- Home
- Agencies
- Department of Agriculture
- Department of Housing and Urban Development
- General Services Administration
- Department of Commerce
- Department of the Interior
- National Aeronautics and Space Administration
- Department of Defense
- Department of Justice
- National Science Foundation
- Department of Education
- Department of Labor
- Office of Personnel Management
- Department of Energy
- Department of State
- Small Business Administration
- Environmental Protection Agency
- Department of Transportation
- Social Security Administration
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Department of the Treasury
- U.S. Agency for International Development
- Department of Homeland Security
- Department of Veterans Affairs
- Goals
- Initiatives
- Programs
Primary tabs
Key to Changes
This text is Revised text
This word has been added to the text
This text is Last Published text
This word has been removed from the text
Modifed styling with no visual changes
John B. King, Jr.Acting Secretary
Department of Education (ED)
Mission
Overview
The Department operates programs that touch on every area and level of education. The Department's elementary and secondary programs annually serve nearly 14,000 school districts and approximately 55 million students attending some 99,000 public schools and 33,000 private schools. Department programs also provide grant, loan, and work-study assistance to more than 15 million postsecondary students. In the past three years, the Department has worked to successfully streamline and consolidate programs from kindergarten through college to save taxpayer dollars, improve efficiency, reduce administrative expenses, and better serve states, schools, students, and families.
The U.S. Department of Education Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2014–2018 provides a
framework for the key policy and operational priorities for the agency, in alignment with the
administration’s vision for education and in collaboration with Congress, state and local
partners, and other education stakeholders. From its mission and core values, the plan was
developed by building upon and updating the FY 2011–14 Strategic Plan. It comprises six
foundational strategic goals and six priority goals. The updated plan for FY 2014–18 includes
the same six strategic goals as the Department’s previous plan. These six goals will help to
align the administration’s annual budget requests and the Department’s legislative agenda.
The Department’s FY 2014–18 Strategic Plan stands on a foundation of six strategic goals:
- Goal 1: Postsecondary Education, Career and Technical Education, and Adult Education.
Increase college access, affordability, quality, and completion by improving postsecondary education and lifelong learning opportunities for youths and adults. - Goal 2: Elementary and Secondary Education.
Improve the elementary and secondary education system’s ability to consistently deliver excellent instruction aligned with rigorous academic standards while providing effective support services to close achievement and opportunity gaps, and ensure all students graduate high school college- and career-ready. - Goal 3: Early Learning.
Improve the health, social-emotional, and cognitive outcomes for all children from birth through 3rd grade, so that all children, particularly those with high needs, are on track for graduating from high school college- and career-ready. - Goal 4: Equity.
Increase educational opportunities for underserved students and reduce discrimination so that all students are well-positioned to succeed. - Goal 5: Continuous Improvement of the U.S. Education System.
Enhance the education system’s ability to continuously improve through better and more widespread use of data, research and evaluation, evidence, transparency, innovation, and technology. - Goal 6: U.S. Department of Education Capacity.
Improve the organizational capacities of the Department to implement the Strategic Plan.
To view information on all Department programs, please visit www.ed.gov.
Expand All
Strategic Goals & Objectives
Agencies establish a variety of organizational goals to drive progress toward key outcomes for the American people. Long-term strategic goals articulate clear statements of what the agency wants to achieve to advance its mission and address relevant national problems, needs, challenges and opportunities. Strategic objectives define the outcome or management impact the agency is trying to achieve, and also include the agency's role. Each strategic objective is tracked through a suite of performance goals, indicators and other evidence. Click here for more information on stakeholder engagement during goal development.
Strategic Goal:
Postsecondary Education, Career and Technical Education, and Adult Education
Statement:
Increase college access, affordability, quality, and completion by improving postsecondary education and lifelong learning opportunities for youths and adults.
Strategic Objectives
Statement:
Close the opportunity gap by improving the affordability of and access to college and/or workforce training, especially for underrepresented and/or underprepared populations (e.g., low-income and first-generation students, English learners, individuals with disabilities, adults without high school diplomas, etc.).
Description:No Data Available
Statement:
Foster institutional value to ensure that postsecondary education credentials represent effective preparation for students to succeed in the workforce and participate in civic life.
Description:No Data Available
Statement:
Increase degree and certificate completion and job placement in high-need and high-skill areas, particularly among underrepresented and/or underprepared populations.
Description:No Data Available
Statement:
Increase STEM pathway opportunities that enable access to and completion of postsecondary programs.
Description:No Data Available
Priority Goals
Statement:
We will measure the overall college attainment goal, and the effectiveness of the college value and affordability initiatives that foster higher attainment rates, by focusing on the critical 25-34 year old cohort. By September 30, 2015, 45.6% of adults ages 25-34 will have an associate’s degree or higher, which will place the nation on track to reach the President’s goal of 60% attainment by 2020.
Description:
GOAL OVERVIEW
Dramatically boosting completion rates for postsecondary certificates and degrees is essential for the United States to successfully compete in a global economy. The President set a goal in 2009 that, by 2020, the U.S. will have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world. Meeting this goal will require millions of additional Americans to earn a postsecondary degree by the end of this decade—a 50 percent increase nationwide. New initiatives from the President’s College Value and Affordability Agenda are being implemented to help increase the college attainment rate, and the Department has proposed several new programs which, if funded, will significantly accelerate progress toward the goal. Starting from a baseline college degree attainment rate of 44.0 percent in 2012, we set annual targets projecting the annual increase to grow progressively each year above the four-year historical average of 0.7 percentage points: 0.7, 0.9, 1.2, 1.6, 2.1, 2.8, 3.2, and 3.5. (The curve reflects the results of the intensified efforts, which have a future impact given the length of postsecondary programs.) Since the data for any given year are reported in the following year, the growth will lead to 60% of all Americans having an associate’s degree or higher (as reported in 2021, reflecting 2020 data; note that certificates are not included since the U.S. does not currently have a way to measure attainment of certificates in the population). The 45.6% rate in 2015 represents two years of growth from the baseline.
The President’s focus on educational attainment of American between the ages of 25-34 allows us to assess progress in preparing the next generation of U.S. workers and to benchmark for international comparisons. Nonetheless, college completion for all ages is important, including unemployed, under-skilled and older workers, veterans and other underrepresented student categories.
KEY BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES
Success will depend in large part on the extent to which states reinvest in higher education and on whether both states and institutions (a) implement policies and programs to increase college access and success, (b) reduce costs and time to completion, (c) support accelerated learning opportunities, including dual enrollment, (d) develop and adopt effective and innovative practices that improve student outcomes, and (e) promote seamless transitions from secondary to postsecondary education and among higher education institutions. The Department will use its available resources and programs, administrative action, bully pulpit, technical assistance, and ability to convene stakeholders to drive collaboration and best practices, but has limited leverage to influence state policies and institutional practices without new programs that are specifically structured toward this goal.
EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
States, Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs), Students and their Families, Businesses, Philanthropy, Not-for-profit Organizations, and other Federal Departments and Agencies.
Strategic Goal:
Elementary and Secondary Education
Statement:
Improve the elementary and secondary education system’s ability to consistently deliver excellent instruction aligned with rigorous academic standards while providing effective support services to close achievement and opportunity gaps, and ensure all students graduate high school college- and career-ready.
Strategic Objectives
Statement:
Support implementation of internationally benchmarked college- and career-ready standards, with aligned, valid, and reliable assessments.
Description:No Data Available
Priority Goal: Support implementation of college- and career-ready standards and assessments
Statement:
By September 30, 2015, at least 50 states/territories[1] will be implementing next-generation assessments, aligned with college- and career-ready standards.
[1] In addition to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and other territories are candidates for implementing these assessments.
Description:
GOAL OVERVIEW
The adoption of college- and career-ready standards is the foundation to improving educational outcomes for all students and a fundamental step toward meeting the President’s goal of once again having the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020. The college- and career-ready standards must be coupled with high-quality aligned assessments to measure the extent to which students are mastering the standards.
KEY BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES
A key challenge facing the Department of Education (ED) over the next two years relates to the changes States may make to their currently adopted college- and career-ready standards due to changes from state leadership or the state legislature. Another key challenge is supporting states with the implementation of their college- and career-ready aligned assessments for all students, including English Learners, students with disabilities, economically disadvantaged and low-achieving students to ensure that all students are prepared for post-secondary success.
ED is taking steps to address these challenges by developing and targeting technical assistance activities that will, in part, increase state capacity to leverage limited resources and continue to identify promising practices across multiple states. First, ED has released its Title I assessment peer review guidance, which highlights the requirements for a high-quality assessment to help support state assessment development; in FY 2016, ED will begin conducting peer review of state assessment systems, providing examples of promising and best practices in the field. ED will build also library of resources to assist SEAs in full and effective transition to college- and career-ready standards, leveraging work that has occurred during Race to the Top with other partner organizations such as Achieve, Student Achievement Partners, PTA, and others. In addition, ED is working internally to coordinate the provision of technical assistance across OESE, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), and other related offices and programs. ED also funds a Center on Standards and Assessments Implementation (part of the ESEA Comprehensive Centers program) that helps build the capacity of State educational agencies to implement college- and career-ready standards.
