\37c34 United States GAO General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548 Health, Education, and Human Services Division . B-277892 September 15, 1997 The Honorable Bill Frist Chairman, Education Task Force Committee on the Budget United States Senate Subject: Education Programs: Information on Maior Preschool. Elementarv. and SecondarvEducation Programs Dear Mr. Chairman: This correspondencecontains information, requestedby your office on July 18, 1997,summarizhrgwork GAO has completed from 1990through 1997addressing early childhood, elementary, and secondaryeducation issues. Also today, we are separately reporting on postsecondaryeducation issues1 These summariesmay be of use to your Committee as you define key education issues and clarify the federal role in addressingthem. Although federal spending for elementary and secondaryeducation was less than 7 percent of all kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) funding in fiscal year 1996, the federal government spent more than $25 billion on early childhood and elementary and secondary education, with nearly $16 billion of this managedby the Department of Education. Two of the Department’slargest programs target funds to disadvantagedstudents through title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 ($7.7 billion in fiscal year 1997)and to special education students ($4 billion in fiscal year 1997). Many other federal agenciesalso fund programs that have, at least in part, an emphasison education. For example, Head Start, the largest federally funded preschool program, is funded through the Department of Health and Human Services. Head Start received an appropriation of about $4 billion in fiscal year 1997and annually serves over 750,000disadvantagedchildren. ‘Education Programs: Information on Maior PostsecondarvEducation, School- to-Work and Youth Emnlovment Programs (GAO/HEHS-97-212R, Sept. 15, 1997). GAOAEHS-97-210R Summary of GAO PreK-12 Education Work B-277892 In summary, our work has identified the need for improvement in the Department 01 Education’s oversight and managementof education programs. A major weaknessis lack of evaluationsof program effectivenessand information about what works. Effective managementis especiallyimportant and challenging given the complex array of multiple programs spread across not only the Department of Education but also other agencies. Our reports also addressedissuesinvolving the design and implementation of managementtools, such as controls on states’substitution of federal grant money for their own funding, allocation and accountability with respect to implementing block grants, and mechanismsfor identifying ways TVimprove the effectivenessand efficiency of tax e~enditures as a tool to achievefederal programmatic objectives. FInally, we have completed several studies that have addresseddemographic changes and their implications for preschools and elementary and secondary scbods in the areas of early childhood education, education reform efforts, school facilities, and efforts to improve accessand equity. We have organizedthe discussionof our reports in enclosure 1 according to several themes: managementof preschool grade 12 @reK-12)pro demographics; early childhood pro d equity @nancing e compem-&ing for adverseeffects of p~verty~meetig special needs of at-risk popealati~ns);education reform; and school facilities. Within ea.chtheme, we have summarized our work and conclusionsreached as a result of our work. When our reports had recommendations,we have described them and noted what actions resulted. Enclosure II lists pertinent GAO reports. We are sending copies of this correspondenceto the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member of the SenateCommittee on the Budget, the Secretariesof Education and Health and Human Services,other congressionalcommittees, and other interested parties. We will make copies availableto others on request 2 GAO/EEHS-97.210R Snmmary of GAO Be&P2 Education Work B-277892 If you have any questions or would like to discussthis material further, please call me at (202) 512-7014.Major contributors to this letter include Eleanor Johnson, Nancy Kintner-Meyer,Barbara Billinghm, and Ellen Schwartz. ’ Sincerelyyours, Carlotta C. Joyner Director, Education and Employment Issues Enclosures - 2 GAO/EEHS-97-2108 Snmmary of GAO PreK-12 Education Work ENCLOSUREI ENCLOSUREI _ INFORMATIONON MAJOR PRESCHOOL.ELEMENTARY, * AND SECONDARYEDUCATIONPROGRAMS MANAGEMENTOF PRESCHOOLTHROUGHGRADE 12 (PreK-121PROGRAMS DeDartment&Iana.&!ement The Department of Education’s strategic and operational managementproblems have been documentedat length since its inception in 1980by Education’s Inspector General,congressionalcommittees, many internal reports and task forces, and by us. However, little attention was focusecl on correcting these programs during its first 12 years as a Department. During the 198Os,staff levels diminished by 33 percent, while the Department’s workload expanded by 70 programs, increasingthe importance of sound management. Moreover, Secretariesof Education devoted little attention to departmental management during this period. The first Secretary of Education was in office only a few months before there was a changein administrations. The next Secretary made dismantling the Department a formal goal and did not request a budget for it in fiscal years 1983and 1934. Until the early 199Os,subsequentSecretariesfocused on external policy agendas,devoting little attention to departmental management. Our 1993report on the Department’smanagementproblems was used extensively by subsequentSecretariesof Education for improving departmental management. We recommendedthat the Secretary articulate a strategic managementvision for the Department; establish a Department-wide strategic managementprocess; enhancemanagementleadership throughout the Department and strengthen agency cuhure tbrough a number of speci.Bc measures;and create strategic visions and strategk plans for information, iZmdal, and human resourcesmanagementthat are integrated with the Department’s overah strategic managementprocess.2 Althou the Department bas made progressin ement functions, it still has a long way to go. For kinde 2 (K-E) psogmms, we remain concerned about whether the Department knows how well new or newly moddied programs, like Title I, are being implemented; to what ex%ent are working; or whether it has the reso ctively e neededinformation and technical assi othm Departments, Education needs to focus more on the results of its activities and 2Denartmentof Education: Long-StandingMana$?ementProblems Ham~@r Reforms (GAO/HRD-93-47, May 28, 1993). a ENCLOSUREI ENCLOSUREI on obtaining the information it needs for a more focused, results-oriented managementdecision-makingprocess. The Government Performance and ResultsAct of 1993,the expanded Chief Financial