United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Committees

November 1998 GOALS 2000

Flexible Funding

Supports State and

Local Education

Reform

GAO/HEHS-99-10

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Health, Education, and

Human Services Division

B-278982 

November 16, 1998

The Honorable William Goodling

Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce

House of Representatives

The Honorable Peter Hoekstra

Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight

 and Investigations

Committee on Education and the Workforce

House of Representatives

The Honorable Frank Riggs

Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood,

 Youth, and Families

Committee on Education and the Workforce

House of Representatives

Despite broad legislative and public consensus that higher learning

standards and other reforms are needed within the nation’s schools, there

is substantially less agreement about who should be involved setting the

agenda for reform. In 1994, the Congress passed the Goals 2000: Educate

America Act, which provides grants to states and localities for systemic

education reform efforts. Controversy about the extent to which the

federal government should be involved in education policy led the

Congress to amend the act in 1996 to reduce the requirements states

would have to meet to receive access to Goals 2000 funding.

In fiscal years 1994 through 1997, the Department of Education provided

more than $1.25 billion in formula-based1

 grants to states under title III of

Goals 2000 for the purpose of systemic education reform. The program

requires that 90 percent of the funds be awarded as competitive subgrants

to local school districts.2

 However, little comprehensive information has

been developed to determine what activities these grants are funding at

the state or local level. Therefore, you asked us to review the Goals 2000

program to determine (1) how its funds have been spent at both the state

and local levels, including the levels of funding for developing standards

1

State allocations are made on the basis of two factors: 50 percent in accordance with the relative

amounts each state would have received under chapter 1 of title I of the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) for the preceding fiscal year; and 50 percent allocated in accordance

with the states’ relative share under part A of chapter 2 of title I of ESEA for the preceding fiscal year.

2

In the program’s first year, only 60 percent of the Goals 2000 funds had to be awarded as competitive

subgrants.

Page 1 GAO/HEHS-99-10 Goals 2000 Funding
B-278982 

and assessments as well as health education, and (2) how state and local

officials view Goals 2000 as a means to promote education reform efforts.

In conducting our work, we interviewed federal, state, and district

officials, visited selected states,3

 and reviewed relevant documents. We

surveyed Goals 2000 coordinators in all states. We also collected national,

state, and district documents about the program, including a description of

each of the 16,375 subgrants reported made with funds from fiscal years

1994 through 1997.4

 To obtain in-depth and specific information about how

the program has been used to promote education reform, we made site

visits to 10 states, where we interviewed state and district officials. We

also obtained and reviewed various state and federal audit reports relevant

to the examination of Goals 2000 expenditures and obtained financial data

from states on the funds they elected to retain at the state level. We

conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted government

auditing standards between November 1997 and October 1998. (See app. I

for further details of our scope and methodology and a list of states we

visited.)

Results in Brief Goals 2000 funds are being used to support a broad range of education

reform activities at the state and local levels. Grants to states in the 4 fiscal

years that we reviewed ranged from $370,000 to Wyoming in fiscal year

1994 to $54.7 million to California in fiscal year 1997. Over the 4-year

period reviewed, Goals 2000 funds have been broadly disseminated: more

than one-third of the 14,367 school districts nationwide that provide

instructional services have received at least one Goals 2000 subgrant

funded with fiscal years 1994 through 1997 funds.

State-retained funds—about 9 percent of the total allocated Goals 2000

funds—were spent primarily for personnel, contracting services, and

consultants involved in activities such as managing the Goals 2000

subgrant program and developing standards and assessments for reform

activities in local school districts. At the local level, districts used Goals

2000 subgrant funds to pay for education reform initiatives centered on

several major categories: local education reform, such as developing

reform plans and updating curriculum frameworks; professional

3

In this report, we use the term “states” to refer also to the governments of the District of Columbia

and Puerto Rico. The U.S. Territories also participate in Goals 2000 activities, but our review did not

include an examination of their activities.

4

Several states provided data for some but not all fiscal years for either state-retained funds or

subgrants.

Page 2 GAO/HEHS-99-10 Goals 2000 Funding
B-278982 

development; and technology acquisition and training. Other uses included

preservice training for college students who plan on becoming teachers;

the development of education standards and assessments; and

crosscutting and other activities, including a very small number of grants

related to health education activities. For example, Goals 2000 funds paid

for teacher training to enhance understanding of new teaching practices

and to improve teachers’ abilities to use technology in the classroom.

Most states had begun their state education reform efforts prior to

receiving Goals 2000 funds; thus, Goals 2000 funds have generally served

as an additional resource for ongoing state reform efforts. The districts’

Goals 2000 activities—such as curriculum development and alignment

with new state standards, teacher training, and technology

integration—appear to be aligned with state education reform initiatives.

Many state officials reported that Goals 2000 has been a significant factor

in promoting their education reform efforts and, in several cases, was a

catalyst for some aspect of the state’s reform movement. State and local

officials said that Goals 2000 funding provided valuable assistance and

that, without this funding, some reform efforts either would not have been

accomplished or would not have been accomplished as quickly.

State officials told us they supported the flexible funding design of the

Goals 2000 state grants program as a way of helping them reach their own

state’s education reform goals, and they said the program was achieving its

purpose of supporting systemic education reform in states and districts. A

number of state officials noted that the Congress’ discussions about

combining Goals 2000 funding with other federal funding in a block grant

approach caused them concern, as they believe the increased flexibility of

a block grant could increase the risk that the funds would not be spent on

education reform. However, Goals 2000, in its present form, appears to be

accomplishing what the Congress intended. It is providing an additional

and flexible funding source to promote coordinated improvements to state

and local education systems.

Background The Goals 2000: Educate America Act, which became law in 1994 and was

amended in 1996, is intended to promote coordinated improvements in the

nation’s education system at the state and local levels. All states and the

District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Territories are currently

participating in the program.5

5

Montana and Oklahoma do not participate at the state level. Awards are being made directly to local

education agencies (LEA) on a competitive basis in these two states by the Department of Education.

Page 3 GAO/HEHS-99-10 Goals 2000 Funding
B-278982 

Goals 2000 funds aim to support state efforts to develop clear standards

for and comprehensive planning of school efforts to improve student

achievement. Funds are provided through title III of the act and are to be

used at the state and local levels to initiate, support, and sustain

coordinated school reform activities. (See app. II for a listing of

allocations.) States can retain up to 10 percent of the funds received each

year, and the remainder is to be distributed to districts through a subgrant

program.6

 States have up to 27 months to obligate funds; after this time,

unobligated funds must be returned to the federal government.7

Goals 2000 requires states to award subgrants competitively. To comply

with this component of the law, states’ subgrant programs require districts

to compete directly against one another for funding or compete against a

standard set of criteria established by the state to determine levels of

funding for individual applicants.8

 Some states weigh districts’ subgrant

proposals against one another and against standard criteria.

