1

Evaluation Report Instructions

ESEA Title II, Part D 

Report Due Date: Annually beginning on September 30, 2010

Report Period Covered: Fiscal year (FY) 2009/school year (SY) 2009-2010 subrecipient awards.

The State Evaluation Report should cover Title II, Part D (Ed Tech) activities1funded 

with FY 2009 regular allocations and/or FY 2009 allocations awarded under the 

American Recovery and Investment Act of 2009 (ARRA). The report should include 

evaluation of Ed Tech-funded activities that were initiated during SY 2009-2010 using 

FY 2009 funds and activities that were continued from prior awards using FY 2009 

funds. 

Qualification: The Department recognizes that for the evaluation report due by

September 30, 2010, evaluations of FY 2009 Ed-Tech-funded activities may not have 

produced sufficient evaluative data to report findings, conclusions and recommendations. 

Nonetheless, States are expected to have planned and initiated evaluations of FY 2009 Ed 

Tech-funded activities well in advance of the report due date. States should report on the 

details and status of their evaluations as of the report due date. In addition, evaluations of 

activities begun in a prior year and continued with FY 2009 funds should be at a stage in 

their implementation to, at minimum, produce preliminary findings, conclusions and 

recommendations. 

Purpose: Sections 2402(a)(7) and 2413(b)(4) of the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act, as amended (ESEA) require States and local educational agencies (LEAs) 

that receive Ed Tech funds to conduct rigorous evaluation of the effectiveness of Ed Tech

formula and competitive grant-funded projects, activities and strategies in integrating 

technology into curricula and instruction and improving student achievement. The 

purpose of this reporting requirement is to identify from the results of those evaluations 

innovative projects, activities and strategies that effectively infuse technology with 

curriculum and instruction, show evidence of positive impacts for student learning, and 

can be widely replicated by State educational agencies and LEAs in the State and in other 

States.

Report Template: The Evaluation Report Template that follows provides instructions to 

States for preparing their annual report on the evaluation of ESEA Title II, Part D-funded 

activities.2In general, the evaluation report will: 

 Detail the activities being evaluated,

 

1

The term “Activities” refers to the projects, programs, activities, services, strategies, hardware and 

software, etc. for which LEAs received Title II, D formula or competitive grant funds. States need only 

report on those funded activities that are of a sufficient size to be effective, consistent with the purposes of 

this part.

2 The reports submitted September 30, 2010 and September 30, 2011 should include activities funded with 

FY 2009 ARRA Ed Tech funds.
 

2

 Explain the process and measures used to evaluate the effectiveness of the 

activity,

 Present findings and conclusions supported by evidence about the activities’ 

effectiveness, and

 Propose concrete and usable recommendations for disseminating, replicating and 

scaling of effective projects, activities and practice, as appropriate, based on the 

evidence and lessons learned. 

The detailed instructions are designed to support the Department’s plans for (a) 

compiling and analyzing the information extracted from the 52 State evaluation reports

and (b) presenting the information in a way that is meaningful and useful to the 

Department, States, school districts and other users. 

Page Limitations: The Department is not imposing restrictions on the number of pages 

of the report. The numbers of pages indicated for each section are suggestive. Font for 

body text is to be 12 point, Times New Roman for readability. 

Report Submission: Reports are to be submitted to the Department via e-mail no later 

than 5:00 PM ET on September 30, 2010. Each State must submit its report in two 

electronic forms: one in Microsoft Word version and one as a PDF containing the 

authentic signature of the submitting official. E-mail reports to the Ed Tech program 

mail box which can be accessed at: www.eett.ed.gov. Questions concerning the reports 

should be addressed to Enid Marshall at enid.marshall@ed.gov. 

Paperwork Burden Statement

According to the Paperwork reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of 

information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number 

for this information collection is . The time required to complete this information collection is 

estimated to average hours (or minutes) per response, including the time to review instructions, 

search existing data resources, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information collection. 

If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate(s) or suggestions for 

improving this form, please write to: U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. 20202-4537. If 

you have comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, 

write directly to: [insert program sponsor/office], U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, 

S.W., [insert building/room number], Washington D.C. 20202-4537.
 

