Strategic Plan 

For Fiscal Years 2007–12 

 

U.S. Department of Education
U.S. Department of Education 

Margaret Spellings 

Secretary 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer 

Lawrence A. Warder 

Chief Financial Officer 

May 2007

NOTE: Although this strategic plan covers fiscal year (FY) 2007, the Department’s 

annual performance plan and annual performance and accountability report for FY 2007 

will use the key measures for that year that are related to the goals of the expiring 

Department strategic plan FY 2002–07. The key measures included in this document will 

be effective for the Department beginning with FY 2008. 

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to produce 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, Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2007–12, Washington, 

D.C., 2007. 

To obtain copies of this report, 

Write to: ED Pubs, Education Publications Center, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. 

Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1298; 

Or fax your request to: 301-470-1244; 

Or e-mail your request to: edpubs@inet.ed.gov; 

Or call in your request toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877 service is 

not yet available in your area, call 1-800-872-5327 (1-800-USA-LEARN). Those who 

use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY), should 

call 1-877-576-7734; 

Or order online at: www.edpubs.org. 

This report is also available on the Department’s Web site at: www.ed.gov

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large print or 

computer diskette. For more information, please contact the Department’s Alternate 

Format Center at 202-260-0852 or 202-260-0818. 

2
LETTER FROM THE SECRETARY 

Dear Reader, 

Five years after the bipartisan passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, we 

remain dedicated to promoting education excellence in every corner of the country. 

Together, we can point with pride to the progress we’ve made. But we must continue to 

focus on the hard work and challenges that lie ahead. 

The U.S. Department of Education’s Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2007–12 sets high 

expectations for America’s schools and students, and for ourselves. We are committed to 

giving students the skills they need to succeed in a highly competitive global economy. 

To this end, we have set out three important goals in this plan that address the following 

three priorities: 

1. Increase student achievement, reward qualified teachers, and renew troubled 

schools so that every student can read and do math at grade level by 2014, as 

called for by the No Child Left Behind Act. 

2. Encourage more rigorous and advanced coursework to improve the academic 

performance of our middle and high school students. 

3. Work with colleges and universities to improve access, affordability, and 

accountability, so that our higher education system remains the world’s finest. 

We are also setting high expectations for management of the Department by creating a 

crosscutting goal focused on excellent management practices, fiscal integrity, and a 

culture of high performance. 

No Child Left Behind provides a strong foundation on which to build these positive 

results. Data show that the law is working to improve student achievement and close the 

nation’s achievement gap. We must now work together to reauthorize and strengthen the 

law. Children who were in grade 3 when the law was passed will soon be entering high 

school. They deserve to be taught to high standards by qualified teachers in schools that 

are held accountable for results. 

We understand who truly makes a difference in education: hard-working teachers, 

principals, administrators, and parents. Let us commit ourselves to helping them get the 

very best from our nation’s students. 

Sincerely, 

 /s/ 

Margaret Spellings 

Secretary of Education

3
CONTENTS

Page 

Letter From the Secretary...........................................................................3 

List of Tables..........................................................................................5 

Mission Statement....................................................................................6 

Goal 1: Improve student achievement, with a focus on bringing all students to grade level 

in reading and mathematics by 2014. .............................................................7 

 Objective 1: Improve student achievement in reading/language arts. 

 Objective 2: Improve student achievement in mathematics. 

 Objective 3: Improve teacher quality. 

 Objective 4: Promote safe, disciplined, and drug-free learning environments. 

 Objective 5: Increase information and options for parents. 

 Objective 6: Increase the high school completion rate. 

 Objective 7: Transform education into an evidence-based field. 

Goal 2: Increase the academic achievement of all high school students. ...................19 

 Objective 1: Increase the proportion of high school students taking a rigorous 

curriculum. 

 Objective 2: Promote advanced proficiency in mathematics and science for all 

students. 

 Objective 3: Increase proficiency in critical-need foreign languages.

Goal 3: Ensure the accessibility, affordability, and accountability of higher education, and 

better prepare students and adults for employment and future learning. ....................25 

 Objective 1: Increase success in and completion of quality postsecondary 

education. 

 Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively and 

efficiently. 

 Objective 3: Prepare adult learners and individuals with disabilities for higher 

education, employment, and productive lives.

Cross-goal Strategy on Management.............................................................34 

 Objective 1: Maintain and strengthen financial integrity and management and 

internal controls. 

 Objective 2: Improve the strategic management of the Department's human 

capital. 

 Objective 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding 

decisions to results.

Appendix: How the Department Developed the Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2007-12

and Consulted with Congress and the Public to Create the Final Plan.......................40

4
TABLES OF MEASURES AND TARGETS 

Page 

Table 1. Measures of student proficiency on state reading/language arts assessments, 

by student characteristic..............................................................9 

Table 2. Measures of student proficiency on state mathematics assessments, by 

student characteristic..................................................................9 

Table 3. Measures of core courses taught by highly qualified teachers.................12 

Table 4. Measures of students in grades 9–12 affected by or involved in selected risk 

behaviors..............................................................................12 

Table 5. Measures for selected school choice-related indicators.........................14 

Table 6. Measures related to the high school completion rate............................16

Table 7. Measures of effective programs and practices developed by the Department’s 

Institute of Education Sciences and use of the What Works Clearinghouse for 

obtaining information................................................................18 

Table 8. Measures related to ACG and AP participation, and AP teacher training....20

Table 9. Measures related to AP in mathematics and science.............................23 

Table 10. Measure of proficiency in critical-need foreign languages.....................24 

Table 11. Measures of enrollment in, persistence in, and completion of quality 

postsecondary education and entry into subsequent employment..............27 

Table 12. Measures on selected indicators for delivering federal student aid............30 

Table 13. Measures regarding preparation of adult learners and individuals with 

disabilities for postsecondary education or training or employment..........32

Table 14. Measures related to financial integrity, management, and internal 

 controls.................................................................................34

Table 15. Measures related to the strategic management of the Department's human 

capital..................................................................................36 

Table 16. Measure for budget and performance integration................................38 

5
MISSION STATEMENT

The Department of Education's mission is to promote student 

achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering 

educational excellence and ensuring equal access. 

As the Department continues efforts to improve the quality of education for America’s 

students, new challenges are emerging. While increases in academic proficiency ushered 

in by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) are encouraging, student achievement 

must continue to improve so that all students achieve proficiency in state 

reading/language arts and mathematics assessments by 2014. In later grades, more 

students must take increasingly rigorous course work, especially in mathematics and 

science, to be prepared for postsecondary education or the workforce following high 

school. Postsecondary education requires significant transformation to maintain 

America’s leading position in scientific innovation and economic prosperity. And all 

Americans should have the skills to hold desired employment and to participate actively 

and wisely in the nation’s civic affairs. 

The Department’s previous mission statement1 succinctly encapsulated both academic 

excellence and equal access for all Americans. The Department continues to strive for 

these ends and now adds to them expectations for increasing levels of academic 

performance and long-term competitiveness in the global marketplace. 

In pursuit of its mission, the Department will help define America's education agenda, 

focusing the attention of our state and local partners on strategies and practices that 

demonstrate results. Together, we will establish a world-class education system for all 

Americans, and close the achievement gaps faced by low-income and minority students, 

students with disabilities, and limited English proficient students. Further, we will 

encourage students to attend college and will continue to help families pay college costs. 

The Department intends that all students have the opportunity to achieve to their full 

academic potential. The Department will measure success not only by the outcomes of its 

programs, but also by the nation's ability to prepare students to succeed in a global 

economy as productive and responsible citizens and leaders. 

 

1

 Our mission is to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the 

nation. 

6
GOAL 1 

Improve student achievement, with a focus on bringing all students to 

grade level in reading and mathematics by 2014.

In education, the bottom line is student learning. NCLB (the most recent reauthorization 

of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 [ESEA]) revolutionized federal 

support for elementary and secondary education by establishing a national commitment 

to bring all children up to grade level in reading and mathematics by 2014, and holding 

schools, districts, and states accountable for making annual progress toward that goal. 

NCLB is working, and most of the strategies described under Goal 1 are designed to 

ensure continuation of the gains the nation has made under that historic legislation. This 

year, the Department has announced an ESEA reauthorization proposal that, within the 

current framework established by NCLB, will direct more resources and attention to high 

schools, call on schools and districts to meet high standards in science, ensure more 

prompt and effective action to turn around schools that consistently fail to educate their 

students to high standards, and give students enrolled in those schools better choices and 

options. 

Because student achievement depends on the efforts of well-prepared teachers, the 

Department will work with state educational agencies (SEAs) to devise and implement 

appropriate strategies for ensuring that teachers become highly qualified as quickly as 

possible. 

Teaching and learning to the high standards demanded in NCLB require that our nation’s 

schools be safe and drug free; the Department along with the states will promote practices 

that create safe, secure, and healthy school climates. 

Parents are children’s first and most important teachers. The Department will 

aggressively implement the parental involvement, information, and options components 

of NCLB and encourage states and communities to provide additional choices to parents. 

The Department will pursue the following objectives in support of Goal 1. 

Goal 1, Objective 1: Improve student achievement in reading/language arts; 

Goal 1, Objective 2: Improve student achievement in mathematics. 