Prior to the 1996 amendments, Goals 2000 was criticized as being too

directive and intrusive in state and local education activities. The act

initially required that states submit their education reform plans to the

Secretary of Education for review and approval before they could become

eligible for grants. The Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and

Appropriations Act of 1996 amended the law by providing an alternative

grant application process that did not include the Secretary of Education’s

approval of a state’s education reform plan and eliminated some

requirements for state reporting of information to the Department of

Education. The amendment also allowed local districts in certain states to

apply directly to the Department for Goals 2000 funds, even if their state

did not participate at the state level.9

6

On a few occasions, small amounts of additional funding have been provided to states by the

Department of Education (from funds that went unallocated to other states) that, based on the

Department’s determination, were not subject to the 90-percent subgrant requirement.

7

At the time of our review, many states had not completed spending their fiscal year 1997 funds. As a

result, fiscal year 1997 data in this report are only partially complete.

8

In one state, our review identified that no criteria or competitive process had been established and

funds were being awarded to all districts on an allocation basis. According to the Department of

Education, this state’s 1998 allocation has been temporarily suspended but will be reinstated after the

state has revised its funding process to a competitive grant format.

9

The amendment also eliminated requirements related to the specific composition of Goals 2000 state

panels, which were to be put in place to make policy decisions about the use of Goals 2000 funds and

state reform activities.

Page 4 GAO/HEHS-99-10 Goals 2000 Funding
B-278982 

As a result of the 1996 changes, the Goals 2000 program is essentially a

funding-stream grant program with fiscal objectives.10 These types of

grants differ from performance-related grants, which have more

immediate, concrete, and readily measurable objectives. Funding-stream

grant programs often confine the federal role to providing funds and give

broad discretion to the grantee. They are also the least likely of various

grant types to have performance information. Goals 2000 does not have

specific performance requirements and objectives, and the Department of

Education has issued no regulations specifically related to performance by

states and districts concerning their activities under Goals 2000. Rather,

the Department of Education provides states the latitude to merge Goals

2000 funds with other funds from state and local sources to support state

and local reform activities. However, the Department has identified

objectives in its annual performance plan that it expects to achieve as a

result of this program, along with other education programs.11

Goals 2000 Funds

Support a Broad

Range of Education

Reform Efforts at the

State and Local Levels

Goals 2000 funds, totaling about $1.25 billion for fiscal years 1994 through

1997, have supported a broad range of education reform activities at both

the state and local levels.12 Of this amount, states reported that about

$109 million (9 percent) was retained at the state level where it was used

for management, development of statewide standards, and other related

purposes. The remaining funding was provided in the form of subgrants to

local districts, consortia of districts, individual schools, and teachers. State

program officials reported that subgrants supported a broad array of

district efforts to promote education reform activities and keep up with

new state standards and assessments. These efforts included developing

district and school reform plans, aligning local curricula with new

assessments, and promoting professional development activities for

teachers. Subgrants, with few exceptions, were not used to support

health-related activities. (See app. IV for additional information on state

subgrants.)

10For a fuller discussion of the various types of federal grant programs, see Grant Programs: Design

Features Shape Flexibility, Accountability, and Performance Information (GAO/GGD-98-137, June 22,

1998).

11The Department of Education identified goals and objectives in its Annual Performance Plan for

fiscal year 1999 that indicate the expectation that this program, along with other education programs,

will result in improved student achievement.

12Although the Department of Education has allocated about $1.25 billion in grants, states have spent

or obligated only about $1 billion of the funds thus far. Information is currently incomplete from as

many as seven states.

Page 5 GAO/HEHS-99-10 Goals 2000 Funding
B-278982 

State-Retained Funds

Helped Manage Subgrant

Awards and Fund Special

Projects

As permitted by the act, most states retained a portion of their total Goals

2000 funds at the state level and used it primarily to manage the subgrant

program and support state-level activities. (See app. III for state-retained

funds by cateogry and fiscal year.) Many states retained less than the

maximum amount permitted, and a few states retained almost no funds at

all. In some instances, state-retained funds were combined with subgrants

to support local initiatives. In the 4-year period that we reviewed, states

were able to provide detail on how $62 million in state-retained funds have

been used. Of this amount, states primarily used Goals 2000 funds for

personnel and benefits and contract services and consultants. (See fig. 1.)

Funds were also used for training and travel; printing and postage;

equipment and supplies; and rent, telephone, overhead, and other costs

not classified elsewhere.

Figure 1: Identified State-Retained Funds, Total Fiscal Years 1994 Through 1997

Personnel and Benefits

$27,168,747

Equipment and Supplies

$4,068,340

Contract Services

and Consultants

$17,525,410

Other

$3,122,714

Printing and Postage

$4,528,543

Travel, Training, and

Conferences

$5,564,117

44.0%

7.0%

28.0%

5.0%

7.0%

9.0%

The largest category of state-retained funds where detail was available was

for funds reported as used for personnel and benefit costs (44 percent).

These expenditures typically involved salaries and benefits for state-level

Page 6 GAO/HEHS-99-10 Goals 2000 Funding
B-278982 

staff who managed the state’s subgrant program and other state-sponsored

education reform activities. Generally, these personnel were responsible

for disseminating information on the Goals 2000 program, providing

technical expertise to districts regarding grant requirements, assisting

district personnel with proposal writing, reviewing districts’ subgrant

proposals, and managing the subgrant selection process. These staff also

typically monitored subgrantees’ expenditures and reviewed reports that

subgrantees submitted regarding their projects.

The remaining state-retained funds where detail was reported were used

for contract services, training and travel, printing and postage, equipment

and supplies, and other activities. Contract services and consultant fees

constituted about 28 percent of state-retained funds. These expenditures

were often associated with state efforts to create new standards and

assessments, develop new curricula in alignment with the standards, and

use outside experts to research and develop these measures. Travel,

training, and conference costs, accounting for about 9 percent of total

expenditures, typically supported state Goals 2000 panel activities and

training for teachers and administrators. These funds were also used to

support state conferences designed to educate district and school officials

about Goals 2000 and allow them to share information and collaborate on

projects. Printing and postage made up 7 percent of state-retained funds,

and funds used for equipment and supplies, such as purchasing computer

hardware and software, made up another 7 percent. Other expenses—such

as rent, telephone costs, overhead, and other costs not classified

elsewhere—accounted for the remaining 5 percent of the identified funds.13

The additional $47 million identified by states as having been retained at

the state level had either not yet been spent or could not be identified in

detail.

Most state officials said that Goals 2000 funding has been an important

resource in their states’ development of new standards and assessments,

but they were unable to estimate how much future Goals 2000 funding

they would need to complete these activities. Generally, officials said they

were unqualified to make this estimate because their involvement in the

state’s overall education reform efforts was limited or they viewed the

development of standards and assessments as an iterative process that will

never be fully complete.

13Several states were not able to provide specific detail on amounts of funding retained at the state

level. In these cases, the total amount of state-retained funds reported was placed in the “other”

category.

