U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 1

U.S. Department

of Education

FY 2000 Annual Plan

Volume 2.

Program Performance Plans

February 25, 1999
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 2
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 3

Program Performance Plans

PROGRAMS AND FY 2000 BUDGET REQUEST

SHARED STUDENT OUTCOME INDICATORS FROM THE NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS

MAIN ASSESSMENTS........................................................................................................................................6

EDUCATION REFORM........................................................................................................................................................................7

GOALS 2000 STATE AND LOCAL EDUCATION SYSTEMIC IMPROVEMENT—$491,000,000 (FY 2000)........................................................8

SCHOOL-TO-WORK OPPORTUNITIES--$55,000,000 (FY 2000)..............................................................................................................11

TECHNOLOGY LITERACY CHALLENGE FUND STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOL TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES, AND TECHNOLOGY

INNOVATION CHALLENGE GRANTS AND NATIONAL ACTIVITIES--$742,000,000 (FY 2000)...................................................................14

REGIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION CONSORTIA--$10,000,000 (FY 2000)....................................................................................18

STAR SCHOOLS PROGRAM--$45,000,000 (FY 2000)............................................................................................................................19

READY-TO-LEARN TELEVISION--$7,000,000 (FY 2000)......................................................................................................................20

TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FOR MATHEMATICS--$2,000,000 (FY 2000)..........................................................21

21ST CENTURY COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTERS--$600,000,000 (FY 2000) ........................................................................................22

EDUCATION FOR DISADVANTAGED CHILDREN.......................................................................................................................25

TITLE I GRANTS FOR SCHOOLS SERVING AT-RISK CHILDREN--$7,996,020,000 (FY 2000)....................................................................26

EVEN START FAMILY LITERACY PROGRAM--$145,000,000 (FY 2000).................................................................................................30

MIGRANT EDUCATION--$380,000,000 (FY 2000)................................................................................................................................32

PROGRAMS FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH WHO ARE NEGLECTED OR DELINQUENT--$42,000,000 (FY 2000)...........................................35

DEMONSTRATIONS OF COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL REFORM—$150,000,000 (FY 2000)..........................................................................36

HIGH SCHOOL EQUIVALENCY PROGRAM AND COLLEGE ASSISTANCE MIGRANT PROGRAM--$22,000,000 (FY 2000).............................38

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT AND OTHER ELEMENTARY/SECONDARY PROGRAMS (IMPACT AID, CLASS SIZE,

READING EXCELLENCE, AND INDIAN EDUCATION) ...............................................................................................................41

IMPACT AID--$736,000,000 (FY 2000)...............................................................................................................................................42

EISENHOWER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM--$335,000,000 (FY 2000)..............................................................................44

INNOVATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM STRATEGIES (BLOCK GRANT) (TITLE VI, ESEA)--$0 (FY 2000)...................................................48

CLASS-SIZE REDUCTION PROGRAM--$1,400,000,000 (FY 2000)..........................................................................................................50

INEXPENSIVE BOOK DISTRIBUTION--$18,000,000 (FY 2000)...............................................................................................................55

ARTS EDUCATION--$10,500,000 (FY 2000) ........................................................................................................................................56

MAGNET SCHOOLS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM--$114,000,000 (FY 2000).................................................................................................57

STEWART B. MCKINNEY HOMELESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM--$31,700,000 (FY 2000).........................................................................59

WOMEN’S EDUCATIONAL EQUITY (WEEA)--$3,000,000 (FY 2000) ....................................................................................................61

TITLE IV OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT: EQUITY ASSISTANCE CENTER PROGRAM--$7,334,000 (FY 2000)................................................62
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 4

ALLEN J. ELLENDER FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM--$0 (FY 2000).................................................................................................................63

NATIVE HAWAIIAN EDUCATION PROGRAM--$20,000,000 (FY 2000) ...................................................................................................64

ALASKA NATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM--$10,000,000 (FY 2000).......................................................................................................65

COMPREHENSIVE CENTERS PROGRAM--$32,000,000 (FY 2000)...........................................................................................................68

ADVANCED PLACEMENT TEST FEES--$20,000,000 (FY 2000)..............................................................................................................69

READING EXCELLENCE PROGRAM--$286,000,000 (FY 2000)...............................................................................................................70

INDIAN EDUCATION—$77,000,0000 (FY 2000) ..................................................................................................................................73

BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND MINORITY FOREIGN LANGUAGES.......................................................................................75

BILINGUAL EDUCATION INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES PROGRAM--$259,000,000 (FY 2000).....................................................................76

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM--$6,000,000 (FY 2000)..................................................................................................79

EMERGENCY IMMIGRANT EDUCATION PROGRAM--$150,000,000 (FY 2000) ........................................................................................80

SPECIAL EDUCATION (IDEA).........................................................................................................................................................81

IDEA PART B – GRANTS TO STATES--$4,716,435,000 (FY 2000)........................................................................................................82

IDEA PART C – SPECIAL EDUCATION - INFANTS AND TODDLERS WITH DISABILITIES--$390,000,000 (FY 2000)...................................86

IDEA PART D--NATIONAL ACTIVITIES--$343,461,000 (FY 2000) .......................................................................................................89

REHABILITATION SERVICES AND SPECIAL INSTITUTIONS..................................................................................................93

STATE VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION SERVICES (INCLUDING SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT)--$2,353,739,000 (FY 2000).........................94

AMERICAN INDIAN VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION SERVICES--$23,390,000 (FY 2000)........................................................................97

CLIENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (CAP)--$10,928,000 (FY 2000)..........................................................................................................99

TRAINING PROGRAM--$41,629,000 (FY 2000)..................................................................................................................................100

SPECIAL DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS--$16,942,000 (FY2000) .........................................................................................................101

MIGRANT AND SEASONAL FARMWORKERS PROGRAM--$2,350,000 (FY 2000)....................................................................................102

RECREATION PROGRAM--$2,596,000 (FY 2000)................................................................................................................................103

PROTECTION & ADVOCACY OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS (PAIR)--$10,894,000 (FY 2000)........................................................................104

PROJECTS WITH INDUSTRY (PWI), SECTION 611 — $22,071,000 (FY 2000)........................................................................................105

INDEPENDENT LIVING PROGRAMS--$84,574,000 (FY 2000)...............................................................................................................106

HELEN KELLER NATIONAL CENTER (HKNC) FOR DEAF-BLIND YOUTHS AND ADULTS--$8,550,000 (FY2000)....................................109

NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION RESEARCH (NIDRR)--$90,964,000 (FY 2000).......................................111

ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM--$45,000,000 (FY2000).............................................................................................................113

AMERICAN PRINTING HOUSE FOR THE BLIND--$8,973,000 (FY 2000)................................................................................................115

NATIONAL TECHNICAL INSTITUTE FOR THE DEAF--$47,925,000 (FY 2000)........................................................................................117

GALLAUDET UNIVERSITY--$85,120,000 (FY 2000)...........................................................................................................................119

VOCATIONAL AND ADULT EDUCATION...................................................................................................................................121

PERKINS VOCATIONAL AND APPLIED TECHNOLOGY ACT (STATE GRANTS AND TECH-PREP INDICATORS)--$1,141,650,000 (FY 2000).122

NATIONAL PROGRAMS (PERKINS VOCATIONAL AND APPLIED TECHNOLOGY ACT )--$17,500,000 (FY 2000).......................................125

TRIBALLY CONTROLLED POSTSECONDARY VOCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS—$4,100,000 (FY 2000) .......................................................127

ADULT EDUCATION: STATE GRANTS AND KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT—$569,000,000 (FY 2000)....................................................128

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR LITERACY--$6,000,000 (FY 2000)........................................................................................131
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 5

STATE GRANTS FOR INCARCERATED YOUTH OFFENDERS--$12,000,000 (FY 2000).............................................................................133

STUDENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE............................................................................................................................................135

STUDENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS--$9,183,000,000 (FY 2000)........................................................................................136

HIGHER EDUCATION.....................................................................................................................................................................143

AID FOR INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT, TITLE III (HEA)--$259,825,000 (FY 2000).........................................................................144

INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS--$69,022,000 (FY 2000)....................................................................................................149

FUND FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION--$27,500,000 (FY 2000)..................................................................150

URBAN COMMUNITY SERVICE PROGRAM--$0 (FY 2000) ...................................................................................................................152

DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS TO ENSURE STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES RECEIVE A QUALITY HIGHER EDUCATION--$5,000,000 (FY 2000)

.........................................................................................................................................................................................................153

ANNUAL INTEREST SUBSIDY GRANTS--$12,000,000 (FY 2000) .........................................................................................................154

TRIO PROGRAMS--$630,000,000 (FY 2000).....................................................................................................................................155

GEAR UP--$240,000,000 (FY 2000) ...............................................................................................................................................158

ROBERT C. BYRD HONORS SCHOLARSHIPS PROGRAM--$39,859,000 (FY 2000) .................................................................................160

CHILD CARE ACCESS MEANS PARENTS IN SCHOOL PROGRAM--$5,000,000 (FY 2000) .......................................................................162

LEARNING ANYTIME ANYWHERE PARTNERSHIPS--$20,000,000 (FY 2000) ........................................................................................163

PREPARING FOR COLLEGE (PROP.LEG.)--$15,000,000 (FY 2000)........................................................................................................164

COLLEGE COMPLETION CHALLENGE GRANTS --$35,000,000 (FY 2000)..............................................................................................165

EXPANSION OF D.C. COLLEGE ACCESS PROGRAM--$17,000,000 (FY 2000).......................................................................................166

TEACHER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT GRANTS (HEA, II)--$115,000,000 (FY 2000).............................................................................167

UNDERGROUND RAILROAD PROGRAM--$1,750,000 (FY 2000) ..........................................................................................................171

GPRA DATA/EVALUATION PROGRAM--$4,000,000 (FY 2000)..........................................................................................................172

HOWARD UNIVERSITY--$219,444,000 (FY 2000)..............................................................................................................................173

RESEARCH AND IMPROVEMENT................................................................................................................................................177

NATIONAL EDUCATION RESEARCH INSTITUTES--$108,782,000 (FY 2000) .........................................................................................178

REGIONAL EDUCATIONAL LABORATORIES--$65,000,000 (FY2000) ...................................................................................................180

NCES STATISTICS AND ASSESSMENT--$122,000,000 (FY 2000).........................................................................................................183

EISENHOWER FEDERAL ACTIVITIES--$30,000,000 (FY 2000).............................................................................................................185

FUND FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF EDUCATION--$139,500,000 (FY 2000)...........................................................................................187

JAVITS GIFTED AND TALENTED STUDENTS EDUCATION--$6,500,000 (FY 2000) ................................................................................188

EISENHOWER REGIONAL MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE EDUCATION CONSORTIA--$17,500,000 (FY 2000) ..........................................189

NATIONAL WRITING PROJECT (NWP) --$10,000,000 (FY 2000)........................................................................................................190

CIVIC EDUCATION--$9,500,000 (FY 2000)........................................................................................................................................191

INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAM (STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT INSTITUTE)--$7,000,000 (FY 2000) ..............................................192

CIVIL RIGHTS..................................................................................................................................................................................193

OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS (OCR)--$73,262,000 (FY 2000) ...............................................................................................................194
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 6

Shared Student Outcome Indicators

(Several programs share common student performance indicators. These indicators are national in scope and are not program specific.

Federal elementary and secondary programs are not solely responsible for, but should contribute to, their attainment. These programs are

Goals 2000 ;Technology Literacy Challenge Fund and Technology Innovation Challenge Grants; Title I (shown separately for high-poverty schools);

and IDEA Part B (to be shown separately for students with disabilities).

Percentage of Students Scoring at or above Achievement Levels

Subject Grades Year

At or above

Basic At or above Proficient

Reading Grade 4 1992 62 29

1994 60 30

1998 62 31

Goal 2002 66 33

Grade 8 1992 69 29

1994 70 30

1998 74*+ 33*+

Goal 2002 79 36

Mathematics Grade 4 1990 50 13

1992 59* 18*

1996 64*+ 21*+

Goal 2000 70 24

Grade 8 1990 52 15

1992 58* 21*

1996 62*+ 24*

Goal 2000 70 27

* Indicates that the percentage shown is significantly different from that in the first year.

+ Indicates that the percentage shown is significantly different from that in the second year.

SOURCES: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992, 1994, and 1998

Reading Main Assessments and 1990, 1992, and 1996 Mathematics Main Assessments.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 7

Education Reform

(Goals 2000, School to Work, and Education Technology)
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 8

Goals 2000 State and Local Education Systemic Improvement—$491,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To support comprehensive state and local education reform tied to high standards for all students

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Goals 2000 funds the development of standards (objective 1.1), teacher quality (objective 1.4), and family and community

involvement (objective 1.5). It also authorizes the establishment of Ed-Flex, which provides states with waiver authority (objective 4.2).

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Help improve student

achievement in core subjects

through Goals 2000

operating in concert with

other federal programs and

state and local

1.1 Shared indicator on student performance on

national assessments. Between 1992 and 2002,

the percentages of students who meet basic,

proficient, and advanced levels in reading and

math on the National Assessment of Educational

Progress will increase.

v By 2002, 68% of 4th graders will score at or

above the basic level in reading.

v By 2002, 32% of 4th graders will score at or

above the proficient level in reading.

v By 2000, 70% of 8th graders will score at or

above the basic level in math.

v By 2000, 28% of 8th graders will score at or

above the proficient level in math.

1.2 Meeting or exceeding state performance

standards. By 2002, 32 states with two years of

assessment data and aligned standards and

assessments will report an increase in the

percentage of students meeting or exceeding

proficient and advanced levels in reading and

math on their State assessment systems.

See “Shared Student Outcomes” at the front

of the document (page 5).

In 1996-97, 7 of the 10 states that had two

years of assessment data reported that

increased percentages of students attained

proficient or advanced levels of performance

in reading and math.

1.1 National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP)

reading, 1998; NAEP math,

2000.

1.2 Unpublished achievement data

collected through the 1996-97

Title I Performance Report and

follow-up in 1997-98..

2. Stimulate and accelerate

state and local reform efforts.

2.1 Standards for core subjects. Increasing

numbers of states will have content and

performance standards in place in reading and

math. By 2000, all states will have content and

performance standards in place in reading and

math.

2.2 Aligned assessments. Increasing numbers of

states will have assessments aligned to content

and performance standards for two core subjects.

By 2000, 40 states will have aligned

assessments; by 2001, all will.

48 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of

Columbia have completed the development

of State content standards. One State is still

in the process of developing state standards

and in the other state local districts have the

responsibility for developing standards

acceptable to the State.

As of the 1997-98 school year, 14 states had

designed their own assessments to be

aligned to state content standards.

2.1 Title I peer review records.

2.2 Standard-based Assessment

and Accountability in

American Education, draft,

1998.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 9

Goals 2000 State and Local Education Systemic Improvement—$491,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To support comprehensive state and local education reform tied to high standards for all students

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Goals 2000 funds the development of standards (objective 1.1), teacher quality (objective 1.4), and family and community

involvement (objective 1.5). It also authorizes the establishment of Ed-Flex, which provides states with waiver authority (objective 4.2).

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

2.3 Schools’ alignment of key processes.

Principals in states or districts with standards

will indicate that increasing percentages of

schools have curriculum, instruction,

professional development, and assessment

aligned to the standards. By 2000, 75% of

principals will report Implementing strategies to

tie instructional materials, professional

development, and assessments to standards.

1997-98 Percentage of school principals in

all states implementing strategies that tie to

standards:

ÿ 50%, instructional materials

ÿ 40%, professional development

ÿ 40%, use of aligned assessments

2.3 Follow-Up Survey of Schools,

1998.

3. Promote parental and

community involvement in

student learning through the

Parent Information and

Resource Assistance Centers

(PIRCs).

3.1 PAT/ HIPPY participation. The number of

families who participate in Parents as Teachers

(PAT) or Home Instruction for Preschool

Youngsters (HIPPY) will increase annually. By

2000, approximately 14,000 families will

participate in PAT or HIPPY.

In 1995, approximately 5,000 families

participated in PAT or HIPPY compared to

approximately 6,000 in 1996 and

approximately 10,000 in 1997.

3.1 Annual reports for Parental

Information and Resource

Assistance Centers (PIRCs),

1999.

4. Promote excellent teaching

that will enable all students

to reach challenging state

and/or local standards.

4.1 Teachers’ knowledge of standards. Increasing

percentages of teachers in states with standards

understand state or local content and

performance standards as they apply to the

grades and subjects they teach. By 2000, 75% of

teachers in states with standards will report that

they understood state or local standards.

4.2 Professional development. The percentage of

teachers who indicate that they are engaged in

professional development that is enabling them

to teach to challenging standards will increase

annually. By 2000, 50% of teachers will report

such participation.

In 1995-96, 42% of teachers in all states

reported that they understood the concept of

higher standards very well.

In 1998, 38% of full-time public school

teachers indicated that they felt very well

prepared to implement state or district

curriculum and performance standards.

During the 1994-95 school year, 28% of

teachers in all states indicated that they had

participated in professional development

activities useful for helping students achieve

to high standards to a great extent.

In 1998, 81% of public school teachers

reported that they had participated in

professional development that focused on

State or district standards in the last 12

months. However, only 38% reporting

feeling well prepared to implement the

standards.

4.1 National Longitudinal Survey

of Schools, 1999. Teacher

Quality: A Report on the

Preparation & Qualifications

of Public School Teachers,

1999;

4.2 National Longitudinal Survey

of Schools, 1999; Schools and

Staffing Survey, 1999;

Teacher Quality: A Report on

the Preparation &

Qualifications of Public

School Teachers, 1999;
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 10

Goals 2000 State and Local Education Systemic Improvement—$491,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To support comprehensive state and local education reform tied to high standards for all students

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Goals 2000 funds the development of standards (objective 1.1), teacher quality (objective 1.4), and family and community

involvement (objective 1.5). It also authorizes the establishment of Ed-Flex, which provides states with waiver authority (objective 4.2).

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

5. Effective federal program

management will support

State and local reform.

5.1 Satisfaction with Goals 2000 administration.

Increasing percentages of Goals 2000 customers

(e.g., SEA and LEA staff) report that the

technical assistance provided by federal Goals

2000 staff is of high quality, useful, and meets

their needs.

In 1998, 39 Goals 2000 State coordinators

reported that written information they

received from the Department was helpful or

very helpful; 40 Goals 2000 State

coordinators reported that other contacts

with the Department (conferences,

workshops, on-line services & telephone)

were helpful or very helpful.

5.1 Follow-Up State

Implementation Study, 1999.

Key Strategies

v Provide assistance at the state and school levels for improved school performance and increased family and community engagement in learning, through Department service

teams, technical assistance centers, and state school support teams.

v Support interstate working groups to discuss how to improve and measure student achievement and to identify the types of Goal 2000 activities that support gains in student

achievement.

v Encourage states and districts to share their model standards as they relate to the reading, math, and college preparation initiatives.

v Expand public understanding of the need for challenging academic standards by disseminating information on standards-based reform through states, national associations,

and other stakeholders.

v Help states and districts develop and implement aligned assessments designed to improve student learning by providing financial support under Goals 2000 and Title I and

by encouraging the sharing of effective methodologies.

v Regularly assess the adequacy and effectiveness of support that each funded Parental Assistance Center project devotes to PAT and HIPPY activities and ensure that the

centers devote a substantial part of their budget to these activities to support school readiness for all children.

v Support efforts to prepare future teachers to meet high certification and licensing standards by promoting partnerships between school districts and institutions of higher

education.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 11

School-to-Work Opportunities--$55,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To Build School-to-Work (STW) Systems That Increase Student Academic Achievement, Improve Technical Skills, and Broaden Career Opportunities for All

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: All objectives in this table support the Department of Education Strategic Plan Objective 1.2: Every state has a school-to-work

system that increases student achievement, improves technical skills, and broadens career opportunities for all.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

Student Participation

1. All youth—including those

who are disadvantaged,

have limited English

proficiency, are

academically gifted, are out

of school or disabled—have

the opportunity to engage

actively in School-to-Work

systems.

1.1 Student Participation in STW Systems. By

Fall 2000, two million youth will be participating

in STW systems.

Participation is defined as receiving an

integrated academic and occupational

curriculum and completing a related work-based

learning experience.

The number of students that met this

criterion grew from 280,000 in 1995-96 to

471,698 in 1996-97.

1.1 Progress Measures Survey,

annual, July 1999.

Student Achievement in STW Systems

2. All youth earn a high school

diploma or equivalency,

meet challenging academic

standards, have the

opportunity to receive a skill

certificate, and are prepared

for postsecondary education

and careers.

2.1 Academic Achievement. The percentage of high

school graduates (including vocational

concentrators) in STW systems who complete at

least three years each of math and science will

increase to 80%.

2.2 Transition from High School. The number of

high school graduates who successfully

transition into employment, further education, or

the military will increase by 5%.

2.3 Skill Certificates. By Fall 2000, 10% of

students in local STW systems will earn skill

certificates.

In 1995-96, 63% of students took three

years of math, 73% took three years of

science, and 69% took three years of both.

In 1995-96, 60% of graduates in STW

systems entered college, 7% entered the

military or a non-college postsecondary

program, and 20% were employed.

The number of senior who received skill

certificates grew from 2.4% in 1995-96 to

3.6% in 1996-97.

2.1 National School-to-Work

Evaluation, Student

Transcripts of High School

Seniors in Eight States,

biennial, Fall 1999.

2.2 National School-to-Work

Evaluation, Follow-Up Survey

of High School Seniors in

Eight States, biennial, Summer

2000.

2.3 National School-to-Work

Evaluation, Local Partnership

Survey, annual, Summer 1999.

2.4 Out-of-School Youth. By fall 2000, in local

STW systems, the percentage of out-of-school

youth acquiring high school equivalency

diplomas will be higher than the percentage who

achieved diplomas in Spring 1997.

2.4 National School-to-Work

Evaluation, Local Partnership

Survey, annual, Summer

1999; National Longitudinal

Survey for Youth, periodic,

2000.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 12

School-to-Work Opportunities--$55,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To Build School-to-Work (STW) Systems That Increase Student Academic Achievement, Improve Technical Skills, and Broaden Career Opportunities for All

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: All objectives in this table support the Department of Education Strategic Plan Objective 1.2: Every state has a school-to-work

system that increases student achievement, improves technical skills, and broadens career opportunities for all.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

System Building

3. Build comprehensive schoolto-work systems in every

State.

3.1 Sustainable Systems. States ensure the

sustainability of their STW systems beyond the

period of federal funding.

3.2 High Schools. By Fall 2000, 40% of high

schools will have implemented key STW

components.

3.3 Community and Technical Colleges. By fall

2000, 40% of community and technical colleges

will have agreements with high schools to grant

academic credit for work-based learning.

There was no change in the percent (25%)

of high schools that implemented career

major programs and work-based learning

programs between 1995-96 and 1996-97.

The percent of colleges that had such

agreements dropped slightly from 20.7% in

1995-96 to 18.4% in 1996-97.

3.1 National School-to-Work

Office Site Visit Reviews,

periodic, initial list of

elements to support

sustainability is expected by

fall 1998.

3.2 National School-to-Work

Evaluation, Local Partnership

Survey, annual, 1999.

3.3 National School-to-Work

Evaluation, Local Partnership

Survey, annual, 1999.

3.4 Employers Providing Work-Based Learning

Opportunities. By Fall 2000, 350,000

employers will be providing work-based learning

experiences for students.

The number of employers providing students

with work-based learning experiences grew

from 59,000 in 1995-96 to 136,000 in 1996-

97.

3.4 Progress Measures Survey,

annual, 1999.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 13

School-to-Work Opportunities--$55,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To Build School-to-Work (STW) Systems That Increase Student Academic Achievement, Improve Technical Skills, and Broaden Career Opportunities for All

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: All objectives in this table support the Department of Education Strategic Plan Objective 1.2: Every state has a school-to-work

system that increases student achievement, improves technical skills, and broadens career opportunities for all.

Key Strategies

v Provide technical assistance to grantees to build and sustain STW systems. This may include conducting or sponsoring training institutes, identifying exemplary models and

promising practices or identifying additional sources of funding.

v Support high school reform. Through such efforts as the New American High Schools and New Urban High School initiatives, identify, document, disseminate and

implement the work of high schools that have adopted strategies to improve student achievement and to help students make a smooth transition to college and careers.

v Support high academic achievement for students and preparation for postsecondary education. Promote strategies for integrating curriculum and linking work-based learning

with school-based learning.

v Sponsor the Building Linkages Project to develop, around broad industry clusters, new ways to integrate academic requirements and industry-recognized skill standards into

multi-state career pathways systems, in collaboration with the National Skill Standards Board.

v Incorporate STW tenets into existing Job Corps programs and curricula.

v Involve schools, colleges, and employers in building school-to-work systems and stronger vocational education programs.

v Engage high schools, postsecondary institutions, and adult high schools by sponsoring a national information center and by creating networks that include educators,

employers, and other key stakeholder groups.

v Sponsor efforts to align postsecondary admissions policies with new methods of assessing high school student performance.

v Prepare teachers to fully participate in School-to-Work by helping colleges of education incorporate School-to-Work elements in their curricula.

v Support teacher training efforts aimed at improving the skills of teachers in using contextual learning approaches to instruction of basic and technical skills.

v Foster education career academies to recruit and train teachers.

v Build strong employer participation in school-to-work by targeting outreach activities at employers and their organizations.

v Strengthen and promote the role of intermediaries in linking school-based learning with work-based learning.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 14

Technology Literacy Challenge Fund State and Local Programs for School Technology Resources, and Technology Innovation Challenge

Grants and National Activities--$742,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To use educational technology as part of broader education reform that will provide new learning opportunities and raise educational achievement for all 

students.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: The Technology Literacy Challenge Fund and the Technology Innovation Challenge Grants support objective 1.7 (schools use

advanced technology to improve education) by providing fund to increase school and student access to educational technology and to promote the development of models of

effective practice in integrating educational technology into teaching and learning.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

1.1 Help improve student

achievement in core subjects

through federal educational

technology programs

operating along with other

federal programs and state

and local reform efforts.

1.1 Shared indicator of national student

performance. Between 1992 and 2002 the

percentages of students who meet basic,

proficient and advanced levels in reading and

math on the National Assessment of Educational

Progress will increase.

ÿ By 2002, 66% of 4th graders will score at or

above the basic level in reading.

ÿ By 2002, 33% of 4th graders will score at or

above the proficient level in reading.

ÿ By 2000, 70% of 8th graders will score at or

above the basic level in math.

ÿ By 2000, 27% of 8th graders will score at or

above the proficient level in math.

See “Shared Student Outcomes” at the front of

the document (page 5).

1.1 National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP)

reading, every 4 years, 1999;

NAEP math, every 4 years,

1999.

2. Help improve students’

technology literacy through

federal educational

technology programs along

with other federal programs

and state and local reform

efforts.

2.1 Student proficiency in technology. Between

1998 and 2001, the percentage of students who

demonstrate proficiency in using multimedia

computers and the Interneti will increase.

In 1997-98, 38 states had standards or

graduation requirements pertaining to

technology.

2.1 Education Week, Technology

Counts, 1998; Developmental

work on assessment of student

proficiency in use of

technology, 1999.

Teachers, students, and classroom

3. Provide practicing and

prospective teachers with the

professional development

and support they need to

help students learn through

modern multi-media

computersii and the Internet

3.1 Certification tied to technology training.

Training in the use of modern multimedia

computers and the Internet for effective

instruction will be increasingly required for

certification and accreditation of practicing and

prospective teachers, schools, and districts.

In 1997-98, 38 States had technology

requirements either for teaching candidates or

for teacher preparation programs. Only 3

States required teachers to participate in

training in technology as a condition for

renewing their license.

3.1 Education Week, Technology

Counts, 1998.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 15

Technology Literacy Challenge Fund State and Local Programs for School Technology Resources, and Technology Innovation Challenge

Grants and National Activities--$742,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To use educational technology as part of broader education reform that will provide new learning opportunities and raise educational achievement for all 

students.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: The Technology Literacy Challenge Fund and the Technology Innovation Challenge Grants support objective 1.7 (schools use

advanced technology to improve education) by providing fund to increase school and student access to educational technology and to promote the development of models of

effective practice in integrating educational technology into teaching and learning.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

3.2 Staff training and support. Increasing

proportions of teachers will have the

professional development and the administrative,

technical, and local financial support they need

to help students learn through modern

multimedia computers and the Internet.

According to a 1998 survey, 20% of teachers

reported feeling very well prepared to

integrate educational technology in to

classroom instruction.

3.2 Teacher Quality: Report on the

Preparation of Public School

Teachers, 1999.

4. Encourage expansion of

student access to modern

multimedia computers.

4.1 Student access. The ratio of students to modern

multimedia computers in public schools will

improve to 5 students per modern multimedia

computer by the year 2000.

In 1996-97, the number of students per

instructional computer was 7.3 and the ratio

of students to multimedia computers was 21.2.

In 1997-98, the numbers were 6.3and 12.5

respectively.

4.1 Market Data Retrieval, 1998;

Advanced

Telecommunications in U.S.

Public Elementary and

Secondary Schools Survey,

1998; and the Study of

Educational Resources and

Funding, 1998.

4.2 Access in high-poverty schools. The access to

education technology in high-poverty schools

will be comparable to that in other schools.

4.3 Effective technologies. Students with

disabilities will have access to effective

technologies for learning.

In 1997-98, high-poverty schools had a ratio

of about 17 students per computer, compared

with 12 students per computer in low-poverty

schools.

In 1997-98, federal funds paid for 50% of

computers purchased for high-poverty schools

and 14% of computers purchased for lowpoverty schools.

4.2 Study of Educational Resources

and Federal Funding, 1999

4.3 Same as 4.2

5. Support linking all schools

and classrooms to the

Internet.

5.1 School access. The percentage of public schools

with access to the Internet will increase to 95%

by 2000.

 In 1996, 65% of public schools were

connected to the Internet.

5.1 Advanced Telecommunications

in U.S. Public Elementary and

Secondary Schools survey,

1997; National Longitudinal

Survey of Schools, 1998; and

the Study of Educational

Resources and Funding , 1999.

5.2 Classroom access. The percentage of public

school instructional rooms connected to the

Internet will increase from 14% in 1996 to

higher percentages thereafter.

In 1997, 27% of public school instructional

rooms had internet access.

5.2 Same as 5.1.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 16

Technology Literacy Challenge Fund State and Local Programs for School Technology Resources, and Technology Innovation Challenge

Grants and National Activities--$742,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To use educational technology as part of broader education reform that will provide new learning opportunities and raise educational achievement for all 

students.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: The Technology Literacy Challenge Fund and the Technology Innovation Challenge Grants support objective 1.7 (schools use

advanced technology to improve education) by providing fund to increase school and student access to educational technology and to promote the development of models of

effective practice in integrating educational technology into teaching and learning.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

6. Promote the availability and

use of technology-based

curricula and the resources

of the Internet part of a

challenging and enriching

curriculum in every school.

6.1 Classroom use. An increasing number of

teachers will integrate high-quality technologybased curriculum into their instruction.

In fall 1996, 20% of public school teachers

used advanced telecommunications for

teaching. In 1994, about 40% of 4th grade

students and 17% of 8th grade students had

teachers reporting use of computers to teach

reading. In 1996 about 75% of 4th grade

students and 46% of 8th grade students had

teachers reporting use of computers for math

instruction.

6.1 NAEP, 1996; National

Longitudinal Survey of

Schools, 1998; Challenge Fund

Supplementary Study, 1998;

High Intensity Technology

Sites Study 1999; Technology

Innovation Challenge Grant

performance reports, 1998.

7. Promote effective federal

program management and

guidance to support state

and local implementation of

statewide technology plans

and the use of innovative

strategies.

7.1 Technical assistance. The technical assistance

and other support that the U.S. Department of

Education provides, either directly or through its

programs, will be of high quality and useful, and

will be judged by customers as adequate to meet

their needs.

7.2 Private sector collaboration. Private sector

participation in planning, support, and

implementation of educational technology at the

state and local levels will increase.

In 1996, 10% of schools had funds for

educational technology from business or

industry (and 13% for hardware, 9% for

software, 5% for training 7% for technical

assistance, and 4% for advanced

telecommunications).

7.1 Data from TLCF and TICG

application and outreach work,

1999; R*TEC customer survey;

TLCF Supplemental Study,

2000.

7.2 Advanced Telecommunications

in U.S. Public Elementary and

Secondary Schools Survey,

1996; Study of Educational

Resources and Funding , 1999.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 17

Technology Literacy Challenge Fund State and Local Programs for School Technology Resources, and Technology Innovation Challenge

Grants and National Activities--$742,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To use educational technology as part of broader education reform that will provide new learning opportunities and raise educational achievement for all 

students.

Relationship of Program Goal to Strategic Plan: The Technology Literacy Challenge Fund and the Technology Innovation Challenge Grants support objective 1.7 (schools

use advanced technology to improve education) by providing fund to increase school and student access to educational technology and to promote the development of models of

effective practice in integrating educational technology into teaching and learning.

Key Strategies

v Provide financial and technical assistance to expand classroom access, particularly in high-poverty schools, to modern multi-media computers, the Internet, networked

learning environments, engaging software and on-line resources integrated with school curricula.

v Coordinate with related technology initiatives at the federal, state and local levels and with professional development programs to promote effective use of educational

technology.

v Identify effective approaches for using educational technology to improve student achievement in core subjects and disseminate information on these approaches. Also

identify effective approaches for improving students’ technology literacy and disseminate information on these approaches.

v Support development of assessments that measure students’ technology proficiency.

v Connect with institutions of higher education (including colleges of education) for high-quality pre-service and in-service training for teachers in educational technology.

v Develop models that provide teachers with sustained training and support in the use of technology for improved instruction.

v Encourage development and demonstration of effective strategies for improving the use of educational technology, particularly in high-poverty schools, and for training

teachers to effectively use technology in instruction.

v Identify gaps in data sources on use and effectiveness of educational technology, and work to fill those information gaps.

v Work with the Federal Communications Commission to expand schools’ access to advanced telecommunications.

v Encourage states to use their federal funds to leverage and coordinate with other programs to support effective use of educational technology.

v Report to report on states’ progress relative to their own goals and to target program improvement efforts within states and to identify success in integrating technology into

school curricula.

v Expand access to technology for children, families, and adults in low-income communities through community-based technology centers.

i

Internet -- a network of networks all running TCP/IP protocols, sharing the same underlying network address space as well as the same domain name space, and connected to a

network of information.

iiModern multimedia computers -- computers with CD-ROM, graphics, and sound capabilities.

iiiAdvanced telecommunications -- refers to modes of communication used to transmit information from one place to another, including broadcast and interactive television and

networked computers.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 18

Regional Technology in Education Consortia--$10,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To improve teaching and learning by providing technical assistance and professional development for the effective use of educational technology.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: R*TEC provides technical assistance to support strategic plan objective 1.1 – States develop and implement standards; 1.4 –

Talented and dedicated teachers; 1.5 – Families and communities; 1.7 – Technology; 2.4 – Special populations help; 3.4 – Lifelong learning; 4.3 – Research, evaluation and

improvement.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Promote effective use of

technology for teaching and

learning through

professional development

and technical assistance, and

the leveraging and

coordination of other

resources.

1.1 Recipients of R*TEC products, services and

information – particularly those representing

under-served schools. An increasing proportion

of recipients (individuals or agencies) of the

R*TEC services and products –including those

developed and produced through the Consortia,

collaboration among RTECs, and strategic

alliances– will indicate that these products and

services are of high quality and meet their needs.

By FY 2000, 80 percent of R*TEC clients will

agree or strongly agree that R*TEC services are

of high quality and meet their needs.

Target: Consortia will maintain high client

satisfaction levels where at least 85% of R*TEC

clients agree or strongly agree that R*TEC

products and services are of high quality.

In FY 1998, 92% of R*TEC clients agreed or

strongly agreed that R*TEC products,

overall, were of high quality; 84% agreed

or strongly agreed that R*TEC services,

overall, were of high quality.

1.1 Annual Program Performance

Report, 2000.

Key Strategies

v Disseminate high-quality information and resources on the effective planning and use of technology in education.

v Assess customer satisfaction about major areas of work, document and evaluate performance

v Collaborate with SEAs, LEAs and other educational entities to inform and support better planning, increased access to technologies, more advanced uses of technology, and

enhanced instructional practice.

v Support increasing communication and collaboration among consortia and coordination with other programs, particularly those with an educational technology focus.

v Assess the value and impact of alliances (through surveys, focus groups, or other means of inquiry) and use the findings to improve alliances over time.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 19

Star Schools Program--$45,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To improve student learning and teaching through the use of distance learning technologies.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: The Star Schools Program supports objective 1.7 (schools use advanced technology to improve education) by providing grants to

support distance education.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Improve teaching and learning

through increased access to

distance education.

1.1 Non-traditional settings. The number of

learners in non-traditional settings (community

centers, correctional facilities, etc.) who

participate in distance education will increase

annually.

In 1997 Star Schools projects provided

services to 194,000 nontraditional students.

In 1998, Star Schools projects provided

services to 278,744 nontraditional students.

1.1 Annual performance reports,

1998; national program

evaluation results, 1999.

2. Promote the delivery of

challenging content in core

subjects.

2.1 Challenging content. Use of challenging

technology-based content aligned with

standards at all academic levels (including high

school credit, advanced placement, adult

education, and GED courses) through distance

education will increase annually.

In 1994, more than 30 full credit courses

were offered through Star Schools. In 1997

and in 1998, more than 150 full credit

courses were offered through Star Schools

each year.

2.1 Evaluation of Star Schools,

1994; Annual performance

reports, 1998; national program

evaluation 1999.

Key Strategies

v Use NCES data to identify communities representing high populations of under-served students. Develop and update an on-line map of communities participating in the

program.

v Work with project directors and program evaluators to ensure that relevant data on schools, non-traditional settings and access to technology are collected on an annual basis.

v Provide access to standards materials on-line and via print (by subject area). Convene workshops and provide technical assistance about aligning standards to programming

with resources from other federally sponsored programs.

v Disseminate information about Star Schools course offerings through the Department’s web site, workshops, and national meetings.

v In collaboration with R*TECs and other ED programs, provide financial and technical assistance and disseminate information about successful models to support staff

professional development.

v In collaboration with other programs, increase research-based practice about the use and impact of distance learning through research, evaluation, and dissemination

activities.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 20

Ready-To-Learn Television--$7,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To develop, produce, and distribute video programming and educational materials for preschool and elementary school children and their parents in order to 

facilitate the achievement of the National Education Goal for all children in America to start school ready to learn.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Ready to learn television’s activities support objective 2.1 (children enter school ready to learn) and 2.2 (reading) through the

development and distribution of educational video for preschool and elementary school children and their parents. Another feature of the program is training parents and

caregivers through community partnerships - objective 1.5 (families and communities).

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Develop, produce, and

distribute high quality

televised educational

programming and written

educational materials, for

preschool and elementary

school children and their

caregivers.

1.1 Distribution of educational television

programs. Ready to Learn (RTL) programs

will reach an increasing number of viewers.

Each RTL educational program will reach

between 4.5 and 6 million adults and young

viewers weekly (based on A.C. Nielson data

from similar children’s/parenting programming).

The programs will air in the Fall of 1999 and the

projected numbers should be reached in the first

season.

The number of RTL participating stations

has grown from 48 in 1995 to 122 in 1998.

The current number represents a potential

reach of 90% of the nation.

1.1 Annual Performance Reports

from the Corporation for

Public Broadcasting, 1999;

reports from producers,

WGBH-Boston and The

Children’s Television

Workshop, every 4-6 months,

1999.

2. Provide training to education

personnel in the public

television community so that

they can train parents and

caregivers to help children

become ready to learn.

2.1 Training for parents and caregivers. The

number of parents and caregivers trained will

increase to 318,000 in FY 2000.

In FY 1998, 119,000 parents and

caregivers were trained.

2.1 CPB Annual Performance

Reports, 1999.

Key Strategies

v Monitor progress of current projects and monitor program quality. For example, review performance reports from the CPB, the Children’s Television Workshop, and WGBH

– Boston.

v Participate in developing and supporting collaborations with other federal agencies, foundations, and related early childhood groups.

v Support the development and use of workshops to distribute educational material and information to caregivers and children.

v Provide educational materials through the RTL web site.

v Evaluate the training quality and RTL programming and outreach activities.

v Support and develop workshops for training of RTL coordinators and caregivers.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 21

Telecommunications Demonstration Project for Mathematics--$2,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To improve the learning and teaching of mathematics through the use of technology.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: The Telecommunications Demonstration Project for Mathematics provides support for objectives 1.7 and 2.3. The program

provides assistance to teachers through the development of broadcast programming, videos, support materials and on-line services to improve student skills in and understanding

of mathematics.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Promote excellent teaching

in mathematics through

sustained professional

development and teacher

networks.

1.1 Increasing participation in sustained

professional development. The number of

teachers sharing resources and engaged in other

professional development activities through online learning communities will increase annually.

An increasing proportion of participating

teachers will report improvements in practice

and methods that align with standards resulting

from sharing resources through on-line learning

communities.

Over 5,800 teachers shared resources and

engaged in other professional development

activities through Telecommunications

Demonstration Project on-line learning

communities in 1998.

1.1 Annual review of grant

performance reports,1998,

1999; teacher surveys collected

by the project, 1998, 1999.

Key Strategies

v Provide financial assistance to support development of videos, support materials, and online services. Based on needs identified by the Third International Mathematics and

Science Study (TIMSS) data and other national math assessments, the Office of Educational Research and Improvement will work with the Public Broadcasting Service to

develop a specific focus and content for math programming.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 22

21st Century Community Learning Centers--$600,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To enable rural and inner-city public elementary and secondary schools, or consortia of such schools, to plan, implement, or expand projects that benefit the 

educational, health, social service, cultural and recreational needs of their communities.

Relationship of Objectives to Strategic Plan: Supports objective 1.5 (families and communities are fully involved with schools and school improvement efforts) by turning

schools into Community Learning Centers. Also supports objective 1.3 by supporting extended learning programs based in schools before or after school hours; and supports

objectives 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 by providing academic support and enrichment in core subject areas including reading and mathematics to help students meet or exceed state and

local standards.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

Benefits of services

1. Participants in 21st Century

Community Learning

Center programs will

demonstrate educational

and social benefits and

exhibit positive behavioral

changes.

1.1 Achievement. Beginning in 2000, Centers will

report continuous improvement in achievement

among students participating in reading and

mathematics activities.

1.2 Outcomes and behavior. Beginning in 2000,

Centers will report that more than 75% of

students participating in the program for at least

2 years show improvements on measures such as

grades, attendance, taking of advanced or

challenging courses such as algebra, honors

courses, and AP courses, and decreased

disciplinary actions.

1.3 Student reports. More than 75% of students

participating in Center programs report them to

be beneficial, enjoyable, and of high quality.

1.4 Teacher reports. Teachers will report

improvement in participant classroom

performance, behavior, homework completion,

and class participation.

1.1 New grantee performance

reports focused on after school,

annual, 2000; planned external

evaluation, 2000.

1.2 Grantee reports, annual, 1999;

planned external evaluation,

2000.

1.3 Grantee reports, annual, 1999;

planned external evaluation,

2000.

1.4 Grantee reports, annual, 2000;

planned external evaluation,

2000.

Services that meet broad community needs

2. 21st Century Community

Learning Centers will offer

a range of high-quality

educational, developmental,

and recreational services.

2.1 Core educational services. More than 85% of

Centers will offer high quality services in core

academic areas, e.g. reading and literacy,

mathematics, and science.

A review of grantee applications indicates

that 87% of funded projects proposed a

reading component; 86% proposed a

mathematics component; and 72%

proposed a science component.

2.1 Grantee reports, annual, 1999
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 23

21st Century Community Learning Centers--$600,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To enable rural and inner-city public elementary and secondary schools, or consortia of such schools, to plan, implement, or expand projects that benefit the 

educational, health, social service, cultural and recreational needs of their communities.

Relationship of Objectives to Strategic Plan: Supports objective 1.5 (families and communities are fully involved with schools and school improvement efforts) by turning

schools into Community Learning Centers. Also supports objective 1.3 by supporting extended learning programs based in schools before or after school hours; and supports

objectives 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 by providing academic support and enrichment in core subject areas including reading and mathematics to help students meet or exceed state and

local standards.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

2.2 Enrichment and support activities. More than

85% of Centers will offer enrichment and

support activities such as nutrition and health,

art, music, technology, and recreation.

2.3 Extended hours. More than 75% of Centers

will offer services at least 3 hours a day, 5 days a

week.

2.4 Retention in program. More than 50% of

participants will continue in the program

throughout the year.

A review of grantee applications indicates

that 80% of funded projects proposed a

nutrition and health component; 74%

proposed an art component; 62% proposed

a music component; 93% proposed a

technology component and 90% proposed

recreational activities.

2.2 Grantee reports, annual, 1999.

2.3 Grantee reports, annual,

1999.

2.4 Grantee reports, annual, 1999,

and planned external

evaluation, 2000.

Services to high-need communities

3. 21st Century Community

Learning Centers will serve

children and community

members with the greatest

needs for expanded learning

opportunities.

