U.S. Department of Education: Promoting Educational Excellence for all Americans

A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

Comprehensive Centers Program

Goal 8: To assist Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) recipients in improving teaching and learning for all children, particularly children at risk of education failure.
Objective 1 of 1: PROVIDE HIGH-QUALITY COMPREHENSIVE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO STATES, TERRITORIES, TRIBES, SCHOOL DISTRICTS, AND SCHOOLS THAT HELPS STUDENTS REACH HIGH ACADEMIC STANDARDS.
Indicator 8.1.1 of 4: Addressing legislative priorities: 80% of comprehensive center customers served will be schoolwide programs, high-poverty schools, and Bureau of Indian Affairs-funded schools.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Comprehensive Center customers (in percentages)
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
Schoolwide Programs High-poverty schools, non-schoolwide programs BIA Schools TOTAL
Schoolwide Programs High-poverty schools, non-schoolwide programs BIA Schools TOTAL
1998
50 12 4 66
       
1999
44 30 3 77
       
2000
59 26 2 89
       
2001
44 43 3 89
 Continuous Improvement
Status: Positive movement toward target.

Explanation: Although the target was exceeded in 2000, the target is still an appropriate one. In addition to serving the targeted customers identified in indicator 1.1, a significant level of Comprehensive Centers effort is also directed to providing support to other customers, including State agencies, local school districts, and intermediate school units. The ESEA also requires that the Comprehensive Centers provide TA for educators serving all children, including special populations.  
Additional Source Information: Comprehensive Centers (CC) performance reports, including Data Tables for 2001.

Frequency: Semi-Annually.
Collection Period: 2002 - 2001.
Data Available: July 2002.
Validated By: No Formal Verification.
Data supplied by project's uniform reporting system. No formal verification procedure applied to data collection, but data analysis validated by outside contractor.

Limitations: Self-reported project-level data have been analyzed with assistance of an outside contractor. Improvement in the uniform data collection system has resulted in more valid data being reported in 2000-2001.

 
Indicator 8.1.2 of 4: Integrating technical assistance: An increasing percentage of CC activities will provide integrated, noncategorical technical assistance (such as focusing on standards, assessment of special populations, reading, other challenging curricula, leadership development, and whole-school reform).
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Percentage of CC activities providing noncatergorical technical assistance
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
2000
51
55
2001
75
58
2002
 
58
Status: Target exceeded.

Explanation: Baseline is established with the 2000 data. Prior counts are not reported here because the method for counting integrated technical assistance was incorrect. The definition and method of how to count "integrated" were clarified this year, 2000. Examples of network-wide Center "integrated" results are the Reading Success Network; the ELL/LEP network focus; comprehensive school reform technical assistance; and support for turning around low performing schools.  
Additional Source Information: Comprehensive Centers (CC) performance reports, including Data Tables, for 2001.

Frequency: Semi-Annually.
Collection Period: 2001.
Validated By: Experienced Public/Private Entity.
Data supplied by project's uniform reporting system. No formal verification procedure applied to data collection, but data analysis by outside contractor.

Limitations: Same as 1.1.

 
Indicator 8.1.3 of 4: Addressing customer needs: An increasing percentage of state and local administrators served by the CCs will report satisfaction with the usefulness of technical assistance provided.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Percentage of state and local administrators
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1998
64
 
1999
79
65
2000
 
80
2001
85
80
Status: Target exceeded.

Explanation: State and local administrators are the targets for this indicator. In addition, 89% of school-based respondents (teachers and principals) rated Center products and services good to excellent in their usefulness.  
Source: Other Survey/Research

Additional Source Information: Customer survey.

Frequency: Biennially.
Collection Period: 2001.
Validated By: Experienced Public/Private Entity.

Limitations: Customer surveys were not conducted for 2000. Customer surveys are legislatively required every two years.

 
Indicator 8.1.4 of 4: Showing impact with customers: Participants in center activities report that they have incorporated information or skills they have learned from the Centers activities into their work.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Percentage of Participants
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1999
72
 
2000
 
75
2001
71
75
Status: No current data but progress toward target is likely.

Explanation: School-based respondents (primarily teachers and principals) are the targets for this indicator. In addition, 88% of state and local administrators reported that they incorporated something they learned from Centers into their own work, including providing assistance to others in support of federal programs.  
Source: Other Survey/Research

Additional Source Information: Customer survey.

Frequency: Biennially.
Collection Period: 2001.
Validated By: Experienced Public/Private Entity.

Limitations: Customer satisfaction surveys were not conducted for 2000.

Improvements: Customer surveys are legislatively required every two years.

 

Return to table of contents