![](media/image1.png){width="1.2361111111111112in" height="1.25in"}

**U.S. Department of Education**

Richard W. Riley

######## Secretary

Marshall S. Smith

*Deputy Secretary (Acting)*

Alan L. Ginsburg

######## Director, Planning and Evaluation Service

Valena W. Plisko

*Director, Elementary and Secondary Education Division*

*Planning and Evaluation Service*

Joanne Bogart

*Elementary and Secondary Education Division*

*Planning and Evaluation Service*

Living in Interesting Times:

Implementation of New

Federal Education Laws

**Leslie M. Anderson**

**Brenda J. Turnbull**

**October 1998**

> **Prepared for: Prepared by:**
>
> **U.S. Department of Education Policy Studies Associates, Inc.**
>
> **Office of the Under Secretary Washington, DC**

**Planning and Evaluation Service**

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| This report was supported by the U.S. Department of Education under   |
| Contract EQ94053001.                                                  |
|                                                                       |
| Opinions expressed are those of the authors. No endorsement by the    |
| Department should be inferred.                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Executive Summary i

I. Introduction . . . . . 1

The Nine Federal Programs Studied 2

Study Purposes and Research Questions 4

Study Methods 5

Survey Respondents 6

II\. Flexibility: Do States and Districts Experience New Latitude

in Meeting the Laws' Challenges? 9

States' Administrative Flexibility 9

Local Administrative Flexibility 22

Waivers of Statutory or Regulatory Requirements 30

Summary: The Status of "Flexibility" 33

III\. Accountability: To What Extent Are States Using Performance Data

to Inform Their Efforts? 37

Accountability as a Force Shaping Federal Program Services 37

Uses of Data in SEA Program Management 39

Monitoring 46

Summary: Accountability Mechanisms in Place 55

IV\. Technical Assistance and Professional Development:

Are States Working Strategically to Build Capacity? 57

Technical Assistance 57

Professional Development 62

Summary: More Focus on Process than on Content 69

V. Conclusions 71

Appendix: Survey Instruments

**Executive Summary**

**Study Purposes and Design**

The Goals 2000: Educate America Act and the Improving America's Schools
Act (IASA), which amended the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) and the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, were enacted
in 1994. They promote the flexible use of federal funds to support
systemic, standards-based approaches to improving teaching and learning.
State education agencies (SEAs) play a crucial role in implementing
these laws: they are a primary source of information and guidance for
local school districts; and the states have the lead role in setting
academic standards and deciding how to assess student progress.

This study provided baseline information on the early implementation of
Goals 2000 and programs reauthorized under IASA and analyzed the ways in
which the state officials who administer each of several federally
funded programs have responded to the new legislative mandates. Because
the reauthorization period for Goals 2000 and programs reauthorized
under IASA extends through the year 1998-1999, a follow-up
implementation study is scheduled for late summer and early fall 1998.
The Follow-up Study of State Implementation of Federal Elementary and
Secondary Programs will analyze the ways in which administrators of
federally funded programs have continued to respond to the new
legislative framework. Both the baseline and follow-up implementation
studies will inform congressionally mandated evaluations of the impact
of federal education programs.

The programs included in the baseline study were: Goals 2000: Educate
America Act; Title I-A: Improving Basic Programs Implemented by Local
Educational Agencies; Title I-B: Even Start Family Literacy; Title I-C:
Education of Migratory Children; Title I-D: Prevention and Intervention
Programs for Children and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or
At-Risk of Dropping Out; Title II: Eisenhower Professional Development
Program; Title IV: Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities; Title VI:
Innovative Education Program Strategies; and Subtitle VII-B of the
Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act: Education for Homeless
Children and Youth. The study intended to not only gather information
more efficiently through cross-cutting data collection, but also to
examine how each program related to the overall reform agenda in the
states.

-   This study focused on changes in program administration two years
    after the 1994 enactment of Goals 2000, ESEA, and the McKinney Act,
    and one year into full program implementation. Specifically, the
    study asked: (1) how state program managers were implementing the
    laws' provisions; (2) how implementation had changed when compared
    with state practices under the predecessor programs; and (3) what
    federal and state factors had influenced these changes. The study
    explored the extent to which managers administered federal programs
    in ways that: (1) made use of increased flexibility across
    programs; (2) made programs more accountable for student
    performance; and (3) supported improvements in teaching and
    learning.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Surveys were administered during late fall 1996 and early winter
    1997 in all 51 state education agencies (including the District of
    Columbia) to managers of each of the nine federal programs plus
    state research or evaluation specialists knowledgeable about
    assessment in the Title I program. The surveys were conducted as
    in-person interviews in 14 states and telephone interviews for the
    remaining 37 states. Out of a possible 510 surveys, 485 were
    completed, a response rate of 95 percent.

Flexibility: Do States and Districts Experience New Latitude in Meeting
the Laws' Challenges?

State administrators of federal elementary and secondary programs
offered a mixed assessment of the extent to which their own flexibility,
or that of local districts, had increased in the first two years after
reauthorization. This study investigated their experience with
provisions that promoted cross-program planning, permitted consolidation
of administrative funds, and encouraged waivers of provisions that might
impede local flexibility.

States Administrative Flexibility

Although most state administrators reported taking advantage of at least
some of the provisions that were expected to add new flexibility (e.g.,
authorization of consolidated local applications), fewer than half
believed the legislation increased their flexibility in carrying out
their program responsibilities. However, some explained that their
programs had always offered flexibility.

-   Title I was the only program in which most administrators reported
    increased flexibility at the state level: 32 of them reported an
    increase, and 17 of these characterized the increase as
    "considerable." Many of the non-Title I administrators---especially
    in Title VI, Eisenhower Professional Development, and Safe and
    Drug-Free Schools and Communities--- argued that their programs had
    always offered flexibility.

-   Program managers pointed to three major themes if they described
    newfound administrative flexibility: (1) opportunity to coordinate
    and collaborate with other federally funded programs; (2)
    opportunity to approve a wider range of local program designs;
    and (3) pooling of state staff and other resources.

-   The more areas of administration to which programs reported making
    changes since the reauthorization (i.e., in procedures for local
    applications, monitoring, professional development, or technical
    assistance), the more likely they were to report finding that the
    legislation gave them more administrative flexibility.

***State consolidated planning.*** All but one state submitted a
consolidated plan to ED, and most administrators reported that the
process was both inclusive and worthwhile.

-   Collectively, almost all administrators of the nine programs in this
    study (92 percent) participated in the development of their state's
    consolidated plan in 1996. Most were quite enthusiastic about the
    consolidated planning process and the extent to which this process
    helped inform them---in many cases for the first time---about the
    activities of other state program administrators and about ways
    federally funded programs could work together.

-   Many state administrators' comments reflected a preliminary stage of
    collaborating. Program administrators were still learning how to
    communicate with each other. It was not clear, based on
    administrators' comments, how consolidated planning was translating
    into coordinated program services and operations; many
    administrators seemed to be just planning for planning's sake.

-   Although most respondents applauded the opportunity to do
    consolidated planning, administrators of the smaller discretionary
    grants programs---Migrant Education, Even Start, and Education for
    Homeless Children and Youth---expressed concern about the risk of
    overlooking the needs of special populations.

***Consolidated administrative funding***. ESEA allows states to
consolidate into a single pool the administrative set-asides under Title
I, Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities, Goals 2000, Eisenhower
Professional Development, Title VI, Migrant Education, Neglected or
Delinquent, and Even Start. Very few respondents described consolidation
of administrative funding as making it "easier to plan across programs,"
as encouraged in ED's cross-cutting guidance.

-   In just nine states did administrators of the eligible programs
    report an across-the-board consolidation of state administrative
    funds. Of these nine, there were just two states in which
    administrators tended to report that consolidation had affected
    their own work "to a considerable extent," and many of them
    perceived the effects as negative (e.g., more steps needed in
    coordination). Both of these SEAs had moved toward not just
    consolidated state planning but also consolidated application
    workshops and monitoring for local districts.

-   Looking at all the administrators across all states who believed
    their agency had consolidated administrative funds, 55 percent
    reported at least some effect on their own work. Often, they cited
    the lifting of a requirement to keep "time and effort" logs for
    tracking administrative funds to individual programs; some said that
    this helped them work more effectively or efficiently.

Local Administrative Flexibility

Compared with the percentage of state administrators who believed the
legislation had brought them more flexibility, a higher percentage
believed the legislation had brought more flexibility to local school
districts, other subgrantees, and schools. Nevertheless, state
administrators reported that many local program administrators were
still working within the boundaries of their categorical programs and
resisted efforts to coordinate program services and activities.

-   When describing how the reauthorization had increased local
    flexibility, state administrators most commonly pointed to: (1)
    flexibility in the use of resources, staffing, and time; (2)
    opportunities to coordinate and collaborate with other programs; (3)
    increased availability of the option of schoolwide programs; and (4)
    devolution of decisionmaking authority from districts to schools.

-   Administrators said much more about the processes of cross-program
    communication and coordination at the local level than about the
    purposes, such as ensuring that all children meet challenging
    standards.

Waivers of Statutory or Regulatory Requirements

The federal policy behind Goals 2000 and IASA amendments held that
program requirements should not stand in the way of effective
educational services. If a legal provision might prevent a district or
school from using federal program funds to carry out its vision of
reform, ED wanted the district to ask for a waiver of that provision.
Survey data showed, however, that with the exception of Title I
Directors, few state program managers promoted the waiver option among
local districts and that these administrators expected the next year's
waiver requests to number only in the hundreds.

-   Title I administrators were the most active in their communications
    with school districts about waivers. Indeed, Title I was the only
    program with a majority of administrators who not only did the
    fairly simple administrative tasks such as forwarding copies of ED's
    waiver guidance but also provided technical assistance to districts
    in the process of preparing waiver requests.

-   Most states were taking other steps toward removing barriers to
    local flexibility, such as reviewing their own laws or regulations
    that might impede local reform. The great majority of Goals 2000
    administrators (38 out of 44) reported that their states were
    reviewing state laws and regulations. However, these efforts often
    lacked visibility among the administrators of other federal
    programs: only 41 percent of administrators of ESEA and homeless
    programs said they knew their state was planning to conduct such a
    review.

**Accountability**

This study explored the extent to which state administrators were using
a variety of accountability tools---including student performance data
as measured by state assessments, program performance indicators, and
program monitoring systems---to press for improving student performance.
With the exception of following some mandated procedures, such as
identifying Title I schools in need of improvement, most program
administrators gave only limited evidence that they were attending to
student performance.

Uses of Data in SEA Program Management

With the exception of Title I directors, less than 20 percent of survey
respondents said they used student performance data in ways that might
help focus attention on student performance and thereby improve program
quality, such as sending student performance reports to districts (19
percent) or to technical assistance providers (17 percent).[^1]

-   Almost all federal program administrators, 91 percent, said they
    received (or expected to receive soon) data on student performance.
    Some (15 percent) acknowledged that they did not use the data for
    any purpose. This was most common among administrators of Title VI
    and Eisenhower Professional Development---programs in which students
    are seldom direct participants.

-   Program performance indicators were not a particularly common means
    by which program administrators assessed and improved program
    success. They were found in slight majorities of the state offices
    administering Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities and Even
    Start, but in only about one-fifth of the offices administering
    Title VI and Neglected or Delinquent. In most of the other programs,
    about 40 percent of managers said their offices had developed
    program performance indicators.

-   Despite their infrequent use, program performance indicators seemed
    to hold value among those program administrators who did report
    using them.

**[Monitoring]{.underline}**

Although states had made progress in dismantling their old systems of
monitoring for compliance with program provisions, they had far to go in
building new monitoring procedures that would send a clear message to
districts about a new, standards-based accountability framework.

-   The purpose of monitoring has changed fast. Numerous administrators
    gave some variant of the following statement: "We don't do
    monitoring anymore. We provide assistance to districts to improve
    program quality."

-   Rather than focusing on districts that might be out of compliance or
    where student performance was low, program managers seemed more
    likely to go to the districts that invited them in. Very few program
    managers (13 percent) reported that monitoring visits were triggered
    by information about student performance.

-   With downsizing of state administrative staffs, program-specific
    monitoring visits have become infrequent. The majority of
    respondents for Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities,
    Eisenhower Professional Development, Title VI, and Neglected or
    Delinquent said that fewer than one-fourth of their subgrantees
    received monitoring visits in the past 12 months. Integrated
    monitoring visits appeared to be the coming trend among federally
    funded programs; already, about 27 states conducted some form of
    integrated monitoring visits.

-   According to administrators, integrated monitoring---by virtue of
    its focus on several programs at one time---does limit their ability
    to collect extensive program-specific information needed to
    determine whether programs are operating within the law. In
    addition, administrators warned that the integrated monitoring teams
    would overwhelm small districts where one person may administer
    several programs and that team members might lack the expertise to
    help individual programs.

-   Many states' integrated monitoring teams did not include some of the
    smaller, discretionary grant programs (e.g., Even Start, Migrant
    Education, and Homeless Education).

**Technical Assistance and Professional Development: Are States Working
Strategically to Build Capacity?**

Programs varied a great deal in their attention to building local
capacity around standards, assessment, or whole-school improvement;
these topics were reportedly important in Title I but less so in other
programs. Administrators were, however, learning to work together in
technical assistance and professional development.

Technical Assistance

Agency downsizing in many SEAs reduced the technical assistance capacity
in federal programs. With limited resources, program administrators had
to make difficult choices about where to provide assistance.

-   Rather than actively assessing local capacity to respond to the new
    legislation, many said they were relying on districts to know when
    they needed help and how to ask for it.

-   "Meeting the needs of special populations" was the most frequently
    selected technical assistance topic across all programs, suggesting
    that technical assistance remained largely responsive to
    program-specific issues rather than to a cross-cutting agenda of
    standards, assessment, whole-school improvement, and data-driven
    decisionmaking.

-   The content of technical assistance varied widely by program.
    However, more than two-thirds of Title I and Goals 2000
    administrators showed coordination in the content of the assistance
    they provided: each of these programs provided or funded technical
    assistance in standards, assessment, whole-school improvement, and
    data-driven decisionmaking.

Professional Development

Regarding the content of professional development, federal programs
seemed more inclined to encourage a smorgasbord of topics rather than a
tight focus. In addition, data analyses suggest that within any given
state, there was little agreement among program administrators regarding
the content of professional development.

-   Program administrators were promoting some approaches to
    professional development that were often described as good ways of
    improving teaching and learning. Two-thirds of federal program
    managers reported that they were discouraging one-shot events in
    professional development. Close to that same number said they
    encouraged professional development organized for teams of
    individuals from a particular school.

-   Virtually every state administrator of Title I and an overwhelming
    majority in Eisenhower Professional Development encouraged districts
    to pool funds for professional development across federal programs.
    Overall, 72 percent of all administrators did so, but the percentage
    varied somewhat by program. Title I was the program most often cited
    as a program with which other programs should pool their funds.

Conclusions

In the first few years of implementation of Goals 2000 and the
reauthorized ESEA and homeless programs, SEAs had taken major steps
toward cross-program communication in their own agencies, and many
program administrators had also communicated a message of broad program
change to their districts. Effects were beginning to emerge, although
they were not as large as some might wish.

-   All SEAs made noticeable changes to their procedures in implementing
    the reauthorized programs. Consolidated plans were almost universal,
    and the planning process had helped inform administrators about each
    others' programs; in many cases, planning had also given them new
    ideas about ways to work together. This collaborative work was
    beginning to result in the acceptance, albeit limited, of
    consolidated plans from local school districts and in integrated
    monitoring visits across programs.

-   Most program administrators gave little evidence that they were
    attending to student performance. Having largely dismantled their
    old monitoring systems, few were sending a strong message to their
    districts that accountability for student performance would replace
    the compliance monitoring of the past.

-   Compliance monitoring was being replaced with technical
    assistance---primarily offered to districts that knew when and how
    to ask for it.

In short, new procedures for program administration (such as
consolidated state planning) were driving a good deal of change.
Downsizing and SEA reorganizations were also responsible for changes in
program management. Largely missing from the understanding of most
program administrators, however, was any urgent press to organize their
day-to-day work around aligning program services and operations with the
expectations for students' academic performance embodied in state
content and performance standards.

I. Introduction

The Goals 2000: Educate America Act and the Improving America's Schools
Act (IASA), which amended the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) and the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, were enacted
in 1994. Together they provided a comprehensive system of support for
state and local education reform initiatives intended to enhance
children's educational achievement. This federal legislation promoted
the use of federal funds to support systemic, standards-based approaches
to improving the quality of teaching and learning. Specifically, these
federally supported elementary and secondary programs set an ambitious
agenda of policy changes, including supporting states in the development
of:

-   Challenging state standards of curriculum content and student
    performance

-   High-quality student assessment systems that are aligned with
    challenging state content and student performance standards so as to
    measure student attainment of such standards

-   Sustained, intensive professional development aligned with
    challenging state standards

Goals 2000 and the programs reauthorized under IASA also promoted a more
coordinated, coherent approach to program administration; the barriers
between categorical programs were removed. Specifically, the laws
allowed state administrators of federal programs to coordinate and
consolidate their administrative functions so as to minimize the burden
and cost and thereby redirect their programs to support broader state
policy initiatives, such as the implementation of standards. These laws
also offered greater decisionmaking authority and flexibility to school
administrators and teachers in exchange for greater responsibility for
student performance.

State education agencies play a crucial role in implementing the new
laws: they are a primary source of information and guidance for local
school districts; and the states have the lead role in setting academic
standards and deciding how to assess student progress. Goals 2000 and
the reauthorized ESEA encouraged state administrators of federal
programs to use new approaches in program management---to communicate a
more concerted focus on improving students' chances of meeting high
standards, and to pull administrative operations together across
categorical programs. This study, conducted under contract with the
Planning and Evaluation Service in the Office of the Under Secretary,
U.S. Department of Education (ED), focuses on the work of these key
administrators at the state level. It evaluates early state
implementation of IASA and Goals 2000 and analyzes the ways in which
state administrators of federally funded programs have responded to the
new legislative framework.

**The Nine Federal Programs Studied**

This study focuses on Goals 2000 and eight programs under the Improving
America's Schools Act, which amended the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act and the Stewart B. McKinney Act. The programs vary in
purpose, size, and funding arrangements, but each one has given the
states a key role to play in communicating program purposes and
procedures to local districts. The programs included in this study are
(in order of size):[^2]

 ***Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of
1965: Helping Disadvantaged Children Meet High Standards; Part A:
Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies***
(amended by IASA)**.** Supports local educational agencies in improving
teaching and learning to help low-achieving students in high-poverty
schools meet the same challenging state content and performance
standards that apply to all students. Promotes effective instructional
strategies that increase the amount and quality of learning time for
at-risk children and that deliver an enriched and accelerated
curriculum. Also expands eligibility of schools for schoolwide programs
that serve all children in high-poverty schools; encourages school-based
planning; establishes accountability based on results; promotes
effective parental participation; and supports coordination with health
and social services.

> Type of Assistance: Formula grants
>
> FY 1997 Appropriation: \$7.295 billion

 ***Title IV, ESEA: Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities.***
Supports Goal Seven of the National Education Goals by encouraging
comprehensive approaches to make schools and neighborhoods safe and
drug-free. Provides funds to governors, state educational agencies
(SEAs), LEAs, institutions of higher education, and nonprofit entities
for a variety of drug and violence prevention programs.

> Type of Assistance: Formula grants
>
> FY 1997 Appropriation: \$556 million

 ***Title III, Goals 2000: Educate America Act: State and Local
Education Systemic Improvement.*** Seeks to "improve the quality of
education for all students by improving student learning through a
long-term, broad-based effort to promote coherent and coordinated
improvements in the system of education throughout the nation at the
state and local levels" (Sec. 302).

> Type of Assistance: Formula grants to states; discretionary grants to
> districts.
>
> FY 1997 Appropriation: \$476 million

 ***Title II, ESEA: Dwight D. Eisenhower Professional Development
Program.*** Concentrates on upgrading the expertise of teachers and
other school staff to enable them to teach all children to challenging
state content standards. Supports sustained and intensive high-quality
professional development, focused on achieving high performance
standards in mathematics, science, and other core academic subjects.

> Type of Assistance: Formula grants
>
> FY 1997 Appropriation: \$310 million

 ***Title VI, ESEA: Innovative Education Program Strategies.***
Provides broad support for activities that encourage school reform and
educational innovation.

> Type of Assistance: Formula grants
>
> FY 1997 Appropriation: \$310 million

 ***Title I, ESEA, Part C: Education of Migratory Children***. Supports
educational programs for migratory children to help reduce the
educational disruptions and other problems that result from repeated
moves. Helps provides migratory children with the same opportunities as
other children to meet challenging state content and performance
standards. Targets efforts on the most mobile children, whose schooling
is most likely to be disrupted.

> Type of Assistance: Formula grants

FY 1997 Appropriation: \$305 million

 ***Title I, ESEA, Part B: Even Start Family Literacy***. Improves the
educational opportunities of low-income families by integrating early
childhood education, adult literacy or adult basic education, and
parenting education into a unified family literacy program.

> Type of Assistance: Formula grants to state education agencies, which
> in turn make discretionary grants to partnerships of local education
> agencies and nonprofit community-based organizations or other
> nonprofit organizations; federal discretionary grants for projects
> that serve migratory children and their families, Indian tribes,
> tribal organizations, the outlying areas, and a project in a prison
> housing women and preschool-aged children; and to states for statewide
> family literacy initiatives.
>
> FY 1997 Appropriation: \$102 million

 ***Title I, ESEA, Part D: Prevention and Intervention Programs for
Children and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk of Dropping
Out***. Extends educational services and learning time in state
institutions and community-day programs for neglected and delinquent
children and youth. Encourages smooth transitions to enable participants
to continue schooling or enter the job market upon leaving the
institution. Supports programs in which school districts collaborate
with locally operated correctional facilities to prepare youth in these
facilities for high school completion, training, and employment and to
operate dropout prevention programs.

> Type of Assistance: Formula grants to state education agencies;
> discretionary grants to state agencies and local education agencies
>
> FY 1997 Appropriation: \$39 million

 ***Subtitle VII-B of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act:
Education for Homeless Children and Youth*** (amended by IASA). Requires
states to "review and undertake steps to revise \... laws, regulations,
or policies that may act as a barrier to the enrollment, attendance, or
success in school of homeless children and youth to ensure that homeless
children and youth are afforded the same free, appropriate public
education as provided to other children and youth" (Sec. 721); and
supports "activities for and services to homeless children \... and
homeless youth" (Sec. 722).

> Type of Assistance: Formula grants to state education agencies;
> discretionary grants to local education agencies
>
> FY 1997 Appropriation: \$25 million

**Study Purposes and Research Questions**

The evaluation's purposes were derived from ED's larger framework of
data collection and analysis for the National Assessment of Title I
(Sec. 1501) and a comprehensive evaluation of federal support for
elementary and secondary reform (Sec. 14701), an assessment authorized
by ESEA. In consultation with an Independent Review Panel of state and
local educators, researchers, and other citizens, ED decided to focus on
the following aspects of program implementation at the state and local
levels: high academic standards for all children; assessment and
evaluation; support for enriching curriculum and instruction;
flexibility coupled with accountability for student performance; and
targeting of resources.

Cutting across these topical areas of focus are this study's questions
about administrative processes at the state level:

>  How are state program managers currently implementing the law's
> provisions?

-   How has implementation changed when compared with state practices
    under the predecessor programs?

>  What federal and state factors underlie these changes?

This study, then, focused on changes in program administration after the
1994 reauthorization of federal programs under ESEA and the McKinney
Homeless Assistance Act and the enactment of Goals 2000. It explored
early state-level progress (i.e., in the two years following the 1994
reauthorization of ESEA and McKinney) toward administering the federal
programs in ways that:

-   Make use of increased flexibility across programs

-   Make programs more accountable for student performance

-   Support improvements in teaching and learning

These elements of state program administration form the organizing
structure for this report: each of the next three chapters presents
findings related to one of the above elements; a concluding chapter
discusses overall trends in state administration of federal programs.

**Study Methods**

Surveys were administered during late fall 1996 and early winter 1997
(approximately two years after the reauthorization of ESEA and the
McKinney Homeless Assistance Act and 2.5 years after the authorization
of Goals 2000) in all 51 state education agencies (including the
District of Columbia) to state-level managers of each of nine federal
programs plus state research or evaluation specialists knowledgeable
about assessment in the Title I program (henceforth referred to as
"Title I assessment experts"), for a total of 510 possible respondents.
Respondents did not complete paper-and-pencil surveys. Instead, each
survey was administered as a personal interview with standard questions,
some of them closed-ended and some open-ended. The surveys were
conducted in person in 14 states and via telephone for the remaining 37
states. The interviewers recorded all responses on written forms.
Responses to closed-ended questions were tabulated; responses to
open-ended questions were coded for tabulation as well as yielding more
elaborated information.

To explore cross-cutting matters such as state procedures in planning or
professional development under all nine programs, we created a core
survey to be administered to state-level managers of all the programs.
For Goals 2000, the core survey was streamlined by removing (1) all the
questions asking respondents to compare the reauthorized law to the
previous law (because Goals 2000 is new legislation) and (2) questions
about waivers of program provisions (which are available from ED for
provisions of the ESEA programs and Subtitle VII-B of the McKinney Act
but not for provisions of Goals 2000). By asking so many identical
questions across programs, the survey enabled us to present comparative
findings throughout this report. In some cases, however, cross-program
differences reflect real policy differences in program purposes and
approaches; this study's approach should not be construed as implying
that all programs ought to be administered identically. For six of the
nine programs, tailored questions about mandated targeting, assessment,
and other administrative procedures were added to the core survey.
Finally, a separate survey was developed and administered to each
state's Title I assessment expert.

Out of a possible 510 surveys, 485 were completed (129 in person and 356
by telephone), a response rate of 95 percent.

**Survey Respondents**

To identify our respondents, we called each individual identified by ED
as the state contact person or coordinator for each of the nine programs
in each of the 50 states plus the District of Columbia. We asked that
person if they would be able to answer questions about state plans,
subgrant applications, project monitoring, waivers, accountability,
professional development, and technical assistance under that program.
We also asked for the name of anyone else in federal program
administration at the state level whom we should interview regarding
these issues.

The respondents we ultimately identified and interviewed were managers
who: (1) often administered more than one federal or state program; (2)
varied in the length of their administrative experience; (3) worked out
of a variety of offices and divisions that might or might not be housed
in the state education agency (SEA); and (4) might supervise or be
supervised by other respondents to this survey. In addition:

>  State administrators of Title I, Eisenhower Professional
> Development, and Goals 2000 tended to be relatively high-ranking
> veterans of SEAs. In several cases, for example, Goals 2000
> administrators were deputy or associate chief state school officers.
> As such, the Goals 2000 administrators tended to provide a broader
> view of education reform as it related to both state and federal
> education program initiatives. Administrators of the other federally
> funded programs included in this study were more often middle or
> first-tier managers in the SEA.
>
>  In many cases, the Even Start program was housed in a separate
> division---and sometimes a separate agency---from other federally
> funded education programs.
>
>  Four discretionary grants programs (Even Start, Migrant Education,
> Neglected or Delinquent, and Education for Homeless Children and
> Youth) tended to have experienced relatively high turnover among their
> coordinators. Consequently, state-level staff coordinating these
> programs were sometimes unable to reflect back on program
> administration and operations prior to the 1994 reauthorization of
> ESEA and the McKinney Act.
>
>  The Title I coordinator was often the respondent for both the Title
> I and Neglected or Delinquent programs; respondents for the Eisenhower
> Professional Development and Title VI programs were sometimes the same
> person.

Finally, it is important to note that there were a number of legislative
provisions in both Goals 2000 and IASA that this study did not address,
usually because the provisions were covered by other ED-funded studies
conducted as part of the National Assessment of Title I and the
comprehensive evaluation of federal support for elementary and secondary
reform. For example, this study did not address issues pertaining to:
(1) parent involvement; (2) Ed-Flex authority; (3) targeting and
resource allocation; and (4) preschool-to-school and school-to-work
transitions.

**II. Flexibility: Do States and Districts Experience**

**New Latitude in Meeting the Laws' Challenges?**

According to the reauthorized Title I, "Decentralized decisionmaking is
a key ingredient of systemic reform. Schools need the resources,
flexibility, and authority to design and implement effective strategies
for bringing their children to high levels of performance"
\[Sec.1001(c)(8)\]. To help states in their efforts to raise the
academic achievement of all students to high standards---recognizing
that there may be many ways to do so---Goals 2000 and IASA amendments
attempted to offer states greater flexibility in the use of federal
program resources and in the administration of federal program services.
This flexibility for states mirrored the flexibility that policymakers
sought to offer to schools and school districts. Believing that schools,
districts, and states should have the freedom to do whatever it would
take to raise students' achievement, unencumbered by administrative
barriers, the laws encouraged cross-program planning, consolidation of
administrative funding, and waivers of specific program provisions.

In this chapter, we discuss the extent to which state program
administrators (1) perceived that their flexibility had increased in the
two years after the reauthorization of ESEA and the McKinney Act
(henceforth referred to as the "Homeless" program), (2) were using each
of several specific provisions for cross-program coordination,[^3] and
(3) had observed changes in flexibility at the local level.

**States' Administrative Flexibility**

"Flexibility" throughout the intergovernmental system is a watchword of
IASA. Two years after authorization, did state administrators of IASA
programs think their own flexibility had increased? And what had they
done to avail themselves of various options intended to increase
flexibility and cross-program coordination?

**[Perceptions of Increased Flexibility]{.underline}**

State administrators of ESEA and Homeless programs offered a mixed
assessment of the extent to which their own flexibility had increased in
the first two years after authorization. Many argued that their programs
had always offered flexibility. This was especially true in Title VI,
Eisenhower Professional Development, and Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities. One Title VI administrator's comment represented this
perspective: "Flexibility has always been there; it really hasn't
changed." Title I was the only program in which most administrators
reported an increase in flexibility at the state level: 32 of them
reported an increase, and 17 of these characterized the increase as
"considerable." (Twelve said it was too early to tell, and five said
their flexibility had not increased at all.) In no other program,
however, did a majority of state administrators perceive an increase in
their flexibility. The number reporting any increase ranged from 21 in
Eisenhower Professional Development (where 11 called the increase
"considerable") down to 11 (including just 3 choosing the term
"considerable") in Even Start (Table 1). Overall, outside Title I, state
administrators were very close to being evenly divided among those who
said their flexibility had increased a considerable extent or somewhat
(35 percent), those who said it was too early to tell (33 percent), and
those who said state flexibility had not increased at all (32 percent).