3.1 High-need elementary schools. More than 80%

of elementary schools establishing Centers will

have student populations where 35% or more of

the children are eligible for free or reduced-price

lunch.

3.2 High-need middle and high schools. More

than 80% of middle or high schools establishing

Centers will have daily attendance below the

state average and dropout rates above the state

average or student performance below the state

average on state assessment.

3.1 Review of applications for

newly funded projects, annual,

1999.

3.2 Review of applications for

newly funded projects, annual,

1999.

Key Strategies

v Establish absolute priority for programs that offer extended learning opportunities.

v Establish competitive preference for programs that help students meet or exceed state and local standards in core subjects such as reading, mathematics, or science.

v Develop training and technical assistance opportunities for grantees to ensure the quality of implemented programs.

v In partnership with national foundations, provide ongoing training and technical assistance to Center leadership and staff.

v Create grantee advisory groups and listservs to facilitate exchange of best practices and materials.

v Establish priorities for programs that serve economically distressed rural and urban communities.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 24
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 25

Education for Disadvantaged Children
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 26

Title I Grants for Schools Serving At-Risk Children--$7,996,020,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: At-risk students improve their achievement to meet challenging standards.

Relationship of Program to the Strategic Plan: Title I supports objectives 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 of the Department’s strategic plan by funding services to enable at-risk

students in low-income communities to meet challenging academic standards. It also helps build the capacity of schools in low-income communities to improve their

performance through supporting standards and assessment development (objective 1.1), staff professional development (objective 1.4), family involvement (objective 1.5), and

technology (objective 1.7).

Objective Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Performance of the lowest

achieving students and

students in the highestpoverty public schools will

increase substantially in

reading and math.

1.1 Shared indicator on student performance on

national assessments. Between 1994 and 2002,

performance of the lowest achieving students and

students in the highest-poverty public schools

will increase substantially on the National

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in

reading and math.

Reading Targets:

v In 2002, reading scale scores for 4th grade

students in the bottom 25th percentile will

increase by one grade level (or 10 points).

v In 2002, reading scale scores for 8th grade

students in the bottom 25th percentile will

increase by one grade level (or 10 points).

v In 2002, 50% of 4th grade students in public

schools with more than 75% low-income

children will score at or above the Basic level.

Reading

v In 1998, the average scale score for 4th

grade public school students in the

bottom 25th percentile was 192, an

increase from 187 in 1994.

v In 1998, the average scale score for 8th

grade public school students in the

bottom 25th percentile was 240, an

increase from 234 in 1994.

v In 1998, 32% of 4th grade students in

schools with more than 75% low-income

children scored at or above the Basic

level.

1.1 National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP)

reading, 1998 and 2002; NAEP

math, 1996 and 2000.

Mathematics Targets:

v In 2000, math scale scores for 4th grade students

in the bottom 25th percentile will increase by one

grade level (or 10 points).

v In 2000, math scale scores for 8th grade students

in the bottom 25th percentile will increase by one

grade level (or 10 points).

v In 2000, 50% of 4th grade students in schools

with more than 75% low-income children will

score at or above the Basic level.

Mathematics

v In 1996, the average scale score for 4th

grade public school students in the

bottom 25th percentile was 201, in

increase from 197 in 1992.

v In 1996, the average scale score for 8th

grade public school students in the

bottom 25th percentile was 249, an

increase from 247 in 1992.

v In 1996, 42% of 4th grade students in

schools with more than 75% low-income

children scored at or above the Basic

level.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 27

Title I Grants for Schools Serving At-Risk Children--$7,996,020,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: At-risk students improve their achievement to meet challenging standards.

Relationship of Program to the Strategic Plan: Title I supports objectives 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 of the Department’s strategic plan by funding services to enable at-risk

students in low-income communities to meet challenging academic standards. It also helps build the capacity of schools in low-income communities to improve their

performance through supporting standards and assessment development (objective 1.1), staff professional development (objective 1.4), family involvement (objective 1.5), and

technology (objective 1.7).

Objective Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

1.2 Meeting or exceeding state performance

standards. By 2002, 32 states with 2 years of

assessment data and aligned standards and

assessments will report an increase in the

percentage of students in schools with at least

50% poverty who meet proficient and advanced

performance levels in reading and math on their

state assessment systems.

In 1997-98, 7 of the 10 states that had 2 years

of assessment data (disaggregated for public

schools with at least 50 percent poverty)

reported that increased percentages of

students attained proficient and advanced

levels of performance.

1.2 State Education Indicators with

a focus on Title I, 1998.

2. Increase the number of Title

I schools using standardsbased reform and effective

strategies to enable all

students to reach state and

local performance standards.

2.1 Use of challenging standards. By the year

2000, all schools receiving Title I funds will

report the use of content standards to guide

curriculum and instruction.

2.2 Improving schools: By the year 2000, an

increased percentage of Title I participating

schools will report that they have met or

exceeded state or district standards for progress

for two consecutive years.

2.3 Extended learning time. By the year 2000, 60%

of Title I schools will operate before- and afterschool, summer, and other programs to extend

and reinforce student learning.

In 1997-98, 72% of principals from Title I

schools reported the use of content standards

in reading and 71% reported the use of

content standards in math.

In 1998, 57% of the schools reported that

they had met the state or district standards

for progress for 2 consecutive years.

In 1998, 41% of Title I schools used

Title I funds to provide extended learning

time; and 39% used Title I funds to support

summer school activities.

2.1 National Longitudinal Survey

of Schools, 1999 Follow-Up

Survey of Schools, 1998.

2.2 Follow-Up Survey of Schools,

1998 ; Annual Title I State

Performance Reports, 1998.

2.3 Follow-up Public School

Survey on Education Reform,

1998; National Longitudinal

Survey of Schools, 1999.

2.4 Research-based curriculum and instruction.

The percentage of Title I schools using

comprehensive, research-based approaches to

improve curriculum and instruction will increase

annually.

2.5 School-parent compacts. By the year 2000,

90% of Title I participating schools will report

that their school staffs find school-parent

compacts and other tools helpful to enhance

communication between parents and schools and

to improve student learning.

In 1998, principals in Title I schools reported

that school-parent compacts have been

helpful in supporting homework completion:

v 81% in 75-100 % poverty

v 59% in 0-34.9% poverty

and assisting students in coming to school

prepared:

v 56% in 75-100% poverty

v 42% in 0-34.9% poverty

2.4 Baseline data will be reported

from the National Longitudinal

Survey of Schools, 1999

2.5 Follow-up Public School

Survey on Education

Reform,1998; National

Longitudinal Survey of

Schools, 1999.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 28

Title I Grants for Schools Serving At-Risk Children--$7,996,020,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: At-risk students improve their achievement to meet challenging standards.

Relationship of Program to the Strategic Plan: Title I supports objectives 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 of the Department’s strategic plan by funding services to enable at-risk

students in low-income communities to meet challenging academic standards. It also helps build the capacity of schools in low-income communities to improve their

performance through supporting standards and assessment development (objective 1.1), staff professional development (objective 1.4), family involvement (objective 1.5), and

technology (objective 1.7).

Objective Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

2.6 Qualified teacher aides. By 2000, 35% of Title

I school principals will report increased district

support for the educational improvement of

paraprofessionals and teacher aides.

2.7 Services to private school students. By 2002,

60% of district and private school administrators

will report effective implementation of on-site

services to students as a result of the Agostini v.

Felton court decision.

In 1998, 24% of principals in Title I schools

employing aides reported that their districts

offered a career ladder for paraprofessionals/

aides.

2.6 Follow-up Public School

survey on Education Reform,

1998; National Longitudinal

Survey of Schools, 1999.

2.7 Baseline data will be reported

through a planned study of

Title I services to private

school students (2000)

3. Stimulate and accelerate

state and local standardsbased reform efforts and

assistance to Title I schools .

3.1 Establishing annual progress measures: By

2000, all States will adopt or develop measures

of adequate progress linked to state performance

standards that are substantially more rigorous

than those used under the antecedent Chapter l

program.

3.2 Aligned assessments: By 2000-01, all states will

have assessments aligned with content and

performance standards for core subjects.

3.3 Aligned curricula and materials: By 2000,

60% of school districts receiving Title I funds

will report that curricula and instructional

materials in use in their schools are aligned with

state content standards.

All states are in the transitional period for

final assessments and accountability

Systems. In 1997, 25 states defined

proficient student performance as being at

least the 50th percentile on a norm-referenced

test (nrt). 14 states require at least 90% or

more of the students to attain the proficient

performance level, and 13 states require

proficiency in 10 years or less.

As of 1997, 14 states had assessments aligned

to state content standards.

In 1998, almost half of all school districts

reported that Title I is “driving standardsbased reform in the district as a whole” and

more than 60 percent report that Title I is

“driving standards-based reform in the

highest poverty schools in the districts to at

least a ‘moderate’ extent.

3.1 Standards-Based Assessment

and Accountability in

American Education, draft;

Analysis of state plans,

ongoing.

3.2 Standards-Based Assessment

and Accountability in

American Education, draft;

Analysis of state plans,

ongoing.

3.3 Follow-up District Survey,

draft.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 29

Title I Grants for Schools Serving At-Risk Children--$7,996,020,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: At-risk students improve their achievement to meet challenging standards.

Relationship of Program to the Strategic Plan: Title I supports objectives 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 of the Department’s strategic plan by funding services to enable at-risk

students in low-income communities to meet challenging academic standards. It also helps build the capacity of schools in low-income communities to improve their

performance through supporting standards and assessment development (objective 1.1), staff professional development (objective 1.4), family involvement (objective 1.5), and

technology (objective 1.7).

Objective Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

3.4 Effective assistance. States and districts will

provide more effective assistance to schools not

making progress through school support teams

and other sources.

In 1996, almost half of all districts reported

that providing effective technical assistance

to schools not making adequate yearly

progress was moderately to very difficult.

In 1998, 24 states reported that they had

more schools in need of support team services

than they have the capacity to provide.

3.4 Baseline District Survey

(Reports on Reform from the

Field), 1997. Follow-up State

Survey, draft.

Key Strategies

v Disseminate the findings from the National Research Council's reports, “Preventing Reading Difficulties,” and “Starting Out Right” to all Title I

Coordinators and to all Title I teachers. Use integrated review teams’ follow-up stage to determine whether Title I teachers are using the research-based reading practices

described in the reports in their classrooms.

v Disseminate new “Compact for Reading” guide to help parents and other care-givers reinforce reading instruction.

v Assist states and high-poverty school districts in the development, implementation, and refinement of aligned systems of standards, assessments, and accountability.

v Provide expert peer consultants and target technical assistance and dissemination efforts about standards, assessments, and accountability to those states and school systems

that have the greatest need for assistance.

v Sponsor national, regional, and statewide forums that focus on moving content standards into the classroom, particularly in high-poverty schools.

v Work with Comprehensive Centers and Regional Labs to develop, disseminate and demonstrate various approaches that facilitate the transformation of state content

standards into everyday teaching practice in Title I high-poverty schools across the nation.

v Disseminate research-based and promising practices of effective implementation of Title I provisions in order to accelerate the progress of districts and schools toward

better student achievement, particularly in high-poverty and low-performing states, districts, and schools.

v Disseminate to all state and local education agencies information about how to use Title I and other federal program funds to support extended learning time programs.

v Initiate a study of the programs, policies, and practices in districts that provide good career development opportunities for teacher aides.

v Initiate studies that focus on implementation challenges and successes associated with aligned standards, assessment and accountability systems.

v Invite nationally recognized experts in alignment of curricula alignment to standards to work with Title I and Comprehensive Center staff to design a Resource Guide for

alignment of curricula to standards.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 30

Even Start Family Literacy Program--$145,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To help break the cycle of poverty and illiteracy by improving the educational opportunities of the Nation’s low-income families, through a unified family 

literacy program that integrates early childhood education, adult literacy or adult basic education, and parenting education.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Even Start’s activities support objective 2.1 (children enter school ready to learn), 2.2 (reading) and 3.4 (adult literacy) by

providing model programs and supporting state and local implementation of the models. Because Even Start is focused on families most in need, it supports 2.4 (special

populations). A central feature of Even Start is its involvement of families and its coordination of community services to provide services to its families - objective 1.5 (families

and communities).

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

Participating families improve their literacy level

1. The literacy of participating

families will improve.

1.1 Adult literacy achievement. By fall 2001, 40%

of Even Start adults will achieve significant

learning gains on measures of math skills, and

30% of adults will achieve such gains on

measures of reading skills.

1.2 Adult educational attainment. By fall 2001,

25% of adult secondary education (ASE) Even

Start participants will earn their high school

diploma or equivalent.

1.3 Children’s language development and reading

readiness. By fall 2001, 60% of Even Start

children will achieve significant gains on

measures of language development and reading

readiness.

1.4 Parenting skills. Increasing percentages of

parents will show significant improvement on

measures of parenting skills, home environment,

and expectations for their children.

In 1995-96, 24% of adults achieved

moderate to large gains between pretest

and posttest on a test of math achievement,

and 20% on a test of reading achievement.

In 1995-96, 18% of all ASE/GED

participants earned a GED.

In 1995-96, 81% of children achieved

moderate to large gains on a test of school

readiness, and 50% on a test of language

development.

In 1995-96, 41% of parents scored 75% or

higher correct on the posttest measuring

the quality of cognitive stimulation and

emotional support provided to children in

the home.

1.1 National Even Start

Evaluation: experimental

study, 2000.

1.2 National Even Start

Evaluation: universe study,

1999, experimental study,

2000.

1.3 National Even Start

Evaluation: experimental

study, 2000.

1.4 National Even Start

Evaluation: universe study,

1999, experimental study,

2000.

Even Start projects provide high-quality instructional and support services to families most in need

2. Even Start projects will

reach their target

population of families who

are most in need of services.

2.1 Recruitment of most in need. The projects will

continue to recruit low-income, disadvantaged

families with low literacy levels.

In 1996-97, 90% of families had incomes

at or substantially below the federal

poverty level, and 45% of parents had less

than a 9th grade education at intake.

2.1 National Even Start

Evaluation: universe study,

1999.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 31

Even Start Family Literacy Program--$145,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To help break the cycle of poverty and illiteracy by improving the educational opportunities of the Nation’s low-income families, through a unified family 

literacy program that integrates early childhood education, adult literacy or adult basic education, and parenting education.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Even Start’s activities support objective 2.1 (children enter school ready to learn), 2.2 (reading) and 3.4 (adult literacy) by

providing model programs and supporting state and local implementation of the models. Because Even Start is focused on families most in need, it supports 2.4 (special

populations). A central feature of Even Start is its involvement of families and its coordination of community services to provide services to its families - objective 1.5 (families

and communities).

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

3. Local Even Start projects

will provide high-quality,

comprehensive instructional

and support services to all

families in a cost-effective

manner.

3.1 Service hours. By fall 2001, half of projects will

offer at least 60 hours of adult education per

month, 20 hours of parenting education per

month, and 65 hours of early childhood

education per month.

3.2 Participation, retention, and continuity.

Projects will increasingly improve retention and

continuity of services. By fall 2001, at least 60%

of new families will stay in the program for more

than 1 year.

In 1995-96, half of projects offered at least

32 hours of adult education per month, 13

hours of parenting education per month,

and 34 hours of early childhood education

per month.

Of new families entering in 1995-96,

41% stayed for more than 1 year.

3.1 National Even Start

Evaluation: universe study,

1999.

3.2 National Even Start

Evaluation: universe study,

1999.

High-quality and customer-responsive federal administration

4. The Department of

Education will provide

effective guidance and

technical assistance and will

identify and disseminate

reliable information on

effective approaches.

4.1 Federal technical assistance. An increasing

percentage of local project directors will be

satisfied with technical assistance and guidance.

4.1 National Even Start

Evaluation: universe study,

1999.

Key Strategies

v Improve Even Start programs by identifying model projects and promising practices through the Staff Mentoring Sites project and high-quality evaluations; and by

disseminating these practices through an Internet listserv, newsletters, and regional meetings; and by conducting an analysis and evaluation of costs associated with Even

Start.

v Work with states to encourage targeting and serving families most in need of services by--

ÿ Disseminating models and discussing targeting issues at state coordinators’ meetings, with a particular focus on increasing the intensity and continuity of service for

highly mobile families and families in rural areas, such as through distance learning; and

ÿ Reviewing local applications during integrated reviews for statements on serving families most in need.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 32

Migrant Education--$380,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To assist migrant students reach challenging standards. [Note that Objectives 1.1 and 1.2 rely on data that states are not mandated to supply until 2001.]

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: OME is designed to help migrant students to reach high standards. It addresses the Department’s objective 2.4 (that special

populations participate in appropriate services and assessments consistent with high standards), and objective 1.5 (that families and communities are fully involved in meeting

this goal).

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Along with other federal

programs and state and local

reform efforts, the Migrant

Education Program (MEP)

will contribute to improved

school performance of

migrant children.

1.1 State and local assessments. Increasing

numbers of migrant students will meet or exceed

the basic and proficient levels in state and local

assessments (where in place).

1.2 Improved attention to assessment of migrant

children. The number of states that include

migrant students in state assessments linked to

high standards will increase, reaching all states

that receive MEP funds in 2001.

Number of states that included migrant

students in their state assessment reports:

1995-96, 11 states

1996-97, 15 states & 1 territory

1.1 Council of Chief States School

Officers, State Education

Indicators Report,1999;

National Longitudinal Survey

of Schools (NLSS), 1999;

Consolidated State

Performance Report, 1999.

1.2 Council of Chief States School

Officers, State Education

Indicator Survey, 1999.

2. States and local districts will

provide education services

outside the regular school

term to help migrant

students achieve to high

standards.

2.1 Summer education participation. An

increasing number of migrant children will be

served by summer and inter-session programs.

2.2 Extended learning opportunities. The number

of migrant out-of-school youth served during

summer, inter-session, and extended time

programs will increase.

Numbers of summer participants:

1995-96: 220,793

1996-97: 283,026

Numbers of out-of-school youth served in

summer programs:

1995-96: 7,593

1996-97: 13,504.

2.1 MEP State Performance

Report, 1998; Fast Response

Survey System (FRSS) of

migrant summer school

providers, 1999.

2.2 MEP State Performance

Report, 1999.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 33

Migrant Education--$380,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To assist migrant students reach challenging standards. [Note that Objectives 1.1 and 1.2 rely on data that states are not mandated to supply until 2001.]

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: OME is designed to help migrant students to reach high standards. It addresses the Department’s objective 2.4 (that special

populations participate in appropriate services and assessments consistent with high standards), and objective 1.5 (that families and communities are fully involved in meeting

this goal).

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

3. The MEP will increase the

efficiency and effectiveness of

services to migrant children

through more effective

coordination at the state

level.

3.1 Interstate coordination. States will demonstrate

increased interstate coordination to improve

educational continuity for migrant students by

increasing the numbers of students served by

states receiving incentive grants.

Number of states receiving incentive

grants:

1995: 15

1996: 23

1997: 27

1998: 32

Number of students served by incentive

states:

1995: 22,000

1996: 44,000

3.1 Review of Consortium

Incentive Grants, 1995 to

1999.

3.2 Family access to information. The number of

migrant families using the toll-free number will

increase annually.

The number of toll-free users was 10,717 in

1997-98.

3.1 Usage reports from toll-free

number coordination contract.

3.4 Program coordination. District staff working

with Title I, Part A and Part C, and other

federally funded programs, will demonstrate

increasing levels of collaboration as

demonstrated by the number of Schoolwide

Programs.

The number of Schoolwide Programs

combining MEP funds increased from

1,541 in academic year 1995-96 to 2,626 in

academic year 1996-1997.

3.4 MEP State Performance

Report, 1998; Meeting the

Needs of Migrant Students in

Schoolwide Programs (1999);

NLSS, 1999.

4. Encourage relationships

between schools and families.

4.1 States will encourage and facilitate the

participation of migrant parents in their

children’s education.

4.2 More states and districts will form partnerships

with businesses, community groups, and schools

to encourage involvement of migrant parents.

4.3 More schools with migrant students will promote

parent compacts.

6 states report increasing their focus on

family involvement.

88% percent of Schoolwide Programs

serving migrant students reported having a

school-parent compact.

4.1 Living in Interesting Times,

Baseline Study of State

Implementation, 1998, NLSS,

1999.

4.2 Review of Consortium

Incentive Grants, 1995 to

1999.

4.3 Meeting the Needs of Migrant

Students in Schoolwide

Programs, (1999), NLSS,

1999.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 34

Migrant Education--$380,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To assist migrant students reach challenging standards. [Note that Objectives 1.1 and 1.2 rely on data that states are not mandated to supply until 2001.]

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: OME is designed to help migrant students to reach high standards. It addresses the Department’s objective 2.4 (that special

populations participate in appropriate services and assessments consistent with high standards), and objective 1.5 (that families and communities are fully involved in meeting

this goal).

Key Strategies

v Encourage states to coordinate their assessment procedures so that migrant children are included in state assessments that are linked to high standards.

v Examine assessment data from states that can disaggregate data by migrant status.

v Encourage states and districts to establish summer programs, inter-session programs, and extended day and school year programs for migrant children.

v Encourage states and districts to identify out-of-school migrant youth.

v Encourage states to form multi-state consortia to develop materials and implement procedures for use across multiple states.

v Support development and use of locator software to facilitate searches of state and regional databases to find and update records on migrant children.

v Establish and maintain substantive relationships with other federal programs, including Migrant Health (HHS) and Migrant Labor (JTPA).

v Provide technical assistance, through site visits, policy letters, meeting presentations, and other methods of communication, to better coordinate services to migrant students

across programs.

v Establish Schoolwide Programs at schools enrolling migrant children, and encourage the blending of MEP funds and services with other program funds so that migrant

children can benefit more fully.

v Encourage states and schools to encourage full participation and inclusion of migrant parents in the education of their children.

v Encourage states and districts to work with agribusiness and other local organizations to support education services and the work of migrant families and workers.

v Encourage states and districts to work with Title I, Part A, staff to include migrant parents in the Title I, Part A, outreach activities authorized by IASA.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 35

Programs for Children and Youth Who Are Neglected or Delinquent--$42,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To ensure that neglected and delinquent children and youth will have the opportunity to meet the challenging state standards needed to further their 

education and become productive members of society.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: This program is designed to improve the education and employment opportunities of neglected and delinquent students. It addresses

the Department’s objective 2.4 (that special populations participate in appropriate services and assessments consistent with high standards).

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

Improved Student Learning

1. Neglected (N) and

delinquent (D) students will

improve academic and

vocational skills needed to

further their education or

obtain employment.

1.2 Progress and achievement. An increasing

number of states will show that N or D students

are improving academic or vocational skills and

educational attainment.

1.1 Analysis of program

evaluations carried out by

state agencies under Section

1431 of Part D, Subpart 3 of

Title I, Part D, 1999.

2. Institutions and programs

will demonstrate overall

educational reform that

better meets the needs of N,

D, and at-risk children.

2.1 Institution-wide programs. Increased number

of institutions will operate institution-wide

programs that improve curriculum and

instruction across the institution.

2.2 Research-based curriculum and instructional

practice. States will use funds to implement

comprehensive and research-based programs that

focus on meeting the unique needs of N or D

students.

Approximately 9% of N or D facilities are

institution wide programs.

2.1 Title I state performance

report, 1998.

2.2 State Agency Evaluation,

1999.

3. Programs will improve the

ability of delinquent

children and youth to make

the transition from the

institution to their

community and society at

large.

3.1 Increased support for transition. An

increasing number of state-operated N or D

programs will incorporate transition services and

will track post-release progress of students.

3.1 Analysis of program

evaluations carried out by

state agencies under Section

1431 Subpart 3, of Title I, Part

D, 1999. State Agency

Evaluation, 1999.

Key Strategies

v Develop and disseminate guidance on conducting evaluations of N or D programs to state agencies.

v Conduct workshops to discuss promising practices in correctional education at major conferences, including the IASA conferences, the Title I conference, and the Correctional

Education Association Meeting.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 36

Demonstrations of Comprehensive School Reform—$150,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: Enable low-performing students to improve their achievement to meet challenging standards.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: CSRD’s activities support objective 1.1 (implement challenging standards), 2.2 (reading), 2.3 (math), and 3.1 (college

preparation) by helping schools serving various grade levels implement effective, research-based, comprehensive reforms intended to raise student achievement. In addition to a

focus on basic academics, CSRD supports objective 1.4 (professional development for teachers and staff), objective 1.5 (family involvement), and objective 1.3 (safe, strong,

disciplined schools).

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

Low-performing students improve attendance and achievement

1. Student attendance and

student achievement in core

subjects generally will show

marked improvement in

Comprehensive School

Reform Demonstration

(CSRD) schools.

1.1 State and local assessments. Increasing

percentages of students in CSRD schools will

meet or exceed the basic and proficient levels of

performance on state and local assessments.

1.2 Attendance. Increasing percentages of students

in CSRD schools will be in attendance daily.

New program 1.1 National Longitudinal Survey

of Schools, Fall 1999

(baseline); 2000.

1.2 Analysis of annual state and

local assessment results in

CSRD schools in states with

appropriate trend data, 1999

(baseline); 2000.

Schools provide high-quality education and improve performance

2. The number of

participating schools

providing high-quality

curriculum and instruction

will increase each year.

2.1 Research-based. The number of CSRD schools

implementing and sustaining comprehensive,

research-based approaches to improve

curriculum and instruction will increase

annually.

2.2 Implementation. The number of CSRD schools

meeting their objectives for implementation will

increase annually.

New program

New program

2.1 National Longitudinal Survey

of Schools, 1999 (baseline)

2000

2.2 National Longitudinal Survey

of Schools, 1999 (baseline);

2000.

2.3 School improvement. Increasing numbers of

CSRD schools will no longer be designated as

schools in need of improvement by their states.

New program 2.3 National Longitudinal Survey

of Schools, 1999 (baseline);

2000.

High-quality and customer-responsive federal administration

3. Federal leadership,

assistance, and guidance in

partnership with states and

local districts will support

school improvement and

improved services to

students

3.1 Useful guidance. The percent of state and local

program coordinators who report that

comprehensive reform implementation guidance

and other assistance are helpful will increase

over time.

In 1998 60% of state program coordinators

said that written information (e.g.,

guidance, mailings) was very helpful in

informing their understanding of the CSRD

program.

In 1998 49% of State program coordinators

said that other contacts, such as

conferences, workshops, on-line services,

and telephone were very helpful in

informing their understanding of the CSRD

program.

3.1 Follow-Up Study of State

Implementation, 1999

(baseline), 2000.

National Longitudinal Survey

of Schools, 1999 (baseline);

2000.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 37

Demonstrations of Comprehensive School Reform—$150,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: Enable low-performing students to improve their achievement to meet challenging standards.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: CSRD’s activities support objective 1.1 (implement challenging standards), 2.2 (reading), 2.3 (math), and 3.1 (college

preparation) by helping schools serving various grade levels implement effective, research-based, comprehensive reforms intended to raise student achievement. In addition to a

focus on basic academics, CSRD supports objective 1.4 (professional development for teachers and staff), objective 1.5 (family involvement), and objective 1.3 (safe, strong,

disciplined schools).

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

. 3.2 Impact on local understanding. The number of

districts and schools reporting knowledge and

understanding of comprehensive school reform

will increase annually.

New program 3.2 Local Implementation Study,

1998 (baseline), 2000.

National Longitudinal Survey

of Schools, 1999 (baseline);

2000.

Key Strategies

v Support adoption of effective comprehensive reform programs by disseminating program guidance and information that help states, districts, and schools implement,

evaluate, and support reform models and elements.

v Help schools and districts successfully implement comprehensive reform by working with states, regional education labs, comprehensive centers, and other providers of

technical assistance to design and carry out effective technical assistance strategies.

v Work with professional organizations, technical assistance providers, and researchers to promote school-level improvement through adopting comprehensive research-based

reform approaches for schools serving various grade levels and diverse populations.

v Establish a national directory of CSRD schools that will provide information for the national evaluation, and allow schools to network and share information and lessons as

they develop, implement, and evaluate comprehensive school reform strategies.

v Use multiple means, including electronic media, to disseminate information on effective research-based programs and their implementation.

v Support school improvement in partnership with states by improving and promoting the CSRD home page; developing an Internet-based network to disseminate

information and answer questions from CSR districts and schools; establishing Department of Education teams to assist schools and districts implementing CSR; initiating a

high quality national evaluation of CSRD; and sharing lessons learned with states, districts, and schools.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 38

High School Equivalency Program and College Assistance Migrant Program--$22,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To assist migrant and seasonal farm-worker students obtain the equivalent of a high school diploma and, subsequently, to begin postsecondary education, 

enter military service, or get a job.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: OME’s programs are designed to improve the achievement levels of older migrant students. They address objective 2.4 (special

populations participate in appropriate services and assessments consistent with high standards), objective 3.1 (that secondary school students get the support they need to prepare

for postsecondary education), and objective 3.2 ( that postsecondary students get the support they need to complete their educational program).

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

High School Equivalency Program (HEP)

1. An increasing percentage of

HEP participants will

complete the program and

receive their GED.

1.1 GED completion. The percentage of HEP

participants who complete the program and

receive the GED will continue to remain high, if

not increase, in comparison with other, similar

populations and programs.

In 1993-94, 69% of HEP participants

earned the GED, as compared with 30% of

national participants in Level II Adult

Education.

1.1 HEP/CAMP Association

reports (1995, et seq. ); data

from grantee competitive

applications (1993);

Performance Reports

(submitted for non-competing

continuations) (1994-99); Data

from other programs (e.g.,

Adult Education, Student

Support Services).

2. An increasing percentage of

HEP participants will begin

postsecondary education,

enter military service, or get

a job.

2.1 Postsecondary entrance. The percentage of

HEP participants with a GED who enroll in

postsecondary programs will either equal or

exceed the percentage achieved the previous

year.

2.1 Performance Reports

(submitted for non-competing

continuations) (1994-99).

College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP)

3. All CAMP students will

complete their first

academic year at a

postsecondary institution in

good standing.

3.1 Academic achievement. The percentage of

CAMP participants who successfully complete

the first year of an academic or postsecondary

education program (CAMP services are provided

just for the first year) will either equal or exceed

that achieved the previous year.

In 1993-94, 96% of CAMP participants

completed their first academic year in good

standing at an institution of higher

education.

3.1 HEP/CAMP Association

reports (1995, et seq.); data

from grantee competitive

applications (1993);

Performance Reports

(submitted for non-competing

continuations) (1994-99).

4. CAMP students will

graduate from 4-year

colleges or universities at

higher rates.

4.1 Student graduation. The percentage of former

CAMP participants who complete a

postsecondary degree program will be as high as

that achieved by all former adult-secondary level

students or higher.

In 1993-94, 74% of former CAMP

participants had graduated from college,

compared with 8 % of all Hispanics ages

18-38.

4.1 HEP/CAMP Association

reports 1995; data from other

programs (e.g., Adult

Education, Student Support

Services).
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 39

High School Equivalency Program and College Assistance Migrant Program--$22,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To assist migrant and seasonal farm-worker students obtain the equivalent of a high school diploma and, subsequently, to begin postsecondary education, 

enter military service, or get a job.

Relation of Program to Strategic Plan: OME’s programs are designed to improve the achievement levels of older migrant students. They address the following objectives:

special populations participate in appropriate services and assessments consistent with high standards (2.4); that secondary school students get the support they need to prepare

for postsecondary education (3.1); and that postsecondary students get the support they need to complete their educational program (3.2).

Key Strategies

v OESE will promote greater coordination of HEP with the MEP and with other adult education, high school completion, and dropout prevention programs administered by

OVAE and OPE.

v OESE will work with HEP projects to collect standardized information on participant outcomes and activities.

v Propose statutory changes to strengthen preparation for postsecondary education and to better target program services on those persons engaged in seasonal farm-work or

currently eligible for services as migrant or seasonal farm-workers under the MEP or JTPA Section 402 program.

v OESE will promote coordination of CAMP with the MEP and other relevant OPE programs (e.g., TRIO).

v OESE will work with CAMP projects to collect standardized information on participant outcomes and activities.

v Propose statutory changes to improve targeting of CAMP services on those persons currently eligible for services as migrant or seasonal farm-workers under the MEP or

JTPA Section 402 program.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 40
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 41

School Improvement and

Other Elementary/Secondary Programs

(Impact Aid, Class Size, Reading Excellence,

and Indian Education)
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 42

Impact Aid--$736,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To provide appropriate financial assistance for federally connected children who present a genuine burden to their school districts.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: The Impact Aid program supports objective 1.3 of the Department’s Strategic Plan. The program provides support to school

districts that are affected by federal activities.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

Basic Support Payments, Payments for Children with Disabilities, and Payments for Heavily Impacted Districts

1. Make payments in a timely

manner.

1.1 Timeliness of payments. At least 90% of

eligible applicants will receive initial Basic

Support and Disabilities payments within 60

days after the enactment of an appropriation.

1997: 75%

1998: 87%

1999: 13% (payments have now been

made; were delayed by implementation of

new Y2K-compliant system)

1.1 An annual application and

payment file, program office

analyses; next update 2000.

2. Make accurate payments. 2.1 Overpayment forgiveness requests. The

annual number of requests to forgive

overpayments of Basic Support payments,

Disabilities payments, and Heavily Impacted

payments will not exceed 10.

1998: 4 requests (compared to

approximately 2,500 school districts

receiving Basic Support Payments)

2.1 Program office analyses; next

update 1999.

3. Improve consultation

between school districts and

the Indian community to

support the education of

Indian children.

3.1 Indian community consultation. At least 75%

of Title IX coordinators in school districts that

receive Impact Aid will report that the district

solicits input from the Indian community on

strategies for increasing the achievement of

Indian children.

3.1 Title IX Performance Reports;

baseline data available spring

2000.

Facilities

4. Continue to maintain,

repair, renovate, and

transfer school facilities

owned by the Department

of Education.

4.1 Facility transfers. At least 2 school facilities

will be removed annually from the inventory of

facilities owned by the Department.

1996: 4 removals

1997: 2 removals

1998: 3 removals

4.1 Program files; next update

1999.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 43

Impact Aid--$736,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To provide appropriate financial assistance for federally connected children who present a genuine burden to their school districts.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: The Impact Aid program supports objective 1.3 of the Department’s Strategic Plan. The program provides support to school

districts that are affected by federal activities.

Key Strategies

v Propose formula changes through legislation and appropriations language to ensure that funds are directed to districts serving federally connected children for whom the

federal government has a primary obligation.

v Improve review procedures.

v Implement new payment system on Windows 95 platform with more sophisticated capabilities.

v Continue quality control processes to minimize payment errors.

v Provide increased technical assistance to school districts to support Indian community consultation requirements.

v Propose language for the ESEA reauthorization to strengthen the Indian community consultation requirements and increase accountability for the use of Impact Aid funds

for Indian children.

v Work with OIE to implement the Executive Order on American Indian and Alaskan Native Education.

v The Department has requested funding to maintain in a safe condition school buildings owned by the Department and to fund a limited number of renovation and transfer

projects in the FY 1999 budget.

v Continue negotiations with school districts to ensure timely transfer of facilities.

v Continue cooperative efforts with the Department of Defense to encourage the transfer of facilities to school districts.

v Request funding under section 8007 targeted to Impact Aid districts in which at least 50% of the children live on Indian lands.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 44

Eisenhower Professional Development Program--$335,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To improve the quality of classroom teaching through professional development.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: The Eisenhower Professional Development Program supports Objective 1.4 (A talented and dedicated teacher is in every classroom

in America) and Objective 2.3 (Every eight-grader masters challenging mathematics, including the foundations of algebra and geometry) by supporting grants to States, districts,

institutions of higher education and non-profit organizations for standards-based professional development. The program places a priority on math and science professional

development.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Classroom instruction is

improved through effective

professional development .

1.1 Teachers' skills and classroom instruction.

By 1998, over 50% of a sample of teachers will

show evidence that participation in Eisenhowerassisted professional development improved

their knowledge and skills. By 2000, over 60%

will show such evidence. By 1999, over 50% of

a sample of teachers in selected sites will show

evidence that participation in Eisenhowerassisted professional development has improved

classroom instruction.

Preliminary data from the national

evaluation indicate that, in 1998, about

66% of teachers who participated in

district-level Eisenhower activities reported

that the activities enhanced their

knowledge and skills in “instructional

methods.” About 58% of the teachers

reported that the activities enhanced their

knowledge and skills in curriculum content.

1.1 Final data to be published in

National Evaluation of the

Eisenhower Program Report,

1999. (Note: Final numbers

may be slightly different from

these preliminary numbers in

the “performance data” column

due to further analyses and the

addition of a small number of

late responders to the survey

sample.)

2. High-quality professional

development and state

policy are aligned with high

state content and student

performance standards.

2.1 District-level professional development. By

1998, over 50% of teachers participating in

district-level or higher education Eisenhowerassisted professional development will

participate in activities that are aligned with high

standards.. By 2000, over 75% will.

Preliminary data from the national

evaluation indicate that in 1998 about 56%

of teachers who participated in districtlevel Eisenhower activities and 59% of

teachers who participated in higher

education Eisenhower activities reported

that participation enhanced their capacity

to implement standards.

2.1 Data to be published in

National Evaluation of the

Eisenhower Program Report,

1999. (Note: Final numbers

may be slightly different from

these preliminary numbers in

“performance data” column

due to further analyses and the

addition of a small number of

late responders to the survey

sample.)

3. Professional development is

sustained, intensive, and

high-quality and has a

lasting impact on classroom

instruction.

3.1 High quality. By 1998, over 50% of teachers

participating in district-level, Eisenhowerassisted professional development activities will

participate in activities reflecting best practices,

including a focus on continuous improvement.

By 2000, over 75% will.

Preliminary data from the national

evaluation indicate that in 1998 about 52%

of teachers in Eisenhower district-level

activities reported that the activities placed

a major emphasis on deepening content

knowledge--67% of teachers in IHE/NPO

Eisenhower activities reported such

emphasis.

3.1 Data to be published in

National Evaluation of

Eisenhower Program Report,

1999. (Note: Final numbers

may be slightly different from

these preliminary numbers in

“performance data” column

due to further analyses and the

addition of a small number of

late responders to the survey

sample.)
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 45

Eisenhower Professional Development Program--$335,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To improve the quality of classroom teaching through professional development.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: The Eisenhower Professional Development Program supports Objective 1.4 (A talented and dedicated teacher is in every classroom

in America) and Objective 2.3 (Every eight-grader masters challenging mathematics, including the foundations of algebra and geometry) by supporting grants to States, districts,

institutions of higher education and non-profit organizations for standards-based professional development. The program places a priority on math and science professional

development.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

3.2 Sustained professional development. By 1998,

35% of teachers participating in district-level

Eisenhower-assisted activities will participate in

activities that are a component of professional

development that extends over the school year;

by 2000, over 50% will.

Preliminary data show that about 31 % of

teachers participating in district-level

Eisenhower activities were in activities

lasting longer than 1 month. About 61% of

teachers in higher education Eisenhower

activities engaged in activities that lasted

longer than 1 month.

3.2 Data to be published in

National Evaluation of

Eisenhower Program Report,

1999. (Note: Final numbers

may be slightly different from

these preliminary numbers in

“performance data” column

due to further analyses and the

addition of a small number of

late responders to the survey

sample.)

4. High-quality professional

development is provided to

teachers who work with

disadvantaged populations.

4.1 High-poverty schools. The proportion of

teachers participating in Eisenhower-assisted

activities who teach in high-poverty schools will

exceed the proportion of the national teacher

pool who teach in high-poverty schools.

4.1 Data to be published in

National Evaluation of the

Eisenhower Program Report,

1999.

4.2 Context (not limited to any single program):

Teachers. Teachers in high-poverty schools will

participate in intensive, sustained, high-quality

professional development at rates comparable

with, or higher than, the rates for teachers in

other schools.

The 1994 SASS shows that 36% of teachers

in high-poverty public schools participated

in professional development programs

focusing on in-depth study in their subject

field, compared with 30% of teachers in

low-poverty schools.

Data from the 1999 NCES Teacher Quality

Report show that teachers from high and

low poverty schools participate in

professional development focused on indepth study in their subject field at

comparable rates.

4.2 NCES Schools & Staffing

Survey (SASS), 1999-2000.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 46

Eisenhower Professional Development Program--$335,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To improve the quality of classroom teaching through professional development.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: The Eisenhower Professional Development Program supports Objective 1.4 (A talented and dedicated teacher is in every classroom

in America) and Objective 2.3 (Every eight-grader masters challenging mathematics, including the foundations of algebra and geometry) by supporting grants to States, districts,

institutions of higher education and non-profit organizations for standards-based professional development. The program places a priority on math and science professional

development.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

5. Effective management of the

Eisenhower Program at the

federal, state, and local

levels supports systemic

reform.

5.1 Federal guidance and assistance. The number

of Eisenhower state coordinators who report that

the Department’s guidance and assistance are

timely and helpful will increase.

In a 1998 survey, 43 (86%) of the

Eisenhower state coordinators reported

that written guidance from the Department

has been either “very helpful” or

“helpful,” and 42 states (84%) reported

that other contacts with ED have been

either “very helpful” or “helpful.”

Twenty-six (52%) states reported that

information from the Department has been

“timely,” and 12 states (24%) reported

that that such information was “very

timely.”

5.1 The Follow-Up Study of State

Implementation of Federal

Elementary and Secondary

Education Programs, 1998.

Data source for 2000 is under

development. (Note: Final

numbers may be slightly

different from these

preliminary numbers in

“performance data” column

due to further analyses.)

6. Measurement of integrated

planning and collaboration.

6.1 By 1998, 50% of all states will have developed

performance indicators for integrated

professional development across programs

(including Eisenhower) in order to support

systemic reform and will have data collection

systems in place; by 2000, 75% will have.

6.2 By 2000, over 80% of states will report that they

coordinate and collaborate with Title I state

coordinators when they develop their plans for

professional development.

As of 1998, 30 states (60%) had developed

professional development indicators under

the Eisenhower requirement, but only 8

states had developed them jointly with

other programs. ED is in the process of

extensively reviewing the indicators

provided by states on the Triennial

Performance Report forms to assess

whether more states have integrated

indicators across programs.

6.1 The Follow-up Study of State

Implementation of Federal

Elementary and Secondary

Education Programs, 1998. By

March of 1999, the

Department will have

completed an extensive review

of the Triennial Performance

Reports. (The source of data

for the year 2000 target is

under development.)

6.2 The source of data for the year

2000 target is under

development.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 47

Eisenhower Professional Development Program--$335,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To improve the quality of classroom teaching through professional development.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: The Eisenhower Professional Development Program supports Objective 1.4 (A talented and dedicated teacher is in every classroom

in America) and Objective 2.3 (Every eight-grader masters challenging mathematics, including the foundations of algebra and geometry) by supporting grants to States, districts,

institutions of higher education and non-profit organizations for standards-based professional development. The program places a priority on math and science professional

development.

Key Strategies

v Promote effective professional development as described in the Department’s Mission and Principles of High-Quality Professional Development. For example, encourage

standards-based activities and the use of measurable outcomes. Use the National Eisenhower Evaluation Conference for State Eisenhower coordinators as a forum for

providing technical assistance and for promoting these ideas.

v Review the performance indicator information that states provide on Triennial Performance Reports and develop and provide technical assistance to states on indicators in

accordance with that review. Promote strategies that help states to work with their local school districts in developing local indicators that are tied to standards developed by

professional organizations such as the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) and National Research Council (NRC). (Example: TIMSS technical assistance

workshops.)

v Through technical assistance workshops, ensure accurate interpretation of the program statute, including new requirements and their implementation at the state and local

levels.

v Help states use their indicator system to promote needs-based plans that take into consideration professional development for teachers who work with disadvantaged

populations.

v Disseminate information and provide technical assistance to Eisenhower state coordinators on aligning professional development with high state content and student

performance standards.

v Develop strategies for states to share effective practices in standards-based professional development that reflect high-quality research-based teaching. (Example: Share-aThon sessions at conferences.)

v Through technical assistance workshops, program guidance, and ED’s integrated review team (IRT) visits, encourage the states to adopt and report on strategies that promote

professional development activities that extend over the school year and address the States’ reform efforts. Through the same processes, ensure accurate interpretation of the

program statute, including new requirements and ways to implement them at the state and local levels.

v Assist in the implementation of the approved the Department’s and the National Science Foundation’s joint Action Plan for Improving Mathematics.

v Through written and oral communications, stress the need for Title II coordinators to work with Title I staff and to get teachers from high-poverty schools and

underrepresented populations involved in high-quality professional development.

v Work with Eisenhower State Agency for Higher Education (SAHE) coordinators to focus some of their grants on professional development and support for beginning

teachers.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 48

Innovative Education Program Strategies (Block Grant) (Title VI, ESEA)--$0 (FY 2000)

Goal: To support state and local efforts to accomplish promising education reform programs.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Innovative Education Program Strategies (Title VI) enables local educational agencies to deploy resources in eight categories

designed to improve educational opportunities in areas such as help for at-risk children, programs to increase parental involvement, enhanced library services, and professional

development for teachers. Because Title VI can be broadly applied by superintendents and principals, it meets the majority of the strategic plan objectives.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Increase the percentage of

Title VI-funded activities

that support local education

reform efforts.

1.1 Reform efforts. The use of Title VI funds will

show that the activities supported are integral to

achieving district reform plans.