Page 7 GAO/HEHS-99-10 Goals 2000 Funding
B-278982 

Subgrants to Local School

Districts Supported a Wide

Range of Education

Initiatives

We identified 16,375 local subgrants totaling over $1 billion that were

awarded with funding provided in fiscal years 1994 through 1997.14 As

shown in table 1, the number of subgrants and total dollar amount of

subgrant awards rose each year between fiscal years 1994 through 1996.

(Amounts for fiscal year 1997 are incomplete because several states had

not yet awarded their subgrants for that year at the time of our review.)

Subgrants ranged from a $28 subgrant that funded a reading professional

development activity in a single California school to a $6.1 million

subgrant for fourth- to eighth-grade reading instruction awarded to the Los

Angeles Unified school district. More than 34 percent of the 14,367 school

districts nationwide that provide instructional services received at least

one Goals 2000 subgrant during the 4-year period reviewed. Many districts

received Goals 2000 funding for 2 or more of the years we reviewed.

Table 1: Subgrant Awards by Year,

Fiscal Years 1994 Through 1997

Fiscal year

Number of

states

reporting

dataa

Total

number of

subgrants

awarded

Total dollar

amount of

subgrants

awarded

Range of subgrant

awards

1994 49 1,777 $66,648,311 $751-1,594,040

1995 52 5,484 295,861,631 28-3,269,061

1996 52 4,892 340,697,814 200-6,149,234

1997 45 4,222 302,275,725 402-4,700,000

aIncludes the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

Over the 4-year period reviewed, Goals 2000 subgrants funded several

general categories of activities: local education reform projects,

professional development, computer equipment and training, preservice

training, and standards and assessments. Local education reform projects

and professional development, the two largest categories, together

account for about two-thirds of the subgrant funding. Some activities fell

into a “crosscutting and other” category that reflected activities that had

been combined or were too infrequent to categorize separately. In cases

where states could not identify a single primary activity for a grant, we

classified the grants as having had a crosscutting purpose. (See fig. 2.)

14The total number of subgrants awarded may have been higher, but some states were unable to

provide complete information on their subgrant activity in some fiscal years.

Page 8 GAO/HEHS-99-10 Goals 2000 Funding
B-278982 

Figure 2: Subgrant Categories and Dollar Amounts, Total Fiscal Years 1994 Through 1997

Crosscutting and Other

$116,478,848

Local Education Reform

$390,791,388

Preservice Education

$60,631,609

Professional Development

$283,903,826

Technology

$103,006,795 

Standards and Assessments

$50,871,015

12%

39%

6%

28%

10%

5%

Table 2 summarizes some of the activities undertaken with subgrant funds

under each of the general categories.

Page 9 GAO/HEHS-99-10 Goals 2000 Funding
B-278982 

Table 2: Examples of Activities in the

Subgrant Categories Category Activity

Local education reform —Curriculum alignment with new state education reform plans

—Local improvement plans

—Parent and public engagement in reform efforts

Professional

development

—Training for teachers to update their skills in new teaching

practices

—Enrichment courses for teachers and staff

Preservice training —Training for university students who are preparing to become

teachers

—Mentoring programs for new teachers

—Observation of and participation in teaching

Technology and training —Purchase of computer hardware and software

—Networking schools to the Internet for educational purposes

—Training teachers to use new technology

—Courses for teachers so that they use technology in their

classrooms

Standards and

assessments

—Standards for state and local education service areas

—Designing or selecting an assessment system for state and

local education service areas

—Aligning curriculum with standards

Crosscutting and other —Combinations of any of the above

—Subgrants that could not be included in the other categories,

such as conflict resolution and after-school tutoring programs

Local Education Reform Local education reform activities, constituting about 39 percent of total

subgrant funding, included activities such as the development of district

improvement plans, alignment of local activities with new state education

reform plans, and efforts to update curriculum frameworks. For example,

Indiana awarded a subgrant to align curricula and instruction and to

design and implement an improvement plan that allows secondary schools

to build on foundations developed at the elementary schools. In Kentucky,

state officials reviewed their comprehensive reform activity and concluded

that their plan was missing a public engagement program for parents and

community members that would sustain education reform. Thus, the state

awarded subgrants to improve public information, boost parental

understanding, increase families’ understanding of technology, engage

parents, and broaden the reach of the school into the community.

Professional Development Professional development activities, representing about 28 percent of

Goals 2000 subgrant funding over the 4-year period reviewed, included

activities such as updating teacher skills in new teaching approaches and

providing enrichment courses for teachers. For example, Tennessee

provided a grant for 11 teachers to complete a year-long Reading Recovery

training program in strategies to teach the most at-risk first-graders to

Page 10 GAO/HEHS-99-10 Goals 2000 Funding
B-278982 

read. Teachers who participated in the training program subsequently

used the strategies to help 63 of 89 at-risk first-graders progress to reading

at a level comparable to the average of their class. In the Troy, New York,

area, subgrants funded a series of professional development activities for

staff providing inservice programs, a curriculum workshop, and training in

the use of learning and telecommunications technologies as tools to

support innovative instructional processes.

Preservice Training Preservice training activities, which involved teachers-in-training and

university programs conducting new teacher training, used about

6 percent of the subgrant funds. For example, subgrant projects funded

mentor programs in Illinois, where up to 50 percent of new teachers leave

the profession after 5 years. In Peoria, Goals 2000 funded a grant allowing

education majors in local colleges to attend an educators’ fair, observe

classes, create projects for classroom use, and meet regularly with

selected master teachers from the district. In Delaware, a subgrant funded

technology and staff support for a preservice program that allowed

second-year student teachers to teach during the day and attend courses

by videoconference rather than driving long distances to the state’s only

university with a preservice training program.

Technology and Training Subgrants for computer equipment and training—which are used to buy

computer hardware and software, network schools to educational sites on

the Internet, and train teachers and staff on the effective use of the new

technology—amounted to about 10 percent of total funding. For example,

a subgrant in Louisiana allowed a teacher to buy a graphing calculator,

which could be used with an overhead projector to help low-performing

math students better understand algebra. In some states, districts could

purchase technology using Goals 2000 funds if the primary purpose of the

subgrants involved meeting state education reform goals. Other

states—including New Mexico, Kansas, and Wisconsin—permitted

districts to purchase technology using Goals 2000 funds only if the

equipment was closely tied to an education reform project. As one

Wisconsin official stated, “Districts cannot purchase technology for

technology’s sake.” A few states restricted technology purchases in 1 or

more years. Oregon, for example, did not permit districts to purchase

high-cost computer equipment using Goals 2000 subgrant funds. However,

some states, such as Virginia and Alabama, required all subgrant projects

to be associated with technology. Officials in these states told us that they

had taken this approach because their states tied their education reform

efforts to their state technology plans or because the approach was one of

the least controversial purposes available for using Goals 2000 funds.

