-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/79476d8ae5263d1090706212b6b5bd1a.pdf
cc32ed1fd0fd9b493203ef5bad57ca47
PDF Text
Text
€ONFIBRN'I'tAt;'
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ON HOUSE BILL REAUTHORIZING
THE ELE:MENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT
DRAFT / September 30,1999
TITLE I: PART A
. BASIC PROGRAM
Recognition of Need
• Page 1-3, lines 13-16: This provision could be read to support private school choice. We
suggest that line 15 read "and should be given public school alternatives ...."
te,
,
. Authorization of Appropriations
• In providing specific appropriations for fiscal year 2000, rather than "such sums," the bill
would lower funding for several initiatives. [* Is this still relevant?? *]
[* not sure where evaluation $$ went *] Because of the ongoing need to.
evaluate the effectiveness of Title I and strategies used to implement it, support
for evaluation should be increased to $10 million for fiscal year 2000.
• Page 1-6, lines 15, 24: [* State admin: what is Part C now? *]
II
Page 1-7, lines 6-9: A 0.5% reservation for school improvement does not realistically
reflect the level of resources needed to tum around failing schools. As the
Administration has proposed, the bill should require states to reserve 2.5% of Title I
funds for this purpose. At least 70% of the reserved funds would flow to LEAs, with
first priority given to LEAs with schools identified for corrective action and second
priority given to LEAs with schools identified for improvement. Alternatively [* ?
*], we are willing to provide technical assistance on a policy that would allow states
to reserve up to 0.5% for developing statewide systems of technical assistance, while
requiring each state to provide LEAs with an amount of Title I funds sufficient to tum
around low-perfonning schools. With state consultation, LEAs would identify such
schools and would develop intervention strategies consistent with Title I school
improvement and corrective action requirements. Moreover, school improvement
funds should be defined as a share of not only Title I, Part A funds, but also funds for
migrant education and neglected or delinquent youth programs.
Standards and Assessments
• Page 1-9, line 22page 1-10, line 8: The bill renames the third level of proficiency "basic"
DETERMINED TO BE AN
ADMINISTRATIVE MARKING
INITIALS: ge.£.
ZOll'olo3-..s
DATE: II/I6/ID
.
. "1.~ •
.
·'1
.. "
�-€6NFIDENTIA:t
instead of "partially proficient" and introduces a fourth level of proficiency, "below
basic;" This threatens to frustrate Title I implementation in states that have developed
or are developing assessments aligned with the three-tier performance standards
prescribed by current law. New performance standards will force many states to
. redesign their assessment systems and, in turn, their accountability systems. If the
intent is to classify student performance into four categories, then no departure from
current law is needed. The Department and the States have interpreted the three
performance levels under current law as thresholds, each of which defines a group of
students above and below the threshold. Massachusetts, for example, has developed a
comprehensive assessment system with three performance levels that classify students
into four categories: "advanced," "proficient," "needs improvement," and "failing."
• Page 1-19, lines 4-18: The exception to the three-year rule (beginning on line 15) should
be deleted because it undermines institutional accountability for helping students
learn English. Moreover, this section should include the Administration's proposed
requirement that states provide tests in Spanish to Spanish-speaking students with
limited English proficiency, if such tests are more likely than tests written in English
to yield accurate performance data in content areas other than English.
• Page 1-27, lines 1-20: These provisions prescribing penalties for failure to implement
standards, assessments, and accountability systems on time are more specific than the
general withholding authority given to the Secretary on page 1-10, lines 17-22. The
approach on page 1-27 is sensible. To eliminate confusion, the provision on page 1-10
should be deleted, or the words "under subsection (g)" should be added after
"determines" on line 22.
• Page 1-27, line 24page 1-28, line 2: States may already seek waivers through the general
waiver provisions of current law. This provision would only increase applications for
waiver, thus delaying Title I implementation. It should be deleted.
Adequate Yearly Progress
• Page 1-10, line 24page 1-11, line 16: This provision requires state plans to demonstrate
what constitutes adequate yearly progress of schools, LEAs, and states. But pages I
II to 1-14 go on to clearly and specifically define what constitutes adequate yearly
progress of schools, LEAs, and states. Apart from what the statute explicitly requires,
what more must state plans demonstrate?
D
Page 1-13, lines 15: Because "promotion" may include social promotion, and because
several states are developing accountability systems that end social promotion,
"promotion" should not be included in the list of "other academic measures."
Alternatively, the term should be rephrased as "promotion based on learning to state
standards."
• Page 1-13, lines 7-13: This exception should be deleted. It unnecessarily constrains states
in their development .of single statewide accountability systems for Title I and nonTitle I schools. While making clear that statewide assessments are the primary basis
�CQNFIBEN'fIA:L'
for evaluating adequate yearly progress, the bill should give states the flexibility to
take "other academic measures" into account, even if this alters the number or
percentage of schools or LEAs subject to improvement or corrective action.
Moreover, how is the exception supposed to work? If a state decides, based on "other
academic measures," that a school or LEA otherwise subject to improvement or
corrective action has made adequate progress, must the state identifyanother school
or LEA 'fot otherwise subject to improvement or cOITective action in order to preserve
"the number or percentage" of schools or LEAs otherwise subject to improvement or
correcti ve acti on ?
• Page I-13, lines 14-18: This provision requires schools to show improvement every year
in the perfonnance of every subgroup specified on page I-12, lines 8-14 and to narrow
performance gaps between subgroups every year. While we agree that accountability
for improved performance among all groups is important, this approach is .
problematic for three reasons. First, as a statistical matter, year-to-year fluctuations in
student performance data do not necessarily reflect true fluctuations in perfonnance.
To account for this, adequate progress should be defined more flexibly in terms of
"continuous and substantial gains," as the Administration has proposed. Second,
because it is somewhat draconian to identify schools for improvement or corrective
action if they fail to narrow performance gaps and to demonstrate improvement by
every subgroup every year, this provision will lead many states to develop dual
accountability systems-one for Title I schools, another for non-Title I schools. It
makes more sense to define adequate progress by reference to gains in both overall
student performance and the performance of low-achieving students, consistent with
the Administration's proposal. Third, this provision will cause thousands of schools
to be identified for improvement, thus triggering mandatory public school choice on a
massive scale (page 1-75, line 6) and inevitably diverting attention and resources from
turning around failing schools.
• Page I-12, line 8; page 1-13, lines 16-18: Must schools narrow performance gaps between
boys and girls every year? This requirement may have unintended consequences,
gi ven the evidence that in math, for example, girls out-perform boys until middle
school, after which boys typically out-perfonn girls. Although schools ,should track
.
. gender-based performance gaps, the bill should focus efforts to narrow. performance
gaps on gaps attributable to curricular or instructional inadequacies.
• Page I-14, line 13: The 90% requirement means that any LEA with less than 10 schools
cannot d/emonstrate adequate yearly progress unless .100% of its schools demonstrate
adequate yearly progress. Again, this will lead many states to develop dual
accountability systems. The bill should incorporate the more flexible accountability
provisions proposed by the Administration.
• Page 1-14, line 19: The 90% requirement sets too low a benchmark for the overall
. percentage of students from all populations who should take the assessments. In
addition to the 90% requirement, this provision should specify that 95% of students
overall must take the assessments. The 95% figure provides sufficient flexibility for
schools with substantial numbers of students (e.g., severely disabled students) for
�whom the assessments may not yield accurate or reliable performance data.
School Report Cards
• Page 1-28, lines 10-11; page 1-29, lines 14-15; page 1-31, line 24page 32, line 1: The bill
requires state, district, and school reporting on student perfonnance only in Title I'
schools and districts. Such a limited requirement provides no way to compare Title 1
schools with other schools in the state or district, and does not encourage states to
develop single statewide accountability systems. The bill should require reporting for
all schools in the state.
• Page 1-29, lines 18-19: Toerisure that all children are held to the same high academic
, standards, the bill should require reporting on student performance in content areas
other than math and reading, if states have standards and assessments in other areas. ,
• Page I-31,lines 16-17: The bill should require schools to report data on schoolsafety and
class size, since these are among the items parents most want to see on school report
cards.
LEA Plans
• Page I-36, lines 24-25; page I-37, lines 4-5: Focusing on "low-achieving children" might
be read to suggest different standards for low-achieving children. These amendments
should read: "all children, particularly low-achieving chlIdren." [*? *]
• Page I-37, lines 12-22: Requirements for assessing first grader literacy do not ensure that,
such assessments provide the most accurate data on the literacy of LEP students.
, After line 22, the following language proposed by the Administration should be
inserted: "(iii) administered to students in the language most likely to yield valid
results.'"
'
• Page I-43 , lines 11-20: The bill nowhere requires peer review for state approval of LEA '
plans. Implementation of current Title I plan requirements and reviews of state
standards and Goals 2000 state plans indicate that review by teams of teachers,
parents, administrators, and other education experts improves the quality andperceived legitimacy of feedback, and dramatically improves program
implementation. Consistent with the Administration's proposal, the bill should
require peer review of LEA plans.
Targeting: Eligible Attendance Areas and Local Allocations
• Page I-48, line 10: After this line, the bill should include a grandfatherclause to ensure
continuity and fiscal stability for schools that had received Title I funds the previous
year. The following language proposed by the Administration should be added:
"designate and serve a school attendance area or school that is not eligible under
�€6NFIDEN'FIAt;
subsection (b), but that was eligible and that was served in the preceding fiscal year,
but only for one additional fiscal year."
• Page 1-49, line 12page I-50, line 11: [* Bill now follows current law below 75%.
Wouldn't a middle threshold target better? Above 75%, we had proposed strict
rank ordering without regard to grade span. *]
.• Page I-53, lines 10-14: This provision should make clear that funds must be allocated "in
rank order" and that no higher poverty school may receive a lower per-pupil .
allocation than a lower poverty school.
.
• Page I-54, line 13: To ensure that homeless children are served by Title I, the clause
"where appropriate" should be deleted.
Schoolwide Programs
• Pagel-55, line 2: The bill omits improvements proposed by the Administration to clarify
the purposes of schoolwide programs-namely, to enable high-poverty schools to
upgrade their entire educational program and to help ensure that all children in such
.schools, particularly those most at risk of educational failure, meet challenging state
standards.
• Page I-55, line 9: The bill reduces the poverty threshold for schoolwides to 40%: To
ensure that Title I funds support schoolwide programs specifically in schools where,
according to educational research, the level of poverty negatively affects the
educational achievement of all students, the threshold should remain at 50%.