In 1998, 52 percent of the Title VI district

coordinators reported that the district’s

long-term reform plan influenced how Title

VI funds were used.

Title VI funds are predominantly used by

districts to acquire educational materials,

including library materials and software

(58%) and to expand the use of technology

(39%).

1.1 Title VI Biennial Reports,

1999; Education Resources

and Federal Funding, 1999.

2. Effective management of the

Title VI program supports

systemic reform at the

federal, state and local

levels.

2.1 Quality ED service. State education agencies

will report that technical assistance and other

services provided by ED and federal assistance

providers are useful and of high quality.

2.2. Quality State implementation. Surveys of

states will show that Title VI state coordination,

monitoring, and assistance are effective in

integrating Title VI into state reform agendas

In 1997-98, 21 Title VI State Coordinators

reported that written guidance from ED

was very useful in informing their

understanding of federal legislative

provisions for Title VI; 14 reported that

other contacts with ED (e.g., conferences,

workshops, on-line services, telephone)

were very useful in informing their

understanding of the provisions; 21

reported that ED’s strategy for conducting

integrated reviews will be or has been

somewhat useful to implementing Title VI

to support comprehensive standards-based

reform.

Twenty-six state Title VI coordinators

reported that their state has conducted

integrated monitoring visits that address

their program and other federal or state

programs.

2.1 Baseline Crosscutting Survey

of State Implementation of

Federal Programs, 1998;

Follow-up Crosscutting State

Survey, 1999.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 49

Innovative Education Program Strategies (Block Grant) (Title VI, ESEA)--$0 (FY 2000)

Goal: To support state and local efforts to accomplish promising education reform programs.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Innovative Education Program Strategies (Title VI) enables local educational agencies to deploy resources in eight categories

designed to improve educational opportunities in areas such as help for at-risk children, programs to increase parental involvement, enhanced library services, and professional

development for teachers. Because Title VI can be broadly applied by superintendents and principals, it meets the majority of the strategic plan objectives.

Key Strategies

v Make presentations at regional and national meetings to assist Title VI coordinators in ensuring that program funds are used in a manner consistent with state and local

reform plans.

v Provide coordinators with information on activities, aligned with the purposes of the program, that have been proved effective.

v Ensure that technical assistance and other services by ED staff are useful and of high quality by responding to feedback provided by state and local program administrators

during ED Integrated Review Team visits.

v Continue professional development of Office of Elementary and Secondary employees to develop expertise in principles and practices of education reform.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 50

Class-Size Reduction Program--$1,400,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: Reduce average class size nationally, particularly in the early grades, to improve student achievement.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: The Class-Size Reduction Program directly supports objective 3.1 (safe, disciplined schools) by providing a conducive learning

environment. The program supports objective 1.4 (a talented teacher in every classroom) by providing teacher training for small classes. The program also supports objectives

2.1 (children start school ready to learn) and 2.2 (every child reading by the third grade) by enabling more individual attention in the early grades.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

1. To improve student

achievement.

1.1 State/ local assessments. Increasing

percentages of 4th graders at schools receiving

program funds will score at basic, proficient, or

advanced levels in reading on state or local

assessments.

New program 1.1 National Evaluation, 2000.

LEA report cards, 2000.

2. To reduce average class size

nationally in grades 1-3.

2.1 Additional teachers hired. By 2005, school

districts will hire 100,000 additional teachers

above those expected to be hired without the

program.

2.2 Number of students per class. Local school

districts will reduce the maximum or average

number of students per class in grades 1-3 so that

the national average class size will be 18 by

2005.

New program

In 1993-94, the average class size in grades

1-3 was 21.9 students.

2.1 State applications, 1999.

2.2 State applications, 1999.

Schools and Staffing Survey,

1998-99. State performance

reports, annual, 2001.

3. To ensure that newly hired

and existing teachers are

highly qualified and

certified.

3.1 Increased professional development.

Increasing percentages of teachers in grades 1-3

will complete intensive professional

development.

3.2 Improved preparation for teaching reading in

small classes. Increasing percentages of

teachers in grades 1-3 will receive intensive

professional development in effective teaching

methods in small classes.

New program 3.1 State performance reports,

annual, 2001.

3.2 State performance reports,

annual, 2001.

Key Strategies

v Work with states to distribute grant money by July 1, 1999.

v Collaborate with the Department’s existing programs (such as the Eisenhower Professional Development Program) to improve pre-service and in-service professional

development for teachers through regular meetings with program staff to share existing, and acquire new, information.

v Encourage state and local education agencies to share effective and creative approaches to teacher availability, limited classroom/building space, certification requirements,

collective bargaining agreements and other issues through facilitated workshops and the development by the Class-Size Reduction team of a publication that contains

information on such approaches.

v Build data collection about the early implementation of the program into the application package so that timely information on the initial impact can be generated.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 51

Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program—State Grants Program and National Programs (FY 2000)

Goal: To help ensure that all schools are safe, disciplined, and drug free by promoting implementation of high-quality drug and violence prevention programs.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Safe and Drug-Free Schools State Grant Program and National Programs support objective 1.3 (schools are strong, safe,

disciplined, and drug-free) by providing funds through formula and discretionary grants to states, governors’ offices, and other grantees in support of school-based drug and

violence prevention activities and services to create and maintain drug-free, safe, and orderly learning environments.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

Outcomes

1. Reduce the use and

availability of alcohol and

drugs in schools.

1.1 Drug use in schools. By 2001:

ÿ Rates of annual alcohol use in schools will

decline to 4% for 8th graders and 7% for 10th and

12th graders.

ÿ Rates of annual marijuana use in school for the

same time period will decline to 3%, 9%, and 7%

for 8th, 10th, and 12th graders.

Rate of annual alcohol use in school:

 8

th grade 10th grade 12th grade

1996: 6% 9% 8%

1997: 5% 8% 8%

1998: 6% 8% 8%

Rate of annual marijuana and other

drug use in school:

 8

th grade 10th grade

1996: 6% 11%

1997: 5% 11%

1998: 5% 9%*

*Goal met

Rate of annual marijuana use in

school:

 12th grade

1996: 10%

1997: 10%

1998: 8%*

*Goal met

1.1 Monitoring the Future (MTF),

1999 (students in grades 8, 10,

and 12).
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 52

Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program—State Grants Program and National Programs (FY 2000)

Goal: To help ensure that all schools are safe, disciplined, and drug free by promoting implementation of high-quality drug and violence prevention programs.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Safe and Drug-Free Schools State Grant Program and National Programs support objective 1.3 (schools are strong, safe,

disciplined, and drug-free) by providing funds through formula and discretionary grants to states, governors’ offices, and other grantees in support of school-based drug and

violence prevention activities and services to create and maintain drug-free, safe, and orderly learning environments.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

2. Reduce number of criminal

and violent incidents in

schools.

2.1 Serious violent incidents in schools. By 2001:

ÿ The proportion of high school students in a

physical fight on school property will decrease to

12%.

ÿ The annual rate of students ages 12 to 18 who

report experiencing serious violent crime in

school, or going to and from school, will

decrease to 8 per 1,000.

2.2 Weapons in schools. By 2001, the proportion of

high school students carrying weapons (including

firearms) to school will decrease to 6%.

2.3 School-related homicides. For the 2-year

period ending in 2001, the number of schoolrelated homicides will decline to 64.

ÿ Percentage of high school

students who reported being

involved in a physical fight on

school property in the past year:

1995: 16%

1997: 15%

ÿ Rate of students ages 12 to 18

who reported experiencing

serious violent crime in schools,

or going to and from school:

1995: 11 per 1,000

1996: 10 per 1,000

1997: [rate not yet available]

Percentage of high school students

who reported carrying a weapon on

school property in the previous 30

days:

1995 10%

1997 9%

CDC/ED study: 85 school-associated

homicides were reported between

1992-1993 and 1993-1994.

2.1

ÿ Youth Risk Behavior Survey

(YRBS), Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention, (CDC)

1999.

ÿ National Crime Victimization

Survey (NCVS), 1999.

2.2 YRBS 1999 .

2.3 CDC/ED Study, 1999.

3. Reduce alcohol and drug use

among school-age youth.

3.1 Drug use by school-aged children. By 2000:

ÿ Rates of 30-day prevalence of alcohol use will

decline to 21% for 8th graders, 32% for 10th

graders, and 41% for 12th graders.

ÿ Rates of 30-day prevalence of illicit drug use will

decline to 12% for 8th graders, 19% for 10th

graders, and 20% for 12th graders.

ÿ Rate of 30 day alcohol use:

 8

th grade 10th grade 12th grade

1996: 26% 40% 51%

1997: 25% 40% 53%

1998: 23% 39% 52%

ÿ Rate of 30 day illicit drug use:

 8

th grade 10th grade 12th grade

1996: 15% 23% 25%

1997: 13% 23% 26%

1998: 12% 22% 26%

3.1 MTF, 1999.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 53

Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program—State Grants Program and National Programs (FY 2000)

Goal: To help ensure that all schools are safe, disciplined, and drug free by promoting implementation of high-quality drug and violence prevention programs.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Safe and Drug-Free Schools State Grant Program and National Programs support objective 1.3 (schools are strong, safe,

disciplined, and drug-free) by providing funds through formula and discretionary grants to states, governors’ offices, and other grantees in support of school-based drug and

violence prevention activities and services to create and maintain drug-free, safe, and orderly learning environments.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

High quality programs and services

4. Help school districts select and

implement programs that

have been evaluated and

found to be effective.

4.1 Increase pool of promising and exemplary

programs. By 2002, identify 20 drug and

violence prevention programs that have been

rigorously evaluated and found to be either

promising or exemplary, as defined by an expert

panel.

4.1 Results of review process by

Expert Panel on Safe and

Drug-Free Schools, 1999.

5. Help school districts align

their programs with the SDFS

Principles of Effectiveness for

Prevention Programs through

both state formula grants and

National Programs. Programs

must be tied to a needs

assessment, have goals that

are measurable and tied to

outcomes, be research based,

and be evaluated periodically.

5.1 Principles of effectiveness. By 2001, all school

districts will use prevention programs that are

consistent with the SDFS Principles of

Effectiveness.

5.2 Coordinators. By 2001, all drug prevention and

school safety coordinators funded by the middleschool coordinator initiative will have received

training to implement effective, research-based

programs.

5.1 ED Local Educational Agency

Survey (LEA Survey), 1999

5.2 Planned evaluation to begin

with coordinator initiative in

FY 1999.

6. Improve the quality and use of

state and local performance

data through both the state

formula grant program and

National Programs.

6.1 State surveys. By 1999, all states will conduct

periodic statewide surveys or collect statewide

data on student alcohol and drug use and

incidents of crime and violence in schools.

6.2 Approval of district applications. By 1998, all

states will use performance indicators to make

decisions regarding approval of applications

from districts for FY 1997 funding.

6.3 District program improvement. By 1999, all

districts will routinely use performance

indicators to determine whether activities should

be continued or modified.

For school year 1996-1997, 49 states

conducted periodic surveys or

collected statewide data on student

alcohol and other drug use, and 39

states collected information on crime

and violence in schools.

6.1 ED/SDFS Survey, 1998.

6.2 SDFS State Reports, 1999.

6.3 LEA Survey, 1999.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 54

Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program—State Grants Program and National Programs (FY 2000)

Goal: To help ensure that all schools are safe, disciplined, and drug free by promoting implementation of high-quality drug and violence prevention programs.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Safe and Drug-Free Schools State Grant Program and National Programs support objective 1.3 (schools are strong, safe,

disciplined, and drug-free) by providing funds through formula and discretionary grants to states, governors’ offices, and other grantees in support of school-based drug and

violence prevention activities and services to create and maintain drug-free, safe, and orderly learning environments.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

7 Provide crisis intervention

assistance to school districts.

7.1 Crisis intervention. By 2000, the Department

will establish the organization structure

necessary to provide timely, targeted assistance

to school districts seriously affected by crises

that interfere with learning.

No such formal structure has been

established as of 1998.

7.1 Review of program files and

organizational plans.

Key Strategies

v Identify and publicize promising prevention programs and strategies through the Expert Panel project, in coordination with the Department of Health and Human Services,

to identify exemplary and promising prevention programs, and through the redesigned Recognition Program to identify schools implementing exemplary/promising

strategies.

v Produce Annual Report Card, in coordination with the U.S. Department of Justice, to enhance public awareness about the nature and character of school violence and to

identify effective practices.

v Implement SDFS Principles of Effectiveness that require program funds be used for data-driven, research-based programs.

v Continue to monitor the implementation of Demonstration Grants to test and identify program suitable for replication in other school sites.

v Implement the School Emergency Response to Violence (SERV) initiative to provide crisis intervention services to districts seriously affected by traumatic events that

disrupt learning.

v Support the Higher Education Center for Campus-Based Drug and Violence Prevention Programs.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 55

Inexpensive Book Distribution--$18,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To provide programs that promote literacy skills and motivate children to read, including the distribution of inexpensive books to children.

Relation of Program to Strategic Plan: The Inexpensive Book Distribution program supports objective 2.2 of the Department’s Strategic Plan, by distributing books and other

activities to motivate and help children read well.

Objective Indicator Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Support the goals of the

America Reads Challenge

and the U.S. Department of

Education's priority of

having children read

independently and well by

the end of the grade 3; and

support and promote

literacy development

through grade 12, through

Reading Is Fundamental

(RIF) projects.

1.1 Increased numbers of children served and

books distributed by RIF projects. The

numbers of children served and books distributed

by RIF projects will increase annually.

1.2 Financial self-sufficiency. In order to use

federal funds to support the implementation of

additional local RIF projects, the federal share of

funds that support existing RIF projects will

decrease over time.

1.3 Promote community literacy efforts. RIF

projects will increasingly engage in partnership

activities and work to promote broad-based

community support for, and involvement in,

literacy projects.

In FY 1997, RIF served 1,982,000 children

and distributed 6,343,000 books. In FY

1998, RIF served 3,334,965 children and

distributed 10,549,963 books.

In FY 2000, RIF will develop baseline data

detailing the numbers of successful,

continuing projects that no longer need

federal support.

In FY 1998, RIF projects developed

partnerships with 96 associations and

organizations across the country, for

community support and involvement in

literacy projects.

1.1 Performance reports, annual,

1999, 2000.

1.2 Performance reports, annual,

2000.

1.3 Performance reports, annual,

1998..

2. Serve children with special

needs through Reading Is

Fundamental (RIF)

projects.

Children with special needs

are defined as children at

risk of school failure,

disabled and homeless

children, children of migrant

families, institutionalized

and incarcerated children, or

children of institutionalized

or incarcerated parents.

2.1 Children with special needs. An increasing

percentage of children served by RIF will be

those with special needs.

In FY 1998, approximately 69% of children

served by RIF projects had special needs

2.1 Performance reports, annual,

1998.

Key Strategies

v Encourage RIF projects that broaden and strengthen community partnerships in order to ensure lasting financial independence and sufficiency.

v Encourage RIF projects to coordinate its efforts with local Title I, Migrant Education, Even Start, and America Reads Challenge: Read*Write*Now programs.

v Provide technical assistance and advice to RIF on effective ways that these projects can use to reach under-served, at-risk, and children with special needs.

v Encourage RIF to coordinate its efforts with local Title I, Migrant Education, Even Start, and America Reads Challenge: Read*Write*Now programs.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 56

Arts Education--$10,500,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To promote, improve, and enhance arts education and cultural activities for elementary and secondary students.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: The Arts in Education Program supports objectives 1.1(challenging standards) and 2.4 (at-risk populations). The program provides

financial support for high-quality arts education that can help motivate all children, including members of high-risk groups, to learn to high standards.

Objective Indicator Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Activities supported with

federal funds will serve an

increasing proportion of

students with disabilities or

students who would not

otherwise have access to

cultural activities.

1.1 Outreach. Projects supported by the Kennedy

Center will reach a greater number of

communities, particularly in urban, rural, and

socioeconomically disadvantaged areas. Targets

to be set in 1999.

1.2 Outreach. Very Special Arts will expand the

number of affiliates and partnerships that it

supports to provide arts education. Use of

technology will increase access to the arts for

students with disabilities. Targets to be set in

December 1999.

1.1 Performance reports, annual,

1999.

1.2 Performance reports, annual,

1999.

2. Kennedy Center activities

will improve the quality of

arts education programs by

assisting professional

development and the

development of curriculum

materials.

2.1 Quality of services. Projects supported by the

Kennedy Center will create, revise, and

disseminate high-quality professional

development activities and curriculum materials

tied to challenging standards annually. Targets to

be set in 1999.

2.1 Performance reports, annual,

1999.

Key Strategies

v Provide technical assistance and advice to grantees on effective ways to reach students who are under-served, at-risk, and have special needs.

v Provide information to grantee about effective teacher training practices.

v Provide arts education resources, developed by grantees, to schools through the use of technology.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 57

Magnet Schools Assistance Program--$114,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To assist in the desegregation of schools served by local education agencies.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: The Magnet Schools Assistance Program supports objectives 1.1, 1.6, and 3.1 of the Department’s Strategic Plan. The program

provides financial assistance for high-quality public school choice options that are accessible to all children. The objectives are concerned with how well the program is serving

the children enrolled in magnet schools, and the extent to which the program is enabling public school districts to reduce racial isolation of among and within schools. The

program contributes to state and local systemic reforms, the provision of high-quality teaching and learning experiences, and the improvement of student achievement.

Objective Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Federally funded magnet

programs eliminate, reduce, or

prevent the incidence and/or

the degree of minority student

isolation in targeted schools.

Targeted school

1.1 Minority group isolation: Targeted schools

will eliminate, reduce, or prevent minority

group isolation according to their objective.

Specific objectives of FY ’98 funded schools:

11% of schools – prevent minority group

isolation (MGI)

13% of schools – eliminate MGI

57% of schools – reduce MGI

3% of schools – prevent, reduce, or eliminate

MGI in feeder school

16% of schools – objective to be classified

1.2 Minority/non-minority distribution. Magnet

curricular activities generally will reflect the

same minority/non-minority distribution as the

magnet school (or program within school ).

1.1 MSAP annual project reports,

beginning September 1999 (end

of the first year of the three year

project cycle); MSAP evaluation,

2000.

1.2 Analysis of 1998 MSAP

applications in 1999; MSAP

annual project reports, 1999;

MSAP evaluation, 2000.

2. Federally funded magnet

programs or innovative

programs promote national,

state, and local systemic

reforms and are aligned with

challenging state content and

student performance

standards.

2.2 National, state, and local reforms. Project

designs will provide evidence that the magnet

programs are aligned with state, and local

reform strategies.

2.3 State content and performance standards.

Project designs will explicitly provide evidence

of the use of challenging state content and

student performance standards. These are

reflected in the program curriculum and in

planned student assessments aligned to the

curriculum.

1998 MSAP applications show:

Designs aligned with:

State reforms - 95%

District reforms - 28%

1998 MSAP applications show:

Curricula link to standards?

58% Yes

18% In development

25% Unable to determine from

applications

1998 MSAP applications show:

Assessments linked to standards?

62% Yes

11% In development

28% Unable to determine from

applications

2.1 1998 MSAP applications in 1999;

MSAP annual project reports,

1999; MSAP evaluation, 2000.

2.2 Analysis of 1998 MSAP

applications in 1999; MSAP

annual project reports, 1999;

MSAP evaluation, 2000.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 58

Magnet Schools Assistance Program--$114,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To assist in the desegregation of schools served by local education agencies.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: The Magnet Schools Assistance Program supports objectives 1.1, 1.6, and 3.1 of the Department’s Strategic Plan. The program

provides financial assistance for high-quality public school choice options that are accessible to all children. The objectives are concerned with how well the program is serving

the children enrolled in magnet schools, and the extent to which the program is enabling public school districts to reduce racial isolation of among and within schools. The

program contributes to state and local systemic reforms, the provision of high-quality teaching and learning experiences, and the improvement of student achievement.

Objective Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

3. Federally funded magnet

programs or innovative

programs strengthen students’

knowledge of academic

subjects and skills needed for

successful careers in the future.

3.1 Improved student achievement. Students will

show achievement gains in core subjects, as

well as in applied learning skills, that meet or

exceed the gains for students in the district as a

whole. (Applied learning skills include higherorder-thinking skills, individual problemsolving ability, communication skills, computer

skills, and ability to contribute to group

projects.)

While not specific to federally

supported magnets, other studies show

that magnet school students performed

better in reading, science, and social

studies than students in comprehensive

public high schools and private high

schools.

3.1 Gamoran, 1996; Analysis of 1998

MSAP applications, 1999; MSAP

annual project reports, 1999;

MSAP evaluation, 2000.

4. Innovative programs assist in

the desegregation of schools

through effective strategies

other than magnet schools and

through parental and

community involvement.

4.1 Assist in desegregation. Innovative programs

involving strategies (other than magnet schools)

such as neighborhood schools, and community

model schools organized around a special

emphasis, theme, or concept will measurably

assist in the desegregation of schools.

4.2 Parental and community involvement.

Projects will incorporate practices that support

extensive parental and community involvement

that are related to the program model (e.g.,

neighborhood school, community model

school) being implemented.

4.1 Innovative Programs ( 5111)

applications, 1999; Innovative

Programs annual project reports,

beginning 2000.

4.2 Innovative Programs ( 5111)

applications, 1999; Innovative

Programs annual project reports,

beginning 2000.

Key Strategies

v Provide technical assistance to grantees on the integration and use of the performance indicators in applications and reports.

v Disseminate through conferences and meetings information on best practices and strategies for achieving program objectives.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 59

Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Program--$31,700,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To ensure access of homeless children and youth to the same free, appropriate public education, including a public preschool education, as is provided to 

other children and youth.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: This program is designed to increase homeless children and youth’s access to public education and educational support services by

requiring that states remove barriers to their participation. It addresses the Department’s objective 2.4 (that special populations participate in appropriate services and assessments

consistent with high standards).

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Homeless children and

youth will have greater

access to a free and

appropriate public

education.

1.1 Public schools. An increasing percentage of

homeless children and youth will enroll in public

schools and will attend school regularly.

1.2 Program access. An increasing number of

homeless children and youth will have access to

all federal programs and state-sponsored

academic programs.

1.3 Eliminating barriers. Decreasing numbers of

states will report transportation, immunization,

and residency requirements as barriers to access

to education.

1.4 Preschool-age children. An increasing

percentage of preschool-age homeless children

will enroll in preschool programs.

In 1996-97 states reported that

approximately 78% of homeless children

and youth in grades K-12 were enrolled in

school.

In 1996-97 states reported that

approximately 55% of homeless children

and youth were attending school regularly

during homelessness.

In 1998, 29 states reported that homeless

children and youth have no difficulty

accessing Title I, 14 states reported no

difficulty accessing special education, and

21 states reported no difficulty accessing

state compensatory education. Most other

states reported a degree of difficulty with

access to these three programs.

In 1998, 6 states reported that

immunization requirements still pose a

barrier, 13 states reported that

requirements for legal guardianship still

pose a barrier, and 18 states reported that

transportation still poses a barrier to the

enrollment of homeless children and youth.

In 1998, states reported that 21 % of

homeless preschool age children are

enrolled in preschool programs.

1.1 Triennial State Data Collection

Report, 1998.

1.2 Unpublished Tabulations,

Follow-up to the National

Evaluation, 1998.

1.3 Unpublished Tabulations,

Follow-up to the National

Evaluation, 1998.

1.4 Triennial State Data Collection

Report, 1998.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 60

Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Program--$31,700,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To ensure access of homeless children and youth to the same free, appropriate public education, including a public preschool education, as is provided to 

other children and youth.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: This program is designed to increase homeless children and youth’s access to public education and educational support services by

requiring that states remove barriers to their participation. It addresses the Department’s objective 2.4 (that special populations participate in appropriate services and assessments

consistent with high standards).

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

2. Homeless children and

youth will have greater

opportunities to meet the

same challenging state

student performance

standards held for all

students.

2.1 Success. More states will collect data on the

effectiveness of school district activities that

improve homeless children and youth’s capacity

to meet challenging academic standards.

Eight states collect information on the

effectiveness of LEA educational programs

and strategies serving homeless children

and youth.

2.1 Unpublished Tabulations,

Follow-up to the National

Evaluation, 1999.

3. Coordination among state

agencies that provide

services to homeless families

will improve.

3.1 Coordination. An increasing number of states

will report that they are engaging in activities to

improve coordination among state agencies that

provide services to homeless families.

In 1998, 24 states reported that they are

collaborating and coordinating with other

state government agencies.

3.1 Unpublished Tabulations,

Follow-up to the National

Evaluation, 1998.

Key Strategies

v Promote state awareness of the need to improve access to education for homeless children by encouraging the Title I and Homeless program coordinators to work together.

v Require state Homeless program coordinators to ensure that school districts have designated local homeless liaison personnel.

v Disseminate successful practices through national conferences, regional meetings, publications, and site visits.

v Disseminate information and guidance on the statutory requirement that preschool-age children have access to appropriate services.

v The Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers (CCs) will provide technical assistance to states and districts in developing and implementing plans to increase the

achievement of homeless children and youth.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 61

Women’s Educational Equity (WEEA)--$3,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To promote equity in education for women and girls in the United States.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: The Women’s Educational Equity Program objectives support objective 1.1 of the Department’s Strategic Plan. The program

provides financial assistance and information that will help ensure that girls and women receive equitable opportunities to receive high-quality instruction and to learn to high

standards and achieve success without encountering gender bias.

Objective Indicator Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Promote gender equity in

education to ensure that

girls and women have

educational opportunities

comparable to those

available to boys and men.

1.1 LEA implementation. Increasing percentages

of LEAs will request information about and

implement research-based curriculum, policies,

and practices that ensure gender equity in

education.

1.1 Performance reports, annual,

2000. WEEA Resource Center

Report, 2000.

2. Promote training activities

that prepare educators to

meet the needs of women

and girls, including those

who suffer from multiple

forms of discrimination (i.e.,

sex, race, ethnic origin,

limited English proficiency,

disability, or age).

2.1 Training strategies. Increasing numbers of

educators served by the program will receive

gender equity training, including training that

deals with multiple forms of discrimination.

2.1 Performance reports, annual,

2000; WEEA Resource Center

Report, 2000.

Key Strategies

v School Improvement Program (SIP) staff will coordinate with the Resource Center to disseminate current gender equity materials and resources, and to provide technical

assistance on their use.

v SIP staff will coordinate with the WEEA Resource Center to disseminate information on effective training techniques and promising practices for equity in education.

SIP will include training as a competitive priority in future grant applications.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 62

Title IV of the Civil Rights Act: Equity Assistance Center Program--$7,334,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To support access and equity in public schools and help school districts to solve equity problems in education related to race, gender, and national origin.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: The Equity Assistance Centers program objectives support objectives 1.1, 1.6, and 2.4 of the Department’s Strategic Plan. The

centers funded by the program provide technical assistance designed to help school districts ensure that students who have been subject to racial, ethnic, or gender bias have

equitable opportunities to learn to high standards.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Provide high-quality

technical assistance and

training to public school

districts in addressing equity

in education.

1.1 Addressing educational problems. An

increasing percentage of Equity Assistance

Center (EAC) technical assistance services help

students affected by problems in equity related to

race, gender, or national origin to have better

opportunities to make progress in meeting or

exceeding state performance standards.

1.1 EAC annual performance

report, 2000.

2. Develop an effective

collaborative working

relationship with other

technical assistance

providers to ensure that

equity needs are addressed.

2.1 Collaboration with other technical assistance

providers. As a result of coordination activities,

appropriate referrals and joint technical

assistance activities with research institutions

and other technical assistance providers will

increase annually.

2.1 EAC annual performance

reports, 1999.

Key Strategies

v Conduct timely communication of ED information regarding strategies to ensure that all students have opportunities to meet high standards.

v Encourage districts implementing school choice and other programs to consider assistance that is available from EACs in the formulation of their strategies to improve

equality of student access and involvement in high-quality instructional programs.

v Disseminate information and provide regular updates from Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Office of the General Council (OGC), and other appropriate sources on issues

regarding equity in education to EACs.

v SIP staff will include in EAC cooperative agreements a requirement to collaborate with each other and ED on the development and use of a survey plan (winter, 1998/99).

v Create or expand both regional and national networks of technical assistance providers through joint meetings and other activities.

v Maintain lists of all technical assistance providers on ED web site.

v Invite other technical assistance providers to meetings of EAC directors to expand directors’ knowledge of resources and mandates of the other technical assistance

providers.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 63

Allen J. Ellender Fellowship Program--$0 (FY 2000)

Goal: To improve participants' knowledge, skills, and attitudes regarding the three branches of government

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: The Ellender Fellowships program objectives support objective 1.1 of the Strategic Plan. The program provides fellowships to

students from low-income families and their teachers to participate in seminars on government and current events. The program seeks to increase students’ knowledge and skills

in civic participation.

Objective Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Implement a program to

increase students’

knowledge and skills in civic

participation, with emphasis

on students with special

needs.

1.1 Students from targeted groups. Each year, an

increasing percentage of participants will be

students with special needs (e.g., those with

disabilities, ethnic minorities, and migrant).

Targets will be set in September 1999.

1.2 Student knowledge. Students will demonstrate

an increased understanding of the democratic

process. Targets will be set in September 1999.

1.1 Grantees analysis, 1999.

1.2 Grantee analysis of student and

teacher surveys, 1999.

2. Increase the impact of the

Ellender fellowships

program through teacher

training, educational

materials, and development

of civic education programs.

2.1 Development of civic education programs.

More teachers will use information and strategies

from grantee's professional development

program.

2.1 Grantee site visits, 1999.

3. Make progress toward full

financial independence

from federal funding.

3.1 Increased private funding. An increasing

percentage of grantees’ funding will come from

nonfederal sources. Targets set in 1999.

3.1 Annual audit and grantee

reports; first available 1999.

Key Strategies

v Disseminate information about the program to states and school districts in rural areas/small towns, and providers of technical assistance.

v Encourage grantees to allocate more student fellowships to schools with high proportions of students with special needs.

v Work with grantees to develop and refine plans for obtaining funding from nonfederal sources.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 64

Native Hawaiian Education Program--$20,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To assist the Native Hawaiian population achieve to challenging standards through supporting supplemental programs that meet their unique needs.

Relation of Program to Strategic Plan: The Education for Native Hawaiians program supports objectives 1.1 and 2.4 of the Department’s Strategic Plan. The program

provides assistance for educational services that meet the special needs of Native Hawaiian children and families so that these children can learn to high standards.

Objective Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Native Hawaiian students

will enter school ready to

learn and achieve to high

standards.

1.1 Children’s school readiness. Increasing

percentages of Native Hawaiian children will

improve on measures of school readiness and

literacy.

1.2 Challenging curriculum. Increasing numbers

of Native Hawaiian students will participate in

challenging, culturally-based curriculum and

instructional programs.

In 1997-98, approximately 3,000 Native

Hawaiian students participated in

curriculum and instructional programs

supported by this program.

1.1 Performance reports, annual,

1999.

1.2 Performance reports, annual,

1999.

2. Teachers will receive

training and have access to

instructional resources that

meet the unique educational

needs of Native Hawaiian

students.

2.1 Professional development. The number of

teachers of Native Hawaiian students who will

be prepared to address Native Hawaiians unique

needs will increase each year.

In 1997-98 500 teachers participated in

professional development activities to

address the needs of Native Hawaiian

students.

2.1 Performance reports, annual,

1999.

3. Native Hawaiian students

will have access to a

postsecondary education.

3.1 Undergraduate enrollment and completion.

Increasing percentages of Native Hawaiian

students will attend and complete postsecondary

institutions in comparison with historic trends for

the Native Hawaiian population.

In 1997-98, Native Hawaiians represented

13% of enrollment in the University of

Hawaii system.

3.1 Performance report by

Kamehameha Schools Bishop

Estate, annual, 1998

Key Strategies

v Program staff will share promising models, approaches, and research with Native Hawaiian projects.

v Program staff will share information on effective parent involvement models and approaches from Title I and other Department of Education programs.

v Program staff will help facilitate networking among schools, Native Hawaiian education organizations, and resource centers to address the needs of Native Hawaiian

students.

v OPE will provide information on counseling, support services, and other promising activities that meet the needs of at-risk students and encourage their inclusion in

postsecondary programs.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 65

Alaska Native Education Program--$10,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To assist the Alaska Native population to achieve to challenging standards through supporting supplemental programs that meet their unique educational 

needs.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: The Alaska Native Education program objectives support objectives 1.1 and 2.4 of the Department’s strategic plan. The program

provides financial assistance for educational services that meet the special needs of Alaska Native children and families so that these children can learn to high standards.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Alaska Native students will

have access to instruction

and curriculum that meets

their unique educational

needs.

1.1 Student achievement. Increasing percentages

of Alaska Native students will meet or exceed

the performance standards that are established

by the state or district, or on national

assessments.

1.2 Professional development. The number of

teachers of Alaska Native students that will be

prepared to address Alaska Natives’ unique

needs will increase each year.

1.3 Support services. Increasing percentages of

Alaska Native enrichment programs will

provide support services to families that enable

students to benefit from the program.

1.1 Performance reports, annual,

1999.

1.2 Performance reports, annual,

1999.

1.3 Performance reports, annual,

1999.

2. Parents of Alaska Native

preschool students will

become more effective

educators through active

involvement in their child's

education.

2.1 Parent involvement. The number of parents

reporting improved ability to teach their

children will increase each year.

2.1 Performance reports, annual,

1999.

Key Strategies

v Program staff will provide information to help facilitate networking among schools, Alaska Native education organizations, and resource centers to address the needs of

Alaska Native students.

v Program staff will share promising models, approaches, and research with Alaskan Native projects.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 66

Public Charter Schools Program (PCSP)--$130,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To support the creation of a large number of high-quality charter schools and evaluate their effects.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: The Public Charter Schools Program (PCSP) objectives support objective 1.6 of the Department’s Strategic Plan (greater public

school choice will be available to all students and families.) PCSP objectives seek to expand the number and variety of options available for families. These objectives also strive

to improve the quality and accountability of those options, while working to increase positive impacts on the public school system. The program is concerned with increasing the

numbers of charter schools, ensuring that these schools have adequate flexibility, are held accountable for reaching high standards, and are open to all students.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Encourage the development

of a large number of highquality charter schools that

are free from state or local

rules that inhibit flexible

operation, are held

accountable for enabling

students to reach

challenging state

performance standards, and

are open to all students.

1.1 State legislation. By 2000, 40 states will have

charter school legislation.

1.2 Charter operations. By 2002, there will be

3,000 charter schools in operation around the

nation.

1.3 Flexibility. By 2002, 75% of states receiving

PCSP funds will exempt charter schools from

significant state and local rules that inhibit

school improvement, and each charter school

will have a high degree of autonomy over its

budgets and expenditures.

1.5 Accountability. By 2002, 75% of states

receiving PCSP funds will require each charter

school’s charter to include measurable objectives

and specific timelines for meeting student

performance goals, including the extent to which

students meet or exceed state performance

standards. States will also require chartering

entities to hold charter schools accountable for

meeting the terms of their charter at least once

every 5 years.

As of January 1999, 34 states, the District of

Columbia, and Puerto Rico have charter

school legislation.

Number of charter schools in operation:

’94 – ‘95: 100

’95 – ’96: 255

’96 – ’97: 428

’97 – ’98: 790

’98 – ’99: 1100

1.1 A Study of Charter Schools

Second-Year Report 1998; also

see The Condition of Charter

Schools, 1999; see other

reports, which are untitled at

this point but which will be

released annually, or more

frequently for minor studies, in

1999 and 2000.

1.2 RPP study (1998, 1999, 2000),

state legislatures, state

education agencies.

1.3 Evaluation of the federal

charter schools program (2000,

2001, 2002), accountability

study (1999), as well as the

grant competition under PCSP.

1.5 RPP study (2000), evaluation

of the federal charter schools

program (2000, 2001, 2002),

other research studies (1998,

1999), as well as the grant

competition under PCSP.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 67

Public Charter Schools Program (PCSP)--$130,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To support the creation of a large number of high-quality charter schools and evaluate their effects.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: The Public Charter Schools Program (PCSP) objectives support objective 1.6 of the Department’s Strategic Plan (greater public

school choice will be available to all students and families.) PCSP objectives seek to expand the number and variety of options available for families. These objectives also strive

to improve the quality and accountability of those options, while working to increase positive impacts on the public school system. The program is concerned with increasing the

numbers of charter schools, ensuring that these schools have adequate flexibility, are held accountable for reaching high standards, and are open to all students.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

2. Evaluate the effects of

charter schools, including

identifying the most

effective strategies to

improve quality and

innovation in the public

school system.

2.1 Impact of charters on educational

opportunity. Studies will show that charter

schools are open and accessible to all students.

2.2 Impact on student achievement. By 2000, a

national study of charter schools will have been

completed to examine the characteristics of

charter schools (e.g., range of flexibility,

accountability measures, etc.) and the impact of

charter schools on student achievement.

2.3 Impact on public school system. By 2000,

increasing numbers of charter schools will work

with other charter schools and traditional public

schools to develop, study and disseminate

promising educational practices.

In 1997-98, 59% of charter schools served

student populations with racial

demographics that roughly matched those in

local school systems. Also in 1997-98, about

8% of students in charter schools were

students with disabilities (as compared to

11% in all public schools in the sixteen

charter states).

2.1 RPP study (2000), evaluation

of the federal charter schools

program (2000, 2001, 2002),

other research studies (1998,

1999).

2.2 RPP study (2000), evaluation

of the federal charter schools

program (2000, 2001, 2002).

2.3 RPP case studies (2000),

evaluation of the federal

charter schools program (2000,

2001, 2002), possibly new

study to be planned. As well as

data from PCSP grant

competition for dissemination

grants.

Key Strategies

v Provide support and technical assistance for state and regional information and outreach meetings.

v Support a charter school Web site, including interactive forums and a national registry of charter schools to provide information on common issues.

v Provide information about model charters and chartering processes for chartering agencies through documents and meetings.

v Convene a national conference for federal charter school grantees and others, to discuss lessons learned about equity, performance accountability, effective management,

leadership and partnerships, and cross-fertilization to non-chartered schools.

v Support studies of issues associated with charter schools such as serving students with disabilities, assessment and accountability, fairness/equity, and school finance.

v Collect and disseminate information on charter school models that promote student achievement and innovation in the public school system and support the development of

networks among charter schools.

v Meet with universities, museums, organizations that educate disadvantaged children, and others with the capacity to help charter schools in order to encourage their support

in sponsoring and providing technical assistance to charter schools and potential developers of charter schools.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 68

Comprehensive Centers Program--$32,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To assist Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) recipients in improving teaching and learning for all children, particularly children at risk of 

educational failure.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Goal 1. High standards for all students are addressed in objectives 1.1, 1.2., 1.3, 1.4 and 1.7; Goal 2. A solid foundation for learning

is tied to objectives 2.1, 2.2 and 2.4; Goal 4. Results, service quality, and customer satisfaction – tied to objectives 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Provide high-quality

comprehensive technical

assistance to states,

territories, tribes, school

districts, and schools that

helps students reach high

academic standards.

1.1 Addressing legislative priorities. By 1999,

85% of comprehensive center (CC) customers

will represent Schoolwide Programs or highpoverty districts and Bureau of Indian Affairs

(BIA)-funded schools.

1.2 Integrating technical assistance. By 1999,

65% of CC activities will provide integrated,

non-categorical technical assistance (such as

standards, assessment of special populations,

reading, challenging curriculum, and whole

school reform).

1.3 Addressing customer needs. The percentage of

clients reporting satisfaction with the usefulness

of technical assistance provided will increase

annually, reaching 65% by 2000.

In 1998, according to CC progress reports,

50% of CC services were targeted to

schools. Of these services to schools, 66%

were delivered to high-poverty schools and

50% were delivered to Schoolwide

Program schools.

In 1998, according to CC progress reports,

61% of CC activities in 1998 addressed

topics that were non-categorical(e.g.,

reading, challenging standards and

accountability, curriculum and instruction,

assessments, school reform).

In 1998, 64 percent of state federal

program administrators reported that

Comprehensive Center assistance on

planning and carrying out whole school

reform was helpful or very helpful.

1.1 Comprehensive center (CC)

performance reports, quarterly

and annual, 1999; report on

program evaluation, 1999.

1.2 CC performance reports,

quarterly and annual, 1999;

report on program evaluation,

1999.

1.3 Report on program evaluation,

1999.

Key Strategies

v Collaborate across CCs on Reading Success Network.

v Communicate with CCs on statutory and program priorities, and encourage CCs to develop strategies to further objectives in ED strategic plan.

v Identify and disseminate models of technical assistance that are non-categorical and support coordination of programs.

v Strengthen communication with customers (SEAs, LEAs, etc.) to ensure that the types of services delivered by CCs meet customer needs.

v Through Integrated Reviews, meetings with SEA and LEA officials, and other activities, identify capacity- building needs and interests and encourage SEAs and LEAs to use

their CC to meet those needs.

v Create or expand regional and national networks of technical assistance providers through activities such as joint meetings of CCs and other service providers.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 69

Advanced Placement Test Fees--$20,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To increase the numbers of low-income high school students prepared to pursue higher education.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: The Advanced Placement program supports objective 3.1 of the Department’s Strategic Plan. The program subsidizes the

advanced placement test fees for low-income students to promote education excellence and equal access to higher education for these students.

Objective Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Encourage a greater

number of low-income

students to participate in the

Advanced Placement (AP)

program.

1.1 Students served. The number of low-income

students taking AP tests will increase by 10%

annually (e.g., to 83,300 in 1999).

In 1998, 75,739 Advanced Placement tests

were taken by low-income students.

1.1 Performance reports, annual,

1999; Longitudinal Survey of

Schools, 1999; Schools and

Staffing Surveys, 2001;

College Board.

1.2 Participating districts. The number of school

districts participating in regional AP

informational meetings will increase by 25%

annually, with an established baseline of 4,000

in 1999.

In 1999, 4,000 school districts

participated.

1.2 Performance reports, annual,

1999; Longitudinal Survey of

Schools, 1999; Schools and

Staffing Surveys, 2001.

Key Strategies

v Pursue strategies to encourage more low-income, minority, and students with special needs to complete the challenging academic courses that are prerequisite to AP courses

and take AP courses.

v Disseminate information to the public about the availability of dollars to pay for or to help pay for AP test fees. Beginning in 1999, at least four regional workshops will be

held annually for school districts, focusing on the identification of low-income AP students and teacher preparation.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 70

Reading Excellence Program--$286,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To improve reading instruction by supporting research-based reading programs that demonstrate high quality reading instruction, excellent professional 

development, emergent literacy and transition services that help children enter school ready to learn, parent literacy and parenting education, and supportive

tutoring.

Relationship of Objectives to Strategic Plan: The Reading Excellence program directly supports Objective 2.2 (every child reading by the end of 3rd grade) in its support of

professional development and services for high quality, research-based reading programs and supportive tutoring services. The program also supports Objective 2.4 (special

populations) because it focuses its resources on districts with high poverty rates or numbers and districts with schools identified as needing school improvement. Models

resulting from this program will be helpful to similar districts elsewhere. The program supports Objective 2.1 (all children entering school ready to learn) through its family

literacy activities. Finally, this program will identify effective models for teacher training in reading that can be used in support of Objective 1.4 (teacher preparation).

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Support improvements in

students’ reading

achievement.

1.1 Student achievement. Increasing percentages of

fourth-graders will score at or above the basic

level in reading on the National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP). (context indicator)

In 1994, only 60% of 4th graders

scored at the basic or higher levels

on NAEP.

In 1998, 62% of 4th graders scored

at those levels.

This leaves 38% of public schools

children at below even a basic

reading level.

1.1 National Assessment of Educational

Progress, every four years, 1999.

2. Significantly improve

students’ achievement in

participating schools and

classrooms.

2.1 Participating students’ achievement. By 2001,

participating students will increase their reading

scores significantly compared to comparable nonparticipants.

New program. 2.1 National Evaluation of the Reading

Excellence Program (impact

component), annual, 2001.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 71

Reading Excellence Program--$286,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To improve reading instruction by supporting research-based reading programs that demonstrate high quality reading instruction, excellent professional 

development, emergent literacy and transition services that help children enter school ready to learn, parent literacy and parenting education, and supportive

tutoring.

Relationship of Objectives to Strategic Plan: The Reading Excellence program directly supports Objective 2.2 (every child reading by the end of 3rd grade) in its support of

professional development and services for high quality, research-based reading programs and supportive tutoring services. The program also supports Objective 2.4 (special

populations) because it focuses its resources on districts with high poverty rates or numbers and districts with schools identified as needing school improvement. Models

resulting from this program will be helpful to similar districts elsewhere. The program supports Objective 2.1 (all children entering school ready to learn) through its family

literacy activities. Finally, this program will identify effective models for teacher training in reading that can be used in support of Objective 1.4 (teacher preparation).

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

3. Build the capacity of states

and local districts to design

and implement

improvement strategies for

reading that result in

effective changes in

classrooms.

3.1 Teacher knowledge. An increasing number of

teachers participating in program-sponsored

training will develop expertise in research-based

reading instruction methods.

3.2 Instructional change. An increasing number of

teachers participating in program-sponsored

training will significantly align their instruction

with research-based, effective practices.

3.3 Tutors. An increasing number of well-trained

tutors will use research-based practices and help

children learn to read.

