Telecommunications Technology: Federal Funding for Schools and Libraries
(Letter Report, 08/20/1999, GAO/HEHS-99-133).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed federally created or
facilitated programs for helping schools and libraries with their
telecommunications and information technology efforts.
GAO noted that: (1) GAO identified 35 federal programs in 8 agencies
that could be used as a source of support for telecommunications and
information technology by libraries or elementary and secondary schools
in fiscal year (FY) 1998; (2) 10 programs specifically targeted
technology, while the remaining 25 included technology as one of many
possible uses of funds; (3) the 10 technology-targeted programs provided
about $650 million in FY 1998 and about $1.7 billion in discounts from
the universal service fund for January 1998 to June 1999; in 1997, 9
programs provided about $343 million; and in 1996, 8 programs provided
about $102 million; (4) for the 25 programs not primarily targeted to
technology, expenditures for technology cannot be precisely determined
because programs do not track how much they spend specifically for
technology, according to program officials; (5) with respect to funding
award procedures, 22 programs use a competitive process, while 12
distribute funding on the basis of formulas and 1 program uses both
methods; (6) estimates of administrative expenses for the 35 programs in
FY 1998 ranged from less than 1 percent to 15 percent and estimates of
the number of federal and nonfederal full-time equivalent positions
established to administer the programs ranged from less than 1 to nearly
200, depending on the program; (7) while multiple agencies have
responsibilities for managing programs in this area, based on GAO's
review, GAO did not identify instances where two individual programs
were providing identical services to identical populations--that is, had
the same goals, the same activities or strategies to achieve them, and
the same targeted recipients; (8) programs typically shared some
characteristics and differed in others; (9) while focusing their efforts
in different ways, both the Department of Education's Office of
Education Technology (OET) and the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP) have worked to coordinate federal education
technology programs; (10) OET's mission is to create policy and provide
oversight for technology issues within Education and to participate in
coordination activities and policy initiatives associated with education
technology across the federal government and within the education
community; (11) in contrast, OSTP focuses on broad national science and
technology goals, and facilitates the development and implementation of
federal policies associated with these goals, including coordinating
interagency efforts to develop and implement technology policies,
programs, and budgets; and (12) GAO did not identify information that
indicates that fraud, waste, and abuse are systemic or widespread
problems.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: HEHS-99-133
TITLE: Telecommunications Technology: Federal Funding for Schools
and Libraries
DATE: 08/20/1999
SUBJECT: Aid for education
Public schools
Libraries
Educational grants
Education or training
Information technology
Telecommunication
Redundancy
Interagency relations
IDENTIFIER: Dept. of Commerce Telecommunications and Information
Infrastructure Assistance Program
Department of Commerce Public Telecommunications
Facilities Program
******************************************************************
** 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 the Chairman, Committee on Commerce, and the Chairman,
Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives
August 1999
TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY -
FEDERAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS AND
LIBRARIES
GAO/HEHS-99-133
Telecommunications Technology Funding
(104974)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
AIR - American Institutes for Research
CFDA - Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
FCC - Federal Communications Commission
FTE - full-time equivalent
IERI - Interagency Education Research Initiative
IMLS - Institute of Museum and Library Services
LEA - local education agency
NEH - National Endowment for the Humanities
NIH - National Institutes of Health
NSF - National Science Foundation
NTIA - National Telecommunications and Information Administration
NSTC - National Science and Technology Council
OBEMLA - Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Language
Affairs
OEAM - Department of Commerce Office of Executive Assistance
Management
OET - Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology
OIG - Office of the Inspector General
OMB - Office of Management and Budget
OSTP - White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
PTFP - Public Telecommunications Facilities Program
SEA - state education agency
SLD - Schools and Libraries Division
TIIAP - Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure
Assistance Program
USAC - Universal Service Administrative Company
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-281492
August 20, 1999
The Honorable Tom Bliley
Chairman, Committee on Commerce
House of Representatives
The Honorable William F. Goodling
Chairman, Committee on Education
and the Workforce
House of Representatives
The nation's schools and libraries face a large bill for acquiring
telecommunications and information technology. A 1996 study by the
RAND Corporation estimated that providing a technology-rich
learning environment in every school would cost $10 billion to $20
billion per year.\1 Another organization has estimated that U.S.
schools are already spending more than $5 billion a year on such
efforts.\2 In recent years, the Congress has provided increasing
support, through a number of programs, for school and library efforts
to acquire information technology, including computer hardware and
software, wiring, Internet access, and teacher training. As the
number of federal programs providing such aid has risen, questions
have been raised about the potential for duplication, which can waste
scarce funds, confuse and frustrate program customers, and limit
overall program effectiveness.
You asked that we review federally created or facilitated programs
for helping schools and libraries with their telecommunications and
information technology efforts. In September 1998, we testified
before your Committees on the work we had conducted up to that
time.\3 As agreed with your offices, we have continued our work to
compile a more complete response. The specific questions you asked
us to address are shown in table 1. We are presenting brief answers
to these questions in the body of this report and more detail in the
appendixes.
Table 1
Research Questions Addressed in This
Report
Topic Specific question
------------------ --------------------------------------
Program What are the characteristics of each
characteristics program created or facilitated by the
federal government that can be used to
provide federal and private (such as
the E-rate\a program) funding for
public and private K -12 schools and
libraries for telecommunications
services, internal connections,
information services, computer
hardware, computer software, other
related technologies, and teacher
training, including
--the administrative costs, measured
in dollars and as a percentage of
overall program funding for fiscal
year 1998 (where available by program
at the federal level);
--the number of federal and nonfederal
full-time equivalents (FTE) allocated
to each program by function;
--the procedures that are used to
award funds;
--the total funding available for
fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998; and
--the actual funding levels for
technology for fiscal years 1996,
1997, and 1998?
Potential for What is the potential for duplication
duplication of programs for K -12 schools and
libraries as seen in the targeted
activities and recipients of each
program?
Coordination What efforts have been made to
efforts coordinate federal education and
technology programs? Specifically,
--What are the missions, activities,
and staffing levels of the Department
of Education (Education) Office of
Educational Technology (OET) and the
White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP)?
--What efforts are being made by these
offices to coordinate federal
education and technology programs?
--How can the Government Performance
and Results Act (the Results Act) be
used to coordinate and reduce
duplication in these programs?
Available What information, if any, is available
information on about each program's potential
fraud, waste, and problems regarding fraud, waste,
abuse abuse, and efforts to eliminate the
problems?
----------------------------------------------------------
\a The Federal Communications Commission's universal service
fund--known as the E-rate--provides discounts of 20 to 90 percent on
telecommunications services, Internet access, and internal
connections to eligible schools and libraries. The program is funded
by mandatory contributions from interstate telecommunications and
other service providers. The first discounts were funded for the
18-month period beginning January 1998.
--------------------
\1 Thomas K. Glennan and Arthur Melmed, Fostering the Use of
Educational Technology: Elements of a National Strategy (Santa
Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, 1996).
\2 Quality Education Data, 1997-98 Technology Purchasing Forecast
(Denver, Colo.: 1997).
\3 Telecommunications and Information Technology: Federal Programs
That Can Be Used to Fund Technology for Schools and Libraries
(GAO/T-HEHS-98-246, Sept. 16, 1998).
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
Policymakers at the federal, state, and local levels have
increasingly recognized that technology is becoming a central
component of many jobs, changing the skills and knowledge needed to
be successful in the workplace. The concern about the academic
competitiveness of U.S. students, coupled with these changes in
needed work skills, has heightened interest in integrating technology
into the elementary and secondary curriculum in an effort to address
both sets of needs. Schools have used a variety of funding sources
to establish and support their technology programs. Some rely on
state funding, while others use local tax moneys. Some private
funding is also available, and federal funding sources also play a
role in supporting technology. Our 1998 report on five school
districts found that each used a combination of sources to fund its
technology program.\4
In our previous work we determined that multiple federal agencies
provide funds that schools or libraries can use to obtain technology.
When more than one federal agency is involved in the same broad area
of national need, this is referred to as mission fragmentation.
While mission fragmentation and program overlap are relatively
straightforward to identify, determining whether overlapping programs
are actually duplicative requires an analysis of program goals, the
means to achieve them, and the targeted recipients. This kind of
analysis is consistent with the Government Performance and Results
Act of 1993.\5
--------------------
\4 School Technology: Five School Districts' Experiences in Funding
Technology Programs (GAO/HEHS-98-35, Jan. 29, 1998).
\5 Managing for Results: Using the Results Act to Address Mission
Fragmentation and Program Overlap (GAO/AIMD-97-146, Aug. 29,1997);
and Managing for Results: An Agenda to Improve the Usefulness of
Agencies' Annual Performance Plans (GAO/GGD/AIMD-98-228, Sept. 8,
1998).
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
To respond to your request, we examined four areas, with the
following results:
-- Program characteristics. We identified 35 federal programs in 8
agencies that could be used as a source of support for
telecommunications and information technology by libraries or
elementary and secondary schools in fiscal year 1998. Ten
programs specifically targeted technology, while the remaining
25 included technology as one of many possible uses of funds.
The 10 technology-targeted programs provided about $650 million
in fiscal year 1998 and about $1.7 billion in discounts from the
universal service fund for January 1998 to June 1999; in 1997,
they provided about $343 million; in 1996, about $102 million.\6
For the 25 programs not primarily targeted to technology,
expenditures for technology cannot be precisely determined
because programs do not track how much they spend specifically
for technology, according to program officials. However, 9 of
the 25 programs not targeted to technology were able to provide
estimates totaling about $108 million for technology in 1998.
In addition to the nine programs that provided estimates, a
recent report on Education's Title I program estimates that in
1997, about $240 million of the $7.3 billion in Title I funding
was spent on technology.\7 Also, in previous work we estimated
that for Education's Goals 2000 program in 1997, about $43
million of nearly $471 million was spent on technology.\8
With respect to funding award procedures, 22 programs use a
competitive process, while 12 distribute funding on the basis of
formulas and 1 program uses both methods.\9
Estimates of administrative expenses for the 35 programs in fiscal
year 1998 ranged from less than 1 percent to 15 percent and estimates
of the number of federal and nonfederal FTE positions established to
administer the programs ranged from less than 1 to nearly 200,\10
depending on the program. Because program characteristics differ,
administrative costs could vary significantly across programs. For
example, programs that distribute funding through a competitive
process may have proportionately higher administrative costs than
those that distribute funding through a formula because they must
carry out a grant proposal selection process that may include outside
reviewers to read and score grant applications. Appendix I presents
more detailed information on these program characteristics.
-- Potential for duplication. Funding aimed at enhancing
telecommunications and information technology in schools and
libraries can be delivered through 35 separate federal programs
administered by 8 different agencies. While multiple agencies
have responsibilities for managing programs in this area, based
on our review, we did not identify instances where two
individual programs were providing identical services to
identical populations--that is, had the same goals, the same
activities or strategies to achieve them, and the same targeted
recipients. Programs typically shared some characteristics and
differed in others. An example of two programs that share
similar strategies--distance learning technologies--but differ
in their goals and targeted recipients is Education's Star
Schools and the Department of Agriculture's Distance Learning
and Telemedicine grants. The Star Schools program's goal is to
improve instruction for elementary and secondary students in
underserved areas. In contrast, Distance Learning and
Telemedicine grants are intended to enhance health care and
learning opportunities for all individuals living in rural
areas. Our analysis of the potential for duplication among the
35 programs relied on agency program documents and interviews
with agency officials--we did not examine the implementation of
each program or individual grantee awards. Appendix II provides
a more detailed discussion of our comparisons of the programs
and the factors that affect the potential for duplication.
