Search

This report responds to two mandates for GAO under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). First, it is the latest report on the uses of and accountability for Recovery Act funds in selected states and localities. Second, it comments on recipients' reports of the jobs created and retained. The Recovery Act provided $2.1 billion for Head Start and Early Head Start, primarily to expand services. GAO addressed four questions: (1) How have Head Start and Early Head Start grantees used Recovery Act funds, including for expanding enrollment? (2) What challenges have grantees encountered in spending Recovery Act funds? (3) How has the Office of Head Start (OHS) monitored the use of Recovery Act funds? (4) How has the quality of jobs data reported by Recovery Act recipients, particularly Head Start grantees, changed over time? In this report, GAO also updates the status of open recommendations from previous bimonthly and recipient reporting reviews. To address these questions, GAO interviewed grantees, analyzed federal agency and recipient reported data, and interviewed officials. GAO recommends OHS verify the definition of enrollment, clearly communicate it to grantees along with policies for extending the use of Recovery Act funds, and incorporate known risks into review planning. HHS generally agreed with GAO's recommendations. Appended are: (1) Objectives, Scope, and Methodology; (2) Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services; (3) Status of Prior Open Recommendations and Matters for Congressional Consideration; and (4) GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments. (Contains 7 tables, 8 figures and 46 footnotes.)

The number of charter schools is growing, spurred by demand for innovation and federal incentives, such as the Race to the Top Fund, which favors states supportive of charter schools. However, states often define charter schools differently than traditional public schools. Some charter schools operate as a school district, while others are part of a school district and some are for-profit entities. These differences could complicate eligibility determination for federal administrators. GAO was asked: (1) To what extent do charter schools apply for federal discretionary grant programs and what challenges do they face, if any, in doing so? (2) What role has the U.S. Department of Education played in helping charter schools establish their eligibility for federal discretionary grant programs? GAO identified grant programs governmentwide for which charter schools are eligible to apply, surveyed a stratified random sample of charter school officials, and interviewed federal agency officials. We also visited charter schools, school districts, charter school associations, and state educational agencies in 3 states. GAO recommends that Education clarify grant opportunities for charter schools, highlight charter schools' eligibility in relevant grant announcements, and post its grant application guidance for charter schools on its Web site. Education agreed with our recommendations. Appended are: (1) Scope and Methodology; (2) Federal Discretionary Grant Programs for which Charter Schools Are Potentially Eligible; (3) Comments from the Department of Education; and (4) GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments. (Contains 9 tables, 6 figures and 20 footnotes.)

Between fiscal years 2004 and 2009, Congress appropriated nearly $190 million in federal payments for school improvement to the District of Columbia (D.C.). This includes $85 million to the state education office--currently the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE)--to expand public charter schools and $105 million to D.C. Public Schools (DCPS) to improve education in public schools. Over the years, US Government Accountability Office (GAO) and others have identified challenges that DCPS and OSSE face in managing federal monies. This report identifies, on the basis of available information, activities for which OSSE and DCPS used federal payments between 2004 and 2009 and describes how OSSE and DCPS monitored grant and contract recipients, respectively. GAO reviewed expenditure data and interviewed and collected documentation from OSSE and DCPS, among others. GAO reviewed all available grants awarded by OSSE in 2008 and 2009 and 14 of the largest contracts awarded by DCPS during that time. To improve internal controls, GAO recommends that the Mayor direct OSSE and DCPS to establish and implement written policies and procedures for monitoring use of federal payments for school improvement, and DCPS to maintain contract files and other expenditure documentation. The District agreed with GAO's recommendations and provided additional information on steps taken to improve internal controls. Appended are: (1) Scope and Methodology; (2) Information on DCPS File Review of Selected Contracts from 2008-2009; (3) Comments from the D.C. Mayor's Office and District Education Offices; and (4) GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments. (Contains 3 tables and 5 figures and 24 footnotes.)

This paper is a transcript of a letter written by the author, Cornelia M. Ashby, Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues, to June St. Clair Atkinson, State Superintendent of the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. In this letter, the author reports that she and her colleagues have examined the efforts of selected states and local educational agencies (LEA) to ensure appropriate uses of Recovery Act funds. In North Carolina, they reviewed efforts undertaken by the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (DPI) and selected LEAs to administer and oversee the use of Recovery Act funds under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) education stabilization funds; Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA Title I), as amended; and Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); as amended. As part of this effort, they met with various DPI staff and, from February 1 through 3, 2010, they visited Avery County Schools (ACS) to review and test the adequacy of controls and procedures in place pertaining to Recovery Act funds for these three federal programs. Specifically, they found the following: For its two largest Recovery Act purchases, ACS staff could not provide documentation to show that the district obtained multiple bids or price quotes for contracts for goods and services. (Contains 12 footnotes.)

This paper is a transcript of a letter written by the author, Cornelia M. Ashby, Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues, to June St. Clair Atkinson, State Superintendent of the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. In this letter, the author reports that she and her colleagues have examined the efforts of selected states and local educational agencies (LEA) to ensure appropriate uses of Recovery Act funds. In North Carolina, they reviewed efforts undertaken by the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (DPI) and selected LEAs to administer and oversee the use of Recovery Act funds under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) education stabilization funds; Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA Title I), as amended; and Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as amended. As part of this effort, they met with various DPI staff and, from February 23 through 25, 2010, they visited Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools (WSFCS) to review and test the adequacy of controls and procedures in place pertaining to Recovery Act funds for these three federal programs. They found the following: (1) WSFCS expended $38,400 of ESEA Title I funds on a program that included some expenses that appeared to constitute entertainment, a potentially unallowable use of these funds; and (2) WSFCS staff could not provide documentation to show that the district obtained multiple bids or price quotes for contracts for goods and services. (Contains 14 footnotes.)