3.4 Family reading. An increasing number of

parents participating in program-sponsored

activities will provide home reading opportunities

to their children.

3.5 State system changes. By January 2001, at least

15 states will have revised their state in-service

training and guidelines for reading certification to

reflect scientifically based reading research.

New program. 3.1 National Evaluation of the Reading

Excellence Program

(implementation component), every

six months, 2000.

3.2 National Evaluation of the Reading

Excellence Program (implementation component), every six months,

2000.

3.3 Reading Excellence Program state

evaluation system, annual, 2000;

program reports from Corporation

from National Service, 2000;

Federal Work Study program data

on tutoring, 2000.

3.4 Reading Excellence Program state

evaluation system, annual, 2000;

National Even Start Evaluation,

2000.

3.5 Reading Excellence Program state

evaluation system, annual, 2000.

4. Provide excellent

dissemination and

technical assistance

services to states.

4.1 Customer satisfaction. At least 90% of

participating states will be highly satisfied with

technical assistance and dissemination services

provided by the Department of Education.

New program. 4.1 National Evaluation of the Reading

Excellence Program (implementation component), every six months,

2000; evaluations of relevant ED

technical assistance programs (such

as the National Regional

Laboratories), 2000.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 72

Reading Excellence Program--$286,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To improve reading instruction by supporting research-based reading programs that demonstrate high quality reading instruction, excellent professional 

development, emergent literacy and transition services that help children enter school ready to learn, parent literacy and parenting education, and supportive

tutoring.

Relationship of Objectives to Strategic Plan: The Reading Excellence program directly supports Objective 2.2 (every child reading by the end of 3rd grade) in its support of

professional development and services for high quality, research-based reading programs and supportive tutoring services. The program also supports Objective 2.4 (special

populations) because it focuses its resources on districts with high poverty rates or numbers and districts with schools identified as needing school improvement. Models

resulting from this program will be helpful to similar districts elsewhere. The program supports Objective 2.1 (all children entering school ready to learn) through its family

literacy activities. Finally, this program will identify effective models for teacher training in reading that can be used in support of Objective 1.4 (teacher preparation).

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

5. Identify and validate

research-based models of

effective practice for

reading instruction,

reading tutoring, and

professional development.

5.1 Model identification. By 2001, at least 5 new,

research-based reading programs or teacher

training programs will be validated as effective

and suitable as models for other districts and

states.

New program. 5.1 National Evaluation of the Reading

Excellence Program (modelidentification component), annual,

2000; National Even Start

Evaluation, 2000.

Key Strategies

v Expeditiously award funding to states with high promise for effectively implementing this new program for improving children’s reading.

v Coordinate with the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), the National Institute for Literacy (NIFL), the Department of Health and Human

Services’ Head Start program, the Corporation for National Service, and other ED programs with related services (for example, Title I, Even Start, IDEA, Bilingual

Education, Eisenhower Professional Development, the new Teacher Quality Enhancement program, Technology Challenge programs, the new Class-size Reduction

program, Federal College Work Study, Research Institutes and Regional Labs, and Adult Education). Coordination is needed to make efficient use of available federal

resources and to ensure that as states and local communities are implementing the Reading Excellence Act, they receive appropriate cooperation and support from related

programs.

v Establish and update guidance on effective practices in reading and professional development, based on valid and reliable scientific research. Disseminate the guidance

widely to participating states and other interested states and organizations.

v Use the evaluation and dissemination funding to develop additional information on effective reading instruction and professional development (using scientifically-based

evaluation research methods), in collaboration with NICHD and other offices in the Department of Education, including the Planning and Evaluation Service, Office of

Educational Research and Improvement (especially the research institutes and Office of Reform Assistance and Dissemination (ORAD)), and Office of Special Education

Programs.

v Develop guidance for states and local programs on appropriate evaluation and student assessment methods for inside and outside the classroom.

v Collaborate with the National Institute for Literacy as it identifies and disseminates information on scientifically-based research on reading and on effective programs,

including those identified by the state or federal evaluations.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 73

Indian Education—$77,000,0000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To assist American Indian and Alaska Native children achieve to the same challenging standards expected of all students by supporting access to programs 

that meet their special educational and culturally related academic needs.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: The Indian Education program supports objectives 1.1 and 2.4 of the Department's strategic plan. The program provides

assistance for educational services that meet the special needs of Indian students and families so that these children can learn to high standards.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

1. American Indian and

Alaska Native students

served by school districts

receiving Indian Education

grants will progress at rates

similar to those for all

students in achievement to

standards, promotion, and

graduation.

1.1 Student achievement. Increasing percentages

of Indian students will meet or exceed the

performance standards that are established by the

state, district, or tribe (as appropriate), or on

national assessments.

2000 target: 60% of American Indians in grade 4

and 70% of American Indians in grade 8 will be

at or above the basic level in reading proficiency.

2000 goal: 64% of American Indian students in

grade 4 and 62% of American Indians in grade 8

will score at or above the basic level in reading

and mathematics

1.2 Student promotion and graduation. Increasing

percentages of Indian students will progress from

one grade level to the next and graduate at rates

comparable to all students.

2000 goal: An increased percentage of

American Indian and Alaska Natives 20-24 years

of age will be high school graduates.

2010 goal: 80% of American Indians and Alaska

Natives20-24 years old will be high school

graduates.

Reading:

v In 1992, 53% of Indian students in

grade 4 were at or above the basic

level.

v In 1992, 61% of Indian students in

grade 8 were at or above the basic

level.

v In 1998, 47 % of Indian students in

grade 4 were at or above the basic

level.

v In 1998, 61 % of Indian students in

grade 8 were at or above the basic

level.

Math:

v In 1992, 43% of Indian students in

grade 4 scored at or above the basic

level.

v In 1992, 39% of Indian students in

grade 8 scored at or above the basic

level.

v In 1996, 52% of Indian students in

grade 4 scored at or above the basic

level

v In 1996, 51%t of Indian students in

grade 8 scored at or above the basic

level.

In 1990, 70% of American Indians and

Alaska Natives 20-24 years old were high

school graduates.

1.1 NAEP,1992, 1996, 1998; OIE

Annual Project Performance

Report, 1999,

Title I Performance Report,

1998; and Consolidated State

Performance Report, 1999 (to

the extent that data are

disaggregated by American

Indian and Alaska Native).

1.2 U.S. Census 1990, Census

2000, Census 2010, OIE

Annual Project Performance

Report, 1999
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 74

Indian Education—$77,000,0000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To assist American Indian and Alaska Native children achieve to the same challenging standards expected of all students by supporting access to programs 

that meet their special educational and culturally related academic needs.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: The Indian Education program supports objectives 1.1 and 2.4 of the Department's strategic plan. The program provides

assistance for educational services that meet the special needs of Indian students and families so that these children can learn to high standards.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

2. Help school districts help

their students to reach high

standards through the

coordination and

integration of Indian

Education programs with

all local, state, and federally

funded programs.

2.1 Teaching and learning strategies. Increasing

percentages of school districts that serve Indian

students will coordinate culturally related

services with core academic subjects

(mathematics, reading, science, and social

studies).

2.1 Indian Education Program

applications, 1999.

3. Discretionary programs will

focus on improving

educational opportunities

and services for Indian

students.

3.1 Increasing percentages of the teacher and

principal workforces serving Native American

and Alaska Native students will themselves be

American Indian and Alaska Native.

1994 baseline: In public schools with 25%

or more American Indian and Alaska Native

students, 13% of principals and 15% of

teachers were American Indian or Alaska

Native.

2005 goal: 18% of principals and 20% of

teachers in public schools with high

proportions of American Indians will be

American Indian or Alaska Native.

3.1 Schools and Staffing Survey,

2000 and 2005.

Key Strategies

v Coordinate with other ESEA programs (e.g., Title I) to help Indian children progress at rates similar to those for all students in achievement to standards, promotion,

graduation, and attendance (e.g., provide joint guidance to grantees and encourage joint planning by local staff from both the Indian Education and Title I programs on how

to identify and address the needs of Indian children).

v Work with school districts to ensure that Indian Education applications include targets for accomplishments of local and state standards by Indian children.

v Encourage parents and guardians of Indian students to become active partners in the educational activities at school and at home by establishing home-school

communications, activities, and support systems aimed at needs of American Indian parents and students.

v Provide field-based technical assistance to grantees through workshops, institutes, and on-site reviews.

v Promote the recruitment and placement of American Indians and Alaska Natives in education positions by building partnerships between institutions of higher education and

school districts serving large proportions of American Indian and Alaska Native students.

v Provide technical assistance to grantees to promote incorporation of Indian education issues into the general educational training curriculum.

v Provide technical assistance to grantees in identifying best practices on school readiness and achievement that include cognitive stimulation, parenting skills, and language

acquisition.

v Disseminate Indian Education research and data collection products to grantees and other education policymakers.

v Promote and fund the over-sampling of American Indian and Alaska Native respondents in education surveys.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 75

Bilingual Education and Minority Foreign Languages
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 76

Bilingual Education Instructional Services Program--$259,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: Help limited-English proficient (LEP) students reach high academic standards.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Bilingual Education Instructional Services programs support objective 2.4 (special populations receive appropriate services and

assessments consistent with high standards by providing grants to improve the quality and availability of teaching and learning for LEP students.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

Student outcomes — participants in Title VII programs

1. Improve English proficiency

and academic achievement

of students served by Title

VII of the Bilingual

Education Act.

1.1 English proficiency. Students in the program

will annually demonstrate continuous and

educationally significant progress on oral or

written English proficiency measures.

1.2 Other academic achievement. Students in the

program will annually demonstrate continuous

and educationally significant progress on

appropriate academic achievement measures of

language arts, reading, and math.

1.3 Success in regular classrooms. For students

who have been in the program for at least 3

years, the district will report data on

achievement of LEP students compared with

that of non-LEP students and the two groups

will be performing comparably.

According to a sample of 1998 biennial

evaluation reports,91% of projects showed

that at least three-quarters of students

made gains in oral English proficiency and

82% of projects showed that at least threequarters of students made gains in written

English proficiency.

According to a sample of 1998 biennial

evaluation reports,61% of projects showed

that at least three-quarters of students

made gains in academic achievement in

language arts, reading and math.

1.1 Contracted evaluation based on

local project data, 1999,

biennial.

1.2 Contracted evaluation based on

local project data, 1999,

biennial.

1.3 Contracted evaluation based on

local project data, biennial,

1999. Separate analysis to be

completed by June 2000.

Program improvement

2. Build capacity of schools

and school districts in

program to serve LEP

students.

2.1 Programs meeting standards. Each year the

number of grantees meeting “criteria for model

programs” will increase by 20%.

2.2 Teacher training. Each year, the numbers of

teachers in Title VII Systemwide and

Comprehensive School Grants receiving quality

professional development in the instruction of

LEP students will increase by 20%.

2.3 Assessments linked to standards. The

number of projects that report appropriate

assessments aligned to state or local standards

tailored to LEP students will increase.

2.1 Annual Performance Report,

June 1999.

2.2 Biennial Evaluation, 1999;

Annual Performance Report,

1999. OBEMLA study, June

1999.

2.3 Biennial evaluation, 1999;

Annual Performance Report,

1999; Program office

monitoring.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 77

Bilingual Education Instructional Services Program--$259,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: Help limited-English proficient (LEP) students reach high academic standards.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Bilingual Education Instructional Services programs support objective 2.4 (special populations receive appropriate services and

assessments consistent with high standards by providing grants to improve the quality and availability of teaching and learning for LEP students.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

Research, information dissemination, and technical assistance

3. Provide effective guidance

and technical assistance and

identify and disseminate

reliable information on

effective practices.

3.1 Federal technical assistance: An increasing

percentage of local project directors will

express satisfaction with technical assistance

and guidance.

3.2 Inquiries to NCBE. The number of inquiries

to the National Clearinghouse on Bilingual

Education will increase 15% per year.

3.3 More specific reporting. All states will report

more specifically on LEP programs designed to

meet the educational needs of LEP students,

their academic test performance, and grade

retention rates.

During the 1997-98 school year, NCBE

received 3,100,000 inquiries.

3.1 Annual Improving America’s

Schools Conference

questionnaires and evaluations,

1999; regional evaluation

conference evaluations, 1999;

evaluations of NABE

Professional Development

Institute, 2000.

3.2 OBEMLA web site, 1999;

NCBE annual performance

report, 1999.

3.4 Redesigned Summary Report

of the Survey of the States'

limited-English proficient

Students and Available

Educational Programs and

Services, annual, 1999.

Professional development

4. Improve the quality and

quantity of educational

personnel serving LEP

students.

4.1 New teachers. At least 3,000 teachers per year

will complete high-quality bilingual

education/English as a Second Language

certification or degree programs through the

Bilingual Education Professional Development

programs.

With the support of FY 1997 funds, 770

teachers completed certification or degree

programs.

4.1 Annual OBEMLA evaluation

of projects, 1999; OBEMLA

1999 Evaluation Study.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 78

Bilingual Education Instructional Services Program--$259,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: Help limited-English proficient (LEP) students reach high academic standards.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Bilingual Education Instructional Services programs support objective 2.4 (special populations receive appropriate services and

assessments consistent with high standards by providing grants to improve the quality and availability of teaching and learning for LEP students.

Key Strategies

v Provide training in using the Guide to Evaluation for Title VII Projects to project directors and their staff through the Regional Comprehensive Centers, IASA meetings, and the

OBEMLA Institute at the annual National Association of Bilingual Education conference.

v Conduct a conference for evaluators and directors of Title VII projects and include training on applying the Guide to Evaluation for Title VII Projects to their performance

reports and biennial evaluations.

v Establish electronic links between the web sites of with major professional organizations and the OBEMLA web site.

v Strengthen instruments for monitoring grants to ensure that programs focus on outcomes and accountability.

v Provide technical assistance targeted to emphasize program features that will allow grantees to demonstrate that the support for LEP students will not diminish after the grant

expires.

v Disseminate information on literacy and assessment of LEP students through the Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers and the National Clearinghouse for Bilingual

Education.

v Monitor and report on continuing analyses of “expected gains study” of LEP students.

v Commission a study on aggregation of project evaluation data.

v Expand technical assistance to grantees to promote --

ÿ Incorporation of LEP educational issues into the general teacher training curriculum; and

ÿ Partnerships between teacher training institutions and school districts.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 79

Foreign Language Assistance Program--$6,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: Help students reach national education objective of mastering one or more foreign languages.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: The Foreign Language Assistance Program supports objective 1.1 (challenging standards and assessments in core academic

subject areas) by providing discretionary grants to districts and states to improve foreign language instruction.

Objective Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Improve foreign language

proficiency of students

served by the Foreign

Language Assistance

Program (FLAP).

1.1 Increased student achievement. The

percentage of students participating in Foreign

Language Assistance Program-supported

instruction who meet or exceed high standards

for foreign language education will increase

annually.

1.1 Review of grantee annual

reports, 1999.

2. Build capacity of schools in

FLAP to teach foreign

languages.

2.1 Increased school capacity for effective

instruction. At least 90% of grantees will

maintain program activities for at least 3 school

years after expiration of FLAP funding for the

program.

2.1 Monitoring by program office

staff, 1999.

Key Strategies

v Coordinate with federal, state, and local programs, professional associations, and other entities to promote effective foreign language instruction to high standards.

v Support dissemination of information on effective foreign language education and related career opportunities.

v Encourage development of effective pre-service and in-service professional development for teachers of foreign languages.

v Emphasize program features that will allow grantees to carry on activities after their grants expire.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 80

Emergency Immigrant Education Program--$150,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: Help offset cost of supplementary services to recent immigrant students.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: The Emergency Immigrant Education Program supports objective 2.4 (special populations receive appropriate services and

assessments consistent with high standards by providing formula grants to states to help districts that experience large increases in their student population because of

immigration.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Provide financial assistance

to schools that serve large

numbers of recently arrived

immigrant students.

1.1 Use of funds. 90% of program funds will be

used for direct services to students by FY 2000.

1995-96 baseline: 88.6%. 1.1 SEA Biennial Report, 2001.

Key Strategies

v Provide examples of exemplary programs.

v Work with the states to ensure high-quality and complete data in Biennial Reports.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 81

Special Education (IDEA)
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 82

IDEA Part B – Grants to States--$4,716,435,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To improve results for children with disabilities by assisting state and local education agencies to provide children with disabilities access to high-quality 

education that will help them meet challenging standards and prepare them for employment and independent living.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Goal 1, Help all students reach challenging academic standards (All objectives); Goal 2, Solid foundation for learning for all

children (all objectives); Goal 3, Ensure access to postsecondary education (objective 3.1); Goal 4, Focus on results, quality of service and customer satisfaction (objective 4.1,

4.2, 4.3, 4.4).

Objective Indicator Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Improve educational results

of children with disabilities.

1.1 Graduation and school completion. The

percentage of children with disabilities exiting

school who graduate with a diploma will

increase, and the percentage of children with

disabilities who drop out will decrease.

Target: By 2000, the percentage of students ages

14 - 21 who graduate with a regular diploma will

increase to 57%, and the percentage who drop

out will decrease to 30 percent.

1.2 Performance on assessments. The gap between

the average score of children with disabilities and

children without disabilities in reading, math,

science, and other academic areas will decrease.

Target: By 2000, the gap between the average

score of children with disabilities and children

without disabilities will decrease by 10% in math

and science.

In 1997, among students with disabilities

ages 14 -21 who are known to have left

school, 53% graduated with a regular

diploma and 34% dropped out.

In 1996, the NAEP average scores of

students:

With disabilities Without

Math:

4

th grade: 205 224

8

th grade: 234 275

12th grade: 257 304

Science:

4

th grade: 129 152

8

th grade: 149 152

12th grade: 112 151

1.1 State- reported data, annual,

2000.

1.2 Analysis of 1996 data from

National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP),

2001.

2. Improve participation in

postsecondary education

and employment.

2.1 Postsecondary education. The percentage of

students going on to postsecondary education

(e.g., four year colleges, two year community

colleges and technical schools) will increase.

Target: By 2004, 20 percent of youth with

disabilities who left high school in the prior two

years will be enrolled in some type of

postsecondary school.

Of youth with disabilities who left high

school in the 1985-86 or 1986-87, 14% had

enrolled in some type of postsecondary

school by the fall of 1987.

2.1 Secondary Longitudinal Study,

2006. Related Source Data:

National Clearinghouse on

Post Secondary Education for

Individuals with Disabilities,

1999.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 83

IDEA Part B – Grants to States--$4,716,435,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To improve results for children with disabilities by assisting state and local education agencies to provide children with disabilities access to high-quality 

education that will help them meet challenging standards and prepare them for employment and independent living.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Goal 1, Help all students reach challenging academic standards (All objectives); Goal 2, Solid foundation for learning for all

children (all objectives); Goal 3, Ensure access to postsecondary education (objective 3.1); Goal 4, Focus on results, quality of service and customer satisfaction (objective 4.1,

4.2, 4.3, 4.4).

Objective Indicator Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

2.2 Employment and postsecondary education.

The percentage of students with disabilities who

are either employed or participating in

postecondary education 2 years after leaving high

school will increase.

Target: By 2004, 69 percent of youth with

disabilities who left high school in the prior two

years will be either employed or participating in

postecondary education.

Of youth with disabilities who left high

school in the 1985-86 or 1986-87 school

year, 59% were either employed or

participating in postsecondary education in

the fall of 1987.

2.2 Secondary Longitudinal Study,

2003.

2.3 Improved earnings. The median hourly wage

of individuals with disabilities obtaining

employment within 2 years of leaving high

school will increase.

Target: By 2004, the median hourly wage of

individuals with disabilities obtaining

employment within 2 years of leaving high

school will increase by $2.00 after adjusting for

inflation.

In the 1986-87 school-year, the median

hourly wage of individuals with disabilities

who were employed was $4.00.

2.3 Secondary Longitudinal Study,

2006.

3. All children with disabilities

will participate in regular

education settings with nondisabled age-appropriate

peers to the maximum

extent appropriate.

3.1 Participation in regular education settings The

percentage of children ages 3 - 21 with

disabilities who participate for most of the day

with the regular education classroom, with

appropriate supports and accommodations (e.g.

behavioral interventions and adaptive

instructional materials) will increase. Preschool

children with disabilities will receive services in

settings with typically developing peers.

Target: By 2000-01, 50% of children with

disabilities ages 6 - 21 will be reported by states

as being served in the regular education

classroom 80% of the day or more.

46% of elementary school children with

disabilities ages 6 –21 were reported by

states as being served in regular education

classrooms at least 80% of the time for the

1996-97 school year.

3.1 State-reported data, annual,

2003.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 84

IDEA Part B – Grants to States--$4,716,435,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To improve results for children with disabilities by assisting state and local education agencies to provide children with disabilities access to high-quality 

education that will help them meet challenging standards and prepare them for employment and independent living.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Goal 1, Help all students reach challenging academic standards (All objectives); Goal 2, Solid foundation for learning for all

children (all objectives); Goal 3, Ensure access to postsecondary education (objective 3.1); Goal 4, Focus on results, quality of service and customer satisfaction (objective 4.1,

4.2, 4.3, 4.4).

Objective Indicator Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

4. Children with disabilities

will be identified and served

earlier

4.1 Early identification and intervention. The

percent of children served under IDEA ages 6 or

7 will increase compared to the total number of

children served ages 6-21.

In school–year 1997-98, 13% of the total

number of children ages 6-21 counted

under IDEA were ages 6 or 7.

4.1 State-reported data, annual,

2005.

5.1 Transition services. All students with

disabilities ages 14 and older will have IEPs that

include a statement of transition service needs

that will help focus on the student’s courses of

study (e.g. advanced placement courses or a

vocational education program.

5.1 Secondary Longitudinal Study,

2002 and 2007. Related

source of data: monitoring

reports, 1999.

5. All children with disabilities

will receive appropriate

services that address their

individual needs, including

related services and assistive

technology.

5.2 Parent satisfaction. The percentage of parents

who are satisfied that their children ages 3-5 and

6-21 receive the appropriate services to address

their individual needs will increase over time.

6.4 Preschool Longitudinal Study

(PLS) (future), 2002 and 2007.

 Special Education Elementary

Longitudinal Study (SEELS),

2001 and 2006.

 Secondary Longitudinal

Study, 2002 and 2007.

6. Schools will provide

appropriate behavioral

interventions for children

with disabilities whose

behavior impedes the

learning of themselves or

others.

6.1 Disciplinary actions. The percentage of

children with disabilities who have been

suspended or expelled will decrease.

During the 1993-94 school year, 6.2% of

children with disabilities in elementary and

secondary schools were suspended.

6.1 State reported data, 1999 and

2006.

7. States ensure children with

disabilities are a part of all

accountability systems and

actively work to monitor

and improve their

performance.

7.1 Participation in assessments. States include

children with disabilities, as appropriate, in

general state and/or local assessment and report

results starting July 1998. States will include

children with disabilities not in general

assessments but who participate in alternate

assessments and report results by July 2000.

Target: By 2000, all States will comply with the

assessment requirements reflected in this

indicator.

In 1998, participation rates were available

on 10 states:

3states had less than 80%;

4states had between 80%-90%;

3 states had more than 90%.

Two states had functioning alternate

assessments.

7.1 State performance data, 2000.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 85

IDEA Part B – Grants to States--$4,716,435,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To improve results for children with disabilities by assisting state and local education agencies to provide children with disabilities access to high-quality 

education that will help them meet challenging standards and prepare them for employment and independent living.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Goal 1, Help all students reach challenging academic standards (All objectives); Goal 2, Solid foundation for learning for all

children (all objectives); Goal 3, Ensure access to postsecondary education (objective 3.1); Goal 4, Focus on results, quality of service and customer satisfaction (objective 4.1,

4.2, 4.3, 4.4).

Objective Indicator Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

8. States are addressing their

needs for professional

development.

8.1 Supply of qualified personnel. States and

outlying areas will increasingly meet their

identified needs for qualified personnel.

Target: By 2000, the number of states and

outlying areas where at least 90% of personnel

are fully certified will be: 41 for special

education teachers serving children 3-5, 44 for

special education teachers serving children 6-21,

and 52 for related services personnel.

In school year 1995-96, the numbers of

States and Outlying Areas where 90% of

personnel are fully certified were: 38 for

special education teachers serving children

3-5, 42 for special education teachers

serving children 6-21, and 51 for related

service personnel serving children 3-21.

8.1 State-reported data, annual,

2002.

9. States identify and correct

non-compliance with IDEA

9.1 Correct deficiencies. The length of time that

States use to correct, subsequent to identification,

persistent deficiencies through sanctions, other

means of enforcement, and/or the provision of

technical assistance, will decrease.

9.1 LEA data: Monitoring onequarter of states annually and

review and verification of the

corrective action plan. First

full cycle available 2002

Key Strategies

v Provide technical assistance, disseminate information, and train personnel on practices to improve educational results, particularly in home-school collaboration.

v Monitor states to ensure that children with disabilities are not being inappropriately suspended or expelled.

v Conduct research, provide technical assistance, and disseminate information on addressing behavior in children with disabilities, including children with emotional

disturbance and behavior problems.

v Support professional development on addressing behavior for children with disabilities.

v Monitor to ensure that states develop goals and strategies and include children with disabilities in assessments.

v Support state reform efforts through State Improvement Grants.

v Conduct research, provide technical assistance, and disseminate information on appropriate accommodations for assessments, alternative assessments, performance goals,

and interpretation of assessment results.

v Inform parents of assessment requirements through parent training and information dissemination.

v Monitor State Improvement Grants and State Comprehensive Systems of Personnel Development (CSPDs) to ensure that states are addressing personnel needs.

v Provide technical assistance to states to help them address their personnel needs.

v Support personnel development activities, including preparing personnel and developing model teacher preparation programs.

v Monitor states and take appropriate corrective action to ensure that states carry out their monitoring responsibilities.

v Monitor to ensure that states address technical assistance needs of school districts in their State Improvement Grants plans.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 86

IDEA Part C – Special Education - Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities--$390,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: Family and child outcomes are enhanced by early intervention services, and states provide a comprehensive system of early intervention services for infants 

and toddlers with disabilities and their families.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Goal 1: All students reach challenging academic standards: objectives 1.4 and 1.5; Goal 2: Build a solid foundation for

learning: objectives 2.1 and 2.4; Goal 3: Focus on results, service quality and customer satisfaction: 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

1. All eligible children are

identified.

1.1 Total number of children served. The

number of eligible infants and toddlers with

disabilities being served will increase.

Target: For 2000 the number of infants and

toddlers served will be 208,000.

1.2 Early identification. By 2000, the percentage

of infants served under 1 year of age, as a

proportion of all children birth to 1 will

increase to 0.93% in order to reach 1% by

2002.

In 1998, 197,376 infants and toddlers were

served.

In 1997, the percentage of infants served

under 1 year of age as a proportion of all

children birth to 1 was 0.86%.

1.1 State data (12/1/98) reports,

annual, 1999.

1.2 State data (12/1/98) reports,

annual, 1999.

2. Needs of the child and family

are addressed in a timely,

comprehensive manner in

natural environments.

2.1 Receipt of all services indicated. The

percentage of families receiving all the

services identified on the individualized family

service plan and the percentage of families

reporting that their services were in natural

environments and coordinated will increase.

Target to be established 2000 when (1997-

1998) data becomes available.

2.2 Service settings. The percentage of children

primarily receiving age-appropriate services in

home, community-based settings, and

programs designed for typically-developing

peers will increase to 60% in 2000.

2.3 Setting of subsequent services. The number

of children making the transition into inclusive

settings will increase. Target to be established

2000 when 1998-1999 baseline data becomes

available.

In 1995, the percentage of children

primarily receiving services in natural

settings (i.e., home, childcare, and other

community-based settings) appropriate for

the age of the child was 56%..

2.1 Office of Special Education

Program’s (OSEP) Early

Intervention Longitudinal

Study, 2000 and 2003.

2.2 State reported data, annual,

1999.

2.3 State reported data (proposed

new data element), annual,

2000 and 2003.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 87

IDEA Part C – Special Education - Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities--$390,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: Family and child outcomes are enhanced by early intervention services, and states provide a comprehensive system of early intervention services for infants 

and toddlers with disabilities and their families.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Goal 1: All students reach challenging academic standards: objectives 1.4 and 1.5; Goal 2: Build a solid foundation for

learning: objectives 2.1 and 2.4; Goal 3: Focus on results, service quality and customer satisfaction: 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

3. Child’s functional

development is enhanced by

early intervention services.

3.1 Functional abilities. The functional abilities

of children participating in the IDEA Part C

program are increased and sustained. Target to

be established 2005 when baseline 2003-2004

data becomes available. Target measured 2008

based upon 2006-2007 data.

3.2 Family capacity. The percentage of families

reporting that early intervention services have

increased the family’s capacity to enhance

their child’s development will increase.

3.1 OSEP’s National Early

Intervention Longitudinal

Study, 2005 and 2008.

3.2 National early intervention

longitudinal study, 2000 and

2003. Baseline 1998-99data to

be available 2000.

4. All children receive

comprehensive, effective

family focused early

intervention services.

4.1 Funding sources. The number of states

accessing all appropriate sources of funding

(i.e. Medicaid, Maternal and Child Health

Block Grant, state general revenues) will

increase. Target to be established 2002 when

baseline 2001-2002 data becomes available.

Target measured 2007 when 2006-2007 data

becomes available.

4.2 Parental satisfaction. Increase in the number

of parents who feel that the state identifies and

corrects noncompliance with Part C of IDEA.

Target to be established 2000 when baseline

1998-1999 data becomes available. Target

measured 2003 when 2001-2002 data becomes

available.

4.1 Study of State and Local

Implementation of IDEA Part

C, 2002.

4.2 OSEP’s National Early

Intervention Longitudinal

Study, 2000 and 2003.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 88

IDEA Part C – Special Education - Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities--$390,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: Family and child outcomes are enhanced by early intervention services, and states provide a comprehensive system of early intervention services for infants 

and toddlers with disabilities and their families.

Relation of Program to Strategic Plan: Goal 1: All students reach challenging academic standards: objectives 1.4 and 1.5; Goal 2: Build a solid foundation for learning:

objectives 2.1 and 2.4; Goal 3: Focus on results, service quality and customer satisfaction: 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3.

Key Strategies

v Conduct demonstration and outreach projects on effective practices for identifying children and families who qualify for services.

v Provide targeted technical assistance and disseminate information on effective “child find” practices, focusing on states that identify and serve low percentages of children

and families.

v Convene a panel of experts to evaluate and recommend ways of bringing greater uniformity to the definition of developmental delay.

v Monitor state practices and state applications to ensure that the child and family receive timely and appropriate, individualized services based on the needs identified in a

comprehensive, multidisciplinary assessment.

v Conduct research to identify effective practices for providing and coordinating services in ways that are cost-effective and comprehensive, and support the family’s needs.

v Conduct research, provide technical assistance, and disseminate information on effective home visiting and other practices that increase families’ capacity to care for their

children.

v Support and encourage Parent Training and Information Centers (PTIs) and Community Resource Centers in serving families of eligible children from birth to age 3.

v Encourage an emphasis on transition in the state self-assessment process as part of monitoring activities.

v Provide technical assistance and disseminate information on effective transition practices, with particular focus on transitioning children to natural community-based

settings.

v Work with the Federal Interagency Coordinating Council to improve transitions into and out of programs that serve children with disabilities and their families.

v Ensure that all OSEP Clearinghouses, where appropriate, provide timely, understandable and useful information to families of eligible children from birth to age 3.

v Conduct research to determine short- and long-range child outcomes and to determine how developmentally appropriate practices can be conducted within family friendly

models (e.g., Institute on Early Childhood Program Performance Measures).
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 89

IDEA Part D--National Activities--$343,461,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To link best practices to states, school systems, and families to improve results for infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities.

Relation of Program to Strategic Plan: Goal 1: All students reach challenging academic standards ; objectives 1.4, 1.5 and 1.7. Goal 2: Build a solid foundation for learning;

objective 2.4. Goal 4: Focus on results, service quality and customer satisfaction; objectives 4.1, 4..3, and 4.4.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Research and innovation

programs respond to

critical needs and advance

knowledge to improve

results for children with

disabilities.

(research and innovation)

1.1 Rigorous research. The percentage of projects

that use rigorous quantitative or qualitative

research and evaluation methods will increase.

Target to be established in FY1999.

1.2 Communicate findings. Increase in the

percentage of findings, including appropriate

citation, communicated by researchers through

refereed journals and other mechanisms such as

the WWW, association publications, and IDEA

or other Education-department supported TA

providers.

From 1984-94, the ratio of products

communicated to the number of research

projects was 5:1.

1.1 Task order to evaluate results

of standing panels’ review of

grant applications, annual,

1999.

1.2 Task order to review final

grant reports, annual, 1999.

2. Educational technology and

media services will respond

to critical needs and

advance knowledge to

improve results for children

and adults with disabilities.

(technology and media

services)

2.1 Consumer impact. The percentage of parents,

teachers, practitioners, people with disabilities,

and technical assistance providers who regard

IDEA-supported technology and media research

as improving educational policies and practices

in special education and early intervention will

increase. Target to be established in FY1999.

2.2 Communicate Findings. The ratio of the

number of information products communicated

by technology projects to the number of OSEPfunded projects will increase.

Target: By 2000, the ratio of products to the

number of research projects will be 3:1.

From 1984-94, the ratio of products

communicated to the number of research

projects as 2:1.

2.1 Task order, retrospective

review, 1999.

Target data: National

Longitudinal Studies, 2004.

2.2 Task order to review final

grant reports, annual, 1999.

3. Assist States in addressing

identified needs for highly

qualified personnel to serve

children with disabilities.

(personnel preparation)

3.1 Reduce shortages. Decrease in the shortage of

leadership personnel and personnel serving

children with low-incidence disabilities. Target

to be established in FY 1999

3.2 Capacity of minority institutions. The

percentage of historically black colleges and

universities and other minority institutions,

including tribal colleges, that have received

technical assistance to improve their capacity to

train highly qualified personnel will increase.

Preliminary 1996-97 state-reported data

indicates that 6.4% of teachers serving

children with low-incidence disabilities are

not fully certified, and 1.4% of teaching

positions are vacant.

.

3.1 Task order on personnel

preparation, 1999.

3.2 Task order on personnel

preparation, 1999.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 90

IDEA Part D--National Activities--$343,461,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To link best practices to states, school systems, and families to improve results for infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities.

Relation of Program to Strategic Plan: Goal 1: All students reach challenging academic standards ; objectives 1.4, 1.5 and 1.7. Goal 2: Build a solid foundation for learning;

objective 2.4. Goal 4: Focus on results, service quality and customer satisfaction; objectives 4.1, 4..3, and 4.4.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

4. Technical Assistance (TA)

and information will be

coordinated and accessible

to parents, teachers, and

practitioners, people with

disabilities, and will result

in improved practices

(technical assistance and

information)

4.1 Consumer impact. The percentage of parents,

teachers and practitioners who regard IDEAsupported TA and information as meeting

critical needs and improving educational policies

and practices in special education and early

intervention will increase. Target to be

established in FY2001.

4.1 Task order, retrospective

review, 1999.

Target data: National

Longitudinal Study,2004.

5. State improvement grants

will increase and improve

the adoption of effective

practices by school districts.

(state improvement)

5.1 Supply of qualified personnel. States and

outlying areas will increasing meet their

identified needs for qualified personnel.

Target: By 2000, the number of states and

outlying areas where at least 90% of personnel

are fully certified will be: 41 for special

education teachers serving children 3-5, 44 for

special education teachers serving children 6-21,

and 52 for related services personnel.

In school year 1995-96, the numbers of

States and Outlying Areas where 90% of

personnel are fully certified were: 38 for

special education teachers serving children

3-5, 42 for special education teachers

serving children 6-21, and 51 for related

services personnel serving children 3-21.

5.1 State-reported data, annual,

2002.

6. Families receive the

information and training

that they need to increase

their participation in their

child's education and

services.

(parent training and

information)

6.1 Families served. The percentage of families of

children with disabilities receiving services from

parent programs will increase. Target to be

established in FY1999.

6.2 Informed families. Increase in the percentage

of families who report satisfaction with the

information and training they receive about

rights, protections, effective practices, education

reform issues such as assessment and related

issues

Target: In 2000, 75% of families served by Parent

Training and Information Centers (PTIs) will

report that the information and assistance

received from the PTIs made a positive

difference in their child’s receipt of appropriate

supports and services.

In 1998, 71.3% of families served by PTIs

reported that the information and

assistance received from the PTIs made a

positive difference in their child’s receipt of

appropriate supports and services.

6.1 Parent, teacher, consumer

survey, 1999. Target data:

National Longitudinal Studies,

2004.

6.2 PTI project impact data, 2000.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 91

IDEA Part D--National Activities--$343,461,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To link best practices to states, school systems, and families to improve results for infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities.

Relation of Program to Strategic Plan: Goal 1: All students reach challenging academic standards ; objectives 1.4, 1.5 and 1.7. Goal 2: Build a solid foundation for learning;

objective 2.4. Goal 4: Focus on results, service quality and customer satisfaction; objectives 4.1, 4..3, and 4.4.

Key Strategies

v Identify research-validated effective practices and link them to technical assistance, dissemination, personnel preparation and training programs.

v Require State Improvement Grant applications to include current data on regular and special education personnel employed, certification status, and training received.

v Promote innovative solutions to address the needs for an adequate supply of highly qualified personnel.

v Use selection criteria for grants that emphasize the usability of research knowledge.

v Provide technical assistance (TA), information, and support to grantees and potential consumers of research information on strategies (e.g., improved credibility, visibility,

and communicability of research products) to enhance the use of research.

v Incorporate conditions into grant announcements that ensure TA and knowledge competencies and promote emphasis on effective practices in curriculum policies and

services.

v Assess alternative TA and dissemination approaches and identify effective strategies that respond to customer needs.

v Provide TA and training to OSEP network of TA providers on effective strategies for increasing the use of research.

v Develop coordinated, collaborative strategies with other ED-funded providers of TA and information.

v Assess alternative TA approaches and identify effective strategies that respond to the needs of school districts and community-based providers.

v Provide TA and training on models and strategies for effective practices to OSEP network of TA providers.

v Provide TA and information to states to use in developing and implementing their State Improvement Plans.

v Promote partnerships among state and local agencies and organizations to ensure that the needs of children with disabilities and their families are met.

v Conduct research and disseminate information on accommodations that allow children with disabilities to participate in assessments and on developing alternative

assessments.

v Promote coordination among providers of TA and information, both OSEP- supported and other Department providers.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 92
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 93

Rehabilitation Services and Special Institutions
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 94

State Vocational Rehabilitation Services (including Supported Employment)--$2,353,739,000 (FY 2000)

Goal : Individuals with disabilities served by the Vocational Rehabilitation State Grant program will achieve high quality employment.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: These objectives support Strategic Plan Goal 3.4 ensuring access to services that provide adults with disabilities the opportunity to

strengthen their skills and improve their earning power over their lifetime.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

Consumer outcomes

1. Ensure that individuals with

disabilities who are served

by the Vocational

Rehabilitation State Grant

program achieve

employment consistent with

their particular strengths,

resources, abilities,

capabilities, and interests.

1.1 Number achieving employment. The number

of individuals with disabilities who achieve

employment will increase by at least 1%

annually.

1.2 Percentage of individuals obtaining

employment. The percentage of all persons

served who obtain employment will be

maintained at 61% in FY 2000.

1.3 Percentage of individuals obtaining

competitive employment. Of individuals

obtaining employment, the percentage who

obtain competitive employment will increase to

83% by the end of FY 2000. Among individuals

with significant disabilities obtaining

employment, the percentage obtaining

competitive employment will increase to

66% by the end of FY 2000.

1.4 Improved earnings. Among individuals exiting

the program in competitive employment, the

median ratio of their average hourly wage to the

state's average hourly wage for all individuals in

the state who are employed will increase to .58

by the end of FY 2000.

The number employed in 1997 was

211,520.

The percentage obtaining employment in

1997 was 61%.

The percentage of all individuals with

disabilities who obtained competitive

employment in 1997 was 82%.

The percentage of individuals with

significant disabilities who obtained

competitive employment in 1997 was 65%.

In 1997, the median ratio for general and

combined agencies was .57.

1.1 Rehabilitation Services

Administration (RSA) State

data, annual, Dec. 31, 1999.

1.2 Same as 1.1.

1.3 Same as 1.1.

1.4 Same as 1.1.

1.5 Own income as primary support. The

percentage of individuals who report upon

obtaining employment that their own income is

their primary source of support will increase to

75% in FY 2000.

1.6 Employment retention. The percentage of

individuals obtaining competitive employment

who maintain employment and earnings 12

months after closure will be maintained at the

85% level in FY 2000.

In 1997, the percentage was 74%.

Data from the VR longitudinal study

indicate that 85% of individuals were still

employed 12 months after exiting the

program.

1.5 Same as 1.1.

1.6 VR longitudinal study, May

2000; RSA is developing

standards and indicators that

will measure employment

retention and satisfaction.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 95

State Vocational Rehabilitation Services (including Supported Employment)--$2,353,739,000 (FY 2000)

Goal : Individuals with disabilities served by the Vocational Rehabilitation State Grant program will achieve high quality employment.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: These objectives support Strategic Plan Goal 3.4 ensuring access to services that provide adults with disabilities the opportunity to

strengthen their skills and improve their earning power over their lifetime.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

1.7 Satisfaction with employment. The percentage

of individuals who are satisfied with their

employment outcome will increase to 73% in FY

2000.

1996 data from the VR longitudinal study

indicate that about 72% of consumers were

satisfied with their employment outcome.

1.7 Same as 1.6.

Federal administration

2. RSA will help states

improve services and

outcomes for consumers.

2.1 Satisfaction with services. The percentage of

individuals who are satisfied with their VR

services will increase to 77% in FY 2000.

1996 data from the VR longitudinal study

indicate that 76% of consumers are very or

mostly satisfied with their VR services.

2.1 Same as 1.6.

2.2 Basic monitoring and technical assistance.

RSA will complete its annual monitoring of

100% of the state VR agencies and provide

technical assistance as needed.

2.3 Comprehensive monitoring reviews. RSA will

conduct a minimum of 10 comprehensive,

onsite, monitoring reviews each year and

provide technical assistance as needed.

In 1997, RSA monitored 91.5% of the

state agencies (75 out of 82 agencies).

In 1998, RSA monitored 98.8% of the

state agencies (81 out of 82 agencies).

In 1997, RSA conducted 9 such reviews.

In 1998, RSA conducted 11 such reviews.

2.2 RSA Central Office records,

1998.

2.3 Same as 2.2.

2.4 Availability and use of data. The time required

by RSA to produce an accessible national

database will decrease until it reaches 6 months

after the close of the fiscal year (March 31,

2001).

FY 1997 database was available 14.5

months after the close of the fiscal year

(December 15, 1998).

2.4 Same as 2.2.

Consumer supported employment outcomes

3. Increase the number of

individuals with the most

significant disabilities who

have received supported

employment services but

achieve competitive

employment outcomes.

3.1 Percentage achieving competitive

employment. The percentage of individuals

with a supported employment goal who achieve

a competitive employment outcome (including

supported employment outcomes in which the

individual receives the minimum wage or better)

will increase to 71.5% by the end of FY 2000.

In FY 1997, the percentage of individuals

with a supported employment goal who

achieved a competitive employment

outcome was 70.6 %.

3.1 Supported Employment

Caseload Report, annual, 1998.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 96

State Vocational Rehabilitation Services (including Supported Employment)--$2,353,739,000 (FY 2000)

Goal : Individuals with disabilities served by the Vocational Rehabilitation State Grant program will achieve high quality employment.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: These objectives support Strategic Plan Goal 3.4 ensuring access to services that provide adults with disabilities the opportunity to

strengthen their skills and improve their earning power over their lifetime.

Key Strategies

v Develop a monitoring and technical assistance plan for states, taking into consideration performance on program outcome measures.

v Develop a state improvement plan, with state agencies that are performing below established standards, to be included in regulations currently under development.

v Identify and disseminate information regarding effective practices for assisting individuals with disabilities to achieve appropriate employment outcomes and provide

training as needed.

v Review, revise, and improve the issuance of RSA’s policy and guidance directives to state VR agencies..

v Ensure that RSA staff are trained and able to effectively monitor state performance and provide technical assistance.

v Develop coordinated approaches among federal agencies (e.g., ED, DOL, HHS, and SSA) that affect employment of individuals with disabilities.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 97

American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services--$23,390,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To improve employment outcomes of American Indians with disabilities who live on or near reservations by providing effective tribal vocational rehabilitation

(VR) services

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: These objectives support Strategic Plan Goal 3.4 ensuring access to services that provide adults with disabilities the opportunity to

strengthen their skills and improve their earning power over their lifetime.

Objective Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Ensure that eligible

American Indians with

disabilities receive

vocational rehabilitation

services and achieve

employment outcomes

consistent with their

particular strengths,

resources, abilities,

capabilities, and interests.

1.1 Number of eligible individuals who receive

services under the program. By the end of FY

2000, a total of 4,100 American Indians with

disabilities will receive services under an

individualized plan for employment (IPE) from

the 51 projects estimated to be in operation in

FY 2000.

During FY 1997, 2,617 individuals

received VR services from 34 projects.

