PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 32

Goal 2. Elementary and Secondary Education: 

Improve the elementary and secondary education system’s ability to 

consistently deliver excellent instruction aligned with rigorous 

academic standards while providing effective support services to 

close achievement and opportunity gaps, and ensure all students 

graduate high school college- and career-ready. 

Goal Leader: Assistant Secretary, Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education (OESE)

Objective 2.1: Standards and Assessments. Support implementation of internationally 

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

assessments. 

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

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

teachers and leaders. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Benefit

The goal for America’s elementary and secondary educational system is clear: all students 

should have meaningful opportunities to graduate from high school ready for college and a 

career. The important work in communities across the country over the past several years 

contributed to the highest ever national high school graduation rate, reaching 83.2 percent. 

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

achievement, our education system fails to consistently provide all students with equal access 

to a high-quality education, as evidenced by persistent achievement gaps between student 

subgroups. Data from the 2015 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) show 

that low-income students scored 24 to 28 points below their more advantaged peers in reading 

and math, respectively. The achievement gaps between black and white students were between 

24 and 32 points and achievement gaps between Hispanic and white students were between 

18 and 24 points. 

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

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

instruction for all students. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as 

reauthorized by the ESSA, requires that all students in America be taught to high academic 

standards that will prepare them to succeed in college and careers and that vital information is 

provided to educators, families, students, and communities through annual statewide 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 33

assessments that measure students’ progress toward those high standards. The ESEA also 

promotes local innovation and the use of evidence-based interventions, particularly as part of 

locally determined efforts to turn around low-performing schools.

Goal 2 Discretionary Resources

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

FY 2016

FY 2017

FY 2018

$34,407

$34,342

$30,876

(Dollars in millions)
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 34

Major Discretionary Programs and Activities24 Supporting Goal 2 Performance 

Metrics [Dollars in Millions]

POC Account Obj. Program 

FY 2016 

Appropriation 

FY 2017 

Annualized 

CR25

FY 2018 

President’s 

Budget 

OESE ED 2.4 School improvement grants 450 449 -- 

OESE ED 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 

2.4 Title I Grants to local education agencies 14,889 14,881 15,881 

OESE I&I 2.2 Teacher and school leader incentive 

grants 230 230 200

OESE SIP 2.5 Mathematics and science partnerships 153 152 --

OESE SIP 2.1 State assessments 378 377 377 

OESE SIP 2.2 

Supporting effective instruction state 

grants 2,256 2,252 -- 

OESE SIP NA 21st century community learning centers 1,167 1,164 --

OII I&I 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 Charter schools grants 333 333 500

OII I&I 2.2, 2.3, 2.6 Magnet schools assistance 97 96 96 

OII SSCE 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 Promise Neighborhoods 73 73 60

OSERS SE 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 Special Education grants to states 11,895 11,890 11,890 

Subtotal 31,959 31,898 29,005 

Other Discretionary Programs/Activities 2,448 2,444 1,871 

TOTAL, GOAL 2 34,407 34,342 30,876 

POC = Principal Operating Component. 

CR = Continuing Resolution. 

NA = Not applicable. 

NOTES: Many programs may have sub-activities that relate to other goals. Detail may not add to total due to rounding. 

 

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

noncompetitive/formula programs. 

25 A full-year 2017 appropriation was not enacted at the time the FY 2018 Budget was prepared; therefore, the Budget is built off of 

the Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L. 114–254). The amounts included for 2017 reflect the annualized level 

provided by the continuing resolution.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 35

Goal 2: Details

U.S. Department of 

Education 

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals

Current 

Year 

Target

Current 

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target 

2016 Out-Year Targets

Trend Line 

(Actuals) Indicator Measurement 

Direction 2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed26 Exceeded27 2017 2018

2.1.A. Number of 

states/territories that have 

adopted college- and 

career-ready standards28

SY: 2012–

13

49, plus 

DC

SY: 

2013–14

51 (49 

plus D.C. 

and 

Puerto 

Rico)29

SY: 

2014–15 

51 (49 

plus D.C. 

and 

Puerto 

Rico) 

SY: 

2015–16

51

(49 plus 

D.C. and 

Puerto 

Rico)

SY: 

