2018), the Department 

achieved an overall risk score of “Managing Risk,” as indicated by the Department of Homeland 

Security’s Risk Management Assessment Report and the Department-demonstrated improvement 

of one National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 

security function (Recover) from “Defined” to “Consistently Implemented,” as assessed by 

the Office of the Inspector General. Additionally, the Department initiated efforts to replace 

existing Department cybersecurity guidance with a new framework of policies, instructions 

and standards that align to NIST CSF. The previous policies, standards, procedures and 

guidelines outlined in Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO)-01, Information Security 
108 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Handbook, were superseded by OCIO 3-112, Cybersecurity Policy, as the Department’s new 

overarching cybersecurity policy. Under the new cybersecurity policy framework, all Department 

cybersecurity policies, instructions and standards will be subordinate to OCIO 3-112 and aligned 

to NIST CSF.

Cybersecurity Workforce Development

In order to develop a high-performing workforce as required by the President’s Management 

Agenda (PMA), the Department completed several actions in the area of cybersecurity 

workforce development, including an assessment and development of a preliminary report of the 

Department’s cybersecurity work roles, critical needs and associated root causes for identified 

needs as well as identification and coding of positions with IT, cybersecurity and other cyberrelated functions in alignment with the new Office of Personnel Management cybersecurity 

coding guidance. Through the position coding process, the Department identified and coded 

approximately 344 positions. 

In addition, the Department published a request for information to seek industry input around 

best practices for building and maintaining a strong cybersecurity workforce. The Department 

subsequently awarded a contract to assist in collecting and analyzing the cybersecurity workforce 

data points. 

The Department also established performance expectations by developing standard cybersecurity 

performance elements for the roles of Authorizing Official, Principal Officer, Information 

System Owner, Information System Security Officer and the Contracting Officer Representative. 

These performance standards will enable the Department to set consistent expectations around 

individual responsibilities for cybersecurity and ensure accountability across the respective roles 

for appropriately securing Department systems.

Cybersecurity Risk Management

The Department achieved 100 percent compliance for Binding Operational Directive 

(BOD) 18-01 (for the email security portion). Per BOD 18-02, the Department performed a 

review of its High Value Assets (HVAs) and submitted a current prioritized list of HVAs that 

accurately reflect mission impact and priorities. In addition, the Department actively participated 

in Department of Homeland Security’s Risk and Vulnerability Assessments program and Security 

Architecture Reviews on Department HVA systems. 

In addition, the Department refined and enhanced its Cybersecurity Risk Scorecard into an 

enterprise-wide risk management tool. The Cybersecurity Risk Scorecard leverages NIST 

CSF to establish a quantitative methodology for identifying, analyzing and managing systemlevel cybersecurity risks across the framework’s five core security functions: Identify, Protect, 
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 4 109

Detect, Respond and Recover. The risk scorecard has been an invaluable tool that has provided 

the Department with increased visibility into system-level cybersecurity risks and facilitated 

prioritization of remediation efforts, which has led to a holistic improvement of system 

cybersecurity hygiene across the Department.

IT Modernization and Infrastructure Enhancements

The Department conducted a comprehensive assessment of 

the Department’s IT portfolio to identify opportunities to 

optimize performance and value, minimize dependencies on 

legacy systems, consolidate and reduce the IT footprint and 

reduce overall cybersecurity risks. The results of the assessment 

informed the development of an IT Modernization Roadmap that 

will guide future IT priorities.

The Department also continued its work with the Department 

of Homeland Security to implement Continuous Diagnostics 

and Mitigation (CDM) tools within the Department’s primary 

network infrastructure. Additionally, in accordance with 

Department of Homeland Security’s Trusted Internet 

Connections Reference Architecture, as amended, the 

Department implemented enhancements to its network architecture to improve the Department’s 

ability to monitor and identify potentially malicious Internet activity. Finally, the Department 

continued to execute its strategy to transition to the General Services Administration’s Enterprise 

Infrastructure Solutions contract.

Enhancements to Cybersecurity Operations and Services

The Department made many improvements to increase capabilities and efficiencies in the areas 

of forensics, vulnerability management and security operations. In addition, the Department 

made great strides in increasing collaboration to strategically and operationally align security 

operations functions across Department Security Operations Centers.

Looking Forward

The Department has several contract transitions that will support the maturing of cybersecurity 

activities throughout the agency. The Department will continue to drive down risk through 

ongoing participation in Department of Homeland Security programs, such as the Risk and 

Vulnerability Assessments program and the CDM program. The Department is working to 

develop its cybersecurity workforce in alignment with the PMA by supporting initiatives to 

reskill those wishing to enter the cybersecurity workforce and by optimizing its Information 

“The Department 

conducted a 

comprehensive 

assessment of the 

Department’s IT 

portfolio to identify 

opportunities 

to optimize for 

performance and 

value.”
110 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

System Security Officer teams to ensure they have the appropriate knowledge, skills and 

abilities. During fiscal year (FY) 2019 and FY 2020, the Department will engage in numerous 

activities to strengthen cybersecurity, such as the following:

• Reduce reliance on manual processes by increasing automation where possible.

• Consolidate, eliminate or modernize the Department’s IT inventory and align it with the 

five-year IT visualization plan.

• Review and improve policies that direct the advancement of foundational and ongoing 

security activities that will protect the Department with automated tools, strengthening 

of internal controls and standardization of processes and reporting. Ultimately, these 

activities will drive reductions in cost and management complexity of cybersecurity 

functions.

• Increase and enhance enterprise-wide sharing of analytics and real-time threat 

information to improve enterprise-wide cybersecurity situational awareness, incident 

detection and tactical response.

• Consolidate IT cloud services as well as assess opportunities to increase the use of 

shared services.

• Mature a portfolio of the Department’s Cybersecurity Shared Services that evolve 

to create more value for the Department and primary offices for reduced operating 

expenditure and streamlined management.

• Provide relevant training, education and awareness to all Department employees 

regarding cybersecurity threats, risks and impacts, thereby encouraging greater 

individual accountability and responsiveness.

• Develop a highly capable cybersecurity workforce through specialized, role-based 

training and development.

• Refine standard operating procedures for Department cybersecurity incident reporting 

and response.

• Ensure all mission-critical applications and infrastructure have sufficient continuity of 

operations and disaster recovery capabilities.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 4 111

Performance Measures

Table 4.3-A. Percentage of the Department’s Information Technology (IT) security functions 

that improved at least one maturity level.

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Actual Target Target

Identify 

(level 3), 

Protect 

(level 2), 

Detect 

(level 2), 

Respond 

(level 2), 

Recover 

(level 2)

20% 40% 40% 60% 60% 60%

Notes: (1) Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018. 

(2) Metric revised following the FY 2017 Annual Performance Report and FY 2019 Annual 

Performance Plan reporting; see appendix B for details.

Data Source: Annual (fiscal year) Office of Inspector General Federal Information Security 

Modernization Act of 2014 Reporting Metrics Audit Report.

Frequency of Collection: Annually.

FY 2018

Actual

Baseline

Target

4.3-A Performance.

Acronyms and Definitions:

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

FY = fiscal year (i.e., federal fiscal year).

Target icons and odometer colors are defined as follows: green = performance meets or exceeds the established target, yellow = performance 

shows improvement from the prior year but does not meet the established target threshold, red = performance is at or below prior year’s 

performance and gray = metric is baselined in FY 2018 or later.
112 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Strategic Objective: 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 

Improve the engagement and preparation of the Department’s 

workforce using professional development and accountability 

measures.

Objective Leader: Chief Human Capital Officer for the Office of Finance and Operations2

Overview

In order to best serve the public, the Department must maximize employee effectiveness through 

robust employee engagement and performance management. The Department will continue to 

build the skills and knowledge of its workforce and will focus on competency gap identification 

and closure for all employees and offices. Furthermore, the Department must focus on ways to 

thrive in an operational climate that is resource constrained.

Improving the organizational structure and internal decision-making processes will spur 

opportunities to involve employees in thinking differently about strategies to reengineer, 

streamline or even eliminate work that does not serve the efficiency of the Department in 

achieving its strategic goals and desired outcomes. This work also supports the Department’s 

response to Office of Management and Budget’s memorandum, M-18-23: Shifting from LowValue to High-Value Work. Given its focus on the Department’s workforce, all Department 

offices support this Strategic Objective.

FY 2018 Actions and Results

To begin streamlining internal processes and increasing efficiency, the Department initiated a 

three-prong restructuring strategy focused on workforce shaping through attrition incentives, 

restricted hiring and a phased reorganization in support of the President’s Executive Order 

13781. The Department’s reform plan included reorganizational proposals that could be done 

administratively as well as potential proposals that would require statutory changes. The initial 

phase of the reorganization consolidates the Office of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary, 

consolidates various administrative and financial functions into a new Office of Finance and 

Operations and streamlines the Office of the Chief Information Officer, Office of Elementary 

and Secondary Education and the Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. 

Throughout fiscal year (FY) 2018, the Department worked to design and finalize the functional 

2

The Office of Finance and Operations is effective January 6, 2019.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 4 113

statements and organizational charts of the offices in the initial phase of the reorganization, 

effective January 2019. In FY 2018, the Department also used its Voluntary Early Retirement and 

Voluntary Separation Incentive Authorities in conjunction with a targeted hiring policy as forceshaping tools to reengineer and reduce positions based on mission needs.

In FY 2018, the Department concentrated on developing a more 

engaged and accountable workforce. Department leadership focused 

on employee engagement efforts, including the creation of Workforce 

Engagement committees to address program office-specific issues. 

This focus generated a number of engagement activities, newsletters, 

adherence to the Department’s Courtesy Policy and emphasis on 

fostering increased levels of dignity and respect. The Department 

also began to normalize engagement and accountability as a standard 

of successful leadership by developing an employee engagement 

critical element for all supervisor and manager performance plans. 

The Department is firmly committed to understanding and using Federal Employee Viewpoint 

Survey (FEVS) feedback to directly engage with employees. Principal operating component 

(POC) leaders, who are familiar with the needs of their employees, received FEVS analysis 

(i.e., interactive annual employee survey dashboards, FEVS trend analysis by indices and 

key driver trend analysis), and several conducted follow-up pulse surveys, focus groups or 

discussions with employees that focused on how to better engage with staff.

The Department led numerous conversations where leaders and employees discussed various 

workplace-related topics of interest in relation to FEVS and employee engagement. The 

Department offered monthly agency-wide employee engagement seminars that were aligned 

with the Department’s Employee Engagement Roadmap—Promising Practices and the employee 

engagement drivers identified by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Seminar topics 

included effective communication between supervisors and team members, professional 

development, change management, engagement of millennials, employee awards and recognition 

and diversity and inclusion. The Department also implemented an annual POC Employee 

Engagement Forum, which provided an opportunity for leadership across various offices to share 

employee engagement strategies that worked in their teams and positively impacted their FEVS 

scores. The Department required all POCs to develop employee engagement action plans, and 

analysis of the action plans identified common improvement themes. Quarterly follow-up and 

action plan data calls helped identify successful improvement initiatives and best practices to 

share across POCs.

In addition to Department-wide efforts, individual offices designed training to build the capacity 

of their staff. For example, in FY 2018, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) sponsored a four-day 

training for regional directors of OCR’s 12 regional offices in the United States. Also during 

FY 2018, 22 OCR academy trainings were held, 12 OCR staff participated in Employee 

“In FY 2018, 

the Department 

concentrated 

on developing 

a more engaged 

and accountable 

workforce. ”
114 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Engagement and Advisory Committee and Diversity and Inclusion Council-sponsored training 

sessions and 13 OCR staff completed Freedom of Information Act training sessions.

The Department also leveraged leadership development programs to expand professional 

development opportunities. For example, the Department developed an Administrative 

Professional Development Program to enhance staff administrative skillsets. Additionally, the 

Department continued its administration of leadership and professional development programs, 

such as promoting and supporting staff participation in the following programs:

• The Federal Executive Institute Leadership for a Democratic Society program, the 

Excellence in Government Fellows program and the President’s Management Council 

rotational program are designed for General Schedule (GS)-13 through GS-15 employees 

and focus on expanding their leadership and management skills. In FY 2018, 

23 employees graduated from these programs.

• Transition to Supervision is a year-long supervisory program that develops new 

supervisors, team leaders and managers to assist them in their transition to their new role 

as a federal supervisor. Ten employees completed the program, and an additional 

10 employees were selected to participate in FY 2019.

• The Treasury Executive Institute provides senior executives and their leadership team 

of GS-13 through GS-15 leaders with access to a range of developmental workshops, 

speaker events, seminars and executive coaching services to enhance their professional 

development in FY 2018 (Quarters 1 through 3). Seventy-eight leaders completed 

training, and 19 leaders received executive coaching services.

• The White House Leadership Development Program is a year-long developmental 

opportunity sponsored by the Executive Office of the President, the President’s 

Management Council and the Performance Improvement Council focused on developing 

high-potential career GS-15 employees poised to enter the next generation of career 

senior executives. In FY 2018, the Department nominated one employee for this 

program.

• The Grants Management Certificate Program is a year-long program designed for 

grants management professionals to enhance their skills performing grants management 

functions for federal grantee awards. In FY 2018, the Department selected 19 employees 

to participate in the FY 2019 cohort.

• Pathways to Leadership is a program designed for GS-11 through GS-13 employees who 

aspire to move into the position of supervising, managing and leading others. In FY 2018, 

19 employees graduated from the program, and 20 employees were selected to participate 

in the FY 2019 cohort.
Performance Assessment and Planning—Goal 4 115

Looking Forward

The Department has embarked on a multi-year staff competency assessment and skill gap closure 

strategy to identify competencies for all agency positions and ensure employees have the skills 

necessary to fulfill their positions. During FY 2019 and FY 2020, the Department will:

• Administer competency assessments to identify skill gaps, analyze data and prepare 

competency assessment reports. Once employees’ skill gaps are identified, the 

Department will prioritize training needs based on competency assessment results 

and provide training and other developmental opportunities to the workforce to close 

competency gaps.

• Enforce supervisors having Individual Development Plans and track compliance.

• Offer a rotational pilot program and an internal coaching program to employees.

• Continue to execute a Department-wide strategic employee engagement initiative to 

include OPM’s reporting requirement for the President’s Management Agenda milestone 

within the Workforce of the 21st Century Cross-Agency Priority Goal as follows:

The Department will identify the bottom 20 percent of work units with low FEVS 

Employee Engagement Index scores and target a 20 percent improvement in those 

units by the end of the FY 2020.

FEVS results will be disseminated to the lowest organizational level possible.

POCs will continue to develop action plans for improvement and provide quarterly 

updates on progress.
116 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Performance Measures

Table 4.4-A. Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) employee engagement index score.

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Actual Target Target

67% 63% 68% 64% 65% 66% 67%

Notes: (1) Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018. 

(2) Targets revised following the FY 2017 Annual Performance Report and FY 2019 Annual 

Performance Plan reporting.

Data Source: Office of Personnel Management’s FEVS.

Frequency of Collection: Annually.

FY 2018

Actual

Target

Baseline

4.4-A Performance.

Table 4.4-B. Percentage of positions with competencies identified.

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Actual Target Target

19% 100% 25% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Notes: (1) Data represent the fiscal year (FY). For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018. 

(2) Targets revised following the FY 2017 Annual Performance Report and FY 2019 Annual 

Performance Plan reporting. (3) Verification and validation activities occurred in FY 2019.

Data Source: The Department’s Talent Management System.

Frequency of Collection: Annually.

FY 2018

Actual

Baseline

Target

4.4-B Performance.

Table 4.4-C. Percentage of supervisors and managers with a performance plan critical 

element related to employee engagement.

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline Actual Target Target

5% 35% 35% 98% 100% 100% 100%

Notes: (1) Data represent the fiscal year. For example, 2018 data represent FY 2018. (2) Targets 

revised following the FY 2017 Annual Performance Report and FY 2019 Annual Performance 

Plan reporting.

Data Source: The Department’s Talent Management System and USA Performance.

Frequency of Collection: Annually.

FY 2018

Actual

Baseline

Target

4.4-C Performance.

Acronyms and Definitions:

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

year (i.e., federal fiscal year).

Target icons and odometer colors are defined as follows: green = performance meets or exceeds the established target, yellow = performance 

shows improvement from the prior year but does not meet the established target threshold, red = performance is at or below prior year’s 

performance and gray = metric is baselined in FY 2018 or later.
Appendix A. Data Validation and Verification 117

Appendix A. Data Validation and 

Verification

Appendix A provides data validation and verification information for all performance metrics 

found across the Department’s four Strategic Goals.

Strategic Goal 1: Support state and local efforts to improve learning 

outcomes for all P–12 students in every community.

1.1-A. Number of open and operating charter schools supported by Charter Schools Program (CSP).

Data Source: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD) (used to 

identify all charter schools and enrollees) and grantee annual performance reports (APRs) 

(used to identify the subset of charter schools in CCD that receive CSP support).

Data Validation 

and Verification:

CSP staff and contractors review reported data for anomalies and compare APRs with 

NCES CCD to confirm reporting accuracies. Grantees are questioned about any identified 

inconsistencies and must confirm or update reporting. The CSP Director is responsible for 

certifying data are accurate.

1.1-B. Number of students enrolled in charter schools supported by Charter Schools Program (CSP).

Data Source: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD) (used to 

identify all charter schools and enrollees) and grantee annual performance reports (APRs) 

(used to identify the subset of charter schools in CCD that receive CSP support).

Data Validation 

and Verification:

CSP staff and contractors review reported data for anomalies and compare APRs with 

NCES CCD to confirm reporting accuracies. Grantees are questioned about any identified 

inconsistencies and must confirm or update reporting. The CSP Director is responsible for 

certifying data are accurate.

1.1-C. Number of new resources on evidence-based and promising practices related to school choice 

disseminated.

Data Source: National Charter School Resource Center and Institute of Education Sciences (IES)-

sponsored materials.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Charter Schools Program (CSP) and IES staff review potential resources to verify that 

resources meet established guidelines. The CSP Director is responsible for certifying data 

are accurate.
118 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

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

Data Source: Magnet School Assistance Program (MSAP) grantee annual performance reports.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The MSAP contractor conducts data reviews of grantee performance data. The contractor is 

responsible for locating, assessing and recording annual performance data. Review protocols 

include checking and documenting the presence and completeness of performance measure 

data for analysis. The contractor’s research staff discusses anomalous data with grantees, who 

verify or correct submissions. Valid anomalies are documented. The Parental Options and 

Improvement Programs Director is responsible for certifying data are accurate.

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

in grades 3 through 8 scoring at or above proficient on state assessments in reading in all of the following 

subgroups: economically disadvantaged, children with disabilities, English learners, migrant, homeless and 

major racial and ethnic groups.

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

EDFacts files C175, C178, C185 and C188.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

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

Program (OSEP) and EDFacts conduct a thorough, coordinated data quality review of the 

assessment data submitted by states. OSEP reviews this set of assessment data files for 

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Section 618, and OESE reviews this set of 

assessment data files for the Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR). Reviews focus 

on three areas: timeliness, completeness and accuracy. OESE, OSEP and EDFacts conduct 

three data quality reviews of states’ assessment data submissions. The first two data quality 

reviews result in data quality inquiries, comments and questions for states’ respondents. 

States may respond through resubmission, written response or data notes. The third data 

quality review is conducted to ensure published data meet established data quality criteria. 

OESE, OSEP and EDFacts hold conference calls with states to gain a better understanding 

of identified anomalies and provide technical assistance to empower states to submit higher 

quality assessment data. Data quality reviews are conducted following each due date/

resubmission date. Outstanding questions regarding accuracy may result in data suppression. 

Note that this metric is impacted by changes to state assessment systems. Changes to state 

assessments, performance levels, cut scores, etc., invalidate the year-to-year analysis to 

identify states that showed improvements in the percentage of students who are proficient. 

States sign a certification when submitting their CSPR. If questions remain upon completion 

of the Department’s data quality review process regarding whether the data submitted by a 

state are accurate, the Department may decide not to publish or use the data. 
Appendix A. Data Validation and Verification 119

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

grades 3 through 8 scoring at or above proficient on state assessments in mathematics in all of the following 

subgroups: economically disadvantaged, children with disabilities, English learners, migrant, homeless and 

major racial and ethnic groups.