Page 11 GAO/HEHS-99-10 Goals 2000 Funding
B-278982 

Standards and Assessments Standards and assessments activities, accounting for about 5 percent of

total subgrant funding, included funding for such activities as the

development of standards, alignment of current curriculum standards with

new state content standards, and the development of new or alternative

assessment techniques. For example, state officials in New York said

Goals 2000 funds are being used to clarify standards for the core

curriculum and to prepare students for the state’s regents examination for

twelfth-graders—an examination all New York students must pass to

graduate from high school. State staff were also developing new

assessments using state-retained funds. With Goals 2000 funds, Texas

funded the development and dissemination of its Texas Essential

Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) program, which informs teachers about what

students should know and be able to do. Goals 2000 paid for items such as

a statewide public and committee review of TEKS and subsequent revisions;

printing and distribution of TEKS following its adoption by the state board;

and ongoing support, including statewide centers, resource materials and

products, and training related to TEKS. In Louisiana, Goals 2000 project

directors reported that teachers in a number of subgrant projects were

able to experiment with alternative assessment techniques. Project

directors reported that team planning and networking made possible by

Goals 2000 grants encouraged more applied learning strategies and the use

of alternative approaches to student evaluation, such as portfolios, applied

problem solving (especially in math and science), the use of journals,

checklists, and oral examinations.

Crosscutting and Other

Initiatives

These subgrant activities associated with education reform, reflecting

districts’ crosscutting approaches to meeting education reform goals,

accounted for the remaining 12 percent of subgrant funding. In many of

these cases, state officials were unable to identify a single focus for

subgrant activities because they reflected a combination of activities.

Some subgrants, for example, combined development of a district

improvement plan (a local education reform activity) with teacher

education on the new curriculum (a professional development activity). In

Pennsylvania, most of the $41 million in subgrants for the 4-year period

had several different areas of focus, such as a district’s $462,100 subgrant

identified as being for the development and implementation of a local

improvement plan, assessments, technology, and preservice teacher

training and professional development.

Less than two-tenths of 1 percent of Goals 2000 subgrant funding was

identified as being used to support health-related education activities. In

the 31 subgrants specifically identified as being related to health issues,

Page 12 GAO/HEHS-99-10 Goals 2000 Funding
B-278982 

most involved nutrition and hygiene education efforts that district officials

believed were important to the preparedness of their students to learn. For

example, a subgrant in New Mexico focused on making children healthier

and used subgrant funds to implement a curriculum that taught children

about health issues, such as dental care, nutrition, exercise, and problems

associated with cigarette smoking and alcohol use. According to a state

official, this proposal was in congruence with a comprehensive health

component that state officials had originally included in the state’s

education reform plan because they believed that their reform effort

should address barriers to learning.

State and Local

Officials Believe

Goals 2000 Funds

Promote State Reform

Efforts

Subgrants to local education agencies supported state education reform

efforts. Professional development, preservice training, standards and

assessments, and technology subgrants generally were aligned with state

standards or reform priorities. Almost all state and local officials said

Goals 2000 funds provided valuable assistance to education reform efforts

at both the state and local levels and that, without this funding, some

reform efforts either would not have been accomplished or would not

have been accomplished as quickly. Some officials said Goals 2000 had

been a catalyst for some aspect of the state’s reform movement, though in

most cases the funding served as an added resource for reform efforts

already under way. State-level officials voiced strong support for the

program’s existing funding design.

State and Local Officials

Believe That Goals 2000

Funds Have Furthered

State Reform Efforts

Almost all of the state officials we interviewed told us that Goals 2000

funds furthered their state’s and local districts’ education reform efforts by

providing additional funding that they could use to implement reform

plans that they had already initiated. In many cases, state officials said that

Goals 2000 state-retained funds or subgrant money allowed the state and

districts to accomplish things that would not have been done—or would

not have been done as quickly or as well—had it not been for the extra

funding provided by Goals 2000. For example, one Oregon official said that

Goals 2000 funding was the difference between “doing it and doing it right”

and that, without Goals 2000 funds, the state would either not have been

able to develop standards or would have had to settle for standards only

half as good as the ones that were developed. For example, Goals 2000

funds allowed Oregon to bring in experts, partner with colleges, align

standards, create institutes to help teachers with content standards, and

articulate the curriculum to all teachers to prepare students for

standardized testing. Local officials in Kentucky described how their Goals

Page 13 GAO/HEHS-99-10 Goals 2000 Funding
B-278982 

2000 funded projects allowed them to make progress in meeting their new

state standards and speed their reform efforts.

In several cases, state officials reported that Goals 2000 had served as a

catalyst for a certain aspect of their reform efforts, such as the

development of standards and assessments. For example, in Nevada, a

state official said that Goals 2000 was a catalyst for developing content

and performance standards that identified what, at a minimum, students

would need to master at certain grade levels. Before Goals 2000, the state

did not even have the terminology for standards-based reform. Goals 2000

brought terminology and a consistency of ideas regarding standards-based

reform, he said. Goals 2000 was also a catalyst for education reform

communication in Missouri. One state official reported that Goals 2000

was the vehicle that got schools and universities talking for the first time

about issues such as student-teacher preservice training.

State and Local Officials

Support the Current

Flexibility of Goals 2000

Funds

While the scope of our work did not specifically include ascertaining the

view of state education officials on the format of the Goals 2000 funding,

most of the officials we interviewed expressed support for continuing the

funding in its present format. The Congress has been considering changing

the present format of Goals 2000 funding as part of ongoing discussions on

how to better assist states in their education reform efforts. Almost every

state official told us that flexibility is key to Goals 2000’s usefulness in

promoting state education reform because states could direct these funds

toward their state’s chosen education reform priorities. The current level

of flexibility, officials told us, allowed states to use their state-retained

funding according to self-determined priorities as well as structure their

subgrant programs to mesh with their states’ education reform plans. As

one Washington state official said, Goals 2000 is laid out in the law with

broad functions rather than with specific programs, which has had an

impact in bringing schools and districts together to increase standards and

prioritize issues rather than developing program “stovepipes.” A state

official from Arizona said that the flexibility permitted in determining how

funds will be used allows states that are at different points in the reform

process to use the funds according to their own needs—an especially

important feature given the wide variation among states with respect to

education reform progress. In New York, local and state officials described

the Goals 2000 funding as being valuable because it allowed the state to

react quickly to problems and opportunities. As one official stated, “It

allows you to change the tire while the car is moving.”

Page 14 GAO/HEHS-99-10 Goals 2000 Funding
B-278982 

Further, several state officials told us that they did not want more program

flexibility, such as placing the funding into block grants that could be used

for many purposes in addition to education reform. Generally, these state

officials wanted the funding criteria to remain as they are with funds

dedicated to systemic education reform purposes at a broad level but

permitting flexibility at the state and local levels to determine what would

be funded within that broad purpose. For example, Louisiana state

officials said that they feared the funding would be used in lieu of current

state spending if it were not earmarked for education reform and that this

would reduce the level of reform that would occur in the state. In Nevada,

an official told us that he did not want Goals 2000 funds to be more

flexible because he thought this would cause the state to lose the focus on

the standards and improved learning that it has had under Goals 2000.

