Goals 2000: Flexible Funding Supports State and Local Education Reform
(Letter Report, 11/16/98, GAO/HEHS-99-10).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Goals 2000
Program, focusing on determining how: (1) its funds have been spent at
both the state and local levels, including the levels of funding for
developing standards and assessments as well as health education; and
(2) state and local officials view Goals 2000 as a means to promote
education reform efforts.

GAO noted that: (1) Goals 2000 funds are being used to support a broad
range of education reform activities at the state and local levels; (2)
grants to states in the 4 fiscal years (FY) that GAO reviewed ranged
from $370,000 to Wyoming in FY 1994 to $54.7 million to California in FY
1997; (3) over the 4-year period reviewed, Goals 2000 funds have been
broadly disseminated: more than one-third of the 14,367 school districts
nationwide that provide instructional services have received at least
one Goals 2000 subgrant funded with fiscal years 1994 through 1997
funds; (4) state-retained funds were spent primarily for personnel,
contracting services, and consultants involved in fund related
activities; (5) districts used Goals 2000 subgrant funds to pay for
education reform initiatives centered around several major categories:
local education reform; professional development; and technology
acquisition and training; (6) other uses included preservice training
for college students who plan on becoming teachers; the development of
education standards and assessments; and crosscutting and other
activities; (7) most states had begun their state education reform
efforts prior to receiving Goals 2000 funds, thus Goals 2000 funds have
generally served as an additional resource for ongoing state reform
efforts; (8) the districts' Goals 2000 activities appear to be aligned
with state education reform initiatives; (9) many state officials
reported that Goals 2000 has been a significant factor in promoting
their education reform efforts and, in several cases, was a catalyst for
some aspect of the state's reform movement; (10) state and local
officials said that Goals 2000 funding provided valuable assistance and
that, without this funding, some reform efforts would not have been
accomplished so quickly if at all; (11) state officials told GAO they
supported the flexible funding design of the Goals 2000 state grants
program as a way of helping them reach their own state's education
reform goals, and the program was achieving its purpose of supporting
systemic education reform in states and districts; (12) a number of
state officials noted that Congress' discussions about combining Goals
2000 funding with other federal funding in block grant approach caused
them concern, as they believe the increased flexibility of a block grant
could increase the risk that the funds would not be spent on education
reform; (13) however, Goals 2000 appears to be accomplishing what
Congress intended; and (14) it is providing an additional and flexible
funding source to promote coordinated improvements to state and local
education systems.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  HEHS-99-10
     TITLE:  Goals 2000: Flexible Funding Supports State and Local 
             Education Reform
      DATE:  11/16/98
   SUBJECT:  Funds management
             Educational grants
             Block grants
             Grants to local governments
             Grants to states
             Federal grants
             School districts
             Teacher education
             Educational standards
IDENTIFIER:  Goals 2000
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to Congressional Committees

November 1998

GOALS 2000 - FLEXIBLE FUNDING
SUPPORTS STATE AND LOCAL EDUCATION
REFORM

GAO/HEHS-99-10

Goals 2000 Funding

(104902)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  ESEA - Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
  LEA - local education agencies
  TEKS - Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-278982

November 16, 1998

The Honorable William Goodling
Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce
House of Representatives

The Honorable Peter Hoekstra
Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight
 and Investigations
Committee on Education and the Workforce
House of Representatives

The Honorable Frank Riggs
Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
 Youth, and Families
Committee on Education and the Workforce
House of Representatives

Despite broad legislative and public consensus that higher learning
standards and other reforms are needed within the nation's schools,
there is substantially less agreement about who should be involved
setting the agenda for reform.  In 1994, the Congress passed the
Goals 2000:  Educate America Act, which provides grants to states and
localities for systemic education reform efforts.  Controversy about
the extent to which the federal government should be involved in
education policy led the Congress to amend the act in 1996 to reduce
the requirements states would have to meet to receive access to Goals
2000 funding. 

In fiscal years 1994 through 1997, the Department of Education
provided more than $1.25 billion in formula-based\1 grants to states
under title III of Goals 2000 for the purpose of systemic education
reform.  The program requires that 90 percent of the funds be awarded
as competitive subgrants to local school districts.\2 However, little
comprehensive information has been developed to determine what
activities these grants are funding at the state or local level. 
Therefore, you asked us to review the Goals 2000 program to determine
(1) how its funds have been spent at both the state and local levels,
including the levels of funding for developing standards and
assessments as well as health education, and (2) how state and local
officials view Goals 2000 as a means to promote education reform
efforts. 

In conducting our work, we interviewed federal, state, and district
officials, visited selected states,\3 and reviewed relevant
documents.  We surveyed Goals 2000 coordinators in all states.  We
also collected national, state, and district documents about the
program, including a description of each of the 16,375 subgrants
reported made with funds from fiscal years 1994 through 1997.\4 To
obtain in-depth and specific information about how the program has
been used to promote education reform, we made site visits to 10
states, where we interviewed state and district officials.  We also
obtained and reviewed various state and federal audit reports
relevant to the examination of Goals 2000 expenditures and obtained
financial data from states on the funds they elected to retain at the
state level.  We conducted our work in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards between November 1997 and
October 1998.  (See app.  I for further details of our scope and
methodology and a list of states we visited.)


--------------------
\1 State allocations are made on the basis of two factors:  50
percent in accordance with the relative amounts each state would have
received under chapter 1 of title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) for the preceding fiscal year; and 50
percent allocated in accordance with the states' relative share under
part A of chapter 2 of title I of ESEA for the preceding fiscal year. 

\2 In the program's first year, only 60 percent of the Goals 2000
funds had to be awarded as competitive subgrants. 

\3 In this report, we use the term "states" to refer also to the
governments of the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.  The U.S. 
Territories also participate in Goals 2000 activities, but our review
did not include an examination of their activities. 

\4 Several states provided data for some but not all fiscal years for
either state-retained funds or subgrants. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

Goals 2000 funds are being used to support a broad range of education
reform activities at the state and local levels.  Grants to states in
the 4 fiscal years that we reviewed ranged from $370,000 to Wyoming
in fiscal year 1994 to $54.7 million to California in fiscal year
1997.  Over the 4-year period reviewed, Goals 2000 funds have been
broadly disseminated:  more than one-third of the 14,367 school
districts nationwide that provide instructional services have
received at least one Goals 2000 subgrant funded with fiscal years
1994 through 1997 funds. 

State-retained funds--about 9 percent of the total allocated Goals
2000 funds--were spent primarily for personnel, contracting services,
and consultants involved in activities such as managing the Goals
2000 subgrant program and developing standards and assessments for
reform activities in local school districts.  At the local level,
districts used Goals 2000 subgrant funds to pay for education reform
initiatives centered on several major categories:  local education
reform, such as developing reform plans and updating curriculum
frameworks; professional development; and technology acquisition and
training.  Other uses included preservice training for college
students who plan on becoming teachers; the development of education
standards and assessments; and crosscutting and other activities,
including a very small number of grants related to health education
activities.  For example, Goals 2000 funds paid for teacher training
to enhance understanding of new teaching practices and to improve
teachers' abilities to use technology in the classroom. 

