ESEA: State Grants for Innovative Prog

FY 2007 Program Performance Report

Strategic Goal 2
Formula
ESEA, Title V, Part A
Document Year 2007 Appropriation: $99,000
CFDA 84.298: Innovative Education Program Strategies

Program Goal: To support state and local programs that are a continuing source o
Objective 1 of 2: To encourage states to use flexibility authorities in ways that will increase stud
Measure 1.1 of 4: The percentage of districts targeting Title V funds to Department-designated strategic priorities t
Actual
Year Target
(or date expected)
2003 Set a Baseline 65 Target Met
2004 68 69 Target Exceeded
2005 69 69 Target Met
2006 70 70 Target Met
2007 71 (August 2008) Pending
2008 72 (August 2009) Pending
2009 73 (August 2010) Pending
2010 74 (August 2011) Pending
Source. U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report.
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual
Data Quality. The data were more precise for School Year 2005-06. In 2004-05, the Consolidated State
Performance Report (CSPR) asked for the number of LEAs that used 20% or more of Title V, Part A funds
under each of the 4 strategic priorities separately, and how many of these LEAs met AYP; therefore, a
district would be counted multiple times for 2004-05 if it used 20% or more of its program funds for more
than one of the 4 strategic priorities. Duplicate counts were eliminated for 2005-06, when the CSPR
asked for the number of LEAs that used 85% or more of program funds for the 4 priorities.
Explanation. The standard was raised when CSPR asked for the number of LEAs that used 85% or
more of program funds for the 4 priorities for 2005-06 (instead of the number of LEAs that used 20% or
more of program funds under each of the 4 strategic priorities separately as in 2004-05), and how many
of these LEAs met AYP. Strategic priorities include those activities that (1) support student achievement,
enhance reading and math, (2) improve the quality of teachers, (3) ensure that schools are safe and drug
free, (4) and promote access for all students. Activities authorized under Section 5131 of the ESEA that
are included in the four strategic priorities are 1-5, 7-9, 12, 14-17, 19-20, 22, and 25-27. Authorized
activities that are not included in the four strategic priorities are 6, 10-11, 13, 18, 21, and 23-24.

Measure 1.2 of 4: The percentage of districts not targeting Title V funds that achieve AYP. (Desired direction: incr
Actual
Year Target
(or date expected)
2003 Set a Baseline 55 Target Met
2004 58 49 Did Not Meet Tar
2005 59 54 Made Progress F
2006 60 78 Target Exceeded
2007 61 (August 2008) Pending

U.S. Department of Education 1 11/02/2007

 2008 62 (August 2009) Pending
2009 63 (August 2010) Pending
2010 64 (August 2011) Pending
Source. U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report.
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual
Data Quality. Data were reported by the States.
Explanation. For 2005-06, the standard was raised when the CSPR asked for the number of LEAs that
did not use 85% or more of Title V, Part A funds for the 4 strategic priorities (instead of the number of
LEAs that did not use 20% or more of program funds for any of the 4 strategic priorities, as in 2004-05),
and how many of these LEAs met AYP. Strategic priorities include those activities that (1) support student
achievement, enhance reading and math, (2) improve the quality of teachers, (3) ensure that schools are
safe and drug free, (4) and promote access for all students. Activities authorized under Section 5131 of
the ESEA that are included in the four strategic priorities are 1-5, 7-9, 12, 14-17, 19-20, 22, and 25-27.
Authorized activities that are not included in the four strategic priorities are 6, 10-11, 13, 18, 21, and 23-
24.

Measure 1.3 of 4: The percentage of combined funds that districts use for the four Department-designated strateg
Actual
Year Target
(or date expected)
2005 Set a Baseline 91 Target Met
2006 92 Not Collected Not Collected
2007 93 (August 2008) Pending
2008 94 (August 2009) Pending
2009 95 (August 2010) Pending
2010 96 (August 2011) Pending
Source. U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report.
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual
Explanation. To improve the precision of the data, the Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR)
asked States to report actual program dollar amounts that LEAs spent on the four strategic priorities for
2005-06, instead of the percentage as in 2004-05. However, the percentage for 2005-06 could not be
calculated, because figures for the denominator (total amount of program funds spent by LEAs) were not
reliable. To reduce burden on States and LEAs, the Department did not ask for this information on the
CSPR for 2005-06, but instead calculated the total Title V, Part A funds spent by the LEAs as 85 percent
of the State allocation plus or minus the amount transferred under the State Transferability authority of
section 6123(a). Unfortunately, using this calculation as the denominator yielded percentages exceeding
100% for 18 States, suggesting that carry-over may be an important factor not addressed in this
calculation. For this reason, the Department has requested OMB's approval to ask for the total Title V,
Part A funds spent by the LEAs in the Consolidated State Performance Report CSPR for 2006-07 and
future years.