During FY 1998, 3,243 individuals

received VR services under an IPE from 39

projects

1.1 Annual performance reports,

onsite reviews, and project

follow-up. Next update of

annual data will be available

December 31, 1999.

1.2 Number of eligible individuals who achieve

employment outcomes. By the end of FY

2000, a total of 770 American Indians with

disabilities who received VR services under an

IPE from the 51 projects estimated to be in

operation during FY 2000, will achieve

employment outcomes.

1.3 Percentage of individuals who leave the

program with employment outcomes. By the

end of FY 2000, the percentage of all eligible

individuals receiving services under an IPE who

exit the program and achieve an employment

outcome will reach the comparable outcome rate

for the state VR Services Program (61%).

During FY 1997, 530 individuals who

received VR services under an IPE from 34

projects, achieved employment outcomes.

During FY 1998, 598 individuals who

received services under an IPE from 39

projects achieved employment outcomes.

During FY 1998, 57% of those who left the

program after receiving VR services under

an IPE from 39 projects, had achieved

employment outcomes.

1.2 Same as 1.1.

1.3 Same as 1.1.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 98

American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services--$23,390,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To improve employment outcomes of American Indians with disabilities who live on or near reservations by providing effective tribal vocational rehabilitation

(VR) services

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: These objectives support Strategic Plan Goal 3.4 ensuring access to services that provide adults with disabilities the opportunity to

strengthen their skills and improve their earning power over their lifetime.

Key Strategies

v Support capacity-building activities to improve the number and quality of applications for AIVRS projects, through linkage with the National Institute on Disability and

Rehabilitation Research Centers on American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation and with capacity building grantees funded under Section 21 of the Act.

v Conduct an evaluation study that examines the consumer characteristics, services provided, outcomes, and management of the program.

v Establish a national training and technical assistance center during FY 1999 that will provide coordinated and comprehensive training of AIVRS staff to improve the

effectiveness of the program.

v Through monitoring and technical assistance, provide guidance to projects in order to increase the scope of their outreach activities; improve their networking with other

tribal and non-tribal agencies that are major referral sources; and provide interagency training to improve appropriateness of referrals.

v Conduct annual training conferences for all rehabilitation professionals participating and interested in AIVRS.

v Work toward building a network of higher education institutions that can deliver training to AIVRS staff through distance education strategies for undergraduate and graduate

credit towards degrees in vocational rehabilitation. The network would include existing institutions that provide rehabilitation counselor training programs and existing

Indian colleges.

v Continue to work closely with the Consortia of Administrators of Native American Rehabilitation (CANAR) to promote high-quality AIVRS programs and more qualified

VR staff working in the AIVRS projects.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 99

Client Assistance Program (CAP)--$10,928,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To provide assistance and information to help individuals with disabilities secure the benefits available under the Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants 

program and other programs funded under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Supports the goals of the strategic plan by protecting the civil rights of individuals with disabilities who are seeking to

strengthen their skills and improve their earning power.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

1. CAP programs meet

expectations of individuals

served in terms of their

satisfaction with the CAP

services received.

1.1 Survey responses. The percentage of CAPs

achieving or exceeding the client satisfaction

baseline will increase.

1.1 CAP grantee performance

report, available April 1999.

2. Resolve cases at lowest

possible level.

2.1 Formal appeals or legal remedies. The

proportion of cases that involve formal appeals

or legal remedies to resolve disputes will

decrease.

2.1 CAP grantee performance

report, available April 1999.

3. Accurately identify problem

areas requiring systemic

change and engage in

systemic activity to improve

services under the

Rehabilitation Act.

3.1 Systemic advocacy. The percentage of CAPs

conducting and reporting on their systemic

advocacy activities will increase

3.2 Effects of systemic change. CAPs will report

changes in policies and practices as a result of

their efforts.

3.1 Narrative section of CAP

grantee performance reports,

1999.

3.2 Same as 3.1.

Key Strategies

v Provide technical assistance on how CAPs should approach each case in a comprehensive manner.

v Provide technical assistance to CAPs on the use of the model client satisfaction survey.

v Provide technical assistance to encourage CAPs to follow up with individuals served.

v Inform National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems (NAPAS) of ED activities in this area at monthly meetings.

v Develop a model ADR policy for the CAPs.

v Provide technical assistance on how CAPs can use ADR effectively.

v Compile and assess CAP narrative reporting regarding systemic activities in order to provide technical assistance and follow-up for those CAPs not reporting systemic

activities.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 100

Training Program--$41,629,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To provide the public vocational rehabilitation (VR) sector with well-trained staff and to maintain and upgrade the skills of current staff.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: These objectives support objective 4.1 (customer service). Providing the VR program with skilled practitioners and improving the

skills and ability of current practitioners leads to improved outcomes for people with disabilities in the VR system. These objectives also support objective 3.2 of ED’s strategic

plan (financial aid and services to assist post-secondary students enroll and complete their educational program) as 75% of funds from long term training grant must be used for

scholarship assistance.

Objective Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

1. To produce graduates who

work within the VR system

to help individuals with

disabilities achieve their

goals.

1.1 Numbers trained. The number of students

trained and the number of 'payback' years

generated will remain stable per dollar invested

(adjusted for inflation).

1.2 Percentage working. The percentage of

graduates fulfilling their payback requirements

will increase.

1.1 Annual grantee reporting form.

Baseline data will be collected

in FY98, available June, 1999

1.2 Annual grantee reporting form

and results of monitoring

reviews. Baseline will be set

by July 1999 using FY98 data.

2. Maintain and upgrade the

knowledge and skills of

personnel currently

employed in the public

vocational rehabilitation

system.

2.1 Increased skills. Supervisors will report an

increase in the skills of rehabilitation

professionals after training.

2.1 FY99 task order. Findings will

be used to establish baseline.

Key Strategies

v Provide grantees with clearer guidance through annual training conference, Project Director orientations, and Project Director letters on the purpose of ED program and

ways to respond better to program goals.

v Task order of Regional Continuing Education Programs and In-service Training programs began in October of 1998.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 101

Special demonstration programs--$16,942,000 (FY2000)

Goal: To expand, improve, or further the purposes of, activities authorized under the Act.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: These objectives and strategies are linked to Strategic Goal 3.4 so that adults can strengthen their skills and improve their earning

power over their lifetime through lifelong learning.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Demonstrate innovative

approaches to the provision

of vocational rehabilitation

(VR) services through

meeting local needs.

1.1 Innovation. The number of projects

implementing innovative program elements (i.e.

program design and strategies) to meet local

service or specific population needs will

increase.

1.1 FY99 task order will develop

and field test a data collection

instrument. Findings will be

used to establish baseline.

2. Expand and improve the

provision of state VR

services.

2.1 Incorporation by VR agencies. The number of

projects reporting that the state VR agencies

incorporated their approach, as exemplified by

purchases of services after completion of

federal funding cycles, will increase.

2.1 Same as 1.1.

3. Disseminate information

about successful new types or

patterns of services or devices

for individuals with

disabilities.

3.1 Dissemination. The number of funded projects

that disseminate information to state VR

agencies and other funded projects and

disability related organizations will increase.

3.1 Same as 1.1.

Key Strategies

v RSA will contract with an outside contractor to evaluate grantee best practices and develop a data collection instrument.

v RSA will provide technical assistance to all grantees in order to promote successful outcomes. Interaction with state VR will be emphasized.

v Informational Memos (IM) will identify and disseminate information to other grantees and state VR agencies regarding best practices.

v RSA will continue to convene annual project directors’ meetings to disseminate information.

v RSA will use print and electronic media to disseminate information, including Project Directors’ reports and presentation, and the contract findings (e.g., Manual of Project

Director’s meeting and Web sites of RSA and funded projects).
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 102

Migrant and Seasonal Farm-workers Program--$2,350,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To increase employment opportunities for migrant and seasonal farm-workers who have disabilities.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: The Migrant and Seasonal Farm-workers Program’s goals and objectives are linked to the Department’s strategic goals related to

increased earning power through life-long learning.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Ensure that eligible migrant

and seasonal farm-workers

with disabilities receive

vocational rehabilitation

services and achieve

employment

1.1 Numbers served. The overall number of

migrant and seasonal farm-workers with

disabilities who receive services each year will

increase.

1.2 Individuals who achieve employment

outcomes. The overall percentage of migratory

agricultural workers or seasonal farm-workers

with disabilities who achieve employment each

year will increase.

1.1 Annual Rehabilitation

Services Administration

(RSA) 911 data, 1999.

1.2 Annual Rehabilitation

Services Administration 911

data and annual project

performance reports, 1999.

Key Strategies

v Grantees are given clearer guidance on the purpose of ED program and ways to respond better to program goals. Ongoing technical assistance is provided to grantees who

demonstrate difficulty or noncompliance with program standards.

v RSA works to coordinate grantee activities with the state Vocational Rehabilitation agency. Through national conference and other means, opportunities are provided for

exemplary migrant projects to share information on methods and models for building strong partnerships with state VR and other migrant programs.

v RSA will conduct telephone monitoring twice a year to all continuing projects to assess program activities and provide technical assistance.

v RSA is conducting an internal review of performance reports to determine the effectiveness of the program in meeting its stated objectives. Working with other federal

offices within and outside the Department, RSA will identify and provide opportunities for grantees to identify and exchange information addressing work disincentives

affecting unemployed migrant workers with disabilities.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 103

Recreation Program--$2,596,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To provide to individuals with disabilities recreation activities and related experiences that can be expected to aid in their employment, mobility, socialization,

independence, and community integration.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan:

These objectives support the Department’s strategic goals of lifelong learning through increased recreational opportunities for individuals with disabilities.

Objective Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

Project services

1. Ensure that recreation

programs are sustained after

federal funding ceases.

1.1 Project continuation. By fall 2000, 87% of

programs initiated since FY1993 will be

continuing after federal funding has ended.

1996 baseline: 85% continuing 1.1 Quarterly telephone monitoring

reports and Annual and Final

Performance Reports.

2. Ensure that recreation

programs will maintain the

same level of services.

2.1 Individuals served. The recreation programs

will maintain the same level of services to

individuals served by program.

In 1996, 60,000 individuals were

served

2.1 Projects Directors’ meeting, FY

2000; final report on grantees,

activities and outcomes; quarterly

telephone monitoring reports;

annual assessment of continuation

project.

Key Strategies

v Give grantees clearer guidance on the purpose of the program and better ways to respond to program goals.

v The Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) is conducting an internal review of performance reports to determine the effectiveness of the program meeting its stated

objectives.

v Through national conferences and other means, RSA will provide opportunities for exemplary recreation projects to share information on methods and models for building

strong partnerships with other recreational providers and with state Vocational Rehabilitation agencies. Grantees will have an opportunity to present their programs and

receive technical assistance from RSA.

v RSA will conduct quarterly telephone monitoring of all continuing projects to provide guidance and to determine whether the project will continue after federal funding

ceases.

v RSA will work with other federal offices within and outside the Department.

v RSA will contact annually all projects whose federal funds just ended to determine whether the project is being sustained without federal support.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 104

Protection & Advocacy of Individual Rights (PAIR)--$10,894,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To provide assistance and information to individuals with disabilities eligible for the PAIR program and conduct advocacy to ensure the protection of their

rights under federal law.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Supports the goals of the strategic plan by protecting the civil rights of individuals with disabilities who are seeking to strengthen

their skills and improve their earning power.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Adequately identify priorities

and objectives so that PAIR

programs meet the needs of

individuals with disabilities.

2.1 Percentage of requests for service outside

PAIR priorities. The percentage of individuals

seeking services whose concerns are not within

the PAIRs stated priorities will decrease.

2.1 Grantee performance reports,

2000.

2. PAIR programs meet

expectations of individuals

served in terms of their

satisfaction with the PAIR

services received.

3.1 Survey responses. The percentage of PAIR

programs achieving or exceeding the client

satisfaction baseline will increase.

3.1 Same as 2.1.

3. Identify problem areas

requiring systemic change

and engage in systemic

activities to address those

problems.

4.1 Policy changes. The percentage of PAIRs that

report changes in policies and practices as a

result of their efforts will increase.

4.1 Same as 2.1.

Key Strategies

v Consult with PAIR grantees, the National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems (NAPAS), and others on the development of key data collection elements.

v Assess findings from the PAIR program evaluation to identify additional measures for this program.

v Provide technical assistance to help PAIR programs identify appropriate priorities and objectives.

v Develop a model client satisfaction survey for PAIR programs to use.

v Provide technical assistance to encourage PAIR programs to follow up with individuals served.

v Compile and assess PAIR narrative reporting.

v Provide technical assistance and follow up for those PAIR programs not reporting systemic advocacy activities.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 105

Projects with Industry (PWI), Section 611 — $22,071,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To facilitate the establishment of partnerships between rehabilitation service providers and business and industry in order to create and expand employment 

and career advancement opportunities for individuals with disabilities.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: These objectives support Strategic Plan Goal 3.4 ensuring access to services that provide adults with disabilities the opportunity to

strengthen their skills and improve their earning power over their lifetime.

Objective Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Ensure that PWI services

(through partnerships with

business and industry)

result in competitive

employment, increased

wages, and job retention for

individuals with disabilities.

1.1 Placement rate of individuals with disabilities

into competitive employment. By fall 2000,

62% of the individuals served will be placed in

competitive employment.

1.2 Change in earnings of individuals who are

placed in competitive employment. By fall

2000, PWI projects will report that participants

placed in competitive employment increase

earnings by an average of at least $210 per

week.

In FY 1997, 59% of individuals served were

placed in competitive employment.

In FY 1997, PWI project reports showed

that participants increased earnings by an

average of $207 per week.

1.1 Grantee performance indicator

data, annual, December 1999.

1.2. Same as 1.1.

2. Ensure that PWI services

are available for individuals

with the most need.

2.1 Percentage of individuals served who were

unemployed for 6 months or more prior to

program entry who are placed in competitive

employment. By fall 2000, 63% of previously

unemployed individuals served will be placed

into competitive employment.

In FY 1997, 60% of previously unemployed

individuals served were placed in

competitive employment.

2.1 Same as 1.1.

Key Strategies

v Provide ongoing technical assistance to grantees who demonstrate difficulty or noncompliance with the placement standards and the wage standard defined in PWI

regulations. Monitor progress through off-site monitoring and progress reports.

v Through national conferences and other means, provide opportunities for exemplary PWI projects to share information on methods and models for building strong

partnerships with industry, and with state Vocational Rehabilitation agencies. Include dissemination of information on effective Business Advisory Councils, including

representatives from labor and from the disability community.

v Working with other federal offices within and outside the Department, identify and provide opportunities for grantees to identify and exchange information addressing work

disincentives affecting previously unemployed individuals with disabilities. Provide technical assistance to grantees that demonstrate poor performance in placing

previously unemployed.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 106

Independent Living Programs--$84,574,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: Individuals with significant disabilities served by the Title VII, Chapter 1 programs will achieve consumer-determined independent living goals (objectives 1-

4); and Independent Living Services will be provided and activities conducted to improve or expand services to older individuals who are blind (objectives 5 & 

6).

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan:

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

Title VII, Chapter 1 programs: Part B, State Independent Living Services and Part C, Centers for Independent Living

1. Increase the number of

individuals with significant

disabilities who are served

by and benefit from the

Title VII, Chapter 1

programs.

1.1 Number of individuals with significant

disabilities served, grouped by age. The

number of individuals who received individual

independent living services will increase in all

age categories. With 1997 as a base, 1999 data

will indicate a 2% increase in population served,

and 2000 data will indicate a 5% increase in

every age group.

1.2 Number of goals set and achieved by

consumers. The number of consumer goals set

and achieved will increase in all service areas

measured. By 1999 the numbers set and met

will increase and the average proportion met

will be 62.5%, the rate by the year 2000 will be

63%.

The number of individuals receiving

individual IL services in FY 1997 was as

follows: under 6=1,544; 6 to 17=5,831; 18

to 22=10,529; 23 to 54=77,362; and 55

and older=44,245.

The FY 1997 goals set and met and rate:

Self-care 44,120 28,503 64.6%

Communication 19,055 12,884 67.6%

Mobility 20,211 13,334 65.9%

Residential 20,589 12,121 58.8%

Educational 19,058 13,754 72.2%

Vocational 13,990 7,100 50.8%

Other 39,516 22,913 58.0%

Total 176,539 110,609 62.3%

1.1 Rehabilitation Services,

Administration (RSA) 704

Reports (704 Report), annual,

1999.

1.2 Annual RSA 704 Report, 1998.

2. Increase the satisfaction of

consumers who receive

Chapter 1 Independent

Living (IL) services.

2.1 Consumer satisfaction with IL services. A

consistently high proportion of consumers will

report satisfaction with IL services. These data

will be uniformly reported by the 704 Report for

1998 and will meet the benchmark rate of 87%

(very or mostly) satisfied by the year 2000.

FY 1997 NY State survey indicated that of

85% of consumers are very or mostly

satisfied with services.

2.1 Annual 704 Report, State Plan

for Independent Living (SPIL)

Attachment 16. Beginning in

1998.

3. Improve access to personal

assistance services (PAS),

housing, transportation,

and community-based living

through increased advocacy

efforts.

3.1 Number of Centers for Independent Living

(CILs) using effective advocacy techniques.

All CILs will have an advocacy program to

address at least two of the following areas: (1).

community-based PAS (2). accessible/

affordable housing (3). accessible/ affordable

transportation, and (4). options moving people

from nursing homes and other institutions to the

community. By 2000 50% of CILS will meet

this benchmark and by 2002, 100% of CILs will .

Preliminary results from New York State

indicate25% of that state’s CILs have

active advocacy programs in at least 2 of

these areas.

3.1 Annual RSA 704 Report, 1998.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 107

Independent Living Programs--$84,574,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: Individuals with significant disabilities served by the Title VII, Chapter 1 programs will achieve consumer-determined independent living goals (objectives 1-

4); and Independent Living Services will be provided and activities conducted to improve or expand services to older individuals who are blind (objectives 5 & 

6).

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan:

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

3.2 Increased community-based living. The

number of individuals who leave nursing homes

and other institutions for community-based

housing and the number of individuals at risk of

entering nursing homes and other institutions

who are receiving IL services and can remain at

home will increase. By 2000, will be measured,

some 1,000 individuals leaving nursing homes

and other institutions and 10,000 remaining at

home will be reported.

In FY 1998, 800 individuals left nursing

homes and 8,000 remained in the

community, estimated by RSA staff

interviews of CIL executive directors.

3.2 Annual RSA 704 Report, 1998.

4. Increase the amount of

funds in addition to Title

VII that support Chapter 1

grantees .

4.1 Increased funding from alternative sources.

75% of CILs will have greater than 25% of their

budget from sources other than Title VII,

Chapter 1 and 80% of states will contribute more

than the required minimum match for Title VII,

Chapter 1, Part B.

FY 1997 data show that 74% of CILs

receive more than 25% of their budget from

other than Chapter 1, and that 80% of

states more than match the Part B funds.

4.1 Annual RSA 704 Report, 1998.

5. Provide Chapter 2 services

to increasing numbers of

individuals who are older

and severely visually

impaired, and increase

consumer satisfaction.

5.1 Increased number of individuals served. The

number of older and severely visually impaired

individuals served will increase. By 2000, 35,000

older blind and significantly disabled individuals

will be receiving services each year.

5.2 Increased consumer satisfaction. By 2000,

there will be a 90% satisfaction rate among

individuals who receive services and are

evaluated.

In FY 1996, 26,846 individuals received

services.

A preliminary baseline of 90% satisfaction

comes from data gathered in a voluntary

sample.

Baseline data are being gathered by a

contractor in FY 1998. These data will be

used to establish a national benchmark for

the Chapter 2 program.

5.1 Annual Report -- Independent

Living Services for Older

Individuals Who Are Blind

(7OB Annual Report), 1997.

5.2 7OB Annual Report and new

consumer satisfaction

addendum in the revised 7OB

Report.

6. Increase funding for

Chapter 2 programs from

sources other than Title

VII, Chapter 2.

6.1 Increased funding from alternative sources.

An increasing number of states contribute more

than the minimum match amount. The target is

80% for 2000.

75% in FY 1996. 6.1 7OB Annual Report.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 108

Independent Living Programs--$84,574,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: Individuals with significant disabilities served by the Title VII, Chapter 1 programs will achieve consumer-determined independent living goals (objectives 1-

4); and Independent Living Services will be provided and activities conducted to improve or expand services to older individuals who are blind (objectives 5 & 

6).

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan:

Key Strategies

v Develop technical assistance action plans to assist grantees that are performing below standards and indicators of compliance.

v Identify and disseminate information regarding best practices for helping individuals with disabilities to achieve appropriate independent living outcomes.

v Develop a monitoring and technical assistance plan for states and CILs, taking into consideration performance on the indicators, requests for assistance, date of last on-site

review, and annual financial audit.

v Identify and assist low-performing service providers and CILs.

v With training and technical assistance providers, provide coordinated assistance to CILs on advocacy techniques and strategies.

v Present information at national meetings of CIL directors on the importance of facilitating community change.

v Present national experts on affordable/ accessible housing and transportation, PASs, and community-based living arrangements at RSA National DSU & SILC Meeting to

focus emphasis and encourage new state and local efforts. Primary focus in FY 1999 will be on housing.

v Identify and publish potential funds availability, increase grantees’ capacity to obtain grants, and identify and share replicable model local and state resource development

techniques and strategies.

v Identify significant outcomes of the Chapter 1 programs and disseminate results to grantees and other potential funding sources.

v Provide technical assistance at national project directors meeting as to the most successful strategies and techniques for increasing and improving service.

v Conduct an independent consumer satisfaction review of all grantees.

v Identify and assist state agencies and CILs with low consumer satisfaction rates.

v RSA will aggregate and share with grantees innovative methods of supporting Chapter 2 activities from sources other than Chapter 2.

v RSA will aggregate examples of outcomes of the Chapter 2 program and share them with grantees and other potential funding sources.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 109

Helen Keller National Center (HKNC) for Deaf-Blind Youths and Adults--$8,550,000 (FY2000)

Goal: Individuals who are deaf-blind will become independent and function as full and productive members of their local community.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: These objectives support Strategic Plan Objectively 3.4 ensuring access to services that provide adults with disabilities the

opportunity to strengthen their skills and improve their earning power over their lifetime.

Objective Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Ensure that individuals who

are deaf-blind receive the

specialized services and

training they need to become

as independent and selfsufficient as possible.

1.1 Services to consumers at headquarters. The

training program at headquarters will serve a

minimum of 85 adult consumers and 12 high

school students, while the percent of consumers

placed in employment settings and the

percentage who return to less restrictive living

situations will be maintained or increase.

Target: The target for 2000 is 90 adults and 12

high school students in the HQ training

program, 40% placements in employment, and

25% in less restrictive living situations.

1.2 Clients improve functionally. Participants in

the training program at headquarters will

increase their skills and abilities in areas such as

communication, orientation and mobility, and

independent living. Target will be established

upon receipt of baseline data..

In 1998, a total of 91 adult consumers and

12 high school students received training at

HKNC headquarters; 21, or 36%, of the 58

adult consumers completing training were

placed in employment settings; and 14, or

25%, of the 58 clients completing training

returned to less restrictive living situations.

1.1 Internal client caseload reports

summarized in the HKNC

Annual Report for 1998.

1.2 Annual Report, 1999.

2. Ensure that deaf-blind

consumers and their family

members receive the services

they need to function more

independently in the home

community.

2.1 Regional services to consumers and families.

HKNC will maintain or increase the number of

consumers and family members served through

its regional offices. Target for 2000 is 1,250

consumers and 400 family members.

In 1998, 1,259 individuals with dealblindness and 402 families were served by

the regional offices.

2.1 Annual Report, 1998.

3. Increase the capacity of the

adult service system to meet

the training and support

needs of deaf-blind persons

in their local community.

3.1 Training for professionals, organizations/

agencies &affiliate membership. The number

of agencies and organizations receiving training

from HKNC will be maintained or increased.

Target will be established upon receipt of

baseline data.

3.1 Annual Report, 1999.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 110

Helen Keller National Center (HKNC) for Deaf-Blind Youths and Adults--$8,550,000 (FY2000)

Goal: Individuals who are deaf-blind will become independent and function as full and productive members of their local community.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: These objectives support Strategic Plan Objectively 3.4 ensuring access to services that provide adults with disabilities the

opportunity to strengthen their skills and improve their earning power over their lifetime.

Key Strategies

v Develop an internal document, the Individualized Training Plan (ITP), to document short-term goals and their completion.

v Provide training to staff to increase and improve their qualifications, expertise, and job performance.

v Conduct a follow-up survey to obtain data on employment status and satisfaction with community living (housing, community participation and supports) and to gain

information on goals completed 1 year after students leave the HKNC training program.

v Conduct periodic consumer surveys to determine satisfaction with field services.

v As appropriate, include input from family members into the process for identifying goals for the ITP. Conduct regular review (every 13 weeks) with the family to assess

progress.

v Conduct national parent meetings, with agendas developed through a needs assessment completed by parents.

v Increase the number of university affiliations and student internships offered.

v Develop a brochure to market the availability of community-based consultations and disseminate it through the regional offices.

v Conduct participant assessments of training activities using competency-based evaluations.

v Develop a national database of federal, state, and regional offices and staff and other service providers in order to improve HKNC’s networking, coordinating, collaborating,

and training activities.

v Provide an annual affiliate training meeting

v Fund new affiliates annually.

v Maximize the effectiveness of professional training through the use of a person-centered approach. Increase number of local teams receiving training vs. the single agency

staff.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 111

National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR)--$90,964,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To support the conduct and dissemination of high-quality research that contributes to improvement in the quality of life of persons with disabilities

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: These objectives support Goal 2 Objective 4 related to special populations and Goal 4.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Conduct high-quality

research that leads to highquality research products.

1.1 Scientific excellence. By 2002, peer evaluation

will find that grantee research quality is good or

excellent, as reflected in research design, sample

sizes, and analytical methods, for 80% of

projects.

1.2 Research usefulness. By 2002, 80% of

customers will agree that grantee research is

useful; the biennial increase will be 20%.

1.3 Increased publication and citation.

Publication of research findings, with the

appropriate citation, will increase in refereed

journals and other recognized forums by 10%

annually.

1.1 Baseline from program

reviews (1996 -

1998);Prospective and inprocess peer evaluation,

initiated in 1996.

1.2 Biennial customer inquiry

(2002), annual consensus

conferences on various topics,

1999.

1.3 Analysis of grantee records

and reports; literature search,

annual, 1999.

2. Disseminate and promote

use of information on

research findings, in

accessible formats, to

improve rehabilitation

services and outcomes.

2.1 Dissemination plan. By 2000, 80% of grantees

will include a dissemination plan that identifies

target audiences.

2.2 Product availability. By 2001, 75% of grantee

products and 90% of NIDRR products will be

available in alternative formats: cognitive

accessibility, sensory accessibility.

2.3 Information and TA usefulness. By 2001, at

least 90% of recipients find the products,

information, and technical assistance that they

receive useful.

2.1 Analysis of grantee

dissemination plans, annual,

1999.

2.2 Analysis of a sample of

grantee products, 1999.

2.3 Customer survey, biennial

1999.

3. Expand system capacity for

conduct of high-quality

rehabilitation research and

services by ensuring

availability of qualified

researchers and

practitioners, including

persons with disabilities and

other under-served groups.

3.1 Contribution of trainees and fellows. By

2002, the contributions by NIDRR trainees and

fellows to the field of rehabilitation research will

increase by 25%.

3.2 Researchers with disabilities and from underserved groups. Over a 5-year period, the

number of researchers working in the field who

have disabilities or are from under-served groups

will increase by 25%.

3.1 Analysis of trainee/fellow

documentation of employment,

2000.

3.2 NIDRR-sponsored survey,

2002.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 112

National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR)--$90,964,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To support the conduct and dissemination of high-quality research that contributes to improvement in the quality of life of persons with disabilities

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: These objectives support Goal 2 Objective 4 related to special populations and Goal 4.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

3.3 Impact on field. Over a 5-year period, the

number of practitioners who report that NIDRRfunded research and training activities make a

significant contribution to professional

development in the field will increase by 25%.

3.3 Biennial customer survey,

2000.

4. Ensure productivity and

management effectiveness.

4.1 Relevant priorities. Priority setting will

respond to needs articulated by researchers,

consumers, practitioners, and policymakers and

will reflect advances in the state of knowledge

and progress toward agency goals.

4.2 Usefulness of NIDRR products. The

percentage of customers reporting that NIDRR

products and information are useful will increase

by 10% biennially.

4.1 Public hearings; analysis of

public comments on priorities,

annual, expert panel review,

1999.

4.2 Customer survey, biennial,

2002.

Key Strategies

v Provide training for prospective peer review panels.

v Develop cooperative training activities with RSA/state VR.

v Emphasize the training of graduate researchers in all centers, and encourage grantees to target persons with disabilities and individuals from under-served groups.

v Publish and distribute accessibility guidelines for publications, meetings, and W

v web sites, and provide a model of accessibility in NIDRRs own products, communications,

and meetings.

v Develop targeted Dissemination and Utilization (D&U) projects.

v Survey consumer and provider needs.

v Involve broad constituency in planning, priority setting, and program reviews.

v Convene conferences of consumers and researchers to identify emerging issues in disability research and service delivery.

v Develop pre-college awareness programs that target disabled persons and individuals from under-served groups.

v Contract an impact study to assess productivity, relevance, and quality of research.

v Complete case studies of the impact of research on selected topics.

v Implement customer evaluation on a program-by-program basis.

v Contract a comprehensive study of Nadirs historical accomplishments as basis for setting future directions.

1996 baseline: 75% continuing. FY 1998 data will be reported in December 1998
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 113

Assistive Technology Program--$45,000,000 (FY2000)

Goal : To increase availability of, funding for, access to, and provision of assistive technology devices and assistive technology services.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Goal 2. – objective 2.4 – individuals with disabilities will receive technology enabling them to learn, contribute and participate

in school consistent with overall high standards; Goal 3. – objective 3.1 and 3.4 – secondary school students and adults with disabilities are provided with accessible information

and the technology to support their job potential and lifelong learning; Goal 4. – objective 4.4 – all technology investments are accessible to all users including employees and

customers.

Objective Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Through systemic activity,

improve access to and

availability of assistive

technology (AT) for

individuals with disabilities

who require assistive

technology.

1.1 Information. The number of individuals with

disabilities and service providers who receive

information about AT will increase by 10%

annually.

1.2 Trained professionals. The number of

professionals trained to provide AT services will

increase by 5% in the year 2000.

1.3 Timeliness. The waiting time for AT services

from public agencies will be reduced by 10% in

the year 2000.

1.4 Barrier reduction. Annually, each grantee's

activities will result in legislative and policy

changes that reduce barriers.

1.5 VR consumers. The number of vocational

rehabilitation (VR) consumers who receive

assistive technology will increase by 10% in the

year 2000..

In FY96, 191,623 individuals received

information.

In FY96, 198,966 persons were trained.

In FY97, 84% of the 56 grantees were

responsible for at least one legislative

change, 95% were responsible for policy

changes in 2 or more areas.

1.1 - 1.3. All 56 states have

responded to National Institute

on Disability and

Rehabilitation Research

(NIDRR) Performance

Guidelines, with baseline

figures for FY96. This is an

annual report.

1.4 Annual report narrative.

1.5 Rehabilitation Services

Administration Annual Report,

1997.

2. Through systemic activity,

increase funding for assistive

technology devices and

services.

2.1 Funding sources. Each year, 10 additional

states will institute policies that result in private

insurance payments for AT.

2.2 Information. The number of individuals with

disabilities and service providers who receive

information about the funding of AT will

increase by 10% annually.

2.1 Annual report narrative.

2.2 Responses to NIDRR Annual

Performance Guidelines, 1998.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 114

Assistive Technology Program--$45,000,000 (FY2000)

Goal : To increase availability of, funding for, access to, and provision of assistive technology devices and assistive technology services.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Goal 2. – objective 2.4 – individuals with disabilities will receive technology enabling them to learn, contribute and participate

in school consistent with overall high standards; Goal 3. – objective 3.1 and 3.4 – secondary school students and adults with disabilities are provided with accessible information

and the technology to support their job potential and lifelong learning; Goal 4. – objective 4.4 – all technology investments are accessible to all users including employees and

customers.

Key Strategies

v Provide technical assistance to states on accessibility issues.

v Attend meetings of professional organizations for special education and vocational rehabilitation, and provide technical assistance; disseminate information about successful

activities developed between education programs for children with disabilities and Tech Act projects.

v Increase collaboration with state VR agencies.

v Monitor Tech Act reports for indications of reduction in the number of barriers to accessing assistive technology by underrepresented populations and rural populations;

disseminate information about successful activities to eliminate barriers.

v Provide technical assistance and disseminate information to AT grantees about funding of AT services and devices.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 115

American Printing House for the Blind--$8,973,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: Pre-college level blind students will receive appropriate educational materials which result in improved educational outcomes.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: APH's activities support objectives 2.1 (children enter school ready to learn), 2.2 (reading), 2.3 (math), 2.4 (special populations) in

addition to objective 3.1 (Secondary students—information & support) through its production and distribution of educational materials adapted for students who are legally blind

and enrolled in formal educational programs below the college level.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Appropriate, timely, highquality educational

materials are provided to

pre-college level blind

students to allow them to

benefit more fully from

their educational programs.

1.1 Customer satisfaction. In FY 2000, 96% of

APH's customers/consumers will agree that the

educational materials provided through the Act

are appropriate, timely, and of high quality and

allow blind students to benefit more fully from

their educational programs.

1.2 Student performance and participation. In

FY 2000, the percentage of APH ex officio

trustees who report that the performance of

students and their participation in their

educational programs improves as a result of the

availability of educational materials provided

through the Act will increase to 99%.

In 1998, the ex officio trustees reported

that 95% of customers/consumers

indicated that the educational materials

were appropriate, timely, and of high

quality, and allow blind students to benefit

from their educational programs.

Additional baseline data from a consumer

survey will be available later in 1999.

In 1998, 98% of the ex officio trustees

reported that student performance and

participation in their education programs

improved.

Additional baseline data from the survey of

Teachers will be available later in 1999.

1.1 Survey of Ex Officio Trustees,

annual, 1999; Input from

Research and Publications

Advisory Committees, annual,

1999; Consumer surveys,

ongoing, 1999.

1.2 Annual survey of Ex Officio

Trustees, 1999; Annual survey

of teachers, 1999.

2. Research will result in

identification and

development of educational

materials responsive to

consumer needs.

2.1 Responsiveness to needs. In 2000, the

percentage of APH ex officio trustees who

express satisfaction with the prioritization of

APH's research projects will increase to 95%.

In 1998, 94% expressed satisfaction with

the prioritization of APH's research

projects.

2.1 Survey of Ex Officio Trustees,

annual, 1999; input from the

Educational and Technical

Research Advisory

Committee, annual, 1999.

3. Advisory services help

service providers to become

knowledgeable about how to

most effectively use

products provided through

the Act.

3.1 Effectiveness of assistance. In 2000, the

percentage of service providers who agree that

APH's advisory services help them become

knowledgeable about the effective use of

products provided through the Act will increase

to 99%.

In 1998, 98% of service providers agreed

that APH's advisory services helped them

become knowledgeable about the use of

APH products.

3.1 Survey of Ex Officio Trustees,

annual, 1999; evaluations of

technical assistance to direct

service providers, periodic,

1999.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 116

American Printing House for the Blind--$8,973,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: Pre-college level blind students will receive appropriate educational materials which result in improved educational outcomes.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: APH's activities support objectives 2.1 (children enter school ready to learn), 2.2 (reading), 2.3 (math), 2.4 (special populations) in

addition to objective 3.1 (Secondary students—information & support) through its production and distribution of educational materials adapted for students who are legally blind

and enrolled in formal educational programs below the college level.

Key Strategies

v American Printing House for the Blind’s existing survey of ex officio trustees will be conducted triennially beginning in 1998. Surveys targeting select issues will be

conducted in each of the interim years.

v The Educational and Technical Research and the Publications Advisory Committees will annually review APH’s progress in improving the appropriateness, timeliness of

delivery, and quality of products produced through the Act.

v Ongoing surveys of consumers will be conducted by an outside vendor to provide data regarding the appropriateness, timeliness of delivery, and quality of products

produced through the Act.

v Ex officio trustees will be surveyed to better understand how materials provided though the Act impact on student performance and how to measure the impact.

v Surveys of ex-officio trustees and teachers will be conducted on an annual basis to collect data regarding student performance and participation in their educational

programs in relation to materials provided through the Act.

v An area of the annual survey of Ex Officio Trustees will be dedicated to collecting data regarding the match between APH's research priorities and product needs in the

field.

v Beginning with 1998 meetings of the Educational and Technical Research Advisory Committee, research project prioritization, progress reports, and timelines will be

reviewed for committee input.

v A section of the annual survey of ex officio trustees to collect data on the satisfaction of service providers with advisory services provided through the Act.

v When technical assistance is provided during FY 1999, participants will be requested to complete evaluations to indicate their satisfaction regarding the assistance.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 117

National Technical Institute for the Deaf--$47,925,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To provide deaf and hearing students in undergraduate programs and professional studies with state-of-the-art technical and professional education

programs, undertake a program of applied research; share NTID expertise and expand outside sources of revenue.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: The National Technical Institute for the Deaf programs support objectives 1.4 (teachers), 3.1 (secondary studentsinformation/support), 3.2 (postsecondary students-financial aid/support), 3.4 (lifelong learning).

Objective Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Provide deaf and hearing

students in undergraduate

and professional studies with

outstanding state-of-the-art

technical and professional

education programs,

complemented by a strong

arts and sciences curriculum

and supplemented with

appropriate student support

services.

1.1 Enrollment. In 2000, a student body of at least

1,080 undergraduate students, 100 educational

interpreter program students, and 50 graduate

students will be enrolled.

In Fall 199, undergraduate enrollment was

1,135, educational interpreter program

enrollment was 93, and graduate enrollment

was 50 students.

1.1 NTID Registrar Office records,

Fall 1999 enrollment

summarized in NTID's annual

report, submitted in 2000.

2. Maximize the number of

students successfully

completing a program of

study.

2.1 Student retention rate. The first-year student

retention rate will rise to 73% in 2000.

2.2 Graduation rate. In 2000, the overall

graduation rate will be maintained at 52% or

48% for sub-baccalaureate and 62% for

baccalaureate.

The FY 1998 first-year student retention rate

was 71%.

The most recent graduation rates for students

in sub-baccalaureate programs and

baccalaureate programs are 48% and 63 %

(which exceeded our target of 62%).

2.1 NTID Registrar Office

records, summarized in the FY

1999 annual report, submitted

in 2000.

2.2 NTID Registrar Office records,

summarized in the FY 1999

annual report, submitted in

2000.

3. Prepare graduates to find

satisfying jobs in fields

commensurate with their

education.

3.1 Placement rate. An overall 95% placement

rate of graduates in the workforce will be

maintained through 2000.

The 1997 placement rate was 97% (which

exceeded our 94% target).

3.1 Placement Office records,

summarized in the FY 1999

annual report, submitted in

2000.

Undertake a program of applied research to enhance the social, economic, and educational well-being of deaf people

4. Conduct a program of

applied research to provide

innovative support for the

teaching and learning

process for deaf and hard-ofhearing individuals.

4.1 Public input satisfaction assessments.

Conduct periodic assessments to determine

whether NTID is obtaining appropriate public

input on all deafness-related research,

development, and demonstration activities.

Target will be established upon receipt of

baseline data.

4.1 Research Report, FY 2000

annual report, submitted in

2001.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 118

National Technical Institute for the Deaf--$47,925,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To provide deaf and hearing students in undergraduate programs and professional studies with state-of-the-art technical and professional education

programs, undertake a program of applied research; share NTID expertise and expand outside sources of revenue.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: The National Technical Institute for the Deaf programs support objectives 1.4 (teachers), 3.1 (secondary studentsinformation/support), 3.2 (postsecondary students-financial aid/support), 3.4 (lifelong learning).

Objective Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

5. Conduct outreach programs

for external audiences to

increase the knowledge base

and improve practice in the

field.

5.1 Consumer satisfaction. In 2000, trained

participants indicate an above-average rating

for the training they receive to serve or work

with individuals who are deaf and hard-ofhearing. Target will be established upon

receipt of baseline data.

5.1 Summary of participant

evaluations, annually, 2000.

Key Strategies

v Register 350 to 370 new students annually through a comprehensive marketing plan that targets minority students, women students, transfer students, international

students, and cross-registered students.

v Provide a barrier-free communication environment within NTID and improve informational access on the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) campus for deaf and

hard-of-hearing students.

v Continually evaluate the need to revise existing curriculum and develop new majors to reflect the changing needs of students and industry.

v Develop and refine retention initiatives (e.g., early warning system, career restoration program, peer support system, mentoring).

v Develop and implement instructional practices, including sign language and English to enable under-prepared students to acquire the skills necessary to complete a

postsecondary program of study.

v Expand and enhance career opportunities for students by responding to changes in the field.

v Enhance the curriculum to ensure that graduates meet the requirements of national and state certifying boards.

v Provide an array of academic support counseling (e.g., career and personal counseling, academic and employment advisement, placement assistance).

v Explore new technical career areas that will ensure student’s access to emerging careers that can enhance their earning potential.

v NTID will develop a strategy for determining field satisfaction related to its mechanisms for obtaining public input on research, development, and demonstration activities.

v Conduct research that advances our knowledge of educational challenges (e.g., reading college-level materials, transfer of skills across domains, matching educational

interpreting to student needs) and understanding of the academic potential of deaf and hard-of-hearing students, including students with special needs, in order to optimize

their academic success.

v Make presentations to state/regional meetings of state coordinators and/or RCDs to provide information on the latest developments on our campus.

v Conduct workshops; publish research results and provide electronic access to summaries of research findings; present research findings; and maintain active and visible

roles with key educational and advocacy organizations.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 119

Gallaudet University--$85,120,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To challenge students who are deaf, and students who are deaf and hearing in graduate programs, to achieve their academic goals and attain productive 

employment; provide leadership in setting the national standard for best practices in education of the deaf and hard of hearing; and establish a sustainable

resource base.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Gallaudet University's programs and activities, including those at MSSD/KDES, support objectives 1.4 (teachers), 2.1

(children ready to learn), 2.2 (reading), 2.3 (math), 2.4 (Special populations), 3.1 (Secondary students-information & support), and 3.4 Lifelong learning.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

Gallaudet challenges students who are deaf to achieve their academic goals and attain productive employment.

1. University Programs and

KDES/MSSD will optimize

the number of students

completing programs of

study.

1.1 Enrollment at Gallaudet University. In 2000,

enroll 1,250 undergraduate and 700 graduate

students, 70 students in professional studies, and

225 students at MSSD and 140 students at

KDES.

1.2 Student persistence rate. By 2000, increase

the undergraduate persistence rate to 76% in

2000; and the KDES/MSSD retention rate to

90%.

1.3 Student graduation rate. By 2000, increase the

undergraduate graduation rate at the university

will increase to 42%. The MSSD graduation rate

will increase to 94% between 2000 and 2003.

In FY 1998 (school year 1997-98),

undergraduate enrollment was 1,339;

graduate enrollment was 714; and

professional enrollments 224 in MSSD and

137 in KDES.

In FY 1998, the undergraduate persistence

rate was 72%, and the rate for

KDES/MSSD was 85%.

In FY 1998, the graduation rate for

undergraduates was 41% and the rate was

93% for MSSD.

1.1 Office of Enrollment Services

records, Fall 1999 enrollment

summarized in Gallaudet's

annual report, submitted in

2000.

1.2 Office of the Enrollment

Services records, summarized

in the FY 1999 annual report,

submitted in 2000.

1.3 Office of the Registrar records

for collegiate enrollments and

Office of Exemplary Programs

and Research records for

KDES/MSSD students, to be

summarized in the FY 1999

annual report, submitted in

2000.

2. Curriculum and extracurricular activities prepare

students to meet the skill

requirements of the

workplace or to continue

their studies.

2.1 Employment and advanced studies

opportunities at the University. In 2000, 95%

of Gallaudet's BA/BS graduates will either find

jobs commensurate with their training and

education or will attend graduate school during

their first year after graduation; 25% of the

Gallaudet students will apply to and be accepted

into programs of advanced study beyond the

baccalaureate degree.

In 1997, 95% of BA/BS graduates were in

jobs or graduate school their first year

after graduation; 25% of the graduates in

1996 were accepted into programs of

advanced studies.

2.1 University studies on the status

of graduates' employment, and

results of employer surveys,

February 1999, and the

graduate follow-up studies,

February 1999.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 120

Gallaudet University--$85,120,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To challenge students who are deaf, and students who are deaf and hearing in graduate programs, to achieve their academic goals and attain productive 

employment; provide leadership in setting the national standard for best practices in education of the deaf and hard of hearing; and establish a sustainable

resource base.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Gallaudet University's programs and activities, including those at MSSD/KDES, support objectives 1.4 (teachers), 2.1

(children ready to learn), 2.2 (reading), 2.3 (math), 2.4 (Special populations), 3.1 (Secondary students-information & support), and 3.4 Lifelong learning.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

Gallaudet provides leadership in setting the national standard for best practices in education of the deaf and hard of hearing

3. Research conducted

contributes to high-quality

state-of-the-art educational

services for deaf and hard of

hearing individuals.

