Washington, DC

March 2002

U.S. Department of Education

ANNUAL PLAN

2002 - 2003 2002 - 2003 2002 - 2003

In this great land

called America, no child

will be left behind.

óPresident George W. Bush

ì

ì
This report was produced under U.S. Department of Education Contract No.

ED-01-CO-0137 with de Val Grafik Source LLC., Washington D.C., Geneise Cooke served as

the contracting officer representative. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent

the positions or policies of the Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U. S.

Department of Education of any product, commodity, service or enterprise mentioned in this

publication is intended or should be inferred.

U.S. Department of Education

Rod Paige

Secretary

Office of the Deputy Secretary

Bill Hansen

Deputy Secretary

Planning and Performance Management Service

Hugh Walkup

Director

March 2002

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

While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S.

Department of Education, Office of the Deputy Secretary, Planning and Performance

Management Service, U.S. Department of Education Strategic Plan, Washington D.C., 2002.

To order copies of this report:

write to: ED Pubs, Education Publications Center, U.S. Department of Education,

P.O. Box 1398, Jessup MD 20794-1398;

or fax your request to: (301) 470-1244;

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

or call in your request toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877 service is not

yet available in your area, call 1-800-872-5327 (1-800-USA-LEARN). Those who use a

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

1-877-576-7734.

or order online at: www.ed.gov/about/ordering.jsp.

This report is also available on the Departmentís web site at:

www.ed.gov/pubs/planrpts.html.

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

audiotape, or computer diskette. For more information, please contact the Departmentís

Alternate Format Center at (202) 260-9895 or (202) 205-8113
Mission

To ensure equal access

to education and

to promote educational

excellence throughout

the nation.
Department of Education

Strategic Goals

Create a culture of

achievement throughout

the nationís education

system by effectively

implementing the

presidentís plan, No Child

Left Behind, and by basing

all federal education

programs on its principles:

accountability, flexibility,

expanded parental options

and doing what works.

Improve achievement for

all groups of students by

putting reading first,

expanding high quality

mathematics and science

teaching, reforming high

schools, and boosting

teacher and principal

quality, thereby closing

the achievement gap.

Establish safe, disciplined,

and drug-free

educational environments

that foster the

development of good

character and citizenship.

Page 20 Page 36 Page 62

Goal2

Create

a Culture

of

Achievement

Improve

Student

Achievement

Develop

Safe Schools

and Strong

Character

1Goal Goal3
Strengthen the quality of

educational research.

Increase opportunities for

students and the

effectiveness of

institutions.

Create a culture of

accountability throughout

the

Department of Education.

Page 72 Page 78 Page 94

Transform

Education

into an

Evidencebased Field

Enhance

the Quality of

and Access to

Postsecondary

and Adult

Education

Establish

Management

Excellence

Goal4 Goal5 Goal6
6 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

Just a few weeks ago, I released the Department of Educationís Strategic Plan for

2002-2007. (It is available on our web site at www.ed.gov.) This plan embraces the

vision set forth by President George W. Bush: to leave no child behind. It

acknowledges the boldness of that vision. Never before has any society, anywhere in

the world, at any time attempted to educate every single one of its citizens to his or her

full potential. Every nationóours includedóhas always accepted that some children

will be left behind. No longer. For the President and for me, ìno child left behindî is

not just a slogan, it is a pledge. We take it literally, and we take it seriously.

Congress takes it seriously too. In December, Congress passed the No Child Left

Behind Act of 2001, the most significant transformation of the federal role in

education in over thirty-five years. This law and its principles for reformó

accountability, flexibility, expanded parental options and doing what worksóare

embedded throughout our Strategic Plan, and

will be our North Star in the years to come.

Those same principles will be embedded in

future legislative proposals in areas including

special education, vocational education and

higher education.

More than anything, No Child Left Behind is

about results. No longer will symbolism or

good deeds carry the day. We must demand

results from our schools, and we must demand

results from our government.

We have already started implementing the

new law, and ensuring that its focus on results

permeates the entire organization. Since my confirmation over a year ago, we have

been working hard to build a culture of accountability within the agency. The

development of this Annual Plan is another important milestone. While it looks and

Secretary’s Statement
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 7

feels very similar to our Strategic Plan, it provides much greater detail about the

specific action steps we will take in the next 18 months to achieve our goals and

objectives. It provides transparency to the public and direction to the organization.

What it does not do is report on our measurable progress toward our goals and

objectives. Because our five-year plan was released just a few weeks ago, such a

progress report is not yet possible. Next yearís Annual Plan and Report will provide a

full accounting of the Departmentís progress toward our goals and objectivesóa

report card if you willóso the public can hold us accountable for results just as we

expect schools to be held accountable for results.

To leave no child behind, this Department will work with many partnersó

Congress; policymakers at the state and local levels; educators in schools and colleges

and literacy programs; parents, students and other federal agencies. But make no

mistake. We take responsibility for achieving the goals and objectives in this plan.

More than ever, education is a national priority, and this Department of Education

will make it a source of national pride.
8 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

Introduction
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 9

 About the 2002-2003 Annual Plan

In early March, Secretary Rod Paige released the Departmentís Strategic Plan for

2002-2007. This plan establishes six ambitious goals for the agency, and for the

nation. It identifies specific performance measures and annual targets that give

substance to the goals. And it provides an indication of the Departmentís strategies

to reach its goals. (The plan is online at www.ed.gov.)

The Strategic Plan integrates the policy shifts embodied by No Child Left Behind

with the management improvements of the Presidentís Management Agenda. It

acknowledges that policy and management efforts must work together for us to

achieve our objectives.

The Departmentís 2002-2003 Annual Plan builds on the new Strategic Plan. It

breaks the plan down into bite-sized pieces, called ìaction steps,î and it provides

much more detail about our intentions over the next 18 months. Members of

Congress, stakeholders and the general public can view, with great transparency, our

plans for putting ideas into action. Employees throughout the Department can gain

greater insight into how their work connects with the results we are attempting to

achieve.

This document does not provide an official report on the Departmentís past

performance. Because new strategic goals and objectives were just announced, such a

report is not possible. However, where feasible, we provide trend line data to provide

the reader with an indication of how the Department has performed on similar goals

and objectives in the past. Frankly, in most areas, the news is not good. Our new

Strategic Plan acknowledges the failed approaches of the past four decades and

seizes on the principles of the landmark No Child Left Behind Act to transform the

federal role in education and to improve the performance of the nationís education

system.

No Child Left Behind

The passage of the No Child Left Behind Act marks the most significant shift in

federal education policy in 35 years.

In signing the Act, President George W. Bush proclaimed, ìToday begins a new

era, a new time in public education in our country.††As of this hour, Americaís

schools will be on a new path of reform, and a new path of results.î

About the new law, Secretary Rod Paige declared, ìReform is no longer about

access or money. It is no longer about compliance or excuses. It is about improving

student achievement by improving the quality of the education we offer American

students.î
10 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

This Act calls for revolutionary change, change that is desperately needed because

too many children are being left behind. Our system educates some of our children

very well, and their success is a testament to many

excellent teachers and administrators. We need to

help our whole system identify, honor, and emulate

these successes. But we cannot be satisfied with

islands of excellence. Great public schools should

be found in every city and in every neighborhood

in America.††No child should ever be written off

because every child is important and every child

can learn.††

The No Child Left Behind Act demands progress

and achievement. It embraces the principles

supported by the president: accountability for

results, flexibility and local control, expanded

parental options and doing what works. Putting

these principles into action will transform our K-12

educational system. These same principles will

serve as the foundation for upcoming reforms in areas such as special education,

vocational rehabilitation, higher education, and vocational education.

 Establishing Management Excellence

 at the U.S. Department of Education

The No Child Left Behind Act is a mandate for the transformation of the

Department. Not only does it embrace the presidentís education principles, it also

embraces the spirit of the Government Performance and Results Act. It demands

achievement in return for investment, and it requires a system of performance

measurements throughout the educational enterprise. But in order to create a culture

of achievement throughout the nationís education system, first we must create a

culture of accountability within the Department itself. The work of creating such a

culture has now been underway for almost a year.

When Secretary Paige arrived at the Department, he found financial and

management problems that over time had damaged our credibility with Congress and

the American public. Auditors had been unable to issue a clean opinion on the

Departmentís financial statements for each of the prior three fiscal years; the federal

student assistance programs remained a fixture on the General Accounting Officeís

High-Risk List; and information technology security and internal control issues were

not being addressed appropriately. Secretary Paige attacked these problems head-on.

Today begins a new era, a

new time in public education in

our country. As of this hour,

Americaís schools will be on a

new path of reform, and a new

path of results.

óPresident George W. Bush

ì

ì
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 11

In April 2001, Secretary Paige tasked a ìSWATî team of senior career

managersócalled the Management Improvement Team (MIT)óto identify and fix

the most urgent management problems at the Department. They developed a

Blueprint for Management Excellence (Blueprint) that, in addition to overall strategies, now

includes 176 action items designed to address long-standing management concerns.

(The Blueprint is online at www.ed.gov/inits/mit/index.html.)

While the work of the MIT was already well underway, it was greatly strengthened

with the release of the Presidentís Management Agenda (PMA), a comprehensive plan to

improve the performance of the federal government. The PMA identifies five

government-wide goals: the strategic management of

human capital; competitive sourcing; improved financial

management; expanded e-government; and budget and

performance integration. These goals have been integrated

into the Departmentís strategic goal, ìEstablish

Management Excellence,î and, more important, into the

management improvement efforts of the Department.

The formation of the MIT was just the first step. Since

then, Secretary Paige has taken other important actions to

improve the Departmentís management structure and

address pressing issues, including: (1) creating the Executive

Management Team (EMT), which consists of top political

appointees and career senior managers who oversee all management improvement

processes; (2) establishing a Culture of Accountability Team to help better ingrain a

culture of accountability throughout the Department; and (3) entering into

partnerships with the National Academy of Public Administration, the Private Sector

Council, and the Council for Excellence in Government to develop a 5-Year Human

Capital/Strategic Sourcing/Restructuring Plan.

 Culture of Accountability Team

Secretary Paige recognized that our biggest challenge was developing a culture

across the Department that emphasized individual responsibility and accountability.

The Culture of Accountability Team, consisting of career and political employees

from across the Department, completed a set of specific actions with assigned

ownership, clear timetables and performance measures, designed to establish a

mature Culture of Accountability within our agency. The Team developed these

actions based upon ideas and feedback obtained from employees across the

Department, which will help promote employee buy-in. The EMT and MIT will

ensure these actions become reality.

No Child Left Behind is

more than a slogan. It is a

promise, a promise that the

Department of Education

intends to keep.

ì

ì
12 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

 Five-Year Human Capital/Strategic

 Sourcing/Restructuring Plan

On January 31, the Department began an effort to produce our first Five-Year

Human Capital/Strategic Sourcing/Restructuring Plan. This Planís overall thrust is to

ensure we have ìthe right people in the right place to perform the right job in the

right way.î

The Human Capital/Strategic Sourcing/Restructuring Plan will ensure that our

staff is structured to deliver services efficiently and allow us to be as close as possible

to the citizens we serve. We must ensure that we maintain a highly trained, highperforming workforce capable of implementing the Departmentís Strategic Goals and

Objectives. Like other federal agencies, we face significant challenges regarding

workforce capacity:

 We must ensure our employees possess adequate knowledge and skills to adapt to

technology changes and revised program requirements.

 We must evaluate our employeesí skill levels, how we train them, and find creative

and motivating methods of rewarding them.

 We must ensure we have a succession plan to replace key leaders and retain our

institutional memory as significant numbers of our employees enter retirement.

Seventeen percent of our workforce is eligible for voluntary retirement by the end

of the year, including 25 percent of our supervisors.

 We must continue to operate and plan within our existing systems, while proposed

changes to federal hiring and accountability systems are debated.

The Five-Year Human Capital/Strategic Sourcing/Restructuring Plan will address

these challenges. Three teams of employees, working with advice and assistance

provided by National Academy of Public Administration and Private Sector Council

consultants, are developing the Plan. We expect to complete the Plan by June, and

begin implementation immediately thereafter.

 Turning Plans into Action

Secretary Paige has said on many occasions that he does not want the Strategic Plan

to be a ìtrophy to hang on the wall.î He knows that it will become a truly useful

document only when it is integrated into the fabric of daily life at the Department. To

make this happen, we are launching an education campaign to ensure that every

manager and employee in the Department understands the Departmentís new

direction and we are starting to align the work of our offices, teams, and individual

employees with our strategic goals and objectives.
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 13

While the Strategic Plan gives direction to the Departmentóand transparency to the

publicógreater detail is needed in order to put the plan into action. Such detail is

provided by this Annual Planóin the form of the action steps listed herein. Each action

step will be ìownedî by an office, which will be held accountable for getting work done.

To connect this process with ongoing management improvement efforts, most of the

action steps within Goal Six have been drawn directly from the Blueprint and the Culture

of Accountability Report and aligned with the Presidentís Management Agenda.

A system has been built to track progress on these action steps so that everyone in the

organizationófrom the Secretary on downówill know if an action needs attention.

This tracking system builds on the work of the MIT, which has already been tracking

action items from the Blueprint, Presidentís Management Agenda, and Culture of Accountability

Report for months. The database will be updated weekly and each action item will be

assigned a green (everything is on track), a yellow (deadlines are slipping or the action

step needs attention) or a red (intervention needed immediately). The Executive

Management Team will

oversee the implementation

of the Strategic Plan, as well

as the other management

initiatives, to ensure perfect

alignment and coordination.

While this performance

management system will

shine the light on activities

that need attention, it will

also provide an easy way to

identify and recognize

successes. It will be very

important to demonstrate

momentum, both to

maintain support from our

stakeholders and to improve

and sustain the Departmentís

morale.

Though details must be finalized, the Department plans to publish, on a monthly

basis, a list of action items which have been completed successfully or which are

proceeding exceptionally well. We also intend to put our money where our mouth is

by providing tangible rewards for great work. The Department is in the process of

creating a cash bonus and recognition program that will award teams for exceptional

performance on these action steps.
14 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

 Linking Employee Performance with the

 Departmentís Goals and Objectives

While the awards program will recognize excellent team performance, it will also be

important to link individual employee performance with the Strategic Plan, the

Presidentís Management Agenda and the other management initiatives. One of the best

ways to do this is through the formal employee review system. The Department is

preparing to overhaul the General Performance Appraisal System (GPAS) that

evaluates most employees in order to link standards for employee evaluation directly

with the action steps in this plan.

In addition to changing the appraisal system for GS-level employees, Senior

Executive Service (SES) members will also experience a change to their appraisal

system. All SES members will be required to link activities on their performance

plans to the Strategic Plan and other management initiatives, including the five-year

human capital/restructuring/competitive-sourcing plan.

Assistant Secretaries will also have performance contracts that will be reviewed and

signed by the Secretary. These contracts will be based on the 8-10 highest priority

action steps for which the Assistant Secretaries are responsible. While cash bonuses

cannot be tied to these contracts, they will focus attention on what matters most.

Aligning Performance Appraisals with Goals and Objectives

Department

Principal Offices

Work Units-Employees

SES-Senior Managersí

Performance Appraisals

GS-1-15 Employee

Performance

Appraisals

Strategic and Annual Plan

Principal Office

Action Plan

Action Steps
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 15

 The Real Challenge: Getting the Work Done

Even with an elaborate tracking system, incentives tied to the strategic plan,

monthly updates on progress, and more, this effort will be successful only if we

achieve results. How will we actually get the work done? Once offices and teams

within the Department understand the new direction the Secretary is leading us

toward, how will they actually change their processes in order to accomplish our

goals? The Change Management group within the Office of Management will

facilitate this difficult, day-to-day work. These experts will help action team leaders

think through the organizational changes needed to get their work done. They will

link the policy objectives communicated in the Strategic Plan with the ongoing work

in human capital development, competitive sourcing and restructuring. Working with

managers and senior officers, they will ensure that change happens and goals are

achieved.

We intend for the Department of Education to be a model of management

excellence and accountability, both for other government agencies and for the

nationís education system. This plan provides the roadmap.

Goals &

Objective
18 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

2

3

1 Goal One:

Create a Culture of Achievement

1.1 Link federal education funding to accountability for results.

1.2 Increase flexibility and local control.

1.3 Increase information and options for parents.

1.4 Encourage the use of scientifically-based methods within federal

education programs.

Goal Two:

Improve Student Achievement

2.1 Ensure that all students read on grade level by the third grade.

2.2 Improve mathematics and science achievement for all students.

2.3 Improve the performance of all high school students.

2.4 Improve teacher and principal quality.

Goal Three:

Develop Safe Schools and Strong Character

3.1 Ensure that our nationís schools are safe and drug-free and that students are

free of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs.

3.2 Promote strong character and citizenship among our nationís youth.
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 19

4 Goal Four:

Transform Education into

an Evidence-based Field

4.1 Raise the quality of research funded or conducted by the Department.

4.2 Increase the relevance of our research in order to meet the needs of our

customers.

6 Goal Six:

Establish Management Excellence

6.1 Develop and maintain financial integrity and management and internal

controls.

6.2 Improve the strategic management of the Departmentís human capital.

6.3 Manage information technology resources, using e-gov, to improve service

for our customers and partners.

6.4 Modernize the Federal Student Assistance programs and reduce their highrisk status.

6.5 Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to

results.

6.6 Leverage the contributions of community- and faith-based organizations to

increase the effectiveness of Department programs.

6.7 By becoming a high performance, customer-focused organization, earn the

Presidentís Quality Award.

5 Goal Five:

Enhance the Quality of and Access to

Postsecondary and Adult Education

5.1 Reduce the gaps in college access and completion among student populations

differing by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and disability while

increasing the educational attainment of all.

5.2 Strengthen accountability of postsecondary institutions.

5.3 Establish effective funding mechanisms for postsecondary education.

5.4 Strengthen Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving

Institutions, and Tribal Colleges and Universities.

5.5 Enhance the literacy and employment skills of American adults.
20 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

1

Strategic Goal One

Create a Culture of Achievement
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 21

1

The purpose of prosperity is to

make sure the American dream

touches every willing heart. The

purpose is to leave no one outó to

leave no child behind.

óPresident George W. Bush

ì

ì

Individuals and groups who work in social systems such as the American

education system are strongly influenced by the systemís culture. To improve

such a system, the most potent strategy for change is cultural change.

Therefore, through the effective implementation of the No Child Left Behind

Act, we will create a culture characterized by accountability for results, flexibility and

local control, expanded parental options, and the use of instructional practices based on

scientific research; and we will embed these principles in programs and activities

throughout the Department.

Objective 1.1

Link federal education funding to accountability for results.

Objective 1.2

Increase flexibility and local control.

Objective 1.3

Increase information and options for parents.

Objective 1.4

Encourage the use of scientifically-based methods within federal education

programs.
22 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

Objective 1.1

Link federal education

funding to accountability

for results

To create a culture of achievement, we must

demonstrate that achievement counts, at the local, state and

federal levels. We will work with our partners to make

accountability for results the hallmark of our education

system. In alignment with No Child Left Behind, states will

develop systems that hold local schools accountable for

results. State progress on a number of achievement

indicators will be reported annually. Federal education

programs will also be held accountable; those that do not

demonstrate results in terms of student outcomes will be

either reformed or eliminated.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 1.1

Provide technical assistance

1. Publish regulations and guidance on Title I accountability provisions and provide

technical assistance to ensure implementation.

2. Convene national conference on Title I to provide technical assistance on its new

provisions.

3. Provide support to organizations that assist states with implementing the

standards, testing and accountability provisions of the No Child Left Behind

Act.

4. Provide technical assistance to ensure that states understand and meet the new

testing and accountability requirements under Title I and Title III for English

language learners.

5. Provide technical assistance to ensure that states understand and meet the new

testing and accountability requirements under Title I for students with

disabilities.

6. Provide technical assistance to state migrant education directors to ensure that

they understand and meet the new testing and accountability requirements of

the No Child Left Behind Act.

7. Provide technical assistance to states and districts on the utilization of online

assessments.

8. Provide technical assistance to the states on using accountability data to improve

vocational/technical education.
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 23

9. Provide technical assistance to the states on using accountability data to improve

adult education.

10. Develop a new public service advertising campaign with leading business,

government and education organizations to build awareness of the No Child

Left Behind Act, including its accountability provisions.

Publish a national education performance report

11. Publish an annual national education performance report that provides data

about state progress on a number of K-16 indicators (data largely drawn from

consolidated reports).

1.1.3 Create performance-based grants

12. Develop a legislative proposal to encourage Congress to provide incentives to

grantees to improve performance within the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act.

13. Develop a legislative proposal to encourage Congress

provide incentives to grantees to improve performance

within the Rehabilitation Act.

14. Develop a legislative proposal to encourage

Congress to provide incentives to grantees to

improve performance within the Perkins Act.

15. Develop a legislative proposal to

encourage Congress to provide

incentives to grantees to improve

performance within the Adult

Education and Family Literacy Act.

16. Develop a legislative proposal to

encourage Congress to provide

incentives to grantees to improve

performance within the Higher

Education Act.
24 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

17. Improve monitoring of IDEA state grants to increase the focus on improved

student achievement.

18. Establish formal mechanisms within the National Institute on Disability and

Rehabilitation Research to link past performance to future awards.

Support Department programs that work

19. Revise program performance indicators to focus on results and integrate them

into the Performance Based Data Management Initiative.

20. In the Congressional Justifications document program effectiveness, propose to

reform or eliminate ineffective programs, and include outcome targets.

21. Develop and implement an evaluation plan that will produce rigorous

information on the effectiveness of Department programs, as well as the

effectiveness of interventions supported by federal funding streams.
Objective 1.1 Link Federal Education Funding to Accountability for Results

The percentage of states with complete school

accountability systems in place as required by the No Child

Left Behind Act.*

The percentage of Department programs that

demonstrate effectiveness in terms of outcomes, either on

performance indicators or through rigorous evaluations.

The percentage of Department program dollars that are in

programs that demonstrate effectiveness in terms of

outcomes, either on performance indicators or through

rigorous evaluations.

