Education of Military Dependent Students
Better Information Needed to Assess Student Performance Gao ID: GAO-11-231 March 1, 2011Since the early 1990s, Congress has supplemented the Department of Education's (Education) Impact Aid program by providing funds for the Department of Defense's (DOD) Impact Aid program to compensate school districts with a high number of military dependent students. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 required GAO to review the use of these funds. GAO reviewed (1) what is known about the utilization and effectiveness of DOD Impact Aid funds, (2) the challenges faced by school districts in serving military dependent students, and (3) how DOD and Education have collaborated on their assistance. To address these issues, GAO conducted a Web-based survey of all 154 school districts that received DOD Impact Aid in any year from 2001 to 2009, with a response rate of 77 percent. GAO also interviewed officials from DOD and Education and seven school districts in five states, ranging in school district size, location, and percentage of military dependent students. The findings from these visits cannot be projected nationwide, but illustrate valuable perspectives.
DOD Impact Aid has three distinct funding components, with more than three quarters of the funds provided through the DOD Impact Aid Supplemental program. Eighty five percent of the 87 responding school districts that received funds for the 2009-2010 school year reported placing these funds into their general fund to use for overall maintenance and operations. Because there are no reporting requirements on districts' use of the funding, it is difficult to assess how the funds are used and to what extent military dependent students benefit. Further, there are no data available on these students that could be used to assess their academic achievement or educational outcomes, or determine where funding needs are greatest. Such reporting requirements exist for certain other groups of students, such as economically disadvantaged students and students with disabilities. Federal agency officials acknowledged this need for information, and Education has begun discussing how to address this need. School districts GAO contacted reported that issues related to the mobility of military dependent students and serving students with special needs were among the greatest challenges they faced in serving these students. Mobility increased academic needs due to differences in state and district curricula and behavioral and emotional issues in the classroom. To address challenges in serving military dependent students, school districts reported adopting a range of strategies, including additional counseling for students with a deployed parent and flexibility on academic requirements for newly transferred students. Guided by a memorandum of understanding signed in 2008, DOD and Education have implemented practices that facilitate their collaboration to assist military dependent students, according to practices GAO has identified that enhance collaboration. For example, beginning in 2008, the departments completed eight joint site visits to high-growth military installations, which helped them advise school districts on preparation for an influx of military dependent students. To monitor these collaborative efforts, DOD and Education have developed a strategic plan that tracks their progress. GAO recommends that the Secretary of Education determine whether to require school districts to report data on the academic outcomes of military dependent students, and if so, to determine the need for any additional legislative authority. Education agreed with GAO's recommendation, and DOD provided oral concurrence.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: George A. Scott Team: Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income Security Phone: (202) 512-5932GAO-11-231, Education of Military Dependent Students: Better Information Needed to Assess Student Performance
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-231
entitled 'Education Of Military Dependent Students: Better Information
Needed to Assess Student Performance' which was released on March 1,
2011.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to Congressional Committees:
March 2011:
Education Of Military Dependent Students:
Better Information Needed to Assess Student Performance:
GAO-11-231:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-11-231, a report to congressional committees.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Since the early 1990s, Congress has supplemented the Department of
Education‘s (Education) Impact Aid program by providing funds for the
Department of Defense‘s (DOD) Impact Aid program to compensate school
districts with a high number of military dependent students. The
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 required GAO
to review the use of these funds. GAO reviewed (1) what is known about
the utilization and effectiveness of DOD Impact Aid funds, (2) the
challenges faced by school districts in serving military dependent
students, and (3) how DOD and Education have collaborated on their
assistance. To address these issues, GAO conducted a Web-based survey
of all 154 school districts that received DOD Impact Aid in any year
from 2001 to 2009, with a response rate of 77 percent. GAO also
interviewed officials from DOD and Education and seven school
districts in five states, ranging in school district size, location,
and percentage of military dependent students. The findings from these
visits cannot be projected nationwide, but illustrate valuable
perspectives.
What GAO Found:
DOD Impact Aid has three distinct funding components, with more than
three quarters of the funds provided through the DOD Impact Aid
Supplemental program. Eighty five percent of the 87 responding school
districts that received funds for the 2009–2010 school year reported
placing these funds into their general fund to use for overall
maintenance and operations. (See figure below.) Because there are no
reporting requirements on districts‘ use of the funding, it is
difficult to assess how the funds are used and to what extent military
dependent students benefit. Further, there are no data available on
these students that could be used to assess their academic achievement
or educational outcomes, or determine where funding needs are
greatest. Such reporting requirements exist for certain other groups
of students, such as economically disadvantaged students and students
with disabilities. Federal agency officials acknowledged this need for
information, and Education has begun discussing how to address this
need.
School districts GAO contacted reported that issues related to the
mobility of military dependent students and serving students with
special needs were among the greatest challenges they faced in serving
these students. Mobility increased academic needs due to differences
in state and district curricula and behavioral and emotional issues in
the classroom. To address challenges in serving military dependent
students, school districts reported adopting a range of strategies,
including additional counseling for students with a deployed parent
and flexibility on academic requirements for newly transferred
students.
Guided by a memorandum of understanding signed in 2008, DOD and
Education have implemented practices that facilitate their
collaboration to assist military dependent students, according to
practices GAO has identified that enhance collaboration. For example,
beginning in 2008, the departments completed eight joint site visits
to high-growth military installations, which helped them advise school
districts on preparation for an influx of military dependent students.
To monitor these collaborative efforts, DOD and Education have
developed a strategic plan that tracks their progress.
Figure: School District Allocation of DOD Impact Aid Supplemental
Funds, 2009–2010 School Year:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Account: General fund;
Percentage of respondents: 85%.
Account: Capital Project fund;
Percentage of respondents: 15%.
Account: Special Revenue fund:
Percentage of respondents: 11%.
Account: Other accounts;
Percentage of respondents: 5%.
Source: GAO survey of school districts that received DOD Impact Aid
Supplemental funds in any year from 2001 through 2009.
Note: School districts may place funds in more than one account.
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Secretary of Education determine whether to
require school districts to report data on the academic outcomes of
military dependent students, and if so, to determine the need for any
additional legislative authority. Education agreed with GAO‘s
recommendation, and DOD provided oral concurrence.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-231] or key
components. For more information, contact George Scott at (202) 512-
7215 or scottg@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
Little Is Known About the Specific Use and Effectiveness of DOD Impact
Aid and There Are No National Data on Military Dependent Students as a
Group:
Military Dependent Students' Frequent Moves and Educating Military
Dependents with Special Needs are Primary Challenges for School
Districts, and Various Strategies Help Address These Challenges:
DOD and Education's Collaborative Practices Have Assisted Military
Dependent Students, Their Schools, and Families:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Information on Additional Mandate Provisions:
Appendix III: The 13 Objectives from Education and DOD's MOU:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Education:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Annual Funding for Fiscal Years 2001-2010 for DOD Impact Aid
Components:
Table 2: School Districts Interviewed in Five Selected States:
Figures:
Figure 1: Photo of a School Bulletin Board Showing Previous and Future
Residences of Military Dependent Students, May 2010:
Figure 2: School District-Reported Allocation of DOD Impact Aid
Supplemental Funds for 2009-2010 School Year:
Figure 3: School District-Reported General Fund Allocations:
Figure 4: School District-Reported Difficulty in Tracking DOD Impact
Aid Supplemental Funds:
Figure 5: School District-Reported Areas of Cuts or Adjustments If DOD
Impact Aid Supplemental Funding Was Not Received for the 2010-2011
School Year:
Figure 6: School District-Reported Challenges in Educating Military
Dependent Students:
Figure 7: School District-Reported Strategies Used to Support Military
Dependent Students:
Abbreviations:
BRAC: Base Realignment and Closure:
DOD: Department of Defense:
DoDEA: Department of Defense Education Activity:
Education: Department of Education:
ESEA: Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965:
MOU: memorandum of understanding:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
March 1, 2011:
The Honorable Carl Levin:
Chairman:
The Honorable John McCain:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Howard P. "Buck" McKeon:
Chairman:
The Honorable Adam Smith:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives:
Roughly 1.1 million school-age children in the United States are
military dependents, with parents in the armed forces.[Footnote 1] The
majority of these students are estimated to attend public schools.
Military dependent children often move multiple times throughout their
school careers and sometimes have a parent absent due to deployment,
creating unique challenges for their school districts. In recent
years, appropriations for the Department of Education's (Education)
Impact Aid program has been more than $1 billion a year. Since the
early 1990s, Congress has authorized and provided additional funds for
school districts that serve a significant number of military
dependents.[Footnote 2] One of several Department of Defense (DOD)
programs to assist these students--DOD Impact Aid, with funding
totaling approximately $342.3 million since fiscal year 2002--helps to
ensure that school districts with significant numbers of military
dependent students have additional funding in order to maintain
certain educational standards. Education of military dependent
students is becoming an increasingly important issue with recent
growth in and moves of military personnel at some military
installations located in the United States. These changes are due to
several factors, including implementation of recommendations from the
2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission, relocation of
U.S. forces in overseas locations back to the United States, global
rebasing, and other force structure changes. As of September 2009,
these changes were expected to add more than 120,000 military and DOD
civilian personnel, not including family members and contractors, to
U.S. military installations by September 2011.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 required
us to examine the use of DOD Impact Aid assistance by school districts
and its effectiveness in improving the quality of education provided
to military dependent students from fiscal years 2001 through 2009.
[Footnote 3] To do this, we reviewed (1) what is known about the use
and effectiveness of DOD Impact Aid funds, (2) the challenges faced by
school districts in serving military dependent students and the
strategies they have in place to address these challenges, and (3) how
DOD and Education have collaborated on their assistance to districts.
