With the exception of Title I, state administrators perceived federal program reporting requirements to create a disincentive for linking program success to student achievement. They argued that federal program reporting requirements continued to focus on process and inputs rather than outcomes. While administrators were seemingly collecting or already have at their disposal a great deal of student performance and program implementation data, they were not using the data or, at least, their purposes in using the data had little to do with judging the success of federally funded programs in raising student achievement. Nevertheless states still had far to go in building new monitoring procedures that would communicate a clear message about a new, standards-based accountability framework. States appear to be making progress in providing coordinated technical assistance focused on standards-based reform but most still rely on districts to request help, rather than identifying districts for monitoring in a strategic manner.
States continue to have difficulty meeting their subgrantees technical assistance needs.
However, as was true in 1996-97, agency downsizing in many SEAs continued to adversely affect the technical assistance capacity in federal programs, and interviews with local program administrators indicated that states were not meeting their subgrantees technical assistance needs. Program performance indicators appear to be on the rise among federally funded programs. The 1994 legislation required that the states develop indicators in these two programs only. About half the administrators of TLCF reported having developed or being in the process of developing performance indicators, and slightly less than half of the offices administering Title I, Even Start, Title VI, and Neglected or Delinquent reported doing so. About 62 percent of all state administrators reported being aware that the U.S. Department of Education had developed a set of performance indicators for their respective programs.