ED is taking steps to address these challenges by developing and targeting technical assistance activities that will, in part, increase state capacity to leverage limited resources and continue to identify promising practices across multiple states. First, ED has released its Title I assessment peer review guidance, which highlights the requirements for a high-quality assessment to help support state assessment development; in FY 2016, ED will begin conducting peer review of state assessment systems, providing examples of promising and best practices in the field. ED will build also library of resources to assist SEAs in full and effective transition to college- and career-ready standards, leveraging work that has occurred during Race to the Top with other partner organizations such as Achieve, Student Achievement Partners, PTA, and others. In addition, ED is working internally to coordinate the provision of technical assistance across OESE, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), and other related offices and programs. ED also funds a Center on Standards and Assessments Implementation (part of the ESEA Comprehensive Centers program) that helps build the capacity of State educational agencies to implement college- and career-ready standards
Finally, ED is working with states to provide communication support and technical assistance to help states and LEAs reduce redundant and unaligned local assessments, as well as to help states develop a process and strategy to share state assessment results from 2014-2015 as scores are likely to drop due to increased rigor of the assessments. Among other activities, this includes assisting states in resetting baselines and annual goals related to student performance.
EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
ED consistently engaged with Congress, advocacy organizations, education organizations, State educational agencies and other external stakeholders regarding Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) flexibility, including state plans for transitioning to and implementing college- and career-ready standards. ED has met with stakeholders to provide information on state plans, as well as to enlist external support and technical assistance for states and districts as they move forward with implementing the new standards.
Statement:
Improve the preparation, recruitment, retention, development, support, evaluation, recognition, and equitable distribution of effective teachers and leaders.[1]
[1] States with approved ESEA Flexibility requests were initially required to implement teacher and principal evaluation and support systems by 2014–15 or 2015–16, depending on the school year of initial approval. Through ESEA Flexibility renewal in fall 2014, the Department committed to working with states that need to make adjustments to implementation timelines or sequencing through the ESEA Flexibility renewal process.
Description:No Data Available
Priority Goal: Improve learning by ensuring that more students have effective teachers and leaders
Statement:
By September 30, 2015, at least 37 States will have fully implemented teacher and principal evaluation and support systems that consider multiple measures of effectiveness, with student growth as a significant factor.
Description:
GOAL OVERVIEW
The goal is based on the premise, supported by abundant research, that teachers are the single most critical in-school factor in improving student achievement. Principals are often cited as the second most influential in-school factor. Teacher and principal evaluation and support systems supported by the Department of Education's (ED) contributing programs enable the development and identification of effective educators and provide needed information to improve the educator workforce. Teachers and principals often lack meaningful evaluation, feedback, and support for professional growth. Indeed, teachers are often dissatisfied with their preparation programs and their opportunities for professional development and advancement. Too often, effective teachers and leaders are not recognized, rewarded, or asked to share their expertise with colleagues. Most teacher compensation systems do not recognize effectiveness or provide incentives to teach in challenging schools or shortage areas. And race and family income too often predict a child’s access to excellent educators. In light of the importance of teachers and school leadership for student success, the nation has to do more to ensure that every student has an effective teacher, every school has an effective leader, and every teacher and leader has access to the preparation, on-going support, recognition, and collaboration opportunities he or she needs to succeed. ED will help strengthen the profession by focusing on meaningful feedback, support, and incentives at every stage of a career, based on fair evaluation and support systems that look at multiple measures, including, in significant part, growth in student learning. ED will support state and district efforts that provide time for teacher collaboration, personalized on-the-job learning opportunities, and professional advancement. Targets are based on state implementation timelines provided through original Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) flexibility requests. These timelines indicated that 37 states expected to implement the systems by September 30, 2015. “Fully implemented” is defined as the school year in which teachers and principals receive effectiveness ratings. However, as states and districts are moving forward, they are also encountering challenges with implementation of these systems, and are making adjustments to timelines, sequencing, and implementation steps that may not follow their original plans but will ultimately result in high-quality teacher and principal evaluation and support systems.
KEY BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES
ED will support states in the development and adoption of state requirements for comprehensive teacher and principal evaluation and support systems and in district development and implementation of comprehensive educator evaluation and support systems. Providing additional support to teachers and principals, as well as educator evaluators regarding these new evaluation and support systems is necessary so they are able, for example, to use and develop learning objectives to measure growth in student learning and to implement new classroom observation tools. However, providing this level of support is also resource-intense at both the state educational agency (SEA) and local educational agency (LEA) level. Additional challenges center on maintaining momentum for reform, given districts’ and states’ current political situations, potential changes in leadership, ongoing development of valid and reliable measures of growth in student learning in non-tested grades and subjects, and the scaling up of systems in a relatively short time frame.
EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
Engagement of external stakeholders is regular and ongoing. Program staff have regular contact with SEA staff through monitoring, technical assistance, and other outreach. Policy and program staff regularly hold calls and travel to the Hill to brief member and committee staff. ED has also engaged with and provided briefings for key external educational organizations, including the Council of Chief State School Officers, the National Governors Association, National Education Association, and American Federation of Teachers. Ongoing outreach further involves a wide range of professional and content organizations, national community-based organizations, and foundations.
Statement:
Increase the success, safety, and health of students, particularly in high-need schools, and deepen family and community engagement.
Description:No Data Available
Statement:
Accelerate achievement by supporting states and districts in turning around and closing achievement gaps in low-performing schools, and developing models of next generation high schools.
Description:No Data Available
Statement:
Increase the number and quality of STEM teachers and increase opportunities for students to access rich STEM learning experiences.
Description:No Data Available
Priority Goals
Statement:
By September 30, 2015, at least 50 states/territories[1] will be implementing next-generation assessments, aligned with college- and career-ready standards.
[1] In addition to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and other territories are candidates for implementing these assessments.
Description:
GOAL OVERVIEW
The adoption of college- and career-ready standards is the foundation to improving educational outcomes for all students and a fundamental step toward meeting the President’s goal of once again having the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020. The college- and career-ready standards must be coupled with high-quality aligned assessments to measure the extent to which students are mastering the standards.
KEY BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES
A key challenge facing the Department of Education (ED) over the next two years relates to the changes States may make to their currently adopted college- and career-ready standards due to changes from state leadership or the state legislature. Another key challenge is supporting states with the implementation of their college- and career-ready aligned assessments for all students, including English Learners, students with disabilities, economically disadvantaged and low-achieving students to ensure that all students are prepared for post-secondary success.
ED is taking steps to address these challenges by developing and targeting technical assistance activities that will, in part, increase state capacity to leverage limited resources and continue to identify promising practices across multiple states. First, ED has released its Title I assessment peer review guidance, which highlights the requirements for a high-quality assessment to help support state assessment development; in FY 2016, ED will begin conducting peer review of state assessment systems, providing examples of promising and best practices in the field. ED will build also library of resources to assist SEAs in full and effective transition to college- and career-ready standards, leveraging work that has occurred during Race to the Top with other partner organizations such as Achieve, Student Achievement Partners, PTA, and others. In addition, ED is working internally to coordinate the provision of technical assistance across OESE, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), and other related offices and programs. ED also funds a Center on Standards and Assessments Implementation (part of the ESEA Comprehensive Centers program) that helps build the capacity of State educational agencies to implement college- and career-ready standards.
ED is taking steps to address these challenges by developing and targeting technical assistance activities that will, in part, increase state capacity to leverage limited resources and continue to identify promising practices across multiple states. First, ED has released its Title I assessment peer review guidance, which highlights the requirements for a high-quality assessment to help support state assessment development; in FY 2016, ED will begin conducting peer review of state assessment systems, providing examples of promising and best practices in the field. ED will build also library of resources to assist SEAs in full and effective transition to college- and career-ready standards, leveraging work that has occurred during Race to the Top with other partner organizations such as Achieve, Student Achievement Partners, PTA, and others. In addition, ED is working internally to coordinate the provision of technical assistance across OESE, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), and other related offices and programs. ED also funds a Center on Standards and Assessments Implementation (part of the ESEA Comprehensive Centers program) that helps build the capacity of State educational agencies to implement college- and career-ready standards
Finally, ED is working with states to provide communication support and technical assistance to help states and LEAs reduce redundant and unaligned local assessments, as well as to help states develop a process and strategy to share state assessment results from 2014-2015 as scores are likely to drop due to increased rigor of the assessments. Among other activities, this includes assisting states in resetting baselines and annual goals related to student performance.
EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
ED consistently engaged with Congress, advocacy organizations, education organizations, State educational agencies and other external stakeholders regarding Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) flexibility, including state plans for transitioning to and implementing college- and career-ready standards. ED has met with stakeholders to provide information on state plans, as well as to enlist external support and technical assistance for states and districts as they move forward with implementing the new standards.
Statement:
By September 30, 2015, at least 37 States will have fully implemented teacher and principal evaluation and support systems that consider multiple measures of effectiveness, with student growth as a significant factor.
Description:
GOAL OVERVIEW
The goal is based on the premise, supported by abundant research, that teachers are the single most critical in-school factor in improving student achievement. Principals are often cited as the second most influential in-school factor. Teacher and principal evaluation and support systems supported by the Department of Education's (ED) contributing programs enable the development and identification of effective educators and provide needed information to improve the educator workforce. Teachers and principals often lack meaningful evaluation, feedback, and support for professional growth. Indeed, teachers are often dissatisfied with their preparation programs and their opportunities for professional development and advancement. Too often, effective teachers and leaders are not recognized, rewarded, or asked to share their expertise with colleagues. Most teacher compensation systems do not recognize effectiveness or provide incentives to teach in challenging schools or shortage areas. And race and family income too often predict a child’s access to excellent educators. In light of the importance of teachers and school leadership for student success, the nation has to do more to ensure that every student has an effective teacher, every school has an effective leader, and every teacher and leader has access to the preparation, on-going support, recognition, and collaboration opportunities he or she needs to succeed. ED will help strengthen the profession by focusing on meaningful feedback, support, and incentives at every stage of a career, based on fair evaluation and support systems that look at multiple measures, including, in significant part, growth in student learning. ED will support state and district efforts that provide time for teacher collaboration, personalized on-the-job learning opportunities, and professional advancement. Targets are based on state implementation timelines provided through original Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) flexibility requests. These timelines indicated that 37 states expected to implement the systems by September 30, 2015. “Fully implemented” is defined as the school year in which teachers and principals receive effectiveness ratings. However, as states and districts are moving forward, they are also encountering challenges with implementation of these systems, and are making adjustments to timelines, sequencing, and implementation steps that may not follow their original plans but will ultimately result in high-quality teacher and principal evaluation and support systems.
