Major Management Challenges and Program Risks
Department of Education Gao ID: GAO-03-99 January 1, 2003In its 2001 performance and accountability report on the Department of Education, GAO identified challenges with student financial aid programs, financial management, and other areas facing Education. The information GAO presents in this report is intended to help sustain congressional attention and a departmental focus on continuing to make progress in addressing and overcoming these challenges and new challenges that have arisen due to legislative changes since 2001. This report is part of a special series of reports on governmentwide and agency-specific issues.
Education has taken steps to address its continuing challenges of reducing vulnerabilities in its student aid programs and improving its financial management, such as establishing a senior management team to address key issues. Meaningful actions are underway, but Education does not yet have the relevant, reliable, and timely information needed to effectively manage these programs, and as a result the student aid programs continue to be at high risk. Reduce vulnerability of student aid programs to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. Education has made considerable changes to address the ongoing challenges in administering its student aid programs. However, Education needs to continue to address systems integration issues, reduce fraud and error in student aid application and disbursement processes, collect on student loan defaults, and improve its human capital management. Improve financial management. Education has implemented many actions to address its financial management weaknesses, but it is too early to determine if these actions will be effective. It will need to continue implementing corrective actions in order to resolve its financial management and internal control weaknesses. Education will face new management challenges as it helps states and school districts meet the goals and requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA). Implementation of the law has just begun, therefore it is too early to assess Education's progress. Improve student achievement and teacher quality. Under NCLBA there is an increased emphasis on improving student achievement and the quality of teachers. Education will need to monitor states' and school districts' efforts to have students meet challenging academic standards and ensure that all teachers meet standards outlined in NCLBA. Transform education into an evidence-based field. Education promotes and sponsors many types of research but has conducted and funded limited research on the effectiveness of some of its programs. Education will need to develop and enforce rigorous standards for research projects it conducts and funds. Link federal funding to accountability for results. Education will need to help states meet the increased assessment and accountability requirements of NCLBA. This will be a challenge because a majority of states had difficulty complying with previous requirements and there are questions about the completeness and accuracy of some of the assessment data.
GAO-03-99, Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Education
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-99
entitled 'Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of
Education' which was released on January 01, 2003.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting 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.
Performance and Accountability Series:
January 2003:
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks:
Department of Education:
GAO-03-99:
A Glance at the Agency Covered in This Report
The Department of Education‘s mission is to ensure equal access to
education and to promote educational excellence throughout the nation.
To accomplish this mission, the department funds programs in the
following areas:
* preschool education;
* elementary and secondary education;
* special education and rehabilitative services;
* vocational and adult education;
* student financial assistance;
* higher education; and
* education research, statistics, and assessment.
The Department of Education‘s Budgetary and Staff Resources:
[See PDF fpr image]
[End of figure]
This Series:
This report is part of a special GAO series, first issued in 1999 and
updated in 2001, entitled the Performance and Accountability Series:
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks. The 2003 Performance and
Accountability Series contains separate reports covering each cabinet
department, most major independent agencies, and the U.S. Postal
Service. The series also includes a governmentwide perspective on
transforming the way the government does business in order to meet 21st
century challenges and address long-term fiscal needs. The companion
2003 High-Risk Series: An Update identifies areas at high risk due to
either their greater vulnerabilities to waste, fraud, abuse, and
mismanagement or major challenges associated with their economy,
efficiency, or effectiveness. A list of all of the reports in this
series is included at the end of this report.
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-99, a report to Congress included as part of
GAO‘s Performance and Accountability Series:
Why GAO Did This Report:
In its 2001 performance and accountability report on the Department
of Education, GAO identified challenges with student financial aid
programs, financial management, and other areas facing Education.
The information GAO presents in this report is intended to help
sustain congressional attention and a departmental focus on
continuing to make progress in addressing and overcoming these
challenges and new challenges that have arisen due to legislative
changes since 2001. This report is part of a special series of
reports on governmentwide and agency-specific issues.
What GAO Found:
Education has taken steps to address its continuing challenges of
reducing vulnerabilities in its student aid programs and improving
its financial management, such as establishing a senior management
team to address key issues. Meaningful actions are underway, but
Education does not yet have the relevant, reliable, and timely
information needed to effectively manage these programs, and as a
result the student aid programs continue to be at high risk.
* Reduce vulnerability of student aid programs to fraud, waste,
abuse, and mismanagement. Education has made considerable changes
to address the ongoing challenges in administering its student aid
programs. However, Education needs to continue to address systems
integration issues, reduce fraud and error in student aid
application and disbursement processes, collect on student loan
defaults, and improve its human capital management.
* Improve financial management. Education has implemented many
actions to address its financial management weaknesses, but it is
too early to determine if these actions will be effective. It
will need to continue implementing corrective actions in order to
resolve its financial management and internal control weaknesses.
Education will face new management challenges as it helps states
and school districts meet the goals and requirements of the No
Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA). Implementation of the law has just
begun, therefore it is too early to assess Education‘s progress.
* Improve student achievement and teacher quality. Under NCLBA
there is an increased emphasis on improving student achievement
and the quality of teachers. Education will need to monitor
states‘ and school districts‘ efforts to have students meet
challenging academic standards and ensure that all teachers meet
standards outlined in NCLBA.
* Transform education into an evidence-based field. Education
promotes and sponsors many types of research but has conducted and
funded limited research on the effectiveness of some of its
programs. Education will need to develop and enforce rigorous
standards for research projects it conducts and funds.
* Link federal funding to accountability for results. Education
will need to help states meet the increased assessment and
accountability requirements of NCLBA. This will be a challenge
because a majority of states had difficulty complying with
previous requirements and there are questions about the
completeness and accuracy of some of the assessment data.
What Remains to be Done:
GAO believes the Department should:
* continue efforts to reduce vulnerability in student financial
aid programs,
* continue implementation of actions to address financial
management and internal control weaknesses,
* assist and monitor states and school districts‘ efforts to meet
requirements of NCLBA, and
* ensure that research it conducts and funds is rigorous and
relevant.
Contents:
Transmittal Letter:
Major Performance and Accountability Challenges:
GAO Contacts:
Related GAO Products:
Performance and Accountability and High-Risk Series:
January 2003:
The President of the Senate
The Speaker of the House of Representatives:
This report addresses the major management challenges and program risks
facing the Department of Education as it seeks to ensure equal access
to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the
nation. The report discusses the actions that Education has taken and
that are under way to address the challenges GAO identified in its
Performance and Accountability Series 2 years ago, and major
legislative events that have occurred that significantly influence the
environment in which the department carries out its mission. Also, GAO
summarizes the challenges that remain, new ones that have emerged, and
further actions that GAO believes are needed.
