As a result of the 1996 changes, the Goals 2000 program is essentially a funding-stream grant program with fiscal objectives. Goals 2000 Funds Support a Broad Range of Education Reform Efforts at the State and Local Levels

Goals 2000 funds, totaling about $1.25 billion for fiscal years 1994 through 1997, have supported a broad range of education reform activities at both the state and local levels. Contract services and consultant fees constituted about 28 percent of state-retained funds. More than 34 percent of the 14,367 school districts nationwide that provide instructional services received at least one Goals 2000 subgrant during the 4-year period reviewed. Over the 4-year period reviewed, Goals 2000 subgrants funded several general categories of activities: local education reform projects, professional development, computer equipment and training, preservice training, and standards and assessments. Crosscutting and Other Initiatives

These subgrant activities associated with education reform, reflecting districts’ crosscutting approaches to meeting education reform goals, accounted for the remaining 12 percent of subgrant funding. Almost all state and local officials said Goals 2000 funds provided valuable assistance to education reform efforts at both the state and local levels and that, without this funding, some reform efforts either would not have been accomplished or would not have been accomplished as quickly. In several cases, state officials reported that Goals 2000 had served as a catalyst for a certain aspect of their reform efforts, such as the development of standards and assessments. Almost every state official told us that flexibility is key to Goals 2000’s usefulness in promoting state education reform because states could direct these funds toward their state’s chosen education reform priorities. While a program such as this, which entails great latitude in the use of funds and requires little in the way of reporting requirements, reduces some of the states’ accountability for process and results, Goals 2000 appears to be accomplishing what the Congress intended—providing an additional and flexible funding source to promote coordinated improvements to state and local education systems. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

We were asked to (1) review the purposes for which Goals 2000 state-retained funds have been used, (2) determine what local projects have been funded using Goals 2000 funds, (3) determine state officials’ views about how Goals 2000 relates to state reform, (4) ascertain how much of Goals 2000 funds have been used for developing standards and assessments and what future support is needed for these purposes, and (5) find to what extent Goals 2000 funds have been used for health education activities. For reporting purposes, we combined these questions into two broader objectives: (1) how Goals 2000 funds have been spent at both the state and local levels, including the levels of funding for developing standards and assessments as well as health education, and (2) how state and local officials view Goals 2000 as a means to promote education reform efforts. The smallest allocation was $370,124 to Wyoming in 1994; the largest was $54,659,343 to California in 1997.
Why GAO Did This Study

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

What GAO Found

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