Officers Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.and the Clinger-CohenAct of 1996give the Department a statutory framework to managefor results. Program Assessmentand Best Practices In addition to Department-widemanagementissues, we also looked into the managementof specific programs and highlighted best practices. Our work assessingprogram accountability identitled that improved federal government oversight is neededin many areas, both in the Department of Education as well as other federal agenciesoverseeingeducation programs. For example, in 1993 we found that the National Technical Institute for the Deaf (NTID), which is overseenby the Department of Education, had not adequatelyaccounted for its expenditure of federal funds and may have used federal funds improperly.3 The Department of Education’s review of the NTID at the time of our report was minimal, and no evaluation or independent audit had been performed. Similarly, in a review of the Department of Energy’s precollege math and science programs, we found that although Energy invested more than $50 million in precollege education in fiscal years 1990through 1993,Energy had not evaluated almost half of its 17 most resource-intensiveprojects, and of those evaluations that had been done, all were inadequate.4 On the other hand, in 1991we reported that the Department of Education’s Office of SpecialEducation Programs had reduced its backlog of reports monitoring its programs, even though the frequency of monitoring visits to its programs had not changedsince our earlier report issued in 1989.’ In our review of the Eisenhower Math and Science State Grant program, we found that current data were not available from the Department to assessthis program and that the predominantly short-term math and science training provided by this program may not contribute significantly to achieving the 3DeafEducation: ImDroved Oversight Needed for National Technical Institute for the Deaf (GAO/HRD-9423,Dec. 16, 1993). 4PrecollegeMath and ScienceEducation: Detxirtment of EnerWs Precollege Promm ManagedIneffectivelv (GAO/HEH!S-94208, Sept. 13, 1994). 6Denartmentof Education: Monitoring of State Formula Grants bv Office of SnecialEducation Programs (GAO/HRD-91-91FS, Apr. 15, 1991). 5 GAOIEJZHS-97-2108 Summary of GAO PreK-12 Education Work ENCLOSUREI ENCLOSUREI national goal in math and science.’ Similarly, in a 1995review of the effectiveness of adult education programs found that although this program serves the edicational needs of millions of adult learners, it has had difficulty ensu.r?ngaccountability for results becauseof a lack of cleatlayde&red program objectives, questionable validity of adult student assessments,and poor student data7 Finally, in our work looking at best practices, we found two common themes. First, there are key progmm characteristics that surface repeatedly in promising strategies to address issues such as school violence,8school dropo~ts,~and school-to-work trantitions.lo Theseinclude strong Beadership,linkages between the program and the community, and the ment of a clear and comprehensive approach. Second,few evahrationsexist of succes strategies to solve these problems and that many of the evaluationsthat do exM lack the methoddogbxd rigor needed to determine effectiveness.” Read Start provides a partkular~y good example of the latteri Since Head Start’s inception in 1965,federal fimchg for the Head Start program has increased si cantly. Since 1990, cad Start funding has more than 6Denartmentof Education: The RisenhowerMath and ScienceState Grant Prostram (GAOBIRD-93-25,Nov. 10, 1992). ‘Adult Education: Measuring Program Results Has Been Challenging (GAOBIEHS-95153,Sept. 8, I995). $chool Safety: Fromising Initiatives for AddressingSchool Violence (GAO/HEHS95IO6, Apr. 25, 1995). 9Himticst Schooling: Risk Factors for Dronnin~ Out and Barriers to Resuming 9424, July 27, 1994)and Hisnanic Dronouts and Federal 4I3R, Apr. 6, 1994). l”Schools and Worknlaces: An overview of Successfuland Unsuccessful Practices (GAO/PEMD-95-23,Aug. 31, 1995) and Transition F’rom Schod to Work States Are Develoning New Strategiesto Prenare Studentsfor Jobs -93-139,Sept. 7, 1993). “GAO/RR -95-28,Aug. 3P, 1995;and Head Sta.rtz ResearchProvides Little . Information on Imna.ct of Current Pro$!ram(GAO/HEIiS-97-59,Apr. I5, 1997). 12GAO/HEHS-91259, Apr. 15, 1997. 6 GAOWEHS-97-210R Smmary of GA0 PreK-12 Edacation Work ENCLOSUREI ENCLOSUREI doubled-increasing from $1.5 billion in fiscal year 1990to almost $4 billion in fiscal year 199?. During this period, Head Start also received additional federal funds to, among other things, increaseparticipation and improve program quality. Yet, very little research has focused on program impact, and the body of Head Start research availableis inadequatefor use in drawing conclusions about the impact of the Head Start program . We have recom m endedthat the Department of Health and Human Servicesinclude in its research plan an assessmentof the impact of regular Head Start programs. Although the Department felt that clear evidenceexists of the positive impacts of Head Start services,it did have plans to evaluatethe feasibility of conducting such studies. Our reports highlighted a neededrole by the federal governmentto collect and dissem inateinformation on successfulstrategiesin these various areasI In 1994,we recom m endedthat the Department of Energy strengthen the managementof its precollegemath and scienceprogram by improving its evaluation component and restructuring or discontinuingprojects that do not clearly support the national education goal of increasingstudents’mathematics and science achievement.i4In two reports, our recom m endationsaddressed improved oversight of vocational rehabilitation programs by the Department of Education’s Commissionerof RehabilitationServicesAdministration, including reviewing the adequacyof data on vocational rehabilitation programs and determ ining why disparities exist in servicesprovided to clients of different races.” In response,the Department took steps to improve its data collection on servicesreceived by clients and to research the disparity in servicesfor m inority individuals. Finally, we recom m endedthat the Secretariesof Education and Health and Human Servicesdevelop a coordinated approach for evaluating short- and long-term impacts of prom ising school-linkedserviceprograms as dropout prevention strategies and alternative service delivery approaches.‘”As a result, 13Comnensatorv Education: Difficulties in MeasuringComnarabilitvof Resources W ithin School Districts (GAO/HRD-93-37, Mar. 11, 1993);GAOPEMD-95-28,Aug. 31, 1995;and GAO/HEHS-97-59, Apr. 15, 1997. “GAO/HEHS-94208,Sept. 13, 1994. ‘tiVocati0na.lRehabilitation: Evidencefor Federal Progm rn’sEffectivenessIs M ixed (GAO/PEMD-93-19, Aug. 27, 1993)and VocationalRehabilitation: Clearer Guidance Could Heln Focus Serviceson Those W ith SevereDisabilities (GAOBIRD-92-12,Nov. 26, 1991). ‘%chool-Linked Human Services: A ComnrehensiveStrateevfor Aiding Students l at Risk of School Failure (GAO/HRD-9421,Dec. 30, 1993). 