This analysis should help the new Congress and the administration carry
out their responsibilities and improve government for the benefit of
the American people. For additional information about this report,
please contact Cynthia M. Fagnoni, Managing Director, Education,
Workforce and Income Security, at (202) 512-7215 or at
fagnonic@gao.gov.
Signed by David M. Walker:
David M. Walker
Comptroller General
of the United States:
[End of section]
Major Performance and Accountability Challenges:
In our last update in 2001,[Footnote 1] we identified several
management challenges the Department of Education faced in
administering its programs at the elementary, secondary, and
postsecondary levels. These included
(1) ensuring access to postsecondary education while reducing
vulnerability of student aid programs to fraud, waste, abuse, and
mismanagement; (2) encouraging states to improve performance
information and upgrade federal evaluations used to assess how well all
children reach challenging academic standards; (3) promoting
coordination with other federal agencies and school districts to help
build a solid foundation of learning for all children; and (4)
improving financial management to help build a high performing agency.
We also continued to designate Education‘s student financial aid
programs at high risk for fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement.
Since 2001, legislative changes and world events have significantly
altered the environment in which Education operates, particularly at
the elementary and secondary level. In 2002, Congress enacted the No
Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA)[Footnote 2] to address concerns about
student performance and the quality of elementary and secondary
schools. This act includes significant changes in federal education
policy and places additional requirements on states, beyond those in
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) reauthorized in 1994.
It includes reforms designed to increase accountability, provide
choices to students in low-performing schools, ensure that all teachers
are highly qualified, and promote the use of scientifically based
research. For many of the NCLBA requirements, Education will need to
help states and local school districts implement them. In addition to
the NCLBA, the terrorist attacks of September 11TH affected the
educational environment. The attacks underscored the concerns about
students‘ safety while at school and raised concerns about efforts to
monitor foreign students attending schools in the United States.
Furthermore, the attacks required educators to develop approaches and
methods to help students understand the events.
In 2003, Education will continue to face management challenges in
administering its student financial aid programs and its financial
management. Education has made progress and demonstrated its commitment
to addressing weaknesses in the student financial aid programs, but it
does not yet have relevant, reliable, and timely financial and
management information needed to effectively administer its grant and
loan programs and the internal controls needed to maintain the
integrity of their operations. Therefore, these programs continue to be
at high risk for fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. Education has
also taken steps to address its financial management weaknesses, but
further improvement is needed in order to ensure accountability to
taxpayers.
Also, in 2003, Education will need to help states and school districts
meet the goals and requirements of NCLBA. Although implementation of
NCLBA is just beginning and it is too early to assess Education‘s
progress, we have identified several new challenges based on
Education‘s goals that it will face. These challenges are (1) improving
student achievement in reading, math, and science and improving teacher
quality; (2) transforming education into an evidence-based field by
helping to raise the quality and relevance of research; and (3)
creating a culture of achievement by linking federal funding to
accountability for results. Two of the challenges, improving student
achievement and teacher quality and helping raise the quality and
relevance of education research, were previously reported in 2001 as
one single issue--improve performance information and upgrade federal
evaluations. Because NCLBA places greater importance on these issues
and Education has identified them separately as strategic goals, we too
have separately identified them as challenges. The third challenge--
linking federal funding to accountability for results--is new and
reflects the emphasis that NCLBA has placed on accountability at the
federal, state, and local levels. Further, one challenge identified in
2001--promoting coordination with other federal agencies and school and
local agencies--has been dropped because Education has made
improvements in this area.
In summary, the specific major management challenges that Education
continues to face and new challenges it is just beginning to face are
as follows:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
[End of figure] - graphic text:
Ensure Access to Postsecondary Education While Reducing Vulnerability
of Student Aid Programs to Fraud, Waste, Abuse, and Mismanagement:
At the postsecondary level, Education has continued to help students
finance their education, but faces continued challenges in preventing
fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. Through federal grant and loan
programs, millions of students, some of whom might not otherwise have
access to higher education, have been able to enroll in postsecondary
educational programs of their choice. These grant and loan programs
provide over $50 billion annually in student aid. Education is
responsible for ensuring that these programs are efficiently managed,
establishing procedures to ensure that loans are repaid, and having
adequate procedures to prevent fraud and abuse. Since 1990 we have
identified these programs to be at high risk for fraud, waste, abuse,
and mismanagement. To address these vulnerabilities, Education faces
continuing challenges in addressing financial aid systems integration
issues, reducing fraud and error in the student aid application and
disbursement processes, collecting on defaulted student loans, and
improving its human capital management.
Both Congress and Education have made changes to address the ongoing
management challenges in administering the student financial aid
programs. To address vulnerabilities in federal student aid programs
and other long-standing management weaknesses, Congress established
Education‘s Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA)[Footnote 3] as a
performance-based organization (PBO) in 1998. The specific purposes of
the PBO are to increase accountability of officials; provide greater
flexibility in management; integrate information systems; reduce costs;
and develop and maintain a system containing complete, accurate, and
timely data to ensure program integrity. FSA is also required to
develop an annual 5-year performance plan and to prepare an annual
performance report. FSA completed a performance plan for fiscal years
2000-04. However, the performance report for fiscal years 2000 and 2001
were not issued until December 2002. We have recommended that FSA and
Education work collaboratively to take the steps necessary to ensure
that complete and timely annual performance reports are submitted to
Congress.
Since our last update in 2001, Education has made progress in and
demonstrated its commitment to addressing the issues that have made
student financial aid programs vulnerable to fraud, waste, abuse, and
mismanagement. Education established a Management Improvement Team
(MIT) comprised of senior-level managers within Education to formulate
strategies to address key financial and management problems throughout
the agency. The MIT has developed a system to identify, track, and
resolve audit and management issues both agencywide and within the
student financial aid programs. According to the MIT Accomplishments
Report, it has undertaken several initiatives to improve the weaknesses
in these programs. One initiative has resulted in collecting $269
million in fiscal year 2002 by locating defaulted borrowers and
matching them with the Department of Health and Human Services‘
National Directory of New Hires database. Despite this commitment,
Education does not yet have relevant, reliable, and timely financial
and management information essential to effectively manage these
programs and the internal controls to maintain the integrity of their
operations.
While Education has taken steps to address some of its long-standing
systems integration issues, critical work remains. Over the years
Education has spent millions to integrate and modernize its many
financial aid systems in an effort to provide more information and
better service to its customers--students, parents, institutions, and
lenders. Effectively and efficiently investing in information
technology requires, among other things, an institutional blueprint
that defines in both business and technology terms the organization‘s
current and target operating environments and provides a transition
roadmap. This institutional blueprint, commonly called an enterprise
architecture, is a recognized hallmark of successful public and private
sector organizations. Because Education did not have an enterprise
architecture and it lacked the ability to track students across
programs, we recommended in 1997 that Education develop and enforce a
departmentwide architecture and establish standard reporting formats
and data definitions.[Footnote 4] In September 2002, Education‘s Office
of Inspector General (OIG) reported that Education and FSA had made
progress in taking specific actions to lay the groundwork for their
enterprise architectures, but that critical elements still needed to be
completed, including integrating separate enterprise architectures
into a departmentwide one and fully implementing common identifiers for
students and institutions to use in departmentwide system applications.