KEY BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES
ED will support states in the development and adoption of state requirements for comprehensive teacher and principal evaluation and support systems and in district development and implementation of comprehensive educator evaluation and support systems. Providing additional support to teachers and principals, as well as educator evaluators regarding these new evaluation and support systems is necessary so they are able, for example, to use and develop learning objectives to measure growth in student learning and to implement new classroom observation tools. However, providing this level of support is also resource-intense at both the state educational agency (SEA) and local educational agency (LEA) level. Additional challenges center on maintaining momentum for reform, given districts’ and states’ current political situations, potential changes in leadership, ongoing development of valid and reliable measures of growth in student learning in non-tested grades and subjects, and the scaling up of systems in a relatively short time frame.
EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
Engagement of external stakeholders is regular and ongoing. Program staff have regular contact with SEA staff through monitoring, technical assistance, and other outreach. Policy and program staff regularly hold calls and travel to the Hill to brief member and committee staff. ED has also engaged with and provided briefings for key external educational organizations, including the Council of Chief State School Officers, the National Governors Association, National Education Association, and American Federation of Teachers. Ongoing outreach further involves a wide range of professional and content organizations, national community-based organizations, and foundations.
Strategic Goal:
Early Learning
Statement:
Improve the health, social-emotional, and cognitive outcomes for all children from birth through 3rd grade, so that all children, particularly those with high needs, are on track for graduating from high school college- and career-ready.
Strategic Objectives
Statement:
Increase access to high-quality early learning programs and comprehensive services, especially for children with high needs.
Description:No Data Available
Statement:
Improve the quality and effectiveness of the early learning workforce so that early childhood educators have the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to improve young children’s health, social‑emotional, and cognitive outcomes.
Description:No Data Available
Statement:
Improve the capacity of states and early learning programs to develop and implement comprehensive early learning assessment systems.
Description:No Data Available
Priority Goal: Support comprehensive early learning assessment systems
Statement:
By September 30, 2015, at least 9 states will be collecting and reporting disaggregated data on the status of children at Kindergarten entry using a common measure.
Description:
GOAL OVERVIEW
Kindergarten entry assessments (KEAs), when properly designed, can be used to inform professional development to improve the early learning workforce, be included in a State’s comprehensive early learning assessment system, and improve student achievement and program effectiveness. KEAs can inform instruction and support students’ educational success by identifying the early learning needs of each child. They provide an opportunity for teachers and families to understand the status of children when they enter Kindergarten and policy makers to decide if there is a greater need to invest in high-quality early learning programs to ensure children enter school prepared for success.
KEY BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES
Assessment in early learning is new and untested. Many States are starting from scratch developing valid and reliable measures for KEAs. Constructing and testing these instruments and implementing them across every school in the State will be challenging and will take time. In addition, states will need to ensure that the KEAs are implemented in a balanced way that does not result in the loss of a significant amount of instructional time. Additionally, two of the three Enhanced Assessment Grants (EAG) grantees that are consortia may experience challenges coordinating across states due to differences in their policies and procedures. Preschool Development Gants (PDG) States are required to report on the status of children in kindergarten served by the grants in the high-need communities, but they are not required to use a KEA, and funding may be a challenge. The U.S. Department of Education (ED), along with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is working with these grantees to minimize these coordination challenges.
EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
ED regularly engages external early learning stakeholders, with specific attention to HHS and Congress.
Priority Goals
Statement:
By September 30, 2015, at least 9 states will be collecting and reporting disaggregated data on the status of children at Kindergarten entry using a common measure.
Description:
GOAL OVERVIEW
Kindergarten entry assessments (KEAs), when properly designed, can be used to inform professional development to improve the early learning workforce, be included in a State’s comprehensive early learning assessment system, and improve student achievement and program effectiveness. KEAs can inform instruction and support students’ educational success by identifying the early learning needs of each child. They provide an opportunity for teachers and families to understand the status of children when they enter Kindergarten and policy makers to decide if there is a greater need to invest in high-quality early learning programs to ensure children enter school prepared for success.
KEY BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES
Assessment in early learning is new and untested. Many States are starting from scratch developing valid and reliable measures for KEAs. Constructing and testing these instruments and implementing them across every school in the State will be challenging and will take time. In addition, states will need to ensure that the KEAs are implemented in a balanced way that does not result in the loss of a significant amount of instructional time. Additionally, two of the three Enhanced Assessment Grants (EAG) grantees that are consortia may experience challenges coordinating across states due to differences in their policies and procedures. Preschool Development Gants (PDG) States are required to report on the status of children in kindergarten served by the grants in the high-need communities, but they are not required to use a KEA, and funding may be a challenge. The U.S. Department of Education (ED), along with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is working with these grantees to minimize these coordination challenges.
EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
ED regularly engages external early learning stakeholders, with specific attention to HHS and Congress.
Strategic Goal:
Equity
Statement:
Increase educational opportunities for and reduce discrimination against underserved students so that all students are well-positioned to succeed.
Strategic Objectives
Statement:
Increase all students’ access to educational opportunities with a focus on closing achievement gaps, and remove barriers that students face based on their race, ethnicity, or national origin; sex; sexual orientation; gender identity or expression; disability; English language ability; religion; socioeconomic status; or geographical location.
Description:No Data Available
Statement:
Ensure educational institutions’ awareness of and compliance with federal civil rights obligations and enhance the public’s knowledge of their civil rights.
Description:No Data Available
Priority Goals
Statement:
By Sept. 30, 2015, the number of high schools with persistently low graduation rates[1] will decrease by 5 percent annually. The national high school graduation rate will increase to 83 percent, as measured by the Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate, and disparities in the national high school graduation rate among minority students, students with disabilities, English learners, and students in poverty will decrease.
[1] Consistent with the ESEA Flexibility definition, persistently low graduation rate is defined as a less than 60 percent graduation rate. Persistently low graduation rate high schools are defined as regular and vocational high schools with an average minimum cohort size of 65 or more, and an average ACGR of 60 percent or less over two years.
Description:
GOAL OVERVIEW
Through Race to the Top (RTT), the School Improvement Grant (SIG) program, Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) flexibility, and other federal programs, the Department of Education (ED) is providing significant resources to dramatically improve the nation’s lowest-achieving schools by using intensive turnaround models and identifying the low-achieving schools that are showing strong evidence of successfully turning around. ED is focused on supporting innovation, not just compliance monitoring, and is focused on spurring growth in achievement, not just absolute achievement measures as done in the past.
Increasing the national high school graduation rate and decreasing disparities in the graduation rate is critical to achieving the President’s goal of once again having the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020. The nation has made significant progress in increasing graduation rates, but gaps between rates for different student groups continue to persist.
KEY BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES
ED is working to support states and districts in raising high school graduation rates through a number of initiatives, including ESEA flexibility, SIG, RTT, and the High School Graduation Initiative. One key challenge will be to coordinate these multiple programs and ensure that states and districts implement coordinated efforts to increase graduation rates, rather than working through siloed funding streams. An additional challenge is providing differentiated support to states based on their current status and progress in increasing graduation rates. While all states have room for improvement, some states are farther behind than others in graduation rates, particularly for different subgroups of students. ED has addressed one major barrier, which was the incomparability of graduation rate data across states. All states are now required to use an adjusted cohort graduation rate, and ED is reporting these data at the state, district, and school level. However, differences in how states define a regular high school diploma, and other technical features of their calculations, continue to make comparisons challenging.
Key barriers and challenges include:
- Sustainability of reforms in schools as SIG grants end;
- Capacity challenges at state, district, and school level mean some intervention challenges persist;
- Insufficient focus on comprehensive turnaround efforts at the state and district level beyond only the SIG program;
- Ensuring alignment between SIG, Race to the Top, ESEA flexibility, and other programs and initiatives; and
- Lack of quality and completeness data/knowledge allows others to define success.
EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
ED works closely with stakeholder groups that are focused on increasing graduation rates, including CCSSO, CGCS, the Alliance for Excellent Education, the Education Trust, and Jobs for the Future. ED frequently engages these stakeholders on policy development, such as developing new SIG guidance, ESEA flexibility guidance, and High School Redesign.
Strategic Goal:
Continuous Improvement of the U.S. Education System
Statement:
Enhance the education system’s ability to continuously improve through better and more widespread use of data, research and evaluation, evidence, transparency, innovation, and technology.
Strategic Objectives
Statement:
Facilitate the development of interoperable longitudinal data systems for early learning through employment to enable data-driven, transparent decision-making by increasing access to timely, reliable, and high-value data.
Description:No Data Available
Statement:
Provide all education stakeholders, from early childhood to adult learning, with technical assistance and guidance to help them protect student privacy while effectively managing and using student information.
Description:No Data Available
Statement:
Invest in research and evaluation that builds evidence for education improvement; communicate findings effectively; and drive the use of evidence in decision-making by internal and external stakeholders.
Description:No Data Available
Statement:
Accelerate the development and broad adoption of new, effective programs, processes, and strategies, including education technology.
Description:
To achieve the president’s 2020 college attainment goal, the nation’s education system will need to graduate many more college-ready students from high school, ensure they have access to postsecondary education, and support them as they complete their degrees—all while facing resource constraints. When other sectors of the economy need to become better, faster, or more productive, they innovate, often relying on technology for help. The education sector is no different, and the need for innovation—and its benefits—spans grade levels, curricular areas, and student needs.