3.1. Public input satisfaction. Conduct periodic

assessments to determine whether the university

and KDES/MSSD are obtaining appropriate

public input on all deafness-related research,

development, and demonstration activities from

infancy through adulthood, and to determine

levels of satisfaction for these activities. Target

will be established upon receipt of baseline data.

3.1 Report on Assessment on

public input, summarized in

the FY 2000 Annual Report,

submitted in 2001.

4. Gallaudet works in

partnership with others to

develop and disseminate

educational programs and

materials for deaf and hardof-hearing students.

4.1 Use of KDES/MSSD expertise. In 2000, the

level of 41 programs and institutions adopting

innovative curricula and other products, or

modifying their strategies as a result of

KDES/MSSD's leadership will be maintained or

increased.

In FY 1998, 41 programs had adopted

KDES/MSSD innovative

strategies/curricula.

4.1 FY 1999 KDES/MSSD Annual

Report, submitted in 2000.

Key Strategies

v KDES/MSSD will establish annual enrollment goals intended to achieve the requirements of the Education of the Deaf Act (EDA) related to composition of the student

body.

v Incorporate strategies from studies conducted by Gallaudet into the university’s Retention Improvement Plan and determine factors related to graduation completion

rates.

v Information on employment status and additional education obtained by graduates to all academic and support departments to enhance their internal program reviews.

v KDES/MSSD will develop a comprehensive plan to provide students with transition skills, instruction, and exposure to workplace environments.

v The university will increase its support for implementation of research results on campus and at other universities.

v The university and KDES/MSSD will develop a strategy for determining field satisfaction related to its mechanisms for obtaining public input on research, development

and demonstration activities.

v KDES/MSSD will obtain public input on research related to best practices in the priority areas of family involvement, transition, and literacy.

v KDES/MSSD will support research on KDES/MSSD priorities by university faculty, KDES/MSSD teachers, and staff through Gallaudet's internal RFP process.

v KDES/MSSD will develop partnerships and collaborations with a wide variety of other school programs serving deaf and hard-of-hearing children to identify, develop,

test, and disseminate information about best practices and effective educational innovations.

v KDES/MSSD will develop and implement a national communications network in collaboration with the Gallaudet University Regional Centers.

v Gallaudet will expand programs that best meet the needs of deaf and hard-of-hearing persons, their families and the professionals who serve them.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 121

Vocational and Adult Education
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 122

Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Act (State Grants and Tech-Prep Indicators)--$1,141,650,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: Increase access to and improve educational programs that strengthen education achievement, workforce preparation, and lifelong learning.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Funds provided to states through vocational education state grants support the six objectives outlined in our program plan.

These objectives have been aligned with core measures identified in Perkins III, which states will use to promote continuous program improvement in academic achievement

and job skills attainment, and to promote positive student outcomes at the state and local levels. State performance measures and GPRA program plan objectives are now

aligned with the Department's Strategic Plan, objective 1.2, which states, “Every state has a school-to-work system that increases student achievement, improves technical

skills, and broadens career opportunities for all.”

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

Student Achievement

1. Ensure that vocational

concentrators, including

special populations, will

achieve high levels of

proficiency in math, science

and English.

*Students who complete 3 or

more Carnegie units in a

single specific labor market

preparation program area.

1.1 Academic attainment. By fall of 2002, the

percentage of vocational concentrators, including

special populations, meeting the New Basics

standards will double from baseline data.

1.2 Academic attainment. By fall 2002 (controlling

for 8th grade math proficiency), vocational

concentrators will show increased math gains

between grades 8-12.

Between 1992 and 1994, the percentage of

vocational concentrators meeting new

basic standards increased from 18.5% to

33.5%.

In 1992, vocational concentrators, who

scored in the lowest, middle, and highest

range on an 8th grade math test showed

gains of 19%, 22% and 26%, respectively,

on math tests by grade 12.

1.1 NAEP90, NAEP94; next

update: NAEP transcript

study, 1998.(available in

2000).

1.2 NELS88; update from NLSY

in 2000.

2. Ensure that institutions,

secondary and

postsecondary, will offer

programs with industryrecognized skill standards

so that concentrators,

including special

populations, can earn skill

certificates in these

programs.

2. Skills proficiencies. By fall 2000, there will be

an increasing proportion of vocational schools

with skill competencies and related assessments,

and with industry-recognized skill certificates in

secondary and postsecondary institutions.

Secondary--In 1996-97, 28 % of public

schools had skill standards, 20% issued

skills certificates, and 20% issued

occupational certificates.

Postsecondary--In 1990, 15 % of beginning

postsecondary students had taken a

licensing exam by 1994.

2.1 Secondary--NLSY 1996-97

Update in 2000.

Postsecondary--BPS: 94 (draft

pub., Voc. Ed. 2000, Table

108).update, 2000.

NCES Survey of Secondary

and Postsecondary Institutions,

1999.

3. Ensure that concentrators,

including special

populations, make

transitions to continuing

education, work, or other

career options.

3.1 Secondary student outcomes. By 2002, an

increasing proportion of vocational concentrators,

including special populations will:

• Attain high school diplomas,

• Enter postsecondary programs, or

• Attain employment.

In 1994, 52% of vocational concentrators

graduating from high school in 1992 were

enrolled in postsecondary education.

In 1993, 77% of 1992 public high school

graduates, who were vocational

concentrators, were employed.

3.1 State Performance Reports,

annual, 2000 NELS, 2nd

follow-up, Interim updates

from 1996 STW Transcript

Study/Postsecondary followup. High School and Beyond,

4

th Follow-up, 1992, (draft

pub., Voc. Ed. 2000, Table

61). Follow-up-2000. Interim

updates from 1996 STW

Transcript Study/

Postsecondary follow-up.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 123

Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Act (State Grants and Tech-Prep Indicators)--$1,141,650,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: Increase access to and improve educational programs that strengthen education achievement, workforce preparation, and lifelong learning.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Funds provided to states through vocational education state grants support the six objectives outlined in our program plan.

These objectives have been aligned with core measures identified in Perkins III, which states will use to promote continuous program improvement in academic achievement

and job skills attainment, and to promote positive student outcomes at the state and local levels. State performance measures and GPRA program plan objectives are now

aligned with the Department's Strategic Plan, objective 1.2, which states, “Every state has a school-to-work system that increases student achievement, improves technical

skills, and broadens career opportunities for all.”

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

3.2 Postsecondary student outcomes. By 2002,an

increasing proportion of vocational students,

including special populations, will achieve the

following outcomes:

ÿ Retention in and completion of a

postsecondary degree or certificate, or

ÿ Placement in military service, or

ÿ Placement or retention in employment

In 1992, 10 years after graduating from

high school in 1982, 48% of vocational

concentrators had attained some type of

credential, 13 % had certificates, 13% had

an associate degree, and 22 % had a

bachelor's degree..

0.9 percent of vocational students were in

the military 18 months after high school.

28 percent of vocational students were

employed 18 months after graduating from

high school.

3.2 High School and Beyond, 4th

Follow-up, 1992, (draft pub.,

Voc. Ed. 2000, Table Figure

22.a). Follow-up 2000. State

Performance Reports, annual,

2000.

1996 STW Transcript Study

/Postsecondary follow-up.

1996 STW Transcript Study

/Postsecondary follow-up.

Performance Standards and Measures

4. Support state efforts to

refine and expand

performance measurement

and accountability practices

in vocational education for

program improvement.

4.1 Performance measurement. An increasing

proportion of states will use standards and measures

for local program improvement

In 1996, a Battelle study found 49% of

states reporting results to secondary locals

and 36% reporting to postsecondary

locals.

In 1998, current pilot effort with 7 states

will increase to 20 states while the number

of measures will increase from 2 to 6 by

spring, 1999. Additional states will be

included between 1999 and 2000.

4.1 Batelle Accountability Study,

1998; State Annual

Performance Reports, 1999.

4.2 Progress and Performance

Measures Study, 1999.

School and Teacher Reform

5. Determine that a sufficient

number of vocational

teachers are available for

select occupational areas.

5. Student-teacher ratio (STR). The STR will

remain relatively stable or decrease. Increases

will indicate the need to work with states,

teacher preparation institutions, and others to

avoid teacher shortages.

5.1 State Annual Performance

Reports, 2000.

Supplemental data source for

verification: School and

Staffing Survey, 2000.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 124

Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Act (State Grants and Tech-Prep Indicators)--$1,141,650,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: Increase access to and improve educational programs that strengthen education achievement, workforce preparation, and lifelong learning.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Funds provided to states through vocational education state grants support the six objectives outlined in our program plan.

These objectives have been aligned with core measures identified in Perkins III, which states will use to promote continuous program improvement in academic achievement

and job skills attainment, and to promote positive student outcomes at the state and local levels. State performance measures and GPRA program plan objectives are now

aligned with the Department's Strategic Plan, objective 1.2, which states, “Every state has a school-to-work system that increases student achievement, improves technical

skills, and broadens career opportunities for all.”

Key Strategies

v Hold three technical assistance meetings with state staff on methods for improving student achievement, state and local accountability, and aligning vocational education

curriculum with state academic standards.

v Support efforts by private sector, such as High Schools That Work, to help states integrate vocational and academic education and document effective practices.

v Support consortia of states in implementing challenging curriculum and assessments that are tied to state academic standards and industry-recognized standards in such

areas as health, manufacturing, and high technology.

v Through focus groups, conferences, and site visits, work with State Data Collection Associations, the Accountability Committee of the National Association of State

Directors, and other stakeholders to improve secondary and postsecondary data and accountability systems.

v Enhance data management systems to increases capacity for improved collection and analysis of state data.

v Cosponsor three workshops with National Center for Research in Vocational Education for states and other stakeholders to assist in the development of accountability

systems that capture student achievement.

v Hold three technical assistance sessions for states to help them develop and use performance measurement systems, and use outcome measures common to STW and

vocational education. Currently, OVAE has a contract for the development and use of uniform measures.

v Support the preparation and professional development of teachers to use contextual teaching and learning strategies to improve academic achievement through a $5.9

million contract.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 125

National Programs (Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Act )--$17,500,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: Increase access to and improve educational programs that strengthen educational achievement, workforce preparation, and lifelong learning.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: All these objectives are designed to improve the quality, usefulness, and accessibility of projects funded by our National Programs

budget. Projects have been prioritized according to program objectives and Objective 1.2 of the Department's Strategic Plan.

Objective Indicator Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

Research

1. Increase the use of research

findings to inform program

direction and to improve

state and local practice.

1.1 Promote quality research. The percentage of

consumers rating research and products of the

National Center for Research in Vocational

Education (NCRVE) as addressing important

and relevant vocational education issues in a

timely and quality fashion will increase from

baseline data.

1.1 a. Annual consumer review;

b. Quarterly and yearly

progress reports detailing

delivery of products.; c. Expert

peer review & publication in

refereed professional journals.

Consumer review, annual,

1999; progress reports, quarterly

and annual, 1999; expert peer

review, 1999; review of citations in

refereed professional journals,

1999.

2. Provide high quality data to

support policy makers at

federal, state and local levels.

2.1 Program impacts. By 2002, changes in the

programs and strategies promoted through

vocational education will provide students with

access to strong academic and industryrecognized technical skills, broad career

pathways, and transition to postsecondary

education and employment.

2.1 a. State annual performance

reports; b. NCES – Industrybased skill standards survey

(1999) and follow-up;. c.

National Assessment of

Vocational Education (NAVE,

2002); d. NCRVE Tech Prep

study (1999/2000); NCRVE

Support-to-States initiative

(1999); e. Career Clusters in 6

broad industry areas.

School Reform

3. Improve and expand the use

of effective strategies that

promote secondary and

postsecondary reforms.

3.1 New American High Schools. By fall 2001,

200 high schools will have fully adopted all

NAHS reform elements; 2,000 high schools

will be participating in the NAHS initiative and

will have developed implementation plans and

begun restructuring based on the NAHS

principles.

In 1998, 17 schools fully involved;

additional 40-50 schools currently in

process.

3.1 Evaluations undertaken by

funded NAHS projects (third

party); semiannual and annual

project reports.; evaluation

contract for NAHS project.

(Established May 1999).

3.2 Professional development. By 2000, at least

5 models of teacher development will be

established to promote the recruitment,

preparation, and professional development of

teachers, emphasizing training in contextual

teaching and learning.

In fall 1998, 7 contracts were awarded to

develop models that prepare new teachers,

strengthen current teachers and recruit new

teachers.

3.2 Case studies (spring 1999);

interim project reports; initial

models established by March

2000.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 126

National Programs (Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Act )--$17,500,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: Increase access to and improve educational programs that strengthen educational achievement, workforce preparation, and lifelong learning.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: All these objectives are designed to improve the quality, usefulness, and accessibility of projects funded by our National Programs

budget. Projects have been prioritized according to program objectives and Objective 1.2 of the Department's Strategic Plan.

Objective Indicator Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

3.3 Career clusters. By fall 2001, standardsbased curriculum and portable skill certificates,

developed by industry-education partnerships,

will be available in 6 broad industry areas.

In 1997, pilot clusters in 3 areas, Health,

Manufacturing and Business, were

developed. In 1999 clusters in an additional

3 areas will be developed (A/V &

Communications, IT, and Transportation).

3.3 Building Linkages study (April

1999. Evaluation of program

effectiveness, 2000-01).

Key Strategies

v Customer/end-user advisory groups will provide input; customer surveys will measure utility and relevance.

v Use DNP Research Team, Cooperative Agreement, and technology to ensure that timetables are established and met, and to track products/studies.

v Make computer searches of publication databases, and reprint published studies.

v Papers have been commissioned in preparation for the NAVE.

v The progress of the NAVE is being monitored to ensure timely completion of milestones.

v NCRVE research and technical assistance for Tech Prep programs and state program accountability systems.

v Prepare case studies of changes in higher education and teacher preparation strategies.

v Pre-service programs to prepare teachers to use contextual teaching and learning strategies are being developed.

v A consortia of stakeholders will develop and disseminate career clusters in at least 6 areas, with career-related curricula, incorporating industry and state standards, and

providing skill certificates in high- demand occupations that are portable across industries and states.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 127

Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Vocational Institutions—$4,100,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To increase access to and improve vocational education that will strengthen workforce preparation, employment opportunities, and lifelong learning in the

Indian Community.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Program objectives relate to the Department’s objective 1.2, which states, “Every state has a school-to-work system that increases

student achievement, improves technical skills, and broadens opportunities for all.”

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

Student achievement and participation

1. Ensure that Tribally

Controlled Postsecondary

Vocational Institutions

provide increased access to

vocational-technical

education programs for

historically under-served

targeted populations.

1.1 Increased student participation. By the year

2000 the number of vocational students seeking

certificates or AA degrees in vocational training

areas will increase.

1.2 Increased participation in articulated

programs. By the year 2000 the number of

vocational students participating in associate

degree training programs that are articulated with

an advanced degree option will increase.

. 1.1 Tribally Controlled

Postsecondary Vocational

Institutions Performance

Reports, annual, 1999.

1.2 Tribally Controlled

Postsecondary Vocational

Institutions Performance

Reports, annual, 1999.

2. Ensure that vocational

students served in Tribally

Controlled Postsecondary

Vocational Institutions

make successful transitions

to work or continuing

education.

2.1 Postsecondary outcomes. By the year 2000 the

number of vocational students attaining

employment in the field in which they were

trained or pursuing higher level training at the

certificate or BA level will increase.

2.1 Tribally Controlled

Postsecondary Vocational

Institutions Performance

Reports, annual, 1999.

Key Strategies

v Work with the Office of the White House Initiative for Tribal Colleges and Universities to develop additional strategies.

v Work with grantees to improve the collection of placement data.

v Encourage grantees to include apprenticeship and work-based learning opportunities in their institutions.

v Work with grantees to encourage coordination of associate degree programs with 4-year institutions through articulation agreements.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 128

Adult Education: State Grants and Knowledge Development—$569,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To support adult education systems that result in increased adult learner achievement in order to prepare adults for family, work, citizenship, and future 

learning.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: The primary linkage is with Goal 3 of the Department’s Strategic Plan (Ensure access to postsecondary education and lifelong

learning). The adult education objectives are focused on increasing access to and improving the overall quality of adult education and literacy services nationwide. To support

the overall goal, the adult education objectives target a variety of program improvement initiatives in the areas of instruction, teacher training, use of technology, research, and

program accountability. In addition, strategies related to family literacy – such as the development of a family literacy distance learning project – are being implemented in

support of Goal 2 (Build a solid foundation for learning of all children). Also objective 7 supports the goal of making ED a high-performance organization by focusing on

results, service quality, and customer satisfaction.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

Adult learners

1. Improve literacy in the

United States.

1.1 Improve literacy. By 2002 the number of adults

performing in the lowest proficiency level in the

National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS) will

decrease.

Between 40 and 44 million adults are

estimated to be in the lowest of five

proficiency levels in the 1992 NALS.

1.1 NALS I, 1992; Synthetic

Estimates of National Literacy

Levels, 1999; NALS II, 2002.

2. Provide adult learners with

opportunities to acquire

basic foundation skills

(including English language

acquisition), complete

secondary education, and

transition to further

education and training and

to work.

2.1 Basic skill acquisition. By 2000, 40% of adults

in beginning-level Adult Basic Education (ABE)

programs will complete that level and achieve

basic skill proficiency.

2.2 Basic English language acquisition. By 2002,

40% of adults in beginning English for Speakers

of Other Languages (ESOL) programs will

complete and achieve basic English literacy.

2.3 Secondary completion. By 2000, 40% of adults

enrolled in secondary level programs will earn a

diploma or General Educational Development

(GED) credential.

2.4 Transition to further education and training.

By 2000, 300,000 adults participating in adult

education will enroll in further academic

education and/or vocational training.

2.5 Transition to work. By 2000, 300,000 adults

participating in adult education will get a job or

retain or advance in their current job

In 1996, 630,000 beginning level students

had a 28% completion rate.

In 1996, 435,000 beginning ESOL students

had 27% completion rate.

In 1996, 928,000 secondary level students

had a 38% attainment rate.

In 1996, 175,000 adults in adult education

enrolled in further education and training.

In 1996, 268,000 adults in adult education

got a job, were retained in a job, or

advanced on the job.

2.1 Adult Education Management

Information System/ annual,

1999.

2.2 Adult Education Management

Information System/annual,

1999.

2.3 Adult Education Management

Information System/annual,

1999.

2.4 Adult Education Management

Information System/annual,

1999.

2.5 Adult Education Management

Information System/annual,

1999.

3. Provide adult learners at the

lowest levels of literacy

access to educational

opportunities to improve

their basic foundation skills.

3.1 Educationally disadvantaged. By 2000, adults

at the lowest levels of literacy (those in

Beginning ABE and Beginning ESOL) will

comprise 45-50% of the total national

enrollment.

In 1996, adult enrollments at the lowest

levels of literacy represented 42% of total

enrollment.

3.1 Adult Education Management

Information System, annual,

1999.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 129

Adult Education: State Grants and Knowledge Development—$569,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To support adult education systems that result in increased adult learner achievement in order to prepare adults for family, work, citizenship, and future 

learning.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: The primary linkage is with Goal 3 of the Department’s Strategic Plan (Ensure access to postsecondary education and lifelong

learning). The adult education objectives are focused on increasing access to and improving the overall quality of adult education and literacy services nationwide. To support

the overall goal, the adult education objectives target a variety of program improvement initiatives in the areas of instruction, teacher training, use of technology, research, and

program accountability. In addition, strategies related to family literacy – such as the development of a family literacy distance learning project – are being implemented in

support of Goal 2 (Build a solid foundation for learning of all children). Also objective 7 supports the goal of making ED a high-performance organization by focusing on

results, service quality, and customer satisfaction.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

3.2 Distance learning. By 2000, 15 states will offer

ESOL instruction through the Crossroads Café

distance learning program

In 1996, 5 states offered ESOL instruction

through Crossroads Café.

3.2 Adult Education Management

Information System, annual,

1999. New data elements

required.

State and local programs

4. Implement state and local

performance management

systems for accountability

and program improvement.

4.1 Building performance management capacity.

By 2000, all states will implement a national

results-based performance management system

to report on program effectiveness and learner

achievement.

The system will be available for

implementation in PY 2000.

4.1 Adult Education Management

Information System, annual,

2001. Will require

modification and expansion to

accommodate new result

measures and benchmarks.

Professional development and teacher training

5. States will implement

statewide professional

development systems and

professional standards for

instructors.

5.1 High teaching standards. By 2000, at least 13

states will adopt professional standards for adult

education teachers.

In 1996, 10 states had professional

standards for adult education teachers.

5.1 Adult Education Management

Information System, 1999.

Minor revisions to system

needed

5.2 System-wide Professional Development. By

2000, between 20 and 25 states will implement

Statewide professional development systems.

In 1996, 15 states had Implemented

statewide Professional development

Systems.

5.2 Adult Education Management

Information System, 1999.

Minor revisions to system

needed.

Systems building

6. Improve access to and the

quality of programs for

adult learners by

integrating services and

leveraging resources.

6.1 Family literacy. By 2000, adult education

programs in 20 states will be formal partners

with Even Start and Head Start agencies in the

delivery of family literacy programs.

6.2 Employment and training. By 2000, at least

13 states will implement statewide policy

supporting the development of

workforce/workplace programs.

In 1996, 7 states reported formal

Partnerships between Education and Even

Start Programs.

In 1996, 5 states had policies Supporting

workforce/workplace Programs.

6.1 Adult Education Management

Information System, 1999

Requires system revision.

6.2 Adult Education Management

Information System, 1999.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 130

Adult Education: State Grants and Knowledge Development—$569,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To support adult education systems that result in increased adult learner achievement in order to prepare adults for family, work, citizenship, and future 

learning.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: The primary linkage is with Goal 3 of the Department’s Strategic Plan (Ensure access to postsecondary education and lifelong

learning). The adult education objectives are focused on increasing access to and improving the overall quality of adult education and literacy services nationwide. To support

the overall goal, the adult education objectives target a variety of program improvement initiatives in the areas of instruction, teacher training, use of technology, research, and

program accountability. In addition, strategies related to family literacy – such as the development of a family literacy distance learning project – are being implemented in

support of Goal 2 (Build a solid foundation for learning of all children). Also objective 7 supports the goal of making ED a high-performance organization by focusing on

results, service quality, and customer satisfaction.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

Improved Practice

7. Improve and expand

knowledge base of strategies

that support reform in adult

education.

7.1 Customer Satisfaction. External peer

reviews/customer satisfaction surveys show

increasing satisfaction with the quality of

research, development, and program

improvement activities

7.1 Stakeholder Survey, 1999.

Key Strategies

v Target the $103 million increase for Adult Education State Grants to help states enhance the capacity of adult education programs to improve learner retention and

achievement, particularly for Hispanics and other limited English proficient adults.

v Develop and pilot test a reporting system that meets the performance accountability requirements for the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act.

v Implement a long-term technology initiative to extend access to adult education and literacy services to adult learners within their homes, workplaces, and communities;

make high-quality instruction available through a variety of modalities, including distance learning; and increase access to staff development through the expanded use of

technology.

v Continue studies of “what works” in adult basic education and English as a second language programs to improve the quality of services.

v Support the development of public/private collaborative projects, such as a technology-based distance learning family literacy project, that increase access to adult

education services in rural localities.

v Support a multi-year project in one-stop employment centers to demonstrate model student assessments to screen adults for learning disabilities.

v Provide technical assistance to states on best practices and models for integrating pre-employment and work readiness activities in basic skills programs.

v Collaborate with states to develop model professional teaching standards and provide technical assistance in system improvement.

v Continue collaborative partnership with the National Center for Family Literacy and Even Start to develop state-level alliances that support coordinated family literacy

services.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 131

National Institute for Literacy--$6,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To provide the adult education and literacy field with the knowledge, resources, and infrastructure necessary to improve the quality of literacy instruction 

and the achievement of learners.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Program objectives are in support of Strategic plan objective 3.4, which is to ensure that all adults can strengthen their skills and

improve their earnings power over their lifetime through lifelong learning.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

Technology and Literacy Initiative (LINCS)

1. Provide literacy instructors,

students, and

administrators with an

Internet-based, state-of-theart information and

communication system --

the Literacy Information

and Communication System

(LINCS) -- that improves

the quality and increases

the availability of literacy

services.

1.1 Improving quality. LINCS’ users will judge its

information and communications resources

useful in improving the quality and availability

of literacy services.

1.2 Expanding use of technology. The number of

instructors trained to use LINCS will increase by

20% over the baseline each year.

1.3 Technology in the classroom. Of those trained

through LINCS, 40% will report an expanded

use of technology and improvement in the

quality of instruction.

The number trained in 1997-98 is 4,900.

1.1 On-line surveys of LINCS

users, including listserv

subscribers, ongoing, 1999.

1.2 Enrollment data at LINCS

training, 1999.

1.3 Follow-up surveys of

instructors trained to use

LINCS, semi-annual, 1999

Improving Instruction for Adults with Learning Disabilities

2. Improve the quality of

instruction for adults with

learning disabilities,

especially in the area of

reading.

2.1 Improving instruction for learning disabled

adults. 70% of individuals trained in the use of

Bridges to Practice, a set of guidebooks for

identifying and serving adults with LD, will

report satisfaction with it as a means of

improving services and the quality of instruction

for LD adults.

2.1 Survey of training participants,

1999.

2.2 Training teachers for better reading

instruction. The number of teachers trained to

use a research-based reading approach will

increase annually.

2.2 Data from pilot programs

using these research-based

reading approaches and

subsequent surveys on the

extent of use of the

approaches, 2000.

2.3 Improving reading instruction. Teachers

trained to use the approach for teaching reading

developed through this project will be more

effective than those using alternative approaches.

2.3 Data from pilot programs

using the reading model and

subsequent surveys on the

extent of use of the model,

2000.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 132

National Institute for Literacy--$6,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To provide the adult education and literacy field with the knowledge, resources, and infrastructure necessary to improve the quality of literacy instruction 

and the achievement of learners.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Program objectives are in support of Strategic plan objective 3.4, which is to ensure that all adults can strengthen their skills and

improve their earnings power over their lifetime through lifelong learning.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

System Reform Project (Equipped for the Future)

3. Equipped for the Future

System Reform Project.

Develop content standards,

performance standards, and

assessments that will

improve literacy abilities in

a broad array of skill areas

3.1 Expanding the number of teachers trained to

use the EFF standards. The number of teachers

trained to use EFF will increase by 10% over the

baseline each year.

3.1 Data on Certificates awarded

for successful completion of

EFF training, annual, 2000.

3.2 Improving instruction of adult learners 70%

of teachers and tutors who have received at least

12 hours of training in using the Equipped for the

Future framework and standards will report

satisfaction with them as a means of providing

more effective instruction to adults who come to

their programs.

3.2 Follow-up surveys of

instructors trained to use EFF,

annual, 2000.

4. Increase awareness of the

availability of literacy

services and the need for

public and private support

for literacy efforts.

4.1 Recruitment and program support. The

number of individuals recruited into literacy

programs and the amount of support (including

volunteers) for literacy services will increase 5%

nationally and 20% in 10 targeted cities.

National baseline is 5,640. Local baselines

to be determined once 10 cities are

identified.

4.1 Reports from the NIFL

Literacy Hotline, a sampling of

follow-up calls to programs

where individuals are referred,

and reports from 10

participating cities, ongoing,

1999.

Key Strategies

v Continue to build a high quality database of materials and communications opportunities that directly and indirectly support the improvement and growth of literacy

services in the nation. Provide training to individuals at the state and local program level.

v Use recent research on reading instruction to develop and test a model of effective reading instruction for adults that can be incorporated into literacy programs nationwide.

v Link ongoing effort to improve instruction for adults with learning disabilities with a new reading project to begin in the summer of 1999.

v Fund state and local literacy professionals and work with commercial publishers to create materials and assessments that lead to achievement of EFF standards. Support

pilot program sites in using and assessing EFF products.

v Create public awareness opportunities in the media and through other mechanisms that increase awareness about the availability of literacy services and the need for

increased support.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 133

State Grants for Incarcerated Youth Offenders--$12,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To increase access to and achievement in correctional education programs that will aid in the reintegration of prisoners into their communities.

Relation of Program Goal to Strategic Plan: The activities of the State Grants for Incarcerated Youth Offenders program support objectives 3.4 (lifelong learning) and 2.4

(special populations receive appropriate services).

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

Student Achievement

1. Grantees will develop and

implement improved

educational programs that

include postsecondary

education and vocational

training.

1.1 Improved completion rates. By 2000 the rate

of students completing educational programs

within adult prisons and pre-release facilities

will increase.

1.2 Improved academic and vocational

achievement. By 2000 student achievement

scores on testing measures will improve and the

number of students obtaining vocational skill

certificates will increase.

1.3 Improved recidivism rates. By 2000

recidivism rates for participants will be lower

than those of the comparison groups.

The Department first awarded grants in

1998. Baseline data from the annual

evaluation reports will not be available

until fall 1999.

1.1 Evaluation reports, annual,

1999.

1.2 Evaluation reports, annual,

1999.

1.3 Evaluation reports, annual,

1999.

Access to Services

2. Improve access to

postsecondary education

and job placement

programs for incarcerated

persons.

2.1 Increased participation in job placement

programs and improved job retention rates.

By 2000, the rate of students obtaining jobs and

retaining jobs will be higher than those of

comparison groups.

2.2 Improved access to information on

postsecondary education programs and job

placement programs. External peer

reviews/customer satisfaction surveys of OCE

technical support and mail response will show

increasing satisfaction with quality of

information provided.

2.1 Evaluation reports, annual,

1999.

2.2 Grantee feedback from

technical support meetings,

telephone and mail

correspondence and site visits,

ongoing, 1999.

Key Strategies

v Facilitate the exchange of information between grantees by establishing a network for the communication of effective strategies and best practices.

v Through technical assistance activities, work with grantees to improve data collection and begin to compile base line information on participants and completion rates.

v Encourage grantees to provide participants with information on postsecondary education and job placement programs specific to their regions.

v Work with grantees to determine the current available information concerning postsecondary education and job placement opportunities either during incarceration or post

release and work to provide any additional information.

v The Office of Correctional Education (OCE) will continue to coordinate Department-wide correctional education activities through its coordinating committee on

correctional education.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 134
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 135

Student Financial Assistance
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 136

Student Financial Assistance Programs--$9,183,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To help ensure access to high-quality postsecondary education by providing financial aid in the form of grants, loans, and work-study in an efficient, 

financially sound, and customer-responsive manner.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Supports Objective 3.2 by efficiently providing student financial aid to help enable low-income students to enroll in and complete

postsecondary education.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

End Outcomes

1. Ensure that low- and

middle-income students will

have the same access to

postsecondary education

that high-income students

do.

1.1 Percent of unmet need. Considering all sources

of financial aid, the percent of unmet need,

especially for low-income students, will show

continuous decreases over time

1.2 College enrollment rates. Postsecondary

education enrollment rates will increase each

year for all students, while the enrollment gap

between low- and high-income and minority and

non-minority high school graduates will decrease

each year.

1.3 Targeting of Pell Grants. Pell Grant funds will

continue to be targeted to those students with the

greatest financial need: at least 75% of Pell

Grant funds will go to students below 150% of

poverty level.

1.4 Debt burden. The percentage of students with

student loan debt repayments exceeding 10% of

their gross income will remain stable or decline

over time.

In 1995-96, average unmet need for all

students was 22.5%, ranging from 53.5%

for independent students with incomes less

than $5,000 to 4% for independent

students with incomes of $30,000 or more.

In 1997, there was a 25.2% gap

(57% vs.82.2%) between low- and highincome high school graduates aged 16-24

enrolling immediately in college.

Currently, 76% of Pell Grant funds do so.

Among 1992-1993 bachelors degree

recipients making loan payments, 29% had

required payments that were more

than10% of their gross income. (Analysis of

1994 Baccalaureate and Beyond Study

1.1 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS), 2001.

Note: Efforts are under way to

estimate yearly changes in the

variables that make up unmet

need.

1.2 Current Population Statistics

(CPS), annual, 1999.

1.3 Program data, annual, 1999.

1.4 Baccalaureate and Beyond

Study, 2001. Note: Efforts are

underway to develop an annual

measure of debt burden, using

data from the Social Security

Administration.

2. Ensure that more students

will persist in postsecondary

education and attain

degrees and certificates.

2.1 Completion rate. Completion rates for all fulltime, eligible, degree-seeking students in 4-year

and 2-year colleges will improve, while the gap

in completion rates between low- and highincome and minority and non-minority students

will decrease.

BPS data indicate a gap of approximately

23% in 4-year college completion within 5

years between low- and high-income

students. For students entering 4-year

colleges in 1990, the percentage who had

completed by 1994, is as follows:

Highest income quartile: 57.2%

Second income quartile: 47.4%

Third income quartile: 40.4%

Lowest income quartile: 34.4%

2.1 Beginning Postsecondary

Students (BPS) Survey

(completion rates), 2001.

Note: Beginning in 1999

completion rates will be

available annually from the

Integrated Postsecondary

Education Data System.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 137

Student Financial Assistance Programs--$9,183,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To help ensure access to high-quality postsecondary education by providing financial aid in the form of grants, loans, and work-study in an efficient, 

financially sound, and customer-responsive manner.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Supports Objective 3.2 by efficiently providing student financial aid to help enable low-income students to enroll in and complete

postsecondary education.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

3. Ensure that taxpayers will

have a positive return on

investment in the federal

student financial assistance

programs.

3.1 Employment rate. Title IV recipients will

maintain employment at rates at least equal to

the rate for non-recipients.

3.2 Return on investment. The benefits of the

student aid programs, in terms of increased tax

revenues, will continue to exceed their costs..

BPS data suggest that employment rates of

Title IV recipients and non-recipients are

equal for both graduates and nongraduates.

A Department study found that for every

dollar spent on student aid in 1996, almost

$3 was returned to the treasury in terms of

increased tax revenues and decreased

welfare costs. The return for students

receiving a Bachelor’s Degree was almost

$4 for every $1 invested in student aid.

3.1 BPS, 1998 and Baccalaureate

and Beyond (B&B), 2001

3.2 Analysis of Census data by

Office of the Under Secretary’s

Planning and Evaluation

Service (PES), annual, 1999.

4. Encourage postsecondary

students to engage in

community service.

4.1 Community Service. The percent of Federal

Work-Study program funds spent on community

service will equal or exceed the current percent,

especially for America Reads.

In 1996-97, approximately 11% of Federal

Work-Study program funds were spent on

community service.

4.1 OPE program data, annual,

1999.

Operations (Interim plan, final to be submitted in September 1999)

On December 8, 1998, a Performance-based Organization (PBO) was created to help modernize and improve the student aid delivery system. The PBO is in the process of

developing a performance plan for the succeeding 5 years, as required in the Higher Education Act, that establishes measurable goals and objectives for the organization. The 5-

year performance plan will be submitted to Congress in September 1999 after extensive consultation with all interested parties. In the interim, the following set of indicators has

been developed to describe the specific actions the PBO will take in the next 7 months to ensure the continued efficient operation of the student aid delivery system and to set the

stage for future modernization and improvement.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 138

Student Financial Assistance Programs--$9,183,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To help ensure access to high-quality postsecondary education by providing financial aid in the form of grants, loans, and work-study in an efficient, 

financially sound, and customer-responsive manner.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Supports Objective 3.2 by efficiently providing student financial aid to help enable low-income students to enroll in and complete

postsecondary education.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

5. To improve customer

satisfaction.

5.1 RFMS system. Put the new Recipient Fund

Management System in place by 8/30/99 and

ensure that users do not experience any

degradation in service.

5.2 FAFSA applications. Process Free Application

For Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) applications

within an average turnaround time of eight days

or less (through 9/30/99).

5.3 Direct Loan disbursements. Enable qualified

Direct Loan schools to disburse money to

qualified students while they wait (by 9/30/99).

5.4 Consolidation processing. Continue to process

completed Direct Loan Consolidation

applications within an average turnaround time

of 60 days or less (From 1/1/99 - 9/30/99)

5.5 Processing. Process all transactions with

schools so that disruptions for students and

schools are minimal (through 9/30/99).

5.6 Y2K conversions. Complete, validate and put

in use all Y2K systems conversions (by 3/31/99).

5.7 Customer preferences. Establish a program to

collect customer preferences and our

performance on an on-going basis (by 9/30/99).

Not applicable.

Current benchmark is 8 days.

Not applicable.

Current benchmark is 54 days.

Benchmarks:

v After implementing RFMS, make Pell

funds available to school within 36

hours of submission.

v Process all audits within six months.

v Complete reimbursement requests

within 30 days.

v Respond to student complaints within

10 days.

v IPOS completes all transactions within

established timeframes 95% of the

time.

10 of 11 systems Y2K compliant, the last

system conversion will be successfully

completed by mid-March, 1999.

Not applicable.

5.1 Not applicable.

5.2 Program data, weekly, 1999.

5.3 Not applicable.

5.4 Program data, weekly, 1999.

5.5 Program data, 1999.

5.6 Not applicable.

5.7 Not applicable.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 139

Student Financial Assistance Programs--$9,183,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To help ensure access to high-quality postsecondary education by providing financial aid in the form of grants, loans, and work-study in an efficient, 

financially sound, and customer-responsive manner.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Supports Objective 3.2 by efficiently providing student financial aid to help enable low-income students to enroll in and complete

postsecondary education.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

5.8 Electronic applications. Attract three million

new electronic filings from aid applicants for the

twelve-month period ending 9/30/1999.

5.9 Service experiences. Create five new positive

experiences in services delivered to our

customers and partners (by 9/30/99).

5.10New products. Introduce five new electronic

products and services - at least as pilots – which

move us toward the EASI vision (by 9/30/99).

Currently, we anticipate receiving over 2.6

million electronic FAFSA applications by

9/30/99; additional volume will come from

borrowers electronically submitting their

loan consolidation applications and

schools submitting their eligibility

applications. Three million is equal to

approximately one-third of the annual

volume of aid applications, an ambitious

target originally established for the 2000-

2001 award year.

Not applicable

Not applicable

5.8 Program data, weekly, 1999.

5.9 Not applicable.

5.10 Not applicable.

6. Reduce the overall cost of

delivering student aid.

6.1 Cost baseline. Establish a baseline estimate of

the overall costs of delivering student aid (by

9/30/99).

6.2 Cost reduction. Create a core measure or

measures for judging cost reduction performance

(e.g. total delivery dollars spent per assistance

dollar outstanding by 9/30/99).

6.3 Financial management system. Design a

complete, subsidiary-style financial management

system for the PBO (by 9/30/99).

6.4 Audits. Provide all necessary support needed to

achieve clean audits for FY 98 and FY 99, with

FY 99 documentation delivered on time to

support a March 2000 publication date.

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

6.1 Not applicable.

6.2 Not applicable.

6.3 Not applicable.

6.4 Not applicable.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 140

Student Financial Assistance Programs--$9,183,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To help ensure access to high-quality postsecondary education by providing financial aid in the form of grants, loans, and work-study in an efficient, 

financially sound, and customer-responsive manner.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Supports Objective 3.2 by efficiently providing student financial aid to help enable low-income students to enroll in and complete

postsecondary education.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

6.5 Default recovery rate. Maintain default

recovery rate at ten percent or more of prior

year-end outstanding balances (through 9/30/99).

6.6 Cohort default rate. Maintain cohort default

rate at ten percent or less (through 9/30/99).

6.7 Performance based contracts. Use

performance based contracts in all major new

contract awards (through 9/30/99).

6.8 Current contracts. Extend current contracts,

where that is necessary, early enough to avoid

cost impacts (through 9/30/99).

6.9 Identify cost cutting actions. Review PBO

operations to identify cost cutting actions in

delivering student aid (by 4/1/99).

6.10Incentives. Develop incentives to encourage

high performance by partners.

Current benchmark is 10% reflecting the

FY98 rate.

Current benchmark is 9.6% reflecting the

FY 96 rate.

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

6.5 Program data, annual, 1999.

6.6 Program data, annual, 1999.

6.7 Not applicable.

6.8 Not applicable.

6.9 Not applicable.

6.10 Not applicable.

7. Transform the Student

Financial Assistance Office

into a performance-based

organization.

7.1 Collaboration with partners. Conduct

collaborative working sessions with partners –

schools and the financial community – on how to

improve services to students and cut overall

program costs (by 4/30/99, feed ideas to the

customer service task force). These

collaborative working sessions are an essential

part of the drive to identify the improvements

most desired by our customers and partners.

7.2 Benchmarks. Find best in the business

organizations that we can use to benchmark our

processes, systems and people (make initial

comparisons by 7/31/99).

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

7.1 Not applicable.

7.2 Not applicable.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 141

Student Financial Assistance Programs--$9,183,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To help ensure access to high-quality postsecondary education by providing financial aid in the form of grants, loans, and work-study in an efficient, 

financially sound, and customer-responsive manner.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Supports Objective 3.2 by efficiently providing student financial aid to help enable low-income students to enroll in and complete

postsecondary education.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

7.3 Customer service improvements. Deliver a

task force report on how to make specific, top to

bottom improvements in customer service and

satisfaction (by 7/1/99).

7.4 Systems architecture. Complete a systems

architecture and acquisition strategy for allmajor PBO business processes and computer

systems, to support our improved service and

cost management objectives (by 7/31/99).

7.5 Budget plan. Deliver a preliminary budget plan

for the PBO by 4/1/99, (we will seek

congressional concurrence at a later date for a

comprehensive plan in order to use results from

the customer service task force and architecture

projects).

7.6 Organizational plan. With employees, develop

a human resources and organizational plan for

the PBO (by 9/30/99).

7.7 Employee satisfaction. With employees,

develop a system to measure employee

satisfaction (by 9/30/99).

7.8 Performance plan. Deliver the five-year

performance plan for the PBO, including

recommendations for additional legislation to

improve service and reduce cost (by 9/30/99).

7.9 Ombudsman. Hire an Ombudsman and build a

complaint “cherishing” system (by 9/30/99).

This function is required of the PBO under HEA

reauthorization.

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

7.3 .Not applicable.

7.4 Not applicable.

7.5 Not applicable.

7.6 Not applicable.

7.7 Not applicable.

7.8 Not applicable.

7.9 Not applicable.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 142

Student Financial Assistance Programs--$9,183,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To help ensure access to high-quality postsecondary education by providing financial aid in the form of grants, loans, and work-study in an efficient, 

financially sound, and customer responsive manner.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Supports Objective 3.2 by efficiently providing student financial aid to help enable low-income students to enroll in and complete

postsecondary education.

Key Strategies

v Student financial assistance. If enacted, the Department’s FY 2000 budget would provide more than $52 billion in grant, loan, and work-study assistance to 8.8 million

postsecondary students. A $7.5 billion request for Pell Grants would increase the maximum award by $125 to $3,250, the highest ever, and provide grants to nearly 3.9

million students. A $934 million request for Work-Study (an increase of $64 million) would allow approximately 1 million students work their way through college.

Modifying the allocation formula for the three campus-based aid programs (Work-Study, Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, and Perkins Loans) would

gradually distribute a larger share of appropriated funds on the basis of institutional need. The Federal Family Education Loans and Federal Direct Student Loan programs

would support 9.5 million loans to postsecondary students totaling an estimated $41.2 billion.

v Support services for postsecondary students. Besides providing financial assistance to help students enroll in and complete postsecondary education, the Department also

supports programs that provide students with the non-financial services needed to achieve their educational objectives. The $630 million request for TRIO would enhance

the Student Support Services and McNair programs, which are designed to encourage individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds to complete college and pursue graduate

studies. The new College Completion Challenge Grants program would provide $35 million to help institutions of higher education increase the persistence rate of students

who are at risk of dropping out of college. Redesigning performance reports and disseminating information regarding effective practices would improve the provision of

support services to students.

v Improve the quality of postsecondary education. While most of the Department’s efforts support the direct provision of assistance to students, whether it is financial or

non-financial, the Department also plays a significant role in helping to improve the quality of postsecondary education. The FY 2000 request of $521 million (a $41 million

increase over FY 1999) requested for the Aid for Institutional Development, Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions, and Howard University programs will help enable

institutions serving high percentages of minority and disadvantaged students to provide these students a high quality postsecondary education. In addition, continued efforts

will be made to promote sharing of “best practices” among institutions. The $27.5 million requested for the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE)

will enable the Department to continue to promote successful postsecondary education reform efforts. Priorities for FY 2000 funding will be grants aimed at helping to

control the cost of postsecondary education and at enhancing dissemination activities. A doubling of funding (from $10 million to $20 million) for the recently created

Learning Anywhere Anytime Partnership program will continue to encourage the development of innovative techniques to enhance the delivery of high quality

postsecondary education and lifelong learning opportunities for all citizens, in all settings.

v Modernize and improve the delivery system for the Student Financial Assistance programs. As described above, the newly formed PBO has identified three key

objectives—improve customer satisfaction, reduce the overall cost of delivering student aid, and transform the student financial assistance office into a performance-based

organization—that will guide its work through September 1999 when a five-year performance plan will be submitted to Congress.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 143

Higher Education
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 144

Aid for Institutional Development, Title III (HEA)--$259,825,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To assist institutions that have limited resources and that traditionally served large numbers of low-income and minority students to continue to serve these 

students, and to improve the capacity of these institutions to provide on-going, up-to-date quality education in all areas of higher education.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Title III supports the Department’s overall goal of ensuring access and equity and enabling all students to achieve academic

excellence. Title III serves large numbers of low-income and minority students for whom access, retention, and degree attainment have been elusive. Title III supports strategic

plan Objectives 2.3, 3.1, 3.2, and 3.4.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

Program improvement objectives

Title III -– Part A (Strengthening Institutions), Part A, sec.316 (American Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities), Part A, sec.317 (Alaska Native and

Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions), Part B (HBCUs and HBGIs), Part D (HBCU Capital Financing), Part E (Minority Science and Engineering Improvement

Program)

1. Improve the academic

quality of participating

institutions.