Conclusions Title III of Goals 2000 provided more than $1.25 billion from fiscal years

1994 through 1997 for broad-based efforts to promote systemic

improvements in education. State and local officials believe that Goals

2000 funding has served a useful purpose by helping states to promote and

sustain their individual education reform efforts over the past 4 years.

While the state-retained portion of funding allowed states to employ staff

to coordinate overall reform efforts, the bulk of the funding was

distributed as subgrants to thousands of local districts where, according to

state and local officials, it enhanced their ability to develop education

reform projects, professional development activities, preservice training,

and new standards and assessments.

Goals 2000 funds have provided an additional resource to enhance

education reform efforts and helped states promote and accomplish

reforms at an accelerated pace—which state officials believed would not

have occurred without this funding. By giving states the flexibility to target

funds toward their own education reform goals, states were able to direct

funds toward their greatest priorities within the broad constraints of the

law. While a program such as this, which entails great latitude in the use of

funds and requires little in the way of reporting requirements, reduces

some of the states’ accountability for process and results, Goals 2000

appears to be accomplishing what the Congress intended—providing an

additional and flexible funding source to promote coordinated

improvements to state and local education systems.

Page 15 GAO/HEHS-99-10 Goals 2000 Funding
B-278982 

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

The Department of Education provided written comments on a draft of

this report. The Department said that our report represents the most

comprehensive review to date of state and local activities supported under

Goals 2000 and that it would find this information extremely informative in

its consideration of reauthorization proposals. Staff from the Goals 2000

office provided technical comments that clarified certain information

presented in the draft, which we incorporated as appropriate. The

Department of Education’s comments appear in appendix V.

Copies of this report are being sent to the Secretary of Education and

interested congressional committees. We will also make copies available

to others upon request. If you have questions about this report, please call

me or Harriet Ganson, Assistant Director, on (202) 512-7014. Other major

contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI.

Carlotta C. Joyner

Director, Education and

 Employment Issues

Page 16 GAO/HEHS-99-10 Goals 2000 Funding
Page 17 GAO/HEHS-99-10 Goals 2000 Funding
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

20

Appendix II 

Goals 2000

Allocations by State

22

Appendix III 

State-Retained Funds,

Fiscal Years 1994

Through 1997

24

Appendix IV 

State Subgrant

Summary, Fiscal

Years 1994 Through

1997

25

Appendix V 

Comments From the

Department of

Education

31

Appendix VI 

GAO Contacts and

Staff

Acknowledgments

32

Tables Table 1: Subgrant Awards by Year, Fiscal Years 1994 Through

1997

8

Page 18 GAO/HEHS-99-10 Goals 2000 Funding
Contents

Table 2: Examples of Activities in the Subgrant Categories 10

Table II.1: Goals 2000 Allocations by State, Fiscal Years 1994

Through 1997

22

Table III.1: State-Retained Funds, Fiscal Years 1994 Through 1997 24

Table IV.1: Total Number and Amount of Subgrants by State,

Fiscal Years 1994 Through 1997

25

Table IV.2: Total Number of Subgrants by Category, by State,

Fiscal Years 1994 Through 1997

27

Table IV.3: Total Dollar Amounts for Subgrants by Category, by

State, Fiscal Years 1994 Through 1997

29

Figures Figure 1: Identified State-Retained Funds, Total Fiscal Years 1994

Through 1997

6

Figure 2: Subgrant Categories and Dollar Amounts, Total Fiscal

Years 1994 Through 1997

9

Abbreviations

ESEA Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965

LEA local education agencies

TEKS Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills

Page 19 GAO/HEHS-99-10 Goals 2000 Funding
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

We were asked to (1) review the purposes for which Goals 2000

state-retained funds have been used, (2) determine what local projects

have been funded using Goals 2000 funds, (3) determine state officials’

views about how Goals 2000 relates to state reform, (4) ascertain how

much of Goals 2000 funds have been used for developing standards and

assessments and what future support is needed for these purposes, and

(5) find to what extent Goals 2000 funds have been used for health

education activities. For reporting purposes, we combined these questions

into two broader objectives: (1) how Goals 2000 funds have been spent at

both the state and local levels, including the levels of funding for

developing standards and assessments as well as health education, and

(2) how state and local officials view Goals 2000 as a means to promote

education reform efforts.

To conduct our work, we visited 10 states and interviewed federal, state,

and local officials in these states. We also reviewed documents from the

Department of Education, state departments of education, and the Council

of Chief State School Officers; surveyed Goals 2000 coordinators in all

states; analyzed quantitative and qualitative data from federal and state

Goals 2000 offices and from independent audits; and reviewed the

statutory and regulatory requirements of the Goals 2000 program.

Data Collection To obtain information about each assignment objective, we conducted site

visits to 10 states, which account for over 32 percent of the 4-year total

Goals 2000 funding under review. The sites visited were California,

Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, Oregon,

South Carolina, and the District of Columbia. The selection of these sites

was made on the basis of the 10 states’ funding allocations and geographic

representation, the number of subgrants awarded, activities we became

aware of during our review, and recommendations of the Department of

Education and Council of Chief State School Officers.

At each site visit location, we interviewed state, district, and school

officials to obtain comprehensive and detailed information about how the

program has been used to promote education reform. At the state level, we

spoke with various officials including state superintendents, Goals 2000

coordinators and staff, and financial officials. At the district level, we

spoke with representatives of 71 districts. These included district

superintendents, finance or budget officials, district staff, teachers, and

students. In addition to the site visits, we also conducted comprehensive

telephone interviews with state Goals 2000 coordinators. Both the

Page 20 GAO/HEHS-99-10 Goals 2000 Funding
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

telephone interviews and the site visits were used to obtain information on

how each state has used Goals 2000 funding to support education reform.

These interviews also included queries on subgrant selection criteria and

processes, financial and programmatic monitoring, and evaluation efforts.

We surveyed each state, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico to

obtain financial and programmatic documentation of their Goals 2000

program. (Although small amounts of Goals 2000 funds are provided to the

U.S. Territories and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, we did not review their

programs.) We collected this documentation, reviewed it, and

cross-checked it with documents and funding reports from the

Department of Education and the Council of Chief State School Officers.

We also clarified any discrepancies found in the data during our

interviews. Documentation provided to us included requests for proposals,

state reform plans, progress reports, budget and expenditure reports, and

applicable audits. We also gathered and analyzed subgrant summaries

from each state containing the name of the recipient, category of the

subgrant, and subgrant amounts for all subgrants supported by Goals 2000

funds from fiscal years 1994 through 1997. (See app. IV.) For various

reasons, several states were unable to provide details on state-retained

funds, subgrant data, or both for 1 or more years.

We reviewed title III of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act and analyzed

regulations pertinent to the program. This review provided the foundation

from which we analyzed the information collected. In conducting the data

collection, we relied primarily on the opinions of the officials we

interviewed and the data and supporting documents they provided.

Although we did not independently verify this information, we requested

copies of all state audits pertaining to Goals 2000 and reviewed those we

received for relevant findings. We also reviewed, for internal consistency,

the data that officials provided us and sought clarification where needed.