• Page I-55, lines 13-20: The bil1 should require LEAs to subject schoolwide plans to peer·
review, consistent with the Administration's proposal.
• Page I-57, line 22page 1-62, line 10: The bill omits modifications proposed by the
Administration to clarify the three essential components of effective schoolwide
programs-a comprehensive needs assessment, a coherent design to improve teaching
and learning throughout the school based on the needs assessment, and regular review
.
for purposes of improvement.. Page I-58, line 5: The comprehensive needs assessment should include other
factors that affect teaching and learning in the school. These lines should read:
" ... that is based on information including, but not limited to, the performance of
children ...."
Page I-59, line 18: The words "high-quality and ongoing" should be added before
"professional development."
.
Page 1-60, lines 15-23: This provision should also provide for teacher-parent
conferences to discuss student difficulties, and it should suggest what
interventions (e.g., one-on-one tutoring, before,.. or after-school programs, summer
school) schools and parents should undertake to address difficulties.
�~ONFIDENTIAt:
Page 1-63, lines 12-14: Instead of requiring "review[] ... as necessary" of
schoolwide plans, this provision should include a clear requirement for regular
review of each school's progress toward implementing schoolwide programs and
. achieving student achievement goals..
School Choice
• . Page 1-70, lines 2-9: We read this language to confine choice programs to pupil transfer
among public schools only. If congressional intent is ambiguous on this point, the
following language should be added: "A local educational agency may not use funds
under this part to develop or implement school choice programs that encourage,
facilitate, or otherwise provide for Pllpil transfer from public schools to private
schools."
• Page 1-70, line 10: The choice plan should include the provision (section 11 15A(b)(4» in
current law requiring LEAs to describe how schools will provide individual student
ass~ssment results to parents. This provision promotes accountability for the
achievement of disadvantaged students, whatever school they attend.
• Page 1-70, line 13: Who ,are "eligible students"? Do LEAs have total discretion to define
eligibility?
School Improvement and Corrective Action
• Page 1-75, line 7page 1-76, line 4: Requiring LEAs to develop public school choice
options for students in schools identified for improvement seems impracticable given
the large number of schools that will be identified under the bill's rigorous definition
of adequate yearly progress. Moreover, this requirement would divert the attention
.
.
and resources of LEAs from assisting low-performing schools-at precisely the time
(within 18-months) when school improvement efforts are most needed and may
begin to show results. A more sensible approach is to require school choice when a
school has been identified for corrective action.
.
..
• Page 1-78, line 12:' This provision should require LEAs to subject plans for school
improvement to peer review.
• Page 1-80, line 7; page 1-89, line 9: Consistent with emerging research on the time it
takes to tum around low-performing schools; the bill should require corrective action
after the end of three, not two, years following school or LEA identification for
improvement, as the Administration has proposed.
• Page 1-82, lines 6.;.14; page 1-91, lines 18..;25: These exceptions allowing for delay of
corrective action should be deleted.
• Page 1-91, line 25: After this line, there should be a provision specifying when states
may remove LEAs from improvement status-presumably when an LEA, for at least
�. eoNFIBENTbtt:;'
two out of three years fol1owing its identification for improvement, has made
adequate yearly progress.
"
Paraprofessionals
• Page 1-104, lines 5-6: Paras only need to meet "a rigorous standard of quality." Not
sure what this means, except that it requires more than a high school diploma or
OED. They deleted state or local certification. Not sure who defines "a rigorous
standard of quality," but based on the language, it looks like LEAs get to define.
Suggests that there won't be uniformity in rigor within each state.
• Page 1-106, lines 13-14: Allows paras to provide "instructional services."
• Page 1-106, line 19: Direct teacher supervision is required only when paras provide
instructional services. Our proposal requires such supervision when paras provide
one-on-one tutoring, assist with classroom management, or provide assistance in a
computer laboratory. '
• Page 1-106, lines 21-25: Why is only reading subject to this stricter requirement?
Shouldn't math or writing instruction also be included?
Professional ,Development
.' Page _',lines_: This section should more clearly endorse activities that involve
collaborative groups of teachers and administrators from the saine school or district
and, to the greatest extent possible, include follow-up and school-based support such
as coaching or study groups.
• Page _, lines _: To ensure that children most at risk of educational failure have high
quality teachers, the bill should require LEAs to reserve 5% to 10% of their Title I
funds for on-going professional development, as the Administration has proposed.
Private Schools
• ,Page I-52, line 1: Before requiring extrapolation of survey data, there should be some
safeguards to ensure that the resulting number would be reliable (e.g., the number of
surveys returned was sufficient to permit extrapolation, the surveys returned represent
the school population as a whole). Otherwise, the count of low-income children may
be artificially high or artificially low.
'
• Page _, line _: Requiring consultation with entities "by whom" the services to private
school children will be provided implies that an LEA must discuss the specific
employees who will provide services.
• Page _, lines _:
This provision would require private school officials to sign a written
affirmation that consultation has occurred. It could be construed as giving private
�, -€ O NFIBENTIA&
school officials a veto over the services to be provided if they are in any way
dissatisfied.
• Page _',lines _: By authorizing a bypass if a single private school child has "failed to
make satisfactory progress in those subjects for which the child recei ves title I
services," the bill makes LEAs wholly responsible for meeting the educational needs
of children who attend private schools. Given the, difficult questions this raises
concerning where an LEA's obligation ends and where the private school's begins,
we oppose this provision.
'
Comparability of Services
• Pages _: The bill proposes no amendments to the comparability of services requirement
in section 1120A of current law. As the Administration has proposed, this section
should be amended to strengthen the quality of inputs to be examined in ensuring
intra-district school comparability. Such inputs should include teacher qualifications,
school safety conditions, and accessibility to technology, among others.
Amounts for Grants (Title I formulas)
Outlying Areas and the Secretary ofthe Interior: Pages 101-03 set out instructions for
allocating a 1% set-aside from Title I LEA Grants for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the
Outlying Areas. These provisions also include a $5 million reservation from the Outlying
Areas share for islands that are not U.S. territories but are "freely-associated states."
• Page _, lines _: After September 30, 2001, the number of entitles that would be
eligible to receive funding under the 1% set-aside drops from seven entities to the
four Outlying Areas (American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas, and the Virgin
Islands). The Outlying Areas should not receive the resulting windfall, since they are
already well-provided for under the 1% set aside. Therefore, language on line 7
should be changed to reserve a total of up to 1%.
• Page _, lines . Since the bill terminates eligibility to the freely associated states after
September 30,2001, the four Outlying Areas would be the sole eligible entities for
competitive grants. The competitive grant program shouid be repealed as of that date,
since having two different funding mechanisms.(fonnula grants and competitive
grants) for the same four entities makes no sense and creates unnecessary burden.
D
Pag~
_, lines _: Unlike current law, the bill would not allow the Outlying Areas to
consolidate Title I funds, and it would require funds to be used for Title I purposes,
not for broader purposes under ESEA. Is the intent to have the Outlying Areas, some
of which receive only small amounts of funds, meet all Title I accountability
requirements?
Amountsfor Basic Grants, Concentration Grants, and Targeted Grants: Title I provides
funds to high-poverty LEAs, which have the furthest to go to help children meet high
�--eeNFIDENTIAL
standards.
• Page _, lines _: Because this provision would significantly decrease the amount of
funds allocated as Targeted Grants, it should be reconsidered. The proposed
allocation formula would authorize substantial annual increases in Basic Grants,
which spread funds thinly across high- and low-poverty LEAs. Meanwhile, Targeted
Grants would receive only 50% of any increase in Title I LEA Grants above the FY
1999 level. In contrast, the Administration's proposal would allocate substantial
funds through the Targeted Grants fonnula, which distributes funds more fairly by
providing higher per-child amounts to higher-poverty LEAs and lower per-child
amounts to less poor LEAs.
• Page _, lines _: By guaranteeing Title I funds to LEAs that do not meet the eligibility
thresholds for four additional years under the Basic, Concentration, and Targeted
formulas, this provision would drastically reduce increases in funding to all eligible
LEAs. It would prevent retargeting of Title I funds to LEAs that are newly eligible
for funds or that are experiencing substantial increases in poverty. For example, with
the use of new 1999 poverty data, 1,626 LEAs were newly eligible for Title I funding,
and 1,732 LEAs had insufficient poverty to meet the criteria for eligibility.
Continuing funding to the 1,732 ineligible LEAs for four additional years severely
reduces funding to the newly eligible LEAs and could leave them with nothing at all
in the event that the Title I appropriation is not substantially increased each year.
Moreover, the provision circumvents targeting under the Concentration and Targeted .
formulas that are specifically designed to provide money to the highest poverty LEAs.
Although funding for each formula is typically earmarked-in appropriations language,
this authorizing language undermines targeting of funds where the needs are greatest.
"Scientifically based research"
• The term "scientifically based research" is broadly used in this bill. This term has a
specific definition in the provisions authorizing Comprehensive School Reform
Demonstration programs and in the provisions of current law authorizing reading and
literacy grants (Title IT, Part C). In particular, research qualifies as "scientifically
based" only if, among other things, it "has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal
or approved by a panel of independent experts through a comparably rigorous,
objective, and scientific review." This definition would render virtually impossible
the implementation of many Title 1 provisions. In the following areas where the term
"scientifically based research" occurs, the bill should require or encourage (as
appropriate) that programs, plans, reforms, or strategies simply be "research-based."
Page I-I, lines 16-17 (effective educational strategies).
Page 1-37, line 20; page 1-40, lines 8-9 (lEA plans).
Page I-58, line 16 (school wide reform strategies).
Page 1-67, lines 5-6 (targeted assistance programs).·
�. Page 1-77, lines 4-5 (school improvement plans).
Page 1-78, lines 22-23; page 1~79, lines 14-15 (LEA-provided technical assistance
to schools identified for improvement).
Page 1-82, lines 2-3 (LEA-prescribed corrective action for schools).
Page 1-87, lines 1-2 (LEA improvement plans) ..
Page 1-109, lines 14-15; page 1-110, line 1 (required professional development
activities ).
. Comprehensive Technical Assistance Centers
• Page 43, line 18; page 66,·lines 8-9: References to these centers should be deleted.
These centers should not be reauthorized because [* why? *]
Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Programs
• Page 1-D:-ll, line 13: Support should be increased to $200 million, the fiscal year 2000
request.
