Performance Details

Goal 2: Improve Student Achievement

Reading is an act
of liberation.
It breaks the bonds of
ignorance, frees the mind,
enlarges our intellectual
horizons,and enhances
our personal growth.
—Secretary Rod Paige
Goal 2:
Improve Student Achievement

The Department’s primary role is to ensure that every and guidance through the Teacher Assistance Corps
child in this country receives a quality education. Our (TAC), flexibility through various policy clarifications,
most recent national markers of student achievement and support and outreach through the TAC supported
show there is much work to be done. Many elementary states in meeting high quality teacher requirements.
school children still lack proficiency in reading and
In 2004, President Bush set a new national goal for
mathematics, and many secondary students begin high
improving high school student achievement: every
school but do not finish. Children of high-poverty
high school student graduates and is ready for the
neighborhoods struggle to overcome the limits of low-
workplace or college.
performing schools. All children seeking knowledge
and success look to education for improving their In 2004, the Department added a new dimension to
opportunities. the Goal 2 agenda for student achievement:
international education. Our newest objective is to
To improve education for all students, the Department
improve our students’ knowledge of world languages,
continues to use the school reform tools provided in
regions, and international issues and to build
the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. One of the
international ties in the field of education.
major supports for reform is the $12.3 billion provided
to states and their school districts through Title I of the Department Expenditures
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

No Child Left Behind specifically identifies early, A P P R O X I M AT E F Y 2 0 0 4 E X P E N D I T U R E S

T H AT S U P P O R T E D G O A L 2
evidence-based reading instruction as the education
intervention with the greatest potential for improving
student achievement. The billion-dollar Reading First Other Goals
Program has provided formula grant funds to all states 48.6% Goal 2
in support of research-based reading programs for 51.4%
kindergarten through third grade.

Although reading is the threshold to successful

learning, No Child Left Behind also recognizes the
importance of mathematics and science as crucial
disciplines that must be mastered for lifelong success. Early Literacy Builds the Foundation for
The Congress funded the Mathematics and Science Academic Success
Partnership Program at $149 million to allow for
States unanimously endorsed the No Child Left Behind
formula grant funds to all states.
goal of all children reading on grade level by the end of
The Improving Teacher Quality State Grant Program third grade. All states identified early reading/language
of No Child Left Behind expanded the focus on arts standards, and aligned curricula and instruction to
teacher quality from primarily science and mathematics the standards. By the end of fiscal year (FY) 2003,
teachers to teachers of all core academic subjects and 53 states and jurisdictions had submitted plans for
required that they meet the law’s definition of highly research-based reading programs for kindergarten
qualified by end of school year (SY) 2005–06. The through third grade and, after peer-review and approval,
Department’s efforts in providing technical assistance received Reading First formula grants.

FY 2004 Performance and Accountability Report - U.S. Department of Education 49

 PERFORMANCE DETAILS Goal 2: Improve Student Achievement

Reading First. To sustain improved student continues to support the implementation and
achievement in reading/language arts, the Department evaluation of other No Child Left Behind programs
continues to offer technical assistance and funding for that complement the goals of Reading First—the Early
the implementation of Reading First, the single largest Childhood Educator Professional Development
state formula grant program dedicated to helping states Program and Early Reading First—by supporting local
and local school districts establish high-quality, efforts to enhance the early language, literacy, and
comprehensive reading instruction for all children in prereading development of preschool-aged children
kindergarten through third grade. The Department has through strategies based on scientifically based reading
contracted to provide technical assistance to local research. Since 2001, 24 local Early Childhood
educational agencies that did not receive Reading First Educator Professional Development projects have been
grants to replicate effective practices developed through funded, and an additional 8 projects were added in
Reading First grants. Reading First funds, distributed to 2004. To date, the Department has awarded two
states in FY 2003 and FY 2004, have been used to train cycles of Early Reading First grants, funding 62
45,000 teachers in evidence-based reading instruction; programs nationwide. The first cohort has been
districts that did not receive Reading First funds will operating for 1.5 years, and the first performance
have assistance in offering similar training opportunities reports will provide outcome data in spring 2005. The
to their teachers. Because the programs and practices Department published performance measures to clarify
that Reading First supports are based on solid scientific expected outcomes and provided grantees with the
research, they have the potential over time to improve technical assistance of an evaluation expert to improve
student reading achievement. the design and instrumentation for their local
evaluations. The Department also fielded a team of
The Department awarded a contract to convene a
early childhood education experts to visit 30 new
National Literacy Panel charged with conducting a
grantees to observe how the grantees were using
comprehensive, evidence-based review of the research
scientifically based research to inform their programs.
literature on the development of literacy among
The visits resulted in recommendations for future
language-minority children. The panel’s 2004 report,
technical assistance, which will include the distribution
due this fall, complements the work of the National
of a CD-ROM and accompanying booklet that provide
Reading Panel, and is intended to provide clear,
examples of scientifically based strategies for early
evidence-based conclusions and recommendations for
reading in a preschool program.
practitioners concerned with the education of language-
minority children and youth on the relationship Performance Goals. The Department set targets for
between first-language literacy and English literacy, student achievement based on the percentage of states
literacy development, effective instruction, and that meet their state-determined student proficiency
assessment.1 targets on third-grade standards-based reading
assessments. No Child Left Behind requires that all
The Department, in late 2004, will undertake the
states administer third-grade standards-based reading
Reading First Impact Study to assess the impact of the
assessments by 2005–06. Until 2005–06, we base our
Reading First Program on student reading achievement.
progress on those states that have such assessments in
The study, which will use a quasi-experimental design
place. For 2002–03, more than half the states had
that compares Reading First and non-Reading First
these assessments in place three years ahead of the
schools, will produce its first report in 2005.
required schedule. Based on data from 24 states with
Early Childhood Education. The Department assessments, the Department met some but not all of
1
Additional information is available at: http://www.cal.org/natl-lit-panel/reports/.

50 FY 2004 Performance and Accountability Report - U.S. Department of Education

Goal 2: Improve Student Achievement PERFORMANCE DETAILS

our targets for this measure. We exceeded our target The Department’s progress on our performance goals
for the percentage of states that met their respective for this objective is summarized in the table below.
targets for students in the aggregate, as all states met See p. 29 for methodology and appendix A, p. 200, for
their respective targets. detailed data.

The Department also set targets for the percentage of Reading Achievement
states that met their respective targets for reading (Objective 2.1)
achievement of various subgroups of students. Performance Goals Status Year
Although 20 of the 24 states that reported third-grade States meeting targets for third-grade Exceeded FY 2003
reading assessments in 2002–03 met their targets for reading achievement
• All students
some subgroups of students, most states struggled to
States meeting targets for third-grade Did not FY 2003
meet targets for limited English proficient students and reading achievement meet
for students with disabilities. In 2004, the nation’s • Low-income students
public schools served 4.1 million limited English • African American students
• Hispanic students
proficient students, some in states with students • Students with disabilities
representing more than 100 languages. Approximately • Limited English proficient students

eight states met their targets for students with

disabilities, despite challenges inherent in testing this Mathematics and Science Proficiency
subgroup of students. Although some states met their Prepares Students for a Technological
targets for all subgroups of students, the Department Society
did not meet national targets for the number of states No Child Left Behind requires that state science
meeting their targets for any of the subgroups: low standards be in place by SY 2005–06 and that states
income, African American, Hispanic, students with report results on science assessments beginning no later
disabilities, and limited English proficient students. than the 2007–08 school year. Assessments are
No Child Left Behind requires that state targets for all required at least once in grades 3 through 5, 6 through
students and for subgroups increase at least every three 9, and 10 through 12. The science assessment deadline
years through SY 2013–14, when 100 percent of all is welcomed by educators to complement assessments
students within all subgroups are expected to achieve in reading and mathematics. In a 2004 survey of
proficiency. This provision of the law sets the bar for 1,000 kindergarten through fifth-grade teachers, the
state action; each state must find strategies that teachers, regardless of region of the country or type of
accelerate the pace of improved student achievement school, reported that they are three times more likely
to make up for any failures to meet the yearly targets. to teach English (95 percent) and math (93 percent)
every day than they are to teach science (35 percent)
To measure student achievement, the Department uses
and social studies (33 percent) daily. Roughly one-
both state assessment data and National Assessment of
third (29 percent) say they teach science twice a week
Educational Progress (NAEP) test results. NAEP
or less.2 Increasing accountability for achievement in
fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics tests
science is likely to increase the level of science
are administered every other year and were given last
instruction.
in 2003. NAEP 2002–03 test results, which showed
significant improvements in fourth-grade reading No Child Left Behind makes special provisions for
student achievement, were reported in our FY 2003 improving academic achievement of students in science
Performance and Accountability Report. and mathematics through the Mathematics and Science

