ESEA: State Grants for Innovative Programs

FY 2006 Program Performance Report

Strategic Goal 2
Formula
ESEA, Title V, Part A
Document Year 2006 Appropriation: $99,000
CFDA 84.298: Innovative Education Program Strategies

Program Goal: To support state and local programs that are a continuing source
of innovation and educational improvement.
Objective 1 of 2: To encourage states to use flexibility authorities in ways that will increase
student achievement.
Measure 1.1 of 4: The percentage of districts targeting Title V funds to Department-designated
strategic priorities that achieve AYP. (Desired direction: increase)
Actual
Year Target Status
(or date expected)
2003 Set a Baseline 65 Target Met
2004 68 69 Target Exceeded
2005 69 69 Target Met
2006 70 (August 2007) Pending
2007 71 (August 2008) Pending
2008 72 (August 2009) Pending
2009 73 (August 2010) Pending
Source. U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report.
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual
Data Quality. A district could be counted under more than one of the four strategic priority areas.
Hence, a district could be counted multiple times under the strategic priority areas. ED has requested
OMB's approval to correct this question and eliminate duplicate counts in the Consolidated State
Performance Report for 2005-06 and future years.
Explanation. Strategic priorities include those activities: (1) that support student achievement, enhance
reading and math, (2) that improve the quality of teachers, (3) that ensure that schools are safe and drug
free, (4) and that promote access for all students. A comparison of AYP achievement rates for districts
that used 20% or more (69%) of Title V-A funds for the four strategic priorities versus those districts that
did not (54%) suggests that using Title V-A funds for the strategic priorities makes a positive difference.

Measure 1.2 of 4: The percentage of districts not targeting Title V funds that achieve AYP.
(Desired direction: increase)
Actual
Year Target Status
(or date expected)
2003 Set a Baseline 55 Target Met
2004 58 49 Did Not Meet Target
2005 59 54 Made Progress From Prior Year
2006 60 (August 2007) Pending
2007 61 (August 2008) Pending
2008 62 (August 2009) Pending
2009 63 (August 2010) Pending

U.S. Department of Education 1 11/14/2006

Source. U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report.
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual
Explanation. Strategic priorities include those activities: (1) that support student achievement, enhance
reading and math, (2) that improve the quality of teachers, (3) that ensure that schools are safe and drug
free, (4) and that promote access for all students. A comparison of AYP achievement rates for those
districts that used 20% or more (69%) of Title V-A funds for the strategic priorities versus those districts
that did not (54%) suggests that using Title V-A funds for the strategic priorities makes a positive
difference.

Measure 1.3 of 4: The percentage of combined funds that districts use for the four Department-
designated strategic priorities. (Desired direction: increase)
Actual
Year Target Status
(or date expected)
2005 Set a Baseline 91 Target Met
2006 92 (August 2007) Pending
2007 93 (August 2008) Pending
2008 94 (August 2009) Pending
2009 95 (August 2010) Pending
Source. U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report.
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual
Data Quality. Each State reported the percentage of Title V-A funds that its LEAs used for the four
strategic priorities. The median average across States is 90.55 percent. ED has requested approval from
OMB to ask States to report actual dollar amounts instead of percentages in the Consolidated State
Performance Report for 2005-06 and future years, so that we can report the LEA Title V-A funds for the
four strategic priorities divided by the total Title V-A LEA funds.
Explanation. Strategic priorities include those activities: (1) that support student achievement, enhance
reading and math, (2) that improve the quality of teachers, (3) that ensure that schools are safe and drug
free, (4) and that promote access for all students. 2005 data (91%) are the baseline. The target for 2006
is baseline plus 1 percentage point (92%), and data will be available in August 2007.

Measure 1.4 of 4: The percentage of participating LEAs that complete a credible needs
assessment. (Desired direction: increase)
Actual
Year Target Status
(or date expected)
2005 Set a Baseline 100 Target Met
2006 100 (August 2007) Pending
2007 100 (August 2008) Pending
2008 100 (August 2009) Pending
2009 100 (August 2010) 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. ED requests States to submit
examples of needs assessments from their LEAs.

U.S. Department of Education 2 11/14/2006

Explanation. 2005 data are the baseline. The median average across States is 100%. The target for
2006 is 100%, and data will be available in August 2007.

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

Measure 2.1 of 2: The percentage of monitoring reports that the Department of Education
sends to states within 45 days after State Grants for Innovative Programs monitoring visits (both
on-site and virtual). (Desired direction: increase)
Actual
Year Target Status
(or date expected)
2006 Set a Baseline Not Collected Not Collected
2007 Set a Baseline (September 2007) Pending
2008 999 (September 2008) Pending
2009 999 (September 2009) 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
Explanation.

In 2006, the program office developed and began a series of innovative, virtual monitoring 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 2006 was a
developmental year for virtual monitoring visits and follow-up activities, it was unrealistic to establish
a baseline. Instead the program office will use ED's standard of 45 days as the target for 2007 and future
years.

Measure 2.2 of 2: The percentage of States that respond satisfactorily within 30 days to findings
in their State Grants for Innovative Programs monitoring reports. (Desired direction: increase)
Actual
Year Target Status
(or date expected)
2006 Set a Baseline Not Collected Not Collected
2007 Set a Baseline (September 2007) Pending
2008 999 (September 2008) Pending
2009 999 (September 2009) 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
Explanation. In 2006, the program office developed and began a series of innovative, virtual monitoring
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 2006 was a
developmental year for virtual monitoring visits and follow-up activities, it was unrealistic to establish a
baseline. Instead the program office will use ED's standard of 30 days as the target for 2007 and future
years.

U.S. Department of Education 3 11/14/2006