State Accountability

Systems

Federal Program

Accountability

* For this indicator, a complete accountability system includes annual assessments in grades three through eight in

mathematics and reading; the publication of adequate yearly progress targets for each student subgroup; the

publication of student achievement data (by school, district, and statewide) disaggregated by race/ethnicity, poverty,

disability, and Limited-English proficiency; and the choice provisions for students in low-performing schools. This

entire system is not required to be in place until 2005-2006.

* For more detailed information on Department programs, visit the site: www.ed.gov/pubs/annualreport2001

PP = Percentage Points

The baseline year is FY 2001.

ë02 ë03

30

Baseline

+5 PP

Baseline

+10 PP

40

Baseline

+10 PP

Baseline

+20 PP

Performance

Targets

Performance Measures for Objective 1.1
26 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

Objective 1.2

Increase flexibility and

local control

As the president has said, ìLocal schools now have a

mandate to reform, and we are giving them the freedom to

reform.î States, school districts and other grantees will

receive increased flexibility over the use of federal funds,

and greater responsiveness from the Department to their

concerns, in exchange for greater accountability for results.

Information technology initiatives will dramatically reduce

the data collection burden on state and local officials by

seamlessly collecting and disseminating performance

information. Increased flexibility will be a core principle

incorporated in all legislative proposals.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 1.2

Publicize flexibility provisions to the states

22. Aggressively publicize state flexibility opportunities through letters, conferences

and other means.

23. Publish State-Flex notice and select first states.

24. Provide technical assistance to targeted states to help them meet the

qualifications for Ed Flex.

25. Develop and disseminate guidance on flexibility within Title I school-wide

programs.

Publicize flexibility provisions to local districts

26. Publish Local-Flex notice, hold first competition, and select first sites.

27. Commission a study about local barriers to using flexibility provisions.

Foster a customer service orientation at the Department

28. Create and staff the No Child Left Behind resource room to provide rapid

response to state and local questions about the Act.

29. Assign senior officers to develop personal relationships with individual state

education chiefs and to help answer their questions about the law.

Increase flexibility within other Federal programs

30. Develop a legislative proposal to encourage Congress to provide grantees with

greater flexibility in the use of funds and reduce paperwork and reporting

burden within the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 27

31. Develop a legislative proposal to encourage Congress to reduce reporting

burden within the Rehabilitation Act.

32. Develop a legislative proposal to encourage Congress to provide grantees with

greater flexibility in the use of funds and reduce reporting burden within the

Perkins Act.

33. Develop a legislative proposal to encourage Congress to provide grantees with

greater flexibility in the use of funds and reduce reporting burden within the

Adult Education and Family Literacy Act.

34. Develop a legislative proposal to encourage Congress to provide grantees with

greater flexibility in the use of funds and reduce reporting burden within the

Higher Education Act.

Reduce data collection and reporting burden while increasing the

usefulness of data

35. Reduce the regulatory burden on institutions of higher education through the

FED-UP project.

36. Implement the long-term Performance-Based Data Management Initiative to

centralize and dramatically reduce reporting burden; align data definitions and

collections with it.

37. Implement a short-term pilot project to collect school-level achievement data

and align it with financial and demographic

information.

38. Develop a streamlined consolidated

application and report for formula No Child

Left Behind Act programs and align with

Performance Based Data Management

Initiative.

39. Revise the Office of Civil Rights ìE and Sî

Survey to reduce data burden, improve data

quality, and align with Performance Based

Data Management Initiative.
28 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

Objective 1.2 Increase Flexibility and Local Control

ë02 ë03

* Customer satisfaction rating to be determined.

PP = Percentage Points

M = Million

The percentage of school districts utilizing transferability or

rural flexibility provisions.

The number of states approved for Ed-Flex.

(2001 baseline = 9)

The OMB burden hour estimates of Department program

data collections per year. (2001 baseline = 40.5 million)

The percentage of Department grantees that express

satisfaction with ED customer service (responsiveness,

timeliness, efficiency, etc.).*

Base

line + 5

PP

15

40M

TBD

Base

line +

10 PP

20

38M

TBD

Local Flexibility

State Flexibility

Federal Data

Collection Burden

Customer Service

Performance

Targets

Performance Measures for Objective 1.2
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 29

Data collection burden

Note: The OMB burden hour estimates of Department program data collections per year.

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Fiscal Year

Burden Total

 (in millions of hours)

2000
30 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

Objective 1.3

Increase information and

options for parents

Parents are childrenís first and most important teachers.

The Department will aggressively implement the parental

involvement, information and options components of No

Child Left Behind and encourage states and communities to

provide additional choices to parents. States and districts

will be required to publish report cards that provide school

performance information to parents. Children trapped in

failing or unsafe schools will have the opportunity to

attend better public schools (including charter schools) or

use federal funds for private tutoring. Public school

options, including charter schools, will be strongly

supported for all students, as will private school options

for disadvantaged children. The Department will also work

with Congress to embed greater parental choice,

involvement and information in all federal education

programs, as well as within the tax code.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 1.3

Require school report cards

40. Develop and issue guidance on school report cards; provide technical assistance

to states to ensure implementation.

41. Develop and implement a coordinated campaign to publicize the report cards to

parents, businesses, and other users.

42. Publish and disseminate a guide for states and the public highlighting the best

school performance information online, including state and private sites.

Support charter schools

43. Convene the National Charter Schools Conference.

44. Draw media attention to National Charter Schools Week.

45. Publish a monthly newsletter about the Departmentís charter school activity.

46. Provide technical assistance to states and schools on effective and innovative

special education approaches within charter schools.

47. Through the charter school credit enhancement program, leverage private

dollars to fund facilities financing for charter schools.
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 31

Provide choices to children trapped in failing or unsafe schools

48. Develop and publicize guidance that clarifies public school choice provisions of

Title I; provide technical assistance to ensure implementation.

49. Develop and publicize regulations that clarify supplemental services provisions

of Title I; provide technical assistance to ensure implementation.

50. Establish intra-district and inter-district public school choice programs through

the voluntary public school choice program.

51. Promote the proposed education tax credit and choice demonstration program.

52. Through speeches and publications, encourage states and communities to

provide additional choices to families.

Expand choice in other federal programs

53. Develop a legislative proposal to encourage Congress to embed greater parental

choice and information within the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

54. Develop a legislative proposal to encourage Congress to embed greater choice

and information within the Rehabilitation Act.

55. Develop a legislative proposal to encourage Congress to embed greater parental

choice and information within the Perkins Act.

56. Develop a legislative proposal to

encourage Congress to embed greater

choice and information within the Adult

Education and Family Literacy Act.

57. Develop a legislative proposal to

encourage Congress to embed greater

choice and information within the

Higher Education Act.

58. Provide technical assistance to the states

and follow up with monitoring to ensure

that parents of English language learners

are provided information about their

choices under the No Child Left Behind

Act.

59. Fund projects that provide training and

information to enable parents, guardians,

and other family members to participate more effectively with rehabilitation

professionals in meeting the vocational, independent living, and rehabilitation

needs of family members with disabilities.

U.S. Nationwide Number of Students

Attending Charter Schools, 1995-2000

Note: Data from the Center for Education Reform, www.edreform.com.

700,000

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

0

1995-1996 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001

School Year

Students
32 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

60. Provide information and technical assistance to the private school community to

promote equitable participation of private school students and teachers in

federal education programs.

61. Coordinate an annual ìBack to Schoolî campaign to help make parents aware

of their options, including events, publications, satellite town meetings, etc.

62. Explore the expansion of educational options for students using distance

learning and e-learning programs.

63. Provide technical assistance to states with virtual high schools, cyber charter

schools and other e-learning opportunities focusing on best practices in these

areas.

Performance Measures for Objective 1.3

* Students included in this indicator either attend a private school or a public school outside their regular

attendance zone.

** Targets assume 20% annual growth, which was the rate of growth from 2000-2001 to 2001-2002.

*** Eligible children are low-income children who attend a Title I school in ìschool improvementî status.

**** This provision does not go into effect until September 2002 for the 2002-2003 school year. This

equates with the Departmentís 2003 fiscal year; therefore 2003 data will be used as the baseline.

PP = Percentage Points

Objective 1.3 Increase Information and Options for Parents

ë02 ë03

The percentage of parents who report having the

information they need to determine the effectiveness of

their childís school.

The percentage of students in grades K-12 that are

attending a school (public or private) that their parents

have chosen.

(1999 baseline = 15%)*

The number of children attending charter schools (in

thousands).**

(2001 baseline = 575,000)

Of eligible children, the percentage using supplemental

educational services under the provisions of Title I.***

Baseline

+ 5 PP

19

828

Baseline

Information

Parental Choice

Supplemental

Educational Services

Baseline

18

690

ó****

Performance

Targets
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 33

Percentage Students in Grades K-12

in Public Schools Chosen by Students or Parents

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

1993 1996 1999

Year

Percentage of Students

NOTE: The percentage of students in grades K-12 that are attending a school (public or private) that their parents have chosen.

(1999 baseline = 15%)

 SOURCE: NCES, National Household Education Surveys, 1993, 1996, and 1999 National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Frequency: periodic (1993, 1996,

1999, and 2003) Next Update: 2003. Validation procedure: alidation procedure: Data validated by NCES review procedures and alidation procedure: NCES Statistical Standards. Limitations of data and

planned improvements: planned improvements: No known limitations. planned improvements: 

11%

14% 15%
34 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

Objective 1.4

Encourage the use of

scientifically-based methods

within federal education

programs

Part of the cultural transformation needed throughout

the American education system is the switch from a

fascination with instructional fads to a focus on

scientifically-based research. This cultural change is

addressed further in Goal Four, where we describe how

the Department will develop and disseminate sound

educational research. The Department will also work to

embed the best science in all of our programs to ensure

the use of methods that work.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 1.4

Develop ìwhat worksî guides for each Department program

64. Develop standards and process for ìwhat worksî guides and launch inter-office

team on their development. Review guides for scientific base before their

publication.

65. Develop ìwhat worksî guides for selected programs and distribute them to

states and other grantees.

Revise guidance documents to reflect scientifically-based research

66. Update guidance and technical assistance for all programs to reflect researchbased instruction.

Work with Congress to embed scientifically-based research in all

federal programs

67. Develop a legislative proposal to encourage Congress to embed scientificallybased research within the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

68. Develop a legislative proposal to encourage Congress to embed scientificallybased research within the Rehabilitation Act.

69. Develop a legislative proposal to encourage Congress to embed scientificallybased research within the Perkins Act.

70. Develop a legislative proposal to encourage Congress to embed scientificallybased research within the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act.

71. Develop a legislative proposal to encourage Congress to embed scientificallybased research within the Higher Education Act.
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 35

Performance Measures for Objective 1.4

Objective 1.4 Encourage the Use of Scientifically-based Methods

within Federal Education Programs

ë02 ë03

The percentage of Department programs that have

developed and disseminated research-based ìwhat worksî

guides to their grantees.

The percentage of ìwhat worksî guides that are deemed

to be of high quality by an independent review panel of

qualified scientists.

ìWhat Worksî Guides

10

90

25

95

Performance

Targets
36 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

2

More and more, we are divided into two

nations. One that reads, one that doesnít.

One that dreams, one that doesnít.

óNo Child Left Behind

ì

î

Strategic Goal Two

Improve Student Achievement
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 37

2

In education, the bottom line is student learning. As a result of the hard work of

students, educators, parents, and leaders at the state and local levels, American students

will dramatically improve their achievement in reading, mathematics and science, while

receiving a rich, well-rounded education. The Department will lead a national campaign

to ensure that every child is reading at grade level by third grade. Pre-school and

elementary school teachers throughout the nation will receive training in the proven

components of effective early reading instruction. To ensure that students become

proficient in mathematics and science, the Department will establish a broad

collaboration of school districts, colleges and universities, and research institutions to

improve the quality of instruction. The Department will lead a campaign to improve the

rigor of the high school curriculum and to design new options for adolescent students.

Because student achievement is dependent upon the effort of well-prepared teachers

and school leaders, the Department will establish initiatives to ensure that the supply of

high-quality teachers and principals meets demand.

Objective 2.1

Ensure that all students read on grade level by the third grade.

Objective 2.2

Improve mathematics and science achievement for all students.

Objective 2.3

Improve the performance of all high school students.

Objective 2.4

Improve teacher and principal quality.

Some people say it is unfair to

hold disadvantaged children to

rigorous standards. I say it is

discrimination to require anything

lessóthe soft bigotry of low

expectations.

 óPresident George W. Bush

ì

ì
38 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

Ensure that all students

read on grade level by the

third grade

President Bush and Congress set a goal through No Child

Left Behind that all children will read at grade level by third

grade. To reach this goal we must ensure that reading

instruction is based on solid scientific research. We will build

a strong understanding of the five essential components of

good reading instruction and the importance of early

cognitive development. We will boost reading achievement

for all students, including minority and low-income children,

English language learners, and children with disabilities.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 2.1

Promote early cognitive development

72. Through the Education/Health and Human Services Early Childhood Task

Force, develop and disseminate publications for parents and teachers on early

childhood cognitive development.

73. Conduct three technical assistance meetings for Early Reading First applicants.

74. Publicize the Early Reading First grantees as model pre-school programs.

75. Develop and disseminate guidance on No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 NCLB

Title I Early Childhood Education Programs; provide technical assistance to

assure program quality.

76. Update Even Start guidance and provide technical assistance to the states to base

the program on scientific research.

77. Meet regularly with Interagency Coordinating Committee on Early Childhood to

establish a research agenda and launch a public information campaign.

Publicize the rigorous research on reading instruction

78. Commission and disseminate a study that identifies 500 high-poverty schools

nationally with model reading programs (and the results to prove it).

79. Hold Reading First Writersí Workshops for state applicants and provide

individualized technical assistance to any state that seeks further guidance.

80. Ensure that peer reviewers for Reading First are of exceptional quality and check

out state applications ìon the ground.î

81. Provide states with technical assistance and monitoring to ensure that Reading

First and Title I are implemented in line with evidence-based research.

82. Provide information and technical assistance to state Migrant Education

directors about research-based reading instruction.

Objective 2.1
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 39

Encourage early identification and intervention of reading difficulties

83. Provide technical assistance to state special education directors about effective

early identification and intervention of reading difficulties.

84. Develop a legislative proposal to encourage Congress to emphasize early

identification and prevention of reading difficulties within the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act.

Include special education students in state reading assessments

85. Through Title I negotiated rulemaking, develop regulations that ensure the

inclusion of special education students in state reading assessments, and follow

up with technical assistance to ensure full implementation.

86. Prepare and disseminate a report on the extent of inclusion of children with

disabilities in state assessments.

87. Support and collaborate with a new center to improve literacy results for

children who are unresponsive to effective classroom or school-wide programs

in preschool through grade six.

88. Emphasize the importance of implementing high quality research-based reading

programs in the Office of Civil Rightsí minority and special education proactive

initiatives and complaint resolutions.

Fourth Grade Reading Achievement

60

40

20

0

SOURCE: National Assessment of Educational Progress. National Center for Education Statistics

All Students Low Income

Students

All Students Low Income

Students

All Students Low Income

Students

All Students Low Income

Students

Proficient

59

40

29

13

59

39

29

13

Basic Basic Proficient

1998 2000
40 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

Ensure that English language learners meet rigorous standards

89. Through negotiated rulemaking, develop regulations that ensure the inclusion of

limited English proficient students in state reading assessments, and follow up

with technical assistance to ensure full implementation.

90. Provide information and technical assistance to state NCLB Title III directors

about research-based reading instruction for English language learners.

91. Work proactively with districts to help them develop good evaluation plans to

ensure that language acquisition programs are research-based and that English

Language Learner (ELL) students are meeting performance standards.

92. Conduct proactive outreach and technical assistance specifically focused on

encouraging ELL parents to actively participate in their childrenís education.

Other Actions

93. Publish ìHelping Your Childî books on early childhood and reading and

disseminate widely to parents and child care providers.

94. Commission and disseminate a study of best practices in state pre-K reading

guidelines and in early reading teacher certification.
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 41

Performance Measures for Objective 2.1

Objective 2.1 Reading Achievement

ë02 ë03

State Reading

Assessments

(See Note A)

All Students. The number of states meeting their targets for

third-grade reading achievement for all students.

Low-Income Students. The number of states meeting their

targets for third-grade reading achievement for low-income

students.

African American Students. The number of states meeting

their targets for third-grade reading achievement for African

American students.

Hispanic Students. The number of states meeting their targets

for third-grade reading achievement for Hispanic students.

Students with Disabilities. The number of states meeting their

targets for third-grade reading achievement for students with

disabilities.

English Language Learners. The number of states meeting

their targets for third-grade reading achievement for English

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

45

45

45

45

45

45

Performance

Targets
42 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

Objective 2.1 Reading Achievement

ë02 ë03

Performance

Targets

NAEP Reading

(See Note B)

60

 30

40

14

 36

 11

 37

 14

† 24

 9

19

 4

61

31

41

15

37

12

38

15

25

10

† †

20

5

All Students. The percentage of all 4th grade students scoring

at or above the basic and proficient levels on the NAEP.

2000 Basic Baseline = 59%

2000 Proficient Baseline=29%

Low-Income Students. The percentage of low-income 4th

grade students scoring at or above the basic and proficient

levels on the NAEP.

2000 Basic Baseline = 39%

2000 Proficient Baseline =13%

African American Students. The percentage of African

American 4th grade students scoring at or above the basic and

proficient levels on the NAEP.

2000 Basic Baseline = 35%

2000 Proficient Baseline=10%

Hispanic Students. The percentage of Hispanic 4th grade

students scoring at or above the basic and proficient levels on

the NAEP.

2000 Basic Baseline = 36%

2000 Proficient Baseline =13%

Students with Disabilities. The percentage of 4th grade

students with disabilities scoring at or above the basic and

proficient levels on the NAEP.

2000 Basic Baseline = 23%

2000 Proficient Baseline = 8%

Limited-English Proficient Students. The percentage of 4th

grade Limited-English proficient students scoring at or above

the basic and proficient levels on the NAEP.

2000 Basic Baseline = 18%

2000 Proficient Baseline = 3%
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 43

Notes:

A Using the 2001-2002 school year as a baseline, states are required to set the same annual achievement target

for all students and for several student subgroups, starting with the 2002-2003 school year. (This equates to the

Departmentís 2003 fiscal year, which is the first year this indicator can be measured.) Under the No Child Left

Behind Act, these targets must increase at least every three years for the next 12 years, when 100 percent of all

students within all subgroups are expected to achieve proficiency. Therefore, while the targets listed above are

stable, student achievement will actually need to improve steadily in order to meet these goals. When a state

does not test students in the third-grade, results from fourth- or fifth-grade assessments will be used instead.

B Achievement targets: These targets assume a 4 percentage point gain for all students from 2000 to 2007 and

an 8 percentage point gain for each subgroup, thus narrowing the achievement gaps. While this is very

ambitious when compared to long-term national trend lines, some states have shown that such rapid progress is

possible. For example, from 1992 to 1998, African American students in Minnesota made gains of 8

percentage points at the proficient level on the fourth-grade NAEP reading assessment, as did Hispanic students

in Connecticut. At the basic level, two states showed gains of 8 percentage points or more for African Americans

ñ Rhode Island and Connecticut, plus the Virgin Islands. For Hispanics, at the basic level, one state

(Connecticut) showed gains of 8 percentage points or more. Due to relatively small sample sizes, American

Indians/Alaska Natives and Asian/Pacific Islanders are not reported.

Under the current schedule, NAEP Reading will not be given in 2004 and 2006.†

Trends in the Reading Performance of 9-, 13-, and 17-Year-Olds:

Average reading performance, by age: 1971ñ99

325

300

275

250

225

175

200

0 1971 1975 1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999

Age 9

Age 13

Age 17

Year

Scale score

NOTE: Descriptions of performance at different levels on the assessment scale can be found in NCESí supplemental table 10-5.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, NCES. NAEP 1999 Trends in Academic

Progress: Three Decades of Student Performance (NCES 2000ñ469), 2000.
44 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

Objective 2.2

Improve mathematics and

science achievement for all

students

The National Commission on Mathematics and Science

Teaching for the 21st Century (the Glenn Commission) and

the Hart-Rudman commission on national security both

made clear that Americaís future depends upon

improvements in mathematics and science achievement.

Currently, international comparisons such as the Third

International Mathematics and Science Study show middle

and high school students in America performing at or

below the average level. The National Assessment of

Educational Progress shows eighth-grade student

performance below proficient in mathematics and science

for 70 percent of our students and 90 percent of our

minority students. For this situation to improve, the quality

of teaching in these subjects must improve. Every student

deserves to have teachers who possess strong content

knowledge in their areas of teaching, as well as effective

strategies to engage all students. Mathematics and science

teachers must have opportunities to remain current in their

fields and take advantage of new technologies to make their

subject areas meaningful and engaging for their students.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 2.2

Use data to inform instruction

95. Provide technical assistance to Math and Science Partnership Program grantees

to help them use student assessment data to inform instruction.

96. Support organizations that provide training to states and districts in using data to

inform instruction.

97. Convene states to highlight effective data management systems that can be used

to improve instruction.

Develop mathematics and science partnerships

98. Collaborate with the National Science Foundation to strengthen the research

base on mathematics and science instruction and to support high-quality

professional development.

99. Partner with business and scientific organizations to support effective math and

science instruction.
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 45

Eigth Grade Mathematics Achievement

60

40

20

0

SOURCE: National Assessment of Educational Progress. National Center for Education Statistics

All Students Low Income

Students

All Students Low Income

Students

All Students Low Income

Students

All Students Low Income

Students

Proficient

60

63

22

26

59

42

9 10

Basic Basic Proficient

1998 2000

Include special education students and English language learners in

state mathematics assessments

100. Include special education students and English language learners in state

mathematics assessments.

Support high quality professional development

101. Provide technical assistance and guidance on high quality professional

development through the Math and Science Partnership program.

102. Provide technical assistance and guidance on high quality professional

development in math and science through the NCLB Title II program.

103. Provide technical assistance to state education technology directors to ensure

that technology is used to support student achievement and accountability.