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

EDFacts files Cl75, Cl78, Cl85 and Cl88.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

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

Program (OSEP) and EDFacts conduct a thorough, coordinated data quality review of the 

assessment data submitted by states. OSEP reviews this set of assessment data files for 

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Section 618, and OESE reviews this set of 

assessment data files for the Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR). Reviews focus 

on three areas: timeliness, completeness and accuracy. OESE, OSEP and EDFacts conduct 

three data quality reviews of states’ assessment data submissions. The first two data quality 

reviews result in data quality inquiries, comments and questions for states’ respondents. 

States may respond through resubmission, written response or data notes. The third data 

quality review is conducted to ensure published data meet established data quality criteria. 

OESE, OSEP and EDFacts hold conference calls with states to gain a better understanding 

of identified anomalies and provide technical assistance to empower states to submit higher 

quality assessment data. Data quality reviews are conducted following each due date/

resubmission date. Outstanding questions regarding accuracy may result in data suppression. 

Note that this metric is impacted by changes to state assessment systems. Changes to state 

assessments, performance levels, cut scores, etc., invalidate the year-to-year analysis to 

identify states that showed improvements in the percentage of students who are proficient. 

States sign a certification when submitting their CSPR. If questions remain upon completion 

of the Department’s data quality review process regarding whether the data submitted by a 

state are accurate, the Department may decide not to publish or use the data.

1.2-C. Percentage of states with 80 percent or more of preschoolers with disabilities that showed greater 

than expected growth in social-emotional skills by the time they exit Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act (IDEA) Part B, Section 619 services.

Data Source: IDEA Part B state annual performance reports (APRs).

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The Office of Special Education Program’s (OSEP’s) state leads review each state’s APR for 

data quality. The Monitoring and State Improvement Planning Division Data Implementation 

Team and OSEP’s Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center, which has expertise in early 

childhood outcome measurement systems, reviews the full set of data for anomalies and other 

data quality concerns. The center publishes a brief of its data analysis methodology at 

http://ectacenter.org/. The number of states collecting high-quality data has increased over 

time as states continue to build their capacity to collecting valid and reliable data. These 

efforts are supported by the aforementioned Technical Assistance Center, which helps states 

build and improve their outcome measurement systems, collect and analyze data and use data 

to make program improvements. States certify that the data they turn in to OSEP are accurate. 

The OSEP Director signs the determination letter for each state.
120 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

1.2-D. Percentage of students in the country who have Internet bandwidth at school of at least 100 kbps 

per student.

Data Source: Education SuperHighway.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Verification and validation of data are managed by Education SuperHighway and documented 

at https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/esh-sots-pdfs/2018%20State%20of%20the%20States.

pdf. The process for checking for anomalous data is managed by Education SuperHighway. 

The Office of Education Technology is responsible for certifying data are accurate.

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

10 gigabits per second.

Data Source: Education SuperHighway.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Verification and validation of data are managed by Education SuperHighway and documented 

at https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/esh-sots-pdfs/2018%20State%20of%20the%20States.

pdf. The process for checking for anomalous data is managed by Education SuperHighway. 

The Office of Education Technology is responsible for certifying data are accurate.

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

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

Data Source: Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR).

Data Validation 

and Verification:

CSPR data undergo a formal, extensive verification and validation process. Data submitted 

through EDFacts/CSPR are reviewed between December and May immediately following 

the submission due date. The Office of State Support (OSS) staff review office-relevant 

data and provide the results to the OSS data team, the Office of Elementary and Secondary 

Education (OESE) front office and EDFacts teams for subsequent review and follow-up. All 

staff engaged in this process are trained in the content and review process for these data. Due 

to the scope and complexity of the process, most data included in CSPR are not considered 

final and available for use until May. However, since the review of the report card link only 

involves navigating to the web location and confirming that a current report card is posted, 

OSS is able to use preliminary data, which are available earlier in the year, for this metric. 

OESE and supporting office staff check and verify anomalous data, documenting any valid 

anomalies before public release. States are responsible for certifying the accuracy of data 

submitted through CSPR. 

1.2-G. Percentage of monitored states publicly reporting information on each indicator in the state’s 

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

improvement.

Data Source: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) Title I monitoring reports of Every 

Student Succeeds Act state report cards.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

OESE collects data for this metric during Title I monitoring. Monitoring reports are reviewed 

by staff in the Office of State Support and OESE and are submitted to states as part of the 

monitoring process. Program officers are trained for consistent and standard application of 

monitoring protocols. OESE and supporting office staff check and verify anomalous data, 

documenting any valid anomalies before public release. OESE is responsible for monitoring 

the Title I program and following the protocols necessary to ensure data are accurate.
Appendix A. Data Validation and Verification 121

1.3-A. Number of discretionary grant notices with Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics 

(STEM) as a priority.

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

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

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

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

Office of English Language Acquisition.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Reports can be checked against the Notice Inviting Applications for each competition. Each 

program office listed in the data source is responsible for certifying their data are accurate.

1.3-B. Number of public high school students by graduating cohort who have taken at least one Advanced 

Placement (AP) Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) exam while in high school.

Data Source: College Board.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

College Board addresses all data quality issues and is responsible for certifying data are 

accurate.

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

Placement (AP) Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) exam while in high school and 

scored a 3 or better.

Data Source: College Board.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

College Board addresses all data quality issues and is responsible for certifying data are 

accurate.

1.3-D. Number of adult education participants who achieve a measurable skill gain.

Data Source: National Reporting System for Adult Education.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data are verified through the federal review of state data submissions via desk monitoring, 

on-site reviews and technical assistance.

1.3-E. Number of adult education participants who obtain a secondary school diploma or its equivalent 

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

Data Source: National Reporting System for Adult Education.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data are verified through the federal review of state data submissions via desk monitoring, 

on-site reviews and technical assistance.

1.3-F. Number of secondary career and technical education (CTE) concentrators who attain a secondary 

school diploma, a General Education Development credential or other state-recognized equivalent.

Data Source: State Consolidated Annual Reports for the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education 

Act.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data are verified through the federal review of state data submissions via desk monitoring, 

on-site reviews and technical assistance.
122 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

1.3-G. Number of adult education participants enrolled in an integrated education and training (IET) 

program.

Data Source: National Reporting System for Adult Education.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data are verified through the federal review of state data submissions via desk monitoring, 

on-site reviews and technical assistance.

1.3-H. Number of adult education participants who advance one educational functioning level in 

mathematics.

Data Source: National Reporting System for Adult Education.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data are verified through the federal review of state data submissions via desk monitoring, 

on-site reviews and technical assistance.

1.3-I. Number of secondary career and technical education (CTE) concentrators placed in employment, 

further training or the military.

Data Source: State Consolidated Annual Reports for the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education 

Act.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data are verified through the federal review of state data submissions via desk monitoring, 

on-site reviews and technical assistance.

1.3-J. Number of secondary career and technical education (CTE) concentrators enrolling in Science, 

Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM).

Data Source: State Consolidated Annual Reports for the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education 

Act.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data are verified through the federal review of state data submissions via desk monitoring, 

on-site reviews and technical assistance.

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

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

Data Source: Department offices that deliver technical assistance.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Program offices review activities and apply established, qualification criteria. The Policy and 

Program Studies Service reviews submissions and follows up with offices to address any 

anomalous data. Each program office identifies the point of contact responsible for certifying 

accuracy of the data.
Appendix A. Data Validation and Verification 123

Strategic Goal 2: Expand postsecondary educational opportunities, 

improve outcomes to foster economic opportunity and promote an 

informed, thoughtful and productive citizenry.

2.1-A. Percentage of Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) grantees with large available balances.

Data Source: The Department’s Grants Management System (G5) grantee documentation.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The Office of Postsecondary Education staff conduct a programmatic and financial review 

of G5 and grantee documentation to determine the fourth quarter large available balances for 

higher education programs.

2.1-B. Percentage of Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) grantees with large available balances 

that received technical assistance resulting in “Resolved with Good Explanation.”

Data Source: The Department’s Grants Management System (G5) grantee documentation.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The Office of Postsecondary Education staff conduct a programmatic and financial review 

of G5 and grantee documentation to determine the fourth quarter large available balances for 

higher education programs.

2.1-C. Percentage of annual statutory requirements for Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) programs 

that are fulfilled by OPE.

Data Source: Program specialist and supervisor reviews.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The Office of Postsecondary Education reviews program performance reports to ensure 

compliance with a line-by-line list of statutory requirements. The Office of the General 

Counsel provides consultation in any question about whether a requirement has truly been 

fulfilled. Senior directors in higher education programs are responsible for certifying data are 

accurate.

2.1-D. Percentage of first-time Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA®) filers among high school 

seniors.

Data Source: The Office of Federal Student Aid’s (FSA’s) Central Processing System.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

FSA operational systems have procedures in place to address potential data quality issues. 

The process in place for querying system data is consistent and disciplined. A separate data 

analyst from a different office within FSA validates the accuracy of each query and the 

resulting data and validates any anomalous data. Queries and calculations are simultaneously 

conducted on data from previous years by FSA’s Business Intelligence Team to ensure 

technical definitions remain consistent. The Customer Analytics Group is responsible for the 

primary calculation of the metric. The Business Intelligence Team is also responsible for the 

technical validation of the metric, which is done by reviewing for accuracy the query used 

to pull the data and all calculations made with the data. Finally, the Financial Reporting and 

Analysis Branch is responsible for ensuring that the documentation is complete and archived. 

These calculations restrict the application period to the first nine months of the application 

cycle (the close of the fiscal year). Since most applicants, including high school seniors, file 

their FAFSA® prior to the start of the upcoming academic year (usually before the fiscal year 

end), this aligns the performance metric with the fiscal year where most of the performance 

occurred.
124 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

2.1-E. Persistence among first-time filing aid recipients.

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

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data results are ascertained through standardized system queries. These queries are used 

to rerun and match calculations for earlier cycles as part of the verification and validity 

assessment.

2.2-A. Number of technical assistance events or activities and products focused on the use of evidence in 

federal programs that promote educational opportunities, training and support services for the workforce.

Data Source: Department offices that deliver technical assistance.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Criteria for and examples of technical assistance events/activities and products are provided 

to program office representatives. The criteria are flexible to accommodate different technical 

assistance offerings provided across the Department. The Policy and Program Studies 

Service reviews program offices’ submission to address any anomalous data. The Department 

conducted level setting meetings with staff charged with reporting from each program office 

to support the collection of standard and meaningful data. Program office contacts in each 

program office are responsible for certifying data accuracy.

2.2-B. Percentage of adult education program participants who are in unsubsidized employment during 

the second quarter after exit from the program.

Data Source: National Reporting System annual state reports. 

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data are verified through the federal review of state data submissions via desk monitoring, 

on-site reviews and technical assistance.

2.2-C. Percentage of Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) program participants who are in unsubsidized 

employment during the second quarter after exit from the program.

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

Report.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

RSA maintains a comprehensive edit check table on its website. The table details, by data 

element, edit checks required to ensure data integrity. Edits describe constraints that should 

be satisfied by the data. RSA staff analyze each data submission to determine whether data 

are consistent with edit checks. Data submissions that fail to pass edit checks are returned 

to the VR agency for correction and resubmission. Corrections must be consistent with the 

agency’s electronic case management system and the supporting documentation maintained 

by the agency. RSA’s data editing process utilizes both hard and soft edits. Hard edits 

identify records that “fail” based on erroneous combinations or missing values. Soft edits 

are constraints that identify (combinations of) values that are suspicious but not necessarily 

incorrect. RSA data staff conduct macro-level checks to uncover inconsistencies in data 

reported by state VR agencies (e.g., formatting errors, necessary relationships between data 

elements and completeness of submissions). RSA requests agencies investigate and correct 

any anomalies in subsequent report submissions. VR directors or individuals formally 

delegated the authority to submit the data on behalf of the VR directors certify data accuracy.
Appendix A. Data Validation and Verification 125

2.2-D. Percentage of Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) program participants who, during a program year, are 

in an education or training program that leads to a recognized postsecondary credential or employment and 

who are achieving measurable skill gains, defined as documented academic, technical, occupational or other 

forms of progress, towards such a credential or employment.

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

Report.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

RSA maintains a comprehensive edit check table on its website. The table details, by data 

element, edit checks required to ensure data integrity. Edits describe constraints that should 

be satisfied by the data. RSA staff analyze each data submission to determine whether data 

are consistent with edit checks. Data submissions that fail to pass edit checks are returned 

to the VR agency for correction and resubmission. Corrections must be consistent with the 

agency’s electronic case management system and the supporting documentation maintained 

by the agency. RSA’s data editing process utilizes both hard and soft edits. Hard edits 

identify records that “fail” based on erroneous combinations or missing values. Soft edits 

are constraints that identify (combinations of) values that are suspicious but not necessarily 

incorrect. RSA data staff conduct macro-level checks to uncover inconsistencies in data 

reported by state VR agencies (e.g., formatting errors, necessary relationships between data 

elements and completeness of submissions). RSA requests agencies investigate and correct 

any anomalies in subsequent report submissions. VR directors or individuals formally 

delegated the authority to submit the data on behalf of the VR directors certify data accuracy.

2.3-A. Number of technical assistance activities sponsored by the Department intended to expand or 

enhance the integration of workforce preparation activities within academic instruction in adult 

education classrooms.

Data Source: Contractor quarterly progress reports.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The Office of Career, Technical and Adult Education (OCTAE) staff vet all event materials 

prior to an actual event. For virtual events, the contractor provides relevant analytics as 

supporting documentation. For face-to-face events, the contractor collects sign-in sheets and 

event evaluation forms. OCTAE staff review contractor documentation for anomalous or 

unclear submissions and follow up with the appropriate contractor. The Deputy Director of 

the Division of Adult Education and Literacy within OCTAE certifies data accuracy.

2.3-B. Percentage of postsecondary career and technical education (CTE) concentrators who received an 

industry-recognized credential, certificate or a degree.

Data Source: State Consolidated Annual Reports for the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education 

Act.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data are verified through the federal review of state data submissions via desk monitoring, 

on-site reviews and technical assistance.
126 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

2.4-A. Number of federal loan servicers’ call centers with expanded hours.

Data Source: Federal servicers’ quarterly reports.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Verification and validation of performance by federal student loan servicers are conducted by 

the Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA) staff and include, but are not limited to, (1) review 

and validation of federal servicer reports, (2) ongoing/recurring quality assurance discussion 

with federal servicers, (3) site visits to federal servicer call center sites and (4) documented 

on-phone (“mystery caller”) evaluations of services. FSA addresses any deficiencies or 

anomalies through direct contact with federal servicers, requests for information, audits, 

site visits and/or other assessment measures of performance, as applicable. FSA’s Business 

Operations Officer, who oversees all of FSA’s federal student loan servicers, certifies data 

accuracy.

2.4-B. Number of call centers that meet or exceed the quality standard for average speed to answer (ASA).

Data Source: Federal servicers’ quarterly reports.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Verification and validation of performance by federal student loan servicers are conducted by 

the Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA) staff and include, but are not limited to, (1) review 

and validation of federal servicer reports, (2) ongoing/recurring quality assurance discussion 

with federal servicers, (3) site visits to federal servicer call center sites and (4) documented 

on-phone (“mystery caller”) evaluations of services. FSA addresses any deficiencies or 

anomalies through direct contact with federal servicers, requests for information, audits, 

site visits and/or other assessment measures of performance, as applicable. FSA’s Business 

Operations Officer, who oversees all of FSA’s federal student loan servicers, certifies data 

accuracy.

2.4-C. Number of call centers that meet or exceed the quality standard for average abandon rate (AR) for 

incoming calls.

Data Source: Federal servicers’ quarterly reports.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Verification and validation of performance by federal student loan servicers are conducted by 

the Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA) staff and includes, but is not limited to, (1) review 

and validation of federal servicer reports, (2) ongoing/recurring quality assurance discussion 

with federal servicers, (3) site visits to federal servicer call center sites and (4) documented 

on-phone (“mystery caller”) evaluations of services. FSA addresses any deficiencies or 

anomalies through direct contact with federal servicers, requests for information, audits, 

site visits and/or other assessment measures of performance, as applicable. FSA’s Business 

Operations Officer, who oversees all of FSA’s federal student loan servicers, certifies data 

accuracy.

2.4-D. American Consumer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) Aid Life Cycle Surveys.

Data Source: The Office of Federal Student Aid’s (FSA’s) Customer Satisfaction Survey.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

This metric is a direct reflection of the data collected through the ACSI Aid Life Cycle 

Survey. FSA monitors the system to ensure it is secure and that query results are consistent.

2.4-E. Number of downloads of the myStudentAid mobile app.

Data Source: Metrics from Apple’s App Store and Google Play. 

Data Validation 

and Verification:

This metric is a direct reflection of the data platform analytics. FSA monitors the system to 

ensure it is secure and that query results are consistent.
Appendix A. Data Validation and Verification 127

2.4-F. Number of customers checking loan balances via the myStudentAid mobile app.

Data Source: The Office of Federal Student Aid’s (FSA’s) online platform analytics.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

This metric is a direct reflection of the data platform analytics. FSA monitors the system to 

ensure it is secure and that query results are consistent.

2.4-G. Number of customers submitting a Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA®) via a mobile 

platform—the myStudentAid mobile app or fafsa.gov.

Data Source: The Office of Federal Student Aid’s (FSA’s) online platform analytics.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

This metric is a direct reflection of the data platform analytics. FSA monitors the system to 

ensure it is secure and that query results are consistent.

2.4-H. Number of visits (sessions) demonstrating adoption of the updated StudentAid.gov site.

Data Source: The Office of Federal Student Aid’s (FSA’s) online platform analytics.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

This metric is a direct reflection of the data platform analytics. FSA monitors the system to 

ensure it is secure and that query results are consistent.

2.5-A. Percentage of borrowers who are more than 30 days delinquent.

Data Source: The Office of Federal Student Aid’s (FSA’s) data warehouse.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

FSA staff collect data on a quarterly basis from FSA’s data warehouse. Verification and 

validation of the rate(s) of delinquency are conducted by FSA’s Office of Performance 

Management. FSA addresses any deficiencies through collaboration with subject matter 

experts within the Office of Performance Management. No limitations, other than macroeconomic situations (i.e., economic downturn), have been identified. FSA’s Deputy Chief 

Operating Officer certifies data accuracy.

2.5-B. Percentage of borrowers who are more than 90 days delinquent.

Data Source: The Office of Federal Student Aid’s (FSA’s) data warehouse.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

FSA staff collect data on a quarterly basis from FSA’s data warehouse. Verification and 

validation of the rate(s) of delinquency are conducted by FSA’s Office of Performance 

Management. FSA addresses any deficiencies through collaboration with subject matter 

experts within the Office of Performance Management. No limitations, other than macroeconomic situations (i.e., economic downturn), have been identified. FSA’s Deputy Chief 

Operating Officer certifies data accuracy.
128 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Strategic Goal 3: Strengthen the quality, accessibility and use of 

education data through better management, increased privacy 

protections and transparency.

3.1-A. Number of data management activities for which Department-wide procedures or templates have 

been created and reviewed through the Data Strategy Team (DST).

Data Source: Minutes from monthly DST meetings.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Minutes from monthly DST meetings are submitted by the DST support contractor to the 

DST co-chairs for review and acceptance. Meetings occur every two weeks, providing both 

the DST support contractor and the DST co-chairs with an opportunity to review and finalize 

documentation of the DST meetings in a timely fashion and before subsequent DST monthly 

meetings are held. Data identified by the DST co-chairs as anomalous are discussed at one of 

the biweekly meetings between the co-chairs and the DST support contractor. Anomalous data 

are researched using the original meeting notes from the monthly meeting in question and 

followed up with calls from the co-chairs to any points of contact whose approval or whose 

attendance at the monthly meeting was in question. The DST co-chairs certify data accuracy.

3.1-B. Number of Department program offices participating in Data Strategy Team (DST)-offered data 

management training.

Data Source: Minutes from monthly DST meetings.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Minutes from monthly DST meetings are submitted by the DST support contractor to the 

DST co-chairs for review and acceptance. Meetings occur every two weeks, providing both 

the DST support contractor and the DST co-chairs with an opportunity to review and finalize 

documentation of the DST meetings in a timely fashion and before subsequent DST monthly 

meetings are held. Data identified by the DST co-chairs as anomalous are discussed at one 

of the biweekly meetings between the co-chairs and the DST support contractor. Anomalous 

data are researched using the original meeting notes from the monthly meeting in question 

and followed up with calls from the co-chairs to any points of contact whose approval or 

whose attendance at the monthly meeting was in question. The DST co-chairs certify data 

accuracy.