The perception of increased flexibility also varied by state. In 12
states, most of the ESEA and Homeless program administrators (most often
five out of eight) reported at least some increase in their flexibility;
in 11 states, on the other hand, no more than one administrator reported
an increase. In the nine states that were participating in the Education
Flexibility Partnership Demonstration Program (Ed-Flex) as of late
1996,[^4] 46 percent of all administrators reported an increase in
flexibility; in the non-Ed-Flex states, the figure was 38 percent.

**Table 1**

**Extent to Which State Administrators Find the Reauthorized
Legislation**

**Gives Them More Administrative Flexibility Than They Had**

**Before the Reauthorization, by Program**

**(N=392)**[^5]

+------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+
| **Taking into account  |           |         |         |           |
| all of your offices    |           |         |         |           |
| responsibilities under |           |         |         |           |
| this program, to what  |           |         |         |           |
| extent do you find     |           |         |         |           |
| that this legislation  |           |         |         |           |
| gives you more         |           |         |         |           |
| administrative         |           |         |         |           |
| flexibility than you   |           |         |         |           |
| had before the         |           |         |         |           |
| reauthorization?**     |           |         |         |           |
+------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+
|                        | **Number  |         |         |           |
|                        | of State  |         |         |           |
|                        | Admin     |         |         |           |
|                        | istrators |         |         |           |
|                        | Reporting |         |         |           |
|                        | That**    |         |         |           |
|                        |           |         |         |           |
|                        | **Reauth  |         |         |           |
|                        | orization |         |         |           |
|                        | Gives     |         |         |           |
|                        | Them**    |         |         |           |
|                        |           |         |         |           |
|                        | **[Admin  |         |         |           |
|                        | istrative |         |         |           |
|                        | Flexibili |         |         |           |
|                        | ty:]{.und |         |         |           |
|                        | erline}** |         |         |           |
+------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+
| **Federally Funded**   | **To a**  | **[So   | **[Not  | **Too     |
|                        |           | mewhat] | at      | Early**   |
| **[Education           | **Consi   | {.under | All]    |           |
| P                      | derable** | line}** | {.under | **[to     |
| rograms]{.underline}** |           |         | line}** | T         |
|                        | **[Ext    |         |         | ell]{.und |
|                        | ent]{.und |         |         | erline}** |
|                        | erline}** |         |         |           |
+------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+
| Title I, Part A (N=50) | 17        | 15      | 5       | 12        |
+------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+
| Safe and Drug-Free     | 7         | 8       | 12      | 23        |
| Schools (N=50)         |           |         |         |           |
+------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+
| Eisenhower             | 11        | 10      | 12      | 16        |
| Professional           |           |         |         |           |
| Development (N=50)     |           |         |         |           |
+------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+
| Title VI (N=50)        | 8         | 9       | 20      | 12        |
+------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+
| Education of Migratory | 5         | 11      | 15      | 14        |
| Children (N=47)        |           |         |         |           |
+------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+
| Even Start Family      | 3         | 8       | 20      | 17        |
| Literacy (N=49)        |           |         |         |           |
+------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+
| Programs for Neglected | 9         | 10      | 14      | 13        |
| or Delinquent Children |           |         |         |           |
| and Youth (N=48)       |           |         |         |           |
+------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+
| Education for Homeless | 4         | 12      | 15      | 15        |
| Children and Youth     |           |         |         |           |
| (N=48)                 |           |         |         |           |
+------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+
| TOTAL                  | 64        | 83      | 113     | 122       |
+------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+

Table reads: Seventeen state directors of Title I, Part A reported that
the reauthorized legislation gives them more administrative flexibility
than they had before the reauthorization.

**[What Did "State Flexibility" Mean to State
Administrators?]{.underline}**

In describing the administrative flexibility available to them since
reauthorization, state program managers expressed three major themes:
(1) the opportunity to coordinate and collaborate with other federally
funded programs; (2) the opportunity to approve a wider range of local
program designs, often because of specific changes in their program's
authorizing law; and (3) pooling of state staff and other resources. We
also found that the perception of flexibility was related to specific
changes in state program administration procedures.

***Coordination and collaboration among administrators.*** In responses
to a variety of open-ended survey questions, many respondents talked
about the new opportunity to coordinate and collaborate with other
program administrators. The following comments were typical:

> It's allowed us to work with all programs integrated under one
> umbrella; \[we\] plan across programs \[now\]. (Title I)
>
> \[We are\] able to work with other people we've never worked with
> before---all other federal titles. (Eisenhower Professional
> Development)

In some cases, respondents took this theme a step farther and cited
benefits to schools or students that could result from their
coordination and collaboration:

> More people are involved in looking at the programs or schools that
> are most in need. (Title I)
>
> We can consolidate programs and work together; there is an opportunity
> to think about possibilities for helping students achieve more. (Title
> I)
>
> A lot more people in the SEA are familiar with Title VI, which allows
> them to be better resources to LEAs and to be better about finding
> links among programs. (Title VI)
>
> By virtue of \[IASA\] team participation, we have ongoing learning and
> cross-training. It puts more visibility on the homeless, and
> continuation of services for homeless students is much greater. We are
> reaching into all schools, not just those with McKinney money.
> (Education for Homeless Children and Youth)

***Flexibility to approve a wider range of local choices.*** A second
theme in the administrators' comments was that of increased flexibility
in local service delivery, often because of particular provisions in the
new legislation. For example, state coordinators of Eisenhower
Professional Development mentioned the broadening of program content
beyond mathematics and science. Coordinators of Even Start mentioned
flexibility in planning grants and in joint funding. Again, some
administrators went on to make the connection to improvements in
services or student outcomes:

> The law is generally more flexible. I'm much more likely to say "yes"
> to district requests. The intent now is to do good for kids. We work
> with districts to figure out a way to let them do good things for
> kids. (Title I)
>
> It has allowed us to put the focus on achievement \... has removed
> excuses for non-performance\... especially the bureaucratic
> requirements as an excuse to avoid the focus on achievement. (Title I)
>
> We're now moving in one direction \... concentrating on serving the
> child now rather than on program parameters. (Safe and Drug-Free
> Schools and Communities)
>
> It gives us the freedom to talk about different reform models---ones
> that are focused more on school improvement in general. (Title VI)

Not every state administrator applauded local flexibility. A few veteran
managers, recalling past abuses, expressed concern about it:

> You can do anything you want to do, you can really do anything you
> want to do. That bothers me as an old-time bureaucrat because that's
> when you start having abuses. Time will tell, won't it? (Title VI)

***Consolidation of state administrative funding.*** Many respondents
also referred to their state's consolidation of administrative funding,
which gave them greater flexibility in the use of time, resources, and
staff. Among the managers who said their state was consolidating its
administrative funds across federal programs, 45 percent reported an
increase in flexibility; among those who said their state was not
consolidating funds, 33 percent reported greater flexibility. The
following comments were typical:

> We have the flexibility to allow staff to work across programs.
> Before, we had to look at time and effort for the specific program
> person assigned to it. (Title I)
>
> \[The law\] allows us to fund workshops without specifically saying
> what dollars came out of what program. (Title I)

***Changes in procedures for working with local districts.***
Respondents' views on the extent of increase in their flexibility were
related to the extent to which their programs were using new
administrative procedures. The more areas of state program
administration to which programs reported making changes since the
reauthorization (i.e., in procedures for local applications, monitoring,
professional development, or technical assistance), the more likely they
were to report finding that the legislation gave them more
administrative flexibility. There may well be some interaction of cause
and effect in this relationship: those state administrators who heard
and believed the federal message that the legislation offered
flexibility were probably the first to make changes in their procedures,
but the changes in program procedures probably also resulted in
administrators experiencing greater flexibility.

Although fewer than half of all state administrators believed the
legislation increased their flexibility in carrying out their program
responsibilities, most reported taking advantage of at least some of the
flexibility provisions in the law. The following discussion addresses
the types of flexibility provisions states used, including consolidated
planning, consolidation of administrative funds, consolidated plans and
applications from districts and other subgrantees, and waivers.

**[State Consolidated Planning]{.underline}**

According to ED's cross-cutting guidance regarding state implementation
of the IASA amendments, consolidated planning would enable states "to
plan how to use all of their federal funds to support overall state
goals" (USED, 1996; p.7). All but one state submitted a consolidated
plan, and most administrators report in this survey that the process was
both inclusive and worthwhile.

Collectively, almost all state administrators of the eight programs in
this study (92 percent) participated in the development of their state's
consolidated plan in 1996. Although we do not know how intensive their
participation may have been, at least they report having been "at the
table." The rate of participation did not vary much across programs,
ranging from 48 of the 50 Title I coordinators down to 41 of the 48
coordinators of Education for Homeless Children and Youth.

***Critics of the planning process.*** Although administrators who did
not participate in planning represented a small fraction of all
administrators, they were quick to register their concern when we asked
them, in an open-ended question, to elaborate on their experiences with
consolidated planning. "I have never seen the plan," a Title VI
coordinator said emphatically. Some participants, too, had criticisms. A
coordinator of Migrant Education had submitted information to a
committee that wrote the plan but did not feel that the process or the
plan gave her an opportunity to discuss important program details.
Similarly, the coordinator of Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities
in another state regretted the loss of control over the plan's content:

> I submitted what I thought should go in, but it was changed by others
> in the name of consolidation. Things I thought should be included were
> not there. For example, the measurable goals didn't come out as I
> wanted.

A Title VI coordinator lamented the missed opportunities to grapple with
program purposes and approaches, expressing regret that the SEA had
focused instead on the mechanics of producing a written plan:

> We were asked to look at the Title I plan and their format\.... Rather
> than all of us sitting together to discuss what are the needs of all
> students and what do we need to do, how can we use funds to accomplish
> our goals, \... they started with Title I. I support the IASA premise
> of coordination. Coordination should happen and we should meet
> regularly. But putting it into a single document was hard and
> confusing to the states\.... The only other meetings we've had at the
> state level are to make amendments to the plan for next year. There
> are no real planning and consolidation meetings to talk about the
> plan. No conversations are happening like: "Where are we six months
> later? What's working? What can we do to plan and coordinate
> better?"\... For real consolidated planning to happen, we need models
> of coordination and integration of services and how funding sources
> can work together\.... The work and process of planning needs to be
> emphasized, and deemphasize the written document.

***Planning as a means of informing administrators about other
programs.*** When asked to describe their participation, most
administrators were quite enthusiastic about the consolidated planning
process and the extent to which this process helped inform them---in
many cases for the first time---about the activities of other state
program administrators and about ways federally funded programs can work
together. Indeed, program managers like to know about each others'
programs; they want to work together because it makes educational sense
and because it is practical in the face of SEA downsizing, as a number
of state administrators explained:

> There's greater cross-program collaboration. We're learning about
> other projects and programs, enabling all staff to be informed about
> the migrant (and other) programs. (Migrant Education)
>
> Consolidated planning has lead to increased cooperation, and more
> serious recognition of and awareness by federal program personnel that
> \[all IASA programs exist and\] need to be addressed. (Education for
> Homeless Children and Youth)
>
> \[Because of consolidated planning\] we now know what other programs
> are doing and we're participating in each other's meetings. (Title I)
>
> \[Consolidated planning was\] the first time we took the time to sit
> down and think about how resources from various programs could be
> coordinated and realized that many programs share common goals.
> (Neglected or Delinquent)
>
> \[The consolidated planning process\] got us to look across different
> IASA programs. We would not have looked at other resources and the
> plans of other programs otherwise. We found a lot of duplication of
> services and eliminated them to the extent we could. (Title I)
>
> \[Consolidated planning encourages integration of various programs,
> maximizes resources and reduces duplication \[of services\]. With
> consolidated planning, \[we\] look at other programs and see how we're
> more alike than different. Consolidated planning demonstrates how
> programs can integrate services and resources. (Even Start)
>
> \[Through consolidated planning\] we can do things in an integrated
> way and we've decreased the amount of service duplication. Through
> consolidated planning, we've helped folks understand what other
> programs are about and how we can work together. (Safe and Drug-Free
> Schools and Communities)

***An early stage of collaboration.*** Despite the enthusiasm for
consolidated planning, many state administrators' comments reflected a
preliminary stage of collaborating. Program administrators were still
learning how to communicate with each other and break down categorical
program barriers, as the following Title VI director's comments
suggested:

> Although we don't know how to talk to each other, we're learning, and
> that's the exciting part of this process. We're learning through joint
> meetings at the state level, and we're trying to model the
> coordination. We're getting to know where the programs are---where the
> coordinates are and where are the points where we can all meet.

Indeed, it was not clear, based on state administrators' comments, how
consolidated planning was translating into coordinated program services
and operations; many administrators seemed to be just planning for
planning's sake:

> The consolidated plan exists on paper, but implementation remains
> elusive. (Education for Homeless Children and Youth)
>
> The consolidated plan emphasizes the document itself and not the
> planning and coordination of services---the process. (Title VI)
>
> \...we talk and write about collaboration, but we're only in the early
> stages of actually doing it. (Education for Homeless Children and
> Youth)

In fact, based on state administrators' comments we were only able to
identify a handful of specific examples of coordinating the activities
of two or more programs for a common goal. In Virginia, for example, the
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Program planned to be a
partner in the summer Migrant program for high school students. In
Kentucky, the homeless program was "piggy-backing" on the state's
Extended School Services Program to provide tutoring services rather
than providing such services separately. A few other states also cited
specific examples of coordinated program services and activities
resulting from consolidated planning; however, they are the exception
rather than the rule.

***The role of smaller federal programs in the plan.*** Although most
respondents, in answering various open-ended survey questions, applauded
the opportunity to do consolidated planning, there was more dissent
among administrators of the smaller programs---Migrant Education, Even
Start, and Education for Homeless Children and Youth. They expressed
concern about the risk of overlooking the needs of the populations of
children they targeted and served. One coordinator of Migrant Education
typified this concern, saying that the changes resulting from
consolidated planning were not "advantageous" as far as he was
concerned. He cautioned that the consolidated plan did not afford him
enough opportunity to specify what his program was doing and that the
integration of programs may "dilute services to migrant children." He
said his annual plan had shrunk from 70 pages to half a page in the
consolidated plan. A Homeless Coordinator did not view consolidated
planning as a positive development because it reduced the specificity
with which programs were required to articulate their goals; he
explained that this also limited the ability of program administrators
to articulate the depth of the problems their programs face and what
needs to be done about them. An Even Start Coordinator explained that
consolidated planning creates the opportunity for small programs to be
absorbed by larger ones. As she explained, "We need to make sure that
the reason for enacting these programs is not forgotten."

However, some of these programs' state administrators viewed
consolidated planning as a welcome chance to work in a larger arena and
garner more attention to the populations their programs serve. One state
illustrates the contrast in perspectives. This state had formed a team,
cutting across the ESEA programs, to handle consolidated planning, joint
application workshops, and integrated monitoring. The one administrator
who did not participate in developing the consolidated plan, the Migrant
Education coordinator, expressed reservations about it, saying it was
too global and differed "a great deal" from the plan that would have
been developed for Migrant Education alone:

> \[The plan contains\] very little on Migrant Education; \[it takes\]
> more of a global view of how IASA programs could run in a state, but
> the plan doesn't tell how programs are actually run in the state\....
> The state plan is useless as far as I am concerned.

Yet the State Coordinator of Education for Homeless Children and Youth
in the same state expressed enthusiasm for the planning process, in
which he had participated, and for the chance to "link efforts" with all
the other programs:

> \[Consolidated planning\] made a much greater impact than if I were
> doing it all alone. We're approaching the school holistically.

These two perspectives illustrate the tradeoff between the more specific
program plans of the past, which had the advantage of spelling out in
detail and at length what would be done for each population, and the
broader plans emerging from a team effort, which can potentially put a
small student population on the agenda of every state administrator and
thus of every school. Among state administrators of the smaller
programs, opinion is divided at this early stage about the benefits of
consolidated planning.

**[Consolidated Administrative Funding]{.underline}**

Each federal program allows state education agencies to set aside a
small percentage of the funds for state-level program administration.
These set-asides typically pay the salaries of state coordinators as
well as covering the other expenses of application review, technical
assistance, monitoring, and the like. The IASA law allowed states to
make a change in the way they accounted for these funds: it authorized
them to consolidate into a single pool the administrative set-asides
under Title I, Even Start, Migrant Education, Neglected or Delinquent,
Eisenhower Professional Development, Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities, Title VI, and Goals 2000.

Not every state was eligible for this consolidation; the law provided
this option only for SEAs in which the majority of the agency's
resources came from nonfederal sources. Among those that were eligible,
it appears that some did not choose to consolidate funds and some were
selective about including programs in the consolidation.

***Extent to which state administrators experienced a consolidation of
administrative funds.*** In just nine states did state administrators of
the eligible programs report an across-the-board consolidation of state
administrative funds; in another eight, none answered "yes" to this
question (i.e., all administrators said either "no" or "don't know").
Aside from these 17 states where the picture was clear, an additional 11
states had just one administrator whose report differed from that of his
or her colleagues (e.g., there were seven "no" answers and one "yes," or
seven "yes" answers and one "no" or "don't know").

The remaining 24 states presented a murkier picture, with two or more
state administrators disagreeing with their colleagues; a typical
pattern of responses in these states was two saying "yes," four "no,"
and one "don't know." These may have been states in which consolidation
had been put in place on a limited basis, across just two of these eight
programs (and perhaps others outside these eight). Only 39 (or 11
percent) of the 344 state administrators surveyed said they did not know
whether their state was consolidating funds; of these, Even Start
coordinators were the most numerous, with 11.

***Effects of consolidating administrative funds.*** To get a sense of
the effects of consolidation, we can look at two groups of respondents:
those in the nine SEAs in which all state administrators answered "yes"
to the consolidation question; and all respondents who answered "yes,"
regardless of what their colleagues said.

Among the nine states where all eight state administrators said funds
had been consolidated---where the experience of consolidation could be
expected to be most intense---there were six states in which most
respondents said their work had been at least "somewhat" affected by
administrative-funds consolidation. Typical comments came from a state
where six administrators reported that their work was "somewhat"
affected, and where they understood that the purpose of consolidation
had been to facilitate joint monitoring and technical assistance. The
coordinator of Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities said of this
cross-program work:

> I think it's a good idea. It's allowing us to learn about all the
> other programs by being on site. We're seeing how they can fit
> together.

In two of the nine states with a blanket consolidation of funds,
administrators tended to report that consolidation had affected their
own work "to a considerable extent." Both of these SEAs had moved toward
not just consolidated state planning but also consolidated application
workshops and monitoring for local districts. In one, the programs had
been grouped in a single division---and, at the same time, the agency
had been downsized. Thus, the reportedly considerable effects of
consolidated administrative funding may have been connected to the
anxiety that respondents consistently expressed about overall agency
capacity to work with districts. In the other SEA, where five
administrators reported a "considerable" effect from consolidated
administrative funding, most saw the effect as negative: the coordinator
of Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities reported having the same
workload with less money; the coordinator of Migrant Education agreed
that the change had limited the program's resources and capacity to
provide technical assistance; and the Even Start coordinator said it
slowed the process of getting funds approved for conferences. Only the
Title I coordinator (who controlled most of the consolidated funds)
praised the effects of consolidation in broadening administrators'
expertise and simplifying accounting procedures.

Finally, in one state where all eight state administrators said funds
had been consolidated, most of them said that funds consolidation had
not affected their own work at all. This response seemed to reflect a
combination of perceptions: that they had already worked with one
another before the reauthorization; and that the change had not affected
the way they worked with local districts.

Looking at all the state administrators across all states who said their
agency had consolidated administrative funds, 55 percent reported some
effect on their own work (Table 2). Often, they cited the lifting of a
requirement to keep "time and effort" logs; some said that this helped
them work more effectively or efficiently:

> For administrators who work on several federal programs, we no longer
> have to keep time and effort logs of our work on each program. You
> know your time doesn't have to be divided between programs, so it's
> more of an all-encompassing effort. (Title VI)
>
> It is a more productive and efficient use of your time when you can
> concentrate on addressing needs, and you don't have to allocate your
> time to discrete programs. (Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
> Communities)

The contribution of consolidating administrative funds to cross-program
planning was not so clear. That is, few respondents described
consolidation of administrative funding as making it "easier to plan
across programs," in the words of ED's cross-cutting guidance. It may be
true, however, that reducing the need for recording time and effort
allowed program administrators to think less categorically and more in
terms of cross-program goals, as two administrators' comments suggested:

> Relaxing the time and effort requirement has reduced paperwork and
> increased cross-over to other programs. We can spend as much time as
> we want now working with other programs, and we're now working more
> holistically with other programs. (Eisenhower Professional
> Development)

Instead of focusing only on Title I requirements, I can think about how
the requirements fit together across the board; \[there are\] lots of
opportunities for partnerships to help the same group of kids. (Title I)

Those who did not perceive effects from the consolidation of funds
included most of those administrators of the Migrant Education and
Neglected or Delinquent programs who thought their agencies had
consolidated funds. It is quite likely that their programs'
administrative funds had not been included in the consolidation.
Alternatively, some of them might have worked in concert with Title I
before the reauthorization and thus perceived no change. Furthermore,
because Migrant Education and Neglected or Delinquent programs typically
serve children outside the regular school setting, they may have more
limited opportunities to share administrative responsibilities related
to, for example, monitoring. Many Migrant Education programs, for
example, operate in the summer months, thus limiting the opportunities
to participate in integrated monitoring visits during the regular

# **Table 2**

**Extent to Which Consolidation of Administrative Funding**

**Affects the Way Administrators Do Their Job, by Program**

**(N=164)**[^6]

+---------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+---------+
| **To what extent has this |           |         |         |         |
| consolidation of funds    |           |         |         |         |
| affected the way you do   |           |         |         |         |
| your job?**               |           |         |         |         |
+---------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+---------+
|                           | **Number  |         |         |         |
|                           | of State  |         |         |         |
|                           | Admin     |         |         |         |
|                           | istrators |         |         |         |
|                           | Re        |         |         |         |
|                           | porting** |         |         |         |
|                           |           |         |         |         |
|                           | **[That   |         |         |         |
|                           | Cons      |         |         |         |
|                           | olidation |         |         |         |
|                           | of Funds  |         |         |         |
|                           | Has       |         |         |         |
|                           | Affected  |         |         |         |
|                           | Their     |         |         |         |
|                           | J         |         |         |         |
|                           | ob:]{.und |         |         |         |
|                           | erline}** |         |         |         |
+---------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+---------+
| **Federally Funded**      | To a      | **[So   | **[Not  | **      |
|                           | Con       | mewhat] | at      | [Other] |
| **[Education              | siderable | {.under | All]    | {.under |
| Programs]{.underline}**   |           | line}** | {.under | line}** |
|                           | **[Ext    |         | line}** |         |
|                           | ent]{.und |         |         |         |
|                           | erline}** |         |         |         |
+---------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+---------+
| Title I, Part A (N=28)    | 11        | 9       | 8       | 0       |
+---------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+---------+
| Safe and Drug-Free        | 8         | 7       | 7       | 1       |
| Schools (N=23)            |           |         |         |         |
+---------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+---------+
| Eisenhower Professional   | 7         | 6       | 11      | 0       |
| Development (N=24)        |           |         |         |         |
+---------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+---------+
| Title VI (N=25)           | 10        | 5       | 9       | 1       |
+---------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+---------+
| Education of Migratory    | 3         | 6       | 15      | 1       |
| Children (N=25)           |           |         |         |         |
+---------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+---------+
| Even Start Family         | 6         | 4       | 8       | 0       |
| Literacy (N=18)           |           |         |         |         |
+---------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+---------+
| Programs for Neglected or | 3         | 6       | 12      | 0       |
| Delinquent Children and   |           |         |         |         |
| Youth (N=21)              |           |         |         |         |
+---------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+---------+
| TOTAL                     | 48        | 43      | 70      | 3       |
+---------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+---------+

> Table reads: Eleven state directors of Title I, Part A reported that
> the consolidation of administrative funds affects the way they do
> their job to a considerable extent.

school year. Neglected or Delinquent programs (Subpart 1) operate in
state institutions, where other state administrators of federal
education programs are unlikely to visit as part of their monitoring.

**Local Administrative Flexibility**

Goals 2000 and IASA amendments aimed to increase flexibility in schools
and school districts so that administrative requirements would not
impede progress in bringing all students to high standards. State
administrators were asked to assess and describe the effects of the laws
on local flexibility.

**[Perceptions of the Increase in Local Flexibility]{.underline}**

State administrators differed a good deal across programs and states in
their perception of an increase in local administrative flexibility in
the reauthorized programs. ("Local" could refer to school districts,
other subgrantees such as consortia of districts, and schools.) In Title
I, half of the coordinators reported a "considerable" increase in local
flexibility, and most of the rest said flexibility had increased
"somewhat"; only a handful said it was too early to tell (Table 3). In
no other program was there such a resounding perception of change. Title
VI administrators were the ones most likely to see stability in this
regard; almost half of them reported that flexibility had not increased
at all. A wait-and-see attitude was especially widespread among
coordinators of Education for Homeless Children and Youth (19 of 48 said
it was too early to tell) and of Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities (19 of 50).

Some SEAs presented at least a fairly uniform perception on the issue of
local flexibility. In six states, either all administrators or all but
one agreed that local flexibility had increased at least somewhat; in an
additional five states, two administrators dissented from the overall
perception of greater local flexibility. At the other end of the
spectrum were four states where one administrator, at most, saw an
increase in local flexibility and another nine states where only two saw
an increase.

**Table 3**

**Extent to Which State Administrators Find the 1994 Reauthorizing
Legislation**

**Gives Local School Districts, Schools, and Other Subgrantees**

## More Administrative Flexibility Than They Had before the Legislation, by Program

**(N=392)**[^7]

+-------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+
| **For local school      |           |         |         |           |
| districts, schools, or  |           |         |         |           |
| other subgrantees, to   |           |         |         |           |
| what extent do you find |           |         |         |           |
| that this legislation   |           |         |         |           |
| gives more              |           |         |         |           |
| administrative          |           |         |         |           |
| flexibility than they   |           |         |         |           |
| had before the          |           |         |         |           |
| reauthorization?**      |           |         |         |           |
+-------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+
|                         | ###       |         |         |           |
|                         | Number of |         |         |           |
|                         |  State Ad |         |         |           |
|                         | ministrat |         |         |           |
|                         | ors Repor |         |         |           |
|                         | ting That |         |         |           |
|                         |           |         |         |           |
|                         | **Reauth  |         |         |           |
|                         | orization |         |         |           |
|                         | Gives     |         |         |           |
|                         | Locals**  |         |         |           |
|                         |           |         |         |           |
|                         | **[Admin  |         |         |           |
|                         | istrative |         |         |           |
|                         | Flexibili |         |         |           |
|                         | ty:]{.und |         |         |           |
|                         | erline}** |         |         |           |
+-------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+
| **Federally Funded**    | To a      | **[So   | **[Not  | **Too     |
|                         | Con       | mewhat] | at      | Early**   |
| **[Education            | siderable | {.under | All]    |           |
| Programs]{.underline}** |           | line}** | {.under | **[to     |
|                         | **[Ext    |         | line}** | T         |
|                         | ent]{.und |         |         | ell]{.und |
|                         | erline}** |         |         | erline}** |
+-------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+
| Title I, Part A (N=50)  | 26        | 18      | 0       | 5         |
+-------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+
| Safe and Drug-Free      | 4         | 19      | 7       | 19        |
| Schools (N=50)          |           |         |         |           |
+-------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+
| Eisenhower Professional | 12        | 10      | 12      | 16        |
| Development (N=50)      |           |         |         |           |
+-------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+
| Title VI (N=50)         | 10        | 7       | 23      | 10        |
+-------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+
| Education of Migratory  | 6         | 14      | 14      | 11        |
| Children (N=47)         |           |         |         |           |
+-------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+
| Even Start Family       | 5         | 21      | 8       | 13        |
| Literacy (N=49)         |           |         |         |           |
+-------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+
| Programs for Neglected  | 9         | 17      | 8       | 11        |
| or Delinquent Children  |           |         |         |           |
| and Youth (N=48)        |           |         |         |           |
+-------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+
| Education for Homeless  | 9         | 7       | 11      | 19        |
| Children and Youth      |           |         |         |           |
| (N=48)                  |           |         |         |           |
+-------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+
| TOTAL                   | 81        | 113     | 83      | 104       |
+-------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+

> Table reads: Twenty-six state directors of Title I, Part A reported
> that they found, to a considerable extent, that the reauthorized
> legislation gives local school districts, schools, and other
> subgrantees more administrative flexibility than they had before the
> reauthorization.

**[What "Local Flexibility" Meant to Administrators]{.underline}**

When describing how the reauthorization had increased local
administrative flexibility, those state administrators who did perceive
an increase most commonly elaborated by mentioning: (1) flexibility in
the use of resources, staffing, and time; (2) opportunities to
coordinate and collaborate with other programs; (3) increased
availability of the option of schoolwide programs; and (4) devolution of
decisionmaking authority from districts to schools.

***More latitude in the use of staff and other resources.*** An emphasis
on the procedural aspects of flexibility was very common in response to
an open-ended question asking state administrators to elaborate on the
ways in which local flexibility has increased since reauthorization. The
following comments were typical; all of these came from the 11 states in
which all but one or two ESEA or Homeless program administrators saw
greater local flexibility:

> District administrators don't have to keep time and effort logs on the
> separate federal programs that they work on. (Title I)
>
> There is lump-sum budgeting now---fewer categorical funds, a larger
> discretionary chunk. (Title I)
>
> Districts can pool funds more. They feel better about their overall
> plan, less tied in to little boxes of funding. (Title VI)
>
> Districts can be really flexible in combining their efforts---planning
> professional development can be coordinated, \[they can\] combine
> staff positions and really use funds to meet their locally identified
> needs. (Education of Homeless Children and Youth)

Administrators usually went on to cite the more substantive benefits
associated with local administrative flexibility, however, as we discuss
next.