7 GAOIHEHS-97-210B Snmmarg of GAO PreK-12 Education Work ENCLOSUREI ENCLOSUREI , the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services,and Labor convened a working group to look at developinga federal initiative to create and evaluate comprehensiveearly childhood family centers, with school-basedsites being a main focus. Multirde Pronrams In recent years, our work highlighted programs that provide teacher training, programs serving at-risk and delinquentyouth, and programs med at preventing substanceabuse and violence among youth. In every case, we found that multiple federal programs exist, scattered throughout a number of federal agencies. For example,in fiscal year 1993,at least 86 teacher training programs in nine federal agenciesand offices were funded by the federal government. For the 42 programs for which data were available,Department of&&&s reported that over $280million was obJiga$edin fiscal year 1993.17In another report, we identified 131 federal pro that served at-~&k 0~ delinquent youth in fiscal year 1996. While over 60 percent of these programs were admihstered by two cabinet-1eveIdepartments,an additional 14 agenciesor other federal entities erving this popuIation. The estimated total amount off dkated to at-xisk and delinquent youth in BiscaPye P995was over $4 b81ion.18More recently, we updated this information with fiscal year 1996data and identified 15 federal departments and agenciesthat admmistered 127 at-risk youth programs in fiscal year 1996. One hundred ten of these programs received funding in 1996. We could not determine the precise amounts of funds going specifically to ~011th in 30 of these 110 funded programs. However, the remaining pro received funding in excess of $4 billion.1g We also recently testBed on the multiplicity of federal programs providing substanceabuse and violence prevention services for youths. We identified 70 federaI programs located in 13 federal departments or other federal entities that ‘7Multinle Teacher ‘kaining Programs:Information on Budgets. Services. and Target Grouns (GAQ/IEH§-9b71FS,Feb. 22, 1995). 18At-R,isk and DebnouentYouth: RaultinleFederal Programs Raise Efficiency Quetims (GAtYEiEB-96-34,Mar. 6, 1996).This figure does not include programs that addressgeneral education,health, or nutritional needs, such as the largest Title I program or the school lunch program. lgAt-Riskand DelincnientYouth Fiscal Year 1996Pro9pams(GAO/HEHS-97- 21lR, Sept. 2, 1997). ENCLOSUREI ENCLOSUREI ’ had fiscal year 1995appropriations of about $2.4 bi.lhon.2oWe also found multiple early childhood education programs funded by the federal government. A discussion of these programs follows under the section on early childhood education programs. The system of multiple programs scattered throughout the federal government has created the potential for inefficient service as well as difl?cul@for those trying to accessthe most appropriate services and funding sources. Financial Tools We have issued several reports in recent years that addressedissues involved with the design and implementation of some of the more important tools of government used to achievefederal objectives. A recent report summarized studies addressingthe fiscal impact of federal grants, most importantly whether grants add to or replace state resources for aided programs and whether grants are targeted to places with greater needs and lowest fiscal capacities. We found that about 60 percent of federal grant funds are used by state governmentsto substitute for their own funding in program areas. Moreover, federal grants are generally not allocated to states with the greatestprogrammatic needs or those with the least tical resources. The report concludedthat the Congresscould reduce substitution by strengtheningfederal grant maintenanceof effort provisions and targeting could be enhancedby formula redesign. Alternatively, the Congresscould decide that high levels of substitution suggestthat particular programs may no longer represent the best use of scarce federal resources.21 We also looked at experiencesin implementing block grants in the 1980sand found that federal funding cuts were significantly offset by states’additional funding and that states reported enhancedadministrative efficiency from the shift to block grants. Block grants raised several concernsfrom a federal perspective, however, including designingformulas to allocate funds to places reflecting relative needs and devising balancedaccountability strategiesthat satisfy federal information needs without overly restricting state flexibility.= 20Sul&anceAbuse and Violence Prevention: Multinle Youth Programs Raise Questions of Efficiencv and Effectiveness(GAO/BEBS-97-166, June 24, 1997). 21FederalGrants: Design Imnrovements Could BelD Federal ResourcesGo Further (GAO/AIMD-97-‘7,Dec. 18, 1996). 22BlockGrants: Characteristics.Exnerience. and LessonsLearned (GAO/HEHS- 95-74, Feb. 9, 1995)and Block Grants: Issuesin DesigningAccountabilitv . Provisions (GAOKIMD-95226, Sept. 1, 1995). 9 GAOIHEHS-97-210R Summary of GAO PreK-12 Education Work ENCLOSUREI ENCLOSUREI _ In a 1994report examining the use of tax expenditures as a tool to achieve federal programmatic objectives,we found that while these can be a useful part of federal p~aicy, tax expenditures may a&o be less effective and efficient than other approachesfor achievingfederal objectives. Tax expenditures do not compete overtly in the annual budget process and, like spending entitlements, existing tax eq3endituresgenerally grow without congressionalreview. Policymakers have few opportunities to make explicit comparisons or trade-offs between tax expendituresand related federal spendingprograms. In our report, we suggestedoptions, to both the Congressand the Office of Management and Budget, to increase these comparisonsand improve scrutmy of tax expendituretP DEMOGRAPHICS The demographic makeup of herica's sch001-agedp~pdation has changed &amtictiy over the past 2 decad@s, with more Chikben living in pcnmdy md 8 rapidly growing number from diverseracial and ethnic backgr0t.m little inf0rmation existed to help policymakers or educators asse changesand the implications of these changeson educati0n policy, in the early 1990swe undertas~ka body of work to analyzedemographicinformation about preschod ancl scho01-agedchildren. America’s scho0ls serve childrenf30mpreschoolage2Pthr0ugh high sch0oB. Between 1980and 1990,the total xhool-aged population declined by 6 percent to 44.4 million, and then has steadily increased since the early 1990s.26The number QUITpoor school-agedchildren aIs increased by m0re than 4O0,OOO to 7.6 million, with the greatest. imreases in the West and the SoutIhwest. These cbiklren bring with them a new set of challengesfor elem and seconcbry sch~~is to deal with. FQ~ example,many of these students change SC~QQS frequent& which h their education. We found that in school year 1990-91, one in six of the nation’s third-graders-over a half million-had attended at least three different schools since beginningthe iirst grade. These children are often ?K’ax Exnenditures DeserveM0re Scrutiv (GAQ/GG 1994). %%aiesin preschool demographicsare discussedin the Early Childhood Programs section following. . 