Most states had begun their state education reform efforts prior to
receiving Goals 2000 funds; thus, Goals 2000 funds have generally
served as an additional resource for ongoing state reform efforts. 
The districts' Goals 2000 activities--such as curriculum development
and alignment with new state standards, teacher training, and
technology integration--appear to be aligned with state education
reform initiatives.  Many state officials reported that Goals 2000
has been a significant factor in promoting their education reform
efforts and, in several cases, was a catalyst for some aspect of the
state's reform movement.  State and local officials said that Goals
2000 funding provided valuable assistance and that, without this
funding, some reform efforts either would not have been accomplished
or would not have been accomplished as quickly. 

State officials told us they supported the flexible funding design of
the Goals 2000 state grants program as a way of helping them reach
their own state's education reform goals, and they said the program
was achieving its purpose of supporting systemic education reform in
states and districts.  A number of state officials noted that the
Congress' discussions about combining Goals 2000 funding with other
federal funding in a block grant approach caused them concern, as
they believe the increased flexibility of a block grant could
increase the risk that the funds would not be spent on education
reform.  However, Goals 2000, in its present form, appears to be
accomplishing what the Congress intended.  It is providing an
additional and flexible funding source to promote coordinated
improvements to state and local education systems. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

The Goals 2000:  Educate America Act, which became law in 1994 and
was amended in 1996, is intended to promote coordinated improvements
in the nation's education system at the state and local levels.  All
states and the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. 
Territories are currently participating in the program.\5

Goals 2000 funds aim to support state efforts to develop clear
standards for and comprehensive planning of school efforts to improve
student achievement.  Funds are provided through title III of the act
and are to be used at the state and local levels to initiate,
support, and sustain coordinated school reform activities.  (See app. 
II for a listing of allocations.) States can retain up to 10 percent
of the funds received each year, and the remainder is to be
distributed to districts through a subgrant program.\6 States have up
to 27 months to obligate funds; after this time, unobligated funds
must be returned to the federal government.\7

Goals 2000 requires states to award subgrants competitively.  To
comply with this component of the law, states' subgrant programs
require districts to compete directly against one another for funding
or compete against a standard set of criteria established by the
state to determine levels of funding for individual applicants.\8
Some states weigh districts' subgrant proposals against one another
and against standard criteria. 

Prior to the 1996 amendments, Goals 2000 was criticized as being too
directive and intrusive in state and local education activities.  The
act initially required that states submit their education reform
plans to the Secretary of Education for review and approval before
they could become eligible for grants.  The Omnibus Consolidated
Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 amended the law by
providing an alternative grant application process that did not
include the Secretary of Education's approval of a state's education
reform plan and eliminated some requirements for state reporting of
information to the Department of Education.  The amendment also
allowed local districts in certain states to apply directly to the
Department for Goals 2000 funds, even if their state did not
participate at the state level.\9

As a result of the 1996 changes, the Goals 2000 program is
essentially a funding-stream grant program with fiscal objectives.\10
These types of grants differ from performance-related grants, which
have more immediate, concrete, and readily measurable objectives. 
Funding-stream grant programs often confine the federal role to
providing funds and give broad discretion to the grantee.  They are
also the least likely of various grant types to have performance
information.  Goals 2000 does not have specific performance
requirements and objectives, and the Department of Education has
issued no regulations specifically related to performance by states
and districts concerning their activities under Goals 2000.  Rather,
the Department of Education provides states the latitude to merge
Goals 2000 funds with other funds from state and local sources to
support state and local reform activities.  However, the Department
has identified objectives in its annual performance plan that it
expects to achieve as a result of this program, along with other
education programs.\11


--------------------
\5 Montana and Oklahoma do not participate at the state level. 
Awards are being made directly to local education agencies (LEA) on a
competitive basis in these two states by the Department of Education. 

\6 On a few occasions, small amounts of additional funding have been
provided to states by the Department of Education (from funds that
went unallocated to other states) that, based on the Department's
determination, were not subject to the 90-percent subgrant
requirement. 

\7 At the time of our review, many states had not completed spending
their fiscal year 1997 funds.  As a result, fiscal year 1997 data in
this report are only partially complete. 

\8 In one state, our review identified that no criteria or
competitive process had been established and funds were being awarded
to all districts on an allocation basis.  According to the Department
of Education, this state's 1998 allocation has been temporarily
suspended but will be reinstated after the state has revised its
funding process to a competitive grant format. 

\9 The amendment also eliminated requirements related to the specific
composition of Goals 2000 state panels, which were to be put in place
to make policy decisions about the use of Goals 2000 funds and state
reform activities. 

\10 For a fuller discussion of the various types of federal grant
programs, see Grant Programs:  Design Features Shape Flexibility,
Accountability, and Performance Information (GAO/GGD-98-137, June 22,
1998). 

\11 The Department of Education identified goals and objectives in
its Annual Performance Plan for fiscal year 1999 that indicate the
expectation that this program, along with other education programs,
will result in improved student achievement. 


   GOALS 2000 FUNDS SUPPORT A
   BROAD RANGE OF EDUCATION REFORM
   EFFORTS AT THE STATE AND LOCAL
   LEVELS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

Goals 2000 funds, totaling about $1.25 billion for fiscal years 1994
through 1997, have supported a broad range of education reform
activities at both the state and local levels.\12

Of this amount, states reported that about $109 million (9 percent)
was retained at the state level where it was used for management,
development of statewide standards, and other related purposes.  The
remaining funding was provided in the form of subgrants to local
districts, consortia of districts, individual schools, and teachers. 
State program officials reported that subgrants supported a broad
array of district efforts to promote education reform activities and
keep up with new state standards and assessments.  These efforts
included developing district and school reform plans, aligning local
curricula with new assessments, and promoting professional
development activities for teachers.  Subgrants, with few exceptions,
were not used to support health-related activities.  (See app.  IV
for additional information on state subgrants.)


--------------------
\12 Although the Department of Education has allocated about $1.25
billion in grants, states have spent or obligated only about $1
billion of the funds thus far.  Information is currently incomplete
from as many as seven states. 


      STATE-RETAINED FUNDS HELPED
      MANAGE SUBGRANT AWARDS AND
      FUND SPECIAL PROJECTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

As permitted by the act, most states retained a portion of their
total Goals 2000 funds at the state level and used it primarily to
manage the subgrant program and support state-level activities.  (See
app.  III for state-retained funds by cateogry and fiscal year.) Many
states retained less than the maximum amount permitted, and a few
states retained almost no funds at all.  In some instances,
state-retained funds were combined with subgrants to support local
initiatives.  In the 4-year period that we reviewed, states were able
to provide detail on how $62 million in state-retained funds have
been used.  Of this amount, states primarily used Goals 2000 funds
for personnel and benefits and contract services and consultants. 
(See fig.  1.) Funds were also used for training and travel; printing
and postage; equipment and supplies; and rent, telephone, overhead,
and other costs not classified elsewhere. 