Strengthen the research on math and science instruction

104. Generate and launch a

research agenda on

mathematics and

science instruction

(including seeking

funding from other

agencies). This agenda

will be informed by the

forthcoming RAND

report on the topic and

will include research on

instructional

interventions utilizing

technology.

105. Support research to

improve instructional

interventions and results

in algebra for students

with disabilities.

Note: Action steps on recruiting and retaining high quality mathematics and

science teachers are included within Objective 2.4 (teacher quality)

80
46 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

Performance Measures for Objective 2.2

Objective 2.2 Mathematics Achievement

ë02 ë03

State Mathematics

Assessments

(See Note A)

Performance

Targets

All Students. The number of states meeting their targets

for eighth-grade mathematics achievement for all students.

Low-Income Students. The number of states meeting their

targets for eighth-grade mathematics achievement for lowincome students.

African American Students. The number of states meeting

their targets for eighth-grade mathematics achievement for

African American students.

Hispanic Students. The number of states meeting their

targets for eighth-grade mathematics achievement for

Hispanic students.

Students with Disabilities. The number of states meeting

their targets for eighth-grade mathematics achievement for

students with disabilities.

English Language Learners. The number of states meeting

their targets for eighth-grade mathematics achievement for

English language learners.

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

45

45

45

45

45

45
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 47

Objective 2.2 Mathematics Achievement

ë02 ë03

Performance

Targets

NAEP

Mathematics

(See Note B)

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

64

27

43

11

† †

31

6

40

 9

23

5

22

 3

All Students. The percentage of all 8th grade students scoring

at or above the basic and proficient levels on the NAEP.

2000 Basic Baseline = 63%

2000 Proficient Baseline = 26%

Low-Income Students. The percentage of low-income 8th

grade students scoring at or above the basic and proficient

levels on the NAEP.

2000 Basic Baseline = 42%

2000 Proficient Baseline =10%

African American Students. The percentage of African

American 8th grade students scoring at or above the basic and

proficient levels on the NAEP.

2000 Basic Baseline = 30%

2000 Proficient Baseline = 5%

Hispanic Students. The percentage of Hispanic 8th grade

students scoring at or above the basic and proficient levels on

the NAEP.

2000 Basic Baseline = 39%

2000 Proficient Baseline = 8%

Students with Disabilities. The percentage of 8th grade

students with disabilities scoring at or above the basic and

proficient levels on the NAEP.

2000 Basic Baseline = 22%

2000 Proficient Baseline = 4%

Limited-English Proficient Students. The percentage of 8th

grade Limited-English proficient students scoring at or above

the basic and proficient levels on the NAEP.

2000 Basic Baseline = 21%

2000 Proficient Baseline =2%†
48 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

Notes:

A Using the 2001-2002 school year as a baseline, states are required to set the same annual achievement target

for all students and for several student subgroups, starting with the 2002-2003 school year. (This equates to the

Departmentís 2003 fiscal year, which is the first year this indicator can be measured.) Under the No Child Left

Behind Act, these targets must increase at least every three years for the next 12 years, when 100 percent of all

students within all subgroups are expected to achieve proficiency. Therefore, while the targets listed above are

stable, student achievement will actually need to improve steadily in order to meet these goals. When a state

does not test students in the eighth-grade, results from sixth- or seventh-grade assessments will be used instead.

B Achievement targets: These targets assume a 4 percentage point gain for all students from 2000 to 2007 and

an 8 percentage point gain for each subgroup, thus narrowing the achievement gaps. While this is very

ambitious when compared to long-term national trend lines, several states have shown that such rapid progress

is possible. For example, from 1992 to 2000, Hispanic students in six states (Ohio, Maryland, North Carolina,

West Virginia, Tennessee and Massachusetts) made gains of at least 8 percentage points on the eighth-grade

NAEP mathematics assessment, and African-American students in Nebraska and New York made gains of at

least six percentage points. At the basic level, African American students in 14 states achieved gains of at least

8 percentage points on the 8th grade NAEP mathematics assessment, and Hispanics gained at least 8

percentage points in 18 states.

Note: Under the current schedule, NAEP Mathematics will not be given in 2002, 2004 and 2006.
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 49

Mathematics Performance: Average mathematics performance of

students in their final year of secondary school from the TIMSS, 1995

Significantly higher

Not significantly different

Significantly lower

Average score relative to U.S. Country

Australia1

Austria1

Canada1

Denmark1

France1

Germany1

Hungary

Iceland1

Czech Republic

Italy1

Cyprus1

International average

Netherlands1

New Zealand

Norway1

Slovenia1

Sweden1

Switzerland

Lithuania

Russian Federation

South Africa1

1. Did not satisfy one or more of the sampling or other guidelines. In the final year of secondary school, this included the United States. Latvia is designated

LSS for Latvian-speaking schools only. See NCESí Supplemental Note 7 for more information.

SOURCES: U.S. Department of Education, NCES. Pursuing Excellence: A Study of U.S. Fourth-Grade Mathematics and Science Achievement in International

Context (NCES 97-255), 1997; U.S. Department of Education, NCES. Pursuing Excellence: A Study of U.S. Eighth-Grade Mathematics and Science Teaching,

Learning, Curriculum, and Achievement in International Context (NCES 97-198), 1996; U.S. Department of Education, NCES. Pursuing Excellence: A Study of

U.S. Twelfth-Grade Mathematics and Science Achievement in International Context (NCES 98-049),1998.
50 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

Objective 2.3

Improve the performance of

all high school students

The demands of a competitive economy and flexible

workplace require every American youth to acquire solid

academic preparation for an effective transition from high

school to postsecondary education and then to the

workplace. Todayís youth need strong academic skills in

written and oral communication, mathematics and science,

problem solving and teamwork. Yet the National Assessment

of Educational Progress shows 12th grade achievement

declining at the same time that the national dropout rate is

increasing. We must do better. American high schools must

be held accountable for raising the academic achievement of

all students. At the same time, our education system should

offer customized learning opportunities to adolescents,

tapping into community colleges, education technology, and

other nontraditional sources to boost learning and career

preparation for students.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 2.3

Hold schools accountable for student achievement

106. Develop a legislative proposal to encourage Congress, through the

reauthorization of the Perkins Act, to promote activities that have been

demonstrated to be effective in improving the academic performance of high

school students and closing the achievement gaps.

107. Work with interested states and private organizations to investigate ways to link

high school graduation exams with postsecondary entrance requirements.

108. Implement the Secondary Student Initiative for Migrant Children.

Improve the rigor of the high school curriculum

109. Work with private organizations to launch a media campaign encouraging all

high school students to take more challenging courses.

110. Support programs that enable low-income students to take the Advanced

Placement exams free of charge.

Strengthen research and development efforts focused on high schools

111. Establish a scientific advisory group for ongoing development of high school

models.

112. Complete National Assessment of Vocational Education.
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 51

113. Commission rigorous evaluations of effective interventions at the high school

level, especially for low-income or minority children, that improve student

achievement and reduce dropout rates.

114. Host a series of regional forums to gather input from educators, parents,

students and community groups on improving student achievement and closing

achievement gaps at the high school level.

Increase learning options for students

115. Collaborate with NICHD on adolescent literacy study.

116. Support a new center to improve literacy results for secondary school-aged

children who are unresponsive to effective classroom or school-wide programs.

117. As required by No Child Left Behind, issue guidelines for local educational

agencies seeking funding for programs to provide same gender schools and

classrooms.

Performance Measures for Objective 2.3

Objective 2.3 High School Achievement

State Reading

Assessments

(See Note A)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

45

45

45

45

45

45

All Students. The number of states meeting their targets

for high school reading achievement for all students.

Low-Income Students. The number of states meeting their

targets for high school reading achievement for low-income

students.

African American Students. The number of states meeting

their targets for high school reading achievement for

African American students.

Hispanic Students. The number of states meeting their

targets for high school reading achievement for Hispanic

students.

Students with Disabilities. The number of states meeting

their targets for high school reading achievement for

students with disabilities.

English Language Learners. The number of states meeting

their targets for high school reading achievement for

English language learners.

ë02 ë03

Performance

Targets
52 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

Objective 2.3 High School Achievement

ë02 ë03

Performance

Targets

State

Mathematics

Assessments

(See Note B)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

45

45

45

45

45

45

All Students. The number of States meeting their targets for

high school mathematics achievement for all students.

Low-Income Students. The number of states meeting their

targets for high school mathematics achievement for lowincome students.

African American Students. The number of states meeting

their targets for high school mathematics achievement for

African American students.

Hispanic Students. The number of states meeting their targets

for high school mathematics achievement for Hispanic

students.

Students with Disabilities. The number of states meeting their

targets for high school mathematics achievement for students

with disabilities.

English Language Learners. The number of states meeting

their targets for high school mathematics achievement for

English language learners.
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 53

Objective 2.3 High School Achievement

ë02 ë03

Performance

Targets

NAEP Reading

(See Note C)

76

39

57

17

61

24

31

8

28

9

X

X

X

X

† †

X

X

X

X

X

X

All Students. The percentage of all 12th grade students scoring

at or above the basic and proficient levels on the NAEP.

1998 Basic Baseline = 75%

1998 Proficient Baseline = 38%

African American Students. The percentage of African

American 12th grade students scoring at or above the basic and

proficient levels on the NAEP.

1998 Basic Baseline = 56%

1998 Proficient Baseline = 16%

Hispanic Students. The percentage of Hispanic 12th grade

students scoring at or above the basic and proficient levels on

the NAEP.

1998 Basic Baseline = 60%

1998 Proficient Baseline = 23%

Students with Disabilities. The percentage of 12th grade

students with disabilities scoring at or above the basic and

proficient levels on the NAEP.

1998 Basic Baseline = 30%

1998 Proficient Baseline = 7%

Limited-English Proficient Students. The percentage of 12th

grade students with limited-English proficiency scoring at or

above the basic and proficient levels on the NAEP.

1998 Basic Baseline = 27%

1998 Proficient Baseline = 8%
54 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

Objective 2.3 High School Achievement

ë02 ë03

Performance

Targets

NAEP

Mathematics

(See Note D)

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

63

17

30

 3

43

5

† †

25

5

3

29

 3

All Students. The percentage of all 12th grade students scoring

at or above the basic and proficient levels on the NAEP.

2000 Basic Baseline = 62%

2000 Proficient Baseline = 16%

African American Students. The percentage of African

American 12th grade students scoring at or above the basic and

proficient levels on the NAEP.

2000 Basic Baseline = 29%

2000 Proficient Baseline = 2%

Hispanic Students. The percentage of Hispanic 12th grade

students scoring at or above the basic and proficient levels on

the NAEP.

2000 Basic Baseline = 42%

2000 Proficient Baseline = 4%

Students with Disabilities. The percentage of 12th grade

students with disabilities scoring at or above the basic and

proficient levels on the NAEP.

2000 Basic Baseline = 24%

 2000 Proficient Baseline = 4%

Limited-English Proficient Students. The percentage of 12th

grade students with limited-English proficiency scoring at or

above the basic and proficient levels on the NAEP.

2000 Basic Baseline = 28%

2000 Proficient Baseline = 2%
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 55

ë02 ë03

Performance

Targets

Objective 2.3 High School Achievement

Advance

Placement

Participation

(See Note E)

14.0

4.0

9.0

15.0

5.0

10.0

All Students The percentage of all 12th grade students who

took at least one of the AP exams. (1999 Baseline = 13.1%)

African American Students. The percentage of all 12th grade

African American students who took at least one of the AP

exams. (2001 Baseline = 3.7%)

Hispanic Students. The percentage of all 12th grade Hispanic

students who took at least on of the AP exams.

(2001 Baseline = 8.5%)

Advance

Placement

Achievement

(See Note F)

English. The percentage of all 12th grade students who scored

3 or higher on at least one of the AP English exams.

(2001 Baseline = 4.9%)

History. The percentage of all 12th grade students who scored

3 or higher on the AP American history exam.

(2001 Baseline = 3.0%)

Calculus. The percentage of all 12th grade students who

scored 3 or higher on at least one of the AP calculus exams.

(2001 Baseline = 3.4%)

Science. The percentage of all 12th grade students who scored

3 or higher on at least one of the AP science exams.

(2001 Baseline = 2.6%)

5.4

3.5

3.9

3.1

5.9

4.0

4.4

3.6
56 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

ë02 ë03

Performance

Targets

Objective 2.3 High School Achievement

Note: These targets demonstrate a narrowing of the high school completion gaps (between all individuals and

African Americans/Hispanic Americans) by half.

* Due to small sample sizes, American Indian/Alaskan Natives and Asian/Pacific Islanders are included in the total,

but are not shown separately.

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey.

College Preparation: Nearly a third of our college freshmen find

they must take a remedial course before they are able to

even begin regular college level courses.

Percentage of freshmen enrolled in remedial courses, by subject, control and type of institution, and minority enrollment:

Fall 1989 and 1995

Fall 1995

Public Private Minority Enrollment*

Subject Fall 1989 4-year 4-year Public 2-year 2-year High Low

Reading, writing, or mathematics

Reading

Writing

Mathematics

30

13

16

21

29

13

17

24

41

20

25

34

22

8

12

18

26

11

18

23

13

7

8

9

43

25

29

35

26

11

15

21

High School

Completion

(See Note G)

Total.* The percentage of 18-24 year-olds who have

completed high school. (2000 Baseline = 85.9%)

African Americans. The percentage of 18-24 year-old African

Americans who have completed high school.

(2000 Baseline = 83.5%)

Hispanic Americans. The percentage of 18-24 year-old

Hispanic Americans who have completed high school.

(2000 Baseline = 63.4%)

Percentage of higher education institutions offering remedial courses, by subject, control and type of institution, and minority

enrollment: Fall 1989 and 1995

Fall 1995

Public Private Minority Enrollment*

Subject Fall 1989 4-year 4-year Public 2-year 2-year High Low

Reading, writing, or mathematics

Reading

Writing

Mathematics

74

58

65

68

78

57

71

72

100

99

99

99

81

52

71

78

63

29

61

62

63

34

52

51

94

87

85

93

76

53

70

70

*Institutions with high minority enrollment are defined as those in which total student enrollment, excluding nonresident aliens, is less than 50 percent white.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, national Center for Education Statistics,Postsecondary Education Quick Information System, Remedial Education at

Higher Education Institutions in Fall 1995, 1996.

86.1

84.0

64.0

86.5

84.5

66.0
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 57

Notes:

A Using the 2001-2002 school year as a baseline, states are required to set the same annual achievement target

for all students and for several student subgroups, starting with the 2002-2003 school year. (This equates to the

Departmentís 2003 fiscal year, which is the first year this indicator can be measured.) Under the No Child Left

Behind Act, these targets must increase at least every three years for the next 12 years, when 100 percent of all

students within all subgroups are expected to achieve proficiency. Therefore, while the targets listed above are

stable, student achievement will actually need to improve steadily in order to meet these goals. States may

assess reading achievement in either grade 10, 11 or 12.

B Using the 2001-2002 school year as a baseline, states are required to set the same annual achievement target

for all students and for several student subgroups, starting with the 2002-2003 school year. (This equates to the

Departmentís 2003 fiscal year, which is the first year this indicator can be measured.) Under the No Child Left

Behind Act, these targets must increase at least every three years for the next 12 years, when 100 percent of all

students within all subgroups are expected to achieve proficiency. Therefore, while the targets listed above are

stable, student achievement will actually need to improve steadily in order to meet these goals. States may

assess mathematics achievement in either grade 10, 11 or 12.

C Achievement targets: These targets assume a 4 percentage point gain for all students from 1998 to 2007 and

an 8 percentage point gain for each subgroup, thus narrowing the achievement gaps. This rate of progress is

equivalent to our targets for 4th grade reading. (See objective 2.1 for detail about how we set those targets.)

ìLow-income studentsî are not included because the data for this subgroup are unreliable at the 12th grade

level.

Note: Under the current schedule, NAEP Reading will not be given in 2003, 2004 and 2006.

D Achievement targets: These targets assume a 4 percentage point gain for all students from 2000 to 2007 and

an 8 percentage point gain for each subgroup, thus narrowing the achievement gaps. This rate of progress is

equivalent to our targets for 8th grade mathematics. (See objective 2.2 for detail about how we set those

targets.) ìLow-income studentsî are not included because the data for this subgroup are unreliable at the 12th

grade level.

Note: Under the current schedule, NAEP Mathematics will not be given in 2002, 2004 and 2006

E These targets demonstrate a narrowing of the AP participation rate gaps (between all individuals and African

Americans/Hispanic Americans) by half. The denominator is the universe of all 12th grade students in the U.S.

Source: The College Board Advanced Placement Program.

F English exams include AP English Literature & Composition and AP English Language & Composition. Calculus

exams include AP Calculus AB and AP Calculus BC; science exams include AP Biology, AP Chemistry, AP

Environmental Science, AP Physics B, AP Physics C (Electricity & Magnetism), and AP Physics C (Mechanics).

The denominator is the universe of all 12th grade students in the U.S; these targets reflect a goal of having more

students pass the test, but also of having more students taking AP classes and exams.

G These targets demonstrate a narrowing of the high school completion gaps (between all individuals and African

Americans/Hispanic Americans) by half.

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey.
58 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

Objective 2.4

Improve teacher and

principal quality

The president has called for a quality teacher in every

classroom. He has said, ìEducation reform is empty if it does

not take account of the needs of educators. Teachers are not

the objects of education reform. They are the engines of

education reform. They have a high calling, and we must

respect it.î We will work to ensure that all of our nationís

schools have the high-quality teachers they need to boost

student achievement, both by recruiting new, highly qualified

teachers and by providing current teachers access to rigorous

professional development. This is especially critical in schools

where many children have been left behind. In addition, we

will work to strengthen the leadership corps, as we know

from research and experience that strong principals are

essential for the improvement of student achievement.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 2.4

Reduce barriers to teaching for highly qualified individuals

118. Complete guidance on Title II of NCLB and provide technical assistance to the

states, especially on how they can use their funds to streamline their certification

systems and support alternate routes to certification.

119. Revamp the guidance and peer review process for the Transition to Teaching

program to ensure that high quality, streamlined alternate route programs are

funded.

120. Work with states and teacher recruitment grantees (under Title II of HEA) to

increase the number and quality of alternate routes to certification.

121. Actively promote the Departmentís loan forgiveness program for teachers in

high-poverty schools.

Support professional development in research-based instruction

122. Develop and implement a process to review all officesí technical assistance

materials on research-based professional development to ensure scientific rigor.

123. Provide technical assistance to the states, through NCLB Title II, in research

based professional development.

124. Provide technical assistance to the states, through NCLB Title II Part D, in

research based professional development in the use of technology to improve

instruction.
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 59

125. Conduct regional institutes for states to revise their professional development

plans for technical education teachers to include research-based practices,

especially in math and science.

126. Host professional development institute for adult education, incorporating

current knowledge and findings of Adult Basic Education (ABE) and English

as a Second Language (ESL) studies.

127. Provide technical assistance to states to ensure that they are providing researchbased professional development for ELL teachers.

128. Publish selection criteria on research-based instruction for national professional

development program and provide technical assistance on these criteria to

applicants and grantees.

129. Under Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), award grants for professional

development projects of national significance that use research-based practices.

130. Collaborate with the American Federation of Teachers to provide high quality

professional development in scientifically-based reading instruction.

Improve the quality of teacher preparation programs

131. Promote induction and mentoring programs for new teachers through speeches,

conferences and publications.

132. Follow up on the First Ladyís conference on teacher preparation by identifying

exceptional teacher preparation programs and disseminating their best practices.

133. Collaborate with accreditation agencies to improve the quality of teacher

preparation programs, especially in the area of early reading.

134. Work with state and partnership grantees [within Title II of the Higher

Education Act (HEA)] to streamline teacher preparation programs and base

them on research.

135. Encourage Teaching American History Program grantees to work with

Institutions of Higher Education (IHE) to provide pre-service professional

development in traditional American history teaching to future teachers.

136. Make awards under the Math and Science Partnerships Program that support

efforts to increase the role of arts and sciences programs in the preparation of

math and science teachers.

137. Under IDEA, support statewide models of personnel preparation to ensure

that children with disabilities are served by highly qualified teachers, and

disseminate their best practices nationally.
60 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

Encourage innovative teacher compensation and accountability

systems

138. Encourage the development of alternative compensation systems and personnel

accountability systems linked to student achievement gains through speeches,

conferences and publications.

139. Examine tenure systems and promote alternatives through speeches, conferences

and publications.

Develop new leadership training models

140. Host a Leadership Summit to examine effective recruitment, development and

retention of high quality school leaders.

141. Provide technical assistance to the states, through NCLB Title II, in the

development of high-quality recruitment and professional development models

for school leaders.

Strengthen the research base

142. Use NCLB Title II evaluation funds to support rigorous studies of effective

interventions related to professional development and teacher quality.

Performance Measures for Objective 2.4

We know from research that improving teacher and principal quality will lead to

improved achievement, though we also know that measuring ìteacher qualityî or

ìprincipal qualityî is very difficult. While research has shown that a few measurable

attributes relate to student achievementósuch as masterís degrees in math or science

or teachersí verbal abilityómore than 90 percent of a teachersí influence on student

achievement goes unexplained. So the best performance measure for this objective is

student achievement, as expressed in the indicators for objectives 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3

(achievement on national and state assessments in reading, mathematics, and science,

disaggregated by subgroups).

62 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

Strategic Goal Three

Develop Safe Schools 3 and Strong Character
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 63

3

First we must do everything in

our power to ensure the safety of

our children.

ñPresident George W. Bush

ì

ì

The terrorist attacks have created a new environment in which we must

ensure that our children are safe from threats both foreign and domestic. The

Department will work to maintain a safe and drug-free environment in which

every child can learn. In addition, as the president has said, ìTeaching is more

than training, and learning is more than literacy. Our children must be

educated in reading and writingóbut also in right and wrong.î He quoted

Martin Luther King, Jr., who said ìIntelligence plus characteróthat is the true

goal of education.î We will focus the nationís education system on our

childrenís hearts, as well as their minds.

Objective 3.1

Ensure that our nationís schools are safe and drug-free and that students are

free of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs.