2sAccordingto the Department of Education, total public and private elementary and secondary school enrollment is projected to rise from about 61.7 million in c 1996TV 54.6 milli0n by the year 2006. ENCLOSUREI ENCLOSUREI from low-income, inner city, or migrant families, and many have limited English proficiency.26. The changing demographicsof the nation’s school-agedpopulation and the growing number of at-risk students could put severe strain on our preschools and on elementaryand secondaryschools. Preschools may see increasing numbers of at-risk children entering who require services that may not currently be available, such as languageor family support services. Increasing numbers of poor and at-risk school-agedchildren mean that many schools will have to addressthe needs of children who changeschools IYequently,are potential low achievers,and have other difficulties such as health and nutrition problems. Our work contributed to changesbeing made that focused federal funding on the problem of student mobility. In 1994,the Improving America’s Schools Act 0p.L. 103382) authorized the Secretary of Education to fund demonstration programs aimed at reducing excessivestudent mobility. As a further step to address student mobility, in a 1994reauthorization of the Migrant Education Program, the Congresstargeted program funding to migrant children who have changed school districts within the last 3 years. Low-achieving children who have changedschools tiequently are less likely to receive Title I services than low-achieving children who have never changedschools.n In response to a recommendationthat the Department of Education develop strategies to ensure that highly mobile school-agedchildren have the same accessto Title I services as other children,%the Department has encouragedstates and school districts to take student mobility into consideration in their Title I programs, particularly when a highly mobile population is the norm in their location. The act also contains provisions, proposed by Education’to promote better coordination of Title I services with other federally funded educational services, explicitly including servicesfor migrant children. %ElementarvSchool Children: Manv ChangeSchools Freauentlv. Harming Their Education (GAO/HEHS-94-45,Feb. 4, 1994). nTitle I is part of the Elementary and SecondaryEducation Act of 1965. This act was amendedby the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994. . 28GAO/HEHS-94-45, Feb. 4, 1994. 11 GAOIJIEHS-97-210R Summary of GAO PreK-12 Education Work ENCLOSUREI ENCLOSUREI __ EARLY CHILDHOODPROGUMS Sinee 1990,WC? have conducted several studies examining the charactenisticsof early childhood education programs and the participation of children in them. l[n fiscal years 1992and 1993,-we found that over 90 early childhood programs in 11 federal.agenciesand 20 offices were funded by the federal government. IExamignati~n of these programs showed that one disadvantagedchild could potentiaJly have been eligible for as many as 13 . However, many programs reported serving only a portion of th opdation and ntainmg long waiting listsa By tbe early B99Qs,about 42.5 percent of alI preschool-agedchildren-aged 3 and 4-were attending preschool. PmxhooB. attendace is generally regarded as important in prep-g cbikken for entering school. Duing the 198Os,the number of poor and at-risk preschool-aged &Wren-those who were most likely to face dUiculties upon entering school and who would have benefited the most &om preschod programs-increased signi&antiy. IHoweve~,presch~d participation rates irn 11990 for this population- -poor 3- and 4year-ok&-were low, about 35 p 3- and hyear- olds as compared w&b over 60 percent of the and 4yea.TxM.s. As a contrast to the Amerlcm system, we found that preschool participation is nauchhigher in Denmark, l!‘m.nce,and Italy. For pie, France had PO0 percent participation in public early ch.iMhoodpro among all 4-year-okis.m However, udike early childhood education systemsin Denmark, France, and Italy that appear to be seamless,our patchwork of multiple categorical programs with ikm eligibtity cutoffs could lead to disruptions in services from even slight changesin the child’s family statis. ??*I-example, a child who lived in a family of four with an annual income below the oticial poverty line at the beginning of the year might be eligible for many of the early cbildbood pr~grms; however, if wed or if the family income or w~mrkstatus changedslightly, the nQt CQntiXWe tQ be eligible for any of the programs. Researchalso indicates that disadvantagedchildren benefit most fpom early chM.hood programs that have a ck@ddevelopment focus and provide a full range of bmm Sepvices.Head t&u-t, the centerpiece of federal exly childhood IPPQ is intended to provide a conqrebensive set of setices-such as education and nutrition, and dental and medical services-with an emphasison %Earlv Childhood Prorrrams: MuMDle Programs and QverlaDpW!Target Groom (GAWHEHS-95-G%,Oct. 31, 1994). ?Earlv Childhood Programs: Promoting the Develomnent of Young Children in Denmark. France. and Italy (GAUHEXS-9545BR,Feb. 3, 1995). ENCLOSUREI ENCLOSUREI child development. Many view this program as a major preschool provider for the poor. However, our work has shown that preschool participation in general is low among pbor children and that Head Start is not the primary source of early childhood education among poor preschoolers.31Of those disadvantaged children that attended some type of early childhood center at the time of our study, almost two-thirds-or 59 percent-attended centers other than Head Start, and these centers often provided inadequateservices or fewer servicesthan Head Start centers. Even at Head Start centers, directors identified problems that significantly affect their ability to provide needed servicesto children and families. For example, Head Start directors reported problems with insufficient qualified staff to meet the complex needs of children and families, a limited availability of health professionalsin the commtmity willing to help Head Start staff in providing services, and difficulties in getting suitable facilities at reasonable~osts.