1.1 1.1 Faculty development. The number and

percent of faculty participating in Title IIIfunded development activities will increase over

time.

1.2 Access to technology. The number and

percentage of students gaining access to

computers and the Internet due to Title IIIfunded activities will increase over timer.

1.1 .1.3

In FY 1996, 43% of faculty at more than

half of the institutions participated in

faculty development.

In 1996, approximately 34% of students

had computer and internet access. all,

1997.

1.1 Performance reports – annual;

initial comprehensive

development plan (CDP);

recognition awards; updated

comprehensive development

plans; 1999.

1.2 Performance reports – annual;

initial comprehensive

development plan; updated

CDP; 1999

2. Improve the fiscal stability

of participating institutions.

2.1 Development offices. The number and pPercent

of funded development offices using grant funds

to that show an increase in revenues will increase

oover prior years.

2.2 Fiscal balances. The fiscal balance of Title IIIfunded institutions will continue to remain

positive over time.

In FY 1996, approximately 39% of

institutions used grant funds to improve

development offices.

In FY 1996, more than 90% of institutions

had positive fiscal balances. .external

evaluations; comprehensive development

plans all, 1997.

2.1 Performance reports – annual;

initial comprehensive

development plan; updated

CDP; 1999.

2.2 Performance reports – annual;

initial comprehensive

development plan; updated

CDP; 1999.

3. Improve the access of lowincome and minority

students to Title III-funded

institutions.

3.1 Enrollment of low-income minority students.

The number and percent of low-income and

minority students will remain stable or increase

over time.After implementating ation, grantees

will demonstrate a

In FY 1996, 38% of the students under Part

A were minority and 86% under Part B

were minority, compared with 20% for

non-Title III institutions.

Under Part A, 51% of the students were

low-income, under Part B 48% were lowincome.

3.1 IPEDS; performance reports –

annual; 1999.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 145

Aid for Institutional Development, Title III (HEA)--$259,825,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To assist institutions that have limited resources and that traditionally served large numbers of low-income and minority students to continue to serve these 

students, and to improve the capacity of these institutions to provide on-going, up-to-date quality education in all areas of higher education.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Title III supports the Department’s overall goal of ensuring access and equity and enabling all students to achieve academic

excellence. Title III serves large numbers of low-income and minority students for whom access, retention, and degree attainment have been elusive. Title III supports strategic

plan Objectives 2.3, 3.1, 3.2, and 3.4.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

3.2 Degree attainment. The number and percentage

of degrees awarded to minority students at Title

III-funded institutions will remain stable or

increase over time. ering students; 

3.3 Improved access to careers in science and

engineering. The number of MSIP pre-college

and undergraduate participants entering and

completing MSIP interventions will remain

stable or increase over time. (benchmark not yet

available)After implementing a management

information and academic delivery sy,occur in a

greater number of institutions each year

(Benchmark not availabl

In FY 1996, Part A institutions awarded

34% associate degrees and 38%

bachelor’s degrees. Part B institutions

awarded 72% associate degrees and 88%

bachelor’s degrees.

In FY 1997, more than 75% of MSIP precollege participants entered and completed

MSIP interventions. Approximately 20%

of MSIP undergraduate students entered

and completed science and engineering

programs.

 Ed/IPOS Reports, 19987 and annual.

3.2 IPEDS; annual performance

reports; 1999.

3.3 Initial application; annual

performance report; IPEDS;

1999.

4. For Part B –HBCU

Graduate Program:

Strengthened graduate and

professional education.

4.1 Minority under-representation. The number

and percentage of advanced degrees in majors in

which African American students are

underrepresented will remain stable or decrease

over time.

In FY 1997, 3,500 of the 5,177 students

enrolled in 20 advanced degree fields were

African American.

4.1 Performance reports – annual;

initial comprehensive

development plans; annual

updates; 1999.

5. Improve physical plants

through grant funding and

low-cost capital for repair,

renovation, construction or

acquisition of capital

projects.

5.1 Capital projects. The number of capital

projects constructed, renovated, etc., using

HBCU Capital Financing funds will increase

over time.

In 1997, 45 inquiries and 1 loan were

made, and 4 applications were received.

5.1 Designated bonding authority

updates- monthly; DBA

annual report; program annual

report; 1999.

Key Strategies

v Assist Title III institutions in serving low-income and minority students by disseminating information to institutions on effective practices.

v Establish a formal mechanism for exchange of information with Title III-related organizations and higher education agencies and associations.

v Conduct consistent, thorough reviews of performance reports with feedback to grantees.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 146

Title V - (Hispanic Serving Institutions Program) (HEA)--$42,250,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To assist Hispanic institutions that have limited resources and that traditionally served large numbers of low income and Hispanic students to continue to

serve these students, and to improve the capacity of these institutions to provide on-going, up-to-date quality education in all areas of higher education.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Title V supports the Department’s overall goal of ensuring access and equity and enabling all students to achieve academic

excellence. Title V serves large numbers of low-income and minority students for whom access, retention, and degree attainment have been elusive. Title V supports strategic

plan objectives 2.3, 3.1, 3.2, and 3.4.

Objectives Indicators Performance data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

Program improvement objectives

1. Improve academic quality

of participating institutions.

1.1 1.1 Faculty development. The number and

percent of faculty participating in Title V-funded

development activities will increase over time.

1.2 Access to Technology. The number and percent

of students gaining access to computers and the

Internet due to Title V-funded activities will

increase over timer.

1.2 .1.3

In FY 1996, 41% of faculty at more than

half of the institutions participated in

faculty development.

In 1996, approximately 25% of students

had computer and internet access. all,

1997.

1.1 Performance reports – annual;

initial comprehensive

development plan (CDP);

recognition awards; updated

comprehensive development

plans; 1999.

1.2 Performance reports – annual;

initial comprehensive

development plan; updated

CDP; 1999

2. Improve fiscal stability of

participating institutions.

2.1 Development offices. The number and pPercent

of funded development offices using grant funds

to that show an increase in revenues will increase

oover prior years over time.

2.2 Fiscal balances. The fiscal balance of Title Vfunded institutions will continue to remain

positive.

In FY 1996, less than one third of

institutions used grant funds to improve

development offices.

In FY 1996, more than 90% of institutions

had positive fiscal balances. .external

evaluations; comprehensive development

plans all, 1997.

2.2 Performance reports – annual;

initial comprehensive

development plan; updated

CDP; 1999.

2.3 Performance reports – annual;

initial comprehensive

development plan; updated

CDP; 1999.

3. Improve access of lowincome and minority

students to Title V funded

institutions.

3.1 Enrollment of low-income minority students.

The number and percent of low-income and

minority students will remain stable or

increase.After implementating ation, grantees

will demonstrate a

3.2 Degree Attainment. The number and percent of

degrees awarded to minority students at Title Vfunded institutions will remain stable or increase

over time.(benchmark not yet available)After

implementing a management information and

academic delivery sy,occur in a greater number

In FY 1996, 63% of the students under Title

V (HSI) were minority compared with 20%

for non-Title V institutions.

Under Title V, 56% of the students were

low- income.

In FY 1996 Title V (HSI) institutions

awarded 17% associate degrees and 14%

bachelor degrees.

 Ed/IPOS Reports, 19987 and annual.

3.3 IPEDS; performance reports –

annual; 1999.

3.2 IPEDS; annual performance

reports; 1999
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 147

of institutions each year (Benchmark not

availabl

4. Improve physical plants

with the use of grant

funding.

4.1 Improved physical plants. The number of

instructional improvements and renovations

using Title V funding will increase over time.

In FY 1996, less than 1% average total

funding was spent on physical plants.

Comprehensive development plans;

annual performance reports;

accreditation reports; IPEDS;

1999.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 148

Title V - (Hispanic Serving Institutions Program) (HEA)--$42,250,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To assist institutions that have limited resources and that traditionally served large numbers of low income and minority students to continue to serve these

students, and to improve the capacity of these institutions to provide on-going, up-to-date quality education in all areas of higher education.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Title V supports the Department’s overall goal of ensuring access and equity and enabling all students to achieve academic

excellence. Title V serves large numbers of low-income and minority students for whom access, retention, and degree attainment have been elusive. Title V supports strategic

plan objectives 2.3, 3.1, 3.2, and 3.4.

Key Strategies

v Assist Title V institutions in serving low-income and minority students by disseminating information to institutions on effective practices and strategies in a variety of areas

in higher education, such as persistence, academic skills development, endowment building, technology, expansion, special programming such as mathematics, science,

graduate education, and opportunities for networking

v Establish a formal mechanism for exchange of information with Title V related organizations and higher education agencies and associations.

v Conduct consistent thorough reviews of performance reports with feedback to grantees.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 149

International Education Programs--$69,022,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To meet the nation’s security and economic needs through the development of a national capacity in foreign languages, area, and international studies.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Objective support strategic plan objectives 3.2 (...completion of high quality educational program), 4.1 (customer service) and 1.4

(talented teachers)

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

1. To develop specialists and

an educated citizenry who

can communicate in foreign

languages, particularly in

the less-commonly-taught

languages, and who are

knowledgeable about the

countries in which those

languages are spoken.

1.1 Colleges Supported by Title VI Funds. The

percentage of colleges and universities offering

less-commonly taught languages that are

supported by Title VI funds.

1.2 Number of PhD’s teaching non-Western

languages. The number of persons receiving the

Ph.D. under the Title VI/Fulbright-Hays funding

who are teaching non-Western languages and

area studies at U.S. colleges and universities.

Title VI-supported institutions account for

22.5% of undergraduate and 59% of

graduate enrollments in the Less

Commonly Taught Languages (LCTLs).

Title VI schools constitute 2.7% of all

colleges and universities offering language

instruction in the U.S. Among the Least

Commonly Taught Languages (those with

less than 1,000 students nationwide), Title

VI-supported institutions account for 51%

of undergraduate and 81% of graduate

enrollments.

In 1995, DDRA fellows were teaching in at

least 357 academic institutions in 48 states

and the District of Columbia. During the

first 33 years of the Fulbright-Hays

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad

(DDRA) Program, more than 3200

fellowships were awarded to study in

nearly one hundred different countries or

geographic regions; nearly all fellows

completed the Ph.D. More than 87% spent

part of their professional careers teaching

in colleges and universities. Over 50% of

the DDRA fellows had been supported by

Title VI fellowships for the initial

(domestic) part of their graduate study.

1.1 “Language and National

Security for the 21st Century:

The Federal Role in

Supporting National Language

Capacity,” National Foreign

Language Center at Johns

Hopkins University, 1999.

Other data from performance

reports, annual, 1999.

1.2 “Three Decades of Excellence:

1965 to 1994, The FulbrightHays Doctoral Dissertation

Research Abroad Fellowship

Program and Its Impact on the

American Academy,” Council

of American Overseas

Research Centers, 1998. Other

data from performance reports,

annual, 1999.

2. Meet high level of customer

satisfaction with the Title

VI and Fulbright-Hays

programs

2.1 Timeliness of Awards. The time from receipt

of application to notification of award to grantee.

Current time of seven months will be

reduced to five months by the year 2000,

2.1 Grant award schedule and

award date, annual, 1999.

Key Strategies

v Set program priorities where relevant, and consult with international education constituency to encourage expanded coverage for under-represented areas and fields.

v Support through program funds advanced levels of uncommonly taught foreign languages; expand disciplinary offerings in world area and international studies

v Review and further streamline the grant award process so that awards for all programs can be made earlier in the funding cycle..
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 150

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education--$27,500,000 (FY 2000)

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Supports objective 3.2 by helping to ensure the high quality of educational programs through reform and innovation.

Goal: To improve postsecondary education by making grants to institutions in support of reform and innovation.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Promote reforms that

improve the quality of

teaching and learning at

postsecondary institutions.

1.1 Quality of postsecondary reforms; percentage

of reforms. The percentage of innovative

educational reforms tested and implemented

will increase.

1.2 Replication of projects. The number of

projects that are adapted in full or in part, or

whose materials are used by other institutions,

will increase over the number in previous years.

In 1988, 88% of completed FIPSE projects

scored A, B, or C in overall quality, up

from 84% in 1997. In 1998, as in 1997,

86% of projects reported, ”The FIPSE

project offered an opportunity for testing

ideas that would not have been provided

without FIPSE support."

In 1988, 94% of FIPSE grantees reported

full or partial project replication. 27%

report adaptations at 20 or more sites.

1.1 Final Report Score Card,

annual, 1999; e-mail survey of

FY 1990-1998 grantees,

biannual, 2000.

1.2 Final Report Score Card,

annual, 1999; Performance

Report Score Card, annual,

1999; E-mail Survey of 1990-

1999 grantees, biannual, 2000.

2. Increase participation and

completion rates of students

in postsecondary education.

2.1 Student completion rate. Participants in FIPSE

persistence-related projects will complete

postsecondary education at higher rates than

previous years.

In 1998, 35% of FIPSE projects reported

larger numbers of students persisting or

completing degrees. In 1997, this

percentage was 48%.

2.1 Final Report Score Card,

annual, 1999.

3. Institutionalization of FIPSE

programs.

3.1 Projects sustained. The number of projects

sustained at least 2 years beyond federal funding

will be maintained or increased beyond current

level.

 This figure has increased from 70% in 1990

to 78%.in 1998. The 1998 e-mail survey

shows 93% of responding projects have

been sustained a full 6 years after the end

of federal funding.

3.1 E-mail survey of 1990-1999

grantees, biannual, 2000; Final

Report Score Card, annual,

1999.

Management improvement objectives

4. Improve service delivery and

customer satisfaction for

FIPSE programs.

4.1 Project directors, overall satisfaction with

FIPSE programs and services. Satisfaction

levels from previous year will be met or

exceeded.

In 1998 as in 1997, 98% of grantees

reported that FIPSE staff provides full

support. 93% rate the annual meeting as

“good,” very good” or “outstanding”

(down from 97% in 1997). 93% of 1998

e-mail survey respondents reported quality

of FIPSE staff support as “good,” “ very

good,” or “outstanding” (compared with

95% in 1997). 52% rated the staff support

as ”outstanding.”

4.1 Evaluation survey of annual

meeting, 1998; project survey,

annual, 1998; e-mail survey of

1990-1998 grantees, biannual,

2000; Final Report Score Card,

annual, 1999.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 151

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education--$27,500,000 (FY 2000)

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Supports objective 3.2 by helping to ensure the high quality of educational programs through reform and innovation.

Goal: To improve postsecondary education by making grants to institutions in support of reform and innovation.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

4.2 Turnaround time. The streamlined grant award

process will reduce the time from receipt of

application to the notification/award to grantees

4.3 Novice applicant success rate. Meet or exceed

novice success level from previous year. (Novice

means never-before-directed Federal grant)

4.4 Overall satisfaction of applicants, successful

and unsuccessful. The levels from previous year

will be met or exceeded..

In 1998 9.5 months (compared to 10

months in 1997) for the Comprehensive

Program, 3 months for International

Programs (compared with 5 months in

1997).

1997= 30% novices; 1998= 40% novices.

Number of outreach seminars = 20 in 1997

and 68 in 1998.

72% of all unsuccessful final proposal

applicants requested and received technical

assistance to improve their proposals.

4.2 GCMS application log and

grant award notification dates,

annual performance report,

1999.

4.3 Project survey, annual, 1998;

number of outreach seminars,

1998.

4.4 Number of feedback requests

from applicants honored, 1998.

Key Strategies

v FIPSE will continue to support promising innovative strategies for increasing institutional performance and the quality of teaching.

v Access to higher education and program completion will be highlighted as major guideline priorities of the Comprehensive Project. FIPSE will continue to support

innovative strategies for increasing program completion and disseminate successful programs nationally.

v FIPSE will support development and testing of new models of project adaptation and dissemination.

v FIPSE will continue to provide outreach seminars to under-served populations, full technical assistance to prospective grantees, and feedback to all unsuccessful applicants.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 152

Urban Community Service Program--$0 (FY 2000)

Goal: To facilitate the establishment of sustainable community service programs by using the resources of urban postsecondary institutions in partnership with 

communities to devise and implement solutions to pressing needs in their communities.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: This objective supports goal 4 in identifying effecting practices in education for use by customers and partners.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Develop effective

communication networks

among urban postsecondary

institutions and communities.

1.1 Use of web site. By Fall 1999, increase the

number of users by publicizing the interactive

Web site for use by other designated urban grant

institutions, community-based organizations,

cities, and foundations to promote linkages

resulting in effective campus-community

partnerships for community service.

The web site is operational for current

grantees and for less than one-half of the

community partners.

1.1 Supplemental grant request;

performance report - annual,

1999.

Key Strategies

v Emphasize and disseminate information on factors that contribute to successful partnerships among postsecondary institutions, communities, and the public and private

sectors.

v Review performance reports to assess progress toward meeting outcomes related to developing effective and sustainable partnerships identified in project proposal. Carefully

examine efforts to achieve viable partnerships and disseminate.

v Publicize the web page and continue to develop it. Link (or move) the web page to ED’s Web site and other related web pages.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 153

Demonstration Projects to Ensure Students with Disabilities Receive a Quality Higher Education--$5,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To improve the quality of higher education for students with disabilities.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Supports Objective 3.2 (postsecondary students receive support for high-quality education) by providing grants to postsecondary

institutions to aid in the development of model programs for ensuring that students with disabilities can receive a high-quality postsecondary education.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Ensure that research and

other information

synthesized through grant

activities is state of the art.

1.1 State-of-the-art research. Evaluation activities

will show that 100 percent of the synthesized

research and information disseminated through

grant activities is state-of-the-art.

New Program 1.1 Program data, annual, 2000.

2. Ensure that faculty and

administrators in institutions

of higher education increase

their capacity to provide a

high-quality education to

students with disabilities.

2.1 Increased attendance. The number of students

with disabilities attending an institution benefiting

from grants will increase each year beginning in

2001.

2.2 Increased degree attainment. The number of

students with disabilities completing coursework

leading to a degree or attainment of a degree at an

institution benefiting from grants will increase

each year beginning in 2001.

New Program

New Program

2.1 Performance reports, annual,

2000.

2.2 Performance reports, annual,

2000.

Key Strategies

v Strictly evaluate award applications to ensure that only state-of-the-art-research and information are disseminated.

v Disseminate information on project outcomes to other institutions of higher education.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 154

Annual Interest Subsidy Grants--$12,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To continue to help finance construction, reconstruction, or renovation of higher education facilities.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Supports Objective 3.2 (postsecondary students receive support for high-quality education) by providing the capital needed to

renovate higher education facilities for schools unable to obtain private credit at reasonable rates.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Continue to provide strong

fiscal management of the

program.

1.1 Positive audit results. There will be no material

internal control weaknesses identified in

program portion of Department’s financial

statement audit.

No material internal control weaknesses

were identified in the program portion of

the Department’s 1997 financial statement

audits.

1.1 Financial program audits,

annual, 1998.

Key Strategies

v Changes have been made and internal controls tightened to significantly improve the overall fiscal reliability of the operating system. These include:

ÿ Verification of the status and terms of all underlying loans every 2 years. Half of the grants will be verified each year.

ÿ An information letter will be sent to all grantees yearly to remind them of their obligation to notify the Department of refinancing agreements or redemptions.

ÿ Control totals for the number of grants and the dollar amounts of each obligation for each fiscal year have been established and will be updated as needed.

ÿ To ensure the accuracy of the system, each year someone other than the grant manager will perform an independent reconciliation of the database and the control total

spreadsheet.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 155

TRIO Programs--$630,000,000 (FY 2000)8

Goal: To increase educational participation of disadvantaged students through effective management of the federal TRIO Programs.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Supports Objective 3.1 (secondary school students get college preparatory support) and Objective 3.2 (postsecondary students

receive support for high quality education) by funding organizations to provide the necessary support services to enable disadvantaged students to purse postsecondary

opportunities.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

Student outcomes

1. Increase participation and

completion rates of

disadvantaged persons in

the academic pipeline in

middle and high school that

results in postsecondary

enrollment.

1.1 High school completion. 1.1 Postsecondary

preparation. Upward Bound participants will

complete high school at higher rates

tPostsecondary enrollment. Upward Bound

participants will enroll in postsecondary

education programs at rates higher than the

national average and comparable nonparticipants.comparable

non-participantsPostsecondary enrollment.

The percent of Talent Search and Educational

Opportunities Centers (EOC) participants who

apply to college or apply for student financial aid

will increase.

1.31.1

Preliminary evaluation findings show that

Upward Bound has no effect on the

likelihood that participants enroll in

college, but increases college enrollment

rates significantly for academically at-risk

students (3pct. Points) and for those with

lower educational expectations (6pct.

Points)

1.11.2 Mathematica Upward

Bound evaluation, 1999, next

update 2000.1.3 Talent

Search and EOC performance

reports, annual, 19XX. Winter

2000.

2. Increase participation and

completion rates of

disadvantaged persons in

the academic pipeline in 2-

year or 4-year colleges.

2.1 Postsecondary completion of Upward Bound

participants. Upward Bound participants who

enroll in postsecondary education will complete

2-or 4-year postsecondary education programs at

rates higher than comparable non-participants.

2.2 Postsecondary completion of Student Support

Services participants. Student Support Services

(SSS) participants will persist and complete 2-or

4-year postsecondary education programs at

higher rates than comparable nonparticipants.The persistence and graduation rates

of Student Support Services participants will

increase.

Preliminary evaluation results indicate that

Upward Bound has a limited but

statistically significant effect on college

persistence, but a large effect on

persistence of students who are

academically at-risk and have lower

educational expectations.

SSS recipients were 7 percentage points

more likely to return to the same school for

the second year than were comparable nonSSS recipients (67% vs. 60%). They were

also 3 percentage points more likely to

complete two years of college at any school

(77% vs. 74%).Interim findings indicate

that participation in Student Support

Services has a significant effect on students

retention in college, grades and on credits

earned 3 years after entering college

(Westat).

2.1 Mathematica Upward Bound

evaluation, 1999, update in

2000.

2.2 Westat SSS evaluation,

1999.Westat longitudinal

study of the SSS program

3. Increase participation and 3.1 Graduate school enrollment and completion. According to the Baccalaureate and 3.1 McNair annual performance
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 156

TRIO Programs--$630,000,000 (FY 2000)8

Goal: To increase educational participation of disadvantaged students through effective management of the federal TRIO Programs.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Supports Objective 3.1 (secondary school students get college preparatory support) and Objective 3.2 (postsecondary students

receive support for high quality education) by funding organizations to provide the necessary support services to enable disadvantaged students to purse postsecondary

opportunities.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

completion rates of

disadvantaged persons in

the academic pipeline

through graduate school.

Participants in the McNair program will enroll in

and complete graduate and doctoral programs at

higher rates than comparable non-participants.

3.2 The percentage of McNair participants who

enroll in and complete graduate and doctoral

programs will increase.

Beyond study, only 13.1%t of low-income,

first-generation college students receiving

baccalaureate degrees in 1995-96 enrolled

in graduate school compared with 18.5% of

those who were not low-income, firstgeneration college students.

In 1997, 50.6 percent of all former

McNair participants with bachelor’s

degrees were enrolled in or had completed

a graduate degree program. (Program

Assessment of the McNair program, draft

dated September 1, 1998)

reports, 1999.

Management improvement
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 157

TRIO Programs--$630,000,000 (FY 2000)8

Goal: To increase educational participation of disadvantaged students through effective management of the federal TRIO Programs.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Supports Objective 3.1 (secondary school students get college preparatory support) and Objective 3.2 (postsecondary students

receive support for high quality education) by funding organizations to provide the necessary support services to enable disadvantaged students to purse postsecondary

opportunities.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

4. Improve service delivery

and customer satisfaction.

4.1 Streamlined grants award process. The time

from receipt of applications to the

notification/awards to grantees will be reduced.

4.2 Number of applications. The number of

applications received will increase

4.2 Customer satisfaction. Customer survey data

will indicate improved satisfaction with response

to information requests and the usefulness of the

information received.

The current average time elapsed is

approximately 10 months. The target for

FY 2000 is 9 months.

Baselines for applications are as follows:

Talent Search, 649 applications, FY

1994;

EOC, 295, FY 1994;

Upward Bound, regular, 820, FY 1995;

Upward Bound, math/science, 212, FY

1995;

McNair, 226, FY 1995;

TRIO Training, 32, FY 1996;

Student Support Services, 1,098, FY

1997.

The number of FY 1998 Talent Search

applications increased 17%; the

number of FY 1999 regular Upward

Bound applications increased 14%.

82% of those responding to 1998 TRIO

customer satisfaction survey were pleased

with the technical assistance received from

Department of Education staff.

4.1 ED grant review schedule,

annual, 1999.

4.2Annual data from EDs

Application Control Center,

Grants and Contracts Service

(in years of new competitions),

1998.

4.2 Customer survey (PES &

OPE), annual, 1999.

Key Strategies

v Redesigned performance reports (some still to be cleared by OMB) will allow OPE staff to better measure the success of funded projects in meeting the goals of the federal

TRIO programs. OPE staff will use the data to provide better feedback to grantees on project and student performance that may be used to improve the quality and

effectiveness of funded projects.

v OPE has undertaken a number of initiatives to better serve our customers, including the following:

ÿ Streamlining the grants award process,

ÿ Posting application packages for TRIO funding on the web;

ÿ Conducting application preparation workshops to encourage more high quality applications for TRIO funding.

v TRIO clearinghouse will continue to provide information on effective intervention and opportunity programs and to track the number of requests for information.

v The Department of Education will continue to disseminate information on effective practices and strategies obtained from the national evaluation studies of the Student

Support Services and Upward Bound programs.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 158

GEAR UP--$240,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To ensure that disadvantaged middle school and secondary school students are prepared for, pursue, and succeed in postsecondary education.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Supports objective 3.1 (secondary school students get the information, skills, and support they need to prepare successfully for

postsecondary education) by creating local partnership and state programs to provide information and individualized support services such as mentoring and tutoring, to middle

and secondary school students and their parents to help students prepare for postsecondary education.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

Student and school outcomes

1. Increase the academic

performance and

preparation for

postsecondary education of

participating students.

1.1 Completion of academically challenging

curricula. Program participants will successfully complete college preparatory courses such

as algebra, geometry, chemistry, and physics at

higher rates than comparable non-participants.

1.2 Student attendance, retention, on-time

promotion, and graduation. Program

participants will be promoted to the next grade

level on-time at higher rates than comparable

non-participants, will have higher rates of

attendance in school, and will complete high

school at higher rates than comparable nonparticipants.

1.3 Professional development. An increasing

percentage of teachers of participating students

will report participating in professional

development activities designed to help teachers

prepare students for postsecondary education.

New program 1.1 Annual program performance

reports and program evaluation

study, 2001.

1.2 Annual program performance

reports and program evaluation

study, 2000.

1.3 Annual program performance

reports and program evaluation

study, 2000.

2. Increase educational

expectations for

participating students and

student and family

knowledge of postecondary

education options and

financing.

2.1 Knowledge of postsecondary education costs

and financing. Program participants and their

parents will have a more accurate knowledge of

postsecondary education costs and available

financial aid than comparable non-participants.

2.2 Student, family, teacher, and counselor

expectations. Participating students and their

families, teachers, and guidance counselors will

have higher educational expectations than

comparable non-participants.

New program 2.1 Annual program performance

reports and program evaluation

study, 2000.

2.2 Annual program performance

reports and program evaluation

study, 2000.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 159

GEAR UP--$240,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To ensure that disadvantaged middle school and secondary school students are prepared for, pursue, and succeed in postsecondary education.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Supports objective 3.1 (secondary school students get the information, skills, and support they need to prepare successfully for

postsecondary education) by creating local partnership and state programs to provide information and individualized support services such as mentoring and tutoring, to middle

and secondary school students and their parents to help students prepare for postsecondary education.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

2.3 Parental Involvement. The percentage of

parents and guardians who meet with teachers or

guidance counselors about their child’s

education at least once per year will show

continuous improvement.

2.3 Annual program performance

reports and program evaluation

study, 2000.

3. Increase the participation

rate of students at

participating high-poverty

middle and secondary

schools in postsecondary

education.

3.1 Postsecondary enrollment. Program

participants will enroll in postsecondary

education programs at higher rates than

comparable non-participants.

New program 3.1 Annual program performance

reports and program evaluation

study, 2005.

4. Provide comprehensive

early intervention services

and financial assistance to

low-income and

academically at-risk

students.

4.1 Provision of services to low-income and

academically at-risk students. State and

partnership programs will have high levels of

participation by low-income and academically

at-risk students.

4.2 Comprehensive services. A high percentage of

state and partnership programs will provide a

comprehensive package of early intervention

services, including mentoring, tutoring, and

individualized support to program participants.

New program 4.1 Annual program performance

reports and program evaluation

study, 2000.

4.2 Annual program performance

reports and program evaluation

study, 2000.

5. Ensure that effective

partnerships are established

among middle schools and

secondary schools,

institutions of higher

education, communitybased organizations and

businesses.

5.1 Satisfaction of partnership members. A high

percentage of partnership members will report

satisfaction with the amount of collaboration and

communication between partners.

New program 5.1 Annual program performance

reports and program evaluation

study, 2000.

Key Strategies

v Work with national organizations such as the Ford Foundation to widely disseminate information to prospective applicants, collect and report information on best practices,

and support high-quality projects.

v Support partnerships among colleges, high-poverty middle and secondary schools, and national and community-based organizations and businesses that promote curricular

and pedagogical improvements and provide opportunities for professional development related to college awareness and preparation for partner school faculty and staff.

v Provide assistance to projects through a variety of venues such as conferences, publications, listservs, and a Web site.

v Work with the community to develop program regulations and other program requirements that impose minimal burden while providing grantee flexibility and ensuring

program integrity and accountability.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 160

Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarships Program--$39,859,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To promote student excellence and achievement and to recognize exceptionally able students who show promise of continued excellence.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: This objective supports Strategic Plan goal 3, which focuses on ensuring that all students motivated and academically ready to

attend postsecondary education have the financial resources and support services needed to do so.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Encourage states to award

all scholarship funds

received to eligible high

school graduates.

1.1 Awarding of scholarships. By the beginning of

each school year, 100% of the states and

territories will award 100% of new scholarship

funds received.

1.2 Reallocation of scholarships. By the beginning

of each school year, 100% of the states and

territories will reallocate 100% of scholarship

funds resulting from students who do not

maintain scholarship requirements.

Currently, approximately 90% of the states

and territories award all scholarship funds

by the beginning of each school year.

Approximately 90% of states and territories

reallocate funds by the next matriculation

period.

1.1 Performance report, annual,

1999.

1.2 Performance Report, annual,

1999.

Key Strategies

v Revise performance report to collect all information needed.

v Communicate with state agencies at the beginning of the school year and mid-year to highlight the importance of awarding all funds.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 161

Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN)--$41,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To provide a fellowship program to assist graduate students of superior ability who are studying in areas of national need.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Supports Objective 3.2 (postsecondary students receive support for high-quality education) by providing grants to institutions to

support high-quality graduate students studying in areas of national need.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Increase the graduation

rate of students in areas of

national need, including

those of underrepresented

and financially needy

groups.

1.1 Graduate school completion. There will be an

increase in the percentage rate of U.S. citizens

and permanent residents who receive a GAANN

fellowship and obtain a doctorate in an area of

national need.

1.2 Percentage enrollment of targeted

populations. There will be an increase in the

number of financially needy U.S. citizens and

permanent residents who receive a GAANN

grant to pursue a doctorate in designated areas of

national need.

1.1 NSF study, 1999; Performance

Reports, 1999

1.2 NSF study, 1999; Performance

Reports, annual, 1999

2. Time to degree completion

will be less than the

national average (for Javits

recipients).

2.1 Time to degree completion. Persons receiving

a Javits fellowship will receive a doctorate in

fields of the Arts, Humanities, or Social Sciences

in less time than the national average.

1996 Survey of Earned Doctorates indicated

the 7.2 year average.

2.1 NSF Study, 1999; Survey of

Earned Doctorates, 1999;

Survey of Javits grantees,

1999.

Key Strategies:

v We will develop an evaluation instrument to determine the number of fellows awarded degrees by the grantee in a designated area of need.

v We plan to enhance our monitoring procedures, which provide information regarding the progress of students toward their degree completion.

v We will conduct regional workshops to encourage grantees to increase their outreach and recruitment efforts as a means of fostering the enrollment of students from

traditionally underrepresented backgrounds. Data will be collected on an annual basis via our Annual Performance Report.

v Fellowships will be provided to students who show exceptional promise.

v We will develop a survey instrument to collect graduation data for Javits participants.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 162

Child Care Access Means Parents in School Program--$5,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To improve access to postsecondary education for low-income parents by providing high-quality child care services.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Supports Objective 3.2 (postsecondary students receive support for high-quality education) by providing grants to postsecondary

institutions to increase the availability of campus-based child care services to low-income parents so that they can participate in postsecondary education.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Increase access for lowincome parents to

postsecondary institutions.

1.1 Children served. The number of children from

low-income student families served by the oncampus child care center will increase.

1.2 Number of institutions. The number of

institutions receiving awards will increase.

New program.

New program.

1.1 Program or survey data,

annual, 1999.

1.2 Program data, annual, 1999.

Key Strategies

v Program staff will meet with higher education associations and child care advocacy organizations to promote the program.

v Create a web page to provide information about the grant program and help disseminate grant applications.

v Program staff will provide technical assistance workshops in strategic sites across the country.

v Program staff will coordinate with other interested government departments and agencies (e.g., Child Care Bureau) to promote the program and dissemination of the grant

application.

v Additional staff will be hired and trained to provide technical assistance to our customers.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 163

Learning Anytime Anywhere Partnerships--$20,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To expand access to postsecondary education and lifelong learning through the use of technology to all citizens who are unable to take advantage of oncampus programs.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Supports Objective 3.2 (postsecondary students receive support for high-quality education) by providing grants to postsecondary

institutions to support pilot projects using technology and other innovations to enhance the delivery of postsecondary education and lifelong learning opportunities for all

citizens, in all settings.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Develop partnerships by

providing the opportunity

for educational institutions

(including 4-year

institutions, community

colleges, technical institutes,

and adult literacy and

education programs) to

partner with curriculum

and software developers,

network providers,

community agencies,

business and industry, in an

effort to deliver a valuable

and quality education to a

variety of students.

1.1 Number of partnerships. The number of

partnerships formed will equal the estimate

provided in the Department’s FY 1999 budget

request and will remain level or increase each

year.

The FY 1999 budget request estimated that

45 partnerships will be formed.

1.1 Program data, annual, 1999.

2. Increase access to nontraditional education for the

diverse groups to be served

by this program.

2.1 Number of students served. The number of

students served by partnerships will increase

each year.

New program. 2.1 Program data, annual, 1999.

3. Enhance quality and

accountability within the

program to ensure that

students are learning the

specific competencies

required for the desired

skills.

3.1 Employment rate/earnings. The employment

rate and annual earnings of students served by

Learning Anytime Anywhere Partnerships

(LAAP) will be at least as great as those of

comparable non-participants.

New program. 3.1 Program data, annual, 2001;

Census data, annual, 2001

Key Strategies

v Encourage coordination and interaction among all of the partnership entities to expand students’ options beyond the level of what individual providers currently offer.

v Support the expansion of geographical and institutional boundaries so that courses, faculty, development costs, and network facilities can be shared, creating economies of

scale to make it financially feasible for providers while substantially increasing opportunities for students.

v Establish mechanisms for ensuring that educational providers, employers, and students have confidence that the degree or certificate will provide skills needed for careers

and further education.

v Help to coordinate the needs of employers and the requirement of further education with the services of educational providers to ensure that the federal investment in this

program is worthwhile.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 164

Preparing for College--$15,000,000 (FY 2000) 

Goal: To ensure that junior and senior high school students and their families, as well as adults, have an accurate understanding of the requirements for 

postsecondary education, including the academic preparation necessary and the costs of attending a postsecondary institution, and that these students pursue 

at increasing rates their participation in postsecondary education.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Supports Objective 3.1 (secondary school students get college preparatory support) by disseminating information about the

financial and academic requirements for postsecondary attendance.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

Student and family measures

1. Increase the understanding

of the academic preparation

and financial resources

needed for postsecondary

education, including the

availability of financial

assistance, among junior

and senior high school

students and their families,

as well as adults.

1.1 Knowledge of college costs. Increasing

percentages of students from age 12 through high

school and their parents will have an accurate

assessment of the cost of attending college and

the aid available for college by 2002.

1.2 Knowledge of academic requirements. The

percentage of students from age 12 through high

school and their parents who obtain information

on the academic requirements for college or

postsecondary vocational enrollment will

increase annually.

Parents of middle-school children currently

overestimate college tuition and fees by

significant amounts. On average, parents

estimated 1997-98 tuition and fees at a 2-

year public college at $6,554 (the actual

figure was $1,501), at a 4-year public

university at $10,204 (the actual figure was

$3,111), and at a 4-year private university

at $19,847 (the actual figure was $13,664).

A majority of parents indicated that they had

little or no information, or would like more

information, about the courses their child

should take for college (68%), the cost of

attending college (72%), financial aid

(82%), types of colleges and college

programs (77%), and other ways of paying

for college, such as tax credits (89%). In

most cases, parents without a college degree

and parents with lower incomes were more

likely than others to express a desire for

information.

1.1 Baseline Gallup survey;

thereafter National Household

Education Survey, biannual,

1999.

1.2 Gallup survey, annual, 1999

Baseline Gallup survey;

thereafter National Household

Education Survey, biannual,

1999.

Management measures

2. Ensure that program

dissemination strategies

meet the information needs

of the target audience.

2.1 Customer satisfaction. Surveys of customers

will show that the information disseminated via

this program meets the information needs of the

target audience.

New program 2.1 Surveys, annual, 1999.

Key Strategies

v Develop and implement a national information dissemination program. This program will be targeted to junior and senior high school students and their families, as well as

adults. It will increase awareness of the growing need to continue education beyond high school and will increase awareness of the costs of postsecondary education,

opportunities for financial assistance, and academic requirements for pursuing a postsecondary education. Although information will be disseminated nationally,

dissemination strategies will be tailored to reflect the specific needs of different audiences and circumstances.

v Undertake regular assessments of customer satisfaction, through surveys and focus groups, to assess whether information dissemination strategies meet customer needs, are

effective in communicating with the target audiences, and provide relevant information in a timely manner.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 165

College Completion Challenge Grants --$35,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To narrow the gap in persistence between at-risk students and other students by providing grants to colleges to finance the costs of activities shown to improve

the persistence of disadvantaged students.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Supports Objective 3.2 (postsecondary students receive support for high-quality education) by providing grants to postsecondary

institutions to develop programs to increase the retention of students who are at risk of dropping out of postsecondary education.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Increase the capacity of atrisk students to complete

their college education.

1.1 Narrowing of persistence gap. The gap in

persistence rates between high- and low-income

students will decrease at institutions receiving

program funding.

New program 1.1 Program data, annual, 2000.

Key Strategies

v Target program publicity to promote applications from schools having high percentages of low-income students.

v Disseminate evidence of best practices obtained from program evaluation to all higher education institutions.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 166

Expansion of D.C. College Access Program--$17,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To complement the D.C. College Access Program by providing institutional subsidies to public institutions of higher education in Virginia and Maryland on

behalf of D.C. residents who graduated recently from public or private high schools.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Supports Objective 3.2 (postsecondary students receive support for high-quality education) by allowing over 3,000 graduates

from D.C. public and private high schools to pay in-state tuition at all Maryland and Virginia colleges.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

1. To increase access to

postsecondary education

opportunities for recent

D.C. public and private high

school graduates and GED

recipients.

1.2 Students served. The number of students

receiving funding under this program will

increase each year.

Currently no students receive these

benefits. It is expected that over 3,000 high

school graduates, GED recipients and

private high school graduates will receive

benefits during the program's first year.

1.2 Program data, annual, 1999.

Key Strategies

v Several partnerships, including a private sector group led by the Washington Post, are working to spread awareness of increased options to attend public institutions in the

surrounding jurisdictions.

v The Department will provide extensive technical assistance to D.C. middle schools to encourage them to form partnerships to apply for GEAR-UP funding.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 167

Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants (HEA, II)--$115,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To improve the quality of teacher education and initial certification standards, and to improve the knowledge and skills of all teachers, particularly new 

teachers and teachers who work in high-need areas.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: The three initiatives authorized under Title II support Objective 1.4 (A talented and dedicated teacher is in every classroom in

America) by providing competitive grants to States for comprehensive teacher quality reforms; by providing competitive grants to partnerships of districts and institutions of

higher education for fundamental improvements in teacher education; and by providing competitive grants to States and partnerships for new strategies for reducing shortages of

qualified teachers in high-need areas.

Objective Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

State Grants

1. Improve the skills and

knowledge of new teachers

by funding the development

of state policies that

strengthen initial licensing

standards, reduce the

number of uncertified

teachers, and strengthen

procedures for holding

teacher training institutions

accountable for producing

highly qualified teachers.

1.1 Teacher certification standards. States that

use their teacher enhancement grant to

strengthen standards for initial teacher

certification will demonstrate adoption of

higher standards within 2 years of grant award.

Within 1 year of grant award, states will

demonstrate progress toward adoption of higher

standards.

1.2 Number of uncertified teachers. Grantee

states will show evidence of annual reductions

in the number of uncertified teachers

throughout the grant period.

1.3 Program accountability. States that use their

teacher enhancement grant to hold teacher

training programs accountable for the quality of

the training they offer will demonstrate that

increasing numbers of graduates are passing the

state certification each year.

New Program 1.1 State Grant Accountability

Report and National

Evaluation, 2000.

1.2 State Grant Accountability

Reports and National

Evaluation, 2000.

1.3 State Grant Accountability

Reports and National

Evaluation, 2000.

Partnership Grants

2. Improve the quality of the

teacher preparation

programs at the partner

institutions.

2.1 Induction program. Each year the percentage

of teaching students who receive on-going

support and education (induction program

supports) from their partnership, pre-service

training program during their first three years of

teaching will increase.

New Program 2.1 Partnership Evaluation

Reports, and National

Evaluation, 2001.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 168

Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants (HEA, II)--$115,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To improve the quality of teacher education and initial certification standards, and to improve the knowledge and skills of all teachers, particularly new 

teachers and teachers who work in high-need areas.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: The three initiatives authorized under Title II support Objective 1.4 (A talented and dedicated teacher is in every classroom in

America) by providing competitive grants to States for comprehensive teacher quality reforms; by providing competitive grants to partnerships of districts and institutions of

higher education for fundamental improvements in teacher education; and by providing competitive grants to States and partnerships for new strategies for reducing shortages of

qualified teachers in high-need areas.

Objective Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

2.2 Enrollment in academic courses offered in

whole or in part by the school of arts and

sciences. The number of academic courses

taken by teaching students at the partnership

institutions will increase each year.

(“Academic courses” are those offered in

academic content areas by the schools of arts

and sciences, or jointly offered by the schools

of arts and sciences and the school of

education.)

2.3 Process for program self–assessment. The

percentage of partnership institutions, that have

a formal process for assessing the effectiveness

of their graduates as classroom teachers will

increase each year until it reaches 95%.

New Program 2.2 Partnership Evaluation

Reports, and National

Evaluation, 2001.

2.3 Partnership Evaluation Reports,

and National Evaluation, 2001.

3. Improve the placement and

retention rates of graduates

from partner institutions.

3.1 Certification rate. The percentage of

graduates from partnership institutions who

meet the certification requirements of the state,

including passage of content knowledge or

competency tests will increase.

3.2 Retention rate. The percentage of graduates

from partnership institutions who remain in

teaching for 3 consecutive years after

graduation will increase.

3.3 Service in high-poverty schools. The

percentage of graduates from partnership

institutions who serve in high-poverty schools

will increase.

New Program 3.1 Partnership Evaluation Reports

and National Evaluation, 2001.

3.2 Partnership Evaluation Reports

and National Evaluation, 2001.

3.3 National Evaluation, 2001.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 169

Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants (HEA, II)--$115,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To improve the quality of teacher education and initial certification standards, and to improve the knowledge and skills of all teachers, particularly new 

teachers and teachers who work in high-need areas.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: The three initiatives authorized under Title II support Objective 1.4 (A talented and dedicated teacher is in every classroom in

America) by providing competitive grants to States for comprehensive teacher quality reforms; by providing competitive grants to partnerships of districts and institutions of

higher education for fundamental improvements in teacher education; and by providing competitive grants to States and partnerships for new strategies for reducing shortages of

qualified teachers in high-need areas.