In connection with the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, GAO (Government Accountability Office) was required to study the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC), a federal source of evidence about effective education practices. Operating through a 5-year contract awarded by the U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences (IES), the WWC reviews education research and disseminates its findings. GAO examined: (1) the extent to which the WWC review process meets accepted standards for research evaluation and how the WWC has responded to recommendations and criticism, (2) how WWC output and costs have changed over time and how its performance is measured, and (3) how WWC products are disseminated and how useful educators find them to be. To conduct its work, GAO reviewed WWC-related documents, analyzed cost and performance data, surveyed all states and a nationally representative sample of school districts, and interviewed IES officials, WWC contractors, researchers, and others. GAO recommends that IES: develop and implement strategies to avoid backlogs in WWC product reviews; establish performance measures related to costs and usefulness; and improve dissemination efforts to promote awareness and use of the WWC. Education generally agreed with GAO's recommendations. Appendices include: (1) Objectives, Scope, and Methodology; (2) Other Sources of Information Districts Use To Identify Effective Education Practices; (3) IES and WWC Response to Expert Panel Recommendations; (4) Comments from the Department of Education; and (5) GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments. (Contains 9 tables, 15 figures, and 67 footnotes.)

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) provides $70.3 billion for three education programs--the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF), Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Title I), and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The Act requires recipients to be accountable for how these funds are being used and what is being achieved. To help attain the level of transparency needed for accountability, recipients are to report quarterly on their award activities and expected outcomes. This information is available to the public on Recovery.gov, the government's official Recovery Act Web site. This report covers three Education programs funded by the Recovery Act. It (1) describes what the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of Education (Education) did to facilitate implementation of requirements for recipients to describe the use of funds and (2) assesses the extent to which award descriptions are transparent It also describes reported fund uses for a sample of subrecipients. GAO reviewed requirements for reporting in the Act as well as guidance provided by OMB and Education. GAO assessed the transparency of descriptions for the three education programs on Recovery.gov. GAO recommends that the Secretary of Education, in consultation with OMB, remove the suggested language for the project description field from its guidance and instruct states to include information, to the extent possible, on how the funds are being used and potential project outcomes or results. Appended are: (1) SFSF Education Stabilization Funds Prime Recipient Review and Descriptions; (2) IDEA Part B for School Aged Children Prime Recipient Review and Descriptions; (3) ESEA Title I, Part A Grants Prime Recipient Review and Descriptions; (4) SFSF Education Stabilization Funds: Selected Subrecipient (LEA) Descriptions; (5) IDEA Part B for School Aged Children: Selected Subrecipient (LEA) Descriptions; (6) ESEA Title I, Part A Grants to Local Educational Agencies: Selected Subrecipient (LEA) Descriptions; (7) Scope and Methodology; and (8) GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments. (Contains 5 tables and 15 footnotes.)

Research has established that physical activity and participation in athletics provides important health and social benefits for children. Certain federal laws help ensure that kindergarten-12th grade schools provide students with disabilities opportunities to participate in physical education (PE) and extracurricular athletics equal to those of their peers. However, national associations have questioned whether students with disabilities receive opportunities similar to their peers. Regarding students with disabilities, GAO was asked to examine (1) what is known about the PE opportunities that schools provide, and how do schools provide these; (2) what is known about the extracurricular athletic opportunities that schools provide, and how do schools provide these; and (3) how the Department of Education (Education) assists states and schools in these areas. GAO analyzed federal survey data; reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations; and interviewed state, district, and school officials in selected states, as well as parents and disability association officials. To improve the opportunities for students with disabilities in PE and athletics, GAO recommends that the Secretary of Education facilitate information sharing among states and schools on ways to provide opportunities and clarify schools' responsibilities under federal law. Education agreed with both of our recommendations. Appendices include: (1) Scope and Methodology; (2) Student Participation in Physical Education and Extracurricular Athletics in District and Schools We Visited; (3) National Data on Student Participation in Physical Education and Extracurricular Athletics; (4) Comments from the Department of Education; and (5) GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments. (Contains 19 tables, 4 figures, and 38 footnotes.)

The Department of Education (Education) awards about $45 billion in grants each year to school districts, states, and other entities. In addition, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided an additional $97 billion in grant funding. In a series of reports from 2002 to 2009, Education's Inspector General cited a number of grantees for failing to comply with financial and programmatic requirements of their grant agreements. Government Accountability Office (GAO) was asked to determine: (1) what progress Education has made in implementing a risk-based approach to grant monitoring, (2) to what extent Education's program offices have the expertise necessary to monitor grantees' compliance with grant program requirements, and (3) to what extent information is shared and used within Education to ensure the effectiveness of grant monitoring. To do this, GAO reviewed agency documentation related to Education's internal controls and interviewed senior Education officials and staff in 12 of the 34 offices that monitor grants. GAO recommends Education improve its oversight of risk management, increase financial expertise among its grant monitoring staff, and develop an accessible mechanism to share information. Education generally agreed with our recommendations and provided additional information on its monitoring practices. We incorporated that information when appropriate. Appendices include: (1) Comparison of Grant Funding in the Department of Education's Principal and Program Offices; (2) Comments from the Department of Education; and (3) GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments. (Contains 1 table, 4 figures, and 8 footnotes.)