~ In addition, as previously discussed,we are concerned about the lack of data on the impact1of the modern-day,regular Head Start programs.33 ACCESSAND EQUITY Financing Education Our school finance work since 1990has focused on the federal role in funding poor students, supporting state education agencies,and contributing to the nation’s overall spending on education. We also analyzedthe dominant role that states played in funding the high-cost needs of poor and other disadvantaged students who were often in school districts that had limited resources for funding education. Our study of state education agencyfunding revealed that the federal share of this funding ranged from about 10 percent to about SOpercent across states and was partly determined by whether the state agencyactually operated a federal program such as vocational rehabilitation servicesin addition to providing 31EarlvChildhood Programs: Manv Poor Children and Strained Resources ChallengeHead Start (GAO/HEHS-94169BR,May 17, 1994). %Earlv Childhood Programs: Local Persbectiveson Barriers to Providing Head Start Services (GAO/HEHS-958,Dec. 21, 1994). c 33GAO/HEHS-97-59, Apr. 15, 1997. 13 GAO/HEHS-97-210R Summary of GAO PreK-12 Education Work ENCLOSUREI ENCLOSUREI , administrative supp~rt.~ Another study of state funding showed that despite state efforts to equalizefunding, the total (state and local) funding per pupil in poor districts was less than such funding in wealthy districts in 37 states. This disparity existed even when the data were adjustedfor differences in geographic and student need-relatededucation ~osts.~ F’urthexmore,our review of trends in US. spending demonstratedthat the national averagefor real expenditures per pupil has leveled off since 1989at the same time that the nation’s popubrtion of students, particularly poor students, has increasedand state shares of education funding have slightly declined.% @omDenSatiM for Adverse Effects of Poverty To compensatefor the adverse effects of poverty on studemtachievement,the Congressestablishedthe Title I program to fund supplementaryremedial ed~~~~Qnn~~cesfQPlow-~~~Pgs&udents~n~pQV~~eas. Title Iissa formula-based federal edrxation program that provides frmds to local educational ncies based on the number of school-agedchildren in poverty as well as the 1 of poverty c*ncentratiQn. Our work from 1990to 1997 addressedmaking changesto the Title I grant formula We looked at how the formula could better target low-achieving children in poverty areas and @risdictions less capable awing compensatmy on services. We also looked at ~tber issuesrel g tt3 Title I ifim.n&g.n Fin we provided information (3311 the extent to which a 1985SupremeCourt decision (&zuilar v. FeltQn)%led to alternative ways of providing Title I servicesthat were often 34EducationFinance: Extent of Federal Funding in State Education Agencies (GAwH3?xs-95-3,Oct. 14, 1994). 3sSch~olFinance: Sate Efforts to Reduce Funding Gans Between Poor and Wealthv Districts (GAMIEHS-97-31, Feb. 5, 1997). ?3ch~ol I!'inmce: Trends in US. Education Snending(GACMHEBS-95235, Sept. 15, 1995). %choh Finance: Cutions for hnnroving Measm-esof Eff~ti and E&t-v in Title I (GACYREHS-96142,Aug. 30, 1996)and GACVHEHS-95-3, Oct. 14, 1994. %473U. S. 402 (1985). In this decisiQn,the SpxpremeCourt held that public school teachers who provided Title I serviceson the premises of religiously . ated schools violated the separation of church and state. As a result of the Felton decision, school cts had to find new ways to provide Title I[ services to private school students. To assist school districts in complying with the II ENCLOSUREI ENCLOSUREI more costly and initially resulted in fewer private school students receiving Title I setices. , We found that the way “need”was assessedin the Title I formula resulted in an underestimation of students needingservicesin areas with high concentrations of poor children.4oAs a result, the Congressrevised the Title I formula as rjart of the Improving America’s SchoolsAct to give a higher weighting for children in geographicareas with high concentrationsof poor children. In addition, our work4’contributed to the Congress’amendingTitle I to limit the extent to which the budgets of state education agenciescan be funded by federal revenues-by October 1, 1998,more than one-half of the budgets of state education agencies are to be funded by state, rather than federal, revenues. We also provided the Congresswith a variety of alternative ways to improve the current measures of fiscal effort and equity in per pupil spendin~2in Title I’s Education FSnance Incentive Pr~gram.~ Finally, in a 1993report we found that although additional federal funds were made available to help school districts provide Title I servicesto private school students in neutral sites, such as in mobile vans or portable classrooms, the number of private school students in Title I programs remained low. However, such funds were useful in increasingthe number of children that could be Felton decision, which often resulted in more costly alternatives to fewer private schoo1students, Congressauthorized additional funding. In June 1997,the Supreme Court lifted its ban on pubhc school employeesproviding Title I services in religious schools in Agostini v. Felton, 117 S. Ct. 1997 (1997). %omDensatorv Education: Additional Funds HelD More Private School Students Receive Char&r 1 Services (GAO/HRD-93-65,Feb. 26, 1993). 4!RemediaIEducation: Mod.UYin~Chauter 1 Formula Would Target More Funds to Those Most in Need (GAO/HRD-92-16, July 28, 1992). 41GAO/HEHS-95-3, Oct. 14, 1994. 42By“measuresof effort,” we generallymean a state’s spending for education when compared to its ability to pay for education. Our alternative measures of equity look at relative differences in education spending among districts within a state after adjusting for differences in the purchasing power among school districts and differences in the education needs of students. 43GAO/HEHS-96142, Aug. 30, 1996. 15 GAO/ElRHS-97-2 1OR Summary of GAO PreK-12 Education Work ENCLOSUREI ENCLOSUREI I served.” An earlier report* found that in the year following the Felton decision, participation by private school students in Title I programs dropped from 185,000to 123,“oOO nationwide, as school districts began developing new ways of providing servicesto private school students. A follow-on report46showed that participation had increasedto 142,000students by school year 1987-88,but remained 23 percent lower than the pre-Felton levels. At that time, ii~cal districts had not yet received any additional funding. By SC~QQ~year 1991-92, additional feeti funding made it pOS$ible TV increas@the number of private school students served by Title I to 168,000,or 91 percent of pre-Fekon levels. Meetinn Special Needs of At-Risk Pomilations fi%tain ~O~Uk%tiOnS Of Childpen ZkEePtiCtiWly at l&k Qf SChQd fZRihU33, inchding those who changeschools firequently,are potential low achievers, and have other difficulties such as health and nutrition probkms. We ha= already discussedsome of the needs of poor and migrant students inaprevious sections. We also