***Coordination and collaboration across programs.*** Just as they had
praised their own opportunities to learn about other programs and to
work together for wider benefits, many administrators framed their
description of local flexibility around the idea of cross-program
planning. Again, the following comments came from the 11 states where
perceptions of greater local flexibility were most widespread in the
SEA:

> They don't have to spend so much time preparing separate applications.
> They can focus on their purpose---how to advance student achievement
> together. (Title I)
>
> They are able to plan globally, using people and resources. People are
> beginning to work together across programs. (Eisenhower Professional
> Development)
>
> \[They have a\] collaborative approach to administering the program
> and a perceived responsibility to plan together. (Education for
> Homeless Children and Youth)

There is a new approach on how all programs in the school can be looked
at as connected to make a difference. It gives more opportunity to make
a difference than before. (Neglected or Delinquent)

In other states, too, SEA administrators saw cross-program collaboration
as a key element of local flexibility. At this early stage in carrying
out the reauthorized ESEA and Homeless programs, it is perhaps not
surprising that planning seemed to loom larger in their vision of
cross-program collaboration than did actual program implementation. The
following descriptions were typical:

> \[They are\] restructuring LEA-level activities so programs are
> integrated. LEAs increasingly have a single coordinator for programs
> under IASA and more. \[They can\] increase involvement through shared
> decisionmaking. (Title I)
>
> LEAs are able to work and plan across programs without
> program-specific guidelines and regulations getting in the way. (Title
> I)
>
> Because of the consolidated plan and its coordination with our own
> education reform, we have experienced a great deal of encouragement to
> develop an approach that works for \[this state\]. (Title VI)

***Schoolwide programs.*** The 1994 Title I legislation substantially
increased the number of schools eligible to operate schoolwide programs,
in which Title I dollars can upgrade the school's entire program rather
than being used only to serve selected students. The law expanded the
availability of this option by lowering the threshold for school
eligibility from 75 percent poverty to 50 percent (as of the 1996-97
school year). It also loosened the strings on commingling of other
program funds in schoolwide programs.

This broadening of the opportunity to operate schoolwide programs has
caught the attention of state program administrators in Title I and
beyond. Very commonly, when state administrators elaborated on the
notion of local flexibility (and that of state flexibility as well), it
was the schoolwide-program option that they mentioned first.

> \[Through the schoolwide programs option, districts\] have more
> authority to make decisions about what schools to serve, students to
> serve, and accountability; they have more decisions about how to
> integrate programs and coordinate through a schoolwide approach.
> (Title I)
>
> Subgrantees that have chosen to partner with schoolwide programs have
> more flexibility. Others are unaffected. (Even Start)
>
> Before schoolwide programs, there may have been a waiting list for
> \[migrant\] kids to get into various programs; now that won't happen
> because all kids are included. (Migrant Education)
>
> There's more opportunity to implement schoolwide programs. I see more
> opportunity for a wider array of programs that they can administer
> \[through the schoolwide program option\]. (Title I)

***School-level flexibility***. Several provisions governing the ESEA
and Homeless programs reflected a deliberate effort to shift
decisionmaking authority and control of funds away from school
districts' central offices and into school buildings. In Title I, in
particular, some state administrators---in their responses to various
open-ended questions pertaining to flexibility---said they had seen
implementation of this policy change:

> Reauthorization has shifted the Title I power from the district level
> to the school level, so schools now have more flexibility. Title I was
> in a power position at the district level. Now the power base has
> shifted to the school. District directors are now more facilitators
> and supporters. (Title I)

However, as the following comments show, some state administrators also
believed schools were reluctant to take advantage of the flexibility to
coordinate and collaborate; these administrators said educators still
preferred to operate within individual program rules and regulations:

> Schools have been imprisoned by rules and regulations. When you lift
> the \[regulations\] it's hard to convince them that they can use
> flexibility to their own advantage and they won't be cited by an
> auditor. (Title I)
>
> Schools can make decisions about how to integrate programs and
> coordinate through a schoolwide approach. \[However\] there's still
> some hesitance to coordinate because of the tradition of separate
> programs. (Title I)

**[State Versus Local Flexibility]{.underline}**

Compared with the overall percentage of state administrators who
believed the legislation brought *them* more flexibility (38 percent),
more believed the legislation brought more flexibility to local school
districts, other subgrantees, and schools (50 percent overall).

In the Even Start and Title I programs, the differences between
administrators' views on state versus local flexibility brought by
reauthorization were fairly large. This variation may be related to
program-specific legislative changes that were viewed as increasing
local-level---as opposed to state-level---flexibility. For example, Even
Start coordinators may have seen their efforts to collaborate eased by
the Title I provision requiring local education agencies to write parent
involvement policies that describe how they will coordinate with other
programs, such as Even Start. In addition, many Even Start coordinators
referred to schoolwide programs as easing efforts to coordinate family
literacy activities: "\...with schoolwide programs, it's easier for Even
Start to be involved in some of those \[schools\]." Title I
coordinators, too, often referred to the provision that lowered the
eligibility threshold for schools to become schoolwide programs as
bringing enormous flexibility to schools.

**[Local Consolidated Plans]{.underline}**

Most state administrators responding to the survey allowed school
districts or other subgrantees to submit a single consolidated
application---a plan describing the intended uses of funds under more
than one program. That is, about 60 percent of all program
administrators reported that they required (22 percent) or accepted (38
percent) consolidated applications from districts. As usual, however,
there were important program by program variations to this finding. More
than three-fourths of the administrators for Title I, Safe and Drug-Free
Schools and Communities, Eisenhower Professional Development, and Title
VI reported requiring or accepting consolidated applications as compared
with fewer than one-third of the administrators for Even Start and
Education for Homeless Children and Youth (Table 4). In addition, when
asked whether administrators conducted joint application workshops for
subgrantees (see Table 11), those who responded yes most frequently
cited Title I, Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities, Eisenhower
Professional Development, and Title VI---or a subset of these---as among
the programs with which they jointly conducted application workshops.

Consolidated applications or plans were more likely to be in place,
then, across the programs that offered formula funding to districts.
Administrators whose programs required them to make discretionary awards
were a good deal less likely to ask for information in the context of
other programs' plans. For example, Even Start and Education for
Homeless Children and Youth, both of which target limited resources to
districts most in need, were less likely than other programs to require
or accept consolidated applications.[^8] Goals 2000 also tended to
require separate applications.

**Table 4**

**Policy on Consolidated District**

**Applications, by Program**

**(N=436)**

+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **Does your        |            |           |           |           |
| program require or |            |           |           |           |
| accept             |            |           |           |           |
| consolidated       |            |           |           |           |
| applications (that |            |           |           |           |
| is, combined       |            |           |           |           |
| applications for   |            |           |           |           |
| more that one      |            |           |           |           |
| program) from      |            |           |           |           |
| districts?**       |            |           |           |           |
+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|                    | **[Number  |           |           |           |
|                    | of State   |           |           |           |
|                    | Admi       |           |           |           |
|                    | nistrators |           |           |           |
|                    | Who Report |           |           |           |
|                    | That Their |           |           |           |
|                    | Pro        |           |           |           |
|                    | gram:]{.un |           |           |           |
|                    | derline}** |           |           |           |
+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **Federally        | **Requires | *         | *         | **Makes   |
| Funded**           | Co         | *Requires | *Requires | Other     |
|                    | nsolidated | or        | a         | Arr       |
| **[Education       | Subgrant   | Accepts   | Separate  | angements |
| Progr              | [Applica   | Con       | Subgrant  | for       |
| ams]{.underline}** | tions]{.un | solidated | [Applicat | Subgrant  |
|                    | derline}** | Subgrant  | ion]{.und | [         |
|                    |            | [         | erline}** | Applicati |
|                    |            | Applicati |           | ons]{.und |
|                    |            | ons]{.und |           | erline}** |
|                    |            | erline}** |           |           |
+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Title I, Part A    | 21         | 24        | 3         | 2         |
| (N=50)             |            |           |           |           |
+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Safe and Drug-Free | 14         | 24        | 10        | 2         |
| Schools (N=50)     |            |           |           |           |
+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Goals 2000 (N=44)  | 5          | 10        | 27        | 2         |
+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Eisenhower         | 17         | 24        | 6         | 3         |
| Professional       |            |           |           |           |
| Development (N=50) |            |           |           |           |
+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Title VI (N=50)    | 16         | 23        | 10        | 1         |
+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Education of       | 9          | 20        | 14        | 3         |
| Migratory Children |            |           |           |           |
| (N=47)             |            |           |           |           |
+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Even Start Family  | 1          | 14        | 31        | 3         |
| Literacy (N=49)    |            |           |           |           |
+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Programs for       | 10         | 14        | 21        | 3         |
| Neglected or       |            |           |           |           |
| Delinquent         |            |           |           |           |
| Children and Youth |            |           |           |           |
| (N=48)             |            |           |           |           |
+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Education for      | 2          | 11        | 32        | 2         |
| Homeless Children  |            |           |           |           |
| and Youth (N=48)   |            |           |           |           |
+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

Table reads: Twenty-one state directors of Title I, Part A reported that
their program requires consolidated subgrant applications from
districts.

Requiring or accepting consolidated subgrant applications was a new
administrative procedure for most states.[^9] It was probably simpler to
introduce this procedure for a core group of programs, especially ones
that were not targeting a particular population, to test the processes
of developing a common subgrant application, conducting joint
application workshops, and reviewing consolidated applications. Once
states have had an opportunity to learn from their experience, they may
eventually include more federally funded programs in a consolidated
process. In 1996-97, as one Eisenhower Professional Development
respondent explained, consolidating local applications was a work in
progress:

The consolidated application process allows an opportunity to hold
workshops together and discuss how applications are the same across the
\[programs\]. We are getting a chance to see the connections.

***Expected effects of local consolidated plans.*** State administrators
were cautiously optimistic about the effects of the consolidation of
local planning. In response to an open-ended question asking them to
elaborate on the ways in which local flexibility had increased, several
state administrators reported that many local project administrators
were still working within the boundaries of their categorical programs
and resisted efforts to coordinate program services and activities. Not
unlike themselves a few years ago, many state administrators (mostly
Title I) warned that it would take some time before local administrators
were comfortable collaborating with other programs:

> We're trying to figure out how to get people to work in teams to do
> the plan, not just passing the application around where each person
> fills out their own program. (Title I)
>
> It's hard to change practices and attitudes\...it's a whole new
> concept of broadening a vision and seeing connections between
> programs. It will take a lot of technical assistance to understand the
> concept. (Even Start)
>
> When you consolidate Title II, IV, and VI, LEAs think that's a way to
> do away with jobs at the local level. It's difficult for some to have
> enough trust to let go of program-specific responsibilities and agree
> to collaborate. It's hard to go beyond personal needs and see what's
> good for schools. (Title I)
>
> The greatest barrier to implementing the reauthorized law is turfism
> on the part of LEAs that are reluctant to change. They say, 'It's
> always been that way' and 'I'm federal, I can't do that' in response
> to anything that is new. (Title I)

Getting local directors to give up their power \[is the most difficult
thing to do\]. They are used to controlling programs, and as a result,
find it difficult to share decisionmaking powers with other
participants. (Title I)

It is interesting, by the way, to observe the focus of these state
administrators on process: they said much more about the extent to which
programs could work together than about what they were working toward,
such as ensuring that all children meet challenging standards.

**Waivers of Statutory or Regulatory Requirements**

The federal policy behind the Goals 2000 and IASA legislation held that
program requirements should not stand in the way of effective
educational services. If a legal provision might prevent a district or
school from using an effective program design, ED wanted the district to
ask for a waiver of that provision. In states not participating in
Ed-Flex, the procedure was for the district to communicate with its SEA,
which would then forward the waiver request to ED. An SEA could also
request a statewide waiver---one that, if granted, would apply to all
districts in the state. In the Ed-Flex states, the SEA had the authority
to grant waivers for districts.

The ESEA and Homeless programs included in this study could have their
provisions waived through these procedures. Thus, we asked the program
administrators in the non-Ed-Flex states about their communications with
districts about waivers and their expectations for future waiver
activity.

In contrast to other aspects of program administration like state and
local program plans, which were part of the lives of virtually all the
program administrators, waivers were the responsibility of a smaller
proportion of administrators. Excluding the Ed-Flex states, a total of
320 state administrators participated in the survey. When asked, 23
percent of them said that waiver requests did not come to their office
but went to another office in the SEA. This left 246 respondents to the
questions about communications with districts and schools; by program,
the numbers ranged from 36 in Title I down to 25 in Education for
Homeless Children and Youth.

A caveat is important here: this survey enables us to describe the
activity and perceptions concerning ED waivers in only the offices that
administer the eight programs included in this study. As the following
discussion shows, the level of activity was quite limited. This may not
fully reflect state activity around waivers; it is possible that in some
SEAs, offices that did not participate in this survey were more actively
communicating with school districts about the waiver authority. However,
our data do answer a specific question: to what extent has the waiver
authority entered the conversation between state administrators of ESEA
and Homeless programs and district-level staff?

**[Communications with Districts about the Waiver
Authority]{.underline}**

Of these state coordinators who had some responsibility in connection
with waivers, most coordinators in every program except Education for
Homeless Children and Youth had addressed the subject of waivers in
statewide or regional meetings, and most had forwarded copies of ED's
waiver guidance to local districts (Table 5). Fewer than one-fourth had
sent out written information about waivers developed by the state
(probably indicating that states have not developed such documents).
Coordinators of Education for Homeless Children and Youth stood out for
their especially limited communication about the waiver authority: only
about one-third of respondents said they had relayed any information
about it.

Title I administrators were the most active in their communications
about waivers. Title I was the only program with a majority of
administrators who reported that they both forwarded copies of ED's
waiver guidance and provided technical assistance to districts in the
process of preparing waiver requests.

The content of the guidance that districts received from state
administrators of federal programs usually included information about
the format for waiver requests (Table 6). Less often, it addressed the
use of waivers to improve the quality of instruction or to improve
student performance. Most administrators outside Title I, however,
answered the question about their own guidance by saying that no
districts were considering the waiver option. Among coordinators of
Education for Homeless Children and Youth, this was the universal
response to the question.

Although the survey yielded fairly limited elaborations on
administrators' responses to the waiver questions, one explanation for
why program administrators failed to promote the waiver option among
districts may be that they simply did not believe there was much need
for waivers among local districts:

> We distributed the information \[about waivers\] as required by law,
> but we haven't seen the need for waivers, and \[the districts\]
> haven't asked. (Title I)

We have informed local districts about the waiver authority at
statewide/regional meetings, but we tell them to do it \[apply for
waivers\] at their own risk. We're not encouraging \[waivers\]; why
write rules if you don't want them followed? (Title VI)

**Table 5**

**Ways State Offices Have Informed**

**Local Districts and Schools about the Waiver Authority**

**in the New Law, by Program**

**(N=246)**[^10]

+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| **How has    |          |          |          |          |          |
| your office  |          |          |          |          |          |
| informed     |          |          |          |          |          |
| local        |          |          |          |          |          |
| districts    |          |          |          |          |          |
| and schools  |          |          |          |          |          |
| about the    |          |          |          |          |          |
| waiver       |          |          |          |          |          |
| authority in |          |          |          |          |          |
| the new      |          |          |          |          |          |
| law?**       |          |          |          |          |          |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
|              | *        |          |          |          |          |
|              | *[Number |          |          |          |          |
|              | of State |          |          |          |          |
|              | Admini   |          |          |          |          |
|              | strators |          |          |          |          |
|              | Who      |          |          |          |          |
|              | :]{.unde |          |          |          |          |
|              | rline}** |          |          |          |          |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| **Federally  | *        | **Send   | *        | *        | **Inform |
| Funded       | *Forward | Out      | *Address | *Provide | Dis      |
| [Education   | Copies   | Written  | the      | TA to    | tricts** |
| Programs]{.  | of ED\'s | Inf      | Subject  | D        |          |
| underline}** | Waiver   | ormation | at       | istricts | #        |
|              | [Guidanc | D        | S        | P        | ### [By  |
|              | e]{.unde | eveloped | tatewide | reparing | Other Me |
|              | rline}** | By [the  | or       | [Waiver  | ans]{.un |
|              |          | Stat     | Regional | Request  | derline} |
|              |          | e]{.unde | [Meeting | s]{.unde |          |
|              |          | rline}** | s]{.unde | rline}** |          |
|              |          |          | rline}** |          |          |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Title I,     | 31       | 8        | 32       | 27       | 6        |
| Part A       |          |          |          |          |          |
| (N=36)       |          |          |          |          |          |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Safe and     | 15       | 3        | 17       | 2        | 4        |
| Drug-Free    |          |          |          |          |          |
| Schools      |          |          |          |          |          |
| (N=29)       |          |          |          |          |          |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Eisenhower   | 18       | 8        | 20       | 4        | 5        |
| Professional |          |          |          |          |          |
| Development  |          |          |          |          |          |
| (N=33)       |          |          |          |          |          |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Title VI     | 19       | 6        | 21       | 4        | 4        |
| (N=33)       |          |          |          |          |          |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Education of | 15       | 7        | 17       | 7        | 1        |
| Migratory    |          |          |          |          |          |
| Children     |          |          |          |          |          |
| (N=28)       |          |          |          |          |          |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Even Start   | 13       | 2        | 17       | 3        | 1        |
| Family       |          |          |          |          |          |
| Literacy     |          |          |          |          |          |
| (N=32)       |          |          |          |          |          |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Programs for | 21       | 3        | 19       | 8        | 1        |
| Neglected or |          |          |          |          |          |
| Delinquent   |          |          |          |          |          |
| Children and |          |          |          |          |          |
| Youth (N=30) |          |          |          |          |          |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Education    | 8        | 1        | 9        | 2        | 1        |
| for Homeless |          |          |          |          |          |
| Children and |          |          |          |          |          |
| Youth (N=25) |          |          |          |          |          |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| TOTAL        | 140      | 38       | 152      | 57       | 2        |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+

Table reads: Thirty-one state directors of Title I, Part A reported that
their office informs local districts and schools about the waiver
authority in the new law by forwarding to districts copies of ED's
waiver guidance.

**Table 6**

**Kinds of Guidance State Administrators Report Their Office Distributes
to**

**Districts Considering Submitting a Waiver Request, by Program**

**(N=246)**[^11]

  ------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------ ----------------------------- --------------------------- -------------------------
  **What kinds of guidance                                                                                                                                               
  or suggestions, if any,                                                                                                                                                
  does this office                                                                                                                                                       
  distribute to districts                                                                                                                                                
  that are considering                                                                                                                                                   
  submitting a waiver                                                                                                                                                    
  request?**                                                                                                                                                             

                            **[Number of State                                                                                                                           
                            Administrators Who                                                                                                                           
                            Distribute to Districts                                                                                                                      
                            Guidance                                                                                                                                     
                            on:]{.underline}**                                                                                                                           

  **[Federally Funded       **[Format]{.underline}**   **Using Waiver to Improve the  **Using Waivers to Help  **Using Waivers to Improve    **[Nothing]{.underline}**   **Not Applicable; No
  Education                                            Quality of                     Coordinate Their         Student                                                   Districts Considering
  Programs]{.underline}**                              [Instructions]{.underline}**   Program\'s Funding with  [Performance]{.underline}**                               [Waiver
                                                                                      State [Reform                                                                      Requests]{.underline}**
                                                                                      Efforts]{.underline}**                                                             

  Title I, Part A (N=50)    38                         46                             18                       20                            6                           1

  Safe and Drug-Free        7                          23                             8                        5                             15                          7
  Schools (N=50)                                                                                                                                                         

  Goals 2000 (N=44)         14                         22                             14                       10                            18                          7

  Eisenhower Professional   9                          19                             5                        5                             12                          7
  Development (N=50)                                                                                                                                                     

  Title VI (N=50)           9                          13                             3                        5                             16                          8

  Education of Migratory    19                         25                             19                       15                            20                          2
  Children (N=47)                                                                                                                                                        

  Even Start Family         12                         20                             8                        11                            19                          9
  Literacy (N=49)                                                                                                                                                        

  Programs for Neglected or 14                         24                             8                        7                             11                          6
  Delinquent Children and                                                                                                                                                
  Youth (N=48)                                                                                                                                                           

  Education for Homeless    8                          14                             9                        6                             14                          11
  Children and Youth (N=48)                                                                                                                                              
  ------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------ ----------------------------- --------------------------- -------------------------

Table reads: Thirty-eight state directors of Title I, Part A reported
that their office distributes guidance or suggestions on the format of
waiver requests to districts that are considering submitting a waiver
request.

**[Administrators' Expectations for Waiver Activity]{.underline}**

Across roughly ten thousand districts that might submit waivers in one
or more of these eight ESEA programs, state administrators expected the
next year's waiver requests to number only in the hundreds.[^12] Almost
three-fourths of the eligible survey respondents (73 percent) estimated
that their office will forward no district waiver requests to the U.S.
Department of Education (ED) over the next 12 months. Only 20 percent of
respondents estimated that they would receive any local-level waiver
requests, and most of these believed they would receive no more than
one, two, or three requests in the next year (Table 7). Compared with
other program administrators who said they expected to receive waiver
requests, Title I administrators estimated they would receive the most,
with 169. Eisenhower Professional Development administrators ran a
distant second, estimating they would receive 71 waiver requests.

**[Reviews of State Laws and Regulations as Barriers to Education
Reform]{.underline}**

Despite the relatively sparse use of the waiver authority, most states
were reviewing their own laws or regulations that might impede local
reform. In all but two states, at least one program administrator knew
about such a review; the great majority of Goals 2000 administrators (38
out of 44) reported that their states were reviewing state laws and
regulations. However, these efforts often lacked visibility among the
administrators of other federal programs. Responding to the same
question, only 41 percent of administrators of ESEA programs said they
knew their state had plans to review state laws and regulations that
might act as barriers to local reform. Responses to this question
suggest that many state administrators of federal programs might have
been unaware of their states' broader reform activities.

**Summary: The Status of "Flexibility"**

In the name of flexibility, most state program administrators had to do
more than one of the following new tasks: work with a wider range of
colleagues, perhaps for the first time, to develop a new kind of plan;
account for administrative time in a different way; develop a new
application format

**Table 7**

**Number of Waiver Requests from Local Districts State Administrators**

**Expect Their Office Will Forward to the U.S. Department of Education**

**over the Next 12 Months**

**(N=246)**[^13]

+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| **About how many waiver       |                                      |
| requests from local districts |                                      |
| would you estimate this       |                                      |
| office will forward to ED     |                                      |
| over the next 12 months?**    |                                      |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| **Expected Number of Local**  | **Number of State**                  |
|                               |                                      |
| **Waiver Requests That Will** | **[Administrators]{.underline}**     |
|                               |                                      |
| **[Be Forwarded to            |                                      |
| USED]{.underline}**           |                                      |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| None                          | 180                                  |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| One                           | 10                                   |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Two                           | 10                                   |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Three                         | 9                                    |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Four                          | 3                                    |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Five                          | 3                                    |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 6 - 10                        | 7                                    |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 11 - 15                       | 3                                    |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 16 - 20                       | 1                                    |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| More Than 20                  | 3                                    |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Don\'t Know                   | 13                                   |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Not Applicable                | 4                                    |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+

> Table reads: One hundred and eighty state administrators reported that
> they did not expect that their office would forward any waiver
> requests from local districts to the U.S. Department of Education in
> the next 12 months.

and explain it in workshops conducted with colleagues; communicate with
local districts about the waiver option; and (as we will discuss in the
next chapter) begin to learn how to monitor across programs. All in all,
it is perhaps surprising that the early stages of implementing these new
laws left as many as 38 percent of state ESEA program managers with a
sense of increased administrative flexibility.

We found some tendency for the provisions discussed in this chapter to
be implemented in clusters. For example, programs that consolidated
their administrative funds were more likely to require consolidated
subgrant applications from local school districts. One result was a
sense of overload for the administrators affected. A Title I
coordinator's comments captured the level of frenzy many administrators
described in their efforts to respond not to state standards, but to
IASA:

The reauthorization basically led to too much new work---we must build a
new application procedure and assessment system, create a network of
distinguished educators, schools now have to do plans, and Title I
Directors' roles are changing. And there is ongoing interpretation at
the federal level regarding how to implement the new legislation.

Although half of the state administrators of the programs included in
this study thought that local educators were experiencing greater
flexibility, they also observed some difficulties in coping with the new
program provisions at the local level. In particular, they commented
that traditional program boundaries were impeding local cross-program
planning---and few even spoke of any local progress in moving beyond
planning to actual service delivery.

Finally, very few administrators referred to a key principle of the
reauthorization: that states or districts had received new flexibility
in exchange for a different kind of accountability. This omission may
well reflect the thinness of current arrangements for performance-based
accountability, which we discuss next.

**III. Accountability: To What Extent Are States Using**

Performance Data to Inform Their Efforts?

IASA, the federal legislation amending ESEA and the McKinney Homeless
Assistance Act, includes provisions that connect program accountability
to state systems of challenging content and performance standards.
According to ED's cross-cutting guidance, the idea behind this mandate
was to "\[1\] improve coordination of federal programs with state
reforms, and \[2\] instill in federal programs a culture of
accountability and continual improvement" (p.9; USED, 1996). As a result
of IASA amendments, advocates hoped that the accountability mechanisms
would direct educators' and program administrators' attention to the
challenge of bringing all students to high standards---and, further,
that the magnitude of this challenge could stimulate big changes in
program services. For the legislation to fulfill this hope, however,
several structures and processes would have to be in place. Not only
would states need ways of measuring student achievement, they would also
need to lead districts and schools in the use of data to stimulate and
guide improvements in program services.

This survey explored the extent to which state administrators of the
nine programs included in this study were using a variety of
accountability tools---including student performance data as measured by
state assessments, program performance indicators, and program
monitoring systems---to press vigorously for improving student
performance.

Accountability as a Force Shaping Federal Program Services

At this point in implementing the law, few state program administrators
were anticipating significant changes to the operations and
administration of their programs in response to state assessments.

Relatively simple administrative steps, such as offering technical
assistance or encouraging local professional development on the subject
of student assessment, varied in their frequency across programs: they
were very widespread in Title I, Eisenhower Professional Development,
and Goals 2000; they were less common in Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities and Education for Homeless Children and Youth (Table 8).

Much more rare was a view of assessment results as a major influence on
program operations. The following quotation was an unusually strong
statement about the effect of state assessment on federal program
operations:

**Table 8**

**State Administrators Who Offer Technical Assistance or Encourage**

**Local Professional Development on the Subject of Student Assessment**

**(N=436)**

+----------------------------------+----------------+-----------------+
| **In the past year, has your     |                |                 |
| office funded or directly        |                |                 |
| provided technical assistance to |                |                 |
| subgrantees on student           |                |                 |
| assessment?**                    |                |                 |
|                                  |                |                 |
| **In written communications\--or |                |                 |
| in workshops, monitoring, or     |                |                 |
| other interactions\--did you     |                |                 |
| encourage subgrantees to focus   |                |                 |
| on student assessment in their   |                |                 |
| professional development?**      |                |                 |
+----------------------------------+----------------+-----------------+
|                                  | **[Number of   |                 |
|                                  | State          |                 |
|                                  | Administrators |                 |
|                                  | Who:]          |                 |
|                                  | {.underline}** |                 |
+----------------------------------+----------------+-----------------+
| **Federally Funded**             | **Fund or      | **Encourage     |
|                                  | Directly       | Subgrantees to  |
| **[Education                     | Provide        | Focus Their     |
| Programs]{.underline}**          | Subgrantees    | Professional    |
|                                  | Technical      | Development on  |
|                                  | Assistance on  | [Student        |
|                                  | Student        | Assessment      |
|                                  | [Assessment]   | ]{.underline}** |
|                                  | {.underline}** |                 |
+----------------------------------+----------------+-----------------+
| Title I, Part A (N=50)           | 41             | 44              |
+----------------------------------+----------------+-----------------+
| Safe and Drug-Free Schools       | 14             | 19              |
| (N=50)                           |                |                 |
+----------------------------------+----------------+-----------------+
| Goals 2000 (N=44)                | 31             | 35              |
+----------------------------------+----------------+-----------------+
| Eisenhower Professional          | 37             | 32              |
| Development (N=50)               |                |                 |
+----------------------------------+----------------+-----------------+
| Title VI (N=50)                  | 24             | 25              |
+----------------------------------+----------------+-----------------+
| Education of Migratory Children  | 31             | 35              |
| (N=47)                           |                |                 |
+----------------------------------+----------------+-----------------+
| Even Start Family Literacy       | 29             | 30              |
| (N=49)                           |                |                 |
+----------------------------------+----------------+-----------------+
| Programs for Neglected or        | 32             | 32              |
| Delinquent Children and Youth    |                |                 |
| (N=48)                           |                |                 |
+----------------------------------+----------------+-----------------+
| Education for Homeless Children  | 13             | 20              |
| and Youth (N=48)                 |                |                 |
+----------------------------------+----------------+-----------------+

> Table reads: Forty-one state directors of Title I, Part A reported
> that their office funds or directly provides technical assistance to
> subgrantees on student assessment.
>
> Forty-four state directors of Title I, Part A reported that their
> office encourages subgrantees to focus their professional development
> on student assessment.

Title I is supporting all kinds of initiatives \[e.g., Reading
Recovery\] to support performance to standards. Schools that think
they're doing a good job will have a real come-uppance when the bar for
achievement is raised with the notion that all students will succeed at
a high level, \[and federal programs will have to do more\]. (Title I)

An administrator in another state, who would have liked to use
assessment to drive improvements in services, expressed frustration with
the assessments in use there:

> \[There is no way of\] really looking at student work and making
> judgments about student progress \[under the current system of
> assessment\]. We need to really push \[the idea that\] *all* students
> can succeed. (Title I)

This state administrator was almost unique, however, in articulating a
gap between what state assessment might do and what it was currently
capable of doing. Much more commonly, student performance was not a
focus of specific procedural concern for program administrators,
although they might mention it as a program aim.