A 21st-century infrastructure that harnesses modern technological advances and provides easy access to high-speed Internet can serve as a platform for greater innovation in education. Accordingly, the Department will continue to focus on ways to improve schools’ technology infrastructure and effective use of technology. It will also continue to work with Congress to establish a new advanced research projects agency for education that will use directed research and development activities to pursue breakthrough technological innovations in teaching and learning.
Technology holds the potential to expand all students’ opportunities to learn, including by supporting personalized learning experiences, providing dynamic digital content, and delivering more meaningful assessments. Technology can also help districts and schools support teachers in becoming more effective and better connected to the tools, resources, and expertise students need and help them meet more rigorous college- and career-ready standards. Technology can also help schools by providing students and school library media specialists with increased access to academic tools and other resource-sharing networks. Technology can also help schools by providing students and school library media specialists with increased access to academic tools and other resource-sharing networks. Technology-enabled instructional and assessment systems will be pivotal to improving student learning and generating data that can be used to continuously improve the education system at all levels. Innovative technology must be matched by innovative educational practices to maximize its potential to improve learning and instruction for all students, and it must be accessible to all students, including students with disabilities. Leadership is essential to ensure that innovative applications are disseminated and brought to scale.
Priority Goals
Statement:
By September 30, 2015, the percentage of select new[1] (non-continuation) competitive grant dollars that reward evidence will increase by 70%.
[1] “New competitive grant dollars that reward evidence” includes all dollars awarded based on the existence of at least “evidence of promise” in support of a project, per the framework in the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (34 CFR Part 75). Consideration of such evidence appears through: eligibility threshold (e.g., in the Investing in Innovation program); absolute priority; competitive priority (earning at least one point for it); or selection criteria (earning at least one point for it). The percentage is calculated compared to the total new grant dollars awarded.
Description:
GOAL OVERVIEW
Through its mix of grants, contracts, and internal analytic work, the Department of Education (ED) will support the use of research methods and rigorous study designs that provide evidence that is as robust as possible and fit for the purpose. This goal will track whether ED is increasing its internal capacity to make competitive grant awards based on the existence of (and amount of) evidence in support of projects, where appropriate.
KEY BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES
The process to collect data and track progress against the goal is still under development, and using evidence to award competitive grants entails a shift in culture and capacity building across ED to do it well. Additionally, goal targets are based on reasonable projections about which competitive grant programs may make new awards in this fiscal year, but the actual dollar amount awarded will depend on final appropriations amounts and other funding decisions and trade-offs. Grantees vary in their comfort with and understanding of evaluation and use of evidence, yet ED has limited resources to support grantees in conducting rigorous evaluations that would produce evidence of effectiveness.
EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
There is an increasing emphasis among stakeholders on the importance of using evidence to support government program funding decisions, and ED regularly engages the field on this topic. A number of outside organizations have convened experts to discuss how to encourage such decisions. In addition, philanthropic and congressional actors prioritized using evidence to support decision-making and have encouraged the field to do the same. Finally, ED has worked with the National Science Foundation to develop a common evidence framework around which to organize research investments and grants. Indeed, ED is considered a leader on the issue among federal agencies, and external groups are eager for ED to deepen and broaden its efforts.
Strategic Goal:
U.S. Department of Education Capacity
Statement:
Improve the organizational capacities of the department to implement this strategic plan.
Strategic Objectives
Statement:
Continue to build a skilled, diverse, and engaged workforce within the Department.
Description:No Data Available
Statement:
Improve the Department’s program efficacy through comprehensive risk management, and grant and contract monitoring.
Description:No Data Available
Statement:
Build Department capacity and systems to support states’ and other grantees’ implementation of reforms that result in improved outcomes, and keep the public informed of promising practices and new reform initiatives.
Description:No Data Available
Statement:
Improve workforce productivity through information technology enhancements, telework expansion efforts, more effective process performance management systems, and state-of-the-art leadership and knowledge management practices.
Description:No Data Available
Expand All
FY16-17 Agency Priority Goals
An Agency Priority Goal is a near-term result or achievement that agency leadership wants to accomplish within approximately 24 months that relies predominantly on agency implementation as opposed to budget or legislative accomplishments. Click below to see this agency's FY16-17 Priority Goals.
Agency Priority Goal:
Support implementation of college- and career-ready standards and assessments
Statement:
Support implementation of college- and career-ready standards and assessments. By September 30, 2017, all states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico will be implementing high-quality assessments, aligned with college- and career-ready standards.
Description:
GOAL OVERVIEW
The adoption of college- and career-ready standards is the foundation to ensuring every student graduates from high school with meaningful opportunities to be successful. The reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), maintains the requirement that States develop and implement challenging academic content standards in reading/language arts, mathematics, and science. In the past, those standards did not always reflect the knowledge and skills needed for success after high school, either in further education or in a job. Additionally, college- and career-ready standards must be coupled with high-quality aligned assessments to measure the extent to which students are mastering the standards. High-quality, annual Statewide assessments are essential to providing critical information about student achievement and growth to parents, teachers, principals, and administrators at all levels. When the assessment system is aligned with the academic content and achievement standards that a State expects all children to know and be able to do, it provides the roadmap for aligning instruction to meet the academic needs of students. High-quality, annual, Statewide assessments provide information on all students so that educators can improve educational outcomes, close achievement gaps among subgroups of historically underserved students, increase equity, and improve instruction.
Through the Race to the Top- Assessment (RTTA) program, ESEA flexibility, the Enhanced Assessment Grant program, formula funds to all States for developing and administering Statewide assessments, and other federal programs, the Department of Education (ED) has provided and continues to provide significant resources to support States in implementing college- and career-ready standards and aligned high-quality assessments for all students, including English Learners, students with disabilities, economically disadvantaged and low-achieving students. The RTTA consortia and the two consortia that have developed alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities completed the field testing of their assessments during the 2013-2014 school year and successfully implemented the first full administration in spring 2015. 28 States, DC, and the US Virgin Islands (USVI) participated in the Partnerships for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) or Smarter Balanced - the two RTTA consortia- first operational administration in spring 2015. 22 of those states, DC, and the USVI administered PARCC or Smarter Balanced in spring 2016.
As States and districts transition to the ESSA, ED will continue working to support States with the implementation of their college- and career-ready standards and aligned assessments for all students, including English Learners, students with disabilities, economically disadvantaged and low-achieving students to ensure that all students are prepared for post-secondary success.
KEY BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES
A challenge facing ED over the next two years relates to the changes States may make to their currently adopted college- and career-ready standards and their aligned assessments, as a result of internal pushback due to concerns about overtesting, technological challenges or political challenges. In many cases, these barriers and challenges may prohibit a State from transitioning to or keeping a high-quality assessment.
Additionally, ED is working to support States with the implementation of their college- and career-ready standards and aligned assessments for all students, including English Learners, students with disabilities, economically disadvantaged and low-achieving students to ensure that all students are prepared for post-secondary success.
EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
ED has and continues to seek input from a wide variety of stakeholders in the early stages of implementation of the new ESSA. On December 22, 2015, the Department published in the Federal Register a Request for Information, seeking advice and recommendations regarding topics under Title I of the ESEA where regulations would be beneficial. ED has also held over 200 meetings with a wide variety of stakeholders to ask for advice on regulations, guidance, or technical assistance that will be necessary to ensure successful transition to and implementation of the new law, including the standards and assessments provisions. In January 2016, the Department announced its intention to undertake a negotiated rulemaking process to regulate on provisions related to Statewide assessments under Title I of the ESSA and issued a call for negotiators, In March and April 2016, a committee representing a wide variety of stakeholders, including Federal administrators, State administrators, district administrators, teachers, principals, other schools leaders, paraprofessionals, civil rights organizations and the business community, assembled to draft such regulations. The committee reached consensus on the proposed regulations, and the Department published those draft regulations as part of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on July 11, 2016. Hundreds of commenters commented through the public comment period on the proposed regulations, which ended on September 9, 2016. ED is currently reviewing comments before releasing a final regulation this year.
Agency Priority Goal:
Statement:
Improve high school graduation rates and decrease gaps in graduation rates between all students and students from low-income families, through comprehensive school and instructional improvement strategies such as ensuring equitable access to effective teachers and rigorous coursework in low-income schools. By September 30, 2017, the national high school graduation rate will increase to 85 percent, and the gap in the graduation rate between all students and students from low-income families will decrease to 7.4 percent. By September 30, 2017, the number of high schools with persistently low graduation rates will decrease by 10 percent and the number of schools that do not have a gap or have decreased the gap between all students and students from low-income families by 5 percent or more will increase by 3 percent.
Description:
GOAL OVERVIEW
Increasing the national high school graduation rate and decreasing disparities in the graduation rate is critical to achieving the President’s goal of once again having the highest proportion of college graduates in the world. The nation has made significant progress in increasing graduation rates, but gaps between rates for different student groups persist. The Department of Education (ED) is committed to pursuing equity at all stages of education, from birth through adulthood, in institutions of early learning, elementary and secondary education, career and technical and postsecondary education, adult education, workforce development, and independent living programs. ED’s goal is to ensure that all—not just a subset—of the nation’s children have access to high-quality preschool, graduate high school and obtain the skills necessary to succeed in college, in the pursuit of a meaningful career, and in their lives.
Accordingly, this goal incorporates programs and initiatives across ED -- including investments in local educational agencies (LEAs) through Title I Grants; State Plans to Ensure Equitable Access to Excellent Educators (Educator Equity Plans); English Language Acquisition grants and tools for English Learners; increased focus on improving outcomes for children with disabilities through the Results Driving Accountability initiative; and enforcement work to secure civil rights compliance -- to reduce the existing unacceptable inequities in the distribution of resources such as funding, high-quality teaching, and challenging coursework.