President Bush and the Congress set a goal through NCLB that all children will perform 

at the proficient level or above on challenging state student achievement tests in 

reading/language arts and mathematics. To reach this goal, the Department will assist 

states and local educational agencies (LEAs) in building capacity to support effective 

turn-around strategies in schools undergoing restructuring. The Department also will help 

ensure that parents and students have greater access to public school choice and 

supplemental educational services (SES). Additionally, the Department will seek 

enactment of a bill that incorporates key elements of Building on Results, the blueprint 

for an effective ESEA reauthorization; this proposal builds on the progress states, LEAs, 

7
and schools have made over the past five years in support of achievement in reading and 

mathematics. The Department’s efforts will help ensure that students graduate with a 

high school diploma that prepares them for success in postsecondary studies and the job 

market.

Strategy 1. Seek enactment of a bill that incorporates the key elements of Building 

on Results, the Department’s blueprint for ESEA reauthorization. In order to support 

attainment of achievement targets mandated by No Child Left Behind, the Department in 

January, 2007 put forth the policy document Building on Results. With this document as 

its blueprint, the Department will seek enactment of a bill that strengthens the core 

principles of No Child Left Behind, continuing to focus the work of states and educators 

on closing the achievement gap and having all students proficient in reading and 

mathematics by 2014. 

Strategy 2. Assist states and LEAs in turning around schools in restructuring status 

or in need of improvement. The Department will collect and disseminate information 

about (a) promising strategies and practices for turning around schools in restructuring 

status, and (b) activities to improve schools designated “low-performing,” with an 

emphasis on strategies to evaluate and improve reading and mathematics instruction. 

Furthermore, the Department will leverage the School Improvement Fund to ensure that 

this information translates into meaningful change. 

Strategy 3. Collect, analyze, and publicly disseminate disaggregated student 

information on a timely basis. The Department will post on its Web site timely, 

disaggregated data provided by states in the ESEA Consolidated State Performance 

Report on student performance levels on state academic student achievement assessments 

for reading/language arts and mathematics. 

Strategy 4. Assist states in achieving their Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

(IDEA) State Performance Plan (SPP) targets in reading and mathematics. The 

Department will collect participation and performance data for students with disabilities 

on statewide assessments as part of meeting IDEA’s SPP requirements and on the 

percentage of students with disabilities who meet or exceed Proficient levels in reading 

and mathematics on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. The Department 

will provide technical assistance to states to improve their capacity in collecting accurate 

data and in designing appropriate assessments. The Department also will provide 

technical assistance on evidence-based practices and effective strategies that assist states 

in meeting their SPP targets and that result in improving the reading and mathematics 

performance of students with disabilities. 

Table 1 and Table 2 present the FY 2005 baseline and targets for all students to achieve 

proficiency on state reading/language arts and mathematics assessments, respectively, 

required by NCLB by 2014. The baselines for each subgroup are actual composites of the 

national population based upon the most recent ESEA Consolidated State Performance 

Reports. The starting points for each group are extrapolated linearly to a 100 percent 

proficiency target by 2014, which necessitates differing proficiency targets among 

8
subgroups until 2014. Additionally, it is likely that the national baselines and subsequent 

targets presented here are lower than baselines and targets established by some states in 

their NCLB state accountability systems for similar years, which appears to contradict 

NCLB provisions on annual measurable objectives. However, the measures in these tables 

are based on actual national composite proficiency data for the most recent year available 

and should not be interpreted as support by the Department for states to modify their 

annual measurable objectives downward from currently established levels. 

Table 1. Measures of student proficiency on state reading/language arts assessments, by 

student characteristic 

Baseline Targets (%) 

(’05) 

(%) ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12

All students 65.8 73.4 77.2 81.0 84.8 88.6 92.4 

Low-income students 52.6 63.1 68.4 73.7 78.9 84.2 89.5 

Students from major racial and 

ethnic groupsa 

Pending Close 

12.5% 

of 

gapb

Close 

25% 

of 

gapb

Close 

37.5% 

of 

gapb

Close

50% 

of 

gapb

Close 

62.5% 

of 

gapb

Close 

75% 

of 

gapb

Students with disabilities 38.0 51.8 58.7 65.6 72.4 79.3 86.2 

Limited English proficient 

(LEP) students 

Pending Close 

12.5% 

of 

gapb

Close 

25% 

of 

gapb

Close 

37.5% 

of 

gapb

Close 

50% 

of 

gapb

Close 

62.5% 

of 

gapb

Close 

75% 

of 

gapb

Career and technical education 

(CTE) “concentrators” c

Pending 73.4 77.2 81.0 84.8 88.6 92.4 

Sources: ESEA Consolidated State Performance Reports and Vocational Education Annual Performance 

Report (state program). 

Note: 2006 data are not yet available for these measures. 

a

African-American, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native students when they are of a statistically 

significant number to be reported by the states. 

b

Gap = difference between baseline percentage in 2005 and 100 percent proficiency goal for all students in 

2014. 

c

A CTE "concentrator" is a secondary student who has earned three or more credits in a single CTE 

program area (e.g., health care or business services), or two credits in single program areas where two 

credit sequences at the secondary level are recognized by the state and/or its local eligible recipients.

Note on tables: The targets in this and other tables in the Department’s strategic plan 

were generated from a variety of sources, including existing projections, legal 

requirements, and analyses from the Department’s internal subject matter experts. It is the 

Department’s intention that targets be ambitious, yet achievable, and that they be 

reevaluated annually (except where stipulated by legal requirements) as more updated 

information becomes available. 

Table 2. Measures of student proficiency on state mathematics assessments, by student 

characteristic 

9
Targets 

(%) 

Baseline 

(’05) 

(%) ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12

All students 63.4 71.6 75.6 79.7 83.8 87.8 91.9 

Low-income students 50.7 61.6 67.1 72.6 78.1 83.6 89.0 

Students from targeted racial 

and ethnic groupsa 

Pending Close 

12.5% 

of gapb

Close 

25% 

of 

gapb

Close 

37.5

% of 

gapb

Close 

50% 

of 

gapb

Close 

62.5% 

of gapb

Close 

75% 

of 

gapb

Students with disabilities 38.5 52.2 59.0 65.8 72.7 79.5 86.3 

Limited English Proficient 

(LEP) students 

Pending Close 

12.5% 

of gapb

Close 

25% 

of 

gapb

Close 

37.5

% of 

gapb

Close 

50% 

of 

gapb

Close 

62.5% 

of gapb

Close 

75% 

of 

gapb

CTE “concentrators” c Pending 71.5 75.6 79.7 83.7 87.8 91.9 

Sources: ESEA Consolidated State Performance Reports and Vocational Education Annual Performance 

Report (state program). 

Note: 2006 data are not yet available for these measures. 

a

African-American, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native students when they are of statistically 

significant number to be reported by the states. 

b

Gap = difference between baseline percentage in 2005 and 100 percent proficiency goal for all students in 

2014. 

c

A CTE "concentrator" is a secondary student who has earned three or more credits in a single CTE 

program area (e.g., health care or business services), or two credits in single program areas where two 

credit sequences at the secondary level are recognized by the state and/or its local eligible recipients. 

Goal 1, Objective 3: Improve teacher quality. 

High-quality, effective teaching is one of the most important contributors to improving 

student achievement. In order that all children achieve proficiency in reading and 

mathematics by 2014, the Department must continue to make progress toward ensuring 

that all classes in core academic subjects are taught by highly qualified teachers, and that 

poor and minority children are not disproportionately taught by unqualified or 

inexperienced teachers. Over the past five years, states and local school districts have 

made substantial progress in determining whether their teachers are highly qualified, in 

ensuring that they are assigned to teach subjects for which they are well prepared, and in 

providing additional support and training to help teachers with insufficient training to 

become highly qualified. Across the country, approximately 90 percent of classes in core 

academic subjects were taught by highly qualified teachers in the 2004–05 school year, 

with a slightly higher proportion at the elementary school level than at the secondary 

level. 

Despite this progress, the NCLB requirement that all teachers in core subjects be highly 

qualified by the end of the 2005–06 school year has not been fulfilled. States and districts 

still face challenges in ensuring that all teachers are qualified to teach their subjects, 

particularly in small, rural middle and high schools, and in self-contained secondary 

10
special education classes where teachers typically must teach multiple subjects. During 

the past year, all states have begun to analyze the pattern of teacher assignments to 

determine whether schools and districts with high concentrations of poor and minority 

children tend to have teachers with less experience and training than those in wealthier 

schools and districts. The states have submitted plans to the Department outlining 

specific strategies and activities to eliminate differences in teacher assignments where 

they exist and ensure that all teachers in core subjects are highly qualified. 

Strategy 1. Collect data and monitor performance to ensure that all states meet the 

goal of having all core academic classes taught by highly qualified teachers in school 

year 2006–07 and beyond. NCLB requires that each class in a core academic subject be 

taught by a teacher who holds a bachelor’s degree and has obtained full state 

certification, and who has demonstrated competence in each subject taught. Over the next 

three years, the Department will work extensively with SEAs—including at least one 

monitoring visit to each state—to ensure that this requirement is met and to verify that 

accurate data on teacher qualifications and assignment are reported. 

Strategy 2. Monitor states with substantial numbers of classes taught by non-highly 

qualified teachers, spurring these states to bring all teachers to highly qualified 

status as soon as possible. In states where core academic classes are still taught by 

teachers who are not highly qualified (e.g., in rural areas and in special education 

classes), the Department will closely monitor the SEAs to ensure that their plans for 

highly qualified teachers are being rigorously and effectively implemented. The 

Department also will support SEAs as they work with their LEAs to use federal funds 

effectively to support high-quality professional development and training programs to 

assist teachers to become highly qualified as soon as possible.