[Footnote 4]
To address these issues, we conducted a Web-based survey in August and
September 2010 of all 154 school districts that received DOD Impact
Aid in any year from 2001 through 2009--we received responses from
118, for a response rate of 77 percent. We conducted site visits to
four school districts in Colorado and Virginia and phone calls with
officials in three school districts in California, Missouri, and
Texas. We selected these districts based on recommendations from DOD
and national organizations involved in the education of military
dependent students, and attempted to include diversity in geographic
location, school district size, and the percentage of the district
made up of military dependents from different branches of military
service. During the visits we interviewed superintendents, assistant
superintendents, budget office officials, guidance counselors, and, in
some locations, military school liaisons, teachers, and students. In
one school district, we met with a group of parents. We also
interviewed officials from DOD and Education who are involved with the
implementation of DOD Impact Aid and the related memorandum of
understanding (MOU) between the two agencies. Finally, we reviewed key
agency documents and relevant literature, including prior GAO reports
on elementary and secondary education, military restructuring, and
practices that can help to enhance collaboration. We also reviewed
relevant federal laws and regulations. A more detailed explanation of
our methodology can be found in appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from March 2010 through February
2011 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background:
Military Dependent Students:
There are approximately 1.1 million school-age dependents of military
parents in the United States and an increasing number of these
dependents have a parent deployed overseas. While DOD operates 194
schools for military dependents in seven states, two territories, and
in 12 countries, DOD estimates the majority of military dependent
students attend U.S. public schools operated by local school
districts. Because of their family situations, military dependent
students may face a range of unique challenges, such as frequent moves
throughout their school career and the emotional difficulties of
having deployed parents. Figure 1 is a photo from a school we visited
with about 90 percent military dependent students that showed the
global locations of students' previous and future residences. Military
dependent students often find stability in the school routine during
the challenges of deployment and the resulting disruptions to daily
life, according to a DOD publication.[Footnote 5]
Figure 1: Photo of a School Bulletin Board Showing Previous and Future
Residences of Military Dependent Students, May 2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: photograph]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Education and DOD's Impact Aid Programs:
Appropriations for Education's Impact Aid program, reauthorized and
incorporated into Title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (ESEA),[Footnote 6] were almost $1.3 billion in fiscal
year 2010, and DOD provided $41 million in additional funding for DOD
Impact Aid. DOD Impact Aid was established in the early 1990s to
supplement the Education Impact Aid program which, as we testified at
that time, was underfunded (i.e., meaning that appropriations did not
fully fund authorizations). Together, the programs are intended to
compensate school districts for revenue losses resulting from federal
activities and to maintain educational standards for all students.
[Footnote 7] Federal activities that can affect revenues or the
ability to maintain standards include federal ownership of property
within a district as well as the enrollment of children whose parents
work or live on federal land (e.g., military bases).
Education Impact Aid funds are awarded in formula grants based on
various types of federally connected children in the school district
and other measures.[Footnote 8] If appropriations are not sufficient
to provide funding at the level for which all districts qualify,
funding is reduced with more heavily impacted districts receiving
higher percentages of their maximum payments than less impacted
districts. Of the more than 14,000 school districts nationwide, 902
received Education Impact Aid payments for federally connected
children in fiscal year 2009. Because Impact Aid payments are not
aimed at specific educational goals, accountability requirements for
the use of funds or for specific outcomes are minimal.
DOD Impact Aid, administered by DOD's Education Activity (DoDEA)
Educational Partnership office is intended to supplement the much
larger Education Impact Aid program. All districts that receive DOD
Impact Aid also receive Education Impact Aid. There are no statutory
requirements mandating that school districts report on the use of
these funds. DOD Impact Aid has three distinct funding components for
school districts with military dependent students. These funding
components are:
* Supplemental assistance. These funds are allocated to school
districts in which military dependents made up at least 20 percent of
average daily attendance during the previous school year.[Footnote 9]
Data from Education's Impact Aid application are used to determine a
district's eligibility. About 120 districts receive funds from DOD
Impact Aid Supplemental assistance annually. Total amounts awarded to
all districts combined have ranged from $30 to $40 million in each
fiscal year from 2002 through 2010,[Footnote 10] and the funding has
been included by Congress in DOD's annual appropriation for operation
and maintenance for defensewide activities.
* Assistance for children with severe disabilities. Funds are
allocated to school districts with at least two military dependent
children with severe disabilities where the costs exceed certain
criteria.[Footnote 11] The funding is a reimbursement for expenses
paid, and is sent to the school districts after the expenses are
incurred. According to a DOD official, approximately 40-50 school
districts that apply and meet the cost criteria are awarded funds each
year out of the 400-500 school districts that are potentially
eligible.[Footnote 12] Total amounts awarded to all districts combined
have generally ranged from $4 to $5 million in each fiscal year from
2002 through 2010.[Footnote 13]
* Assistance for districts significantly affected by BRAC. Funds are
allocated to school districts that have been heavily impacted as a
direct result of large scale military rebasing. Beginning in the late
1980s, the U.S. military has attempted to streamline the nation's
defense infrastructure through a series of base realignments and
closures. For example, as part of the 2005 BRAC round, DOD has
relocated or plans to relocate more than 120,000 military and DOD
civilian personnel by September 2011. In addition, DOD and local
community officials expect thousands of dependents to relocate to
communities near the BRAC 2005 growth bases. Thus, several U.S. bases
could each see the addition of more than 10,000 military and DOD
civilian personnel, along with their families and children. To qualify
for these DOD Impact Aid BRAC funds, districts must have had at least
20 percent military dependent students in average daily attendance
during the previous school year and have had an overall increase or
decrease of 5 percent or more of these students, or an increase or
decrease of no less than 250 military dependent students at the end of
the prior school year. No school district is permitted to receive more
than $1 million in assistance in a fiscal year. In fiscal years 2006
and 2007, 45 districts received BRAC funding from DOD Impact Aid
totaling $15 million. Although authorized, funding was not provided in
fiscal years 2002, 2008, 2009, and 2010 (see table 1).
Table 1: Annual Funding for Fiscal Years 2001-2010 for DOD Impact Aid
Components:
Fiscal year: 2001;
Type of DOD Impact Aid: Supplemental: [Empty][A];
Type of DOD Impact Aid: Children with severe disabilities: n/a[B];
Type of DOD Impact Aid: BRAC: n/a[C];
Total: [Empty].
Fiscal year: 2002;
Type of DOD Impact Aid: Supplemental: $30 million;
Type of DOD Impact Aid: Children with severe disabilities: $4.3
million;
Type of DOD Impact Aid: BRAC: 0;
Total: $34.3 million.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Type of DOD Impact Aid: Supplemental: $30 million;
Type of DOD Impact Aid: Children with severe disabilities: $3 million;
Type of DOD Impact Aid: BRAC: n/a;
Total: $33 million.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Type of DOD Impact Aid: Supplemental: $30 million;
Type of DOD Impact Aid: Children with severe disabilities: $5 million;
Type of DOD Impact Aid: BRAC: n/a;
Total: $35 million.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Type of DOD Impact Aid: Supplemental: $30 million;
Type of DOD Impact Aid: Children with severe disabilities: $5 million;
Type of DOD Impact Aid: BRAC: n/a;
Total: $35 million.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Type of DOD Impact Aid: Supplemental: $30 million;
Type of DOD Impact Aid: Children with severe disabilities: $5 million;
Type of DOD Impact Aid: BRAC: $7 million;
Total: $42 million.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Type of DOD Impact Aid: Supplemental: $30 million;
Type of DOD Impact Aid: Children with severe disabilities: $5 million;
Type of DOD Impact Aid: BRAC: $8 million;
Total: $43 million.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Type of DOD Impact Aid: Supplemental: $30 million;
Type of DOD Impact Aid: Children with severe disabilities: $5 million;
Type of DOD Impact Aid: BRAC: 0;
Total: $35 million.
Fiscal year: 2009;
Type of DOD Impact Aid: Supplemental: $40 million;
Type of DOD Impact Aid: Children with severe disabilities: $4 million;
Type of DOD Impact Aid: BRAC: 0;
Total: $44 million.
Fiscal year: 2010;
Type of DOD Impact Aid: Supplemental: $37 million;
Type of DOD Impact Aid: Children with severe disabilities: $4 million;
Type of DOD Impact Aid: BRAC: 0;
Total: $41 million.
Source: DOD.
[A] DOD could not provide data for Supplemental Impact Aid for fiscal
year 2001.
[B] The Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2001 began authorizing payments for this program in fiscal year
2002. Pub. L. No. 106-398, appendix § 363, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A-77,
78.
[C] Funding was authorized for this program in fiscal year 2002, and
since fiscal year 2006. See, e.g., National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-163, § 572(b), 119 Stat. 3136,
3271-73.
[End of table]
Other DOD Assistance for Military Dependent Children:
In addition to DOD Impact Aid, DOD provides other assistance to school
districts and military families for school-age children through the
following programs:
* DoDEA grants to schools. DoDEA has two programs that provide grants
for military-connected schools nationwide. These grant programs began
in 2008, and are authorized through fiscal year 2013.[Footnote 14]
Unlike the Supplemental Impact Aid program, the DoDEA grants are
targeted for specific uses and have specific evaluation requirements.
The competitive grant program aims to enhance student achievement,
provide professional development for educators, and integrate
technology into curricula at schools experiencing growth in numbers of
military dependent students. The invitational grant program aims to
enhance student achievement and ease challenges that military
dependent students face due to their parents' military service.
Through these two programs, DoDEA awarded approximately $56 million to
40 schools in fiscal year 2009, and approximately $38 million to 32
schools in fiscal year 2010.
* Military family life consultants. DOD's Office of the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Family Policy, Children, and Youth
administers the Military Family Life Consultant program, which
provides counseling services to faculty, staff, parents, and children
in school districts with a high percentage of parent deployments. The
program began in fiscal year 2004 as a demonstration program, and
received $150 million in fiscal year 2009 and $259 million in fiscal
year 2010. Working as DOD contract employees, these consultants
typically assist with issues including school transitions, adjustment
to deployments and reunions, and parent-child communication. In
addition, consultants try to promote a culture that encourages service
members and their families to seek counseling or other assistance when
they have a problem. As of fall 2010, there were more than 200
consultants supporting 297 schools and 105,000 military dependent
students worldwide.