At the time of this survey, just over two years into the implementation
of IASA, the goal of using state assessment as a lever for improving
coordination of federal programs with state reforms was clearly not yet
realized. It was difficult to judge to what extent new assessments
aligned with standards might come to affect the services and activities
of federally funded programs.

**Uses of Data in SEA Program Management**

The goal of instilling a culture of accountability and continual
improvement among those administering federally funded programs is, as
yet, unmet. One can imagine many ways in which SEA program managers
could lead the way toward the use of data for continuous educational
improvement. They could organize their own work---and set an example for
local educators---by using student data as a source of information about
what is going well or poorly. Similarly, they could adopt and use
systems of performance indicators for their programs' work. Our
investigation of their uses of data, however, suggests that in 1996-97,
the available data were going largely unused at the state level---or, at
least, their purposes had little to do with judging the success of
federally funded programs in raising student achievement.

**[Student Performance Data]{.underline}**

Almost all state administrators of federal programs, 91 percent, said
they received (or expected to receive soon) data on student performance.
In addition, most state administrators said they used student
performance data for some combination of purposes. The most common
purpose was for the identification of schools that need help---something
that was required in Title I. Identifying schools for recognition was
also common in Title I, where it will become a required process as final
assessment systems are phased in, and not uncommon in Migrant Education
(19 out of 47 administrators of Migrant Education). Some administrators,
about 15 percent, acknowledged that they did not use the data for any
purpose (Table 9). This was most common among administrators of Title VI
and Eisenhower Professional Development---programs in which students are
seldom direct recipients of services.

Although most state administrators reported making some use of data on
student performance, their answers to other questions showed that such
data did not necessarily factor into their assessments of overall
program quality. When we asked respondents how they judged the success
of their work, most cited feedback from subgrantees, their own
observations, and other anecdotal information. Very few described their
successes and failures in terms of student achievement. The following
comment was typical:

> Schoolwide programs are working well. It gives \[schools\] more
> flexibility, less paperwork, all students benefit. We know this from
> feedback from the districts, informal conversations. \[We have
> received\] no negative responses \[about schoolwides\] in any way.
> (Title I)

Very few state program administrators reported any systematic way of
evaluating the success of their program; almost none referred to student
performance data. Even Start state coordinators were the only exception
to this finding. As the following descriptions suggest, however, Even
Start program quality is judged mostly on process and inputs as opposed
to student outcomes:

> Even Start collects data because the state measures individual program
> success by growth in the number of families served and the number of
> participants meeting their own goals.

We do pay some attention to adult GEDs and test scores, but most of our
criteria are based on projects' own criteria and on process data, such
as number of families served, and how well the project can identify
"challenge areas" that they need to improve upon.

##### **Table 9**

**Purposes for Which State Program Offices Use Student Performance Data,
by Program**

**(N=392)**[^14]

+---------------------+-------+-------+------+---------+------+-----+
| **How has this      |       |       |      |         |      |     |
| office used the     |       |       |      |         |      |     |
| data that you have  |       |       |      |         |      |     |
| received concerning |       |       |      |         |      |     |
| student             |       |       |      |         |      |     |
| performance?**      |       |       |      |         |      |     |
+---------------------+-------+-------+------+---------+------+-----+
|                     | **N   |       |      |         |      |     |
|                     | umber |       |      |         |      |     |
|                     | of    |       |      |         |      |     |
|                     | State |       |      |         |      |     |
|                     | Admi  |       |      |         |      |     |
|                     | nistr |       |      |         |      |     |
|                     | ators |       |      |         |      |     |
|                     | Repo  |       |      |         |      |     |
|                     | rting |       |      |         |      |     |
|                     | That  |       |      |         |      |     |
|                     | Their |       |      |         |      |     |
|                     | O     |       |      |         |      |     |
|                     | ffice |       |      |         |      |     |
|                     | U     |       |      |         |      |     |
|                     | ses** |       |      |         |      |     |
|                     |       |       |      |         |      |     |
|                     | **    |       |      |         |      |     |
|                     | [Data |       |      |         |      |     |
|                     | on    |       |      |         |      |     |
|                     | St    |       |      |         |      |     |
|                     | udent |       |      |         |      |     |
|                     | P     |       |      |         |      |     |
|                     | erfor |       |      |         |      |     |
|                     | mance |       |      |         |      |     |
|                     | for:  |       |      |         |      |     |
|                     | ]{.un |       |      |         |      |     |
|                     | derli |       |      |         |      |     |
|                     | ne}** |       |      |         |      |     |
+---------------------+-------+-------+------+---------+------+-----+
| **[Federally Funded | **I   | **I   | *    | **      | **O  | *   |
| Education           | denti | denti | *Sen | Sending | ther | *No |
| Prog                | fying | fying | ding | Reports | [Pur | [P  |
| rams]{.underline}** | Sc    | Sc    | Rep  | to      | pose | urp |
|                     | hools | hools | orts | Te      | s]{. | ose |
|                     | for   | That  | to   | chnical | unde | ]{. |
|                     | [R    | [Need | [    | Ass     | rlin | und |
|                     | ecogn | Help  | Dist | istance | e}** | erl |
|                     | ition | ]{.un | rict | [Pro    |      | ine |
|                     | ]{.un | derli | s]{. | viders] |      | }** |
|                     | derli | ne}** | unde | {.under |      |     |
|                     | ne}** |       | rlin | line}** |      |     |
|                     |       |       | e}** |         |      |     |
+---------------------+-------+-------+------+---------+------+-----+
| Title I, Part A     | 38    | 46    | 18   | 20      | 6    | 1   |
| (N=50)              |       |       |      |         |      |     |
+---------------------+-------+-------+------+---------+------+-----+
| Safe and Drug-Free  | 7     | 23    | 8    | 5       | 15   | 7   |
| Schools (N=50)      |       |       |      |         |      |     |
+---------------------+-------+-------+------+---------+------+-----+
| Goals 2000 (N=44)   | 14    | 22    | 14   | 10      | 18   | 7   |
+---------------------+-------+-------+------+---------+------+-----+
| Eisenhower          | 9     | 19    | 5    | 5       | 12   | 7   |
| Professional        |       |       |      |         |      |     |
| Development (N=50)  |       |       |      |         |      |     |
+---------------------+-------+-------+------+---------+------+-----+
| Title VI (N=50)     | 9     | 13    | 3    | 5       | 16   | 8   |
+---------------------+-------+-------+------+---------+------+-----+
| Education of        | 19    | 25    | 19   | 15      | 20   | 2   |
| Migratory Children  |       |       |      |         |      |     |
| (N=47)              |       |       |      |         |      |     |
+---------------------+-------+-------+------+---------+------+-----+
| Even Start Family   | 12    | 20    | 8    | 11      | 19   | 9   |
| Literacy (N=49)     |       |       |      |         |      |     |
+---------------------+-------+-------+------+---------+------+-----+
| Programs for        | 14    | 24    | 8    | 7       | 11   | 6   |
| Neglected or        |       |       |      |         |      |     |
| Delinquent Children |       |       |      |         |      |     |
| and Youth (N=48)    |       |       |      |         |      |     |
+---------------------+-------+-------+------+---------+------+-----+
| Education for       | 8     | 14    | 9    | 6       | 14   | 11  |
| Homeless Children   |       |       |      |         |      |     |
| and Youth (N=48)    |       |       |      |         |      |     |
+---------------------+-------+-------+------+---------+------+-----+
| TOTAL               | 130   | 206   | 92   | 84      | 131  | 58  |
+---------------------+-------+-------+------+---------+------+-----+

> Table reads: Thirty-eight state directors of Title I, Part A reported
> that their office uses the data that it receives on student
> performance for identifying schools for recognition.

A few administrators' comments highlight the difficulty and confusion
administrators feel about the prospect of linking program success to
student achievement:

> Trying to come up with an evaluation that shows what federal dollars
> can accomplish in the area of student achievement is
> difficult\...\[there are so many variables\] and so few dollars".
> (Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities)
>
> We can implement programs, or we can analyze and evaluate them, but we
> can't do both! (Eisenhower Professional Development)

Finally, with the exception of state Title I Directors, less than 20
percent of survey respondents said they used the data in ways that might
help focus attention on student performance and thereby improve program
quality, such as sending student performance reports to districts (19
percent) or to technical assistance providers (17 percent). At the same
time, however, 53 percent of all state administrators said they funded
or directly provided technical assistance to subgrantees on the use of
data-driven decisionmaking.

**[Program Performance Indicators]{.underline}**

Program performance indicators were not a particularly common means by
which program administrators assessed and improved program success. They
were found in slight majorities of the state offices administering Safe
and Drug-Free Schools and Communities and Even Start, but in only about
one-fifth of the offices administering Title VI and Neglected or
Delinquent (Table 10). In most of the other programs, about 40 percent
of managers said their offices had developed program performance
indicators. Of these, a sizable majority---77 percent---said they had
done so because of federal requirements (Table 11).

Despite their infrequent use, program performance indicators seemed to
hold value among those state program administrators who did report using
them. As Table 12 shows, 92 percent of the respondents who reported
having developed performance indicators said that performance indicators
helped their work to some extent or a great extent.

**Table 10**

**State Administrators Reporting That Their Office**

**Has Developed Program Performance Indicators, by Program**

**(N=436)**

  --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------
  **Has this office developed program           
  performance indicators?**                     

  **[Federally Funded Education                 **Number of State
  Programs]{.underline}**                       [Administrators]{.underline}**

  Title I, Part A (N=50)                        21

  Safe and Drug-Free Schools (N=50)             34

  Goals 2000 (N=44)                             19

  Eisenhower Professional Development (N=50)    22

  Title VI (N=50)                               12

  Education of Migratory Children (N=47)        22

  Even Start Family Literacy (N=49)             27

  Programs for Neglected or Delinquent Children 9
  and Youth (N=48)                              

  Education for Homeless Children and Youth     12
  (N=48)                                        

  TOTAL                                         178
  --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------

> Table reads: Twenty-one state directors of Title I, Part A reported
> that their office has developed program performance indicators.

**Table 11**

**Factors That Influenced the Development**

**of Program Performance Indicators, by Program**

**(N=178)**[^15]

+---------------------------------+------------+-----------+----------+
| ###### What factor(s)           |            |           |          |
|  influenced the development of  |            |           |          |
| program performance indicators? |            |           |          |
+---------------------------------+------------+-----------+----------+
|                                 | **Number   |           |          |
|                                 | of State   |           |          |
|                                 | Admini     |           |          |
|                                 | strators** |           |          |
|                                 |            |           |          |
|                                 | *          |           |          |
|                                 | *Reporting |           |          |
|                                 | the        |           |          |
|                                 | Following  |           |          |
|                                 | Influences |           |          |
|                                 | on the     |           |          |
|                                 | D          |           |          |
|                                 | evelopment |           |          |
|                                 | of**       |           |          |
|                                 |            |           |          |
|                                 | **[Program |           |          |
|                                 | P          |           |          |
|                                 | erformance |           |          |
|                                 | Indica     |           |          |
|                                 | tors:]{.un |           |          |
|                                 | derline}** |           |          |
+---------------------------------+------------+-----------+----------+
| **[Federally Funded Education   | **Federal  | **State   | **[Othe  |
| Programs]{.underline}**         | Program    | [         | r]{.unde |
|                                 | [Require   | Requireme | rline}** |
|                                 | ments]{.un | nts]{.und |          |
|                                 | derline}** | erline}** |          |
+---------------------------------+------------+-----------+----------+
| Title I, Part A (N=21)          | 18         | 12        | 5        |
+---------------------------------+------------+-----------+----------+
| Safe and Drug-Free Schools      | 28         | 12        | 10       |
| (N=34)                          |            |           |          |
+---------------------------------+------------+-----------+----------+
| Goals 2000 (N=19)               | 9          | 12        | 7        |
+---------------------------------+------------+-----------+----------+
| Eisenhower Professional         | 20         | 6         | 8        |
| Development (N=22)              |            |           |          |
+---------------------------------+------------+-----------+----------+
| Title VI (N=12)                 | 10         | 5         | 2        |
+---------------------------------+------------+-----------+----------+
| Education of Migratory Children | 17         | 14        | 6        |
| (N=22)                          |            |           |          |
+---------------------------------+------------+-----------+----------+
| Even Start Family Literacy      | 18         | 9         | 18       |
| (N=27)                          |            |           |          |
+---------------------------------+------------+-----------+----------+
| Programs for Neglected or       | 9          | 6         | 0        |
| Delinquent Children and Youth   |            |           |          |
| (N=9)                           |            |           |          |
+---------------------------------+------------+-----------+----------+
| Education for Homeless Children | 8          | 5         | 7        |
| and Youth (N=12)                |            |           |          |
+---------------------------------+------------+-----------+----------+
| TOTAL                           | 137        | 81        | 63       |
+---------------------------------+------------+-----------+----------+

> Table reads: Eighteen state directors of Title I, Part A reported that
> federal program requirements influenced the development of their
> program performance indicators.

####### **Table 12**

**Extent to Which Implementing Program Performance Indicators**

**Has Helped State Administrators\' Work, by Program**

**(N=178)**[^16]

+---------------------+-------------+----------+---------+-----------+
| **To what extent    |             |          |         |           |
| will implementing   |             |          |         |           |
| performance         |             |          |         |           |
| indicators help     |             |          |         |           |
| your work?**        |             |          |         |           |
+---------------------+-------------+----------+---------+-----------+
|                     | **Number of |          |         |           |
|                     | State       |          |         |           |
|                     | Adm         |          |         |           |
|                     | inistrators |          |         |           |
|                     | Reporting** |          |         |           |
|                     |             |          |         |           |
|                     | **[That     |          |         |           |
|                     | I           |          |         |           |
|                     | mplementing |          |         |           |
|                     | Program     |          |         |           |
|                     | Performance |          |         |           |
|                     | Indicators  |          |         |           |
|                     | Has:]{.u    |          |         |           |
|                     | nderline}** |          |         |           |
+---------------------+-------------+----------+---------+-----------+
| **Federally         | **Helped    | **Helped | *       | **Not     |
| Funded**            | Their Work  | Their    | *Helped | Been      |
|                     | to a Great  | Work to  | Their   | [Help     |
| **[Education        | [Extent]{.u | [Some    | Work    | ful]{.und |
| Prog                | nderline}** | Exten    | [Very   | erline}** |
| rams]{.underline}** |             | t]{.unde | Little] |           |
|                     |             | rline}** | {.under |           |
|                     |             |          | line}** |           |
+---------------------+-------------+----------+---------+-----------+
| Title I, Part A     | 16          | 5        | 0       | 0         |
| (N=21)              |             |          |         |           |
+---------------------+-------------+----------+---------+-----------+
| Safe and Drug-Free  | 15          | 16       | 0       | 0         |
| Schools (N=34)      |             |          |         |           |
+---------------------+-------------+----------+---------+-----------+
| Goals 2000 (N=19)   | 16          | 3        | 0       | 0         |
+---------------------+-------------+----------+---------+-----------+
| Eisenhower          | 7           | 11       | 2       | 2         |
| Professional        |             |          |         |           |
| Development (N=22)  |             |          |         |           |
+---------------------+-------------+----------+---------+-----------+
| Title VI (N=12)     | 3           | 7        | 1       | 0         |
+---------------------+-------------+----------+---------+-----------+
| Education of        | 9           | 10       | 2       | 0         |
| Migratory Children  |             |          |         |           |
| (N=22)              |             |          |         |           |
+---------------------+-------------+----------+---------+-----------+
| Even Start Family   | 18          | 9        | 0       | 0         |
| Literacy (N=27)     |             |          |         |           |
+---------------------+-------------+----------+---------+-----------+
| Programs for        | 4           | 3        | 1       | 0         |
| Neglected or        |             |          |         |           |
| Delinquent Children |             |          |         |           |
| and Youth (N=9)     |             |          |         |           |
+---------------------+-------------+----------+---------+-----------+
| Education for       | 7           | 5        | 0       | 0         |
| Homeless Children   |             |          |         |           |
| and Youth (N=12)    |             |          |         |           |
+---------------------+-------------+----------+---------+-----------+
| TOTAL               | 95          | 69       | 6       | 2         |
+---------------------+-------------+----------+---------+-----------+

> Table reads: Sixteen state directors of Title I, Part A reported that
> implementing program performance indicators has helped their work to a
> great extent.

The program in which administrators gave the lowest ratings to
performance indicators was Eisenhower Professional Development, in which
such indicators have been the subject of discussion at several national
meetings. The reason for this finding may be that the relatively high
level of activity around indicators in the Eisenhower Professional
Development program has brought philosophical disagreements to the
forefront. Whatever the reason, a few of these administrators did
register their dissatisfaction with the indicators and reporting forms
that had been circulated:

> The federal government has not adapted its own procedures to the new
> concepts of using Title II funds. The reporting forms are focused on
> body counts and activities rather than on what you are really trying
> to do. Also, they don't differentiate what is Title II money and what
> is state and local money.

The law pushes for coordination of programs and a coordinated plan and
then turns around and asks for program-specific evaluations on each
individual programs\.... We should have coordinated evaluation that
covers all programs.

**Monitoring**

One way for state program offices to maintain a climate of
accountability is by monitoring local school districts' programs. In the
1970s and 1980s, monitoring was a vehicle for communicating the
importance of program requirements. Under the new philosophy embodied in
IASA and Goals 2000, in which specific requirements take a back seat to
the pursuit of more effective teaching and learning, monitoring could
theoretically be retooled to provide a rigorous focus on program
effectiveness and states' educational priorities. At the time of the
survey, state program administrators generally did report that program
effectiveness had become the focus for monitoring. However, there is
reason to doubt that this focus was being effectively communicated to
most districts in view of changes in the frequency and targeting of
monitoring, as we discuss below.

**[Monitoring as Technical Assistance]{.underline}**

The purpose of monitoring has changed fast. Numerous state
administrators replied to the survey questions about monitoring with
some variant of the following statement: "We don't do monitoring
anymore. We provide assistance to districts to improve program quality."
The collective disdain for "compliance" monitoring was clear; to some,
compliance monitoring had, in the past, offered districts no assistance
at all:

> \...monitoring used to be 100 percent program compliance based on a
> routine cycle with identical procedures for all sites. Now, program
> effectiveness is key. (Title I)
>
> Program monitoring has changed in our state to program effectiveness
> instead of compliance. We're looking broadly at the educational system
> of a district. (Eisenhower Professional Development)
>
> We have replaced a 101 item checklist with a much more simple format.
> Now we're really here to help the program as opposed to actually
> monitoring them. (Title I)

Beyond fairly general assertions, however, it was less clear what kinds
of technical assistance SEAs were actually offering as part of
monitoring. When program administrators were asked to identify the
strengths and weaknesses of their monitoring systems, none described
monitoring as an opportunity to tell subgrantees how they might use
program resources to support standards-based reform. Most discussed
monitoring strengths and weaknesses in terms of staffing: the strength
was having enough staff to conduct monitoring visits; the weakness was
*not* having enough staff to conduct monitoring visits.

**[Frequency of Monitoring]{.underline}**

With downsizing of state administrative staffs, monitoring visits have
become infrequent. The majority of respondents for Safe and Drug-Free
Schools and Communities, Eisenhower Professional Development, Title VI,
and Neglected or Delinquent say that fewer than one-fourth of their
subgrantees received monitoring visits in the past 12 months (Table 13).
More seriously, about one-quarter of the respondents for Eisenhower
Professional Development, Title VI, and Neglected or Delinquent reported
that no subgrantees had received monitoring visits in the past 12
months. In addition, although most program administrators reported that
their monitoring systems have a "routine cycle," that did not
necessarily mean that their subgrantees received visits. For example,
many states cited resorting to a desk audit and only visiting
subgrantees when requested or when a problem was

identified. For example, in one midwestern state, several administrators
complained that limited staff and resources had forced them to monitor
by assessing written reports (e.g., applications, quarterly financial
reports, and internal audits) rather than through actual visits to
sites. Other administrators reported having made similar arrangements:

> The process of orchestrating administrative changes has meant that
> there is very little time available for monitoring. In the past year,
> monitoring has been triggered by audit findings or complaints. (Title
> I)

**Table 13**

**Project Monitoring: Proportion of Program Subgrantees Receiving**

**Monitoring Visits in the Past 12 Months, by Program**

**(N=436)**

+------------------------+--------+------------+---------+-----------+
| **In the past 12       |        |            |         |           |
| months, about what     |        |            |         |           |
| proportion of \[this   |        |            |         |           |
| program\'s\]           |        |            |         |           |
| subgrantees received   |        |            |         |           |
| monitoring visits?**   |        |            |         |           |
+------------------------+--------+------------+---------+-----------+
|                        | **     |            |         |           |
|                        | Number |            |         |           |
|                        | of     |            |         |           |
|                        | State  |            |         |           |
|                        | Ad     |            |         |           |
|                        | minist |            |         |           |
|                        | rators |            |         |           |
|                        | Who    |            |         |           |
|                        | Report |            |         |           |
|                        | the    |            |         |           |
|                        | Fol    |            |         |           |
|                        | lowing |            |         |           |
|                        | Propo  |            |         |           |
|                        | rtions |            |         |           |
|                        | of     |            |         |           |
|                        | Subgr  |            |         |           |
|                        | antees |            |         |           |
|                        | Rec    |            |         |           |
|                        | eiving |            |         |           |
|                        | [Moni  |            |         |           |
|                        | toring |            |         |           |
|                        | Visi   |            |         |           |
|                        | ts:]{. |            |         |           |
|                        | underl |            |         |           |
|                        | ine}** |            |         |           |
+------------------------+--------+------------+---------+-----------+
| **Federally Funded**   | **Half | *          | **Fewer | **[N      |
|                        | or     | *Between** | [than  | one]{.und |
| **[Education           | [More  |            | ]       | erline}** |
| P                      | ]{.    | **[ and   | {.under |           |
| rograms]{.underline}** | underl | ]{.un     | line}** |           |
|                        | ine}** | derline}** |         |           |
+------------------------+--------+------------+---------+-----------+
| Title I, Part A (N=50) | 7      | 20         | 16      | 7         |
+------------------------+--------+------------+---------+-----------+
| Safe and Drug-Free     | 4      | 15         | 25      | 6         |
| Schools (N=50)         |        |            |         |           |
+------------------------+--------+------------+---------+-----------+
| Goals 2000 (N=44)      | 16     | 6          | 12      | 9         |
+------------------------+--------+------------+---------+-----------+
| Eisenhower             | 5      | 14         | 17      | 14        |
| Professional           |        |            |         |           |
| Development (N=50)     |        |            |         |           |
+------------------------+--------+------------+---------+-----------+
| Title VI (N=50)        | 6      | 16         | 17      | 11        |
+------------------------+--------+------------+---------+-----------+
| Education of Migratory | 28     | 7          | 5       | 5         |
| Children (N=47)        |        |            |         |           |
+------------------------+--------+------------+---------+-----------+
| Even Start Family      | 38     | 7          | 2       | 2         |
| Literacy (N=49)        |        |            |         |           |
+------------------------+--------+------------+---------+-----------+
| Programs for Neglected | 11     | 8          | 12      | 15        |
| or Delinquent Children |        |            |         |           |
| and Youth (N=48)       |        |            |         |           |
+------------------------+--------+------------+---------+-----------+
| Education for Homeless | 32     | 8          | 3       | 4         |
| Children and Youth     |        |            |         |           |
| (N=48)                 |        |            |         |           |
+------------------------+--------+------------+---------+-----------+
| TOTAL                  | 147    | 101        | 109     | 73        |
+------------------------+--------+------------+---------+-----------+

> Table reads: Seven state directors of Title I, Part A reported that
> about half or more of their program's subgrantees received monitoring
> visits in the past 12 months.

Monitoring consists of a desk review of LEA/subgrantee information; if
the information is of concern or if a subgrantee requests a visit, then
monitors will visit the site. (Even Start)

Still other programs---and some states---might have had a set monitoring
cycle but have put it on hold: (1) as a result of efforts to coordinate
and collaborate; (2) while organizing a change to a new, perhaps
integrated monitoring system; or (3) until the program had more staff
available to conduct monitoring visits:

> Most project staff are spending their time talking within the SEA and
> with LEAs about consolidation and trying to make program distinctions
> invisible; consolidation is tough to do. As a result, however, there's
> not enough staff to do on-site monitoring. (Eisenhower Professional
> Development)
>
> There was a hiatus in project monitoring in 1995 and we are currently
> trying to decide whether to do on-site monitoring in the future. The
> high costs \[of monitoring\] have forced a re-examination of future
> monitoring. (Eisenhower Professional Development)
>
>  One southern state is switching to integrated monitoring visits.
> During this transition period, many programs were not monitored. In a
> mid-western state, monitoring visits have been all but suspended for
> most programs due to reduced staff size, reduced funding, and the
> belief that the federal legislation places a higher priority on other
> areas such as technical assistance.

**[Targeting of Monitoring]{.underline}**

Rather than focusing on districts that might be out of compliance or
where student performance was low, state program managers seemed just as
likely to go to the districts that invited them in. For example, only 36
percent of respondents said monitoring visits were triggered by
information suggesting that the grantee was having trouble meeting
program requirements (Table 14). Among the 34 percent of respondents who
selected "other" when asked on what basis they decide which grantees to
visit, many explained that monitoring visits were often triggered at the
request of the grantees.

Moreover, many respondents said that the information they received about
a grantee "in trouble" was usually provided by the grantee itself
through telephone conversations:

Localities feel they are able to do what is required and that \[the
SEA\] trusts them to do it; yet they know that we're here to help and
are not out to get them. They let us know when they have needs. (Title
VI)

> Our monitoring is technical assistance; they identify their needs and
> we respond. (Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities)

**Table 14**

**Project Monitoring: Reasons Why State Administrators Visit
Subgrantees,**

**by Program**

**(N=436)**

+-------------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+---------+
| **On what basis   |           |             |             |         |
| is it decided     |           |             |             |         |
| which subgrantees |           |             |             |         |
| to visit?**       |           |             |             |         |
+-------------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+---------+
|                   | **[Number |             |             |         |
|                   | of State  |             |             |         |
|                   | Admin     |             |             |         |
|                   | istrators |             |             |         |
|                   | Who       |             |             |         |
|                   | Report    |             |             |         |
|                   | Th        |             |             |         |
|                   | at:]{.und |             |             |         |
|                   | erline}** |             |             |         |
+-------------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+---------+
| **Federally       | **There   | *           | *           | **      |
| Funded**          | is a      | *Monitoring | *Monitoring | [Other] |
|                   | Routine   | Visits Are  | Visits Are  | {.under |
| **[Education      | Cycle for | Triggered   | Triggered   | line}** |
| Progra            | M         | by          | by          |         |
| ms]{.underline}** | onitoring | Information | Information |         |
|                   | [Vis      | That        | about       |         |
|                   | its]{.und | Grantees    | Student     |         |
|                   | erline}** | Are Having  | [Perf       |         |
|                   |           | Trouble     | ormance]{.u |         |
|                   |           | Meeting     | nderline}** |         |
|                   |           | Program     |             |         |
|                   |           | [Requi      |             |         |
|                   |           | rements]{.u |             |         |
|                   |           | nderline}** |             |         |
+-------------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+---------+
| Title I, Part A   | 30        | 24          | 13          | 18      |
| (N=50)            |           |             |             |         |
+-------------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+---------+
| Safe and          | 32        | 26          | 5           | 17      |
| Drug-Free Schools |           |             |             |         |
| (N=50)            |           |             |             |         |
+-------------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+---------+
| Goals 2000 (N=44) | 21        | 14          | 6           | 17      |
+-------------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+---------+
| Eisenhower        | 27        | 17          | 8           | 19      |
| Professional      |           |             |             |         |
| Development       |           |             |             |         |
| (N=50)            |           |             |             |         |
+-------------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+---------+
| Title VI (N=50)   | 34        | 19          | 8           | 15      |
+-------------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+---------+
| Education of      | 32        | 15          | 4           | 17      |
| Migratory         |           |             |             |         |
| Children (N=47)   |           |             |             |         |
+-------------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+---------+
| Even Start Family | 35        | 17          | 5           | 12      |
| Literacy (N=49)   |           |             |             |         |
+-------------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+---------+
| Programs for      | 32        | 11          | 4           | 14      |
| Neglected or      |           |             |             |         |
| Delinquent        |           |             |             |         |
| Children and      |           |             |             |         |
| Youth (N=48)      |           |             |             |         |
+-------------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+---------+
| Education for     | 30        | 13          | 2           | 20      |
| Homeless Children |           |             |             |         |
| and Youth (N=48)  |           |             |             |         |
+-------------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+---------+
| TOTAL             | 273       | 156         | 55          | 149     |
+-------------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+---------+

Table reads: Thirty state directors of Title I, Part A reported that
their program has a routine cycle for monitoring visits.

The directors of a few programs identified some problems with a highly
selective approach to monitoring:

> The problem with this new procedure is that by only visiting projects
> that have problems or request assistance, there's no way to look
> across the state to determine common technical assistance or
> professional development needs. I've seen programs that run properly,
> but have severe weaknesses. Although they're in compliance, they're
> not doing enough. (Migrant Education)

Because of the reduced focus on compliance, sometimes compliance issues
get overlooked. (Even Start)

State program administrators' reports on the targeting of monitoring are
bad news for those who promote a data-driven approach to program
management. Very few program managers (13 percent) reported that
monitoring visits were triggered by information about student
performance. The percentage was twice as high in the Title I program,
but it still represented only 13 of 50 administrators in Title I.

**[Integrated Monitoring Visits]{.underline}**

Monitoring visits in which a team of state program administrators
collectively addresses the needs of several federal and state programs
could present a good opportunity for states to give districts a
coherent, coordinated message about the use of program resources to
support standards-based reform. In addition, sharing the burden of
monitoring among federal and state program staff might make monitoring
visits more affordable and thereby more likely to occur.