Objective 3.2

Promote strong character and citizenship among our nationís youth.
64 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

Objective 3.1

Ensure that our nationís

schools are safe and drug-free

and that students are free of

alcohol, tobacco and other

drugs

Teaching and learning to the high standards demanded

in No Child Left Behind requires that our nationís schools be

safe and that our students abstain from the use of alcohol,

tobacco and other drugs. In order to ensure that our

schools are safe and our students drug-free, the

Department of Education will focus on four areas: best

practices; data collection and dissemination; coordination

of efforts; and addressing safe school priorities in a timely

manner.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 3.1

Focus on results and progress

143. Develop and publish an annual report on school safety.

144. Provide technical assistance to the states in the development of a Uniform

Management and Information System, in alignment with the Performance

Based Data Management Initiative.

145. Hold conference of Safe and Drug-Free School ìcoordinatorî grant recipients

to provide training on drug prevention and school safety.

Disseminate information on best practices

146. Hold teleconference on best practices in improving childrenís mental health.

147. Hold teleconference on bioterrorism and disseminate information on best

methods for dealing with bioterrorist threats

148. Develop and disseminate in paper and electronic

versions a ìWhat Works Guideî on best prevention

practices for alcohol, drug, and violence. Topics

addressed should include best practices in threat

assessment and model school safety plans. (See

action step 66 for more information.)

149. Ensure that all principal offices that provide

technical assistance to school districts and

postsecondary institutions on issues of harassment

include Department-identified best practices.
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 65

Encourage the revision of school safety plans to reflect new threats

150. Provide technical assistance to states on lessons learned from 9/11 and from

lessons learned from international meeting on terrorism and crisis.

151. Develop and announce model safe school plans grant program.

Ensure that Department activities are coordinated

152. Develop and coordinate an intra-agency group on school safety.

153. Develop and coordinate an inter-agency group on school safety.

Performance Measures for Objective 3.1

Performance Targets

Objective 3.1: Safe and Drug-Free Schools

Violent Crime at School

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1999.

ìSerious violent crimeî includes rape, sexual assault, robbery and aggravated assault. ìViolent crimeî includes

serious violent crime and simple assault. ìSerious violent crimeî is a subset of ìviolent crimeî. These data are

collected annually and are analyzed and released two years after collection.

876,700

184,000

869,400

182,500

ë02 ë03

The number of violent crimes experienced at school by students ages 12

through 18. (2000 Baseline = 884,100)

The number of serious violent crimes experienced at school by students ages 12

through 18. (2000 Baseline = 185,600)

School Violence: There were 60 school-associated violent deaths

in the United States between July 1, 1997 and June 30, 1998

óincluding 47 homicides

As appears in the Condition of Education, 2001. NOTE: The data do not meet NCES standards for response rates. For definitions of the racial/

ethnic categories used in this indicator.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for

Health Statistics. National Health Interview SurveyóYouth Risk Behavior Survey, 1993, 1995, 1997, and 1999. 1999

1997

1995

1993

0 5 10 15

7

9

10

12

14

15

16

16

8

7

8 Was threatened or injured 7

with a weapon within the

past 12 months

In a physical fight within

the past 12 months

Carried a weapon within

the past 30 days

Percent

20
66 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

Objective 3.1: Safe and Drug-Free Schools

ë02 ë03

Performance

Targets

Note: The source is the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. The Office of National Drug Control

Policy set these targets.

Drug use

13.2

11.2

5.8

0.40

0.16

12.2

10.3

5.3

0.37

0.15

Alcohol. The percentage of youth ages 12-17 who reported

using alcohol in the past 30 days.

(2000 baseline = 16.4%)

Tobacco (cigarettes). The percentage of youth ages 12-17

who reported smoking a cigarette in the past 30 days.

(2000 baseline = 13.4%)

Marijuana. The percentage of youth ages 12-17 who

reported using marijuana in the past 30 days.

(2000 baseline = 7.2%)

Cocaine. The percentage of youth ages 12-17 who

reported using cocaine in the past 30 days.

(2000 baseline = .6%)

Heroin. The percentage of youth ages 12-17 who reported

using heroin in the past 30 days.

(1999 baseline = .20%)
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 67

ë02 ë03

Performance

Targets

Substance Use at School

Alcohol. Percent of high school students who report any alcohol use on school

property in the previous 30 days.

(2001 Baseline = 5%)

Cigarettes. Percent of high school students who report any cigarette use on school

property in the previous 30 days.

(2001 Baseline = 14%)

Marijuana. Percent of high school students who report any marijuana use on school

property in the previous 30 days.

(2001 Baseline = 7%)

Illicit Drugs. Percent of high school students who report being offered, sold, or

given an illegal drug on school property in the previous 12 months.

(2001 Baseline = 30%)

5

14

7

29

Objective 3.1: Safe and Drug-Free Schools

Measures

Source: Youth Risk Behavior Survey, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1999. These data are collected

biennially and are analyzed and released one year after collection.

X

X

X

X

Students in Grades 9 through 12 who reported that drugs were made available

to them on school property during the last 12 months

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

1997*

1995*

 24%

Percent

Year

*The response rate for this survey was less than 70 percent and a full nonresponse bias analysis has not been done to date.

 NOTE: ìOn school propertyî was not defined for survey respondents.

SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance

System (YRBSS), ìYouth Risk Behavior Surveyî (YRBS), 1993, 1995, 1997, and 1999.

1999*

 29%

 19%

 32%

 39%

 25%

 32%

 37%

 25%

 30%

 35%

 26%

 Total

 Male

 Female

1993
68 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

30-Day Prevalence of Alcohol Use for

8th-, 10th-, and 12th-Graders

NOTES: 1 The wording of this item changed in 1993, to indicate that a ìdrinkî meant ìmore than a few sips.î 2 1996 is the Base Year for these data

SOURCE: Monitoring the Future (MTF), 2000. Frequency: Annual. Next Update: 2001. Validation Procedure: Data validated by University of Michigan Institute for

Social Research and National Institute on Drug Abuse procedures. Limitations of data and planned improvements: According to NCES calculations, the total

response rate for this survey has varied between 46 percent and 67 percent since 1976.

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

20%

30%

0

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

8th Graders

Year

Percentage of Students Using Alcohol

10%

10th Graders

12th Graders
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 69

30-Day Prevalence of Drug Use for

8th-, 10th-, and 12th-Graders

SOURCE: Monitoring the Future (MTF), 2000. Frequency: Annual. Next Update: 2001. Validation Procedure: Data validated by University of Michigan Institute for

Social Research and National Institute on Drug Abuse procedures. Limitations of data and planned improvements: According to NCES calculations, the total

response rate for this survey has varied between 46 percent and 67 percent since 1976.

50%

40%

20%

30%

0

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

8th Graders

Year

Percentage of Students Using Drugs

10%

10th Graders

12th Graders
70 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

Objective 3.2

Promote strong character

and citizenship among our

Nationís youth

Recent events have unified our nation and rekindled a

spirit of community and patriotism. The Department will

build upon this energy to launch a national campaign to

promote character development and citizenship in our

youth. We will also highlight programs and schools that

have demonstrated evidence of improved student safety

and the development of character in their students.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 3.2

Launch a campaign for character

154. Launch a public campaign to promote character education.

Partner with faith-based and community organizations

155. Convene regional conferences featuring faith-based and community partners to

showcase and disseminate best practices in character education.

156. Issue regulations implementing the ìBoy Scouts of America Equal Access Actî

to provide equal access for Boy Scouts and other patriotic organizations.

Support and evaluate character education pilots

157. Select high quality pilot sites through

character education program and evaluate

and publicize their work.

158. Fund rigorous evaluations of the

effectiveness of specific character

education interventions.

These reforms

express my deep belief

in our public schools

and their mission to

build the mind and

character of every

child, from every

background, in every

part of America.

 ñPresident George W. Bush

ì

ì
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 71

Source: U.S. Department of Education, NCES. Youth Service-Learning and Community Service Among 6th- Through

12th-Grade Students in the United States: 1996 and 1999 (NCES 2000ñ028), 2000.

Source: State of Americaís Youth Survey, Horatio Alger Association.

Performance Measures for Objective 3.2

Note: Measuring ìcharacterî is intrinsically difficult; these indicators are proxies at

best.

ë02 ë03

Performance

Targets Measures

Performance Measures for Objective 3.2

Percentage of students in grades 6ñ12 who participated in community service.

(1999 baseline = 52%)

55% 56%

Community Service

ë02 ë03

Performance

Targets Measures

Percent of 14 to 18 year olds who believe cheating occurs by half or most students.

(2000 baseline = 41%)

40% 39%

Cheating
72 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

4Strategic Goal Four

Transform Education into

an Evidence-based Field
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 73

4

Unlike medicine, agriculture and industrial production, the field of

education operates largely on the basis of ideology and professional

consensus. As such, it is subject to fads and is incapable of the cumulative

progress that follows from the application of the scientific method and from

the systematic collection and use of objective information in policy making.

We will change education to make it an evidence-based field. We will

accomplish this goal by dramatically improving the quality and relevance of

research funded or conducted by the Department. Also, we will provide

policymakers, educators, parents, and other concerned citizens with ready

access to syntheses of research and objective information that allow more

informed and effective decisions, and we will encourage the use of this

knowledge (especially within federal education programs, as explained in

Objective 1.4).

Objective 4.1

Raise the quality of research funded or conducted by the Department.

Objective 4.2

Increase the relevance of our research in order to meet the needs of our

customers.
74 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

Objective 4.1

Raise the quality of research

funded or conducted by the

Department

The Department is a primary source of funding for

education research. Thus, we have an opportunity and an

obligation to ensure that the research funded or published

by the Department is of the highest quality. We will

develop and enforce rigorous standards, overhaul the peer

review process, and focus the Departmentís research

activities on topics of greatest relevance to educational

practice.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 4.1

Develop rigorous standards

159. Work with Congress to reauthorize the Office of Educational Research and

Improvement (OERI) in order raise the quality of research in the Department

and provide the flexibility that a high quality research agency needs.

160. Following OERI reauthorization, establish high standards for peer review of

new projects that are at least as rigorous as those employed by peer-reviewed

scientific journals.

161. If funds are available, support new fellowship programs at universities to

improve the preparation of education researchers through well-designed training

programs and by attracting scientists and scholars from various relevant

disciplines into the field of education research.

Enforce rigorous standards

162. Ensure that new research initiatives meet high standards by preparing program

announcements that specify in detail the standards that must be met in research

design and methods. Hold pre-application meetings to reinforce for interested

potential applicants the standards by which their applications will be judged.

163. Fund only high quality applications with scores above the agreed upon

minimum.

164. Ensure that new program studies meet the new standards.

Improve peer review of research proposals

165. Develop peer review procedures for OERI that conform to new standards and

criteria for peer reviewer training and selection. Require approval of all

reviewers by the Assistant Secretary or principal research adviser.

166. For studies sponsored by the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative

Services, train reviewers on standing review panels in protocols to ensure highquality evaluations. Use standards developed by OERI.
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 75

167. For competitions sponsored by the National Institute on Disability and

Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), review and update rosters of peer review

panels for appropriate expertise.

168. Conduct program reviews (reverse site visits) of NIDRR centers during FY

2002 and convey feedback to centers to improve methods.

Develop editorial review

169. Develop and implement an editorial review process for the entire Department

in which external experts review research-based products before their

publication.

Performance Measures for Objective 4.1

ë02 ë03

Performance

Targets

Objective 4.1 Quality and Rigor of Department-funded Research

Projects. The percentage of new research and evaluation

projects funded by the Department that are deemed to be of

high quality by an independent review panel of qualified

scientists.*

Publications. The percentage of new Department research

and evaluation publications that are deemed to be of high

quality by an independent review panel of qualified scientists.*

Projects. Of new research and evaluation projects funded by

the Department that address causal questions, the percentage

that employ randomized experimental designs.*

Publications. Of new research and evaluation publications

funded by the Department that address causal questions, the

percentage that describe studies that employ randomized

experimental designs.*

Base

Line +

25 PP

Base

Line +

25 PP

Base

Line +

10 PP

Base

Line +

10 PP

Base

Line +

50 PP

Base

Line +

50 PP

Base

Line +

25 PP

Base

Line +

25 PP

PP = Percentage Points

* These would include all research and evaluation studies initiated by any office within the Department, but would

exclude collections of statistics. The independent review panel referenced here is different than the peer review

panels that oversee the selection of projects. This panel would be convened at the close of the fiscal year and would

review projects and publications after-the-fact as a way to judge the effectiveness of the Departmentís quality

control mechanisms.

Quality as Judged

by Independent

Review

Use of

Randomized

Experimental

Designs
76 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

Objective 4.2

Increase the relevance of

our research in order to

meet the needs of our

customers

The Department will seek to understand the needs of

our primary customersófederal, state and local

policymakers, educators, parents and individuals with

disabilitiesóand will ensure that our research is relevant to

those needs. The Department will ensure that high-quality

researchówhether or not it is funded by the

Departmentóis synthesized, publicized, and disseminated

widely. In order to facilitate access to high-quality research,

the Department will create and regularly update an online

database of scientifically rigorous research on what works

in education. The Department also will create user-friendly

syntheses of quality research that communicate effective

practices to a wide audience.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 4.2

Survey decision makers

170. Survey chief state school officers, governorsí aides, Congressional staff, state

higher education officers, and state legislators about their research needs.

171. Oversee and coordinate with the Interagency Committee on Disability Research

in the development of a web site for consumers to identify research questions

that they need answered.

Create and maintain the What Works Clearinghouse

172. Create and maintain the What Works

Clearinghouse.

Translate research results so they are

applicable to the classroom

173. Develop high quality research syntheses that

meet customer needs for information.

174. Launch interoffice research coordinating

committee to make sure all research addresses

customer needs and is coordinated across

offices.

175. Provide technical assistance to all Knowledge

Dissemination and Utilization Centers (funded

by NIDRR) to ensure their improved

performance and increase their understanding of

the Departmentís performance based standards.
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 77

Develop guides for evidence-based education

176. Develop and disseminate guide explaining what evidence-based education is.

Increase focus and allocate resources in response to needs

177. Design and implement the following major, new research initiatives in areas that

are of immediate need and interest to our customers: Preschool Curriculum

Evaluation, Reading Comprehension, and Cognition and Student Learning.

Performance Measures for Objective 4.2

ë02 ë03

Performance

Targets

Objective 4.2 Meeting Needs of our Customers

The percentage of new research projects funded by the

Department that are deemed to be of high relevance to

educational practice as determined by an independent review

panel of qualified practitioners.*

The number of hits on the What Works Clearinghouse Web

site.**

The percentage of K-16 policymakers and administrators who

report routinely considering evidence of effectiveness before

adopting educational products and approaches.

The percentage of policymakers and school administrators who

report that they use research products of the Department in

policy-making decisions.

Base

Line +

20 PP

Base

Line

Base

Line

Base

Line

Base

Line +

30 PP

Base

Line x2

50

25

*The independent review panel referenced here is different than the peer review panels that oversee the selection

of projects. This panel would be convened at the close of the fiscal year and would review projects and publications

after-the-fact as a way to judge the effectiveness of the Departmentís quality control mechanisms.

**This target demonstrates recognition that some important research will be funded that may not seem highly

relevant in the moment but will make contributions over the long term.

Relevance as

Judged by

Independent

Review

What Works

Clearinghouse

Decision Maker

Survey
78 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

Strategic Goal Five

Enhance the Quality of and

Access to Postsecondary 5 and Adult Education
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 79

5

The Department provides support for enhancing the quality of and access to

postsecondary and adult education and employment in multiple ways. The

Departmentís programs provide financial aid to increase access to college; help

institutions of higher education improve their quality; provide mentoring and

tutoring services to help students master the knowledge needed to get into and

complete college; inform middle and high school students about what it takes to

go to college; provide needed support to help people with disabilities achieve

employment; and provide support to adults in meeting more basic educational

needs. The Department will work to improve the effectiveness of all

institutions, including four-year schools, community colleges, technology-based

programs and others.

Objective 5.1

Reduce the gaps in college access and completion among student

populations differing by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and disability

while increasing the educational attainment of all.

Objective 5.2

Strengthen accountability of postsecondary institutions.

Objective 5.3

Establish effective funding mechanisms for postsecondary education.

Objective 5.4

Strengthen Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving

Institutions, and Tribal Colleges and Universities.

Objective 5.5

Enhance the literacy and employment skills of American adults.
80 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

Objective 5.1

Reduce the gaps in college

access and completion

among student populations

differing by race/ ethnicity,

socioeconomic status, and

disability while increasing

the educational attainment

of all

The economy of the 21st century requires more workers

than ever to develop skills and master knowledge beyond the

high-school level. Although progress has been made over the

years to increase participation and graduation levels for all

individuals, large gaps still exist between low-income and

middle- and high-income students, between minority and

non-minority students, and between students with disabilities

and their non-disabled peers. In the year 2000, according to

NCES data, 65.7 percent of white youth aged 16 to 24

enrolled in college the fall following high school graduation,

while only 54.9 percent of their African American peers and

52.9 percent of their Hispanic peers were similarly enrolled.

Graduation rates show similar gaps. The Department will

work to close these gaps through its student financial aid and

institutional aid programs. In addition, the Department will

continue its efforts to enhance preparation for college,

increase knowledge about college preparation and financial

aid availability, and improve college support services for

students from all economic and social backgrounds.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 5.1

Enhance efforts to prepare low-income and minority youth for college

178. Provide technical assistance and support to new College Assistance Migrant

Program (CAMP) grantees on effective practices that lead to retention and

graduation.

179. Implement changes in the Upward Bound competition to improve program

effectiveness by targeting higher risk students and providing work-study

positions.

Increase communication about postsecondary opportunities

180. Provide technical assistance to Gear Up, Upward Bound, Talent Search And

Education Opportunities Centers grantees to improve their outreach to students

and parents about academic preparation for college, college entrance

requirements and costs, and financial aid availability.

Highlight effective Strategies and Action Steps for nontraditional

students

181. Through the TRIO Training Program offer training to TRIO professionals on

retention and graduation strategies for nontraditional students.
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 81

182. Develop and disseminate information about best practices for using web-based

distance learning to increase access to high quality postsecondary education.

183. Eliminate regulatory barriers in the use of federal student aid for students

engaged in distance learning.

184. Identify requisite skills and knowledge for successful transition between high

school and community colleges, as well as strategies to enhance successful

completion of programs for students enrolled in community colleges and their

transition to four-year programs.

Provide support to students with disabilities

185. Identify factors in secondary school and post-school experiences of youth with

disabilities that contribute to positive results through the National Longitudinal

Transition Study.

186. Conduct rigorous

evaluations of

educational supports

that contribute to the

completion of

postsecondary programs

and workplace success

for students with

disabilities.

187. Develop and distribute

practical guide on

transitioning students

with disabilities from

high school to postsecondary education and employment.

188. Within the Office of Civil Rightsí 2003 Enforcement Plans, identify and

complete initiatives to assist parents, students, and schools on effective high

school to college transition for students with disabilities.

Percentage of 24 to 29 Year Old High School Completers with a

Bachelor's Degree or Higher by Race/Ethnicity from 1971 to 2000

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. March Current Population Surveys, various years.

Whites

Blacks

Hispanics

40

30

20

10

0

1971 1980 1990 2000

Year

Percentage

10.5

11.5

23.1

13.2

15.0

28.0

14.0

16.4

29.3

15.4

20.6

36.2
82 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

FY2002 FY2003

Performance

Targets Measures

Objective 5.1 College Access and Achievement

The national percentage of full-time, bachelor degree-seeking students who graduate within six years, and the

percentage of full-time, two-year degree-seeking students who graduate, earn a certificate, or transfer to a four-year

school within three years.

4-Year Institutions

All

White

Black

White-Black Gap

Hispanic

White-Hispanic Gap

2-Year Institutions

All

White

Black

White-Black Gap

Hispanic

White-Hispanic Gap

53.1

56.1

38.9

17.2

42.5

13.6

32.7

34.1

27

7.1

30.8

3.3

52.7

56.0

37.0

19.0

41.0

15.0

32.5

34.0

26.3

7.7

30.5

3.5

Note: Three-year averages are used to help smooth out yearly fluctuations. The Department is considering adding

an annual collection of these data for students with disabilities.

Source: October Current Population Survey (CPS) conducted by the Census Bureau.

Note about targets: These projections illustrate a goal of cutting the various gaps in half from 2002-2007.

Source: Graduation Rate Survey (GRS) conducted by NCES as part of the Integrated Postsecondary Data System

(IPEDS).

Note: The Department is considering adding an annual collection of these data for students with disabilities.

Note about targets: These projections illustrate a goal of cutting the various gaps in half from 2002-2007.

64.1

67.0

60.3

6.7

51.5

15.5

53.5

77.0

23.5

63.8

66.9

59.6

7.3

50.0

16.9

51.5

76.9

25.4

Percentage of 16-24 year-old high school graduates enrolled in college the October following graduation.

Overall

White

Black

White-Black Gap

Hispanic

White-Hispanic Gap

Low-Income

High-Income

Income Gap

Performance Measures for Objective 5.1
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 83

FY2002 FY2003

Performance

Targets Measures

Objective 5.1 College Access and Achievement

28.0

25.0

30.2

5.2

49.5

42.5

52.2

9.7

10.8

9.0

12.2

3.2

40.0

33.0

48.2

15.2

Awareness of Financial Aid. The percentage of parents of students in middle and high school who talked with a

counselor about the availability of financial aid for postsecondary study.*

Middle-School

All

Low-income

High-income

Income Gap

High-School

All

Low-income

High-income

Income Gap

Middle-School

All

Low-income

High-income

Income Gap

High-School

All

Low-income

High-income

Income Gap

29.0

27.0

30.4

3.4

50.5

46.0

52.4

6.4

11.6

10.5

12.4

1.9

43.0

38.0

48.4

10.4

Objective 5.1 College Access and Achievement

* Among parents who indicated they expected their child to attend college.

Source: National Household Education Survey conducted by NCES.

Note: These data are not available by race/ethnicity.