Strategy 3. As states move toward ensuring that all teachers are highly qualified, 

monitor their efforts to determine that poor and minority children are not taught at 

disproportionate rates by unqualified, inexperienced, or out-of-field teachers. All 

states have devised plans for ensuring that children from all backgrounds and incomes are 

taught by qualified, experienced, in-field teachers. The Department will work with SEAs 

to improve these plans and will monitor to ensure that the plans are being implemented 

and that full compliance with the highly qualified teacher requirements is reached in all 

types of districts and reported to the public. 

Strategy 4. Encourage districts to reform educator compensation systems to reward 

their most effective teachers and to create incentives to attract their best teachers to 

high-need schools and hard-to-staff subjects. Through the Teacher Incentive Fund, the 

Department will support a diverse set of projects to develop or expand sustainable 

differential performance-based compensation systems. These projects will serve as pilot 

programs that reward teachers for: improvements in student achievement; outstanding 

teaching performance as measured by rigorous, multiyear evaluations; and taking on 

additional or new responsibilities or assignments (such as teaching in a high-need, lowperforming school). Lessons learned from these projects will be disseminated by the 

Department for use by states and LEAs as they face the challenge of recruiting and 

11
retaining their best teachers.

Table 3. Measures of core courses taught by highly qualified teachers 

Baseline 

(’05) 

(%) 

Target 

(%) 

Core academic classes (total) 91 100 

Core elementary classes (total) 93 100 

Core elementary classes in highpoverty schools 90 100 

Core elementary classes in lowpoverty schools 95 100 

Core secondary classes (total) 89 100 

Core secondary classes in highpoverty schools 84 100 

Core secondary classes in lowpoverty schools 92 100 

Source: ESEA Consolidated State Performance Reports.

Goal 1, Objective 4: Promote safe, disciplined, and drug-free learning environments.

While a focus on providing the best instruction in core academic disciplines, such as 

reading and mathematics, is one key to helping students succeed academically, schools 

also must work to create a school climate that is safe and drug free and provide the 

framework and context for academic success, as well as for healthy youth development. 

The Department will support programs and activities designed to help schools respond to 

crises, address the needs of at-risk youths, and encourage students to develop the skills 

they need to become healthy, responsible, and productive citizens. 

Strategy 1. Identify and disseminate information about the most effective practices 

that create a safe, disciplined, and drug-free school climate. The Department will 

continue efforts to identify and share information with schools and communities about 

the best strategies in a variety of areas, including planning to respond to crises, 

preventing youth drug use and violence, encouraging healthy development, and helping 

students develop strong character and personal and civic responsibility. 

Strategy 2. Provide training and technical assistance to help achieve this objective. 

The Department will assist school personnel and others to acquire the information and 

skills they need to adopt and implement the best programs, activities, and strategies to 

create a safe, disciplined, and drug-free school climate conducive for learning. 

Table 4. Measures of students in grades 9–12 affected by or involved in selected risk 

behaviors 

12
Baseline Targets (%) 

(’05) 

(%) 

’07 ’09 ’11 

Carried a weapon (such as a knife, 

gun, or club) on school property one 

or more times during the past 30 days 

6.5 5.0 4.0 4.0 

Missed one or more days of school (in 

the past 30 days) because they felt 

unsafe at school or on their way to 

and from school 

6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 

Were offered, given, or sold an illegal 

drug by someone on school property 

in the past year 

25.4 27.0 26.0 25.0 

Source: Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, supported by the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

Note: Data gathered only in odd-numbered years. Targets for students being offered, given or sold illegal 

drugs on school property in FY 2009 and later years may be revised downward at a later date, which would 

demonstrate improvement on this measure; FY 2005 data for this measure showed significant improvement 

but were received too late to include in the target-setting process. 

External factors 

The decisions that children make about a variety of behaviors, including drug use or 

involvement in violent activity, are affected by several factors, including community 

norms and media influences, which are outside of the control of schools. While the 

Department cannot control these kinds of factors, it will support schools as they work to 

mitigate their influence. 

Goal 1, Objective 5: Increase information and options for parents. 

Parents are children’s first and most important teachers. The Department will continue to 

aggressively implement the parental involvement, information, and options components 

of NCLB and encourage states and communities to provide additional choices to parents. 

States and districts will continue to be required to publish report cards that provide 

school-performance information to parents. Children who attend underperforming 

schools will have increased opportunity to attend better public schools (including charter 

schools) or private schools, or, if eligible, use federal funds to obtain tutoring from the 

SES provider of their choice. 

Strategy 1. Ensure adequate parental notification. The Department will work with 

states so that they may provide high-quality, comprehensible information to parents about 

their child’s school. The Department will work with states to ensure that this information 

is useful both for school improvement efforts and in helping parents make informed 

decisions regarding school choice and SES. The Department will also encourage the 

creation of easy-to-use online databases of school information and options for parents. 

13
Strategy 2. Support charter schools. The Department will continue to provide start-up 

funds and facilities financing to enable the development of many high-quality charter 

schools. 

Strategy 3. Encourage states and communities to provide choices to children 

attending underperforming schools. The Department will work with states to ensure 

that children attending underperforming schools have the opportunity to transfer to better 

public schools (including charter schools), attend private schools, or, if eligible, use 

federal dollars for SES. 

Strategy 4. Provide support to states in implementing the choice and SES 

requirements of ESEA. The Department will work with states to help ensure that choice 

and SES are provided to the greatest number of students eligible to access these 

opportunities. The Department will offer guidance and technical assistance to states on 

such issues as improving parental outreach, recruiting SES providers in underserved 

areas, promoting successful practices to enroll students and sustain their participation, 

and evaluating SES provider effectiveness while enforcing effective SES implementation 

through expanded monitoring. 

Table 5. Measures for selected school choice-related indicators 

Baseline Targets 

’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12 

Percentage of eligible 

students exercising choice 

x = % in 

FY 05–06a

2x 3x 4x 

Percentage of eligible 

students participating in 

SES 

x = % in 

FY 05–06b

1.1x 1.2x 1.3x 1.4x 1.45x 1.5x 

No. of charter schools in 

operation 

3,600 3,900 4,300 4,700 5,200 5,700 6,300

Source: ESEA Consolidated State Performance Reports. 

a

Figure for 2004–05 was 0.93 percent; 2005–06 figure expected in February 2007.

b

Figure for 2004–05 was 18.8 percent; 2005–06 figure expected in February 2007.

External Factors 

While NCLB requires public school choice for children enrolled in schools identified for 

improvement, corrective action, or restructuring, the range of choices depends on state 

and local factors. The Department will encourage states and districts to increase their 

capacity to offer choice and remove other barriers, such as caps on the number of charter 

schools. 

The Department’s implementation of some of these strategies requires amendments to the 

ESEA, as amended by NCLB, and sufficient annual appropriations. The Department will 

work with Congress to create the statutory authority and obtain the annual appropriations 

needed to implement these strategies. 

14
Goal 1, Objective 6: Increase the high school completion rate. 

One of our nation’s greatest challenges is ensuring that every child graduates from high 

school with the academic preparation needed to succeed in college and the workplace. 

One million students drop out of school every year. Among ninth-graders, five out of 10 

minority students fail to finish high school on time. Only 54 percent of students with 

disabilities leave school with a regular high school diploma. Overall, three out of 10 

ninth-graders do not finish on time. 

The Department will support states’ efforts to improve data systems so that students who 

need help are identified early. To improve the skills of students who read below grade 

level and are at high risk of dropping out, the Department will support the development 

and implementation of research-based reading interventions, as well as improved content 

standards and aligned assessments. The Department will give students attending the 

neediest high schools greater support, as well as more high-quality alternatives for 

completing their education. 

Strategy 1. Help states and districts intervene early to get at-risk students back on 

track. The path toward dropping out of school is a long one that, for many teenagers, 

begins in elementary school. The Department will support the development and effective 

use of longitudinal data systems by states and districts to identify at-risk students early so 

that they can provide the support these youths need to stay on track for graduation. In 

addition, the Department will provide technical assistance to states toward the 

development of a schoolwide foundation of quality core instruction and a system of 

prevention and intervention called Response to Intervention and Early Intervening 

Services. This system includes high-quality supplemental supports, interventions or 

services or both, and continuous monitoring of student progress, resulting in accelerating 

the learning of students who are struggling. This system also ensures that students who 

are at risk for failure receive interventions early, thus preventing them from being 

identified later in their schooling as in need of special education services. 

Strategy 2. Improve the skills of adolescents who struggle with reading and 

mathematics. Students who enter high school with reading and mathematics skills that 

are significantly below grade level are at great risk of dropping out. The Department will 

continue to support the development and implementation of research-based interventions 

to equip these students with the literacy and mathematics skills they need to succeed in 

high school, college, and the workplace. To guide educators and policymakers in 

improving student mastery of algebra and readiness for higher-level mathematics in high 

school, the Department will disseminate the findings of the National Mathematics 

Advisory Panel, which is examining the scientific evidence and identifying instructional 

practices, programs, and materials that are effective in improving mathematics learning. 

Strategy 3. Focus on the neediest schools. Nearly half of the nation’s dropouts are from 

15 percent of high schools—most of them in high-poverty areas. The Department will 

work with Congress during the reauthorization of NCLB to target greater resources to 

15
high-need, high-poverty high schools. The Department also will work with states to 

strengthen their capacity to support districts in turning around low-performing high 

schools. 