�CONFIDENTIAL
TITLE I: PART D
NEGLECTED OR DELINQUENT YOUTH
�-6eNFIBEN't'IItL
TITLE III
INDIAN EDUCATION
"Indian Flex" Authority .
• Page 17, lines 3-13: This provision creates a new "Indian Flex" authority that could open
a back door to bigger consolidation and that could create a substantial administrati ve
and reporting burden for the Department of Education [* ? *]. The proposal permits
integration of services for programs serving Indian stugents in any LEA that receives
funds under the Indian Education program. [* How many schools? *] Thus, a small
amount of money under the Indian Education program could trigger a consolidation
involving much larger programs such as Title I. [* specific ways that consolidation
produces less accountability? *] In BIA schools, Indian Education formula money
may already be consolidated.
�TITLE IV
MAGNET SCHOOLS
• Page 8, line 3: This changes section 5106(b)(2)(B) from "State certified or licensed
teachers" to "fully qualified teachers (as described in section 1119)." The current .
. statutory language-"State certified or licensed teachers"-should be retained
because it is more specific and answers the question of what "fully qualified" means
without the awkward reference to another title.
• Page 9, line 8:' This retains the statutory priority for need for assistance in section 5107 .
.This priority should be eliminated, as the Administration has proposed, because [*
??? *]. :f!owever, if the provision is retained, it should be amended by striking the
words "the expense or" after the words "based on" (iine 9). This change would invite
discussion of other difficulties inherent in implementing approved desegregation
plans, while still permitting applicants to raise expense as an issue, where appropriate.
�TITLE VII
GIFTED AND TALENTED
�..cQNFIBEN'fIAt
TITLE VIII
RURAL EDUCATION.
Subpart 1 - Small and Rural School Program
Alternative Uses ofFunds: Section 10961 would authorize small, rural LEAs, upon
notifying SEAs of their intent, to consolidate funds from the Class Size Reduction,
Eisenhower Professional Development, Safe and Drug Free Schools, and Innovative
Education Program Strategies programs. Without much accountability [* ?? *], LEAs
could use these funds for local or statewide education reform efforts to improve academic
achievement and the quality of instruction in elementary and secondary schools.
• Page 2, lines 19-25: The language allows eligible LEAs to use applicable funds to
support State and local education reform efforts, but does not make clear whether
LEAs would be able (1) to consolidate the funds from the four applicable programs or
(2) to use those funds for activities that are not otherwise authorized. The proposal
also does not require LEAs to provide SEAs with plans for how they would use funds
to improve student achievement or the quality of instruction..
• Page 3, lines 9-21: This provision would make eligible an LEA that (1) serves fewer than
600 students, (2) serves only schools in communities with a United States Department
of Agriculture Rural-Urban ContinUlimCode of 6, 7, 8, or 9, or (3) receives a waiver
of the criteria from the Secretary to use applicable funding to support State or local
reform efforts. The language regarding a "community" is problematic because the
Rural-Urban Continuum Code applies to counties not towns, and an estimated 2,600
LEAs would be eligible [* compared to what # currently? *]. In addition,
determining which schools served by the LEA are in communities with the
appropriate code would be confusing and burdensome on States. .
Fonnula Grants to Small, Rural Districts: Section 10962 would authorize grants of $100
per student or $20,000, whichever is greater, to LEAs that meet the same criteria for using
applicable funding.
• Page 5, lines 17-23: The Secretary would award an eligible LEA an amount equal to
$100 per student or $20,000, whichever is greater, minus the amount the LEA
receives from the Class Size Reduction, Eisenhower State Grants, Safe and Drug Free
Schools, and Innovative Education Program Strategies programs in that fiscal year.
This provision would be impossible for the Departinent to implement without
collecting substate allocation data from the states, since the Department does not
,make the allocations for the affected programs directly to LEAs. To implement the
formula, states would have to provide the Department with substate allocation
amounts within a timeframe that may not be possible. In addition, the proposal would
reduce the amount of awards to LEAs that did not use their applicable funding for
)
�..
alternative uses.
• Page 6, lines 7-14: In any fiscal year in which the amount of the appropriation is not
sufficient to provide LEAs with their full award, the Secretary would be required to
. ratably reduce the amount of awards. As drafted, it is unclear whether all LEAs
would have their amount of award reduced, or only those LEAs that receive an
. amount abo've the minimum.
.
.
• Page 6, lines 21-25: An LEA. desiring to receive an award would have to conduct a
census, by December 1, of the average daily attendance in grades K-12. The
language is unclear as to whether the intent is to. determine the average daily
attendance for the .LEA over a period of time, or to determine the attendance on one
particular day before December 1.
• Page 8, lines 6-20: An LEA that receives or uses funds under this subpart would have to
administer the test used statewide to assess the academic achievement of students in
the LEA. In the absence of a statewide test, the LEA would have to select a test to
assess student achievement. An LEA also would be required to use the same test in
each year it participated in the program. The language does not contain any
references to the tests or performance standards required under Title 1. The language
regarding the use of the same test for all five years of participation would seem to
mean that an LEA in a state that adopted a statewide assessment after its first year of
participation in the program would have to relinquish its award under this section in
order to be in compliance with Title 1.
• Page 9, lines 5-21: An SEA would be required to determine whether, after five years of
participating in the program, the academic achievement of students in the LEAs had
increased. An LEA that demonstrated increased academic achievement would be
eligible to continue to participate in the program for an additional five years. An LEA
that failed to demonstrate gains in academic achievement would be unable to
participate in the program over the ensuing five years. These accountability
provisions are considerably weaker than those contained in Title I. For example,
there are no provisions for disaggregating data, closing the achievement gap between
high- and low-achieving students, and reporting the data publicly. Even though the
Secretary would be making awards to districts, it would be states that determine
continued participation.
Subpart 2 ..: Low-Income and Rural School Program
Subpart 2 would authorize a state formula grant program to provide sub grants to poor,
rural districts. In states that choose not to participate, the Secretary would be authorized
to make awards directly to eligible LEAs.
• Page 10, lines 15-24: The Secretary would allocate to each state its share of funds based
�on-the number of children served by eligible districts within the state. An eligible
district is one with: (1) at least 20 percent of the children it serves residing in
households with incomes below the poverty line, and (2) a Rurai-Urban Continuum
Code of 6, 7, 8, or 9. The language contained in the bill describing the method of
allocation is poorly drafted. As written, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Jersey
would not receive any funds under this program, and the language does not address
allocations for rural areas in Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Moreover, it would be difficult
and burdensome for SEAs to determine LEA eligibility. Many LEAs serve students
from more than one county; the proposal contains no means for States to adjust
poverty counts in LEAs to account for this.
Furthermore, this subpart contains no real accountability provisions. States desiring
to receive a grant must apply to the Secretary and provide such information as the
Secretary may require. States must also provide specific measurable goals and
objectives, and report annually on the method they used to allocate funds, how LEAs
used the funds, and progress made within the state toward meeting the goals and
objectives contained in the application. However, as with Subpart 1, the proposal
contains no requirements to disaggregate data or close the achievement gap between
high-: and low-performing students; no provision allowing states to terminate awards
to districts that fail to make significant progress toward their goals or objectives; and
no provisions authorizing the Department to wi thhold funds from states or districts
that receive awards directly from the Department that fail to make sufficient progress.
�I'
r'
TITLE IX
HOMELESS EDUCATION
• Page 5, line 18: The bill would require the Secretary to transfer 1% of the appropriation
to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). At the FY 1999 level of funding, this would
require the Department to reserve $288,000 for the BIA, nearly tripling the BIA's
award. (In the last few years the Department has given BIA $100,000, which is the
minimum allocation.) The bill should simply authorize the Secretary to reserve up to
1%.
• Page 8, line 20:· States that established segregated schools for homeless children prior to
enactment of this bill would remain eligible to receive funds for those schools. This
. would, potentially, have the impact of "grandfathering" in segregated schools that are
already in operation. This section should be deleted. The Department is opposed to
providing assistance to schools that separate homeless students 'from the mainstream
school environment.
�'.
,
,-OCT-13-199916: 51
OFC ,OF THE DEP SECY
202 401 9027
P.02/02
GAO Confirms Federal Education Dollars Are Going to the Classroom
,An independent rep~rt by the US General Accounting Office (GAO) shows that 92% offederal
program dollars are reaching districts. The GAO studied 10 m~or Department of Education
programs for fisCal year 1996 and found that both states and the Department are keeping very
small portions of federal program dollars.
Over the last two years, there have been a number of "dollars to the classroom" proposals based
on the assumption that the Department of Education retains a significant portion of federal
elementary and secondary appropriations to pay for administrative costs. However, the GAO
report confirms that the Departtnent has been very successful in getting federal education dollars
to where they can do the most good. the local level.
Tbe Department is driving dollars to local districts and schools. While states vary in the
percentages of program funds they allocate to districts, the GAO determined that i'of the original
appropriations for all 10 programs, 92 percent was distributed to local agenCies."
Program funds support teaching and learning, not accoUDting and paperwork. The GAO
visited nine districts and reported that, while fulfilling federal requirements necessitates staff
resources at both the district and school level, school and district staff are spending very little
time administering federal education programs. "About 70 percent of personnel in the 15 schools
visited, primarily teachers, did not have administrative responsibilities for the 10 programs
reviewed." Even for the largest program. Title I, "the amount of time school staff spent
administering the Title Tprogram was usually a day or less out ofthe school year for each
administrative duty assigned them."
Less than 1 percent of all program funds support federal program administration.
According to the GAO, the Department of Education ','distributed over 99 percent ohhe
appropriations for the 10 programs [studied] to the states." In fact, in fiscal year 1996, Education
spent less than I percent for the implementation of 7 ofthc::: 10 programs studied, including Title I,
the largest federal elementary and secondary education program., "Education spent $3.5 million
ofthe funds, ... less than I percent of the program's $7;3 billion appropriation." The funds
reserved at the federal level were used to support a variety of~ctivities. including program
. research, evaluation, information dissemination, and technical assistance.
The states in turn, "collectively distributed 94 percent of the funds they received to local agencies
such as school districts." At the state level, funds were used, as Congress described in law, to
support a variety of activities that support improvements in teaching and learning, including
developing content and performance standards, designing curricu1a, providing professiona1
development for teachers, evaluating programs. developing demonstration projects. and providing
technical aSsistance.
'
.