We did not attempt to determine the effectiveness of the various

grant-funded activities or measure the outcomes achieved by the funded

projects. We conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted

government auditing standards between November 1997 and

October 1998.

Page 21 GAO/HEHS-99-10 Goals 2000 Funding
Appendix II 

Goals 2000 Allocations by State

From fiscal years 1994 through 1997, a total of $1,262,740,153 was

allocated to the states and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. The

smallest allocation was $370,124 to Wyoming in 1994; the largest was

$54,659,343 to California in 1997. (See table II.1.)

Table II.1: Goals 2000 Allocations by State, Fiscal Years 1994 Through 1997

Fiscal year

State 1994 1995 1996 1997 Total

Alabama $1,601,966a $6,054,270 $5,677,245 $7,873,908 $21,207,389

Alaska 459,903 1,576,670 1,437,615 2,012,267 5,486,455

Arizona 1,362,358 5,553,830 5,039,674 7,200,481 19,156,343

Arkansas 991,579 3,719,610 3,435,580 4,789,324 12,936,093

California 10,524,929 42,909,245 39,219,914 54,659,343 147,313,431

Colorado 1,085,028 4,369,790 3,923,495 5,573,529 14,951,842

Connecticut 960,721 3,526,340 3,150,294 4,460,763 12,098,118

Delaware 405,701 1,316,043 1,243,204 1,741,192 4,706,140

District of Columbia 476,000 1,552,282 1,353,518 1,901,747 5,283,547

Florida 4,026,309 16,161,475 14,716,898 20,970,760 55,875,442

Georgia 2,360,625 9,129,136 8,516,902 12,158,905 32,165,568

Hawaii 417,148 1,407,840 1,307,959 1,828,675 4,961,622

Idaho 886,746 3,280,645 3,078,560 4,251,947 11,497,898

Illinois 4,142,656 16,295,422 15,054,163 20,905,456 56,397,697

Indiana 1,734,498 6,681,414 6,282,288 8,768,489 23,466,689

Iowa 886,746 3,280,645 3,078,560 4,251,947 11,497,898

Kansas 864,615 3,254,439 3,100,308 4,352,008 11,572,370

Kentucky 1,477,200 5,884,600 5,550,721 7,734,973 20,647,494

Louisiana 2,066,082 8,118,921 7,643,793 10,544,733 28,373,529

Maine 506,866 1,678,755 1,535,744 2,141,683 5,863,048

Maryland 1,448,309 5,481,901 5,017,226 7,071,077 19,018,513

Massachusetts 1,881,814 7,123,273 6,243,845 8,835,996 24,084,928

Michigan 3,626,515 14,643,573 13,656,573 19,033,056 50,959,717

Minnesota 1,387,624 5,479,003 5,063,215 7,094,888 19,024,730

Mississippi 1,359,516 5,191,379 4,865,959 6,724,962 18,141,816

Missouri 1,691,269 6,649,580 6,133,433 8,597,276 23,071,558

Montanab 449,712 1,589,716 1,459,914 2,039,546 5,538,888

Nebraska 567,422 2,023,745 1,834,757 2,671,195 7,097,119

Nevada 410,095 1,445,962 1,303,331 1,864,347 5,023,735

New Hampshireb 0 1,314,770 1,232,612 1,724,433 4,271,815

New Jersey 2,447,997 8,959,127 7,905,923 11,105,340 30,418,387

(continued)

Page 22 GAO/HEHS-99-10 Goals 2000 Funding
Appendix II 

Goals 2000 Allocations by State

Fiscal year

State 1994 1995 1996 1997 Total

New Mexico 741,603 2,834,938 2,610,818 3,683,782 9,871,141

New York 7,173,261 27,625,424 25,363,949 35,354,141 95,516,775

North Carolina 2,062,239 7,891,862 7,281,928 10,303,810 27,539,839

North Dakota 406,274 1,366,000 1,260,263 1,763,429 4,795,966

Ohio 3,715,308 15,114,621 14,230,028 19,789,214 52,849,171

Oklahomab 1,153,998 4,479,897 4,176,732 5,808,148 15,618,775

Oregon 1,046,640 4,088,391 3,800,805 5,300,049 14,235,885

Pennsylvania 4,074,763 15,823,266 14,467,654 20,231,189 54,596,872

Puerto Rico 2,383,988 9,790,689 9,066,087 12,587,532 33,828,296

Rhode Island 442,261 1,508,059 1,359,970 1,898,319 5,208,609

South Carolina 1,274,631 4,799,581 4,512,625 6,250,267 16,837,104

South Dakota 426,975 1,439,331 1,310,208 1,832,682 5,009,196

Tennessee 1,677,460 6,508,803 6,000,784 8,432,741 22,619,788

Texas 7,293,999 29,781,653 27,193,507 38,173,252 102,442,411

Utah 709,092 2,636,105 2,453,502 3,427,464 9,226,163

Vermont 406,722 1,296,994 1,226,015 1,715,622 4,645,353

Virginia 0 0 6,201,681 8,684,679 14,886,360

Washington 1,581,128 6,448,910 6,058,289 8,475,603 22,563,930

West Virginia 778,396 2,852,237 2,789,041 3,818,889 10,238,563

Wisconsin 1,682,771 6,706,799 6,321,579 8,795,965 23,507,114

Wyoming 370,124 1,286,866 1,224,422 1,712,611 4,594,023

Total 91,909,582 359,933,827 337,973,110 472,923,634 1,262,740,153

aState officials in Alabama report that $1,506,644 of the 1994 allocation was returned to the

federal government.

bFiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 1996 funds were awarded directly to LEAs in Montana, New

Hampshire, and Oklahoma on a competitive basis. Direct awards are also being made to LEAs in

Montana and Oklahoma with respect to fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 funds.

Source: Department of Education, Goals 2000: Reforming Education to Improve Student

Achievement (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 30, 1998).

Page 23 GAO/HEHS-99-10 Goals 2000 Funding
Appendix III 

State-Retained Funds, Fiscal Years 1994

Through 1997

The Goals 2000: Educate America Act permits states to retain a portion of

their total Goals 2000 funds at the state level—up to 40 percent in fiscal

year 1994 and 10 percent thereafter—to develop state reform plans and

engage in statewide activities. States primarily use this portion to manage

the district subgrant program and support state-level activities. Many

states retained less than the maximum amount permitted, and a few states

retained almost no funds at all. As shown in table III.1 below, states

primarily used Goals 2000 funds for personnel and benefits; contract

services and consultants; and, to a lesser extent printing, travel,

equipment, training, supplies, and conferences. Other expenses such as

rent, telephone, and postage (along with indirect and other costs not

elsewhere classified) accounted for the remainder. In cases where states

could not provide specific categorizations for the state-retained funds they

reported, these amounts were included in the “other” category.