3.2-A. Number of institutions of higher education (IHEs) that have an audit of Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

(GLBA)-related information security safeguards which result in no significant findings.

Data Source: IHE-provided auditor reports.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The Office of Federal Student Aid’s (FSA’s) Senior Advisor for Cybersecurity, in 

collaboration with the Department’s Chief Privacy Officer, review, validate and verify 

data on a quarterly basis through comparisons with report data, FSA records and ongoing 

compliance and investigation records regarding data breaches. Anomalous data resulting 

from GLBA-related audits are brought to the attention of the auditing entities and reconciled, 

where possible. There are no identified nuances or limitations to the data. FSA’s Deputy Chief 

Operating Officer certifies data accuracy.
Appendix A. Data Validation and Verification 129

3.2-B. Number of outreach activities targeting data privacy and information technology (IT) security 

requirements of institutions of higher education (IHEs).

Data Source: Outreach activity records maintained by the Privacy Technical Assistance Center.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The Office of Federal Student Aid’s (FSA’s) Senior Advisor for Cybersecurity, in 

collaboration with the Department’s Chief Privacy Officer, review, validate and verify data on 

a quarterly basis through comparisons with report data, FSA records and ongoing compliance 

and investigation records regarding data breaches. Anomalous data related to outreach 

activities are noted, and staff and contractors are questioned to ensure that outreach activities 

and programs fall within the defined qualifying activities. There are no identified nuances or 

limitations to the data. FSA’s Deputy Chief Operating Officer certifies data accuracy.

3.2-C. Percentage of local educational agency (LEA) websites from a statistically representative sample 

reviewed for inclusion of transparency best practices and compliance with legal requirements relating to 

third-party contracting.

Data Source: Selected LEA public websites.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The Director of Student Privacy Policy, in collaboration with the Department’s Chief Privacy 

Officer, verify and validate these data on a quarterly basis. Anomalous data are noted in 

the comments field, and staff and contractors are questioned to ensure that district website 

reviews are accurate and complete. No limitations are anticipated. The Chief Privacy Officer 

certifies data accuracy.

3.3-A. Number of sessions dedicated to improved data use provided to external grantees and stakeholders 

presented by Department employees or their contractors or occurring at Department-hosted events.

Data Source: Policy and Planning Support Service (PPSS) records collection.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

PPSS tracks sessions on a SharePoint site collection. Program offices submitting the data 

are responsible for verifying accuracy. The dashboard includes a data accuracy statement 

that program offices submitting data must agree to prior to entering data into the dashboard. 

The Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development (OPEPD)-PPSS investigates 

any anomalous data. Anomalous data are researched using the original data submitted and 

include follow-up calls to the program office, when necessary. The Department’s multiple 

data-focused teams, such as the Data Strategy Team, EDFacts Data Governance Board and 

InformED, continuously remind program offices to enter their data. OPEPD-PPSS certifies 

data accuracy to the best of their knowledge.

3.3-B. Number of newly added publicly available datasets in machine-readable formats.

Data Source: The Department’s public data listing.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The Office of the Associate Commissioner for the Administrative Data Division within 

the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) verifies that data listing extracts 

match inventory. NCES and the Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development’s 

(OPEPD’s) Policy and Planning Support Service (PPSS) discuss and review data identified 

as anomalous. Anomalous data are researched using the original metadata submitted and the 

extraction. Follow-up calls to the contact person listed for the dataset in question are made 

when necessary. The universe of the data used in this reporting does not currently reflect the 

full universe of data that are or could be made publicly available by the Department. There 

may also be access points to machine-readable data not listed in the public data listing. These 

gaps will continue to close as the public data listing becomes more complete. OPEPD-PPSS 

certifies data accuracy to the best of their knowledge.
130 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

3.3-C. Percentage of discretionary grant competitions that include the requirement to openly license to the 

public copyrightable grant deliverables created with Department grant funds.

Data Source: Information collection packages.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The Office of Management’s (OM’s) Information Collections Clearance Division (ICCD) is 

responsible for ensuring information is accurate based on information received through the 

information collection packages. The Office of Education Technology (OET) and OM-ICCD 

staff work together to ensure questions and concerns are addressed or escalated to program 

offices for clarification. OET certifies data accuracy to the best of its knowledge.

Strategic Goal 4: Reform the effectiveness, efficiency and 

accountability of the Department.

4.1-A. Number of evaluations to identify potential Executive Order (EO) 13771 deregulatory actions that 

included opportunity for public input and/or peer review.

Data Source: Department reports to the Office of Management and Budget.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The Division of Regulatory Services monitors data and verifies numbers. The Office of the 

General Council’s Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Services certifies data accuracy.

4.1-B. Number of Executive Order (EO) 13771 deregulatory actions recommended by the Regulatory 

Reform Task Force to the agency head consistent with applicable law.

Data Source: Department records.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The Division of Regulatory Services monitors data and verifies numbers. The Office of the 

General Council’s Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Services certifies data accuracy.

4.1-C. Number of Executive Order (EO) 13771 deregulatory actions issued that address recommendations 

by the Regulatory Reform Task Force.

Data Source: Federal Register and https://www.ed.gov/.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The Division of Regulatory Services monitors data and verifies numbers. The Office of the 

General Council’s Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Services certifies data accuracy.

4.1-D. Number of Executive Order (EO) 13771 regulatory actions and, separately, EO 13771 deregulatory 

actions issued.

Data Source: Federal Register and https://www.ed.gov/.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The Division of Regulatory Services monitors data and verifies numbers. The Office of the 

General Council’s Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Services certifies data accuracy.

4.1-E. Total incremental cost of all Executive Order (EO) 13771 regulatory actions and EO 13771 

deregulatory actions (including costs or cost savings carried over from previous fiscal years).

Data Source: Department reports to the Office of Management and Budget.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The Division of Regulatory Services monitors data and verifies numbers. The Office of the 

General Council’s Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Services certifies data accuracy.
Appendix A. Data Validation and Verification 131

4.1-F. Number of significant deregulatory actions submitted to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), the number of actions reflected on Reginfo.gov.

Data Source: Reginfo.gov.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The Division of Regulatory Services monitors data and verifies numbers. The Office of the 

General Council’s Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Services certifies data accuracy.

4.1-G. Number of requests for significance determination of deregulatory actions submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) by email.

Data Source: Emails between the Department and OMB.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The Division of Regulatory Services monitors data and verifies numbers. The Office of the 

General Council’s Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Services certifies data accuracy.

4.1-H. Number of deregulatory actions submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Data Source: Reginfo.gov and emails between the Department and OMB.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The Division of Regulatory Services monitors data and verifies numbers. The Office of the 

General Council’s Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Services certifies data accuracy.

4.2-A. Improve maturity level of Enterprise Risk Management (ERM).

Data Source: Annual (fiscal year) Office of Inspector General Federal Information Security Modernization 

Act of 2014 Reporting Metrics Audit Report.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

The Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) maintains an ERM maturity model adapted 

from the CFO Council playbook and best practices in ERM. Each quarter, the maturity is 

scored against documented criteria and validated by the ERM governance bodies, including 

the Senior Management Council. OCFO is responsible for certifying that the data are 

accurate. Effective January 6, 2019, the Office of Finance and Operations will maintain the 

ERM maturity model and is responsible for certifying data are accurate.

4.3-A. Percentage of the Department’s Information Technology (IT) security functions that improved at 

least one maturity level.

Data Source: Annual (fiscal year) Office of Inspector General (OIG) Federal Information Security 

Modernization Act of 2014 Reporting Metrics Audit Report.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

As part of the annual audit process, OIG disseminates draft reports for the Department to

review and comment on its findings, recommendations and assessments of maturity. The 

Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) leads coordination efforts across Department 

stakeholders and participates in review meetings with OIG to verify and validate the 

information contained in OIG’s report, which provides the basis for its determination 

of the maturity levels. Each year, the Office of Management and Budget publishes new 

FISMA guidance. OCIO reviews the new guidance and identifies areas that may impact 

how the Department’s IT Security program will be evaluated. OCIO leads coordination and 

communication efforts to ensure stakeholders and Department leadership understand the new 

guidance and any steps that need to be taken. The Chief Information Officer certifies data 

accuracy.
132 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

4.4-A. Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) employee engagement index score.

Data Source: Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM’s) FEVS.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Data verification and validation processes are integrated into the OPM FEVS results 

validation process. Any questionable FEVS results identified in annual reports are brought to 

the attention of OPM. The Department then works with the OPM point of contact to obtain 

clarity or resolve. Any questionable or anomalous FEVS data are brought to the attention of 

OPM. In turn, the OPM point of contact researches the matter and works with the Department 

to obtain clarity or resolve. There are no known data limitations. OPM certifies data accuracy.

4.4-B. Percentage of positions with competencies identified.

Data Source: The Department’s Talent Management System.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

Learning and Development Division (LDD) staff process and review data for accuracy and 

monitor the progress of assessments. The Office of Management, Office of Human Resources 

and LDD certify data accuracy. Effective January 6, 2019, the Office of Management will be 

part of the Office of Finance and Operations.

4.4-C. Percentage of supervisors and managers with a performance plan critical element related to 

employee engagement.

Data Source: The Department’s Talent Management System and USA Performance.

Data Validation 

and Verification:

To ensure quality control, verification processors self-check and cross-check one another. The 

validation and affirmation of final numbers is done by the Principal Operating Component 

executive officer leadership to reconcile system reports. The Director of Workforce Relations 

Division certifies data accuracy.
Appendix B. Performance Metric Changes 133

Appendix B. Performance Metric 

Changes

Appendix B includes performance metrics that were removed or changed in fiscal year 

(FY) 2018 and new metrics that will be added in FY 2019.

Strategic Goal 1: Support state and local efforts to improve learning 

outcomes for all P–12 students in every community.

Goal 1 FY 2018 Performance Metrics Removed or Changed and New Metrics 

Added for FY 2019

Metric 1.2-A Status: Changed

Type of Change: Changed from a year-to-year comparison to a three-year trend analysis.

Original Title: Percentage of states that show improvement in the percentage of students in grades 3–8 

scoring at or above proficient on state assessments in reading in all of the following 

subgroups: economically disadvantaged, children with disabilities, English learners, migrant, 

homeless and major racial and ethnic groups.

Current Title: Percentage of states that show improvement across a three-year trend in the percentage of 

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

in all of the following subgroups: economically disadvantaged, children with disabilities, 

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

Justification: This metric is highly volatile, and concerns were raised by the Strategic Objective Leader 

about the year-to-year comparability of the rate. Applying a three-year trend analysis 

increases the stability of this compound rate and cross-year comparability by allowing 

states to be included despite assessment changes.

Metric 1.2-B Status: Changed

Type of Change: Changed from a year-to-year comparison to a three-year trend analysis.

Original Title: Percentage of states that show improvement in the percentage of students in grades 3–8 

scoring at or above proficient on state assessments in mathematics in all of the following 

subgroups: economically disadvantaged, children with disabilities, English learners, migrant, 

homeless and major racial and ethnic groups.

Current Title: Percentage of states that show improvement across a three-year trend in the percentage 

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

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

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

Justification: This metric is highly volatile, and concerns were raised by the Strategic Objective Leader 

about the year-to-year comparability of the rate. Applying a three-year trend analysis 

increases the stability of this compound rate and cross-year comparability by allowing 

states to be included despite assessment changes.
134 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Metric 1.2-D Status: Changed

Type of Change: Changed from tracking schools with bandwidths of at least 100 Mbps to schools with 

bandwidths of at least 100 kbps/student.

Original Title: Percentage of schools in the country that have actual Internet bandwidth speeds of at least 

100 Mbps.

Current Title: Percentage of students in the country who have Internet bandwidth at school of at least 

100 kbps per student.

Justification: A bandwidth of 100 Mbps may be sufficient for a school of 100 students but would be 

insufficient for a school of 10,000 students. Tracking the bandwidth per student is a better 

reflection of an individual student’s access to the Internet.

Metric 1.3-D Status: Changed

Type of Change: Changed to track the number rather than the percentage of students impacted.

Original Title: Percentage of adult education participants in adult basic education programs who achieve a 

measurable skill gain.

Current Title: Number of adult education participants who achieve a measurable skill gain.

Justification: The FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan is centered 

around the individual student. Tracking the number of students positively affected by the 

program provides improved insight into the overall effect of the program on individual students.

Metric 1.3-E Status: Changed

Type of Change: Changed to track the number rather than the percentage of students impacted.

Original Title: Percentage of adult education participants who obtain a secondary school diploma or its 

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

following exit.

Current Title: Number of adult education participants who obtain a secondary school diploma or its 

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

following exit.

Justification: The FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan is centered 

around the individual student. Tracking the number of students positively affected by the 

program provides improved insight into the overall effect of the program on individual students.

Metric 1.3-F Status: Changed

Type of Change: Changed to track the number rather than the percentage of students impacted.

Original Title: Percentage of secondary career and technical education (CTE) concentrators who attain 

a secondary school diploma, a General Education Development credential or other staterecognized equivalent (including recognized alternative standards for individuals with 

disabilities) or a proficiency credential, certificate or degree in conjunction with a secondary 

school diploma.

Current Title: Number of secondary career and technical education (CTE) concentrators who attain a 

secondary school diploma, a General Education Development credential or other staterecognized equivalent.

Justification: The FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan is centered 

around the individual student. Tracking the number of students positively affected by the 

program provides improved insight into the overall effect of the program on individual students.
Appendix B. Performance Metric Changes 135

Metric 1.3-G Status: Changed

Type of Change: Moved from Strategic Objective 2.3 to Strategic Objective 1.3. Changed to track the number 

rather than the percentage of students impacted.

Original Title: Percentage of adult education participants enrolled in an integrated education and training 

(IET) program.

Current Title: Number of adult education participants enrolled in an integrated education and training (IET) 

program.

Justification: The FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan is centered 

around the individual student. Tracking the number of students positively affected by the 

program provides improved insight into the overall effect of the program on individual 

students. This metric was also formerly aligned with Strategic Objective 2.3 and designated 

2.3-B. The Strategic Objective Leader suggested the move because it better aligns with 

elementary and secondary education, not postsecondary education as the original alignment 

suggested.

Metric 1.3-H Status: New

Type of Change: New metric added.

Current Title: Number of adult education participants who advance one educational functioning level in 

mathematics.

Justification: This supports Goal 1 and Strategic Objective 1.3 by providing outcomes on the extent to 

which students served by the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act are prepared to 

transition to college and careers.

Metric 1.3-I Status: New

Type of Change: New metric added.

Current Title: Number of secondary career and technical education (CTE) concentrators placed in 

employment, further training or the military.

Justification: This supports Goal 1 and Strategic Objective 1.3 by providing outcomes on the extent to 

which students served by the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act are 

prepared to transition to college and careers by participating in job skills development.

Metric 1.3-J Status: New

Type of Change: New metric added.

Current Title: Number of secondary career and technical education (CTE) concentrators enrolling in 

Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM).

Justification: This supports Goal 1 and Strategic Objective 1.3 by providing outcomes on the extent to 

which students served by the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act are 

prepared for transition to college and careers by participating in STEM.
136 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Metric 1.4-A Status: Changed

Type of Change: Added prekindergarten technical assistance engagements to the metric scope.

Original Title: Number of technical assistance engagements, events or related activities or products focused 

on the grantees’ use of evidence in kindergarten through grade 12 education.

Current Title: Number of technical assistance engagements, events or related activities or products focused 

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

Justification: This metric was changed from the FY 2017 Annual Performance Report and FY 2019 Annual 

Performance Plan to include technical assistance in the prekindergarten space to better reflect 

the intention of supporting all students.

Strategic Goal 2: Expand postsecondary educational opportunities, 

improve outcomes to foster economic opportunity and promote an 

informed, thoughtful and productive citizenry.

Goal 2 FY 2018 Performance Metrics Removed or Changed and New Metrics 

Added for FY 2019

Metric 2.4-A Status: Removed

Type of Change: Removed for FY 2019 forward.

Original Title: Number of federal loan servicers’ call centers with expanded hours.

Justification: Due to overall cost and prioritization of the Office of Federal Student Aid’s Next Generation 

Financial Services Environment, this metric will not be met or tracked going forward. The 

metrics around call center performance on average speed to answer and abandonment rates 

will continue to be tracked.

Metric 2.4-E Status: New

Type of Change: New metric added.

Current Title: Number of downloads of the myStudentAid mobile app.

Justification: This metric was added to reflect performance surrounding the Office of Federal Student Aid’s 

(FSA’s) Next Generation Financial Services Environment and adapting the FSA customer 

service to the 21st century American.

Metric 2.4-F Status: New

Type of Change: New metric added.

Current Title: Number of customers checking loan balances via the myStudentAid mobile app.

Justification: This metric was added to reflect performance surrounding the Office of Federal Student Aid’s 

(FSA’s) Next Generation Financial Services Environment and adapting the FSA customer 

service to the 21st century American.
Appendix B. Performance Metric Changes 137

Metric 2.4-G Status: New

Type of Change: New metric added.

Current Title: Number of customers submitting a Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA®) via a 

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

Justification: This metric was added to reflect performance surrounding the Office of Federal Student Aid’s 

(FSA’s) Next Generation Financial Services Environment and adapting the FSA customer 

service to the 21st century American.

Metric 2.4-H Status: New

Type of Change: New metric added.

Current Title: Number of visits (sessions) demonstrating adoption of the updated StudentAid.gov site.

Justification: This metric was added to reflect performance surrounding the Office of Federal Student Aid’s 

(FSA’s) Next Generation Financial Services Environment and adapting the FSA customer 

service to the 21st century American.

Strategic Goal 3: Strengthen the quality, accessibility and use of 

education data through better management, increased privacy 

protections and transparency.

Goal 3 FY 2018 Performance Metrics Removed or Changed and New Metrics 

Added for FY 2019

None.

Strategic Goal 4: Reform the effectiveness, efficiency and 

accountability of the Department.

Goal 4 FY 2018 Performance Metrics Removed or Changed and New Metrics 

Added for FY 2019

Metric 4.1-F Status: Removed

Type of Change: Removed for fiscal year (FY) 2019 forward by combining with 4.1-G to track as 4.1-H.

Original Title: Number of significant deregulatory actions submitted to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB), the number of actions reflected on Reginfo.gov.

Justification: In FY 2018, the number of deregulatory actions was disaggregated by the method of 

transmittal to OMB. Based on the Department’s FY 2018 performance, which nearly doubled 

the targets, these metrics were combined to track the total number of deregulatory actions 

regardless of the method of submission to increase the ease and consistency of reporting. This 

change will be reflected in next year’s FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 

Annual Performance Plan.
138 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Metric 4.1-G Status: Removed

Type of Change: Removed for fiscal year (FY) 2019 forward by combining with 4.1-G to track as 4.1-H.

Original Title: Number of requests for significance determination of deregulatory actions submitted to the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) by email.

Justification: In FY 2018, the number of deregulatory actions was disaggregated by the method of 

transmittal to OMB. Based on the Department’s FY 2018 performance, which nearly doubled 

the targets, these metrics were combined to track the total number of deregulatory actions 

regardless of the method of submission to increase the ease and consistency of reporting. This 

change will be reflected in next year’s FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 

Annual Performance Plan.

Metric 4.1-H Status: New

Type of Change: Combined fiscal year (FY) 2018 metrics 4.1-F and 4.1-G, which will not be tracked 

individually in FY 2019 forward. These will instead be tracked using this metric.

Current Title: Number of deregulatory actions submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Justification: In FY 2018, the number of deregulatory actions was disaggregated by the method of 

transmittal to OMB. Based on the Department’s FY 2018 performance, which nearly doubled 

the targets, these metrics were combined to track the total number of deregulatory actions 

regardless of the method of submission to increase the ease and consistency of reporting. This 

change will be reflected in next year’s FY 2019 Annual Performance Report and FY 2021 

Annual Performance Plan.

Metric 4.2-A Status: Changed

Type of Change: Changed to track progress relating to an Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) maturity model 

rather than based on selected indicators.

Original Title: Percentage of key indicators that show improvement in performance and risk management.

Current Title: Improve maturity level of Enterprise Risk Management (ERM).

Justification: The original metric tracked progress around a set of key ERM indicators. These indicators 

could change annually, making the metric incomparable across years. Since the metric was 

first published, the Department has adopted an ERM maturity model. Tracking progress 

in that model will improve the year-to-year comparability of the metric and give a better 

indication of the Department’s overall ERM maturity.