2
Data are available at http://www.bayerus.com.

FY 2004 Performance and Accountability Report - U.S. Department of Education 51

 PERFORMANCE DETAILS Goal 2: Improve Student Achievement

Partnerships Program. Funded at $12.5 million in

FY 2002, this program was increased in FY 2004 to
more than $149 million to bolster states’ capacity to
improve science and mathematics teaching.
Partnership grant funds encourage institutions of
higher education to assume greater responsibility for
improving teacher education through lifelong learning;
for bringing mathematics and science teachers together
with scientists, mathematicians, and engineers to
increase teachers’ subject matter knowledge and
improve their teaching skills through the use of
sophisticated laboratory equipment and work space;
and for developing more rigorous mathematics and
science curricula aligned with challenging state and
local academic content standards. The Department set
baselines in 2004 for the number of secondary
mathematics and science teachers in schools
participating in Mathematics and Science Partnership
programs who become highly qualified upon
completion and will measure increases in future years.

Performance Goals. The Department determines

success in meeting its goal for improving students’
mathematics and science performance in part by
reporting on student scores on the eighth-grade NAEP
tests. NAEP eighth-grade average mathematics scores however, subgroups of students did not perform as well
were higher in 2003 than in 2000, 1996, and 1990; as the aggregate of students. For the five subgroups of
NAEP scores were reported in our FY 2003 Performance students the Department reports (African American,
and Accountability Report. The next NAEP assessment of Hispanic, low income, students with disabilities, and
eighth-grade mathematics will be in 2005. those with limited English proficiency), a range of 5 to
38 states met their targets, depending on the specific
A second measure of achievement is state success in
subgroup and middle school grade that was tested. The
meeting middle school state assessment targets in
Department did not meet our national target of
mathematics. Similar to our targets in reading (see
87 percent of states meeting their subgroup targets.
pp. 50–51), our mathematics achievement targets are
based on the percentage of states that meet their To improve middle school students’ achievement in
respective targets for mathematics achievement for mathematics, especially the achievement of students in
students in the aggregate and for students in each high-poverty schools, the Department’s Mathematics
subgroup. Student achievement on state mathematics and Science Partnership Program staff and Title I staff
assessments allowed all states to meet their targets for are creating a strategic plan for kindergarten through
the aggregate of students; thus, the Department grade eight mathematics instruction. The plan calls for
exceeded our national target of 87 percent. When regional meetings among mathematics teachers and
states disaggregated data on mathematics assessments, researchers that will result in a consensus on the status
of mathematics instruction, an identification of research
52 FY 2004 Performance and Accountability Report - U.S. Department of Education
Goal 2: Improve Student Achievement PERFORMANCE DETAILS

in the field, and recognition of best practices. The High School Graduation Rates. For our high
Title I community will be used to disperse information school completion measure, the Department uses
to states and schools. In addition, the Mathematics and Bureau of the Census and Common Core of Data
Science Partnerships Program continues to encourage information to calculate the proportion of 18- through
grantees to target middle grades mathematics as the 24-year-olds who have left high school and earned a
focus for partnership resources. high school diploma or the equivalent, including a
General Education Development credential. From
The Department’s progress on our performance goals
these calculations, we determined a 2002 rate of
for this objective is summarized in the table below.
86 percent.
See p. 29 for methodology and appendix A, p. 201, for
detailed data. Two research reports suggested different measures of
accounting for dropouts that produced a more
Mathematics Achievement pessimistic view of the number of dropouts.3 These
(Objective 2.2)
research reports, and findings from other studies, have
Performance Goals Status Year compelled the Department to find a solution to the
States meeting targets for middle Exceeded FY 2003
disparate ways states report dropout and completion
school mathematics achievement
• All students rates. In an attempt to understand the depth and
States meeting targets for middle Did not FY 2003 breadth of this problem, the Department issued a
school mathematics achievement meet federal grant in 2004 to the National Institute of
• Low-income students Statistical Sciences to convene a national panel of
• African American students
• Hispanic students experts that will make recommendations about which
• Students with disabilities indicators are best suited for studying various issues
• Limited English proficient students
related to completing and dropping out of high school.
The nine-person group will attempt to bring much
High Schools Prepare Graduates Ready
for Work or College needed consistency to the methods that states use in
producing critical indicators of school performance.
President Bush’s announcement in 2004 of a national
The report this panel is producing will be completed in
goal that every high school student will graduate and
late 2004. Results will be used to refine future
be ready for the workplace or college was met with
reporting on our high school completion measure.
enthusiasm and promises of cooperation from all
elements of the education community. The Council of High school policy-makers want to know that
the Great City Schools, the Council of Chief State graduation statistics are comparable, but their more
School Officers, the National Association of Secondary challenging goal is to ensure that all students graduate.
School Principals, and the High School Alliance Secretary Paige has charged the Department’s expert
pledged to partner with the Department in high school panel on this subject to “focus our efforts on helping
reform. In a show of support, the National Governors students graduate from high school… and to look at
Association will spend 2005 focused on generating the varying definitions, standards and tracking systems
ideas for improving high schools. The governors throughout the country to gain a better understanding
intend to find ways to avert “senioritis” and the host of of the problem so that we can tackle it head-on.”
other maladies that cause some high school students to
drop out and others to perform poorly.

3
The Urban Institute’s report is available at http://www.urban.org/Template.cfm?Section=ByTopic&NavMenuID=62&template=/; Locating the Dropout Crisis, the report
prepared by the Center for Social Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins University, is available at http://www.csos.jhu.edu/news.htm.