However, states varied across programs in the percentage offunds they spent and the percentage
they provided to districts, from 1·17 percent ofthe funds. ,For example, 43 states kept more than
J1 percent (and as much as 25 percent) of the funds allocated for the Title VI block grant, while
46 states spent 5 percent or less to implement Title 1. The GAO also excluded several other key
education programs, including the Class Size Reduction Initiative (CSR) which provides for
neither federal nor state administrative costs, ensuring that 100% of program funds are allocated
to'local school districts and schools.
TOTAL P.02
�United States General Accounting Office
.
GAO
Report to Congressional Requesters
September 1999
FEDERAL EDUCATION
FUNDING'
1
Allocation to State and
Local Agencies for 10·
Programs
.
'.
'.
GAO
..............~ Accountability '* Integrity '* Reliability
GAO/HEHS-99-180
..
;
�,-, •. .r:!
�GAO
United States
General Accounting Office
Washington. D.C. 20548
!-Iealth. Education. and
Human Services Division
B-2.78482
September 30, 1999
The HonorableWilliam F. Goodling
Chairman, Committee on Education
and the Workforce
House of Representatives
The Honorable Peter Hoekstra
Chairman. Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations
Committee on Education. and
the Workforce
House of Representatives
The Honorable Michael N. Castle
Chairman, Subcommittee on Early
Childhood, Youth and Families
Committee on Education and
the Workforce
House of Representatives
The Honorable Joseph R. Pitts
House of Representatives '..
The HQnorabl~ Lindsey O. Graham
House of Representatives
Since the early 1990s. the Congress has appropriated over $30 billion a
year forpre~chool. elementary, and secondary education. These funds are
targeted primarily to specifl~ groups of children-such as those who are
poor or disabled or have limited English .proficiency-to help ensure their
. access to publlc education aQd to pr~mote educational excellence
throughout the nation. The Congress pTPvides some of these funds to the
Department of Educatloll (Education). \;'Vhi<;h then distributes the funds
either directly to local agencies or to the states. States in turn distribute
the funds to local agencies. Education and the states may spend some of
the program funds for administration and other activities allowed under
each program's statute.
Although the federal investment in elementary and secondary education is
large, the Congress does not routinely receive information about hoW
much federal funding actually reaches students in the classroom. There
Page 1
GAOIHEHS-99-180 Federal Education Funding
('
�B·278482
are concerns that too much federal funding may be spent on
administration and that school personnel are incurring "hidden"
administrative costs as they spend time fulfilling administrative
requirements related to applying for, monitoring, and reporting on federal
funds. But administrative activities are difficult to define across programs
because what is considered administration varies from program to
program. For example, under the Individuals With Disabilities Education
.Act (IDEA), technical assistance is considered an administrative activity,
but under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities program
(called the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program) it is considered
nonadministrative.
.
In this context as the Congress prepares to consider reauthorization of .
many of the elementary and secondary programs, you asked us to
determine, for 10 major Education programs for fiscal year 1996, (1) the
percentage of federal funding spent at the federalle\fel and the.uses of
these funds and (2) the percentage of federal funding spent at the state
.
level and the uses of these funds. In addition, you asked that we.
examine-in a small number of school districts~the amount or-time school
personnel spent fulfilling federal administrative requirements for those
programs for which the districts received funds.
To determine the percentage of funds spentl by federal and state agencies
from the 10 programs and how these funds were used, we surveyed 50 .
states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, as well as Education
officials. For this analysis, we examined funds from these programs that
Education distributed directly to the states but not to local-level agencies
(see table 1 for a description of the 10 programs and their authorizing
legislation). To determine how much time school personnel spent fulfilling
adminlstr.atlve requirements,. we gathered illustrative information from 9
of the 16!OOO school district~' nationwide in three states-California,
Marylanc:J. and South Caroltn(i-and surveyed district staff and staff from
sefected schools In e~ch of th~.9 school districts (see app. I for a more
detailed discussion of our scope aru! methodology). We judgmentally.
selected these 9 school districts' ensure that the districts were of varying
sizes, were located in different parts of the country, and represented a mix
of urban, ,suburban, and rural districts. We conducted our work between
to
.'
,
,
'We asked the Department of Education and the states to report the amounts of program funds they
initially retained to spend on federal-level or state· level activities. respectively. Although states may
later reallocate some portion of the funds to local agencies a.nd other entities to spend. throughout the
report. the term ·spent" refers to the funds that Education and the states reported they initially
retained for their expenses.
Page 2
GAOIHEHS-99-180 Federal Education Funding
"
�B-278482
July 1997 and August 1999 in ,accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards .
•
Results in Brief
In fiscal year 1996. Education distributed over 99 percent of the
appropriations for the 10 programs to the states; the states. in turn.
collectively distributed 94 percent of the funds they received to local
agencies such as school districts. Of the original appropriations.
92 percent was allocated primarily to local agencies. At both the federal
and state levels. the funds that were not distributed supported such
activities as research and evaluation related to the programs and
information dissemination about them. At the state level. the funds. as
authorized by law. may be spent on a wider range of activities. such as
developing student performance standards and professional development
training for teachers.
Education spent less than 1 percent of all appropriated program funds.
distributing the rest primarily to the states in fiscal year 1996. Only for the'
School-to-Workprogram did Education spend more than 1 percent.
spending 7 percent of the funds for this program. Education spent the
funds on such services as research. evaluation. and information
dissel,l1ination. For example. Education used $26 million of the
School-to-Work program funds for program research and to provide the
states with technical assistance to help them plan and implement the
program. Education paid for other costs of running the programs. such as
the salaries and benefits of staff issuing grants and administering the
programs. from an appropriation it receives for overall agency
management. and not from funds appropriated for the agency's programs.
In fiscal year 1996. Education received $327 million to administer all of its
programs. Education estimates that it spent about $23 million to
administer the 10 programs
reviewed. z , '
wt:
For 9 of the 10 programs. the states spent an average of from 1 to 17
percent of the funding. For the remaining program (Bilingual Education
state grants), all the funds we reviewed were intended to be used at the
state leveL Collectively. states distributed 94 percent of the federal funds
they received mainly to local agencies. Excluding the $7.3 billion Title I
program (one of the largest elementary and secondary education
, programs). the overall percentage of funds states allocated to local
'$4 million for Title I programs. $5.8 million for IDEA programs; $4,2 million for Perkins programs.
$1.3 million each for Eisenhower and Safe and Drug-Free Schools programs, $900.000 for Goals 2000
programs. $1 million for School-to-Work programs, $1.1 million for Innovative Education programs.
$3.3 million for Bilingual Education programs. and $300,000 for Even Start programs,
Page 3
GAO/HEHS-99-180 Federal Education Funding
�8·278482
agencies by the remaining nine programs was 86 percent. The states, like
Education, spent the funds for activities such as technical assistance and
program evaluation. The states also are authorized to spend the funds for a
wider range of activities, including designing curricula and demonstration
projects. We visited 9 of the nation's 16,000 school districts and found that
school·level staff spent very little time administering the programs and
that district office staff also generally spent little time administering them.
The time they spent varied by district a~d by program.
'Background
The federal investment in preschool, elementary, and secondary education
of more than $30 billion was about 7 percent of all education funding in
academic year 1995-96; state and local contributions were 47and 46
percent, respectively. As shown in tablel, the fiscal year'1996
appropriations for the 10 programs we reviewed varied widely, from $7.3
billion for the Title I program to $102 million for Even Start. These
amounts reflect the total appropriation for each program, including funds
that Education distributed directly to local education agencies as well as .
funds Education distributed to state education agencies or other eligible
recipients.
Table 1: Characteristics of the 10 Department ~f
I;ducatli:,"'programsQ~rlrig Fiscal Year 1996, Listed by Funding Amount
-.
Program
Improving Basic
Programs
Operated by
Local
Educational
Agencies (Title I)
Authorizing
legislation
Elementary and
Secondary Education
Actof1965.as
amended (ESEA). title
I, part A
·IDEA. part B
Assistance for
Education of All
Children With
Disabilities (IDEA)
Vocational
Education
Assistance to the
States (Perkins)
Carl D. Perkins
Vocational and
Applied Technology
Education Act. as
amended. title II
(moved to title I in
1998) .
Purpose
Target
populatloll
F,unding (In
millions)
Maximum
percentage states
may spend and
specific limits on
administration8
Maximum b
amount states
may spend on
administration
(in millions)
, Pisagvantaged $7.295
To help local
,.students
edw;ation agencies
I:lnd schools improve
the tEl,aching and
learning of ~hildren
falling. Or m()st at:risk
1.5% (inCluding
1% for
administration)
$73
To assist states in .
providing free.
appropriate public
education to all
children with
disabilities
Childrenand ,2.684c
youth with .
disabilities
25%d (including
5% for
administration)
134
To help states
improve vocational,
education programs
and provide special
needs populations
with equal access to
such programs
Secondary
students in
prevocational
courses
14.5%
5% for
administration}
963
(continued)
Page 4
GAOIHEHS·99-180 Federal Education Funding
�B-278482
Program
Authorizing
legislation .
Purpose
Target
population
.Funding (in
millions)
Maximum
percentage states
may spend and
specific limits on
administrationS
Maximum b
amount states
may spend on
administration
(in millions)
State Grants for
Drug and
Violence
Prevention
Programs (Safe
and Drug-Free
Schools)
ESEA. title IV. part A.
subpart 1
To support programs' Elementary
to meet the National
and
Education Goal that
secondary
every school will be
schools.'
free of drugs and
teachers. and
students
violence by the year
2000
441 ($348 '
million for
state grants
and $93
million for
governor's
programs
and other
For state grants.
9% (including 4%
for administration)
14e
State and Local
Education
Systemic
Improvement
(Goals 2000)
2000: Educate
America Act, title III
To support
comprehensive
reform plans at the
state. local. and
school levels to
improve the teaChing
and learning of all
children
Elementary
and
secondary
schools.
teachers, and
students
340
10% (including 4%
for administration)
14'
School-ta-Work
School-to-Work
Opportunities
Opportunities Act of
System
1994. title II
Development and
Implementation
Grants to States
(School-to-Work)f
'
To establish a
national framework
i
within which all states
·can create statewide
school-to-work
opportunities systems
All students.
350
including the
disadvantaged.
minorities. the
disabled.
those with
limited English
proficiency.
migrants. and
schqq[
dropout;;
No specific limits
for development
grants: for
implementation
grants. 30% for 151
year of grant. 20%
for 2nd • and 10%
for subsequent
years (including
10% each year for
administration)
35
Dwight D.