The federal government has invested billions of dollars to improve student academic performance, and many schools, teachers, and researchers are trying to determine the most effective instructional practices with which to accomplish this. The Conference Report for the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 directed the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to study strategies used to prepare students to meet state academic achievement standards. To do this, GAO answered: (1) What types of instructional practices are schools and teachers most frequently using to help students achieve state academic standards, and do those instructional practices differ by school characteristics?; (2) What is known about how standards-based accountability systems have affected instructional practices?; and (3) What is known about instructional practices that are effective in improving student achievement? GAO analyzed data from a 2006-2007 national survey of principals and 2005-2006 survey of teachers in three states, conducted a literature review of the impact of standards-based accountability systems on instructional practices and of practices that are effective in improving student achievement, and interviewed experts. Six appendices are included: (1) Scope and Methodology; (2) Analyses of the Relationship between School Characteristics and Principals' Focus on School Improvement Strategies; (3) List of Education Researchers; (4) Studies Meeting GAO's Criteria for Methodological Quality; (5) Comments from the Department of Education; and (6) GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments. (Contains 1 table, 3 figures and 30 footnotes.)

State and local governments spend billions of dollars annually on the construction, renovation, and maintenance of public school facilities, yet concerns persist about the condition of some school facilities, particularly in school districts serving students residing on Indian lands. The Department of Education's (Education) Impact Aid Program provides funding to school districts that are adversely impacted by a lack of local revenue because of the presence of federal land, which is exempt from local property taxes. Impact Aid can be used for school expenses, such as facilities and teacher salaries. In response to concern about school facility conditions and concern that these conditions can affect student outcomes, GAO was asked to describe (1) the physical condition of schools in districts receiving Impact Aid because of students residing on Indian lands and (2) what is known about how school facilities affect student outcomes. GAO interviewed federal, state, and local officials; analyzed available independent school facility assessment data for three states; visited eight school districts that receive Impact Aid; and analyzed studies examining the relationship between school facilities and student outcomes. GAO is not making recommendations in this report. Education provided technical clarifications, which GAO incorporated as appropriate. Four appendices are included: (1) Objectives, Scope, and Methodology; (2) List of School Districts That Received Indian Impact Aid in Fiscal Year 2009; (3) Examples of Studies Examining School Facilities and Student Outcomes; and (4) GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments. (Contains 6 tables, 3 figures and 36 footnotes.)

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA) requires states to develop high-quality academic assessments aligned with state academic standards. The Department of Education (Education) has provided states with about $400 million for NCLBA assessment implementation every year since 2002. The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) examined: (1) changes in reported state expenditures on assessments, and how states have spent funds; (2) factors states have considered in making decisions about question (item) type and assessment content; (3) challenges states have faced in ensuring that their assessments are valid and reliable; and (4) the extent to which Education has supported state efforts to comply with assessment requirements. GAO surveyed state and District of Columbia assessment directors, analyzed Education and state documents, and interviewed assessment officials from Maryland, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Texas and eight school districts in addition to assessment vendors and experts. Appended to this report are: (1) Objectives, Scope, and Methodology; (2) Student Population Assessed on ESEA Assessments in School Year 2007-08; (3) Validity Requirements for Education's Peer Review; (4) Reliability Requirements for Education's Peer Review; (5) Alignment Requirements for Education's Peer Review; (6) Item Types Used Most Frequently by States on General and Alternate Assessments; (7) Comments from the U.S. Department of Education; and (8) GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments. (Contains 1 table, 5 figures, and 30 footnotes.)

Presented herein is a statement of Cornelia M. Ashby, Director Education, Workforce, and Income Security. The early efforts of the District of Columbia Public Schools' (DCPS) to improve student achievement focused on implementing initiatives to improve student performance, including implementing a new staffing model; restructuring underperforming schools; and creating and enhancing data systems. DCPS is refocusing or revising its approach to many of these initiatives as it continues to implement them. DCPS is also attempting to improve the quality of its teacher and principal workforce by hiring new teachers and principals and by providing professional development, but it has encountered challenges in effectively implementing these changes. DCPS officials reported that the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 teacher evaluation process did not allow them to assess whether the teacher workforce improved between these 2 school years and that they are working to develop a new teacher evaluation system. The state superintendent's office and DCPS each developed 5-year strategic plans and involved stakeholders in developing these plans. While DCPS has recently increased efforts to involve stakeholders such as parents and the D.C. Council in key initiatives, past stakeholder involvement was inconsistent. DCPS and the state superintendent's office also have taken steps to improve accountability and performance of their offices. While DCPS has taken steps to improve accountability and link its individual performance management system to organizational goals, it has not yet linked its employee expectations and performance evaluations to organizational goals. (Contains 17 footnotes and 1 table.)