Strategy 4. Increase learning options for students. At-risk students and dropouts are 

finding success in nontraditional high schools based on college campuses, virtual schools, 

and other innovative models that set high expectations for youths and give them the 

support they need to meet these expectations. The Department will continue to promote 

greater options and choice for high school students and their parents. 

Strategy 5. Assist states in achieving their Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

(IDEA) State Performance Plan (SPP) targets related to dropping out, completing 

school and post-school employment. The Department will collect data on students with 

disabilities as part of meeting IDEA’s SPP requirements. These data will include the 

percentage of youths with disabilities graduating from high school with a regular 

diploma, the percentage of youths with disabilities dropping out of high school, and the 

percentage of youths with disabilities who have been competitively employed, or enrolled 

in any postsecondary school, or both, within one year of leaving high school. The 

Department will provide technical assistance to states to improve their capacity for 

collecting accurate data. The Department also will provide technical assistance to states 

on evidence-based practices that assist states in meeting their SPP targets and that result 

in improving post-school outcomes for students with disabilities. 

The first three indicators in the table that follows relate to the high school completion rate 

of Americans aged 18 to 24. Improvement in this rate may lag for up to six years until the 

full measured population benefits from the initiatives described herein. The immigration 

of individuals in this age group to the United States also may affect progress on these 

measures. 

Table 6. Measures related to the high school completion rate

Targets 

(%) 

Baseline 

(’04) 

(%) ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12

18- to 24-year-olds who have 

completed high school: 

• Total 86.8 87.3 87.4 87.6 87.8 88.0 88.2

• African-Americans 83.4 85.3 85.5 85.8 86.0 86.3 86.5

• Hispanics 69.8 70.1 70.3 70.6 71.0 71.5 71.8

Averaged freshman graduation 

rate

74.3 75.2 76.6 77.9 79.3 80.8 82.2

Sources: For 18- to 24-year-olds who have completed high school, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau 

of the Census, Current Population Survey. Data are collected annually. 

For averaged freshman graduation rate, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education 

Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary/Secondary 

Education. Data are collected annually. 

Note: Averaged freshman graduation rate is a CCD measure that provides an estimate of the percentage of 

16
high school students who graduate on time by dividing the number of graduates with regular diplomas by 

the size of the incoming class four years earlier. For further information, see 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007024.pdf, p. 2. 

External Factors

The Department’s implementation of some of these strategies requires amendments to the 

ESEA, as amended by NCLB, and sufficient annual appropriations. The Department will 

work with Congress to create the statutory authority and obtain the annual appropriations 

needed to implement these strategies. In addition, some factors that may contribute to a 

student’s decision to drop out are outside the direct control of schools. However, these 

strategies are designed to reduce their impact. 

Goal 1, Objective 7: Transform education into an evidence-based field. 

Since the passage of NCLB, the Department has promoted the use of scientific research 

to make education an evidence-based field. The Department’s Institute of Education 

Sciences will continue working to increase the supply of high-quality and highly relevant 

research; to provide policy-makers, educators, parents and other concerned citizens with 

ready access to syntheses of research and objective information that allow more informed 

and effective decisions; and to encourage the use of this knowledge to improve student 

performance. 

Strategy 1. Develop or identify effective programs and practices for improving 

reading and writing achievement, mathematics and science achievement, and 

teacher quality and effectiveness. Through its National Centers for Education Research 

and Special Education Research, the Department’s Institute of Education Sciences will 

continue to fund high quality research projects to develop or identify programs and 

practices to improve reading and writing achievement, mathematics and science 

achievement, and teacher quality and effectiveness. The rigorous evidence standards of 

the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) will be used to determine if and when projects 

have yielded programs and practices that have been shown to be effective. The 

Institute’s support for a new generation of education research began only in 2002. 

Effective programs and practices are beginning to emerge from those investments. 

 

Strategy 2. Disseminate information about the effectiveness of education programs 

and practices. The Department’s Institute of Education Sciences will continue to fund 

the WWC to provide a resource for education decision makers on the effectiveness of 

education programs and practices. The WWC reviews research studies and evidence 

related to education programs and practices and reports on the scientific quality of the 

studies and the nature and strength of the evidence related to the effectiveness of 

particular programs and practices. The WWC website is a user-friendly site for obtaining 

information. 

The Department’s Institute of Education Sciences will also fund the development of 

Practice Guides. Whereas the intervention reports of the WWC discussed above focus on 

individual programs and practices, Practice Guides will provide coherent guidance and 

17
recommendations on practice with respect to particular problems that require 

multifaceted solutions that span domains such as curriculum, teacher training, 

assessment, and accountability. The problem of improving student achievement must be 

addressed now, even when the research base is immature. Practice Guides will 

incorporate the best available evidence and alert users to the quality of the evidence 

supporting particular recommendations, and they will be widely disseminated by the 

Department. 

Table 7. Measures of effective programs and practices developed by the Department’s 

Institute of Education Sciences and use of the What Works Clearinghouse for obtaining 

information 

Baseline Targets 

(’06) 

’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12

Number of Departmentsupported programs and 

practices with evidence of 

efficacy using WWC 

standards: 

• Reading or Writing 3 6 11 13 15 17 20 

• Mathematics or Science 1 3 7 10 12 15 18 

• Teacher Quality 1 3 5 7 10 12 15 

Number of hits to the WWC 

website 

6.8 

million

8.0

million

9.2

million

10.5 

million

12.0

million

13.5

million

15.0

million

18
GOAL 2

Increase the academic achievement of all high school students. 

To better equip our students to compete in the global economy, the Department will 

encourage states to adopt high school course work and programs of study that prepare all 

students for a postsecondary credential and facilitate a seamless transition from high 

school to college or the workforce. The President has proposed preparing additional 

instructors of Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) classes in 

mathematics, science, and critical-need foreign languages. The Department will continue 

to enhance and promote achievement in math, science and critical-need foreign languages 

through incentives for teachers to teach advanced courses, thus providing opportunities 

for students to be well prepared for postsecondary education or the workforce following 

high school. In addition, the Department will encourage advanced course work by 

seeking to expand the State Scholars Initiative. 

The Department will pursue the following objectives in support of Goal 2. 

Goal 2, Objective 1: Increase the proportion of high school students taking a 

rigorous curriculum. 

The Department will encourage increased access to, and participation in, AP or IB classes 

by low-income and other disadvantaged students. To offer challenging courses, schools 

must have qualified teachers to teach them. The Department will promote efforts to 

increase the number of teachers who have the academic content knowledge needed to 

teach advanced classes, particularly in schools where access to rigorous course work is 

limited. 

Strategy 1. Increase access to AP courses nationwide. Approximately 44 percent of 

America’s public high schools offered no AP or IB courses during the 2003–04 school 

year, according to National Center for Education Statistics data. Course offerings in 

schools that do offer AP are often quite limited. The Department will continue to support 

efforts to make more AP courses, including online courses, available to students who 

now have no or limited access. Furthermore, because low-income and minority students 

are underrepresented in AP classrooms, the Department will target AP Incentive (API) 

grants to high-poverty high schools. The Department will also work with states to 

promote greater awareness and use of federal aid for AP exam fees by low-income and 

minority families. And the Department will identify and disseminate information on 

promising strategies and practices for expanding the successful participation of lowincome and minority students in AP courses. 

Strategy 2. Increase the number of teachers qualified to teach AP and IB classes. To 

expand access to advanced course work for low-income and other disadvantaged 

students, the Department will promote efforts to increase the number of teachers qualified 

to teach AP and IB classes in high-need schools. Working with Congress, the Department 

will expand support for API grants to provide assistance to SEAs and LEAs to prepare, 

over the next five years, an additional 70,000 teachers to deliver instruction in AP and IB 

19
courses. 

Strategy 3. Increase the number of students who complete the State Scholars 

Initiative curriculum. The Department’s State Scholars Initiative has helped to create 

business-education partnerships in 22 states that are now working with students in middle 

and high schools, encouraging them to excel academically and complete rigorous course 

work. The Department will disseminate information on promising practices implemented 

by the current partnerships and promote the development of new partnerships in the 

remaining states.

Strategy 4. Identify and disseminate information on states that have increased their 

standards for graduation or that have rigorous high school end-of-course exams. 

The Department will identify and disseminate information on states that have increased 

their standards for graduation. States that have raised the rigor of their graduation 

standards, better aligning them with the expectations of postsecondary education and 

employers, are seeing promising results in student achievement. Through the 

Department’s Comprehensive Centers program and additional programs and initiatives, 

other states will be encouraged to pursue these reforms. 

Strategy 5. Support states’ implementation of additional high school assessments in 

mathematics and reading/language arts. The Department will work with Congress 

during the reauthorization of NCLB to require states to implement two additional high 

school assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics. These new assessments are 

needed to inform strategies to meet the needs of at-risk high school students and 

strengthen school accountability at the secondary level.

Strategy 6. Leverage the Academic Competitiveness Grant (ACG) program, 

rewarding high school students who increase the rigor of their studies. We will 

continue to implement, support and evaluate the ACG program as an incentive for 

students to complete rigorous high school programs and enroll in postsecondary 

programs.

Strategy 7. Collect and analyze data on AP access and success at local levels. 