Eisenhower
Professional
Development
Program
(E isen hower)
ESEA. title II. part B
To provide highquality professional
development
activities to teachers.
staff. and
'
administration
Teachers and
other school '
staff
275
10% (including 5%
for administration)
14
Innovative
Education
Program
Strategies
(Innovative
Education)
ESEA, title VI
To assist state and
local education
agencies in the
reform of elementary
and secondary
education
E'lementary
and
secondary
schools.
teachers. and
students
-275
15% (including
3.75% for
administration)
10
(continued)
Page 5
GAOIHEHS-99-180 Federal Educ,aHon Funding
�8-278482
Program
Authorizing
legislation
Bilingual
Education 9
ESEA. title VII.
part A
To help ensure that
Children with
students with limited
limited English
English proficiency
proficiency
master English and
develop high levels of
academic ~ttainment
in content areas
ESEA. title I. part B
To help break the
cycle of poverty and
illiteracy by
integrating early
childhood education.
adult literacy or adult"
basic education. and
pareilting into a
unified family literacy
program
Even Start Family
. Literacy Program
(Even Start)
Purpose
Target
population
Funding (in
millions)
128 ($7
million for
state grants
and $121
million for
localities)
Parents who
102
lack basic
education
skills; have no
high school
diploma; or
are unable to
speak. read.
or write the
English
language; and
their children,
aged 0-7
Maximum
percentage states
may spend and
specific limits on
administrationS
Maxlmum b
amount states
may spend on
administration
(in millions)
For state grants.
100% (including
5% for
administration)
5% (including
administration)
5
"Many also may spend more than the percentage listed in this column. Many programs also
provide for a minimum dollar amount. In the case of small states. wtiere their total grant is
relatively small. the maximum percentage amount.may be inadequate.
"The numbers in this column are based on total funding rather than the amounts remaining after
Epucation has taken any funds for its use.
"Amount Is actually for two separate grant programs under part B of IDEA, one providing special
education and related services to school-aged children and one providing such services to
preschoolers.
'JThe law was amended in 1998. changing this to 15 percent (including 5 percent for
administration).
"Estimate is based only on the $348 million allocated for state grants.
fThe.·Depa~ments of Educ<!lion and Lappr jointly administer the School-to-Work program. For
fiscallgf)6. $180 million was includeq in Education's appropriation and $170 million in Labor's.
9Under'this program, funding' for state-level activities is provided through a separate state grant
program, and other funds 'are allocated directly to local agencies, We only examined the stale
grant portion of these funds.
hEstimate is based only on the $7.3 million allocated for state grants.
There is no common definition of "administration" across the 10
programs. For example, ESEA does not contain a general definition of
administrative expenditures that states can use for covered programs.
Page 6
GAOIHEHS-99-180 Federal Education Funding
�B-278482
, Further, some individual program statutes describe as nonadministrative
activities what other programs consider administrative activities. For
example, 'under the Title I program, developing standards and assessments
is consid~red an administrative activity at the state level. but under the
Eisenhower program it is considered a nonadministrative activity.
Similarly. under the IDEA program, technical assistance is considered an
administrative activity, but under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program
it is considered a nonadministrative activity. Thus. the differences in
, which activities are considered administrative expenses and the lack of a
distinction between administrative and nonadministrative expenses make
'
categoriza~ion of expenses difficult. 3
The Congress has been weighing how to balance accountability and
flexibility in education programs,4 In its effort to strike a balance between
these sometimes competing goals. the Congress has attempted to reduce
state and local reporting requirements while at the same time ensuring
that sufficient information exists to hold states and local agencies
accountable. Moreover. state and local reporting requirements have not
", ,_ . historically been uniform across programs. state program accountability .
systems vary, and the definitions used to categorize expenses and
activities differ across ~te.tes and programs. All of these factors represent
challenges to data collec;t1on.
•
Education Distributed
Almost All Federal
Program Funds to
States
Ac:::rpss all 10 programs w.e re~Je:wed. Education typically spent a small
portion of the fed.eral fundfi. distributlf!8 over 99 percent of the funds to
the state~.~ With the fund~. Education supported a variety of federal
actlylties, illcluding pr.ogran:t r~searcl1 a.!lq evaluation and information
dissemination: However, EducaUon'paiQ for other costs of running the 10
programs, such as th~ sa~afles ~nd b~n€:fits of the staff issuing the grants
an~adm.inlster1ng the pr~g~a.ms, from ~ sep'!rate appropriation it receives
fo~ overall agency managem~nt.
,,',
,Table 2 shows the amount Education spent from each of the 10 programs'
-funds. Education spent nothing for theiil'novative Education and Perkins'
3See Department of Education. The Use of Federal Education Funds for Administrative Costs
(Washington. D,C.: Department of Education. 1998). which addressed the various ways administration
is defined.
'
5Education distributes funds to entities other than the states. but for the programs we reviewed.
Education allocated most of the funds to the states.
Page 7.
GAOIHEHS-99-180 Federal Education Funding
�B-278482
programs. For the Title I program, one of the largest elementary and
secondary programs that support education for disadvantaged students,
Education spent $3.5 million of the funds, which was less than 1 percent of·
the program's $7.3 billion appropriation. For the School-to-Work program,
whic:h is one of the smaller programs. Education spent the largest
percentage-7 percent of the program's funds ($26 million)-for technical
assistance and research.
Table 2: Program Funding Spent at the
Federal Level In Fiscal Year 1996·
Funds used by
Education
Pe,rcentage of
appropriation
Title I
$3,500,000
Less than 1
IDEA
50,000
Less than 1
Program
Perkins
0
0
997.000
Less than 1
226,951
SChools
Less than 1
26,000,000
Eisenhower
Innovative
7
735,000
Less than 1
0
0
Bilingual Education
1,828,445
Even Start
1,369,350
1"
"This percentage is Qased on the total fiscal year 1996 appropriation of $128 million for the
Ejillngual Education program,
Source: Department of Education.
Epucatlon used program funds for a number of activities, such as
research. program evaluation; information dissemination, and technical
asslstan~e. To illustrate, for three of the programs-Even Start, Bilingual
Education. and Sch091-to-Work-Education used funds for technical
assistance to the states 'and Information dissemination to states, school
districts. 8lJi.1 the gen~rai publl~. for Eyen Start. Eisenhower, Safe and
Drug-Free Schools, BiUngual Epucatloti.a!1d School-to-Work, Education
also spent funds on program evaluationa'nd research. For the Title I
program, Education officials reported thaf the funds supported work by
the Bureau of the Census to develop an updated model to estimate the
number of children aged 5 to 17 living in poverty, as well as an evaluation
of that estimate by the National Academy of Sciences. Th.e poverty
estimates are used to determine states' Title I formula allocations. For the
Bilingual Education, IDEA, and Goals 2000 programs, Education used a
small percentage of the funds for outside reviewers to assess grant
proposals..For example, of the $128 million appropriated for the Bilingual
Page 8
GAOIHEHS-99-180 Federal Education Funding
�B-278482
Education program, Education spent about $300,000 for outside reviewers.
Education also used $200,000 of the $340 million appropriated for the
Goals 2000 program and $50,000 of the $2.6 billion appropriated for the
IDEA program for outside reviewers. Other costs, such as salaries and
benefits for Education's employees involved in issuing grants and
administering the program, were funded from a separate .appropriation it
receives for agency management. In fiscal year 1996, Education received
$321 million through this appropriation to administer all the programs
under its' purview, and it estimates that it spent about $23 million
administering the 10 programs we reviewed .
•
The States Distributed
Most of the Funds to
Local Agencies
States generally passed on to school districts' most of the program funds.
The one exception, in which states spent most of the funds, was the
Bilingual Education program, because Education only allocated to the
states the funds that were intended for state use (the state grant program).
Education allocated directly to the localities the Bilingual funds intended
for local use. For the other nine programs, the states on average spent
from 1 to 17 percent of the funds. States spent the funds on many of the
same activities as Education, such as research and evaluation. States also
were authorized to spend funds on a wider range of support activities,
such as dev~lopment of student performance standards, curricula design,
professional development tp'lining, and development of demonstration
projects,
.
" .
States varied from prograITJ to. program with respect to the percentage of
funds ~hey spent themselves iUJd the percentage they distributed to local
agenc.1e!i, figure 1 shows tl!~ ~v~rage percentage of fund~ states spent for
eac:;h qf the 10 programs! TI1~re was considerable variation in the
percentage. of a giyen pf,(}gram's funds that states distributed to school
districts, Overall, 94 percent6 of the federal education funds received by
the states (or theSe 10 program~'wasdistributed to-local agencies such as
school districts. If the $7.3 bi~lion ~ppropriation for the Title I program is
, excluded, the overall percentage Qf funds states allocated to local agencies
drops to 86 percent. Of the original appropriations for all 10 programs,
92 percent was distributed to local agencies.
.
"This is the weighted average of funds distributed to the local level for these programs. This figure is
based on funds that states' education agencies distributed to a range of entities. Thus, although funds
;. were distributed primarily to local education agencies. state education agencies also distributed funds
to other entities. These entities include local partnerships; regional and local organizations; nonprofit
organizations: programs for single parents, displaced homemakers, and criminal offenders; and other
state agencies.
Page 9
GAOIHEHS-99-180 Federal Education Funding
�·B-278482
Figure 1: Percentage of Funds Spent by State Education Agencies
Percentage
100
80
60
.40
20
10
o
Innovative
Education
Bilingual
Education
(State Grants
Only)
In addition. states varied in the percentage of each program's funds they
spent (see table 3). For example, for the IDEA program, the percentage of
funds that states spent ranged from less than 2 percent in 2 states to
21 percent or more in 16 states. For School-io-Work: the percentage of
funds stlites spent ranged from about 2 percent in five sta~es to over
25 percent in eight states. Most states sperit close to the maximum allowed
by law (see table 1). For example, the Innovative Education program
permits st~tes to spend up to 15 percent of program funds received.
Thirty-eight states (88 percent) use(j between 11 and 15 percent of this
program's funds. See appendix II for the percentage of funds each state
spent.
Page 10
GAOIHEHS-99-180 Federal Education Funding
�B-278482
Table .3: Range In Percentage of Funds Spent by State Education Agencies, by Program
Number of states reportlnga
0-2
percent
Program
3-5
percent
6-10
percent
11-15,
percent
16-20
percent
21-24
percent
25
percent
Over 25
percent
Title I
38
8.