Millions of adults in the U.S. report that they speak limited English, and English language ability appears linked to multiple dimensions of adult life, such as civic participation and workforce participation and mobility. The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) examined: (1) the trends in the need for and enrollment in federally funded adult English language programs; (2) the nature of federal support for adult English language learning; (3) ways in which states and local public providers have supported English language programs for adults; and (4) federal agencies' plans for research to identify effective approaches to adult English language learning. To conduct this work, GAO analyzed Census and enrollment data and conducted interviews with federal officials within the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services (HHS), and Labor and the National Institute for Literacy (NIFL); semistructured telephone interviews with state adult education officials in 12 states; site visits to 4 states; and reviews of relevant laws and literature. GAO found that the number of adults who speak English less than very well grew by 21.8 percent between 2000 and 2007, to roughly 22 million. The Adult Education State Grant Program, the key federal program for adult English language instruction, reported enrollment of about 1.1 million English language learners in 2007--which had remained relatively stable since 2000. However, most state adult education grantees they contacted reported increased demand. Also, there are many federal programs that allow for adult English language instruction for which national enrollment data are not collected. GAO is recommending that Education work with HHS, Labor, and other agencies as appropriate to develop coordinated approaches for sharing information and planning and conducting research. Eight appendices are included: (1) Scope and Methodology; (2) Education, HHS, and Labor Programs Authorized for Funds to Be Used for Adult English Language Learning; (3) Selected High-Growth and Community-Based Labor Grants That Align with the Limited English Proficiency and Hispanic Worker Initiative; (4) Methods for Providing English Language Instruction among Labor Grantees That We Interviewed; (5) Comments from the Department of Education; (6) Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services; (7) Comments from the Department of Labor; and (8) GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments. (Contains 2 tables, 5 figures, and 91 footnotes.)

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) requires states and the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) to define and determine whether schools are making adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward meeting the goal of 100 percent academic proficiency. To address tribes' needs for cultural preservation, NCLBA allows tribal groups to waive all or part of BIE's definition of AYP and propose an alternative, with technical assistance from BIE and the Department of Education, if requested. The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) is providing information on the extent of (1) BIE schools' adoption of BIE's definition of AYP; (2) tribal groups' pursuit of alternatives and their reasons as well as reasons other tribal groups have not done so; and (3) federal assistance to tribal groups developing alternatives. To obtain this information, GAO interviewed tribal groups, federal officials, and state education officials; conducted site visits to BIE schools; and reviewed laws, regulations, and other relevant documents. GAO made several recommendations to the Secretary of Interior aimed at increasing support, including improved assistance, guidance, training, and communication for tribal groups in their implementation of the provision for developing alternatives. Interior agreed with GAO's recommendations. GAO also received technical comments from both Interior and Education. Appended are comments from the Department of the Interior and GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments. (Contains 6 tables, 1 figure, and 48 footnotes.)

In response to long-standing problems with student academic performance, the condition of school facilities, and the overall management of the D.C. public school system, the D.C. Council approved the Public Education Reform Amendment Act of 2007 (Reform Act). The Reform Act made major changes to the operations and governance of the D.C. public school system, giving the Mayor authority over public schools, including curricula, personnel, and school facilities. While other large urban districts have transferred governance of schools to their mayors, D.C. is unique because it functions as both local and state offices for many education responsibilities. The US Government Accountability Office's (GAO's) testimony focuses on: (1) the status of the District's efforts to reform its public school system; and (2) what the District has done to establish accountability for these efforts. To address these issues GAO reviewed documents, interviewed District education officials and interviewed principals from nine D.C. public schools. To sustain D.C.'s efforts to transform its public school system, GAO recommends that the D.C. Department of Education develop a long-term districtwide education strategic plan. In response, the District supported the need for a strategy, but preferred a formal process rather than a written document to coordinate and sustain its efforts. (Contains 1 figure, 2 tables, and 28 footnotes.) [This report was published by the United States Government Accountability Office.]

Under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA), the federal government provides millions of dollars annually to assist schools that have not met state academic goals. In the 2006-2007 school year, over 10,000 such schools were identified for improvement. NCLBA requires states to set aside 4 percent of their Title I funds to pay for school improvement efforts. The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) was asked to determine: (1) the extent to which states have set aside these funds and used other resources for school improvement; (2) which schools received improvement funds and the extent funds are tracked; (3) the activities states and schools have undertaken and how activities are assessed; and (4) how the Department of Education (Education) supports states' improvement efforts. GAO administered a survey to state education officials and received a 100 percent response rate, matched survey data to an Education database, and conducted site visits to five states. GAO recommends that Education review its monitoring to ensure that states comply with NCLBA requirements for allocating school improvement funds for district-level activities and prioritizing funds to the lowest achieving schools, provide guidance on when and how states are to make information available about which schools receive improvement funds, and analyze the effects of removing a hold-harmless provision on those districts protected by it. Education agreed with these recommendations. The following are appended: (1) Scope and Methodology; (2) Comments from the Department of Education; and (3) GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments. (Contains 8 tables and 11 figures.) [This report was published by the United States Government Accountability Office, formerly the General Accounting Office.]