Measure 1.4 of 4: The percentage of participating LEAs that complete a credible needs assessment. (Desired dir
Actual
Year Target
(or date expected)
2005 Set a Baseline 100 Target Met
2006 100 100 Target Met

U.S. Department of Education 2 11/02/2007

 2007 100 (August 2008) Pending
2008 100 (August 2009) Pending
2009 100 (August 2010) Pending
2010 100 (August 2011) Pending
Source. U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report.
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual
Data Quality. States review LEAs' needs assessments when monitoring. The Department asks States to
submit examples of needs assessments from their LEAs. To improve the precision of the data for 2005-
06, the CSPR asked for the actual number of LEAs that completed needs assessments that the State
determined to be credible, compared to 2004-05 when the CSPR asked for the percentage of LEAs. The
response rate also improved: 4 states did not collect these data for 2005-06, compared to 7 states the
previous year.
Explanation. The median average across States is 100. Thirty-seven states reported that 100% of their
LEAs completed credible needs assessments. Of the rest, 4 States reported that 90-99% of their LEAs
completed credible needs assessments, 2 States reported 62%, and the remaining five States reported
81%, 74%, 45%, 32%, and 4%.

Objective 2 of 2: Improve the operational efficiency of the program

Measure 2.1 of 2:

The number of days it takes the Department to send a monitoring report to States after monitoring visits (both on-si

(Desired direction: decrease) 1883

Actual
Year Target
(or date expected)
2006 Set a Baseline Not Collected Not Collected
2007 Set a Baseline 56 Target Met
2008 51 (September 2008) Pending
2009 48 (September 2009) Pending
2010 45 (September 2010) Pending
Source. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, State Grants for
Innovative Programs, program office records.
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual
Target Context. In FY 2006, the program office developed and began a series of innovative, virtual site
visits using videoconferencing to gather the comprehensive information needed for multiple programs at a
significantly lower cost and greater efficiency than traditional on-site visits. Because FY 2006 was a
developmental year for virtual site visits and follow-up activities, the new site visit protocol and monitoring
report template were completed in FY 2007, and FY 2007 data are used to establish the baseline.
Explanation.

By August 31, 2007, ED had completed reports for 3 of the 10 site visits conducted in FY 2007. In FY
2007, ED also completed reports for 4 of the 7 site visits conducted in FY 2006. It took ED an average of
56 days to send the 3 reports from FY 2007 site visits, compared to an average of 258 days to send the 4
reports from FY 2006 site visits. None of the monitoring reports was sent to States within 45 days after
the site visit. Challenges included: developing a new site visit protocol and coordinating specific input from
5 programs to plan each site visit, working with a new technology delivery system and trouble-shooting
videoconferencing technology problems, creating a template and integrating information from the 5

U.S. Department of Education 3 11/02/2007

programs into each comprehensive monitoring report, following up with the State to obtain additional
information before finalizing each monitoring report, and preparing monitoring reports using the new
template for those site visits conducted in FY 2006 at the same time that we were moving forward with the
new FY 2007 site visits. Because of advances achieved in FY 2007, the Department anticipates
continued improvement in reducing the time it takes to send the monitoring reports to States until we
reach the goal of 45 days.

Measure 2.2 of 2:

The number of days it takes States to respond satisfactorily to findings in the monitoring reports.

(Desired direction: decrease) 1882

Actual
Year Target Status
(or date expected)
2006 Set a Baseline Not Collected Not Collected
2007 Set a Baseline 28 Target Met
2008 30 (September 2008) Pending
2009 30 (September 2009) Pending
2010 30 (September 2010) Pending
Source. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, State Grants for
Innovative Programs, program office records.
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual
Target Context. In FY 2006, the program office developed and began a series of innovative, virtual site
visits using videoconferencing to gather the comprehensive information needed for multiple programs at a
significantly lower cost and greater efficiency than traditional on-site visits. Because FY 2006 was a
developmental year for virtual site visits and follow-up activities, the new site visit protocol and monitoring
report template were completed in FY 2007, and FY 2007 data are used to establish the baseline.
Explanation. By August 31, 2007, States had responded to 5 of the 7 monitoring reports that ED sent in
FY 2007. It took States an average of 28 days to respond. Four States met the 30-day target, and one
State responded in 32 days.

U.S. Department of Education 4 11/02/2007