   Figure 1:  Identified
   State-Retained Funds, Total
   Fiscal Years 1994 Through 1997

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The largest category of state-retained funds where detail was
available was for funds reported as used for personnel and benefit
costs (44 percent).  These expenditures typically involved salaries
and benefits for state-level staff who managed the state's subgrant
program and other state-sponsored education reform activities. 
Generally, these personnel were responsible for disseminating
information on the Goals 2000 program, providing technical expertise
to districts regarding grant requirements, assisting district
personnel with proposal writing, reviewing districts' subgrant
proposals, and managing the subgrant selection process.  These staff
also typically monitored subgrantees' expenditures and reviewed
reports that subgrantees submitted regarding their projects. 

The remaining state-retained funds where detail was reported were
used for contract services, training and travel, printing and
postage, equipment and supplies, and other activities.  Contract
services and consultant fees constituted about 28 percent of
state-retained funds.  These expenditures were often associated with
state efforts to create new standards and assessments, develop new
curricula in alignment with the standards, and use outside experts to
research and develop these measures.  Travel, training, and
conference costs, accounting for about 9 percent of total
expenditures, typically supported state Goals 2000 panel activities
and training for teachers and administrators.  These funds were also
used to support state conferences designed to educate district and
school officials about Goals 2000 and allow them to share information
and collaborate on projects.  Printing and postage made up 7 percent
of state-retained funds, and funds used for equipment and supplies,
such as purchasing computer hardware and software, made up another 7
percent.  Other expenses--such as rent, telephone costs, overhead,
and other costs not classified elsewhere--accounted for the remaining
5 percent of the identified funds.\13 The additional $47 million
identified by states as having been retained at the state level had
either not yet been spent or could not be identified in detail. 

Most state officials said that Goals 2000 funding has been an
important resource in their states' development of new standards and
assessments, but they were unable to estimate how much future Goals
2000 funding they would need to complete these activities. 
Generally, officials said they were unqualified to make this estimate
because their involvement in the state's overall education reform
efforts was limited or they viewed the development of standards and
assessments as an iterative process that will never be fully
complete. 


--------------------
\13 Several states were not able to provide specific detail on
amounts of funding retained at the state level.  In these cases, the
total amount of state-retained funds reported was placed in the
"other" category. 


      SUBGRANTS TO LOCAL SCHOOL
      DISTRICTS SUPPORTED A WIDE
      RANGE OF EDUCATION
      INITIATIVES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

We identified 16,375 local subgrants totaling over $1 billion that
were awarded with funding provided in fiscal years 1994 through
1997.\14 As shown in table 1, the number of subgrants and total
dollar amount of subgrant awards rose each year between fiscal years
1994 through 1996.  (Amounts for fiscal year 1997 are incomplete
because several states had not yet awarded their subgrants for that
year at the time of our review.) Subgrants ranged from a $28 subgrant
that funded a reading professional development activity in a single
California school to a $6.1 million subgrant for fourth- to
eighth-grade reading instruction awarded to the Los Angeles Unified
school district.  More than 34 percent of the 14,367 school districts
nationwide that provide instructional services received at least one
Goals 2000 subgrant during the 4-year period reviewed.  Many
districts received Goals 2000 funding for 2 or more of the years we
reviewed. 



                          Table 1
          
           Subgrant Awards by Year, Fiscal Years
                     1994 Through 1997

                     Total
          Number    number
              of        of  Total dollar
          states  subgrant     amount of
Fiscal  reportin         s     subgrants          Range of
year    g data\a   awarded       awarded   subgrant awards
------  --------  --------  ------------  ----------------
1994          49     1,777   $66,648,311    $751-1,594,040
1995          52     5,484   295,861,631      28-3,269,061
1996          52     4,892   340,697,814     200-6,149,234
1997          45     4,222   302,275,725     402-4,700,000
----------------------------------------------------------
\a Includes the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. 

Over the 4-year period reviewed, Goals 2000 subgrants funded several
general categories of activities:  local education reform projects,
professional development, computer equipment and training, preservice
training, and standards and assessments.  Local education reform
projects and professional development, the two largest categories,
together account for about two-thirds of the subgrant funding.  Some
activities fell into a "crosscutting and other" category that
reflected activities that had been combined or were too infrequent to
categorize separately.  In cases where states could not identify a
single primary activity for a grant, we classified the grants as
having had a crosscutting purpose.  (See fig.  2.)

   Figure 2:  Subgrant Categories
   and Dollar Amounts, Total
   Fiscal Years 1994 Through 1997

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Table 2 summarizes some of the activities undertaken with subgrant
funds under each of the general categories. 



                          Table 2
          
           Examples of Activities in the Subgrant
                         Categories

Category        Activity
--------------  ------------------------------------------
Local           --Curriculum alignment with new state
education       education reform plans
reform          --Local improvement plans
                --Parent and public engagement in reform
                efforts

Professional    --Training for teachers to update their
development     skills in new teaching practices
                --Enrichment courses for teachers and
                staff

Preservice      --Training for university students who are
training        preparing to become teachers
                --Mentoring programs for new teachers
                --Observation of and participation in
                teaching

Technology and  --Purchase of computer hardware and
training        software
                --Networking schools to the Internet for
                educational purposes
                --Training teachers to use new technology
                --Courses for teachers so that they use
                technology in their classrooms

Standards and   --Standards for state and local education
assessments     service areas
                --Designing or selecting an assessment
                system for state and local education
                service areas
                --Aligning curriculum with standards

Crosscutting    --Combinations of any of the above
and other       --Subgrants that could not be included in
                the other categories, such as conflict
                resolution and after-school tutoring
                programs
----------------------------------------------------------

--------------------
\14 The total number of subgrants awarded may have been higher, but
some states were unable to provide complete information on their
subgrant activity in some fiscal years. 


         LOCAL EDUCATION REFORM
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2.1

Local education reform activities, constituting about 39 percent of
total subgrant funding, included activities such as the development
of district improvement plans, alignment of local activities with new
state education reform plans, and efforts to update curriculum
frameworks.  For example, Indiana awarded a subgrant to align
curricula and instruction and to design and implement an improvement
plan that allows secondary schools to build on foundations developed
at the elementary schools.  In Kentucky, state officials reviewed
their comprehensive reform activity and concluded that their plan was
missing a public engagement program for parents and community members
that would sustain education reform.  Thus, the state awarded
subgrants to improve public information, boost parental
understanding, increase families' understanding of technology, engage
parents, and broaden the reach of the school into the community. 


         PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2.2

Professional development activities, representing about 28 percent of
Goals 2000 subgrant funding over the 4-year period reviewed, included
activities such as updating teacher skills in new teaching approaches
and providing enrichment courses for teachers.  For example,
Tennessee provided a grant for 11 teachers to complete a year-long
Reading Recovery training program in strategies to teach the most
at-risk first-graders to read.  Teachers who participated in the
training program subsequently used the strategies to help 63 of 89
at-risk first-graders progress to reading at a level comparable to
the average of their class.  In the Troy, New York, area, subgrants
funded a series of professional development activities for staff
providing inservice programs, a curriculum workshop, and training in
the use of learning and telecommunications technologies as tools to
support innovative instructional processes. 