* School liaison officers. Each service branch--the Army, Marine
Corps, Navy, and Air Force--administers the School Liaison Officer
program, which provides military commanders with the support necessary
to coordinate assistance to and advise military parents of school-age
children on educational issues and assist in solving education-related
problems. In fiscal year 2010, the Army spent $14.7 million on its
program, the Marine Corps $2.1 million, and the Navy $3.6
million.[Footnote 15] A school liaison officer's responsibilities
include promoting military parents' involvement in schools, assisting
children and parents with overcoming obstacles to education that stem
from the military lifestyle, and educating local communities and
schools on the needs of military children. As of fall 2010, there were
more than 250 school liaison officers assisting DOD and military-
connected public schools throughout the world, and more than 150 of
those were in the United States, all of whom are disbursed across the
service branches. The Army reported funding 141 school liaison
officers, the Marine Corps 24, the Navy 58, and the Air Force 82.
* Tutor.com. Since the end of 2009, DOD has provided children of
active duty military with free, unlimited access to online tutoring,
academic skills courses, and homework assistance in math, science,
social studies, and English for kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12)
students through Tutor.com. The program received $2 million in fiscal
year 2009. Professional tutors assist military dependent students with
completing homework, studying for standardized tests, and writing
papers. Some tutors are career specialists who can assist with resume
writing and job searches. The program provided 162,570 sessions during
fiscal year 2010.
* Heroes at Home for preschool-age children. Heroes at Home, a pilot
program established in fiscal year 2007,[Footnote 16] seeks to assist
active duty parents of preschool-age children at military
installations with significant transition or deployment activities.
The program provides research-based curriculum and training for parent
educators, who then work with other parents to help them mitigate any
risk to children's well-being or educational readiness posed by
military life. Over a 3 year period, Heroes at Home has served more
than 1,900 military families and almost 2,400 children from birth
until kindergarten. The program has received $3.4 million since fiscal
year 2008. Activities supported by the funding ended in September
2010, but will continue at some installations through other funding
mechanisms and existing programs.
Other Education Assistance for School Districts:
In addition to Education and DOD Impact Aid and other DOD assistance
for military dependent children, school districts may also qualify for
other funding from Education. For example, a district may receive
funding through Title I, Part A of ESEA,[Footnote 17] which authorizes
financial assistance to school districts and schools with high numbers
or high percentages of economically disadvantaged children. Funding
may also come through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,
[Footnote 18] which provides formula grants to states and school
districts for children ages 3-21 who have a disability that impacts
their education.
Little Is Known About the Specific Use and Effectiveness of DOD Impact
Aid and There Are No National Data on Military Dependent Students as a
Group:
Most School Districts Put DOD Impact Aid Supplemental Funds Into Their
General Fund for Overall Expenses and Specific Uses Are Generally Not
Tracked:
Little is known about the specific use and effectiveness of DOD Impact
Aid Supplemental funds because most school districts place the aid
into their general fund to support salaries, maintenance, and
operation of schools. In our survey of school districts that received
DOD Impact Aid Supplemental funds in any year from 2001 through 2009,
of the 87 school districts that reported receiving funds for the 2009-
2010 school year, 85 percent put at least some of their award in their
general fund.[Footnote 19] Approximately 15 percent of reported funds
went to a capital project fund, about 11 percent to a special revenue
fund,[Footnote 20] and about 5 percent to another account (see figure
2).[Footnote 21] When asked to provide a brief description of how DOD
Impact Aid Supplemental funds were spent, survey respondents reported
using them for salaries, supplies, technology, transportation, heating
and cooling systems, and capital upgrades.
Figure 2: School District-Reported Allocation of DOD Impact Aid
Supplemental Funds for 2009-2010 School Year:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Account: General fund;
Percentage of respondents: 85%.
Account: Capital Project fund;
Percentage of respondents: 15%.
Account: Special Revenue fund:
Percentage of respondents: 11%.
Account: Other accounts;
Percentage of respondents: 5%.
Source: GAO survey of school districts that received DOD Impact Aid
Supplemental funds in any year from 2001 through 2009.
Note: School districts may place funds into more than one account.
Debt Service Fund was also a response option, but none of the survey
respondents put DOD Impact Aid Supplemental monies into that fund.
[End of figure]
School districts reported using, on average, about 77 percent of their
general fund for salaries and benefits. The general fund was also used
to pay for supplies, property services (such as operations,
maintenance, and repair of district-owned property), and other
services such as food and transportation (see figure 3).
Figure 3: School District-Reported General Fund Allocations:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
Salaries and benefits: 77%;
Supplies: 7%;
Purchased property services: 6%;
Other purchased services (Such as transportation or food services): 5%;
Other: 5%.
Source: GAO survey of school districts that received DOD Impact Aid
Supplemental funds in any year from 2001 through 2009.
[End of figure]
DOD Impact Aid Supplemental funds are not required by statute to be
used for specific purposes or to be targeted directly to military
dependent students. Further, there are no tracking or reporting
requirements on the expenditures of funds and, as a result, there is
no way to determine specifically how the funds are used. However,
school districts that expend $500,000 or more[Footnote 22] are subject
to a financial audit in accordance with the Single Audit Act.[Footnote
23] Fewer than 20 percent of the districts that responded to our
survey reported using a separate accounting code to track expenditures
of DOD Impact Aid Supplemental funds.
School districts that completed our survey had mixed opinions
regarding how easy or challenging it is or would be to track how they
spend DOD Impact Aid Supplemental funds. Thirty-nine percent of
districts receiving these funds said it would be easy for them to
track the funds' use. For example, some districts already put their
DOD Impact Aid Supplemental funds into a separate fund or have an
accounting system that can track spending using a unique code. One
school district official said in the survey that the district would
simply designate its DOD Impact Aid Supplemental funds for a
particular expenditure, such as 25 percent of its total expenditures
for counseling services, if tracking and reporting were required.
However, an equal percentage of districts in our survey said that
tracking exactly how funds are spent would be challenging and time
consuming because their accounting systems are not set up to do so,
and their funds are used for multiple programs and needs (see figure
4). In addition, we heard from several district officials that the
amount of money received by districts is so small--less than 2
percent, on average, of a district's total budget--that additional
resources to account for the funds would not be justified.[Footnote
24] One district official from Colorado said that DOD Impact Aid
funding is too small and too unpredictable to dedicate specifically to
military dependent students or to fund special staff or programs.
Figure 4: School District-Reported Difficulty in Tracking DOD Impact
Aid Supplemental Funds:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Somewhat or extremely easy: 39%;
Neither easy nor challenging: 15%;
Somewhat or extremely challenging: 39%.
Source: GAO survey of school districts that received DOD Impact Aid
Supplemental funds in any year from 2001 through 2009.
[End of figure]
Officials in four of the seven school districts that we interviewed
and 19 survey respondents commented on the flexibility afforded by DOD
Impact Aid funding. Many of these districts appreciated the
flexibility of these funds because they can spend the money how they
deem most beneficial for their district. Flexible funding is
particularly important now, some school officials said, because of
state cuts to education budgets in recent years. In another 2010 GAO
survey of school districts on stimulus spending, an estimated one-
third reported budget cuts in the 2009-2010 school year and nearly one
in four reported cutting jobs, even with American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 funds.[Footnote 25] Several school districts
we contacted reported using DOD Impact Aid Supplemental funds to pay
for necessities that would have otherwise been cut due to less funding
from the state. Fifty-one percent of survey respondents said if they
did not receive DOD Impact Aid Supplemental funds for the 2010-2011
school year, they would likely or very likely make cuts or adjustments
to instructional staff (see figure 5). Forty-six percent reported that
they would likely or very likely make cuts or adjustments to
technology expenditures, and 42 percent reported that supplies and
classroom materials would likely or very likely be cut. One school
district official said if his district did not receive the funds, it
would prioritize expenditures and any consideration of possible staff
reductions would be taken very seriously, but used as a last resort.
Another school district reported that since this funding is small, a
one-year loss would impact technology and supplies, but staffing would
only be affected if the funds were lost going forward.
Figure 5: School District-Reported Areas of Cuts or Adjustments If DOD
Impact Aid Supplemental Funding Was Not Received for the 2010-2011
School Year:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Percentage of respondents:
Area: Instructional staff (Salaries and benefits);
Unlikely or very unlikely to be cut or adjusted: 24%;
Likely or very likely to be cut or adjusted: 51%.
Area: Technology;
Unlikely or very unlikely to be cut or adjusted: 27%;
Likely or very likely to be cut or adjusted: 46%.
Area: Supplies and classroom materials;
Unlikely or very unlikely to be cut or adjusted: 26%;
Likely or very likely to be cut or adjusted: 42%.
Area: Academic programs (art, music);
Unlikely or very unlikely to be cut or adjusted: 36%;
Likely or very likely to be cut or adjusted: 31%.
Area: Professional development of teachers, counselors, staff;
Unlikely or very unlikely to be cut or adjusted: 36%;
Likely or very likely to be cut or adjusted: 28%.
Area: Building improvements/modernization;
Unlikely or very unlikely to be cut or adjusted: 40%;
Likely or very likely to be cut or adjusted: 26%.
Area: Administration (Personnel and overhead);
Unlikely or very unlikely to be cut or adjusted: 36%;
Likely or very likely to be cut or adjusted: 26%.
Area: Extracurricular programs (sports, support groups);
Unlikely or very unlikely to be cut or adjusted: 41%;
Likely or very likely to be cut or adjusted: 25%.
Area: Transportation;
Unlikely or very unlikely to be cut or adjusted: 44%;
Likely or very likely to be cut or adjusted: 18%.
Area: Construction;
Unlikely or very unlikely to be cut or adjusted: 47%;
Likely or very likely to be cut or adjusted: 11%.
Area: Food or food services;
Unlikely or very unlikely to be cut or adjusted: 58%;
Likely or very likely to be cut or adjusted: 7%.
Area: Other;
Unlikely or very unlikely to be cut or adjusted: 36%;
Likely or very likely to be cut or adjusted: 13%.
Source: GAO survey of school districts that received DOD Impact Aid
Supplemental funds in any year from 2001 through 2009.
[End of figure]
When we asked school district officials in our survey if the DOD
Impact Aid Supplemental funding is effective in improving the quality
of education provided to military dependent students, 66 percent
strongly agreed.[Footnote 26] One district official from Texas told us
that while DOD Impact Aid Supplemental funding is not a significant
amount of money compared to that of the Education Impact Aid program,
it is "the icing on the cake" for addressing the unique needs of their
military dependent students. In addition, several school district
officials we contacted said the funding is very important and allows
the district to improve the quality of education. For example, the
funds enabled one school district to make enhancements to their
educational programs, offer new programs, and upgrade facilities.