have done dy of work focusing on stud@ntswith limited En proficiency and on dropOUt X-E&S. Our work from 1990-97on students w&b ed En@h proficiency focused on various aspectsof programs operated by the Department of Education’s Office of Bilingual Education and Minority LanguagesAffairs. These programs include the EmergencyImmigrant Education pr0gra.m and the Bilinaal Education Act progpam. We provide n regarding the characteristics of students with limited English proficiency fo QTiZ&iQn of the ESEA and the Bilingnal Education Act. limited English proficiency are heavily concentrated in a handful of states, almost every s&atein the nation has counties that have substantial numbers of students with Emite profficiency. We also found that twice to be poor as compared with alp school resources. Many students with limited English proficiency in s distdcts we visited received limited support in could not provide bilingual ction to aU proficiency. Federzilfunding for programs targeting these students has not kept -93-65,Feb. 26, 1993. 46ComDensatorv Education: Chamter1 Servicesto Private Sectarian School Students (GAOMEkD-87-128BR, Sep$.21, 1987). 46ComDensatow Education: Atiar v. Felton Decision’s Continuing Imxxxt on the ChaDter 1 Program (GAUHRD-89-131BR,Sept. 27, 1989). ENCLOSUREI ENCLOSUREI pace with the increase in this population. We also found, however, that many students eligible for EIEA funds also participate in other federally funded education progr&ms but that estimatesare difficult to obtain.” In responseto congressionalrequests,we also issued two reports that looked specifically at dropout rates among Hispanic students.4sWe found certain factors that increased the risk of dropping out for a Hispanic student. These factors include (1) not born in the United States, (2) limited in English-speaking ability, (3) from poor families, or (4) either married or are young mothers. Our work examining federal programs that would addressthe Hispanic dropout problem found that many federal programs are in place to addressthe high school dropout problem; however, program data were insufficient or of questionablereliability to allow an assessmentof how well at-risk Hispanic students were served. Special needs students present schools with special challenges. Immigrant students pose costly and increasing challengesfor many school districts. Teachersneed to be trained in effectively teaching a student population that does not have English as a first language. Other critical needs include developing appropriate curricular and instructional models and necessary assessmenttools and assisting states and districts in adapting them to local needs. EDUCATIONREFORM Between 1990and 1995,we reported on (1) systemwideeducation reforms as well as schools’use of regulatory flexibility, site-basedmanagement,and charter school approaches;and (2) federal plans for developingeducation standardsand assessments.These studies provided national information on reform implementation efforts or key issues such as standards. More recently, we reported on how America’s schools were not designedor equippedto implement education reform (see the description of our school facilities work, below); the 471mmigrantEducation: Federal Funding Has Not Kent Pace mth Student Increases (GAO/T.-HEHS-94146, Apr. 14, 1994)and Limited En@ishProficiencv: A Growing and Costlv Educational ChallengeFacing Manv School Districts (GAOMOEHS-94-38, Jan. 28, 1994). &GAO/PEMD-9424,July 27, 1994;and GAO/PEMD-9418R,Apr. 6, 1994. 17 GAO/EIEHS-97.210R Summary of GAO PreK-12 Education Work ENCLOSUREI ENCLOSUREI - special education reform effort known as inclusion programs;4Q and selected specific topic? that relate to choice, like our report on single-genderschools.60 Although most of (aur reports were descriptive, our report on systemwlde education reforn?’ developed a number of matters for congressional consideration, and our report on regulatory flexibility made a number of recommendat.io ecretary of Education and suggesteda number of matters for con consideration?2 §pecifid.ly, if the Congresswished to encourage ditict-level !i$%kmWiderefmm, it could enact Ie On that would do the ffollowing: - Support efforts to develop voluntary high national and state content standards and support deveIopment of exemplary assessmentmethods appropriate to those standards. - Ensure availability of te&icJ astimce and professional developmentto cts implementing or seekingto implement systemwidereform. - Make exk3tingfederal categorical programs more conducive &Q systemwide reform. The Congresscould, for example, allow waivers of program reqmimnents or give priority for g~ant!st0 appbknts Sm targeted groups in the context of systemwide reform. The Congress could also direct the Secretary of Education to take steps to disseminateinformation about successfulreform efforts and review the scope and functions of the federal research centers, laboratories, and technical atzsistancecenters to determine the extent to which they could assist in systemwide reform efforts.63 4QSnecial Education Reform: Districts Grande With Inclusion Proms (GAO/T- HEHS-94460,Apr. 28, 1994). %.tblic Education: Issues Involving Single-GenderSchools and FVo$z.mx~~s (GAOEB9&-122, May 28, 1996). 51§vstemwideEducation Reform: Federal Leader&in Could Facilitate District- Level Efforts (GAO/HRD-93-97,Apr. 30, 1993). 5!Reaihtox-vFlexibilltv in Schools: What IIauuens When SchoolsAre Ahowed to Changethe Rules (GAO/IIEIIS-94102,Apr. 29, I994). =GAO/IBD-93-97, Apr. 30, 1993. 18 GAWHEHIS-97.2llOB Smmary of GAQ lt+eK-R-12Education Work ENCLOSUREI ENCLOSUREI In our report on regulatory flexibility in schools, we recommended that the Secretary continue to assessthe manner in which federal education programs are reviewed b$ federal and state officials and, as needed,promote changesin the way programs are reviewed by these officials in order to be more consistent with schools’attempts to improve.64As a result of this work, the Department has made major strides in promoting changesin the way federal education programs are reviewed and allowing more flexibility. For example, the Department has undertakenthe CooperativeAudit Resolution and Oversight Initiative. This initiative aims to promote a better understanding of program requirements on the part of auditors and streamline audit procedures. It also provided professional developmentactivities to familiarize staff, including program reviewers and auditors, with current concepts in school reform. In addition, in June 1996,the Department issued to program officials and auditors a new “compliancesupplement”for ESEA, as amended by the Improving America’s SchoolsAct. We also recommendedthat the Secretary of Education work with educators,researchers,and state and local officials to develop ways to assessthe progress of children with special needs in relation to high standards. As a result, the