-- Coordination efforts. While focusing their efforts in different
ways, both Education's OET and the White House OSTP have worked
to coordinate federal education technology programs. OET's
mission is to create policy and provide oversight for technology
issues within Education and to participate in coordination
activities and policy initiatives associated with education
technology across the federal government and within the
education community. For example, OET worked with the American
Institutes for Research and the states to develop an educator's
guide for evaluating the use of technology in schools and
classrooms. In contrast, OSTP focuses on broad national science
and technology goals, and facilitates the development and
implementation of federal policies associated with these goals,
including coordinating interagency efforts to develop and
implement technology policies, programs, and budgets. For
example, OSTP was involved in discussions with Education
officials when the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund was being
developed. Once the legislation was passed, implementation of
the program and coordination with other involved parties were
the responsibilities of Education and OSTP was no longer
involved with the program on a day-to-day basis, according to an
OSTP associate director. In addition, the Results Act can be
used to coordinate technology efforts and reduce duplication by
providing the structure needed to study programs' goals, the
activities and strategies used to achieve them, and their
targeted recipients. Appendix III provides more detail on the
coordination efforts of these two offices.
-- Available information on fraud, waste, and abuse. Reports from
agency offices of the inspector general (OIG) are one source of
information on potential problems of fraud, waste, and abuse.
Based on our review of 17 of these reports, we did not identify
information that indicates that fraud, waste, and abuse are
systemic or widespread problems. However, some reports contain
examples of such problems for individual grantees. Ten of the
17 reports concerned Commerce's Telecommunications and
Information Infrastructure Assistance Program (TIIAP). However,
officials from the Department of Commerce's OIG recently
testified before the Congress that these audits did not identify
any major or systemic problems. Of the remaining seven reports,
only two had significant findings regarding questioned costs or
unapproved spending. Each of these two reports addresses an
individual grant projectan Education Star Schools grant and a
Commerce Public Telecommunications Facilities Program grant.
Both agencies report taking actions to protect against such
problems occurring in the future. Appendix IV presents--for
each of the 17 reports--more detailed information on the
findings, recommendations, and agency efforts to eliminate
problems.
--------------------
\6 Nine of these programs were operating in 1997, eight in 1996.
\7 U.S. Department of Education, Promising Results, Continuing
Challenges: The Final Report of the National Assessment of Title I
(1999).
\8 Goals 2000: Flexible Funding Supports State and Local Education
Reform (GAO/HEHS-99-10, Nov. 1998).
\9 The Institute of Museum and Library Service's Native American
Library Services Grants program provides competitive grant funding
through its Enhancement grants and formula grant funding through its
Basic Library Services and Technical Assistance grants.
\10 The Schools and Libraries Division of the Universal Service
Administrative Company contracts for customer support and application
processing for the E-rate. The contractor reported that it used
199.6 FTEs in fiscal year 1998.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
To identify programs, we reviewed the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance (CFDA),\11
Education documents, Congressional Research Service publications, and
our previous work. To obtain more detailed information about the
characteristics of each program, we conducted interviews with program
officials and reviewed pertinent documents such as program
application packages, regulations, and budget information. We did
not independently verify the information we obtained from officials
on administrative costs, numbers of FTEs, and the percentage of
funding used for technology, and we have not used that information as
support for findings or recommendations in this report. To assess
the potential for duplication among the programs, we developed a
framework based on standards set out in the Results Act and used it
to analyze data we had gathered on program goals, activities, and
targeted recipients. We limited our analysis to information provided
in agency documents and by agency officials and did not examine the
implementation of each program or individual grantees. To determine
existing efforts to coordinate funding sources across program and
agency lines, we conducted interviews with officials from Education's
OET and the White House OSTP and reviewed agency documents including
reports and performance plans. To identify available information on
potential fraud, waste, and abuse and efforts to eliminate them, we
interviewed program officials and officials from agencies' OIGs and
reviewed OIG audit and investigations reports and semiannual reports
to the Congress. We included reports and studies issued from October
1995 to March 1999. Additionally, we held discussions with Education
officials in the Offices of the General Council and the Chief
Financial Officer; we did not examine individual grantees. We
conducted our work from August 1998 to May 1999 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
--------------------
\11 The CFDA is a governmentwide compendium of federal programs,
projects, services, and activities that provide assistance and
benefits. Coordinated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
and compiled by the General Services Administration, the CFDA
contains information, both financial and nonfinancial, about programs
administered by federal departments and agencies.
AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
We provided a draft of this report to Education, Commerce, and the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). We provided relevant
portions of the draft report to Agriculture, the National Institutes
of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Institute
of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), the National Endowment for the
Humanities (NEH), and the White House OSTP.
In its comments, Education suggested that we expand our discussion
about mission fragmentation to capture broader program design issues.
It pointed out that, in previous GAO work on the Results Act, we have
said that multiple programs providing the same or similar services
can be beneficial if it occurs by design as part of a management
strategy. While we focus our discussion in this report on
duplication of program goals, activities, and targeted recipients, a
more detailed discussion about duplication in general can be found in
Managing for Results: Using the Results Act to Address Mission
Fragmentation and Program Overlap (GAO/AIMD-97-146, Aug. 29, 1997).
Education also expressed concerns about our discussion of OSTP,
Education, and NSF and their roles in the Interagency Education
Research Initiative. It said that readers could get the impression
that the interaction between NSF and Education is new and that NSF
has not been willing to provide such information. We revised the
wording for clarification.
Commerce, Agriculture, and NEH expressed concerns about the potential
for misinterpretation of administrative cost information. Commerce
said that comparison of administrative costs across programs is
unfair and would not be meaningful because (1) program administrative
costs are dependent upon the nature of the program and (2) the range
of activities included under administrative costs varies from program
to program. To address these concerns, we revised the report to
alert the reader that differences in program characteristics can
cause differences in administrative costs. Commerce also expressed
concerns that our reporting on the number of reports dealing with
fraud, waste, and abuse was potentially misleading because Commerce's
OIG issued a report for each grant audited while other agencies' OIGs
issued reports that combine audits of multiple grants. Commerce
pointed out that the 10 reports on a single Commerce program were not
comparable to the 7 reports on other programs. We did not base our
conclusions on the number of reports. We focused instead on whether
the reports had identified major or systemic problems. In addition,
we stated that Commerce OIG officials had reported that none of the
studies identified major or systemic problems. NEH emphasized that
their programs do not provide funding to acquire information
technology per se, but rather to support projects and programs that
help teachers access and use humanities materials in digital form.
However, we included in our list of programs that can fund technology
those that train teachers to integrate technology into the school
curriculum. Comments from the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce,
and Education and the National Endowment for the Humanities appear in
appendixes V through VIII.
The FCC, OSTP, IMLS, Education, Agriculture, Commerce, and NEH
provided technical comments, which we addressed as appropriate. NIH
and NSF did not provide comments on the report.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1
We are sending copies of this report to the Honorable Richard W.
Riley, Secretary of Education, and the heads of the other agencies
responsible for information technology programs. We will also make
copies available to others upon request.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact me on
(202) 512-7014 or Nancy Purvine on (206) 287-4800. Other
contributors to this report are Lise Levie, Susan Lawless, and Stan
Stenersen.
Marnie S. Shaul
Associate Director, Education, Workforce, and
Income Security Issues
PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS
=========================================================== Appendix I
What are the characteristics of each program created or facilitated
by the federal government that can be used to provide federal and
private (such as the E-rate program) funding for public and private K
- 12 schools and libraries for telecommunications services, internal
connections, information services, computer hardware, computer
software, other related technologies, and teacher training, including
-- the administrative costs, measured in dollars and as a
percentage of overall program funding for fiscal year 1998
(where available by program at the federal level);
-- the number of federal and nonfederal FTEs allocated to each
program by function;
-- the procedures that are used to award funds;
-- the total funding available for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and
1998; and
-- the actual funding levels for technology for fiscal years 1996,
1997, and 1998?
CHARACTERISTICS FOR 35 PROGRAMS
THAT CAN FUND TECHNOLOGY
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1
Table I.1 shows, for fiscal year 1998, the estimated program
administrative costs, the estimated federal administrative costs as a
percentage of total program costs,\12 and total program funding.
Administrative costs may vary among programs because some distribute
funding through a competitive process and some through a formula.
The competitive grant process involves reviewing and scoring grant
applications as part of selection procedures, while the formula grant
process does not. Additionally, the cost of this review process can
vary widely for a number of reasons. The number of grant
applications to be reviewed varied among the programs in our study
and, while most competitive grant programs hired outside experts to
perform this task, one program used volunteers and one used only
agency staff. Further, the Department of Education considered the
cost of these reviewers a program expense and other agencies
considered reviewers an administrative expense.
Table I.2 shows estimates of the total number of federal
full-time-equivalent (FTE) staff for each program, the number of FTEs
assigned to technology activities, the portion of total FTEs
allocated to implementing and awarding grants, and the portion
allocated to oversight. Table I.2 also shows estimates of the
portion of total FTEs that are professional staff and the portion
that are support staff. Regarding nonfederal or contract FTEs, just
three programs reported contracting for activities in addition to
hiring grant readers during the competitive grant selection process.
The Universal Service Administrative Company\13
(USAC) contracts for E-rate customer support and application
processing (199.6 FTEs). The Department of Commerce's
Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure Assistance Program
(TIIAP) and Public Telecommunications Facilities Program (PTFP)
contract for data system redesign, professional consultants, and
temporary administrative support, but do not track the number of FTEs
under these contracts. In addition, USAC's Schools and Libraries
Division (SLD) employs about 15 FTEs for a variety of activities
associated with E-rate administration including outreach and
education, office management, and technology planning.
Table I.3 shows which programs award funding through a competitive
process and which award funding using a formula. Table I.4 shows
program funding, estimates of the amount spent on technology, and the
estimated percentage of program funding spent on technology for
fiscal years 1996 through 1998.
Table I.1
Fiscal Year 1998 Administrative Cost
Estimates by Program for Programs That
Could Fund Technology for Schools or
Libraries
1998 estimated Federal
program administrative
administrative costs as a 1998 program
costs\a (in percentage of funding\c (in
thousands of total program thousands of
Programs dollars) costs\b dollars)
---------------------------- ------------------ ------------------ -------------------
Programs that target technology
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Education Technology $786 2.3 $34,023
and Media Services for
Individuals With
Disabilities
Star Schools 1,175 3.3 34,000
Technology Innovation 740 0.7 106,000
Challenge Grants
Technology Literacy 71 <0.1 425,000
Challenge Fund
Department of Agriculture
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance Learning and 2,010 13.9 12,500
Telemedicine Grants
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Telecommunications 1,823 8.4 21,767
Facilities Program (included in
program funding)
Telecommunications and 3,271 15.0 21,782
Information Infrastructure (included in
Assistance Program program funding)
Federal Communications Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Service Discount 26,909\e 2.4\f 1,108,982\f in
for Schools and Libraries discounts for the
(E-rate)\d 12 mos. beginning
1/1/98
National Institutes of Health
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information Systems and 97 5.9 1,550
Grants
National Science Foundation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connections to the Internet 4 2.6 147
Programs that do not target technology
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Native Student 35 3.7 905
Enrichment Program
Bilingual Education Capacity 1,996 1.2 160,000
and Demonstration Grants
Emergency Immigrant 25 0.02 150,000
Education Assistance
Program
Foreign Language Assistance 102 2.0 5,000
Eisenhower Professional 752 3.1 23,300
Development Federal
Activities
Eisenhower Professional 1,788 0.5 335,000
Development State Grants
Fund for the Improvement of 588 0.5 108,100
Education
Goals 2000 State and Local 1,590 0.3 466,000
Education Systemic
Improvement Grants
Javits Gifted and Talented 364 5.3 6,500
Students Education Program
Innovative Education Program 1,265 0.4 350,000
Strategies
Migrant Education Basic 1,958 0.7 299,475
State Grant Program
Migrant Education 31 0.5 5,998
Coordination Program
Magnet Schools Assistance 1,422 1.4 101,000
Perkins Act Tech-Prep 158 0.2 103,000
Education
Perkins Act Vocational 5,292 0.5 1,009,852
Education Basic Grants to
States
Perkins Act Vocational 315 2.4 13,013
Education Indians Set-
Aside
Special Education Grants to 6,913 0.2 3,807,700
States
Title I Grants to Local 7,028 0.1 7,375,232
Education Agencies
Twenty-first Century 353 0.9 40,000
Community Learning Centers
Women's Educational Equity 167 5.3 3,000
Act Program
Institute of Museum and Library Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Leadership Grants 2,805\g 2\g 5,488
Native American and Native \g \g 2,561
Hawaiian Library Services
Grants
State Grants \g \g 135,486
National Endowment for the Humanities
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promotion of the Humanities 655 12.4 4,649
Education, Development, and
Demonstration Grants
Promotion of the Humanities 617 9.2 6,107
Summer Seminars and
Institutes
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Administrative costs are in addition to program funding except
where noted. In those cases, administrative costs are included in
program funding.
