FY2008Program Performance Plan
Strategic Goal1
Formula
ESEA, Title I, Part A
Program Goal: / Economically disadvantagedstudents improve their achievement to meet challenging standards.
Objective1of2: / The performance of economically disadvantaged students will increase substantially in reading and mathematics.
Measure1.1of4: The difference between the percentage of economically disadvantaged students in grades 3-8 scoring at the proficient or advanced levels on State reading assessments and the percentage of all students in grades 3-8 scoring at the proficient or advanced levels on State reading assessments. (Desired direction: decrease)899w
Year / Target / Actual
(or date expected) / Status
2004 / 13.9 / Measure not in place
2005 / 13.2 / Measure not in place
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 (CSPR) and EDEN/EDFACTS.
Frequency of Data Collection.Annual
Data Quality.There are no issues. Beginning withreporting for SY 2004-05, 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 becausethe measureswere 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.
Year / Target / Actual
(or date expected) / Status
2004 / 13.3 / Measure not in place
2005 / 12.8 / Measure not in place
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
Data Quality.There are no issues. Beginning for SY 2004-05 reporting CSPR data are submitted electronically by States using EDEN/EDFACTS.
Explanation.
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.
Year / Target / Actual
(or date expected) / Status
2004 / 49.7 / Measure not in place
2005 / 52.6 / Measure not in place
2006 / 57.9 / 55.3 / Made Progress From Prior Year
2007 / 63.1 / (September 2008) / Pending
2008 / 66.5 / (September 2009) / Pending
2009 / 72.1 / (September 2010) / Pending
Frequency of Data Collection.Annual
Explanation.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.
Year / Target / Actual
(or date expected) / Status
2004 / 47.6 / Measure not in place
2005 / 50.7 / Measure not in place
2006 / 56.2 / 52.3 / Made Progress From Prior Year
2007 / 61.6 / (September 2008) / Pending
2008 / 64.2 / (September 2009) / Pending
2009 / 70.2 / (September 2010) / Pending
Explanation.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.
Measure2.1of1:
The average number of business days used to complete State monitoring reports.
(Desired direction: decrease)899y
Year / Target / Actual
(or date expected) / Status
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
Data Quality.There are no issues.
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.