ED will work diligently to implement the changes to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) made by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), including issuing guidance and providing technical assistance to State educational agencies (SEAs), LEAs, and the public on the new law as well as on the transition to the new law. ED will continue to support SEAs and LEAs in identifying and turning around low-achieving schools while also providing significant resources to dramatically improve these same schools. Furthermore, ED will maintain its focus on supporting innovation, not just compliance monitoring, and on spurring growth in achievement, not just absolute achievement measures.
As we assess progress on ensuring equitable educational opportunity, we also look at other indicators that go beyond this APG’s metrics such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). As the largest nationally representative and continuing assessment of America's students, NAEP provides a helpful look at what our students know and can do in various subject areas and allows for a review of achievement gaps between students groups. In 2015, the average mathematics score for 4th grade students from low-income backgrounds was 24 points lower than the average score for their more advantaged peers. Similar patterns exist for the other NAEP subject and grade assessments — the income gaps were 28 points in 4th grade reading, 28 points in 8th grade math, and 23 points in 8th grade reading. In 2015, 12th grade students from low-income families also scored lower than their more advantaged peers — 22 points in both math and reading (Table 1).
Table 1: Average scale scores on the NAEP mathematics and reading assessments in grades 4, 8, and 12, by selected student characteristics
|
|
Grade 4 (2015) |
Grade 8 (2015) |
Grade 12 (2015) |
|||
|
|
Math |
Reading |
Math |
Reading |
Math |
Reading |
|
All |
240 |
221 |
281 |
264 |
150 |
285 |
|
Eligible for free or reduced-price lunch |
229 |
209 |
268 |
253 |
138 |
273 |
|
Not Eligible |
253 |
237 |
296 |
276 |
160 |
295 |
|
Gap between students who are and are not eligible for free or reduced-price lunch |
24 |
28 |
28 |
23 |
22 |
22 |
Table 2: Percentages of students scoring at or above proficient on the NAEP mathematics and reading assessments in grades 4, 8, and 12, by selected student characteristics
|
|
Grade 4 (2015) |
Grade 8 (2015) |
Grade 12 (2015) |
|||
|
|
Math |
Reading |
Math |
Reading |
Math |
Reading |
|
All |
39 |
35 |
32 |
33 |
23 |
36 |
|
Eligible for free or reduced-price lunch |
24 |
21 |
18 |
20 |
11 |
22 |
|
Not Eligible |
58 |
52 |
48 |
47 |
32 |
45 |
Notes:
- The 2015 NAEP assessment results for students in grade 12 retrieved report generated athttp://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/dataset.aspx
- Some apparent differences between estimates may not be statistically significant.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)0
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/mathematics/moreabout.aspx
https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/moreabout.aspx
KEY BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES
- Implementing the changes to the ESEA made by the ESSA and managing the transition from NCLB;
- Sustainability of reforms in schools as school improvement grants (SIG) end;
- Supporting the implementation of school-based interventions despite limited capacity at the State, district, and school level; and
- Ensuring quality and completeness of data/knowledge at state and local levels to enable better measurement of success.
EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
ED works closely with stakeholder groups that are focused on increasing graduation rates and increasing equitable access to educational opportunities, including the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), Council of the Great City Schools (CGCS), the Alliance for Excellent Education, the Education Trust, Jobs for the Future, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (LCCHR), and the National Urban League (NUL). APG STATEMENT
Improve high school graduation rates and decrease gaps in graduation rates between all students and students from low-income families, through comprehensive school and instructional improvement strategies such as ensuring equitable access to effective teachers and rigorous coursework in low-income schools. By September 30, 2017, the national high school graduation rate will increase to 85 percent, and the gap in the graduation rate between all students and students from low-income families will decrease to 7.4 percent. By September 30, 2017, the number of high schools with persistently low graduation rates will decrease by 10 percent and the number of schools that do not have a gap or have decreased the gap between all students and students from low-income families by 5 percent or more will increase by 3 percent.
Agency Priority Goal:
Statement:
Increase use and generation of credible evidence on what works and what does not work in education. By September 30, 2017, ED will increase to 20% the percentage of new competitive grant dollars that support evidence-based strategies. By September 30, 2017, ED will increase by 20 the number of ED-funded project evaluations that provide credible evidence about what works in education.
Description:
GOAL OVERVIEW
The Department of Education (ED) is committed to using its resources strategically to increase the amount of rigorous evidence about what works in education. Education leaders need this evidence to decide whether a potential program, policy, or practice is likely to produce improved student or other educational outcomes. While ED supports research on what works through its research programs, it also is committed to taking every opportunity to build and use research evidence in a range of competitive grant programs.
ED takes a two-pronged approach to evidence-based grant making with its competitive grants. First, ED directs its competitive grant dollars to approaches that are supported by at least some evidence. Second, ED generates new evidence by asking grantees to conduct rigorous evaluations of their interventions.
ED’s first competitive grant program to use an evidence-based grant making strategy (other than research programs at the Institute of Education Sciences (IES)) was the Investing in Innovation program (i3), which made its first grants in 2010 and currently manages a portfolio of over 100 projects. Since then, ED has expanded its evidence-based grant making to other competitive grant programs when appropriate, given resources and program purpose. The First in the World program (FITW) is an example of a postsecondary program that invests in approaches with at least some research support and asks grantees to conduct rigorous studies of impact on student outcomes. FITW made new evidence-based awards in FYs 14 and 15, but was not funded in FY16.
Doing evidence-based grant making well involves substantial, coordinated effort from many ED offices. ED must assess whether there is existing evidence on which applicants can build, help applicants to understand ED’s evidence standards, support applicants’ search for and application of evidence, coordinate timelines and logistics of internal study reviews (to ensure that applicants who cite evidence in support of their proposed projects are citing appropriately rigorous studies), and provide support on grantees’ rigorous evaluations. ED learned from the i3 experience that technical support for grantees and their evaluators is crucial to producing the highest-caliber evidence. By way of example, ED’s application of high-quality support for grantees’ evaluations has ensured that, to date, 22 i3 projects have met rigorous What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Evidence Standards, 107 i3 projects are currently expected to meet those standards, and 40 of 42 FITW projects are currently expected to meet them. However, providing support for rigorous studies in a consistent, cost-effective way is a new challenge that ED faces as it rolls out rigorous study expectations to additional grant programs.
Evidence-based grant making has been a high-priority initiative at ED for the past several years, and ED has underscored its importance more recently with the FY14 – FY15 APG focused on increasing the percentage of competitive dollars that support evidence-based strategies. Prior to FY15, we focused intently on scaling the successful practices of i3 to other competitive grant programs. In FY15, ED shifted its focus to (1) investing our resources more carefully to ensure that the quality of implementing these strategies remains strong, and (2) picking only those programs where the evidence-based grant making approaches described above are likely to be successful.
Given ED’s current competitive grant programs, the availability of evidence in the field, the current funding and statutory landscape, and early projections for program funding over the next few years, increasing the new funding that supports evidence-based practices to 18% by the end of FY16 and 20% by the end of FY17 is an ambitious, yet achievable, goal. As background, 9% of ED’s new competitive grant funding supported evidence-based practices in FY12. As of FY14, almost 16% of ED’s new competitive grant funding supported evidence-based practices, and the FY15 percentage, which serves as the baseline, was significantly higher still – over 29%. Some of this jump is attributable to the size of competitions using evidence in FY15, and the number of applicants in those competitions. We do not assume this percentage will grow at a linear rate over time, and note that when taking into account ED’s ongoing planning process for using evidence in its competitive programs, and ED’s appropriations for FY16, it is likely that ensuring that more than 29% of its competitive dollars support evidence-based activities may not be possible or wise. We believe that ED has scaled this work to almost all of the competitive programs for which it makes sense to do so, and are focusing our next two years on quality of implementation so that use of evidence in competitions is supported and implemented in a meaningful way.
The second metric of the APG focuses on the number of rigorous studies ED expects to add to the education research base. ED expects that i3, in particular, will add a large number of studies on what works for elementary and secondary students. Over the next few years, we expect that 42 i3 grantees will release studies that meet WWC Evidence Standards. Because the timing of when those studies will be published and receive an official WWC rating varies, and because some i3 grantees have received extensions to collect and analyze more data, we estimated that 20 of these studies will be added to the WWC database and will be determined to meet WWC Evidence Standards by the end of FY17. As of the end of FY16, we have surpassed this target and 22 studies from i3 grantees were found to meet WWC Evidence Standards. Since the WWC began releasing evidence reviews in 2006, more than 2,350 eligible studies (effectiveness studies with an outcome identified in a review protocol) have been reviewed. Of those, 878 studies (approximately 37%) have findings that meet WWC standards with or without reservations. i3’s contribution, over the next two years, of 20 rigorous effectiveness studies is critical as educators, families, and policymakers continue to seek clear and credible information on what works in education.
In addition to i3, ED supports a focus on rigorous evaluation in other competitive grant programs, such as Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED) and FITW. However, because i3 will be the only program to contribute studies by the end of FY17, only i3 project evaluations are included in the formal reporting on this APG. Even so, ED intends to provide future-focused updates that address ED’s work to support rigorous research endeavors in other programs.
As noted above, it is important that grantees tasked with rigorously evaluating their projects receive high-quality technical assistance in order to produce credible data. In addition to counting the rigorous studies that ED competitive grant programs support, this APG speaks to ED’s ability to support, through funding and technical support, high-quality evaluation.