FY 2004 Performance and Accountability Report - U.S. Department of Education 53

 PERFORMANCE DETAILS Goal 2: Improve Student Achievement

High School Student Achievement Challenges. core recommended high school courses (four years of
When we ask how well prepared our high school English and three years each of mathematics, science,
students are on their way to graduation, we encounter and social studies) are more likely to be ready for
good news and bad news. Data show, for example, college-level work than are students who do not take
that since the early 1980s, when states began to the core. But students who take rigorous courses
increase the number of required courses to receive a beyond the recommended minimum number of core
high school diploma, the percentage of high school courses are even more likely to be ready for college.
graduates completing advanced course work in core Students whose beyond-core coursework includes
subjects (mathematics, science, English, and foreign courses in advanced mathematics beyond Algebra II
language) has increased.4 (such as Trigonometry), as well as Biology, Chemistry,
and Physics, are likeliest of all to be college ready.”6
C O UR S E - TA K I N G L E V E L S O V E R T I M E ACT observations apply to students at all levels of
70% achievement, not just the high achievers. Another
60% study shows that nearly one-third of college freshmen
50%
in 2002 were taking one remedial class.7 As Secretary
40%
Paige observed: “Our high school system is not serving
30%
some kids well. Our wide and sometimes growing
20%
10%
achievement gap confirms that we live with a two-
0% tiered educational system. The vast majority of
1982 1992 2000 1982 1992 2000 students left behind are disadvantaged or low-income.
Mathematics Science
By the time they reach twelfth grade, only one in six
70% Advanced Level III
Advanced Level II African Americans and one in five Hispanics can read
60%
Advanced Level I proficiently. Math scores are even worse: only three
50%
40% percent of African American and four percent of
30% Hispanic students are testing at the proficient level.”8
20%
Department Initiatives. The Department responded
10%
0%
to research reports and the President’s call for high
1982 1992 2000 1982 1992 2000 school reform by launching the 2004 Preparing
English Foreign Language
America’s Future: High School Initiative. The
Source. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Department’s Office of Vocational and Adult
The Condition of Education 2004 (NCES 2004–077).
Education, charged with designing and implementing
Even with increasing participation in advanced course the initiative, hosted a leadership summit and unveiled
work, recent data collected by ACT from ACT-tested three Department goals to the 700 state leaders in
high school graduates support the conclusion that too attendance:
few students are prepared to enter the workforce or • Equip state and local education leaders with
postsecondary education without additional training or current knowledge about high schools through
remediation when they graduate from high school.5 special forums, print and electronic materials, and
The ACT data showed that “students who take the targeted technical assistance.

4
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education 2004 (NCES 2004–077).
5
The study is available at http://www.act.org/path/policy/pdf/crisis_report.pdf.
6
Ibid.
7
John Cloud, Who’s Ready for College? Time 160:16 (October 2002), 61–2.
8
The speech is available at http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/2003/10/10082003.html.

54 FY 2004 Performance and Accountability Report - U.S. Department of Education

Goal 2: Improve Student Achievement PERFORMANCE DETAILS

• Develop the expertise and structures within the their achievement. The Department’s Incentive
Department of Education to provide effective Program provides funds for AP or IB teacher training,
technical assistance. for promoting online advanced level course taking, and
• Facilitate a national dialogue to raise awareness for developing pre-advanced level courses. The Test
about the need for significant high school reform. Fee Program funds low-income students’ exam fees for
Seven regional high school summits were held during either AP or IB exams. Fifteen of 30 AP Test Fee awards
the year to help the 44 participating state teams create made to state educational agencies in 2003 paid for low-
short- and long-term plans for strengthening high income students to take IB exams as well as AP exams.
school outcomes. Summit evaluations reflected that Approximately 550 teachers and 370,000 students are
high school reform is an important issue in 85 percent benefiting from the Advanced Placement Incentive
of states; approximately 25 states indicated that they grants awarded in FY 2002 and 2003; 11 additional
would replicate the regional summits to expand the awards were made in 2004.
dialogue around high school improvement at the state The Department’s measure of student participation in
level. rigorous coursework at the high school level is the
Advanced Placement and International number of Advanced Placement exams taken by low-
Baccalaureate Programs. The Advanced Placement income students annually. Since the program’s inception
Incentive Program and the Advanced Placement Test in 1998, the number of exams taken by these students
Fee Program are intended to increase access for low- has grown from 92,570 in 1999 to 166,649 in 2003.
income students to advanced-level classes offered State Scholars Initiative. The State Scholars
through either the College Board’s Advanced Initiative is designed to increase the percentage of high
Placement (AP) program or the International school students who have the solid academic
Baccalaureate (IB) program. The AP and IB programs foundation to succeed in postsecondary education and
are nationally recognized ways to immerse high school in an increasingly dynamic labor market.
students in rigorous curricula as a means of increasing

FY 2004 Performance and Accountability Report - U.S. Department of Education 55

 PERFORMANCE DETAILS Goal 2: Improve Student Achievement

The Center for State Scholars was established in and law, public safety, and security. The new program,
August 2002 through a cooperative agreement between launched in 2002, is collecting performance data,
the Texas Center for State Scholars and the which we will have available in 2005 to compare to the
Department’s Office of Vocational and Adult model partnership site baseline data.
Education. The Department has awarded $4.8 million
Report on Achievement of Secondary School
to the center to assist states in establishing business
Students with Disabilities. Changes Over Time in the
and education partnerships that will encourage more
Secondary School Programs of Students with Disabilities,9
students to complete the rigorous course of academic
funded by the Department’s Office of Special
study needed for success in postsecondary education
Education Programs and published in 2004, describes a
and training.
comparison between nationally representative samples
To date, 12 states are receiving support under the of 15- to 17-year-olds receiving special education
initiative. The following examples illustrate what can services in 1987 (cohort 1) and 2001 (cohort 2). The
be accomplished under the State Scholars program: report noted that children with disabilities were
• In northeast Tennessee, the Appalachian Inter- making significant progress in meeting the goals of the
Mountain Scholars Program has been operating for Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
nearly 10 years. In 1994, only 11 percent of the Furthermore, students with disabilities were
high school students in three counties enrolled in demonstrating the following gains:
the Scholars course of study. Last year, that
• Those students in cohort 2 were much more likely
percentage had tripled to 33 percent.
than their cohort 1 counterparts to be taking core
• In Arkansas, the Scholars course of study has been academic courses, including mathematics, science,
implemented in 140 school districts. Between social studies, and foreign languages.
1990 and 2000, the percentage of Arkansas high
• Increasingly, those students who were taking
school graduates completing higher-level courses
academic courses were doing so in general
in geometry rose from 60 percent to 88 percent, in
education classes along with their non-disabled
chemistry from 33 percent to 66 percent, and in
peers.
physics from 13 percent to 33 percent.
• Cohort 2 students were increasing likely to be
• In Oklahoma, during SY 2003–04, the initiative
attending schools that had policies of providing
selected six pilot school districts to encourage
general education teachers who had students with
10,000 eighth graders in six counties to complete
disabilities in their classes with inservice training
the Oklahoma Scholars Course of Study.
on the needs of such students, a classroom aide for
College and Career Transitions Initiative. The the teacher or for the individual student with a
College and Career Transitions Initiative supports disability, a smaller class, or special equipment or
education and business and industry partnerships to materials to increase the students’ chances of
succeeding in those classes.
establish career pathways that consist of a coherent
sequence of rigorous academic and career courses that Evaluation of Vocational Education. Any
begin in high school and culminate with a discussion of high school reform efforts must include a
postsecondary credential. To date, grants have been discussion of the Department’s funding of vocational
awarded to 15 model partnerships; all sites have education. In 1917, the federal government began its
developed pathways in one of five areas of support of vocational education with the passage of the
occupational concentration: health sciences; Smith-Hughes Act. Currently, nearly half of all high
information technology; education and training; school students and about one-third of college students
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics; are involved in vocational programs as a major part of
9
The report is available at http://www.nlts2.org/reports/changestime_report.html.

