ESEA:Improving Teacher Quality State Grants(OESE)
FY2010Program Performance Report(System Print Out)
Strategic Goal1
Formula
ESEA, Title II, Part A
Document Year2010Appropriation: $
CFDA / 84.367: Improving Teacher Quality State Grants
Program Goal: / To improve teacher and principal quality and increase the number of highly qualified teachers in the classroom and highly qualified principals and assistant principals in schools.
Objective1of2: / Show an annual increase in the percentage of classes taught by highly qualified teachers.
Measure1.1of6: The percentage of core academic classes in elementary schools taught by highly qualified teachers. (Desired direction: increase)1182 (Key Measure)
Year / Target / Actual
(or date expected) / Status
2003 / Set a Baseline / 85 / Target Met
2004 / 89 / 90.6 / Target Exceeded
2005 / 90 / 93 / Target Exceeded
2006 / 95 / 94 / Made Progress From Prior Year
2007 / 100 / 95.9 / Made Progress From Prior Year
2008 / 100 / 96.5 / Made Progress From Prior Year
2009 / 100 / 97.08 / Made Progress From Prior Year
2010 / 100 / (December 2011) / Pending
2011 / 100 / Undefined / Pending

Frequency of Data Collection:Annual

Explanation.Analysis of Progress: For the measures in Objective 1.3, targets were not met but results improved over prior years. There was no effect on overall program or activity performance. Targets were adjusted prior to FY 2008 reporting to reflect trends since development of the FY 2007-2012 Strategic Plan.
Data Quality and Timeliness: The Consolidated State Performance Report is submitted annually to the Department by state educational agencies to report on multiple elementary and secondary programs. One purpose of this report is to encourage the integration of state, local and federal programs in planning and service delivery.
Target Context: The targets are based on legislative initiatives, including the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended.

Measure1.2of6: The percentage of core academic classes in secondary schools taught by highly qualified teachers. (Desired direction: increase)1183 (Key Measure)
Year / Target / Actual
(or date expected) / Status
2003 / Set a Baseline / 80 / Target Met
2004 / 85 / 88.3 / Target Exceeded
2005 / 85 / 89 / Target Exceeded
2006 / 92 / 90.9 / Made Progress From Prior Year
2007 / 100 / 93 / Made Progress From Prior Year
2008 / 100 / 93.9 / Made Progress From Prior Year
2009 / 100 / 94.88 / Made Progress From Prior Year
2010 / 100 / (December 2011) / Pending
2011 / 100 / Undefined / Pending

Frequency of Data Collection:Annual

Explanation.Analysis of Progress: For the measures in Objective 1.3, targets were not met but results improved over prior years. There was no effect on overall program or activity performance. Targets were adjusted prior to FY 2008 reporting to reflect trends since development of the FY 2007-2012 Strategic Plan.
Data Quality and Timeliness: The Consolidated State Performance Report is submitted annually to the Department by state educational agencies to report on multiple elementary and secondary programs. One purpose of this report is to encourage the integration of state, local and federal programs in planning and service delivery.
Target Context: The targets are based on legislative initiatives, including the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended.

Measure1.3of6: The percentage of core academic elementary classes in high-poverty schools taught by highly qualified teachers (Desired direction: increase)899zv (Key Measure)
Year / Target / Actual
(or date expected) / Status
2005 / 89.5 / Measure not in place
2006 / 90.4 / Measure not in place
2007 / 100 / 93.5 / Made Progress From Prior Year
2008 / 100 / 94.9 / Made Progress From Prior Year
2009 / 100 / 96.25 / Made Progress From Prior Year
2010 / 100 / (December 2011) / Pending
2011 / 100 / Undefined / Pending

Frequency of Data Collection:Annual

Explanation.Analysis of Progress: For the measures in Objective 1.3, targets were not met but results improved over prior years. There was no effect on overall program or activity performance. Targets were adjusted prior to FY 2008 reporting to reflect trends since development of the FY 2007-2012 Strategic Plan.
Data Quality and Timeliness: The Consolidated State Performance Report is submitted annually to the Department by state educational agencies to report on multiple elementary and secondary programs. One purpose of this report is to encourage the integration of state, local and federal programs in planning and service delivery.
Target Context: The targets are based on legislative initiatives, including the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended.