Reliable data on student participation and success in AP programs are readily available 

only at the national and state levels. To better understand local barriers to AP access and 

success, and promising strategies for overcoming them, the Department will collect and 

examine district- and school-level data on AP access and success. 

Strategy 8. Assist states in their implementation of the Perkins Career and Technical 

Education Improvement Act of 2006. The Department will work with SEAs and LEAs to 

provide continuing federal support for rigorous Career and Technical Education (CTE) 

programs that prepare students for today’s competitive workforce. The Department will 

enforce state and local accountability authorized by the Act and ensure that CTE students 

reap the benefits of rigorous curricula. 

Table 8. Measures related to ACG and AP participation, and AP teacher training

20
Baseline Targets 

(’05) ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12 

Low-income 

students who 

qualify for 

Academic 

Competitiveness 

Grants 

Baseline 

established 

TBDa TBD TBD TBD TBD 

No. of AP classes 

available 

nationwide 

Baseline 

established 

Prior year 

+ 10% 

Prior year 

+ 10% 

Prior year 

+ 10% 

Prior year 

+ 10% 

Prior year 

+ 10% 

No. of AP tests 

taken: 

• Total 1,759,299 1,953,000 2,168,000 2,406,000 2,671,000 2,965,000 3,291,000

• By lowincome 

students 

 223,263 230,000 270,000 292,000 315,000 343,000 374,000

• By 

minority 

(Hispanic, 

Black, 

Native 

American) 

students 

 315,203 376,000 421,000 472,000 528,000 570,000 616,000

No. of teachers 

trained through 

API grants to 

teach AP classes 

Baseline 

established 

Prior year 

+ 5% 

Prior year 

+ 10% 

Prior year 

+ 10% 

Prior year 

+ 10% 

Prior year 

+ 10% 

Sources: For American Competitiveness Grants, National Student Loan Data System via Common 

Origination and Disbursement system data. Future targets will be established after determination of the 

baseline in FY 2007. 

For number of AP classes, the College Board, Ledger of Authorized Advanced Placement Courses. Data 

are reported annually. 

For number of AP tests taken, the College Board, Freeze File Report. Data are reported annually. 

For number of teachers trained through API grants, U.S. Department of Education, Advanced Placement 

Incentive Program, Annual Performance Reports.

a

 TBD – To be determined. 

Goal 2, Objective 2: Promote advanced proficiency in mathematics and science for 

all students. 

Strengthening mathematics and science achievement is an economic imperative for the 

nation and for individual citizens. As prospective employers increase their reliance upon 

advanced mathematics and science skills, high schools must provide more rigorous 

instruction in these subjects. Such efforts will support not only prospective 

mathematicians, scientists, and engineers, who will develop innovations that enable the 

21
United States to continue to compete economically with other nations, but also all 

students who will participate effectively in the global economy. The Department will 

support increased access to AP and IB mathematics and science classes and a critically 

needed increase in teachers prepared to teach these classes through multiple strategies, 

including incentives and leveraging of federal dollars.

Strategy 1. Support projects expanding offerings and participation in advanced 

mathematics and science classes. To better ensure that students arrive in high school 

ready for rigorous mathematics course work, the Department will identify and, depending 

on the availability of appropriations, support the implementation of research-based 

instructional strategies in elementary and middle schools. The Department will seek to 

maximize the value of the federal investment in mathematics and science education by 

implementing the recommendations of the Academic Competitiveness Council, which 

was established to identify ways to improve the coordination of federal efforts in these 

areas. 

Strategy 2. Encourage grantees to offer incentives to teachers to become qualified to 

teach AP and IB courses in mathematics and science and to teachers whose students 

pass AP tests in those subjects. The Department will work with Congress to increase 

support for API grants and give priority to applicants that reward mathematics and 

science teachers, both for becoming qualified AP and IB instructors and for their 

students’ success on AP exams.

Strategy 3. Promote greater investment by the business community in expanding AP 

and IB access and success. Business leaders are among the strongest proponents of 

raising the rigor of the high school curriculum, and they are eager to support these efforts 

in their local schools. To reach more students, the Department will encourage business 

leaders to supplement federal support for projects that seek to increase the successful 

participation of low-income students in AP and IB mathematics and science courses with 

their own contributions. 

Strategy 4. Leverage the National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent 

(SMART) grant program, rewarding postsecondary students who major in 

mathematics or science studies. We will continue to implement, support and evaluate 

the SMART grant program as an incentive for students to complete a bachelor’s degree in 

mathematics or a scientific discipline. 

Strategy 5. Ensure student preparation for rigorous mathematics education in high 

school by investing in the Math Now program. President Bush is proposing funding for 

Math Now programs that would focus on strengthening mathematics education in the 

early grades and middle school so that students enter high school prepared for 

challenging course work. Math Now for Elementary School Students would provide 

competitive grants to improve instruction in mathematics for students in kindergarten 

through seventh grade, leveraging scientifically based research and promising practices. 

Math Now for Middle School Students would make competitive grants to improve 

mathematics instruction for students whose achievement is significantly below grade 

22
level. 

Table 9. Measures related to AP in mathematics and science 

Targets 

No. of AP tests in 

math and science 

taken nationwide by: 

Baseline 

(‘06) 

’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12 

• Public school 

students 

 589,701 631,000 681,000 736,000 802,000 882,000 971,000 

• Low-income 

public school 

students 

 60,692 65,000 70,000 76,000 84,000 93,000 104,000 

• Minority 

(Hispanic, 

Black, Native 

American) 

students 

 74,762 80,000 86,000 94,000 104,000 115,000 128,000 

No. of teachers 

trained through API 

grants to teach AP 

classes in math and 

science 

Base Prior 

year 

+5% 

Prior 

year 

+10% 

Prior 

year 

+10% 

Prior 

year 

+10% 

Prior 

year 

+10% 

Sources: For number of AP tests in math and science taken nationwide, the College Board, Freeze File 

Report. Data are reported annually. 

For the number of teachers trained through API grants to teach math and science AP classes, U.S. 

Department of Education, Advanced Placement Incentive Program, Annual Performance Reports.

Goal 2, Objective 3: Increase proficiency in critical-need foreign languages. 

The Department must expand the number of Americans mastering foreign languages in 

order to advance increasingly important economic, diplomatic, and national security 

objectives. This effort demands that more schools offer languages such as Arabic, Farsi, 

Chinese, and Russian. The Department will support expanded course offerings in these 

critical-need languages and the related teacher preparation to encourage access to highquality instruction.

Strategy 1. Support projects expanding AP offerings, IB offerings and participation 

in critical-need languages. In the API, Foreign Language Assistance, and other 

programs, the Department will give priority to projects that support activities to enable 

students to achieve proficiency or advanced proficiency in critical-need languages. 

Furthermore, over the course of the strategic plan, the Department will begin measuring 

availability of critical-need language classes so that it can better track the nation’s 

progress in this essential area. 

23
Strategy 2. Encourage grantees to offer incentives, such as salary increments or 

bonuses, to teachers to become qualified to teach AP and IB courses in critical-need 

foreign languages and to teachers whose students pass AP tests in those subjects.

The Department will work with Congress to increase support for API grants, giving 

priority to applicants that reward critical-need foreign language teachers both for 

becoming qualified AP and IB instructors and for their students’ success on AP exams. 

Strategy 3. Leverage the SMART grant program, rewarding postsecondary 

students who major in a critical-need foreign language. We will continue to 

implement, support and evaluate the SMART grant program as an incentive for students 

to complete a bachelor’s degree in a critical-need foreign language. 

Table 10. Measure of proficiency in critical-need foreign languages 

Base Targets 

line 

(’06) ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12 

Combined total of 

AP and IB tests in 

critical-need foreign 

languages passed by 

public school 

students 

Base Prior year 

+ 15% 

Prior year 

+ 15% 

Prior year 

+ 15% 

Prior year 

+ 15% 

Prior year 

+ 15% 

Sources: For AP test data, the College Board, Freeze File Report. Data are reported annually. 

For IB test data, International Baccalaureate North America, Examination Review and Data Summary. 

Data are reported annually. 

24
GOAL 3 

Ensure the accessibility, affordability, and accountability of higher 

education, and better prepare students and adults for employment and 

future learning.

America’s institutions of higher education have long been engines of innovation, helping 

the nation to achieve a level of economic prosperity experienced by few other countries 

throughout history. The dynamics of rapid technological change over time have required 

greater levels of education to sustain the global competitiveness of the American 

economy. As a result, an increasing proportion of Americans have enrolled in and 

completed a program of postsecondary education in order to secure high-quality 

employment in competitive industries. 

However, the provision of higher education in America requires further transformation. 

According to data from the Bureau of the Census, only 36 percent of Americans over the 

age of 25 have an associate’s degree or higher; as a nation, we need more individuals 

enrolling in and completing a higher education program. Postsecondary institutions must 

become more transparent in providing relevant information to the public and more 

attuned to trends in global economic development. Financial aid must be made available 

to students in a more simplified manner and be more focused on students with the 

greatest financial need. Furthermore, adult education and vocational rehabilitation 

programs in America must provide increasingly effective services to improve the skills 

and employment prospects of those they serve. The Department’s third strategic goal 

focuses on these essential improvements over the next six years. 

The Department will pursue the following objectives in support of Goal 3. 

Goal 3, Objective 1: Increase success in and completion of quality postsecondary 

education. 