Table III.1: State-Retained Funds, Fiscal Years 1994 Through 1997

Fiscal year

Category 1994 1995 1996 1997 Total

Percentage

of total

Personnel $5,655,049 $5,869,961 $5,711,944 $5,400,909 $22,637,863 36.53%

Contract services 2,994,257 3,989,512 3,216,021 1,918,346 12,118,136 19.55

Consultants 969,623 1,660,080 1,574,329 1,203,242 5,407,274 8.72

Benefits 1,170,762 1,234,397 1,084,094 1,041,630 4,530,884 7.31

Printing 577,852 1,348,905 1,133,977 583,514 3,644,249 5.88

Travel 883,918 693,781 607,294 495,844 2,680,837 4.33

Indirect costs 694,584 947,092 272,712 520,714 2,435,102 3.93

Equipment 442,752 748,424 662,626 523,186 2,376,987 3.84

Supplies 272,218 432,879 390,065 596,191 1,691,353 2.73

Training 100,709 269,014 190,766 1,040,954 1,601,443 2.58

Conferences 284,558 396,752 195,763 404,764 1,281,837 2.07

Postage 159,972 320,662 208,622 195,038 884,295 1.43

Telephone 79,847 55,090 106,128 106,017 347,082 0.56

Rent 76,388 79,593 92,555 91,994 340,530 0.55

Total identified 14,362,489 18,046,142 15,446,896 14,122,344 61,977,871 100

Other 7,973,658 10,027,963 11,256,353 18,192,127 47,450,101

Total $22,336,147 $28,074,105 $26,703,249 $32,314,470 $109,427,972

Page 24 GAO/HEHS-99-10 Goals 2000 Funding
Appendix IV 

State Subgrant Summary, Fiscal Years 1994

Through 1997

This appendix provides state-by-state information on subgrants made to

local school districts and other organizations. Table IV.1 shows the

number and amount of subgrants in total for each state, table IV.2 shows

the number of subgrants by category for each state, and table IV.3 shows

the dollar amounts of subgrants by category for each state.

Table IV.1: Total Number and Amount

of Subgrants by State, Fiscal Years

1994 Through 1997 State

Total number of

subgrants reported

Total amount of

subgrants reported

Alabama 252 $19,979,167

Alaska 92 4,353,861

Arizona 603 17,641,591

Arkansas 220 10,845,633

California 1,645 127,283,487

Colorado 185 10,966,855

Connecticut 497 10,296,998

Delaware 47 4,308,188

District of Columbia 113 2,815,985

Florida 205 48,299,495

Georgia 372 29,441,191

Hawaii 53 3,214,053

Idaho 71 4,994,666

Illinois 574 49,842,639

Indiana 319 14,587,431

Iowa 105 9,867,688

Kansas 414 9,525,297

Kentucky 313 17,839,264

Louisiana 402 24,323,719

Maine 257 5,191,358

Maryland 62 12,011,569

Massachusetts 1,065 15,766,493

Michigan 418 45,263,295

Minnesota 1,016 14,813,650

Mississippi 120 5,920,801

Missouri 332 6,468,765

Montana 71 5,355,985

Nebraska 103 5,804,004

Nevada 39 2,652,868

New Hampshire 92 5,737,061

New Jersey 147 19,262,471

(continued)

Page 25 GAO/HEHS-99-10 Goals 2000 Funding
Appendix IV 

State Subgrant Summary, Fiscal Years 1994

Through 1997

State

Total number of

subgrants reported

Total amount of

subgrants reported

New Mexico 149 8,620,386

New York 768 82,564,903

North Carolina 257 23,460,901

North Dakota 115 3,598,666

Ohio 684 34,548,585

Oklahoma 136 14,337,184

Oregon 207 11,705,396

Pennsylvania 343 41,244,436

Puerto Rico 195 25,936,183

Rhode Island 119 4,386,528

South Carolina 286 14,589,041

South Dakota 310 3,971,400

Tennessee 481 20,043,462

Texas 833 96,091,946

Utah 136 8,685,960

Vermont 182 3,770,013

Virginia 264 14,578,163

Washington 280 11,850,327

West Virginia 209 5,278,253

Wisconsin 134 9,292,200

Wyoming 83 2,454,019

Total 16,375 $1,005,683,480

Page 26 GAO/HEHS-99-10 Goals 2000 Funding
Appendix IV 

State Subgrant Summary, Fiscal Years 1994

Through 1997

Table IV.2: Total Number of Subgrants by Category, by State, Fiscal Years 1994 Through 1997

State LEA reform

Preservice

training

Professional

development Technology

Standards and

assessments

Crosscutting and

other Total

Alabama 0 0 0 252 0 0 252

Alaska 35 0 0 0 0 57 92

Arizona 603 0 0 0 0 0 603

Arkansas 109 17 94 0 0 0 220

California 338 40 1,244 1 0 22 1,645

Colorado 43 2 35 20 53 32 185

Connecticut 300 3 78 43 62 11 497

Delaware 6 0 2 39 0 0 47

District of Columbia 91 1 4 16 1 0 113

Florida 57 48 25 16 10 49 205

Georgia 371 0 0 0 0 1 372

Hawaii 19 2 4 3 2 23 53

Idaho 18 0 5 0 0 48 71

Illinois 285 46 192 51 0 0 574

Indiana 162 31 125 1 0 0 319

Iowa 66 12 23 1 1 2 105

Kansas 275 112 8 19 0 0 414

Kentucky 226 15 63 9 0 0 313

Louisiana 304 19 56 4 15 4 402

Maine 225 10 16 0 0 6 257

Maryland 60 0 1 0 1 0 62

Massachusetts 137 164 751 0 0 13 1,065

Michigan 180 16 218 3 0 1 418

Minnesota 66 0 31 0 0 919 1,016

Mississippi 54 7 51 0 0 8 120

Missouri 42 9 59 5 196 21 332

Montana 37 1 13 14 2 4 71

Nebraska 27 0 40 12 24 0 103

Nevada 18 3 18 0 0 0 39

New Hampshire 34 0 2 21 2 33 92

New Jersey 90 0 21 15 21 0 147

New Mexico 57 13 78 0 0 1 149

New York 150 42 533 20 18 5 768

North Carolina 50 0 107 49 12 39 257

North Dakota 46 3 29 13 2 22 115

Ohio 172 32 2 0 327 151 684

(continued)

Page 27 GAO/HEHS-99-10 Goals 2000 Funding
Appendix IV 

State Subgrant Summary, Fiscal Years 1994

Through 1997

State LEA reform

Preservice

training

Professional

development Technology

Standards and

assessments

Crosscutting and

other Total

Oklahoma 60 4 24 34 2 12 136

Oregon 0 0 0 0 0 207 207

Pennsylvania 27 0 11 24 24 257 343

Puerto Rico 45 12 87 20 1 30 195

Rhode Island 38 19 37 0 6 19 119

South Carolina 5 1 3 1 276 0 286

South Dakota 74 1 1 234 0 0 310

Tennessee 187 8 67 219 0 0 481

Texas 731 3 76 15 7 1 833

Utah 8 10 99 12 2 5 136

Vermont 139 0 13 9 20 1 182

Virginia 0 0 0 264 0 0 264

Washington 206 19 55 0 0 0 280

West Virginia 88 0 9 14 3 95 209

Wisconsin 40 27 16 11 35 5 134

Wyoming 41 0 0 42 0 0 83

Total 6,442 752 4,426 1,526 1,125 2,104 16,375

Page 28 GAO/HEHS-99-10 Goals 2000 Funding
Appendix IV 

State Subgrant Summary, Fiscal Years 1994

Through 1997

Table IV.3: Total Dollar Amounts for Subgrants by Category, by State, Fiscal Years 1994 Through 1997