With respect to FSA‘s modernization plans, we have reported that FSA
has selected a viable, industry-accepted means for integrating and
using its existing data on student loans and grants.[Footnote 5] FSA
has made progress in implementing this approach for one of its major
business functions--the Common Origination and Disbursement process,
which includes the implementation of a common record that institutions
can use to submit student financial aid for the Pell Grant and Direct
Loan programs. However, the ultimate success of this process hinges on
FSA completing critical work, including addressing serious
postimplementation operational problems, and helping thousands of
schools in the implementation of the common record. Further, there are
important elements to managing any information technology investment
that FSA has not yet completed, such as determining whether expected
benefits are being achieved and tracking lessons learned related to
schools implementation of the common record. We have recommended that
FSA expeditiously develop metrics, baseline data, and a tracking
process for certain expected benefits; and develop and implement a
process for continuously capturing and disseminating lessons learned in
a written product or knowledge base to schools that have not yet
implemented the common record.[Footnote 6] FSA has begun to take
actions on both of these issues although more work remains. While FSA
has made progress integrating its systems, both we and Education‘s OIG
have found that neither its performance plan nor its subsequent annual
reports readily provide information about its progress in integrating
systems. We have recommended that FSA develop and include clear goals,
strategies, and measures in its plans and reports to better demonstrate
its progress in integrating its financial aid systems.[Footnote 7] In
response to this recommendation, Education plans to revise FSA‘s
performance plan to establish measurable goals and milestones for
systems integration efforts in order to provide direction to FSA and
enhance its accountability.
Education also faces challenges in maintaining program integrity,
specifically ensuring that information reported on student aid
applications is correct and that adequate internal controls exist to
prevent erroneous and improper payments of grants and loans. To improve
the integrity of the financial aid programs, Education should (1)
continue to coordinate with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to
verify income information reported on student aid applications, (2)
provide clear policy and guidance on the impact of using tax provisions
on student aid awards, and (3) implement controls to limit improper
disbursements of grants and loans. In 2001, we reported that Education
and IRS were implementing two pilot projects to match income data
reported on student aid applications with IRS tax returns.[Footnote 8]
Education has performed two sample income matches with IRS and verifies
income information by asking 30 percent of applicants to provide copies
of their tax returns to their institutions‘ student financial aid
offices. To implement the income match on a broader scale, legislation
is needed to authorize IRS to release individual income data to
Education for the purpose of verifying income on student aid
applications. Education has worked with the Department of the Treasury
and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to request that Congress
enact such legislation. Also, we recommended that Education develop a
policy specifying whether certain tax provisions should be included in
the student aid eligibility formulas and clearly explain in its student
aid application instructions who should report ownership of assets in
higher education tax-preferred savings plans.[Footnote 9] Education
agreed with this recommendation and stated that it will use the next
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act to review the ways in which
students pay for college and the student aid eligibility formulas.
Finally, we identified weaknesses in the internal control process used
by Education to identify institutions that were disbursing grants and
loans to ineligible students. Education has taken steps to strengthen
the integrity of these payment processes, such as analyzing student
data to identify high concentrations of students over 65 and eligible
noncitizens at a single institution to determine if problems exist that
warrant further review. These actions are encouraging and if properly
implemented should help to improve internal controls over these
vulnerable payments.
A continuing challenge for Education and FSA is to prevent and collect
defaulted student loans. While the national student loan default rate
has decreased significantly from 11.6 percent in fiscal year 1993 to
5.9 percent in fiscal year 2000, the cumulative amount of defaulted
student loans has increased by almost $10 billion over the same time
period.[Footnote 10] (See fig. 1.):
Figure 1: Amount of Student Loan Dollars in Default Remain High:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
[End of figure] - graphic text:
Note: Balances include principal, interest, late fees, and
administrative charges for defaulted loans under both the Federal
Family Education Loan and Federal Direct Loan Programs.
To address its challenges with defaulted student loans, Education and
FSA have implemented several default management strategies, established
electronic debiting as a repayment option, and entered into
agreements[Footnote 11] with some guaranty agencies to set up
alternative processes to service and process claims for defaulted
loans. FSA‘s draft fiscal year 2002 performance plan specified the
goals it had for default management; however, it included only limited
information about the strategies to achieve those goals. Without giving
additional details on its strategies for default recovery and
prevention, it is not clear how FSA will determine whether it has
achieved its default management goals. We are reviewing the status of
FSA‘s default management goals and will report the results in February
2003. Education has also developed electronic debiting as an option for
students to repay their loans. We have recommended that Education take
added steps to increase borrowers‘ awareness of this option and that
Education modify the electronic debit applications, so that borrowers
interested in prepaying their loans can designate larger withdrawal
amounts than what they agreed to pay when they initially completed the
application.[Footnote 12] In response to our recommendation, Education
will consider taking steps to better inform borrowers of their
prepayment options, such as updating the Exit Counseling Guide for
Borrowers. Finally, while Education has set up voluntary flexible
agreements with four of its guaranty agencies, it is in the process of
assessing whether they have been successful in lowering default and
delinquency rates.
Like other federal agencies, Education must address serious human
capital management issues. About 34 percent of Education‘s career staff
is eligible to retire, and about 38 percent of the workforce within FSA
was eligible to retire in September 2001. Given the critical importance
of human capital management, we recommended in June 2001 that Education
develop and include specific human capital goals and measures in its
performance plans.[Footnote 13] In response to our recommendation,
Education added a specific objective to its strategic plan. We also
recommended that FSA develop and implement a comprehensive human
capital strategy that incorporates succession planning and addresses
staff development.[Footnote 14] FSA has several human capital
initiatives, including ones that address recruitment and performance
evaluation. Moreover, in 2002 Education issued a comprehensive, 5-year
human capital plan that also incorporates FSA. The plan, entitled One-
ED, aims to transform the agency into a flexible, high-performing
workplace focused on program outcomes and management reforms. Also, the
One-ED report identifies four critical areas in which improvements
should be made: (1) top leadership commitment,
(2) performance management, (3) workforce skills enhancement, and
(4) leadership and succession planning. The report outlines specific
steps and time frames for accomplishing tasks to improve its human
capital management in these critical areas. For example, to address the
lack of succession planning, Education has identified a model for
identifying, mentoring, and developing leaders and potential leaders on
the basis of performance and skills and plans to implement this model
by the end of the 2002-03 performance cycle. While these are important
steps, Education will need to continuously focus its attention on human
capital.