2015–16

52

NOT 

MET

52 50 

INCREASE 

2.1.B. Number of 

states/territories that are 

implementing nextgeneration reading and 

mathematics 

assessments, aligned with 

college- and career-ready 

standards30

SY: 2012–

13

0 

0 SY: 

2014–15

49 (48 

plus DC) 

SY: 

2015–16

47

SY: 

2015–16

52

NOT 

MET

52 50

INCREASE 

 

26 Missed target by <=1, or if percentage, <=1.3 percentage points. 

27 Surpassed target; not just met the target. If a diminishing target, the actual was below the reduction target set. 

28 The Department is no longer conducting ESEA Flexibility monitoring, but states continued to implement their ESEA Flexibility requests through August 1, 2016, before beginning the 

transition to the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). 

29 Revising from “49, plus DC and Puerto Rico” reported in the 2015 APR to “51 (49 plus DC and Puerto Rico)” to be consistent with 2015’s language. 

30 The Department is no longer conducting ESEA Flexibility monitoring, but states continued to implement their ESEA Flexibility requests through August 1, 2016, before beginning the 

transition to the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 36

U.S. Department of 

Education 

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals 

Current 

Year 

Target 

Current 

Year 

Results 

Actual-to-Target 

2016 Out-Year Targets 

Trend Line 

(Actuals) Indicator Measurement 

Direction 2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed26 Exceeded27 2017 2018

2.2.A. Number of states 

that have fully 

implemented teacher and 

principal evaluation and 

support systems that 

consider multiple 

measures of effectiveness, 

with student growth as a 

significant factor31

SY: 2012–

13

6 

SY: 

2013–14

7 

SY: 

2014–15

8 

SY: 

2015–16

8

SY: 

2015–16

22

NOT 

MET

NA NA

INCREASE 

2.3.A. Disparity in the rates 

of out-of-school 

suspensions for students 

with disabilities and youth 

of color (youth of color 

metric)

SY: 2011–

12

10.7 

% 

point 

disparity 

SY 2013–

14

10.6 

% point 

disparity32

Not 

Collected 

TBD

SY 

2014–15 

data 

collected 

in 2016 

and 

available 

in 2017

SY: 

2014–15

6.7

% point 

disparity

TBD TBD NA

Biennial 

Metric 

4.7 

% point 

disparity 

DECREASE 

 

31 Retiring metric at conclusion of FY 2016. Please see appendix B for additional information pertaining to the metric’s retirement. The FY 2017 and 2018 targets were 39 and 42, 

respectively. 

32 The 2011–12 CRDC results could not be replicated. However, the Department is able to report the 2013–14 CRDC disparities for one or more out-of-school suspensions for K-12 

students (excluding 504-only students). The 2014 target was NOT MET.
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 37

U.S. Department of 

Education 

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals 

Current 

Year 

Target 

Current 

Year 

Results 

Actual-to-Target

2016 Out-Year Targets 

Trend Line 

(Actuals) Indicator Measurement 

Direction 2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed26 Exceeded27 2017 2018

2.3.B. Disparity in the rates 

of out-of-school 

suspensions for students 

with disabilities and youth 

of color (SWDs, IDEA only 

metric)

SY: 2011–

12

5.7 

% point 

disparity 

SY 2013–

14

6.6 

% point 

disparity33

Not 

Collected 

TBD

SY 

2014–15 

data 

collected 

in 2016 

and 

available 

in 2017

SY: 

2014–15

2.7

% point 

disparity

TBD TBD NA

Biennial 

Metric 

1.2 

% point 

disparity 

DECREASE 

2.4.A. Number of 

persistently low 

graduation rate high 

schools34

SY: 2011–

12

775

SY: 

2012–13

737

SY: 

2013–14

680

SY: 

2014–15

605

SY: 

2014–15

664

MET

630 598

DECREASE 

2.4.B. Percentage of SIG 

schools in Cohort 5 that 

are above the 25th 

percentile in mathematics, 

as measured by their state 

assessments 

SY: 2013–

14 

19.7% 

NA SY: 

2013–14

19.7% 

SY: 

2014–15

21%

SY: 

2014–15

21.0%

MET 23.3% 25.6%

INCREASE 

 

33 The 2011–12 CRDC results could not be replicated. However, the Department is able to report the 2013–14 CRDC disparities for one or more out-of-school suspensions for K-12 

students (excluding 504-only students). The 2014 target was NOT MET.