         PRESERVICE TRAINING
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2.3

Preservice training activities, which involved teachers-in-training
and university programs conducting new teacher training, used about 6
percent of the subgrant funds.  For example, subgrant projects funded
mentor programs in Illinois, where up to 50 percent of new teachers
leave the profession after 5 years.  In Peoria, Goals 2000 funded a
grant allowing education majors in local colleges to attend an
educators' fair, observe classes, create projects for classroom use,
and meet regularly with selected master teachers from the district. 
In Delaware, a subgrant funded technology and staff support for a
preservice program that allowed second-year student teachers to teach
during the day and attend courses by videoconference rather than
driving long distances to the state's only university with a
preservice training program. 


         TECHNOLOGY AND TRAINING
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2.4

Subgrants for computer equipment and training--which are used to buy
computer hardware and software, network schools to educational sites
on the Internet, and train teachers and staff on the effective use of
the new technology--amounted to about 10 percent of total funding. 
For example, a subgrant in Louisiana allowed a teacher to buy a
graphing calculator, which could be used with an overhead projector
to help low-performing math students better understand algebra.  In
some states, districts could purchase technology using Goals 2000
funds if the primary purpose of the subgrants involved meeting state
education reform goals.  Other states--including New Mexico, Kansas,
and Wisconsin--permitted districts to purchase technology using Goals
2000 funds only if the equipment was closely tied to an education
reform project.  As one Wisconsin official stated, "Districts cannot
purchase technology for technology's sake." A few states restricted
technology purchases in 1 or more years.  Oregon, for example, did
not permit districts to purchase high-cost computer equipment using
Goals 2000 subgrant funds.  However, some states, such as Virginia
and Alabama, required all subgrant projects to be associated with
technology.  Officials in these states told us that they had taken
this approach because their states tied their education reform
efforts to their state technology plans or because the approach was
one of the least controversial purposes available for using Goals
2000 funds. 


         STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2.5

Standards and assessments activities, accounting for about 5 percent
of total subgrant funding, included funding for such activities as
the development of standards, alignment of current curriculum
standards with new state content standards, and the development of
new or alternative assessment techniques.  For example, state
officials in New York said Goals 2000 funds are being used to clarify
standards for the core curriculum and to prepare students for the
state's regents examination for twelfth-graders--an examination all
New York students must pass to graduate from high school.  State
staff were also developing new assessments using state-retained
funds.  With Goals 2000 funds, Texas funded the development and
dissemination of its Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS)
program, which informs teachers about what students should know and
be able to do.  Goals 2000 paid for items such as a statewide public
and committee review of TEKS and subsequent revisions; printing and
distribution of TEKS following its adoption by the state board; and
ongoing support, including statewide centers, resource materials and
products, and training related to TEKS.  In Louisiana, Goals 2000
project directors reported that teachers in a number of subgrant
projects were able to experiment with alternative assessment
techniques.  Project directors reported that team planning and
networking made possible by Goals 2000 grants encouraged more applied
learning strategies and the use of alternative approaches to student
evaluation, such as portfolios, applied problem solving (especially
in math and science), the use of journals, checklists, and oral
examinations. 


         CROSSCUTTING AND OTHER
         INITIATIVES
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2.6

These subgrant activities associated with education reform,
reflecting districts' crosscutting approaches to meeting education
reform goals, accounted for the remaining 12 percent of subgrant
funding.  In many of these cases, state officials were unable to
identify a single focus for subgrant activities because they
reflected a combination of activities.  Some subgrants, for example,
combined development of a district improvement plan (a local
education reform activity) with teacher education on the new
curriculum (a professional development activity).  In Pennsylvania,
most of the $41 million in subgrants for the 4-year period had
several different areas of focus, such as a district's $462,100
subgrant identified as being for the development and implementation
of a local improvement plan, assessments, technology, and preservice
teacher training and professional development. 

Less than two-tenths of 1 percent of Goals 2000 subgrant funding was
identified as being used to support health-related education
activities.  In the 31 subgrants specifically identified as being
related to health issues, most involved nutrition and hygiene
education efforts that district officials believed were important to
the preparedness of their students to learn.  For example, a subgrant
in New Mexico focused on making children healthier and used subgrant
funds to implement a curriculum that taught children about health
issues, such as dental care, nutrition, exercise, and problems
associated with cigarette smoking and alcohol use.  According to a
state official, this proposal was in congruence with a comprehensive
health component that state officials had originally included in the
state's education reform plan because they believed that their reform
effort should address barriers to learning. 


   STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS
   BELIEVE GOALS 2000 FUNDS
   PROMOTE STATE REFORM EFFORTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Subgrants to local education agencies supported state education
reform efforts.  Professional development, preservice training,
standards and assessments, and technology subgrants generally were
aligned with state standards or reform priorities.  Almost all state
and local officials said Goals 2000 funds provided valuable
assistance to education reform efforts at both the state and local
levels and that, without this funding, some reform efforts either
would not have been accomplished or would not have been accomplished
as quickly.  Some officials said Goals 2000 had been a catalyst for
some aspect of the state's reform movement, though in most cases the
funding served as an added resource for reform efforts already under
way.  State-level officials voiced strong support for the program's
existing funding design. 


      STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS
      BELIEVE THAT GOALS 2000
      FUNDS HAVE FURTHERED STATE
      REFORM EFFORTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

Almost all of the state officials we interviewed told us that Goals
2000 funds furthered their state's and local districts' education
reform efforts by providing additional funding that they could use to
implement reform plans that they had already initiated.  In many
cases, state officials said that Goals 2000 state-retained funds or
subgrant money allowed the state and districts to accomplish things
that would not have been done--or would not have been done as quickly
or as well--had it not been for the extra funding provided by Goals
2000.  For example, one Oregon official said that Goals 2000 funding
was the difference between "doing it and doing it right" and that,
without Goals 2000 funds, the state would either not have been able
to develop standards or would have had to settle for standards only
half as good as the ones that were developed.  For example, Goals
2000 funds allowed Oregon to bring in experts, partner with colleges,
align standards, create institutes to help teachers with content
standards, and articulate the curriculum to all teachers to prepare
students for standardized testing.  Local officials in Kentucky
described how their Goals 2000 funded projects allowed them to make
progress in meeting their new state standards and speed their reform
efforts. 

In several cases, state officials reported that Goals 2000 had served
as a catalyst for a certain aspect of their reform efforts, such as
the development of standards and assessments.  For example, in
Nevada, a state official said that Goals 2000 was a catalyst for
developing content and performance standards that identified what, at
a minimum, students would need to master at certain grade levels. 
Before Goals 2000, the state did not even have the terminology for
standards-based reform.  Goals 2000 brought terminology and a
consistency of ideas regarding standards-based reform, he said. 
Goals 2000 was also a catalyst for education reform communication in
Missouri.  One state official reported that Goals 2000 was the
vehicle that got schools and universities talking for the first time
about issues such as student-teacher preservice training. 


      STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS
      SUPPORT THE CURRENT
      FLEXIBILITY OF GOALS 2000
      FUNDS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

While the scope of our work did not specifically include ascertaining
the view of state education officials on the format of the Goals 2000
funding, most of the officials we interviewed expressed support for
continuing the funding in its present format.  The Congress has been
considering changing the present format of Goals 2000 funding as part
of ongoing discussions on how to better assist states in their
education reform efforts.  Almost every state official told us that
flexibility is key to Goals 2000's usefulness in promoting state
education reform because states could direct these funds toward their
state's chosen education reform priorities.  The current level of
flexibility, officials told us, allowed states to use their
state-retained funding according to self-determined priorities as
well as structure their subgrant programs to mesh with their states'
education reform plans.  As one Washington state official said, Goals
2000 is laid out in the law with broad functions rather than with
specific programs, which has had an impact in bringing schools and
districts together to increase standards and prioritize issues rather
than developing program "stovepipes." A state official from Arizona
said that the flexibility permitted in determining how funds will be
used allows states that are at different points in the reform process
to use the funds according to their own needs--an especially
important feature given the wide variation among states with respect
to education reform progress.  In New York, local and state officials
described the Goals 2000 funding as being valuable because it allowed
the state to react quickly to problems and opportunities.  As one
official stated, "It allows you to change the tire while the car is
moving."

Further, several state officials told us that they did not want more
program flexibility, such as placing the funding into block grants
that could be used for many purposes in addition to education reform. 
Generally, these state officials wanted the funding criteria to
remain as they are with funds dedicated to systemic education reform
purposes at a broad level but permitting flexibility at the state and
local levels to determine what would be funded within that broad
purpose.  For example, Louisiana state officials said that they
feared the funding would be used in lieu of current state spending if
it were not earmarked for education reform and that this would reduce
the level of reform that would occur in the state.  In Nevada, an
official told us that he did not want Goals 2000 funds to be more
flexible because he thought this would cause the state to lose the
focus on the standards and improved learning that it has had under
Goals 2000. 


   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

Title III of Goals 2000 provided more than $1.25 billion from fiscal
years 1994 through 1997 for broad-based efforts to promote systemic
improvements in education.  State and local officials believe that
Goals 2000 funding has served a useful purpose by helping states to
promote and sustain their individual education reform efforts over
the past 4 years.  While the state-retained portion of funding
allowed states to employ staff to coordinate overall reform efforts,
the bulk of the funding was distributed as subgrants to thousands of
local districts where, according to state and local officials, it
enhanced their ability to develop education reform projects,
professional development activities, preservice training, and new
standards and assessments. 

Goals 2000 funds have provided an additional resource to enhance
education reform efforts and helped states promote and accomplish
reforms at an accelerated pace--which state officials believed would
not have occurred without this funding.  By giving states the
flexibility to target funds toward their own education reform goals,
states were able to direct funds toward their greatest priorities
within the broad constraints of the law.  While a program such as
this, which entails great latitude in the use of funds and requires
little in the way of reporting requirements, reduces some of the
states' accountability for process and results, Goals 2000 appears to
be accomplishing what the Congress intended--providing an additional
and flexible funding source to promote coordinated improvements to
state and local education systems. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

The Department of Education provided written comments on a draft of
this report.  The Department said that our report represents the most
comprehensive review to date of state and local activities supported
under Goals 2000 and that it would find this information extremely
informative in its consideration of reauthorization proposals.  Staff
from the Goals 2000 office provided technical comments that clarified
certain information presented in the draft, which we incorporated as
appropriate.  The Department of Education's comments appear in
appendix V. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1

Copies of this report are being sent to the Secretary of Education
and interested congressional committees.  We will also make copies
available to others upon request.  If you have questions about this
report, please call me or Harriet Ganson, Assistant Director, on
(202) 512-7014.  Other major contributors to this report are listed
in appendix VI. 

Carlotta C.  Joyner
Director, Education and
 Employment Issues


OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I

We were asked to (1) review the purposes for which Goals 2000
state-retained funds have been used, (2) determine what local
projects have been funded using Goals 2000 funds, (3) determine state
officials' views about how Goals 2000 relates to state reform, (4)
ascertain how much of Goals 2000 funds have been used for developing
standards and assessments and what future support is needed for these
purposes, and (5) find to what extent Goals 2000 funds have been used
for health education activities.  For reporting purposes, we combined
these questions into two broader objectives:  (1) how Goals 2000
funds have been spent at both the state and local levels, including
the levels of funding for developing standards and assessments as
well as health education, and (2) how state and local officials view
Goals 2000 as a means to promote education reform efforts. 

To conduct our work, we visited 10 states and interviewed federal,
state, and local officials in these states.  We also reviewed
documents from the Department of Education, state departments of
education, and the Council of Chief State School Officers; surveyed
Goals 2000 coordinators in all states; analyzed quantitative and
qualitative data from federal and state Goals 2000 offices and from
independent audits; and reviewed the statutory and regulatory
requirements of the Goals 2000 program. 


      DATA COLLECTION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.1

To obtain information about each assignment objective, we conducted
site visits to 10 states, which account for over 32 percent of the
4-year total Goals 2000 funding under review.  The sites visited were
California, Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, New
York, Oregon, South Carolina, and the District of Columbia.  The
selection of these sites was made on the basis of the 10 states'
funding allocations and geographic representation, the number of
subgrants awarded, activities we became aware of during our review,
and recommendations of the Department of Education and Council of
Chief State School Officers. 

At each site visit location, we interviewed state, district, and
school officials to obtain comprehensive and detailed information
about how the program has been used to promote education reform.  At
the state level, we spoke with various officials including state
superintendents, Goals 2000 coordinators and staff, and financial
officials.  At the district level, we spoke with representatives of
71 districts.  These included district superintendents, finance or
budget officials, district staff, teachers, and students.  In
addition to the site visits, we also conducted comprehensive
telephone interviews with state Goals 2000 coordinators.  Both the
telephone interviews and the site visits were used to obtain
information on how each state has used Goals 2000 funding to support
education reform.  These interviews also included queries on subgrant
selection criteria and processes, financial and programmatic
monitoring, and evaluation efforts. 

We surveyed each state, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico to
obtain financial and programmatic documentation of their Goals 2000
program.  (Although small amounts of Goals 2000 funds are provided to
the U.S.  Territories and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, we did not
review their programs.) We collected this documentation, reviewed it,
and cross-checked it with documents and funding reports from the
Department of Education and the Council of Chief State School
Officers.  We also clarified any discrepancies found in the data
during our interviews.  Documentation provided to us included
requests for proposals, state reform plans, progress reports, budget
and expenditure reports, and applicable audits.  We also gathered and
analyzed subgrant summaries from each state containing the name of
the recipient, category of the subgrant, and subgrant amounts for all
subgrants supported by Goals 2000 funds from fiscal years 1994
through 1997.  (See app.  IV.) For various reasons, several states
were unable to provide details on state-retained funds, subgrant
data, or both for 1 or more years. 