3

Report Template and Specific Instructions:

Title Page

The title and opening pages of the report should include the following information.

 Title of the report 

 Date (date submitted)

 Name and location of State department of education

 Key State officials responsible for the report (Chief State School Officers, 

Technology Director, others as appropriate)

 Names and organizations of evaluators (if external)

 Names and organizations of report preparers 

 Acknowledgements

 Signature line for State Official submitting the report 

Table of contents

The Table of Contents lists the “Titled Sections” (and sometimes sub-sections) of the 

report in the order of their location in the report and indicates the beginning page number 

for each section. The Table of Contents also should include a section with page 

references for tables, graphs, figures and appendices.

Executive Summary (suggested 2-3 pages)

The Executive Summary is a stand-alone section that summarizes the evaluation. It 

should contain enough information to familiarize the reader with the main points of the 

evaluation without having to read through all of the report details. It should:

 Identify the activities and initiative being evaluated

 Explain the purpose and objectives of the evaluation 

 Describe the key aspects of the evaluation approach and methods

 Summarize the main findings, conclusions, and recommendations. 

I. Introduction (suggested 2-4 pages)

This section introduces the reader to the evaluation and the report contents. 

 Briefly describe the activity that is being evaluated, whom the activity is intended 

to benefit and how it is intended to benefit them. Explain the importance of the 

activity in meeting the instructional improvement and student achievement goals 

and purposes of Ed Tech. 

 Discuss the purpose3

and objectives of the evaluation (i.e., why the evaluation 

was conducted and what it was and was not intended to accomplish).

 

3 Consistent with the purposes and requirements in sections 2402(a)(7), 2413(b)(4) and other 

goals and purposes of ESEA Title II, Part D, the purposes of this evaluation are (1) to conduct 

rigorous evaluation of the effectiveness of Title II, Part D formula and competitive grant-funded 

projects, activities and strategies in integrating technology into curricula and instruction, and (2) 

to identify effective practices that can be widely replicated by State educational agencies and 

local educational agencies in the State and in other States.
 

4

 Explain the evaluation approach that the State used to meet this reporting 

requirement, the rationale for selecting that approach, and how the State expects 

that the approach selected will contribute to the evaluation purposes. 

Examples of Possible Approaches

 Individual sub-grantees conducted their own evaluations; the report 

presents a compilation of the individual evaluation reports on the 

effectiveness of their individual programs and strategies. 

 The State conducted a statewide evaluation of all funded activities 

measured against a common set of performance criteria or indicators. 

 The State conducted an evaluation of clusters of related activities

across the funded activities. 

 The State conducted a meta-evaluation of individual project 

evaluations.

 Identify the evaluation team and whether the evaluation was conducted wholly or 

in part by internal (district or State officials) or by external sources; identify who 

prepared the report.

 Evaluation timetable 

 The total cost allocation for the evaluation and amount expended at the time of the 

report.

 Introduce the reader to the structure of the report. 

II. State Ed Tech Program Context (suggested 3-5 pages)

This section of the report should provide the reader with an overall picture of the Ed Tech

grant program as context for understanding what is being evaluated and why. 

A. Summary: State Ed Tech Allocations and Awards

1. Total amount of FY 2009 funding for the State.

FY 2009 ARRA 

Allocation

FY 2009 Regular 

Allocation

Total FY 2009 

Allocation

2. The number, percent and amounts of FY 2009 grants awarded competitively

and by formula based on the total FY 2009 appropriation (the combined total 

of ARRA and regular funds). 

Type of 

Award

Number 

of 

Awards

Percent 

of 

Awards

Range of Award 

Amounts

(Lowest –Highest)

Average 

(Median) Award 

Amount

Formula 

Competitive 
 

5

B. Competitive Grant Program Description

1. Describe the overall goal(s) of the State’s competitive grant program (i.e. 

what the program sought to achieve). 

2. Describe how the goals and objectives of the State’s Ed Tech competitive 

program are aligned with the State’s strategic goals for education reform and 

improvement. 

