Federal Reports

We evaluated Arkansas State University’s (ASU) loan default prevention and management, the accuracy of selected information ASU reported to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), its quantitative satisfactory academic progress measures, and the accuracy of selected consumer information on its Web site. We determined that for the time period reviewed, ASU’s default prevention and management to address its rising cohort default rate was reasonable, selected information it reported to IPEDS was accurate, and that it properly measured quantitative satisfactory academic progress for students. We did, however, find that ASU did not provide employment and continuing education data of students graduating from 6 of its 10 colleges in the 2008–2009 academic year and did not provide employment and continuing education data of students graduating from 8 of its 10 colleges in the 2009–2010 academic year. In addition, ASU provided unsupported job placement rates for four colleges for the 2008–2009 academic year and for two colleges for the 2009–2010 academic year on its Web site. Although ASU reported its graduation data accurately through IPEDS, we found that ASU reported inaccurate graduation data on its Web site for undergraduate students who received degrees in academic year 2008–2009 for 4 of its 10 colleges. We also identified minor graduation data inaccuracies for academic year 2009–2010. We recommended that FSA require ASU to establish policy and procedures to make available employment and continuing education data to enrolled or prospective students for all colleges; collect, maintain, and verify the accuracy of documentation to support required disclosures of employment and continuing education data, job placement rates, and graduation data reported on its Web site or by other means of dissemination; and ensure that any required job placement rate disclosures include the required disclosures of the source, time frames, and methodology associated with job placement rate.

We performed our audit work at the Texas Education Agency (TEA), La Joya Independent School District (La Joya), Lufkin Independent School District, and Marion Independent School District. We determined that both the TEA and La Joya need to improve their systems of internal controls. We found that the TEA did not use analyses of test results and erasures to identify LEAs or schools to monitor, did not ensure that LEAs tested all qualified 10th grade students, had not assessed how LEAs or schools could influence outcomes of new State tests, and did not document its recommended corrective actions to address all Statewide test administration irregularities that La Joya reported or verified that La Joya implemented all corrective actions. We recommended that the TEA (1) strengthen its risk assessment and monitoring processes by using reviews of test results and analyses of erasure data, (2) identify ways that LEAs and schools can improperly influence test results and design mitigating controls, and (3) document the corrective actions that it recommends and verify that the LEAs implement the corrective actions. We found that La Joya did not properly administer Statewide tests, did not adequately document its reviews or provide records of all reviews of potential test administration irregularities, and did not report all test administration irregularities to TEA or did not report them in a timely manner. We recommended that La Joya strengthen its system of internal control by (1) properly administering Statewide tests, (2) adequately documenting its reviews of potential test administration irregularities, (3) retaining records of all reviews of potential test administration irregularities, and (4) reporting all test administration irregularities to TEA.