56 FY 2004 Performance and Accountability Report - U.S. Department of Education

Goal 2: Improve Student Achievement PERFORMANCE DETAILS

their peers in the past. In fact, students who take

both a strong academic curriculum and a
vocational program of study—still only 13 percent
of high school graduates—may have better
outcomes than those who pursued one or the
other.
• While positive change is certainly happening at
the high school level, secondary vocational
education itself is not likely to be a widely
effective strategy for improving academic
achievement or college attendance without
substantial modifications to policy, curriculum, and
teacher training. The current legislative approach
of encouraging “integration” as a way to move
secondary vocational education toward supporting
academics has been slow to produce significant
reforms.
their studies. Federal efforts to improve the quality The study also observed that in large part, the pace
and availability of vocational programs were articulated and path of improvement are hampered by a lack of
in 1998 in the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and clarity over the program’s fundamental purpose and
Technical Education Act (Perkins III). States receiving goal. Perkins III offers a diffusive picture of federal
these funds allocated approximately 63 percent of priorities for vocational education improvement—
Perkins funds to high school programs in 2003. academic achievement, technical skills, high school
As policy-makers begin to consider further changes in completion, postsecondary enrollment and degree
law—in anticipation of reauthorization scheduled for completion, and employment and earnings. Without a
2005—they are examining vocational education as a clearer focus for the federal investment—about five
field in transition, prompted by sweeping changes in percent of total spending—around which to rally the
federal, state, and local education and training commitment and efforts of vocational teachers,
priorities. To provide information that will enable new counselors, and administrators, ongoing program
policy responsive to current conditions, the Congress progress in any particular direction is less certain. The
mandated a National Assessment of Vocational final National Assessment of Vocational Education
Education. The assessment findings include the report was designed to contribute to that discussion by
following: providing the most up-to-date and comprehensive
assessment of vocational education in the United
• Vocational education has important short- and
medium-term earning benefits for most students at States and of the effects of the Carl D. Perkins
both the secondary and postsecondary levels, and Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998.10
these benefits extend to those who are
Department Proposal for Vocational Education.
economically disadvantaged.
The Perkins Act continues to be on the congressional
• Over the last decade of academic reforms, agenda for reauthorization. The Administration has
secondary students who participate in vocational
proposed a new Secondary and Technical Education
programs have increased their academic course
State Grant Program that would extend the
taking and achievement, making them better
prepared for both college and careers than were achievement and accountability goals of Title I of the
10
The report is available at http://www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html and http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/sectech/nave/reports.html.

FY 2004 Performance and Accountability Report - U.S. Department of Education 57

 PERFORMANCE DETAILS Goal 2: Improve Student Achievement

Elementary and Secondary Act as reauthorized in No High School Achievement

Child Left Behind by requiring states and school (Objective 2.3)
districts to focus more intensively on improving
Performance Goals Status Year
student outcomes. States would have to demonstrate States meeting targets for high school Exceeded FY 2003
increases in academic achievement and workplace reading assessments
• All students
preparedness. The Administration’s proposal, released
States meeting targets for high school Did not FY 2003
in April 2004, would also require these programs to reading assessments meet
include four years of English and three years of • Low-income students
mathematics and social sciences in the curriculum. • African American students
• Hispanic students
• Students with disabilities
Performance Goals. In both high school reading and
• Limited English proficient students
high school mathematics state assessments, the
States meeting targets for high school Exceeded FY 2003
Department exceeded its targets for the percentage of mathematics assessments
states that met their targets for high school • All students

achievement of students in the aggregate. But we States meeting targets for high school Did not FY 2003
mathematics assessments meet
experienced a shortfall for subgroups of students: low- • Low-income students
income, African American, Hispanic, students with • African American students
• Hispanic students
disabilities, and limited English proficient students. • Students with disabilities
Although almost all states met their targets for students • Limited English proficient students
in the aggregate, disaggregated data showed that fewer Advanced Placement participation Made FY 2004
• All students progress
than a third of states met their targets for subgroups.
Advanced Placement participation Made FY 2004
To address weak results in closing achievement gaps,
• African American students progress
the Department will increase funding and expand the • Hispanic students
Advanced Placement programs for low-income schools High achievement on Advanced Made FY 2004
and the State Scholars Program. We plan to begin a Placement exams progress
• English
Striving Readers Initiative that will provide competitive • History
grants to schools to give extra help to middle and high • Calculus
• Science
school students who fall behind in reading and a
High school completion by 18- to Exceeded FY 2002
Mathematics and Science Teachers Incentive Program 24-year-olds
that will draw more professionals from the private • All

sector to teach part time in our high schools. Finally, High school completion by 18- to Exceeded FY 2004
24-year-olds
although we exceeded our targets for high school • African American
completion, the uncertainty over the variability of • Hispanic
reported dropout and completion data means that our
results should be interpreted with caution. The work Highly Qualified Teachers Affect
of the national panel convened to advise policy on Successful Student Learning
high school completion will inform our efforts to The early years of implementing the No Child Left
report and to increase graduation rates. Behind Act of 2001 focused on identifying baseline
The Department’s progress on our performance goals information on state standards, curricula, and
for this objective is summarized in the table below. assessments. As we move to the next difficult steps of
See p. 29 for methodology and appendix A, pp. improving our schools, our most important resource is
202–05, for detailed data. the classroom teacher. To ensure that no child is left
behind, every child must have a highly qualified

58 FY 2004 Performance and Accountability Report - U.S. Department of Education

Goal 2: Improve Student Achievement PERFORMANCE DETAILS

teacher in his or her classroom.

Highly Qualified Teachers. No Child Left Behind

includes a provision that all teachers of core subjects
be highly qualified by the end of the 2005–06 school
year and provides funding to help states and districts
meet the requirement. The Government
Accountability Office (GAO) surveyed states on their
plans for implementing the highly qualified teacher
provision and reported that states face two serious
obstacles:11
• Lack of information needed to determine whether
teachers in their schools meet the law’s criteria for
highly qualified.
• Absence of data systems that could track teacher
qualifications for each core subject they teach
(reported by officials from seven of eight states
visited).

Respondents to the GAO survey also commented on

conditions that hinder states’ and districts’ ability to bachelor’s degree and be certified to teach and have
employ all highly qualified teachers, including teacher required special education teachers to demonstrate
pay issues, teacher shortages, isolated locations, and competency in core academic subjects. To help move
little school support for new teachers. all special education teachers to compliance with the
In a second FY 2004 report, the Government highly qualified teacher provisions of the law, GAO
Accountability Office provided information on how recommended that the Department provide additional
states are applying No Child Left Behind requirements assistance to states on strategies to meet the
to special education teachers.12 During SY 2001–02, requirements of subject matter competency requirements
more than 400,000 special education teachers provided for special education teachers, and that the two offices
instructional services to approximately 6 million within the Department responsible for technical
students with disabilities in the nation’s schools. assistance coordinate efforts for a larger effect.
Under No Child Left Behind, all teachers, including To support states in their efforts to ensure that all special
special education teachers, who provide instruction in education teachers are highly qualified by the end of the
core academic subjects are generally required to meet 2005–06 school year, the Department issued guidance in
the law’s requirements. However, special education January 2004 on how to apply No Child Left Behind
teachers who provide other types of instruction do not requirements to all teachers. In March 2004, new
need to meet the law’s requirements. guidance provided additional flexibility on the
GAO noted that all states implemented the two No implementation deadline and competency requirements
Child Left Behind requirements that teachers have a for some special education teachers.13 The Department

11
The Government Accountability Office, No Child Left Behind Act: More Information Would Help States Determine Which Teachers Are Highly Qualified, (GAO–03–631),
available at http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-631.
12
The Government Accountability Office, Special Education: Additional Assistance and Better Coordination Needed among Education Offices to Help States Meet the NCLBA
Teacher Requirements, (GAO–04–659), available at http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-659.
13
The guidance is available at http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/040331.html.