Metric 4.3-A Status: Changed

Type of Change: Changed to track progress across security functions rather than based on a level 4 threshold 

analysis.

Original Title: Maturity level score of the Department’s Information Technology (IT) Security Program 

and Practices as they relate to the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014

(FISMA).

Current Title: Percentage of the Department’s Information Technology (IT) security functions that improved 

at least one maturity level.

Justification: Tracking progress simply based on the Department’s ability to cross the level 4 threshold fails 

to represent the progress made by the Department in terms of overall IT security. Because 

four of the five IT security elements were baselined at level 2, progressing those security 

elements to level 3 shows overall improvement even if the level 4 threshold is not yet reached.
Appendix C. Programs by Goal 139

Appendix C. Programs by Goal

Most of the Department’s programs are funded through discretionary appropriation acts enacted 

each fiscal year. However, there are many education programs—some of them large—that 

are funded directly through their authorizing statutes. For many budgeting purposes, these 

programs are classified as mandatory. For the purposes of this document, resources by goal are 

discretionary funds only. Mandatory programs that contribute to each goal are listed below.

Strategic Goal 1: Support state and local efforts to improve learning 

outcomes for all P-12 students in every community.

Goal 1 Other Discretionary Programs and Activities

POC ACCT Objective # Program

IES IES 1.2, 1.4 Regional Educational laboratories 

IES IES 1.2, 2.2 Special Education Studies and Evaluations

IES IES 1.4, 3.3 Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems 

N/A ED 1.2 Special Programs for Migrant Students: High School Equivalency 

Program

N/A ED 1.1, 1.2 Student Center Funding Pilot

N/A I&I 1.2, 1.4 Statewide Family Engagement Centers 

N/A N/A 1.4, 2.3 Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education

OCTAE CTAE 1.3, 2.1 Adult Basic and Literacy Education State Grants 

OCTAE CTAE 1.3, 2.1 Adult Education National Leadership Activities 

OESE ED 1.2 State Agency Programs: Migrant 

OESE ED 1.2 State Agency Programs: Neglected and Delinquent

OESE ED 1.2, 2.1 Special Programs for Migrant Students

OESE ED 1.2, 1.4 Comprehensive Literacy Development Grants 

OESE ED 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies 

OESE IA 1.2 Impact Aid, Payments for Federally Connected Children: Basic 

Support Payments 

OESE IA 1.2 Impact Aid, Payments for Federally Connected Children: Payments for 

Children with Disabilities 

OESE IA 1.2 Impact Aid, Facilities Maintenance 

OESE IA 1.2 Impact Aid, Construction 

OESE IA 1.2 Impact Aid, Payments for Federal Property 

OESE IE 1.2 Indian Education: Grants to Local Educational Agencies 

OESE IE 1.2 Indian Education: Special Programs for Indian Children 

OESE IE 1.2 Indian Education: National Activities 

OESE I&I 1.2 Javits Gifted and Talented Education

OESE I&I 1.2, 1.4 Full-Service Community Schools
140 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

POC ACCT Objective # Program

OESE I&I 1.2, 1.4 Innovative Approaches to Literacy

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

OESE SIP 1.2 Education for Homeless Children and Youth Education 

OESE SIP 1.2 Native Hawaiian Education

OESE SIP 1.2 Alaska Native Education

OESE SIP 1.2 Training and Advisory Services 

OESE SIP 1.2 Rural Education 

OESE SIP 1.2 Supplemental Education Grants 

OESE SIP 1.2, 1.4 Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants 

OESE SIP 1.2, 1.4 21st Century Community Learning Centers 

OESE SIP 1.2, 1.4 State Assessments 

OESE SIP 1.2, 1.4 Comprehensive Centers 

OESE SIP 1.2, 1.4 Supporting Effective Educator Development

OESE SIP 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants 

OESE SSCE 1.2 School Safety National Activities

OESE/OELA ELA 1.2 English Language Acquisition 

OII I&I 1.2 American History and Civics Education 

OII I&I 1.2 Ready to Learn Programming

OII I&I 1.2 Arts in Education

OII I&I 1.3 STEM Master Teacher Corps

OII I&I 1.1, 1.2 Charter Schools Grants 

OII I&I 1.1, 1.2 Magnet Schools Assistance 

OII I&I 1.2, 2.3 Teacher Quality Partnership 

OII I&I 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 Education Innovation and Research

OII SSCE 1.2, 1.4 Promise Neighborhoods 

OSERS SE 1.1 Grants for Infants and Families 

OSERS SE 1.2 Special Olympics Education Programs 

OSERS SE 1.3 Education Technology, Media and Materials 

OSERS SE 1.4 Parent Information Centers 

OSERS SE 1.1, 1.2 Preschool Grants 

OSERS SE 1.1, 1.2, 1.4 Special Education Grants to States 

OSERS SE 1.1, 1.2, 1.4 Technical Assistance and Dissemination 

Acronyms and Definitions:

POC = Principal Operating Component; ACCT = Account; IES = Institute of Education Sciences; N/A = Not Applicable; ED = U.S. 

Department of Education; I&I = Innovation and Improvement; OCTAE = Office of Career, Technical and Adult Education; CTAE = Career, 

Technical and Adult Education; OESE = Office of Elementary and Secondary Education; IA = Impact Aid; SIP = Strengthening Institutions 

Program; SSCE = Safe Schools and Citizenship Education; OELA = Office of English Language Acquisition; OII = Office of Innovation 

and Improvement (this office is part of the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education effective January 6, 2019); STEM = Science, 

Technology, Engineering and Mathematics; OSERS = Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services and SE = Special Education.

Mandatory Programs Supporting Goal 1

No additional programs.
Appendix C. Programs by Goal 141

Strategic Goal 2: Expand postsecondary educational opportunities, 

improve outcomes to foster economic opportunity and promote an 

informed, thoughtful and productive citizenry.

Goal 2 Other Discretionary Programs and Activities

POC ACCT Objective # Program

FSA DM/SAA N/A Student Aid Administration: Salaries and Expenses 

FSA DM/SAA N/A Student Aid Administration: Servicing Activities

FSA SFA 2.1, 2.3 Federal Pell Grants: Discretionary 

FSA SFA 2.1, 2.3 Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants 

FSA SFA 2.1, 2.3 Federal Work-Study 

IES IES 1.2, 2.2 Special Education Studies and Evaluations

N/A N/A 2.1 Consolidated MSI Grant (proposed)

N/A N/A 1.4, 2.3 Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education

OCTAE CTAE 1.3, 2.1 Adult Basic and Literacy Education State Grants 

OCTAE CTAE 1.3, 2.1 Adult Education National Leadership Activities 

OCTAE CTAE 2.1, 2.3 Career and Technical Education State Grants 

OCTAE CTAE 2.1, 2.4 Career and Technical National Programs 

OCATE HE 2.1 Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Career and Technical Institutions 

OESE ED 1.2, 2.1 Special Programs for Migrant Students

OII I&I 1.2, 2.3 Teacher Quality Partnership 

OPE HE 2.1 Aid for Institutional Development: Strengthening Tribally Controlled 

Colleges and Universities 

OPE HE 2.1 Strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions 

OPE HE 2.1 Strengthening HBCUs 

OPE HE 2.1 Strengthening historically Black Graduate Institutions 

OPE HE 2.1 Strengthening HBCU Masters Program 

OPE HE 2.1 Strengthening Predominately Black Institutions 

OPE HE 2.1 Strengthening Asian American- and Native American Pacific IslanderServing Institutions 

OPE HE 2.1 Strengthening Native American-Serving Nontribal Institutions 

OPE HE 2.1 Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions 

OPE HE 2.1 Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans

OPE HE 2.1 International Education and Foreign Language Studies: Domestic 

Programs 

OPE HE 2.1 International Education and Foreign Language Studies: Overseas 

Programs 

OPE HE 2.1 Model Transition Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities 

into Higher Education
142 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

POC ACCT Objective # Program

OPE HE 2.1 Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs 

(GEAR UP)

OPE HE 2.1 Child Care Access Means Parents in School 

OPE HE 2.1 Howard University: General Support 

OPE HE 2.1 Howard University Hospital 

OPE HE 2.2 Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need 

OPE HE 2.1, 2.2 Aid for Institutional Development: Strengthening Institutions

OPE HE 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 Federal TRIO Programs

OPE HE 2.2, 2.3 Minority Science and Engineering Improvement 

OPE HE N/A College Housing and Academic Facilities Loans Program Account: 

Federal Administration 

OPE HE N/A Historically Black College and University Capital Financing Program 

Account: Federal Administration 

OPE HE N/A Historically Black College and University Capital Financing Program 

Account: Loan Subsidies

OSERS APBH 2.1, 2.3 American Printing House for the Blind 

OSERS GU 2,1, 2.3 Gallaudet University

OSERS NTID 2.1, 2.2 National Technical Institute for the Deaf

OSERS REHAB 2.1 Client Assistance State Grants 

OSERS REHAB 2.1 Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights 

OSERS REHAB 2.2 Independent Living Services for Older Blind Individuals 

OSERS REHAB 2.2 Helen Keller National Center for Deaf-Blind Youths and Adults 

OSERS REHAB 2.1, 2.2 VR Training 

OSERS REHAB 2.1, 2.2 Demonstration and Training Programs 

OSERS REHAB 2.1, 2.3 Supported Employment State Grants 

OSERS SE 2.2 State Personnel Development 

OSERS SE 2.2 Personnel Preparation 

Acronyms and Definitions:

POC = Principal Operating Component; ACCT = Account; FSA = Office of Federal Student Aid; DM = Departmental Management; 

SAA = Student Aid Administration; N/A = Not Applicable; SFA = Student Financial Assistance; IES = Institute of Education Sciences; 

MSI = Minority-Serving Institution; OCTAE = Office of Career, Technical and Adult Education; CTAE = Career, Technical and Adult 

Education; HE = Higher Education; OESE = Office of Elementary and Secondary Education; ED = U.S. Department of Education; 

OII = Office of Innovation and Improvement (this office is part of the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education effective January 6, 

2019); I&I = Innovation and Improvement; OPE = Office of Postsecondary Education; HBCU = Historically Black College and University; 

GEAR UP = Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs; OSERS = Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services; APBH = American Printing House for the Blind; GU = Gallaudet University; NTID = National Technical Institute for the Deaf; 

REHAB = Rehabilitation Services and Disability Research; VR= Vocational Rehabilitation and SE = Special Education.
Appendix C. Programs by Goal 143

Mandatory Programs Supporting Goal 2

POC ACCT Objective # Program

FSA FDSL 2.1, 2.3 Federal Direct Student Loans Program Account: New Loan Subsidy 

FSA FDSL 2.1, 2.3 Federal Direct Student Loans Program Account: New Net Loan 

Subsidy (Non-Add)

FSA FFEL 2.1 Federal Family Education Loans Liquidating Account: Pre-1992 

Student Loans

FSA HEAL 2.1 Health Education Assistance Loans Liquidating Account 

FSA SFA 2.1, 2.3 Federal Pell Grants: Mandatory 

FSA SFA 2.1, 2.3 Federal Pell Grants: Mandatory Funding for Discretionary Program 

Costs 

FSA SFA 2.1, 2.3 Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grants 

FSA TEACH 2.1, 2.3 TEACH Grants: New Loan Subsidy

OPE HE 2.1 Aid for Institutional Development: Mandatory Strengthening Tribally 

Controlled Colleges and Universities 

OPE HE 2.1 Mandatory Strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving 

Institutions 

OPE HE 2.1 Mandatory Strengthening HBCUs 

OPE HE 2.1 Mandatory Strengthening Predominantly Black Institutions 

OPE HE 2.1 Mandatory Strengthening Asian American- and Native American 

Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions 

OPE HE 2.1 Mandatory Strengthening Native American-Serving Nontribal 

Institutions 

OPE HE 2.1, 2.2 Mandatory Developing HSI STEM and Articulation Programs 

OPE HE N/A College Housing and Academic Facilities Loans Liquidating Account 

OPE HE N/A Higher Education Facilities Loans Liquidating Account 

OPE HE N/A College Housing Loans Liquidating Account 

OSERS REHAB 2.1 Vocational Rehabilitation, Grants to Indians 

OSERS REHAB 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 Vocational Rehabilitation, State Grants 

SFA N/A 2.1 Perkins Loan Repayments 

SFA N/A N/A FDSL Downward Modification/Negative Loan Subsidies

SFA N/A N/A Student Financial Assistance Debt Collection 

Acronyms and Definitions:

POC = Principal Operating Component; ACCT = Account; FSA = Office of Federal Student Aid; FDSL = Federal Direct Student Loan; 

FFEL = Federal Family Education Loan; HEAL = Health Education Assistance Loan; SFA = Student Financial Assistance; TEACH = Teacher 

Education Assistance for College and Higher Education; OPE = Office of Postsecondary Education; HE = Higher Education; HBCU = 

Historically Black College and University; HSI STEM = Hispanic Serving Institution Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics 

Articulation Program; N/A = Not Applicable; OSERS = Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services and REHAB = Rehabilitation 

Services and Disability Research.
144 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Strategic Goal 3: Strengthen the quality, accessibility, and use of 

education data through better management, increased privacy 

protections and transparency.

Goal 3 Other Discretionary Programs and Activities

POC ACCT Objective # Program

IES IES 3.3 Research, Development and Dissemination 

IES IES 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 Statistics 

IES IES 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 National Assessment 

IES IES 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 National Assessment Governing Board

IES IES 3.3 Research in Special Education 

IES IES 1.4, 3.3 Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems 

Acronyms and Definitions:

POC = Principal Operating Component; ACCT = Account and IES = Institute of Education Sciences.

Mandatory Programs Supporting Goal 3

No additional programs.

Strategic Goal 4: Reform the effectiveness, efficiency and 

accountability of the Department.

Goal 4 Other Discretionary Programs and Activities

POC ACCT Objective # Program

ALL DM/PA N/A Program Administration: Salaries and Expenses

ALL DM/PA N/A Program Administration: Building Modernization 

OCR OCR N/A Office for Civil Rights

OIG OIG N/A Office of Inspector General 

Acronyms and Definitions:

POC = Principal Operating Component; ACCT = Account; ALL = All; DM/PA = Departmental Management/Program Administration; 

N/A = Not Applicable; OCR = Office for Civil Rights and OIG = Office of Inspector General.

Mandatory Programs Supporting Goal 4

No additional programs.
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 145

Appendix D. Summary of 

Performance Evaluations 

Completed During FY 2018 

and Expected During FY 2019 

and FY 2020

Appendix D provides a summary of performance evaluations completed during fiscal year 

(FY) 2018 and those expected during FY 2019 and FY 2020.

Evaluations Completed in FY 2018

National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance

Early Learning

Race to the Top–Early Learning Challenge: Descriptive Study of Tiered Quality 

Rating and Improvement Systems in Nine Round 1 States

Study Purpose

The Race to the Top–Early Learning Challenge Program (RTT-ELC) aimed to improve early 

learning and development programs so children enter kindergarten ready to succeed. The 

program awarded $1 billion in four-year grants to 20 states in three rounds between 2011 

and 2013. The program promoted reform in five key areas: (1) state systems, (2) high-quality 

accountable programs, (3) early learning and development outcomes for children, (4) workforce, 

and (5) measurement. The second area focused on the design and implementation of the Tiered 

Quality Rating Improvement System (TQRIS) that can provide parents and other stakeholders 

with information on the quality of early-learning programs. To better understand TQRIS that 

RTT-ELC grantees developed, this descriptive study examined the structure and characteristics of 

grantee states’ TQRIS, analyzed state administrative data to examine patterns in the participation 

and distribution of programs in TQRIS, and synthesized findings from grantee states with 

completed TQRIS validation studies. This study focused on the nine Round 1 states, which 

received more than $500 million in 2011.
146 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Key Questions Addressed

• How was TQRIS structured and implemented in the nine Round 1 RTT-ELC states?

• How were TQRIS ratings defined, collected, and generated in the nine Round 1 RTT-ELC 

states?

• What were the patterns in TQRIS participation, the distribution of programs and children 

across the rating levels, and the movement of programs and children across the rating 

levels since 2011?

• How do TQRIS characteristics (including structure, policies, and practices) relate to 

program movement up the rating levels and achievement of the highest rating level?

• What have completed RTT-ELC state validation studies found about the relationship 

between TQRIS tiers and program quality and the relationship between children’s 

development and TQRIS ratings?

Design

This descriptive study collected various data from the nine Round 1 RTT-ELC grantee states. 

In fall 2014, the study collected and conducted a targeted review of documents describing the 

structure of TQRIS, including component measures and the quality indicators used to evaluate 

preschool programs and how these are combined to generate overall ratings. In fall 2014 through 

winter 2015, the study also conducted interviews with state administrators to confirm and clarify 

the information obtained from documents and gather information that could not be obtained from 

the document reviews.

To address the third and fourth research questions, the study collected administrative data 

from the Round 1 RTT-ELC grantee states. To address the last question, the study conducted a 

systematic review of nine completed RTT-ELC grantee state validation studies available in 2017.

Actual Completion Date

A report addressing the first two questions was released in November 2017. Two evaluation 

briefs addressing the third and fourth questions and a report addressing the fifth question are 

expected in spring 2019.

Key Findings From the First Report

• Eight of the nine states had a statewide TQRIS in place by 2015.

• States promoted participation in TQRIS by making it mandatory for certain programs 

(such as public prekindergarten programs or Head Start programs), providing alternative 

pathways into higher rating levels (so programs could avoid the full data collection and 

verification process), and offering financial incentives tied to higher ratings.

• States used different methods for calculating ratings, some of which changed over time.

• States used various sources of evidence to collect the information needed to rate 

programs, and they developed processes and standards to help ensure the reliability of 

this information.
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 147

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20184003/

School Choice

Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: Impacts Two Years 

After Students Applied

Study Purpose

The April 2011 Scholarships and Opportunities for Results Act (SOAR Act) provided a fiveyear continuation of a school choice program for low-income residents in Washington, DC. 

The Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP) provides annual scholarships of about $8,000 

(for kindergarten through grade 8) or $12,000 (for grades 9 through 12) to enable low-income 

students to attend Washington, DC, private schools in lieu of the public schools already available 

to them. The law also mandated a second independent, rigorous evaluation of the effectiveness 

of the program following one completed in 2011.

Key Questions Addressed

• How do the personal, family, and school characteristics and experiences of youth with 

disabilities differ from those of youth not served under the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA)? (Volume 1; March 2017)

• How do the characteristics and experiences of youth vary across disability groups? 

(Volume 2; March 2017) 

• How have the characteristics and experiences of youth with disabilities changed over 

time? (Volume 3; February 2018)

• To what extent do youth with disabilities make progress through high school compared to 

other youth?

• Are youth with disabilities achieving the post-high school outcomes envisioned by IDEA, 

and how do their college, training, and employment rates compare to those of other 

youth? 

• How do these high school and postsecondary outcomes vary with student characteristics?

Design

The evaluation compared outcomes of approximately 1,800 student applicants randomly 

assigned by lottery to either receive a scholarship or not receive a scholarship. Lotteries of 

program applicants were conducted in spring 2012 (cohort 1), spring 2013 (cohort 2), and 

spring 2014 (cohort 3). Data were collected for three follow-up years for each of the cohorts and 

for students in both the scholarship and non-scholarship groups. The contractor administered 

academic assessments and conducted student, parent, and principal surveys each spring 

(spring 2013–2017).
148 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Actual Completion Date

The second impact report was released in spring 2018. The final impact report is planned for 

early spring 2019.

Key Findings Two Years After Students Applied to the Program

• OSP had a statistically significant negative impact on mathematics achievement two years 

after students applied to the program. Mathematics scores were lower for students who 

were offered or used OSP scholarships compared to students who applied for but were 

not offered scholarships. There was no statistically significant impact on reading scores.

• The program did not have a statistically significant impact on parents’ or students’ 

general satisfaction with the school the student attended two years after applying to the 

program. The percentage of parents giving their child’s school a grade of A or B was not 

statistically different when comparing parents of students who were offered or used OSP 

scholarships with the parents of students not selected for the scholarship offer. There 

were also no statistically significant differences when looking at student satisfaction with 

schools. 