State LEA reform

Preservice

training

Professional

development Technology

Standards

and

assessments

Crosscutting

and other Total

Alabama $0 $0 $0 $19,979,167 $0 $0 $19,979,167

Alaska 765,284 0 0 0 0 3,588,577 4,353,861

Arizona 17,641,591 0 0 0 0 0 17,641,591

Arkansas 4,734,317 1,053,405 5,057,911 0 0 0 10,845,633

California 30,189,540 9,828,655 77,565,292 4,700,000 0 5,000,000 127,283,487

Colorado 2,731,101 6,610 3,853,198 179,871 3,503,798 692,277 10,966,855

Connecticut 6,534,184 90,000 1,771,863 620,172 1,155,831 124,948 10,296,998

Delaware 1,297,234 0 117,610 2,893,344 0 0 4,308,188

District of Columbia 964,500 102,541 342,944 226,000 1,180,000 0 2,815,985

Florida 11,168,839 11,808,289 5,488,269 6,859,187 2,469,835 10,505,076 48,299,495

Georgia 29,278,703 0 0 0 0 162,488 29,441,191

Hawaii 1,200,272 48,541 186,584 231,421 99,084 1,448,151 3,214,053

Idaho 627,202 0 330,000 0 0 4,037,464 4,994,666

Illinois 24,133,099 2,106,213 16,357,091 7,246,236 0 0 49,842,639

Indiana 7,132,026 1,974,971 5,466,434 14,000 0 0 14,587,431

Iowa 5,330,172 1,824,960 2,091,410 21,146 350,000 250,000 9,867,688

Kansas 3,835,802 3,979,706 177,707 1,532,082 0 0 9,525,297

Kentucky 14,042,329 403,200 2,931,845 461,890 0 0 17,839,264

Louisiana 18,975,899 1,625,912 2,405,537 289,999 530,000 496,372 24,323,719

Maine 4,706,458 169,900 220,000 0 0 95,000 5,191,358

Maryland 11,551,569 0 210,000 0 250,000 0 12,011,569

Massachusetts 1,988,148 3,647,146 10,014,784 0 0 116,415 15,766,493

Michigan 14,984,882 1,352,353 28,161,525 749,535 0 15,000 45,263,295

Minnesota 944,639 0 1,331,371 0 0 12,537,640 14,813,650

Mississippi 2,811,500 425,000 2,450,301 0 0 234,000 5,920,801

Missouri 955,999 232,199 1,381,673 67,106 3,438,930 392,858 6,468,765

Montana 3,168,305 22,483 950,071 716,109 150,811 348,206 5,355,985

Nebraska 1,224,604 0 2,733,985 329,720 1,515,695 0 5,804,004

Nevada 950,677 437,719 1,264,472 0 0 0 2,652,868

New Hampshire 1,902,224 0 63,213 1,660,183 170,071 1,941,370 5,737,061

New Jersey 11,818,835 0 2,938,788 2,009,116 2,495,732 0 19,262,471

New Mexico 2,385,143 590,725 5,636,003 0 0 8,515 8,620,386

New York 15,927,003 6,909,568 51,374,835 3,214,579 3,326,119 1,812,799 82,564,903

North Carolina 4,971,712 0 9,269,825 4,688,318 1,223,570 3,307,476 23,460,901

North Dakota 933,471 80,425 835,599 369,157 70,700 1,309,314 3,598,666

(continued)

Page 29 GAO/HEHS-99-10 Goals 2000 Funding
Appendix IV 

State Subgrant Summary, Fiscal Years 1994

Through 1997

State LEA reform

Preservice

training

Professional

development Technology

Standards

and

assessments

Crosscutting

and other Total

Ohio 7,365,326 5,438,083 70,403 0 8,236,835 13,437,938 34,548,585

Oklahoma 7,696,935 354,229 2,365,283 2,827,453 143,840 949,444 14,337,184

Oregon 0 0 0 0 0 11,705,396 11,705,396

Pennsylvania 2,149,965 0 760,000 2,780,000 955,206 34,599,265 41,244,436

Puerto Rico 6,661,302 865,606 11,541,261 4,019,045 50,000 2,798,969 25,936,183

Rhode Island 1,724,988 415,255 648,326 0 308,270 1,289,689 4,386,528

South Carolina 390,565 7,000 169,000 13,000 14,009,476 0 14,589,041

South Dakota 838,400 40,000 40,000 3,053,000 0 0 3,971,400

Tennessee 5,433,687 319,768 3,026,888 11,263,119 0 0 20,043,462

Texas 81,125,501 274,144 11,107,728 1,468,336 1,616,237 500,000 96,091,946

Utah 646,975 702,425 5,994,749 920,564 187,506 233,741 8,685,960

Vermont 2,678,342 0 247,631 198,071 633,469 12,500 3,770,013

Virginia 0 0 0 14,578,163 0 0 14,578,163

Washington 6,072,482 1,611,628 4,166,217 0 0 0 11,850,327

West Virginia 2,255,642 0 214,300 308,676 78,500 2,421,135 5,278,253

Wisconsin 3,582,525 1,882,950 571,900 426,500 2,721,500 106,825 9,292,200

Wyoming 361,489 0 0 2,092,530 0 0 2,454,019

Total $390,791,388 $60,631,609 $283,903,826 $103,006,795 $50,871,015 $116,478,848 $1,005,683,480

Page 30 GAO/HEHS-99-10 Goals 2000 Funding
Appendix V 

Comments From the Department of

Education

Page 31 GAO/HEHS-99-10 Goals 2000 Funding
Appendix VI 

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

Contacts Harriet Ganson, Assistant Director, (202) 512-7014

George Erhart, Evaluator-in-Charge

Acknowledgments In addition to those named above, the following individuals made

important contributions to this report: Dawn Hoff collected and analyzed

state information and drafted major sections of the report, Sonya

Harmeyer collected state information and had a lead role in analyzing and

developing graphic presentations of the data, Richard Kelley gathered and

assisted in the analysis of information from states and the Department of

Education, Edward C. Shepherd and Jennifer Pearl assisted in data

collection activities, Edward Tuchman provided assistance in analyzing

and verifying data, Stanley Stenersen assisted in structuring and reviewing

the draft report, and Jonathan Barker of the Office of the General Counsel

provided legal assistance.

(104902) Page 32 GAO/HEHS-99-10 Goals 2000 Funding
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100