Awareness of Academic Requirements. The percentage of parents of students in middle and high school who

talked with a counselor about the academic requirements for postsecondary study.*

Percentage of 16 to 24 Year Old High School Graduates

Enrolled in College the October Following Graduation

* 3-year weighted averages; year listed is the last year in the series

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. March Current Population Surveys, various years.

White*

Black*

Hispanic*

80

60

40

20

0

1989 1990 1998

Year

Percentage

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1999
84 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

Objective 5.2

Strengthen accountability of

postsecondary institutions

Although American institutions of higher education are

among the best in the world, the public and many

policymakers are especially concerned about the

effectiveness of postsecondary institutions in two areas:

preparing high-quality teachers and completing the

education of students within a reasonable time. An

effective strategy for ensuring that institutions are held

accountable for results is to make information on student

achievement and attainment available to the public. This

way, prospective students will be able to make informed

choices about where to attend college and how to spend

their tuition dollars.

Addressing widespread concern about the quality of

new teachers, Congress established an accountability

system for teacher preparation programs in Title II when

reauthorizing the Higher Education Act (HEA) in 1998.

This system provides for the first time basic information

on the quality of teacher program completers. Public and

Congressional critics of this system note, however, that it

needs to be strengthened to produce information that is

more useful to the public and policymakers. As part of the

next reauthorization of HEA, the Department will

recommend refinements to this system.

Congress also has addressed concerns about the

effectiveness of postsecondary institutions in graduating

students in a timely fashion. In amendments to the HEA

in 1992, Congress required institutions of higher education

to report the proportions of their students who complete

their educational programs. Critics have pointed out that

these measures are not effectively integrated into

accountability systems in most states, and thus are not

routinely used in evaluating postsecondary institutions. In

the next reauthorization, the Department will recommend

steps to strengthen the usefulness of these measures so

that they can be incorporated into state accountability

systems. Successfully meeting this objective will require the

cooperation of the postsecondary community, the states

and Congress.
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 85

ë02 ë03

Performance

Targets Measures

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 5.2

Refine the Title II accountability system

189. Close the loopholes in the Higher Education Act (HEA)Title II reporting system

to ensure fairness and accountability.

190. Align relevant HEA Title II definitions with those in the No Child Left Behind

Act to lessen reporting burden on respondents.

191. Encourage Congress to improve data quality in institutional and state

questionnaires used in annual report through the reauthorization of the Higher

Education Act.

Create a reporting system on retention and completion that is useful for

state accountability systems

192. Prepare a report on the current Integrated Postsecondary Education System

(IPEDS) graduation rate survey to determine the extent to which the data

required to support state accountability systems are collected.

193. Consult with states to determine what additional information is needed in a

postsecondary accountability system; make changes to IPEDS accordingly.

Performance Measures for Objective 5.2

The percentage of states and territories submitting Title II reports with all data

reported using federally required definitions.

The percentage of states with comprehensive reporting systems for colleges and

universities that include student retention data and graduation rates for four-year

degree seekers after 4, 5 and 6 years; graduation rates for two-year degree and

certificate seekers after 2 and 3 years; and transfer rates for students at 2-year and

4-year institutions, disaggregated by student demographic factors such as race,

gender, ethnicity, disability, and federal aid versus non-federal aid recipient.

100

60

80

50

Objective 5.2 Acountability of Postsecondary Institutions
86 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

Objective 5.3

Establish effective funding

mechanisms for

postsecondary education

The financing of postsecondary education continues to

be a challenge for many students and their families.

According to the College Board, the average costs of

attendance for 2001-2002 are $17,123 for four-year private

institutions (up 5.5 percent from the previous year); $3,754

in four-year public institutions (up 7.7 percent from the

previous year); and $1,738 for two-year public institutions

(up 5.8 percent from the previous year). With tuitions

rising faster than inflation, students are borrowing more

money than in the past to attend college. The median

student federal loan amount tripled between 1990 and

1999, rising from $4,000 to $11,199, and students are

increasingly turning to non-federal sources of loans

including credit cards to pay college expenses. These

trends are occurring even though funding for Pell Grants,

Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants and other

campus-based aid programs continue to grow.

In response to the concerns about the price of college,

the Department will create a study group to examine the

factors that contribute to the rising costs of postsecondary

education. Through the study group, the Department will

seek ideas and suggestions for achieving cost efficiencies

and cost reductions among postsecondary institutions. The

group will also consider effective funding strategies for

nontraditional and part-time students, including those

participating in distance learning via technology. The

Department will then disseminate the findings. In addition,

the Department will continue to work toward a more

efficient Title IV aid process for the benefit of all parties

participating in these programs.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 5.3

Investigate postsecondary funding strategies

194. Publish and widely disseminate to postsecondary institutions, states and others a

study groupís recommendations for achieving cost efficiencies and cost

reductions at postsecondary institutions.

195. Encourage Student Support Services grantees to use the maximum amount of

federal grant funds (up to 20%) for grant aid by providing examples of how

they might reallocate funds.
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 87

ë02 ë03

Performance

Targets Measures

Improve the efficiency of the Title IV aid process

196. Consult with higher education community on ways to improve the efficiency of

the Title IV aid process in preparation for the Administrationís Higher

Education Act reauthorization proposal.

197. Based on study group recommendations and consultations with higher

education community, develop a legislative proposal to encourage Congress to

improve the efficiency of the Title IV aid process through Higher Education

Act reauthorization.

198. Develop a legislative proposal to encourage Congress to increase the targeting

of Pell Grants and other federal student aid to increase access to postsecondary

education.

Note: All action items related to FSA modernization and efficiency are listed

under objective 6.4.

Performance Measures for Objective 5.3

Objective 5.3 Effective Funding Mecanisms

Note: In 1998, the median debt burden was 7.1% of borrower income.

* Preliminary estimates from unreleased NPSAS 2000

** NPSAS is only collected every four years so estimates will have to be made for intervening period

Source: Federal loan records from the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) merged with income data from

the Internal Revenue Service.

Average national increases in college tuition, adjusted for inflation

Unmet need as % of cost of attendance for low-income dependent students

Unmet need as % of cost of attendance for low-income independent students with

children

Unmet need as % of cost of attendance for low-income independent students

without children

Borrower indebtedness and average borrower payments (for federal student loans)

as a percentage of borrower income

3.1%

42.0**

59.0**

63.0**

Less than

10 % in

first year

of

repayment

3.0%

41.0**

58.0**

62.0**

Less

than

10 % in

first year

of

repayment
88 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

Objective 5.4

Strengthen Historically Black

Colleges and Universities,

Hispanic Serving

Institutions, and Tribal

Colleges and Universities

An important strategy in closing the gap between lowincome and minority students and their high-income, nonminority peers is to strengthen the quality of educational

opportunities in institutions dedicated to serving lowincome and minority students. Through various programs

and initiatives, the Department promotes the quality of

institutions serving low-income and minority students.

There is more, however, that can and should be done by

the Department to offer access to information, training

and technical assistance opportunities that contribute to

the fiscal soundness of these institutions.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 5.4

Offer technical assistance for planning, implementation, and

evaluation

199. Design and implement a grantee mentor program to help new Institutional

Development Undergraduate Education Service (IDUES) project directors.

200. Plan and implement discussion groups on institutional planning,

implementation and evaluation for HEA Title III and Title V grantees.

201. Incorporate planning, implementation and evaluation components into the

annual project directors meetings with expert speakers from the field.

Assist in promoting the technology infrastructure of institutions serving

low-income and minority students

202. Develop a ìGrantee Technology Resource Pageî on the IDUES web site for

posting technology insights focusing on the creative use of technology for

institutional needs, free or low-cost software, software developed by grantees,

and technical personnel

issues.

203. Sponsor an ongoing

technology discussion group

among eligible HEATitle III

and Title V institutions to

identify the current areas of

greatest institutional

technology need and discuss

the different solutions for

these needs.
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 89

ë02 ë03

Performance

Targets Measures

204. Incorporate technology components into the annual project directors meetings

with expert speakers from the field.

Collaborate with Historically Black Collages and Universities, Hispanic

Serving Institutions and Tribal Colleges Universities on K-12

improvement efforts

205. Provide outreach and technical assistance to HBCUs, HSIs and TCUs to

encourage them to submit an application to the Departmentís Transition to

Teaching program.

206. Encourage states to include HBCUs, HSIs and TCUs in their Title II (ESEA)

activities to improve teacher preparation and professional development.

Performance Measures for Objective 5.4

Objective 5.4 HBCUs, HSIs and TCUs

PP = Percentage Points

The percentage of HBCUs, HSIs and TCUs with a positive fiscal balance.

The percentage of HBCUís HSIís and TCUís with evidence of increased

technological capacity (such as wireless systems, high speed Internet connections,

distance learning programs, or other evidence of technological innovation).

74

Baseline

79

Baseline

+ 10

PP
90 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

Objective 5.5

Enhance the literacy and

employment skills of

American adults

National surveys indicate that between 70 and 90 million

adults in the United States have Limited-English literacy skills

that inhibit their ability to support their families and exercise

other important social responsibilities. Shockingly, this

includes an estimated ten million high school graduates and

1.5 million college graduates. Current classroom-based

services reach only about three million individuals with adult

basic education and English literacy services. Combined with

education services delivered through other social services for

adults, only a fraction of the need for enhanced literacy is

being addressed. Working with state and local partners, we

will develop new models of flexible, high-quality basic

education and English literacy services to help a larger

percentage of Americaís adult population, including

individuals with disabilities, receive the literacy skills they

need for workplace learning, postsecondary learning and

lifelong personal and career growth. We will also work with

state vocational rehabilitation programs, other federal

agencies and others to improve employment outcomes for

adults with disabilities and will aggressively implement the

presidentís New Freedom Initiative.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 5.5

Invest in research on adult literacy and English acquisition

207. Maintain collaboration with the National Institute of Child Health and

Development (NICHD) on DELLS biliteracy research program to improve the

research base in this area.

208. Initiate random assignment evaluation of federally funded Adult English as a

Second Language programs.

209. Provide support to NICHD for the development of a new strand of research on

effective practices in Adult Education and family literacy programs; create ìWhat

Works in Adult Literacyî publication.

210. Comprehensively review English language acquisition, work-based programs, and

skills training through Postsecondary Education Futures project to identify best

practices.

Develop high-quality community- and faith-based models

211. Develop partnerships, where possible, that involve community- and faith-based

organizations in the provision of adult literacy programs.
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 91

Develop technology solutions

212. Develop, with state partners, a multi-state evaluation of distance learning for

Adult Education.

213. Develop online curriculum resources to support the use of technology-based

instruction in adult education, English as a second language, and literacy

develpment.

214. Collaborate with the National Technology Laboratory for the Improvement of

Adult Education to document best practices in technology-based instruction,

hold town meetings, create professional development in the use of technology

and sponsor hands-on demonstration sites.

215. Develop and implement the new loan program that will provide financial

support to individuals with disabilities to purchase technology and other

equipment that enables them to work from home.

216. Award, monitor and provide technical assistance for the National Institute on

Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) Small Business Innovation

Research grants to maximize the likelihood of successful phase I projects

advancing to phase II.

217. Facilitate interagency coordination in the development of improved technology

transfer so that the results of federally funded research have a higher probability

of becoming solutions for improving the employment and independent living

skills of people with disabilities.

Implement performance standards

218. Identify vocational rehabilitation state agencies that are at risk of not meeting

the established performance levels for Standard I (employment outcomes) and

provide targeted technical assistance.

219. Convene a conference for state vocational rehabilitation agencies to highlight

effective practices for improving agency performance, especially employment

outcomes.

220. Make vocational rehabilitation state agency performance data available to the

public on the Department of Educationís website.

Fund demonstration projects

221. Support and evaluate demonstration projects designed to enhance literacy levels,

earnings and other employment outcomes of individuals with disabilities.
92 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

ë02 ë03

Performance

Targets

* Source: Periodic national surveys of Adult Literacy. The National Assessments of Adult Literacy (NAAL)

will be conducted in 2002. For this indicator, we are measuring ìproseî literacy. These targets may need

to be adjusted pending the results of the 2002 study. The Department is considering adding a biennial

collection of these data.

Objective 5.5 Literacy and Employment Skills

The percentage of adults reading at the lowest level of literacy

in national adult literacy assessments. *

(1992 Baseline = 21%)

The percentage of all persons served by State VR agencies

who obtain employment.

(2000 Baseline = 62.5%)

19.0

63.0

X

63.5

Adult Literacy

Employment of

Individuals with

Disabilities

Performance Measure for Objective 5.5
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 93

Vocational Rehabilitation Employment Outcomes

NOTES: The percentage of all persons served by State Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies who obtain employment. (2000 Baseline = 62.5%)

SOURCE: State Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies

300,000

200,000

0

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Rehabilitation

Ratio

Year

100,000

Persons without

Employment

Outcomes

Persons with

Employment

Outcomes
94 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

There is an understandable

temptation to ignore

management reforms in favor of

new policies and programs.

However, what matters most is

performance.

óPresident George W. Bush

ì

ì

6Strategic Goal Six

Establish Management

Excellence throughout

the Department of Education
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 95

6

In order to create a culture of achievement throughout the nationís

educational system, we must first create a culture of accountability within the

Department. We will do so by aggressively implementing the Presidentís

Management Agenda, including his initiative on community- and faith-based

organizations. Through our work to create a culture of accountability and

establish management excellence, we will earn the Presidentís Quality Award.

Objective 6.1

Develop and maintain financial integrity and management and internal

controls.

Objective 6.2

Improve the strategic management of the Departmentís human capital.

Objective 6.3

Manage information technology resources, using e-gov, to improve service

for our customers and partners.

Objective 6.4

Modernize the Federal Student Assistance programs and reduce their highrisk status.

Objective 6.5

Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to

results.

Objective 6.6

Leverage the contributions of community- and faith-based organizations to

increase the effectiveness of Department programs.

Objective 6.7

By becoming a high performance, customer-focused organization, earn the

Presidentís Quality Award.
96 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

Objective 6.1

Develop and maintain

financial integrity and

management and internal

controls

The first step to management excellence is to provide

managers and external stakeholders with timely financial

information to aid them when making programmatic and

asset-related decisions. Financial integrity also means that

we maintain effective internal controls to reduce the risk

of errors and permit effective monitoring of programs

and processes and that employees assume responsibility for

identifying and addressing problems.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 6.1

Update and integrate financial systems

222. Develop accurate, fully documented loan loss liability and allowance estimates

for the federal student loan programs for inclusion in the Departmentís annual

financial statement.

223. Implement Oracle Federal Financials, a software package that meets federal

accounting standards.

224. Prepare quarterly financial statements with analysis and make accounting

adjustments as necessary within 60 days.

225. Perform feeder systems reconciliations to the general ledger within 45 days of

the end of each calendar month, improving their timeliness and effectiveness.

226. Develop a project plan to upgrade Oracle Federal Financials to version 11 in

fiscal year 2003 to keep the accounting systems current.

227. Develop a project plan and commission a task force to gather Department-wide

requirements for an Executive Information System capable of integrating

program, financial, contracts and administrative data. Provide stakeholders with

accurate and timely Financial Management Information using Oracle Financials

and electronic dissemination techniques.

228. Through a Department of Education/OMB Student Loan Credit Modeling

Working Group, the Department will clarify the underlying assumptions used to

generate baseline and policy estimates and

summarize the key issues regarding the

subsidy calculation methodology that

requires an OMB policy decision for

formulating the FY 2003 budget. Use these

assumptions and decisions to define

requirements for a mutually supported

auditable model that will allow all parties in

OMB and the Department to replicate and

Department of Education Audit Opinions

1997 actual

1998 actual

1999 actual

2000 actual

2001 actual

Reportable

Conditions Fiscal Year

4

3

4

3

1

3

4

4

2

3

Material

Weaknesses Audit Opinion

Unqualified

Disclaimer

Qualified

Qualified

Qualified
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 97

test all estimates used for policy and management decisions, as well as financial

management reporting.

229. Reconcile the inventory database to determine with reasonable assurance that

identified Information Technology (IT) purchases have been inventoried

according to Department policy.

230. Complete the concept of operations for implementing Oracle multi-organizational

capability. Complete a project plan to implement it for fiscal years 2003 and 2004

if the proof-of-concept initiative indicates multi-org should be implemented.

(and August 30, 2002, respectively)

231. Improve the mechanism to age cash received by schools and systematically

monitor progress towards 30-day reporting requirements.

232. Establish an OCFO/FSA CFO issues team of senior managers to meet weekly

to address issues, discuss joint activities, and ensure that OCFO, OM and OCIO

get the information they need from FSA to fulfill their responsibilities, and that

FSA gets needed information from OCFO.

233. Develop microsimulation model to project FFEL and Direct Loan program cash

flows.

Prepare financial statements to provide leading data on Department

performance

234. Review accounting and budget execution activity to ensure that data included in

the Departmentís financial statements can be fully reconciled and documented.

235. Put a Financial Management Structure in place that is optimal for the

Departmentís needs and requirements.

236. Implement postproduction validation of the Financial Management System.

237. Submit the Departmentís audited fiscal year 2002 financial statements to OMB

by the required reporting date.

238. Publish in one integrated document Government Performance and Results Act

(GPRA) Strategic Plan results and financial reports to demonstrate to the public

the relationship of financial and programmatic management.

239. Submit the Departmentís combined financial and GPRA report to the

Association of Government Accountants for consideration for a Certificate of

Excellence in Accountability Reporting.

Analyze data to reduce fraud

240. Initiate a project to implement data mining to detect possible fraud or abuse, set

up a remedial program and increase efficiencies. Suspected fraud or abuse cases

will be referred to the OIG.
98 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

Review existing internal controls and implement changes where

necessary

241. Complete the first of regular reviews of internal controls that support the

Departmentís primary activities. Implement recommendations and ensure that

controls are understood and applied in Department operations. Provide reports

to management on review findings and recommendations.

242. Annually review internal controls consistent with the Federal Managers

Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) process.

243. Implement a plan to assure that discretionary and formula grant programs

operate with the highest level of efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity.

244. Award 60 percent of new grants by May 31 each year.

245. Prepare action plans within 60 days of OIG issuance of final reports.

Implement 95 percent of accepted OIG and GAO recommendations using

action plans within the committed timeframes.

246. Complete the examination of structures for effectively monitoring and holding

accountable grantees, other intermediaries and contractors.

247. Assist PO staff in developing and implementing corrective action plans to

address internal control weaknesses identified by the Departmentís auditors.

(ongoing)

248. Based on an independent security assessment, prepare a comprehensive physical

security plan for the Department.

249. Prepare the strategic monitoring plans, annual monitoring plans and reports

currently required for discretionary grant programs, if not already prepared.

250. Review and analyze administrative services provided by the Department to

ensure responsiveness to customer needs, innovative approaches to problem

solving, and best use of scarce resources.

251. Implement a modified and improved system for monitoring and reporting

corrective actions.

252. Using the completed and approved project plan, reengineer the official process

of developing directives, securing program feedback, issuing, and disseminating

administrative directives.

253. Develop an implementation plan to establish a high-level security office with the

responsibility for coordinating all Department security programs and activities.

254. Develop IT inventory procedures and incorporate, as appropriate, KPMGís

recommendations, which were formulated while performing a sample IT

procurement inventory, into the procedures.
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 99

255. Review and, if necessary, revise EDís suggestion program so that it can be used

to promote innovation and facilitate improvement and efficiencies within the

Department.

256. Identify and evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of centralizing the

program monitoring function.

257. Develop and administer internal control training initiatives for presentation at all

levels within the Department.

Increase the use of performance-based contracting

258. Increase the use of performance-based contracting, and hold contractors

accountable to performance criteria.

259. Ensure that contracting officials, contracting officer representatives and others

responsible for monitoring contracts receive proper training and certification.

260. Review the Departmentís contract monitoring process to evaluate its ability to

identify and monitor high-risk contracts.

Performance Measures for Objective 6.1

FY 2002 FY 2003

Measures Performance Targets

The achievement of an unqualified audit opinion.

The financial management grade received on ìreport cardî by the

Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial

Management and Intergovernmental Relations.

The number of audit recommendations from prior year financial

statement audits remaining open.

The percentage of performance-based contract actions.

The amount of erroneous payments.

The number of erroneous payments.

The federal administrative cost per grant transaction.

Yes

B

7

25% of contract

actions;

50% of eligible

service contract

dollars

Baseline

-20 %

Baseline

 -20 %

Baseline

-20 %

Yes

C

8 open

recommendations

20% of contract

actions;

48% of eligible

service contract

dollars

Set and validate

the baseline

Baseline

 -10 %

Baseline

-10 %

Objective 6.1 Financial Integrity and Internal Controls
100 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

Objective 6.2

Improve the strategic

management of the

Departmentís human capital

A key element of creating a Department-wide culture

of performance excellence and accountability is the

strategic investment in human capital. The Department

will develop and carry out a plan for human capital

management that supports the Departmentís mission by

ensuring that skilled, high-performing employees are

available and deployed appropriately. This plan will be

supported by a competitive sourcing plan that ensures that

services are provided at a maximum level of cost

effectiveness. We will delayer the organization and ensure

that our work is citizen-centered.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 6.2

Develop a five-year human capital plan

261. Develop an overarching vision of human capital that ties to the strategic plan

and the Departmentís mission.

262. Complete the development of the five-year human capital/restructuring plan.

263. The Departmentís restructuring plan will address appropriate numbers of

organizational layers.

264. The Departmentís restructuring plan will review positions to improve citizen

access to services.

265. The Department will address its supervisory ratio.

266. Determine the specific actions needed to implement the workforce and

restructuring plan, including a timetable for each action.

267. Detail estimated costs and/or savings from the first through fifth year of

implementing the changes in the organization structure.

268. Estimate the impact of the workforce restructuring on the Departmentís plan

for improving program performance outcomes.

Identify and obtain needed skills

269. Determine employee skills needed by each officeís management to most

effectively perform program functions, with consideration given to attrition and

retirement over the next five years.

270. Develop systems to capture employee knowledge including technology systems.

271. Increase the number of on-site college courses and certificate programs,

especially for information technology, project management and financial

management.
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 101

272. Provide training to managers on their responsibilities as managers, including

values-based ethics training that addresses the specific ethics obligations of

managers. All managers will receive this training.