FY 2004 Performance and Accountability Report - U.S. Department of Education 59

 PERFORMANCE DETAILS Goal 2: Improve Student Achievement

continues to provide funding to states to improve the through alternative pathways to teacher
quality of their teaching force through Improving certification. The comprehensive clearinghouse
Teacher Quality State Grants and through Special Web site averages 8,000 hits a day, with growth
each month.15
Education State Improvement Grants.
• No Child Left Behind: A Toolkit for Teachers, became
In spite of the challenges states face in meeting the available online;16 it includes a general overview of
highly qualified teacher requirement, state reports No Child Left Behind, as well as practical
indicate they are making progress toward having a information on loan forgiveness, tax credits, and
highly qualified teacher in every core academic class. Web resources.
Forty states reported SY 2002–03 baseline data for The Department, on two occasions in 2004, issued
teachers in the aggregate and in high- and low-poverty nonregulatory guidance announcing opportunities for
schools. The Department expects SY 2003–04 data, flexibility in meeting highly qualified teacher
available in September 2005, will show that more requirements. There are three areas of flexibility:
states have the capacity to match individual classroom
• Teachers teaching multiple subjects in eligible
data with individual teacher qualification data, enabling
small rural districts and who are highly qualified in
states to report the percentage of classes taught by one subject area have additional time to become
highly qualified teachers. highly qualified in the additional subjects they
teach.
The Department responded to the GAO reports and to
communications from the states by creating several • Veteran teachers of multiple core academic
initiatives intended to assist in the implementation of subjects may demonstrate subject matter
competency through a multiple subject High,
the highly qualified teacher requirement.
Objective, Uniform State Standard of Evaluation
• The Teacher Assistance Corps visited every state (HOUSSE).
in 2004 and provided guidance to local
• For science teachers, the Department’s guidance
educational agencies on highly qualified teacher
allows states the flexibility to use individual state
compliance, shared knowledge across states, and
certification standards to determine requirements
assisted in setting and meeting state goals.
for meeting subject-matter competency, rather
• The Teacher-to-Teacher Initiative built on the than automatically requiring competency in each
work of the corps and provided the Department a science subject.
means of communicating directly with teachers
across the country to share education knowledge Annual Report on Teacher Quality (2004). Meeting
and also to learn the extent and quality of the Highly Qualified Teachers Challenge: The Secretary’s Third
professional development provided to them. The Annual Report on Teacher Quality provided a
initiative hosted teacher round-tables, a summer comprehensive report on the status of teacher quality
“research to practice summit,” regional summer across the country in 2004. The report includes an
workshops, and an e-mail update mechanism for
overview of state successes and challenges in
apprising teachers of the latest policy, research,
and developments.14 implementing the No Child Left Behind highly
qualified teacher requirement.
• The National Center for Alternative Certification,
through a toll-free call center and a major States have made progress in meeting the challenge by
interactive Web site, provided information to raising academic standards in certification
individuals interested in becoming teachers requirements, implementing criteria for assessing
14
Information about the initiative is available at http://www.teacherquality.us.
15
The site is available at http://www.teach-now.org.
16
The publication is available at http://www.ed.gov/teachers/nclbguide/nclb-teachers-toolkit.pdf.

60 FY 2004 Performance and Accountability Report - U.S. Department of Education

Goal 2: Improve Student Achievement PERFORMANCE DETAILS

teacher preparation program performance, and

supporting alternative routes to certification. Some USE OF T E A C H E R Q U A L I T Y G R A N T F UN D S
states have been less successful in raising the minimum DISTRICT LEVEL, 2002–03
passing scores for most state academic content Class size Professional
assessments and reducing the numbers and distribution reduction development
58% 25%
of teachers on waivers. Each state’s work is detailed in
data tables that are attached as appendices to the
report.17

Federal Grants for Teacher Quality. Improving

Teacher Quality State Grants (authorized under No
Child Left Behind) and Teacher Quality Enhancement
Other
Grants (authorized under the Higher Education Act 13%
Amendments of 1998) share the goal of highly REAP Administrative
1% 3%
qualified teachers in all classrooms by providing
formula and discretionary grants, respectively. REAP = Rural Education Achievement Program
Source. Improving Teacher Quality in U.S. School Districts, available at
Teacher Quality State Grants. No Child Left http://www.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/uof.pdf.

Behind mandates and defines highly qualified, and funds

Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants. The Higher
the mandate primarily through Improving Teacher
Education Act Amendments of 1998 authorizes
Quality State Grants. These grants provide money for
Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants to states and
supporting a wide array of activities, which must be
partnerships. The grant program, funded at
grounded in scientifically based research. Teacher
$88.9 million in 2004, supports reform activities,
Quality funds make resources available to districts to
improvements to teacher education, and teacher
recruit, hire, and induct teachers, and to improve
recruitment grants for high-need school districts. The
teachers’ knowledge of the academic subjects they
first cohort of grantees submitted final 2004
teach so that they can become highly qualified.
performance reports after five years of federally funded
During the first year of the implementation of No activity.
Child Left Behind, the Department collected baseline
Some of the benefits that accrued from these
data from districts around the country to determine
partnership grants are represented in the Milwaukee
how districts reported spending federal Teacher
Partnership Academy, An Urban P-16 Council for
Quality funds in 2002–03. Ninety-three percent of all
Quality Teaching and Learning. The Milwaukee
school districts reported they received Teacher Quality
program was designed to develop a comprehensive
grants, with high-poverty and large districts receiving
prototype for preparing future teachers of kindergarten
the greatest share as required by law. Districts
through grade eight to succeed in urban, high-need
reported spending the majority of grant funds for
schools and to improve the education of all children
teacher salaries to reduce class size and for professional
through better preparation, recruitment, and retention
development for teachers. Subject areas receiving the
of teachers for urban schools. The Milwaukee
largest proportions of professional development funds
Partnership Academy has evolved into a system-to-
were reading/English, 39 percent; mathematics,
system reform model that focuses on the entire
25 percent; science, 14 percent; history, 8 percent; and
Milwaukee Public School System and has expanded to
technology, 7 percent.

17
The publication is available at http://www.title2.org.

FY 2004 Performance and Accountability Report - U.S. Department of Education 61

 PERFORMANCE DETAILS Goal 2: Improve Student Achievement

include prekindergarten through grade 12 teachers and The 25 partnership project directors, when questioned
faculty. As a result of this project, the University of about the sustainability of reform strategies put in
Wisconsin-Milwaukee was able to focus on and initiate place through the partnership grants, indicated that
reform in teacher education and field experience, most activities were “very likely” to continue beyond
recruitment for urban schools, alternative certification, the life of the grant. If the partners institutionalize
and school-based induction support. The Milwaukee reforms as planned, additional educators will have the
Partnership Academy Governance Council included opportunity to join the 14,000 preservice teaching
broad-based community involvement. students and more than 13,000 teachers and
instructional specialists the report identifies as
The partnership grants program also contributed to a
currently involved in partnership activities.19
remarkable outcome for the Texas A&M University
System, which in 1999 was experiencing declines in
R E F O R M S T R AT E G I E S L I K E LY TO CONTINUE
teacher production, especially in high-need areas. At
Professional development schools
the same time, Texas public schools grew by more than
Support programs for beginning teachers
400,000 students. Faced with such explosive growth
Cross-department working arrangements
and declining supply of certified teachers, the Board of
Cross-department responsibility for teacher preparation
Regents unanimously passed a resolution establishing New techniques for assessing students in teacher
the Regents’ Initiative for Excellence in Education.18 preparation programs
The initiative was designed to counter the declining New instructional strategies developed as part of the grant
pool of quality teachers and improve A&M systemwide New course sequences developed as part of the grant
productivity to better meet the needs of its public Support for faculty involvement in schools and school
districts
school constituents. After five years of funding, the
Data sharing about the recruitment of new teachers
A&M system is on its way to meeting those ambitious
goals. The system has increased the production of Source. Title II Partnership Evaluation Baseline Project Directors Survey.

teachers by 41 percent, increased its minority teacher Additional Federal Funding for Teacher Quality.
production, and increased teacher production in high- Additional FY 2004 resources of federal funding to
need fields such as bilingual/English as a second improve quality teaching include the following:
language (ESL), special education, foreign language,
• Title I grants to local educational agencies
secondary math, and secondary science. provided approximately $605.2 million for
Evaluation of Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant professional development (an amount that
represents the five percent of Title I funds that
Program. In 2004, the Department published
recipient districts must spend on professional
Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through development activities).
the Title II HEA Partnership Program, an interim report on
• Educational Technology State Grants Program
its evaluation of the Teacher Quality Enhancement
contributed $173 million to high-quality
Grant Program’s Partnership Grants for Improving professional development in the integration of
Teacher Preparation. The evaluation found that the technology into curricula and instruction.
grants improved teacher preparation programs by
• English Language Acquisition State Grants
increasing communication between universities and Program makes five percent of each state’s total
schools and by facilitating a closer match between grant award available for the professional
teacher preparation, curriculum, and school needs. development of its teachers. In addition,

18
Information on the initiative is available at http://www.partnerships.tamu.edu.
19
Information is available at http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/ppss/index.html.