We reviewed title III of the Goals 2000:  Educate America Act and
analyzed regulations pertinent to the program.  This review provided
the foundation from which we analyzed the information collected.  In
conducting the data collection, we relied primarily on the opinions
of the officials we interviewed and the data and supporting documents
they provided.  Although we did not independently verify this
information, we requested copies of all state audits pertaining to
Goals 2000 and reviewed those we received for relevant findings.  We
also reviewed, for internal consistency, the data that officials
provided us and sought clarification where needed.  We did not
attempt to determine the effectiveness of the various grant-funded
activities or measure the outcomes achieved by the funded projects. 
We conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards between November 1997 and October 1998. 


GOALS 2000 ALLOCATIONS BY STATE
========================================================== Appendix II

From fiscal years 1994 through 1997, a total of $1,262,740,153 was
allocated to the states and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. 
The smallest allocation was $370,124 to Wyoming in 1994; the largest
was $54,659,343 to California in 1997.  (See table II.1.)



                                        Table II.1
                         
                         Goals 2000 Allocations by State, Fiscal
                                 Years 1994 Through 1997

                                             Fiscal year
                           ------------------------------------------------
State                              1994        1995        1996        1997         Total
-------------------------  ------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ------------
Alabama                    $1,601,966\a  $6,054,270  $5,677,245  $7,873,908   $21,207,389
Alaska                          459,903   1,576,670   1,437,615   2,012,267     5,486,455
Arizona                       1,362,358   5,553,830   5,039,674   7,200,481    19,156,343
Arkansas                        991,579   3,719,610   3,435,580   4,789,324    12,936,093
California                   10,524,929  42,909,245  39,219,914  54,659,343   147,313,431
Colorado                      1,085,028   4,369,790   3,923,495   5,573,529    14,951,842
Connecticut                     960,721   3,526,340   3,150,294   4,460,763    12,098,118
Delaware                        405,701   1,316,043   1,243,204   1,741,192     4,706,140
District of Columbia            476,000   1,552,282   1,353,518   1,901,747     5,283,547
Florida                       4,026,309  16,161,475  14,716,898  20,970,760    55,875,442
Georgia                       2,360,625   9,129,136   8,516,902  12,158,905    32,165,568
Hawaii                          417,148   1,407,840   1,307,959   1,828,675     4,961,622
Idaho                           886,746   3,280,645   3,078,560   4,251,947    11,497,898
Illinois                      4,142,656  16,295,422  15,054,163  20,905,456    56,397,697
Indiana                       1,734,498   6,681,414   6,282,288   8,768,489    23,466,689
Iowa                            886,746   3,280,645   3,078,560   4,251,947    11,497,898
Kansas                          864,615   3,254,439   3,100,308   4,352,008    11,572,370
Kentucky                      1,477,200   5,884,600   5,550,721   7,734,973    20,647,494
Louisiana                     2,066,082   8,118,921   7,643,793  10,544,733    28,373,529
Maine                           506,866   1,678,755   1,535,744   2,141,683     5,863,048
Maryland                      1,448,309   5,481,901   5,017,226   7,071,077    19,018,513
Massachusetts                 1,881,814   7,123,273   6,243,845   8,835,996    24,084,928
Michigan                      3,626,515  14,643,573  13,656,573  19,033,056    50,959,717
Minnesota                     1,387,624   5,479,003   5,063,215   7,094,888    19,024,730
Mississippi                   1,359,516   5,191,379   4,865,959   6,724,962    18,141,816
Missouri                      1,691,269   6,649,580   6,133,433   8,597,276    23,071,558
Montana\b                       449,712   1,589,716   1,459,914   2,039,546     5,538,888
Nebraska                        567,422   2,023,745   1,834,757   2,671,195     7,097,119
Nevada                          410,095   1,445,962   1,303,331   1,864,347     5,023,735
New Hampshire\b                       0   1,314,770   1,232,612   1,724,433     4,271,815
New Jersey                    2,447,997   8,959,127   7,905,923  11,105,340    30,418,387
New Mexico                      741,603   2,834,938   2,610,818   3,683,782     9,871,141
New York                      7,173,261  27,625,424  25,363,949  35,354,141    95,516,775
North Carolina                2,062,239   7,891,862   7,281,928  10,303,810    27,539,839
North Dakota                    406,274   1,366,000   1,260,263   1,763,429     4,795,966
Ohio                          3,715,308  15,114,621  14,230,028  19,789,214    52,849,171
Oklahoma\b                    1,153,998   4,479,897   4,176,732   5,808,148    15,618,775
Oregon                        1,046,640   4,088,391   3,800,805   5,300,049    14,235,885
Pennsylvania                  4,074,763  15,823,266  14,467,654  20,231,189    54,596,872
Puerto Rico                   2,383,988   9,790,689   9,066,087  12,587,532    33,828,296
Rhode Island                    442,261   1,508,059   1,359,970   1,898,319     5,208,609
South Carolina                1,274,631   4,799,581   4,512,625   6,250,267    16,837,104
South Dakota                    426,975   1,439,331   1,310,208   1,832,682     5,009,196
Tennessee                     1,677,460   6,508,803   6,000,784   8,432,741    22,619,788
Texas                         7,293,999  29,781,653  27,193,507  38,173,252   102,442,411
Utah                            709,092   2,636,105   2,453,502   3,427,464     9,226,163
Vermont                         406,722   1,296,994   1,226,015   1,715,622     4,645,353
Virginia                              0           0   6,201,681   8,684,679    14,886,360
Washington                    1,581,128   6,448,910   6,058,289   8,475,603    22,563,930
West Virginia                   778,396   2,852,237   2,789,041   3,818,889    10,238,563
Wisconsin                     1,682,771   6,706,799   6,321,579   8,795,965    23,507,114
Wyoming                         370,124   1,286,866   1,224,422   1,712,611     4,594,023
Total                        91,909,582  359,933,82  337,973,11  472,923,63  1,262,740,15
                                                  7           0           4             3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a State officials in Alabama report that $1,506,644 of the 1994
allocation was returned to the federal government. 

\b Fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 1996 funds were awarded directly
to LEAs in Montana, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma on a competitive
basis.  Direct awards are also being made to LEAs in Montana and
Oklahoma with respect to fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 funds. 

Source:  Department of Education, Goals 2000:  Reforming Education to
Improve Student Achievement (Washington, D.C.:  Apr.  30, 1998). 


STATE-RETAINED FUNDS, FISCAL YEARS
1994 THROUGH 1997
========================================================= Appendix III

The Goals 2000:  Educate America Act permits states to retain a
portion of their total Goals 2000 funds at the state level--up to 40
percent in fiscal year 1994 and 10 percent thereafter--to develop
state reform plans and engage in statewide activities.  States
primarily use this portion to manage the district subgrant program
and support state-level activities.  Many states retained less than
the maximum amount permitted, and a few states retained almost no
funds at all.  As shown in table III.1 below, states primarily used
Goals 2000 funds for personnel and benefits; contract services and
consultants; and, to a lesser extent printing, travel, equipment,
training, supplies, and conferences.  Other expenses such as rent,
telephone, and postage (along with indirect and other costs not
elsewhere classified) accounted for the remainder.  In cases where
states could not provide specific categorizations for the
state-retained funds they reported, these amounts were included in
the "other" category. 