34 Metric is aligned with an Agency Priority Goal. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 38

U.S. Department of

Education

Indicators of Success

Baseline

Actuals

Current

Year 

Target

Current

Year 

Results

Actual-to-Target

2016 Out-Year Targets

Trend Line

(Actuals) Indicator Measurement

Direction 2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed

26 Exceeded27 2017 2018

2.4.C. Percentage of SIG 

schools in Cohort 5 that 

are above the 25th 

percentile in 

reading/language arts, as 

measured by their state 

assessments 

SY: 2013–

14

20.1% 

NA SY: 

2013–14

20.1% 

SY: 

2014–15

19.5%

SY: 

2014–15

23.0%

NOT 

MET

25.9% 27.8% 

  INCREASE

2.5.A. Percentage of high 

school and middle school 

teachers who teach STEM 

as their main assignment 

who hold a corresponding 

undergraduate degree35

SY: 2011–

12

62.2% 

Not 

Collected 

Not 

Collected 

TBD

Q1 of FY 

2018

65.3% NA NA NA NA NA

INCREASE 

 

35 This is a quadrennial metric and based on data collection should not have had an FY 2017 target; thus the target of 65.3% identified in the 2015 APR has been removed. Retiring 

metric at conclusion of FY 2016. Please see appendix B for additional information pertaining to the metric’s retirement. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 39

U.S. Department of 

Education 

Indicators of Success

Baseline 

Actuals 

Current 

Year 

Target 

Current 

Year 

Results 

Actual-to-Target 

2016 Out-Year Targets 

Trend Line

(Actuals) Indicator Measurement 

Direction 2014 2015 2016 2016 2016

Missed26 Exceeded27 2017 2018

2.5.B. Number of public 

high school graduates 

who have taken at least 

one STEM AP exam36

SY: 2011–

12

497,922 

SY: 

2013–14

555,11937

SY: 

2014–15

592,41038

SY: 

2015–16

622,553

SY: 

2015–16

632,642

NOT 

MET 

691,541 759,381 

  INCREASE

 

36 Although the metric’s data has a lag in when it is reported, the cohort year, school year, and fiscal year align. The metric has been updated to reflect this alignment. 

37 In the 2014 APR, the performance target of 536,810 was reported as “Not Met.” However, it was “Met.”

38 In the 2015 APR, the performance target of 581,419 was reported as “Not Met.” However, it was “Met.”
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 40

Goal 2 FY 2016 Indicator Performance Summary 

12

10 Total Indicators

10 1 (10.0%)

8 2 (20.0%)

6

5 (50.0%) 4

2

2 (20.0%)

0

Met Not Met TBD NA

NA = Not applicable. 

TBD = To be determined. 

Academic Year (AY) is a collegiate year spanning August–May; School Year (SY) spans August–July and is aligned with a P–12 school year; Fiscal Year (FY) corresponds to a federal 

fiscal year; Calendar Year (CY) spans January–December. 

Data Sources and Frequency of Collection: 

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

2.1.B. ESEA Monitoring; annually 

2.2.A. ESEA Flexibility Applications and Monitoring; annually 

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

2.3.B. CRDC; biennially 

2.4.A. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) EDFacts; annually 

2.4.B. Analytic dataset produced by the contractor for the SIG National Summary, because this provides an accurate list of SIG schools and flags for different exclusions that are 

included in the analysis. (The analytic dataset is a combination of EDFacts student achievement files in Math and Reading, the NCES Common Core of Data, SIG lists 

provided to EDFacts by OSS, and Exclusions that are generated by the contractor that apply to these results.); annually 

2.4.C. Analytic dataset produced by the contractor for the SIG National Summary, because this provides an accurate list of SIG schools and flags for different exclusions that are 

included in the analysis. (The analytic dataset is a combination of EDFacts student achievement files in Math and Reading, the NCES Common Core of Data, SIG lists 

provided to EDFacts by OSS, and Exclusions that are generated by the contractor that apply to these results.); annually 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 41

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

2.5.B. College Board/Advanced Placement (AP) administrative records; annually 

Note on performance metrics and targets: These metrics were established as a part of the FY 2014–18 Strategic Plan. Metrics may be updated or revised to reflect awareness of 

more accurate data or clarifications. Such updates or revisions are identified in footnotes. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 42

Analysis and Next Steps by Objective

Objective 2.1: Standards and Assessments. Support implementation of internationally 

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

assessments.