62 FY 2004 Performance and Accountability Report - U.S. Department of Education

Goal 2: Improve Student Achievement PERFORMANCE DETAILS

$39 million was available specifically for International Education Week commenced with a
improving the teaching of English language videoconference among students and education
learners. ministry representatives from Egypt, Mexico, South
• Troops-to-Teachers, Teaching American History, Africa, and the United States. Participants conversed
Mathematics and Science Partnerships, and about the positive role of the Internet in making
Transition to Teaching also made federal funds international connections possible and about the
available to grantees for addressing teacher quality.
importance of learning about other countries and
Performance Goal. The Department adopted a new cultures. In other events of the busy week, Secretary
measure in 2004 for judging our success in Paige and Irish Minister of Education Dempsey
implementing the highly qualified teacher requirement renewed a Memorandum of Understanding on
of No Child Left Behind: the number of core academic Education that emphasizes mutual cooperation and
classes in the country taught by highly qualified collaboration on special education. Secretary Paige
teachers. Data for SY 2003–04 are pending; however, also addressed more than 5,000 foreign-language
we have trend data for SY 2002–03. States reported teachers, challenging them to make foreign-language
highly qualified teacher data in many ways: as best instruction a part of every child’s education.20
estimates, as percentages of highly qualified teachers
In cooperation with the State Department, the
rather than classes taught by highly qualified teachers,
Department of Education took a leadership role in the
and as a subset of certification data. Because of these
activities of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperative’s
variations, the Department did not aggregate the data.
Education Network. The Department’s activities in
However, the data show that of the 42 states reporting,
2004 included initiating an e-Learning strategic plan
approximately half had highly qualified teachers
that featured recommendations to improve students’
teaching in at least 90 percent of their classes. Seven
and teachers’ access to the Internet, teachers’ capacity
of the 42 had 50 percent or fewer of their classes
to use technology, and the availability of innovative
taught by highly qualified teachers. See appendix A,
educational content on the Internet. The Department
p. 184, for a more complete display of state data.
also led efforts to create an agenda for the Summit on
The Department’s progress on our performance goals Education Reform, which focused on research-based
for this objective is summarized in the table below. education initiatives. We also helped launch the
See p. 29 for methodology and appendix A, Knowledge Bank of Education Policy and Practice to
pp. 206–07, for detailed data. allow for better access to policies and promising
practices of other educators in the Pacific region.21
Teacher and Principal Quality
(Objective 2.4) Through its activities, the Department encouraged the
Performance Goal Status Year
cooperative’s membership to become knowledgeable
Core academic classes taught by about current research, integrate research with policy
highly qualified* teachers Pending FY 2004 recommendations, and share challenges and successes
*As defined in section 9302 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. across the organization.

Performance Goals. Success in meeting the

Student Knowledge of World Languages
Department’s newest objective, international education,
and International Issues Improves Global
Understanding is measured by the percentage of public secondary
students enrolled in foreign-language courses and the
The Department’s fourth-year celebration of
number of postsecondary students studying abroad.
20
The Secretary’s address is available at http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/our/international/iew2003/edlite-index.html.
21
Information on the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperative’s efforts is available at http://www.apecknowledgebank.org.

FY 2004 Performance and Accountability Report - U.S. Department of Education 63

 PERFORMANCE DETAILS Goal 2: Improve Student Achievement

Data sources for both measures have existed for some

time and provided trend data that we used as baselines
for setting our targets. We were, however, unable to
collect data on secondary student enrollment in
foreign-language classes for 2004 because these data
are collected on an average of every four years. The
Department is pursuing other data sources that would
allow us to collect these data on an annual basis.
Trend data for postsecondary students studying abroad
show an increasing number of students taking
advantage of international education opportunities.
The number of students rose from 143,590 in 2000 to
160,920 in 2002. Data for 2004 are pending.

The Department’s progress on our performance goals

for this objective is summarized in the table below.
See p. 29 for methodology and appendix A,
pp. 207–08, for detailed data.

International Education
(Objective 2.5)
Performance Goals Status Year
Public secondary school students in Not FY 2004
foreign-language courses collected
U.S. postsecondary students Pending FY 2004
studying abroad

64 FY 2004 Performance and Accountability Report - U.S. Department of Education

Goal 2: Improve Student Achievement PERFORMANCE DETAILS

Programs Supporting Goal 2

Seventy-seven of our grant programs most directly support Goal 2. These programs are listed below. In the table we provide both
FY 2004 appropriations and FY 2004 expenditures for each of these programs. We also provide an overview of the results of each
program on its program performance measures. Program performance reports are available on the Web at
http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/2004report/index.html.

Program Name Appro- Expendi Program Performance Results

priations† -tures‡ Percent of Targets Met, Not Met, Without Data
FY 2004 FY 2003 FY 2002
FY 2004 FY 2004
$ in $ in % % % % % % % % %
millions millions Met Not No Met Not No Met Not No
Met Data Met Data Met Data
APEB: American Printing House for the Blind 17 19 0 0 100 100 0 0 100 0 0
CRA: Training and Advisory Services 8 7 0 0 100 0 0 100 50 50 0
ERDDI: Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers 28 26 50 0 50 67 33 0 100 0 0
ERDDI: Eisenhower Regional Mathematics and Science 15 15 0 0 100 100 0 0 43 14 43
Education Consortia
ESEA: 21st Century Community Learning Centers 1,003 1,042 0 0 100 38 62 0 38 62 0
ESEA: Advanced Credentialing 19 11 0 0 100
ESEA: Advanced Placement 25 23 0 0 100 100 0 0 100 0 0
ESEA: Alaska Native Education Equity 34 36 0 0 100
ESEA: Arts in Education 37 33
ESEA: Charter Schools Grants 221 179 0 0 100 0 100 0 0 100 0
ESEA: Civic Education: Cooperative Education Exchange 12 11
ESEA: Comprehensive School Reform 234 309 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 100
ESEA: Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities 38 22 0 0 100 /// /// (not funded)
ESEA: Dropout Prevention Programs 5 11
ESEA: Early Childhood Educator Professional Development 15 12 0 0 100 ///
ESEA: Early Reading First 96 33 0 0 100 /// ///
ESEA: Education for Native Hawaiians 34 30 0 0 100
ESEA: Educational Technology State Grants 693 594 0 0 100 0 0 100 ///
ESEA: Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for Mathematics
and Science Education 5 5 0 0 100 100 0 0 100 0 0
ESEA: English Language Acquisition 694 646 20 0 80 30 0 70 0 0 100
ESEA: Even Start 250 251 0 0 100 0 0 100
ESEA: Excellence in Economic Education 2 0 /// (not funded) /// (not funded)
ESEA: Foreign Language Assistance 17 14
ESEA: Fund for the Improvement of Education Programs of
National Significance 287 231 67 23 0
ESEA: Impact Aid Basic Support Payments 1,072 1,086
50 0 50 100 0 0 50 50 0
ESEA: Impact Aid Payments for Children with Disabilities 51 52
ESEA: Impact Aid Construction 46 30 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 100 0
ESEA: Impact Aid Facilities Maintenance 8 11
ESEA: Impact Aid Payments for Federal Property 63 63
ESEA: Improving Teacher Quality State Grants 2,933 2,398 0 0 100 100 0 0 ///
ESEA: Indian Education Grants to Local Educational Agencies 102 93 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 33 67
ESEA: Javits Gifted and Talented Education 11 8
ESEA: Literacy Through School Libraries 21 13 0 0 100 ///
ESEA: Magnet Schools Assistance 111 105 0 0 100 0 0 100
(program
ESEA: Mathematics and Science Partnerships 151 23 0 0 100 /// reconfigured)
ESEA: Migrant State Agency Program 399 392 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 100
ESEA: National Writing Project 18 17 0 0 100
† Budget for each program includes program budget authority and the program’s proportional share of salaries and expenses APEB = Act to Promote the Education of
budget authority. the Blind
‡ Expenditures occur when recipients draw down funds to cover actual outlays. FY 2004 expenditures may include funds from prior CRA = Civil Rights Act
years’ appropriations. Expenditures for each program include the program’s proportional share of administrative expenditures. ERDDI = Educational Research, Development,
A shaded cell denotes that the program did not have targets for the specified year. Dissemination and Improvement Act
/// Denotes programs not yet implemented (Programs are often implemented near the end of the year they are first funded.) ESEA = Elementary and Secondary Education Act