• The program had a statistically significant positive impact on parents’ perceptions of 

safety at the school their children attended two years after applying to the program and 

on students’ perceptions of safety. Parents of students who were offered or used OSP 

scholarships were more likely to indicate that their children’s school was “very safe” 

compared with the parents of students not selected for the scholarship offer. Student 

perceptions of school safety followed the same pattern.

• OSP did not have a statistically significant impact on parent involvement in education at 

school or in the home two years after students applied.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20184010/

Students with Disabilities

National Longitudinal Transition Study 2012

Study Purpose

Supporting youths’ successful transition to adult life is a priority under IDEA, which provides 

funds to assist states and local educational agencies (LEAs) in providing special education 

and related services to all eligible children with disabilities and places emphasis on transition 

services to help youth with disabilities complete high school prepared to achieve important 

post-school outcomes, such as postsecondary education, jobs, and independent living. The 

National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) 2012 is the third longitudinal study conducted 

over several decades examining the characteristics, school experiences, and post-high school 

outcomes of a nationally representative sample of youth with disabilities. NLTS 2012 collected 
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 149

information in December 2011 on students initially aged 13 through 21 and in high school 

and included a small sample of students without disabilities to enable direct comparisons of 

students with and without an Individualized Education Program (IEP). This study is part of the 

congressionally mandated national assessment of IDEA and is supported with funds authorized 

under Section 664 of IDEA.

Key Questions Addressed

• How do the personal, family, and school characteristics and experiences of youth with 

disabilities differ from those of youth not served under IDEA? (Volume 1; March 2017)

• How do the characteristics and experiences of youth vary across disability groups? 

(Volume 2; March 2017) 

• How have the characteristics and experiences of youth with disabilities changed over 

time? (Volume 3; February 2018)

• To what extent do youth with disabilities make progress through high school compared 

to other youth?

• Are youth with disabilities achieving the post-high school outcomes envisioned by 

IDEA, and how do their college, training, and employment rates compare to those of 

other youth? 

• How do these high school and postsecondary outcomes vary with student characteristics?

Design

This descriptive study included a nationally representative sample drawn from 432 school 

districts and special schools randomly sampled in 2011 and students randomly sampled within 

those districts. Survey data were collected in 2012–2013 from approximately 12,000 in-school 

youth and their parents, of which about 10,000 were students with IEPs representing each 

of the federal disability categories. The surveys asked about the background characteristics 

of secondary school youths and the schools they attended, their health, functional abilities, 

engagement in school, the academic support they received, and their expectations for and steps 

to achieve transitions beyond high school. High school records and postsecondary enrollment 

information from the National Student Clearinghouse are being collected (from 2017–2019) to 

follow the sample of students through high school and beyond. These administrative data will be 

linked with the 2012–2013 survey data to examine high school course-taking and completion and 

youths’ experiences with college, training, and employment.

Actual Completion Date

Two volumes of the study report describing survey results were released in March 2017. The 

third volume, released in February 2018, examined trends over time by comparing the NLTS 

2012 survey results with those from two earlier NLTS surveys. A brief summarizing key findings 

from across the three volumes was released in May 2018.
150 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Key Findings from the May 2018 Brief

• Although their engagement and use of school support have increased over the past 

decade (2003–2012), high school youth with an IEP were more socioeconomically 

disadvantaged and less likely to have experiences and expectations associated with 

success after high school than were other students in 2012.

• Among the disability groups in 2012, youth with intellectual disabilities, autism, deafblindness, multiple disabilities, and orthopedic impairments were found to be most at risk 

for not transitioning successfully beyond high school.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/disabilities_nlts2012.asp

National Evaluation of the IDEA Technical Assistance and Dissemination 

Program

Study Purpose

IDEA, which was most recently reauthorized in 2004, provides funds to assist states and LEAs 

in making a free appropriate public education available to all eligible children with disabilities. 

Funded at $12.6 billion in FY 2010, IDEA supports early intervention services for infants and 

toddlers with disabilities (birth through age 2) and special education and related services for 

children with disabilities (ages 3 through 21). IDEA permits LEAs to use a portion of their IDEA 

funds to develop and implement coordinated early intervening services (CEISs) for students 

who are not currently identified as needing special education or related services but who need 

additional academic and behavioral support to succeed in a general education environment. The 

use of IDEA funds for CEISs is voluntary except when an LEA is identified with significant 

disproportionality based on race or ethnicity with respect to identification, placement, or 

discipline of children with disabilities. The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) is conducting 

studies under Section 664 of IDEA to assess the implementation and effectiveness of key 

programs and services supported under the law.

As specified in IDEA Part D, the Technical Assistance and Dissemination (TA&D) program 

is to provide technical assistance, support model demonstration projects, disseminate useful 

information, and implement activities that are supported by scientifically based research to meet 

the needs of children with disabilities. The National Evaluation of the IDEA TA&D program is 

designed to describe the products and services provided by the TA&D program grantees, state 

and local needs for technical assistance, and the role that the TA&D program plays in meeting 

these needs and supporting implementation of IDEA. The State Deaf-Blind Projects are part of 

the TA&D program and are the focus of the evaluation’s final report.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What TA&D activities do State Deaf-Blind Projects provide and how does this vary 

across the states?
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 151

• How do State Deaf-Blind Projects collaborate with other organizations in their state, with 

other technical assistance providers, and across the network of State Deaf-Blind Projects?

• What are the needs for technical assistance among direct service providers who work 

with children and youth with deaf-blindness? 

• How satisfied are direct service providers with services received from the State DeafBlind Projects?

Design

Data collection for the final report included administering surveys to the 48 State Deaf-Blind 

Projects that were awarded grants in 2013 and to a sample of local-level special and general 

education providers currently working with deaf-blind children.

Actual Completion Date

The final report was released in January 2018.

Key Findings

• Technical assistance tailored to meet the needs of a specific child or youth with deafblindness was provided by all State Deaf-Blind Projects. However, almost half of the 

projects reported that they did not have enough resources to meet the demand for this 

child-specific support in their state.

• Almost all direct service providers who received customized support from their 

State Deaf-Blind Project were satisfied or very satisfied with the overall experience. 

Specifically, technical assistance providers were rated as highly knowledgeable and 

nonjudgmental. However, satisfaction with the amount of information offered and the 

extent to which local context was taken into account was somewhat lower.

• Most State Deaf-Blind Projects reported collaborating with the National Center on DeafBlindness and with the federally funded State Parent Training and Information Centers 

or the Community Parent Resource Centers. Collaboration among the projects was also 

common.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/disabilities_idea2004.asp

Teacher Effectiveness

The Impact of Providing Performance Feedback to Teachers and Principals: 

Final Report

Study Purpose

This study examined the implementation of a package of performance evaluation system 

components and the impact of their use for formative purposes. These are components that 

states and districts might elect to include in their evaluation systems with support from 
152 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Title II Part A funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) (as amended 

by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)). The components include measures of student 

achievement growth, classroom practices, and principal leadership.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What was the impact of the performance evaluation system on teachers’ classroom 

practices and on student achievement?

• What were districts’ and educators’ experiences with implementation?

Design

Within each of eight districts, approximately 15 elementary and middle schools were randomly 

assigned to receive the study’s measures of student achievement growth, classroom practices, and 

principal leadership during 2012–2013 and 2013–2014 (treatment group) or to participate only 

in the district’s usual performance evaluation system during the same time period. In treatment 

schools, each year, teachers received four rounds of classroom observations and feedback 

sessions as well as information about their students’ achievement growth in mathematics and/

or reading using a statistical model known as “value added.” Principals in treatment schools 

received feedback on their leadership practices twice per year. Study data collection included 

surveys of teachers and principals, observations of teachers’ classroom practices, and collection 

of student records data. The study also looked at the extent to which the measures were 

implemented as intended and whether the ratings from the measures reliably distinguished 

educator performance.

Actual Completion Date

The first report was released in November 2016. The final report on implementation and impacts 

on educator practices and student achievement was released in December 2017.

Key Findings

• The study’s performance measures were generally implemented as planned. For instance, 

in both study years, teachers and principals received multiple rounds of ratings and 

feedback on their practices.

• The study’s measures provided some information to identify educators who needed 

support but provided limited information to indicate the areas of practice educators most 

needed to improve. For instance, classroom observation overall scores averaged over the 

year showed reliable differences across teachers. Subscores on particular dimensions of 

performance, however, had limited reliability to identify particular areas to guide teacher 

improvement.

• As intended, educators in treatment schools received more frequent feedback with ratings 

than did those in control schools.

• Feedback from the study’s measures had some positive impacts on teachers’ classroom 

practices, principal leadership, and student achievement. The intervention had a positive 
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 153

impact on teachers’ classroom practices on one of two observation measures. It also had 

a positive impact on the two measures of principal leadership examined. In year one, the 

intervention had a positive impact on students’ achievement in mathematics, amounting 

to about four weeks of learning. In year two, the impact on mathematics achievement 

was similar in magnitude but not statistically significant. The intervention did not have an 

impact on reading/English language arts achievement in either study year.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_performance.asp

Evaluation of the Teacher Incentive Fund: Final Report on Implementation and 

Impacts of Pay-for-Performance Across Four Years

Study Purpose

The purpose of the Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) program was to develop and implement 

performance-based compensation systems (PBCSs) for teachers, principals, and other personnel 

in high-need schools to improve educator effectiveness. Research indicates that high-quality 

teachers and leadership are critical to raising student achievement in low-performing schools, 

but schools most in need often have difficulty in attracting and retaining high-quality educators. 

Performance pay is a policy promoted by the TIF program to improve the quality of educators 

in high-need schools. This evaluation studied performance pay that provides substantial and 

differentiated bonus pay to high-performing teachers and leaders in low-performing schools 

with high-need students.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What are the characteristics of all TIF grantee districts and their PBCSs? What 

implementation experiences and challenges did TIF districts encounter?

• How do teachers and principals in schools that did or did not offer pay-for-performance 

bonuses compare on key dimensions, including their understanding of TIF program 

features, exposure to TIF activities, allocation of time, and attitudes toward teaching and 

the TIF program?

• What is the impact of pay-for-performance bonuses on students’ achievement on state 

assessments of mathematics and reading? 

• How do pay-for-performance bonuses affect educator mobility, including whether 

mobility differs by educator effectiveness?

Design

Study schools were randomly assigned within each grant to either implement all components 

of the PBCS or the PBCS with a 1 percent across-the-board bonus in place of the differentiated 

effectiveness incentive component of the PBCS. Data collection included a grantee survey, a 

survey of teachers and principals, teacher and principal school assignment records, student record 

information (such as student demographics and student test scores), and grantee interviews.
154 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Actual Completion Date

The first report was released in September 2014, the second report was released in 

September 2015, and the third report was released in August 2016. The fourth and final report, 

which updated implementation information and impacts, was released in December 2017.

Key Findings 

• For the 10 evaluation districts that participated in the random assignment study, on 

average, pay-for-performance bonuses led to slightly higher student achievement in 

schools that offered such bonuses than in schools that did not. This difference was 

equivalent to a gain of three to four additional weeks of learning.

• Implementation was similar across the four years, with most districts implementing at 

least three of the four required components for teachers. The four components were as 

follows: (1) using effectiveness measures of educator performance, (2) offering bonuses 

based on performance, (3) offering opportunities for additional pay for taking on extra 

roles and responsibilities, and (4) offering professional development to understand the 

policy and to support educator improvement.

• Many 2010 TIF districts reported that sustainability of their program was a major 

challenge, and slightly fewer than half planned to offer pay-for-performance bonuses 

after their grant ended.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20184004/

Promoting Educator Effectiveness: The Effects of Two Key Strategies

Study Purpose

Recently, many school districts have been implementing new educator evaluation systems to 

reform the way educators are evaluated, supported, and potentially rewarded. IES conducted 

two large-scale random assignment studies that looked at different ways of using evaluation 

system information to improve teacher and principal effectiveness to improve student 

achievement. The studies also highlight implementation challenges that might indicate 

potential avenues for improving the effectiveness of the studied strategies.

Key Question(s) Addressed

This brief synthesizes findings from two large-scale random assignment studies of professional 

development that were conducted by the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional 

Assistance within IES. One study examined the impact of using educator performance ratings to 

provide teachers and principals with feedback. The other study evaluated the effects of offering 

bonuses to educators based on their performance ratings.

Design

Each study focused on a different use of the performance evaluation information to improve 

teacher and principal effectiveness and student achievement. Within each study, student 
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 155

achievement in schools using the strategy was compared to student achievement in schools not 

using the strategy. Each study included approximately 130 schools.

Actual Completion Date

The brief was released in March 2018.

Key Findings

• Providing educators with performance feedback and offering pay-for-performance 

bonuses can improve student achievement. Across years of implementation, each tested 

strategy sometimes had a positive cumulative impact on students’ mathematics or reading 

achievement.

• Features of the measures or programs and on-the-ground implementation may limit the 

effectiveness of the program strategies. Both studies provided evidence that the policy 

as implemented differed in some ways from the approach envisioned. For example, in 

the pay-for-performance study, about 40 percent of the teachers were unaware they were 

eligible to receive a performance bonus.

• Educators can be receptive to some of the evaluation and compensation strategies 

supported by TIF. Sixty-five to 84 percent of the educators reported being satisfied with 

the feedback they received on their practices. In addition, pay-for-performance ultimately 

led to improvements in teachers’ satisfaction with some aspects of their jobs.

Link to Additional Information

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20184009/

Other

Evaluation of Investing in Innovation

Study Purpose

The Investing in Innovation (i3) program was established by the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 to provide funds to LEAs and nonprofits with a record of improving 

student achievement. The program awarded competitive grants to implement and evaluate 

educational interventions to improve student academic outcomes.

The i3 program awarded three different tiers of grants. The amount of funding awarded was 

aligned with the strength of the prior evidence supporting the proposed intervention as well 

as the proposed implementation scale. The smallest, or “Development” grants, supported 

developing and testing interventions with limited or no prior evidence. Interventions with 

moderate evidence of effectiveness could receive a larger “Validation” grant to implement and 

test the intervention in a broader population or in new contexts. The largest, or “Scale-up” grants, 

supported interventions with strong prior evidence of effectiveness to be implemented and tested 

on a much larger scale.
156 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

The i3 program funded seven cohorts of grantees from FY 2010–16. The program has awarded 

more than $1.4 billion to 172 grantees across the three tiers. One of the i3 program’s key 

priorities was evaluating the impact of the funded interventions. Each grantee was required 

to fund an independent evaluation using local evaluators. To maximize what could be learned 

from these evaluations, the Department is conducting an evaluation of i3, which provides 

comprehensive technical assistance to local evaluators for all grantees and summarizes both 

the quality of and findings from the evaluations.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• Were the i3 evaluations strong?

• Did the i3 evaluations find the interventions to be implemented with adequate fidelity?

• Did the i3 evaluations find that the interventions improved student academic outcomes?

Design

A contractor provided comprehensive, customized technical assistance to all i3 independent local 

evaluators. The technical assistance was facilitated by a one-on-one relationship with a technical 

assistance provider.

In addition to providing technical assistance, the contractor characterized whether or not the 

evaluations met several criteria used to define a strong study and summarized the results of the 

i3 evaluations.

Actual Completion Date

The final report, which focused on findings for the 67 i3 evaluations completed by May 2017, 

was released in June 2018.

Key Findings

• Almost three-quarters of the i3 evaluations were implemented consistently with What 

Works Clearinghouse evidence standards with or without reservations (i.e., 49 of 67, or 

73 percent).

• Sixty percent of the evaluations met all of the goals i3 set for evaluation quality. In 

addition to consistency with clearinghouse evidence standards, these goals included 

independence, high-quality implementation measurement, and a sample that adequately 

represented those served under the grant.

• Eighteen percent (i.e., 12 of 67) of the i3 evaluations found a statistically significant 

positive impact on at least one student academic outcome.

• Thirteen percent (i.e., 9 of 67) of the i3 evaluations found evidence of both adequate 

implementation fidelity and positive impacts on student academic outcomes.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20184013/
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 157

Policy and Program Studies Service

Study of the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education 

Grant Program

Study Purpose

This study was conducted to better understand the implementation and outcomes of the Teacher 

Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant program, which 

provides up to $4,000 per academic year to students preparing to become teachers. To receive a 

TEACH grant, students must sign a service agreement to teach in a high-need field and school 

for a minimum of four years in an eight-year period. After leaving their program, recipients must 

provide annual certification indicating that they intend to or are currently teaching in a highneed field and school. For recipients who do not meet the service or certification requirements, 

their TEACH grants convert to loans. The study was conducted to better understand institutional 

practices in implementing the TEACH Grant program and to identify factors associated with 

grant recipients not meeting the grant requirements.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• How do TEACH grant recipients view the grant requirements and to what extent do 

recipients fulfill those requirements? 

• What factors are associated with TEACH grant recipients not meeting the grant 

requirements? 

• How do institutions of higher education (IHEs) administer TEACH grants and support 

grant recipients? 

Design

The study administered surveys to all 472 institutions that awarded TEACH grants to at least 

10 recipients in 2014–2015 and to a random sample of 500 TEACH grant recipients who had 

either graduated from or left the 472 institutions. In addition, the study analyzed administrative 

data on TEACH grant recipients and conducted site visits at nine IHEs, including interviews 

with faculty and administrative staff and review of documents that institutions used to promote 

awareness about the TEACH Grant program.

Actual Completion Date

The final report was released in March 2018.

Key Findings

• More than half (58 percent) of TEACH grant recipients said the TEACH Grant program 

was somewhat or very influential in their decisions to pursue teaching in a high-need 

field at a high-need school.

• When recipients first received their TEACH grants, 89 percent thought they were likely 

or very likely to fulfill the service requirements. However, by the time of the survey, 
158 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

63 percent had their grants converted to a loan because they had not met either the 

service requirements or the annual certification requirements.

• Recipients who did not meet the grant requirements reported both employment-related 

factors, such as teaching in a position that did not qualify as TEACH Grant program 

service as well as process-related factors, such as not understanding the service 

requirements and not knowing about the annual certification requirement.

• Institutions were more likely to report using TEACH grants to make higher education 

more affordable for students than to encourage students to pursue teaching in a high-need 

field at a high-need school.

• If TEACH grants were counted against the federal annual loan limit, 42 percent of 

students who received TEACH grants in 2013–2014 would have exceeded that limit.

• Seventy percent of institutions provided students with placement services for qualifying 

TEACH grant service positions.

Link to Additional Information

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports-postsecondary-education.

html#student-aid

National Survey on High School Strategies Designed to Help At-Risk Students 

Graduate

Study Purpose

This nationally representative survey of high school administrators examined a variety of 

strategies that high schools use to reduce students’ likelihood of dropping out of high school 

and to increase their likelihood of attaining a high school credential. The survey asked about 

the use of 13 distinct strategies: (1) academic support classes, (2) academic tutoring, (3) careerthemed curricula, (4) case management, (5) college-level coursework, (6) competency-based 

advancement, (7) credit recovery, (8) early warning systems, (9) high school transition activities, 

(10) mentoring, (11) personalized learning plans, (12) social services, and (13) student support 

teams. The Department released a set of issue briefs based on the survey data to describe the 

prevalence and characteristics of dropout prevention strategies for at-risk youth and to compare 

high schools with high and low graduation rates as well as to examine differences by other 

school characteristics.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What strategies are high schools implementing to help students stay in school and 

graduate? Do these strategies vary for high schools with high or low graduation rates?

• How many students are served through each of these strategies? Are the strategies 

focused on particular student populations?

• How do schools deliver services or interventions for each of the strategies? What specific 

services are provided, and who provides the services? 
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 159

Design

The study conducted a web-based survey of a nationally representative sample of approximately 

2,000 high school principals during school year (SY) 2014–15.

Actual Completion Date

The 13 issue briefs were released between September 2016 and March 2018.

Key Findings from the 13 Issue Briefs

• The most widely used strategies were social services (96 percent of high schools), credit 

recovery (89 percent), college-level coursework (75 percent), student support teams 

(71 percent), academic support classes (67 percent), and personalized learning plans 

(65 percent).

• The strategies that served the largest percentages of high school students, on average, 

were high school transition activities (72 percent), personalized learning plans 

(45 percent), college-level coursework (27 percent), career-themed curricula (25 percent), 

social services (20 percent), and student support teams (17 percent).

• High schools with low graduation rates were more likely than high graduation rate high 

schools to use personalized learning plans (72 percent vs. 62 percent), academic support 

classes (68 percent vs. 61 percent), and competency-based advancement (44 percent vs. 