Integrated monitoring visits appeared to be the coming trend among
federally funded programs; already, about 27 states conducted some form
of integrated monitoring visits. Moreover, four of these
states---Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, and Wyoming---had attached
their integrated monitoring visits for federal programs to their state
accreditation process. Among federal programs, integrated monitoring
visits were especially common across Title I, Safe and Drug-Free Schools
and Communities, Eisenhower Professional Development, and Title VI
(Table 15). Judging from the comments of several program administrators,
particularly among directors of these four programs, most have responded
positively to their state's move to integrated monitoring visits:

> \...it's nice to have the collegiality; it strengthened us as a team.
> Also, with more eyes, you get a better picture of grantees. (Title I)
>
> I think it's a good idea; it's allowing us to learn about all the
> other programs by being on site. We're seeing how they can fit
> together. (Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities)
>
> Although the visits are less in-depth, they are more fair, thorough,
> and consistent---the same actions \[across programs\] generate the
> same responses \[from the integrated monitoring team\]. (Title I)

As evidence of the growing acceptance of integrated monitoring visits,
nine Title I directors report that their states are planning to do
integrated monitoring visits sometime in the near future.

Among the more strategic approaches being developed is Mississippi's
integrated monitoring system (see Figure 1). Other states,
too---including California, South Carolina, Virginia, and Texas---had
centralized their monitoring operations in offices separate from federal
programs. As the discussion in Figure 1 suggests, such systems are not
perfect and there are real tradeoffs to be made between raising program
quality and equitably distributing the services of experienced technical
assistance providers among local sites.

At the time of the survey, integrated monitoring visits were not
resulting in the kinds of efficiencies that would translate into
visiting more sites. Instead, the survey data showed that the programs
participating in integrated monitoring visits were generally visiting
fewer subgrantees.

In addition, program administrators suggested that this method of
monitoring, while generally accepted, does have its drawbacks. Among the
concerns administrators raised about integrated monitoring visits were
that: (1) they would be unable to collect the kind of program-specific
information they need to determine whether programs were operating
within the law; (2) the integrated monitoring teams would overwhelm
small districts where one person may administer several programs; and
(3) team members would lack the expertise to help individual programs:

> \[Integrated\] monitoring has meant that you don't get as specific
> about a program, so sometimes you lose information; the information is
> there, but there's no way to monitor it\...we don't do any monitoring
> as well as we used to when we focused on individual programs. (Migrant
> Education)

**Table 15**

**State Administrators Reporting That Their State**

**Conducts Integrated Monitoring Visits, by Program**

**(N=436)**

+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+
| **Has this state conducted any integrated        |                   |
| monitoring visits that address \[this program\]  |                   |
| and also other federal or state programs?**      |                   |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+
| **[Federally Funded Education                    | **Number of       |
| Programs]{.underline}**                          | State**           |
|                                                  |                   |
|                                                  | **[Administrato   |
|                                                  | rs]{.underline}** |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+
| Title I, Part A (N=50)                           | 24                |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+
| Safe and Drug-Free Schools (N=50)                | 22                |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+
| Goals 2000 (N=44)                                | 14                |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+
| Eisenhower Professional Development (N=50)       | 26                |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+
| Title VI (N=50)                                  | 26                |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+
| Education of Migratory Children (N=47)           | 16                |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+
| Even Start Family Literacy (N=49)                | 19                |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+
| Programs for Neglected or Delinquent Children    | 16                |
| and Youth (N=48)                                 |                   |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+
| Education for Homeless Children and Youth (N=48) | 16                |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+

> Table reads: Twenty-four state directors of Title I, Part A reported
> that their state has conducted integrated monitoring visits that
> address their program and other federal or state programs.

Integrated monitoring will have less "precision. Everyone is becoming a
generalist. It may be hard to keep programs strong because we no longer
have specialists". (Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities)

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Figure 1                                                              |
|                                                                       |
| **A Strategic Approach to Monitoring**                                |
|                                                                       |
| **Mississippi** is in the process of changing its monitoring          |
| procedures from program-specific monitoring for every district to     |
| integrated monitoring only for those districts that rate poorly       |
| (level 1 or 2 out of 5) on the state's accreditation scale. For Level |
| 1 districts (those in danger of a state takeover), the SEA has        |
| recently created a special office to provide technical assistance     |
| across all state and federal programs. This team is accompanied by    |
| federal program staff on monitoring and technical assistance visits.  |
| The federal programs staff will also begin doing integrated           |
| monitoring and technical assistance for Level 2 districts (those that |
| are on probation). Districts rated levels 3-5 do not receive any      |
| visits, except in very special situations; instead, they receive only |
| desk or telephone monitoring and technical assistance. One federal    |
| program administrator explained the motivation behind the change: "We |
| didn't think we were being effective with low achieving districts. We |
| wanted to help them use their federal dollars more effectively and    |
| help them align their programs."                                      |
|                                                                       |
| A common complaint about the new monitoring process is that districts |
| that score a 3, 4, or 5 on the accreditation scale are no longer part |
| of a monitoring or technical assistance visiting cycle, even though   |
| they may still have program implementation problems that need to be   |
| addressed on site. According to the administrator of a program that   |
| offers discretionary grants, "Each project is so different, that if   |
| you don't visit, you really don't know what's going on\.... Some      |
| projects may feel very alone out there, especially if they're new. I  |
| don't need to visit all of them, but I worry about several of them."  |
|                                                                       |
| Although most respondents are nervous about leaving so many districts |
| out of the monitoring and technical assistance visiting cycle, they   |
| are also generally positive about the new focus on intensive          |
| assistance to poor-performing districts. One administrator said, "The |
| strength is that we don't just cite \[them\] and leave\...we do       |
| technical assistance and try to help fix their problems right then.   |
| We'd rather help when possible." Although most respondents were       |
| positive about the new focus on poor-performing districts, those      |
| responsible for one program said that the special office created to   |
| work with Level 1 districts may not be effective for helping          |
| districts improve federal programs because "they aren't really        |
| federal program people with knowledge of the law. I don't think they  |
| are received as well as I would be because I have worked with this    |
| program for a long time."                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

As more and more states develop integrated monitoring systems, the fact
that many do not include some of the smaller, discretionary grant
programs (e.g., Even Start, Migrant Education, and Homeless Education)
becomes an issue of concern. By excluding these programs, states may
fail to send a coordinated, cohesive message to federal program
subgrantees regarding standards-based reform.

**Summary: Accountability Mechanisms in Place**

This survey found most state administrators at a preliminary stage in
using data to measure program results and in communicating to their
districts the importance of accountability for student performance. Most
could not yet look to state assessments aligned with content standards,
even if they were disposed to use such assessments to point to areas of
needed work---and many of them were not, judging by their limited use of
performance indicators.

States had made progress in dismantling their old systems of monitoring
for compliance with program provisions. They had far to go, however, in
building new monitoring procedures that would send a clear message to
districts about a new, standards-based accountability framework.

**IV. Technical Assistance and Professional Development: Are**

**States Working Strategically to Build Capacity?**

According to ED, in order to ensure that all children meet high
standards, the quality of teaching must be raised, and districts and
schools "may need information and assistance" (USED, 1996) in order to
raise it. Federal program administrators could try to influence efforts
to raise the quality of teaching and learning by strategically
allocating technical assistance resources to inform, support, and
promote districts' efforts to move toward standards-based reform; and by
encouraging local districts or other subgrantees to orient their
professional development toward preparing teachers to teach to high
standards.

In this chapter, we discuss the extent to which federal program offices
in SEAs were bringing the full weight of their resources to bear on
building local capacity to improve teaching in support of
standards-based reform.

**Technical Assistance**

Agency downsizing in many SEAs had reduced the technical assistance
capacity in federal programs, as the following administrators' comments
revealed:

> Reductions in state funds and staff are the greatest problems in
> \[program\] implementation, which means we're providing less technical
> assistance to LEAs than in the late 80s and early 90s. I have a hard
> time meeting requests for technical assistance. (Safe and Drug Free
> Schools and Communities)
>
> The lack of staffing prevents us from doing all we want to do. Fifty
> systems are being reviewed with three to five people on a team. In the
> past we sent larger teams. It's hard to provide technical assistance
> while on site for monitoring\.... (Title VI)

With limited resources, state program administrators had to make
difficult choices about where to provide assistance. However, rather
than actively assessing local capacity to respond to the new
legislation, many said they were relying on districts to know when they
needed help and how to ask for it: 72 percent of all program managers
gave technical assistance priority to districts that asked for help; 45
percent gave priority to those with program compliance problems; and
only 37 percent gave priority to districts with low achievement (Table
16).

**Table 16**

**Program Priorities for Allocating**

**Technical Assistance Resources, by Program**

**(N=436)**

+-------------+-------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **What are  |       |         |        |        |        |        |
| the         |       |         |        |        |        |        |
| priorities  |       |         |        |        |        |        |
| for         |       |         |        |        |        |        |
| allocating  |       |         |        |        |        |        |
| this        |       |         |        |        |        |        |
| program\'s  |       |         |        |        |        |        |
| technical   |       |         |        |        |        |        |
| assistance  |       |         |        |        |        |        |
| r           |       |         |        |        |        |        |
| esources?** |       |         |        |        |        |        |
+-------------+-------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|             | **[N  |         |        |        |        |        |
|             | umber |         |        |        |        |        |
|             | of    |         |        |        |        |        |
|             | State |         |        |        |        |        |
|             | Admi  |         |        |        |        |        |
|             | nistr |         |        |        |        |        |
|             | ators |         |        |        |        |        |
|             | Whose |         |        |        |        |        |
|             | Pr    |         |        |        |        |        |
|             | ogram |         |        |        |        |        |
|             | Prior |         |        |        |        |        |
|             | ities |         |        |        |        |        |
|             | for   |         |        |        |        |        |
|             | Alloc |         |        |        |        |        |
|             | ating |         |        |        |        |        |
|             | Tech  |         |        |        |        |        |
|             | nical |         |        |        |        |        |
|             | Assis |         |        |        |        |        |
|             | tance |         |        |        |        |        |
|             | Inc   |         |        |        |        |        |
|             | lude: |         |        |        |        |        |
|             | ]{.un |         |        |        |        |        |
|             | derli |         |        |        |        |        |
|             | ne}** |         |        |        |        |        |
+-------------+-------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **Federally | **D   | **Di    | **Dis  | **     | **Dis  | **[Ot  |
| Funded      | istri | stricts | tricts | High-P | tricts | her]{. |
| [Education  | cts** | with    | That   | overty | with   | underl |
| P           |       | Less    | [R     | [      | P      | ine}** |
| rograms]{.u | *     | Expe    | equest | Distri | rogram |        |
| nderline}** | *with | rienced | H      | cts]{. | Comp   |        |
|             | Low   | Program | elp]{. | underl | liance |        |
|             | [A    | [Ma     | underl | ine}** | [Probl |        |
|             | chiev | nagers] | ine}** |        | ems]{. |        |
|             | ement | {.under |        |        | underl |        |
|             | ]{.un | line}** |        |        | ine}** |        |
|             | derli |         |        |        |        |        |
|             | ne}** |         |        |        |        |        |
+-------------+-------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Title I,    | 36    | 30      | 39     | 34     | 30     | 10     |
| Part A      |       |         |        |        |        |        |
| (N=50)      |       |         |        |        |        |        |
+-------------+-------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Safe and    | 7     | 21      | 41     | 15     | 32     | 14     |
| Drug-Free   |       |         |        |        |        |        |
| Schools     |       |         |        |        |        |        |
| (N=50)      |       |         |        |        |        |        |
+-------------+-------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Goals 2000  | 21    | 16      | 32     | 18     | \_\_\_ | 15     |
| (N=44)      |       |         |        |        |        |        |
+-------------+-------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Eisenhower  | 18    | 26      | 38     | 11     | 25     | 11     |
| P           |       |         |        |        |        |        |
| rofessional |       |         |        |        |        |        |
| Development |       |         |        |        |        |        |
| (N=50)      |       |         |        |        |        |        |
+-------------+-------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Title VI    | 18    | 20      | 37     | 12     | 26     | 10     |
| (N=50)      |       |         |        |        |        |        |
+-------------+-------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Education   | 16    | 24      | 26     | 12     | 17     | 18     |
| of          |       |         |        |        |        |        |
| Migratory   |       |         |        |        |        |        |
| Children    |       |         |        |        |        |        |
| (N=47)      |       |         |        |        |        |        |
+-------------+-------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Even Start  | 16    | 20      | 28     | 18     | 16     | 16     |
| Family      |       |         |        |        |        |        |
| Literacy    |       |         |        |        |        |        |
| (N=49)      |       |         |        |        |        |        |
+-------------+-------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Programs    | 15    | 12      | 36     | 6      | 12     | 13     |
| for         |       |         |        |        |        |        |
| Neglected   |       |         |        |        |        |        |
| or          |       |         |        |        |        |        |
| Delinquent  |       |         |        |        |        |        |
| Children    |       |         |        |        |        |        |
| and Youth   |       |         |        |        |        |        |
| (N=48)      |       |         |        |        |        |        |
+-------------+-------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Education   | 13    | 23      | 38     | 19     | 18     | 18     |
| for         |       |         |        |        |        |        |
| Homeless    |       |         |        |        |        |        |
| Children    |       |         |        |        |        |        |
| and Youth   |       |         |        |        |        |        |
| (N=48)      |       |         |        |        |        |        |
+-------------+-------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| TOTAL       | 160   | 192     | 315    | 145    | 176    | 125    |
+-------------+-------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

> Table reads: Thirty-six state directors of Title I, Part A reported
> that their program priorities for allocating technical assistance
> resources included districts with low achievement.

State program administrators also faced choices about the content to
emphasize in their technical assistance, and they reported in the survey
that standards-based content was not necessarily their first choice.
"Meeting the needs of special populations" was the most frequently
selected technical assistance topic across all programs, suggesting that
technical assistance remained largely responsive to program-specific
issues rather than to a cross-cutting agenda of standards, assessment,
whole-school improvement, and data-driven decisionmaking (Table 17). The
content of the assistance varied widely by program, however. Title I and
Goals 2000 showed coordination in the content of the assistance they
provided: more than two-thirds of the respondents for each of these
programs said they provided or funded technical assistance in standards,
assessment, whole-school improvement, and data-driven decisionmaking.
Administrators of Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities, Migrant
Education, and Education for Homeless Children and Youth were less
likely to offer help on standards, assessments, and data-driven
decisionmaking[^17]; they were much less likely to address whole-school
improvement. Even Start also falls into this cluster of programs, but
with one exception: 65 percent of the respondents for Even Start
reported that their technical assistance focused on data-driven
decisionmaking.

The methods by which state offices provided technical assistance in
program development and operation did not vary much by program (Table
18). The most frequently cited methods of providing technical assistance
were by: (1) distributing written guidance to all districts (89
percent); (2) offering periodic statewide meetings (85 percent); and (3)
going to districts to provide assistance (84 percent). Some programs
were reportedly more innovative and perhaps proactive than others in
their methods of providing technical assistance. Title I, Even Start,
Migrant Education, and Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities were
above average in reporting that they made available to subgrantees the
names and addresses of consultants and resource centers. In addition,
Even Start posted the highest proportion of respondents who reported
developing networks of local staff. The program of Education for
Homeless Children and Youth had incorporated technology into its
provision of technical assistance: most of the respondents reported
providing technical assistance through electronic mail.

**Table 17**

**Technical Assistance Topics**

**States Fund or Directly Provide to Subgrantees, by Program**

**(N=436)**

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="13"><strong>In the past year, has your office funded or
directly provided technical assistance to subgrantees on any of the
following topics?</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="12"><strong><u>Number and Percent of State Administrators
Who Report Funding or Directly Providing Technical Assistance to
Subgrantees on:</u></strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Federally Funded Education <u>Programs</u></strong></td>
<td><strong>Content or Performance <u>Standards</u></strong></td>
<td><strong>Student <u>Assessment</u></strong></td>
<td><strong>Whole-School <u>Improvement</u></strong></td>
<td><strong>Specific Academic <u>Subjects</u></strong></td>
<td><strong>Meeting Needs of Special <u>Populations</u></strong></td>
<td><strong>Adopting and Implementing Model
<u>Programs</u></strong></td>
<td><strong>Effective Roles for Instructional <u>Aides</u></strong></td>
<td><strong>Techniques for Working with <u>Families</u></strong></td>
<td><strong>Extended Instructional <u>Time</u></strong></td>
<td><strong>Use of Data-Driven Decision <u>Making</u></strong></td>
<td><strong><u>Other</u></strong></td>
<td><p><strong>No</strong></p>
<p><strong>Particular</strong></p>
<p><strong>Content Focus <u>Encouraged</u></strong></p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>Title I,</p>
<p>Part A (N=50)</p></td>
<td>39</td>
<td>41</td>
<td>47</td>
<td>33</td>
<td>38</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>43</td>
<td>32</td>
<td>41</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Safe and Drug-Free Schools (N=50)</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>22</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>28</td>
<td>29</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>28</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Goals 2000 (N=44)</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>26</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>22</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>25</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Eisenhower Professional Development (N=50)</td>
<td>42</td>
<td>37</td>
<td>26</td>
<td>38</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>29</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>26</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Title VI (N=50)</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>33</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>28</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Education of Migratory Children (N=47)</td>
<td>25</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>23</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>22</td>
<td>22</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Even Start Family Literacy (N=49)</td>
<td>23</td>
<td>29</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>37</td>
<td>32</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>42</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>32</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Programs for Neglected or Delinquent Children and Youth (N=48)</td>
<td>28</td>
<td>32</td>
<td>29</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>26</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Education for Homeless Children and Youth (N=48)</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>35</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>10</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>TOTAL</td>
<td>244</td>
<td>252</td>
<td>232</td>
<td>220</td>
<td>283</td>
<td>228</td>
<td>114</td>
<td>242</td>
<td>164</td>
<td>233</td>
<td>84</td>
<td>38</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

Table reads: Thirty-nine state directors of Title I, Part A reported
that their office has funded or directly provided technical assistance
to subgrantees on content and performance standards.

**Table 18**

**Kinds of Technical Assistance Programs**

**Provided to Assist Subgrantees in Program Development and Operations,
by Program**

**(N=436)**

+------------+-----+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **What     |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| kinds of   |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| technical  |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| assistance |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| is your    |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| office     |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| providing  |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| to assist  |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| s          |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| ubgrantees |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| in program |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| d          |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| evelopment |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| and        |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| ope        |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| rations?** |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------+-----+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|            | **[ |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|            | Num |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|            | ber |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|            | of  |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|            | St  |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|            | ate |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|            | Ad  |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|            | min |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|            | ist |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|            | rat |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|            | ors |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|            | W   |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|            | ho: |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|            | ]{. |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|            | und |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|            | erl |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|            | ine |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|            | }** |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------+-----+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| *          | **D | **O  | **Go | *    | **O  | **   | **D  | **[  |
| *Federally | ist | ffer | to   | *Pro | ffer | Make | evel | Othe |
| Funded**   | rib | Peri | D    | vide | As   | A    | oped | r]{. |
|            | ute | odic | istr | As   | sist | vail | Netw | unde |
| **         | W   | S    | icts | sist | ance | able | orks | rlin |
| [Education | rit | tate | to   | ance | thr  | N    | of   | e}** |
| Pro        | ten | wide | Pro  | thr  | ough | ames | [L   |      |
| grams]{.un | Gu  | [Mee | vide | ough | S    | and  | ocal |      |
| derline}** | ida | ting | [A   | El   | tate | A    | Staf |      |
|            | nce | s]{. | ssis | ectr | Regi | ddre | f]{. |      |
|            | to  | unde | tanc | onic | onal | sses | unde |      |
|            | [   | rlin | e]{. | [Mai | Ser  | of   | rlin |      |
|            | All | e}** | unde | l]{. | vice | Con  | e}** |      |
|            | Dis |      | rlin | unde | [Ce  | sult |      |      |
|            | tri |      | e}** | rlin | nter | ants |      |      |
|            | cts |      |      | e}** | s]{. | and  |      |      |
|            | ]{. |      |      |      | unde | Reso |      |      |
|            | und |      |      |      | rlin | urce |      |      |
|            | erl |      |      |      | e}** | [Ce  |      |      |
|            | ine |      |      |      |      | nter |      |      |
|            | }** |      |      |      |      | s]{. |      |      |
|            |     |      |      |      |      | unde |      |      |
|            |     |      |      |      |      | rlin |      |      |
|            |     |      |      |      |      | e}** |      |      |
+------------+-----+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Title I,   | 47  | 45   | 46   | 25   | 27   | 40   | 28   | 10   |
| Part A     |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| (N=50)     |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------+-----+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Safe and   | 45  | 45   | 43   | 24   | 23   | 34   | 26   | 10   |
| Drug-Free  |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Schools    |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| (N=50)     |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------+-----+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Goals 2000 | 38  | 38   | 33   | 25   | 27   | 23   | 23   | 9    |
| (N=44)     |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------+-----+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Eisenhower | 48  | 43   | 41   | 30   | 28   | 28   | 21   | 11   |
| Pr         |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| ofessional |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| D          |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| evelopment |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| (N=50)     |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------+-----+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Title VI   | 44  | 40   | 40   | 27   | 21   | 24   | 16   | 7    |
| (N=50)     |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------+-----+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Education  | 41  | 40   | 39   | 18   | 21   | 36   | 26   | 7    |
| of         |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Migratory  |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Children   |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| (N=47)     |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------+-----+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Even Start | 46  | 45   | 46   | 26   | 15   | 35   | 34   | 11   |
| Family     |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Literacy   |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| (N=49)     |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------+-----+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Programs   | 41  | 38   | 38   | 14   | 13   | 25   | 14   | 11   |
| for        |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Neglected  |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| or         |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Delinquent |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Children   |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| and Youth  |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| (N=48)     |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------+-----+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Education  | 37  | 38   | 42   | 30   | 7    | 28   | 28   | 11   |
| for        |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Homeless   |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Children   |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| and Youth  |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| (N=48)     |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------+-----+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| TOTAL      | 387 | 372  | 368  | 219  | 182  | 273  | 216  | 87   |
+------------+-----+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+

Table reads: Forty-seven state directors of Title I, Part A reported
that their office distributes written guidance to all districts to
assist them in program development and operations.

**Professional Development**

All of the federal programs included in this study can and do support
professional development as a means of improving teaching and learning.
In the enactment of Goals 2000 and IASA, the federal government has
encouraged the strategic, coherent use of professional development to
advance educational improvement. This study looked at state practices
with regard to professional development under these programs, gathering
data on the processes and the topics that SEA administrators encouraged
their districts and other subgrantees to emphasize.

**[Processes Encouraged in Professional Development]{.underline}**

State administrators reported that they were (1) attempting to improve
efficiency in the provision of professional development across programs,
and (2) encouraging certain procedures in professional development that
are thought to make it more effective. The variation across programs,
however, suggested that there was more work to be done to coordinate
state-level efforts.

***Pooling professional development funds.*** Virtually every state
administrator of Title I and an overwhelming majority in Eisenhower
Professional Development encouraged districts to pool funds for
professional development across federal programs (Table 19). Overall, 72
percent of all administrators did so, but the percentage varied somewhat
by program. The survey data suggest that there was some correlation
between state-level efforts to coordinate and collaborate and whether
program managers encouraged the pooling of professional development
funds. For example, those administrators who reported joint application
workshops were much more likely to encourage pooling of professional
development funds. The reverse was also true: where separate subgrant
applications were required (as they often were in the discretionary
subgrant programs), pooling of funds was less likely to be encouraged.

Delving further into the issue of pooling funds, however, we find that
SEA administrators within a state were not necessarily consistent in the
messages they sent districts about pooling funds for professional
development. In about 18 states, administrators' efforts to encourage
their subgrantees to pool professional development funds with particular
programs were not reciprocated by those programs' administrators---i.e.,
the other programs' administrators said they did [not]{.underline}
encourage their subgrantees to pool funds. In other states,
administrators reported encouraging their subgrantees to pool funds with
one program while that program's administrator encouraged his or her
subgrantees to pool their resources with another program.

**Table 19**

**Number of State Administrators Who Encouraged Subgrantees to Pool
Their**

**Program Funds for Professional Development With Those of Any Other**

**Federal or State Programs, by Program**

**(N=436)**

+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Did any of your written or       |                                 |
| personal communications encourage  |                                 |
| subgrantees to pool \[this         |                                 |
| program\'s\] funds for             |                                 |
| professional development with      |                                 |
| those of any other federal or      |                                 |
| state program(s)?**                |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **[Federally Funded Education      | **Number of State**             |
| Programs]{.underline}**            |                                 |
|                                    | *                               |
|                                    | *[Administrators]{.underline}** |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Title I, Part A (N=50)             | 49                              |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Safe and Drug-Free Schools (N=50)  | 32                              |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Goals 2000 (N=44)                  | 31                              |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Eisenhower Professional            | 43                              |
| Development (N=50)                 |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Title VI (N=50)                    | 37                              |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Education of Migratory Children    | 30                              |
| (N=47)                             |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Even Start Family Literacy (N=49)  | 36                              |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Programs for Neglected or          | 30                              |
| Delinquent Children and Youth      |                                 |
| (N=48)                             |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Education for Homeless Children    | 26                              |
| and Youth (N=48)                   |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| TOTAL                              | 314                             |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+

> Table reads: Forty-nine state directors of Title I, Part A reported
> that they encouraged, through written or personal communications,
> subgrantees to pool Title I funds for professional development with
> those of any other federal or state programs.

Title I was the program most often cited as a program with which other
programs should pool their funds---almost certainly because its funding
levels, being so much higher than those of other programs, presented an
appealing target for program administrators. Other frequently cited
programs were Eisenhower Professional Development, Safe and Drug-Free
Schools and Communities, and Title VI. By comparison, the discretionary
grants programs (Goals 2000, Migrant Education, Even Start, Neglected or
Delinquent, and Education of Homeless Children and Youth) were rarely
cited, even by other discretionary grants programs. For example, Even
Start administrators most often cited Title I, followed by Adult Basic
Education and Head Start; rarely did they mention Migrant Education or
Education of Homeless Children and Youth. Among administrators of the
Migrant Education Program, Title I was most often cited as a program
with which to pool professional development resources, followed by state
programs for bilingual education and English as a second language.
Finally, administrators of the discretionary grants programs rarely
cited programs known for their focus on professional
development---Eisenhower Professional Development and Title VI.[^18]

***Approaches to professional development.*** State program
administrators were promoting some approaches to professional
development that were often described, both in the legislation and in
policy discussions of professional development, as good ways of
improving teaching and learning. "Sustained" professional development
was a clear example: two-thirds of federal program managers reported
that they were discouraging one-shot events in professional development
(Table 20). Close to that same number said they encouraged professional
development organized for teams of individuals from a particular school.
As the following administrators' comments suggested, many credited the
reauthorized legislation as prompting these changes in approach to
professional development:

> The \[legislative\] requirement that \[increases\] building-level
> responsibility for planning and implementing Title II activities will
> strengthen the program all around. (Eisenhower Professional
> Development)

We deemphasize the one-day workshop and encourage the intensive,
sustained workshops\...the new law promoted this change with its focus
on long-term, sustained professional development. This language helped
us push this concept on the districts. (Eisenhower Professional
Development)

Despite the convergence around these two concepts in professional
development, state program administrators were not entirely unanimous in
their support for particular approaches in professional development.
Indeed, approximately one-third of the administrators for Neglected or
Delinquent, Title VI, and Education for Homeless Children and Youth said
they were not encouraging their subgrantees

######### **Table 20**

**Approaches to Professional Development That Subgrantees Are**

**Encouraged to Use, by Program**

**(N=436)**

  ------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- ----------------------------
  **Did any of your written                                                                                                                                                             
  or personal                                                                                                                                                                           
  communications encourage                                                                                                                                                              
  subgrantees to use                                                                                                                                                                    
  particular approaches in                                                                                                                                                              
  providing professional                                                                                                                                                                
  development?**                                                                                                                                                                        

                            **[Number of State                                                                                                                                          
                            Administrators Who                                                                                                                                          
                            Encourage Subgrantees to                                                                                                                                    
                            Provide:]{.underline}**                                                                                                                                     

  **Federally Funded        **Professional            **Professional Development **Professional Development **Teacher or           **Use of Technology,       **[Other]{.underline}**   **No Particular Approaches
  [Education                Development That Is       in Which Teams of          That Is Initiated by the   Administrator Networks including Electronic                                 [Encouraged]{.underline}**
  Programs]{.underline}**   Sustained over More Than  Individuals from a         School Building Rather     (electronic or [face   [Networks]{.underline}**                             
                            a [Single                 Particular School          Than the School            to                                                                          
                            Event]{.underline}**      Participate                [District]{.underline}**   face)]{.underline}**                                                        
                                                      [Together]{.underline}**                                                                                                          

  Title I, Part A (N=50)    42                        41                         40                         23                     24                         3                         6

  Safe and Drug-Free        33                        34                         19                         19                     18                         6                         11
  Schools (N=50)                                                                                                                                                                        

  Eisenhower Professional   42                        31                         39                         26                     29                         6                         7
  Development (N=50)                                                                                                                                                                    

  Title VI (N=50)           28                        23                         24                         18                     21                         4                         21

  Goals 2000 (N=44)         34                        29                         20                         25                     30                         10                        6

  Education of Migratory    29                        29                         21                         18                     23                         8                         9
  Children (N=47)                                                                                                                                                                       

  Even Start Family         31                        35                         14                         22                     28                         12                        6
  Literacy (N=49)                                                                                                                                                                       

  Programs for Neglected or 30                        27                         22                         7                      18                         2                         15
  Delinquent Children and                                                                                                                                                               
  Youth (N=48)                                                                                                                                                                          

  Education for Homeless    16                        20                         14                         15                     16                         5                         20
  Children and Youth (N=48)                                                                                                                                                             

  TOTAL                     285                       269                        213                        173                    207                        56                        101
  ------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- ----------------------------

Table reads: Forty-two state directors of Title I, Part A reported that
they encourage subgrantees, through written or personal communication,
to provide professional development that is sustained over more than a
single event.

to take particular approaches to professional development. In addition,
few program managers reported encouraging approaches to professional
development that would give greater control to teachers and schools. For
example, only Title I and Eisenhower Professional Development had a
majority of managers (40 and 39, respectively) who said they encouraged
initiation of professional development by the school building rather
than the school district. About half the state managers for Goals 2000,
Title II, Even Start, and Title I said they encouraged subgrantees to
use teacher or administrator networks (electronic and/or face-to-face).
The following administrators' comments suggested that their reluctance
to offer schools and teachers greater decisionmaking power with respect
to professional development might be lodged in administrators'
skepticism about teachers' capacity to make good choices:

> Our state has some distance to go in actually changing instructional
> strategies used in classrooms across the state. Many teachers are not
> very self-aware when it comes to using a variety of instructional
> strategies. (Eisenhower Professional Development)
>
> Getting schools to think of professional development in a more
> comprehensive way is a problem. For example, some schools send
> teachers to training on the use of graphing calculators, but do not
> have the funds/plans to supply graphing calculators to students.
> (Eisenhower Professional Development)

The focus of professional development has changed. Before, a menu was
used, which left too much room for discretion for teachers and others;
now, a targeted approach is used. (Title I)

Despite some state administrators' pessimism about the capacity of
schools and teachers to chart their own professional development
courses, the survey data clearly showed that, at the state level, most
federal program administrators were promoting at least some changes in
approach to the provision of professional development. There was less
evidence to suggest that administrators were as actively promoting
change in the content of professional development, as we discuss next.