FY 2004 Performance and Accountability Report - U.S. Department of Education 65

 PERFORMANCE DETAILS Goal 2: Improve Student Achievement

Appro- Expendi Program Performance Results

Program Name priations† -tures‡ Percent of Targets Met, Not Met, Without Data
FY 2004 FY 2003 FY 2002
FY 2004 FY 2004
$ in $ in % % % % % % % % %
millions millions Met Not No Met Not No Met Not No
Met Data Met Data Met Data
ESEA: Neglected and Delinquent State Agency Program 49 50 0 0 100 75 0 25
ESEA: Parental Assistance Information Centers 44 42 0 0 100 0 0 100
ESEA: Reading First State Grants 1,026 628 11 0 89 ///
ESEA: Reading Is Fundamental/Inexpensive Book Distribution 25 26 0 0 100 100 0 0
ESEA: Ready to Teach 15 12 0 0 100
ESEA: Ready-to-Learn Television 23 23 0 0 100 0 0 100
ESEA: Regional Technology in Education Consortia 10 11
ESEA: Rural Education 169 158
ESEA: School Leadership 13 10 0 0 100
ESEA: Smaller Learning Communities 177 70 0 0 100 0 100 0
ESEA: Special Programs for Indian Children 21 18 0 0 100
ESEA: Star Schools Program (FIE) 21 30 50 50 0 50 50 0 100 0 0
ESEA: State Assessments 393 333 0 0 100 0 0 100 ///
ESEA: State Grants for Innovative Programs 298 359 0 0 100 100 0 0
ESEA: Teaching of Traditional American History 122 97 0 0 100 0 0 100
ESEA: Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies 12,348 10,848 25 0 75 83 0 17 67 0 33
ESEA: Transition to Teaching 48 36 50 25 25 50 0 50
ESEA: Troops-to-Teachers 15 20 0 50 50 100 0 0
ESEA: Voluntary Public School Choice 27 8 0 0 100 100 0 0
ESEA: Women’s Educational Equity 3 2
ESRA: National Assessment 97 41 (off year for collection) 0 100 0 (off year for collection)
ESRA: National Assessment Governing Board 6 4
ESRA: Regional Educational Laboratories 68 68 0 0 100 100 0 0 100 0 0
HEA: High School Equivalency Program 20 23 0 0 100 100 0 0
HEA: State Grants for Incarcerated Youth Offenders 20 16 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 100
HEA: Teacher Quality Enhancement 93 81 0 0 100 0 0 100
IDEA: Special Education Grants for Infants and Families 453 422 25 0 75 33 0 67 50 0 50
IDEA: Special Education Grants to States 10,083 8,673 20 0 80 13 63 25 0 71 29
IDEA: Special Education Parent Information Centers 28 27 0 0 100 50 0 50 50 0 50
IDEA: Special Education Personnel Preparation 97 81 0 0 100 0 33 67 33 33 33
IDEA: Special Education Preschool Grants 389 379 0 100 0 0 100 0 100 0 0
IDEA: Special Education State Improvement 52 41 0 0 100 33 0 67 67 0 33
IDEA: Special Education Technical Assistance and Dissemination 57 51 0 0 100 0 25 75 25 25 50
IDEA: Special Education Technology and Media Services 41 38 0 0 100 0 40 60 0 40 60
MVHAA: Education for Homeless Children and Youths 60 47 0 0 100 67 0 33
VTEA: Occupational and Employment Information 9 8 50 50 0
VTEA: Tech-Prep Demonstration 5 0
VTEA: Vocational Education National Programs 18 20 0 0 100
VTEA: Tech-Prep Education State Grants 107 118
0 0 100 14 86 0 29 71 0
VTEA: Vocational Education State Grants 1,204 1,161
Total 36,529 *31,930

† Budget for each program includes program budget authority and the program’s proportional share of salaries and expenses budget authority.
‡ Expenditures occur when recipients draw down funds to cover actual outlays. FY 2004 expenditures may include funds from prior years’ appropriations. Expenditures for each
program include the program’s proportional share of administrative expenditures.
* Additionally, expenditures of $758 million met prior years’ obligations for Goal 2 programs that were not funded for FY 2004.
A shaded cell denotes that the program did not have targets for the specified year.
/// Denotes programs not yet implemented (Programs are often implemented near the end of the year they are first funded.)

ESEA = Elementary and Secondary Education Act IDEA = Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
ESRA = Education Sciences Reform Act MVHAA = McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act
FIE = Fund for the Improvement of Education VTEA = Vocational and Technical Education Act
HEA = Higher Education Act

66 FY 2004 Performance and Accountability Report - U.S. Department of Education

Goal 2: Improve Student Achievement PERFORMANCE DETAILS

PART Analysis for Goal 2 Programs Purpose 60

The Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) was
Planning 45
developed and implemented by the Office of
Management and Budget as a standardized process for Management 63
determining program effectiveness in a consistent way
Results/ 0
across agencies. Over a five-year period, most Accountability
0 20 40 60 80 100
government programs will be evaluated under this
process. Results of PART reviews are used by agencies Recommendation:
as one component of justifying their budget requests. 1. Obtain sufficient funds to continue awards to
Following are summaries of PART reviews that were current grantees and redirect funds to Early
conducted in conjunction with preparing the Reading First to support model preschool
Department’s FY 2004 budget request and subsequent programs to teach prereading skills.
updated reviews of those programs.22 Response:
1. The action was proposed in the President’s 2004
Program: Comprehensive School Reform budget. The President’s 2005 budget proposed to
Year of Rating: For FY 2004 Budget eliminate all funding for the program.
Rating: Adequate
Program Type: Block/Formula Grants Program: IDEA Grants for Infants and Families
Year of Rating: For FY 2004 Budget
Purpose 80 Rating: Results Not Demonstrated
Program Type: Block/Formula Grants
Planning 83
Purpose 100
Management 70
Results/ Planning 29
33
Accountability
0 20 40 60 80 100 Management 44
Results/
Recommendation: 0
Accountability
1. Redirect this funding to Title I and close out this 0 20 40 60 80 100

program in order to reduce program duplication

and administrative burden. Recommendations:
1. Work with the Congress on the upcoming IDEA
Response:
reauthorization to increase the act’s focus on
1. The President’s 2004 and 2005 budgets proposed
results, increase state accountability for child
to eliminate this program.
outcomes, and reduce unnecessary regulatory and
administrative burden.
Program: Even Start
Year of Rating: For FY 2004 Budget 2. Establish long-term outcome-oriented objectives,
Rating: Ineffective and develop a strategy to collect annual
Program Type: Block/Formula Grants performance data in a timely manner.