Sixty-seven percent of the districts responding to our survey strongly
agreed that DOD Impact Aid Supplemental funding serves its purpose by
compensating them for some of the tax and other revenues lost due to a
federal presence in the district.[Footnote 27] Yet, only 16 percent
strongly or somewhat agreed that the amount of DOD Impact Aid
Supplemental funding received is adequate.
No National Data Exist on Military Dependent Students as a Group:
Further compounding the difficulty of efforts to evaluate the
effectiveness of DOD Impact Aid funds, we found a lack of national
data on military dependent students in general. There are no national
public data on military dependent students' academic progress,
attendance, or long-term outcomes, such as college attendance or
workplace readiness. DoDEA officials told us the only data currently
available on this population come from the Impact Aid forms completed
by parents, which provide information on whether a student is
federally connected or not.
Federal agency officials and a military education advocacy group have
expressed interest in having more data collected about military
dependent students, as it is for other public school cohorts. ESEA,
amended and reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001,
designates four specific groups of students as reportable and
accountable subgroups: economically disadvantaged, major racial and
ethnic groups, those with disabilities, and those with limited
proficiency in English.[Footnote 28] The legislation holds states,
school districts, and individual schools accountable for the
achievement of all students, including students in these four
subgroups. While some senior Education officials have acknowledged the
importance of obtaining these data for military dependent students,
they have not yet determined what, if any, concrete actions they will
take. Similarly, the Military Child Education Coalition, a nonprofit
organization focused on ensuring quality educational opportunities for
all military dependent children, is working with DOD and Education to
explore ways to use existing capacities to create processes for
collecting and analyzing data on all students of active duty, National
Guard, and Reserves families.
While DOD Impact Aid funds are not targeted for use for military
dependent students only, collecting this information could help serve
these students better. Senior representatives from Education and the
Military Child Education Coalition explained that without more
specific data, educators, base commanders, and community leaders are
not able to provide military dependent students with appropriate
resources because they do not have information on their specific
educational needs or the effectiveness of the schools and programs
serving them. Further, these data could help military families make
more informed decisions about where to enroll their children by
identifying how well specific schools educate military dependent
students. For example, military families may in some cases choose
whether to live on or off a base, and may choose which school district
their children will attend, depending on the quality of the schools. A
senior Education official also emphasized that this information could
shed light on practices that work well generally in educating other
highly mobile students, such as homeless or migrant students. In
addition, using data on military dependent students in a longitudinal
database would allow researchers to better understand these students'
academic achievement and educational outcomes over time and the
factors that might affect them.
At the same time, some groups representing school districts have
expressed concerns about making military dependent students a
reportable subgroup. These concerns include creating an additional
reporting burden and new costs for school districts and concerns about
singling out military dependent students as a unique group. However,
Education officials did not anticipate excessive cost or burden for
school districts to collect and report these data.
Military Dependent Students' Frequent Moves and Educating Military
Dependents with Special Needs are Primary Challenges for School
Districts, and Various Strategies Help Address These Challenges:
Military Dependent Students' Mobility and Students with Special Needs
Were Primary Educational Challenges Reported by School Districts:
Officials at three quarters of the school districts responding to our
survey reported that issues associated with military dependent
students' frequent moves to new schools were moderately, very, or
extremely challenging. In addition, 58 percent reported meeting the
needs of military dependent students with disabilities was moderately,
very, or extremely challenging. In our survey of these school
districts, three of the top four challenges reported by districts
responding to our survey were related to the mobility of military
families. Mobility increased academic needs due to differences in
state and district curricula, lack of connectedness with school, and
behavioral issues in the classroom. Serving students with special
needs was another important challenge faced by the school districts in
our survey. These challenges, as well as the emotional toll faced by
students as a result of frequent moves, were echoed in the interviews
we held with selected school districts. A smaller percentage of survey
respondents also reported lack of participation by parents,
transportation to and on bases, and transitioning of teachers and
staff who are in military families, among other challenges (see figure
6).
Figure 6: School District-Reported Challenges in Educating Military
Dependent Students:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Challenge: Increased academic need (due to differences in district and
state curricula);
Slightly or not at all challenging: 20%;
Moderately challenging: 32%;
Extremely or very challenging: 41%.
Challenge: Large percentage of students with special needs;
Slightly or not at all challenging: 34%;
Moderately challenging: 22%;
Extremely or very challenging: 36%.
Challenge: Lack of connectedness with school (due to frequent moves);
Slightly or not at all challenging: 33%;
Moderately challenging: 34%;
Extremely or very challenging: 24%.
Challenge: Behavioral issues in classroom (due to frequent
moves/parent deployment);
Slightly or not at all challenging: 38%;
Moderately challenging: 31%;
Extremely or very challenging: 24%.
Challenge: Transitioning of teachers and staff (who are in military
families);
Slightly or not at all challenging: 46%;
Moderately challenging: 27%;
Extremely or very challenging: 13%.
Challenge: Large percentage of low-income students;
Slightly or not at all challenging: 50%;
Moderately challenging: 23%;
Extremely or very challenging: 15%.
Challenge: Lack of participation by parents;
Slightly or not at all challenging: 56%;
Moderately challenging: 17%;
Extremely or very challenging: 17%.
Challenge: Transportation (i.e., buses traveling on military bases);
Slightly or not at all challenging: 65%;
Moderately challenging: 10%;
Extremely or very challenging: 13%.
Challenge: Other challenges[A];
Slightly or not at all challenging: 14%;
Moderately challenging: 5%;
Extremely or very challenging: 19%.
Source: GAO survey of school districts that received DOD Impact Aid
Supplemental funds in any year from 2001 through 2009.
[A] Among the school districts that provided details about other
challenges in educating military dependent students, three reported
students' emotional suffering, often due to parental deployment, as a
challenge.
[End of figure]
Student Mobility:
Key issues associated with the mobility of military dependent students
identified by school districts we contacted were different state and
district academic curricula and standards, lack of student and family
connectedness to school, and behavioral and emotional issues of
students, most often related to a parent's deployment or absence.
Different Academic Curricula and Standards:
The largest challenge reported by school districts in our survey was
the increased academic need of children in military families who
transfer to a school with different curricula or academic standards
than those in their previous school and thus need additional support.
Forty-one percent of school districts rated increased academic needs
due to differences in curricula between districts and/or states as
extremely or very challenging, and 32 percent said it was moderately
challenging. States use different curricula and have different
graduation and academic standards and assessment practices, sometimes
making it difficult for a receiving school to integrate new students.
For example, one school district official we interviewed noted the
state requires 25 classes to graduate from high school, whereas other
states require only 20 classes, which has created challenges for
incoming juniors and seniors. These inter-district differences can
extend to the placement of students in special education or gifted
programs. A school district official in one state, for example, told
us that some students who received special education services in their
previous state no longer qualified for these services. While the
district works to provide adequate supports within the classroom, the
official said it is sometimes difficult to explain to students and
their families why they no longer qualify for services to which they
are accustomed. These challenges are compounded when the records from
the sending district do not arrive on time or are incomplete--an issue
identified as a challenge by some districts.
In addition, mobility often results in classes with a high degree of
student turnover each year, creating an extra burden on teachers to
orient new students to class material, assess their academic
abilities, and provide extra support, as needed. Officials at five of
the schools we interviewed told us that each year at least one-third
of their student population turns over. A principal of an elementary
school in Colorado told us only one out of 57 fifth graders has been
with the school since kindergarten. Because this turnover takes place
throughout the school year, teachers must spend time continually
absorbing and integrating new students into their classrooms, which
reduces the time available for instruction.
We found very few generalizable studies that systematically examined
the academic and behavioral effects of mobility for military students
specifically. National student level achievement data on military
dependent students are also not available, so it is difficult to link
achievement and mobility. However, we recently reported that mobility
is one of several interrelated factors, including socio-economic
status and lack of parental education, which have a negative effect on
academic achievement.[Footnote 29] In addition, some of the studies we
reviewed found that the effect of mobility on achievement also varied
depending on such factors as the student's race or ethnicity, special
needs, grade level, frequency of school change, and characteristics of
the school change--whether it was between or within school districts,
or to an urban district from a suburban or rural one.
Lack of Connectedness with School:
Military dependent students' lack of connectedness with their school
due to frequent moves was reported as extremely or very challenging by
24 percent of school districts in our survey, and moderately
challenging by 34 percent. Frequent moves make it difficult, for
example, for students to get involved with extracurricular activities
or sports if they move after the tryout season. Officials we
interviewed from one school in Texas said they allowed children to try
out for extracurricular activities by sending a video before they
arrived, and another allowed newly arrived military dependent students
to try out for teams mid-season. Students are not guaranteed their
same position (e.g., quarterback) which can be disappointing, but they
will be given an opportunity to try out for the team. Officials also
said limited child care options and lack of transportation to the
military base limit students' ability to attend after-school events.
School liaison officers in another school district similarly
attributed the lack of public transportation on base to families
feeling isolated and having difficulty attending extracurricular
activities. Officials in 23 percent of districts responding to our
survey reported transportation was at least moderately challenging.
Related to a student's lack of connectedness is lack of parental
involvement. School principals we interviewed in Colorado said
military parents tend to avoid school involvement partly because they
anticipate leaving in a few years. The lack of parental involvement is
particularly troubling for district officials because they feel that
parents need to be part of the school community for success in
educating their students.
Finally, related to mobility, 13 percent of survey respondents
reported that transitioning of teachers and staff from military
families who work at schools when military families are reassigned was
extremely or very challenging, and 27 percent reported this was
moderately challenging. Officials in two school districts told us that
hiring military spouses is advantageous because they have first hand
experience with military issues and can relate well to military
dependent students. However, when the military spouses leave the
school district it creates more inconsistency in the education of
military dependent students.