\b Administrative cost as a percentage of total program costs is
calculated by dividing the 1998 administrative costs by the sum of
1998 program funding plus 1998 administrative costs, except for
programs that pay administrative costs out of program funds. In
those cases, administrative cost as a percentage of program funding
is calculated by dividing the 1998 administrative cost by the 1998
program funding.
\c Program funding includes all funding available as grants and
includes--but may not be limited to--funds spent on technology.
\d The E-rate is a discount; no direct funding is involved.
\e This includes both FCC and SLD administrative costs.
\f The E-rate was funded for the 18-month period from January 1,
1998, through June 30, 1999, and the administrative costs are for the
12-month period from January 1, 1998, through December 31, 1998. In
order to calculate administrative costs as a percentage of total
program costs on an annual basis, the 18-month figure of $1.66
billion was reduced by one-third to $1.1 billion. Even though
funding commitments were not made until late 1998 and early 1999,
applicants are being reimbursed the discounted portion of bills they
paid in full as early as January 1998. Therefore, the one-third
reduction is a reasonably accurate estimate. The administrative
costs in 1998 included substantial startup costs for system
development and a procedure design audit.
\g Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) officials said
they could not break out individual programs' administrative costs.
The total estimated administrative cost for all three programs is
$2,805,000. The administrative cost as a percentage of total costs
was calculated using the total funding for all three IMLS programs.
Table I.2
Federal Full-Time-Equivalent Staff by
Program1998 Estimates
Federal FTEs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Allocated to Allocate
implementing d to
Assigned to and awarding oversigh Profession Support
Programs Total technology grants t al (clerical)
----------------- -------- ------------ ------------ -------- ---------- ----------
Programs that target technology
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Education 8 8 \a \a 7 1
Technology and
Media Services
for Individuals
With
Disabilities
Star Schools 10 10 \a \a \a \a
Technology 6 6 \a \a 5 1
Innovation
Challenge Grants
Technology 1 1 \a \a 1 0
Literacy
Challenge Fund
Department of Agriculture
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance Learning 12 12 5 7 10 2
and Telemedicine
Grants
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public 12 12 7.5 4.5 9 3
Telecommunicatio
ns Facilities
Program\b
Telecommunication 24 24 15.5 8.5 21 3
s and
Information
Infrastructure
Assistance
Program\b
Federal Communications Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Service 2 0 0 2 2 0
Discount for
Schools and
Libraries (E-
rate) \b,c
National Institutes of Health
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.2
Systems and
Access Grants
National Science Foundation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connections to 0.1 0.1 \a \a 0.1 0
the Internet
Programs that do not target technology
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Native 0.3 0 \a \a 0.3 0
Student
Enrichment
Program
Bilingual 20 0 \a \a 18 2
Education
Capacity and
Demonstration
Grants
Emergency 0.3 0 \a \a 0.3 0
Immigrant
Education
Assistance
Program
Foreign Language 1 0 \a \a 1 0
Assistance
Eisenhower 6 0 \a \a \a \a
Professional
Development
Federal
Activities
Eisenhower 17 0 \a \a 15 2
Professional
Development
State Grants
Fund for the 5 0 \a \a \a \a
Improvement of
Education
Goals 2000 State 15 6 \a \a 12 3
and Local
Education
Systemic
Improvement
Grants
Javits Gifted and 3 0 \a \a 3 0
Talented
Students
Education
Program
Innovative 12 0 \a \a 10 2
Education
Program
Strategies
Migrant Education 19 0 \a \a 17 2
Basic State
Grant Program
Migrant Education 0.3 0 \a \a 0.3 0
Coordination
Program
Magnet Schools 14 0 \a \a 13 1
Assistance
Perkins Act Tech- 2 2 \a \a 2 0
Prep Education
Perkins Act 50 0 \a \a 40 10
Vocational
Education Basic
Grants to States
Perkins Act 3 0 \a \a 3 0
Vocational
Education
Indians Set-
Aside
Special Education 66 0 \a \a 58 8
Grants to States
Title I Grants to 67 0 \a \a 58 9
Local Education
Agencies
Twenty-First 3 0 \a \a 3 0
Century
Community
Learning Centers
Women's 2 0 \a \a 2 0
Educational
Equity Act
Program
Institute of Museum and Library Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National 3.6 0 2.6 1 3.4 0.2
Leadership
Grants
Native American 3.2 0 0.7 2.5 3 0.2
and Native
Hawaiian Library
Services Grants
State Grants 4.9 0 0.9 4 4.9 0
National Endowment for the Humanities
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promotion of the 7 0 7 0 7 0
Humanities
Education,
Development, and
Demonstration
Grants
Promotion of the 7 0 7 0 7 0
Humanities
Seminars and
Institutes
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This information is not tracked.
\b Three programs reported contracting for activities in addition to
grant readers for competitive awards. The USAC awarded contracts for
E-rate customer support and application processing (199.6 FTEs); the
TIIAP and the PTFP contract for data system redesign, professional
consultants, and temporary administrative support, but do not track
the number of FTEs under these contracts.
\c USAC's SLD employs about 15 FTEs for a variety of activities
associated with E-rate administration including outreach and
education, office management, and technology planning. The USAC is a
private, not-for-profit organization responsible for providing states
and territories with access to affordable telecommunications services
through the universal service fund.
--------------------
\12 We define total program costs as program funding plus program
administrative costs, which could either come from the program funds
or the department's administrative budget.
\13 USAC is a private, not-for-profit organization that administers
the universal service fund for the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC). The universal service fund was established to provide
residential customers with affordable access to basic telephone
service.
PROCESSES FOR AWARDING
FUNDING
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.1
Funding is awarded through one of two processes.
The competitive grant process typically begins with an announcement
in the Federal Register. Most programs also post information and
application packages on their Web sites and mail information to
potential applicants. Applicants--which could include schools,
libraries, nonprofit organizations, and local government
entities--generally have between 1 and 4 months to complete the
application paperwork, depending on the program. During this time,
program officials are available to provide information and, in some
cases, guidance on preparing grant proposals. When the application
period closes, program officials assemble a group of grant readers to
review the proposals. According to program officials, grant readers
typically have expertise in some aspect of the grant subject. For
example, according to a program official, the Technology Innovation
Challenge Grant program uses three types of grant readers: teachers,
school administrators, and educational technology experts from
outside the school system. Grant readers typically score the
proposals using established criteria. For example, Commerce's TIIAP
application package lists review criteria that include project
purpose, feasibility, and significance; community involvement; and
evaluation, documentation, and dissemination. Often, proposals are
rank ordered according to their scores as part of the process to
determine which will be funded.
The formula grant programs distribute their funds to eligible
recipients--usually state agencies--using formulas established by
legislation or regulation that determine the amount each receives.
For example, the formula that determines the amount of funding each
state receives from the Perkins Act Vocational Education Basic Grants
to States program is based on each state's per capita income and its
population of three specific age groups--with emphasis on ages 15 to
19. Many of the formula grant programs we identified included a
formula factor that gives priority to low-income populations. For
example, for Education's Eisenhower Professional Development State
Grant Program, the formula is based on each state's population of
children aged 5 through 17 and children from low-income families.
Most formula programs we identified required potential recipients to
submit a multiyear plan describing how the funding will be used. For
example, the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund program requires each
state education agency that applies for funding to submit a state
technology plan that includes a description of long-term strategies
for financing education technology in the state.
Table I.3
Processes for Awarding Funding
Competitive Formula award
Program award process process
-------------------------- -------------- --------------
Programs that target technology
----------------------------------------------------------
Department of Education
----------------------------------------------------------
Special Education x
Technology and Media
Services for Individuals
With Disabilities
Star Schools x
Technology Innovation x
Challenge Grants
Technology Literacy x
Challenge Fund
Department of Agriculture
Distance Learning and x
Telemedicine Grants
Department of Commerce
----------------------------------------------------------
Public Telecommunications x
Facilities Program
Telecommunications and x
Information Infrastructure
Assistance Program
Federal Communications Commission
----------------------------------------------------------
Universal Service Discount x
for Schools and Libraries
(E-rate)\a
National Institutes of Health
----------------------------------------------------------
Information Systems and x
Access Grants
National Science Foundation
----------------------------------------------------------
Connections to the x
Internet
Programs that do not target technology
----------------------------------------------------------
Department of Education
----------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Native Student x
Enrichment Program
Bilingual Education x
Capacity and Demonstration
Grants
Emergency Immigrant x
Education Assistance
Program
Foreign Language x
Assistance
Eisenhower Professional x
Development Federal
Activities
Eisenhower Professional x
Development State Grants
Fund for the Improvement x
of Education
Goals 2000 State and Local x
Education Systemic
Improvement Grants
Javits Gifted and Talented x
Students Education Program
Innovative Education x
Program Strategies
Migrant Education Basic x
State Grant Program
Migrant Education x
Coordination Program
Magnet Schools Assistance x
Perkins Act Tech-Prep x
Education
Perkins Act Vocational x
Education Basic Grants to
States
Perkins Act Vocational x
Education Indians Set-
Aside
Special Education Grants x
to States
Title I Grants to Local x
Education Agencies
Twenty-First Century x
Community Learning Centers
Women's Educational Equity x
Act Program
Institute of Museum and Library Services
----------------------------------------------------------
National Leadership Grants x
Native American and Native x x
Hawaiian Library Services
Grants
State Grants x
National Endowment for the Humanities
----------------------------------------------------------
Promotion of the x
Humanities Education,
Development, and
Demonstration Grants
Promotion of the x
Humanities Seminars and
Institutes
----------------------------------------------------------
\a The E-rate provides discounts; no direct funding is involved.
Table I.4
Program Funding and Estimates of Amounts
and Percentages for Technology, FY 1996-
98
FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998
---------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------
Estimated
amount for Estimated Estimated
Program technology Program amount for Program amount for
funding (in (in Percentage funding (in technology (in Percentage funding (in technology (in Percentage
thousands of thousands of for thousands of thousands of for thousands of thousands of for
Program dollars) dollars) technology dollars) dollars) technology dollars) dollars) technology
---------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ -------------- -------------- ------------ ------------- -------------- ------------
Programs that target technology
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special $9,993\a $9,993 100 $10,255\a $10,255 100 $34,023 $34,023 100
Education
Technology and
Media Services
for Individuals
With
Disabilities
Star Schools 23,000 23,000 100 30,000 30,000 100 34,000 34,000 100
Technology 38,000 38,000 100 56,965 56,965 100 106,000 106,000 100
Innovation
Challenge
Grants
Technology \b \b \b 200,000\c 200,000 100 425,000\d 425,000 100
Literacy
Challenge Fund
Department of Agriculture
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance 7,500 7,500 100 8,597 8,597 100 12,500 12,500 100
Learning and
Telemedicine
Grants
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public 16,425 14,303 87\e 16,461 14,623 89\e 21,767 19,944 92\e
Telecommunicati
ons Facilities
Program
Telecommunicatio 24,530 22,228 91\e 23,953 20,902 87\e 21,782 18,511 85\e
ns and
Information
Infrastructure
Assistance
Program
Federal Communications Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Universal \g \g \g \g \g \g 1,665,138 in 1,665,138 in 100
Service discounts in discounts in
Discount for the 18 mos. the 18 mos.