KEY BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES
Using evidence to inform competitive grant funding decisions entails a shift in culture and capacity across ED, yet ED has limited resources to support those program offices in doing this work well. Final appropriations and other funding decisions and trade-offs also influence the amounts available to competitive grant programs. For example, the FITW program is not funded in FY16. If this and other programs that ED currently considers to be evidence-based are not funded in FY17, it may be more challenging to meet the established targets. In addition, in FY17 ED will begin implementing the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and includes many changes, large and small, for grant programs. ESSA’s emphasis on the use of “evidence-based” activities creates an opportunity to increase funding that supports evidence-based activities in the future, but the challenges of implementing the new law may affect this APG in the short term while ED works to help the field understand the new definition and to support grantees in meeting new evidence requirements.
In Q4, ED announced the winners for all but two grant competitions that contribute to this APG – these programs have funds available beyond September 30, 2016. In general, however, we note that ED’s focus on transitioning to ESSA has created a relative dearth of staff capacity across many of its competitive grant programs. While we spent FY16 competitive dollars within the timeframes mandated by the Congress, delays in a competition schedule from previous quarters caused us to truncate crucial tasks, such as reviewing the evidence applicants submit in support of their projects. ED continues to learn from past evidence-based competitions to improve our processes.
In addition, supporting grantees as they rigorously evaluate their grant-funded projects is resource-intensive and difficult to do well. Technical assistance is costly, and many small programs, or programs funded under different authorities, have limited ability to provide the assistance that grantees need to stay on track. All rigorous studies of effectiveness require careful stewardship, and even in the hands of skilled evaluators, many things can go wrong in the implementation of a study that threaten its credibility. Further, unlike research grant programs, competitive grant programs consider the qualifications of evaluators as one factor among many, with the result that not all evaluators of funded projects have significant experience in conducting rigorous studies of effectiveness. ED continues to problem solve with specific program offices in order to apply the i3 model in an accessible way to get more credible and informative data from grantees. ED’s Evidence Planning Group (EPG) continues to keep this issue on its radar, but focused in Q4 on closing out FY16 competitions and preparing for select FY17 competitions.
In particular, as elementary and secondary programs transition to the ESEA as amended by the ESSA, new statutory provisions that require or incentivize evidence-based practices have caused hiccups in FY17 planning. Specifically, the ESEA’s definition for “evidence-based” aligns with, but does not match exactly, the definitions ED created through regulations in 2013, and certain differences have created substantial process complications. EPG devoted ample time in Q4 to come up with a short-term solution for FY17, and a longer term solution for future years, that ensures that ED continues to hold its applicants to rigorous standards while still considering the internal capacity of staff to conduct evidence-based grant competitions with integrity.
In addition, there are several programs for which ED’s model of evidence-based grant making is problematic or not possible. Some programs provide funding to comprehensive support centers that respond to the needs of an education community – it is difficult to require that all grantees under such a program demonstrate that they will only provide evidence-based support when the applicant may not be able to predict the challenges that will arise in the community or anticipate the amount of research available on such challenges.
Finally, despite general support for evidence-based grant making endeavors, many programs’ stakeholders, who are accustomed to the status quo, have pushed back on integrating evidence into competitive grant programs. Long-standing funding levels and competition designs can make applicants less willing to move toward evidence-based strategies that require them to evaluate their work’s overall impact.
EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
There is an increasing emphasis among stakeholders on the importance of using evidence to support government program funding decisions, and ED regularly engages the field on this topic. A number of outside organizations have convened experts to discuss how to encourage such decisions. In addition, philanthropic and congressional actors prioritized using evidence to support decision-making and have encouraged the field to do the same. Finally, ED has worked with the National Science Foundation to develop a common evidence framework around which to organize research investments and grants.
Agency Priority Goal:
Increase enrollment in high-quality state preschool programs
Statement:
Increase the percentage of children, especially children from low-income families, enrolled in high-quality preschool programs. By September 30, 2017, the percentage of four-year old children enrolled in state preschool programs will increase to 33% (representing the 2015-16 school year, increasing from 29.1% in 2013-14 school year). By September 30, 2017, the number of state preschool programs meeting high-quality benchmarks will increase to 19 states (representing the 2015-16 school year, increasing from 15 in 2013-14 school year).
Description:
GOAL OVERVIEW
Children who attend high-quality early learning programs do measurably better in school than their peers who do not attend such programs, yet there continues to be a huge unmet need for public preschool. In April 2015, ED released A Matter of Equity: Preschool in America showing that of approximately 4 million 4-year olds in the United States, nearly 2.5 million are not enrolled in publicly funded preschool programs and even fewer are enrolled in the highest-quality programs. Significant new federal and state investments in high-quality early education are necessary to help states, local communities, and parents close the school readiness gaps between disadvantaged children and their more advantaged peers.
The Administration’s 2017 Budget renews President Obama’s call for universal preschool, supported by a 10-year, $75 billion proposal to expand access to high-quality preschool through a Federal-State cost-sharing partnership that would guarantee universal access to every 4 year old from low- and moderate-income families and create incentives for States to serve additional children from middle class families. The Budget is also seeking $350 million for Preschool Development Grants, which will be funded through the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and jointly administered by HHS and ED, consistent with the requirements of the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA). In December 2014, eighteen states received PDG awards to improve or create new preschool slots for 4-year-old children, and are well underway serving children in their programs. In December 2015, grantees received their second year of funding, and Congress appropriated funding for their third year. Funding in fiscal year 2017 will support the fourth and final year of funding for the 18 current PDG grantees as well as initial implementation of the changes contained in the new ESSA law in order to better coordinate and expand early learning services for children and families. The two agencies will continue to work closely together to jointly administer the program and will develop a Memorandum of Understanding that includes joint staffing of Preschool Development Grant implementation and ensures a smooth transition for all grantees. In addition, the ED/HHS jointly-administered Early Learning Challenge (ELC) grants continue to provide improvements in quality in twenty grantee states.
KEY BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES
In December 2015, Congress passed the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Under the reauthorized law, funding for the program is appropriated to HHS, and the program is administered jointly by ED and HHS. Per the statute, the purpose of the program is to coordinate early childhood education programs in a mixed delivery system of providers including schools, licensed child care centers, Head Start, or other community-based organizations that will prepare low-income and disadvantaged children to enter kindergarten. The statute specifies that one way to accomplish this goal is by improving the participation of children in a mixed delivery system and increasing the quality of the programs in this system. As a result, both agencies will work together to award grants that focus on coordination, as well as expanding access to high-quality preschool for children from low- and moderate-income households.
EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
- Congress
- Governors
- State educational agencies (SEAs) or in some states, the early learning agency
- State Advisory Councils
- Local Educational Agencies (LEAs, and their Superintendents and Principals)
- Early educators
- National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER)
- National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education (NAECS-SDE)
- National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC)
- Council for Exceptional Children, Division of Early Childhood (DEC)
Agency Priority Goal:
Statement:
Increase and enhance transparency of information about the student loan portfolio for taxpayers, researchers, and the public. ED will publish on Federal Student Aid’s Data Center at least 15 new releases of data points or other information reports in 2016 and 2017, resulting in 30 new releases by September 30, 2017.
Description:
GOAL OVERVIEW
Clear, consistent, and timely information about FSA’s mission, objectives, and services to stakeholders enables FSA to be the most trusted source of information on federal funding of postsecondary education. FSA has built a rich database of Title IV-related information and is aware of the potential of this data to inform discussion and improve student outcomes.
FSA understands that different stakeholders have different needs, interests, and familiarity with federal financial aid programs. Through the dissemination of useful information through general channels meant to support transparency initiatives, such as the FSA Data Center, as well as through structured reports, such as upcoming reporting on customer complaints, FSA will provide significant value to stakeholders seeking a consistent and accurate understanding of the contours of the higher education environment.
FSA currently releases a variety of financial aid information and data on a quarterly basis on the FSA Data Center. This goal commits FSA to add new and important information and data that will increase the general public’s understanding of the federal student aid programs. The information and data will take the form of reports or datasets related to one or more of the following categories:
- Student Aid Data, including information on income-driven repayment plans, the Federal student loan portfolio, aid eligibility and applications, default, and forgiveness,
- School Data, including information on school eligibility and participation as well as school compliance,
- Servicer Data, and
- Ad Hoc Studies and Reports.
KEY BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES
In the process of achieving this goal, FSA will need to ensure adherence to applicable privacy and confidentiality laws and regulations relevant to the publication of new information and data elements. FSA is committed to ensuring that the privacy and confidentiality of student data is protected, and will leverage the robust data review and governance processes within its Enterprise Data Office to ensure that information provided adheres to applicable guidance.
EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
External stakeholders for this include:
- Taxpayers, who may be interested in better understanding the work performed by FSA,
- Prospective students and their families,
- Researchers, advocates, and members of the media, who may use the new information to inform their own work, and
- Schools and other participants in the system of higher education, who may use the data to improve processes and create better outcomes for students and borrowers,
- Policy makers, including members of Congress.
Agency Priority Goal:
Statement:
Increase attainment of college degrees by improving affordability, access, and student outcomes. By September 30, 2017, 48.4 percent of adults ages 25-34 will have an associate degree or higher.
Description:
GOAL OVERVIEW
Dramatically boosting completion rates for postsecondary certificates and degrees is essential for the United States to successfully compete in a global economy. The President set a goal in 2009 that, by 2020, the U.S. will have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world. Meeting this goal will require millions of additional Americans to earn a postsecondary degree by the end of this decade—a 50 percent increase in the college attainment rate nationwide. The Department of Education (ED) is implementing new initiatives from the President’s Value and Affordability Agenda to help increase the college attainment rate, and has proposed several new programs which, if enacted and/or funded, will significantly accelerate progress toward the goal.