Behavioral and Emotional Issues:
Officials in 24 percent of school districts in our survey said
behavioral issues in the classroom, such as aggression--which may be
attributable to frequent moves and parent deployment--were extremely
or very challenging, and 31 percent said they were moderately
challenging. Officials we interviewed in six of the seven districts
said there is an emotional toll faced by students as a result of
frequent school transfers. In one school district in Virginia,
approximately 60 percent of students who started at a school are no
longer there at graduation. Officials in this district found that
frequent moves are a significant hindrance to the academic and
emotional success of military dependent students. Some officials said
mobility-related emotional issues tend to be more challenging for high
school students, who may have more trouble fitting in and meeting
academic requirements for graduation. The students we spoke with at
one high school, many of whom were military dependents and had moved
frequently, agreed that transitioning to new schools was most
difficult during high school because social groups are already firmly
established.
School district officials we interviewed also identified emotional and
behavioral challenges connected to parent deployment, absence, and in
some cases, the death of a parent. In particular, officials we
interviewed at two school districts near Army bases noted an increase
in emotional and behavioral issues, including student truancy and
tardiness, in recent years. Specifically, school officials near Army
bases in Colorado and Missouri agreed that students' misbehavior and
acting out has increased in recent years and is currently at chronic
levels. One superintendent noted that her county has lost more than
300 soldiers in the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts. A school counselor
added that reintegration when the absent parent returns can also be
stressful as families re-establish rules and dynamics. Some districts
noted that the leave soldiers take upon return from deployment
resulted in long student absences. While district officials we spoke
with wanted to be accommodating to reunited families, they noted that
these student absences were taking an academic toll. Officials in
these two districts said that teachers have found themselves
fulfilling the role of social worker for military dependent students,
a position they felt underqualified to fill.
A 2010 study examining the well-being and deployment difficulties of
more than a thousand families with military children aged 11-17 found
they tended to have more emotional difficulties compared to national
samples.[Footnote 30] The study found that older children had a
greater number of school, family, and peer-related difficulties during
deployment, and girls of all ages reported more challenges during both
deployment and deployed-parent reintegration. Both the length of
parental deployment and poor mental health of the nondeployed
caregiver were significantly associated with a greater number of
challenges for children both during deployment and deployed-parent
reintegration.
Serving Students with Special Needs:
Fifty-eight percent of survey respondents cited serving students with
special needs as extremely or very challenging (36 percent) or
moderately challenging (22 percent). We heard similar views in our
interviews. For example, a special education director in one district
we visited said that the difficulties most military dependent students
face in transitioning frequently to and from schools are exacerbated
for special education students given their greater instructional and
other needs. Serving students with disabilities in public schools is a
challenge for many school districts nationwide because these students
are increasingly taught in mainstream classrooms. In 2009 we found
that state and local school district officials believed classroom
teachers were generally unprepared for teaching students with
disabilities and a number of state and district officials wanted a
stronger focus in teacher preparation programs on instruction of
children with disabilities.[Footnote 31]
DOD Impact Aid's Children with Severe Disabilities program reimburses
school districts serving military dependent students with severe
disabilities, but a number of school districts we contacted said the
application for reimbursement is burdensome, in some cases taking
numerous hours for school districts to complete. According to a DoDEA
official, approximately 10 percent of the school districts that serve
two or more military dependent children with special needs and
establish that they meet the cost criteria submit an application each
year. In accordance with statutory requirements, payment calculations
require, among other things, determinations of average per pupil
expenditure in the state as well as nationally.[Footnote 32] According
to some school districts, calculations and application requirements
are time consuming and require them to list specific costs expended on
services for each eligible child. One director of special education
told us that the process of applying for the Children with Severe
Disabilities reimbursement takes about 80-90 hours of staff time. She
explained that collecting the information requires obtaining data from
occupational and physical therapists, and from other offices including
transportation and special education. When there is staff turnover
among any of these contacts, the process takes even longer. Officials
from two districts we interviewed said the amount of the reimbursement
was very small compared to the difficulty with completing the
application. Officials in 10 of the 39 school districts responding to
the survey that have received these funds said the application is
difficult to complete in an open-ended survey question. DoDEA
officials told us they are aware that the application can be difficult
to complete, and one official was concerned that some districts that
could benefit from the funds may not apply for them given the burden
of the application. In response, DoDEA plans to issue more guidance in
the form of frequently asked questions for the next application
process in spring 2011. Officials plan to base this guidance on
questions the department has received from applicants over the last
several years. They also plan to develop a webinar to walk applicants
through the application process for the next round.
Schools Adopted Various Strategies to Address Challenges, Including
Counseling, Use of Technology, and Flexible Academic Requirements:
Additional counseling, use of technology, and flexibility on academic
requirements were the strategies identified by most survey respondents
that assist them in serving the unique needs of their military
dependent students. In addition, school district officials we
interviewed reported using a range of other related strategies,
including providing literacy coaches, encouraging peer-to-peer support
and other support groups, and reaching out to military installations
for assistance (see figure 7). However, because most school districts
receiving DOD Impact Aid Supplemental funds deposit the funds in the
district's general fund and do not separately track their spending, we
could not assess the extent to which any of these strategies were
funded through DOD Impact Aid Supplemental funds rather than other
funding sources. Some of the strategies school officials described are
funded by other DOD programs or nonmilitary sources.
Figure 7: School District-Reported Strategies Used to Support Military
Dependent Students:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Percentage of respondents using strategy or program:
Strategy: Additional counseling by school personnel: 80%.
Strategy: Online grades, coursework, attendance (accessible to
parent(s) at home or deployed): 80%.
Strategy: Flexible and/or individualized approach to academic
requirements: 74%.
Strategy: Literacy coaches and specialists: 72%.
Strategy: Peer-to-peer support (i.e., Student2Student): 65%.
Strategy: Counseling and support from installation representatives
(i.e., school liaison officers): 64%.
Strategy: Involvement of military members from nearby installations
(i.e., Adopt a School): 61%.
Strategy: Support groups (for children of deployed parents): 58%.
Strategy: Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military
Children: 51%.
Strategy: Additional support staff to integrate new students
throughout the school year: 43%.
Strategy: Military and deployment focused bulletin boards: 33%.
Strategy: Webcam interaction with deployed parent(s): 30%.
Strategy: Live streaming of graduation for deployed parent(s): 30%.
Strategy: Other: 19%.
Source: GAO survey of school districts that received DOD Impact Aid
Supplemental funds in any year from 2001 through 2009.
[End of figure]
Additional Counseling:
Eighty percent of school districts in our survey reported using
additional counseling as a key strategy to address the emotional needs
of military dependent students, and many provided services such as
deployment support groups and student peer support groups. One
district hired a full-time psychologist to address the emotional and
social needs of students due to both frequent school moves and
recurring deployments of parents. Counseling and support often extend
to other members of the family who are also struggling to cope with a
deployed parent. For example, a home liaison in one district told us
she holds training sessions on discipline with the at-home parent.
Military parents we interviewed at one school district explained that
sometimes the stigma associated with mental health services deterred
military families from seeking help on base, raising the importance of
supports at schools. Officials we interviewed at several school
districts said they provided extra training for teachers and
counselors on issues specific to military dependent students. In
Texas, all counselors in one district received training in how to
respond to needs of these students and their families in transitioning
to a new area and how to help students cope with the loss of a parent.
Officials in six of the seven school districts we interviewed told us
they provided deployment support groups, typically led by school
counselors, to provide military dependent students an opportunity to
share feelings and solutions. Sixty-five percent of the schools in our
survey offered peer-to-peer support programs. For example, "Student 2
Student" is a peer program promoted by the Military Child Education
Coalition in which a team of volunteer students, supervised by a
school counselor, teacher, or other school staff, assists both
incoming and outgoing students to cope with or prepare for changes in
academics and relationships. Further, 33 percent of survey respondents
reported using military or deployment-focused bulletin boards to
provide support for military dependent students. For example, one
school we visited posted a "heroes wall," which contained pictures and
text the children created about their parent who was deployed. School
district officials also highlighted the involvement of members of the
military in supporting military dependent students. Sixty-one percent
of districts responding to our survey said they involve members of
nearby installations, and 64 percent reported taking advantage of
counseling and other support offered by base representatives. For
example, volunteers from one local installation provided one-on-one
tutoring and military members attended physical education classes to
help promote wellness and inspire the students to achieve a higher
level of physical fitness.
Use of Technology:
The use of technology, such as online grades, coursework, and
attendance records, which is accessible to parents at home or
deployed, was used by 80 percent of the school districts in our survey
to help bridge the gap between students and deployed parents. For
example, a Texas school district highlighted its use of an online
resource that lets students take assessments aligned to state
standards and directs them to individualized tutorials to improve
skills. In addition, parents can monitor their child's progress online
at home or abroad. According to one school district official, families
in his district have reported that this program has been a "blessing"
in helping their children academically. Thirty percent of school
districts in our survey reported streaming live graduation ceremonies.
The principal of one school, which sends videotaped graduation
ceremonies to deployed parents, said the video includes a special
ceremony for these students and interviews with graduates and their
families. Thirty percent of districts also reported in our survey
providing Web-camera interactions with deployed parents.
Flexible Courses and Credits:
To address academic standards, which differ among districts, 74
percent of districts in our survey reported being flexible or taking
an individualized approach to academic requirements. This may include
being flexible on testing, course credits, or other requirements to
meet the needs of incoming military dependent students. Districts in
Virginia and Colorado made adjustments to requirements for courses and
standardized testing based on requirements at the previously attended
school and the point in the school year, for example, allowing seniors
to use their previous school's graduation requirements.
Some schools hired extra teachers and staff to help facilitate the
transition for students. One school district in Colorado created a
position called an "integrationist" whose sole job was to ease the
transition of the many transferring military dependent students by
gathering academic, extracurricular, and personal information about
them before they arrived to the district, then helping them get into
the appropriate classes and extracurricular activities. Due to the
constant influx of new military dependent students, an elementary
school in Virginia hired extra reading support specialists to work
individually with children who enter the school with poor reading
skills. Seventy-two percent of school districts we surveyed reported
using literacy coaches to assist military dependent students. Military
parents we interviewed in Virginia noted that of everything the school
did for military children, this extra and individualized academic
support was the most appreciated.