Response:
1. The Department worked with the Congress. The
Congress has not completed action on the
reauthorization of the IDEA.
22
Information about the PART process is available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/part/. Information on Department PARTs is available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/pdf/ap_cd_rom/part.pdf and http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/pma/education.pdf.

FY 2004 Performance and Accountability Report - U.S. Department of Education 67

 PERFORMANCE DETAILS Goal 2: Improve Student Achievement

2. The Department has embarked on a multifaceted Health, and Child Care Bureaus and the National
approach to addressing the PART findings, Institute on Child Health and Development to
including implementation of a plan to promote the coordinate the development of child and family
development of state systems for collecting data outcome measures.
on child outcomes that would allow the
Department to obtain meaningful performance Program: IDEA Grants to States
data for this program.
Year of Rating: For FY 2004 Budget
Rating: Results Not Demonstrated
Program: IDEA Preschool Grants
Program Type: Block/Formula Grants
Year of Rating: For FY 2004 Budget
Rating: Results Not Demonstrated Purpose 100
Program Type: Block/Formula Grants
Planning 43
Purpose 40
Management 56
Planning 0 Results/
11
Accountability
0 20 40 60 80 100
Management 56
Recommendations:
Results/ 0
Accountability 1. Provide a $1 billion increase for this program to
0 20 40 60 80 100
help states and schools meet their responsibilities
under the IDEA and try to demonstrate the
Recommendations: program is achieving real results.
1. Maintain federal funding at last year’s level until
the Administration has had a chance to work with 2. Work with the Congress on the IDEA
the Congress on the IDEA reauthorization and on reauthorization to increase the act’s focus on
determining how best to serve preschool children accountability and results, and reduce unnecessary
with disabilities under the act. regulatory and administrative burdens.

2. Develop long-term performance goals, and annual 3. Collect timely NAEP data for students with
goals for performance, for preschool children with disabilities that meet the same standards as other
disabilities. NAEP data.

3. Improve collaboration with other federal 4. Improve collaboration with other federal
programs. programs.

Response: Response:
1. The President has proposed to maintain funding 1. The President requested an increase of $1 billion
for this program at the prior year’s level since 2003 in the budget requests for FY 2004 and 2005.
and provided technical assistance to the Congress 2. The Department worked with the Congress on the
regarding the IDEA reauthorization. However, reauthorization of IDEA. The Congress has not
the Congress has not completed action on the completed action on the reauthorization of the
reauthorization. IDEA.
2. The Department reviewed and revised the 3. Timely NAEP data for students with disabilities
performance measures for the program and has that meet the same standards as other NAEP data
begun to implement a multifaceted plan to obtain are now collected.
outcomes data.
4. The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative
3. The Department is working with relevant partners Services is continuing to work to improve
such as the Head Start, Maternal and Child collaboration with other federal programs.

68 FY 2004 Performance and Accountability Report - U.S. Department of Education

 Goal 2: Improve Student Achievement PERFORMANCE DETAILS

Program: National Assessment Recommendation:

Year of Rating: For FY 2004 Budget (Initial) 1. The 2004 budget proposes to terminate the
program so that federal resources can be used to
For FY 2005 Budget (Revised)
support other education priorities.
Rating: Effective
Program Type: Research and Development Response:
1. This action was proposed in the President’s 2004
Purpose 100
budget. The 2005 budget and the Administration’s
“blueprint” for reauthorization of vocational
Planning 100
education programs also proposed program
termination.
Management 70
Results/ Program: Tech-Prep Education State Grants
Accountability 100
0 20 40 60 80 100
Year of Rating: For FY 2004 Budget
Rating: Results Not Demonstrated
Recommendations:
Program Type: Block/Formula Grants
1. The 2002 PART assessment found a weakness in
long-term performance measurement for NCES. Recommendation:

2. The Department needs to improve the timeliness Purpose 60

of NCES products and services.
Planning 43
Response:
1. The Department has established long-term Management 56
performance measures for the program. Results/ 0
Accountability
2. The Department is examining the timeliness of 0 20 40 60 80 100
NCES products and services, including National
Assessment products and services. NAEP 2003 1. The 2004 budget proposes to terminate the
reading and mathematics reports were released program so that federal resources can be redirected
eight months after the completion of data to programs with a proven track record for
collection, two months later than the six-month effectiveness.
reporting target, but in less than half the time of
previous NAEP reports. Response:
1. This action was proposed in the President’s 2004
Program: Occupational and Employment budget. Also, the 2005 budget and the
Information Administration’s “blueprint” for reauthorization of
Year of Rating: For FY 2004 Budget vocational education programs proposed program
Rating: Results Not Demonstrated termination. Under that proposal, Tech-Prep
programs could be funded with formula grant
Program Type: Competitive Grants
funds if state and local agencies choose to allocate
Purpose 60 their resources for that purpose.

Planning 14

Management 50
Results/ 0
Accountability
0 20 40 60 80 100

FY 2004 Performance and Accountability Report - U.S. Department of Education 69

 PERFORMANCE DETAILS Goal 2: Improve Student Achievement

Program: Vocational Education State Grants 2. Under the Administration’s reauthorization

proposal, states will have considerable flexibility in
Year of Rating: For FY 2004 Budget
how they develop and operate their statewide
Rating: Ineffective system of partnerships, while being held
Program Type: Block/Formula Grants accountable for improving student outcomes.
Local partnerships will be able to spend federal
Purpose 20 funds on a wide variety of activities that contribute
to building effective career and technical
Planning 43 education pathways and meet the ambitious
performance goals of the program.
Management 67
3. The Congress has taken no action on this
Results/ 0
Accountability proposal, which assumed that under the
0 20 40 60 80 100 reauthorization, states would distribute funds by
formula. The proposal was dropped in the
Recommendations: Administration’s reauthorization blueprint, which
1. Grantee funding will be contingent on a rigorous proposes to target funding through state
assessment that student outcomes are being competitive grants.
achieved.
4. The Administration’s blueprint for reauthorization
2. Grantees will have the flexibility to focus program of the program proposes statutory changes to
funds in a manner that best serves students in a correct data collection problems and permit the
given locality. adoption of new common performance measures.
3. States will have the option to redirect high school The Departments of Education and Labor are
funds from this program into their programs under specifying final definitions for common measures.
Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Annual targets have been established; long-term
Act of 1965 to maximize flexibility. targets are contingent upon reauthorization.

4. The program will correct all outstanding data

collection problems and adopt new “common”
performance measures that will allow better
assessment of how the program is achieving
student outcomes and enable comparisons with
other programs serving similar objectives. The
Department will set short- and long-term targets
based on the common measures and develop
strategies for collecting the necessary data to
institute common measures.

Response:
1. The Administration’s reauthorization strategy for
vocational education programs, outlined for the
first time in the President’s 2004 budget, proposes
to establish a strong state accountability
framework for career and technical education to
ensure that federal funds are used for activities and
services for which there is evidence of positive
student outcomes. Congressional action to
reauthorize the program is pending.

70 FY 2004 Performance and Accountability Report - U.S. Department of Education