3. Briefly describe how the goals, objectives and activities funded under the 

State’s Ed Tech competitive program are expected to achieve the objectives of 

the Ed Tech program:

 Improve student achievement

 Improve teaching

 Integrate technology with curriculum, instruction, and professional 

development. 

4. Briefly describe how the goals and objectives of the State’s Ed Tech 

competitive program support(s) the U.S. Department of Education’s strategic 

priorities for education reform and improvement: 

 Improving the quality of teachers and school-leaders

 Adopting career and college-ready standards for students

 Using data to support and improve instruction and assess school and 

teacher effectiveness

 Implementing high quality, high intensity effort to reform struggling 

schools

 Implementing School and classroom innovations

A. Formula Grant Program Description

1. Briefly describe how the goals, objectives and activities funded under the 

State’s Ed Tech formula grant program are expected to achieve the objectives 

of the Ed Tech program to:

 Improve student achievement

 Improve teaching

 Integrate technology with curriculum, instruction, and professional 

development. 

2. Briefly describe how the goals, objectives and activities funded under the 

State’s Ed Tech formula grant program support(s) the U.S. Department of 

Education’s strategic priorities for education reform and improvement: 

 Improving the quality of teachers and school-leaders

 Adopting career and college-ready standards for students

 Using data to support and improve instruction and assess school and 

teacher effectiveness

 Implementing high quality, high intensity effort to reform struggling 

schools

 Implementing School and classroom innovations.

III. The Activity (suggested 5-7 pages each for formula and competitive)

This section of the report describes in detail the activity that is being evaluated. Whether 

the evaluation is of a single activity, a cluster of activities, or whether the activity is being 
 

6

implemented in different ways in different settings, the activity must be described in 

sufficient detail so that the average reader will understand what the activity is, its scale 

and complexity, what it seeks to achieve for whom, and the “Theory of Action” that 

explains why the activity is expected to achieve the intended results. A full description of 

what is being evaluated is not only critical to understanding the evaluation and its results, 

but provides the context for assessing the extent to which the activity can be replicated 

and under what conditions. Include a detailed discussion of each of the following aspects 

of the funded activity: 

A. Features

 Nature of the activity and the educational/instructional issue it seeks to 

address.

 The specific programs, services, technology, strategies, etc. involved in the 

activity. 

 The specific outcomes that the activity seeks to achieve and for whom.

 “Theory of Action,” i.e. how the activity is expected to produce the desired 

outcomes. Explain the key assumptions (including the expected “results 

chain”) underlying the relationship between activities and expected outcomes. 

 The planned duration of the activity and the status of its implementation at the 

time of the report.

B. Resources Allocated 

 The total Ed Tech funded amount for the activity per annum 

 Who provides the services/activities (e.g., any partners, outside vendors, 

district, school or State officials)

 The total resources for the activity from all sources, including human 

resources and budget(s) (i.e., per pupil expenditures from State, federal, local 

funds)

 The percent/proportion of funds accounted for by Ed Tech funding.

C. Scale and Complexity

 The number of districts, schools, classrooms, teachers, and students involved 

in the activity (i.e., either participate directly or are expected to benefit). 

 The demographics of the participating districts, schools and classrooms, 

including: the locale, size, percentage of families in poverty, 

number/percentage of districts/schools in “improvement” status, 

number/percentage of the lowest performing schools in the district/State 

identified by the State for Title I, Part A School Improvement Grant funding. 

 Other contextual variables that have or could have an impact on the program 

and its results. 

IV. The Evaluation (suggested 3-5 pages each for formula and competitive)

A. Scope

Make clear which aspect(s) of the activity and which intended outcomes of 

activity are covered by this evaluation report and which are not. 
 

7

 Define the unit of analysis covered by the evaluation (e.g., evaluation of a 

single project, a series of individual project evaluations, a cluster of related 

activities across projects, a cluster of projects, a subcomponent, process or 

strategy within a project, etc.)

 Explain the evaluation parameters for this report (i.e., which of the expected 

outcomes will be addressed in the report and which will not be addressed). 