About half the districts in our survey highlighted their state's
participation in the Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for
Military Children as an effective strategy to address some of the
challenges related to mobility and academics. As of October 2010, 35
states had signed this agreement, which sets forth expectations for
participating states to address key transition issues encountered by
military families, including enrollment, placement, attendance,
eligibility, and graduation.[Footnote 33] For example, the compact
states that school districts will either waive specific courses
required for graduation if similar course work has been satisfactorily
completed in another district or will provide reasonable justification
for denial. Officials we interviewed in all five states also mentioned
their state's participation in the compact as a strategy to assist
with issues related to transition of military dependent students.
DOD and Education's Collaborative Practices Have Assisted Military
Dependent Students, Their Schools, and Families:
DOD and Education have developed and implemented practices that
facilitate their collaboration on efforts to assist military dependent
students, their schools, and families. In our previous work, we have
identified practices that help enhance and sustain interagency
collaboration. These practices include articulating common objectives
and resources, agreeing on compatible operating procedures and
responsibilities, and reinforcing accountability through monitoring.
[Footnote 34] The agencies have worked together, for example, to
distribute guidance to schools on best practices for addressing
military dependent students' needs and to assist school districts
located in areas experiencing influxes of military families.
DOD and Education officials have a history of collaborating on
education issues for children of military families through the Impact
Aid programs and formalized and broadened these efforts with a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) they signed in June 2008. The MOU
identifies five focus areas for collaboration:
1. Quality education. Share educational best practices at schools
serving military dependent students, and implement policies to support
those with special needs.
2. Student transition and deployment. Encourage school district and
state policies that minimize the impact of military dependent
students' frequent moves and parental deployments.
3. Data. Consider approaches for the collection, disaggregation, and
analysis of education data on military dependent students.
4. Communication and outreach. Devise joint communication strategies
to reach parents, educators, students, and military leaders about
resources available from DOD and Education.
5. Resources. Support school districts affected by military growth
through the DOD and Education Impact Aid programs, as well as other
programs.
To address these five areas, DOD and Education outlined 13 specific
objectives in the MOU, including coordinating the DOD and Education
Impact Aid programs. (See appendix III for a complete list of the
objectives.) DOD and Education have carried out a number of
collaborative activities within the five focus areas. For example, to
address the area of resources, DOD and Education have collaborated to
respond to the challenges from the 2005 military base closure and
realignment actions that the BRAC Commission reported will result in
55 major closures and realignments by September 2011.[Footnote 35]
These actions, once completed, would relocate large numbers of
military families, which in turn will affect an increasing number of
school districts. Officials from both agencies have made eight joint
site visits, beginning in 2008, to high-growth military installations
to better understand the specific education issues arising from
mission changes and growth. The officials shared their findings with
cognizant federal agencies, affected state and local governments and
school districts, and made recommendations for how the districts can
best prepare for influxes of military dependent students. These
recommendations included improving coordination between districts and
federal agencies to better estimate military dependent student growth
in a district. DOD and Education are also collaborating on a study
mandated in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2010 that required DOD, in consultation with Education, to examine,
among other things, the educational options available to military
dependent children who attend schools in need of improvement as
defined under ESEA. The study was also required to address the
challenges military parents face in securing quality schooling for
their children when the schools they attend are identified as needing
improvement.[Footnote 36]
To address student transitions and parental deployment, DOD and
Education issued guidance to school districts about best practices to
minimize the impact on military dependent students' attendance records
and academics when they are absent upon a parent's return from
deployment. Further, DOD, in cooperation with Education, published a
book for military families and military and school leaders called
"Students at the Center," which provides information on resources and
best practices for meeting the needs of military dependent children.
DOD and Education have also taken steps to improve interagency
communication and develop compatible operating procedures and
responsibilities--key elements of effective collaboration identified
in our prior work. An MOU working group meets monthly and is in the
process of writing protocols for communication between the agencies.
In addition, a military liaison position was established at Education
in 2008 to serve as the primary contact between the agencies for
coordinating program development, management, and outreach related to
improving the academic condition of military dependent children. A
senior DoDEA official said this new position has been beneficial
because it provides a single point of contact. Education officials
told us the working group's efforts have increased communication with
DOD and have led to a better understanding of the needs of children in
families from all military branches. DOD officials also highlighted
increased interest by Education officials to visit military
installations. DOD officials said that prior to the MOU, they had
working relationships only with officials from Education's Impact Aid
office; they now have relationships with officials in other offices in
Education, such as its Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services and its Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. As a
result, DOD officials have worked with representatives from those
offices on several efforts. For example, according to a DOD official,
Education officials provided technical support to DOD by reviewing
school districts' applications for the 2009 DoDEA grants, and the
working group has hosted guest speakers from both Education and DOD.
In addition, an official from Education's Office of Safe and Drug-Free
Schools spoke to the group about how its grant programs can assist
military dependent students, and an official from DOD's Office of the
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Military Community and Family
Policy spoke to the group about progress on the Interstate Compact.
In May 2010, the White House announced a Presidential Study Directive
on Military Family Policy, which requested that executive agencies
develop a coordinated governmentwide approach to support and engage
military families. According to senior Education officials, the
directive has led Education to place an even greater priority on its
collaborative efforts with DOD. The directive has provided another
framework under which DOD and Education have worked together to
improve the quality of education for military dependent children.
Education developed a work plan that details initiatives the agency
will undertake to address the goals of the directive. Specifically,
senior Education officials have also visited military communities and
schools to raise awareness of the challenges military dependent
children face and the contributions their families make to the
country. In addition, Education proposed that priority be given to its
competitive grant proposals that could benefit military dependent
students.
The working group monitors its progress through a strategic plan
developed in 2010 that aligns the MOU's five focus areas for
collaboration with initiatives the working group has accomplished or
plans to carry out. Our prior work has found monitoring to be a key
practice for effective interagency collaboration because it allows
agencies to obtain feedback and improve effectiveness. DOD and
Education officials told us the strategic plan helps them to examine
and prioritize their areas of collaboration to plan for future
efforts, and reflect on the extent to which they are meeting the
original intent of the MOU. For example, to address the focus area of
student transition and deployment, working group members outlined
plans in their strategic plan for a resource guide about best
practices for school attendance. As a result of their work, they
contributed to a pamphlet, published by the Military Child Education
Coalition in 2010, called "Military-Connected Students and Public
School Attendance Policies" that is meant to assist school
administrators, base commanders, and parents. Specifically, the
pamphlet includes examples of districts around the country upholding
their attendance policies while ensuring military dependents receive a
quality education when absent from school. In addition, for transition
and deployment, working group members plan to look at installations
with the highest deployment rates to explore options to mitigate the
effects of daily attendance requirements for military dependent
students affected by deployments.
Conclusions:
Support for military families, including the education of military
dependents, has received even greater attention with the May 2010
announcement of the Presidential Study Directive on Military Family
Policy. In response, DOD and Education further increased their
collaboration to provide a quality education and support to military
dependent children through a variety of activities in addition to DOD
Impact Aid. Programs such as DOD Impact Aid provide funding to assist
school districts with a significant percentage of military dependents,
but the outcomes and effectiveness of their activities are difficult
to assess. This is due in part to the structure of the DOD Impact Aid
program, which does not require any reporting on the use of the funds.
Further, DOD, Education, states, and other parties concerned about the
education of military dependents lack appropriate data to monitor the
progress of military dependent students and the effectiveness of the
schools and programs serving them. Currently, school districts and
states are not required to collect academic achievement data for
military dependent students, as they are for certain other groups of
students, including economically disadvantaged students and students
with disabilities. Without these data, stakeholders lack critical
information that could help them better understand the specific needs
of these students and their educational outcomes over time.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
To better understand the needs of military students and the
effectiveness of strategies to assist them, we recommend the Secretary
of Education, in collaboration with the Secretary of Defense,
determine whether to require school districts to identify military
dependent students as a distinct subgroup for reporting on their
academic outcomes, such as test scores and high school graduation
rates. This should include determining whether the Department of
Education needs to obtain any additional legislative authority for
this requirement, and seeking it from Congress, if necessary.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of the report to the Departments of Education and
Defense for review and comment. Education agreed with our
recommendation and stated that the agency proposed improving the
collection of data on military dependent students in the upcoming
reauthorization of ESEA. This proposal is discussed in the
Administration's January 2011 report, Strengthening Our Military
Families: Meeting America's Commitment. According to Education, under
the Administration's proposal, states and school districts that
receive funds under ESEA Title I, Part A would be required to report
state-, district-, and school-level aggregate data on the academic
achievement of military dependent students. DoDEA provided oral
concurrence with our recommendation.
Education and DOD both provided technical comments, which have been
incorporated in the report as appropriate. Education's comments are
reproduced in appendix IV.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees, the Secretary of Education, the Secretary of Defense, and
other interested parties. The report also is available at no charge on
the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report,
please contact me at (202) 512-7215 or scottg@gao.gov. Contact points
for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be
found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major
contributions to this report are listed in appendix V.
Signed by:
George A. Scott:
Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Our review focused on (1) what is known about the use and
effectiveness of Department of Defense (DOD) Impact Aid funds, (2) the
challenges faced by school districts in serving military dependent
students and strategies they have in place to address these
challenges, and (3) how DOD and the Department of Education
(Education) have coordinated their assistance to districts.
Survey of School Districts that Received DOD Impact Aid Supplemental
Funds from 2001 to 2009:
We designed and implemented a Web-based survey to gather information
on the use and effectiveness of DOD Impact Aid funds and the
challenges faced by school districts in serving military dependent
students. The survey also included questions regarding DOD Impact Aid
for Children with Severe Disabilities and DOD Impact Aid for Base
Realignment and Closure. We sent this survey to the 154 school
districts that have received DOD Impact Aid Supplemental funds in any
year from 2001 to 2009, the years covered in the mandate. We obtained
the list of DOD Impact Aid recipients from Education and verified the
recipients with a list provided by DOD Education Activity (DoDEA). Our
survey was directed to the school district official identified as the
point of contact for DOD Impact Aid by DoDEA officials. Most of these
school district officials were superintendents, assistant
superintendents, directors of business or finance, or other business
office employees.