Improve Financial Management to Help Build a High-Performing Agency:
Weaknesses in Education‘s financial management and information systems
limit its ability to achieve one of its key goals--improving financial
management to help build a high-performing agency. With the exception
of 1997, Education has not received an unqualified--or ’clean“--opinion
on its financial statements since its first agencywide audit in 1995.
Education‘s fiscal years 2001 and 2000 financial statement audit
opinions were ’qualified“ because Education could not provide the
auditors with sufficient evidence to support revisions to amounts in
previously issued financial statements and certain amounts in the
fiscal years 2001 and 2000 financial statements. Education‘s auditors
also reported significant internal control weaknesses. These weaknesses
hamper its ability to generate reliable, useful, and timely information
on an ongoing basis to ensure accountability to taxpayers. Although
Education has implemented many actions in response to its financial
management weaknesses, it is too soon to determine if the changes made
will prove effective.
Education faces continuing challenges as it works to obtain an
unqualified audit opinion on its financial statements. Beginning with
its first agencywide audit in 1995 and continuing through 2001,
Education‘s auditors have repeatedly identified significant financial
management weaknesses. They also issued qualified opinions on its
fiscal years 2001 and 2000 financial statements. For both years
Education was unable to provide the auditors with sufficient evidence,
and the auditors were not able to otherwise satisfy themselves as to
the accuracy or completeness of certain amounts included in the
financial statements. These insufficiently explained or supported items
included (1) corrections of over $1 billion in fiscal years 2001 and
2000 to amounts previously reported in the fiscal years 2000 and 1999
financial statements and (2) over $1.5 billion of assets and
liabilities reported in the fiscal years 2001 and 2000 financial
statements. These problems, in part, result from inadequate internal
controls over Education‘s financial management systems and financial
reporting process and other areas as described in the following
paragraphs.
Weaknesses in Education‘s financial management systems and financial
reporting process present another challenge. For fiscal years 2001 and
2000, Education‘s auditors again reported issues relating to financial
management systems and financial reporting as a material internal
control weakness. This broad control weakness has been defined to
include elements relating to (1) the absence of a fully integrated
financial management system; (2) deficiencies in the general ledger
system that require extensive analysis of accounts to resolve errors by
manual adjustments; (3) the need for a rigorous review of interim
financial statements for timely identification and correction of
errors; (4) the inability to accumulate, analyze, and present reliable
financial information in the form of financial statements; (5) the
dependence on a variety of stopgap measures to prepare financial
statements; (6) the insufficiency of control activities, such as top-
level reviews to address and to seek to compensate for systemic control
weaknesses; and (7) the need for a review to identify and quantify
improper payments.
Education has taken some steps to address these issues. For fiscal
years 2001 and 2000, auditors reported improvements in the financial
reporting process. For example, during 2001 Education‘s MIT developed
specific actions to address issues raised in previous financial
statement audits. According to the MIT Accomplishments Report,
Education began performing certain critical reconciliations on a
monthly basis and began preparing interim financial statements, which
helped identify areas needing further study. In addition, Education
replaced its general ledger system. Although these are positive steps,
it is too early to determine what impact these changes will have on the
financial reporting process, including the timely preparation of
auditable financial statements. Timely preparation of the statements
will be an additional challenge as OMB implements accelerated financial
reporting deadlines that require Education to produce audited financial
statements within 4 months after the end of the fiscal year beginning
with 2002, and within 1.5 months after the end of the fiscal year
beginning in 2004. To meet these deadlines, Education will need more
than workaround solutions and temporary fixes to address surface
conditions that are the result of underlying core causes.
Education needs to take further action to reduce its vulnerability to
improper payments and lost assets. We reported that for May 1998
through September 2000, weak internal controls over (1) the grants and
loan disbursement process failed to detect certain improper payments;
(2) third party draft processes increased Education‘s vulnerability to
improper payments; and (3) government purchase cards resulted in some
fraudulent, improper, and questionable purchases.[Footnote 15] We also
reported that Education lacked adequate internal controls over
computers acquired with purchase cards and third party drafts. Among
other things, we found that computer purchases valued at almost
$400,000 were not recorded in Education‘s property records, and
$200,000 of that computer equipment could not be located. Auditors also
reported that internal controls need strengthening in numerous areas
relating to Education‘s investment of over $30 million in property and
equipment. These areas include the need to (1) improve the timeliness
of its physical inventory and the reconciliation of such inventories to
the books and records; (2) improve the controls over government owned
property in the hands of contractors; (3) reconcile amounts in detailed
property records to support amounts reported in financial statements;
and (4) improve standardized polices and procedures for the receipt,
tracking, and safeguarding of property and equipment. Improvements in
these areas are important to ensure proper safeguarding of government
assets.
In response to our report of significant internal control weaknesses in
Education‘s payment processes, government purchase cards, and poor
physical control over its computer assets, several changes were made to
policies and procedures to improve internal controls and program
integrity. These changes are positive steps, but in many cases, our
follow-up work indicated that they had not been effectively
implemented. In March 2002, we reported that vulnerabilities remain in
all areas we reviewed, except for third party drafts, which have been
discontinued.[Footnote 16] Until these issues are fully addressed,
Education will continue to be susceptible to improper payments and lost
assets.
Finally, Education will need to continue its actions in addressing
weaknesses in its information systems. For fiscal years 2001 and 2000
Education‘s auditors reported that they did not substantially comply
with the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA) of 1996.
FFMIA requires agencies to institute financial management systems that
substantially comply with federal financial management systems
requirements, applicable accounting standards, and the federal
government‘s Standard General Ledger. Auditors reported that without a
fully integrated financial management system, deficiencies in the
general ledger system, deficiencies in the manual adjustment process,
and the need to strengthen other financial management controls such as
reconciliation processes, impairs Education‘s ability to accumulate,
analyze, and present reliable financial information. Education also
needs to address identified control weaknesses in its service
continuity program. These reported weaknesses included the need for (1)
a departmentwide, risk-based information security plan; (2)
strengthened controls over critical financial and sensitive grant
information to prevent unauthorized access and disclosure; and (3) an
overall information technology security program. In September 2001 we
reported that Education had made progress in correcting certain
information system control weaknesses.[Footnote 17] However, we
identified weaknesses in information systems that place critical
financial and sensitive grant information at risk of unauthorized
access and disclosure, and key operations at risk of disruption. We
recommended that Education (1) correct the information system control
weaknesses related to access authority, system software, network
security, user identification and password management, access
monitoring, physical access, segregation of duties, application program
changes, and service continuity; and (2) fully implement a
comprehensive departmentwide computer security management program. In
response to our recommendations, Education stated that it had developed
a corrective action plan and is taking steps to further strengthen and
develop a more comprehensive information security program.
