A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

Contact:
Melinda Kitchell Malico
(202) 401-1576

REVIEW OF FEDERAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS
CITES NEED FOR GREATER ACCOUNTABILITY

States and school districts are carrying out reforms supported by federal resources, but the pace must be stepped up with increased accountability if the achievement gap for at-risk students is to be closed, a U.S. Department of Education (ED) evaluation of federal K-12 education programs concluded today.

In 1994, states and school districts were given more flexibility in the use of federal K-12 education program funds in exchange for increased accountability under the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The 1994 legislation fundamentally changed the direction of federal education programs - moving to standards-based reform - with federal, state and local resources combined to improve teaching and learning.

"As the President made clear in his State of the Union address, the nation will not successfully meet the goals of ESEA without clear and specific performance goals for major federal education programs and state accountability systems that are fully in place," said U.S. Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley. "Without well-developed accountability systems based on state standards, it is hard to know whether programs are accomplishing their purposes and whether student achievement is improving. In 1994 Congress gave states unprecedented flexibility for use of federal K-12 education funds. Now we must focus on results - improved achievement for all children."

The evaluation, Federal Legislation Enacted in 1994: An Evaluation of Implementation and Impact, was prepared by ED's Planning and Evaluation Service. An executive summary is available at www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/1994legislation.html.

While states have made progress in implementing state content and performance standards required by ESEA and Title I, state accountability systems will not be complete until aligned assessments, required by 2000-01, are implemented. Federal programs appear sufficiently flexible for districts since relatively few waivers of federal requirements have been requested (through ED and through states under "Ed-Flex," provisions that permit states to waive federal regulations). School administrators report that if given additional flexibility they would not significantly change what they are doing. Consolidated planning is fostering better coordination between federal education programs and ties between federal programs and state reform efforts have improved, the report found. But better accountability systems are critically needed to measure progress toward program goals and to help inform local decision-making.

To help states measure how well they are doing, the evaluation suggests development of a system of key educational performance indicators on a national level that would measure student achievement, teacher quality, class size and other indicators.

The report looks at various programs that reflect the education priorities set forth in ED's strategic plan. The programs include those authorized under ESEA; the Goals 2000: Educate America Act; and the School-to-Work Opportunities Act. The report evaluates the priorities by examining how well federal programs are achieving their desired outcomes, whether programs are being effectively implemented and whether they demonstrate sound performance accountability.

The priority areas are:

• Enabling young children to enter school ready to learn;
• Adopting high and challenging standards for school-age children;
• Securing skilled teachers, a safe and drug-free environment in which to learn, and advanced technology so that students can achieve those standards;

• Preparing young adults for the world of work.

While the evaluation examines progress in areas funded with federal support, federal programs do not and should not operate in isolation, as the 1994 legislation called for a partnership among states, local school districts and the federal government, the report notes. Among the findings and options offered for improvement:

• More effectively target federal resources. To close the achievement gap, federal support should give priority to the neediest populations.
• Focus on effectively implementing federal program services. The report suggests adoption of "principles of effectiveness" for major federal education programs to help focus limited resources on high-quality programs. To increase the incentive for high project quality, the report raises the option of increasing the number of programs that use competitive awards.
• Strengthen the federal role to help ensure the rigor of state standards, alignment of standards and assessments, inclusion of all students in state assessments and alignment of all aspects of education to standards. While Goals 2000 has helped states develop content standards, fewer than half of states have completed development of performance standards and fewer than ten are able to report three consecutive years of student performance data. Also, most teachers do not feel very well prepared to teach to high standards.
• Better coordinate programs that provide major support for professional development, including Eisenhower professional development, Goals 2000 and Title VI: Innovative Education Program Strategies. Half of teachers in Eisenhower professional development report that the activities helped them teach in ways consistent with state standards; but just half reported that participation deepened their knowledge in math and science. Professional development should focus on subject matter and how to teach it, the report found. A much greater emphasis on serving teachers who work in high-poverty schools is needed, with a focus on enrolling teachers who would not necessarily volunteer to participate.
• Focus the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund (TLCF) more on professional development, target resources to high-poverty schools and develop a uniform set of performance measures. The evaluation found that federal funds paid for a quarter of all computers received by schools last year, and half of all computers in high-poverty schools. Districts report that long-term plans required by the TLCF help influence their educational technology activities. But there is much less progress in enabling teachers to effectively use those computers and little information about students' level of computer literacy.
• Increase charter school support for states that target disadvantaged students, and ensure that funds go to states that fund charter schools at a rate comparable to other public schools. The report notes that these changes can be made administratively rather than through legislation. The federal government has supported public school choice through magnet and charter schools. Nearly three-quarters of current charter schools received federal support, and even more received support for planning. Congress should clarify the kind of diversity that the magnet schools program should address - whether to continue to focus on reducing minority group isolation or expand to help reduce the isolation of ethnic or economic backgrounds, in addition to different racial backgrounds. The report provides other options, such as improved targeting and consideration of the impact on districtwide desegregation in addition to the impact on individual magnet schools.
• As the end of federal funding for School-to-Work (STW) nears in 2001, policymakers should consider ways to promote and sustain activities, such as linking the academic standards movement with STW efforts, supporting professional development and supporting community partnerships. The number of STW partnerships has greatly expanded, with more collaboration between employers and schools. More participating students have an increased academic focus and are more motivated, noting a connection between their academic coursework and career interests, but STW experiences could be more intensive and integrate higher academics.
• Balance flexibility and accountability for the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program. The new Principles of Effectiveness could be incorporated into the reauthorization of the program and more funds could be targeted to high-quality programs under competitive grants.
• To help measure whether school districts are meeting their objectives under the Even Start Family Literacy Program and Title I preschool programs, and to hold programs accountable, a common definition of school readiness is needed and programs could be required to report on a set of results-based indicators. States could also be required to assess the intensity of services and efforts to retain families, critical to program success. Even Start is targeted to poor families and parents who need educational services. Half of children enrolled made moderate to large gains in language development and parents also showed moderate gains in literacy.
• Modernize the system of technical assistance. While ED technical assistance providers reach a significant number of families, schools, districts and states, the system does not always function as a coherent system. The report recommends that technical assistance be improved through an integrated national electronic education network, better integration of federally supported providers and evaluations of models to help customers make wise decisions for comprehensive reform.

"We need to hold states and districts accountable for results," Riley said. "These findings show us what is working and what still needs to be done help our schools and students and it is helpful as we develop our proposal to reauthorize ESEA this year. Our plan will move standards into the classroom, strengthen accountability measures, invest in quality teachers and target resources to students who need them the most -- in order to end the tyranny of low expectations and raise achievement levels for all of our children."

-###-

NOTE TO EDITORS: The report was mandated by Title XIV, Section 14701, ESEA. Title XIV also requires the Secretary of Education to appoint an Independent Review Panel of distinguished educators and researchers to review the evaluation plan, to advise on progress, and to comment on the final report.