Objective Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

4. Increase the connections

that the teacher preparation

programs at partnership

institutions have with lowincome urban and rural

schools in the surrounding

region.

4.1 Assessment of staffing needs. The percentage

of partnership institutions that conduct a formal

assessment of the staffing needs of local

districts, and that have a governance body that

monitors the effectiveness of the program and

includes K-12 teachers and administrators,

faculty from the college of arts and sciences and

the college of teacher education, will increase

each year.

New Program 4.1 National Evaluation, 2001.

5. Increase in the skills of

teachers in using

technology.

5.1 Technology skills. The percentage of

graduates from partnership institutions who

report that they are able to use technology to

improve teaching and learning will increase.

New Program 5.1 Partnership Evaluation Reports

and National Evaluation, 2001.

Recruitment Grants

6. Increase the availability of

well-prepared teachers for

low-income, urban, and

rural school districts.

6.1 Licensure requirements. In districts with

grantees, the percentage of individuals who

teach in low-income communities who satisfy

all State licensure requirements will increase.

6.2 Teacher induction programs. In districts with

grantees, the percentage of teachers in urban

and rural school districts who participate in

formal induction programs during their first

three years of teaching will increase.

New Program 6.1 Grantee reports and National

Evaluation, 2001.

6.2 Grantee reports and National

evaluation, 2001.

6.3 Retention rates. The percentage of qualified,

new teachers who continue to teach in the highneed, partner districts for more than 3 years will

increase.

6.3 Grantee reports and National

Evaluation, 2001.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 170

Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants (HEA, II)--$115,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To improve the quality of teacher education and initial certification standards, and to improve the knowledge and skills of all teachers, particularly new 

teachers and teachers who work in high-need areas.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: The three initiatives authorized under Title II support Objective 1.4 (A talented and dedicated teacher is in every classroom in

America) by providing competitive grants to States for comprehensive teacher quality reforms; by providing competitive grants to partnerships of districts and institutions of

higher education for fundamental improvements in teacher education; and by providing competitive grants to States and partnerships for new strategies for reducing shortages of

qualified teachers in high-need areas.

Key Strategies

Disseminate information to grantees and prospective grantees:

v Disseminate information about the strategies that some states have used to improve certification standards, reduce the number of uncertified teachers, and hold teachertraining programs accountable for training highly skilled teachers.

v Disseminate information about upcoming awards program for teacher education programs and the lessons learned from the award winners. For example, learn how the

programs measure the effectiveness of their graduates.

v Disseminate information on ways the Eisenhower Professional Development Program and other related programs can be used to support the program goals.

v Disseminate information on best practices.

v Provide information on teaching opportunities to students and recent graduates.

Coordinate with other programs and organizations:

v Coordinate efforts with National Science Foundation teacher preparation programs.

v Work with professional organizations such as AACTE to promote program goals.

Provide technical assistance and facilitate communication among grantees:

v Sponsor activities such as focus groups, conferences, or workshops where participating partners can exchange information and ideas to enhance the success of the program.

v Sponsor workshops to help grantees coordinate with the Eisenhower Professional Development Program.

v Provide technical assistance to partnerships in the development of assessment instruments.

v Help grantee institutions share information on effective strategies.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 171

Underground Railroad Program--$1,750,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To promote the research, display, interpretation, and collection of artifacts relating to the history of the Underground Railroad and to make the interpretive

efforts available to institutions of higher education.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: None.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Assist nonprofit educational

associations in building

public-private partnerships

and creating endowment

funds to support museum

operations.

1.2 Program funding. Program funds are provided

on a timely manner to eligible organizations and

usage of funds are monitored to ensure that the

program's purposes are carried out.

New program. 1.1 Program data, annual, 1999.

Key Strategy

v Publicize program to ensure participation by qualifying partnerships.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 172

GPRA Data/Evaluation Program--$4,000,000 (FY 2000) 

Goal: To improve the type and quality of information available about the performance of the postsecondary education programs funded by the Department of

Education.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Supports all objectives in Goal 3 (to ensure access to postsecondary education and lifelong learning) by providing data on program

performance for the postsecondary education programs that support these objectives

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

1. To fund studies and data

collections needed to assess

the performance of the

Department’s postsecondary

education programs.

1.1 Indicators. In the FY 1999 Performance

Report (due March 31, 2000), the Department

will have data on program performance for 95%

of indicators relevant to the postsecondary

education programs.

Among postsecondary programs funded in

FY 1998 (for which performance data

could be expected to be available),

accurate baseline data are available for

approximately 75% of indicators.

1.2 GPRA Performance Report,

annual, 1999.

Key Strategies

v Fund studies that use available data from NCES, administrative records, Census Bureau, and other federal agencies to provide information on the performance of the

postsecondary education programs

v Identify remaining information needs and fund targeted data collections to obtain the needed data.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 173

Howard University--$219,444,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To assist Howard University with financial resources needed to carry out its educational mission.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Supports Objective 3.2 (postsecondary students receive support for high-quality education) by assisting Howard University in its

mission to serve disadvantaged students by providing a high-quality education.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

University development

1. Maintain and strengthen

academic programs and

achievement by:

ÿ Recruiting better

students

ÿ Improving student

retention

ÿ Improving graduation

rates

ÿ Promoting excellence in

teaching.

1.1 Better students. The average SAT scores of

incoming freshman will increase by 1% per year.

1.2 Student retention. Decrease attrition for

undergraduate FTIC students by 2 percent until

national average is bettered.

1.3 Graduation rates. The undergraduate and

graduate graduation rates will increase by 2% per

year until the national average is reached or

exceeded.

1.4 Excellence in teaching and scholarship. The

participation rate of faculty in activities of the

Fund for Academic Excellence will increase.

Average SAT score in fall 1997 was 1,007, a

6 point increase over fall 1996, when the

average score was 1,001. The national

average in 1997 was 1,016.

For full-time FTIC students who enrolled in

fall 1995, 83% returned in fall 1996. This

first year attrition rate of 17% is at or below

the national average. The second-year

attrition rate of 29% is also considered

good.

6-year graduation rate for FY 1997 is 49%.

For FY 1996, the graduation rate was 46%t.

The target for 2000 is 53%.

New program guidelines were developed and

distributed in October 1997. 66 proposals

were funded to enhance teaching and

learning in categories such as faculty

development, workshops, curriculum

development, and faculty seminars.

1.1 Howard University, annual,

1999.

1.2 Howard University, annual,

1999.

1.3 Howard University, annual,

1999.

1.4 Howard University, annual,

1999.

2. Promote excellence in

research.

2.1 Grants received. The number of grant

proposals that are funded will increase.

2.2 Grant funding. The total funds received through

research grants will increase. The target for

2000 is a 20% increase over the 1997 level.

232 grants were funded in 1997, compared

with 224 in 1996. The target for 2000 is to

increase both the number of proposals

submitted and the number of awards

received by 20% over 1997 levels.

In FY 1997, $45,268,427 was received in

research grant funds. The amount for FY

1996 was $46,980,535. Workshops were

conducted for 137 faculty in FY 1997

compared with 36 faculty in FY 1996.

2.1 Howard University, annual,

1999.

2.2 Howard university, annual,

1999.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 174

Howard University--$219,444,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To assist Howard University with financial resources needed to carry out its educational mission.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Supports Objective 3.2 (postsecondary students receive support for high-quality education) by assisting Howard University in its

mission to serve disadvantaged students by providing a high-quality education.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

3. Increase Howard

University's financial

strength and independence

from federal appropriations.

3.2 Endowment. The value of the endowment each

year will increase. The target for 2000 is a 10%

increase over the 1997 level.

3.3 Outside support. The funds raised from all

private sources will increase.

3.4 Outside support--alumni. The participation rate

of alumni who contribute to the school will

increase.

3.4 Cost savings at the Howard University

Hospital. The difference between the hospital's

net revenue (excluding federal appropriations)

and total expenses will decrease.

The market value of the endowment fund

grew to $211.2 million, as of June 30,1997,

an increase of 19.7 % over its value of

$176.5 million in June 30, 1996.

In FY 1997, contributions from private

sources totaled $11,791,191, an 11%t

increase over the FY 1996 amount of

$10,614,358.

In 1997 the alumni participation exceeded

the goal of 10%. This more than doubled the

FY 1996 level of almost 5%. The goal for

2000 is 25%.

For FY 1997, there were a $29.3 million loss

before the federal appropriation and a

$200,000 surplus after the federal

appropriation. These figures were an

improvement over FY 1996, when there were

a $33.4 million loss before federal

appropriation and a $3.9 million loss after

federal appropriation. For 2000, the goal is

to have a $29.5 million difference before

federal appropriation and to “break even”

with the appropriation.

3.1 Howard University, annual,

1999.

3.2 Howard University, annual,

1999.

3.3 Howard University, annual,

1999.

3.4 Howard University, annual.

1999.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 175

Howard University--$219,444,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To assist Howard University with financial resources needed to carry out its educational mission.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: Supports Objective 3.2 (postsecondary students receive support for high-quality education) by assisting Howard University in its

mission to serve disadvantaged students by providing a high-quality education.

Key Strategies

v Recruit good students by targeting high-ability students in schools across the country; by convening summer high school counselors in a symposium and Honors Student

weekend; by encouraging alumni to identify and contact high-ability students; and by expanding publicity on student leaders and achievers, as well as outstanding programs.

v Increase retention and graduation rates by improving orientation programs; by replacing the Mid-term Deficiency Report with a Mid-term Status Report to alert all

undergraduate students of their standing at midterm; by continuing regular assessment of students’ academic standings; by convening faculty adviser workshops; and by

providing written correspondence to faculty on retention goals and issues.

v Implement degree adult program.

v Expand research support by improving post-award grant administration and faculty support by the Office of Research Administration; by conducting faculty workshops on

“how to win grants and contracts”; by increasing the distribution of grant announcements; and by installing computer workstations for all full-time faculty.

v Continue to monitor external money managers who invest Howard’s endowment fund to ensure continued healthy returns.

v Improve fundraising by conducting a national media campaign with articles in national publications (e.g. the New York Times, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor,

Chronicle of Higher Education) featuring Howard University; by intensifying and broadening the direct mail campaign; by inaugurating an annual fund campaign and a

systematic program of communication with alumni; by continuing to manage to contain costs; by continuing marketing efforts to feature recent improvements in equipment and

service; and by under taking a long-term strategic planning effort spearheaded by a special committee of Howard University Board of Trustees.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 176
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 177

Research and Improvement
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 178

National Education Research Institutes--$108,782,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: Conduct high quality research and development that contribute to educational improvement

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan:

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Education research is

responsive to the high

priority needs of education

policy makers and

practitioners.

1.1 High priority needs. Expert panels find OERI

supported research to be responsive to the high

priority needs of education policy makers and

practitioners.

1.2 OERI supported research is cited in periodicals

for education practitioners and policymakers.

Research priorities of the Interagency

Education Research Initiative were

developed through a series of workshops

that brought together nationally recognized

researchers and practitioners in education.

1.1 New system of expert review;

Fall 1999.

1.2 Analysis of periodicals for

education practitioners and

policymakers; Fall 1999.

2. Education research reflects

accepted standards of

technical merit and

evidence.

2.1 Technical Merit. Expert panels find OERI

supported research to meet fully acceptable

scientific quality.

2.2 OERI supported research is published and cited

in scholarly research journals.

Interim peer review of 10 OERI R&D

centers were completed in 1998.

Improved peer review system initiated for

FY1999 Field Initiated Studies competition

to ensure that only the highest quality

proposals will be funded.

2.1 New system of expert review;

Fall 1999.

2.2 Analysis of scholarly-research

journals; Fall 1999

3. The findings and products

of education research are

useful to policy makers and

practitioners.

3.1 Usefulness. Expert panels find OERI supported

research and products to be useful to policy

makers and practitioners.

ß CPRE has informed standards-based

reform nationally, with MI, DE, MA,

and MO relying heavily on their

research to design state initiatives.

ß CRESST is working directly with the

LA Unified School District and

Chicago Public Schools in revising

their assessment systems and

revamping their MIS systems to track

student progress, enhance reporting

(particularly for Title I students), and

make informed data base decisions.

ß CRESST has helped states develop new

assessment systems aligned to their

state content standards including CA,

WA, KY, MD, HI, AZ, CO, TX, VT, and

WY.

ß CRESPAR’s comprehensive

approaches to educating students atrisk of academic failure has been

adopted by over 1100 school in 44

states and the adoptions continue to

grow.

3.1 New system of expert review;

Fall 1999; NCES Customer

Survey, 1999; Independent

evaluation of regional

laboratories, Fall 1999.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 179

National Education Research Institutes--$108,782,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: Conduct high quality research and development that contribute to educational improvement

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan

Key Strategies

v Form partnerships with other agencies such as NSF and NICHD on the Interagency Education Research Initiative and the replication of the TIMMS study of 8th graders.

v Strengthen internal research capacity by continuing to recruit visiting scholars though the National Academy of Sciences and initiating a new OERI fellowship program.

v Ensure that research and development activities are of high quality by asking an expert research panel to develop guidelines to judge the quality of education research.

v Conduct external and internal quality reviews of products and activities of grantees and contractors following OERI’s Phase III performance standards.

v OERI National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board has asked the National Academy of Education to develop a long-term research agenda to solve critical

problems in education

v Maintain an accessible, up-to-date inventory of education research activities.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 180

Regional Educational Laboratories--$65,000,000 (FY2000)

Goal: To promote knowledge-based educational improvement to help all students meet high standards through development, applied research, dissemination, and 

technical assistance conducted with local, state, and intermediate agencies.

Relationship of Program Goal to Strategic Plan: Program objectives relate to the Department’s strategic objectives 4.2 and 4.3 in providing a range of services and up-to-date

knowledge to support comprehensive school reform efforts.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

Field-based Development and Applied Research

1. Develop, adapt, and assess

comprehensive education

reform strategies in schools,

districts, and states.

1.1 Number of development sites. An increasing

number of local or state sites will be engaged in

collaborative development and demonstration of

comprehensive reform-related efforts.

1.2 Quality of work at sites. More than 80% of

partners sampled will rate the effort as

contributing to comprehensive reform.

1.3 Student achievement. After 3 years of on-site

development, sites will show increases in student

achievement. Assessments of achievement in

2000.

In 1997, there were 478 baseline

development sites. Baseline sites involve

approximately 81,800 students, 5,790

teachers, 500 administrators, and 14,400

parents. 1999 surveys will sample

partners.

1.1 Laboratory records and

quarterly reports, 1999.

1.2 Laboratory partner surveys,

1999.

1.3 State or local assessments,

2000.

Client Services and Product Dissemination

2. Provide products and

services and develop

networks and partnerships

in support of state and local

reform.

2.1 Customer receipt of products and services.

Circulation of products, receipt of services, and

receipt of electronic material will increase

annually from baseline levels.

2.2 Quality of products and services. More than

90% of clients sampled will report laboratory

products and services to be of high quality.

2.3 Utility of partnerships. More than 80% of

participants and partners sampled will report that

partnership activities address significant

concerns or expand capacity for effective work.

In 1997, products were provided to

419,927 clients, services to 148,966

clients, 11,834,588 Web site hits.

In 1997, 90% of clients sampled rated

quality of products and services to be

excellent or good.

In 1997, 80% reported that partnerships

addressed significant concerns or

expanded capacity of participants.

2.1 Laboratory records and

quarterly reports, 1999.

2.2 Client surveys, 1999; ED

external evaluation, 1999.

2.3 Surveys of participants and

partners in partnership

activities, 1999.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 181

Regional Educational Laboratories--$65,000,000 (FY2000)

Goal: To promote knowledge-based educational improvement to help all students meet high standards through development, applied research, dissemination, and 

technical assistance conducted with local, state, and intermediate agencies.

Relationship of Program Goal to Strategic Plan: Program objectives relate to the Department’s strategic objectives 4.2 and 4.3 in providing a range of services and up-to-date

knowledge to support comprehensive school reform efforts.

Key Strategies

v Laboratories will collaborate with state and local agencies to implement effective, research-based comprehensive reform strategies.

v Laboratories will develop and adapt tested models, policies, and strategies for educational improvement.

v OERI will establish contract priorities for laboratory work to focus on implementing comprehensive school reform and moving reform to scale.

v OERI will encourage and support laboratories to identify exemplary and promising comprehensive school reform practices.

v Laboratories will develop and adapt an array of research-based products and services for use by schools, districts, and states.

v Laboratories will provide a range of services from awareness to more in-depth and sustained collaborative activities.

v Laboratories will create and expand regional and nationwide networks and alliances with practitioners, policymakers, and other service providers to leverage resources and

move education reform efforts to scale.

v OERI will broker laboratory services to other ED offices and federal agencies as appropriate to assist them in accomplishing their work objectives.

v OERI will assist in identifying opportunities for laboratories to collaborate with other agencies, as well as to work on cross-laboratory efforts in support of local and state

reform.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 182

Dissemination--$24,500,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To provide educators, policymakers, researchers, parents, and the public with awareness of, access to, and assistance in adapting and adopting useful 

products and services designed to improve American education.

Relationship of Program Goal to Strategic Plan: Goal 4: results, service quality, and customer satisfaction; objective 4.1 dissemination of high-quality information and

products

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Identify, develop, produce,

and distribute high- quality

products that meet customer

needs and address

Department priorities.

1.1 By 2000, the percentage of teachers,

administrators, federal, state, and local policy

makers, researchers, parents, and the general

public who access OERI’s products and services

will increase by 10% each year.

In the first three quarters of FY1998:

78.6 million Internet site visits, averaging 1.5

million per week; nearly 70,000 e:mail

requests, averaging over 1,200 per week;

nearly 75,000 toll-free calls, averaging 1,400

per week. (Baseline data not available by

percentage or type of respondent. Future

data reporting will include this information).

1.1 Customer survey based upon

NCES’s “How Do We

Measure Up?,” annual, 2000.

Customer survey to be

included in all OERI

publications and feedback

from EDPUBS system, annual,

1999.

2. Ensure customer satisfaction

with the high quality and

usefulness of OERI’s research

and statistical products.

2.1 By 2000, the percentage of teachers,

administrators, federal, state, and local policy

makers, researchers, parents and the public who

are highly satisfied with the high quality and

usefulness of OERI’s products will increase by

10% each year.

According to a 1998 Fast Response Survey

(NCES), Department resources were

considered somewhat or very effective

sources of information on comprehensive

reform strategies by 40% to 61% of

teachers consulting these sources.

2.1 Customer survey based upon

NCES’ “How Do We Measure

Up?”, annual, 2000.

Customer survey to be

included in all OERI

publications and feedback

from EDPUBS system, annual,

1999.

3. Identify exemplary and

promising education

products and services based

on research results.

3.1 By 2000, the number of exemplary or promising

programs disseminated to schools and districts

will increase by 10% each year.

In 1999, approximately 10 math programs

and 25 gender equity programs will be

recommended as promising or exemplary. In

1998 two panels were added in the areas of

Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Technology.

Planning is under way for a fifth panel on

Reading.

3.1 Expert panel

recommendations, 1999.

Key Strategies

v Implement Research Bytes, a product line designed to share the latest research findings coming from Labs, Centers, and grantees with a listserv that includes researchers and

ED senior managers, but has the capacity for expansion to educators, policy makers, and the general public.

v Prepare comprehensive communication plan that is coordinated with EDPUBS distribution system and all government customer service initiatives.

v Obtain customer feedback to ensure that products reflect customer needs and priorities.

v Support the development of new panels in core content areas to achieve the goal of helping all children reach challenging academic standards.

v Provide timely and specific capacity building and technical assistance activities conducted by the Regional Labs, NCES University, etc.

v Obtain customer feedback on ways to improve the usefulness of technical assistance activities.

v Evaluate customer satisfaction through customer surveys and focus groups.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 183

NCES Statistics and Assessment--$122,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To collect, analyze, and disseminate information on the condition of education in the U.S. and to provide comparative international statistics.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan:

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

Data Collection

1.1 Provides timely, useful, and

comprehensive data that are

relevant to policy and

educational improvement.

1.1 Customer Satisfaction. At least 85% of

surveyed customers in FY 1999 and 90% in FY

2000 will agree that National Center for

Education Statistics (NCES) data are timely,

relevant, and comprehensive.

Percentage of customer respondents

satisfied or very satisfied in 1997

NCES Publications:

ÿ Comprehensiveness 88%

ÿ Timeliness 72% - 88%*

ÿ Utility 86%

NCES Data Files:

ÿ Comprehensiveness 82%

ÿ Timeliness 52% - 82%*

NCES Services:

ÿ Comprehensiveness N/A

ÿ Timeliness 89%

Note(s): This % reflects a range

responding to different products. Overall

NCES customer satisfaction rating of 90%.

1.1 NCES 1997 Customer

Satisfaction Survey

(Next Survey: FY 1999)

2.1 Collect High Quality Data 2.1 Customer Rating of Quality. At least 85% of

surveyed customers in FY 1999 and 90% in FY

2000 will agree that NCES data is of high quality

in terms of accuracy, reliability, validity, and

comprehensiveness.

Percentage of customer respondents

satisfied or very satisfied

NCES Publications:

ÿ Accuracy – N/A

ÿ Overall Quality – 90%

NCES Data Files:

ÿ Accuracy – 74%

ÿ Overall Quality – N/A

2.1 NCES 1997 Customer

Satisfaction Survey (Next

Survey: FY 1999)

.

Data Analysis, Synthesis, and Packaging

3. Develop publications that

are easy to read, useful, and

of high overall quality.

3.1 Ease of Reading. At least 85% of surveyed

customers in FY 1999 and 90% in FY 2000 will

agree that NCES publications are easy to read.

3.2 Utility. At least 85% of surveyed customers in

FY 1999 and 90% in FY 2000 will rate NCES

publications as useful to their work.

3.3 Publication Quality. At least 85% of surveyed

customers in FY 1999 and 90% in FY 2000 will

express satisfaction with the overall quality of

NCES publications.

Percentage of customer respondents

satisfied or very satisfied in 1997:

ÿ Clarity of Writing 87%

ÿ Useful to Work 86%

ÿ Overall Quality 90%

Note: Baseline Performance Data for all

NCES objectives represents results from

the NCES 1997 Customer Satisfaction

Survey Report.

3.1-3.3 NCES 1997 Customer

Satisfaction Survey (Next

Survey: FY 1999)

In FY 99 NCES will again

measure customer satisfaction

rates. This survey is a followup to the FY 1997 survey that

established NCES baseline

performance data. Also, in FY

99 NCES will conduct focus

group discussions with targeted

customers; including policy
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 184

NCES Statistics and Assessment--$122,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To collect, analyze, and disseminate information on the condition of education in the U.S. and to provide comparative international statistics.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan:

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Sources, Periodicity, Next Update

makers, researchers, and

practitioners.

Other sources of feedback:

Biannual input from NCES

Advisory Council; Biennial

NCES Customer Survey in

1997 and 1999.

Key Strategies

NCES is pursing two types of strategies: (1) we are listing the strategies that will be used to accomplish the goals and objectives in our FY 2000 Program Plan; and, (2) we will

identify the strategies that we will us to link our program objectives to the Department’s Strategic Plan.

Specifically NCES will show how it is working to comply with Strategic Plan Objective 4.1 “Our customers receive fast, seamless service and dissemination of high quality

information and products”; and, Objective 4.3 “An up-to-date knowledge base is available from education research to support education reform and equality.

v NCES Program Plan Strategies are presented on Page 5.

v NCES actions that link its Program Objectives to the Department’s Strategic Objectives 4.1 and 4.3 are presented on Pages 6 and 7.

v Strategy #1: Actions that will be or are being taken by NCES to accomplish its FY 2000 Program Plan Goals and Objectives.

Data Collection:

v NCES will continue to conduct focus group discussions with key customers and targeted surveys to assess and improve the timeliness, relevance, and comprehensiveness of

its data ( Obj. 1.1).

v NCES customer surveys will continue to rely on a core set of questions that will be administered to a representative sample of persons in successive years for use in

reporting against performance measures (Obj. 1.1, 2.1, 3.1-3.3).

v NCES will develop new questions that will be added to customer surveys to solicit information for program improvement purposes (Same as above).

v NCES is currently working on program redesign activities for SASS, IPEDS, and its International Program (Obj. 2.1).

v NCES is developing a new early childhood survey (Obj. 1.1).

v NCES is involved in a number of collaborative activities with the Department of Justice, Census Bureau, Health and Human Services, Agriculture, and other Principal

Offices in Education .

v NCES will conduct an internal analysis of processing times for its major data collections in an effort to improve timeliness. This improvement effort is expected to be

completed in June 1999.

v NCES will coordinate with OSERS and OCR, and conduct a customer satisfaction survey of SEA’s in FY 1999 to determine feasibility and projected burden reduction of

collecting data about students with disabilities through a single coordinated survey.

v NCES will coordinate with OESE in FY 1999 a pilot project testing the electronic collection of a coordinated state level report and will build an integrated file accessible

to multiple Departmental users.

v NCES will lead states and other POC’s in a review and update of the student, staff, and discipline data handbooks to secure consensus on standard definition in FY 1999.

v NCES will provide PES with our statistical standards for dissemination to other Departmental POC’s;

v NCES will participate in a future PES workgroup to help improve the Department’s Data Quality Standards.

v NCES will provide technical consultation to POC’s on future major data collection efforts.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 185

Eisenhower Federal Activities--$30,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To improve teaching through the development and demonstration of high-quality professional development activities, the provision of high-quality

instructional materials and information about effective programs, and the expansion of a cadre of highly accomplished teachers.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: The Eisenhower Professional Development Program: Federal Activities supports Objective 1.4 (A talented and dedicated teacher is

in every classroom in America) and Objective 2.3 (Every eighth-grader masters challenging mathematics, including the foundations of algebra and geometry) by supporting

grants to professional development demonstration projects and to the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. In addition, the program promotes access to highquality math and science materials by supporting the Eisenhower National Clearinghouse.

Objective Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

Development and demonstration projects

1. Improve classroom

instruction through effective

professional development.

1.1 Quality of professional development. At least

80% of the professional development models

developed by projects will be rated as having

high quality using a range of criteria and will

demonstrate impacts.

1.1 Project reports of field studies,

2000; peer review evaluation,

2000; national evaluation,

2001. (contingent on obtaining

funding for D&D projects)

Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for Mathematics and Science Education (ENC)

2. Provide access to highquality instructional

materials and information

about exemplary programs

in mathematics and science

education for elementary

and secondary schools.

2.1 Utility. At least 80% of customers who use

ENC products will report that the products meet

their needs in terms of accessibility, relevance,

and quality.

2.1 Customer surveys, 2000;

national evaluation, 2000.

(contingent on obtaining

funding for D&D projects)

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS)

3. Contribute to the

improvement of the teaching

and learning of all students

by expanding the cadre of

highly accomplished

teachers.

3.1 Standards and assessments developed. The

number of standards and assessments developed,

approved, and offered by the NBPTS will

increase annually to at least 16 teaching fields by

the year 2000, and reach a cumulative total of

25 teaching fields by the year 2002 if adequate

resources are available.

3.2 Teachers certified. The number of teachers

who will be awarded NBPTS certification will

increase annually.

By early 1999, standards and assessments

were developed, approved, and offered for

12 teaching fields. Assessments for 5

additional teaching fields are under

development this year and will be offered

in the school year 1999-2000. Twenty-one

sets of standards have been completed and

approved. The remaining standards and

assessments for the full 25 certificate

system are on target and will be offered to

teachers by the school year 2001-2002.

By early 1999, 1835 teachers had been

awarded NBPTS certification.

3.1 NBPTS reports, annual, 1999.

3.2 NBPTS reports, annual, 1999.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 186

Eisenhower Federal Activities--$30,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To improve teaching through the development and demonstration of high-quality professional development activities, the provision of high-quality

instructional materials and information about effective programs, and the expansion of a cadre of highly accomplished teachers.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: The Eisenhower Professional Development Program: Federal Activities supports Objective 1.4 (A talented and dedicated teacher is

in every classroom in America) and Objective 2.3 (Every eighth-grader masters challenging mathematics, including the foundations of algebra and geometry) by supporting

grants to professional development demonstration projects and to the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. In addition, the program promotes access to highquality math and science materials by supporting the Eisenhower National Clearinghouse.

Key Strategies

Development and Demonstration Projects:

v Develop priorities and monitor projects for alignment with the Department’s Strategic Plan, with principles for high-quality professional development, and with high

standards for content and student performance particularly in reading and mathematics.

v Identify effective approaches to cross-curricular instructional practices that emphasize the roles of reading and mathematics across the core academic subjects, and

disseminate information on these approaches.

v Encourage funded projects to incorporate cross-curricular approaches emphasizing reading and mathematics in their professional development activities.

Eisenhower National Clearinghouse (ENC):

v Work with the Department s leadership teams, the National Science Foundation (NSF), other agencies, and the Eisenhower Regional Consortia to develop comprehensive

strategies for improving the accessibility and quality of ENC products and for disseminating products to target audiences, tracking use of products, and obtaining customer

feedback to ensure that the products are used effectively to improve mathematics and science education.

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards:

v Facilitate collaboration among grantees, state and local education agencies, institutions of higher education, professional organizations, and local partners to identify

resources, coordinate services, collaborate, sustain efforts to improve professional development, and provide incentives and encourage teachers to apply for NBPTS

certification.

v Work with the NBPTS to develop strategies to use NBPTS-certified teachers as resources for other Department programs and projects.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 187

Fund for the Improvement of Education--$139,500,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: Contribute to achievement of the National Education Goals by supporting nationally significant and innovative projects for improving K-12 education.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: The Fund for the Improvement of Education supports all of the objectives under Goal 1 of the Strategic Plan by funding projects to

help all students reach challenging academic standards and become prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment.

Objective Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Support the Department’s

strategic priorities in

elementary and secondary

education through nationally

significant projects of high

quality.

1.1 Significant and supportive of strategic

priorities. 90% of the funded projects will

support the Department’s strategic priorities and

receive at least an 80% rating for national

significance.

1.2 High quality. 90% of the funded projects will

receive at least an 80% rating for quality of

project design.

1.3 Progress. 90% of the projects funded annually

will show evidence of progress on measures of

their project-specific indicators.

100% of new projects funded in FY 1998

supported the Department’s strategic

priorities. 83% of the projects peer

reviewed were rated at least 80% for

national significance. Average rating for

national significance was 88%.

66% of the new funded projects peer

reviewed in FY 1998 were rated at least

80% for project design. The average

rating for project design was 82%.

1.1 Peer reviewer ratings, annual,

1998; review by Assistant

Secretary’s Office, annual,

1999.

1.2 Peer reviewer ratings, annual,

1998; review by Assistant

Secretary’s Office, annual,

1999.

1.3 Performance report review by

Assistant Secretary’s Office,

annual, 1999.

2. Promote effective practices

through timely and effective

dissemination.

2.1 Interim and Final Assessments. At least 80%

of funded projects will be assessed by peer

reviewers as adding value to educational

research or practice.

2.2 Dissemination. The amount of information

disseminated about lessons learned from interim

and final assessments of projects will increase

annually.

2.1 Peer reviewer ratings at

midpoint or end of grant

period, annual, 2000.

2.2 ED records of “hits” on

relevant web sites and

number of relevant print

materials disseminated,

annual, 2000.

Key Strategies

v Determine the extent to which applications support the strategic priorities as part of the review process, beginning in FY 1999.

v Closely monitor the formative evaluations of funded projects to improve the documentation of outcomes and impact, and assist the projects to use the data to improve practice

v Develop and implement a strategy for conducting interim and final peer review assessments of selected key projects.

v Develop a variety of products about lessons learned for key projects and disseminate that information nationally.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 188

Javits Gifted And Talented Students Education--$6,500,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To improve the teaching and learning of gifted and talented students through research, demonstration projects, personnel training, and other activities of 

national significance.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: The Javits program supports research and evaluation that will improve the knowledge base on education reform (objective 4.3) .

The program has a special focus on special populations (objective 2.4) through its development of models for developing the talents of disadvantaged, LEP or disabled students.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Conduct research and

evaluation on gifted and

talented education that will

improve the identification and

teaching of gifted and talented

students, and lead to a greater

emphasis on high levels of

performance for all students

and total school improvement.

1.1 Utility. More than 80% of recipients will report

that the Center’s research products and

evaluation results contribute to their

knowledge, skills, or professional work.

The activities and accomplishments of

the research sites indicate exemplary

progress in carrying out the Center’s

mission, and the Center has had

positive impacts on research and

practice in gifted education at the

local, state or regional, national, and

international levels.

1.1 Center External Evaluation

Report, 1998; customer

surveys, 1999.

2. Develop models for developing

the talents of students who are

economically disadvantaged,

have limited English proficiency

or have disabilities.

2.1 Student identification. All Javits-supported

projects will increase the diversity of students

identified as gifted and talented in their service

region by at least 15% by the end of the project

period.

2.1 Project reports,

available1999; national

evaluation, 1999.

3. Demonstrate leadership in

supporting and strengthening

gifted and talented education

and broadening its impact on

total school improvement.

3.1 Utility. A majority of recipients of Javits

products and of participants in Javits-supported

activities will report that these services

improved their work in gifted and talented

education.

3.1 National evaluation and

customer surveys, 1999.

Key Strategies

v Work with national, state, and local associations and agencies through the National Research Center Advisory Council to develop a useful national R&D agenda for the

Center, support dissemination of high-quality products from the Center, and establish competitive priorities for new grants that implement effective research-based

practices that increase student diversity in gifted and talented education and improve the quality of programs.

v Provide on-line and print access to challenging teaching, content, and student performance standards and to exemplary materials in gifted and talented education.

v Conduct annual meetings of state directors of gifted and talented education, Javits grantees, and leaders in research and practice to address important issues in gifted and

talented education, and facilitate networking among key practitioners through publications, mailings, joint conferences, and technical assistance.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 189

Eisenhower Regional Mathematics and Science Education Consortia--$17,500,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To improve mathematics and science education through technical assistance and dissemination.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: The Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Education Consortia support objective 1.1 (states develop and implement challenging

standards and assessments for all students in the core academic subjects), objective 1.4 (a talented and dedicated teacher is in every classroom in America), and Objective 2.3

(every 8th grader masters challenging mathematics, including the foundations of algebra and geometry) by providing standards-based professional development, technical

assistance, and high-quality products in math and science.

Objective Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

Technical assistance

1. Provide high-quality

technical assistance

(planning assistance,

training, facilitation of

collaboration and

networking, and other

technical assistance).

1.1 Participants’ practice. At least 80% of the

teachers, administrators, and providers of

professional development who participate in the

Consortia’s continuing technical assistance will

report improvement in their practice.

As of 1996, 62% of participants said they

had incorporated some new behavior into

their jobs as a result of the Consortiasponsored professional development.

(National Evaluation, SRI, International &

Policy Studies Associates, 1998.)

1.1 Biennial customer survey;

1999; national evaluation;

2000.

1.2 Collaboration and networking. At least 80

percent of members of Consortia teams and

networks will report that value was added in one

or more of the following ways: strengthening

relationships; increasing service coordination;

increasing access to resources; or leveraging

resources.

As of 1996, 67 % of members of Consortia

teams/networks said membership had

helped them obtain ideas and/or contacts

that would strengthen their work.

(National Evaluation, SRI International &

Policy Studies Associates, 1998.)

1.2 Biennial customer surveys,

1999; national evaluation,

2000.

Dissemination

2. Disseminate information

about promising and

exemplary practices in

mathematics and science

education.

2.1 Dissemination. The number of Consortia

contacts with customers by print and “hits” on

electronic sites will increase by 10% annually.

From October 1996 to September 1997,

306,557 contacts with customers were

made by print and 1,354,167 “hits” on

electronic sites were recorded. (Consortia

reports, 1998.)

2.1 Consortia reports, 1999.

Key Strategies

v Work with the Department’s initiatives leadership teams and Executive Management Council, and with the National Science Foundation, to develop and implement

integrated plans for work in mathematics and science education.

v Encourage the Consortia to consider the role of reading in mathematics and science education and to develop strategies for cross-curricular approaches that emphasize the

roles of reading and mathematics in the academic preparation of all students.

v Work with the Consortia to develop effective strategies to reach targeted audiences and deliver high-quality services.

v Facilitate the collaboration of the Consortia and Eisenhower National Clearinghouse in the development of comprehensive strategies for disseminating products to target

audiences, tracking use of products, and obtaining customer feedback.

v With the advice and guidance of their regional boards, the Consortia will set priorities for technical assistance activities in their regions and develop and implement strategic

plans to identify key stakeholders and solicit their collaboration.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 190

National Writing Project (NWP) --$10,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To improve the quality of student writing and learning, and the teaching of writing as a learning process in the nation's classrooms.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: The National Writing Project supports objective 1.1 (high standards and assessments) in its emphasis on helping students improve

their writing and help them meet performance standards set by states. It also supports objective 1.2 (qualified teachers) by establishing teacher training programs to improve

teachers’ writing skills. It also supports objective 1.4 (family involvement) through its emphasis on linking NWP with the Family Involvement Partnership and the

Read*Write*Now initiative.

Objective Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Support and promote the

establishment of teacher

training programs designed

to improve the writing skills

of students and teachers.

1.1 Teacher satisfaction. At least 75% of NWP

teacher participants will rate the programs as

good or excellent.

1.2 Project site performance. According to peer

reviews, an increasing number of NWP sites will

perform more effectively than in previous years

and at least 75% of sites will meet NWP's

standards for renewal.

1.3 Improved student writing skills. Students

taught by NWP teachers will show improved

student writing skills. NWP teachers will

develop methods to assess student writing.

Using demand as indicator of satisfaction:

30,000 more participants in FY 98 than FY

97 (increase from 151,000 to 181,000).

 92% of sites renewed in FY 98.

1.1 Evaluations from NWP

teachers and the U.S.

Department of Education

monitoring team, annual, 1999.

1.2 The NWP Site Survey

prepared by Inverness

Research Associates and

national performance review,

annual, 1999.

1.3 NWP Writing Assessment

Report, 2000.

Key Strategies

v The U.S. Department of Education (ED) is to provide bridge services between the NWP and other student literacy programs, including Read*Write*Now, America Reads

Challenge, and the Family Involvement Partnership. NWP has earmarked resources toward providing a coordinator to work with NWP sites and the other literacy

programs. Several NWP sites have designed and conducted community events under the America Reads Challenge to promote reading and writing.

v NWP conducts annual peer review of each site and offers special services to sites, as needed, to ensure consistent high quality through ongoing review, evaluation, and

technical assistance.

v ED to provide a link between NWP and ED customers interested in teaching methods of writing, through linking Web sites, developing a teacher discussion group on-line,

and collaborating on a research and practice-based book for writing teachers.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 191

Civic Education--$9,500,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To enhance the attainment of the third and sixth National Education Goals by educating students about the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: The “We the People” program for civic education supports objective 1.1 of the Strategic Plan. The program funds the Center for

Civic Education to teach students about the history and principles of the Constitution of the United States and foster civic competence and responsibility.

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Provide high quality civic

education curricula to

elementary and secondary

school students through the

“We the People: The Citizen

and the Constitution”

program.

1.1 Student participation in the “We the People”

program. The number of adoptions of “We the

People” curriculum will increase annually.

1.2 Teacher institutes. The number of teachers

who attend the summer “We the People”

professional development institutes will increase

annually.

1.1 Annual grantee project report

and annual grant application,

1999.

1.2 Annual grantee project report

and annual grant application,

1999.

2. Foster students’ interest and

ability to participate

competently and

responsibly in the

democratic process.

2.1 Simulated congressional hearings. At least

80% of sampled students in participating classes

will have increased their knowledge of and

support for democratic institutions and

processes.

2.1 Annual random sample of

participating classes, 1999.

Key Strategies

v Disseminate information about the "We the People" program through program coordinators and publications, in order to increase awareness of the value of civic education

among educators.

v Support, with the Department of Justice, the development of curricular materials on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

v Participate in planning and administering the annual national hearings and student competition for “We the People” in Washington, D.C.

v Increase awareness of civic education through Department of Education public information vehicles.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 192

International Education Program (Student Achievement Institute)--$7,000,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To provide for an international education exchange program and the study of international programs and delivery systems.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan:

Objectives Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

1. Assist eligible countries to

adapt and implement

effective curricula and

teacher training programs

in civics and government

education, and economic

education developed in the

U.S.

1.1 Curriculum and training programs. An

increasing number of educators from eligible

countries will implement and improve

curriculum and training programs in civics and

government education as well as economic

education

1.2 Student knowledge and skills. Participating

students will demonstrate increased knowledge,

skills, and traits of character in their

understanding of civics, and democratic and

economic principles

In 1997-98 approximately 7,765 educators

were involved in the implementation of

curriculum and training programs in civic

and economic education.

1.1 Performance and evaluation

report, annual, 1998.

1.2 Education Development Center

evaluation of students,

teachers, and scholars

participating in economics

program, 1999; Civics and

government evaluation

submitted by the Center for

Civic education 1998.

2. Create and implement

educational programs for

United States students

which draw upon the

experiences of emerging

constitutional democracies.

2.1 Implementation of civic and economic

education programs in the U.S. An increasing

number of students and teachers in the U.S. will

participate in programs based on the experiences

of emerging constitutional democracies.

In 1997-98 approximately 117,336

students and 1700 teachers in the U.S.

participated in civic and economic

education programs

2.1 Performance Report, annual,

1998.

Key Strategies

v Disseminate information about exemplary curricula and teacher training programs.

v Provide technical assistance to the grantees on curriculum frameworks.

v Conduct an annual site visit of selected programs in eligible countries to observe effects of programs.

v Encourage grantees to share lessons about the development and implementation of the educational programs.

v Monitor program by conducting site visits of selected programs.

v Encourage grantees to collaborate on project activities in common sites in eligible countries.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 193

Civil Rights
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 194

Office for Civil Rights (OCR)--$73,262,000 (FY 2000)

Goal: To ensure equal access to education for all students through the vigorous enforcement of civil rights.

Relationship of Program to Strategic Plan: OCR is the principal office within ED that enforces federal civil rights laws. OCR also supports ED Strategic Plan Goals 1, 2, and

3 by ensuring equal access to education to enable all students to achieve high standards. By definition, “all students” in the ED Strategic Plan means students from all

backgrounds regardless of race, national origin, color, disability, age, or gender.

Objective Indicators Performance Data Source, Periodicity, Next Update

Impact on students

1. To eliminate discriminatory

educational practices within

schools.

1.1 Number of students affected. The estimated

number of students positively affected by OCR's

work will increase.

1.3 Increased compliance. The number of

recipients of federal funds (e.g., school districts,

postsecondary institutions, state educational

agencies) that change policies, procedures, or

practices to comply with federal civil rights law

will increase.

During FY 1998, 1,378 recipients—

consisting of approximately 1,013 school

districts, 22 state education agencies with

2,936 school districts, 233 postsecondary

institutions, and 2 state systems of higher

education--changed policies, practices,

and procedures to comply with federal

civil rights law.

1.1 Annual data from OCR Case

Information System, 1999.

1.3 Annual data from OCR's Case

Information System, 1999.

Empowerment of parents and students

2. To teach parents and

students how to resolve

problems of securing equal

access to high-quality

education.

2.1 Successful partnerships. The number of

partnerships with parents that lead to civil rights

compliance will increase.

OCR’s Case Information System is being

changed now to collect information.

Initial baseline available March 1,1999,

using FY 1999 data.

2.1 Annual data from OCR Case

Information System, 1999.

Efficient utilization of resources

3. To obtain results by the

efficient management of

civil rights compliance

activities.

3.1 Resolution of complaints. Eighty percent

[80%] of the complaints are resolved within 180

days of receipt.

Percentage of complaints resolved within

180 days of receipt:

FY 1994 77 %.

FY 1997 80%

FY 1998 81%

3.1 Annual data from OCR Case

Information System and

analysis of complaint

workload, 1999.

Key Strategies

v Implement a balanced enforcement program by initiating activities that target resources for maximum impact.

v Provide civil rights-related information, technical expertise, and assistance to a broad range of stakeholders engaged in collaborative efforts to ensure equal educational

opportunity.

v Develop case resolution agreements that provide for the active participation of parents and students.

v Use performance measures, human resource development, and technology as a means to promote efficiency.

Numerical benchmarks and performance indicators provide one body of quantifiable information relevant to the assessment of OCR’s work. There are many other facets to the

evaluation of OCR’s work that are not readily quantifiable, e.g., the professionalism and responsiveness of OCR staff.

Definitions:

High-quality education: Education that meets the standard established for all students by a state or school district, reflecting (1) high expectations for all students, (2)

challenging curriculum and instruction, and (3) compliance with federal laws that are designed to ensure equal opportunity for all students.

Positive Change: A recipient of federal funds changes policies, practices, and procedures to eliminate or prevent civil rights problems, and the “change” results in

improved access for students.
U.S. Department of Education FY 2000 Annual Plan, Volume 2 page 195

For additional copies of the Annual Plan, Volumes 1 or 2:

# Call 877-4ED-Pubs (877-433-7827)

# E-mail a request to: strategic_plan@ed.gov.

# Download an HTML or PDF file from the Department of Education’s web site. The Annual

Plan will be located under http://www.ed.gov/pubs/.

# For TTY/TDD call 877-576-7734.

# For a Braille or audio-tape version, call 202 260-9895.

For questions on this plan, call Geneise Cooke on 202 401-3132.