ESEA: Title I Grants to Local Educational A

FY 2008 Program Performance Plan

Strategic Goal 1
Formula
ESEA, Title I, Part A

Program Goal: At-risk students improve their achievement to meet challenging sta
Objective 1 of 2: The performance of low-income students will increase substantially in reading
Measure 1.1 of 5: The difference between the percentage of economically disadvantaged students in grades 3-8 s
reading assessments and the percentage of all students in grades 3-8 scoring at the proficient or advanced levels o
decrease)
Actual
Year Target
(or date expected)
2004 13.9 Measure not
2005 13.3 Measure not
2007 10.3 (September 2008) Pending
2008 8.8 (September 2009) Pending
Source. U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR) and
EDEN/EDFACTS.
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual
Data Quality. There are no issues. Beginning with reporting for SY 2004-05, CSPR data are submitted
electronically by States using EDEN/EDFACTS.
Explanation. The baseline (SY 2003-04) and comparison year (SY 2004-05) data used all students
tested within grades 3-8 during the given year to establish national percentage of students at least
proficient for each year. In some cases States tested a different number of grades in the baseline year
than the comparison year. This was expected because States were not required to test all students in
grades 3-8 until SY 2005-06.

Also, for the baseline year, when compiling the national total it was necessary to use estimates for some
States because the SY 2003-04 CSPR only requested the total number of students tested in math and
reading and the percentage at least proficient only by grade level. Developing estimates for all States
was not required because the remainder of the States had submitted baseline year data that did not
require estimates through EDEN, although in several cases their data appeared inaccurate when
compared to their SY 2003-04 and SY 2004-05 CSPR submissions. In those cases the CSPR estimate
was used. For the comparison year, a change was made to the SY 2004-05 CSPR so that there was no
need to develop estimates.

Of the States for which SY 2003-04 estimates were developed, the District of Columbia, Kentucky,
Missouri, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, Vermont, and Washington had submitted data through EDEN.
The math and reading data (reading only for Missouri, Vermont, and Washington), however, appeared
inaccurate compared to the SY 2003-04 and SY 2004-05 CSPRs, so the SY 2003-04 estimates were
used instead of the EDEN data.

Measure 1.2 of 5: The difference between the percentage of economically disadvantaged students in grades 3-8 s
math assessments and the percentage of all students in grades 3-8 scoring at the proficient or advanced levels on
decrease)
Actual
Year Target
(or date expected)

U.S. Department of Education 1 02/05/2007

 2004 13.3 Measure not
2005 12.8 Measure not
2007 9.9 (September 2008) Pending
2008 8.5 (September 2009) Pending
Source. U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report and EDEN/EDFACTS.
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual
Data Quality. There are no issues. Beginning for SY 2004-05 reporting CSPR data are submitted
electronically by States using EDEN/EDFACTS.
Explanation.

The baseline (SY 2003-04) and comparison year (SY 2004-05) data used all students tested within
grades 3-8 during the given year to establish national percentage of students at least proficient for each
year. In some cases States tested a different number of grades in the baseline year than the comparison
year. This was expected because States were not required to test all students in grades 3-8 until SY
2005-06.

Also, for the baseline year, when compiling the national total it was necessary to use estimates for some
States because the SY 2003-04 CSPR only requested the total number of students tested in math and
reading and the percentage at least proficient only by grade level. Developing estimates for all States was
not required because the remainder of the States had submitted baseline year data that did not require
estimates through EDEN, although in several cases their data appeared inaccurate when compared to
their SY 2003-04 and SY 2004-05 CSPR submissions. In those cases the CSPR estimate was used. For
the comparison year, a change was made to the SY 2004-05 CSPR so that there was no need to develop
estimates.

Of the States for which SY 2003-04 estimates were developed, the District of Columbia, Kentucky,
Missouri, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, Vermont, and Washington had submitted data through EDEN.
The math and reading data (reading only for Missouri, Vermont, and Washington), however, appeared
inaccurate compared to the SY 2003-04 and SY 2004-05 CSPRs, so the SY 2003-04 estimates were
used instead of the EDEN data.

Measure 1.3 of 5: SASA's efficiency measure: The average number of business days used to complete State mon
Actual
Year Target
(or date expected)
2004 46.3 Measure not in pl
2007 40 (September 2008) Pending
2008 40 (September 2009) Pending
Source. U.S. Department of Education, tracking of the dates of State monitoring visits and the dates that
reports are delivered to the State.
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual
Data Quality. There are no issues.
Explanation.

SASA is working with OMB to establish the targets.

Measure 1.4 of 5: The percentage of economically disadvantaged students in grades 3-8 scoring at the proficient o

U.S. Department of Education 2 02/05/2007

 (Desired direction: increase)
Actual
Year Target
(or date expected)
2004 49.7 Measure not in p
2005 52.6 Measure not in p
2007 63.1 (September 2008) Pending
2008 68.4 (September 2009) Pending
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual

Measure 1.5 of 5: The percentage of economically disadvantaged students in grades 3-8 scoring at the proficient o
(Desired direction: increase)
Actual
Year Target
(or date expected)
2004 47.6 Measure not in p
2005 50.6 Measure not in p
2007 61.6 (September 2008) Pending
2008 67.1 (September 2009) Pending

Objective 2 of 2: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Status

Measure 2.1 of 1:

The average number of business days used to complete State monitoring reports.

(Desired direction: increase)

Actual
Year Target
(or date expected)
2004 46.3 Measure not in pl
2007 40 (September 2008) Pending
2008 40 (September 2009) Pending
Source. U.S. Department of Education, tracking of the dates of State monitoring visits and the dates that
reports are delivered to the State.
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual
Data Quality. There are no issues.
Explanation.

SASA is working with OMB to establish the targets.

U.S. Department of Education 3 02/05/2007