**[Content of Professional Development]{.underline}**

With respect to the content of professional development, federal
programs seemed more inclined to encourage a smorgasbord of topics
rather than a tight focus. When given a list of 10 possible topics for
professional development, many program managers reported that they were
encouraging districts to "focus" on at least half of them (see Table
21). In addition, data analyses suggest that within any given state,
there was little agreement among program administrators regarding the
content of professional development. That is, the topics that Title I
directors (for example)

**Table 21**

**Topics on Which Subgrantees Are Encouraged**[^19] **to Focus**

**in Their Professional Development, by Program**

**(N=436)**

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="13"><strong>In written communications--or in workshops,
monitoring, or other interactions--did you encourage subgrantees to
focus on any of the following topics in their professional
development?</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="12"><strong><u>Number of State Administrators Who Encourage
Their Subgrantees to Focus Professional Development
on:</u></strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Federally Funded Education <u>Programs</u></strong></td>
<td><strong>Content or Performance <u>Standards</u></strong></td>
<td><strong>Student <u>Assessment</u></strong></td>
<td><strong>Whole-School <u>Improvement</u></strong></td>
<td><strong>Specific Academic <u>Subjects</u></strong></td>
<td><strong>Meeting Needs of Special <u>Populations</u></strong></td>
<td><strong>Adopting and Implementing Model
<u>Programs</u></strong></td>
<td><strong>Effective Roles for Instructional <u>Aides</u></strong></td>
<td><strong>Techniques for Working with <u>Families</u></strong></td>
<td><strong>Extended Instructional <u>Time</u></strong></td>
<td><strong>Use of Data-Driven Decision <u>Making</u></strong></td>
<td><strong><u>Other</u></strong></td>
<td><strong>No Particular Topics <u>Encouraged</u></strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>Title I,</p>
<p>Part A (N=50)</p></td>
<td>44</td>
<td>44</td>
<td>48</td>
<td>32</td>
<td>36</td>
<td>28</td>
<td>23</td>
<td>41</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>38</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Safe and Drug-Free Schools (N=50)</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>25</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>25</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>33</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Goals 2000 (N=44)</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>35</td>
<td>32</td>
<td>28</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>25</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>27</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Eisenhower Professional Development (N=50)</td>
<td>39</td>
<td>32</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>41</td>
<td>33</td>
<td>27</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>23</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Title VI (N=50)</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>25</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>26</td>
<td>28</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>15</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Education of Migratory Children (N=47)</td>
<td>26</td>
<td>35</td>
<td>22</td>
<td>27</td>
<td>36</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>36</td>
<td>25</td>
<td>23</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Even Start Family Literacy (N=49)</td>
<td>25</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>38</td>
<td>28</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>46</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Programs for Neglected or Delinquent Children and Youth (N=48)</td>
<td>29</td>
<td>32</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>23</td>
<td>27</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Education for Homeless Children and Youth (N=48)</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>22</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>11</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>TOTAL</td>
<td>257</td>
<td>272</td>
<td>243</td>
<td>214</td>
<td>287</td>
<td>197</td>
<td>107</td>
<td>256</td>
<td>163</td>
<td>232</td>
<td>104</td>
<td>57</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

Table reads: Forty-four state directors of Title I, Part A reported that
they encouraged subgrantees, in written communications or in workshops,
monitoring, or other interactions, to focus professional development on
content or performance standards.

encouraged their subgrantees to emphasize were often different from the
topics the Even Start or Migrant Education managers encouraged.

When asked whether there were topics or approaches in professional
development that their programs encouraged more actively in the past but
have *deemphasized*, state administrators' responses again suggested
that administrators' orientation to professional development focused
more on changing the processes or structures through which professional
development is delivered than on its content. Among the administrators
of Title I and Eisenhower Professional Development who reported
deemphasizing topics or approaches in professional development, changes
in process outnumbered changes in content by a margin of two to one.
Comments related to the demise of one-shot workshops were common. Other
comments were analogous to the following:

> We're no longer sending teachers to national and local conferences
> without tying \[what they learn\] back to schools. (Eisenhower
> Professional Development)

Before 1994, lots of our training was provided off-site. LEAs thought
they were supposed to use professional development resources to send
folks to conferences. Now, we focus more on site-based training, local
curriculum alignment, study groups, and action research. (Eisenhower
Professional Development)

Finally, many state program managers said they were coordinating their
approach to professional development across programs. That is, among the
47 percent reporting a change from the past, most reported that
professional development was becoming better coordinated among federal
programs and that it was no longer an isolated, program-specific event:

> Our objectives for professional development are linked and programs
> can work together to provide \[it\]. (Title I)
>
> We encourage subgrantees to really tie in to overall local
> efforts---to tie in with other \[federally funded\] programs. (Title
> I)
>
> We have a unified approach \[to professional development\]; we're
> moving away from the categorical. (Education for Homeless Children and
> Youth)

\[Since the passage of IASA\] we don't work in isolation anymore;
there's more coordination of professional development funds and
resources. (Education for Homeless Children and Youth)

In fact, many of the comments state administrators made about
professional development were similarly enthusiastic about coordinating
professional development but relatively vague about ways in which they
were working together. This lack of specificity, coupled with their lack
of topical focus, suggests that program administrators had joined forces
around a very broad professional agenda rather than a tightly defined
one.

**Summary: More Focus on Process than on Content**

Programs varied a great deal in their attention to building local
capacity around standards, assessment, or whole-school improvement;
these topics were reportedly important in Title I but less so in other
programs. Administrators were, however, learning to work together in
technical assistance and professional development. Two other trends were
clear: program administrators were beginning to subscribe to the value
of pooling funds for professional development across categorical
programs; and they were eager to eradicate the "one-shot workshop."

**V. Conclusions**

The policy vision of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act and the
reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act was one in which
schools would strive for significant improvement in student performance,
using all the resources at their disposal---including the resources they
obtained under federal programs, many of which would continue to provide
an extra boost for students at risk of failing to meet challenging
standards. To help and encourage schools to make such a concerted
effort, these laws emphasized the opportunities for school districts and
state program administrators to break down program boundaries and to
offer flexibility for local decisions.

At the early stage of program implementation investigated in this study,
all state education agencies had made noticeable changes to their
procedures in implementing the reauthorized programs. Consolidated plans
were almost universal, and the planning process had helped inform
administrators about each others' programs; in many cases, planning had
also given them new ideas about ways to work together. This
collaborative work was beginning to result in the acceptance of
consolidated plans from local school districts and in integrated
monitoring visits across programs. Both of these practices were being
piloted in many states, although implementation was far from widespread.

There had also been some changes in the communication between SEAs and
their districts. Clearly, SEAs were promoting and districts were using
the option for schoolwide programs under

Title I, and SEAs were generally encouraging districts to pool funds
across programs to support professional development. At the other end of
the spectrum, however, there was relatively little communication about
waivers of program provisions. Some state administrators observed, too,
that districts and schools had made slow progress in breaking down
program barriers.

Thus, we conclude that SEAs had taken major steps toward cross-program
communication in their own agencies at the time of the survey in late
1996 and early 1997, and that many program administrators had also
communicated a message of broad program change to their districts.
Effects were beginning to emerge, although they were not as large as
some might wish.

Where implementation fell short of the original federal vision was in
accountability for results. With the exception of following some
mandated procedures---such as identifying Title I schools in need of
improvement---most program administrators gave only limited evidence
that they were attending to student performance. Having largely
dismantled their old monitoring systems, few were sending a strong
message to their districts that accountability for student performance
would replace the compliance monitoring of the past. Instead, what was
replacing compliance monitoring was technical assistance---primarily
offered to districts that knew when and how to ask for it. Ironically,
too, the amount of work associated with making structural and procedural
changes may have actually detracted from the attention program managers
could give to the substance of educational reform. Administrators of
federal programs continued to take many of their cues from the
procedural provisions of federal legislation, which they understood to
be telling them to learn about the purposes and procedures of other
federal programs. The day-to-day work of most program administrators was
not animated or organized by the idea of ensuring that students meet
challenging standards.

This study provided baseline information on the early implementation of
Goals 2000 and programs reauthorized under IASA. A follow-up
implementation study in late summer and early fall 1998 has been
designed to analyze the ways in which administrators of federally funded
programs have continued to respond to the new legislative framework and
the extent to which they have moved beyond attention to the procedural
provisions of the legislation---such as consolidated planning and
cross-program communication---and begun focusing on the task of aligning
program services and operations with state content and performance
standards so as to improve student achievement. Both the baseline and
follow-up studies will help inform congressionally mandated evaluations
of the impact of federal education programs and will provide data on the
use of program performance indicators established pursuant to the
Government Performance and Results Act.

Acknowledgements

Many people contributed to the planning, development, and review of this
report. We wish to acknowledge their significant contributions here.

First, we thank the administrators in all 51 state education agencies
(including the District of Columbia) who are responsible for each of
nine federal programs (Title I, Part A; Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities; Goals 2000; Eisenhower Professional Development; Innovative
Education Program Strategies; Education of Migratory Children; Even
Start Family Literacy; Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children
and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk of Dropping Out; and
Subtitle VII-B of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act) as
well as to state research or evaluation specialists knowledgeable about
assessment in the Title I program. We want to thank these individuals
for generously giving us their time and their valuable insights into the
operations of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act and the Improving
America's Schools Act.

At the U.S. Department of Education, critiques and encouragement came
from Joanne Bogart, Alan Ginsburg, Sue Ross, Stephanie Stullich and
other staff in the Planning and Evaluation Service; Tom Fagan, Judith
Johnson, William Lobosco, Grace Ross, Bayla White, and William Wooten in
the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education; Tom Corwin and Lonna
Jones in the Budget Service; and Phil Rosenfelt and Kay Ringling in the
Office of the General Counsel. We also want to express our thanks to
members of the Independent Review Panel for the National Assessment of
Title I; in particular, we'd like to thank Susan Fuhrman, Joseph
Johnson, Phyllis McClure, and Linda Rodriguez for their comments and
suggestions regarding the study instruments and the final report.

Members of the Policy Studies Associates staff, past and present, whose
hard work and skill made this report possible were: John Breckenridge,
Kelly Colopy, Keith Gayler, David Goldstein, Miriam Gonzales, Ben
Lagueruela, Sara Nathanson, Eileen O'Brien, Ellen Pechman, Tom Spiggle,
Kimberly Thomas, Karen Walking Eagle, and Jessica Wodatch.

**APPENDIX**

**Survey Instruments**

**CORE SURVEY OF STATE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATORS**

**Standards and Assessment:**

S1. \[Interviewer: Precode whether this state has (or is developing)
content or performance standards.\]

a\. Yes 1

b\. No 2 **GO TO F1**

S2. \[Where content and performance standards have been/are being
developed\]: Have you personally

> participated in the development or review of the state\'s content and
> student performance standards
>
> (e.g., attended meetings, reviewed draft standards, etc.)?
>
> a\. Yes 1
>
> b\. No 2

S3. Have \[this program\'s\] funds helped support the development or
review of the state\'s content and

> student performance standards?
>
> a\. Yes 1
>
> b\. No 2
>
> c\. Don\'t know 3

S4. \[Where new assessments have been/are being developed or adopted\]:
Have \[this program\'s\] funds

> helped support the development or review of new assessments?
>
> a\. Yes (EXPLAIN)
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> b\. No 2
>
> c\. Don\'t know 3

S5. Can you give me examples of some ways in which \[this program\] is
changing because of state content and student performance standards?
\[Probe for 2-3 examples\]

**State Plans:**

F1. Did your office participate in the development of your state\'s
consolidated ESEA plan in 1996?

> a\. Yes 1
>
> b\. No 2

F2. In what ways, if at all, do you think the consolidated plan differs
from a plan that would have been

> developed separately for \[this program\]?

F3. In what ways, if at all, have you found that consolidated planning
has affected the integration of

> \[this program\] with overall state policy in education or with other
> federal education programs?

F4. Do you think your state\'s Goals 2000 plan reflects your program\'s
priorities and goals?

> a\. Yes 1
>
> b\. No 2
>
> c\. Not familiar with plan 3
>
> d\. PRECODE: State did not develop a Goals 2000 plan 4

**Subgrant Applications:**

L1. Does your program require or accept consolidated applications (that
is, combined applications for more

> than one program) from districts? (CIRCLE ONE)
>
> a\. Consolidated applications are required 1
>
> b\. Consolidated applications are accepted
>
> but not required 2
>
> c\. No, this program requires a separate application 3
>
> d\. Other (SPECIFY)
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 4

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

L2. Are application workshops for subgrantees conducted jointly for
\[this program\] and other programs?

> (CIRCLE ONE)
>
> a\. Yes (SPECIFY PROGRAMS)
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> b\. No, application workshops are not conducted for this program 2
>
> c\. No, application workshops focus only on this program 3
>
> d\. Other (SPECIFY)
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 4 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

L3. Do any of these procedures for subgrant applications \[consolidated
applications, workshop procedures\] represent a change from what \[this
program\] has done in the past?

> a\. Yes (EXPLAIN)
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> b\. No 2 **GO TO M1** \_\_\_\_

L4. What prompted the change(s)? \[Probe for influence of state
priorities, state funding, federal law or regulations, federal guidance
or assistance, federal funding, professional trends, local educators\]

L5. Among the influences identified, which would you identify as the
major influence on changes to \[this program\'s\] subgrant application
process?

**Project Monitoring:**

M1. In the past 12 months, about what proportion of \[this program\'s\]
subgrantees

> received monitoring visits? (CIRCLE ONE)
>
> a\. Half or more 1
>
> b\. Between one-fourth and one-half 2
>
> c\. Fewer than one-fourth 3

d\. None 4 \_\_\_\_

M2. On what basis is it decided which subgrantees to visit? (CIRCLE ALL
THAT APPLY)

> a\. There is a routine cycle for visits 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> b\. Visits are triggered by information suggesting that the grantee is
> having
>
> trouble meeting program requirements. (SPECIFY type and source of
>
> information):\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> c\. Visits are triggered by information about student performance.
> (SPECIFY
>
> type and source of
> information):\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> d\. Other (SPECIFY)
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

M3. Has this state conducted any integrated monitoring visits that
address \[this program\]

> and also other federal or state programs?
>
> a\. Yes (SPECIFY other
> program\[s\])\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> b\. No 2 \_\_\_\_

M4. Which of the following program services associated with monitoring
does your office provide?

> (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
>
> a\. Hiring staff who are experienced technical assistance providers so
> that

they can provide on-site assistance rather than just collect information

and then leave 1 \_\_\_\_

> b\. Providing professional development for program monitors
>
> \[Duration of professional development: \# of hours
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\] 1 \[\_\_\_\] \_\_\_\_
>
> c\. Sending local subgrant projects questionnaires inquiring about
> their
>
> technical assistance needs 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> d\. Sending local subgrant projects advance information about the
> monitoring
>
> process 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> e\. Providing written feedback to local subgrant projects after the
> visit (GET A
>
> COPY OF THE FORMAT) 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> f\. Conducting follow-up visits (WHEN? e.g., how many months after

initial visit)
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
1 \[\_\_\_\] \_\_\_\_

> g\. Other (SPECIFY)
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

M5. Do any of this office\'s procedures in program monitoring represent
a change from what \[this

> program\] has done in the past?
>
> a\. Yes (EXPLAIN)
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> b\. No 2 **GO TO P1** \_\_\_\_

M6. What prompted this change? \[Probe for influence of state
priorities, state funding, federal law or

> regulations, federal guidance or assistance, federal monitoring,
> federal funding, professional trends, local educators\]

M7. Among the influences identified, which would you identify as the
major influence on changes to your

> program monitoring process?

M8. What do you personally believe are the strengths and weaknesses of
your office\'s program monitoring process?

**Building Capacity for Improvement:**

P1. Over the past year, have you sent out any written communications to
districts or other subgrantees

> about the professional development that \[this program\] supports?
>
> a\. Yes \[Get a copy\] 1
>
> b\. No 2 \_\_\_\_

P2. In written communication\--or in workshops, monitoring, or other
interactions\--did you

> encourage subgrantees to focus on any of the following topics in their
> professional development?
>
> (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
>
> a\. Content or performance standards 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> b\. Student assessment 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> c\. Planning and carrying out whole-school improvement 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> d\. Specific academic subject(s) (e.g., reading, math) 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> e\. Meeting the needs of special populations 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> f\. Adopting and implementing particular model programs 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> g\. Effective roles for instructional aides 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> h\. Techniques for working with families 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> i\. Extended instructional time 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> j\. Use of data-driven decision making (e.g., student assessments) 1
> \_\_\_\_
>
> k\. Other(s)
> (SPECIFY):\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> l\. No, we did not encourage any particular content focus 1 \_\_\_\_

P3. Did any of your written or personal communications encourage
subgrantees to use particular

> approaches in providing professional development? (CIRCLE ALL THAT
> APPLY)
>
> a\. Professional development that is sustained over more than a single
> event 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> b\. Professional development in which teams of individuals from a
> particular
>
> school participate together 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> c\. Initiation of professional development by the school building
> rather than
>
> the school district 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> d\. Teacher or administrator networks (electronic and/or face-to-face)
> 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> e\. Use of technology, including electronic networks 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> f\. Other(s)
> (SPECIFY):\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> g\. No, we did not encourage any particular approaches 1 \_\_\_\_

P4. Did any of your written or personal communications encourage
subgrantees to pool \[this program\'s\]

funds for professional development with those of any other federal or
state program(s)?

> a\. Yes (SPECIFY
> program\[s\]):\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> b\. No 2 \_\_\_\_

P5. \[If responses to P2-P4 indicate that any priorities, approaches, or
pooling of funds have been

> recommended\] Does your encouragement for \[specify\] represent a
> change from what \[this
>
> program\] has encouraged in the past? \[Probe for nature of change\]
>
> a\. Yes
> (SPECIFY)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

b\. No 2

c\. Don\'t know 3

d\. Question skipped; does not apply 4 \_\_\_\_

P6. Are there topics or approaches in professional development that
\[this program\] encouraged

> more actively in the past but has deemphasized? \[Probe for nature of
> change\]
>
> a\. Yes
> (SPECIFY)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

b\. No 2

c\. Don\'t know 3 \_\_\_\_

P7. \[If any change is cited in P5 or P6\], What prompted this change?
\[Probe for influence of state

> priorities, state funding, federal law or regulations, federal
> guidance or assistance, federal funding, professional trends, local
> educators\]

P8. What kinds of technical assistance is your office providing to
assist subgrantees in program

> development and operations? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
>
> a\. We distribute written guidance to all districts 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> b\. We offer periodic statewide meetings 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> c\. We go to districts to provide assistance 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> d\. We provide assistance through electronic mail 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> e\. We offer assistance through our state\'s regional service centers
> 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> f\. We make available the names and addresses of consultants and
> resource
>
> centers 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> g\. We have developed networks of local staff 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> h\. Other
> (SPECIFY)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

P9. In the past year, has your office funded or directly provided
technical assistance to subgrantees

> on any of the following topics: (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
>
> a\. Content or performance standards 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> b\. Student assessment 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> c\. Planning and carrying out whole-school improvement 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> d\. Specific academic subject(s) (e.g., reading, math) 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> e\. Meeting the needs of special populations 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> f\. Adopting and implementing particular model programs 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> g\. Effective roles for instructional aides 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> h\. Techniques for working with families 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> i\. Extended instructional time 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> j\. Use of data-driven decision making (e.g., student assessments) 1
> \_\_\_\_
>
> k\. Other(s)
> (SPECIFY):\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> l\. No particular content focus 1 \_\_\_\_

P10. Since the reauthorization of ESEA, has there been a change in the
focus or procedures for

> technical assistance? \[Probe for specifics\]

a\. Yes
(SPECIFY)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
1

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

b\. No 2 **GO TO P12** \_\_\_\_

P11. What are the priorities for allocating this program\'s technical
assistance resources? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)

> a\. Districts with low achievement 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> b\. Districts with less experienced program managers 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> c\. Districts that request help 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> d\. High-poverty districts 1 \_\_\_\_

e\. Districts with program compliance problems 1 \_\_\_\_

> e\. Other
> (SPECIFY):\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

P12. \[If a change\], What prompted this change? \[Probe for influence
of state priorities, state funding,

> federal law or regulations, federal guidance or assistance, federal
> funding, professional trends,
>
> local educators\]

**Waivers:**

W1. Has your office submitted any requests to the U.S. Department of
Education for waivers of statutory

> or regulatory requirements on a statewide basis (as opposed to
> forwarding a waiver request for a
>
> local district)? If so, what issue(s) prompted the waiver request(s)?
>
> a\. Yes, the state has requested waiver(s) (SPECIFY
> ISSUES)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 1

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> b\. No, the state has not requested a waiver 2 \_\_\_\_

W2. How many statewide waiver requests, if any, do you expect this
office to submit to ED over the

> next 12 months? \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_

W3. If a local district submits a request for a waiver of statutory or
regulatory requirements under \[this

> program\], to what office does that request go in the SEA?
>
> a\. My office 1
>
> b\. Another office (SPECIFY)
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 2 **GO TO A1** \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

W4. About how many waiver requests from local districts would you
estimate this office will forward

> to ED over the next 12 months? \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> \_\_\_\_

W5. How has your office informed local districts and schools about the
waiver authority in the new law? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)

> a\. By forwarding copies of the U.S. Department of Education\'s waiver

guidance 1 \_\_\_\_

> b\. By sending out written information developed by the state 1
> \_\_\_\_

(GET A COPY)

> c\. By addressing the subject at statewide or regional meetings 1
> \_\_\_\_
>
> d\. By providing technical assistance to districts in the process of
> preparing

waiver requests 1 \_\_\_\_

> e\. By other means
> (SPECIFY)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

W6. Has your office distributed ED\'s waiver guidance to any of the
following state-level offices?

> (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
>
> a\. Other offices in the state education agency 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> b\. Other state agencies 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> c\. State board of education 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> d\. State legislative offices 1 \_\_\_\_

W7. What kinds of guidance or suggestions, if any, does this office
distribute to districts that are

> considering submitting a waiver request? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
>
> a\. Guidance on format 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> b\. Guidance on using waivers to improve the quality of instruction 1
> \_\_\_\_
>
> c\. Guidance on using waivers to help coordinate \[this program\'s\]
> funding
>
> with state reform efforts 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> d\. Guidance on using waivers to improve student performance 1
> \_\_\_\_

e\. None 1 \_\_\_\_

> f\. Not applicable, no districts have said they are considering waiver
> requests 1 **GO TO W11** \_\_\_\_

W8. What kind of guidance on reporting has this office provided to
districts that have received

> waivers? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
>
> a\. Written guidance (GET A COPY) 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> b\. More informal guidance on how to describe the uses of waivers 1
> \_\_\_\_
>
> c\. More informal guidance on how to describe assistance provided to
> the

populations served by \[this program\] 1 \_\_\_\_

> d\. More informal guidance on how to evaluate progress in improving

instruction and student performance 1 \_\_\_\_

> e\. No guidance as yet 1 \_\_\_\_

W9. How would you rate the effects of the waiver authority to date on
each of the following:

**Don\'t**

**Considerable Moderate Slight None Know**

a\. Contributions to increasing the quality of instruction 1 2 3 4 5
\_\_\_\_

b\. Contributions to improving student performance 1 2 3 4 5 \_\_\_\_

c\. More efficient administration of programs 1 2 3 4 5 \_\_\_\_

d\. Contributions to addressing the needs of special populations 1 2 3 4
5 \_\_\_\_

W10. Do many of the waiver requests from local districts involve a state
law or regulation that might

> need to be changed instead of a federal statutory or regulatory
> requirement?

a\. Yes (SPECIFY WHICH STATE LAW(S) OR REGULATION(S))\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 1

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

b\. No 2

c\. Don\'t know 3 \_\_\_\_

W11. Does the state have plans to review state laws and regulations that
may act as barriers to local

> reform?
>
> a\. Yes
> (WHEN)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> b\. No 2

c\. Don\'t know 3 \_\_\_\_

W12. Does the state have authority to waive state law or regulations? If
so, is it limited or does it

> cover all requirements?
>
> a\. Authority to waive some state regulations
> (SPECIFY)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> b\. Authority to waive all state regulations 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> c\. Authority to waive some statutory requirements
> (SPECIFY)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> d\. Authority to waive all statutory requirements 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> e\. No state-level waiver authority 1 \_\_\_\_

f\. Don\'t know 1 \_\_\_\_

**Flexibility and Accountability in General:**

A1. Is this state using the provision in the new ESEA that allows it to
consolidate administrative

> funding under different programs? (CIRCLE ONE)
>
> a\. Yes \[PRECODE\] 1
>
> b\. No 2 **GO TO A3**
>
> c\. Don\'t know 3 **GO TO A3** \_\_\_\_

A2. To what extent has this consolidation of funds affected the way you
do your job? How?

> a\. To a considerable extent
> (SPECIFY)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> b\. Somewhat
> (SPECIFY)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 2

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> c\. Not at all 3 \_\_\_\_

A3. Taking into account all of your office\'s responsibilities under
this program, to what extent do you

> find that this legislation gives you more administrative flexibility
> than you had before the
>
> reauthorization?
>
> a\. To a considerable extent 1
>
> b\. Somewhat 2
>
> c\. Not at all 3 **GO TO A6**
>
> d\. Too early to tell 4 **GO TO A6** \_\_\_\_

A4. Please elaborate on the ways in which your flexibility has
increased.

A5. In what ways, if at all, has this flexibility improved the
performance of state functions?

A6. For local school districts, schools, or other subgrantees, to what
extent do you find that this

> legislation gives more administrative flexibility than they had before
> the reauthorization?
>
> a\. To a considerable extent 1
>
> b\. Somewhat 2
>
> c\. Not at all 3 \_\_\_\_

A7. Please elaborate on the ways in which their flexibility has
increased.

A8. What kinds of data on student performance do you now receive or do
you expect to receive soon?

> (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
>
> a\. Achievement data 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> b\. Attendance data 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> c\. Data on dropout rates 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> d\. Data on other behaviors 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> e\. Other
> (SPECIFY):\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

A9. Does this office receive (or expect to receive soon) data that track
student performance over time?

> a\. Yes 1
>
> b\. No 2
>
> c\. Don\'t know 3 \_\_\_\_

A10. How has this office used the data that you have received concerning
student performance? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)

> a\. Identifying schools for recognition 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> b\. Identifying schools that need help 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> c\. Sending reports to districts 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> d\. Sending reports to technical assistance providers 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> e\. Other
> (SPECIFY):\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

A11. Does this office receive (or expect to receive soon) data on
student performance that are disaggregated or broken down in some
way\--for example, by schools, by poverty level, or by race?

> a\. Yes (SPECIFY how data are broken
> down)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 1
>
> b\. No 2
>
> c\. Don\'t know 3 \_\_\_\_

A12. Does this office receive (or expect to receive soon) data on the
performance of just those students participating in \[this program\]?

a\. Yes 1

b\. No 2

c\. Don\'t know 3 \_\_\_\_

A13. Has this office developed program performance indicators?

a\. Yes 1

b\. No 2 **GO TO O1**

c\. Don\'t know 3 **GO TO O1** \_\_\_\_

A14. What factors(s) influenced the development of program performance
indicators?

> a\. Federal program requirements 1

b\. State requirements (SPECIFY)
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
2

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

c\. Other (SPECIFY)
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
3 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

A15. To what extent will implementing performance indicators help your
work?

> a\. Great extent 1

b\. Some extent 2

> c\. Very little 3
>
> d\. Not helpful 4 \_\_\_\_

**Overall Successes and Problems:**

O1. Taking into account your entire experience with the administration
of \[this program\] since it was

reauthorized, what would you say is working well? How do you know this?

O2. What would you say have been the greatest problems in
implementation? How do you know this?

O3. In what areas do you think your state has the farthest to go in
meeting its own reform goals?

O4. In what ways, if any, do you think the reauthorized \[program\]
reinforces the direction in which

> your state is moving?

O5. In what areas, if any, is there the greatest mismatch between the
new legislation and your state\'s

> policies?

O6. Which provisions of the legislation are the most difficult to
implement?

O7. Which provisions are the most helpful in meeting the program\'s
goals and/or improving student

> achievement?

**Additional Items for the State Coordinator of Title I, Part A**

1\. Does your office provide districts with a model format for school
performance profiles?

> a\. Yes (GET A COPY) 1
>
> b\. No 2 \_\_\_\_

2\. What has your office done to inform districts and schools about the
provisions for schoolwide

> programs? (CIRCLE ONE)
>
> a\. Conducted workshops that discuss schoolwide programs among other
> topics 1
>
> b\. Conducted workshops specifically focused on schoolwide programs 2
>
> c\. Called district officials to suggest they consider schoolwide
> programs 3
>
> d\. Sent information by mail or e-mail to district officials 4
>
> e\. Sent information by mail or e-mail to principals of eligible
> schools 5
>
> f\. Other
> (SPECIFY)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 6

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> g\. None of the above 7 \_\_\_\_

3\. Which of the following categories of individuals are included on
this state\'s School Support Teams?