To ensure that America’s students acquire the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in 

college and the 21st-century global marketplace, the Department will continue to support 

college preparatory programs and provide financial aid to make college more affordable. 

Coordinated efforts with states, institutions, and accrediting agencies will strengthen 

American higher education and hold institutions accountable for the quality of their 

educational programs, as well as their students’ academic performance and graduation 

rates. Targeting additional support to students studying in fields that are in high demand 

internationally and in areas of critical need in America will prepare graduates to 

effectively compete for jobs in the global economy and help keep our nation strong. 

Strategy 1. Increase the transition of high school graduates to postsecondary 

education by supporting states and other entities in the development and 

implementation of programs of study for high-skill, high-demand careers. The 

Department will support states and other entities in the development of coherent, 

articulated sequences of rigorous academic and technical course work beginning in high 

school that lead to an associate’s degree, industry-recognized certificate, or bachelor’s 

25
degree at the postsecondary level. To help make college more affordable and encourage 

high school students to enroll in rigorous academic programs, ACG awards will continue 

to supplement the Pell grant awards of first- and second-year college students who 

successfully completed rigorous high school programs. Furthermore, the Department will 

support activities that serve as a primary driver for the creation and evaluation of model 

programs of study in high-skill, high-demand careers.

Strategy 2. Maintain high levels of college enrollment and persistence, while 

increasing the affordability of and accessibility to higher education through effective 

college preparation and grant, loan, and campus-based aid programs. By providing 

Pell grants, federal student loans, and other forms of financial and academic support, the 

Department will encourage students nationwide to enroll in higher education and 

complete their studies. The Department will help students and their families by increasing 

the quantity and accessibility of information about college costs and funding 

opportunities, streamlining the financial aid application process, and providing earlier 

notification of aid eligibility.

Strategy 3. Prepare more graduates for employment in areas of vital interest to the 

United States, especially in critical-need languages, mathematics, and the sciences. 

The Department will encourage students to pursue course work in critical-need foreign 

languages, mathematics, and the sciences by awarding grants to undergraduate and 

graduate students in these fields. The SMART grant program will award grants to Pelleligible third- and fourth-year bachelor’s degree students majoring in the fields of the 

sciences, mathematics, technology, engineering and critical foreign languages. In 

addition, priority will be given to those languages and world regions identified as most 

critical to national interests.

Strategy 4. Improve the academic, administrative, and fiscal stability of Historically 

Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, and Tribally 

Controlled Colleges and Universities. Grants and loans will be provided to enable these 

institutions of higher education to better serve their students and their communities. 

Strategy 5. Strengthen the accountability of postsecondary education institutions 

through accreditation, evaluation, and monitoring. The Department will work closely 

with states, institutions, and accrediting agencies to promote the development and 

consistent application of clear standards for recognition. We will collaborate with these 

partners to identify and implement ways to include student learning outcomes in the 

accreditation process. Increased emphasis will be placed on oversight of postsecondary 

grant and loan programs, in order to ensure compliance with program regulations and the 

effective use of federal funds. Additionally, the Department will redesign its college 

search Web site to help students and their families obtain information that will allow 

them to make informed choices about postsecondary education opportunities based on 

their individual needs.

Strategy 6. Expand the use of data collection instruments, such as the Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), to assess student outcomes. The 

26
Department will collaborate with the higher education community to develop and refine 

practices for collecting and reporting data on student achievement. To encourage 

information sharing, the Department will provide matching funds to colleges, 

universities, and states that collect and publicly report student learning outcomes.

Strategy 7. Promote and disseminate information regarding promising practices in 

community colleges. The Department will design criteria for identifying successful 

community colleges. Possible indicators of success include dual enrollment/early college 

programs; meaningful partnerships with four-year institutions or industry; developmental 

education programs that work for students; high transfer rates to four-year institutions; 

career pathways that are well-articulated and meaningful for high school-to-college and 

adult education-to-career; and the use of data to drive institutional decisionmaking. The 

Department will broadly disseminate innovative practices and program details and will 

fund colleges to replicate successful programs and initiatives in other locations. 

Table 11. Measures of enrollment in, persistence in, and completion of quality 

postsecondary education and entry into subsequent employment 

Baseline Targets (%) 

(%) 

(year) 

’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12 

Postsecondary enrollment 

High school graduates aged 16–

24 enrolling immediately in 

college.

68.6 

(’06) 

68 68 69 69 69 70 

Upward Bound participants 

enrolling in college.

74.2 

(’04) 

65 70 75 75 76 76 

Career and technical education 

(CTE) students who have 

transitioned to postsecondary 

education or employment by 

December of the year of 

graduation.

87 (’05) 89 90 91 92 93 94 

Postsecondary persistence

Full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students at Title 

IV institutions who were in their 

first year of postsecondary 

enrollment in the previous year 

and are enrolled in the current 

year at the same institution.

70 (’06) 71 71 71 72 72 72 

Full-time undergraduate 

students at Historically Black 

Colleges and Universities who 

were in their first year of 

postsecondary enrollment in the 

previous year and are enrolled 

64 (’06) 66 66 66 67 67 67 

27
in the current year at the same 

institution.

Full-time undergraduate 

students at Hispanic-Serving 

Institutions who were in their 

first year of postsecondary 

enrollment in the previous year 

and are enrolled in the current 

year at the same institution.

64 (’06) 68 68 68 69 69 69 

Postsecondary completion 

Students enrolled at all Title IV 

institutions completing a 4-year 

degree within 6 years of 

enrollment.

56.4 

(’05) 

57 57 57 58 58 58 

Freshmen participating in 

Student Support Services who 

complete an associate’s degree 

at original institution or transfer 

to a 4-year institution within 3 

years.

24.5 

(’05) 

27.5 27.5 28.0 28.0 28.5 28.5 

Students enrolled at 4-year 

Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities graduating within 6 

years of enrollment.

38 (’05) 39 39 40 40 40 40 

Students enrolled at 4-year 

Hispanic-Serving Institutions 

graduating within 6 years of 

enrollment. 

35 (’05) 37 37 37 37 37 38 

Postsecondary CTE students 

who have completed a 

postsecondary degree or 

certification.

42 (’05) 46 47 48 49 50 51 

Sources: For percentage of high school graduates aged 16–24 enrolling immediately in college, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey. Data are collected annually.

For percentage of Upward Bound participants enrolling in college and freshmen participating in Student 

Support Services as defined above, U.S. Department of Education, TRIO Upward Bound Program Annual 

Performance Report. 

For CTE student percentages, Vocational Technical Education Annual Performance Report and Grantee 

Performance Reports. 

For percentage of full-time degree-seeking undergraduates at Title IV institutions, Historically Black 

Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), and Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSI) as defined above under 

postsecondary persistence, U.S. Department of Education, NCES, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, Enrollment Survey. Persistence measures the percentage of full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students at Title IV institutions who were in their first year of postsecondary enrollment in 

the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same institution. 

For percentage of students enrolled at Title IV institutions, HBCUs, and HSIs as defined under 

postsecondary completion above, U.S. Department of Education, NCES, Integrated Postsecondary 

Education Data System, Graduation Rate Survey. 

28
Note: Two measures in this table focus specifically on improving postsecondary outcomes for students 

from low-income backgrounds. The TRIO Upward Bound program seeks to increase the rates of 

completion of secondary education and enrollment in and graduation from institutions of postsecondary 

education. Projects provide academic instruction in mathematics, laboratory sciences, composition, 

literature, and foreign languages. Students must be between the ages of 13 and 19, or a veteran, and twothirds of them must be both potential first-generation college students and low-income persons (the 

remainder must be one or the other). Targets for postsecondary enrollment by Upward Bound participants 

in FY 2008 and later years may be revised upward at a later date; late in 2006, FY 2004 data were received 

and showed significant improvement, but established FY 2007 and FY 2008 targets were not amended at 

that time. 

Also, the TRIO Student Support Services program provides opportunities for academic development, 

assists students with basic college requirements, and serves to motivate students toward the successful 

completion of their postsecondary education. Participants must be enrolled or accepted for enrollment in a 

program of postsecondary education at a grantee institution. Two-thirds of the participants must be either 

disabled or potential first-generation college students from low-income families. 

External Factors 

College prices and costs. Many factors affecting tuition and fees, room and board, and 

other costs and revenues are beyond the Department’s control. These factors include state 

appropriations and costs related to salaries, facilities and maintenance expenses, health 

care, and insurance. The Department will work with institutions to ensure that this 

information is widely available in a user-friendly format, enabling students and their 

families to better plan for higher education expenses.

Higher Education Act reauthorization. The Department continues to anticipate 

Congressional reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965, which may have a 

significant effect on the Department’s postsecondary education programs.

Goal 3, Objective 2: Deliver federal student aid to students and parents effectively 

and efficiently. 

The Department has made considerable progress on a multiyear sequencing plan for 

system and business process integration to improve the administrative efficiency of 

federal student aid programs. Several key integration initiatives introduced since FY 2002 

have led to the removal of these programs from the Government Accountability Office’s 

(GAO) High-Risk list after nearly 14 years of inclusion. Improvements in operating 

efficiency, innovation and customer care are necessary for the Department to continue to 

provide world-class service to customers and demonstrate strong stewardship of federal 

funds. 

Strategy 1. Create an efficient and integrated delivery system. The Department will 

continue to provide appropriate and integrated technology solutions that enable more 

efficient and cost-effective delivery and administration of the federal student aid 

programs, helping to improve access to postsecondary education for greater numbers of 

Americans. New technologies will drive improvements particularly in application 

processing, customer service, productivity, and efficiency. 