                                       Table III.1
                         
                         State-Retained Funds, Fiscal Years 1994
                                       Through 1997

                                       Fiscal year
                      ----------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Percent
                                                                                   age of
Category                    1994        1995        1996        1997       Total    total
--------------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  -------
Personnel             $5,655,049  $5,869,961  $5,711,944  $5,400,909  $22,637,86   36.53%
                                                                               3
Contract services      2,994,257   3,989,512   3,216,021   1,918,346  12,118,136    19.55
Consultants              969,623   1,660,080   1,574,329   1,203,242   5,407,274     8.72
Benefits               1,170,762   1,234,397   1,084,094   1,041,630   4,530,884     7.31
Printing                 577,852   1,348,905   1,133,977     583,514   3,644,249     5.88
Travel                   883,918     693,781     607,294     495,844   2,680,837     4.33
Indirect costs           694,584     947,092     272,712     520,714   2,435,102     3.93
Equipment                442,752     748,424     662,626     523,186   2,376,987     3.84
Supplies                 272,218     432,879     390,065     596,191   1,691,353     2.73
Training                 100,709     269,014     190,766   1,040,954   1,601,443     2.58
Conferences              284,558     396,752     195,763     404,764   1,281,837     2.07
Postage                  159,972     320,662     208,622     195,038     884,295     1.43
Telephone                 79,847      55,090     106,128     106,017     347,082     0.56
Rent                      76,388      79,593      92,555      91,994     340,530     0.55
Total identified      14,362,489  18,046,142  15,446,896  14,122,344  61,977,871      100
Other                  7,973,658  10,027,963  11,256,353  18,192,127  47,450,101
Total                 $22,336,14  $28,074,10  $26,703,24  $32,314,47  $109,427,9
                               7           5           9           0          72
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

STATE SUBGRANT SUMMARY, FISCAL
YEARS 1994 THROUGH 1997
========================================================== Appendix IV

This appendix provides state-by-state information on subgrants made
to local school districts and other organizations.  Table IV.1 shows
the number and amount of subgrants in total for each state, table
IV.2 shows the number of subgrants by category for each state, and
table IV.3 shows the dollar amounts of subgrants by category for each
state. 



                          Table IV.1
           
           Total Number and Amount of Subgrants by
            State, Fiscal Years 1994 Through 1997

                              Total number   Total amount of
                              of subgrants         subgrants
State                             reported          reported
--------------------------  --------------  ----------------
Alabama                                252       $19,979,167
Alaska                                  92         4,353,861
Arizona                                603        17,641,591
Arkansas                               220        10,845,633
California                           1,645       127,283,487
Colorado                               185        10,966,855
Connecticut                            497        10,296,998
Delaware                                47         4,308,188
District of Columbia                   113         2,815,985
Florida                                205        48,299,495
Georgia                                372        29,441,191
Hawaii                                  53         3,214,053
Idaho                                   71         4,994,666
Illinois                               574        49,842,639
Indiana                                319        14,587,431
Iowa                                   105         9,867,688
Kansas                                 414         9,525,297
Kentucky                               313        17,839,264
Louisiana                              402        24,323,719
Maine                                  257         5,191,358
Maryland                                62        12,011,569
Massachusetts                        1,065        15,766,493
Michigan                               418        45,263,295
Minnesota                            1,016        14,813,650
Mississippi                            120         5,920,801
Missouri                               332         6,468,765
Montana                                 71         5,355,985
Nebraska                               103         5,804,004
Nevada                                  39         2,652,868
New Hampshire                           92         5,737,061
New Jersey                             147        19,262,471
New Mexico                             149         8,620,386
New York                               768        82,564,903
North Carolina                         257        23,460,901
North Dakota                           115         3,598,666
Ohio                                   684        34,548,585
Oklahoma                               136        14,337,184
Oregon                                 207        11,705,396
Pennsylvania                           343        41,244,436
Puerto Rico                            195        25,936,183
Rhode Island                           119         4,386,528
South Carolina                         286        14,589,041
South Dakota                           310         3,971,400
Tennessee                              481        20,043,462
Texas                                  833        96,091,946
Utah                                   136         8,685,960
Vermont                                182         3,770,013
Virginia                               264        14,578,163
Washington                             280        11,850,327
West Virginia                          209         5,278,253
Wisconsin                              134         9,292,200
Wyoming                                 83         2,454,019
Total                               16,375    $1,005,683,480
------------------------------------------------------------



                                        Table IV.2
                         
                          Total Number of Subgrants by Category,
                         by State, Fiscal Years 1994 Through 1997

                                   Profession             Standards
                         Preservi          al                   and
                    LEA        ce  developmen  Technolo  assessment  Crosscutting
State            reform  training           t        gy           s     and other   Total
-------------  --------  --------  ----------  --------  ----------  ------------  ------
Alabama               0         0           0       252           0             0     252
Alaska               35         0           0         0           0            57      92
Arizona             603         0           0         0           0             0     603
Arkansas            109        17          94         0           0             0     220
California          338        40       1,244         1           0            22   1,645
Colorado             43         2          35        20          53            32     185
Connecticut         300         3          78        43          62            11     497
Delaware              6         0           2        39           0             0      47
District of          91         1           4        16           1             0     113
 Columbia
Florida              57        48          25        16          10            49     205
Georgia             371         0           0         0           0             1     372
Hawaii               19         2           4         3           2            23      53
Idaho                18         0           5         0           0            48      71
Illinois            285        46         192        51           0             0     574
Indiana             162        31         125         1           0             0     319
Iowa                 66        12          23         1           1             2     105
Kansas              275       112           8        19           0             0     414
Kentucky            226        15          63         9           0             0     313
Louisiana           304        19          56         4          15             4     402
Maine               225        10          16         0           0             6     257
Maryland             60         0           1         0           1             0      62
Massachusetts       137       164         751         0           0            13   1,065
Michigan            180        16         218         3           0             1     418
Minnesota            66         0          31         0           0           919   1,016
Mississippi          54         7          51         0           0             8     120
Missouri             42         9          59         5         196            21     332
Montana              37         1          13        14           2             4      71
Nebraska             27         0          40        12          24             0     103
Nevada               18         3          18         0           0             0      39
New Hampshire        34         0           2        21           2            33      92
New Jersey           90         0          21        15          21             0     147
New Mexico           57        13          78         0           0             1     149
New York            150        42         533        20          18             5     768
North                50         0         107        49          12            39     257
 Carolina
North Dakota         46         3          29        13           2            22     115
Ohio                172        32           2         0         327           151     684
Oklahoma             60         4          24        34           2            12     136
Oregon                0         0           0         0           0           207     207
Pennsylvania         27         0          11        24          24           257     343
Puerto Rico          45        12          87        20           1            30     195
Rhode Island         38        19          37         0           6            19     119
South                 5         1           3         1         276             0     286
 Carolina
South Dakota         74         1           1       234           0             0     310
Tennessee           187         8          67       219           0             0     481
Texas               731         3          76        15           7             1     833
Utah                  8        10          99        12           2             5     136
Vermont             139         0          13         9          20             1     182
Virginia              0         0           0       264           0             0     264
Washington          206        19          55         0           0             0     280
West Virginia        88         0           9        14           3            95     209
Wisconsin            40        27          16        11          35             5     134
Wyoming              41         0           0        42           0             0      83
Total             6,442       752       4,426     1,526       1,125         2,104  16,375
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                                              Table IV.3
                               