Department began to support state and local efforts in developingways to assessall children. We also recommendedthat the Congressmaintain features in education initiatives to take advantageof the flexibility provided to attempt improvement. The provisions in the Goals2000Act promote flexibility by giving the Secretary of Education authority to waive certain regulations to assist states and local communities in implementingschool improvement. The act also promotes flexibility by supporting a wide array of state and local approachesto raise academic achievementand has no regulations for Goals 2000 implementation. Goals 2000 and the Improving America’s SchoolsAct of 1994 encouragestates and localities to undertake systemic education reform and provide flexibility to promote bottom-up, school-basedreform. The acts also reauthorize most of the federal government’sprograms of aid to elementary and secondary education. SCHOOLFACILITIES Basedt3n a 1994survey of 10,000schools in over 5,000school districts nationwide as well as site visits to 10 school districts, we reported that school officials reported about $112billion was needed to bring America’s schools into good overall condition. Of the $112billion, officials estimate that our nation’s schools need $6 billion to make all programs accessibleto all students and $5 e MGAO/HEHS-94102, Apr. 29, 1994. 19 GAO/HEHS-97.210R Sumnary of GAO PreK-12 Education Work ENCLOSUREI ENCLOSUREI _ billion to correct or remove hazardoussubstancesincluding asbestos,lead, pesticides and other chemicals,and radon. About 14 million students attended the one-third bf America’s schools that needed to be extensively repaired or . replaced.66These schools were distributed nationwide. In addition, school officials reported that although tie&a’s schools meet many key facilities, requirementssG and environmental conditions67for education reform and Y improvement, most are unprepared for the 21st century in critical areas, such as the followhg: - Most schooS do not fully use modern teclxnology. Although at least three- qwtr&rs of scbook3reported having sufficient computers and televisions, they do not have the sy!%emor building infrastructure to fully use th@m. Moreover, becausecomputers and other equipment are often not networked or connected to any other COmputemin the school or the outside world, they cannot accessthe information sup - Over 14 million students attend about 40 percent of schools that reported that their facilities cannot meet the functional requirements of laboratory science or large-group instruction even moderately well. Moreover, not all students have equal.accessto facilities that can support education into the 21st ce , even those atten g §d'lQd in the same disstrict. Qvd, schools in central cities and schools with a 50-percent or more minority population were more likely to have more insufficient technology elementP and “School Facilities: Condition of America’s Scb~ols (GAQmB96-6H, Feb. 1, 1995). 66SmaU-g.r~up instruction, teacher planning, private areas for student counseling and testing, and library/media centers. 67Ventilation,heating, indoor air qua&y, and pighting. ‘??iber optics cable, conduits, telephone lines in instructional areas, modems, networks, telephone lines for modems, electrical wiring for communications tecbndogy, electric power for communications technology, laser disk player/videocassetterecondex-s, printers, cable television, computers for instructional use, and televisions. 20 GACVHEHS-$7.%llOR Snmmreq of GA0 l!%-eK-12 Education Wcmk ENCLOSUREI ENCLOSUREI a greater number of unsatisfactory environmental condition@‘-particularly lighting and phy$cal security-than other schools.60 %ighting, heating ventilation, indoor & quality, acousticsfor noise control, flexibility, physical security of buildings. ‘%chool Facilities: America’s SchoolsNot Designedor EWimed for the 21st Centurv (GAODIEHS-95-95, Apr. 4, 1995). 21 GAOARHS-97.210R Summary of GAO PreK-12 Education Work ENCLOSUREII ENCLOSUREII GAO REPORTSON EARLY CHILDHOOD.ELEMENTARY.AND SECONDARY EDUCATIQN,1990-1997 (Reports miked with an asterisk [*] are cited under more than one topic.) %e Results Act: Observationson the DeDartmentof Education’s June 1997 Draft Stratellic Plan (GAO/HEHS-97-176R, July 18, 1997). DeDartment of Education: Challengesin Prom~tinrt Access and Excellence in Education (GAQ/T-HEMS-97-99, Mar. 20, 1997). Education and Labor: Information on the Der>artments’ Field Offices (GAO/H.EHS-9G-178,Sept. 16, 1996). Degartment of Education: Lon&%and& Manwement Problems Hammer Reforms (GAO=-9347, May 28, 1993). Transition Series: Education Issues (GAQIOCG-93-18 DeDartment of Education: ManagementCommitment Neededto I.mDrove Information ResourcesManagemenl; (GAO/MTEC-92-17,Apr. 20, 1992). Education Grants Manaement: Actions Initiated to Correct Material Weaknesses (GAO/H.RD-91-72,June 26, 1991). *Head Start: ResearchProvides Little Information on Imxxxctof Current Pro+xn (GAMIEHS-97-59, Apr. 15, 1997). *Head Startz Information on Federal Funds Unsoent bv Pro~am Grantees (GAOMEHS-96-64,Dec. 29, 1995). Adult Education: Measuring Pro$zamResults Has Been Challenginag (GAOiHEHS95153, Sept. 8, 1995). Schools and W’orkolaces: An Oven-iew of Successfuland UnsuccessfulPractices (GAQIPEMD-95-28,Aug. 31, 1995). J 22 GAO/HEHS-97.21OB Summary of GAO Pm%-12 Education Work . ENCLOSUREH ENCLOSUREII VocationalEducation: Changesat High School Level After Amendmentsto Perkins Act (GA,O/HEHS-95144, July 12, 1995). School Safetv: Promising Initiatives for Address& School Violence ’ (GAO/HEHS-95106, Apr. 25, 1995). PrecollegeMath and ScienceEducation: DeDartmentof Energv’sPrecollege Promun ManagedIneffectivelv (GAO/HEHS-94208,Sept. 13, 1994). School-LinkedHuman Services: A ComrxehensiveSt&em for Aiding Students at Risk of School Failure (GAO/HRD-9421,Dec. 30, 1993). Deaf Education: hnuroved OversiphtNeededfor National Technical Institute for the Deaf (GAO/HRD-9423,Dec. 16, 1993). Transition from School to Work: States Are DevelODmgNew Strategiesto Preuare Studentsfor Jobs (GAO/HRD-93-139, Sept. 7, 1993). VocationalRehabilitation: Evidencefor Federal Proeram’sEffectivenessIs Mixed (GAO/PEMD-93-19, Aug. 27, 1993). ComnensatorvEducation: Difficulties in MeasuringComDarabihtvof Resources Within School Districts (GAO/HRD-93-37,Mar. 11, 1993). DeDartmentof Education: The EisenhowerMath and ScienceState Grant Promim (GAO/HRD-93-25, Nov. 10, 1992). VocationalRehabilitation: Clearer GuidanceCould HelDFocus Serviceson Those With SevereDisabilities (GACYHRD-92-12,Nov. 26, 1991). Deuarlment of Education: Monitoring of State Formula Grants bv Office of SnecialEducation Proaams (GAOiHRD-91-91FS, Apr. 15, 1991). Immigrant Education: Information on the EmergencvImmigrant Education Act Program (GAO/HRD-91-50, Mar. 15, 1991). SuecialEducation: Estimates of HandicaDDedIndian Preschoolersand Sufficiencv of Services(GAOMRD-90-GlBR,Mar. 