Process for Developing the Survey Instrument:
To assess the feasibility of conducting a survey for this report, we
contacted several school districts to determine whether they would be
able to respond to questions regarding their spending of DOD Impact
Aid funds. All districts that we spoke with told us they would be able
and willing to respond to such a survey. We obtained available data
from both DOD and Education on the school districts that received DOD
Impact Aid Supplemental funds in any year from 2001 through 2009, as
well as a contact person for each district. Drawing from the
provisions in the mandate, information obtained during site visits to
school districts, and preliminary interviews with DOD, Education, and
two nonprofit organizations--the Military Impacted Schools Association
and the Military Child Education Coalition--we developed survey
questions. We also sought input on our final draft from the two
nonprofit organizations, as well as internal GAO stakeholders and a
survey specialist before conducting pretests. We pretested our survey
draft with school district officials at four districts that received
DOD Impact Aid funding in any year from 2001 to 2009 to help ensure
that the questions were clear, the terms used were precise, the
questions were unbiased, and the questionnaire could be completed in a
reasonable amount of time. We modified the survey to incorporate the
feedback from each pretest.
The survey contained questions on: (1) general school district
information, (2) spending tracking, and disbursement of DOD Impact Aid
funds, (3) perceptions of effectiveness of DOD Impact Aid funding
sources, and (4) challenges faced by districts with respect to
military dependent students and strategies to address those
challenges. The survey also contained questions on DOD's monitoring of
funds, a specific provision in the mandate regarding the conversion of
military housing to private housing (see appendix II), and DOD and
Education technical assistance or guidance to school districts.
Administration Method for Survey:
We conducted the survey by using a Web-based self-administered
questionnaire. In the questionnaire, we asked the school district
officials to be the lead survey respondent and to consult with others
in the district who may be more knowledgeable on questions related to
challenges associated with educating military dependent students. We
collected contact information for these school district officials from
DoDEA and through searches of these districts' Web sites. We verified
the contact information by sending notification e-mails and calling
districts for the correct contact information in cases where the e-
mail was undeliverable. We sent the survey activation e-mail to these
officials on July 28, 2010, and then asked them to complete the survey
within 3 weeks. To encourage them to respond, we sent three follow-up
e-mails over a period of about 4 weeks and extended our survey
deadline to September 13, 2010. Staff made phone calls over the next 2
weeks to encourage those who did not respond to complete our
questionnaire. We closed our survey on September 24, 2010, and 118
school districts completed the survey for a response rate of 77
percent.[Footnote 37]
Efforts to Minimize Nonsampling Errors:
The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may also introduce
errors commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example,
difficulties in the way a particular question is interpreted, the
sources of information that are available to respondents, or the way
the data were analyzed can introduce unwanted variability into the
survey results. We took steps in the development of this
questionnaire, in the data collection, and in the data analysis to
minimize such errors. Specifically, a survey specialist designed the
questionnaire in collaboration with two staff members who were
familiar with the subject matter. Then, as previously mentioned, the
draft questionnaire was pretested with four school districts to ensure
that questions were relevant, clearly stated, and easy to comprehend.
The questionnaire was also reviewed by officials from two military
education advocacy organizations. Data analysis was conducted by a
data analyst working directly with the staff who developed the survey.
When the data were analyzed, a second independent data analyst checked
all computer programs for accuracy. Since this was a Web-based survey,
respondents entered their answers directly into the electronic
questionnaires. This eliminated the need to have the data keyed into
databases, thus removing an additional source of error.
Site Visits to Selected States and School Districts:
To identify the challenges school districts face in educating military
dependent students and the strategies they have implemented, we
conducted site visits to four districts in two states (Colorado and
Virginia) and phone calls with three districts in three states
(California, Missouri, and Texas). We chose these districts based on
recommendations from DOD, the Military Impacted Schools Association,
and the Military Child Education Coalition. We strove to achieve
diversity in geographic location, school district size, and percent of
district made up of military dependents from different branches of
military service. (See table 3 below for more information on the
districts we interviewed.) The findings from these five states and
seven districts cannot be projected nationwide, but we believe they
illustrate valuable perspectives on the challenges of serving military
dependent students, and assistance from DOD and other sources to help
address the challenges. During the visits we interviewed
superintendents, assistant superintendents, budget office officials,
guidance counselors, and, in some locations, military school liaisons,
teachers, and students. In one school district, we also met with a
group of parents. We also toured schools and obtained documents.
Interviewees provided information on the unique challenges faced by
military students and families and the strategies schools employ to
respond to those challenges from their varying perspectives.
Table 2: School Districts Interviewed in Five Selected States:
Completed in person:
District: York, VA;
Branch of military: Navy and Air Force;
Region: East;
Size (in students): 12,800;
Percent Military Impacted: 37%;
Fiscal year 2009 DOD Impact Aid Supplemental funding: $791,861.
District: Virginia Beach, VA;
Branch of military: Navy;
Region: East;
Size (in students): 71,300;
Percent Military Impacted: 29%;
Fiscal year 2009 DOD Impact Aid Supplemental funding: $2,245,761.
District: Ft. Carson, CO;
Branch of military: Army;
Region: Mountain;
Size (in students): 6,200;
Percent Military Impacted: 68%;
Fiscal year 2009 DOD Impact Aid Supplemental funding: $884,550.
District: Falcon, CO;
Branch of military: Air Force and Army;
Region: Mountain;
Size (in students): 12,800;
Percent Military Impacted: 23%;
Fiscal year 2009 DOD Impact Aid Supplemental funding: $211,776.
Completed via telephone:
District: Burkburnett, TX;
Branch of military: Air Force;
Region: South;
Size (in students): 3,700;
Percent Military Impacted: 33%;
Fiscal year 2009 DOD Impact Aid Supplemental funding: $249,877.
District: Waynesville, MO;
Branch of military: Army;
Region: South;
Size (in students): 5,300;
Percent Military Impacted: 74%;
Fiscal year 2009 DOD Impact Aid Supplemental funding: $709,099.
District: Central Union, CA;
Branch of military: Navy;
Region: West;
Size (in students): 2,000;
Percent Military Impacted: 64%;
Fiscal year 2009 DOD Impact Aid Supplemental funding: $407,397.
Source: GAO based on data from DOD.
[End of table]
Literature Review:
We conducted a review of the literature on military dependent student
challenges and the strategies schools employ to respond to these
challenges. We searched for literature using appropriate search terms
such as "military dependent education" and "public school" in a
variety of research databases. A social scientist assisted us in
assessing the reliability and validity of these studies for our
purposes. In the report, we present some examples from the literature
to illustrate our findings. In addition, we reviewed prior GAO reports
on elementary and secondary education, military restructuring, and
practices that can help to enhance collaboration.
Interviews with Agency Officials and Other Organizations:
To review DOD and Education's efforts to implement DOD Impact Aid and
to collaborate to serve military dependent students, we interviewed
appropriate officials at DoDEA, and in offices at Education, which
included the Office of Impact Aid; the Office of Innovation and
Improvement; the Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy
Development; and the Office of the Secretary, as well as
representatives from the Military Impacted Schools Association and the
Military Child Education Coalition, two organizations focused on
military dependent education. We reviewed relevant federal laws and
regulations. We also reviewed agency documentation, such as the
memorandum of understanding (MOU) between DOD and Education, their
strategic plan for implementing the MOU, and budget documentation for
the DOD Impact Aid program and other DOD programs.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Information on Additional Mandate Provisions:
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 mandated
us to examine 17 separate provisions in various Defense Authorization
Acts from fiscal years 2001 to 2009.[Footnote 38] We addressed all but
three of the provisions in the main body of the report.[Footnote 39]
Here we provide our findings on the remaining three provisions of the
mandate.
Grant program for repair, renovations, and maintenance. The 2001
Defense Authorization Act authorized a grant program for repair,
renovations, and maintenance of certain school facilities. Funding was
to come from appropriations made for "Quality of Life Enhancements,
Defense-Wide." In fiscal year 2001, $10.5 million was authorized and
appropriated for that appropriations category. DOD allocated these
funds, but could not provide more details about the use of these
funds.[Footnote 40]
Continuing Impact Aid after deployment or death of a parent or
guardian. This special rule was enacted to cover school years 2004-
2005 and 2005-2006 so that Impact Aid would not be reduced in those
districts where a local educational agency would normally lose funding
as a result of the deployment or death of a parent or legal guardian
on active duty. Children who resided on federal property and whose
parents or legal guardians were deployed or died during that period
were still counted for funding purposes.[Footnote 41] School district
officials told us they have had no difficulties counting students
whose parents or guardians had been deployed or who had died. An
official from the Military Impacted Schools Association explained that
this rule adequately addressed any problems experienced in the past.
Extending eligibility for Impact Aid where military housing is
converted to private housing. This provision, enacted in fiscal year
2003, extends eligibility for a limited period of time to heavily
impacted school districts that received a basic support payment in the
prior fiscal year, but would subsequently be deemed ineligible as a
result of the conversion of military to private housing. The provision
extends eligibility during the period of conversion.[Footnote 42]
School districts we interviewed and an official from the Military
Impacted Schools Association did not mention any issues with regard to
this provision.
[End of section]
Appendix III: The 13 Objectives from Education and DOD's MOU:
Education and DOD's MOU identified 13 objectives to guide their
collaborative efforts.
1. Promote and enhance policies that will improve military children's
education and overall well-being.
2. Advance the quality of educational opportunities for all military
children.
3. Provide research-based academic, social-emotional and behavioral
supports to facilitate seamless transitions for military children.
4. Provide leadership and advocacy programs to help military students
cope with issues surrounding deployments.
5. Support foreign language education, including programs for
strategic languages.
6. Assist military parents to be informed advocates of quality
education choices.
7. Explore legislative options to address transition issues for
military children.
8. Extend opportunities for student learning through support of online
or virtual and other research-based models.
9. Provide research-based teacher and administrator professional
development programs.
10. Forge effective partnerships with schools and districts.
11. Coordinate the DOD and Education Impact Aid programs.
12. Communicate with military families and organizations to show
appreciation for their contributions.
13. Increase awareness of resources and tools available from Education
and DOD.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Education:
United States Department of Education:
Office of Innovation and Improvement:
400 Maryland Avenue, SW:
Washington, DC 20202:
January 27. 2011:
Mr. George A. Scott:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Scott:
I am writing in response to the recommendation made in the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report, "Military Dependent
Students: Better Information Needed to Assess Student Performance"
(GAO-11-231). I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft
report on behalf of the Department of Education.