36 percent).

• High schools with low graduation rates were less likely than high graduation rate 

high schools to use high school transition activities (29 percent vs. 66 percent), careerthemed curricula (39 percent vs. 54 percent), college-level coursework (50 percent vs. 

85 percent), and credit recovery (84 percent vs. 91 percent). 

Link to Additional Information

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#preparing-college

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs

Study Purpose

This study examined how Title I schoolwide programs (SWPs) used schoolwide flexibility to 

design services and strategies to address the needs of low-achieving students and subgroups and 

how such strategies compare to approaches used in targeted assistance programs (TAPs). The 

SWP option was first introduced in 1978 to provide higher-poverty schools with flexibility to use 

Title I funds for whole-school approaches to improve achievement for low-achieving students. 

Unlike schools using the traditional TAP approach, SWP schools are allowed to consolidate 

Title I funds with those from other federal, state, and local sources and are not required to ensure 

that the funds are spent only for specific students identified as low-achieving. As of 2014–2015, 

SWPs accounted for 77 percent of all Title I schools. This study examined how these two types 

of programs compared in the services and resources they provided with Title I funds and their 

decision-making processes for allocating these resources.
160 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Key Question(s) Addressed

• Do schoolwide and TAPs differ in how they use Title I funds to improve achievement for 

low-achieving students?

• How do districts and schools make decisions about how to use Title I funds in SWPs and 

TAPs?

• To what extent do SWPs consolidate Title I funds with other funds or coordinate the use 

of Title I funds with other funds?

Design

The study was based on nationally representative surveys of Title I districts and schools as well 

as interviews and extant data analysis in selected case study sites. The surveys were completed 

by administrators in 310 Title I districts and principals in 622 SWP schools and 420 TAP schools. 

Response rates were 76 percent for districts and 75 percent for schools. The case studies were 

conducted in a purposive sample of 35 Title I SWP and TAP schools and their districts. They 

included collection and analysis of school-level budgets and Title I plans as well as site visits 

during which semi- structured interviews were conducted with principals, other school staff 

involved in Title I, and district administrators.

Actual Completion Date

The final report was released in April 2018.

Key Findings

• Although a majority of both SWP and TAP schools used Title I funds to hire teachers, 

such teachers accounted for a smaller percentage of Title I staff in SWP schools 

(41 percent) than in TAP schools (67 percent).

• SWP schools were more than twice as likely as TAP schools to use Title I funds for 

instructional coaches, parent liaisons, technology support staff, and English learner (EL) 

specialists.

• Both SWP and TAP schools most commonly used Title I-funded staff to provide 

supplemental instruction in reading and/or mathematics, but SWPs were more than twice 

as likely as TAPs to also use these staff for instruction in other subjects, data/analytics 

support, parental involvement, and other approaches.

• In most Title I schools, districts and schools collaborated on decisions regarding the 

use of Title I funds, but principals in SWPs were more likely than those in TAPs to 

report making all or most decisions about how to use their school’s Title I funds 

(25 vs. 12 percent).

• Few principals of SWPs said that their school consolidated Title I funds with other 

federal, state, and local funds (6 percent), but a larger proportion (50 percent) indicated 

that they coordinated the use of Title I funds with other funds.

• The biggest perceived challenge for consolidating Title I funds with other sources was 

state accounting rules that required separate accounting for federal programs.
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 161

Link to Additional Information

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#school-finance

Study of the Title III Native American and Alaska Native Children in Schools 

Program

Study Purpose

This study examined services and strategies for EL in Native American, Alaska Native, Native 

Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander communities that are supported through the Native American 

and Alaska Native Children in Schools (NAM) program. The purpose of the NAM program is 

to build or improve the English language proficiency (ELP) skills of Native American/Alaska 

Native ELs and to promote their overall academic success while simultaneously honoring 

and promoting Native American/Alaska Native languages and cultures. This qualitative study 

examined the types of activities funded by grantees and the perceived benefits, challenges and 

lessons learned that they experienced in implementing these activities.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• How do grantees use NAM funding to support activities intended to increase Native 

American and Alaska Native (NA/AN) EL student academic achievement? 

• How do grantees work with partners to provide funded services? 

• How do grantees measure progress and outcomes of funded services? 

• What benefits do grantees perceive as resulting from the grant? 

• What challenges do grantees experience in implementing grant-funded activities?

Design

The study included site visits to 19 grantees that received NAM grants from either the FY 2011 

or FY 2013 grant competitions, including review of the grant applications, telephone interviews 

with grant coordinators, and multiday site visits during which the study team conducted 

interviews and focus groups with staff involved in implementing NAM. A total of 188 unique 

respondents playing different roles in grant implementation participated in the telephone 

interviews and on-site interviews and focus groups that were conducted between December 2016 

and May 2017. The 19 grantees were located in 10 states: Alaska, Arizona, Montana, Nebraska, 

New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Actual Completion Date

The final report was released in June 2018.

Key Findings

• Ninety-five percent of grantees identified improving students’ ELP as a primary focus 

area of their grants, followed by revitalizing Native American/Alaskan Native languages 

and cultures (68 percent).
162 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

• Grantees most commonly used NAM funds for instructional personnel salaries and 

instructional materials or services (95 percent each); grantees also used funds for 

professional development, curriculum development, and technology resources.

• All of the grantees reported working with at least one partner particularly to gain 

professional or cultural expertise to support funded activities. The most common types 

of partners across all grantees were tribes, nontribal colleges and universities, and 

community-based organizations.

• Grantees’ most frequently reported data to monitor progress were state ELP assessment 

results (74 percent) and state English language arts assessment results (58 percent). 

Grantees reported Native language proficiency data less frequently (32 percent).

• Grantees’ most commonly reported benefits were gains in revitalization of Native 

American/ Alaskan Native languages and cultures and increases in students’ ELP.

• Grantees’ most frequently reported challenges were limited staff capacity, low parent 

and family engagement, and lack of adequate assessment data.

Link to Additional Information

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#student-populations

Study of School Climate Transformation Grants

Study Purpose

This study examined how states and districts that participate in both School Climate 

Transformation Grant (SCTG) programs and Project Advancing Wellness and Resilience 

Education (AWARE) reported coordinating services and support, including the mechanisms and 

practices used in coordination, grantee perceptions regarding the value of coordinating, and the 

challenges and lessons learned from a collaborative effort. This study used a conceptualization 

of coordination as a continuum of activities, from simple communication and information 

sharing at the low end toward mutual responsibility and accountability at the high end.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• How did grantees coordinate SCTG programs with Project AWARE?

• What did grantees see as the benefits of coordinating these two grant programs?

• What were the challenges and lessons learned?

Design

The study focused on sites that received both a SCTG from the Department and a Project 

AWARE grant from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Therefore, only 

those state educational agencies and school districts that were awarded both grants were 

asked to participate—a total of 36 grantees, including 27 local agencies and 9 state agencies. 

Study findings were based on reviews of grant applications, grantee progress reports, and 

136 semi-structured telephone interviews with state and district officials conducted between 
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 163

December 2016 and February 2017. Three to six staff members (primarily in student support 

roles) were interviewed per grantee.

Actual Completion Date

The final report was released in June 2018.

Key Findings

• Grantee coordination involved joint training, coordinated planning, communication, and 

the development of shared organizational structures. Most grantees (69 percent) were 

rated as being involved in at least a moderate level of coordination.

• Better integration of efforts to improve school climate with mental health services 

(e.g., by training staff in student identification and referral practices) was the most 

commonly reported accomplishment of coordination for grantees (75 percent).

• Regarding factors that inhibited coordination, districts most often described limited 

resources (including time, staff, or funds), whereas states more often reported lacking 

common goals or understanding and having different philosophies.

• Planning activities that grantees stated they wished they had done differently included 

establishing a team as soon as feasible, leveraging existing teams, clarifying goals early 

on, and mapping resources to determine which services and strategies were already in 

place to avoid redundancies.

• Lessons learned about communication included the importance of messaging, helping 

stakeholders understand the need for and goals of the grant, and connecting these goals 

to the district’s mission and other initiatives and strategies.

Link to Additional Information

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#safe-healthy

Summary of Performance Evaluations Expected 

During FY 2019 and FY 2020

National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance

Chronic Absenteeism

Impact Evaluation of Parent Messaging Strategies on Student Attendance

Study Purpose

Student attendance is a strong predictor of student success, even in early school years. In some 

communities, a quarter of all students in kindergarten through grade 3 are chronically absent, 

and this is most prevalent among low-income students. Under ESSA, which reauthorized ESEA, 
164 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

many states plan to hold schools accountable for reducing chronic absenteeism. One potential 

low-cost intervention that schools are increasingly trying involves text messaging parents to 

provide relevant tips and motivation to improve their child’s attendance. This evaluation is 

designed to provide evidence on the effectiveness of such an intervention for students attending 

low-performing elementary schools. A novel aspect of the intervention is that it is adaptive. 

Initially, parents will be treated with “light-touch” messaging in the fall, and those that do not 

appear to be responsive will subsequently receive more intensive messaging in the spring.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What is the impact on student attendance of using text messaging to provide parents 

with basic information related to attendance? Does it matter if messages are positively or 

negatively framed?

• For parents who do not respond to the lowest-cost messaging strategies, which highercost or intensified strategy works better to improve attendance—one that includes direct 

outreach from school staff or one that uses automated methods to improve motivation 

and behavioral skills? 

• Do the four combinations of fall and spring messaging strategies (i.e., the four adaptive 

interventions) have effects on end-of-year attendance and achievement when compared to 

each other and to business-as-usual attendance strategies?

• How is the messaging intervention implemented, and what are its costs?

Design

The evaluation will use a variant of a typical random assignment design, called a sequential 

multiple-assignment randomized trial. This design will measure the effectiveness of different 

initial messaging strategies and examine if there are any benefits to following up with more 

intensive strategies for parents who do not respond initially. Data will be collected to examine 

both the implementation of the intervention and the impact of the intervention on student-level 

outcomes, such as attendance and achievement. Specifically, information gathered from the text 

messaging vendor’s platform, a brief log that school staff will complete to document their parent 

outreach activities, interviews with district staff, and a survey of parents will be used to assess 

how well the intervention is implemented and to examine its costs. Information gathered from 

extant district records, including student absences and test scores, will be used to examine the 

impact of different messaging strategies.

Estimated Completion Date

A report describing findings is expected in 2019.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/other_messaging.asp
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 165

Early Learning

Race to the Top–Early Learning Challenge: Descriptive Study of Tiered Quality 

Rating and Improvement Systems in Nine Round 1 States

Study Purpose

RTT-ELC aimed to improve early learning and development programs so children enter 

kindergarten ready to succeed. The program awarded $1 billion in four-year grants to 20 states in 

three rounds between 2011 and 2013. The program promoted reform in five key areas: (1) state 

systems, (2) high-quality accountable programs, (3) early learning and development outcomes 

for children, (4) workforce, and (5) measurement. The second area focused on the design and 

implementation of TQRIS that can provide parents and other stakeholders with information on 

the quality of early-learning programs. To better understand TQRIS that RTT-ELC grantees 

developed, this descriptive study examined the structure and characteristics of grantee states’

TQRIS, analyzed state administrative data to examine patterns in the participation and 

distribution of programs in TQRIS, and synthesized findings from grantee states with completed 

TQRIS validation studies. This study focused on the nine Round 1 states, which received over 

$500 million in 2011.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• How was TQRIS structured and implemented in the nine Round 1 RTT-ELC states?

• How were TQRIS ratings defined, collected, and generated in the nine Round 1 RTT-ELC 

states?

• What were the patterns in TQRIS participation, the distribution of programs and children 

across the rating levels, and the movement of programs and children across the rating 

levels since 2011?

• How do TQRIS characteristics (including structure, policies, and practices) relate to 

program movement up the rating levels and achievement of the highest rating level?

• What have completed RTT-ELC state validation studies found about the relationship 

between TQRIS tiers and program quality as well as the relationship between children’s 

development and TQRIS ratings?

Design

This descriptive study collected various data from the nine Round 1 RTT-ELC grantee states. 

In fall 2014, the study collected and conducted a targeted review of documents describing the 

structure of TQRIS, including component measures and the quality indicators used to evaluate 

preschool programs and how these are combined to generate overall ratings. In fall 2014 through 

winter 2015, the study also conducted interviews with state administrators to confirm and clarify 

the information obtained from documents and gather information that could not be obtained from 

the document reviews.
166 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

To address the third and fourth research questions, the study collected administrative data 

from the Round 1 RTT-ELC grantee states. To address the last question, the study conducted a 

systematic review of nine completed RTT-ELC grantee state validation studies available in 2017.

Estimated Completion Date

A report addressing the first two questions was released in November 2017. Two evaluation 

briefs addressing the third and fourth questions and a report addressing the fifth question are 

expected in spring 2019.

Key Findings

• Eight of the nine states had a statewide TQRIS in place by 2015.

• States promoted participation in TQRIS by making it mandatory for certain programs 

(such as public prekindergarten programs or Head Start programs), providing alternative 

pathways into higher rating levels (so programs could avoid the full data collection and 

verification process), and offering financial incentives tied to higher ratings.

• States used different methods for calculating ratings, some of which changed over time.

• States used various sources of evidence to collect the information needed to rate 

programs, and they developed processes and standards to help ensure the reliability of 

this information.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/other_rtt.asp

Literacy (Including English Learners)

Academic Language Intervention Impact Evaluation

Study Purpose

Districts and policymakers need information about effective academic language interventions 

that have been tested in a variety of settings and demonstrate effects for both ELs and 

disadvantaged native English speakers. According to the National Assessment of Educational 

Progress, grade 4 ELs continue to score significantly lower on reading and mathematics 

achievement compared to their non-EL counterparts despite a decline in the size of the gap 

between 1998 and 2005. Moreover, students who enter kindergarten with limited academic 

language skills typically lag behind their peers in reading. Academic language skills are a 

critical skill that support reading and understanding for all students.

Due to the success of initial efficacy trials and research on academic language instruction as 

indicated in the IES Teaching Academic Content and Literacy to English Learners in Elementary 

and Middle School Practice Guide, exploring academic language interventions through largescale effectiveness research is a central next step. This evaluation takes this next step by 

examining the impacts of an academic language curriculum.
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 167

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What is the impact of the intervention on classroom instruction?

• What is the impact of the intervention on academic language skills and general reading 

outcomes for EL students and disadvantaged non-EL students?

• Is the intervention implemented with fidelity?

• Is there variation in the implementation or impact of the intervention? What 

implementation and sample characteristics are associated with variation in impacts?

Design

The study team recruited and randomly assigned 70 schools to either receive the intervention 

or serve as part of the control group. Treatment schools were offered summer training and 

ongoing support to implement WordGen Elementary with their fourth and fifth grade teachers 

and students during SY 2017–18. WordGen Elementary, developed by the Strategic Education 

Research Partnership with Catherine Snow at Harvard University, was competitively selected as 

the intervention to be tested in this study. WordGen Elementary includes 12 two-week teaching 

units that introduce 5 to 6 high-frequency academic vocabulary words used across disciplines. 

Each unit provides students with repeated, authentic opportunities to actively engage in using 

academic language in the classroom. The program is designed to provide daily 40- to 45-minute 

lessons.

Data collection includes direct assessments of students, classroom observations to document 

the contrast between treatment and control group teachers and classrooms, and administrative 

records to document student English proficiency and progress.

Estimated Completion Date

A report examining the impacts of the intervention at the end of the implementation year is 

expected in 2020.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/ell_ali.asp

Pathways to Career or College

Effectiveness of Promising Strategies in Federal College Access Programs: 

Study of Enhanced Advising to Improve College Fit in Upward Bound

Study Purpose

Growing concern over college enrollment and completion rates has heightened interest in 

cost-effective strategies to improve the outcomes of low-income students. Studies suggest that 

about half of these students “undermatch”—meaning they do not enroll in college or not in the 

most selective institution they could—and that attending a less selective college may lower 

students’ chances of completing a degree and reduce their earnings. This evaluation tested a 
168 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

set of promising, low-cost advising strategies, called “Find the Fit,” which is designed to help 

students enrolled in the federal Upward Bound program to choose more selective colleges. Find 

the Fit includes customized information about college going and costs, text messaging of key 

application and financial aid deadlines, and related advisor training.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• Can an enhanced college advising approach improve upon what Upward Bound grantees 

are already doing—that is, does it have positive effects on the number of colleges to 

which Upward Bound participants apply, the quality/selectivity of the colleges in which 

they enroll, and their persistence?

• In what types of grantees is this approach most effective and with what types of students?

Design

About 200 Upward Bound grantees that volunteered were randomly assigned in early 2015. 

Half participated in Find the Fit during SY 2015–16 as rising seniors during their study periods 

and half did not. Students in both sets of grantees were surveyed in fall 2014 (early junior year) 

to assess expectations for college and in spring 2016 (end of senior year) to collect information 

about their college planning including their applications. Data on completion of the Free 

Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA®) and college enrollment and persistence were 

also collected.

Estimated Completion Date

A report finding Upward Bound participants in the treatment group were 10 percentage points 

more likely to apply to four or more colleges and to colleges with a selectivity level of at least 

“very competitive” will be published in October 2018. A report describing impacts on college 

enrollment and selectivity (“fit”) is expected in fall 2019.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/pathways_upward.asp

Effectiveness of Promising Strategies in Federal College Access Programs: 

Study of College Transition Text Messaging in Gaining Early Awareness and 

Readiness for Undergraduate Programs

Study Purpose

Although academic preparation and financial circumstances continue to be barriers to 

postsecondary success among low-income students, the complexity of the process of applying 

to, enrolling in, and staying in college is also a factor. According to recent research, customized 

reminder messages and access to real-time support could help overcome procedural hurdles 

associated with registration, course selection, financial aid award and renewal, advisor meetings, 

and tuition payments—all of which can derail students’ college matriculation and persistence 

into sophomore year. This demonstration will test these promising strategies, building on the new 
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 169

opportunity for Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR 

UP) grantees to support a first year of college transition introduced in 2008 amendments to the 

Higher Education Act. GEAR UP is one of the Department’s college access programs, funding 

states or local partnerships of districts and postsecondary institutions to serve students in highneed schools beginning in seventh grade.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• Does the text-based reminder strategy improve GEAR UP students’ rates of college 

enrollment and persistence?

• For which types of students is the strategy more or less beneficial?

Design

About 80 GEAR UP high schools were recruited, with 5,000 seniors in SY 2015–16 or 

SY 2016–17. The students were randomly assigned to receive the college transition services 

grantees originally proposed in their applications or those services plus the customized reminders 

and support through text messages. Reminders and support were provided from the end of 

students’ high school senior year through the spring of their expected first year of college. The 

study team surveyed students before the reminder messaging began to collect information on 

students’ experiences with college advising and their intended college (so that the messages 

can be tailored to individual schools’ deadlines and requirements). College enrollment and 

persistence as well as FAFSA® renewal are being measured using administrative records.

Estimated Completion Date

A report describing impacts on college enrollment and persistence through a second year will be 

published in late 2019.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/pathways_gearup.asp

Evaluation of the Pell Grant Experiments Under the Experimental Sites 

Initiative

Study Purpose

Federal Pell grants are considered the foundation of higher education financial aid for lowincome students. However, under current rules, otherwise income-eligible students who already 

have a bachelor’s degree (BA) or who want to enroll in short-term (less than 15 weeks and 

600 hours) programs are restricted from obtaining these grants. Given unemployment rates 

above 8.5 percent in 2011 and reports of unfilled openings for skilled jobs in some occupations, 

postsecondary institutions called for expanding Pell grants to help fill the skill training gap 

for low-income workers. In response, the Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA), under the 

Experimental Sites Initiative authorized by Section 487A(b) of the Higher Education Act 

of 1965, is conducting demonstrations to test the impacts of eliminating the BA restriction 

(experiment #1) and significantly lowering the minimum clock hours/duration restriction 
170 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

(experiment #2) for students interested in vocational training in high-demand fields. IES 

designed and is overseeing a rigorous evaluation of these experiments.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• Does expanding Pell grant eligibility to include income-eligible students with a BA and/

or cover shorter-term programs improve access to job training?

• Does expanding Pell grant eligibility to these groups affect financial aid receipt and/or 

student debt?

• Do these two Pell grant experiments improve persistence and completion rates?