Improve Student Achievement in Reading, Mathematics, and Science and
Improve Quality of Teachers:
Educating children at the elementary and secondary level is a high
priority in our society; however, there have been many concerns
expressed about the academic performance of our students. Various
studies have indicated that one of the key components to improving
student performance is the presence of qualified teachers. However,
many school districts have not been able to attract and retain
qualified teachers. To address concerns about student achievement, the
federal investment in elementary and secondary education has increased
significantly from over $20 billion in fiscal year 2000 to nearly $30
billion in fiscal year 2002. This increased investment is accompanied
by an increased emphasis on accountability in NCLBA for schools to
raise achievement levels for all students--including those from poor
families, with limited English proficiency, and with disabilities.
Education will be faced with the challenge of helping states improve
student achievement in reading, mathematics, and science and improve
teacher quality. Although implementation of NCLBA has just begun,
Education will need to monitor states‘ and school districts‘ efforts to
meet the goals established by NCLBA.
One goal of NCLBA is to improve the academic achievement among students
from poor families. Title I is the largest federal program supporting
elementary and secondary education and is an important source of
funding for many high poverty schools and districts. NCLBA increased
funding for Title I by $1.7 billion from $8.6 billion in fiscal year
2001 to $10.3 billion in fiscal year 2002. Title I funds are a key
element in helping states and school districts meet the NCLBA goal of
improving academic achievement among students from poor families. We
reported in January 2002 that using a less restrictive hold-harmless
provision would reduce variation in funding among school districts
with similar numbers and percentages of poor children and would
allocate more funding to states with more rapidly growing numbers of
poor children.[Footnote 18] NCLBA revised the hold-harmless provisions
to reallocate some grants to be more reflective of the number of poor
children in the school district. Education‘s challenge will be to
monitor states‘ use of these funds and determine whether the funds are
reaching students in high poverty districts and whether the funds are
helping students from poor families improve.
Based on new requirements in NCLBA, Education will need to help states
and school districts improve achievement among students with limited
English proficiency and students with disabilities. In May 2001 we
reported that Education‘s four bilingual education programs were
designed to achieve the same overall objective and that consolidating
them into one single program would provide Education the flexibility to
meet the varied needs of school districts serving students with limited
English proficiency.[Footnote 19] NCLBA offers a new, single grant
program to address the needs of students with limited English
proficiency and requires that these students be tested for reading and
language arts in English after they have attended school in the United
States for 3 consecutive years. To meet the challenge of educating
students with limited English proficiency, school districts have
flexibility in the methods they use and states have flexibility in how
they measure proficiency. Education‘s challenge will be to provide
enough information and assistance to ensure that states and school
districts, including those that had not previously participated in
federal bilingual education programs, are aware of the available
program flexibilities and to help states and school districts select
program options that best meet their needs.
To improve achievement of students with disabilities, Education will
need to continue to monitor special education programs authorized by
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Federal dollars are
used together with state, local, and private resources to help states
provide a comprehensive system of early intervention services to
enhance the development of infants and toddlers with disabilities or
those who are at risk of developmental delays. Additionally, federal
funds are also used to provide access to a high quality elementary and
secondary education for students with disabilities. While there is
limited information available on the long-term effectiveness of these
programs, Education has a few studies underway to collect information
on the outcomes of children enrolled in these programs. Education will
need to continue these efforts in order to help states and school
districts measure achievements and progress of students with
disabilities.
Education will face many challenges in supporting the goal of improving
student achievement in reading, mathematics, and science, including
ensuring that educators are aware of and have access to current math
and science curriculum materials. Education has invested a significant
amount of money in mathematics and science education programs that
support a wide range of activities, including the development of
curriculum materials. Since other federal agencies also develop
mathematics and science materials, the National Clearinghouse for
Mathematics and Science Education was established within Education to
serve as a central source of information about these materials. We
reported that most agencies did not send copies of all their
mathematics and science materials to the clearinghouse.[Footnote 20] As
a result, educators seeking to make informed decisions about these
materials do not have a comprehensive source available for federally
sponsored materials. We recommended in 2000 that Education take steps
to notify agencies that the law requires them to submit materials to
the Clearinghouse and to establish guidelines to follow in submitting
the materials. Furthermore, we recommended that Education inform
agencies that do not generally evaluate their educational materials
about the importance of these evaluations and about the mechanisms
available for evaluating their materials. In June 2001, Education
cosponsored a workshop in which agency officials discussed with
officials from other federal agencies the requirement that they submit
materials to the clearinghouse as well as the principles and practices
for evaluating mathematics and science materials.
Education will face challenges helping states and school districts meet
the NCLBA requirements that all teachers have (1) a college degree, (2)
been certified to teach in their state, and (3) demonstrated adequate
knowledge in the subject area in which they are teaching by the 2005-06
school year. To meet this challenge, Education will need to help states
ensure that their higher education institutions are adequately
preparing students to become teachers and that the programs states use
to recruit teachers from other professions are effective. Through
teacher quality enhancement grants authorized by Title II of the Higher
Education Act (HEA), Education provides funds to states or partnerships
between higher education institutions and local school districts for
activities to improve teaching in their locality or state. It is too
early to determine the grants‘ effect on the quality of teaching in the
classroom; however, we have made some recommendations to Education on
improving its oversight of these grants. Because of broadly defined
accountability measures, information collected as part of the
accountability provisions has not allowed Education to accurately
report on the quality of teacher training programs and the
qualifications of current teachers in each state. We recommended that
Education address this concern by providing clear definitions of terms
associated with the collection of required information and allow
sufficient time for verification of information collected.[Footnote 21]
Education has identified three specific actions it has taken, or plans
to take, that will improve the quality of the data. These include (1)
adding a goal to its strategic plan that focuses on refining the Title
II accountability system, (2) aligning the Title II data collection
system with teacher quality requirements under NCLBA to reduce the
burden on states in reporting data on teachers and their
qualifications, and (3) developing legislative proposals for Congress
to consider during the reauthorization of HEA.