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

Given that the ESSA made few changes to most of the assessment provisions under Title I, the 

Department moved ahead with its Title I Assessment Peer Review process in 2016, using the 

peer review guidance released in September 2015. Through this process, external peers are 

making recommendations to the Department regarding whether the state has sufficiently 

documented the quality of its assessment system and whether its assessments are consistent 

with the requirements under Title I and the peer review guidance and nationally accepted 

professional testing standards. Through the end of FY 2016, the Department reviewed 

components of 38 states’ assessment systems and began providing feedback to states in fall 

2016.

The Department continued to make use of existing technical assistance resources, including the 

College and Career Readiness and Success Center, Center on Standards and Assessments 

Implementation, and Reform Support Network, to support state implementation. 

The ongoing work of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) 

through its Results Driven Accountability (RDA) is also a key activity supporting progress on this 

goal. RDA is shifting the Department’s accountability efforts from a primary emphasis on 

compliance to a framework that focuses on improved results for students with disabilities, while 

continuing to assist states in ensuring compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act’s (IDEA) requirements. RDA emphasizes child outcomes such as performance on 

assessments, graduation rates, and early childhood outcomes. 

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

There are several external risks to achieving this strategic objective. During 2016, several state 

legislatures considered bills related to standards and assessments, including bills that would 

remove state standards or assessments that have been identified as college- and career-ready. 

While most of these bills did not move forward, states may reconsider this legislation in the 

future, particularly as states develop and implement plans as required under Title I of the ESSA. 

There also is a risk that implementation of college- and career-ready standards will not be 

successful at the local level and inadequate supports will be provided to teachers and students. 

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

The Department began the Title I assessment peer review process in 2016, and external peers 

reviewed documentation regarding approximately 38 state assessment systems. The 

Department began providing these states with feedback and a decision regarding the outcome 

of peer review in fall 2016 and will continue to provide feedback on a rolling basis throughout 

the winter of 2017. Historically, the majority of states are required to submit additional evidence 

after the initial peer review in order to demonstrate that their system meets all of the 

requirements of professional and technical testing standards, consistent with Title I of the ESEA. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 43

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

recruitment, retention, development, support, evaluation, recognition and the equitable 

distribution of effective teachers and leaders.

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

The primary strategy the Department adopted for this objective is to support states and districts 

in the development and implementation of high-quality teacher and principal evaluation and 

support systems, as well as broader human capital management systems that use the results of 

evaluation systems to inform placement, retention, promotion, differential performance-based 

compensation, and other considerations. 

In FY 2016, the Department supported states in implementing educator evaluation and support 

systems and finalized approval of all states’ State Plans to Ensure Equitable Access to 

Excellent Educators (Educator Equity Plans). In addition to providing support through the 

Equitable Access Support Network (EASN), the Department hosted its inaugural Educator 

Equity Lab and worked to plan additional labs. The Department also issued guidance advising 

states that Educator Equity Plans remain in effect for both the 2015–16 and 2016–17 school 

years. 

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

Prior to termination of the waivers of Title I, Part A granted through the ESEA Flexibility 

initiative, 42 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico committed to implementing 

educator evaluation and support systems and reporting their progress on implementing those 

systems to the Department. The ESSA, which was signed into law in the first quarter of 

FY 2016, terminated, effective August 1, 2016, the ESEA Flexibility waivers that had been 

granted to states. Given the change in law, states are no longer required to report to the 

Department the details of their evaluation systems and therefore the Department does not have 

a viable data source to collect data regarding states’ work to continue to implement these 

systems. 

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

During the fourth quarter of 2015 and the first quarter of 2016, the Department approved 

Educator Equity Plans for all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The 

Department continues to work with states through the EASN to provide support as they work to 

implement their Educator Equity Plans. 

In March 2016, the Department cohosted the inaugural Educator Equity Lab with the Mississippi 

Department of Education. This full-day forum provided an opportunity for a wide variety of 

stakeholders to come together to carry forward the work embedded within Mississippi’s 

Educator Equity Plan. 