0
0
0
0
0
IDEA
2
5
4
13
4
6
9
0
1b
2
6
26
6
1
2
42
0
0
0
0
3
0
37
0
0
' '0
0
0
0
0
7.
37
0,
0
0
0
1C
Perkins
Safe and
Schools
Goals 2000
Eisenhower
Education d
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Innovative Education
0
,0
1
38
3
0
0
1"
School-to-Work
5
2
10
2
8
2
0
8f
Even Start
8
35
2
0
0
,0
0
0
40
Note: In addition to a maximum percentage that states may spend and/or use for administration,
many programs provide for a minimum dollar amount as well. As a result. states that benefit from
such a provision may end up spending more than the percentage listed in this table,
"
"Numbers are based only on those states that responded to our survey,
bPuerto Rico's state education agency is also the local education agency (there is only one
school district in Puerto Rico), Therefore, it is allowed to keep and spend all of the funds,
<Hawaii's state education agency is also the local education agency, therefore, it spent all of the
fu~
.
dFor this part of the analysis, we only examined the funds Education distributed to the
states-about 5 percent of total program dollars-and all of those funds were intended to be
spent at the state level.
"Hawaii, where the state's education agency is also the local education agency, spent 26 percent
of the funds on state-related activities and 74 percent on local-level-related activities,
fFor School·to·Work development grant funds, there are no restrictions on the amount of funds
that states can spend at the state level. .
States spent the funds on many of the same activities as Education, such
as research and evaluation and technical assistance. States also spent their
funds on the salaries and benefits of personnel involved in such activities
as compliance monitoring and data collection. Moreover, states are
authorized to spend saine of their funds on activities specific to each
program. Following are some examples:
Under the Eisenhower program, states may spend funds reviewing and
reforming state requirements for teacher and administrator licensure,
developing performance assessments and peer review procedures for
Page 11
GAOIHEHS-99-180 Federal Education Funding
�B-278482
licensing teachers and administrators, and encouraging teacher
professional development training .
• Under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program, states may spend the
funds to make cost-effective programs for youth violence and drug abuse
prevention available to local education agencies, demonstration projects
in drug and violence prevention, and financial assistance to enhance
'. resources available for drug and violence prevention in areas serving large
numbers of economically disadvantaged children.
• Under the Goals 2000 program, states may spend their funds supporting
the development or adoption of state content standards and state student
performance standards: supporting innqvative and proven methods of
enhancing a teacher's ability to identify student learning needs; and
promoting public magnet schools. public charter schools. and other
mechanisms for increasing choice among public schools.
Under the School-to-Work program, states may spend funds identifying or
establishing appropriate state structures to administer the statewide
school-to-work system and designing challenging curricula in cooperation
with representatives of local partnerships.
Schools and school districts used federal funds for classroom services and
support services and to meet federal administrative requirements.
Fulfilling the federal requirements necessitates some commitment of staff
resourcesa't both the school district and school levels. We reviewed the
. extent to whi~h local staff spent time responding to federal program
administrative requirements in 9 of the nation's 16,000 school districts (see
app. III for detailed Information about the time spent on these activities).
We found tha~ the amount of time district office staff spent administering
these programs vari~d by dJstrict and by program. Of the 10 programs
reviewed, school district s~affreported more involvement in
admlnl1?tratlve activities rehlted to the Safe and Drug-Free Schools
program ~han for pther programs. Most district staff had responsibility for
only' one program each. staff ~old us that their administrative duties
Included requesting and r~vle)¥lng grant applications, monitoring how
programs are implemented, and n:!porting on programs. About 70 percent
of personnel in the 15 schools we visited, primarily teachers, did not have
administrative responsibilities for the 10 programs reviewed. When they
did, however. the majority of them had administrative responsibilities for
the Title I program. The amount of time school staff spent administering
. the Title I program was usually a day or less out of the school year for
. each administrative duty assigned them.
.
Page 12
GAOIHEHS-99-180 Federal Education Funding
�8-278482
Agency Comments.
Education provided technical comments on a draft of this report. which
we incorporated in the report as appropriate.
Copies of this report are being sent to the Honorable Richard W. Riley.
Secretary of Education; the Honorable Alexis M~ Herman. Secretary of
Labor; and interested congressional committees. We will also make copies
available to others upon request.
.
If you have questions about this report. please call me on (202) 512-7215.
Other contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed in apperidix IV.
Mamie'S. Shaul
Associate Director. Education, Workforce,
, and Income Security Issues
Page 13
GAOIHEHS-99-180 Federal Education Funding
�Contents
.
Letter
Appendix I
Scope and
Methodology
1·
16
16
17
Scope
Methodology
•
22
Appendix II
Percentage of Federal
Education Program
Funds Spent by State
Education Agencies
•
Appendix III
Illustrative Examples
" From Districts and
Schools
District-Level Staff Administrative Responsibilities
School-Level Staff Administrative Responsibilities
Appendix IV
"GAO Contacts and
Staff
25
25
28
30
Acknow~edgments
Tables
" Table 1: Characteristics of the 10 Department of Education
Programs During Fiscal Year 1996. Listed by Funding Amount
Table 2: Program Funding ~p~nt at the Federal Level in Fiscal
."
Year 1996
Table 3: Range in Percentage of Funds Spent by State Education
Agencies, by Program
.
Table 1.1: Programs Reviewed
Table 1.2: Number of States Responding to Survey. by Program
Table 1.3: School Districts Reviewed
Table ILl: Range and Median Percentage ofEducation Program
Funds Spent by State Education Agencies
Table IL2: PercenJage of Education Program Funds Spent by
State Education Agencies
Page 14
4
8
11
17.
18
19
22
23
GAOIHEHS-99-180 Federal Education Funding
�· Contents
Table IlLl: Number of Programs for Which District Staff
Members Had Administrative Responsibilities. School Year
1996-97
Table III.2: Number of School District StaR' Members Reporting
Responsibilities for Application. Monitoring, and/or Reporting
Activities. by Program. School Year 1996-97
Table 1IL3: School District Staff Members Who Reported
Spending Time on Administrative Activities and Amount of Time
Spent, by Program. School Year 1996-97
Table IIIA: Number of Programs for Which School-Level Staff
Members Had Administrative Responsibilities. School Year
1996-97.
Table III.5: Number of School-Level Staff Members Reporting
Responsibilities for Application, Monit:.oring. or Reporting
Activities. by Program. School Year 1996-97
Table IIL6: Number of School-Level Staff Who Reported Spending
Time on Admiilistrative Activities and Amount of Time Spent
School Year 1996-97
Figure
26
Figure 1: Percentage of Funds Spent by State Education Agencies
10
26
27
28
28
29
Abbreviations
ESEA
IDEA
Page 15
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act
GAOfHEHS-99480 Federal Education Funding
�Scope and Methodology
This appendix discusses in detail our scope and methodology for
determining the percentage of federal funds spent at the federal and state·
levels and the uses of funds at each leveL as well as the amount of time
school and district staff spent fulfilling federal administrative
requiren:tents.
Scope
We collected financial informationforfiscal year 1996 from 10 Department
of Education programs. Six programs were authorized under the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA): title
. I, part A-Title I program; title I, part B-Even Start; title II-Dwight D.
Eisenhower Professional Developmentprogram; title IV-Safe and
Drug~Free Schools and Communities; title VI-Innovative Education
Program Strategies; and title VII~Bilingual Education. We also collected
funding information for programs under four other acts: the Individuals
With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) , part B-IDEA program; the Carl D.
Perkins Vocational and Applied TechnologyEducation Act, as
amended-Perkins; Goals 2000: Educate America Act, title III-Goals
2000; and School-to-Work. (See table 1.1.) We focused on collecting
financial information and did not evaluate program effectiveness or
jmpact.
. .
Page 16
GAOIHEHS-99-IS0 Federal Education Funding
�Appendix I
Scope and Methodology
Table 1.1: Programs Reviewed
Act
ESEA
Title I. part
Improving Basic Programs
Operated by Local Educational Agencies
Title I. part B: Even Start Family Literacy
Programs
Title II. part B: Dwight D:Eisenh9wer
Professional Development Program
Title IV (also known as the Safe and
Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act
of 1994). part A. sUbpart 1: State Grants
for Drug and Violence Prevention Programs
Title VI: Innovative Education Program
Strategies
.
Title VII. part A (also known as the Bilingual
Education Act): Bilingual Education
Goals 2000: Educate America Act
Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied
Education Act. as amended
Title Vocational Education Assistance to
the States
IDEA
Assistance for Education of All
Children With Disabilities
$chool-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994
-,
Methodology
Title III: State and Local Education
Title II: School-to-Work 'Opportunities
System Development and Implementation
Grants to States
To determine the percentage of funds spent at the federal level and
distributed to the stat~s, wea~~ed officials at the Department of
EdU(::ati~n to provide us with the af!1ount of funds it spent, how these
funds were used, and the amount of funds distributed to the states for
each pr~gram. . ..
. .
To obtain information on hoW' much sta~~~ rec~ived, spent, and distributed
surveyed state officials in all 50
to local agencies, in November,1998
states. the District of Columbia. and Puerto Rico. The surveys were mailed
to officials at the state level-typically. officials in the state Department of
Education. For each program. we asked respondents to provide us with
the total federal funding their state received in fiscal year 1996. instructing
them not to include funds that were 'carried over from previous years. For
two states-Oregon and Pennsylvania-respondents were not able to
remove carryover funds from the total. Therefore, we included all funds
we
Page 11
GAOIHEHS-99·180 Federal Education Funding.
�Appendix I
Scope and Methodology
reported by these states as funds received in fiscal year 1996. In addition,
we asked respondents to tell us the total amount of federal funds their
state education agency spent and how much they passed on to the
localities . .Response rates are shown in table 1.2.
Table 1.2: Number of States
Responding to Survey, by Program
Number of
states 8
receiving Number of
program
states
funds responding
Program
52,
52
52
52
48°
52
52
52
48
52
Title I
IDEA
Perkins
Safe and
Goals
Schools
2000
Eisenhower
Innov~tive I;ducation .
j3ilingual Education '
Ev~n Start
Response
rate
(percent)
46
44
43
45
40
37
45
43
40
45
88
85 '
83
87
83
71
87
83
83
87
-"
"Includes the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
" ,
.
~Montana. New Hampshir~. C1nd qkICl~om'l are not included In this total because funds were
allocated (jlrectl'l to the lClt:;al educatlq!l agencies. California is also excluded because It reported
that It did not receive funds until the e!;ld of fiscal 'lear 1996 because no state plan was in place.