                                Total Dollar Amounts for Subgrants by
                                Category, by State, Fiscal Years 1994
                                             Through 1997

                                       Profession               Standards
                                               al                     and  Crosscutti
                           Preservice  developmen              assessment      ng and
State          LEA reform    training           t  Technology           s       other           Total
-------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  --------------
Alabama                $0          $0          $0  $19,979,16          $0          $0     $19,979,167
                                                            7
Alaska            765,284           0           0           0           0   3,588,577       4,353,861
Arizona        17,641,591           0           0           0           0           0      17,641,591
Arkansas        4,734,317   1,053,405   5,057,911           0           0           0      10,845,633
California     30,189,540   9,828,655  77,565,292   4,700,000           0   5,000,000     127,283,487
Colorado        2,731,101       6,610   3,853,198     179,871   3,503,798     692,277      10,966,855
Connecticut     6,534,184      90,000   1,771,863     620,172   1,155,831     124,948      10,296,998
Delaware        1,297,234           0     117,610   2,893,344           0           0       4,308,188
District of       964,500     102,541     342,944     226,000   1,180,000           0       2,815,985
 Columbia
Florida        11,168,839  11,808,289   5,488,269   6,859,187   2,469,835  10,505,076      48,299,495
Georgia        29,278,703           0           0           0           0     162,488      29,441,191
Hawaii          1,200,272      48,541     186,584     231,421      99,084   1,448,151       3,214,053
Idaho             627,202           0     330,000           0           0   4,037,464       4,994,666
Illinois       24,133,099   2,106,213  16,357,091   7,246,236           0           0      49,842,639
Indiana         7,132,026   1,974,971   5,466,434      14,000           0           0      14,587,431
Iowa            5,330,172   1,824,960   2,091,410      21,146     350,000     250,000       9,867,688
Kansas          3,835,802   3,979,706     177,707   1,532,082           0           0       9,525,297
Kentucky       14,042,329     403,200   2,931,845     461,890           0           0      17,839,264
Louisiana      18,975,899   1,625,912   2,405,537     289,999     530,000     496,372      24,323,719
Maine           4,706,458     169,900     220,000           0           0      95,000       5,191,358
Maryland       11,551,569           0     210,000           0     250,000           0      12,011,569
Massachusetts   1,988,148   3,647,146  10,014,784           0           0     116,415      15,766,493
Michigan       14,984,882   1,352,353  28,161,525     749,535           0      15,000      45,263,295
Minnesota         944,639           0   1,331,371           0           0  12,537,640      14,813,650
Mississippi     2,811,500     425,000   2,450,301           0           0     234,000       5,920,801
Missouri          955,999     232,199   1,381,673      67,106   3,438,930     392,858       6,468,765
Montana         3,168,305      22,483     950,071     716,109     150,811     348,206       5,355,985
Nebraska        1,224,604           0   2,733,985     329,720   1,515,695           0       5,804,004
Nevada            950,677     437,719   1,264,472           0           0           0       2,652,868
New Hampshire   1,902,224           0      63,213   1,660,183     170,071   1,941,370       5,737,061
New Jersey     11,818,835           0   2,938,788   2,009,116   2,495,732           0      19,262,471
New Mexico      2,385,143     590,725   5,636,003           0           0       8,515       8,620,386
New York       15,927,003   6,909,568  51,374,835   3,214,579   3,326,119   1,812,799      82,564,903
North           4,971,712           0   9,269,825   4,688,318   1,223,570   3,307,476      23,460,901
 Carolina
North Dakota      933,471      80,425     835,599     369,157      70,700   1,309,314       3,598,666
Ohio            7,365,326   5,438,083      70,403           0   8,236,835  13,437,938      34,548,585
Oklahoma        7,696,935     354,229   2,365,283   2,827,453     143,840     949,444      14,337,184
Oregon                  0           0           0           0           0  11,705,396      11,705,396
Pennsylvania    2,149,965           0     760,000   2,780,000     955,206  34,599,265      41,244,436
Puerto Rico     6,661,302     865,606  11,541,261   4,019,045      50,000   2,798,969      25,936,183
Rhode Island    1,724,988     415,255     648,326           0     308,270   1,289,689       4,386,528
South             390,565       7,000     169,000      13,000  14,009,476           0      14,589,041
 Carolina
South Dakota      838,400      40,000      40,000   3,053,000           0           0       3,971,400
Tennessee       5,433,687     319,768   3,026,888  11,263,119           0           0      20,043,462
Texas          81,125,501     274,144  11,107,728   1,468,336   1,616,237     500,000      96,091,946
Utah              646,975     702,425   5,994,749     920,564     187,506     233,741       8,685,960
Vermont         2,678,342           0     247,631     198,071     633,469      12,500       3,770,013
Virginia                0           0           0  14,578,163           0           0      14,578,163
Washington      6,072,482   1,611,628   4,166,217           0           0           0      11,850,327
West Virginia   2,255,642           0     214,300     308,676      78,500   2,421,135       5,278,253
Wisconsin       3,582,525   1,882,950     571,900     426,500   2,721,500     106,825       9,292,200
Wyoming           361,489           0           0   2,092,530           0           0       2,454,019
=====================================================================================================
Total          $390,791,3  $60,631,60  $283,903,8  $103,006,7  $50,871,01  $116,478,8  $1,005,683,480
                       88           9          26          95           5          48
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix V
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION
========================================================== Appendix IV


GAO CONTACTS AND STAFF
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
========================================================== Appendix VI

CONTACTS

Harriet Ganson, Assistant Director, (202) 512-7014
George Erhart, Evaluator-in-Charge

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In addition to those named above, the following individuals made
important contributions to this report:  Dawn Hoff collected and
analyzed state information and drafted major sections of the report,
Sonya Harmeyer collected state information and had a lead role in
analyzing and developing graphic presentations of the data, Richard
Kelley gathered and assisted in the analysis of information from
states and the Department of Education, Edward C.  Shepherd and
Jennifer Pearl assisted in data collection activities, Edward Tuchman
provided assistance in analyzing and verifying data, Stanley
Stenersen assisted in structuring and reviewing the draft report, and
Jonathan Barker of the Office of the General Counsel provided legal
assistance. 


*** End of document. ***