Many of our nation's military and civilian personnel depend on Department of Defense (DOD) schools to meet their children's educational needs. These schools provide a range of educational services including programs for students with disabilities and those who struggle to read, some of whom may have a condition referred to as dyslexia. To determine how DOD supports students with dyslexia and how it used $3.2 million in funds designated to support them, the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) was asked to examine: (1) what professional development DOD provides its staff to support students with dyslexia and how the fiscal year 2004-to-2006 funds designated for this purpose were used, (2) what identification and instructional services DOD provides to students who may have dyslexia, and (3) how DOD assesses the academic achievement of students with disabilities, including dyslexia. To address these objectives, GAO conducted a survey of all school principals and interviewed agency officials, school personnel, and parents in six school districts. GAO recommends DOD improve accountability for the academic achievement of students with disabilities, including certain students who may have dyslexia, by publishing separate data on their performance. In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with the recommendation. Appended are: (1) Objectives, Scope, and Methodology; (2) Comments from the Department of Defense; and (3) Contact and Staff Acknowledgments. (Contains 3 tables and 8 footnotes.)

The D.C. School Choice Incentive Act created the first private kindergarten-through-grade-12 school-choice program supported by federal funds. The program was named the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP). The United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) was asked to assess the (1) accountability mechanisms governing the use of funds; (2) results of the grantee's efforts to meet the program's recruiting priorities and eligibility requirements and inform parents of their choices; and (3) extent that the evaluation of OSP reflects statutory requirements and the implementation of the program supported the detection of useful and generalizable findings. To assess the program, GAO analyzed financial, program, and evaluation data. GAO did not assess the performance of participating private schools nor did GAO evaluate the impact of the program. The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Education should direct the grantee to improve internal controls, continue to integrate its financial systems, improve monitoring, and provide accurate information to parents. The Secretary and the Mayor of the District of Columbia should ensure participating schools are in compliance with District requirements. The Secretary should ensure that programs are implemented in accordance with any required evaluation. The entities providing comments on this report generally agreed with GAO's recommendations but disagreed with many findings. The following are appended: (1) Scope and Methodology; (2) Laws Authorizing Related Voucher Programs; (3) Comments from the Office of the Mayor of the District of Columbia; (4) Comments from the Department of Education; (5) Comments from the Washington Scholarship Fund; and (6) Contacts and Staff Acknowledgment. (Contains 10 tables and 26 footnotes.) [This report was produced by the US Government Accountability Office.]

In this testimony before the House Committee on Homeland Security, the Director of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) discusses the status of school districts' planning and preparedness for emergencies. According to the testimony, federal and state governments support emergency management in school districts with a range of resources and most school districts have developed emergency management plans despite facing challenges; however, not all of these plans incorporate recommended practices, partially because some states receiving this funding may be uncertain as to whether such funding can be allocated to school districts or schools. At the local level, school districts have taken a number of important steps to plan for a range of emergencies, most notably developing emergency management plans; however, in many districts these plans, or their implementation, do not align with federally recommended practices. Additionally, school districts are generally not training with their first responders (i.e., law enforcement, fire, and Emergency Medical Services [EMS]) and community partners (such as the local head of government and local public health agency), which are both federally recommended practices. Finally, many school district officials said that they experience challenges in planning for emergencies due to a lack of equipment, training for staff, and expertise and some school districts face difficulties in communicating and coordinating with first responders and parents, but most said that they do not experience challenges in communicating emergency procedures to students. The GAO is currently considering recommendations that federal agencies clarify and improve guidance to states and school districts to better enable school districts to incorporate recommended practices for emergency management. (Contains 3 tables, 2 figures, and 23 footnotes.)

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA) focused attention on the academic achievement of more than 5 million students with limited English proficiency. Obtaining valid test results for these students is challenging, given their language barriers. This testimony describes: (1) the extent to which these students are meeting annual academic progress goals; (2) what states have done to ensure the validity of their academic assessments; (3) what states are doing to ensure the validity of their English language proficiency assessments; and (4) how the U.S. Department of Education (Education) is supporting states' efforts to meet NCLBA's assessment requirements for these students. This testimony is based on a July 2006 report (GAO-06-815). To collect the information for this report, the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) convened a group of experts and studied five states (California, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, and Texas). The GAO also conducted a state survey and reviewed state and Education documents. The GAO report recommended that Education: (1) support research on accommodations; (2) identify and provide technical support states need to ensure the validity of academic assessments; (3) publish additional guidance on requirements for assessing English language proficiency; and (4) explore ways to provide additional flexibility for measuring annual progress for these students. Education generally agreed with GAO's recommendations and has taken a number of steps to address them. (Contains 2 figures, 1 table, and 11 footnotes.) [This report was produced by the US Government Accountability Office.]

The Reading First program was designed to help students in kindergarten through third grade develop stronger reading skills. This report examines the implementation of the Reading First program, including: (1) changes that have occurred to reading instruction; (2) criteria states have used to award sub-grants to districts, and the difficulties, if any, states faced during implementation; and (3) the guidance, assistance, and oversight the Department of Education (Education) provides states. The U.S. Government Accountability Office's (GAO's) study is designed to complement several studies by Education's Inspector General (IG) in order to provide a national perspective on some of the specific issues being studied by the IG. For this report, GAO administered a Web-based survey to 50 states and the District of Columbia, and conducted site visits and interviews with federal, state, and local education officials and providers of reading programs and assessments. GAO recommends that Education establish control procedures to guide departmental officials and contractors in their interactions with states, districts, and schools to ensure compliance with statutory provisions. GAO also recommends that Education establish and disseminate clear procedures governing its monitoring process. Education, in its response to a draft of this report, agreed with GAO's recommendations. Appended are: (1) Objectives, Scope, and Methodology; (2) Descriptions of Assessment Types; (3) Comments from the Department of Education; and (4) GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments. (Contains 4 tables and 7 figures.) [This report was produced by the United States Government Accountability Office.]