Starting from a baseline college degree attainment rate of 44.0 percent in 2012, to reach the President’s goal in 2020, ED set targets projecting the annual increase to grow progressively each year above the four-year historical average of 0.7 percentage points: 0.7, 0.9, 1.2, 1.6, 2.1, 2.8, 3.2, and 3.5. This variation in annual increase reflects the fact that, at the time targets were set, we had few programs that directly impacted the attainment rate, and the impact of newly proposed programs would take several years to play out if funded. Since the data for any given year are reported in the following year, the growth will lead to 60% of all Americans having an associate’s degree or higher (as reported in 2021, which will reflect 2020 data; note that certificates are not included since the U.S. currently is not able to measure attainment of certificates in the population).
To meet annual targets, by September 30, 2016, 46.8% of adults ages 25-34 will have an associate’s degree or higher, which will keep the nation on track to reach the President’s goal of 60% attainment by 2020. The President’s focus on the educational attainment among ages 25-34 allows us to assess progress in preparing the next generation of U.S. workers and to benchmark for international comparisons. Nonetheless, college completion for all ages is important, including unemployed, under-skilled and older workers, veterans and other underrepresented student categories.
KEY BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES
Success will depend in large part on the extent to which states reinvest in higher education and on whether both states and institutions (a) implement policies and programs to increase college access and success, (b) reduce costs and time to completion, (c) support accelerated learning opportunities, including dual enrollment, (d) develop and adopt effective and innovative practices and reforms that improve student outcomes, and (e) promote seamless transitions from secondary to postsecondary education and among higher education institutions. Despite two years of per-student funding increases nationally, state higher educational appropriations per student are still below 2008 pre-recession levels (down by 15.3 percent as of 2015). Although forty states increased their funding in 2015 over prior-year funding, few are even meeting the levels they funded at the start of the recession; 45 states invested less per student in 2015 than they did in 2008.[1] ED will use its available resources and programs, administrative action, bully pulpit, technical assistance, and ability to convene stakeholders to drive collaboration and best practices, but has limited leverage to influence state policies and institutional practices without new programs that are specifically structured toward this goal, such as the proposed America’s College Promise and College Opportunity and Graduation Bonus programs.
College enrollment rates typically decrease during times of improving economic conditions, as is currently occurring. While increases in high school graduation rates (one of the factors that feed into the attainment rate) are growing, data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that fewer high school graduates are opting for college than they were in 2009—65.9 percent in 2013, 68.4 percent in 2014, and 69.2 percent in 2015, compared with a high point of 70.1 percent in 2009.[2] Total fall enrollment has declined as well, falling by an estimated 3.6 percent in 2015 from an enrollment surge in 2010.[3] This could make it more challenging to achieve the accelerated growth in the college attainment rate that is projected in the annual targets, unless there is a significant increase in the percentage of students who complete their programs of study. In fact, after two years of achieving attainment rate targets, ED missed the 2016 target by 0.3 percentage points—a small amount, but one that hints of the challenge going forward. ED can continue to facilitate college access while incenting and supporting institutions to increase completion rates, but large-scale programs such as those proposed by the Administration will be even more impactful.
EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
Students and their Families, States, Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs), Accrediting Agencies, Businesses, Philanthropy, Not-for-Profit Organizations, and other Federal Departments and Agencies (particularly the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, Labor, Veterans Affairs, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau).
[1] State Higher Education Finance Report 2015, State Higher Education Executive Officers:http://www.sheeo.org/sites/default/files/SHEF_FY15_EMBARGOED_%20PR_04221...
[2] Bureau of Labor Statistics, College Enrollment and Work Activity of High School Graduates News Release, April 22, 2014, April 16, 2015, and April 28, 2016: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/hsgec.htm
[3] National Center for Educational Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics 2015, “Table 303.10. Total fall enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by attendance status, sex of student, and control of institution: Selected years, 1947 through 2025”: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_303.10.asp
Expand All
FY14-15 Agency Priority Goals
An Agency Priority Goal is a near-term result or achievement that agency leadership wants to accomplish within approximately 24 months that relies predominantly on agency implementation as opposed to budget or legislative accomplishments. Click below to see this agency's FY14-15 Priority Goals.
Agency Priority Goal:
Support implementation of college- and career-ready standards and assessments
Statement:
By September 30, 2015, at least 50 states/territories[1] will be implementing next-generation assessments, aligned with college- and career-ready standards.
[1] In addition to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and other territories are candidates for implementing these assessments.
Description:
GOAL OVERVIEW
The adoption of college- and career-ready standards is the foundation to improving educational outcomes for all students and a fundamental step toward meeting the President’s goal of once again having the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020. The college- and career-ready standards must be coupled with high-quality aligned assessments to measure the extent to which students are mastering the standards.
KEY BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES
A key challenge facing the Department of Education (ED) over the next two years relates to the changes States may make to their currently adopted college- and career-ready standards due to changes from state leadership or the state legislature. Another key challenge is supporting states with the implementation of their college- and career-ready aligned assessments for all students, including English Learners, students with disabilities, economically disadvantaged and low-achieving students to ensure that all students are prepared for post-secondary success.
ED is taking steps to address these challenges by developing and targeting technical assistance activities that will, in part, increase state capacity to leverage limited resources and continue to identify promising practices across multiple states. First, ED has released its Title I assessment peer review guidance, which highlights the requirements for a high-quality assessment to help support state assessment development; in FY 2016, ED will begin conducting peer review of state assessment systems, providing examples of promising and best practices in the field. ED will build also library of resources to assist SEAs in full and effective transition to college- and career-ready standards, leveraging work that has occurred during Race to the Top with other partner organizations such as Achieve, Student Achievement Partners, PTA, and others. In addition, ED is working internally to coordinate the provision of technical assistance across OESE, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), and other related offices and programs. ED also funds a Center on Standards and Assessments Implementation (part of the ESEA Comprehensive Centers program) that helps build the capacity of State educational agencies to implement college- and career-ready standards.
ED is taking steps to address these challenges by developing and targeting technical assistance activities that will, in part, increase state capacity to leverage limited resources and continue to identify promising practices across multiple states. First, ED has released its Title I assessment peer review guidance, which highlights the requirements for a high-quality assessment to help support state assessment development; in FY 2016, ED will begin conducting peer review of state assessment systems, providing examples of promising and best practices in the field. ED will build also library of resources to assist SEAs in full and effective transition to college- and career-ready standards, leveraging work that has occurred during Race to the Top with other partner organizations such as Achieve, Student Achievement Partners, PTA, and others. In addition, ED is working internally to coordinate the provision of technical assistance across OESE, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), and other related offices and programs. ED also funds a Center on Standards and Assessments Implementation (part of the ESEA Comprehensive Centers program) that helps build the capacity of State educational agencies to implement college- and career-ready standards
Finally, ED is working with states to provide communication support and technical assistance to help states and LEAs reduce redundant and unaligned local assessments, as well as to help states develop a process and strategy to share state assessment results from 2014-2015 as scores are likely to drop due to increased rigor of the assessments. Among other activities, this includes assisting states in resetting baselines and annual goals related to student performance.
EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
ED consistently engaged with Congress, advocacy organizations, education organizations, State educational agencies and other external stakeholders regarding Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) flexibility, including state plans for transitioning to and implementing college- and career-ready standards. ED has met with stakeholders to provide information on state plans, as well as to enlist external support and technical assistance for states and districts as they move forward with implementing the new standards.
Agency Priority Goal:
Improve learning by ensuring that more students have effective teachers and leaders
Statement:
By September 30, 2015, at least 37 States will have fully implemented teacher and principal evaluation and support systems that consider multiple measures of effectiveness, with student growth as a significant factor.
Description:
GOAL OVERVIEW
The goal is based on the premise, supported by abundant research, that teachers are the single most critical in-school factor in improving student achievement. Principals are often cited as the second most influential in-school factor. Teacher and principal evaluation and support systems supported by the Department of Education's (ED) contributing programs enable the development and identification of effective educators and provide needed information to improve the educator workforce. Teachers and principals often lack meaningful evaluation, feedback, and support for professional growth. Indeed, teachers are often dissatisfied with their preparation programs and their opportunities for professional development and advancement. Too often, effective teachers and leaders are not recognized, rewarded, or asked to share their expertise with colleagues. Most teacher compensation systems do not recognize effectiveness or provide incentives to teach in challenging schools or shortage areas. And race and family income too often predict a child’s access to excellent educators. In light of the importance of teachers and school leadership for student success, the nation has to do more to ensure that every student has an effective teacher, every school has an effective leader, and every teacher and leader has access to the preparation, on-going support, recognition, and collaboration opportunities he or she needs to succeed. ED will help strengthen the profession by focusing on meaningful feedback, support, and incentives at every stage of a career, based on fair evaluation and support systems that look at multiple measures, including, in significant part, growth in student learning. ED will support state and district efforts that provide time for teacher collaboration, personalized on-the-job learning opportunities, and professional advancement. Targets are based on state implementation timelines provided through original Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) flexibility requests. These timelines indicated that 37 states expected to implement the systems by September 30, 2015. “Fully implemented” is defined as the school year in which teachers and principals receive effectiveness ratings. However, as states and districts are moving forward, they are also encountering challenges with implementation of these systems, and are making adjustments to timelines, sequencing, and implementation steps that may not follow their original plans but will ultimately result in high-quality teacher and principal evaluation and support systems.