We appreciate GAO's thorough review of the unique needs of military
dependent students and the steps the Department of Education and the
Department of Defense have taken to better serve them. The Department
shares the concern, outlined in the report, that some military
students may struggle academically as a result of varied academic
standards from state to state and a lack of connection to the school
community resulting from their mobility. Further, while many students
adapt amazingly well given the challenges facing military families,
both mobility and the stress of parent deployment may lead to higher
rates of emotional difficulties.
The report had one recommendation for the Secretary of Education,
which we have excerpted below with our response.
Recommendation: To better understand the needy of military students
and the effectiveness of strategies to assist them, we recommend the
Secretary of Education, in collaboration with the Secretary of
Defense, determine whether to require school districts to identify
military dependent students as a distinct subgroup for reporting on
their academic outcomes, such as test scores and high school
graduation rates. This should include determining whether the
Department of Education needs to obtain any additional legislative
awhority for this requirement, and seeking it from Congress, if
necessary.
Response: The Department agrees that better data on the student
achievement of military dependent students would be beneficial in
better serving this unique student population. In the recently
released report, Strengthening Our Military, Families: Meeting
America's Commitment, the Administration proposed improving the
collection of those data through the reauthorization of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). Under the Administration's
proposal, states and school districts that receive funds under ESF,A
Title 1, Part A would be required to report state-, district-, and
school-level aggregate data on the academic achievement of military
dependent students. As with requirements in current law related to
reporting of student academic achievement data by gender and migrant
status, these data would be publicly reported but would not be used
for Title I accountability purposes.
We appreciate the opportunity to review the draft report and comment
on the recommendations. I am also enclosing one technical comment.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
James H. Shelton, III:
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
George A. Scott, (202) 512-7215 or scottg@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Individuals making key contributions to this report include: Beth
Sirois (Assistant Director), Kate Blumenreich (Analyst-in-Charge),
Griffin Glatt-Dowd, and Karen Febey. Blake Ainsworth, Susan Aschoff,
Cornelia Ashby, James Bennett, Michele Fejfar, Cathy Hurley, Julian
Klazkin, Sheila McCoy, Kelly Rubin, and Kim Siegal also provided
valuable assistance.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] In addition, military dependent students also include dependents
of civilian employees of the Department of Defense.
[2] Funding is provided to local educational agencies, which we refer
to as school districts for the purposes of this report.
[3] Pub. L. No. 111-84, § 538, 123 Stat. 2190, 2294-95.
[4] These three research objectives cover all but three of the
required components of the mandated audit. Appendix II provides our
findings on the remaining components of the mandate.
[5] DOD, Educator's Guide to the Military Child During Deployment.
[6] 20 U.S.C. §§ 7701 et seq.
[7] ESEA Title VIII authorizes several types of Impact Aid payments.
These include payments relating to federal acquisition of real
property, payments for education of federally connected children, and
payments for construction and maintenance of school facilities. 20
U.S.C. §§ 7702, 7703, 7707, 7708.
[8] Federally connected children include children who have a parent on
active duty in the uniformed services, reside on federal property with
a parent who is an accredited foreign military officer, reside on
Indian lands, reside in low-rent housing, or reside on federal
property with a parent employed on federal property situated in whole
or part in the local school district. 20 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). Every
student in the U.S. public school system is asked to take home an
Impact Aid form that their parents or guardians are to use to identify
them as federally connected or not. School districts send this
information to Education, which determines Education and DOD Impact
Aid formula amounts. School districts must have at least 400 federally
connected children, or such children must represent at least three
percent of the district's average daily attendance, for the district
to be eligible for Education Impact Aid funding. 20 U.S.C. §
7703(b)(1)(B).
[9] 20 U.S.C. § 7703b(a)(2). The requirement, added in 2006, is 20
percent "as rounded to the nearest whole percent." Therefore, the
actual requirement could be as low as 19.5 percent.
[10] DOD could not provide us with the amount awarded in fiscal year
2001.
[11] 20 U.S.C. § 7703a. According to the application for this program,
children with severe disabilities means children with disabilities
who, because of the intensity of their physical, mental, or emotional
problems, need highly specialized education, social, psychological,
and medical services in order to maximize their full potential for
useful and meaningful participation in society and self-fulfillment.
The term includes children with severe emotional disturbances, autism,
severe and profound mental retardation, and those who have two or more
serious disabilities such as blindness, deafness, and cerebral palsy.
[12] Education provides DOD with information on the school districts
that have at least two military dependent students with severe
disabilities and DOD notifies school districts of their eligibility to
apply for Children with Severe Disability funds.
[13] Payments were authorized for this program beginning in fiscal
year 2002. Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2001. Pub. L. No. 106-398, appendix § 363, 114 Stat. 1654,
1654A-77,78.
[14] See Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2009, Pub. L. No. 110-417, § 553, 122 Stat. 4356, 4469.
[15] The Air Force does not have budgetary data available because the
School Liaison Officer program was funded at the local level through
the installations until fiscal year 2011.
[16] This program was established in accordance with the John Warner
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, Pub. L. No.
109-364, § 575, 120 Stat. 2083, 2227-29, which authorized DOD to
establish a 3 year pilot program to promote early childhood education
for dependent children affected by military deployment or relocation
of military units.
[17] 20 U.S.C. §§ 6311-39.
[18] 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1491o.
[19] Nine school districts responding to our survey reported receiving
DOD Impact Aid assistance for significant enrollment changes due to
BRAC. Most explained that they spent these funds on general education
expenses, including instructional staff, facilities, and classroom
materials.
[20] Special revenue funds include proceeds that are restricted to
certain uses by statute.
[21] The number of school districts responding to each item varied.
[22] In fiscal year 2009, 22 of the 110 school districts that received
DOD Impact Aid Supplemental funding were awarded more than $500,000.
[23] Congress passed the Single Audit Act, as amended, 31 U.S.C. ch.
75, to promote, among other things, sound financial management,
including effective internal controls, regarding federal awards
administered by nonfederal entities. The Single Audit Act requires
states, local governments, and nonprofit organizations expending
$500,000 or more in federal awards in a year to obtain an audit in
accordance with the requirements set forth in the act. We have
previously reported on a number of concerns with the Single Audit
process and, accordingly, have issued recommendations to the Office of
Management and Budget in this area. See GAO, Recovery Act:
Opportunities to Improve Management and Strengthen Accountability over
States' and Localities' Uses of Funds, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-999], (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 20,
2010) and Single Audit: Opportunities Exist to Improve the Single
Audit Process and Oversight, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-307R] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 13,
2009).
[24] For smaller districts (those with fewer than 8,000 students), DOD
Impact Aid Supplemental funds made up, on average, 2.1 percent of
their overall 2009-2010 budget, whereas the funds made up, on average,
0.4 percent of the overall 2009-2010 budget for larger districts
(those with 8,000 or more students).
[25] See American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. No.
111-5, 123 Stat. 115. For more information, see [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-999].
[26] Of the remaining 34 percent of school district officials
responding, 16 percent somewhat agreed, 7 percent neither agreed nor
disagreed, 1 percent strongly disagreed, and 10 percent either did not
know or did not answer.
[27] Of the remaining 33 percent of school district officials
responding, 13 percent somewhat agreed, 7 percent neither agreed nor
disagreed, 5 percent somewhat disagreed, and 9 percent either did not
know or did not answer. These results exceed 100 percent due to
rounding.
[28] The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115
Stat. 1425 (2002)) introduced the requirement that states develop
plans that include academic standards and establish performance goals
for making adequate yearly progress that would lead to 100 percent of
their students being proficient in reading, mathematics, and science
by 2014. Each school's assessment data must be disaggregated in order
to compare the achievement levels of students within certain
designated groups-economically disadvantaged students, major racial
and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and English language
learners-with the state's proficiency targets. Each of these groups
generally must make adequate yearly progress in order for the school
to make adequate yearly progress. See 20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(2)(C)(v)(II).
[29] GAO, K-12 Education: Many Challenges Arise in Educating Students
Who Change Schools Frequently, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-40] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 18,
2010).
[30] Anita Chandra, Sandraluz Lara-Cinisomo, Lisa H. Jaycox, Terri
Tanielian, Rachel M. Burns, Teague Ruder, and Bing Han (RAND Corp.),
"Children on the Homefront: The Experience of Children From Military
Families," Pediatrics, vol. 125, no. 1 (January 2010): 13-22.
[31] GAO, Teacher Preparation: Multiple Federal Education Offices
Support Teacher Preparation for Instructing Students with Disabilities
and English Language Learners, but Systematic Departmentwide
Coordination Could Enhance this Assistance, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-573] (Washington, D.C.: July 20,
2009).
[32] 20 U.S.C. § 7703a.
[33] The Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military
Children was developed in 2008 by DOD with the assistance of the
Council of State Governments. The council is a region-based forum that
fosters the exchange of ideas to help state officials shape public
policy.
[34] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance
and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21,
2005).
[35] Beginning in fiscal year 2007, DOD was required to submit a
report each year to Congress detailing its plans to assist school
districts experiencing a growth in military dependent student
enrollment due to base realignment or closures. DOD provided us with
four reports submitted to Congress between fiscal years 2007-2010 that
provide the required information. See John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, Pub. L. No. 109-364, § 574,
120 Stat. 2083, 2226-27.
[36] Pub. L. No. 111-84, § 537(a), 123 Stat. 2190, 2293-4.
[37] Ten school districts reported that they did not receive DOD
Impact Aid Supplemental funding in any year from 2001 through 2009 and
were removed from data analysis.
[38] Pub. L. No. 111-84, § 538, 123 Stat. 2190, 2294-95.
[39] Of the provisions of the mandate, one was a duplicate of another
and two others covered the same program extension, but during
different years. Where appropriate, we grouped them together resulting
in three provisions that we did not address.
[40] See Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2001, Pub. L. No.
106-259, 114 Stat. 656, 664; and National Defense Authorization Act of
2001, Pub. L. No. 106-398, § 364, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A-52,53, 78-80.
[41] See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, §
574, 119 Stat. 3136, 3273-3274; and Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, § 558, 118 Stat. 1811, 1916.
[42] See Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2003, Pub. L. No. 107-314, § 344, 116 Stat. 2458, 2515-2516.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