Since September 11, 2001, over 1.3 million members of the armed forces have been deployed in service to the United States. Congress enacted the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students (HEROES) Act to recognize the needs of those servicemembers who are deployed in the midst of pursuing postsecondary education or repaying student loans. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) was asked to determine: (1) how the Department of Education has implemented HEROES; (2) the policies and practices federal student loan lenders have in place to assist borrowers serving on active duty; and (3) the policies and practices postsecondary schools have to assist students who are serving on active duty. To address these objectives, GAO interviewed representatives from the nine largest Federal Family Education Loan program lenders, surveyed a random sample of postsecondary schools, and visited four colleges and universities. In this report, the GAO recommends that the Secretary of Education undertake the congressionally mandated study to determine the extent to which eligible servicemembers are receiving assistance under HEROES. GAO provided copies of a draft of this report to the Department of Education and the Department of Defense for review and comment. Education agreed with the report's findings and said the recommendation has merit. Education has agreed to explore options for conducting the congressionally mandated study. The Department of Defense had no comments on the draft report. Appended are: (1) Methodology for Survey of Colleges and Universities; (2) Waivers and Modifications; (3) Comments from the Department of Education; and (4) GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments. (Contains 2 tables and 9 figures.) [This report was published by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.]

In 1991 the U.S. Department of Justice sued nine colleges and universities, alleging that they had restrained competition by making collective financial aid determinations for students accepted to more than one of these schools. Against the backdrop of this litigation, Congress enacted a temporary exemption from antitrust laws for higher education institutions in 1992. The exemption allows limited collaboration regarding financial aid practices with the goal of promoting equal access to education. The exemption applies only to institutional financial aid and can only be used by schools that admit students without regard to ability to pay. In passing an extension to the exemption in 2001, Congress directed GAO to study the effects of the exemption. GAO examined: (1) how many schools used the exemption and what joint practices they implemented; (2) trends in costs and institutional grant aid at schools using the exemption; (3) how expected family contributions at schools using the exemption compare to those at similar schools not using the exemption; and (4) the effects of the exemption on affordability and enrollment. GAO surveyed schools, analyzed school and student-level data, and developed econometric models. GAO used extensive peer review to obtain comments from outside experts and made changes as appropriate. Appended are: (1) Statistical Analysis of Expected Family Contributions at Schools Using the Exemption and Comparable Schools; (2) Econometric Analysis of Effects of the Higher Education Antitrust Exemption on College Affordability and Enrollment; (3) Classification of 1999-2000 Academic Year and Schools Only Attending the 568 Group Meetings; (4) Comments from 568 Presidents' Group; (5) Consultants and Peer Reviewers; and (6) GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments. (Contains 19 tables, 4 figures, and 19 footnotes.) [This report was published by the United States Government Accountability Office.]

The United States is a world leader in scientific and technological innovation. To help maintain this advantage, the federal government has spent billions of dollars on education programs in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields for many years. However, concerns have been raised about the nation's ability to maintain its global technological competitive advantage in the future. The testimony in this report is based on the October 2005 report and presents information on: (1) trends in degree attainment in STEM- and non-STEM-related fields and factors that may influence these trends; (2) trends in the levels of employment in STEM- and non-STEM-related fields and factors that may influence these trends; and (3) federal education programs intended to support the study of and employment in STEM-related fields. For this report, the researchers analyzed survey responses from 13 civilian federal departments and agencies; analyzed data from the Departments of Education and Labor; interviewed educators, federal agency officials, and representatives from education associations and organizations; and interviewed students. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that while postsecondary enrollment has increased over the past decade, the proportion of students obtaining degrees in STEM fields has fallen. In academic year 1994-1995, about 519,000 students (32 percent) obtained STEM degrees. About 578,000 students obtained STEM degrees in academic year 2003-2004, accounting for 27 percent of degrees awarded. Despite increases in enrollment and degree attainment by women and minorities at the graduate level, the number of graduate degrees conferred fell in several STEM-related fields from academic year 1994-1995 to academic year 2003-2004. College and university officials and students most often cited subpar teacher quality and poor high school preparation as factors that discouraged the pursuit of STEM degrees. Suggestions to encourage more enrollment in STEM fields include increased outreach and mentoring. (Contains 20 footnotes, 1 table, and 3 figures.) [This report was published by the United States Government Accountability Office.]

Under the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) and the Federal Direct Loan Program (FDLP), the government guarantees and makes consolidation loans to help borrowers manage their student loan debt. By combining loans into one and extending repayment, monthly repayments are reduced. Unlike other student loans, consolidation loans carry a fixed interest rate. Recently, trends in interest rates and consolidation loan volume have increased overall federal costs, leading Congress to consider cost reduction proposals. Under the Federal Credit Reform Act, the government calculates, for budgetary purposes, the net cost, or "subsidy cost," of extending or guaranteeing credit over the life of loans. GAO was asked to provide information on the budgetary effects of making consolidation loans exclusively through FDLP. Providing consolidation loans exclusively through FDLP in fiscal year 2006 could yield estimated budgetary cost savings of about $3.1 billion, based on subsidy cost estimates in the President's fiscal year 2006 budget. However, actual savings would remain unknown until all loans made in fiscal year 2006 are repaid and actual interest rates over the life of the loans are known. The estimated savings could change substantially as future reestimates of subsidy costs incorporate actual results as well as reflect changes in key assumptions about the future, such as interest rates, loan performance, and loan volume. The actual impact on lenders and borrowers is difficult to predict. However, according to lenders, consolidating all loans through FDLP would reduce lender revenue and certain borrower benefits provided by FFELP lenders. Briefing slides are contained in the appendix. [This report was produced by the United States Government Accountability Office.]