273. Initiate revised ethics training for non-managers, incorporating financial

management issues.

274. Develop a process to ensure that supervisors identify professional development

opportunities that are tied to organizational work plans and individual

development plans that each employee on their staff must have.

275. Develop a process to ensure that managers are encouraged to identify staff who

show great potential and be flexible and receptive to staff professional

development opportunities that include 1) Mobility Assignment Program

assignments, 2) Details, 3) Interagency Personnel Agreements, 4) SES rotations,

5) HQ-Regional Rotations.

276. Implement a development program for senior managers.

277. Bring in speakers who are our customers (e.g., school superintendents, grant

recipients, chief school officers, financial aid administrators, accrediting agencies)

to help employees understand the impact of their work, customer needs, etc.

278. Implement the administrationís Managerial Flexibility Act, which provides

permanent buyout authority, early retirements for workforce restructuring, and

increased benefits for SES employees.

279. Publicize special hiring authorities (e.g., outstanding scholars, Presidential

Manamegment Interns, excepted service) and encourage managers to use those

authorities.

280. Publicize and expand the use of strategically targeted recruitment and retention

bonuses.

Improve employee performance and accountability

281. Every senior officer will reach agreement with the secretary on the program and

management results they are responsible for in FY 2002 and the following two

years. These agreements will link to the strategic plan, be updated annually, and

be used to determine bonuses and other awards in the Principal Offices (PO).

Senior leadership will begin to use the agreements in FY 2002 and will use them

increasingly as the Department develops practical measures that link individual

and organizational performance to the achievement of results.

282. Each senior officer will have performance agreements with the managers

reporting to them that are consistent with the Departmentís strategic plan. These

agreements will link to the strategic plan, be updated annually, and be used to

determine bonuses and other awards.
102 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

283. The Departmentís employee performance agreements and bonuses/awards will

link to the Departmentís Strategic Plan, Blueprint for Management

Improvement, and Culture of Accountability Team Report.

284. Establish a panel in each PO to review all probationary employees before they

are allowed to receive ìcareerî status.

285. Make it clear that managers are responsible for performance and conduct in

their work units, including modeling a proper work ethic and appropriately

addressing employee performance and conduct problems.

286. Develop and implement a new appraisal system to replace the General

Performance Appraisal System.

287. Develop and disseminate a Department-wide core values statement.

288. Just as we do for Contracting Office Representative, require certifications for

certain positions, such as grants specialists and system accountants, and tie the

certification to promotions, Quality Service Increment, and awards.

289. Revise and publicize new ìdisciplinary standardsî to help ensure that discipline

is applied consistently.

290. Establish a process to ensure that rating officials annually review the position

description of their staff to ensure that they accurately cover the employeeís

duties and responsibilities.

Improve core processes related to human capital management

291. Create a national recruitment network with key university programs, especially

graduate programs in public affairs, public administration, financial management

and information technology.

292. Expand innovative strategies to recruit mid-level employees, including

notification in trade publications and state agencies.

293. Establish a process to ensure that when supervisors are recruited ìcontent

knowledgeî is balanced with ìmanagement skills.î

294. Seek authority to provide managers with expanded personnel flexibilities.

Improve the use of competitive sourcing

295. Complete the competitive sourcing plan.

296. Initiate competitive sourcing of appropriate tasks performed by employees,

consistent with the FAIR Act.
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 103

FY 2002 FY 2003

Performance

Targets Measures

297. Plans will be completed to implement competition between interagency

reimbursable support service arrangements and the private sector.

298. All such interagency arrangements will be competed with the private

sector on a recurring basis.

Performance Measures for Objective 6.2

* Performance measure recommended by OPM Human Capital Scorecard. Data collection instrument currently

being developed by OPM. Adoption and use of this instrument will allow for updated baselines and benchmarking

for purposes of setting targets using data gathered from other federal agencies, government-wide averages and

highs and private sector survey participants.

1 survey respondents who agree ìemployees have a feeling of personal empowerment and ownership of work

processes.î

2 survey respondents who favorably responded to, ìOverall, how good a job do you feel is being done by your

immediate supervisor/team leader?î Government-wide high score reported at 71%.

3 survey respondents who agree ìmanagers set challenging and attainable performance goals.î

4 survey respondents who agree ìemployees receive the training they need to perform their jobs.î Governmentwide high score reported at 75%.

Objective 6.2 Strategic Management of Human Capital

ED employees are focused on results and show interest in improving the services of

their organization. *

ED employees hold their leaders in high regard. *

ED employees believe that their organization has set high but realistic resultsoriented work expectations for them. *

Employees believe that their organization supports their development and expects

them to improve their skills and learn new skills to do their jobs better. *

ED meets skills gap reduction targets included in its human capital management

plan.

The percentage of managers satisfied with services received from OM when hiring

staff.

ED meets its annual goals for competitive sourcing.

56%

60%

65

72%

TBD

70

Compete

86

positions

52%1

56% 2

62%3

71%4

Baseline

Baseline

Compete

43

positions
104 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

The Department must leverage information technology

to perform its business functions more efficiently and to

better serve our partners, internal customers and external

customers. Improved Department accountability requires

that we effectively manage IT investments, protect data

integrity and confidentiality, improve data management and

increase our effectiveness in the use of technology in

customer service. We will use information technology to

support effective business processes and we will improve

and simplify ineffective business processes before applying

information technology. We will prioritize IT investments

across program offices based on our prioritization of the

Departmentís business needs. Re-engineered business

processes will ensure that state and local educational

institutions and institutions of higher education can

communicate effectively with the Department without

undue burden. We will assure confidentiality and accessibility.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 6.3

Encourage customers to conduct business with the Department on-line

299. Work with the community and Department offices to implement the capability

to receive all grant applications electronically.

300. Develop easy-to-use technology that allows peer reviewers to review grants

online.

301. Provide customers the option of electronic data provision and data exchangeó

pursuant to the Government Paperwork Elimination Act.

302. Utilize electronic media, i.e. websites, listservs, and email to disseminate

information and provide technical assistance to grantees.

303. Improvethe Departmentís web site to better serve our customers in Congress.

304. Begin implementation of Case Management System to permit end-to-end

electronic processing of complaints.

305. Increase the number of self-assessment tools and amount of information for

recipients and parents accessible on website.

306. Increase the number of FAFSAís Filed electronically to 5.5 million.

307. Implement government-wide On-Line Access for Loans Initiative.

308. Install web conferencing and video conferencing technology.

Objective 6.3

Manage information

technology resources, using

e-gov, to improve services

for our customers and

partners
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 105

Ensure security of the IT infrastructure

309. All general support systems and major applications will be certified and

accredited or receive interim approval to operate, and the Department will

develop and test disaster recovery plans that are updated annually.

310. Complete remedial actions on all problems identified in the recently completed

security reviews of all Department IT systems under the Government

Information Security Reform Act reviews and Critical Infrastructure Protection

assessments.

311. Complete the Departmentís vulnerability and threat assessment; and begin

remedial action plans, which are expected to be completed by spring 2002.

312. Conduct a Department-wide IT security awareness campaign, including

mandatory completion by all employees of a new computer-based security

awareness training program, and a computer security day.

313. Establish a core of project management professionals with the necessary

training and skills to manage the Departmentís IT initiatives.

314. Develop training curricula and a program to train executives on their IT

investment management responsibilities. New leadership will receive IT

investment management training within two months of arrival.

315. Department IT staff and managers will complete specialized IT security training

curricula.

Reduce our partnersí data reporting burden

316. Implement a short-term pilot project to collect school-level achievement data

and align it with financial and demographic information. Consolidate several

ongoing data and technology projects.

317. Implement the long-term Performance-Based Data Management Initiative to

centralize and dramatically reduce reporting burden; align data definitions and

collections with it.

318. Review all data collection plans of program evaluation studies to minimize data

burden, focus on student results, and utilize data from Performance Based Data

Management Initiative.

319. Certify at least 50 percent of major agency and program databases for data

quality.
106 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

Complete enterprise architecture

320. Make known the approximate amount of funding available for significant IT

initiatives at the beginning of the IT investment management process.

321. Identify technology infrastructure and adopt technology standards necessary to

support the Departmentís Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA)-

identified electronic transactions.

322. Put in place a robust enterprise architecture along with a well-defined capital

planning and investment control program and an agency-wide performance

measurement process.

323. The Investment Review Board (IRB) will review, approve and prioritize 100

percent of the Departmentís enterprise-wide significant information system

investments.

324. Fully integrate the IRB process with the budget and procurement processes.

325. The contracting officer, project sponsor, and project manager will approve the

business cases for significant IT initiatives before consideration by the IRB.

326. Contracting Officers will ensure 100 percent of significant IT procurements,

(e.g., hardware, software, and services) are tied to an approved business case

before processing.

327. Ensure appropriate integration of the IT investment management process with

the acquisition process.

328. Existing and new IT initiatives will have reasonable and reliable cost, schedule,

and performance data in their business cases.

329. Appropriately integrate IT investment management process with the budget

process by the time the FY 2004 budget is submitted to OMB.

330. Ensure that 100 percent of significant IT projects are consistent with the target

architecture and its implementation plan.

331. Track significant IT initiatives against cost, schedule, and performance goals

with the target that variances will be below 10 percent.
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 107

FY 2002 FY 2003

Performance

Targets Measures

Objective 6.3 Manage Information Technology Resources

The percentage of significant IT investments that achieve less than a 10% variance

of cost and schedule goals.

Percent customer ratings of ED IT services ìgoodî or better.

The OMB burden hour estimates of Department program data collections per year.

(2001 baseline = 40.5 million)

60

Baseline

+ 5 PP

38M

50

Baseline

40M

PP = Percentage Points

M = Million

Performance Measures for Objective 6.3
108 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

Objective 6.4

Modernize the Federal

Student Assistance programs

and reduce their high-risk

status

While Federal Student Assistance (FSA) has made some

progress in recent years in modernizing its systems, it

remains on the General Accounting Officeís high-risk

program list. It is also the only Department program

identified for corrective action by the Presidentís

Management Agenda. The Department, in partnership with

FSA, will continue to improve and integrate its financial and

management information systems to manage the student aid

programs effectively. We will reduce the programsí

vulnerability to fraud, waste, error and mismanagement.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 6.4

Create an efficient and integrated delivery system

332. Release version 2 of School Portal to provide a common look to FSA websites

for schools, enhance query capabilities, and development of regional presence.

333. Establish web portal for financial partners to provide one stop access to FSA

services and information.

334. Develop a ìsingle sign-onî capability for the School Portal that will allow

schools to access Title IV databases with just one sign-on.

335. Implement Phase II of our eCampus Based modernization project by replacing

the mainframe system with a new Oracle-based system.

336. Implement improved Direct Loan (DL) servicing infrastructure to better

support DL financial management reporting.

337. Implement a common business process and system for aid origination and

disbursement of Pell Grants and Direct Loans to provide the infrastructure to

improve school reporting, cash management and internal control processes.

338. Improve reliability of lender billing data through a redesigned lender payment

process.

339. Develop a design for providing consistent data across FSA from modernized

systems to deliver consistent answers to customers and provide consistent

information to employees for program oversight. This will be accomplished by

consolidating the number of toll-free numbers and customer service functions

into one logical customer contact center that utilizes a common data platform.

Additionally, this effort will seek to implement proven customer relationship

management tools and practices.
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 109

340. Implement Phase II of the Financial Partners Data Mart. This phase will

provide self-monitoring and oversight tools and focus on the data load, and link

with the new FMS to provide a continuous stream of financial data and selected

NSLDS elements necessary to augment data comparisons and lender risk

management assessment.

341. Implement Phase III of the Financial Partners Data Mart. This phase will

provide augmented monitoring tools and oversight ability. The release will

focus on the data load and links from Financial Management System,

Postsecondary Education Participant System, National Student Loan Data

System, and an evaluation of any newly implemented processes or systems that

may replace existing legacy links.

342. Electronically integrate drawdown information with disbursement reporting

data to track cash balances at schools.

343. Retire the DLOS and REMS systems.

344. Retire the FARS system.

345. Implement Internet billing and online correspondence as part of the Direct

Loan e-Servicing initiative.

346. Integrate the PEPS system with Consistent Answers project.

347. Integrate the MDE functionality into the CPS system.

348. Integrate the DMCS system into the common borrower system (a system that

will have the functionality of the DL servicing system, DMCS and the

Consolidation system).

Improve Program Monitoring

349. Institute eligibility check for valid ISIR on file for all Direct Loan recipients

(except PLUS).

350. Improve institutional records by developing a design for electronic school

financial statements and compliance audits, and improve FSA record keeping by

imaging current and future records in the DRCC and better deployment of

workflow. Benefits realized will include a more effective and efficient process to

identify institutions that are not compliant with Title IV program regulations

through the elimination of backlogs, shortened cycle times, minimized errors,

reduced paper, and the elimination of lost documents.

351. If authorized by Congress, implement legislation providing increased authority

to match applicant income information with the Internal Revenue Service to

prevent over-awards.
110 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

352. Develop and Implement Phase IV of the Financial Management System,

providing a reliable tool to improve the internal controls and financial

management of the programs.

353. Strengthen FSAís internal controls and financial integrity.

354. Identify areas for improving compliance effectiveness and take the appropriate

steps toward improvement.

355. Review baseline budget data for student aid administration and develop a

framework for budget requirements using the single appropriation that has been

agreed to by the Department and OMB.

356. Identify trends in risk areas and provide targeted technical assistance to schools.

357. Prepare action plans within 60 days of OIG issuance of final reports.

Implement 95 percent of accepted OIG and GAO recommendations using

action plans within the committed timeframes.

358. Review FSAís current strategy for monitoring schools, lenders, guaranty agencies

and third-party servicers; identify the various levels and types of monitoring,

including where performed and by whom. Determine which kinds of

monitoring are linked to the basic administration of the student financial aid

programs.

359. Increase the number of FSA program reviews by 10%. The schools targeted for

review will be identified through risk analysis.

Government likes to begin thingsóto declare

grand new programs and causes. But good

beginnings are not the measure of success. What

matters in the end is completion. Performance.

Results. Not just making promises, but making good

on promises. In my Administration, that will be the

standard from the farthest regional office of

government to the highest office in the land.

óPresident Bush

(opening letter to the Presidentís Management Agenda)

ì

ì
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 111

ë02 ë03

Performance

Targets Measures

Objective 6.4 Modernize Federal Student Assistance Programs

M = Million

* Defined as the sum of FSAís collections on defaulted loansóless consolidationsódivided by the

outstanding default portfolio at the end of the previous year.

** System and operational plans to be developed in FY 2002; targets will be set for 2003 and 2004 upon

completion of these plans.

By 2003, Federal Student Assistance will leave the GAO high-risk list and will

not return.

Default recovery rate.* (2001 Baseline=7.8%)

Pell Grants overpayments. (2001 Baseline = 138 Million)

Timeliness of FSA major system reconciliations to the general ledger.

Customer service (measures of service levels of targeted FSA transactions

with public).

Integration of FSA systems.

Leave

GAO High

Risk List

7.6%

110M

TBD**

TBD

TBD

Accomplish

FSA High

Risk Plan

7.2%

138M

Reconciled

within 45

days of the

end of the

calendar

month.

TBD

100% of

2002

integration

targets met;

goals

established

for 2003-

2007.

Performance Measures for Objective 6.4
112 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

Objective 6.5

Achieve budget and

performance integration to

link funding decisions to

results

The Department will seek funding for programs that

work, and will seek to reform or eliminate programs that

do not. The budget execution process will be linked to the

Secretaryís strategic plan to ensure that high priority

activities are funded. The Department will have standard,

integrated budgeting, performance, and accounting

information systems at the program level in order to

provide timely feedback for management that will be

consolidated at the agency and government levels.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 6.5

Align Budget and Planning Processes

360. Prepare and implement instructions that require Principal Offices to include

evidence of program effectiveness in the FY 2004 budget submission to the

Secretary. (This is the same evidence used for GPRA reports.)

361. In the Congressional Justifications, document program effectiveness, propose to

reform or eliminate ineffective programs, and include outcome targets.

362. Combine 2002 Annual Financial Report and 2002 GPRA Performance Report.

363. Align budget execution processes, like preparing spending plans, with Strategic

Plan Action Steps.

Document program effectiveness

364. Develop and implement an

evaluation plan that will produce

rigorous information on the

effectiveness of Department

programs, as well as the effectiveness

of interventions supported by

federal funding streams.

365. Revise program performance

indicators to focus on results

and integrate them into the

Performance Based Data

Management Initiative.
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 113

ë02 ë03

Performance

Targets

Objective 6.5 Budget and Performance Integration

The percentage of Department programs that demonstrate

effectiveness in terms of outcomes, either on performance

indicators or through rigorous evaluations.

The percentage of Department program dollars that are in

programs that demonstrate effectiveness in terms of

outcomes, either on performance indicators or through

rigorous evaluations.

Base

line

+5 PP

Base

line

+10 PP

Base

line

+10 PP

Base

line

+20 PP

Program

Effectiveness

*For more deatiled program information, visit the Departmentís website: www.ed.gov/pubs/annualreport2001

PP = Percentage Points

The baseline year is FY 2001.

Performance Measures for Objective 6.5
114 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

Objective 6.6

Leverage the contributions

of community- and faithbased organizations to

increase the effectiveness of

Department programs

America is richly blessed by the diversity and vigor of

neighborhood heroes: civic, social, charitable and religious

groups. These quiet champions lift peopleís lives in ways that

are beyond governmentís know-how, usually on shoestring

budgets, and they heal our nationís ills one heart and one act

of kindness at a time. The indispensable and transforming

work of charitable service groupsó including faith-based

groupsómust be encouraged. These organizations bring the

spirit of compassion, volunteerism and close connection to

communities to their work. The Department will encourage

their active participation in its programs.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 6.6

Provide technical assistance and outreach and implement novice

applicant procedures

366. Plan and execute the Departmentís technical assistance and outreach summits.

367. Develop partnerships with Historically Black Colleges and Universities to deliver

technical assistance.

368. Host 25 meetings to explain the mission of the Initiative to key leaders of

community- and faith-based organizations.

369. Develop user-friendly materialsóin print and electronicóexplaining grants

process and specific information on grant programs available on web site and in

packets.

370. Train Secretaryís Regional Representatives in concept of level playing field and

equip them to provide technical assistance to community- and faith-based

organizations in surmounting barriers.

371. Communicate to the senior officers, program heads, and general public, the

Secretaryís support for the initiative.

372. Establish a clearinghouse of best practices by community- and faith-based

organizations, featuring members of the Partnership for Family Involvement in

Education.

373. Provide technical assistance on the Migrant Education Even Start Program to

community- and faith-based organizations on an equal basis as traditional

participants and implement novice applicant procedures.

374. Provide technical assistance on Early Reading First to community- and faithbased organizations on an equal basis as traditional participants and implement

novice applicant procedures.
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 115

375. Provide technical assistance on the Even Start Family Literacy Program to

community- and faith-based organizations on an equal basis as traditional

participants.

376. Provide technical assistance on the 21st Century Learning Centers Program to

community- and faith-based organizations on an equal basis as traditional

participants.

377. Provide technical assistance on the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act to

community- and faith-based organizations on an equal basis as traditional

participants.

378. Provide technical assistance on the Upward Bound Program to community- and

faith-based organizations on an equal basis as traditional participants and

implement novice applicant procedures.

Remove barriers to the full participation of community- and faithbased organizations

379. Publish grant announcements in non-traditional publications read by

community- and faith-based organizations.

380. Ensure that grant announcements in the Federal Register clarify that

community- and faith-based organizations are eligible to apply provided that

they meet all statutory and regulatory requirements.

381. Recruit highly qualified peer reviewers for amenable programs (those listed

above) from community- and faith-based organizations and provide appropriate

training.

382. Inform Congress of programs operated by community- and faith-based

organizations that have demonstrated successful educational outcomes.

Performance Measures for Objective 6.6

ë02 ë03

Performance

Targets

Objective 6.6 Leverage Community- and Faith-Based Organizations

The percentage of non-statutory barriers relating to technical

assistance and outreach identified in the Report on Findings

that are removed.

The percentage of appropriate programs in which the novice

applicant procedures are implemented.

50

25

75

50

Community- and

Faith-Based

Organizations
116 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

Objective 6.7

By becoming a high performance,

customer-focused organization,

earn the Presidentís Quality Award

As a result of implementing the Blueprint for

Management Excellence, the Presidentís Management

Agenda, the recommendations of the Culture of

Accountability team and our Strategic Plan, the

Department will be in a position to compete for and win

the Presidentís Quality Award by FY 2004.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 6.7

Earn the Presidentís Quality Award

383. Put structure and process in place to apply for the Award.

Performance Measure for Objective 6.7

* Agencies may not re-apply for five years after winning the award.

Measure FY 2002 FY 2003

Objective 6.7 Presidentís Quality Award

Presidentís Quality Award Apply for the Award

and gain insight.

Put structure and

process in place to

apply for Award.
Appendic
118 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

AAppendix

Opportunities for Collaboration

with Other Federal Agencies

To reach our strategic goals, we must build strong partnerships and alliances with

our counterparts across the federal government. Below is a brief overview of the

highlights of some of our collaborative initiatives with partnering agencies.

Creating a Culture of Achievement

We work closely with the Department of the Treasury to expand parental options

in education. For example, we collaborate with Treasury to promote Coverdell

Education Savings Accounts and to develop the proposed education tax credit for

children trapped in failing schools.

Improving Student Achievement

We will continue to work closely with the Department of Health and Human

Services to improve educational services to preschool children, especially those from

underserved populations. We participate with HHS in a joint task force to translate

research on early cognitive development and pre-literacy into action through federal

preschool programs. Additionally, we participated with the Child Development and

Behavior Branch of the National Institutes of Health in a summit on early childhood

cognitive development.

We will continue to partner with the National Science Foundation to promote

improved instruction in mathematics and science, and to coordinate our professional

development programs for teachers. NSF also cooperates with us on research and

international assessments related to mathematics and science.