To, obtain Informatlqn a!Jout the time district- and sclioolclevel staff spent
011 ac~'Iv,i~les a~'s()clatetl with administering federal programs, we gathered
tllustratlve Information from 9 of the nation's 16,000 school districts-3
di~trJ~~s each' In'(:alifornia, Maryland, and South Carolina. We selected the
state~. districts, and schools to be a mix from different sized districts,
parts of the country; types of districts. (rufCiI! urban, and suburban). and
types of schools (elementary amI secQn~afY). We also ensured that in each
district we gathered information from staff working on many of the 10
programs reviewed.
For each selected school district, we gathered information from officials at'
the school. level and the district level. In total, we interviewed and/or
surveyed offidals in 15 schools within the nine districts to ascertain how
much time they spent fulfilling administrative requirements related to the
, 10 programs (see table 1.3).
Page 18
GAOIHEHS-99-180 Federal Education Fundhig
�·Appendix I
Scope and Methodology
Table 1.3: School Districts Reviewed
Place
district
No. of students
No. of teachers
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
9,458
408
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
California
Ceres
Suburban
San
Urban
Shandon
Rural
133,687
337
20
Urban
108,759
6,259
Suburban
104,073
6,442
X
X
2,898
179
X
X
X
X
Rural
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
South Carolina
Abbeville
Rural
3,821
262
X
X
Charleston
Urban
43,457
2,798
X
X
Dorchester
Suburban
15,367
878
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Legend
1 = Title I
2 = Eisenhower
3 = IDEA
4 = Perkins
5·= Safe and Drug-Free Schools
6 = Innovative Education
7·= Goals 2000
B = Even Start
9 = Bilingual Education
10 = School-Io-Work
We defined "admtntstr.itive nisponsibilities"as engaging in activities
r~lated to· applying for.·, monitoring. or reporting on the use of federal
program funds. Speclflciilly, these activities include the following:
. '
.
.
~
~
• Application/planning process a~tivities refer to those related to preparing
an appltcation orplan.for sU~Inission to the state education agency and/or
federal agencies for federal funds for one or more of the education
programs of interest. Examples include completing an application or
proposal entirely or in part, collaborating with others to complete an
application or proposal, and reviewing school or district grant
applications.
• Monitoring of federal funds or program activities refer to tracking program
expenditures and activities. Examples include tracking participant
enrollments and overseeing the program budget to ensure compliance.
with program requirements and approved plans.
Page 19
GAOIHEHS-99-180 Federal Education Funding
�Appendix I
Scope and Methodology
• Reporting of federal funds or program activities refer to reporting program
expenditures and/or activities to state and/or federal authorities. Examples
include. gathering data for federal reports, completing a report on program
expenditures and/or adivities entirely or in part, and collaborating with
others to complete a report on program expenditures and/or activities.
We surveyed or interviewed over 1.000 school· and district-level staff, but
our school· and district-level information is not generalizable. For
practical reasons, we could not interview or survey all school and district
. staff, but we were able to gather information from the majority of teachers
and the principal in each school and the majority of district·level staff.
Through interviews or questionnaires, we asked the staff to indicate
whether they had administrative responsibilities and, if so, to estimate the
amount of time spent on administrative activities.
At the schoollexel, we interviewed and surveyed 697 staff. Of these,
78 percent were teachers; 10 percent were specialists; and 7 percent were
school administrators, such as principals. At the district level, we spoke
with 319 officials, including budget and finance officials as well as
personnel responsible for program evaluation and compliance. The
information from these 9 school districts is illustrative, and, as such, is not
necessarily indicative of the nearly 16,000 school districts nationwide.
Detailed data from the nine school districts on time spent on
administrative activities are in appendix III.
Bilingual Education
Program Funds Pose
Reporting Challenges
. I
Nonsampling Errors and
Data Imputations
.
The BiUngualEducation program has two funding streams. A small
percentage of the funds-approximately 5 percent-is allocated to the
stat~s ~fld is intended to be used at the state level. Conversely, the
remaining 95 percen~ gell~r~!l.Y bypasses the states and is allocated .
dJrectly to Ipcalitle~. For tn~ other nine programs we reviewed. funds
generally flow through th~~tates and then to the localities. Thus. our state
survey 'only c;aptured the 5 p~r.~ent of the Bilingual Education funds that
the Department of Education allocated to the states. Our local school
district review examined the administrative responsibilities associated
with the 95 percent of the Bilingual funds that flowed directly to the
10caUties.
All surveys are vulnerable to some nonsampling errors, including
measurement errors caused by respondent misinterpretation of the
questions or errors that resulted from a lack of response. These. errors may
Page 20
GAOIHEHS-99·180 Federal Education Funding
�Appendix I
Scope and Methodology
affect our surveyto some unknown degree. We took several steps to
minimize the effect of these problems. For example, we examined
responses for extreme values and checked the data for errors in logic.
When we could not resolve the questions, we called survey respondents
for clarification. In some cases, respondents had reported numbers
incorrectly; in these cases, we corrected the data. For each program, to
develop our estimate of the percentage of federal funds that was
distributed to the localities, we calculated the percentage distributed by
the states that completed the survey and applied that percentage to the
total amount offederal funds received by states th~t did not complete the
survey.
We conducted our work between July 1997 and August 1999 in accordance
. with generally accepted government auditing standards .
. .
Page 21 .
"
GAOIHEHS-99-180 Federal Education Funding
�Percentage of FedercLl Education Program
Funds Spent by State Education Agencies
The amount of program funds spent by the states for support services
varied from state to state. The range and median for each program are
shown in table ILL Table' II.2 shows the percentage spent from each
program, by state.
Table 11.1: Range and Median
Percentage of Education Program
Funds Spent by State Education
AgenCies
Range
Program·
Title I
IDEA (N=44)
High
Low
Median
4
0
0
0
0
0
1
13
13
25" .
31
9
10
Eisenhower (N=45)
Even Start (N=45)
lOb
4
100
17" .
100f
7
gOd
10
a
0
9
10
10
100
15
13
5
"Puerto Rico spent all of its funds, but it is an anomaly because the state is also the local
education agency.
.
bHawaii spent all of its funds. but it is an anomaly because the state is also the local education
agency..
CAl most all Bilingual Education program funds ($121 million of $128 million) are distributed to
local education agencies directly by the Department of Education. About 5 percent of the funds
go w tDe states. This table reflects only information on the state grants.
"Although all of the Bilingual Education funds we looked at are intended to be used at the state
level. two states allocated a portion of their funds to local agencies.
"Hawaii. where the state education agency is also the local education agency. spent 26 percent
of the funds on state-related activities and 74 percent on local-level-related activities.
fSeveral states spent all of their School-to,Work development grant funds for state-level activities.
as p~rmitted by law. .
Page 22
. GAOIHEHS-99-1BO Federal Education Funding
�Appendix II
Percentage of Federal Education Program
Funds Spent by State Education Agencies
Table 11.2: Percentage of Education Program Funds Spent by State Education Agencies
Title I
a
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas:
3.4
1.4
California
Colorado
1.2
District of
Columbia
Florida
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Louisiana
Maine
Massachusetts
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New
New
North CarOlina
Even
Start
Safe and
. DrugFree Innovative Bilingual
Schools Education Education
Eisenhower
a
4.6
3.0
Goals
2000
a
10.0
5.0
9.0
9.0
100.0
15.0
a
IDEA
a
10.0
10.0
SchooltoWork
Perkins
a
23.1
11.4
a
14.3
14.5
20.2
10.0
a
5.0
5.0
9.0
a
0
1.5
1.0
3.1
2.3
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.1
1.5
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.6
2.3
0.0
5.0
5.0
6.7
5.0
1.0
5.0
5.0
1.8
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
·.5.0
13.6
a
4.2
8.4
10.0
100.0
a
10.0
9.8
10.0
10.0
9.8
0.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0.
100.0
5.0
a
15.0
15.0
7.0
26.1
a
14.9
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0'
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
10.0
0.0
24.4
8.1
100
1.0
5.6.
10.0
., 10.0
25.0
10.0
10.0
a
·10.0
10.0
10.0
8.1
a
9.0
21.5
13.3
24.9
18.4
16.3
13.0
21.5
7.8
12.7
12.5
1
15.0
3.6
10.8
a
16.2
31.0
1
0.0
13.3
9.6
3.5
20.0
0.5
6.9
23.8
7.1
16.5
6.0
9.1
18.4
13.3
21.4
16.9
13.7
13.7
18.4
9.3
4.9
13.3
13.5
17.4
8.4
21.4
100.0
19.5
39.8.
17.8
28.1
200
8.6
a
a
2.9
1.5
5.0
1.9
5.0
5.3
4.4
5.0
7.5
10.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
10.0.
Page 23
9.0
9.0
6.0
7.9
4.8
9.0
'13.7
.15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
10.0
10.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
10.0 .
100.0
100.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
12.1
5.1
25.0
3.6
a
13.4
GAOfHEHS-99-180 Federal Education Funding
�Appendix II
Percentage of Federal Education Program
Funds Spent by State Education Agencies
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Puerto Rico
Title I
3.5
1.5
1.5
1,5
1,5
1,0.
a ,
'Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
1.5
3.1
1,5
1,5
1,8
Even
Start
5.0
4,6
Wisconsin
Percentage
spent
nationwide
Median
5.0
8.3
10.0
10.0
6.4
7,6
0.0
5.0
5.0
5,0
a
1.0
1.5
1.3
1,5
4,5
5,0
8.8
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15,0
16.4
"
9.0
9.0
9.0
9,0
0,0
10,0
'100.0
a
b
100.0
100,0
10,0
b
100.0
10.0
10,0
7.6
10.0
10.0
8,1
' 100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
91.9
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
8.8
10.0
n~tate
8.5
9.0.
no~
respond to our
b
15.0
12,6
15,0
15,0
,100.0
90.3
0,0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.1
14,8
99.7
100.0
8.7
10.0
100.0
15.0
surve~
10,9
11.5
11.7
25°
25 C
100,0
SchooltoWork
' Perkins
10,7
100.0
12.8
13.5
13.5
13,5
a
10.0
2.0
100.0
6.0
a
a
5,7
13.7
20.0
25.0
0,0
13.3
14.1
13.5
13.4
13.5
9.2
12.5
25.0
2'5.0
11,5
11,6
135
15,1
8.0
3.3
11.1.