Each year thousands of students transfer from one postsecondary institution to another. The credit transfer process, to the extent that it delays students' progress, can affect the affordability of postsecondary education and the time it takes students to graduate. Seeking information on the processes and requirements that postsecondary institutions have in place to assess requests to transfer academic credits, Congress asked GAO to examine: (1) how postsecondary education institutions decide which credits to accept for transfer; (2) how states and accrediting agencies facilitate the credit transfer process; and (3) the implications for students and the federal government of students' inability to transfer credits. When deciding which credits to accept from transfer students, receiving institutions consider the sending institution's type of accreditation, whether academic transfer agreements with the institution exist, and the comparability of coursework. However, institutions vary in how they evaluate and apply a student's transferable credits. Many officials from postsecondary institutions with regional accreditation told GAO that they would not accept credits earned from nationally accredited institutions. To streamline the transfer process, most institutions have transfer agreements with other institutions that generally provide for the acceptance of credits from the other institution without further evaluation. In some instances, institutions review student credits--not rejected for other reasons, such as accreditation--to determine comparability to their academic offerings. State legislation, statewide initiatives, and the accreditation standards that accrediting agencies set help facilitate the transfer of academic credits from one postsecondary institution to another. Among other things, states support the establishment of statewide transfer agreements, common core curricula, and common course numbering systems. Accrediting agencies facilitate the transfer process through the standards they set. The accrediting agencies that GAO reviewed generally adhere to the principle that institutions should not accept or deny transfer credit exclusively on the basis of a sending institution's type of accreditation. A student's inability to transfer credit may result in longer enrollment, more tuition payments, and additional federal financial aid, but current data do not allow GAO to quantify its effects on the students or the federal government. Data are not available on the number of credits that do not transfer, making it difficult to assess the actual costs associated with nontransferable credits. Appended are: (1) Scope and Methodology; (2) State Legislation Related to Transfer of Academic Credit; (3) Comments from the Department of Education; and (4) GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments.

Because of concerns about women's access to opportunities in the sciences, this report addresses: how the Department of Education (Education), Department of Energy (Energy), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and National Science Foundation (NSF) ensure that federal grant recipient institutions comply with Title IX in math, engineering, and science; what data show about women's participation in these fields; and what promising practices exist to promote their participation. Researchers reviewed legislation and regulations to identify all areas of compliance relevant to each federal agency; interviewed officials at each agency; gathered documentation to identify agency activities to ensure compliance with Title IX; analyzed data from the Office of Civil Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; gathered data and interviewed officials at the Department of Justice; visited seven research universities to interview officials, students, and faculty; analyzed national data from Education and NSF on women's participation and experiences in the sciences; reviewed literature about women in the sciences and challenges to preparing for and pursuing careers in the sciences; spoke with students and practitioners about promising practices to promote women's participation; reviewed documentation on how data were collected and performed electronic tests to look for missing or out-of-range values; and reviewed the methodology of studies and reports using generally accepted social sciences principles as the basis for understanding results. The four agencies had made efforts to ensure that grantees complied with Title IX in the sciences by performing several compliance activities (e.g., investigating complaints and providing technical assistance), although most had not conducted all required monitoring activities. Women's participation in the sciences has increased substantially in the last 3 decades, especially in the life sciences, such as biology. The proportion of women science students has grown, but to a lesser extent at the graduate level than the undergraduate level. Meanwhile, the proportion of faculty in the sciences who are women has also increased, but they still lag behind men faculty in terms of salary and rank. However, studies indicate that experience, work patterns, and education levels can largely explain these differences. Studies also suggest that discrimination may still affect women's choices and professional progress. Several examples of agencies and grantees that have instituted practices designed to foster greater women's participation in the sciences were found. While some of the practices are aimed at encouraging more women to pursue the sciences, others provide time off and fewer teaching duties so faculty can balance work and family life. Finally, a few practices seek to expand the recruiting pool for jobs in the sciences and make them more attractive to women. Seven appendixes include: study objectives, scope, and methodology; national laboratories and technical centers; legal events and cases involving Title IX; mathematics, engineering, and science grant programs funded by the four agencies; comparison of enrollment status; comparison of enrollment and degrees earned; and comments from Education.