In addition to grants authorized by HEA, Education administers many
other programs that support training for teachers. We reported in 1999
that the number and diverse nature of these programs create challenges
in determining whether the programs are meeting the goals of providing
teachers with access to programs that will improve their teaching
skills.[Footnote 22] NCLBA combines a couple of these teacher training
programs into a single grant program. Under the single grant, states
and school districts are given flexibility to select strategies that
best meet their teacher training needs. To meet the need for quality
teachers, states have adopted alternative programs for persons pursuing
second careers as teachers, some as a result of the success of the
federally funded Troops to Teachers program. The Troops to Teachers
program recruits former military personnel and helps them become
certified and employed as teachers. As we reported, this program has
been successful in recruiting mathematics and science teachers and
teachers to inner city schools and high schools.[Footnote 23]
Transform Education into an Evidence-Based Field and Help to Raise the
Quality and Relevance of Research:
Federal education programs will also be held accountable for
demonstrating results in terms of student outcomes, and Education will
be responsible for ensuring that the quality of research that it funds
or conducts meets the highest standards. Since Education promotes and
sponsors many types of research and disseminates much of this
information to interested states, school districts, and others, a
primary challenge will be to develop and enforce rigorous standards for
research projects. We reported in 2001 that Education has had trouble
gathering consistent information on federally funded elementary and
secondary programs because of the flexibility states and school
districts have to implement these programs.[Footnote 24] Nonetheless,
Education has funded some projects designed to measure the
effectiveness of its programs. For example, Education has supported
research to examine the impact of Even Start, a program designed to
improve the educational outcomes for disadvantaged children and their
families. The study used an experimental design in which groups of
children were randomly assigned either to a group that received program
services or to a group that did not receive program services. The study
examined 18 local Even Start programs over a 6-year period and is
expected to be completed in 2003. Furthermore, Education has added to
its strategic plan a goal to raise the quality of research it funds or
conducts and has included measures on the percent of new evaluation
projects it funds that use randomized experimental designs. In October
2002 Congress passed the Education Sciences Reform Act, which made
significant changes to the structure of Education‘s research activities
and sets standards to ensure that evaluations measure the effectiveness
of Education‘s programs.
For some areas, such as dropout prevention and student financial aid
programs, Education has sponsored limited research on their
effectiveness. Education funds programs that provide grants to states
and localities to serve at-risk youth. These programs provide a range
of services, including dropout prevention services. Because dropout
prevention is one of many services provided in these programs, it is
difficult to assess their effect on preventing school dropouts.
Furthermore, Education does not require evaluations of these programs
to include assessments of their effects on dropout rates. We
recommended in February 2002 that Education evaluate the quality of
existing dropout prevention research, determine how best to encourage
or sponsor rigorous evaluation of the most promising state and local
dropout prevention programs and practices, and determine the most
effective means of disseminating the results of these and other
available studies to state and local entities interested in reducing
dropout rates.[Footnote 25] Education has agreed that rigorous evidence
is needed and said that it will consider commissioning a systematic
review of the literature on this topic. Education has also sponsored
limited research on the impact of federal financial aid programs on
student‘s decisions to attend and complete college, but instead has
focused its studies on program delivery. We recommended in September
2002 that Education sponsor research on the impact of federal financial
aid programs on postsecondary education attendance and choice,
completion, and costs.[Footnote 26] Education has agreed to identify
opportunities to fund research on how the federal investment affects
students‘ postsecondary education attendance and completion and
institutions‘ tuition and financial aid behavior.
To help states and school districts meet the requirements of NCLBA,
Education could take steps to improve research on educational
alternatives for students. NCLBA provides choices for parents of
students in low-performing schools and allows states some flexibility
in the type of choices that they provide. Under NCLBA, parents of
children in low-performing schools have the option of transferring
their child to a better performing public school or a public charter
school. Moreover, states can use federal funds to establish public
charter schools or to provide supplemental educational services, such
as private tutoring, to students in low-performing schools. States and
school districts may also use private management companies to operate
low-performing schools. Our review of public schools managed by private
for-profit management companies found insufficient research on the
effectiveness of these companies‘ programs on student achievement,
parental satisfaction, parental involvement, or school
climate.[Footnote 27]
In addition to choices within public schools, some parents have the
option of using publicly or privately funded vouchers to send their
children to private schools. Our reviews of both publicly and privately
funded vouchers have found that there is limited research on the
effectiveness of these programs. For example, we reported that research
on students‘ academic achievement in publicly funded voucher programs
in Cleveland and Milwaukee found little or no difference in voucher and
public school students‘ overall academic performance, but some studies
found that voucher students performed better in some of the subject
areas tested.[Footnote 28] None of the findings is definitive because
researchers obtained different results when they used different methods
to compensate for weaknesses in the data. Moreover, we reported that
the results of studies on privately funded vouchers in New York City;
Washington, D.C.; and Dayton, Ohio, suggest positive academic
achievements for African American students in New York.[Footnote 29]
The programs examined were relatively small in scale; therefore, the
findings cannot be generalized beyond the specific programs and
geographic areas where they were conducted.
Another step to raising the quality and relevance of education research
is to develop methods to effectively assess the usefulness of research
funded by various departments within Education. Education could improve
the way it evaluates research funded through its Research & Development
Centers, Regional Labs, and Comprehensive Centers.[Footnote 30] Peer
review is well accepted and widely used throughout the government to
assess the merit of research proposals and the scientific soundness of
research. Education has used a peer review process to assess its
Research & Development Centers and Regional Labs; however, the peer
review process it used did not directly assess research usefulness,
outcomes, or effects. Moreover, Education‘s procedures for peer reviews
had a potential for bias and were cumbersome, which limited the
usefulness of their findings. To address these concerns, we have
recommended that Education revise its peer review standards to allow
for division of labor and greater concentration on assessing the
quality of projects, services, and products rather than reviewing
procedural materials. Evaluations about the Comprehensive Centers as a
network provided useful information, but we recommended that future
evaluations provide information on each center. Education agreed with
these recommendations but did not provide specific information on how
it will proceed. In 2002, Congress passed new legislation that includes
a provision to conduct evaluations of each Comprehensive Center.
Create a Culture of Achievement by Linking Federal Funding to
Accountability for Results:
The increased focus on assessment and accountability under NCLBA
presents significant challenges to Education, particularly since a
majority of states had difficulty meeting previous requirements.
Education will need to help states implement NCLBA‘s requirements and
monitor their progress. Although implementation of NCLBA has just
begun, states were required under the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, reauthorized in 1994, to meet certain accountability and
assessment standards. We reported that as of March 2002 a majority of
states had not complied with Title I requirements under the 1994 law;
thus, many states may not be well positioned to meet the deadlines for
implementing the requirements under NCLBA.[Footnote 31] Noncompliant
states had most commonly not met two Title I requirements--assessing
all students and breaking out assessment data by subcategories of
students. While Title I did not permit states to exempt any student
subgroup from their assessments and Education‘s guidance stated that
individual exemptions were permitted by the states only in
extraordinary circumstances, many states allowed substantial
exemptions for students with limited English proficiency and
disabilities. Unlike the 1994 law, NCLBA requires schools to
demonstrate progress in the academic achievement of all students and
report progress by race and ethnicity and whether students are
economically disadvantaged, have limited English proficiency, or have
disabilities. Education‘s challenge will be to ensure that states
comply with the new standards and to hold them accountable for results.