Design

Close to 50 IHEs that chose to participate identified about 2,900 students eligible for the 

experiments between the 2012–2013 and 2016–2017 financial aid award years. Students were 

randomly assigned to receive or not receive a Pell grant in their financial aid package. Student 

administrative data about program enrollment and completion were collected from participating 

IHEs in spring 2018. Data collection also included student administrative records on financial aid 

receipt from FSA.

Estimated Completion Date

The report for the study is expected to be published in fall 2019.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/pathways_pell.asp

Assessing Evidence of Effectiveness in Adult Education

Study Purpose

Title II of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act mandates that the Department carry 

out an independent evaluation of adult education programs and services. Under a National 

Assessment of Adult Education, IES will examine the effectiveness of adult education and 

literacy activities, starting with a feasibility and design study. This feasibility and design study 

will summarize what is known about effective adult education activities and services, identify 

policy-relevant activities or services that are feasible and appropriate to evaluate rigorously, and 

present design options for evaluating those activities or services.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What is known about the effectiveness of adult education programs, activities, and 

services?

• What adult education programs, activities, and/or services are feasible to examine with 

an impact study?

• What are design options for impact studies, including the most feasible and policyrelevant counterfactual, the most feasible unit of random assignment, the required 

sample sizes, and the most credible outcome measures?
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 171

Design

A systematic evidence review will be conducted to summarize existing studies of adult 

education. The contractor will draw on the evidence review and interviews with state and local 

directors of adult education to identify a set of promising adult education activities or services 

that could feasibly be evaluated. The contractor will also develop study design options. The 

Department may elect to conduct up to two impact studies beginning as early as 2020.

Estimated Completion Date

The systematic evidence review is expected by summer 2020.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/pathways_wioa.asp

School Choice

Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: Impacts Three Years 

After Students Applied (Final Report)

Study Purpose

The April 2011 SOAR Act provided a five-year continuation of a school choice program for 

low-income residents in Washington, DC. OSP provides annual scholarships of about $8,000 

(for kindergarten through grade 8) or $12,000 (for grades 9 through 12) to enable low-income 

students to attend Washington, DC, private schools in lieu of the public schools already available 

to them. The law also mandated a second independent, rigorous evaluation of the effectiveness of 

the program following one completed in 2011.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What is the impact of the OSP on student academic achievement and other measures of 

student success overall and for subgroups of students identified in the statute as high 

priority?

• What effect does the program have on students’ and parents’ perceptions of school safety 

and satisfaction and on parents’ involvement in education of their children?

• Does the program change students’ instructional environments and opportunities?

Design

The evaluation compared outcomes of approximately 1,800 student applicants randomly 

assigned by lottery to either receive a scholarship or not receive a scholarship. Lotteries of 

program applicants were conducted in spring 2012 (cohort 1), spring 2013 (cohort 2), and 

spring 2014 (cohort 3). Data were collected for three follow-up years for each of the cohorts 

and for students in both the scholarship and non-scholarship groups. A contractor administered 

academic assessments and conducted student, parent, and principal surveys each spring 

(spring 2013–2017).
172 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Estimated Completion Date

The final impact report is planned for early spring 2019.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/choice_soar.asp

Parent Information and School Choice Evaluation

Study Purpose

School choice is among the most visible kindergarten through grade 12 education policy trends 

to emerge over the last few decades. For this policy to be effective, it seems critical that parents 

be able to understand and use information about schools and application procedures to make 

informed choices. However, few studies have rigorously examined school choice information 

strategies or attempted to identify effective methods of information presentation. This evaluation 

is designed to address this significant gap in the literature.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• Which formats make school choice information displays easiest to understand and use? 

For example, is it better to show school performance data with numbers, graphs, or 

icons?

• How does the amount of information displayed affect understanding and use?

• How should school choice information displays be organized?

Design

A low-cost, quick turn-around experiment was carried out online with about 3,500 low-income 

parents of school-aged children. Parents were randomly assigned to view 1 of 72 versions of a 

school choice information display and then answered survey questions about their understanding 

of the information, ability to use the information, and which schools they would select based on 

the information they were provided. Responses to these survey questions were compared across 

the strategies tested to determine which ones were the most promising.

Estimated Completion Date

A short user-friendly guide based on the evaluation’s findings is expected on October 30, 2018.

Link to Additional Information

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/choice_parent.asp

Do Charter Middle Schools Improve Students’ College Enrollment and 

Completion?

Study Purpose

Charter schools play a key role in efforts to reform the education system and better serve the 

nation’s public school students. To help understand this role, more than a decade ago, the 
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 173

National Evaluation of Charter Middle Schools examined how admission to about 30 charter 

schools affected students’ achievement. On average, there were no significant effects. However, 

some charter schools were successful in improving achievement, including those in urban areas 

and serving economically disadvantaged students—features of many charter schools today. This 

report updates the evaluation, examining the effects on students’ later college attainment and how 

those are related to each school’s earlier influence on achievement.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• Does being admitted to a charter middle school affect students’ chances of enrolling in or 

completing college?

• Does an individual charter schools’ success in improving students’ middle school 

achievement relate to success in improving students’ college enrollment and completion?

Design

Lotteries were conducted in 2004 and 2005 to determine which of 2,904 students would be 

admitted to 31 charter middle schools across 15 states. The National Student Clearinghouse 

provided college information in December 2017 for 2,873 of the original set of students. The 

study compares college enrollment and completion for randomly selected lottery winners and 

lottery losers, taking into account students’ characteristics and their mathematics and reading 

test scores prior to the lottery.

Estimated Completion Date

An issue brief is expected in late winter 2019.

Impact Study of Federally Funded Magnet Schools

Study Purpose

Magnet schools are an important component of public school choice as well as a strategy used 

by districts, with the aim of improving student achievement and school diversity. Approximately 

2.5 million students currently attend magnet schools in the United States. Since 1985, the 

Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP) has provided federal discretionary grants to school 

districts to help establish or expand magnet programs. MSAP was most recently reauthorized 

in December 2015 as part of Title IV, Part D of ESEA and received nearly $190 million in 

appropriations between FY 2016 and FY 2017. Despite the popularity of and the support for 

magnet schools, there is limited evidence about their effectiveness. This evaluation will rely on 

random assignment lotteries that some schools use to admit students in order to rigorously assess 

magnet schools’ impact on student outcomes.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What is the impact of the magnet programs on relevant student outcomes (achievement 

and/or other relevant measures of student success such as persistence in school or 

graduation)?
174 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

• What is the impact of the magnet program on the characteristics of the schools that the 

students attend, including whether they are higher performing or more diverse?

• To what extent is there a relationship between school characteristics, including diversity 

and student outcomes?

Design

Districts and schools receiving FY 2016 and FY 2017 MSAP funding are being screened first 

to determine if there is a sufficient number of schools that are both willing to participate in the 

study and use lotteries to admit their students. If so, the evaluation will compare the outcomes of 

approximately 4,000 students randomly assigned by lottery to either attend the magnet schools 

or not attend these schools. Lotteries of student applicants took place in spring 2018 for student 

enrollment in fall 2018 and are anticipated in spring 2019 for student enrollment in fall 2019. 

School district records will be collected for three follow-up years for each of the two cohorts. 

These will include data on student characteristics, school enrollment, test scores, and other 

relevant data such as attendance, persistence, and graduation. Each year, principals at the magnet 

schools as well as the schools attended by students not offered admission to the magnet schools 

will be asked to provide information about the schools’ organization and instruction through a 

survey. These data will be analyzed to address the evaluation’s three research questions.

Estimated Completion Date

An introductory brief describing the recruitment and admissions practices of the FY 2016 and 

FY 2017 MSAP grantees is expected in 2019.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/choice_impactmagnet.asp

School Improvement

Implementation Study of State Supports Under Title I for Reducing School 

Dropouts

Study Purpose

Title I, Part A of ESEA (as amended by ESSA) requires states to support LEAs in providing 

effective transitions of students at all levels of schooling, especially middle school grades and 

high school, to decrease the risk of students dropping out. ESSA requires an evaluation of these 

efforts. This report will describe the implementation of dropout prevention strategies at the 

state and district levels and report recent dropout rate trends.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• How do states and districts identify students at risk of dropping out?

• What strategies do districts use to help students transition from elementary to middle 

school and from middle to high school? What services or options do districts offer to 

students at risk of dropping out? How do states support these efforts?

• What are recent trends in dropout rates at the national and state levels?
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 175

Design

Data were collected from all 50 states and Washington, DC, and a nationally representative 

sample of school districts through surveys administered under the Implementation of Title I and 

Title II, Part A Program Initiatives study during SY 2017–18. Data from the surveys will inform 

the first two research questions. Extant data on dropout rates will inform the third research 

question.

Estimated or Actual Completion Date

A report describing findings is expected in early 2020.

Students with Disabilities

Preschool Special Education Programs and Practices Supporting Children with 

Disabilities

Study Purpose

Most recently reauthorized in 2004, IDEA provides funding to assist states and LEAs in 

providing special education and related services to all eligible children and youth with 

disabilities, including young children ages 3 through 5 years old. For this young age group, 

a goal of IDEA is to provide children with disabilities the support they need to learn the 

preacademic, social–emotional, and behavioral readiness skills important for later school 

success. Currently, there is limited information available on the curricula and interventions 

being used across states to support young children with disabilities, particularly those used 

in inclusive preschool classrooms. The Evaluation of Preschool Special Education Practices 

is being conducted to address two objectives: (1) to provide nationally representative 

descriptive information about preschool special education programs and the specific curricula 

or interventions being delivered to preschool children with disabilities and (2) to assess 

the feasibility of a large-scale impact study by conducting an efficacy study piloting the 

implementation of an intervention program that integrates targeted instructional supports for 

children with disabilities with an evidence-based curriculum and promotes the language/literacy 

and social-emotional skills of children with disabilities in inclusive preschool classrooms.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• Which curricula and interventions are used nationally for preschool children with 

disabilities to promote learning of language, literacy, and social emotional skills?

• How are states and school districts structuring programs to serve children ages 3 through 

5 with disabilities?

• What staff resources are available to support the instruction of children ages 3 through 5 

with disabilities?

• What level of implementation is achieved for the intervention program that integrates 

targeted instructional supports for children with disabilities with an evidence-based 

curriculum?
176 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

• What are the intervention program’s impacts on the classroom environment and the 

social-emotional/behavioral skills and language outcomes of children in inclusive 

preschool classrooms?

Design

The study collected survey data from state grantees and district subgrantees of IDEA funds 

to obtain nationally representative information on the programs, services, curricula, and 

interventions available to children ages 3 through 5 identified for special education services. 

The survey sample included a nationally representative sample of 1,200 school district 

preschool special education coordinators and state Section 619 coordinators in all 50 states 

and Washington, DC. The efficacy study will test whether an intervention program integrating 

targeted instructional supports for children with disabilities with an evidence-based curriculum 

can be implemented with fidelity in inclusive preschool classrooms. The sample will include 

approximately 40 inclusive preschool classrooms that will be randomly assigned to implement 

the intervention program being tested or the regular curriculum and intervention they have been 

using in the classroom.

Estimated Completion Date

A descriptive report on the survey findings is expected in fall 2019.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/disabilities_preschool.asp

Impact Evaluation of Training in Multi-Tiered Systems of Support for 

Behavior

Study Purpose

IDEA 2004 is the most recent reauthorization of a law passed in 1975 to promote a free 

appropriate public education for children with disabilities. Districts are able to use a portion 

of their IDEA funds to provide services to students who are not identified as needing special 

education but who need additional support to succeed in a general education environment. 

Training school staff in supporting the behavior of all students—a potential use of these funds—

is becoming increasingly attractive to districts and schools as a vehicle for school improvement. 

Implementation of multi-tiered systems of support for behavior (MTSS-B) is an approach to 

improving school and classroom climate as well as student outcomes. MTSS-B is a multitiered, systematic framework for teaching and reinforcing behavior for all students as well 

as for providing additional support to those who need it. Over a third of U.S. districts report 

implementing MTSS-B at the elementary school level. Recent small-scale studies have shown 

the promise of MTSS-B. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of MTSS-B in 

a larger-scale setting.
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 177

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What MTSS-B training and support activities were provided? What MTSS-B activities 

occurred in the schools receiving MTSS-B training? How do these MTSS-B activities 

differ from those in schools that do not receive the training?

• What is the impact on school staff practices, school climate, and student outcomes of 

providing training in the MTSS-B framework plus universal (Tier I) positive behavior 

supports and a targeted (Tier II) intervention?

• What are the impacts for relevant subgroups (e.g., at-risk students)?

Design

This is a randomized controlled trial of the impact of training in MTSS-B on school climate, 

school staff practice, and student outcomes. A contractor, with assistance and input from the 

Department, and in consultation with a panel of experts, competitively selected an MTSS-B 

training provider, the Center for Social Behavior Support, which is a collaboration between 

the Illinois–Midwest Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) Network at the 

School Association for Special Education in DuPage, IL, and the PBIS Regional Training and 

Technical Assistance Center at Sheppard Pratt in Maryland. Approximately 90 elementary 

schools were randomly assigned to either training in MTSS-B including universal support 

(Tier I) plus targeted interventions for at-risk students (Tier II) or a business-as-usual control 

group. Treatment schools received training in MTSS-B prior to and across two school years, 

SY 2015–16 (Tier I) and SY 2016–17 (Tiers I and II), and implemented MTSS-B across these 

two school years. Data collection includes a staff survey, teacher ratings of student behavior, 

classroom observations, site visits, and student records data. These data are being collected from 

SY 2015–16 through SY 2018–19 and will be analyzed to answer the study’s impact (first and 

second) and implementation (third) research questions.

Estimated Completion Date

The report is expected in 2019.

Link to Additional Information

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/disabilities_MTSSB.asp

Teacher Effectiveness

Study of Teacher Preparation Experiences and Early Teacher Effectiveness

Study Purpose

A primary focus of Title II, Part A under ESEA (as amended by ESSA) is improving teacher 

quality. Limited research, however, informs how best to prepare teachers for the classroom. 

This study provides descriptive information on the preparation experiences of a large sample 

of novice teachers. It also examines whether the instructional skills that teachers learn about 
178 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

and have opportunities to practice in their preparation programs are associated with teachers’ 

effectiveness once they are in the classroom.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What experiences do novice teachers report receiving as part of their preparation 

program?

• What are the relationships between teacher-reported preparation experiences and novice 

teachers’ effectiveness in improving student achievement?

Design

Approximately 3,200 novice language arts and/or mathematics teachers from grades 4 through 6

participated in the study. In spring 2015, the teachers responded to a survey focused on their 

preparation experiences related to instructional skills that have been shown to be associated with 

teacher value-added scores. For each instructional skill, the teachers were asked about the nature 

of their learning experiences, including the extent to which their learning experiences occurred 

through coursework or through practice in a school classroom. The study also computed valueadded scores for teachers based on students’ state math and English language arts tests and 

examined the relationships between their teacher preparation experiences and teacher valueadded scores.

Estimated Completion Date

A report describing teachers’ preparation experiences and the relationship between their 

preparation experiences and their value-added scores is expected by spring 2019.

Link to Additional Information

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_teacherprep_early.asp

Impact Evaluation of Professional Development for Teachers on Data-Driven 

Instruction

Study Purpose

Title II, Part A, the Improving Teacher Quality State Formula Grants program, is the primary 

federal funding under ESEA to improve teacher quality. ESEA was most recently reauthorized 

as ESSA in December 2015. Title II, Part A targets high-poverty districts and funds a broad array 

of allowable activities including professional development for teachers. This study evaluates the 

effectiveness of professional development for principals and teachers to help teachers use student 

assessment and other data to guide their classroom instruction.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What are the effects on student achievement of providing professional development to 

principals and teachers that focuses on using individual student assessment and other data 

already available to school staff to guide instruction?
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 179

• What are the effects of providing this professional development on teachers’ and 

principals’ use of student data to monitor student progress and on teachers’ adjustments 

to instructional practice to address student needs?

Design

Within 12 districts, 104 elementary schools were randomly assigned to receive the school’s 

usual professional development and any data-related activities or to also receive the study’s 

professional development focused on using student data to inform instructional practice. In each 

treatment school, principals and half-time data coaches funded by the study received eight days 

of professional development and ongoing technical assistance from a data-driven instruction 

provider for 1.5 years. In turn, the half-time data coaches met regularly with principals and 

fourth and fifth grade teachers in the treatment group and facilitated teachers working in teams 

to examine student data and identify appropriate instructional practices to address student needs. 

Study data collection included a teacher survey, a principal survey, and student administrative 

records, including student state standardized achievement test scores.

Estimated Completion Date

The report is expected in spring 2019.

Link to Additional Information

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_datadriven.asp

Impact Evaluation of Support for Principals

Study Purpose

Title II, Part A, the Improving Teacher State Formula Grants program, is the primary federal 

funding under ESEA to support high-quality educators. Providing professional development for 

principals is one of the allowable uses of these funds. Principals who focus on instructional and 

organizational leadership and human capital management have the potential to greatly influence 

the quality of instruction.

However, there is limited evidence about the effectiveness of principal professional development 

programs. This evaluation studies an intensive professional development program intended to 

improve principals’ leadership skills and school quality.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What are the professional development experiences of principals?

• What are the initial impacts on school climate and educator behaviors of providing 

principals structured and intensive professional development?

• What are the impacts on teacher retention, the effectiveness of instructional staff, and 

student achievement of providing principals with structured and intensive professional 

development?
180 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Design

Within 10 districts, a total of 100 elementary schools were randomly assigned to a treatment 

or control group. Treatment group principals were offered intensive professional development 

provided by the University of Washington’s Center for Educational Leadership during 

SY 2015–16 and SY 2016–17. The Center for Educational Leadership was competitively 

selected to provide the professional development focused on in this study. The professional 

development emphasized instructional leadership activities, including conducting classroom 

observations with constructive feedback to improve teacher effectiveness. Both treatment and 

control group principals received support normally offered by the district. Data collection 

included information about the professional development delivered and experienced by the 

participating principals, teacher and principal surveys, periodic logs of principal daily activities, 

and student administrative records.

Estimated Completion Date

The report is expected in summer 2019.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_principals.asp

Study of Title II, Part A Use of Funds

Study Purpose

Under ESSA, Title II, Part A is a primary source of federal funding to improve the quality and 

effectiveness of teachers, principals, and other school leaders. A broad range of activities is 

permissible at both the state and district levels under this program. The funding is also intended 

to provide low-income and minority students with greater access to effective educators. This 

study is designed to provide information about how states and districts use these funds.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What activities do state educational agencies support with their Title II, Part A funds?

• What activities do LEAs support with their Title II, Part A funds?

Design

This is a descriptive study based on an annual survey of all 50 states; Washington, DC; and 

Puerto Rico. The study also includes an annual survey of a nationally representative sample 

of charter districts and a state representative sample of LEAs. Survey information includes 

transfers to or from Title II, Part A and other programs allowed under ESEA section 5103; 

activities funded by Title II, Part A; types of professional development activities and the areas 

of focus supported by Title II, Part A; and strategies for identifying and addressing inequity in 

the distribution of teacher quality or effectiveness.
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 181

Estimated Completion Date

The first report is expected in fall 2019.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_titletwo_a.asp

Other

Implementation of Title I and Title II, Part A Program Initiatives

Study Purpose

Title I and Title II, Part A are key ESEA programs intended to help provide all students with 

equal access to education by providing financial assistance to schools and districts which 

have a high percentage of students from low-income families (Title I) and improving teacher 

and principal quality (Title II, Part A). ESEA was most recently reauthorized as ESSA in 

December 2015. Under Title I, ESSA offers states and districts considerable autonomy while 

requiring them to adopt challenging academic standards, aligned assessments, and accountability 

systems that set state-specific accountability goals and identify and support low-performing 

schools. Under Title II, Part A, ESSA also provides funding for a broad array of permissible activities 

to improve the effectiveness of educators and achieve equitable distribution of effective educators.

This study is designed to provide relevant data on the implementation of programs and policies 

related to Title I and Title II, Part A at several points in time. A prior report based on data 

collected during SY 2013–14 provided information on implementation under the No Child 

Left Behind Act and ESEA flexibility. This report will provide information on the transition 

to and early implementation of ESSA during SY 2017–18. A subsequent report will look at 

implementation during SY 2019–20.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What content standards and high school graduation requirements are states adopting, and 

what materials and resources are provided to support implementation?

• What types of assessments do states and districts use, and what materials and resources 

are provided to support the implementation of assessments and use of assessment data?

