Consolidated State Performance Report For State Formula Grant Programs

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

Part A
General Questions: Progress Under the Consolidated State Plan and Other Program Plans

Title XIV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) gives a State educational agency (SEA) the option of filing a single consolidated State plan instead of individual State plans for the ESEA programs in which the State participates. All but one SEA adopted this approach for some if not all of the following ESEA programs reauthorized under the Improving America's Schools Act: Title I, Parts A-D, II, IV and VI. In addition, States receive funding under the Goals 2000: Educate America Act and the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund (title III of the ESEA) on the basis of separate program plans. In these plans the SEA described, among other things, its educational goals for all children and plans for using program funds to address those children's educational needs. In addition, in the State's consolidated plan SEAS addressed how their use of funds for program included in the plan would help children who benefit from those programs to succeed.

This portion of the consolidated performance report seeks information from each SEA about the State's progress in implementing the consolidated plan. The questions generally flow from the criteria that nearly all States adopted in preparing their plan. These questions are intended to help States identify how, consistent with their approved consolidated plans, their administration of the ESEA and Goals 2000 programs is improving teaching and learning in their States.

An SEA is free to respond to the questions included in this portion of the report in any format that it believes is most appropriate. For responses to the general questions scheduled to be received in March of 1999, the reporting period is school year 1997-1998. However, SEAS also may furnish information for any other school year(s) that followed approval of its consolidated plan. For responses to the general questions scheduled to be received in December of 1999, the reporting period is school year 1998-1999 and should reflect only changes in the previous response.

Question 1 — Changes in State Goals

In order to establish the context for the SEA's report on progress to implement the State's plans for use of federal program funds, Question 1 solicits information about any changes to the following approved State plans:

1. Since submission of these plans, have the State's goals as stated in those plans substantially changed or been clarified? If so, please describe the changes. (Please reference the pages of the plan to which the changes relate.)

Question 2 — Standards and Assessments

In its consolidated State plan (or individual Title I, Part A program plan), each SEA addressed the use of content and performance standards, aligned assessments, and adequate yearly progress in accordance with section 1111(b) of the ESEA. Question 2 is designed to solicit information regarding the status of these efforts.

2.(a) In the time period since the Department either (I) approved evidence that demonstrates that the State has developed or adopted challenging content and student performance standards in accordance with section 1111(b) of the ESEA, or (ii) granted a waiver of the time frame for doing so, what further steps, if any, has the SEA taken to develop, adopt, or implement these standards?

NOTE: States that are reporting information of this kind as a condition of receiving a waiver from the Department do not need to repeat information contained in the waiver request; they may merely reference it.

2.(b) What steps is the SEA taking to implement the State's final assessment system in accordance with section 1111(b) of the ESEA for use during the 2000-2001 school year?

2.(c) What steps is the SEA taking — in areas such as curriculum development, professional development, and school/classroom assessments — to encourage local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools in the State to incorporate challenging content and/or student performance standards into classroom practice?

Question 3 — Strategies, Activities and Use of Resources

In its consolidated plan, an SEA described the strategies to achieve the goals stated in the plan and the way in which its use of resources would encourage resource integration and coordination of funds. Question 3 is solicits information on how the SEA has implemented these strategies.

3.(a)(I) General Did the SEA implement the strategies and activities described in its consolidated plan to promote increases in student achievement for all children and other State goals? If not, why not? If the SEA did implement (or expand upon) these strategies and activities, how have they helped to increase the effectiveness of federal programs in promoting increases in student achievement for all children in the State's schools?

In responding to this question, please address how the SEA has used funds provided under one or more ESEA programs and/or Goals 2000 in key areas that include —

3.(a)(ii) Schoolwide Programs.

(a)(iii) School Reform. "What State level school reform activities has the State supported with its Goals 2000 funds? What priorities or expectations has the State established for its Goals 2000 LEA subgrants?"

Resource Integration and Coordination. Consolidated State plans are intended to encourage greater cross-program coordination, planning and service delivery under the ESEA, and enhanced integration of ESEA programs with educational activities carried out with State and local funds. See section 14301 of the ESEA. In addition to the information provided in response to question (a), please respond to the following questions.

3.(b)(I) State and LEA-level activities. In addition to information on schoolwide programs provided in response to Question 3(a), above, what information does the SEA have regarding the progress of the SEA and LEAs in the State in achieving greater cross-program coordination of federal programs and their integration into State- and locally-funded activities?

(ii) Consolidated Local Planning. If the State invites the submission of consolidated local plans, what is the impact of this process on local coordination of federal programs and their integration into State-and locally-funded activities? Please furnish a copy of the instructions that the State has used in inviting LEAs to submit local consolidated plans (as authorized by section 14305 of the SEA). (If this is material is available on the Internet, please indicate instead of providing a hard copy.)

In addition, how many school districts in the State were eligible to submit a consolidated local plan during the 1998-1999 school year? How many did so?

Question 4 — Progress in Achieving the State's Goals

The purpose of developing consolidated State plans and other State program plans is to enable the SEA, LEAs and school communities, and the public at large to understand how the SEA, through its strategies, activities and uses of resources, will promote achievement of State education goals for all students. This portion of the consolidated report is designed to have the SEA provide information on how well its implementation of program strategies and activities is working to achieve the goals that the State has established.