29
Strategy 2. Improve program integrity. The Department places high priority on 

ensuring financial accountability and increasing program integrity in federal student aid 

programs. Continual improvement of financial controls, oversight, and monitoring 

procedures will ensure adequate program safeguards against fraud, waste, abuse, and 

mismanagement. 

Strategy 3. Reduce the cost of administering the federal student aid programs. The 

Department will pursue further reductions in program administration costs through strong 

financial management, reengineering of unnecessarily complex business processes, 

simplified business application and computing environments, and contract alignment that 

improves vendor management. 

Strategy 4. Improve federal student aid products and services to provide better 

customer service. The Department will reduce the complexity of federal student aid 

products and services, providing students, parents, schools, lenders and guaranty agencies 

with 24-7 access and enhanced self-service functionality. These improvements also will 

maintain full Department compliance with laws and regulations governing federal student 

aid programs.

Table 12. Measures on selected indicators for delivering federal student aid 

Baseline Targets 

(’06) ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12 

Direct administrative 

unit costsa for 

origination and 

disbursement of 

student aid (total cost 

per transaction) 

$4.24 $4.25 $4.15 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 

Customer service level 

on the American 

Customer Satisfaction 

Index for the Free 

Application for 

Federal Student Aid 

(FAFSA) on the Webb

80 82 83 84 85 85 85 

Pell grant improper 

payments rate 

3.48% 3.48% 3.48% 3.41% 3.35% 3.28% 3.28% 

Direct Loan recovery 

ratec

 

19.0% 19.5% 19.75% 20% 20.25% 20.5% 20.75% 

FFEL recovery rate 19.3% 19.5% 19.5% 19.75% 20% 20.25% 20.5% 

a

Unit costs are derived from the Department’s Activity-Based Management program using direct 

administrative costs. They do not include administrative overhead or investment/development costs. b

Based upon annual American Customer Satisfaction Index scores obtained through the CFI Group. 

c

The recovery rate equals the sum of collections on defaulted loans divided by the outstanding default 

portfolio at the end of the previous year. 

30
Goal 3, Objective 3: Prepare adult learners and individuals with disabilities for 

higher education, employment, and productive lives. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics projections indicate that 90 percent of the fastest-growing jobs 

will require education beyond high school and 40 percent of all new jobs will require at 

least an associate’s degree. As new jobs require increasing levels of proficiency in 

reading and mathematics, problem solving, teamwork, and communication skills, more 

adults without a bachelor’s degree will need both access to basic education programs and 

admission to community college certificate and degree programs. The role of adult 

education as a bridge to further education and training is central to the Department's 

vision. As part of the Secretary's higher education initiatives, the Department will work to 

transform adult education programs to include transition services that enable graduates to 

prepare for, enter, and succeed in postsecondary education. This ongoing process will 

require new forms of instruction, improved services, and collaborative relationships with 

other agencies and organizations. 

Individuals with disabilities continue to experience high rates of unemployment and 

underemployment. Vocational rehabilitation (VR) plays a key role in helping these 

individuals prepare for, obtain, and maintain employment and lead productive lives. The 

Department will continue to support and monitor research leading to the development of 

interventions that support health and physical function, participation in and integration 

into the community, and employment of individuals with disabilities. The Department 

will work with states to identify practices that improve outcomes, to provide resources 

and technical assistance to enhance service effectiveness, and to increase the economic 

self-sufficiency of individuals with disabilities. Complementing the work of state VR 

agencies, the Department will increase access to new and recycled assistive technology 

that gives students and employees with disabilities a greater competitive edge in a 

knowledge-based economy. Furthermore, the Department will work toward increasingly 

successful transitions of students with disabilities to employment and higher education. 

Strategy 1. Fund a national initiative that will develop expertise in providing 

support and outreach to state and local education systems to improve outcomes for 

out-of-school youth. Research suggests that more adult education providers need to 

partner with community and four-year colleges, education policymakers, and employers 

to certify that out-of-school youths have obtained the skills they need to succeed in 

college. The Department will support “GED + College Readiness” to identify and 

support demonstration sites that help out-of-school youths obtain general equivalency 

diploma credentials, thus providing expanded secondary education services that promote 

college readiness. 

Strategy 2. Support a project to develop career pathway demonstration models in 

local sites, extending current secondary-postsecondary models to the adult basic 

education system. The emerging career pathways models (a coherent, articulated 

sequence of rigorous academic and technical course work leading to an associate’s 

degree, industry-recognized certificate, or bachelor’s degree) show great promise for 

31
adult students who lack the foundational skills to enter the workforce or the two-year 

college system. The development, implementation, and maintenance of pathway 

partnerships among adult basic education providers, postsecondary institutions, and the 

private sector will lead to increased access to postsecondary opportunities for low-skilled 

adults.

Strategy 3. Implement a system used to monitor state VR agencies to improve 

performance. The Department will implement a new monitoring protocol that will 

emphasize the use of data and technical assistance to improve state VR agency 

performance. Monitoring will be linked closely to goals set forth in state plans. The 

Department will use this process to align monitoring findings and other data with 

discretionary grant investments to test and evaluate models that can be implemented by 

states to increase successful outcomes. 

Strategy 4. Strengthen technical assistance to state VR agencies through improved 

use of data, dissemination of information, and solidified partnerships. The 

Department will: improve the collection, analysis, and display of data to assist states in 

identifying areas in need of performance improvement; expand the quality and timeliness 

of technical assistance through the use of information technology, a team of subject 

experts, and other available resources; create strategic public/private partnerships with 

employers and other organizations to increase the availability of resources that assist 

individuals with disabilities to achieve employment; continue to strengthen relationships 

with federal partners to coordinate services; connect local and national employers to VR 

professionals to improve training and job placement; and expand the national network of 

assistive technology reuse to increase access to assistive technology for enhanced 

employment opportunities. 

Table 13. Measures regarding preparation of adult learners and individuals with 

disabilities for postsecondary education or training or employment

Baseline Targets (%) 

(’05) 

(%) 

’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12 

State VR agencies that meet the 

employment outcome standard for 

the VR State Grants programa

71 71 73 73 74 74 75 

Adults served by the Adult 

Education—Basic Grants to States 

program with high school 

completion goal who earn a high 

school diploma or recognized 

equivalent 

51 52 53 54 55 56 57 

Adults served by the Adult 

Education—Basic Grants to States 

program with a goal to enter 

postsecondary education or training 

34 37 39 41 43 45 47 

32
who enroll in a postsecondary 

education or training program 

Adults served by the Adult 

Education—Basic Grants to States 

program with an employment goal 

who obtain a job within 3 months of 

exiting the program 

37 41 41 42 42 43 43 

Sources: State vocational rehabilitation agency data submitted to the Department’s Rehabilitation Services 

Administration; Adult Education Annual Performance Report and Grantee Performance Reports. 

a

A state vocational rehabilitation agency meets the standard if at least 55.8 percent of individuals who have 

received services achieve an employment outcome. 

33
CROSS-GOAL STRATEGY ON MANAGEMENT 

The Department of Education will carry out its mission and reach its goals through a 

commitment to excellent management practices. Through strong leadership, fiscal 

responsibility, and strategic deployment of human capital, the Department will ensure 

that all Americans have access to the quality programs and benefit from the successful 

outcomes outlined in this plan. 

The Department will pursue the following objectives in support of the cross-goal 

management strategy.

Cross-goal Objective 1: Maintain and strengthen financial integrity and 

management and internal controls. 

The Department must be a high-performing organization internally to achieve its national 

policy goals. From now through FY 2012, the Department will build upon a series of 

clean audit opinions to sustain high-quality financial oversight and identify and reduce 

risk in internal management activities. Achievement of targets on the measures in Table 

14 will engender trust among Americans in the integrity of the Department’s financial 

activities, support informed management and policy decision-making, and help achieve 

the broader goal of leaving no child behind. 

Strategy 1. Implement risk mitigation activities to strengthen internal control and 

the quality of information used by managers. Beginning in FY 2007, the Department 

will build a database comprising internal controls and potential program and 

administrative risks. The Department’s principal offices will track their progress on 

various risk management components, making it possible to identify and correct 

problems quickly. Enhanced business intelligence will lead to better management 

decisions, improved cost efficiencies, and more rigorous internal controls. 

Strategy 2. Reengineer formula and discretionary grant management processes. 

The Department will analyze these processes to improve effectiveness and efficiency in 

awarding and monitoring grants. The Department aims for more balanced business 

workloads during the year, provision of more competitive grant funds to schools in 

advance of the school year, and better accounting for results in grants already awarded.

Strategy 3. Comply with information security requirements. The Department will 

centralize information technology security operations to bring the agency’s security 

posture in compliance with the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002. A 

security plan will be developed that focuses on designing and implementing a security 

architecture to complement the Department's Enterprise Architecture, ensuring that 

security controls are commensurate with the risk and magnitude of harm that may result 

from the loss, misuse, or unauthorized access to or modification of the system or its 

information.

Table 14. Measures related to financial integrity, management, and internal controls 

34
Baseline Targets 

(‘06) ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12 

Maintain an unqualified (clean) 

audit opiniona

U U U U U U U 

Acquire and maintain 

compliance with the Federal 

Information Security 

Management Act of 2002

NC NC C C C C C 

Percentage of new 

discretionary grants awarded 

by June 30 

40 60 70 80 90 90 90 

Sources: Independent Auditors’ financial statement and audit reports; Office of Inspector General’s annual 

Federal Information Security Management Act audit; U.S. Department of Education’s Grant 

Administration and Payment System. 

