-------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------
  **ESEA: State Grants for   
  Innovative Programs**      

  **FY 2006 Program          
  Performance Report**       

  Strategic Goal 2           

  Formula                    

  ESEA, Title V, Part A      

  Document                   
  Year 2006 Appropriation:   
  \$99,000                   

  CFDA                       84.298: Innovative Education Program Strategies
  -------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------

  -------------- --------------------------------------------------------
  **Program      **To support state and local programs that are a
  Goal:**        continuing source of innovation and educational
                 improvement.**

  -------------- --------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  ------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------
  ***Objective 1 of 2:***   *To encourage states to use flexibility authorities in
                            ways that will increase student achievement.*

  ------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------

  ----------------------- ---------------- ------------------ ---------------------------
  **Measure 1.1 of 4:**                                       
  The percentage of                                           
  districts targeting                                         
  Title V funds to                                            
  Department-designated                                       
  strategic priorities                                        
  that achieve AYP.                                           
    (Desired direction:                                       
  increase)                                                   

  **Year**                **Target**       **Actual\          **Status**
                                           (or date           
                                           expected)**        

  2003                    Set a Baseline   65                 Target Met

  2004                    68               69                 Target Exceeded

  2005                    69               69                 Target Met

  2006                    70               (August 2007)      Pending

  2007                    71               (August 2008)      Pending

  2008                    72               (August 2009)      Pending

  2009                    73               (August 2010)      Pending
  ----------------------- ---------------- ------------------ ---------------------------

**Source**. U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance
Report.

**Frequency of Data Collection**. Annual

**Data Quality**. A district could be counted under more than one of the
four strategic priority areas.  Hence, a district could be counted
multiple times under the strategic priority areas.  ED has requested
OMB\'s approval to correct this question and eliminate duplicate counts
in the Consolidated State Performance Report for 2005-06 and future
years.

**Explanation**. Strategic priorities include those activities: (1) that
support student achievement, enhance reading and math, (2) that improve
the quality of teachers, (3) that ensure that schools are safe and drug
free, (4) and that promote access for all students.  A comparison of AYP
achievement rates for districts that used 20% or more (69%) of Title V-A
funds for the four strategic priorities versus those districts that did
not (54%) suggests that using Title V-A funds for the strategic
priorities makes a positive difference.

  ----------------------- ---------------- ------------------ ----------------------------
  **Measure 1.2 of 4:**                                       
  The percentage of                                           
  districts not targeting                                     
  Title V funds that                                          
  achieve AYP.   (Desired                                     
  direction: increase)                                        

  **Year**                **Target**       **Actual\          **Status**
                                           (or date           
                                           expected)**        

  2003                    Set a Baseline   55                 Target Met

  2004                    58               49                 Did Not Meet Target

  2005                    59               54                 Made Progress From Prior
                                                              Year

  2006                    60               (August 2007)      Pending

  2007                    61               (August 2008)      Pending

  2008                    62               (August 2009)      Pending

  2009                    63               (August 2010)      Pending
  ----------------------- ---------------- ------------------ ----------------------------

**Source**. U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance
Report.

**Frequency of Data Collection**. Annual

**Explanation**. Strategic priorities include those activities: (1) that
support student achievement, enhance reading and math, (2) that improve
the quality of teachers, (3) that ensure that schools are safe and drug
free, (4) and that promote access for all students.  A comparison of AYP
achievement rates for those districts that used 20% or more (69%) of
Title V-A funds for the strategic priorities versus those districts that
did not (54%) suggests that using Title V-A funds for the strategic
priorities makes a positive difference.

  ----------------------- ----------------- ------------------ ---------------------------
  **Measure 1.3 of 4:**                                        
  The percentage of                                            
  combined funds that                                          
  districts use for the                                        
  four                                                         
  Department-designated                                        
  strategic priorities.                                        
    (Desired direction:                                        
  increase)                                                    

  **Year**                **Target**        **Actual\          **Status**
                                            (or date           
                                            expected)**        

  2005                    Set a Baseline    91                 Target Met

  2006                    92                (August 2007)      Pending

  2007                    93                (August 2008)      Pending

  2008                    94                (August 2009)      Pending

  2009                    95                (August 2010)      Pending
  ----------------------- ----------------- ------------------ ---------------------------

**Source**. U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance
Report.

**Frequency of Data Collection**. Annual

**Data Quality**. Each State reported the percentage of Title V-A funds
that its LEAs used for the four strategic priorities.  The median
average across States is 90.55 percent.  ED has requested approval from
OMB to ask States to report actual dollar amounts instead of percentages
in the Consolidated State Performance Report for 2005-06 and future
years, so that we can report the LEA Title V-A funds for the four
strategic priorities divided by the total Title V-A LEA funds.