In 1998, Congress amended the Higher Education Act (HEA) and established the Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA) as a performance-based organization. The Act called for the FSA to develop 5-year plans annually, issue annual reports, and consult with stakeholders regarding the program delivery system. The General Accounting Office (GAO) initiated a review to assess FSA's default management efforts and results. FSA had 39 default management goals for fiscal years 2000 through 2002, but the goals changed significantly during this period, and the GAO found that the FSA did not prepare the 5-year performance plans annually. FSA met or exceeded most of its goals, but did not prepare timely performance reports. The GAO analysis shows that FSA met or exceeded 36 of its 39 management goals. Suggestions from the 23 school officials who responded to a GAO survey that was part of this evaluation did not indicate the need for additional default management goals. Most responding officials were generally pleased with FSA assistance. The GAO recommends that FSA prepare a 5-year performance plan as required by the HEA and also prepare and issue reports on performance that are timely and clearly identify whether performance goals were met. Five appendixes contain supplemental information, including a discussion of the study methodology. (SLD)

This report examines two components of federal legislation to enhance teaching quality by improving the training of prospective teachers and the qualifications of current teachers. One component provides grants, and the other (the accountability provisions) requires collecting and reporting information the quality of teacher training programs and qualifications of current teachers. Data come from surveys of grantees, site visits, interviews with education officials and experts, and review of relevant literature, regulations, and department documents. The Department of Education awarded grants in accordance with legislative requirements, but failed to maintain an effective system for communicating with grantees. Grantees used funds for a range of activities, but their effectiveness is difficult to determine, as is the extent to which grant activities will affect teaching quality. Information collected and reported for the accountability provisions does not accurately portray the quality of teacher training programs and qualifications of teachers. Six appendixes include: objectives, scope, and methodology; overview of teacher quality grants under the Higher Education Act and the No Child Left Behind Act; summary information on grant activities; accountability provision description; comments from the Department of Education; and U.S. Government Accounting Office contacts and staff acknowledgments. (SM)

In response to a request from Congress, the General Accounting Office studied veterans education benefits, known as GI benefits, comparing the benefits received by veterans with those received by nonveterans and investigating whether receiving GI benefits affects veterans eligibility for other financial aid. Data were collected from two U.S. Department of Education databases with information on large numbers of veterans and nonveterans. Findings suggest that the receipt of GI benefits may affect veterans eligibility for some federal grants, loans, and tax incentives. Under Title IV, receiving GI benefits does not affect the amount of aid veterans may receive under the Pell grant and Stafford loan programs, but it may affect the amount they receive in unsubsidized loans and through campus-based programs. In some cases, GI benefits are considered as another source of financial aid for students, which may decrease financial need and the amount of need-based aid provided. Receiving GI benefits may also affect the amount veterans can claim in federal tax incentives available for postsecondary education. On average, veterans and nonveterans with comparable characteristics are awarded similar amounts of federal Title IV aid, and when GI benefits are included, the total amount of federal assistance is greater for veterans than for nonveterans. Appendix 1 contains a chart of estimated Title IV aid awarded to students, and Appendix 2 contains comments from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. (SLD)

Certain state or not-for-profit agencies guarantee payment to banks and other lending institutions if students fail to repay loans obtained through the Federal Family Education Loan Program. The 1998 amendments to the Higher Education Act authorize the Secretary of Education to enter into voluntary flexible agreements (VFAs) with individual guaranty agencies, and each VFA provides a guaranty agency with flexibility to implement new business practices by waiving or modifying some federal regulations. As of November 2001, the Department of Education had signed VFAs with 4 of the 36 guaranty agencies in the United States, and five agencies had applied but were not selected, withdrew, or did not reach agreement with the Department of Education. In response to a request from Senator James M. Jeffords, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) looked into the development of VFAs and their implementation. Data came from interviews with Department of Education officials involved in the development of the VFAs and officials at each of the 9 guaranty agencies that applied for an agreement and 10 agencies that did not choose to apply. It was found that the VFA development process did not meet the needs of the guaranty agencies fully. The process was frustrating, in part because the Department of Education did not meet its own timetable. The process for determining VFA selection criteria and inviting VFA proposals was not clear enough. VFAs were generally found to comply with legislative requirements, although in one instance the requirement that VFAs not increase projected federal program costs does not appear to have been upheld. The Department of Education is not fully prepared to assess the effects of the VFAs. The GAO makes recommendations in this report to improve the four current VFAs and the development of additional agreements. Five appendixes contain information about the study scope and methodology, some financial projections, comments from the U.S. Department of Education, and a list of GAO contacts and staff involved in the report. (SLD)

The District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999 created a grant program with the purpose of expanding higher education choices for college-bound District of Columbia residents. This program, the D.C. Tuition Assistance Grant (TAG) Program, addressed the concern that D.C. students were at a disadvantage because the District of Columbia lacks a state university system. TAG allows undergraduates to attend eligible public universities and colleges nationwide at in-state tuition rates and provides smaller grants for students to attend private institutions in the District of Columbia and private historically black colleges and universities. The General Accounting Office (GAO) is required by the College Access Act to monitor the effects of the grant program on eligible students and assess the impact of the program on the University of the District of Columbia, which does not participate in TAG because in-state tuition is already available to D.C. residents. Data are from applicant data for the TAG program for 2000-2001 and a survey of parents (response rate, 42%) of 516 applicants who did not use the program. Twenty-one percent of grant-eligible applicants who did not use the funding may have faced other barriers to college access, especially college entrance examination score requirements. The grant can only be applied to tuition, and in many cases other college costs including room and board may have put institutions out of reach of applicants. Overall, the knowledge level about the TAG program appears adequate. The absence of minority outreach programs on the part of institutions contributes to the low use of TAG grants. The TAG program appears to have had little effect on enrollment at the University of the District of Columbia in its first year of operation. Overall, participating institutions report few problems with TAG participation. Five appendixes contain notes on the study scope and methodology, a list of participating colleges and universities, comments from the Mayor of the District of Columbia and the University of the District of Columbia, and a list of GAO contacts and staff. (SLD)