ESEA: Title I Grants to Local Educational A

FY 2007 Program Performance Report

Strategic Goal 2
Formula
ESEA, Title I, Part A
Document Year 2007 Appropriation: $12,838,125

Program Goal: Economically disadvantaged students improve their achievement

Objective 1 of 2: The performance of economically disadvantaged students will increase substa
Measure 1.1 of 4: 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) 899w
Actual
Year Target
(or date expected)
2004 13.9 Measure not
2005 13.2 Measure not
2006 11.7 (September 2007) Pending
2007 10.3 (September 2008) Pending
2008 9.8 (September 2009) Pending
2009 8.1 (September 2010) Pending
Source. U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report and EDEN/EDFACTS.
Explanation. Notes:
1) Year refers to school year. For example, 2006 refers to school year 2005-06.

2) For 2004 and 2005 the targets for the measures were not in place because the measures were not
developed until 2006 for the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) review of Title I, Part A.

3) 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.

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

 Measure 1.2 of 4: 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) 899x
Actual
Year Target
(or date expected)
2004 13.3 Measure not
2005 12.8 Measure not
2006 11.4 (September 2007) Pending
2007 9.9 (September 2008) Pending
2008 9.5 (September 2009) Pending
2009 7.9 (September 2010) Pending
Source. U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report and EDEN/EDFACTS.
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual
Explanation. Notes:

1) Year refers to school year. For example, 2006 refers to school year 2005-06.

2) For 2004 and 2005 the targets for the measures were not in place because the measures were not
developed until 2006 for the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) review of Title I, Part A.

3) 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 4: The percentage of economically disadvantaged students in grades 3-8 scoring at the proficient o
(Desired direction: increase) 89a04b
Actual
Year Target
(or date expected)
2004 49.7 Measure not in
2005 52.6 Measure not in
2006 57.9 55.3 Made Progress
2007 60.9 (September 2008) Pending

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

 2008 66.5 (September 2009) Pending
2009 72.1 (September 2010) Pending
Source. U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR) and
EDEN/EDFACTS.
Data Quality. There are no issues. Beginning for SY 2004-05 reporting CSPR data are submitted
electronically by States using EDEN/EDFACTS.
Explanation. Notes:

1) Year refers to school year. For example, 2006 refers to school year 2005-06.

2) For 2004 and 2005 the targets for the measures were not in place because the measures were not
developed until 2006 for the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) review of Title I, Part A.

3) The baseline (SY 2003-04) and comparison year (SY 2004-05) data used 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 1.4 of 4: The percentage of economically disadvantaged students in grades 3-8 scoring at the proficient o
(Desired direction: increase) 89a04c
Actual
Year Target
(or date expected)
2004 47.6 Measure not in
2005 50.7 Measure not in
2006 56.2 52.3 Made Progress
2007 58.3 (September 2008) Pending
2008 64.2 (September 2009) Pending
2009 70.2 (September 2010) 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 for SY 2004-05 reporting CSPR data are submitted
electronically by States using EDEN/EDFACTS.

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

Explanation. Notes:

1) Year refers to school year. For example, 2006 refers to school year 2005-06.

2) For 2004 and 2005 the targets for the measures were not in place because the measures were not
developed until 2006 for the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) review of Title I, Part A.

3) The baseline (SY 2003-04) and comparison year (SY 2004-05) data used students tested within grades
3-8 during the given year to establish national percentage of these 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.

Objective 2 of 2: Monitoring States to ensure implementation of Title I, Part A at the State,

school district, and school levels with policies and procedures that comply
with and meet the purposes of the provisions of Title I, Part A
Measure 2.1 of 1: The average number of business days used to complete State monitoring
reports . (Desired direction: decrease) 899y
Actual
Year Target Status
(or date expected)
2005 46.3 Measure not in place
2006 43.3 Measure not in place
2007 40 (September 2007) Pending
2008 40 (September 2008) Pending
2009 40 (September 2009) Pending
2010 40 (September 2010) 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
Explanation. Notes:

1. Year refers to monitoring cycle year. For example, 2007 refers to the 2006-07 cycle.

2. SASA's 2006-07 monitoring will not end until September 2007. Consequently, final data will be
available in December 2007. Preliminary data will be available in September 2007.

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