**Explanation**. Strategic priorities include those activities: (1) that
support student achievement, enhance reading and math, (2) that improve
the quality of teachers, (3) that ensure that schools are safe and drug
free, (4) and that promote access for all students.  2005 data (91%) are
the baseline.  The target for 2006 is baseline plus 1 percentage point
(92%), and data will be available in August 2007.

  ----------------------- ---------------- ------------------ ---------------------------
  **Measure 1.4 of 4:**                                       
  The percentage of                                           
  participating LEAs that                                     
  complete a credible                                         
  needs assessment.                                           
    (Desired direction:                                       
  increase)                                                   

  **Year**                **Target**       **Actual\          **Status**
                                           (or date           
                                           expected)**        

  2005                    Set a Baseline   100                Target Met

  2006                    100              (August 2007)      Pending

  2007                    100              (August 2008)      Pending

  2008                    100              (August 2009)      Pending

  2009                    100              (August 2010)      Pending
  ----------------------- ---------------- ------------------ ---------------------------

**Source**. U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance
Report.

**Frequency of Data Collection**. Annual

**Data Quality**. States review LEAs\' needs assessments when
monitoring.  ED requests States to submit examples of needs assessments
from their LEAs.

**Explanation**. 2005 data are the baseline.  The median average across
States is 100%.  The target for 2006 is 100%, and data will be available
in August 2007. 

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  ------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------
  ***Objective 2 of 2:***   *Improve the operational efficiency of the program*

  ------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------

  ----------------------- ---------------- ------------------- --------------------------
  **Measure 2.1 of 2:**                                        
  The percentage of                                            
  monitoring reports that                                      
  the Department of                                            
  Education sends to                                           
  states within 45 days                                        
  after State Grants for                                       
  Innovative Programs                                          
  monitoring visits (both                                      
  on-site and virtual).                                        
    (Desired direction:                                        
  increase)                                                    

  **Year**                **Target**       **Actual\           **Status**
                                           (or date            
                                           expected)**         

  2006                    Set a Baseline   Not Collected       Not Collected

  2007                    Set a Baseline   (September 2007)    Pending

  2008                    999              (September 2008)    Pending

  2009                    999              (September 2009)    Pending
  ----------------------- ---------------- ------------------- --------------------------

**Source**. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education, State Grants for Innovative Programs, program
office records.

**Frequency of Data Collection**. Annual

**Explanation**. 

In 2006, the program office developed and began a series of innovative,
virtual monitoring visits using videoconferencing to gather the
comprehensive information needed for multiple programs at a
significantly lower cost and greater efficiency than traditional on-site
visits.  Because 2006 was a developmental year for virtual monitoring
visits and follow-up activities, it was unrealistic to establish
a baseline.  Instead the program office will use ED\'s standard of 45
days as the target for 2007 and future years.

  ----------------------- ---------------- ------------------- --------------------------
  **Measure 2.2 of 2:**                                        
  The percentage of                                            
  States that respond                                          
  satisfactorily within                                        
  30 days to findings in                                       
  their State Grants for                                       
  Innovative Programs                                          
  monitoring reports.                                          
    (Desired direction:                                        
  increase)                                                    

  **Year**                **Target**       **Actual\           **Status**
                                           (or date            
                                           expected)**         

  2006                    Set a Baseline   Not Collected       Not Collected

  2007                    Set a Baseline   (September 2007)    Pending

  2008                    999              (September 2008)    Pending

  2009                    999              (September 2009)    Pending
  ----------------------- ---------------- ------------------- --------------------------

**Source**. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education, State Grants for Innovative Programs, program
office records.

**Frequency of Data Collection**. Annual

**Explanation**. In 2006, the program office developed and began a
series of innovative, virtual monitoring visits using videoconferencing
to gather the comprehensive information needed for multiple programs at
a significantly lower cost and greater efficiency than traditional
on-site visits. Because 2006 was a developmental year for virtual
monitoring visits and follow-up activities, it was unrealistic to
establish a baseline.  Instead the program office will use ED\'s
standard of 30 days as the target for 2007 and future years.