KEY BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES
ED will support states in the development and adoption of state requirements for comprehensive teacher and principal evaluation and support systems and in district development and implementation of comprehensive educator evaluation and support systems. Providing additional support to teachers and principals, as well as educator evaluators regarding these new evaluation and support systems is necessary so they are able, for example, to use and develop learning objectives to measure growth in student learning and to implement new classroom observation tools. However, providing this level of support is also resource-intense at both the state educational agency (SEA) and local educational agency (LEA) level. Additional challenges center on maintaining momentum for reform, given districts’ and states’ current political situations, potential changes in leadership, ongoing development of valid and reliable measures of growth in student learning in non-tested grades and subjects, and the scaling up of systems in a relatively short time frame.
EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
Engagement of external stakeholders is regular and ongoing. Program staff have regular contact with SEA staff through monitoring, technical assistance, and other outreach. Policy and program staff regularly hold calls and travel to the Hill to brief member and committee staff. ED has also engaged with and provided briefings for key external educational organizations, including the Council of Chief State School Officers, the National Governors Association, National Education Association, and American Federation of Teachers. Ongoing outreach further involves a wide range of professional and content organizations, national community-based organizations, and foundations.
Agency Priority Goal:
Statement:
By September 30, 2015, at least 9 states will be collecting and reporting disaggregated data on the status of children at Kindergarten entry using a common measure.
Description:
GOAL OVERVIEW
Kindergarten entry assessments (KEAs), when properly designed, can be used to inform professional development to improve the early learning workforce, be included in a State’s comprehensive early learning assessment system, and improve student achievement and program effectiveness. KEAs can inform instruction and support students’ educational success by identifying the early learning needs of each child. They provide an opportunity for teachers and families to understand the status of children when they enter Kindergarten and policy makers to decide if there is a greater need to invest in high-quality early learning programs to ensure children enter school prepared for success.
KEY BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES
Assessment in early learning is new and untested. Many States are starting from scratch developing valid and reliable measures for KEAs. Constructing and testing these instruments and implementing them across every school in the State will be challenging and will take time. In addition, states will need to ensure that the KEAs are implemented in a balanced way that does not result in the loss of a significant amount of instructional time. Additionally, two of the three Enhanced Assessment Grants (EAG) grantees that are consortia may experience challenges coordinating across states due to differences in their policies and procedures. Preschool Development Gants (PDG) States are required to report on the status of children in kindergarten served by the grants in the high-need communities, but they are not required to use a KEA, and funding may be a challenge. The U.S. Department of Education (ED), along with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is working with these grantees to minimize these coordination challenges.
EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
ED regularly engages external early learning stakeholders, with specific attention to HHS and Congress.
Agency Priority Goal:
Statement:
We will measure the overall college attainment goal, and the effectiveness of the college value and affordability initiatives that foster higher attainment rates, by focusing on the critical 25-34 year old cohort. By September 30, 2015, 45.6% of adults ages 25-34 will have an associate’s degree or higher, which will place the nation on track to reach the President’s goal of 60% attainment by 2020.
Description:
GOAL OVERVIEW
Dramatically boosting completion rates for postsecondary certificates and degrees is essential for the United States to successfully compete in a global economy. The President set a goal in 2009 that, by 2020, the U.S. will have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world. Meeting this goal will require millions of additional Americans to earn a postsecondary degree by the end of this decade—a 50 percent increase nationwide. New initiatives from the President’s College Value and Affordability Agenda are being implemented to help increase the college attainment rate, and the Department has proposed several new programs which, if funded, will significantly accelerate progress toward the goal. Starting from a baseline college degree attainment rate of 44.0 percent in 2012, we set annual targets projecting the annual increase to grow progressively each year above the four-year historical average of 0.7 percentage points: 0.7, 0.9, 1.2, 1.6, 2.1, 2.8, 3.2, and 3.5. (The curve reflects the results of the intensified efforts, which have a future impact given the length of postsecondary programs.) Since the data for any given year are reported in the following year, the growth will lead to 60% of all Americans having an associate’s degree or higher (as reported in 2021, reflecting 2020 data; note that certificates are not included since the U.S. does not currently have a way to measure attainment of certificates in the population). The 45.6% rate in 2015 represents two years of growth from the baseline.
The President’s focus on educational attainment of American between the ages of 25-34 allows us to assess progress in preparing the next generation of U.S. workers and to benchmark for international comparisons. Nonetheless, college completion for all ages is important, including unemployed, under-skilled and older workers, veterans and other underrepresented student categories.
KEY BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES
Success will depend in large part on the extent to which states reinvest in higher education and on whether both states and institutions (a) implement policies and programs to increase college access and success, (b) reduce costs and time to completion, (c) support accelerated learning opportunities, including dual enrollment, (d) develop and adopt effective and innovative practices that improve student outcomes, and (e) promote seamless transitions from secondary to postsecondary education and among higher education institutions. The Department will use its available resources and programs, administrative action, bully pulpit, technical assistance, and ability to convene stakeholders to drive collaboration and best practices, but has limited leverage to influence state policies and institutional practices without new programs that are specifically structured toward this goal.
EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
States, Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs), Students and their Families, Businesses, Philanthropy, Not-for-profit Organizations, and other Federal Departments and Agencies.
Agency Priority Goal:
Statement:
By Sept. 30, 2015, the number of high schools with persistently low graduation rates[1] will decrease by 5 percent annually. The national high school graduation rate will increase to 83 percent, as measured by the Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate, and disparities in the national high school graduation rate among minority students, students with disabilities, English learners, and students in poverty will decrease.
[1] Consistent with the ESEA Flexibility definition, persistently low graduation rate is defined as a less than 60 percent graduation rate. Persistently low graduation rate high schools are defined as regular and vocational high schools with an average minimum cohort size of 65 or more, and an average ACGR of 60 percent or less over two years.
Description:
GOAL OVERVIEW
Through Race to the Top (RTT), the School Improvement Grant (SIG) program, Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) flexibility, and other federal programs, the Department of Education (ED) is providing significant resources to dramatically improve the nation’s lowest-achieving schools by using intensive turnaround models and identifying the low-achieving schools that are showing strong evidence of successfully turning around. ED is focused on supporting innovation, not just compliance monitoring, and is focused on spurring growth in achievement, not just absolute achievement measures as done in the past.
Increasing the national high school graduation rate and decreasing disparities in the graduation rate is critical to achieving the President’s goal of once again having the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020. The nation has made significant progress in increasing graduation rates, but gaps between rates for different student groups continue to persist.
KEY BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES
ED is working to support states and districts in raising high school graduation rates through a number of initiatives, including ESEA flexibility, SIG, RTT, and the High School Graduation Initiative. One key challenge will be to coordinate these multiple programs and ensure that states and districts implement coordinated efforts to increase graduation rates, rather than working through siloed funding streams. An additional challenge is providing differentiated support to states based on their current status and progress in increasing graduation rates. While all states have room for improvement, some states are farther behind than others in graduation rates, particularly for different subgroups of students. ED has addressed one major barrier, which was the incomparability of graduation rate data across states. All states are now required to use an adjusted cohort graduation rate, and ED is reporting these data at the state, district, and school level. However, differences in how states define a regular high school diploma, and other technical features of their calculations, continue to make comparisons challenging.
Key barriers and challenges include:
- Sustainability of reforms in schools as SIG grants end;
- Capacity challenges at state, district, and school level mean some intervention challenges persist;
- Insufficient focus on comprehensive turnaround efforts at the state and district level beyond only the SIG program;
- Ensuring alignment between SIG, Race to the Top, ESEA flexibility, and other programs and initiatives; and
- Lack of quality and completeness data/knowledge allows others to define success.
EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
ED works closely with stakeholder groups that are focused on increasing graduation rates, including CCSSO, CGCS, the Alliance for Excellent Education, the Education Trust, and Jobs for the Future. ED frequently engages these stakeholders on policy development, such as developing new SIG guidance, ESEA flexibility guidance, and High School Redesign.
Agency Priority Goal:
Statement:
By September 30, 2015, the percentage of select new[1] (non-continuation) competitive grant dollars that reward evidence will increase by 70%.
[1] “New competitive grant dollars that reward evidence” includes all dollars awarded based on the existence of at least “evidence of promise” in support of a project, per the framework in the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (34 CFR Part 75). Consideration of such evidence appears through: eligibility threshold (e.g., in the Investing in Innovation program); absolute priority; competitive priority (earning at least one point for it); or selection criteria (earning at least one point for it). The percentage is calculated compared to the total new grant dollars awarded.
Description:
GOAL OVERVIEW
Through its mix of grants, contracts, and internal analytic work, the Department of Education (ED) will support the use of research methods and rigorous study designs that provide evidence that is as robust as possible and fit for the purpose. This goal will track whether ED is increasing its internal capacity to make competitive grant awards based on the existence of (and amount of) evidence in support of projects, where appropriate.
KEY BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES
The process to collect data and track progress against the goal is still under development, and using evidence to award competitive grants entails a shift in culture and capacity building across ED to do it well. Additionally, goal targets are based on reasonable projections about which competitive grant programs may make new awards in this fiscal year, but the actual dollar amount awarded will depend on final appropriations amounts and other funding decisions and trade-offs. Grantees vary in their comfort with and understanding of evaluation and use of evidence, yet ED has limited resources to support grantees in conducting rigorous evaluations that would produce evidence of effectiveness.
EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
There is an increasing emphasis among stakeholders on the importance of using evidence to support government program funding decisions, and ED regularly engages the field on this topic. A number of outside organizations have convened experts to discuss how to encourage such decisions. In addition, philanthropic and congressional actors prioritized using evidence to support decision-making and have encouraged the field to do the same. Finally, ED has worked with the National Science Foundation to develop a common evidence framework around which to organize research investments and grants. Indeed, ED is considered a leader on the issue among federal agencies, and external groups are eager for ED to deepen and broaden its efforts.