Measure1.4of6: The percentage of core academic middle/high classes taught by highly qualified teachers in high-poverty schools (Desired direction: increase)899zw (Key Measure)
Year / Target / Actual
(or date expected) / Status
2005 / 84.4 / Measure not in place
2006 / 85.7 / Measure not in place
2007 / 100 / 88.7 / Made Progress From Prior Year
2008 / 100 / 89.6 / Made Progress From Prior Year
2009 / 100 / 92.51 / Made Progress From Prior Year
2010 / 100 / (December 2011) / Pending
2011 / 100 / Undefined / Pending

Frequency of Data Collection:Annual

Explanation.Analysis of Progress: For the measures in Objective 1.3, targets were not met but results improved over prior years. There was no effect on overall program or activity performance. Targets were adjusted prior to FY 2008 reporting to reflect trends since development of the FY 2007-2012 Strategic Plan.
Data Quality and Timeliness: The Consolidated State Performance Report is submitted annually to the Department by state educational agencies to report on multiple elementary and secondary programs. One purpose of this report is to encourage the integration of state, local and federal programs in planning and service delivery.
Target Context: The targets are based on legislative initiatives, including the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended.

Measure1.5of6: The percentage of core academic elementary classes taught by highly qualified teachers in low poverty schools (Desired direction: increase)899zx (Key Measure)
Year / Target / Actual
(or date expected) / Status
2005 / 95 / Measure not in place
2006 / 95.8 / Measure not in place
2007 / 100 / 96.6 / Made Progress From Prior Year
2008 / 100 / 97.5 / Made Progress From Prior Year
2009 / 100 / 97.56 / Made Progress From Prior Year
2010 / 100 / (December 2011) / Pending
2011 / 100 / Undefined / Pending

Frequency of Data Collection:Annual

Explanation.Analysis of Progress: For the measures in Objective 1.3, targets were not met but results improved over prior years. There was no effect on overall program or activity performance. Targets were adjusted prior to FY 2008 reporting to reflect trends since development of the FY 2007-2012 Strategic Plan.
Data Quality and Timeliness: The Consolidated State Performance Report is submitted annually to the Department by state educational agencies to report on multiple elementary and secondary programs. One purpose of this report is to encourage the integration of state, local and federal programs in planning and service delivery.
Target Context: The targets are based on legislative initiatives, including the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended.

Measure1.6of6: The percentage of core academic middle/high classes taught by highly qualified teachers in low-poverty schools (Desired direction: increase)899zy (Key Measure)
Year / Target / Actual
(or date expected) / Status
2005 / 91.8 / Measure not in place
2006 / 93.8 / Measure not in place
2007 / 100 / 95.4 / Made Progress From Prior Year
2008 / 100 / 96 / Made Progress From Prior Year
2009 / 100 / 96.46 / Made Progress From Prior Year
2010 / 100 / (December 2011) / Pending
2011 / 100 / Undefined / Pending

Frequency of Data Collection:Annual

Explanation.Analysis of Progress: For the measures in Objective 1.3, targets were not met but results improved over prior years. There was no effect on overall program or activity performance. Targets were adjusted prior to FY 2008 reporting to reflect trends since development of the FY 2007-2012 Strategic Plan.
Data Quality and Timeliness: The Consolidated State Performance Report is submitted annually to the Department by state educational agencies to report on multiple elementary and secondary programs. One purpose of this report is to encourage the integration of state, local and federal programs in planning and service delivery.
Target Context: The targets are based on legislative initiatives, including the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended.

Objective2of2: / Improve the operational efficiency of the program
Measure2.1of1: The number of days it takes the Department of Education to send a monitoring report to States after monitoring. (Desired direction: decrease)1878
Year / Target / Actual
(or date expected) / Status
2005 / 83 / Measure not in place
2006 / Set a Baseline / 37 / Target Met
2007 / BL-1 / 92 / Did Not Meet Target
2008 / BL-1 / 29.4 / Made Progress From Prior Year
2009 / BL-1 / 29.3 / Made Progress From Prior Year
2010 / BL-1 / 15.59 / Made Progress From Prior Year

Frequency of Data Collection:Annual

U.S. Department of Education
Draft / 1 / 03/16/2011