• What are the key features of states’ accountability systems? How do states and districts 

identify and support their lowest-performing schools?

• How do states and districts evaluate educator effectiveness and assess equitable 

distribution of educators? 

• What supports are provided to improve educator effectiveness and equitable distribution?

Design

Survey data were most recently collected in SY 2017–18 from all 50 states and Washington, DC, 

as well as from a nationally representative sample of districts and a nationally representative 
182 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

sample of charter districts. These data will be descriptively analyzed to address the study’s key 

questions.

Estimated Completion Date

A first report on implementation findings from SY 2013–14 survey data was released in 

January 2017. The second report on findings from SY 2017–18 is expected in spring 2020.

Key Findings

• Most states adopted and most principals and teachers reported implementing state 

standards that focused on college and career readiness. All but one state had committed 

to having college- and career-ready standards in place by SY 2013–14. A majority of 

principals (67 to 69 percent, depending on subject) reported fully implementing state 

content standards, and most teachers reported receiving professional development 

relevant to state content standards (79 percent of teachers) and weekly use of aligned 

instructional activities (92 percent of teachers).

• Many state assessments incorporated more sophisticated response formats to better assess 

students’ college and career readiness. In their reading/English language arts summative 

assessments, many states (24 to 36, depending on grade level) reported using extended 

constructed response formats, which is a type of response format intended to assess 

higher-order thinking skills. Nineteen states used this response format in mathematics 

assessments.

• States used ESEA flexibility to reset their accountability goals and to target a narrower 

set of schools for additional support. Forty-three states received ESEA flexibility for 

SY 2013–14. The most common accountability goal adopted by states with ESEA 

flexibility (28 of the 43 states) was reducing by half the percentage of students and 

subgroups not proficient in six to eight years. States with ESEA flexibility identified 

5 percent of Title I schools as lowest performing and an additional 10 percent of Title I 

schools with substantial student achievement gaps compared to non-flexibility states 

that reported identifying 43 percent of Title I schools as lowest performing.

• Almost all states adopted new laws or regulations related to educator evaluation systems 

between 2009 and 2014, and most districts reported full or partial implementation in 

SY 2013–14. Only four states had not adopted new teacher evaluation laws or regulations 

by 2014, and a majority (59 percent) of districts reported fully implementing, piloting, 

or partially implementing a new teacher evaluation system. However, few districts 

(18 percent) reported using evaluation system measures of student achievement 

growth and classroom practice consistent with emerging research.

Link to Additional Information

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/other_titleI.asp
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 183

Evaluation of the Comprehensive Technical Assistance Centers’ FY 2012 

Grantees

Study Purpose

The Comprehensive Technical Assistance Centers program is a federally funded program 

currently authorized under the Educational Technical Assistance Act of 2002. In FY 2012, the 

Department awarded five-year grants, which were subsequently extended to seven-year grants, 

to 22 Comprehensive Technical Assistance Centers to help state educational agencies build their 

capacity to implement state- level initiatives and to support district- and school-level initiatives 

that improve educational outcomes for all students, close achievement gaps, and improve the 

quality of instruction. The total yearly funding for the Centers program averaged about 

$50 million. This study will inform the Department, the Centers program, and the larger field 

about the design, implementation, and outcomes of the centers’ work.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• How did centers define capacity building in their theories of action? How did the centers 

assess the needs of their constituents and develop work plans to address those needs?

• What strategies did centers employ to achieve their outcomes? To what extent and how 

did centers collaborate with each other?

• Did centers achieve their expected capacity-building outcomes, and how do they assess 

whether they achieved them? What strategies are perceived to be most effective and 

why? What challenges or barriers do centers face in achieving outcomes, and how do 

they respond?

Design

This evaluation is a multiyear descriptive study examining the Centers program. The evaluation 

will describe how individual centers intend to build state educational agency capacity (their 

theories of action) and document what types of activities they actually conducted to build 

capacity. The evaluation focused on center projects in two priority areas: great teachers and 

leaders and early learning. Data were collected during FY 2015, FY 2016, and FY 2017 program 

years and included: (1) the centers’ management plans and technical assistance activity data, 

(2) interviews with staff from each center, interviews with technical assistance recipients, 

(4) a survey of center staff, and (5) a survey of technical assistance recipients. This approach 

yielded a diverse set of data that were analyzed using qualitative research methods and simple 

quantitative tabulations, in order to address the study’s key questions.

Estimated Completion Date

A report describing findings is expected in fall 2019.

Link to Additional Information

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/other_techcenters12.asp
184 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Policy and Program Studies Service

Implementation Study of the Turnaround School Leaders Program

Study Purpose

This study examined the implementation of the Turnaround School Leaders Program (TSLP), 

a program that sought to bridge the goals of leadership development and school improvement. 

The Department funded two cohorts of grantees—one in 2014 and the other in 2015. This 

study examined the first cohort of grantees in the last year of their three-year grant in order to 

draw lessons that may help policymakers and practitioners who struggle with the challenges of 

developing leaders to turn around low-performing schools and to add to the field’s general body 

of knowledge about developing turnaround leadership pipelines.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What role did partners play in the TSLP projects, and were partnerships expected to be

• sustained?

• How did TSLP projects identify program participants?

• How did TSLP projects develop and support leaders for turnaround schools?

• How successful were program completers in finding leadership positions in turnaround 

schools, and what factors affected placement rates?

Design

The study conducted surveys of all 12 TSLP grantees in the first cohort of grantees and case 

studies of 7 TSLP grantees, including each grantee’s partners and an analysis of extant data, 

including grant applications, early outcome data, and other project-specific data.

Actual Completion Date

The final report was released in November 2018.

Key Findings

• Survey and interview data indicated joint ownership and involvement in all TSLP project 

activities by project partners, with the grantee having the most significant role across all 

project activities, followed by training partners and district partners.

• All project directors expected to work with their grant partners on some area of the 

turnaround leader pipeline after the end of the grant; district and training partners were 

more uncertain.

• TSLP grantees implemented multiple strategies to recruit potential program participants, 

offering incentives including financial incentives and professional development 

opportunities. TSLP grantees relied primarily on referrals from peers and current school 

leaders to identify program candidates.

• TSLP projects were primarily designed to serve aspiring leaders. Ten percent of 

participants were current leaders.
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 185

• Training content and form were consistent with practices highlighted in current research 

on school leadership preparation in general.

• On average, project directors reported that 43 percent of program completers were placed 

in turnaround schools within one year of program completion.

• The number of program completers placed in administrative positions depended on 

the number of vacancies. Matching the number of program completers to vacancies 

was a challenge across projects, particularly in rural projects. There tended to be fewer 

vacancies in small rural districts, making it more difficult for program completers from 

rural projects to find administrative positions upon program completion.

Link to Additional Information

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#teachers

Study of Digital Learning Resources for Instructing English Learners

Study Purpose

Over the past decades, kindergarten through grade 12 teachers have gained increasing access to 

digital technologies to support instruction while, at the same time, the number and percentage 

of ELs in their classrooms has been increasing. This study is intended to inform educators, 

technology developers, and policymakers about how digital learning resources (DLRs) can be 

used to support EL students, both in terms of English language acquisition and achievement 

in academic content areas. The goals of the study are to explore the range of DLRs that are 

available for use with ELs, examine how districts and schools select and use these apps, and 

develop ideas on ways to improve the design and use of DLRs to support learning for ELs.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• How do districts and teachers identify DLRs for instructing EL students?

• What types of DLRs do teachers use, and how do they used DLRs in instructing EL

students?

• What are supports for and barriers to DLR use in instructing EL students?

• How can educators and technology developers improve the usefulness of DLRs in 

instruction of EL students?

Design

The study is based on a nationally representative survey of 999 school districts that enroll 

EL students and a survey of teachers of EL students within those districts (including both 

mainstream teachers and EL specialists). Case studies were conducted in six of the districts, 

including interviews with district administrators, principals, and teachers of EL students. 

The study also includes market research on existing DLRs for kindergarten through grade 12 

instruction and consultation with an expert panel of technology developers, practitioners, and 

education researchers about ways to improve the design and use of DLRs for instructing 

EL students.
186 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Estimated Completion Date

Two field-focused toolkits for educators and technology developers were released in 

October 2018. The final report is scheduled for completion in early 2019.

Link to Additional Information

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#ells 

Evaluation of the Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent Program

Study Purpose

This study examines the implementation of educational programs for children and youth in 

residential facilities and correctional institutions funded under Title I, Part D of ESEA. The study 

includes surveys of state grantees and local subgrantees to examine the types of services and 

strategies that Part D funds support, how state and local agencies assist students in transitioning 

back to schools, how state correctional facilities implement institution-wide Part D projects, and 

how grantees assess the educational outcomes of participating students.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• How do states and local agencies administer Part D programs?

• What types of services and strategies do Part D funds support and are otherwise provided 

to youth in justice and child welfare settings?

• How do justice and child welfare agencies and facilities assist students in transitioning 

back to districts and schools, including those outside their jurisdictions?

• How do grantees assess the educational outcomes of students participating in Part D 

funded educational programs?

Design

The study includes surveys of state and local coordinators of Title I, Part D funded programs as 

well as site visits to state agencies, school districts, correctional institutions, and child welfare 

facilities. The study is also informed by a review of extant data and a review of literature related 

to programs for neglected and delinquent youth.

Estimated Completion Date

The report is scheduled for completion in early 2019.

Evaluation of the Migrant Education Program

Study Purpose

This study examines how states, districts, schools, and other service providers implement 

requirements authorized under the ESEA Title I, Part C Migrant Education Program (MEP). The 

$374 million program serves approximately 300,000 highly mobile students and out-of-school 
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 187

youth accompanied by migratory farmworkers and fishers. State educational agencies serve 

as the primary grantees and sub-allocate funds to local school districts and operating agencies 

and regional service providers who serve students both during the academic year and summer 

months.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• How do MEP grantees identify, recruit, and prioritize migratory children for services?

• What services do MEP grantees provide to migratory children?

• How do MEP grantees collaborate with other programs and organizations to deliver 

services to migratory children and their families?

Design

The study includes surveys of all 46 state grantees and a nationally representative sample of 

1,006 district programs serving migrant children. In addition, the study is conducting case 

studies of 10 states, 20 local grantees (two per state), and 40 schools (two per local grantee).

Estimated Completion Date

The report is scheduled for completion in summer 2019.

Evaluation of the Title VI Indian Education Formula Grants Program

Study Purpose

This study examines the implementation of the Indian Education Formula Grants Program 

authorized under Title VI of ESEA. More specifically, the study examines school district and 

tribal-level implementation of the grants, including the activities supported with formula funds, 

the processes used to identify and count eligible children, and how grantees establish program 

priorities and implement grant-funded services.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What services do Indian Education Formula Grants support?

• How do grantees work with stakeholders to identify program-eligible children and plan 

services to meet the needs of those children?

• How do grantees measure progress toward meeting their Title VI project objectives?

Design

This study is based on a survey of 1,304 local grant coordinators and case studies of 9 grantees, 

as well as a review of relevant literature and analysis of extant data.

Estimated Completion Date

The report is scheduled for completion in spring 2019.
188 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Study of Weighted Student Funding Systems

Study Purpose

This study examines districts that have implemented weighted student funding (WSF) systems, 

which allocate per-pupil funding amounts to individual schools and use weights for certain types 

of students to provide additional resources to meet the needs of those students. In addition, WSF 

systems typically devolve a greater share of decision-making regarding resource use to principals 

and other school-level stakeholders. As the first national study of WSF systems, this study seeks 

to understand the prevalence and characteristics of WSF systems and examine how they compare 

to traditional districts in terms of the autonomy and flexibility provided to principals and schools; 

involvement of teachers, parents, and other stakeholders in the decision-making process; and 

potential outcomes related to equity and the distribution of resources among schools with 

different levels of need.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• How are resources allocated to schools in districts with WSF systems compared with 

districts with more traditional resource allocation practices?

• In what ways do schools have autonomy and control over resource allocation decisions, 

and how does this vary between WSF districts and other districts?

• How has the use of weights to adjust funding based on student needs affected the 

distribution of resources among schools?

• What challenges did districts and schools experience in implementing WSF, and how did 

they respond to those challenges?

Design

This study includes both qualitative and quantitative analysis of data from case studies of nine 

WSF districts and nationally representative surveys of districts and schools. The case studies 

included interviews with district and school staff as well as collection and analysis of data such 

as school budget and expenditure data and documentation on specific weighting schemes and 

other aspects of allocation formulas. The surveys were administered to 400 district administrators 

and 680 school principals, including 31 school districts identified as current or former WSF 

districts and 310 schools in those WSF districts.

Estimated Completion Date

The report is scheduled for completion in spring 2019.

Study of Higher Education Articulation Agreements Covering the Early Care 

and Education Workforce

Study Purpose

The purpose of this study is to identify elements that selected states have in place to enable 

articulation, or the transfer of course credits, for early care and education (ECE) workers who 
Appendix D. Summary of Performance Evaluations 189

are progressing from an Associate’s degree to a BA and to describe successes and challenges in 

implementing those elements.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What policies do states have to support articulation for ECE students?

• What governance structures do states have to oversee ECE articulation policy?

• How do IHEs implement articulation policies?

• What supports do states and IHEs provide for the transfer and articulation process?

Design

This study examines ECE articulation policies and their implementation in six states (California, 

Florida, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania) that have statewide articulation 

policies addressing degrees or coursework in early childhood education. The study includes 

one-on-one telephone interviews with 80 individuals including faculty and college administrators 

from two- and four-year IHEs, state higher education administrators, and representatives from 

higher education governing bodies and ECE licensure bodies. The study also includes focus 

groups of student and support staff and a review of extant documents.

Estimated Completion Date

The report is scheduled for completion in spring of 2019.

Profiles of Selected Practices of Charter Schools, Charter Management 

Organizations, and Charter School Authorizers

Study Purpose

The Expanding Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools program (i.e., Charter Schools 

Program (CSP)) authorized under ESEA is intended to support innovation in public education, 

including the dissemination of best practices regarding charter schools. This study will result in 

10 profiles describing innovative practices that are being implemented by charter schools, charter 

management organizations (CMOs), and charter school authorizers (CSAs), with a priority 

on CSP grantees and subgrantees and authorizers serving those grantees and subgrantees. The 

profiles will be disseminated to practitioners serving both charter and traditional public schools.

Key Question(s) Addressed

• What are the key features of each innovative practice for charter schools, CMOs, and 

CSAs?

• How do charter schools, CMOs, and CSAs decide what practices to implement? To what 

extent do they consider criteria for identifying evidence-based practices based on each of 

ESSA’s four evidence levels?

• What, if any, challenges do charter schools, CMOs, and CSAs encounter in implementing 

innovative practices, and what strategies do they use to overcome these challenges?
190 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

• What evidence exists to suggest that the practices are successfully implemented? To what 

extent do state assessment results, leading indicators, or other quantitative data show 

improving outcomes? Are there any qualitative signs of progress?

• What factors do charter schools, CMOs, and CSAs believe are most important to the 

successful implementation of the practices? How do they support the replication of 

innovative practices?

Design

The study will include a review of relevant research, an expert panel, an analysis of school 

achievement data of charter schools that are candidates for site visits, and 30 site visits to charter 

schools, CMOs, and CSAs to collect information about their practices.

Estimated Completion Date

The profiles are scheduled for completion in spring 2020.
Appendix E. Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations 191

Appendix E. Glossary of Acronyms 

and Abbreviations

Acronym Definition

ACCT Account

ACGR Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate

ACSI American Consumer Satisfaction Index

ALL All

AP Advanced Placement

APBH American Printing House for the Blind

APG Agency Priority Goal

APR Annual Performance Report

AWARE Advancing Wellness and Resilience Education

BA Bachelor’s Degree

BOD Binding Operational Directive

CAP Goal Cross-Agency Priority Goal

CBI Capacity-Building Institute

CCD Common Core of Data

CDM Common Core of Data

CEIS Coordinated Early Intervening Service

CMO Charter Management Organization

CRDC Civil Rights Data Collection

CSA Charter School Authorizer

CSF Cybersecurity Framework

CSP Charter Schools Program

CSPR Consolidated State Performance Report

CTAE Career, Technical and Adult Education

CTE Career and Technical Education

DLR Digital Learning Resource

DM Departmental Management

DST Data Strategy Team

ED U.S. Department of Education

ECE Early Care and Education

ECTA Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center

EL English Learner
192 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Acronym Definition

ELA English Language Acquisition

ELP English Language Proficiency

EO Executive Order

ERM Enterprise Risk Management

ESEA Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965

ESSA Every Student Succeeds Act

FAFSA® Free Application for Federal Student Aid

FCSS Federal Commission on School Safety

FDSL Federal Direct Student Loan

FERPA Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act

FEVS Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey

FFEL Federal Family Education Loan

FISMA Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014

FSA Office of Federal Student Aid

FY Fiscal Year

GEAR UP Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate 

Programs

GLBA Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

GS General Schedule

GU Gaulluadet University

HBCU Historically Black College and University

HE Higher Education

HEA Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended

HEAL Health Education Assistance Loan

HSI STEM Hispanic Serving Institution Science, Technology, Engineering and 

Mathematics Articulation Program

HVA High Value Asset

I&I Innovation and Improvement

i3 Investing in Innovation

IA Impact Aid

ICCD Information Collections Clearance Division

IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

IEP Individualized Education Program

IES Institute of Education Sciences

IET Integrated Education and Training

IHE Institution of Higher Education

IRS Internal Revenue Service
Appendix E. Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations 193

Acronym Definition

IT Information Technology

ITA Intensive Technical Assistance Agreement

LDD Learning and Development Division

LEA Local Educational Agency

MEP Migrant Education Program

MSAP Magnet Schools Assistance Program

MSI Minority-Serving Institution

MTSS-B Multi-tiered Systems of Support for Behavior

N/A Not Applicable

NAEP National Assessment of Educational Progress

NAM Native American and Alaska Native Children in Schools

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NCER National Center for Education Research

NCES The National Center for Education Statistics

NCPMI National Center for Pyramid Model Innovations

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

NLTS National Longitudinal Transition Study

NPSAS National Postsecondary Student Aid Study

NTID National Technical Institute for the Deaf

OCFO Office of the Chief Financial Officer (this office is part of the 

Office of Finance and Operations effective January 6, 2019)

OCIO Office of the Chief Information Officer

OCR Office for Civil Rights

OCTAE Office of Career, Technical and Adult Education

OELA Office of English Language Acquisition

OESE Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

OET Office of Educational Technology

OIG Office of Inspector General

OII Office of Innovation and Improvement (this office is part of the 

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education effective 

January 6, 2019)

OM Office of Management (this office is part of the Office of Finance 

and Operations effective January 6, 2019)

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPE Office of Postsecondary Education

OPEPD Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

OPM Office of Personnel Management 
194 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

Acronym Definition

OSEP Office of Special Education Programs

OSERS Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

OSP Opportunity Scholarship Program

OSS Office of State Support

PA Program Administration

PBCS Performance-Based Compensation System

PBIS Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports

PMA President’s Management Agenda

POC Principal Operating Component

PPO Partner Participation and Oversight

PPSS Policy and Planning Support Service

PSI Postsecondary Institution

PTAC Privacy Technical Assistance Center

REHAB Rehabilitation Services and Disability Research

RRTF Regulatory Reform Task Force

RSA Rehabilitation Services Administration

RTT-ELC Race to the Top–Early Learning Challenge Program

SAA Student Aid Administration

SBIR Small Business Innovation Research

SCTG School Climate Transformation Grant

SE Special Education

SFA Student Financial Assistance

SIP Strengthening Institutions Program

SOAR Scholarships and Opportunities for Results Act

SSCE Safe Schools and Citizenship Education

SSIP State Systemic Improvement Plan

STEM Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics

SWP Schoolwide Program

SY School Year

TA&D Technical Assistance and Dissemination

TAP Targeted Assistance Program

TBD To Be Determined

TEACH Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education

TIF Teacher Incentive Fund

TQRIS Tiered Quality Rating Improvement System

TSLP Turnaround School Leaders Program

VR Vocational Rehabilitation
Appendix E. Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations 195

Acronym Definition

VR-YTAC Vocational Rehabilitation Technical Assistance Center–Youth with 

Disabilities 

WIOA Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act

WINTAC Workforce Innovation Technical Assistance Center

WSF Weighted Student Funding
196 FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan

This page is intentionally left blank.