4.(a)(I) General. What information does the SEA have regarding the progress that it has made in achieving the goals set forth in the consolidated State plan, individual ESEA program plans and GOALS 2000 plan? Where applicable, please refer to any performance indicators, time lines and benchmarks that the State has established?.

4.(b)(1) Populations Benefiting From ESEA Programs. What information does the SEA have that the following populations of students are making adequate progress in achieving the State's goals for all children, as stated in its consolidated plan?

(b)(I) How is this information communicated or made available to the public?

Note: In responding to question 4, above, you may discuss progress at the LEA (subgrant) level by providing examples or a general discussion of progress in the aggregate. A district-by-district description is not required.

Question 5 — Fiscal Accountability and Equitable Access

Fiscal Accountability. In its consolidated State plan, the SEA provided information to ensure basic fiscal accountability under ESEA programs. Question 5(a) is designed to enable a State to update that information.

5.(a) Are there any significant changes in the fiscal accountability information provided in the State's approved consolidated plan.

Equitable Access and Participation. Pursuant to Section 427 of the General Education Provisions Act, each SEA included in its consolidated State plan a description of the steps the SEA would take to ensure equitable access to, and equitable participation in, the (non-administrative) activities that it would undertake with federal funds. Question 5(b) seeks information as to the implementation of these steps.

(b) How has the State implemented the steps or activities described in its approved consolidated State plan to overcome barriers to equitable access to, and equitable participation in, ESEA program activities that the State conducts? What changes or additions to these steps, if any, or activities has the SEA implemented?

Other Barriers. The Department is interested in learning of any barriers at the federal level that may impede the successful implementation of the consolidated State plan.

(c) What barriers to the successful implementation of its consolidated State plan has the SEA encountered as a result of federal statutes, regulations, guidance or practice? What recommendations does the State have for overcoming them?

Question 6 — Other Information (Optional)

A State's responses to the questions above are intended to provide the Department and the public at large with information about its efforts to implement (and improve upon) its approved consolidated State plan. If a State believes that a part of its "story" remains untold, the Department encourages it to provide further information on its efforts to use the Federal programs included in the plan to promote school reform and raise academic standards and educational achievement for all students.

Table I. Title I School and Local Educational Agency (LEA) Accountability Information

Instructions: LEA information - Enter the total number of LEAs in the State operating Title I targeted assistance programs during the regular school year. Enter the number of LEAs currently making adequate progress toward meeting the State student performance standards and enter the number of LEAs identified for school or LEA program improvement. School information - Enter the number of schools operating a targeted assistance program (TAS) under Section 1115 of the Act and the number of schools operating a schoolwide program (SWP) under Section 1114 of the Act during the regular school year. Note: SWP schools in their planning year should not be included in the count of those which operate a SWP.

Note: If the State's definition of adequate yearly progress has changed since ED approved the consolidated State plan, or was not otherwise included in the plan, please provide that definition with this table.

 

Total number

Number meeting state criteria for adequate yearly progress

Number identified for school or LEA improvement

Number identified as distinguished schools

Title I LEAs

       

Title I targeted assistance schools

 

     

Title I schoolwide programs

 

     
Title I schools eligible for schoolwide programs        

Title I schools by poverty level

— 0-34%

 

     

— 35-49%

       

— 50-74%

       

— 75-100

 

     

Table II. Impact of Title I Programs on Student Achievement

This section is intended to allow states to report assessment results in order to show the impact of the Title I-Part A program on student learning. Because many state assessments are in a transitional phase the Title I state performance report provides states the flexibility to report whatever assessment information is available at this time.

The following template, reflecting a sample reporting format, is offered as a guide that states can adapt to their own assessments and strategies for analyzing data, and is meant to be suggestive of the kinds of information that states may want to report on the impact of Title I. Concerns with respondent burden and usefulness have guided this work, as well as a recognition that reporting needs to accommodate states at different stages of developing their standards and assessments. Please note that if you are unable to report on the impact of Title I using the categories included in the sample reporting format, please describe in other ways the impact that Title I programs in your State are having on student achievement.

Transitional period. States that do not yet have final assessments in place should report results from whatever transitional assessment they are currently using. While the template reflects data that will be reported based on a final assessment, reporting is intended to be an iterative process.

The following items are reflected in the (attached) template:

Please check all that apply to whether student achievement data reported for targeted assistance schools include:

SAMPLE REPORTING FORMAT for 1998-1999*

Student Proficiency in [Subject] in [Grade Span]

Percent or Total Number, by "N" Levels**

 

Level #1

Level #2

Level #3

Level #4

Students, by type of school

—Targeted Assistance

       

—Schoolwide Programs

       

—All Title I schools

       

—All schools

       

Students, by school poverty level

— 0-34%        
— 35-49%        
— 50-74%        
— 75-100%        

Low-income students

       
Limited English proficient students        

Migrant students

       

Students with disabilities

       

Students, by race/ethnicity (modify as relevant)

       

— White (not of Hispanic origin)

       

— Black (not of Hispanic origin)

       

— Hispanic

       
—Asian/Pacific Islander        

— American Indian/Alaskan Native

       

Students, by gender

— Male

       

— Female

       

* Note: This format is provided for illustrative purposes only. States with their own reporting format are encouraged to use them. The Department will not be aggregating results across the States since they reflect different standards and assessments.

** Please define and describe the performance levels used in your state and explain the relationship of the levels to partially proficient, proficient, and advanced.
-###-


[General Instructions] [Table of Contents] [Part B. Consolidated Tables]

Return to OESE Archived Information