Schools and beginning 1/ beginning 1/
Libraries (E- 1/98 1/98
rate)\f
National Institutes of Health
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information 1,863 1,863 100 1,701 1,701 100 1,550 1,550 100
Systems and
Access Grants
National Science Foundation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connections to 596 596 100 467 467 100 147 147 100
the Internet
Programs that do not target technology
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Native \b \b \b 905 \h \h 905 \h \h
Student
Enrichment
Program
Bilingual 117,200 \h \h 141,650 \h \h 160,000 \h \h
Education
Capacity and
Demonstration
Grants
Emergency 50,000 \h \h 150,000 \h \h 150,000 \h \h
Immigrant
Education
Assistance
Program
Foreign Language 10,039 \h \h 5,000 \h \h 5,000 \h \h
Assistance
Eisenhower 17,984 360 -900 2 -5 13,342 267 -667 2 -5 23,300 466 -1,165 2 -5
Professional
Development
Federal
Activities
Eisenhower 274,265 \h \h 310,000 \h \h 335,000 \h \h
Professional
Development
State Grants
Fund for the 37,611 \h \h 40,000 \h \h 108,100 \h \h
Improvement of
Education
Goals 2000 State 340,000 34,997 10 476,000 42,854 9 466,000 \h \h
and Local
Education
Systemic
Improvement
Grants
Javits Gifted 3,000 300 10 5,000 500 10 6,500 650 10
and Talented
Students
Education
Program
Innovative 275,000 \h \h 310,000 \h \h 350,000 \h \h
Education
Program
Strategies
Migrant 299,475 \h \h 299,473 \h \h 299,475 \h \h
Education Basic
State Grant
Program
Migrant \b \b \b 5,998 3,300 59 5,998 3,300 59
Education
Coordination
Program
Magnet Schools 91,959 17,104 19 92,000 26 29 101,000 26,462 26
Assistance
Program
Perkins Act 100,000 \h \i 100,000 \h \i 103,000 \h \i
Tech-Prep
Education
Perkins Act 962,976 \h \h 1,004,904 \h \h 1,009,852 \h \h
Vocational
Education Basic
Grants to
States
Perkins Act 12,387 \h \h 12,592 \h \h 13,013 \h \h
Vocational
Education
Indians Set-
Aside
Special 2,323,837 \h \h 3,107,522 \h \h 3,807,700\j \h \h
Education
Grants to
States
Title I Grants 6,730,348 \h \h 7,295,232 240,000 3 7,375,232 \h \h
to Local
Education
Agencies
Twenty-First 750 \h \h 1,000 \h \h 40,000 \h \h
Century
Community
Learning
Centers
Women's 0 0 0 2,000 \h \h 3,000 \h \h
Educational
Equity Act
Program
Institute of Museum and Library Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National \g \g \g \g \g \g 5,488 4,116 75
Leadership
Grants
Native American \k \k \k \k \k \k 2,561 896 35
and Native
Hawaiian
Library
Services Grants
State Grants \k \k \k \k \k \k 135,486 67,734 50
National Endowment for the Humanities
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promotion of the 3,645 1,700 47 3,988 2,302 58 4,649 3,130 67
Humanities
Education,
Development,
and
Demonstration
Grants
Promotion of the 10,018 <100 <1 6,329 <63 <1 6,107 <61 <1
Humanities
Seminars and
Institutes
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The Technology Services program and the Media Services and
Captioning program were separate programs in 1996 and 1997.
According to a program official, this funding amount represents the
funding level for the Technology Services Program only. The Media
Services and Captioning program did not provide funding to schools or
libraries.
\b Not applicable--this program was new in 1997.
\c Includes $750,000 program evaluation set-aside.
\d Includes $2 million program evaluation set-aside.
\e We consider programs that target technology to be 100 percent for
technology, with the exception of the two Commerce programs that pay
administrative costs out of their program appropriation. (The
remaining programs pay administrative costs from separate
administrative budgets.)
\f The E-rate is a discount; no direct funding is involved.
\g Not applicable--this program was new in 1998.
\h Program officials said they were unable to provide an estimate of
the percentage or amount spent on technology.
\i According to the program director, this program is considered 100
percent for technology, but includes other types of technology in
addition to information and telecommunications technology.
\j Includes $6.7 million program evaluation set-aside.
\k According to an IMLS official, changes were made to the Native
American and Native Hawaiian Library Services program and the State
Grant program, when they were moved from the Department of Education,
that would make comparisons of 1998 data with 1996 and 1997 data
invalid.
POTENTIAL FOR DUPLICATION
========================================================== Appendix II
What is the potential for duplication of programs for K - 12 schools
and libraries as seen in the targeted activities and recipients of
each program?
POTENTIAL FOR DUPLICATION IS
LIMITED
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1
We analyzed the 35 programs that could fund technology for schools or
libraries, using a framework we developed during our work on the
Government Performance and Results Act.\14 While we found that there
are similarities among the programs, we did not identify instances
where two programs were designed to provide identical services to
identical recipients. We relied on agency program documents and
interviews with agency officials to ascertain the similarity of
goals, strategies, and recipients. From that review, we found that
programs varied in at least one of the three factors. Due to the
number of programs and individual recipients, we did not examine the
implementation of each program or individual grantee awards to
ascertain the similarity of goals, strategies, and recipients.
To more easily examine the three factors, we grouped the programs on
the basis of activities--whether technology is the only activity to
which a program's funds can be applied, and recipients--whether
schools or libraries are the only targeted recipients. As table II.1
shows, this produces four groups of programs. The first group
focuses on the programs that are most similar to each other because
they specifically target schools or libraries as the recipients and
technology as the strategy or activity to achieve program goals. In
contrast, the fourth group is the most varied. These programs target
neither technology nor schools and libraries, but permit spending on
many activities besides technology and provide money to recipients in
addition to schools or libraries.
Table II.1
Matrix for Grouping Programs That Can Be
Used for Technology
Types of recipients
----------------------------------------------
Schools or libraries
Schools or libraries allowed but not
Program purpose targeted exclusively targeted
---------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------
Technology targeted Category I: targets Category III: targets
schools or libraries technology but not
and technology (4 schools or libraries
programs) (6 programs)
Technology allowed but Category II: targets Category IV: does not
not exclusively schools or libraries target schools,
targeted but not technology (22 libraries, or
programs) technology (3
programs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
\14 Managing for Results: Using the Results Act to Address Mission
Fragmentation and Program Overlap (GAO/AIMD-97-146, Aug. 29, 1997).
CATEGORY I: PROGRAMS THAT
TARGET SCHOOLS OR LIBRARIES
AND TECHNOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:1.1
Four of the 35 programs fall into the category of targeting funds
exclusively to schools or libraries and technology. Education
administers three of the programs (Star Schools, Technology
Innovation Challenge Grants, and Technology Literacy Challenge Fund),
and the FCC administers the fourth (the E-rate). Table II.2 shows
the goals, activities, and recipients for these four programs. When
these programs are analyzed in terms of their goals, activities, and
targeted recipients, all four are found to be similar in one
aspect--they target school districts with a high percentage of
children from low-income families. In other respects, they vary; for
example:
-- Education's Technology Innovation Challenge Grants program and
the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund program are the most
similar. Both are aimed at using technology in the classroom,
both fund the same types of technology-related activities, and
both provide funding exclusively to schools. However, there is
a distinction between these programs: the Innovation Challenge
grants focus more on identifying innovative uses of technology
in the classroom, while the Literacy Challenge Fund grants focus
more on increasing the use of established technology and
integrating technology into the school curriculum.
-- The goals of the two remaining programs differ both from the
first two programs and from each other. The Star Schools
program focuses on improving student instruction through
distance learning technologies such as satellites and fiber
optics,\15
while the E-rate focuses on improving schools' and libraries' access
to telecommunications services. The Star Schools program provides
project grants, while the E-rate program provides discounts to
schools and libraries for specific kinds of technology--internal
connections, Internet access, and other commercial telecommunications
services.
Table II.2
Programs That Target Technology for
Schools or Libraries
Program Program goals Program activities Targeted recipients
------------- ------------------------ ------------------------ ----------------------
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Star Schools To use distance learning General projects that Priority to LEAs with
to (1) improve (1) develop, construct, a high percentage of
instruction in acquire, and maintain children from low-
mathematics, science, telecommunications income families
foreign languages, and facilities and
other subjects, such as equipment; (2) develop
literacy skills and and acquire live
vocational education; interactive educational
(2) serve underserved and instructional
populations, including programming; (3) obtain
the disadvantaged, technical assistance for
illiterate, limited- the use of such
English proficient, and facilities and
individuals with instructional
disabilities programming;
Dissemination projects
designed to provide
dissemination and
technical assistance to
help state education
agencies (SEA) and local
education agencies (LEA)
plan and implement
technology-based
distance learning
systems
Technology To implement, evaluate, Activities such as Priority to LEAs with
Innovation and document innovative software development; a high percentage of
Challenge applications of extending learning by children from low-
Grants information and computer connecting schools to income families
technologies to support other schools for
systemic educational collaborative learning
reform and to libraries,
businesses, and other
organizations;
professional development
that leads to effective
integration of
technology into the
curriculum; strategies
that use technology to
help at-risk students
achieve
Technology To implement state Apply technology to Priority to LEAs with
Literacy strategies designed to support school reform, a high percentage of
Challenge enable all schools to acquire hardware and children from low-
Fund integrate technology software to improve income families and
into school curriculum student learning, that demonstrate a
so that all students provide connections to great need for
become technologically telecommunications technology
literate in reading, networks to obtain
math, science, and other access to resources and
core academic skills services, provide
essential for their ongoing professional
success in the 21\st development in
century integrating technology
into the school
curriculum, and provide
education services for
adults and families
Federal Communications Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Universal To improve schools' and Internal connections, K -12 and vocational
Service libraries' access to Internet access, and education students and
Discount for modern other telecommunications library users; largest
Schools and telecommunications services discounts are given to
Libraries (E- services schools and libraries
rate) in districts with a
high percentage of
children from low-
income families
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
\15 Distance learning provides underserved populations, such as those
in rural areas, access to education and other services through
telecommunications technologies. For example, a teacher in one
location can teach students in another.
CATEGORY II: PROGRAMS THAT
TARGET SCHOOLS OR LIBRARIES
BUT NOT TECHNOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:1.2
The largest of the four categories includes programs that target
schools or libraries but do not target technology. Twenty-two of the
35 programs are in this category. These programs allow schools or
libraries to use funds for technology, but in many of the programs,
technology is only one of many activities to which the funding can be
applied. Education administers 19 of the programs, while the
Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), which supports all
types of libraries through grants and discretionary programs,
administers the three others.\16 Table II. 3 shows the goals,
activities, and recipients for these programs.
--------------------
\16 The Congress established this independent agency in 1996 to
improve museum, library, and other information services.