 Explain the rationale for selecting the specific focus for this report. 

B. Objectives and Questions 

Provide a clear explanation of the evaluation’s primary objectives, evaluation 

criteria and key questions. 

 Specify the primary objective(s) of the evaluation and how that (those)

objective(s) contributes (contribute) to the evaluation purpose.

 Define the evaluation criteria (the performance measures or success standards) 

that will be used to assess the extent to which the intended results of the 

activity were achieved.

 Explain the rationale for selecting the particular criteria. 

 Detail the key evaluation questions the evaluation addresses and explain how 

the answers to those questions will satisfy the evaluation objectives. Also, 

point out any key questions that the evaluation does not address and why. 

C. Evaluation Methods

Describe in detail the data collection methods and analyses selected for the 

evaluation, and the rationale for their selection. Discuss each of the following: 

 The sources of information (e.g. State assessments, classroom observations, 

interviews, student records) and the rationale for their selection. 

 Explain how the data will be used to answer the evaluation questions.

 Describe the criteria and process for selecting the sample for the evaluation 

(e.g., random, purposive), the extent to which the sample is representative of 

the entire target population, and the rationale for using the sample selection 

criteria and process. If applicable, explain how comparison and treatment 

groups were assigned. 

 The procedures (i.e., who collected the data, how, the timeframe and 

circumstances) and the instruments (e.g. interview protocols, observation 

tools) used to collect the data. Discuss their appropriateness for the data 

source and evidence of their reliability and validity. 

 Methods used for data analysis.

 Any major limitations of the methodology and the resulting implications for 

the evaluation and how to interpret findings.

Complete the evaluation matrix provided below.
 

8

 

V. The Results (suggested 3-5 pages each for formula and competitive)

A. Findings4

 Specify the actual results of the data collection, including rates of return and 

missing data;

 Describe the procedures for analyzing the data, including the steps evaluators 

took to confirm the accuracy of the data;

 Discuss the statistical analysis, if appropriate;

 First present findings as objective facts free of interpretations; then interpret 

findings to give meaning to the objective data;

 Structure findings and interpretations around the evaluation questions so that 

it is easy to make the connection between the questions the evaluation sought 

to answer and what was learned;

 Present positive and negative findings, unanticipated findings, as well as 

identify questionable findings;

 Identify potential weaknesses in the data and the possible influence on the 

way findings should be interpreted and conclusions drawn; and

 Use graphics (e.g.: charts or tables) to illustrate the information, as 

appropriate.

B. Conclusions

Present the conclusions based on the interpretation of findings around each of the 

key questions. Conclusions reported should be well substantiated by the evidence 

and logically connected to evaluation findings. 

 

4 The Department recognizes that for the evaluation report due by September 30, 2010, 

evaluations of FY 2009 Ed Tech- funded activities may not have produced sufficient evaluative 

data to report findings, conclusions and recommendations. However, evaluations of activities 

begun in a prior year and continued with FY 2009 funds should be at a stage in their 

implementation to, at minimum, produce preliminary findings, conclusions and 

recommendations.

Evaluation Matrix

Key 

Questions

Data 

Sources

Data 

collection 

Methods / 

Instruments

Performance 

Indicators/ 

Success 

Standards

Methods for 

Data 

Analysis
 

9

VI. Recommendations and Lessons Learned (suggested 3-5 pages each for formula 

and competitive)

 Based on the results of evaluation, propose concrete and usable 

recommendations for dissemination, replication and scaling of the activity, as 

appropriate. 

 Discuss what lessons were learned and why those lessons are meaningful and 

applicable for scaling the activity in other contexts. 

Appendices

The following should be included as Appendices, as appropriate: 

 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

 Evaluation timetable 

 Bibliography of references

 Instruments used to collect data: questionnaires, surveys, student assessments, 

observation protocols, sample student and/or teacher portfolio, interview 

protocols, etc. Include evidence or attestation as to their reliability and validity.

 Detailed results chain associated with the “Theory of Action”

 Tables of findings