Furthermore, Education will need to take steps to ensure that
assessment data are complete and accurate in order to reduce the
potential for undetected errors in test scoring that could affect
decisions about schools and students and damage confidence in test
results. In April 2002, we reported that almost all states had hired
contractors to score Title I assessments; however, 16 of these states
reported that they did not monitor the contractors‘ work.[Footnote 32]
Moreover, in several states, contractors made scoring errors that in
some cases resulted in students and schools being erroneously
identified as needing services and improvement. Because of this
finding, we recommended that Education use state compliance reviews to
monitor states‘ oversight of their contractors. Education reported that
it plans to review states‘ efforts to monitor the quality of products
delivered by their contractors and the procedures used by states to
ensure accuracy of the assessment data. In a joint audit with
Education‘s OIG, two state audit agencies and one city audit agency, we
assessed the quality of accountability data used by states. As part of
this effort OIG reported on the quality of Title I performance data
used to identify schools in need of improvement in several states. OIG
reported that Education should strengthen its management controls to
ensure that Title I school improvement data are reliable and
valid.[Footnote 33]
[End of section]
GAO Contacts:
Subject(s) covered in this report: Ensure access to postsecondary
education while reducing vulnerability of student aid programs; ;
Improve teacher preparation programs (funded through HEA); ; Transform
education into an evidence-based field (higher education); Contact
person: Cornelia Ashby, Director; Education, Workforce, and Income
Security; (202) 512-7215; ashbyc@gao.gov.
Subject(s) covered in this report: Improve student achievement and
improve quality of teachers; ; Transform education into an evidence-
based field (K-12); ; Link federal funding to accountability for
results; Contact person: Marnie Shaul, Director; Education, Workforce,
and Income Security; (202) 512-7215; shaulm@gao.gov.
Subject(s) covered in this report: Improve financial management;
Contact person: Linda Calbom, Director; Financial Management and
Assurance; (202) 512-9508; calboml@gao.gov.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Reduce Vulnerability of Student Aid Programs:
Federal Student Aid: Progress Made in Implementing the Common
Origination and Disbursement Process, but Critical Work Remains. GAO-
03-241. Washington, D.C.: December 31, 2002:
Student Aid and Tax Benefits: Better Research & Guidance Will
Facilitate Comparison of Effectiveness and Student Use. GAO-02-751.
Washington, D.C.: September 13, 2002.
Federal Student Aid: Additional Management Improvements Would Clarify
Strategic Direction and Enhance Accountability. GAO-02-255.
Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2002.
Direct Student Loans: Additional Steps Would Increase Borrowers‘
Awareness of Electronic Debiting and Reduce Federal Administrative
Costs. GAO-02-350. Washington, D.C.: March 29, 2002. :
Federal Student Loans: Flexible Agreements with Guaranty Agencies
Warrant Careful Evaluation. GAO-02-254. Washington, D.C.: January 31,
2002.
Student Financial Aid: Use of Middleware for Systems Integration Holds
Promise. GAO-02-7. Washington, D.C.: November 30, 2001.
Department of Education: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes and
Addressing Major Management Challenges. GAO-01-827. Washington, D.C.:
June 29, 2001.
Department of Education: Key Aspects of the Federal Direct Loan
Program‘s Cost Estimates. GAO-01-197. Washington, D.C.: January 12,
2001. :
Student Financial Aid Information: Systems Architecture Needed to
Improve Programs‘ Efficiency. AIMD-97-122. Washington, D.C.: July 29,
1997.
Improve Financial Management:
Government Purchase Cards: Control Weaknesses Expose Agencies to Fraud
and Abuse. GAO-02-676T. Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2002.
Education Financial Management: Weak Internal Controls Led to Instances
of Fraud and Other Improper Payments. GAO-02-406. Washington, D.C.:
March 28, 2002.
Education Financial Management: Weak Internal Controls Led to Instances
of Fraud and Other Improper Payments. GAO-02-513T. Washington, D.C.:
April 10, 2002.
Financial Management: Poor Internal Controls Expose Department of
Education to Improper Payments. GAO-01-1151. Washington, D.C.:
September 28, 2001.
Education Information Security: Improvements Made, but Control
Weaknesses Remain. GAO-01-1067. Washington, D.C.: September 12, 2001.
Improve Student Achievement and Teacher Quality:
Higher Education: Activities Underway to Improve Teacher Training, but
Reporting on These Activities Could Be Enhanced. GAO-03-6. Washington,
D.C.: December 11, 2002.
Special Education: Grant Programs Designed to Serve Children Ages 0-5.
GAO-02-394. Washington, D.C.: April 25, 2002.
Title I Funding: Poor Children Benefit Though Funding Per Poor Child
Differs. GAO-02-242. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2002.
Troops to Teachers: Program Helped Address Teacher Shortages.
GAO-01-567. Washington, D.C.: May 25, 2001.
Bilingual Education: Four Overlapping Programs Could Be Consolidated.
GAO-01-657. Washington, D.C.: May 14, 2001.
Public Education: Meeting the Needs of Students With Limited English
Proficiency. GAO-01-226. Washington, D.C.: February 23, 2001.
Math and Science Education: Comprehensive Information About Federally
Funded Materials Not Available. HEHS-00-110. Washington, D.C.: July 12,
2000.
Teacher Training: Over $1.5 Billion Federal Funds Invested in Many
Programs. HEHS-99-117. Washington, D.C.: May 5, 1999.
Transform Education into an Evidence-Based Field:
Public Schools: Insufficient Research to Determine Effectiveness of
Selected Private Education Companies. GAO-03-11. Washington, D.C.:
October 29, 2002.
School Vouchers: Characteristics of Privately Funded Programs. GAO-02-
752. Washington, D.C.: September 10, 2002.
Head Start and Even Start: Greater Collaboration Needed on Measures of
Adult Education & Literacy. GAO-02-348. Washington, D.C.: March 29,
2002.
School Dropouts: Education Could Play a Stronger Role in Identifying
and Disseminating Promising Prevention Strategies. GAO-02-240.
Washington, D.C.: February 1, 2002.
Education Research: Education Should Improve Assessment of R&D Centers,
Regional Labs, and Comprehensive Centers. GAO-02-190. Washington, D.C.:
January 24, 2002.
School Vouchers: Publicly Funded Programs in Cleveland & Milwaukee.
GAO-01-914. Washington, D.C.: August 31, 2001.
Early Childhood Programs: The Use of Impact Evaluations to Assess
Program Effects. GAO-01-542. Washington, D.C.: April 16, 2001.