Note: U = unqualified (clean); NC = non-compliant; C = compliant. 

a

An unqualified or clean audit opinion means that the Department’s financial statements present fairly the 

Department’s financial position in all material aspects, in conformity with accounting principles generally 

accepted in the United States.

Cross-goal Objective 2: Improve the strategic management of the Department's 

human capital. 

Investment in the Department’s workforce remains a key element in creating a culture 

that promotes management excellence and accountability. Strategic management of 

human capital (i.e., the selection, development, training, and management of a highquality workforce in compliance with merit system principles) is recognized as one of the 

cornerstone initiatives to improve program performance across the federal government. 

The Department will continue to implement an ongoing human capital management plan 

to ensure that skilled, high-performing employees are available and deployed 

appropriately. 

Strategy 1. Improve performance culture. The Department will strengthen the 

employee performance appraisal system and related processes to foster a results-oriented, 

high-performing workforce. The performance management systems will differentiate 

among levels of performance, linking individual and organizational performance to the 

Department’s organizational goals and desired results. The Department will continue to 

offer management training in these areas and provide managers with the freedom to 

manage while also holding them accountable for results. 

Strategy 2. Foster leadership and accountability. Department managers will 

demonstrate leadership competencies that cultivate a culture of accountability and 

inclusiveness and promote continuous learning and improvement. The Department will 

develop leaders who think strategically, inspire and motivate employees, and achieve 

results. Supervisory officials will be held accountable for managing employee 

35
performance and dealing appropriately with poor performers. Succession management 

activities will develop competent leaders ready to lead the Department into the future. 

Strategy 3. Close competency gaps in the workforce. The Department will continue 

efforts to identify and strengthen core competencies for mission-critical occupations. The 

Department will develop and implement strategies to close both skill and resource gaps 

while maintaining a diverse workforce. 

Strategy 4. Improve the Department’s hiring process. While significant progress has 

been made, the Department must improve further to attain the 45-day hiring cycle goal 

set for the federal government. The Department aims to reduce the hiring cycle of nonSenior Executive Service employees (from the vacancy announcement closing date to the 

employment offer date) and use feedback from managers and applicants to increase 

process effectiveness and hire employees in a timely fashion. The Department will 

encourage managers to utilize all the tools at their disposal to recruit and hire highly 

qualified individuals. 

Table 15. Measures related to the strategic management of the Department's human 

capital 

Baseline Targets 

(year) 

’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12 

Percentage of 

employees believing 

that: 

• Leaders generate 

high levels of 

motivation and 

commitment.a

28 (‘06) 31 34 37 40 43 46 

• Managers review 

and evaluate the 

organization’s 

progress toward 

meeting its goals 

and objectives.a

53 (‘06) 56 59 62 65 68 71 

• Steps are taken 

to deal with a 

poor performer 

who cannot or 

will not 

improve.a

25 (‘06) 28 31 34 37 40 43 

• Department 

policies and 

programs 

promote 

46 (‘06) 49 52 55 58 61 64 

36
diversity in the 

workplace.a

• They are held 

accountable for 

achieving 

results.a

81 (‘06) 82 83 84 85 86 87 

• The workforce 

has the jobrelevant 

knowledge and 

skills necessary 

to accomplish 

organizational 

goals.a

67 (‘06) 69 71 73 75 77 79 

Average number of days 

to hire is at or below the 

OPM 45-day hiring 

model for non-Senior 

Executive Service 

employees.b

Not 

achieved 

(54 days 

was median 

for four 

quarters 

from July 

2005–June 

2006) 

Achieved Achieved Achieved Achieved Achieved Achieved 

Percentage of 

employees with 

performance standards 

in place within 30 days 

of start of current rating 

cycle. 

79 (‘05) 85 90 95 97 98 98 

Percentage of 

employees who have 

ratings of record in the 

system within 30 days 

of close of rating cycle. 

85 (‘05) 90 95 99 100 100 100 

Sources: Federal Human Capital Survey, annual Department employee surveys, and data from the 

Education Department Performance Appraisal System and the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Federal 

Personnel/Payroll System. 

a

These metrics are based on the percentage of favorable responses to questions on the Federal Human 

Capital Survey. Departmentwide responses to the 2006 survey are used as the baseline. 

b

The Office of Personnel Management 45-day hiring model for non-Senior Executive Service employees 

tracks the hiring process from the date of vacancy announcement closing to the date a job offer is extended. 

It is measured in workdays, not calendar days. The average is based on the total number of hires made 

within a specified period of time (quarterly). 

Cross-goal Objective 3: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding 

decisions to results. 

Budget and performance integration is one of the five governmentwide management 

37
initiatives in the President’s Management Agenda. It builds on the Government 

Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) and earlier efforts to link strategic program 

goals and performance measures to funding decisions. One aspect of this initiative is the 

Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), which OMB uses to identify program 

strengths and weaknesses in order to inform program management and funding decisions 

and make programs more effective. Many Department programs are benefiting from the 

PART reviews performed to date. 

With the release of the FY 2008 President’s budget, 89 programs will have undergone a 

PART review, representing 96 percent of the Department’s FY 2006 budget authority. 

Although 37 programs constituting 86 percent of Department budget authority have been 

rated adequate or higher in their PART reviews, four programs were found to be 

ineffective, and 48 programs could not be rated because their results could not be 

demonstrated. 

Strategy 1. Hold people and programs accountable for budget and performance 

integration. The Department will use organizational assessments to set specific targets 

and milestones for all Principal Offices to hold them accountable for making progress 

toward the achievement of the Department’s objectives for budget and performance 

integration.

Strategy 2. Improve performance measurement and data collection. The Department 

has developed annual, long-term, and efficiency measures for nearly all programs, but 

valid and reliable data are not available for many of these measures. The new EDFacts

data tool will make data reporting and analysis more efficient by providing a central 

source for K–12 education and performance data reported to the Department by state 

educational agencies and other grantees. The Department will continue to develop and 

implement data collection strategies for programs that cannot measure their performance 

currently. 

Strategy 3. Use performance information to inform program management and 

performance. Even where data are available from administrative records, rigorous 

evaluations, or grantee reports, Department staff have not always used these data to 

inform practice. The Department will use performance information, including efficiency 

data, to target monitoring and technical assistance to programs and grants with the 

greatest need. In particular, the Department will use data to improve programs that lack 

evidence of effectiveness so that these programs can demonstrate better results in future 

PART reassessments. 

Table 16. Measure for budget and performance integration 

Baseline Targets (%) 

(2006) 

(%) 

’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12 

Proportion of Department program 

dollars in programs that demonstrate 

effectiveness in terms of outcomes, either 

on performance indicators or through 

86 86 86 86 87 88 89 

38
rigorous evaluations.a

Source: U.S. Department of Education, analysis of Program Assessment Rating Tool findings. 

a

Calculation is based on dollars in Department programs with at least an adequate PART rating in the given 

year divided by dollars in all Department programs rated through that year. 

39
Appendix: How the Department Developed the Strategic Plan 

for Fiscal Years 2007-12 and Consulted with Congress and the 

Public to Create the Final Plan 

In August 2006, Secretary Margaret Spellings authorized the creation of a Strategic 

Planning Committee (SPC) to revise the Department of Education’s Strategic Plan 2002-

2007 as required by Title 5, Section 306 of the United States Code. Each principal office 

within the Department assigned a senior career service employee to serve on the 

committee, with the option to assign a second committee member who was either an 

administration appointee or senior career employee. The SPC convened frequently in 

goal-level subgroups to develop the specific language for goals, objectives and strategies. 

These subgroups also proposed the specific measures and targets for each goal and 

objective. The SPC then met several times in full committee to review and discuss 

subgroup proposals and amend and approve various stages of the plan. Committee 

deliberations benefited from many years of experience on education policy and practice, 

a full understanding of the Department’s operations and responsibilities, and an 

awareness of the Secretary’s policy priorities. The final plan reflects the influence of all 

these factors. 

The SPC submitted a draft plan for full Department review by November 2006. 

Discussions with senior officials resulted in modest changes to the document’s content 

but not to the structure of goals and objectives developed by the committee. By February 

2007, the Department had provided a draft plan on its web site for review and comment 

by the public. Additionally, the Department notified the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB), relevant Congressional committees, and numerous organizations with an 

interest in education policy of the plan’s availability for review and comment. 

During the three-week comment period, the Department received about a dozen 

comments from OMB and education advocacy groups encompassing the following 

subjects: professional development for teachers, school improvement initiatives, 

education for homeless children, the student financial aid application process, promotion 

of findings from scientifically based research in education, curricular rigor in high 

schools, and the role of school libraries in improving student achievement. All these 

comments were expressed cogently and effectively, but the Department believed in most 

cases that they were too specific for inclusion in a short planning document that 

emphasizes broad educational aspirations over the work of specific programs. The 

Department made slight alterations to the plan based upon the comments received, and it 

appreciates the attention and thoughtfulness of all responders in seeking to make this 

document relevant to the tasks of American education over the next six years. 

40
The Department of Education's mission is to promote student achievement and 

preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and 

ensuring equal access. 

www.ed.gov 

41