> (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
>
> a\. Teachers 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> b\. Principals 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> c\. Title I coordinators 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> d\. Pupil services personnel 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> e\. Retired educators 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> f\. Faculty of higher education institutions 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> g\. Regional educational laboratory or research center staff 1
> \_\_\_\_
>
> h\. State government employees 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> i\. Other
> (SPECIFY):\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

j\. Don\'t know 1 \_\_\_\_

4\. What are the main things the School Support Teams have done so far?
\[Find out about

> accomplishments to date\--or whether they are in early stages of
> organizing.\]

5\. What is the process used for school support team work?

6\. If your state has developed a measure of adequate yearly progress,
do you personally believe it sets the expectations too high, too low, or
about right? (CIRCLE ONE)

> a\. Too high 1
>
> b\. Too low 2
>
> c\. About right 3
>
> d\. Don\'t have a measure yet 4 \_\_\_\_

7\. Since the new law was passed, has \[the state\] issued written
guidance to school districts regarding the development of local
consolidated plans?

> a\. Yes (GET A COPY) 1
>
> b\. No 2
>
> c\. Don\'t know 3 \_\_\_\_

8\. Since the new law was passed, has your office issued written
guidance to school districts regarding

> the provision of Title I services to private school students?
>
> a\. Yes (GET A COPY) 1
>
> b\. No 2 \_\_\_\_

9\. In what ways, if any, have you actively encouraged districts to
apply for capital expense funds?

> (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
>
> a\. Provided written advice about the availability of these funds 1
> \_\_\_\_
>
> b\. Phone calls and other direct communication with districts 1
> \_\_\_\_
>
> c\. Offers to assist in applying for capital expense funds 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> d\. Streamlined application process 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> e\. Other
> (SPECIFY)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> f\. Have not actively encouraged applications 1 \_\_\_\_

10\. Did your state use all of its 1995-96 capital expense funds?

> a\. Yes 1
>
> b\. No 2 \_\_\_\_

11\. Do you anticipate that your state will use all of its 1996-97
capital expense funds?

> a\. Yes 1
>
> b\. No (Why
> not?)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 2 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

STATE:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Program:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Respondent\'s Position/Title:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Survey Completion Date:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Federal Assistance With Comprehensive Standards-Based Reform**

12\. To what extent do you feel that the written and oral communications
of the U.S. Department of Education have provided a clear and consistent
vision of comprehensive standards-based reform? ***NOTE:**
[Comprehensive standards-based reform is defined as:]{.underline}
Efforts to improve education for all students by establishing high
content and performance standards and redesigning the various components
of the education system - including curriculum, instruction,
professional development and assessment - in a coordinated and coherent
fashion to support students learning to the standards.* (CIRCLE ONE.)

a\. Not at all 1

b\. To a small extent 2

c\. Somewhat 3

d\. To a great extent 4

e\. Don\'t know 0 \_\_\_\_

13\. Are there particular areas of confusion? Please describe.

14\. How helpful have each of the following sources of information been
to your progress in [comprehensive standards-based reform]{.underline}
(that is, to your progress in establishing standards, assessments,
curriculum, professional development, etc.) (CIRCLE RESPONSES.)

+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-------+
| *Source of Information*        | Not | A     | H   | Very  | No    |
|                                | at  | L     | elp |       | Co    |
|                                | all | ittle | ful | He    | ntact |
|                                | H   | He    |     | lpful |       |
|                                | elp | lpful |     |       |       |
|                                | ful |       |     |       |       |
+================================+=====+=======+=====+=======+=======+
| Written information from U.S.  | 1   | 2     | 3   | 4     | 0     |
| Dept of Ed. (ED) (e.g.,        |     |       |     |       |       |
| guidance, other mailings)      |     |       |     |       |       |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-------+
| Oral information from ED       | 1   | 2     | 3   | 4     | 0     |
| (phone or meetings with        |     |       |     |       |       |
| officials)                     |     |       |     |       |       |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-------+
| ED sponsored                   | 1   | 2     | 3   | 4     | 0     |
| conferences/workshops          |     |       |     |       |       |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-------+
| ED on-line services            | 1   | 2     | 3   | 4     | 0     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-------+
| 1-800-USA-LEARN (ED\'s         | 1   | 2     | 3   | 4     | 0     |
| toll-free number)              |     |       |     |       |       |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-------+
| National model content         | 1   | 2     | 3   | 4     | 0     |
| standards                      |     |       |     |       |       |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-------+
| Regional Education Labs        | 1   | 2     | 3   | 4     | 0     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-------+
| New Federally-supported        | 1   | 2     | 3   | 4     | 0     |
| Comprehensive Regional         |     |       |     |       |       |
| Assistance Centers             |     |       |     |       |       |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-------+
| National Science               | 1   | 2     | 3   | 4     | 0     |
| Foundation-funded initiative   |     |       |     |       |       |
|                                |     |       |     |       |       |
| (e.g., SSI, USI, RSI)          |     |       |     |       |       |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-------+
| Subject matter associations    | 1   | 2     | 3   | 4     | 0     |
| (e.g., NCTM, NSTA)             |     |       |     |       |       |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-------+
| Other professional             | 1   | 2     | 3   | 4     | 0     |
| associations (e.g., CCSSO)     |     |       |     |       |       |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-------+
| Education periodicals/         | 1   | 2     | 3   | 4     | 0     |
| publications                   |     |       |     |       |       |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-------+
| Institutions of higher         | 1   | 2     | 3   | 4     | 0     |
| education                      |     |       |     |       |       |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-------+
| Other States                   | 1   | 2     | 3   | 4     | 0     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-------+
| Other private non-governmental | 1   | 2     | 3   | 4     | 0     |
| organizations or foundations   |     |       |     |       |       |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-------+
| Other                          |     |       |     |       |       |
| (SPECIFY)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_      |     |       |     |       |       |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ |     |       |     |       |       |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-------+

15\. Considering all the information and assistance you have received
from various sources on comprehensive standards-based reform, please
indicate the extent to which you [need additional]{.underline}
information or assistance in each of the following areas. (CIRCLE
RESPONSES.)

  --------------------------------------------------------------------------
  *Area*                           Have       Need a     Need     Need a
                                   Adequate   Little     Some     Great Deal
                                   Info or    More Info  More     More Info
                                   Asst.      or Asst.   Info or  or Asst.
                                                         Asst.    
  -------------------------------- ---------- ---------- -------- ----------
  Establishing high content and    1          2          3        4
  performance standards for all                                   
  students                                                        

  Aligning curricula and           1          2          3        4
  instructional materials with                                    
  standards                                                       

  Developing or adopting           1          2          3        4
  assessments linked to standards                                 

  Linking professional development 1          2          3        4
  to standards                                                    

  Linking school/district          1          2          3        4
  accountability to student                                       
  performance                                                     

  Building partnerships with       1          2          3        4
  parents and community                                           
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------

> For ratings 3\' and 4\' please provide suggestions on how the US
> Department of Education might help (e.g., do you have preferred ways
> of receiving information? On-line? Workshops? Printed materials?)

16\. The U.S. Department of Education has recently changed its approach
to program monitoring. Are you aware of the establishment of Regional
Service Teams within the Federal Department of Education to conduct
integrated reviews across Federal elementary and secondary education
programs?

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Yes \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ No

17\. Have you been contacted by a member of a Regional Service Team
regarding an integrated review of Federal elementary and secondary
education programs?

> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Yes, our state has been visited by a Regional
> Service Team
>
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Yes, our state has been contacted by a Regional
> Service Team member
>
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ No, our state has had no contact with a Regional
> Service Team

18\. How [helpful]{.underline} do you think the Departments strategy
for conducting integrated program reviews will be to your state in
implementing comprehensive standards-based reform? (CIRCLE ONE)

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Not at all    A Little       Helpful        Very Helpful    Dont Know
  Helpful       Helpful                                       
  ------------- -------------- -------------- --------------- ------------
  1             2              3              4               0

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

19\. Do you have comments or concerns regarding integrated program
reviews? Please describe.

**Flexibility Provisions**

20\. The reauthorization of *ESEA* and *Goals 2000* provide for greater
[flexibility in implementing federal programs]{.underline}. For each of
the following flexibility provisions, please rate the extent to which
you [understand]{.underline} the provision. (CIRCLE RESPONSES.)

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  *Flexibility Provision*     No              Limited         Reasonable      Full
                              Understanding   Understanding   Understanding   Understanding
  --------------------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
  Schoolwide programs through 1               2               3               4
  Title I                                                                     

  Waivers of federal          1               2               3               4
  education provisions                                                        

  Consolidated planning for   1               2               3               4
  federal programs                                                            

  Consolidation of federal    1               2               3               4
  administrative funds                                                        

  Shift in accountability     1               2               3               4
  emphasis from procedural                                                    
  compliance to student                                                       
  performance                                                                 
  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

21\. The reauthorization of *ESEA* included changes in [accountability
mechanisms for Title I]{.underline}. For each provision identified,
please rate: the extent to which you [understand]{.underline} the
accountability provision; and the expected difficulty of
[implementing]{.underline} it in your state. (CIRCLE RESPONSES.)

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       ***a.                                                                 ***b. Actual or                                 
                       Understanding***                                                      Expected                                        
                                                                                             Difficulty in                                   
                                                                                             Implementing***                                 
  -------------------- ------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------- -------------- -------------- -----------
  *ESEA Provision*     No Under-standing  Limited          Reasonable       Full             Not at all        Minor          Moderate       Very
                                          Under-standing   Under-standing   Under-standing   Difficult         Difficulties   Difficulties   Difficult

  Establishing         1                  2                3                4                1                 2              3              4
  adequate yearly                                                                                                                            
  progress criteria                                                                                                                          
  for districts and                                                                                                                          
  schools                                                                                                                                    

  Reporting assessment 1                  2                3                4                1                 2              3              4
  results by student                                                                                                                         
  performance levels                                                                                                                         
  (advanced,                                                                                                                                 
  proficient, and                                                                                                                            
  partially                                                                                                                                  
  proficient)                                                                                                                                

  Providing effective  1                  2                3                4                1                 2              3              4
  technical assistance                                                                                                                       
  for districts                                                                                                                              
  identified as in                                                                                                                           
  need of improvement                                                                                                                        

  Initiating           1                  2                3                4                1                 2              3              4
  corrective action                                                                                                                          
  against districts                                                                                                                          
  identified as in                                                                                                                           
  need of improvement                                                                                                                        
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

22\. How [helpful]{.underline} have each of the following sources of
information been to your understanding of the new [flexibility and
accountability provisions]{.underline} in federal legislation (e.g.,
waivers, schoolwide programs)? (CIRCLE RESPONSES.)

+---------------------------------+-----+-------+----+-------+-------+
| *Source of Information*         | Not | A     | H  | Very  | No    |
|                                 | at  | L     | el |       | Co    |
|                                 | all | ittle | pf | He    | ntact |
|                                 | H   | He    | ul | lpful |       |
|                                 | elp | lpful |    |       |       |
|                                 | ful |       |    |       |       |
+=================================+=====+=======+====+=======+=======+
| Written information from U.S.   | 1   | 2     | 3  | 4     | 0     |
| Dept of Ed. (ED) (e.g.,         |     |       |    |       |       |
| guidance, other mailings)       |     |       |    |       |       |
+---------------------------------+-----+-------+----+-------+-------+
| Oral information from ED (phone | 1   | 2     | 3  | 4     | 0     |
| or meetings with officials)     |     |       |    |       |       |
+---------------------------------+-----+-------+----+-------+-------+
| ED sponsored                    | 1   | 2     | 3  | 4     | 0     |
| conferences/workshops           |     |       |    |       |       |
+---------------------------------+-----+-------+----+-------+-------+
| ED on-line services             | 1   | 2     | 3  | 4     | 0     |
+---------------------------------+-----+-------+----+-------+-------+
| 1-800-USA-LEARN                 | 1   | 2     | 3  | 4     | 0     |
+---------------------------------+-----+-------+----+-------+-------+
| Regional Education Labs         | 1   | 2     | 3  | 4     | 0     |
+---------------------------------+-----+-------+----+-------+-------+
| New Federally-supported         | 1   | 2     | 3  | 4     | 0     |
| Comprehensive Regional          |     |       |    |       |       |
| Assistance Centers              |     |       |    |       |       |
+---------------------------------+-----+-------+----+-------+-------+
| Other professional associations | 1   | 2     | 3  | 4     | 0     |
| (e.g., CCSSO)                   |     |       |    |       |       |
+---------------------------------+-----+-------+----+-------+-------+
| Education periodicals/          | 1   | 2     | 3  | 4     | 0     |
| publications                    |     |       |    |       |       |
+---------------------------------+-----+-------+----+-------+-------+
| Institutions of higher          | 1   | 2     | 3  | 4     | 0     |
| education                       |     |       |    |       |       |
+---------------------------------+-----+-------+----+-------+-------+
| Other States                    | 1   | 2     | 3  | 4     | 0     |
+---------------------------------+-----+-------+----+-------+-------+
| Other private non-governmental  | 1   | 2     | 3  | 4     | 0     |
| organizations or foundations    |     |       |    |       |       |
+---------------------------------+-----+-------+----+-------+-------+
| Other                           |     |       |    |       |       |
| (SPECIFY)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\        |     |       |    |       |       |
| _\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ |     |       |    |       |       |
+---------------------------------+-----+-------+----+-------+-------+

23\. How would you rate the assistance provided by the U.S. Department
of Education with regard to waiver requests? (CIRCLE ONE.)

a\. Not helpful 1

b\. A little helpful 2

c\. Helpful 3

d\. Very helpful 4

e\. Not applicable, Haven\'t requested a waiver 0 \_\_\_\_

> For ratings \`1\' and \`2\' please provide suggestions on how the U.S.
> Department of Education efforts
>
> might be improved.

24\. Considering all the information and assistance you have received
from various sources, please indicate the extent to which you [need
additional]{.underline} information or assistance in each of the
following areas. (CIRCLE RESPONSES.)

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Have       Need a      Need Some    Need a Great
                                   Adequate   Little More More         Deal More
                                   Info.      Info/Asst   Info/Asst.   Info/Asst.
  -------------------------------- ---------- ----------- ------------ ------------
  Schoolwide programs through      1          2           3            4
  Title I                                                              

  Waivers of federal education     1          2           3            4
  provisions                                                           

  Consolidated planning for        1          2           3            4
  federal programs                                                     

  Consolidation of federal         1          2           3            4
  administrative funds                                                 

  Shift in accountability emphasis 1          2           3            4
  from procedural compliance to                                        
  student performance                                                  

  Establishing adequate yearly     1          2           3            4
  progress criteria for districts                                      
  and schools                                                          

  Reporting assessment results by  1          2           3            4
  student performance levels                                           
  (advanced, proficient, and                                           
  partially proficient)                                                

  Providing effective technical    1          2           3            4
  assistance for districts                                             
  identified as in need of                                             
  improvement                                                          

  Initiating corrective action     1          2           3            4
  against districts identified as                                      
  in need of improvement                                               
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> For ratings 3\' and 4\' please provide suggestions on how the US
> Department of Education might help (e.g., do you have preferred ways
> of receiving information? On-line? Workshops? Printed materials?)

25\. Overall, rate the [timeliness]{.underline} with which you have
received the following types of information from the U.S. Department of
Education. (CIRCLE RESPONSES.)

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Very   Somewhat   Somewhat   Very     Dont Know /
                                   Slow   Slow       Timely     Timely   Not
                                                                         Applicable
  -------------------------------- ------ ---------- ---------- -------- ------------
  Goals 2000 Guidance              1      2          3          4        0

  ESEA, Title I, Part A            1      2          3          4        0
  Regulations                                                            

  ESEA, Title I, Part A Guidance   1      2          3          4        0

  Responses to waiver requests     1      2          3          4        0

  Responses to requests for        1      2          3          4        0
  information                                                            
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**Additional Items for the State Even Start Coordinator**

1\. How many local subgrant awards did this state make over the past 12
months?

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_

2\. What was the total number of applications received for subgrant
awards?

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_

3\. From which of the following sources are data used to determine local
need for an Even

> Start subgrant? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
>
> a\. Applicant districts 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> b\. Other SEA program offices
> (SPECIFY)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 1
> \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> c\. Other state agencies
> (SPECIFY)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> d\. Other
> (SPECIFY)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

4\. For this year, 1996-97, have there been any subgrant awards made
that allow a three- to

> six-month start-up/planning period before full program implementation
> is required?

a\. Yes 1

b\. No 2 \_\_\_\_

5\. Has your program waived the funding contribution requirement (e.g.,
10 percent of the

> total cost of a subgrant project must be covered by the project in
> year 1, etc.), in
>
> whole or in part, for local projects?
>
> a\. Yes
> (EXPLAIN)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> b\. No 2 **GO TO Q8** \_\_\_\_

6\. \[If program waives funding contribution requirement\] Does this
represent a change from

> what your program has done in the past?
>
> a\. Yes
> (EXPLAIN)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> b\. No 2 **GO TO Q8** \_\_\_\_

7\. What prompted you to make this change? \[Probe for influence of
state priorities,

> state funding, federal law or regulations, federal guidance or
> assistance, federal
>
> funding, professional trends, local educators\]

8\. In written communication\--or in workshops, monitoring, or other
interactions\--what did you do

> to help districts fulfill their funding contribution requirement?

9\. Do any of the following programs provide supplementary funding to
local Even Start subgrant projects? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)

> a\. Title I 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> b\. Head Start 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> c\. Adult Education 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> d\. Other
> (SPECIFY)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

e\. No 1 **GO TO Q11** \_\_\_\_

10\. \[If supplementary funding is provided\] Does this represent a
change from what has been

> done in the past?
>
> a\. Yes
> (EXPLAIN)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> b\. No 2 \_\_\_\_

11\. With which of the following programs, agencies, and organizations
does your Even Start

> program collaborate at the local level? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)

a\. Title I 1 \_\_\_\_

> b\. Adult Education 1 \_\_\_\_

c\. Head Start 1 \_\_\_\_

> d\. Other programs within the SEA
> (SPECIFY)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> e\. Parents as Teachers/Other parenting education programs 1 \_\_\_\_

f\. JOBS 1 \_\_\_\_

> g\. Literacy organization (Laubach, LVA, etc.) 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> h\. Goals 2000 1 \_\_\_\_

i\. Other
(SPECIFY)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

12\. In addition to an early childhood education professional and an
adult education professional,

> who are the members of the state review panel that reviews and
> approves local Even Start
>
> program applications? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
>
> a\. Representative of parent/child education organization 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> b\. Representative of community-based literacy organization 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> c\. Member of local board of education 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> d\. Representative of business or industry 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> e\. Individual involved in Title I (any or all parts) implementation 1
> \_\_\_\_
>
> f\. Don\'t have a state review panel 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> g\. Other
> (SPECIFY)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

13\. In which of the following ways have subgrant applications changed
under the reauthorized

> law? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
>
> a\. The number of applications has increased 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> b\. The number of applications has decreased 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> c\. The quality of applications has improved (e.g., the applicants
> propose

to provide a wider range of services and activities; more applications

are well written; the project goals reflect those of the state Goals

2000 plan and/or state reform initiatives) 1 \_\_\_\_

> d\. The quality of applications has deteriorated (e.g., more
> applications

are poorly written; few set goals that reflect the state Goals 2000

plan or other state reform initiatives) 1 \_\_\_\_

> e\. Other
> (SPECIFY)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> f\. No changes 1 **GO TO Q15** \_\_\_\_

14\. To what do you attribute these changes in subgrant applications?

15\. How does the state measure success in Even Start local programs?
\[Find out about formal

> and/or informal evidence that the coordinator relies on.\]

**Additional Items for the State Director of Migrant Education**

1\. In your opinion, do the state\'s plans for assessing student mastery
of state content standards address

> migratory students\' unique needs?

a\. Yes
(EXPLAIN)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
1

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

b\. No
(EXPLAIN)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
2

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

c\. Don\'t know 3 **GO TO Q3** \_\_\_\_

2\. Which of the following migratory student assessment issues are
addressed in the state plan?

> (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
>
> a\. Coordination between states to share assessment instruments 1
> \_\_\_\_
>
> b\. Appointment of state-level personnel to track students moving
> across state
>
> and district boundaries with respect to their assessment records 1
> \_\_\_\_
>
> c\. School-entry and exit assessments that measure students\' mastery
> of
>
> content standards, language proficiency, and grade level or special
>
> program placement 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> d\. Providing for the inclusion of limited English proficient students
> 1 \_\_\_\_

3\. How has your state provided for assessments of students with limited
English proficiency? What accommodations do these assessments make for
students with limited English proficiency?

4\. To what extent is the curriculum used in migrant summer programs
aligned with the standards of

> your state? (CIRCLE ONE)
>
> a\. Not at all 1

b\. A little 2

c\. To some extent 3

d\. To a great extent 4

e\. Don\'t know 5 \_\_\_\_

5\. To what extent is the curriculum used in migrant summer programs
aligned with the standards of

> home-base states?
>
> a\. Not at all 1

b\. A little 2

c\. To some extent 3

d\. To a great extent 4

e\. Don\'t know 5 \_\_\_\_

6\. How are academic and other records for migrant students who reside
in your state being transferred

> when the students move across school district lines within the state?
>
> Between states?

7\. What changes, if any, has your state made in its identification and
recruitment procedures in light

> of the new targeting provisions that limit eligibility to children who
> have made a qualifying move
>
> in the past 36 (as opposed to 72) months?

8\. How, if at all, have the services provided to migrant children in
your state changed in light of

> changes in the new law affecting eligibility for migrant education?

9\. Are you or another staff member from the migrant program
participating in the review/approval of

> schoolwide programs?

a\. Yes 1

b\. No 2 \_\_\_\_

10\. Has your office received any inquiries regarding ways to serve the
needs of migrant children

> participating in schoolwide programs?

a\. Yes
(SPECIFY)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
1

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

b\. No 2

c\. Don\'t know 3 \_\_\_\_

**Additional Items for State Title VI Coordinator**

1\. In adjusting your formula for children whose education imposes a
higher than average cost per child, which of the following factors do
you use? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)

> a\. Children living in areas with high concentrations of low-income
>
> families 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> b\. Children from low-income families 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> c\. Sparsely populated areas 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> d\. Other
> (SPECIFY)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

e\. No adjustment made 1 \_\_\_\_

2\. What data source(s) do you use when you adjust your formula?

3\. Could you describe how your procedures and priorities for funding
under Title VI differ

> from those used in previous years under Chapter 2?

4\. \[If any differences are cited\], What were the reasons for making
that change? \[Probe for

> influence of state priorities, state funding, federal law or
> regulations, federal guidance or
>
> assistance, federal funding, nongovernmental organizations, local
> educators\]

**Additional Items for the State Coordinator of**

**Education for Homeless Children and Youth**

1\. How many local subgrant awards did this state make over the past 12
months?

> \_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_

2\. What was the total number of applications received for subgrant
awards?

\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_

3\. For this year, 1996-97, what is the total number of subgrants in
operation in this state

> (i.e., including subgrants that began in previous years)?
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_

4\. From which of the following sources are data used to determine local
need for subgrants?

> (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
>
> a\. Applicant districts 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> b\. Other SEA program offices
> (SPECIFY)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 1
> \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> c\. Other state agencies
> (SPECIFY)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> d\. Other
> (SPECIFY)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

5\. Does your office provide districts with guidance for identifying and
selecting homeless

> children and youth in need of McKinney-funded services (e.g., does
> your office cite other programs\'/ agencies\' needs identification
> systems as potential resources for local districts)?
>
> a\. Yes
> (SPECIFY)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

b\. No 2 \_\_\_\_

6\. Aside from McKinney Act grant monies, does your state agency use
funds from other

> sources to provide services to homeless children and youth?
>
> a\. Yes (SPECIFY FUNDING SOURCE AND DOLLAR AMOUNT)
>
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> b\. No 2 **GO TO Q9**
>
> c\. Don\'t know 3 **GO TO Q9** \_\_\_\_

7\. \[If agency does use funds from other sources\] Does this represent
a change from what

> your program has done in the past?
>
> a\. Yes
> (EXPLAIN)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> b\. No 2 **GO TO Q9** \_\_\_\_

8\. What prompted you to make this change? \[Probe for influence of
state priorities, state

> funding, federal law or regulations, federal guidance or assistance,
> federal funding,
>
> professional trends, local educators\]

9\. In written communication to districts\--or in workshops, monitoring,
or other interactions\--

> which among the following did you define to be the two most important
> roles of a local
>
> homeless liaison? (CIRCLE TWO RESPONSES ONLY)
>
> a\. To facilitate coordination of services between the
>
> school district and the Office of the Coordinator 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> b\. To coordinate services for homeless children and youth
>
> with homeless service providers 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> c\. To promote awareness among district administrators and teachers of
>
> the educational needs of homeless children and youth 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> d\. To resolve disputes about the educational placement of homeless

students 1 \_\_\_\_

> e\. To ensure that homeless children and youth gain access to other

programs\' services 1 \_\_\_\_

> f\. Other
> (SPECIFY)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> g\. None of the above; do not define the role of the liaison for
> districts 1 \_\_\_\_

10\. Among the following, who reviews local McKinney subgrant
applications?

> (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
>
> a\. Office of the Coordinator staff 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> b\. Other SEA program staff (SPECIFY WHICH PROGRAMS)
>
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> c\. Representative of state Department of Health and Human Services 1
> \_\_\_\_
>
> d\. Representative of state Department of Housing 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> e\. Representative of a community-based organization 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> f\. Shelter providers 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> g\. Other
> (SPECIFY)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

11\. In which of the following ways have subgrant applications changed
under the reauthorized law? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)

> a\. The number of applications has increased 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> b\. The number of applications has decreased 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> c\. The quality of applications has improved (e.g., the applicants
> propose
>
> to provide a wider range of services and activities; more applications
>
> are well written; the project goals reflect those of the state Goals
>
> 2000 plan and/or state reform initiatives) 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> d\. The quality of applications has deteriorated (e.g., more
> applications
>
> are poorly written; few set goals that reflect the state Goals 2000
>
> plan or other state reform initiatives) 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> e\. Other
> (SPECIFY)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> f\. No changes 1 \_\_\_\_

12\. To what do you attribute these changes in subgrant applications?

**SELF-CONTAINED SURVEY FOR GOALS 2000 COORDINATOR**

**Standards and Assessment:**

S1. \[Where content and performance standards have been/are being
developed\]: Have you personally

> participated in the development or review of the state\'s content and
> student performance standards
>
> (e.g., attended meetings, reviewed draft standards, etc.)?
>
> a\. Yes 1
>
> b\. No 2 \_\_\_\_

S2. Have Goals 2000 funds helped support the development or review of
the state\'s content and student performance standards?

> a\. Yes 1
>
> b\. No 2
>
> c\. Don\'t know 3 \_\_\_\_

S3. \[Where new assessments have been/are being developed or adopted\]:
Have Goals 2000 funds helped

> support the development or review of new assessments?
>
> a\. Yes
> (EXPLAIN)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> b\. No 2
>
> c\. Don\'t know 3 \_\_\_\_

**State Plans:**

F1. Have you submitted your state plan for review to the U.S. Department
of Education?

> a\. Yes 1
>
> b\. No 2 **GO TO F5** \_\_\_\_

F2. Did you find the recommendations provided by the peer review team to
be helpful?

a\. Very helpful 1

b\. Moderately helpful 2

c\. Slightly helpful 3

d\. Not helpful 4 \_\_\_\_

F3. What actions, if any, has this office taken on recommendations
provided by the peer review team?

F4. How could the peer review process be improved?

F5. Please describe the broad-based support received during development
and implementation of the

> state plan.

F6. Has the state improvement plan panel divided itself into subgroups?

> a\. Yes 1
>
> b\. No 2 **GO TO L1** \_\_\_\_

F7. If so, on what topics do the subgroups focus?

F8. Did you participate in the development of your state\'s consolidated
ESEA plan in 1996?

> a\. Yes 1
>
> b\. No 2 \_\_\_\_

**Subgrant Applications:**

L1. Does your state\'s Goals 2000 process require or accept consolidated
applications (that is, combined applications for more than one program)
from districts? (CIRCLE ONE)

> a\. Consolidated applications are required 1
>
> b\. Consolidated applications are accepted
>
> but not required 2 **GO TO M1**
>
> c\. No, Goals 2000 requires a separate application 3 **GO TO M1**
>
> d\. Other (SPECIFY)
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 4 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

L2. Are application workshops for subgrantees conducted jointly for
Goals 2000 and other programs?

> (CIRCLE ONE)
>
> a\. Yes (SPECIFY PROGRAMS)
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> b\. No, application workshops are not conducted for Goals 2000 2
>
> c\. No, application workshops focus only on Goals 2000 3
>
> d\. Other (SPECIFY)
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 4 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Project Monitoring:**

M1. In the past 12 months, about what proportion of the Goals 2000
subgrantees

> received monitoring visits?
>
> a\. Half or more 1
>
> b\. Between one-fourth and one-half 2
>
> c\. Fewer than one-fourth 3

d\. None 4 **GO TO M5** \_\_\_\_

M2. On what basis is it decided which subgrantees to visit? (CIRCLE ALL
THAT APPLY)

> a\. There is a routine cycle for visits 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> b\. Visits are triggered by information suggesting that the grantee is
> having
>
> trouble meeting program requirements. (SPECIFY type and source of
>
> information):\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> c\. Visits are triggered by information about student performance.
> (SPECIFY
>
> type and source of
> information):\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> d\. Other (SPECIFY)
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

M3. Has this state conducted any integrated monitoring visits that
address Goals 2000 and also other federal or state programs?

> a\. Yes (SPECIFY other
> program\[s\])\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> b\. No 2 \_\_\_\_

M4. Which of the following program services associated with monitoring
does your office provide?