Link Federal Funding to Accountability for Results:
Title I: Education Needs to Monitor States‘ Scoring of Assessments.
GAO-02-393. Washington, D.C.: April 1, 2002.
Title I Program: Stronger Accountability Needed for Performance of
Disadvantaged Students. HEHS-00-89. Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2000.
[End of section]
Performance and Accountability and High-Risk Series:
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: A Governmentwide
Perspective. GAO-03-95.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of
Agriculture. GAO-03-96.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Commerce.
GAO-03-97.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Defense.
GAO-03-98.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Education.
GAO-03-99.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Energy.
GAO-03-100.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Health and
Human Services. GAO-03-101.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Homeland
Security. GAO-03-102.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Housing
and Urban Development. GAO-03-103.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of the
Interior. GAO-03-104.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Justice.
GAO-03-105.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Labor.
GAO-03-106.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of State.
GAO-03-107.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of
Transportation. GAO-03-108.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of the
Treasury. GAO-03-109.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Veterans
Affairs. GAO-03-110.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: U.S. Agency for
International Development. GAO-03-111.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Environmental Protection
Agency. GAO-03-112.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Federal Emergency
Management Agency. GAO-03-113.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: National Aeronautics and
Space Administration. GAO-03-114.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Office of Personnel
Management. GAO-03-115.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Small Business
Administration. GAO-03-116.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Social Security
Administration. GAO-03-117.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: U.S. Postal Service.
GAO-03-118.
High-Risk Series: An Update. GAO-03-119.
High-Risk Series: Strategic Human Capital Management. GAO-03-120.
High-Risk Series: Protecting Information Systems Supporting the Federal
Government and the Nation‘s Critical Infrastructures.
GAO-03-121.
High-Risk Series: Federal Real Property. GAO-03-122.
FOOTNOTES
[1] U.S. General Accounting Office, Major Management Challenges and
Program Risks: Department of Education, GAO-01-245 (Washington, D.C.:
Jan. 2001).
[2] P. L. 107-110 (Jan. 8, 2002).
[3] Financial aid programs are administered by an office previously
known as the Office of Student Financial Assistance (SFA).
[4] U.S. General Accounting Office, Student Financial Aid Information:
Systems Architecture Needed to Improve Programs‘ Efficiency, AIMD-97-
122 (Washington, D.C.: July 29, 1997).
[5] U.S. General Accounting Office, Student Financial Aid: Use of
Middleware for Systems Integration Holds Promise, GAO-02-7 (Washington,
D.C.: Nov. 30, 2001).
[6] U.S. General Accounting Office, Federal Student Aid: Progress Made
in Implementing the Common Origination and Disbursement Process, but
Critical Work Remains, GAO-03-241 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 31, 2002).
[7] U.S. General Accounting Office, Federal Student Aid: Additional
Management Improvements Would Clarify Strategic Direction and Enhance
Accountability, GAO-02-255 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 30, 2002).
[8] GAO-01-245, 18.
[9] U.S. General Accounting Office, Student Aid and Tax Benefits:
Better Research and Guidance Will Facilitate Comparison of
Effectiveness and Student Use, GAO-02-751 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 13,
2002).
[10] Some default principal amounts have been recovered through
subsequent collections.
[11] A voluntary flexible agreement provides guaranty agencies
flexibility to implement new business practices by waiving or modifying
some of the requirements established under federal statutes that apply
to other guaranty agencies.
[12] U.S. General Accounting Office, Direct Student Loans: Additional
Steps Would Increase Borrowers‘ Awareness of Electronic Debiting and
Reduce Federal Administrative Costs, GAO-02-350 (Washington, D.C.:
Mar. 29, 2002).
[13] U.S. General Accounting Office, Department of Education: Status of
Achieving Key Outcomes and Addressing Major Management Challenges, GAO-
01-827 (Washington, DC: June 29, 2001).
[14] GAO-02-255, 26.
[15] U.S. General Accounting Office, Education Financial Management:
Weak Internal Controls Led to Instances of Fraud and Other Improper
Payments, GAO-02-406 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002).
[16] GAO-02-406, 2.
[17] U.S. General Accounting Office, Education Information Security:
Improvements Made, but Control Weaknesses Remain, GAO-01-1067
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 12, 2001).
[18] U.S. General Accounting Office, Title I Funding: Poor Children
Benefit Though Funding Per Poor Child Differs, GAO-02-242 (Washington,
D.C.: Jan. 31, 2002).
[19] U.S. General Accounting Office, Bilingual Education: Four
Overlapping Programs Could Be Consolidated, GAO-01-657 (Washington,
D.C.: May 14, 2001).
[20] U.S. General Accounting Office, Math and Science Education:
Comprehensive Information About Federally Funded Materials Not
Available, GAO-HEHS-00-110 (Washington, D.C.: July 12, 2000).
[21] U.S. General Accounting Office, Higher Education: Activities
Underway to Improve Teacher Training, but Reporting on These Activities
Could Be Enhanced, GAO-03-6 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2002).
[22] U.S. General Accounting Office, Teacher Training: Over $1.5
Billion Federal Funds Invested in Many Programs, HEHS-99-117
(Washington, D.C.: May 5, 1999).
[23] U.S. General Accounting Office, Troops to Teachers: Program Helped
Address Teacher Shortages, GAO-01-567 (Washington, D.C.: May 25, 2001).
[24] GAO-01-245, 20.
[25] U.S. General Accounting Office, School Dropouts: Education Could
Play a Stronger Role in Identifying and Disseminating Promising
Prevention Strategies, GAO-02-240 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 1, 2002).
[26] GAO-02-751, 31.
[27] U.S. General Accounting Office, Public Schools: Insufficient
Research to Determine Effectiveness of Selected Private Education
Companies, GAO-03-11 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 29, 2002).
[28] U.S. General Accounting Office, School Vouchers: Publicly Funded
Programs in Cleveland and Milwaukee, GAO-01-914 (Washington, D.C.: Aug.
31, 2001).
[29] U.S. General Accounting Office, School Vouchers: Characteristics
of Privately Funded Programs, GAO-02-752 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 10,
2002).
[30] The Research & Development Centers, Regional Labs, and
Comprehensive Centers share responsibility with other programs created
by Congress for education research, research-based activities, and
technical assistance.
[31] U.S. General Accounting Office, Title I: Education Needs to
Monitor States‘ Scoring of Assessments, GAO-02-393 (Washington, D.C.:
Apr. 1, 2002).
[32] GAO-02-393, 3.
[33] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Inspector General,
Improving Title I Data Integrity for Schools Identified for Improvement
(Philadelphia, Pa.: Mar. 2002).
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the 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 the Internet. GAO‘s Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly
released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