5, 1990). e 23 GAOBEHS-97.210R Summary of GAO PreK-12 Education Work ENCLOSUREII ENCLOSUREII At-Risk and nelinauent Youth: Fiscal Year 1996Proorrrams(GAO/HEMS-97-211R, Sept. 2, 1997). SubstanceAbuse and Violence Prevention: Multiule Youth Proms Raise Questionsof Efficiencv and Effectivenesq (GAWHEBS-97-166,June 24, 1997). Student Aid (GACWT-BEBS-95-130, Apr. 6, 1995). At-Risk and Delinouent Youth: Muhinle Federal Promams Raise EfWiencv Questions(GAWHEHS-96-34,Mar. 6, 1996). MultiDIe Teacher Training Pro&.ams: Information on Budgets. Services.and TapgetGrouns (GAO/HEHS9571FS,Feb. 22, 1995). Multiple Youth Promms (GAO/HEHS9~60B,Jan. 19, 1995). Exchawe Programs: hventorv of International Educational, Cult~M. and Training Progmms (GAO/NSLAP)-93-157BR, June 23, 1993). Financial TcDOP$ %e Results Act: Observationson the Dewrtment of Education’s June 1997 Draft Strateaic Plan (GAO/BE -97476R,July 18, 1997). Federal &ants: De&n InanrovementsCould Help Federal ResourcesGo Further ( -97-7,Dec. 18, 1996). Block &ants: Issues in DesifxningAcconntabilitv Provisiong (GA -95-226, Sept. 1, 1995). (GAO/B-EMS-95 74, Feb. 9, 1995). Tax Emenditures Deserve More Scmtinv (GAO/G -94-122,Jume3, 1994). 24 . ENCLOSUREII ENCLOSUREII DEMOGRAPHICS School-ApeChil&en: Povertv and Diversiti ChallengeSchoolsNationwide (GAOHEHS-94132,Apr. 29, 1994). *Elementary School Children: Manv ChangeSchoolsFreauentlv. Harming Their Education (GAOKIEHS94-45,Feb. 4, 1994). Rural Children: IncreasingPovertv Rates Pose Educational Challenges (GAO/HEHS9476BR,Jan. 11, 1994). School-&e Demo!zraDhic!s: Recent Trends Pose New Educational Challenges (GAO/HRD-93105BR, Aug. 5, 1993). Poor Preschool-AgedChildren: Numbers Increase But Most Not in Preschool (GAO/HRD-93lllBR, July 21, 1993). EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS *Head Start: ResearchProvides Little Information on Impact of Current Program (GAO/HEHS-97-59, Apr. 15, 1997). *Head Start: Information on Federal Funds Unsnent bv Promam Grantees (GAO/HEHS-96-64, Dec. 29, 1995). Earlv ChildhoodCenters: Servicesto Prenare Children for School Often Limited .- (GAOHEHS-9521,Mar. 21, 1995). Earlv ChildhoodPromams: Promoting the DeveloDmentof Young Children in Denmark. France. and Italv (GAO/HEHS-94-45BR, Feb. 3, 1995). Earlv ChildhoodPro~ams: Parent Education and Income Best Predict Participation (GAO/HEHS-95-47, Dec. 28, 1994). Earlv ChildhoodPrograms: Local Perspectiveson Barriers to Providing Head Start Services(GAO/HEHS-95-3, Dec. 21, 1994). Earlv ChildhoodPromams: Multiule Programs and Overlap&u! Target Groups (GAO/HEHS954FS,Oct. 31, 1994). * Earlv ChildhoodPrograms: Manv Poor Children and Strained Resources ChallengeHead Start (GAO/HEHS94169BR,May 17, 1994). F 25 GAOARHS-97.210R Summary of GAO PreK-12 Education Work ENCLOSUREII ENCLOSURElI _ I Fiuaucin~ E;lucation ’ i School Finance: State Efforts to Reduce Funding Garx Between POQ~ and Wealthv Districts (GAO/HEHS-97-31, Feb. 5, 1997). \ l?inance: CDtions for h~rovin~ *School Measuresof Effort and Eauitv in Title I (GAO/HEHS-96142,Aug. 30, 1996). Scholl Finance: Three States’Exoerience With Eauitv in School l?mdinq (GACYHEHS-96-39, Dec. 19, 1995). School Finance: Trends in U.S. Education Suending( HS-95235,Sept. 15, 1995). *Education Finance: Extent of Federal Fundim?in State Education ihgencies (GAO/HERS-95-3,Oct. 14, 1994). *School Finance: Or&ionsfor Im~r~vina Measuresof Effort and Eauitv in Ti&ZeI (GACYHEHS-96142, Aug. 30, 1996). Title I Formula in S. 1513(GAMIEIIS-9419OR, June 7, 1994). ComuensatorvEducation: Additional Funds Helu More Private School Students ReceiveChanter 1 Services ( D-93-65,Feb. 26, 1993). Education (GACVPEMD-9424, July 27, 1994). Immisant Education: Federal Fundina Has Not Kent Pace With Student Increases (GAO/T-HEMS-94146,Apr. 14, 1994). * Hisnanic Dronouts and Federal Programs (GACVPEMD-94lS, Apr. 6, 1994). 4 26 GAQ/HEHS-91-210R Smra~ of GAQ Pm&18 Edncation Wmk ENCLOSUREII ENCLOSUREII Limited En&h Proficiencv: A Growing and CostIv Educational Challenge Facing Manv School Districts (GAOHEHS-9438,Jan. 28, 1994). EDUCATION REFORM Public Education: Issues Involvik Sinrrle-GenderSchools and Proaams (GAO/HEHS-96122,May 28, 1996). Private Manarrementof Public Schools: Earlv Exberiencesin Four School Districts (GAO/HEHS-96-3, Apr. 19, 1996). _ Charter Schools: New Model for Public SchoolsProvides Onnortunities and Challenges(GAO/HEHS-9542,Jan. 18, 1996). Education Reform: School-BasedMantiement Results in Changesin Instruction and Budgeting (GAOMEHS-94-135,Aug. 23, 1994). Retiatorv Flexibilitv in Schools: What HaunensWhen SchoolsAre AIlowed to Changethe Rules (GAO/HEHS-94102,Apr. 29, 1994). Snecial Education Reform: Districts &aDDle With Inclusion Prortrams (GAO/T- HEHS-94160,Apr. 28, 1994). Total QuaIitv Education (GAO/HEHS9476R,Feb. 10, 1994). Regulators Flexibilitv Proqms (GAO/HEHS945lR, Nov. 3, 1993). Educational Achievement Standards: NAGB’sADDroachYields Misleading Internretations (GAO/PEMD-93-12, June 23, 1993). SvstemwideEducation Reform: Federal LeadershiuCould Facilitate District- Level Efforts (GAO/HRD-93-97, Apr. 30, 1993). Educational Testing: The CanadianExneriencewith Standards.Examinations, and Assessments(GAO/PEMD-9811,Apr. 28, 1993). Planning for Education Standards(GAO/PEMD-9321R,Apr. 12, 1993). Student Achievement Standardsand Testing (GAO/T-PEMD-93-1,Feb. 18, 1993). I Student Testing: Current Extent and Exuenditures. With Cost Estimates for a National Examination (GAO/PEMD-93-8, Jan. 13, 1993). b 27 GAO/HEHS-97-210R Summary of GAO PreK-12 Education Work ENCLOSUREII ENCLOSUREII _ SCHOOL FACILITIES School Facilities: Profiles of School Condition bv State (GAO/HEWS-96148,June 24, 1996). School Facilities: Accessibilitv for the Disabled Still an Issue (GAO/HE 96-73, Dec. 29, 1995). School Facilities: America’s SchoolsRmort Differim.! Conditions (GAWIHENS- 9G-103,June 14, 1996). School Facilities: States’Rnancid and Technical Smmrt Varies (GAWHEHS-96 27, Nov. 28, 1995). School Facilities: Americds”SchoolsNot Desisted or Eauimed for the 21st Century (GAO/HEW-9595, Apr. 4, 1995). School Facilities: Condition of America’s Schools (GAO/HEHS-95-61,Feb. 1, 1995). (104900) 28 . c Ordering Information c The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and Mastercard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders by mail: U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013 or visit: Boom 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists. For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTEBNET, send an e-mail message with “info” in the body to: firstname.lastname@example.org or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at: httpzL%ww.gao.gov c
Education Programs: Information on Major Preschool, Elementary, and Secondary Education Programs
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1997-09-15.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)