2,1
20,0
6,7
10,1
6.5
100,0
16.8
13.5
12.4
13.5
10.4
12.8
a
12.1
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
IDEA
a
b
a
10.0
10,0
9,6
10,0
&$Iale did
31.5
a
30.0
for t)'lls program,
received no funding for this p~~gram.
"In Oregon and pennsylvania,
'\
Goals
. 2000
a
a
5,0
3,6
1.4
1.5
9.0
9.0
9,0
9.2
5.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
0.9
'a
a.
5,9
5,0
3.8
West Virginia
Eisenhower
a
Vermont
Safe and
DrugFree Innovative Bilingual
Schools Education Education
Page 24
omcl~ls
were unable to
sep'~rale
carryover funds.
GAOIHEHS·99·180 Federal Education Funding
�Illustrative .Examples From Districts and
Schools
This appendix contains information from interviews with and surveys of
319 school district staff and 697 school-level staff in the nine districts we
visited. We asked them to tell us about their involvement in administering
the 10 programs reviewed in school year 1996-97. Specifically. we asked
them whether they had application. monitoring. and/or reporting
. administrative duties. The tables in this appendix reflect only those staff
who indicated that they had administrative duties-21O district-level staff
and 201 school-level staff. 66 and 29 percent, respectively, of those we
interviewed or surveyed.
By administration, we mean those activities related to applying for.
monitoring, or reporting on federal funds (see app. I).
Tables III.! through III.3 provide information on district-level staff
involvement in the administration of the 10 programs reviewed in
academic year 1996-97:
•. the number of programs for which each district staff member was
responsible (table III.l);
~ the number of district staff members reporting responsibilities for
application, monitoring, and/or reporting administrative activities (table
IIL2); and
'
• th~ amQunt of time district staff members reported they spent in fulfilling .
aclministratlv~ requlr~menjs f~r each program (table IIL3).
Tal;:lles III:4 through IlL6 pr:{)vide ("formation on school-level staff
tnv~lv!'!ment In the 10 piogra~s r,evlewed in school year 1996~97:
• the number of.progr~ms for. 'A(n'~h. each school-level staff member was
responsl~Je (table IlIA); . .
, . t~e nt1mber of school sta(f f'!lelT!ll~rs reporting responsibilities for
.
applicat1on.~0111t~rlng. ancJ~q( r.ep~rting administrative activities (table
III.5); and
.
. ..
• the amount oCtime school staff members reported spending fulfilling
administratiye reqUirements for each program (table IIL6) .
•
District-Level Staff
Administrative
Responsibilities
Of the district staff who had administrative responsibilities, two-thirds
reported administrative responsibilities for only 1 of the 10 programs
reviewed; few staff had responsibility for more than 3 programs. (See table
I1I.1.)
Page 25
GAOIHEHS-99-1S0 Federal Education Funding
�, Appendix III
Illustrative Examples From Districts and
Schools
'
,
Table 111.1: Number of Programs for
Which District Staff Members Had
Administrative Responsibilities,
School Year 1996-97
Number of programs
Number of district staff members who reported having
responsibility for program
1
2
3
137
«
10
4
4
5.
2
6
7
8
7
0
9
10
1
2
-----------------------------------------------------------3
The largest number of district staff reported having application,
monitoring, or reporting responsibilities for the Safe and Drug-Free
Schools program, followed by the Title I program. (See table 111.2.)
Table 111.2: Number of School District
Staff Members Reporting
Responsibilities for Application,
Monitoring, and/or Reporting
Activities, by Program, School Year
1996-97
Number of staff who reported
having responsibility for activitya
Program
Safe and Drug·Free
Title I
Eisenhower
IDEA.
Application Monitoring
SC~901s
63,
40
25
28
8
20
18
11
Even
Bilingual E(jucation
10
4
Reporting
63
44
30
26
22
23
20
12
12
2
61
33
29
26
,20
19
18
11
11
3
"District staff could report having responsibility for one or more'types of administrative activities,
No patterns emerged with respect to the amount of-time district staff
reported spending on different types of administrative duties or the
amount of time they reported spending in performing administrative
activities for a given program. (See table 111.3.)
GAOIHEHS·99·180 Federal Education Funding
�Appen~ix III
Illustrative Examples From Districts and
Schools'
.
Table 111.3: School District Staff Members Who Reported Spending Time on Administrative Activities and Amount of Time
Spent, by Program, School Year 1996·97
Hours
Application
Bilingual
Education
Monitoring
3
Even Start
40 hours
or more
8 hours
or less
1.
0
0
3
8 hours
or less
9t040
hours
6
School-to-Work
4
4
3
40 hours
or
2
0
2
1.
0
6'
,6
IDEA
Reporting
9t040
hours
8 hours
or less
5
5
2
4
9to 40
hours
40 hours
or
'5
6
6
4
1
4'
5
13
·7
8
5
Innovative
Education
9
8
1
7
10
3
11
6
1
Eisenhower
9
11
5
9
11
10
12
12
5
10
16
2
9
8
9
11
12
3
5
12
3
7
9
7
13
4
2
29
23
11
20
25
18
35
19
7
4
12
24
7
8
29
7
12
14'
Perkins
Goals 2000
Safe and
Drug-Free
Schools
Title I
Page 27
GAOIHEHS-99-180 Federal Education Funding
�Appendix III
Illustrative Examples From Districts and
Schools
School-Level Staff
Administrative
Responsibilities
Of the school-Ievel,staff who had administrative responsibilities, about
70 percent reported having administrative responsibilities for 1 of the 10
programs reviewed; few school-level staff had responsibility for more than
3 programs. (See table IlIA.)
Table 111.4: Number of Programs for
Which School-Level Staff Members /
Had Administrative Responsibilities,
School Year 1996-97
Number of programs
Number of school· level staff reporting administrative
responsibility
144
2
33
3
14
4
7
5
6
7
o
8
9
o
o
o
10
The largest number of school-level staff reported having application,
monitoring, and/or reporting responsibilities for the Title I program.
followed by IDEA, for which monitoring responsibilities were more often
cited. (See table III.5.)
Table 111.5: Number of School-Level
Staff Members Reporting
Responsibilities for Application,
Monitoring, or Reporting Activities, by
Program, School Year 1996-97
Number of staff involved In
administrative activlty8
Application Monitoring
. Program
Reporting
Title I
87
74
53
IDEA
2
12
2
11
39
17
8
Schools
Eisenhower
Innovative Education
7
School-to-Work
3
2
2
8
9
o
o
o
o
o
o
Even Start
Education
Goals 2000
·School-Ievel staff cquld report having responsibility for one or more types of administrative
. activities.
Page 28
GAOIHEHS-99-180 Federal Education Funding
�Appendix III
Illustrative Examples From Districts and
Schools
As table IlLS also showed, the largest number of school-level staff had
responsibilities for the Title I program, followed by the IDEA program.
Table 111.6 shows that staff with administrative responsibilities for the Title
I program tended to spend 8 hours or less per year on each of the
administrative activities which they were assigned. For the IDEA
program. for which staff had more monitoring responsibilities, the amount
of time school-level staff spent monitoring was split between staff who
reported that they spent 9 to 40 hours and staff who spent 40 hours or
more in a school year on monitoring activities.
to
Table 111.6: Number of SChool-Level Staff Who Reported Spending Time on Administrative Activities and Amount of Time
SchoolYear1996~7
Application
Monitoring
Title I
40 hours
or more
8 hours
or less
9 to 40
hours
40 hours
or more
8 hours
or less
9to 40
hours
40 hours
or more
3
0
51
3
17
18
6
18
36
2
15
8
7
0
3
1
4
1
2
1
0
0
IDEA
Safe and
. Drug-Free
Schools
Eisenhower.
Innovative
Education
10
9
2
2
O.
0
0
Perkins
7
2
1
0
1
.' 0 '
Goals 2000
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
Bilingual
Education
0
0
0
0
0
0
School-to-Work
Even Start
Reporting
9 to 40
hours
15
8 hours
or less
,Page 29
6
0
0
3
0
0
0
2
2.
0
0
0
2
1
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
GAOIHEHS-99-180 Federal Education Funding
�GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
•
GAO Contacts
Staff
Acknowledgments
(104893)
Eleanor L. Johnson, Assistant Director, (202) 512-7209
Sherri K. Doughty, Project Manager, (202) 512-7273
In addition to those named above, Sandra Baxter, Patricia Bundy,
Kimberly Campbell, Tamara Lumpkin, Ellen K. Schwartz, Edward
-, Tuchman, Craig Winslow, and Elizabeth T. Morrison made key
contributions to this report.
Page 30
GAOIHEHS-99-180 Federal Education Funding
�Ordering Information
The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the
following address, accompanied by a check Or money order
made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when
necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.
Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address
are discounted 25 percent.
Orders by mail:
.U.S. General Accounting Office
'
P.O. Box 37050
Washington, DC 20013
or visit:
Room 1100
700 4th St. NW (comer of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, DC
Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000
or by using fax number (~02) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and
testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily'list or any
, list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a
tQucl'!tone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on
ho", to obtain these lists. '
For informati()n on hoyv. t() access GAO reports on the INTERNET,
send an e-nlail message '\\Il~h "info" in the body to:
info@www.gao.gov
or visit GAO's World Wide Web Home Page at:
http://www.gao.gov
,
.
w
PRINTED QN ~d RECYCLED PAPER
'
�United States
General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001
Bulk Rate
Postage & Fees Paid
GAO
Permit No. GI00
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Correction Requested
/
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Andrew Rotherham - Events Series
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Domestic Policy Council
Andrew Rotherham
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1999-2000
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36330" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="http://catalog.archives.gov/id/612954" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2011-0103-S
Description
An account of the resource
Within the Domestic Policy Council, Andrew “Andy” Rotherham was Special Assistant to the President for Education Policy from 1999-2000. Before working for the Domestic Policy Council, Rotherham was Director of the 21st Century Schools Project for the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI). This series of Events includes records relating to education events and the corresponding background materials. The records include reports, memoranda, email, congressional correspondence, press releases, and speech drafts.
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
20 folders in 3 boxes
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
ESEA [Elementary and Secondary Education Act] - Hill Side
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Domestic Policy Council
Andrew Rotherham
Event Series
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2011-0103-S
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 14
<a href="http://www.clintonlibrary.gov/assets/Documents/Finding-Aids/Systematic/2011-0103-S-events.pdf">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="http://catalog.archives.gov/id/612954">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
8/23/2013
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
2011-0103-Sb-esea-elementary-and-secondary-education-act-hill-side
612954