Education has worked with NASA to emphasize the importance of math and

science education and the need to work more closely with our neighbors around the

world by holding live discussions between elementary school students and astronauts

aboard the International Space Station.
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 119

Education will continue to work with the Department of Defense Education

Activities team, which will better inform the Pentagon and DOD schools in serving as

a laboratory for the Presidentís education

initiatives.

We partner with the Department of

Interiorís Bureau of Indian Affairs to

promote equitable access to high quality,

standards-driven education for all American

Indian and Alaska Native students.

Additionally, we cooperate in an interagency

agreement with the Departments of Health

and Human Services and Labor to improve

collaboration with Indian tribes.

Developing Safe Schools

and Strong Character

Our Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Program in our Office of

Elementary and Secondary Education works in partnership with the Departments of

Justice and Health and Human Services to promote drug and alcohol education

programs and information dissemination to schools and private organizations. We

coordinate closely with the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Education works closely with the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention Programs to share innovative ideas and promote prevention strategies and

programs.

Transforming Education into an Evidence-Based Field

The Department of Educationís Office of Educational Research and Improvement

collaborates with other federal research agencies, such as the National Science

Foundation and the National Institute for Child Health and Development, to support

and disseminate high quality research on a number of topics, including reading

comprehensive and science education.

Enhancing the Quality of and Access to

Postsecondary and Adult Education

The Department will continue to collaborate with several federal agencies,

including Labor, on issues including adult literacy, career awareness, access to quality

postsecondary education, and school completion among students from diverse ethnic

and socioeconomic backgrounds. For example, we partner with the U.S. Department
120 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

of Transportation to create career awareness in aviation at the elementary and

secondary school levels and to improve skills in math, science, technology, and

computer literacy.

Establishing Management Excellence

The Department will continue to work closely with the Office of Management

and Budget, the General Account Office, and the Office of Personnel

Management to address longstanding management challenges and establish

management excellence.

To improve strategic management of the Departmentís human resources, we

work with the Office of Personnel Management to develop core competencies for

our workforce, especially those in the Senior Executive Service. The Department

participates in forums with the National Academy of Public Administration and

the Human Resources Consortium on issues such as work force planning, human

capital management, and results-based performance planning.

Education participates in electronic government initiatives with the Federal CIO

Council to better direct the strategic management of federal information

technology resources and to modernize our

information technology resources. We work with the

Office of Federal Procurement Policy and the Small

Business Administration to maximize the use of

performance-based requirements in financial

management, research and analysis, and information

dissemination.

The Office of Student Financial Assistance

(OSFA) conducts data matches to ensure that only

eligible students receive financial aid. Agencies with

whom the Department matches applicant

information include the Selective Service System, the

Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Internal

Revenue Service, and the Department of Justice. In

tracking defaulters on student loans, OSFA works

with a wide range of federal agencies including the

Social Security Administration, the U.S. Postal

Service, and the Departments of Defense, Justice,

Housing and Urban Development, Treasury, and

Health and Human Services.
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 121

The Department of Education and each of its program offices maintains a close

relationship with state and local educational agencies. The work of the Department

would not be possible without the advice and collaboration of educators at the state

and local levels. Secretary Paige has instituted a series of meetings with chief state

school officers to build partnerships for the implementation of ìNo Child Left

Behindî and other Departmental priorities. The Secretaryís Regional Representatives

maintain communication with state and local partners on these priorities. The highly

successful Improving Americaís Schools regional conferences provide an opportunity

for Department outreach to and dialogue with education practitioners at all levels in

the field of education.

The Department participates as part of the Center for Faith-Based and

Community Initiatives that includes the departments of Health and Human Services,

Justice, Housing and Urban Development and Labor and works closely with the

White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives to improve student

achievement and promote strong character and citizenship among our nationís youth.
122 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

BAppendix

Program to Objective Crosswalk
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 123

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

Education for the Disadvantaged

Basic GrantsConcentration GrantsTargeted GrantsEducation Finance Incentive GrantsReading First State GrantsEarly Reading FirstEven StartLiteracy Through School LibrariesMigrantNeglected and DelinquentComprehensive School ReformEvaluationClose-up FellowshipsAdvanced PlacementDropout Prevention ProgramsMigrant - High School Equivalency ProgramCollege Assistance Migrant Program

Impact Aid

Basic Support PaymentsPayments for Children with DisabilitiesFacilities MaintenanceConstructionPayments for Federal Property

School Improvement Programs

Improving Teacher Quality State GrantsSchool LeadershipAdvanced CredentialingEarly Childhood Educator Professional DevelopmentMathematics and Science PartnershipsTroops-to-TeachersTransition to TeachingNational Writing Project

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

7,172,9711,365,0311,018,499

793,499705,000

75,000

250,000

12,500

396,000

48,000

235,000

8,9001,500

22,00010,00023,00015,000

982,500

50,000

8,000

48,00055,000

1,700,000

10,00010,00015,00012,50018,00035,00014,000

7,175,9011,365,0312,018,499

793,499805,000

75,000

200,000

12,500

396,000

48,000

235,000

8,900

0

22,000

0

23,00015,000

982,500

50,000

8,000

45,00055,000

1,700,000

00

15,00012,50020,00039,400

0

xxxxxx

xxxx

xx

xxxxxxx

FY 2002

Program to Objective Crosswalk

Office/Program Objectives

2003

Presidentís

Budget

2002

Appropriation

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 3.2 4.1 4.2 5.1 5.2 5.3 

Cat.

(in thousands

of dollars)

xxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxx

xxxxx

x

x x

xxx
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 124 Office of Elementary and Secondary Education School Improvement Programs Civic Education - We the People

Civic Education - Cooperative Education ExchangeTeaching of Traditional American HistoryEducational Technology State GrantsReady-to-Learn TelevisionPreparing Tomorrowís Teachers to Use Technology21st Century Community Learning CentersState Grants for Innovative ProgramsCharter School GrantsCredit Enhancement for Charter School FacilitiesVoluntary Public School ChoiceMagnet School AssistanceChoice Demonstration FundFIPSE - Programs of National SignificanceFIPSE - Character EducationFIPSE - Reading is Fundamental/Inexpensive

Book Distribution

Elementary and Secondary School CounselingSmaller Learning CommunitiesJavits Gifted and Talented Learning CommunitiesStar SchoolsReady to TeachForeign Language AssistancePhysical Education for ProgressCommunity Technology CentersExchanges with Historic Whaling and Trading PartnersArts in EducationParental Assistance Information CentersWomenís Educational EquitySafe and Drug-Free Schools State GrantsNational Programs - Federal Activities and EvaluationProject SERVNational Coordinator ProgramState Grants for Community Service

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

16,20010,800

100,000700,500

22,00062,500

1,000,000

100,000200,000

0

25,000

110,000

0

383,955

25,00024,00032,500

142,189

11,25027,52012,00014,00050,00032,475

5,000

30,00040,000

3,000

142,017134,733

0

37,50050,000

00

50,000

700,500

22,000

0

1,000,000

100,000200,000100,000

25,000

110,000

50,00035,00025,00024,000

000000000000

142,017145,000

10,00017,233

0

xxx

xxxx

FY 2002

Program to Objective Crosswalk

Office/Program Objectives

2003

Presidentís

Budget

2002

Appropriation

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 3.2 4.1 4.2 5.1 5.2 5.3 

Cat.

(in thousands

of dollars)

xxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxx

xxxxxxx

x

x

xxxx
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 125

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

School Improvement Programs

Alcohol Abuse ReductionMentoring ProgramState Assessments and Enhanced InstrumentsEducation for Homeless Children and YouthEducation for Native HawaiiansAlaska Native Education EquityTraining and Advisory ServicesRural Educaiton

Indian Education

Grants to Local Education AgenciesSpecial Programs for Indian ChildrenNational Activities

Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students

English Language Acquisition

Language Acquisistion State Grants

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

Special Education

Grants to StatesPreschool GrantsGrants for Infants and FamiliesNational Activities - State ImprovementResearch and InnovationTechnical Assistance and DisseminationPersonnel PreparationParent Information CentersTechnology and Media Services

Rehabilitation Services and Disability Research

Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to StatesVocational Rehabilitation Grants for IndiansVocational Rehabilitation Incentive Grants

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

MM

D

25,00017,500

387,000

50,00030,50024,000

7,334

162,500

97,13320,000

3,235

665,000

2,456,533

390,000417,000

51,70078,38053,48190,00026,00037,710

2,455,385

25,998

0

00

387,000

50,00018,30014,200

7,334

0

97,13320,000

5,235

665,000

3,456,533

390,000437,000

51,70078,38053,48190,00026,00032,710

2,589,521

26,80430,000

xxx

xx

xxxx

FY 2002

Program to Objective Crosswalk

Office/Program Objectives

2003

Presidentís

Budget

2002

Appropriation

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 3.2 4.1 4.2 5.1 5.2 5

Cat.

(in thousands

of dollars)

xxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxxxxxx

xxx

x

xxx

x
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 126 Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Client Assistance State Grants Training

Demonstration and Training ProgramsMigrant and Seasonal FarmworkersRecreational ProgramsProtection and Advocacy of Individual RightsProjects with IndustrySupported Employment State GrantsIndependent Living State GrantsIndependent Living CentersIndependent Living Services for Blind IndividualsProgram ImprovementEvaluationHelen Keller National Center for Deaf-Blind Youth

and Adults

National Institute on Disability and

Rehabilitaiton Research

Assistive TechnologyAccess to Telework Fund

American Printing House for the Blind

American Printing House for the Blind

National Technical Institute for the Deaf

OperationsConstructionEndowment

Gallaudet University

OperationsEndowment

Office of Vocational and Adult Education

Vocational and Adult Education

State GrantsNational Programs

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

11,89739,62921,238

2,3502,596

15,20022,07138,15222,29662,50025,000

900

1,0008,717

110,000

60,88420,00014,00050,000

5,376

0

96,938

0

389,000

12,000

11,89742,62917,492

00

15,200

00

22,29669,50025,000

900

1,0008,717

110,000

30,884

0

14,00049,414

1,6001,000

93,446

1,000

389,000

12,000

xxx

FY 2002

Program to Objective Crosswalk

Office/Program Objectives

2003

Presidentís

Budget

2002

Appropriation

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 3.2 4.1 4.2 5.1 5.2 5.3 

Cat.

(in thousands

of dollars)

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

x

xx

xxxx

xxx

xxxxxx
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 127

Office of Vocational and Adult Education

Vocational and Adult Education

Occupational and Employment InformationTribally Controlled Postsecondary Vocational and

Technical Institutions

Tech-Prep Education State GrantsTech-Prep DemonstrationAdult Education State GrantsNational Institute for LiteracyNational Leadership ActivitiesState Grants for Incarcerated Youth OffendersLiteracy Programs for Prisoners

Office of Student Financial Assistance Programs

Student Financial Assistance

Federal Pell GrantsFederal Supplemental Educational

Opportunity Grants

Federal Work-StudyFederal Perkins Loans - Capital ContributionsFederal Perkins Loans - Loan CancellationsLeveraging Educational Assistance PartnershipsLoan Forgiveness for Child Care Providers

Federal Family Education Loans Liquidating

Family Education Loans

Federal Family Education Loan Program

Loan Subsidies

Federal Direct Student Loan Program

Loan Subsidies

Student Aid Administration

Salaries and Expenses (primarily OSFA)

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

MMM

D

9,5006,500

108,000

5,000

575,000

6,5609,500

17,000

5,000

10,314,000

725,000

1,011,000

100,000

67,50067,000

1,000

(744,810)

3,781,230

(731,300)

887,484

0

6,500

108,000

0

575,000

6,6179,500

00

10,863,000

725,000

1,011,000

100,000

67,500

0

1,000

(625,162)

4,124,260

(613,212)

936,386

x

FY 2002

Program to Objective Crosswalk

Office/Program Objectives

2003

Presidentís

Budget

2002

Appropriation

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 3.2 4.1 4.2 5.1 5.2 5.3 

Cat.

(in thousands

of dollars)

xxx

x

x x

xxxxxxxxxxxx

x

xxxxxxxxxx
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 128 Office of Postsecondary Education Higher Education Strengthening Institutions

Strenghtening Tribally Controlled Colleges

and Universities

Strenghtening Alaska Native and Native HawaiianServing Institutions

Strengthening HBCUísStrengthening Historically Black Graduate InstitutionsMinority Science and Engineering ImprovementDeveloping Hispanic-Serving InstitutionsInternational Education and Foreign Language

Studies - Domestic Programs

Overseas ProgramsInstitute for International Public PolicyFund for the Improvement of Postsecondary EducationDemo. Projects to Ensure Quality Higher Ed. for

Students with Disabilities

Interest Subsidy GrantsFederal TRIO ProgramsGaining Early Awareness and Readiness for

Undergraduate Programs

Byrd Honors ScholarshipsJavits FellowshipsGraduate Assistance in Areas of National NeedThurgood Marshall Legal Educational Opportunity

Program

B.J. Stupak Olympic ScholarshipsChild Care Access Means Parents in SchoolsTeacher Quality EnhancementGPRA Data/HEA Program EvaluationUnderground Railroad Program

Howard University

Howard University HospitalGeneral Support

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

73,62517,500

6,500

206,000

49,000

8,500

86,00085,20011,800

1,500

180,922

7,0005,000

802,500285,000

41,00110,00031,000

4,0001,000

25,00090,000

1,0002,000

30,374

207,100

76,62518,130

6,734

213,415

50,764

8,500

89,09688,00013,000

1,500

39,138

0

3,000

802,500285,000

41,00110,00031,000

00

15,00090,000

1,000

0

30,374

207,100

x

FY 2002

Program to Objective Crosswalk

Office/Program Objectives

2003

Presidentís

Budget

2002

Appropriation

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 3.2 4.1 4.2 5.1 5.2 5.3 

Cat.

(in thousands

of dollars)

xx

xxx

x

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxx
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 129

Office of Postsecondary Education

Higher Education Facilities Loans Liquidating

Higher Education Facilities Loans

College Housing and Academic Facilities Loans Liquidating

College Housing and Academic Facilities Loans

College Housing and Academic Facilities Loans Program

Federal Administration

Historically Black College and University CapitalFinancing Program

Federal Administration

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

Education Research, Statistics, and Assessment

Research and DisseminationRegional Education LaboratoriesStatisticsNational AssessmentNational Assessment Governing BoardEisenhower Regional Mathematics and Science

 Education Consortia

Regional Technology in Education ConsortiaComprehensive Regional Assistance Centers

Office for Civil Rights

Office for Civil Rights

Salaries and Expenses

Office of the Inspector General

Office of the Inspector General

Salaries and Expenses

Multiple Offices

Program Administration

Salaries and Expenses

MM

DDDDDDDDDDDDD

(1,243)

4,553

762208

121,817

67,50085,000

107,500

4,053

15,00010,00028,00079,93438,720

364,761

(1,287)

4,371

787211

175,000

67,50095,00090,825

4,598

000

89,71043,722

423,291

xx

xxxxx

FY 2002

Program to Objective Crosswalk

Office/Program Objectives

2003

Presidentís

Budget

2002

Appropriation

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 3.2 4.1 4.2 5.1 5.2 5.3 

Cat.

(in thousands

of dollars)

x x

xx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxx
130 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

C Appendix

Data Quality Standards

These draft data quality standards are intended to assist ED managers as they

collect, analyze, and report data about Federal education programs and the programsí

performance. Although no single document can anticipate the entire range of data

uses, we designed these standards to have broad applicability.

Program managers can use the standards as a tool when monitoring grantees and

evaluating the quality of the reported data and preparing submissions for the GPRA

annual report.

To fully evaluate the quality of program data, data managers must ask themselves:

 Have I selected the appropriate measures? (Standard 1: Validity)

 Am I collecting sound data on those measures? (Standards 2 through 5: Accurate

Description, Editing, and Calculation)

 Am I reporting the data in a timely fashion (Standard 6: Timeliness)

 Am I reporting the measures accurately? (Standard 7: Reporting)

 Am I minimizing respondent burden in collecting data? (Standard 8: Burden

Reduction)

These standards are an attempt to provide criteria against which to evaluate these

aspects of program DQ. Not every example or item on the checklist is relevant to

every indicator, or appropriate for every program.

How the Standards are Used within ED

Programs systematically review the quality of their data collection systems.

Program managers use these standards to review performance indicators for their

program.

Program managers examine the GPRA indicators and data for their programs to

determine their accuracy and validity, and to develop plans for their improvement. In

addition, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) independently monitors the reliability

of its data quality (DQ) in high-priority areas.
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 131

Managers attest to the reliability and validity of their performance measures or

submit plans for data improvement. Program managers and division directors, assert

that they are aware of any DQ limitations and concur with the recommendations

and plans for improvement.

How this Document Is Structured

The document consists of eight standards for judging program performance DQ:

validity, accurate description, accurate counts, editing, calculation, timeliness,

reporting, and burden reduction. Associated with each standard are definitions,

examples, and possible checks for application of that standard.

The DQ checklist for each standard consists of a series of questions that both

primary data providers and secondary data managers should ask themselves as they

evaluate the quality of the data. A primary data provider is a person or organization

who carries out all or part of the study design, data collection, data processing, and

initial reporting. A secondary data manager is someone who sponsors or requests a

primary data collection or who uses data from the reports for other purposes. Not

every item on the DQ checklist might be appropriate for every study; however, each

represents a step that can be taken to ensure the quality of program data.
132 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

 Standard 1: Validity

Validity: Data align with goals. Data are measuring (a) what is most important and

(b) the same constructs as the goals. Goals, objectives, indicators, and measures all align.

Examples Meeting the Standard

 The performance indicators measured the goal or objective of interest.

 The data ìmatchedî the performance indicator because they measured the same

phenomena.

 The indicators and data were a useful guide to policy decisionmaking.

Examples Failing the Standard

 The program objective did not have a realistic, measurable performance indicator.

 The measures assessed a different phenomenon than the indicator. (E.g., Safe

environment: vandalism; Japanese teachers verses American teachers)

 The indicators provided data about aspects of the program that were unrelated to

policy questions.

Question-by-question Explanations

1. Do the objective, indicator, and data all describe the same phenomena of

interest, and do they all align?

You will want to measure exactly what your objective describes. For example, if

your objective is to improve school safety, what you mean by ìsafety?î Do you

mean that kids feel safe or that there are fewer crimes perpetrated? Do you mean

violent crimes or any crimes including vandalism? Counting the number of

vandalism incidents alone probably is not the meaning of school safety, as

described in your objective.

2. Do the indicators, and data address the core goals of the program?

If you had to take away every part of your program but one, what would it be?

Chances are this is your defining strategy and, as such, should be what is measured

first and foremost. Also, if you have multiple objectives, such as safe and drug free

schools, make sure you measure BOTH aspects (I.e., safe AND drug-free).

Otherwise, do not bother writing them into your goal; if they are not worth

measuring, they are not worth being a part of your objectives.

3. Do the indicators, cover aspects of the program that are useful and important

for policy decisionmaking?

If you will not USE the data, do not waste everyoneís time collecting that data. If

you do, you are asking for low quality data because the collectors will wonder why

they should work hard to make it right when no one will even notice.
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 133

4. Are the instruments (e.g. surveys used to collect the data) statistically reliable

and valid?

Is your survey measuring what you think it is measuring? A good example of a

mismatch would be a survey of bad habits. If you asked people how often they

leave dishes in the sink, sit endlessly in front of the television, and eat fast food

every meal, you probably would not get accurate answers. You would get an

accurate estimate of social desirability, the extent to which people saw these

behaviors as undesirable and therefore denied practicing them. So, your survey

was not measuring what you might have thought it was measuring. If your

measuring tools are not valid, obviously your results will not be either.

5. Is a realistic plan in place to improve data validity and collection (especially

to resolve any mismatches addressed in question # 1)?

Data can always be improved, and often, by making small systems changes, the

quality of the data can improve significantly. It may or may not be true for you,

but make sure to set aside time to ask that question.

 Standard 2: Accurate Definitions

Accurate definitions: Definitions are consistent. All data providers and users are

using the same, agreed-upon definitions for all terms.

Examples Meeting the Standard

 A page of definitions was given to all data collectors that clearly defined each term

on the data collection sheets. For example, the sheet defined ìprogram

participantsî as people who came more than half the time (dosage) and for whom

their first and last visits were at least 5 weeks apart (duration).

 Data sent from one grantee were for the same time period as data from another

grantee.

 Stakeholders helped to develop the reporting forms and definitions pages.

Examples Failing the Standard

 Each data provider used her/his stateís definition of who was or was not limited

English proficient, instead of using the programís given definition.

 Grantees were not given opportunities to give feedback on the definitions that

they used.
134 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

Question-by-question Explanations

1. Have clear written definitions of term (including exclusions/inclusions) been

communicated to data providers?

Often terms that seem self-explanatory are not. A simple example is the word

ìparticipants.î Almost all programs collect data on who their participants were,

e.g., demographic information. But is everyone defining participants in the same

way? If you have an eight week program and someone only comes the every other

week, is she a participant? What if someone came the first four weeks then never

again? If you do not clearly define the population, the data providers will use their

own definitions, which may be different for every provider. Why is that a concern?

One good reason is that your program may be working, but the data does not show

it! In the above example, it might be that someone who attends all eight weeks

shows significant improvement, but anyone who attends less shows little or no

improvement. If you average all of these people together, the improvement

disappears in the mix! So, clearly define who you want to be included in the

population on which you are collecting information.

2. Do reporting forms provide spaces for data providers to report deviations

from definitions and uses of estimations at the same time they provide the

data?

No matter how detailed and comprehensive your definitions and instructions, you

will not be able to anticipate every definitional variation. That is why it is critical to

leave a space for data providers to write in any deviations. If enough providers

used the same variations, you may consider changing your reporting format.

3. Have you solicited feedback from data providers about data collection issues

and possible problems?

Sometimes data providers have good reasons for collecting data one way over

another, for example, state mandates that define terms for them or old systems that

can only handle data the same way. Before you request data, it is useful to ask your

future data providers in what form they already collect the data, and if they do not,

in what form it would be easiest or most beneficial for them to collect it.

4. Have definitions been communicated in sufficient time for data providers to

prepare their system to properly implement them?

