oversight

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)

                                                              \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:

        info@www.gao.gov

        or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

        httpzL%ww.gao.gov
c