Nevertheless, the Department remained concerned about its progress against this metric 

throughout FY 2016, given the clear termination of the ESEA Flexibility waivers, as required by 

the ESSA on August 1, 2016. 

In FY 2017, the Department intends to host additional Educator Equity Labs and to continue to 

provide support for states through Office of State Support (OSS) program officers and the 

EASN, as well as to support states in implementing the requirements under ESEA, as 

reauthorized by the ESSA, Section 1111(g)(1)(B) and 34 CFR 299.18(c). 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 44

The Department anticipates reviewing and revising its strategies for meeting the Effective 

Teachers and Strong Leaders objective to reflect the changes made by Congress in the ESSA. 

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

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

engagement.

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

The Department, broadly, and the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), 

specifically, play a role in improving academic achievement, equity in education, and other 

important youth outcomes by working to understand and improve conditions for learning in 

public schools. Students’ academic achievement and their eventual success in school and in life 

are sensitive to the broader context in which they live and learn, and in which their schools 

operate. 

OESE’s implementation strategy included supporting activities related to the improvement of 

student success and school safety, discipline, health, and climate with a focus on districts and 

schools receiving School Improvement Grants (SIG). 

Examples of activities that supported progress towards this strategic objective include: 

 OESE’s Office of Safe and Healthy Students (OSHS), in coordination with the Office of 

the Deputy Secretary, sponsored two regional “Rethink Discipline” convenings. 

 On July 27, 2016, the Department, in partnership with the Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), 

sponsored the Healthy Students, Promising Futures (HSPF) Learning Collaborative, 

bringing together teams from 10 states to work on expanding school health services for 

Medicaid-enrolled and eligible students by leveraging CMS’ change to the free care 

policy. The Learning Collaborative builds on the HSPF guidance and toolkit jointly 

released by the Department and HHS in January 2016. 

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

Limited resources are a risk to achieving this strategic objective, such as identifying funds to 

support new efforts to provide additional technical assistance to improve state and local 

systems of support for chronically absent students. 

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

Future actions to support conditions for student learning in order to improve student attendance 

and achievement in the nation’s schools include: 

 Supporting states and local communities in identifying and meeting the needs and 

aspirations of chronically absent students. To extend this work, the Department is 

currently supporting the National Student Attendance, Engagement, and Success 

Center, which provides states and local communities access to expert assistance in 

establishing early warning prevention and intervention systems that aim to link 

chronically absent students with supportive services to improve student attendance and 

youth success in school and in life. 

 Supporting states and local communities in improving access to school-based health 

services, particularly for low-income and vulnerable youth. 
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 45

 Supporting states and local communities in improving school safety and climate through 

school discipline reform and investments in assessing, measuring, and responding to 

school climate issues at state, local, and school levels. This includes funding grant 

programs directed to SEAs and local educational agencies (LEAs), as well as a technical 

assistance center that provides training, disseminates resources, and responds to 

inquiries. 

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

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

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

schools.

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

The Department’s efforts to turn around schools were largely focused on the distribution of SIG 

funding and technical assistance to states. The Department awards grants to states, which then 

award competitive subgrants to school districts. 

In schools that have received funds under the SIG program, up to 80 percent of students are 

from low-income families—28 percentage points higher than the average school.39

The State Support Network is a technical assistance center that supports state and district 

efforts to achieve significant improvements in student outcomes, scale up effective systemic 

approaches and practices within and across states and districts, and identify and share effective 

practices to facilitate learning from states, districts, and others to support school improvement. 

The Department also continued to partner with the Corporation for National and Community 

Service to support the School Turnaround AmeriCorps program grantees, and partnered with 

the President’s Council on Arts and Humanities to support the Turnaround Arts Initiative. 

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

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

show progress and success. In addition, as states implemented new college- and career-ready 

standards and assessments aligned with those standards, it was challenging to measure 

progress over time using the mathematics and reading/language arts assessments. 

In addition, under the ESSA, states will still have financial resources to devote to school 

improvement efforts. As such, the Department will ensure a continuity of support to the field as 

states transition to the implementation of the law. 

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

All FY 2015 and FY 2016 SIG formula funds were awarded to states that applied for funds. The 

Department also utilized multiple existing technical assistance efforts to support states in 

implementing SIG. These efforts will continue in the future to support states as they transition to 

implementing the ESSA.