EDUCATION PROGRAMS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:1.3
Many of the 19 Education programs in this category share a similar
goal of improving student achievement or providing equal access to
education. Some are targeted to specific groups of students, such as
those with limited English proficiency, Native American students,
gifted students, disabled students, and students at risk of failing
to meet their state's academic standards. Others target aid to the
nation's schools in general. Here are examples that show the
differences between programs in this regard:
-- An example of a school-targeted program with a broad range of
activities is Education's Title I, Part A, Grants to Local
Education Agencies program, commonly known as Title I. Title I
funds are used to provide supplemental academic programs to
students at risk of failure and to support activities as varied
as paying for teachers, developing new curricula, and buying
instructional materials--including technology. Program
officials said that they do not keep track of how much of the
funding is spent specifically on technology, nor do they know
specifically what kinds of technology schools purchase.
However, a recent Education study estimated that technology
expenditures from Title I funding totaled about $240 million in
1997, or about 3 percent of the year's Title I funding.\17
-- An example of a more narrowly focused program is the Alaska
Native Student Enrichment program. The goal of this program is
to provide enrichment programs and family support services for
Alaska Native students from rural areas who are preparing to
enter village high schools so that they can excel in science and
mathematics. The activities used to meet the goal of this
program are broad in that they can include any activity that
will provide qualified students the services needed to help them
excel in science and mathematics. In 1997, three multiyear
grants were awarded; none of the grants were awarded to
elementary or secondary schools.
--------------------
\17 U.S. Department of Education, Promising Results, Continuing
Challenges: The Final Report of the National Assessment of Title I
(1999).
IMLS PROGRAMS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:1.4
The three programs administered by the IMLS--National Leadership
Grants, State Grants, and Native American and Native Hawaiian Library
Services Grants--are all targeted to libraries or museums; in one
case, grantees are limited to organizations that serve Indian tribes,
Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians. While the goals of these
programs are similar, there are distinctions that limit the potential
for duplication; for example:
-- The State Grants program is the only program that allocates
funds to all 50 states. This program establishes or enhances
electronic linkages between libraries to promote access to
learning and provide access to people of diverse backgrounds,
including those with disabilities or with limited functional
literacy or information skills.
-- The National Leadership Grants program provides grants for
specific activities such as educating and training library
professionals, enhancing library services through technology,
developing model programs of cooperation between libraries and
museums, and preserving unique library services. In 1998, this
program awarded 41 grants to organizations such as universities
and public library systems.
-- The Native American and Native Hawaiian Library Services Grants
program supports projects that establish or enhance library
services to federally recognized Indian tribes or organizations
that serve and represent Native Hawaiians. In 1998, 287 grants
were awarded.
Table II.3
Programs That Target Schools or
Libraries but Do Not Target Technology
Program Program goals Program activities Targeted recipients
------------- ------------------------ ------------------------ ----------------------
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Native To provide enrichment Activities (1) prepare Alaska Native students
Student programs and family qualified students who in rural areas
Enrichment support services for are preparing to enter preparing to enter a
Program Alaska Native students village high schools to village high school
from rural areas who are excel in science and
preparing to enter mathematics and (2)
village high schools so provide support services
they may excel in to the families of such
science and mathematics students
Bilingual To develop and enhance Programs that provide Students with limited
Education high-quality instruction direct services to English proficiency
Capacity and through bilingual students with limited
Demonstration education or special English proficiency
Grants alternative instruction through the school
to children and youth of system, family
limited English education, or early
proficiency to (1) childhood programs
develop proficiency in
English, and to the
extent possible, their
native language, and (2)
meet the state
achievement standards
expected for all
students
Emergency To assist SEAs and LEAs Funds are used to SEAs, LEAs, and
Immigrant that experience provide (1) immigrant children
Education unexpectedly large supplementary enrolled in public and
Assistance increases in their educational services, nonpublic schools
Program student population due (2) additional basic
to immigration in instructional services,
providing supplementary and (3) inservice
educational services and training for personnel
offsetting costs for instructing immigrant
migrant children children
Foreign To support innovative Projects that support K -12 students
Language model programs of innovative model
Assistance foreign language study programs of foreign
in public schools language study in K -12
schools
Eisenhower To develop and implement Projects that focus on K -12 teachers
Professional high-quality developing and
Development professional development implementing high-
Federal for K -12 teachers in quality professional
Activities the core academic development for K -12
subjects and stimulate teachers in the core
reform in professional academic subjects
development nationally
in areas that are likely
to generate findings of
national significance
Eisenhower To provide high-quality Activities ensure that K -12 teachers
Professional professional development teachers and other staff
Development activities primarily in have access to
State Grants science and mathematics professional development
but may also include that (1) is tied to
other core academic challenging state
subjects standards, (2) reflects
recent research on
teaching and learning,
(3) includes strong
academic content and
pedagogical components,
(4) incorporates
strategies for meeting
the needs of diverse
populations, (5) is of
sufficient intensity and
duration to have an
impact on teacher
performance in the
classroom, and (6) is
part of everyday life
and continuous
improvement
Fund for the To support nationally Funds may be used for a K -12 students
Improvement significant and wide range of projects
of Education innovative programs for under the authority of
improving education the program. Examples of
projects include (1)
Competitions for State
Partnerships for
Character Education to
teach caring,
citizenship, justice and
fairness, respect,
responsibility, and
trustworthiness; (2)
Blue Ribbon Schools
program to identify and
recognize outstanding
schools; (3) Christa
McAuliffe Fellowship
program to identify
outstanding teachers
Goals 2000, To provide grants to The program supports K -12 students and
State and state education agencies teacher preservice and teachers
Local to support comprehensive inservice training,
Education state and local development of standards
Systemic education reform tied to and assessments, local
Improvement high standards for all education reform
Grants students activities, technology,
and other crosscutting
activities
Javits Gifted To provide financial Projects must (1) Teachers and gifted
and Talented assistance to improve incorporate high-level and talented students;
Students the teaching and content and performance priority is given to
Education learning of gifted and standards in one or more projects that (1)
Program talented students of the core subject serve students who are
through research, areas, (2) provide economically
demonstration projects, professional disadvantaged, have
personnel training, and development, (3) provide limited English
other activities of training for parents to skills, are disabled,
national significance support their children's or are at risk of
educational progress, being unrecognized and
(4) include an underserved; and (2)
evaluation of the operate in Empowerment
project's activities, Zones and Enterprise
and (5) include Communities
innovative teaching
strategies
Innovative To assist education Technology to increase All K -12 students;
Education agencies in the reform student learning, funds are distributed
Program of elementary and teacher training, to LEAs according to
Strategies secondary education acquisition and use of the relative
instructional and enrollments in public
educational materials, and private, nonprofit
education reform schools within the
projects, programs to school districts and
improve higher-order are adjusted to
thinking skills of provide higher per-
disadvantaged K -12 pupil funding to
students and to prevent districts with high
student drop-out, numbers of children
literacy programs for from low-income
students and adults, families or in
programs for gifted and sparsely populated
talented students, and areas
school improvement and
reform activities
Magnet To provide grants to Programs for magnet LEAs and students that
Schools LEAs for use in magnet schools that (1) attend magnet schools
Assistance schools that are part of eliminate, reduce, or
an approved prevent minority group
desegregation plan and isolation in public K -
designed to bring 12 schools with
together students from substantial proportions
different social, of minority group
economic, racial, and children; (2) develop
ethnic backgrounds and implement projects
that will assist
systemic reform and
provide all children the
opportunity to meet
challenging state
content standards and
student performance
standards; (3) develop
and design innovative
education methods and
practices; and (4)
provide courses of
instruction that will
strengthen the knowledge
of academic subjects and
the grasp of tangible
and marketable
vocational skills of
students
Migrant To assist states to Activities that identify Migrant students with
Education ensure that migrant eligible children and priority to children
Basic State children meet the same their needs and provide at risk of failing to
Grant Program state content and educational and support meet state content and
performance standards services, teacher performance standards
all children are training, advocacy and
expected to meet outreach, parental
involvement activities,
and equipment
acquisition that address
the needs of eligible
children
Migrant To encourage interstate Works with (1) programs Migrant students
Education and intrastate in federal agencies that
Coordination coordination of migrant improve coordination
Program education and reduce the services to migrant
administrative costs of workers and families to
SEAs receiving Title I, develop programs that
Migrant Education encourage states to work
Program funds together by coordinating
identification and
recruitment efforts,
administer out-of-state
testing, utilize
distance learning
technology, and develop
multistate assessment
instruments; and (2)
programs that explore
the use of technology to
improve teaching and
learning for highly
mobile migrant students
Perkins Act To develop and operate Activities that provide Individuals who want
Tech-Prep 4-year programs designed a 4-year curriculum with to participate in a
Education to provide an education a common core in math, combined secondary/
program leading to a 2- science, communications, postsecondary program
year associate degree or and technologies leading to an
certificate and to designed to lead to an associate degree or 2-
provide, in a systematic associate degree or year certificate with
manner, comprehensive certificate in a technical preparation
links between secondary specific field, in at least one field
schools and including training for of engineering,
postsecondary teachers and counselors applied science,
educational institutions mechanical,
industrial, or
practical art or
trade; or agriculture,
health, or business
Perkins Act To assist states and Funds may be used for Ranges from high
Vocational outlying areas to expand any purpose or student school students to
Education and improve their so long as the larger adults who need
Basic Grants vocational education goal is to enhance retraining to adapt to
to States programs and provide vocational education in changing technological
special needs the school or program and labor market
populations equal access conditions
to vocational education
Perkins Act To provide financial Funds may be used for Federally recognized
Vocational assistance to Indian (1) remedial education, Indian tribes, Alaska
Education tribes or tribal only to the extent that Natives, and Bureau of
Indians Set- organizations and Bureau it is necessary for a Indian Affairs-funded
Aside of Indian Affairs- vocational education schools
funded schools to plan, student to benefit from
conduct, and administer vocational instruction;
vocational education and (2) the integration
programs of academic and
vocational education
through coherent
sequences of courses so
that students achieve
both academic and
occupational
competencies
Special To improve results for Federal funds are Children and youth
Education children with combined with state and with disabilities
Grants to disabilities by helping local funds to provide (aged 3-21)
States SEAs and LEAs provide all children with
children with disabilities an
disabilities access to appropriate education,
high-quality education including special
that will help them meet education and related
challenging standards services; funds are used
and prepare them for for teachers and other
employment and personnel salaries,
independent living education materials,
related services such as
special transportation
or occupational therapy
that allow children with
disabilities to access
education services, and
other education-related
costs
Title To provide supplemental Instruction and Students who are
I,Grants to academic support to help instructional support, failing or at risk of
Local students at risk of which includes hiring failing to meet state
Education failure to meet teachers and teacher academic standards
Agencies challenging academic aides, and purchasing
Agencies standards instructional materials
Twenty-First To provide grants to Activities must include Residents of all ages
Century inner-city and rural K - at least four of the within the communities
Community 12 public schools, or following kinds of served by the learning
Learning consortia of such programs: (1) literacy centers
Centers schools, to enable them education; (2) senior
to plan, implement, or citizen programs; (3)
expand projects that children's day care
benefit the educational, services; (4) integrated
health, social services, education, health,
cultural, and social service,
recreational needs of recreational, or
their communities cultural activities; (5)
summer and weekend
school programs in
conjunction with
recreation; (6)
nutrition and health;
(7) expanded library
service hours to serve
community needs; (8)
telecommunications and
technology education for
all ages; (9) parenting
skills education; (10)
support and training for
child day care
providers; (11)
employment counseling,
training, and placement;
(12) services for
individuals who leave
school before graduating
from secondary school;
and (13) services for
individuals with
disabilities
Institute of Museum and Library Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National To enhance the quality Projects include (1) Libraries and museums
Leadership of library services training and education
Grants nationwide and provide in library and
coordination between information science,
libraries and museums including graduate
fellowships,
traineeships,
institutes, and other
programs; (2) applied
research and
demonstration efforts
that emphasize access to
improved library and
information resources;
(3) preserving unique
library resources or
addressing the
challenges of preserving
and archiving digital
media; (4) developing,
documenting, and
disseminating both the
processes and products
of model programs of
cooperation between
libraries and museums
with emphasis on how the
community is served,
technology is used, or
education is enhanced
Native To support Indian Funds may be used to Indian tribal
American and tribes, Alaska Native provide library services libraries, Alaska
Native villages, and to the Native American Native villages, and
Hawaiian organizations that serve and Native Hawaiian organizations that
Library and represent Native communities for ongoing serve Native Hawaiians
Services Hawaiians in providing library services
Grants library services to provided by an
their communities established library, to
improve existing library
services, or to
implement new library
services as part of an
established library
State Grants To (1) consolidate Activities that Users of libraries and
federal library establish or enhance information services
programs; (2) promote electronic linkages
access to learning and among or between
information in all types libraries; and/or
of libraries; (3) electronically link
promote electronic libraries with
networks; (4) provide educational, school, or
linkages among and information services
between libraries; and
(5) target people of
diverse backgrounds,
individuals with
disabilities, and those
with limited functional
literacy or information
skills
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CATEGORY III: PROGRAMS
TARGETING TECHNOLOGY BUT NOT
SCHOOLS OR LIBRARIES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:1.5
Six programs have goals and activities targeted to technology but not
to schools or libraries. These six programs, shown in table II.4,
vary greatly in their goals, activities, and recipients. Some have a
broad focus, while others are relatively narrow; for example:
-- The TIIAP, administered by Commerce, provides funding for a
broad range of technology-related activities and for a wide
range of recipients. Its goal is to promote the development,
widespread availability, and use of advanced telecommunications
and information technology that serves the public interest. In
1998, libraries and K - 12 schools received or were
beneficiaries of slightly more than one-fourth of the 46 grants
awarded. The rest went to such organizations as police and fire
departments, health care providers, universities and community
colleges, and other community organizations.