> (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
>
> a\. Hiring staff who are experienced technical assistance providers 1
> \_\_\_\_
>
> b\. Providing professional development for program monitors
>
> \[Duration of professional development: \# of hours
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\] 1 \[\_\_\_\] \_\_\_\_
>
> c\. Sending local subgrant projects questionnaires inquiring about
> their
>
> technical assistance needs 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> d\. Sending local subgrant projects advance information about the
> monitoring
>
> process 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> e\. Providing written feedback to local subgrant projects after the
> visit (GET A
>
> COPY OF THE FORMAT) 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> f\. Conducting follow-up visits (WHEN? e.g., how many months after

initial visit)
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
1 \[\_\_\_\] \_\_\_\_

> g\. Other (SPECIFY)
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

M5. Does the state have plans to review state laws and regulations that
may act as barriers to local reform?

> a\. Yes
> (WHEN)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1
>
> b\. No 2

c\. Don\'t know 3 \[\_\_\_\] \_\_\_\_

M6. Does the state have authority to waive state law or regulations? If
so, is it limited or does it cover all requirements?

> a\. Authority to waive some state regulations
> (SPECIFY)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> b\. Authority to waive all state regulations 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> c\. Authority to waive some statutory requirements
> (SPECIFY)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> d\. Authority to waive all statutory requirements 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> e\. No state-level waiver authority 1 \_\_\_\_

f\. Don\'t know 1 \_\_\_\_

M7. What kinds of data on student performance do you now receive or do
you expect to receive soon?

> (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
>
> a\. Achievement data 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> b\. Attendance data 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> c\. Data on dropout rates 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> d\. Data on other behaviors 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> e\. Other
> (SPECIFY):\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

M8. Does this office receive (or expect to receive soon) data that track
student performance over time?

> a\. Yes 1
>
> b\. No 2
>
> c\. Don\'t know 3 \_\_\_\_

M9. Does this office receive (or expect to receive soon) data on student
performance that are disaggregated or broken down in some way\--for
example, by schools, by poverty level, or by race?

> a\. Yes (SPECIFY how data are broken
> down)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 1

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> b\. No 2
>
> c\. Don\'t know 3 \_\_\_\_

M10. How has this office used the data that you have received concerning
student performance? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)

> a\. Identifying schools for recognition 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> b\. Identifying schools that need help 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> c\. Sending reports to districts 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> d\. Sending reports to technical assistance providers 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> e\. Other
> (SPECIFY):\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

M11. Has this office developed program performance indicators?

a\. Yes 1

b\. No 2 **GO TO P1**

c\. Don\'t know 3 **GO TO P1** \_\_\_\_

M12. What factors(s) influenced the development of program performance
indicators?

> a\. Federal program requirements 1

b\. State requirements (SPECIFY)
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
2

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

c\. Other (SPECIFY)
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
3 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

M13. To what extent will implementing performance indicators help your
work?

> a\. Great extent 1

b\. Some extent 2

> c\. Very little 3

d\. Not helpful 4 \_\_\_\_

**Building Capacity for Improvement:**

P1. Over the past year, have you sent out any written communications to
districts about the professional development that Goals 2000 supports?

> a\. Yes (GET A COPY) 1
>
> b\. No 2 \_\_\_\_

P2. In written communication\--or in workshops, monitoring, or other
interactions\--did you encourage districts to focus on any of the
following topics in their professional development? (CIRCLE ALL THAT
APPLY)

> a\. Content or performance standards 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> b\. Student assessment 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> c\. Planning and carrying out whole-school improvement 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> d\. Specific academic subject(s) (e.g., reading, math) 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> e\. Meeting the needs of special populations 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> f\. Adopting and implementing particular model programs 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> g\. Effective roles for instructional aides 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> h\. Techniques for working with families 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> i\. Extended instructional time 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> j\. Use of data-driven decision making (e.g., student assessments) 1
> \_\_\_\_
>
> k\. Other(s)
> (SPECIFY):\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> l\. No, we did not encourage any particular content focus 1 \_\_\_\_

P3. Did any of your written or personal communications encourage
districts to use particular approaches in providing professional
development? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)

> a\. Professional development that is sustained over more than a single
> event 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> b\. Professional development in which teams of individuals from a
> particular
>
> school participate together 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> c\. Initiation of professional development by the school building
> rather than
>
> the school district 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> d\. Teacher or administrator networks (electronic and/or face-to-face)
> 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> e\. Use of technology, including electronic networks 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> f\. Other(s)
> (SPECIFY):\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> g\. No, we did not encourage any particular approaches 1 \_\_\_\_

P4. Did any of your written or personal communications encourage
districts to pool Goals 2000 funds for professional development with
those of any other federal or state program(s)?

> a\. Yes (SPECIFY
> program\[s\]):\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> b\. No 2 \_\_\_\_

P5. What kinds of technical assistance is your office providing to
assist districts in program development and operations? (CIRCLE ALL THAT
APPLY)

> a\. We distribute written guidance to all districts 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> b\. We offer periodic statewide meetings 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> c\. We go to districts to provide assistance 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> d\. We provide assistance through electronic mail 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> e\. We offer assistance through our state\'s regional service centers
> 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> f\. We make available the names and addresses of consultants and
> resource
>
> centers 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> g\. We have developed networks of local staff 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> h\. Other
> (SPECIFY)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

P6. In the past year, has Goals 2000 funded or directly provided
technical assistance to districts or

> schools on any of the following topics: (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
>
> a\. Content or performance standards 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> b\. Student assessment 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> c\. Planning and carrying out whole-school improvement 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> d\. Specific academic subject(s) (e.g., reading, math) 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> e\. Meeting the needs of special populations 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> f\. Adopting and implementing particular model programs 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> g\. Effective roles for instructional aides 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> h\. Techniques for working with families 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> i\. Extended instructional time 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> j\. Use of data-driven decision making (e.g., student assessments) 1
> \_\_\_\_
>
> k\. Other(s)
> (SPECIFY):\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> l\. No particular content focus 1 \_\_\_\_

P7. What are the priorities for allocating this program\'s technical
assistance resources? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)

> a\. Districts with low achievement 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> b\. Districts with less experienced program managers 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> c\. Districts that request help 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> d\. High-poverty districts 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> e\. Other
> (SPECIFY):\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Targeting:**

T1. How many Goals 2000 subgrant awards did this state make over the
past 12 months?

> \_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_

T2. What was the total number of applications received for subgrant
awards?

\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_

T3. On what basis do districts award the 50 percent of funds that are to
be made available to

> schools \"with a special need for such assistance\"? (CIRCLE ONE)
>
> a\. Primarily poverty 1
>
> b\. Primarily low achievement 2
>
> c\. Primarily another basis
> (SPECIFY)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 3

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> d\. Don\'t know 4 \_\_\_\_

T4. If the state allocation decreases, do you decrease the size of
subgrants or the number of

> subgrants?
>
> a\. Decrease the size 1
>
> b\. Decrease the number 2 \_\_\_\_

**Overall Successes and Problems:**

O1. Taking into account your entire experience with the administration
of Goals 2000, what would you

> say is working well? How do you know this?

O2. What would you say have been the greatest problems in
implementation? How do you know this?

O3. In what areas do you think your state has the farthest to go in
meeting its own reform goals?

O4. In what ways, if any, do you think Goals 2000 reinforces the
direction in which your state is

> moving?

O5. In what areas, if any, is there the greatest mismatch between the
Goals 2000 legislation and your

> state\'s policies?

O6. Which provisions of the legislation are the most difficult to
implement?

O7. Which provisions are the most helpful in meeting the program\'s
goals and/or improving student

> achievement?

STATE:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Program:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Respondent\'s Position/Title:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Survey Completion Date:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Federal Assistance With Comprehensive Standards-Based Reform**

1\. To what extent do you feel that the written and oral communications
of the U.S. Department of Education have provided a clear and consistent
vision of comprehensive standards-based reform? ***NOTE:**
[Comprehensive standards-based reform is defined as:]{.underline}
Efforts to improve education for all students by establishing high
content and performance standards and redesigning the various components
of the education system - including curriculum, instruction,
professional development and assessment - in a coordinated and coherent
fashion to support students learning to the standards.* (CIRCLE ONE.)

a\. Not at all 1

b\. To a small extent 2

c\. Somewhat 3

d\. To a great extent 4

e\. Don\'t know 0 \_\_\_\_

2\. Are there particular areas of confusion? Please describe.

3\. How helpful have each of the following sources of information been
to your progress in [comprehensive standards-based reform]{.underline}
(that is, to your progress in establishing standards, assessments,
curriculum, professional development, etc.) (CIRCLE RESPONSES.)

+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-------+
| *Source of Information*        | Not | A     | H   | Very  | No    |
|                                | at  | L     | elp |       | Co    |
|                                | all | ittle | ful | He    | ntact |
|                                | H   | He    |     | lpful |       |
|                                | elp | lpful |     |       |       |
|                                | ful |       |     |       |       |
+================================+=====+=======+=====+=======+=======+
| Written information from U.S.  | 1   | 2     | 3   | 4     | 0     |
| Dept of Ed. (ED) (e.g.,        |     |       |     |       |       |
| guidance, other mailings)      |     |       |     |       |       |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-------+
| Oral information from ED       | 1   | 2     | 3   | 4     | 0     |
| (phone or meetings with        |     |       |     |       |       |
| officials)                     |     |       |     |       |       |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-------+
| ED sponsored                   | 1   | 2     | 3   | 4     | 0     |
| conferences/workshops          |     |       |     |       |       |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-------+
| ED on-line services            | 1   | 2     | 3   | 4     | 0     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-------+
| 1-800-USA-LEARN (ED\'s         | 1   | 2     | 3   | 4     | 0     |
| toll-free number)              |     |       |     |       |       |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-------+
| National model content         | 1   | 2     | 3   | 4     | 0     |
| standards                      |     |       |     |       |       |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-------+
| Regional Education Labs        | 1   | 2     | 3   | 4     | 0     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-------+
| New Federally-supported        | 1   | 2     | 3   | 4     | 0     |
| Comprehensive Regional         |     |       |     |       |       |
| Assistance Centers             |     |       |     |       |       |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-------+
| National Science               | 1   | 2     | 3   | 4     | 0     |
| Foundation-funded initiative   |     |       |     |       |       |
|                                |     |       |     |       |       |
| (e.g., SSI, USI, RSI)          |     |       |     |       |       |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-------+
| Subject matter associations    | 1   | 2     | 3   | 4     | 0     |
| (e.g., NCTM, NSTA)             |     |       |     |       |       |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-------+
| Other professional             | 1   | 2     | 3   | 4     | 0     |
| associations (e.g., CCSSO)     |     |       |     |       |       |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-------+
| Education periodicals/         | 1   | 2     | 3   | 4     | 0     |
| publications                   |     |       |     |       |       |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-------+
| Institutions of higher         | 1   | 2     | 3   | 4     | 0     |
| education                      |     |       |     |       |       |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-------+
| Other States                   | 1   | 2     | 3   | 4     | 0     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-------+
| Other private non-governmental | 1   | 2     | 3   | 4     | 0     |
| organizations or foundations   |     |       |     |       |       |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-------+
| Other                          |     |       |     |       |       |
| (SPECIFY)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_      |     |       |     |       |       |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ |     |       |     |       |       |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-------+

4\. Considering all the information and assistance you have received
from various sources on comprehensive standards-based reform, please
indicate the extent to which you [need additional]{.underline}
information or assistance in each of the following areas. (CIRCLE
RESPONSES.)

  --------------------------------------------------------------------------
  *Area*                           Have       Need a     Need     Need a
                                   Adequate   Little     Some     Great Deal
                                   Info or    More Info  More     More Info
                                   Asst.      or Asst.   Info or  or Asst.
                                                         Asst.    
  -------------------------------- ---------- ---------- -------- ----------
  Establishing high content and    1          2          3        4
  performance standards for all                                   
  students                                                        

  Aligning curricula and           1          2          3        4
  instructional materials with                                    
  standards                                                       

  Developing or adopting           1          2          3        4
  assessments linked to standards                                 

  Linking professional development 1          2          3        4
  to standards                                                    

  Linking school/district          1          2          3        4
  accountability to student                                       
  performance                                                     

  Building partnerships with       1          2          3        4
  parents and community                                           
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------

> For ratings 3\' and 4\' please provide suggestions on how the US
> Department of Education might help (e.g., do you have preferred ways
> of receiving information? On-line? Workshops? Printed materials?)

5\. The U.S. Department of Education has recently changed its approach
to program monitoring. Are you aware of the establishment of Regional
Service Teams within the Federal Department of Education to conduct
integrated reviews across Federal elementary and secondary education
programs?

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Yes \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ No

6\. Have you been contacted by a member of a Regional Service Team
regarding an integrated review of Federal elementary and secondary
education programs?

> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Yes, our state has been visited by a Regional
> Service Team
>
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Yes, our state has been contacted by a Regional
> Service Team member
>
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ No, our state has had no contact with a Regional
> Service Team

7\. How [helpful]{.underline} do you think the Departments strategy for
conducting integrated program reviews will be to your state in
implementing comprehensive standards-based reform? (CIRCLE ONE)

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Not at all    A Little       Helpful        Very Helpful    Dont Know
  Helpful       Helpful                                       
  ------------- -------------- -------------- --------------- ------------
  1             2              3              4               0

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

8\. Do you have comments or concerns regarding integrated program
reviews? Please describe.

**Flexibility Provisions**

9\. The reauthorization of *ESEA* and *Goals 2000* provide for greater
[flexibility in implementing federal programs]{.underline}. For each of
the following flexibility provisions, please rate the extent to which
you [understand]{.underline} the provision. (CIRCLE RESPONSES.)

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  *Flexibility Provision*     No              Limited         Reasonable      Full
                              Understanding   Understanding   Understanding   Understanding
  --------------------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
  Schoolwide programs through 1               2               3               4
  Title I                                                                     

  Waivers of federal          1               2               3               4
  education provisions                                                        

  Consolidated planning for   1               2               3               4
  federal programs                                                            

  Consolidation of federal    1               2               3               4
  administrative funds                                                        

  Shift in accountability     1               2               3               4
  emphasis from procedural                                                    
  compliance to student                                                       
  performance                                                                 
  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10\. How [helpful]{.underline} have each of the following sources of
information been to your understanding of the new [flexibility and
accountability provisions]{.underline} in federal legislation (e.g.,
waivers, schoolwide programs)? (CIRCLE RESPONSES.)

+---------------------------------+-----+-------+----+-------+-------+
| *Source of Information*         | Not | A     | H  | Very  | No    |
|                                 | at  | L     | el |       | Co    |
|                                 | all | ittle | pf | He    | ntact |
|                                 | H   | He    | ul | lpful |       |
|                                 | elp | lpful |    |       |       |
|                                 | ful |       |    |       |       |
+=================================+=====+=======+====+=======+=======+
| Written information from U.S.   | 1   | 2     | 3  | 4     | 0     |
| Dept of Ed. (ED) (e.g.,         |     |       |    |       |       |
| guidance, other mailings)       |     |       |    |       |       |
+---------------------------------+-----+-------+----+-------+-------+
| Oral information from ED (phone | 1   | 2     | 3  | 4     | 0     |
| or meetings with officials)     |     |       |    |       |       |
+---------------------------------+-----+-------+----+-------+-------+
| ED sponsored                    | 1   | 2     | 3  | 4     | 0     |
| conferences/workshops           |     |       |    |       |       |
+---------------------------------+-----+-------+----+-------+-------+
| ED on-line services             | 1   | 2     | 3  | 4     | 0     |
+---------------------------------+-----+-------+----+-------+-------+
| 1-800-USA-LEARN                 | 1   | 2     | 3  | 4     | 0     |
+---------------------------------+-----+-------+----+-------+-------+
| Regional Education Labs         | 1   | 2     | 3  | 4     | 0     |
+---------------------------------+-----+-------+----+-------+-------+
| New Federally-supported         | 1   | 2     | 3  | 4     | 0     |
| Comprehensive Regional          |     |       |    |       |       |
| Assistance Centers              |     |       |    |       |       |
+---------------------------------+-----+-------+----+-------+-------+
| Other professional associations | 1   | 2     | 3  | 4     | 0     |
| (e.g., CCSSO)                   |     |       |    |       |       |
+---------------------------------+-----+-------+----+-------+-------+
| Education periodicals/          | 1   | 2     | 3  | 4     | 0     |
| publications                    |     |       |    |       |       |
+---------------------------------+-----+-------+----+-------+-------+
| Institutions of higher          | 1   | 2     | 3  | 4     | 0     |
| education                       |     |       |    |       |       |
+---------------------------------+-----+-------+----+-------+-------+
| Other States                    | 1   | 2     | 3  | 4     | 0     |
+---------------------------------+-----+-------+----+-------+-------+
| Other private non-governmental  | 1   | 2     | 3  | 4     | 0     |
| organizations or foundations    |     |       |    |       |       |
+---------------------------------+-----+-------+----+-------+-------+
| Other                           |     |       |    |       |       |
| (SPECIFY)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\        |     |       |    |       |       |
| _\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ |     |       |    |       |       |
+---------------------------------+-----+-------+----+-------+-------+

11\. How would you rate the assistance provided by the U.S. Department
of Education with regard to waiver requests? (CIRCLE ONE.)

a\. Not helpful 1

b\. A little helpful 2

c\. Helpful 3

d\. Very helpful 4

e\. Not applicable, Haven\'t requested a waiver 0 \_\_\_\_

> For ratings \`1\' and \`2\' please provide suggestions on how the U.S.
> Department of Education efforts
>
> might be improved.

12\. Considering all the information and assistance you have received
from various sources, please indicate the extent to which you [need
additional]{.underline} information or assistance in each of the
following areas. (CIRCLE RESPONSES.)

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Have       Need a      Need Some    Need a Great
                                   Adequate   Little More More         Deal More
                                   Info.      Info/Asst   Info/Asst.   Info/Asst.
  -------------------------------- ---------- ----------- ------------ ------------
  Schoolwide programs through      1          2           3            4
  Title I                                                              

  Waivers of federal education     1          2           3            4
  provisions                                                           

  Consolidated planning for        1          2           3            4
  federal programs                                                     

  Consolidation of federal         1          2           3            4
  administrative funds                                                 

  Shift in accountability emphasis 1          2           3            4
  from procedural compliance to                                        
  student performance                                                  

  Establishing adequate yearly     1          2           3            4
  progress criteria for districts                                      
  and schools                                                          

  Reporting assessment results by  1          2           3            4
  student performance levels                                           
  (advanced, proficient, and                                           
  partially proficient)                                                

  Providing effective technical    1          2           3            4
  assistance for districts                                             
  identified as in need of                                             
  improvement                                                          

  Initiating corrective action     1          2           3            4
  against districts identified as                                      
  in need of improvement                                               
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> For ratings 3\' and 4\' please provide suggestions on how the US
> Department of Education might help (e.g., do you have preferred ways
> of receiving information? On-line? Workshops? Printed materials?)

13\. Overall, rate the [timeliness]{.underline} with which you have
received the following types of information from the U.S. Department of
Education. (CIRCLE RESPONSES.)

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Very   Somewhat   Somewhat   Very     Dont Know /
                                   Slow   Slow       Timely     Timely   Not
                                                                         Applicable
  -------------------------------- ------ ---------- ---------- -------- ------------
  Goals 2000 Guidance              1      2          3          4        0

  ESEA, Title I, Part A            1      2          3          4        0
  Regulations                                                            

  ESEA, Title I, Part A Guidance   1      2          3          4        0

  Responses to waiver requests     1      2          3          4        0

  Responses to requests for        1      2          3          4        0
  information                                                            
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**Self-Contained Survey for Title I Assessment Expert**

1\. Have you personally participated in the development or review of the
state\'s content and performance standards?

> a\. Yes 1
>
> b\. No 2 \_\_\_\_

2\. As far as you know, have Title I funds helped support the
development or review of the state\'s content

> and performance standards?
>
> a\. Yes 1
>
> b\. No 2
>
> c\. Don\'t know 3 \_\_\_\_

3\. In what school years would you anticipate that this state will
conduct field testing and full implementation

> of\....

+----------------------------------------+-------------+--------------+
|                                        | School Year | School Year  |
|                                        | for Field   | for Full     |
|                                        | Testing     | Im           |
|                                        |             | plementation |
+----------------------------------------+-------------+--------------+
| a\. Assessments aligned with content   |             |              |
| standards                              |             |              |
+----------------------------------------+-------------+--------------+
| b\. Establishment of student           |             |              |
| performance levels                     |             |              |
+----------------------------------------+-------------+--------------+
| c\. Disaggregated reporting procedures |             |              |
| (e.g., by school,                      |             |              |
|                                        |             |              |
| student race/ethnicity, etc.)          |             |              |
+----------------------------------------+-------------+--------------+
| d\. Assessments suitable for LEP       |             |              |
| students                               |             |              |
+----------------------------------------+-------------+--------------+

4\. For this year, 1996-97, what types of yearly student assessments are
used in this state in reading or language arts? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)

> a\. A norm-referenced test from a test publisher 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> b\. A criterion-referenced test from a test publisher 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> c\. A customized state assessment 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> d\. A customized state assessment aligned with content standards 1
> \_\_\_\_

e\. An assessment adopted or adapted from New Standards 1 \_\_\_\_

> f\. Other
> (SPECIFY):\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

5\. In what grades are yearly student assessments in reading/language
arts conducted in 1996-97?

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_

6\. For this year, 1996-97, what types of yearly student assessments are
used in this state in mathematics? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)

> a\. A norm-referenced test from a test publisher 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> b\. A criterion-referenced test from a test publisher 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> c\. A customized state assessment 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> d\. A customized state assessment aligned with content standards 1
> \_\_\_\_

e\. An assessment adopted or adapted from New Standards 1 \_\_\_\_

> f\. Other
> (SPECIFY):\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

7\. In what grades are yearly student assessments in mathematics
conducted in 1996-97?

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_

8\. For this year, 1996-97, is this state measuring yearly student
progress in any subject(s) other than reading/language arts and
mathematics?

> a\. Yes (SPECIFY
> subjects):\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> b\. No 2 **GO TO Q11** \_\_\_\_

9\. What types of yearly student assessments are used in other
subject(s)? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)

> a\. A norm-referenced test from a test publisher 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> b\. A criterion-referenced test from a test publisher 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> c\. A customized state assessment 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> d\. A customized state assessment aligned with content standards 1
> \_\_\_\_

e\. An assessment adopted or adapted from New Standards 1 \_\_\_\_

> f\. Other
> (SPECIFY):\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

10\. In what grades is this state conducting yearly student assessments
in other subject(s)?

> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_

11\. In any academic subject, which of the following types of test items
do students complete as part of the

> 1996-97 school year\'s assessment? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
>
> a\. Multiple-choice response formats 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> b\. Short-answer response formats 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> c\. Composition of paragraphs 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> d\. Composition of longer essays 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> e\. Group problem solving 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> f\. Projects requiring more than one class period to complete 1
> \_\_\_\_
>
> g\. Portfolios 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> h\. Other
> (SPECIFY):\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

12\. What types of performance reports are routinely distributed by
schools, districts, [or]{.underline} the state?

> (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
>
> a\. Individual summary scores 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> b\. More detailed profiles of individual performance 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> c\. School-level summary scores 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> d\. District-level summary scores 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> e\. Program summary scores 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> f\. Data disaggregated by category (SPECIFY CATEGORIES):

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

13\. Are there any students who do not participate in the assessments?
(CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)

> a\. Students who are not served by Title I do not participate 1
> \_\_\_\_
>
> b\. Students with limited English proficiency do not participate

(How many?\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_) 1 \[\_\_\_\] \_\_\_\_

> c\. Students with disabilities do not participate (How
> many?\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_) 1 \[\_\_\_\] \_\_\_\_
>
> d\. No exclusions; every student in the state at the selected grade

levels participates 1 \_\_\_\_

14\. For this year, 1996-97, is this state using transitional
assessments for Title I?

> a\. Yes
> (DESCRIBE)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> b\. No 2 **GO TO Q18** \_\_\_\_

15\. \[If state used transitional assessments\], Could you describe how
the tests and procedures for

> transitional assessment differ, if at all, from those that were
> previously used under Chapter 1?

16\. \[If any differences are cited\], What were the reasons for making
that change? \[Probe for influence

> of state priorities, state funding, federal law or regulations,
> federal guidance or assistance, federal
>
> funding, nongovernmental organizations, local educators\]

17\. \[If using transitional assessment\], How do you anticipate that
future assessment will differ from the

> current transitional assessments?

18\. Has this state developed a measure of adequate yearly progress?

> a\. Yes (DESCRIBE; GET COPY OF ANY WRITTEN
> INFORMATION)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> b\. No 2 \_\_\_\_

19\. In identifying schools for Title I school improvement, which of the
following types of indicators does

> the state require or strongly encourage districts to use? (CIRCLE ALL
> THAT APPLY)
>
> a\. Scores on nationally standardized tests 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> b\. NCEs 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> c\. Scores on state-developed assessments 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> d\. New Standards data 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> e\. Dropout data 1 \_\_\_\_
>
> f\. Other
> (SPECIFY):\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 1 \_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> g\. No requirements; districts choose any indicators they want 1
> \_\_\_\_

20\. Do the indicators being used differ from those that were used under
Chapter 1?

a\. Yes
(EXPLAIN)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
1

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

b\. No 2

c\. Don\'t know 3 \_\_\_\_

21\. \[If any differences are cited\], What were the reasons for that
change? \[Probe for influence of state

> priorities, state funding, federal law or regulations, federal
> guidance or assistance, federal funding, nongovernmental
> organizations, local educators\]

22\. Outside of Title I school improvement, does this state have its own
procedures for identifying failing

> schools and correcting their problems?
>
> a\. Yes 1
>
> b\. No 2 **GO TO Q24** \_\_\_\_

23\. Are the indicators and procedures used for identifying schools for
Title I school improvement largely

> the same as the indicators and procedures used for the state process?
> \[Get a description and explanation
>
> of differences\]

a\. Yes 1

b\. No 2

c\. Don\'t know 3 \_\_\_\_

24\. In following the Title I requirements for assessment, what
requirements, if any, are difficult for you

> to understand or to carry out?

25\. What questions are you receiving most often from districts as they
carry out the Title I requirements

> for assessment?

[^1]: The percentages were higher for Title I directors: 36 percent
    reported sending performance reports to districts and 40 percent
    reported sending performance reports to technical assistance
    providers.

[^2]: The IASA program descriptions are taken from U.S. Department of
    Education, *Cross-Cutting Guidance for the Elementary and Secondary
    Education Act* (Washington: September 1996); the descriptions of
    Goals 2000 and Education for Homeless Children and Youth are taken
    from the statutes.

[^3]: Title XIV, Parts B, C, and D allows SEAs to: (1) consolidate
    administrative funds for elementary and secondary education
    programs, provided that the SEA can demonstrate that the majority
    of its resources come from non-federal sources (Sec. 14201); (2)
    submit consolidated state plans in order to simplify application
    requirements and reduce the burden for SEAs under IASA (Sec.
    14302); and (3) apply for waivers, for themselves or on behalf of
    districts, of statutory or regulatory requirements under IASA (Sec.
    14401).

[^4]: Established by the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, Ed-Flex gives
    participating states the "power to waive requirements of certain
    federal education programs, including Title I and the Eisenhower
    Professional Development Programs" in exchange for increased
    accountability for results. Without Ed-Flex, states and school
    districts may ask the Secretary of Education to waive these
    requirements; with Ed-Flex, states have the authority to make those
    decisions at the state level. \[[Ed-Flex Fact Sheet]{.underline}.
    USED, 1996\]

[^5]: ^?^ Respondents were administrators of the eight reauthorized ESEA
    programs (excluding Goals 2000, which is new, not reauthorized
    legislation).

[^6]: ^?^ Respondents for State Goals 2000 programs were not included in
    the portion of the survey pertaining to the consolidation of
    administrative funding. Also, because the Education for Homeless
    Children and Youth program was not included among the programs ESEA
    authorized to consolidate state administrative funding, data from
    the Homeless Coordinators are not reported in this table.

[^7]: ^?^ Respondents were administrators of the eight reauthorized ESEA
    programs (excluding Goals 2000, which is new, not reauthorized
    legislation).

[^8]: For Even Start, this may also be a result of the fact that
    eligible entities for subgrant awards are not simply LEAs, but LEAs
    in [partnership]{.underline} with at least one other entity, such as
    a non-profit, community-based organization.

[^9]: With the exception of the administrators for the Homeless and Even
    Start programs, over half the survey respondents reported that
    requiring or accepting consolidated applications or conducting joint
    application workshops represented a change from what their programs
    had done in the past.

[^10]: ^?^ Respondents (1) run programs for which waivers can be
    received from ED and (2) said they are the point person for district
    waiver requests pertaining to the program(s) the respondent
    administers. N=246.

[^11]: ^?^ Respondents (1) run programs for which waivers can be
    received from ED and (2) said they are the point person for district
    waiver requests pertaining to the program(s) the respondent
    administers. N=246.

[^12]: Since late 1996 and early 1997 when the data were collected for
    this study, the U.S. Department of Education has "distributed
    guidance and provided much technical assistance on waivers and other
    flexibility, and the number of waiver requests received by the
    Department is fairly large in number" (Memo, Office of the General
    Counsel, U.S. Department of Education, January 1998).

[^13]: ^?^ Respondents (1) run programs for which waivers can be
    received from ED and (2) said they are the point person for district
    waiver requests pertaining to the program(s) the respondent
    administers. N=246.

[^14]: ^?^ 44 respondents reported that they did not receive data on
    student performance or that the survey question pertaining to the
    use of student performance data was not applicable. N=392.

[^15]: ^?^ This number includes just those respondents reporting that
    their office has developed program performance indicators.

[^16]: ^?^ This number includes just those respondents reporting that
    their office has developed program performance indicators.

[^17]: Migrant Education was the exception to this finding with regard
    to assessment; in that program, about as many respondents as in
    Title I, Eisenhower Professional Development, and Goals 2000
    reported that their technical assistance focused on assessment.

[^18]: Administrators for the N or D program were the only exception to
    this finding.

[^19]:
    > In written communication or in workshops, monitoring, or other
    > interactions.