 

39 http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/signationalsum09292015.pdf
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 46

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

technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) teachers and increase opportunities 

for students to access rich STEM learning experiences.

FY 2016 Implementation Strategy 

In lieu of budget appropriations for proposed STEM initiatives, the Department worked to 

strengthen existing programs that have a focus on STEM, enhance interagency collaborations, 

propose new areas of focus and work with external organizations to build public-private 

partnerships to increase the number and quality of STEM teachers and increase opportunities 

for students to access rich STEM learning experiences. 

STEM was included as a competitive or invitational priority in many discretionary grant 

competitions in FY 2016, including the Magnet School Assistance Program (MSAP), Investing in 

Innovation Program (i3), Hispanic Serving Institution STEM Articulation Program (HSI-STEM), 

and Ready to Learn (RTL). In addition, states, districts, schools, and their partners may utilize 

formula dollars to support STEM education. Examples of ways that SEAs, LEAs, and their 

partners could use formula funds (under Title I, II, III, and IV of the ESEA; IDEA; and the Carl D. 

Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006) to support STEM were provided in Q2 of 

2016: https://www2.ed.gov/programs/promiseneighborhoods/stemdearcolleagueacces.pdf. 

In addition to supporting existing Department programs and proposing new areas of focus in 

STEM, the Department has worked closely with the National Science and Technology Council 

CoSTEM that coordinates federal programs and activities in support of STEM education 

pursuant to the requirements of Sec. 101 of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 

2010.40 The Department cochairs the P-12 and Computer Science for All Interagency Working 

Groups and actively participates in the Engagement Interagency Working Group. 

The Department also expanded interagency partnerships through the 21st Century Community 

Learning Centers (21st CCLC) program, a $1.1 billion formula grant program. The funds are 

used to provide high-quality, hands-on out-of-school learning experiences that connect learning 

that takes place during the school day with real-world applications in STEM areas. Since 2013, 

the partnerships have grown in scale and scope from two agencies—the Department and the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)—reaching 20 sites across three states 

to five agencies—the Department, NASA, the National Park Service, the Institute of Museum 

and Library Services, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration—reaching 

more than 200 sites across 25 states in 2016. 

In addition, the Department has worked closely with a number of partners, such as 100Kin10, a 

network of over 280 partners that came together in response to the President’s 2011 call to 

action, in the State of the Union address, to recruit 100,000 STEM educators in the next 

10 years; in May 2016, 100Kin10 announced that they have the commitments in hand to recruit 

100,000 additional STEM teachers by 2021. Another successful partnership is with the STEM 

Funders’ Network around their STEM Learning Ecosystems initiative, which has cultivated 

37 community-based partnerships nationwide focused on providing high-quality STEM 

education opportunities, both in and out of school, for students from underserved and high-need 

communities. These partners have undertaken remarkable work to increase the number and 

quality of STEM educators and expand opportunities for students in STEM. 

 

40 https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/about/BILLS-111hr5116enr.pdf
PERFORMANCE PLAN SUMMARY

FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan—U.S. Department of Education 47

FY 2016 Barriers to Success 

The ESSA eliminated Mathematics and Science Partnerships (MSP), the Department’s program 

to improve elementary and secondary school mathematics and science teacher education and 

professional development. With the elimination of MSP, the ESSA does not authorize any 

Department program dedicated solely to improving K-12 STEM education. If funded, the Title IV 

block grant may be used partially for STEM activities; but it is spread across multiple aspects of 

well-rounded education, and since the funds are distributed by formula, funding for LEAs for 

STEM education would likely be minimal. Limited resources present a risk to achieving this 

strategic objective, as STEM programming requires funds to support recruitment, training, 

support, and retention of STEM educators. 

Key Milestones and Future Actions 

In March 2016, STEM leaders across the country, representing state and local entities, 

foundations, nonprofits, media organizations, technology companies, research institutions, and 

museums, made commitments to support innovative STEM work. Collectively, these 

commitments have the potential to bring new, active STEM content for the nation’s youngest 

children to millions of households across the nation. In addition to the public and private sector 

groups that stepped up, federal agencies are deepening the resources and support they provide 

for early active STEM learning. 

The Department also will review and revise its strategy for supporting STEM Teaching and 

Learning to reflect changes made by the Congress in the ESSA.