-- The Special Education Technology and Media Services for
Individuals With Disabilities program has a much narrower set of
goals, activities, and recipients. This program promotes the
research, development, and demonstration of innovative and
emerging technologies for disabled children. A program official
said that grants from this program are awarded primarily to
universities and research organizations that specialize in
research activities for the disabled. Of the 36 grants awarded
in 1998, 1 went to a school district, 1 to a state education
agency, and none to libraries.\18
Table II.4
Programs That Target Technology but Do
Not Target Schools or Libraries
Program Program goals Program activities Targeted recipients
------------- ------------------------ ------------------------ ----------------------
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special To promote the Research, development, Children and other
Education development, and demonstration of persons with
Technology demonstration, and innovative and emerging disabilities and their
and Media utilization of technologies for families
Services for technology; and support children with
Individuals education media disabilities
With activities for children
Disabilities with disabilities
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public To extend Grants for the planning General public and
Telecommunica telecommunications and construction of students, with special
tions services, including telecommunications consideration to
Facilities public broadcasting facilities; matching projects that increase
Program services and grants for apparatus minority and women's
nonbroadcast necessary for the participation in and
technologies; increase production, ownership of public
public broadcasting dissemination, telecommunications
services and facilities interconnection, entities
available to, operated captioning, broadcast,
by, and owned by or other distribution of
minorities and women; programming and
strengthen the reception of
capability of existing noncommercial
public television and educational, and
radio stations; and cultural radio and
facilitate development television programs, and
of a variety of related noncommercial
technology-oriented instructional or
distance learning informational material
projects
Telecommunica Promote the development, Projects that improve General public
tions and widespread availability, the quality of, and the
Information and use of advanced public's access to,
Infrastructur telecommunications and cultural, educational,
e Assistance information technologies and training resources;
Program to serve the public reduce the cost, improve
interest the quality, and/or
increase the
accessibility of health
care and public health
services; promote
responsive public
safety; improve the
effectiveness and
efficiency of government
services; and foster
communication, resource-
sharing, and economic
development within
communities, both rural
and urban
Department of Agriculture
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance To enhance learning and Telecommunications, Individuals living in
Learning and health care computer networks, and rural areas
Telemedicine opportunities for rural related technologies
Grants residents that provide educational
and/or medical benefits
to students, teachers,
medical professionals,
and rural residents
National Institutes of Health
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information To foster the use of Projects that promote Health education
Systems and computer and sharing of information information providers
Access Grants telecommunications resources, particularly
technologies to those that (1)
coordinate and incorporate online
disseminate health access to National
information Library of Medicine
databases and (2)
improve information
availability in
underserved rural and
inner-city health
facilities and provide
AIDS information
National Science Foundation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connections Encourage Internet The acquisition and K -12 schools,
to the connections for highly maintenance of hardware libraries, and museums
Internet innovative strategies and software to
with potential for establish institutional
accelerating network access to the Internet
development as well as the
installation and
recurring charges for a
communication channel
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
\18 For the entire Technology and Media Services program, 85 grants
were awarded in 1998; 36 of the grants were awarded in the categories
that support the kinds of technology that could be used in the
classroom. The remaining 49 grants were primarily for captioning
services for the deaf.
CATEGORY IV: PROGRAMS THAT
DO NOT TARGET SCHOOLS OR
LIBRARIES OR TECHNOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:1.6
The three remaining programs that could be used by schools and
libraries as a technology funding source do not target schools or
libraries and also do not target technology. Two of the
programs--the Promotion of the Humanities Education, Development, and
Demonstration Grants and the Promotion of the Humanities Seminars and
Institutes--are administered by the National Endowment for the
Humanities. These two programs have similar goals and targeted
recipients in that both promote programs to improve teaching in the
humanities. However, there are differences. The former supports
projects that can strengthen teachers' abilities to engage their
students in the study of the humanities and determine how specific
topics are best taught and learned. The latter awards grants for
summer seminars and institutes to promote better teaching and
research in the humanities. The third program--the Women's
Educational Equity Act Program, which is administered by
Education--promotes equity in education for women and girls. See
table II.5 for more detail about these programs.
Table II.5
Programs That Do Not Target Schools or
Libraries or Technology
Program Program goals Program activities Targeted recipients
------------------ ------------------ ------------------ --------------------
Department of Education
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women's To promote gender Activities that Female students
Educational Equity equity in implement gender
Act Program education for equity programs in
women and girls in schools and
the United States develop model
equity programs
through research
and development,
including
development of
training for
teachers,
leadership
training for women
and girls,
programs that
enhance education
and career
opportunities,
assistance to
pregnant students
and students with
children to
complete secondary
school,
development of
educational
materials designed
to achieve equity,
and programs that
address sexual
harassment and
violence
National Endowment for the Humanities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promotion of the To support Projects that Teachers of
Humanities teachers and strengthen the humanities and their
Education, educational capacity of students
Development, and institutions at teachers to engage
Demonstration all levels to their students in
Grants engage students in the substantive
the study of the study of the
humanities humanities and
address how
specific
humanities topics
are best taught
and learned
Promotion of the Promote better Projects for K -12 and college
Humanities Summer teaching and summer seminars teachers, their
Seminars and research in the and national colleagues, and
Institutes humanities through institutes; students
faculty project awards
development support direct
costs, including
salaries,
participant
stipends,
selection costs,
travel, and
supplies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COORDINATION EFFORTS
========================================================= Appendix III
What efforts have been made to coordinate federal education and
technology programs? Specifically,
-- What are the missions, activities, and staffing levels of the
Department of Education Office of Educational Technology (OET)
and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP)?
-- What efforts are being made by these offices to coordinate
federal education and technology programs?
-- How can the Results Act be used to coordinate and reduce
duplication in these programs?
MISSIONS, ACTIVITIES, AND
STAFFING OF THE OET AND THE
WHITE HOUSE OSTP
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1
Education's OET and the White House OSTP have different missions
relative to technology. OET creates policy and provides oversight
specifically for educational technology within Education and
participates in coordination activities and policy initiatives
associated with education technology across the federal government
and within the education community. OSTP focuses on broad national
science and technology goals, and facilitates the development and
implementation of federal policies associated with these goals,
including coordinating interagency efforts to develop and implement
technology policies, programs, and budgets.
OET FOCUSES ON USING
TECHNOLOGY IN SCHOOLS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.1
OET's mission is to provide leadership in creating policy and
providing oversight for Education's educational technology
initiatives, according to the OET Director. OET also advises the
Secretary of Education and is involved in strategic planning
regarding educational technology, according to the OET Director. An
example of OET's activities was the office's collaboration with the
White House, in 1998, to host a meeting that brought together more
than 150 state and local educators, business and industry leaders,
and education association representatives to discuss and exchange
ideas for technology training for teachers. One result of this
meeting was a set of recommendations for a new teacher training
initiative--Technology Training for Teachers--to ensure that teachers
are proficient in using technology for teaching and learning.
OET, which is under the Office of the Deputy Secretary of Education,
is staffed by four professionals. In addition, the office generally
has one or two detailees--one from a school district or state
department of education whose salary is paid by Education under the
Intergovernmental Personnel Act, and one from another principal
office within Education, according to the OET Director.
OSTP PROMOTES THE
DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION
OF TECHNOLOGY FOR THE NATION
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.2
OSTP provides the president with scientific and technological
analysis and judgment with respect to major policies, plans, and
programs of the federal government. OSTP's Technology Division is
concerned with federal policies for developing technology to serve
broad national goals such as global economic competitiveness,
environmental quality, and national security. In developing national
policies, OSTP works with the president's Committee of Advisors on
Science and Technology, which is co-chaired by the president's
Advisor for Science and Technology, who also is the Director of OSTP.
This committee of national experts in science and technology provides
independent advice to the president on science- and
technology-related matters, including educational technology. For
example, in 1995, a panel of academic and private sector experts was
convened to address the administration's concern about issues related
to educational technology. The result of this effort was a report
that made specific recommendations in a number of areas, including
how technology should be used in the classroom, professional
development for teachers, and education research.\19 A direct result
of the recommendations of this report was an OSTP-led interagency
initiative for education research, including educational
technology.\20
OSTP had 32 federal FTEs in fiscal year 1998; staff were responsible
for all OSTP activities. Of these, 22.5 were professional staff and
9.5 were support staff. Additional staff, such as fellows and agency
representatives, were paid through their respective organizations or
agencies. However, only half of one professional staff year is
devoted specifically to educational technology issues (about a
quarter of two staff members' time).
--------------------
\19 President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology Panel
on Educational Technology, Report to the President on the Use of
Technology to Strengthen K - 12 Education in the United States (Mar.
1997).
\20 Agencies involved in this initiative are the National Science
Foundation, the Department of Education, and the National Institute
of Child Health and Human Development.
BOTH OFFICES PLAY A ROLE IN
COORDINATING FEDERAL TECHNOLOGY
PROGRAMS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2
OET
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3
Education's OET has a major role in coordinating educational
technology programs within the Department, across federal agencies,
and within the education community; for example:
-- Within Education, the OET Director meets regularly with
technology program officials and officials from various
department offices to share information on grant project best
practices and to discuss and resolve current issues, according
to an OET official. Information from these meetings is also
shared with grantees across the country. The OET Director meets
bimonthly with the representatives of Education's technology
programs, including the Technology Innovation Challenge Grants,
the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, Star Schools, Technology
for Tomorrow's Teachers, Learning Anytime-Anywhere Partnerships,
and Community Technology Centers. The Director also attends
meetings with officials from various Education offices,
including Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Higher
Education, Elementary and Secondary Education, Vocational and
Adult Education, and Educational Research and Improvement.