Data providers often started collecting data long before the final reporting forms

are released. They set up computer and management systems around data

collection and often these systems are difficult and costly to change. To the extent

possible, keep data providers involved and informed about any possible data

requests or definitional changes. For example, if a proposed change to the

authorizing legislation is in Congress, keep them updated on the progress and the

potential changes it could have.
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 135

5. Have respondents been involved in setting definitions for key terms?

This question is along the same lines as question #2 and simply points to the

importance of involving those people who will be filling out your forms in the

development of those forms. The best way to test your forms is to pilot test them.

Ask a few of your grantees to try to complete the forms with you (or preferably

an unbiased third party) there, so you can listen and understand each step of the

process and any problems that come about. Do not ask them to try to use the

forms and then get back to you. In that situation, they may have problems that

cause a lot of frustration, but that they eventually figure out and therefore may

not report as problems.

 Standard 3: Accurate Counts

Accurate counts: Counts are correct. The raw data are an accurate reflection or

estimate of reality.

Examples Meeting the Standard

 Each data point represented one individual with no double-counts.

 The program accurately reported that 15 different people participated in each of

the 10 classes for a total of 150 unique participants.

 Samples were of sufficient size to generalize to the population.

 Since the data changed by more than 10%, two administrators and one contractor

reviewed the data for accuracy.

 For a survey, a sub-sample of the non-respondents was completed to determine

(a) whether their answers differed significantly from non-respondents and (b) why

they did not answer the survey.

Examples Failing the Standard

 Achievement tests, used as outcome measures, were given to all participants

except the LEP students even though they represented 50% of participants.

 In a survey, 90% of the respondents were high-income families when only 50% of

the surveys sent out went to these families. No one interviewed a sub-sample of

low-income families who were sent the survey but did not reply.

 Estimates were used to fill in the remaining 20% of the raw data.

Question-by-question Explanations

1. Have entities for which counts have change more than 10% since the

previous report been double-checked?

If a school has the highest test scores in the state for five years, and then that

school drops to the lowest scoring school in the state, you would take a second
136 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

look at the data, right? Why? Because, in general, change takes time. Thatís why

we recommended double-checking the accuracy of your data if it jumps by more

than 10% in either direction.

2. Have estimates been used for no more then 10% of the phenomena counted,

and are estimates clearly differentiated from actual counts?

In some cases we find that we do not have all the data that we need. For example,

we may get surveys back where people filled out all but one question. We want to

use their data, but for various statistical reasons, we need a complete survey.

Rather than throw that survey out, some analysts will choose to estimate the

missing number based, for example, on that personís other responses. This is an

accepted procedure, but we recommend that you do it for no more than 10% of

your data. If you do it for more than 10%, you may be creating a self-fulfilling

prophesy of sorts. That is, you are estimating so much of your data that you are

creating the dataóand therefore your resultsóthrough that estimation process.

3. Are independent under and over-count checks in place?

Built-in over and under count checks are a simple, effective, and efficient way to

ensure the accuracy of your data. If you are collecting data by computer, simply

build in validity checks. For example, if in one part of the forms you ask for

individual class attendance totals and in other you ask for the aggregate number,

then you could build in a check that makes sure that the sum of the classes equals

the number entered and gives an error message to the enterer if it does not. If you

are using paper reporting systems, simply outline a similar checking procedure for

the data administrators. Ideally, you also want an independent check of the data;

have someone outside the project go through the same procedure that the

administrator would go through.

4. Have counts been tallied at least twice and totals agree?

This question relates to question #3 and reiterates the importance of doublechecking counts, preferably at every step in the data chain (e.g., data collectors,

contractors, and administrators).

5. Have samples been drawn randomly (otherwise specified) and from the most

up-to-date population lists?

Often the ideal sample is the random sample, where everyone in the defined

population has an equal chance of being selected into the sample. Think of it as a

lottery. For example, letís say that a teacher has a project for only five students but

there are thirty in her class. To make the process fair, she gathers all the studentsí

names, puts them in a hat, and selects five students. Every student had an equal

chance of being selected. In studies, this sampling method is usually ideal because

you will a range of people in your sample. If the teacher had asked for volunteers,

she would have gotten students who all had something in common: they were
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 137

more likely to volunteer. It may be impossible for you to select samples randomly.

In these cases, take with experts on how to do stratified, matched, or other

sampling methods that best meet your goals.

6. Have weights been properly applied and reported?

Letís say that a teacher has three volunteers for a special and fun project that

requires only one person. One of those students got to do a fun project yesterday,

while a second got to done one last week. The third has not done a fun project in

several weeks, so she picks her. The teacher was implicitly applying weights to her

decision, the greatest weight for the longest period of time. Statisticians have

other reasons for applying weights, often because a group is over or under

sampled. For example, if in a study of schools, too many principals replied

proportional to the number of teachers, we may weight the teachers answers more

heavily to balance out the data to match the existing proportion (I.e., there are

more teachers than principals).

7. Have non-responses or data gaps been followed up?

If people did not complete your data request or survey, it may be extremely useful

for you to find out why. Often it is because the survey was too confusing,

complicated, or had some other problem that made it prohibitive to complete. If

you find out what the problems are, you can fix them. Another good reason to

track down non-respondents is because they may be different from your

respondents in important ways. If they are, you have a biased sample; your results

are questionable; and you may be missing information that will help you to more

successfully implement your program.

 Standard 4: Editing

Editing: Data are clean. The data collected from sources is cleaned, edited, and

stored accurately.

Examples Meeting the Standard

 After merging all of the data into one data file, frequency distributions were

calculated for every variable. These distributions were reviewed to make sure that

all values were in the expected ranges (e.g., if the answer scale ranges from 1-7,

there should be no ì12îs). One variable was identified as incorrect and examined.

It was found that there was an extra space in this file, which was removed.

 Data elements were hand-entered from original sources and randomly checked by

two administrators for accuracy.

 A print out of the data file was made so that the administrators could scan the

columns and make sure that there were no obvious problems with the integration

of the data sets from all sources.
138 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

Examples Failing the Standard

 Data are entered into a database but no checks, such as frequency distributions,

were made. When analyses were performed, the results did not make sense. When

forced to go back to the data set, the analysts found multiple entries were out of

range.

 The total of the percentages of the aggregated sets did not sum to 100%.

 Grantee data was reviewed for accurate counts then merged into one large data

file. No review of the aggregate file was made.

Question-by-question Explanations

1. Have you “eyeballed” the data (e.g. looked at frequency distributions to make

sure data are in proper range?

You know that the counts from each of your data sources are correct, so you

merge all the individual files into one large master data file. In that merging

process, something may have, and often does, go wrong. If data from one of the

sources is entered wrong (e.g., a common occurrence is an extra space shifting the

data one space to the right), all of your results will be incorrect. There are two

easy ways to check your data: 1. Print out the data file. Scan it for any uneven

columns. Randomly check to make sure that the numbers are all in the appropriate

range (e.g., if response options ranged from 1-7, there should not be any numbers

above 7 or below 1). 2. Do what are called frequency distributions. These

distributions show all the answers clustered together and make it easy to tell

whether there are any numbers out of the possible range. If a contractor is

handling your data, ask to see and verify the data set using frequency distributions.

2. Have you discussed large changes or unusual findings with the primary data

providers to see if they might be due to editing errors?

Similarly to Standard #3, always keep an eye out for unusual findings. Sometimes

findings really are unusual, but always double check your data set first.

3. Have data errors been traced back to their original source and mistakes

corrected?

When you do find a data error, and everyone does, make sure you find out where

it came from. For example, it may be that certain types of data files always cause

the same problems. By identifying these problems, you can address them and

possibly change your system so they do not happen again.

4. Has the data been collected electronically with checks?

Just like you can build in checks to your electronic grantee data collection, you can

also build in checks to your overall database. For example, when disaggregating

data, always check to make sure that those numbers, when aggregated, match the

aggregated numbers in your database.
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 139

5. Has an electronic program been used to clean or flag problems with the data?

This question builds on #4. To the extent possible, try to build in data editing

checks. If you can program checks into the software, it will mean that no one will

forget to make that second check.

 Standard 5: Calculation

Calculation: The math is correct. The data are manipulated and analyzed correctly,

and the hypotheses are tested correctly.

Examples Meeting the Standard

 The data administrator requested that the contractor give a detailed description of

how they coded and dealt with missing data in the creation of each new variable

for analysis. The administrator requested frequency distributions of all new

variables created.

 Measured amounts (numbers, percentages, ratios, etc.) were accurately computed

using the right numbers and formulas.

 Since the data were not independent, the analyst used the appropriate statistical

tests for non-independent data.

Examples Failing the Standard

 The increase from 3% to 13% was reported as a ì10 percent increaseî rather than

an increase of 10 percentage points.

 Non-responses (blanks in the data set) were included in the ìresponded yesî

category because the data analyst did not account for the default method of

dealing with missing values in the statistical software she was using.

 The significance level (e.g., .05) was not modified (i.e., made smaller) when the

analyst did multiple t-tests using the same variables and data.

Question-by-question Explanations

1. Are missing data procedures applied correctly?

Statistical software programs have different default ways to deal with missing data.

Sometimes they automatically exclude missing values from your analysis, but

sometimes they require you to specify that the missing values should be removed.

In fact, you may find that missing values are actually included as actual values. This

often happens when recoding or creating new variables. For example, letís say that

a question on a survey asks how many times in the last seven days the respondent

read a newspaper. There are five answer choices: 1= none, 2= one day, 3=two

days, 4=two to six days, and 5= everyday. You may want to recode this variable to

be dichotomous where 1= did not read the paper and 2= did read the paper.
140 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

Respondents will have selected a number, 1 through 5, or they may have skipped

this question (missing data). To recode this variable, a programmer will instruct

the software to make all the respondents who answered 1, stay a ì1î and all the

respondents who answered anything other than 1 to be a ì2,î In this way, all the

missing data may become a ì2;î all the people who skipped this question are now

people who read the paper! What does all this mean? It is important to be

mindful that missing data may cause problems. Be aware of how all variables are

coded and recoded. Ask for frequency distributions of all new variables and ask

how missing values were handled.

2. Have the “+” and “-” confidence intervals been reported for sample data?

Confidence intervals are really error rates. They show that, with 95% probability,

the accurate value is in this range. For example, letís say that in a survey candidate

X got 45% approval and candidate Y got 47% approval, BUT the confidence

interval for the survey was 4%. In this case, the candidates are EQUAL. Since

candidate Xís real value ranges from 43 to 47% and Yís from 45 to 49%, there is

not a statistically significant difference between the candidatesí approval ratings.

3. Did you double-checked that the right formulae were used and that variable

coding was done and reported correctly (e.g., through frequency

distributions)?

If youíre not a statistician, it never hurts to have one check over the analysis plan

that you intend to use or to double-check the analysis or statistical program. There

are many assumptions in statistical testing (e.g., assumptions of heteroscedasticity

or independence) that must be addressed if violated.

4. For sample data, has the data analysis plan been reviewed by outside experts

to ensure that appropriate formulae and procedures are applied?

Again, having outside experts review your analysis plan and performance can only

enhance your projectís quality. Sample data raises additional statistical concerns

and a statistician will be able to account for the various issues (e.g., weights).

 Standard 6: Timeliness

Timeliness: The data are recent. The data are recent enough to address current

policy concerns and to be used to improve the program.

Examples Meeting the Standard

 Data were reported in time to inform policy action.

 Data were collected and reports were forwarded as soon as possible after the close

of the data collection period.

 Automated electronic processes were used to speed data collection, analysis, and

reporting.
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 141

Examples Failing the Standard

 Data from 1997 were used to determine whether or not programs met their 2002

targets.

 Data were available only years after-the-fact.

 Paper records were copied out by hand.

Question-by-question Explanations

1. Are data relevant to the policy period of interest? That is, are the data recent

and timely? Is the period in which the data was collected similar to the period

for which policy decisions are to be made?

Data are meaningful to the extent that they are relevant to the time period for

which decisions are being made. For example, if our latest national literacy data

come from 1992, how able are we to assess accurately and made decisions about

literacy policy with that data in 2002, ten years later? Literacy data may have

changed significantly over that time and the policy decisions made off of old data

may be misguided. In some areas, timeliness will be a greater concern than in

others. For example, in studying technology, an area that changes rapidly, recent

data are more important than in areas such as school construction, where changes

usually evolve over years in steady trends.

2. Is a regularized schedule of data collections in place to meet policy

information needs?

When is the data most useful? This question can be asked for any of the data

users. For example, if the schools use your data to set curriculum, then getting that

data out to schools by August may be important. Think about when your data

collection should optimally occur and then schedule it appropriately. Think about

all the different users of your data, too, and consider having different data

collection and release cycles for each.

3. Are improvements to data systems in place so that data may be reported as

soon as possible after collection?

The focus is always on moving up the data quality continuum: how can we collect

and use data more efficiently and effectively? The best time to think about

improvements is while you are going through the process. Have your data

collectors keep running notes, e.g., on the intranet, about how to improve the

systems. Give stakeholders rewards for suggesting improvements.

4. Are the data entered and processed in electronic machine-readable form?

Computer-accessible data come up here again because electronic data collection

usually means a faster turn-around time.
142 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

5. Are respondents involved in setting time schedules?

Following up on question #2, try to involve the stakeholders, those who use your

data and those who collect it in the first place in data scheduling decisions. If they

use the data, they will be more interested in increasing the quality of that data. So,

if we can make the data more useful for them, it benefits everyone to do so.

6. Are review processes designed to ensure that findings are made public in a

timely fashion?

Data help to identify successes (to replicate) and problems (to fix before it is too

late). The release of data to the public, which often motivates change, may be a

central part of improving your program and getting the resources you need.

7. Are time schedules for providing data enforced with clear and frequent

reminders?

Data collection is a process that takes time and often cannot be accomplished

after-the-fact. Even if you give out your data collection forms in the beginning of

the year, do not expect that people are reviewing the forms periodically to make

sure they are tracking all the information that you need. Keep your data collectors

informed and reminded of data requirements and their importance as well as

collection timeliness. Reminders throughout the funding cycle will only serve to

refocus everyone on the importance of high-quality data.

 Standard 7: Reporting

Reporting: Full disclosure is made. Since data quality is a continuum, all data

should be reported with notes about their quality and limitations.

Examples Meeting the Standard

 For each figure or chart in the report, there was a box of limitations that described

the limitations of the data presented.

 The details of the surveyís sampling procedure was presented in the appendix of

the report.

 Every table was labeled with source, time frame, error rates and cell sizes.

Examples Failing the Standard

 It was difficult to tell which years the charts covered and from where the data

came.

 Confidence intervals were omitted as extraneous when sample data was presented.

 States each defined ìparticipantsî differently, but were all presented together

without any notes about the different definitions.
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 143

Question-by-question Explanations

1. Are the data quality problems described in detail with suggestions for

improvement?

If you were describing your results to a researcher in the field, how would you

describe them? What caveats would you attach to the results? Was the sample on

the small side? Was the test slightly different in year 1 and year 2? Whatever the

potential issues with your data, you will want to report them wherever your data

appear. Also, for the sake of improving your data, think about how those

limitations could be addressed in revised future data collections.

2. Are data quality problems reported together with the findings?

Building on the first question, this question asks you to make sure to attach the

data limitations to every presentation of the results. If a table from your study is

used in another report, be sure to put all of the data quality information in a

footnote or on the table.

3. Are reports designed for and effectively disseminated to intended users and

used for program improvement?

We collect data so we can USE it. Did you get the data out to all of the potential

users? For example, likely the people who collected the data would benefit from a

summary comparing them to others who collected similar data.

4. Are the data collection method, year, and sample size clearly stated?

Whenever data are presented, make sure to include how it was collected, the year it

was collected (and, of course, the years for which the data apply), and the sample

sizes, where appropriate. For example, you may have collected paper survey data

from 3,000 randomly sampled teachers in seven states in the year 2000 for the

1998-1999 school year. All of these aspects of your collection should be reported.

5. Have significant changes in program definitions been noted with suggestions

for improvement?

When changes in data definitions do occur, report them along with your data. For

example, letís say that you report on two years of data (2001, 2002) on the numbers

of students with disabilities in each state. In 2002, before your data collection that

year but after 2001 collection, ìstudents with disabilitiesî is broadened to include

more categories of disabilities than in 2001. So, although your data use the same

terms, they have different meanings each year When these data are reported, there

should be a clear note explaining the change in definitions and how it likely

affected the data.
144 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

6. Is each step in the data collection process required to report deviations and

problems in data quality?

Since data quality is often a chain (from the schools, to districts, to states, to

USED), it is useful to make sure that there are opportunities for suggestions for

improvement to come from any part of that chain. Just like CEOs will sometimes

visit factory floors to get ideas for improving business practices, we can go to any

level of our data chain and see how we can improve our data processes.

7. Are good graphics techniques used (e.g. axes begin at zero and charts are

clearly labeled with year and cell sizes?

Standards for graphs exist (e.g., NCESí standards for graphs and tables) because

graphs, like statistics, can be misleading and lack critical information. For example,

graph axes should always begin at zero unless clearly marked (ì//î); bar graphs

should show the exact values next to or on the bar; and tables should include error

rates and cell sizes.

8. Have the types of exclusions and amount of non-response been clearly

described?

Who is missing from your sample? Were types of people, places, or things

intentionally or otherwise excluded? Make note of any missing subpopulations.

9. Are data collection, cleaning, and analysis procedures documented in writing?

You care about data quality or you would not have read this far. So, you probably

have developed or will develop a data system that accounts for data quality issues.

Make sure to document that system and have those documents accessible to

everyone on your team at headquarters and in the field.

 Standard 8: Burden Reduction

Burden Reduction: Data collected is used. Seek opportunities for making data

collection more efficient, e.g., coordination, and less burdensome, e.g., do not ask for

data not used.

Examples Meeting the Standard

 Data collected is used in program management decisions.

 Grantees and other key stakeholders, such as states, were included on the data

collection decisions.

 There was and continues to be on-going communication with offices providing

similar services or targeting similar customers/grantees.

 Upon a review of decisions made last year and after discussions with stakeholders,

one-quarter of the required reporting was eliminated.
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 145

Examples Failing the Standard

 Before collecting data, the program office failed to ask whether someone else was

already collecting that data.

 The program administrator argues that the data is being used because pie charts are

made of the data and are distributed. People find the data interesting, but no one

actually uses the data to make decisions.

Question-by-question Explanations

1. Are ALL the data that are requested used for either reporting to Congress,

management improvements, or technical assistance within two years of

collection?

Go through your annual reporting forms and ask yourself, over the last year, what

data from those forms have you, Congress, or your stakeholders used to make

decisions about your program? Eliminate any questions that provide data that have

not been used. Do this review every year.

2. Before requiring any data, was there a review of data already available being

submitted by the same grantees through other federal programs?

If you need data, the first option should be to look for it somewhere else. Does

some other program in the Department have it? Would another agency collect it?

What about a not-for-profit group? If you still cannot find the data you need, the

next step is to approach programs in or outside of ED that serve the same

customers and ask to coordinate a data collection with them. As a last resort,

collect the data in isolation.

3. Is there on-going communication with offices providing similar services or

targeting similar customers/grantees?

Who is serving the same customers you are? Or who is providing similar services to

different customers? There may be opportunities to share data collection or have

common indicators (i.e., ways to measure) across programs. For example, Congress

has identified Head Start and Even Start as programs that could and should

coordinate more. They could develop common indicators, for example, about

school readiness.

4. Were grantees and other key stakeholders, such as states, included on the data

collection decisions?

Since a major objective of data collection is to USE it to IMPROVE the services that

we provide, asking people involved in the provision of those services what data

should be collected is a useful exercise. Have a few focus groups and ask grantees

what would be the most useful data for them to provide. What data are they already

collecting for their own use? What data are they required to collect for other ED or

federal grants or state funds? Determine with providers what data are necessary to

collect to meet both local and national needs and collect nothing more.
146 Annual Plan 2002 - 2003

DAppendix

Acronyms

ABE Adult Basic Education

BP Blue Print

CAMP College Assistance Migrant Program

CBO Congressional Budget Office

COR Contracting Office Representative

DL Direct Loan

DLOS Direct Loan Origination System

DRCC Document Receipt and Control Center

ED Education Department

ELL English Language Learners

EMT Executive Management Team

ESEA Elementary and Secondary Education Act

ESL English as a Second Language

FAFSA Free Application for Federal Student Aid

FAIR Act Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act

FFEL Federal Family Education Loan

FMFIA Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act

FSA/SFA Financial Student Assistance/Student Financial Assistance

FSA Family Support Act

FY Fiscal Year

GAO General Accounting Office

GEAR UP Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs

GPAS General Performance Appraisal System

GPEA Government Paperwork Elimination Act

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act

HEA Higher Education Act

HBCU Historically Black Colleges and Universities

HQ Headquarters

HSI Hispanic-Serving Institutions
Annual Plan 2002 - 2003 147

IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

IDUES Institutional Development and Undergraduate Education Programs

IHE Institute of Higher Education

IPA Instructions for (SFA/FSA) Program Audits

IPEDS Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System

IRB Investment Review Board

ISIR Institution eligibility data in Direct Loan Process

IT Information Technology

MAP Mobility Assignment Program

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NCES National Center on Education Statistics

NCLB No Child Left Behind

NICHD National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

NIDRR National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research

NSLDS National Student Loan Data System

OCR Office for Civil Rights

OCFO Office of the Chief Financial Officer

OCIO Office of the Chief Information Officer

ODS Office of the Deputy Secretary

OELA Office of English Language Acquisition

OERI Office of Education Research and Improvement

OESE Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

OET Office of Education Technology

OGC Office of the General Counsel

OIG Office of the Inspector General

OIIA Office of Interagency and Intergovernmental Affairs

OLCA Office of Legislative and Congressional Affairs

OM Office of Management

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPA Office of Public Affairs

OPE Office of Postsecondary Education

OS Office of the Secretary

OSERS Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

OUS Office of the Under Secretary

OVAE Office of Vocational and Adult Education

PD Position Description

PMI Presidential Management Intern

PO/POC Principal Office/Principal Operating Component

QSI Quality Step Increase

RSA Rehabilitative Services Administration

SES Senior Executive Service

TCU Tribal Colleges and Universities