-- OET represents Education on various interagency committees to
identify mutual interests and determine ways that federal
departments and agencies can share expertise and resources to
avoid duplication of effort, according to an OET official. For
example, the director represents Education on OSTP committees
such as the National Science and Technology Council. The
director also leads an Education working group that addresses
issues related to the E-rate. Other participants include
representatives from Commerce, Agriculture, and the Office of
the Vice President.
-- Within the education and research community, OET brings parties
together to leverage resources. For example, when the state of
Nebraska created a curriculum of 50 on-line high school distance
learning courses as part of its Star Schools program, OET
suggested that the program's creators host an Internet
conference to share their experience with educators nationwide,
according to OET officials. In another project, the American
Institutes for Research (AIR) proposed to OET that AIR develop a
how-to guide for evaluating technology programs and tracking
results. After reviewing the draft, OET asked AIR to share its
work with the state directors of the Technology Literacy
Program. State officials provided input and the result was An
Educator's Guide to Evaluating the Use of Technology in Schools
and Classrooms, published in 1998.
OSTP
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4
OSTP's role in coordinating among federal agencies is to help bridge
the differences in agencies' cultures so that they can work together,
according to the Technology Division associate director. OSTP works
with the National Science and Technology Council, a Cabinet-level
council that coordinates the diverse elements of federal science and
technology research and development. The Council comprises
interagency committees and work groups. Each major committee is
co-chaired by a senior official from a federal agency or department
and is co-chaired by an OSTP associate director. Through the Council
and other, more informal means, OSTP provides leadership in
coordinating science and technology-related activities across the
federal government. OSTP has a broad role in coordinating education
policy and education technology as part of that effort, according to
OSTP officials. For example,
-- OSTP participated in the discussions with Education officials
when the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund was being developed.
Education officials said that the purpose of the fund was to
provide an incentive to states. To receive a share of the fund,
states were required to develop a plan for getting technology
into K - 12 schools and integrating it into the school
curriculum. States could then use the funds to purchase
technology. Once the legislation passed, implementation of the
program was the responsibility of Education and OSTP was no
longer involved.
-- OSTP is currently coordinating the Interagency Education
Research Initiative (IERI), a joint education research program
created to develop new ways of improving the core of K - 12
education. Education technology is a central element of the
research. Participants include Education's Office of
Educational Research and Improvement, the National Science
Foundation, and the National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development at the National Institutes of Health. This
interagency effort specifically links the best science in
teaching and learning to the development, evaluation, and
widespread dissemination of technology-based tools for teachers
and students to raise student achievement, according to an OSTP
associate director.
THE RESULTS ACT PROVIDES A
FRAMEWORK FOR COORDINATING AND
REDUCING DUPLICATION AMONG
FEDERAL TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:5
The Results Act's emphasis on outcomes implies that federal programs
contributing to the same or similar results should be closely
coordinated to ensure that program efforts are mutually reinforcing.
The act requires agencies to develop strategic plans and annual
performance plans that clearly specify goals, objectives, and
measures for their programs. Agency performance plans can provide
the basis for recognizing crosscutting efforts because they provide
information on programs that cut across agency lines and share common
goals. Agencies should identify multiple programs within or outside
the agency that contribute to the same or similar goals and describe
their efforts to coordinate with them, according to Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) guidance. However, because of the
iterative nature of performance-based management, more than one cycle
of performance plans will probably be required to resolve duplication
in programs.
In earlier work on the Results Act, we reviewed agencies' strategic
and performance plans.\21 In most plans we found that one of the most
challenging issues for agencies was recognizing the importance of
coordinating crosscutting programs. In our review of Education's
2000 Performance Plan, we found that the Department included a
discussion of the need for coordination with other federal agencies
for almost all objectives and, in general terms, the issues or
efforts that require this coordination. However, the plan did not
identify or describe common or complementary performance goals and
measures elsewhere in the federal government that relate to
Education's goals and measures.
--------------------
\21 Managing for Results: Agencies' Annual Performance Plans Can
Help Address Strategic Planning Challenges (GAO/GGD-98-44, Jan. 30,
1998).
INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON POTENTIAL
PROBLEMS OF FRAUD, WASTE, AND
ABUSE
========================================================== Appendix IV
What, if any, information is available about each program's potential
problems regarding fraud, waste, abuse, and efforts to eliminate the
problems?
NO EVIDENCE IN OIG REPORTS OF
SYSTEMIC OR WIDESPREAD PROBLEMS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:1
We limited our review to reports issued by the Education, Commerce,
and Agriculture Offices of Inspector General (OIG) between October
1995 and March 1999 and did not review individual grantees. We did
not find that fraud, waste, and abuse are systemic or widespread
problems for the programs that could fund information technology for
schools and libraries, although some OIGs identified instances of
such problems with individual grantees. Table IV.1 includes
information on each of the 17 OIG reports we identified. The OIGs
used different reporting styles--some issued single reports to cover
audits of multiple grants and some issued a single report for each
grant audited. Ten of the reports concerned a single
program--Commerce's TIIAP. However, OIG officials stated, in
testimony to the Congress in May 1999, that none of the TIIAP studies
identified major or systemic problems with grant recipients.
Just two of the remaining seven reports we identified--an Education
Star Schools project and a Commerce PTFP project--reported
significant questioned costs or unapproved grantee spending. The
Star Schools report found significantly deficient management
practices, including $1.7 million of unsupported expenditures--such
as nearly $700,000 in personnel and fringe benefits for which there
were no personnel activity records. Education's activities to
eliminate the reported problems include efforts to prosecute the
grantee organization criminally and to debar it from further federal
funding. The PTFP report found that project officials had misused
grant funds by paying for project operating expenses rather than
equipment for colleges, as intended. Commerce pursued prosecution of
the grantee and program officials report they are monitoring grant
applications to preclude the grantee from obtaining further federal
funding. Table IV.1 presents, for each of the 17 reports, more
detailed information on findings, recommendations, and agency efforts
to eliminate identified problems.
Table IV.1
Reports Identified
Program, reporting
organization, and
report date Objective of study Findings Recommendations Resolution
------------------ ------------------ ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------
Programs that target technology
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Education
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Star Schools To determine The grantee was not in compliance with grant Education should initiate action to debar In February 1998, Education issued a Program
Education OIG whether the requirements and its management of the project the grantee and its principal employees Determination Letter to the grantee
September 1997 grantee complied was seriously deficient. The grantee failed to from further participation in federal sustaining all OIG findings and seeking
with the terms and establish an adequate financial management programs. recovery of $1.6 million. The organization
conditions of its system, demonstrate fiscal responsibility, and that comprises the grantee filed for
grant provide sufficient services to the four partner Education should require the grantee to bankruptcy in March 1996. In June 1998,
cities through which the grant was administered. make the appropriate refund for any funds Education filed a claim for $1.6 million
Auditors reviewed $2.8 million of the total $4.5 received for which proper matching cannot with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, but payment
million awarded and found more than $316,000 used be established, refund $317,000 identified is not expected.
for unallowable purposes, including $5,200 in as used for unallowable purposes, provide
overdrafts and returned check charges; $1.7 proper documentation to support the costs The OIG Investigations Office conducted an
million in unsupported costs such as $693,440 in identified as unsupported and inadequately investigation and presented the case to
personnel and fringe benefits; and about $344,000 supported, and obtain the required criminally prosecute the grantee
in inadequately supported costs. Additionally, independent audit. organization and related individuals, but in
the grantee did not provide the required November 1998 an Assistant U.S. Attorney
financial and performance reports, including declined prosecution.
documentation supporting its 25 percent matching
expenditures, and did not obtain an independent According to an Education official, the
audit. Office of the General Counsel is planning to
send a letter of debarment to the grantee.
The OIG 1999-2000 Work Plan includes a
proposal for an evaluation of the process
used by various program offices to monitor
grantees.
Department of Commerce
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTFP Audit of the The program criteria, procedures, and practices The Assistant Secretary should direct the NTIA concurred with the finding and
Commerce OIG program's fiscal for soliciting, reviewing, and selecting awards PTFP staff to ensure that independent recommendations and stated that it has
March 1999 year 1997 generally complied with statutory, departmental, reviewers' scores are not adjusted by implemented the recommendations, starting
procedures and and National Telecommunications and Information program staff during the review process and with the fiscal year 1998 grant competition.
practices for Administration (NTIA) requirements and appeared require adequate documentation of the basis
soliciting, designed to result in merit-based awards. for making awards that deviate from the
reviewing, and However, for fiscal year 1997, program staff program director's recommendations.
selecting deviated from requirements by adjusting
applications for application evaluation scores. Additionally, the
financial selection official added three applications to
assistance; part the program director's list of recommended
of a Commerce- grantees without documenting the reasons for the
wide review of specific selections.
discretionary
financial
assistance
programs initiated
at the request of
the Chairman of
the Senate
Commerce, Science,
and Transportation
Committee
PTFP To determine if The grantee did not use all the $458,700 in grant None Commerce officials met with the U.S.
Commerce OIG, the grantee had funds for the intended purpose of purchasing and Attorney's Office to discuss both criminal
Investigations misused grant installing telecommunications equipment at and civil prosecution but the case was
Division funds awarded by several colleges. Instead, the grantee used the declined. According to an official, the
Memorandum of NTIA grant funds for daily operating expenses and program monitors grant applications to
Investigative never fully paid the vendors that supplied ensure that the same organization or any of
Findings $300,000 in equipment and installation. its key officials do not obtain further
February 1999 grant funds. The agency received a
settlement of about $3,000 after the grantee
declared bankruptcy.
TIIAP Audit of program's Program procedures and practices for soliciting, The Assistant Secretary should ensure that NTIA concurred with the finding and
Commerce OIG fiscal year 1997 reviewing, and selecting awards generally the basis for making awards that deviate recommendation and stated that it has
March 1999 procedures and complied with statutory, departmental, and NTIA from the program director's recommendations implemented the recommendation, starting
practices for requirements and appeared designed to result in are adequately documented. with the fiscal year 1998 grant competition.
soliciting, merit-based awards. However, the selection
reviewing, and official added nine and deleted seven
selecting applications from the program director's list of
applications for recommended grantees and did not provide written
financial documentation of the reasons for the deleted
assistance; part applications.
of a
departmentwide
review of
discretionary
financial
assistance
programs initiated
at the request of
the Chairman of
the Senate
Commerce, Science,
and Transportation
Committee
TIIAP To determine Auditors questioned $298,203 in project costs Commerce Director of the Office of According to a Commerce official, Commerce
Commerce OIG whether (1) costs including $273,107 in contractual costs, $22,748 Executive Assistance Management (OEAM) and the OIG have not yet agreed on a final
September 1998 incurred by the in indirect costs, $1,495 in equipment costs, and should disallow $298,203 in questioned resolution of the audit.
grantee were $853 in travel costs. costs and recover the resulting $106,107 in
allowable, and (2) excessive grant disbursements.
the grantee
complied with OMB
circulars, grant
terms and
conditions, NTIA
guidelines, and
other applicable
laws and
regulations
TIIAP To determine The grantee generally met the goals of the grant The OEAM Director should assess the effect After further review by NTIA and the
Commerce OIG whether the and performed many of the required tasks. of the two grant tasks that were not Commerce Grants Office, Commerce reinstated
November 1997 grantee had However, without NTIA approval, it did not implemented and either issue a grant all costs associated with the findings as
properly complete two minor tasks: (1) the grantee modification eliminating the two tasks or part of the grant.
administered the discontinued use of an information storage and require the grantee to complete the tasks.
grant-- retrieval tool proposed in the grant, and (2) the Also, the OEAM Director should recover
specifically, (1) grantee did not establish the cooperative $138,155 in questioned costs and disallow
had made progress agreements with local governments proposed in the $64,864 in excess grant disbursements as
in meeting grant agreement. Additionally, it incurred well as require the grantee to use
objectives; (2) $138,155 in questioned costs. appropriate accounting cost categories.
had claimed costs
which were
allowable,
allocable, and
reasonable; and
(3) had complied
with the financial
terms and
conditions of the
award and
applicable laws
and regulations
TIIAP To perform a The grantee's procurement system did not comply The OEAM Director should require the After further review by NTIA and the
Commerce OIG financial with federal standards. The grantee failed to grantee to implement and follow procurement Commerce Grants Office, Commerce reinstated
September 1997 compliance review follow and implement required procedures and procedures that meet federal standards for all questioned costs as part of the grant.
to determine (1) improperly incurred and charged $227,564 to the all contracts involving federal funds. Commerce will require a written
the allowability grant. certification from the grantee that all
of costs incurred future contract modifications will be
by the grantee, formalized with the appropriate paperwork in
(2) whether the accordance with federal procurement
grantee had standards.
complied with
applicable
guidance and the
grant terms, and
(3) whether the
project was
meeting its
intended goals
TIIAP To determine The grantee did not achieve two key goals--it The grants officer should evaluate the Commerce disallowed $77,496 in questioned
Commerce OIG whether the fell short of its goal to attract the number of feasibility of requiring the grantee to costs. These costs will be removed from the
August 1997 grantee had (1) proposed subscribers and it established only two complete all grant goals, require the final project costs and the grantee's
properly branch offices, rather than five as stated in the grantee to submit supporting documentation accounting records will be reconciled.
administered the proposal. Additionally, the grantee did not have for all matching share contributions, and According to a Commerce official, the
grant-- all nonfederal matching funds on hand when disallow $297,329 in questioned costs. grantee is in the process of closing the
specifically, had federal funds were released, did not provide them Additionally, the grants officer should project and Commerce's Grants Office is
made progress in at the same rate government funds were expended, recover $94,336 in excess disbursements waiting for final financial reports to
meeting its goals; and could not adequately support $266,306 of resulting from questioned costs and recover determine if funds need to be recovered.
(2) complied with claimed matching funds. Finally, the grantee the appropriate portion of any disallowed
the terms and incurred questioned project costs of $297,329. matching share contributions.
conditions of the
grant; and (3)
recorded costs for
the grant in
accordance with
OMB guidance
TIIAP To perform a $32,943 in project costs had been improperly For future grants to grantee, OEAM should Commerce upheld $22,553 in disallowed costs
Commerce OIG financial claimed including $27,843 of in-kind include in the agreement a requirement that and, according to a Commerce official, the
August 1997 compliance review contributions and $5,100 in inadequately support documentation for all claimed in- organization's financial records were
of the award; supported costs. The federal share of the kind contributions be provided to the adjusted at the closeout of the project to
specifically, to questioned costs was $24,346. The alleged misuse grants officer with each request for remove the disallowed costs. In any future
determine (1) the of funds was unsubstantiated. reimbursement. OEAM should also disallow grants to the organization, Commerce will
allowability of $32,943 in questioned costs and recover require support documentation for all
costs incurred by $24,346 in excess grant disbursements. claimed in-kind contributions.
the grantee, and
(2) whether the
grantee has
complied with the
applicable OMB
circulars, NTIA
guidelines, and
the grant terms
and conditions;
additionally, to
follow up on a
complaint alleging
fraud and misuse
of federal funds
by an organization
connected with the
award
TIIAP To determine The grantee improperly valued about $1.5 million NTIA should (1) disallow about $1.5 million The grantee generally agreed with the draft
Commerce OIG whether the in matching costs. The costs include improperly in improperly claimed in-kind audit findings and resolved some issues, as
February1997 grantee complied valued and inadequately supported third-party in- contributions, (2) recover almost $195,000 reflected in the final report. According to
with the terms and kind contributions, including computer equipment in excess grant disbursements, and (3) a program official, after further review of
conditions of the and other items. require the grantee to develop a verifiable information submitted by the grantee in
grant agreement, basis to value the use of the in-kind response to the final audit report, the OIG
OMB cost contributions. rescinded its recommendation and all costs
principles, and were reinstated as part of the grant.
administrative
requirements
TIIAP To determine the The grantee's records were inadequate to verify Commerce should suspend payments or After further review by NTIA and the
Commerce OIG grantee's about $639,000 of the $831,000 in claimed reimbursements to the grantee until the Commerce Grants Office, $591,121 of the
September 1996 compliance with matching costs. Additionally, the state is not state auditor certifies that the state can questioned costs were reinstated. According
the conditions of inventorying equipment contributed to the project verify the value of in-kind contributions to a Commerce official, the grantee had
the grant for its in-kind grant match in state accounting and that the state has inventoried the excess funds to draw from the grant and the
agreement and records. equipment contributed to the project for remaining $47,414 in disallowed costs were
other requirements its in-kind match. The department should not included as part of the final closeout
and to evaluate also disallow about $639,000 in questioned of the project.
the project's costs and recover about $74,000 in
progress and resulting excess grant disbursements.
ability to meet
its objectives
TIIAP To determine the After more than a year and having drawn down more NTIA should (1) decide within 30 days According to a Commerce official, the
Commerce OIG allowability of than half the grant funds, the grantee did not whether the project can be salvaged at no project was suspended and subsequently
September 1996 costs incurred by have the computer software program needed to additional cost to the government, (2) allowed to expire. Commerce established a
the grantee to operate the project. The grantee cannot account continue the suspension of payments or payment plan for the grantee to return funds
determine whether for or support $407,000 of its in-kind reimbursement to the grantee until claimed associated with the disallowed costs, and
it had complied contribution claims for the grant award. in-kind contributions are adequately the grantee is current with scheduled
with applicable supported, (3) amend the grant's special payments.
guidance and grant terms and conditions to include
terms and requirements that will protect the
conditions, and to government's interest, and (4) disallow
perform a program $471,818 in questioned costs and recover
results review of $165,973 in excess grant disbursements.
the project
TIIAP To perform an The grantee improperly spent $41,000 to upgrade NTIA should reject the grantee's request to After further review by NTIA and the
Commerce OIG interim cost audit its own computer system, which was not within the expand the project's budget and include Commerce Grants Office, Commerce reinstated
October 1995 and to determine project's approved budget, and violated several upgrading its own computer system, and all questioned costs as part of the grant.
whether the federal procurement standards in awarding a should withdraw the agency's approval of The grantee was cautioned that future sole-
grantee complied $50,000 sole-source contract. the sole-source contract and disallow all source contracting must be clearly justified
with applicable costs charged to the project under that and documented.
OMB circulars, contract.
NTIA guidelines,
and the grant
agreement's terms
and conditions
Department of Agriculture
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance Learning Study of four Grantees were eligible, funds were used properly, Rural Utilities Service should (1) monitor Agriculture officials agreed to develop
and Telemedicine program grant and the matching requirements were met. The grantees' disbursement of grant funds to procedures to monitor grantees' disbursement
Grants projects program appears successful in funding projects as assure timely disbursements, (2) develop of grant funds, ensure grantees comply with
Agriculture OIG evaluating the intended by legislation. However, two grantees policies and procedures to ensure grantees reporting requirements, and ensure grantees
March 1999 effectiveness of did not disburse funds to vendors in a timely comply with reporting and oversight account for equipment purchased grant funds
the programs, manner, resulting in increased interest costs requirements, and (3) develop policies and in accordance with federal standards.
eligibility of the totaling about $17,000. Additionally, the four procedures to ensure that grantees comply
grantees, proper projects had not filed all required financial with federal property management standards.
uses of funds, and status and performance activity reports. Finally,
adequacy of equipment was not properly accounted for and
oversight grantees were not aware of federal property
activities management standards for equipment purchased with
grant funds.
Programs that do not target technology
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Education
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bilingual To determine how Of the seven grants reviewed, none had been The Director of OBEMLA should work with OBEMLA did not agree with the recommendation
Education Capacity officials ensure reviewed by the Office of Bilingual Education and appropriate officials to (1) revise its to clarify the legislation regarding federal
and Demonstration that bilingual Minority Language Affairs (OBEMLA) or the state legislation to clarify the need and monitoring but indicated that it better
Grants program objectives education agency (SEA), and three of the seven requirement for federal monitoring reviews, serves grantees through technical assistance
Education OIG are being met; were not being implemented appropriately. Because and (2) develop and implement a monitoring conferences because of the numbers that can
June 1997 to determine if of the lack of monitoring, the inappropriate program to provide for thorough on-site be reached compared with on-site reviews of
the students' implementation continued undetected. On the other grant reviews and documentation of the grants. OBEMLA did concur with the
native languages hand, students' native languages were not being results. recommendation to develop and implement a
were being used used excessively in the projects and controls monitoring program and has taken steps in
excessively in the over language use appear adequate. that direction.
projects and
whether controls
over language use
appear adequate
Title I Grants to To determine what In the 36 LEAs visited (in 6 states), an average None. The OIG issued a separate Action Memorandum
Local Education percentage of of 92 percent of the dollars for the two programs to Education regarding the two LEAs that
Agencies and Title I, Part A reached the schools during the 1996-97 school used more than 3 percent of their Vocational
Perkins Act and Secondary year. Types of expenditures were categorized as Education dollars on administration costs.
Vocational School Vocational salaries and benefits (Title I, 82%; Vocational The memorandum recommended that the Office
Education Basic Education program Education, 52%); materials and equipment (Title of Adult and Vocational Education review the
Grants to States dollars were spent I, 9%; Vocational Education, 39%); professional regulations and guidance associated with
Education OIG on school-level development (Title I, 2%; Vocational Education, administration costs and revise them as
June 1998 activities, and to 5%); support services (Title I, 5%; Vocational necessary, as well as review the 1996 to
identify the types Education, 3%), and indirect costs (Title I, 2%; 1997 expenditures of the two grantees.
of expenditures Vocational Education, 1%).
for these two
programs at the All six SEAs complied with the established caps
LEA and school on administration expenses. Two LEAs used a
levels; significantly larger amount of Vocational
additionally, to Education dollars to cover administration costs
determine whether than the average of 3 percent.
the SEA had
complied with the
established caps
for using federal
dollars to cover
administration
costs
Title I Grants to To determine (1) The Chapter 1 program is closely monitored by The state department should review the city According to the report, both the city board
Local Education the extent of both the state department and the city board, has board of education's Chapter 1 reward and of education and the state education
Agencies (formerly monitoring placed heavy emphasis on identifying and recognition systems to ensure that these department agreed with the finding and
Chapter 1) performed of rewarding exemplary programs, and strongly systems better reflect the actual success stated in their response that action has
Education OIG Chapter 1 (Title encourages less successful programs to emulate of the city's schools in enabling students been taken to improve the Title I
February 1996 I) by a state them. However, the current recognition program, to reach grade level proficiency and/or to recognition process. The recognition program
department of which is based solely on annual changes in meet state-developed standards. is no longer based solely on annual changes
education and a standardized test scores, does not consider other in standardized test scores.
city board of performance factors and may be rewarding schools
education, (2) the whose students are still failing to reach grade
availability of level proficiency or to meet state standards,
data supporting despite improvements in test scores.
school and student
performance to
permit
identification and
recognition of
exemplary
programs, and (3)
whether systems
were in place to
permit the
replication of
programs in lower-
performing schools
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix V
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
========================================================== Appendix IV
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix VI
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE
========================================================== Appendix IV
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix VII
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION
========================================================== Appendix IV
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix VIII
COMMENTS FROM THE NATIONAL
ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES
========================================================== Appendix IV
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
*** End of document. ***