Detailed Information on the
Education - State Assessment Grants Assessment

Conducting additional reviews of State assessment systems in 2007-08 to ensure that science assessments meet NCLB requirements.

Issuing guidance and providing technical assistance to States on developing, and preparing for peer review, modified assessments for students with disabilities.

Identifying States that have made substantive changes to elements of their approved assessment system and conducting peer reviews to ensure all elements of their updated assessment system continue to meet NCLB requirements.

The Department will develop and implement a strategy for standardizing and analyzing data in State assessment systems and making those data public.

Assessing whether State data collection systems are adequate for NCLB accountability purposes.

Measure: Number of States (including DC and PR) that have reading/language arts assessments in grades 3-8 and high school.

Explanation:States are required to have reading/language arts assessments in grades 3-8 and high school by 2005-06. The 2006 performance target of 52 is set to reflect the compliance of 50 States, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. 2004 will serve as the baseline year.

Measure: Number of States (including DC and PR) that have mathematics assessments in grades 3-8 and high school.

Explanation:States are required to have mathematics assessments in grades 3-8 and high school by 2005-06. The 2006 performance target of 52 is set to reflect the compliance of 50 States, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. 2004 will serve as the baseline year.

Measure: Number of States (including DC and PR) that have science assessments in each grade span (3-5, 6-8, and high school).

Explanation:States are not required to have science assessments in in each grade span (3-5, 6-8, and high school) until 2007-8. This performance measure reflects a long term goal based on requirements set up in NCLB. 2004 will serve as the baseline year.

Measure: Number of states that completed field testing (a significant milestone toward full implementation) of science assessments in each grade span (grades 3-5, 6-8 and high school).

Explanation:Milestones include: 1) grade-level content standards; 2) field testing of assessments; and 3) first full administration of required assessments.

Measure: Average number of days it takes the Department to issue the initial standards and assessment decision letter to a State after peer review is completed.

Explanation:This efficiency measure targets the time between assessment system peer reviews and when decision letters are issued after each review cycle.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of the program is to pay the costs of developing and implementing, on a specified timeline, the additional State assessments required by the statute.

Evidence: Section 1111 (b) and Section 6111 of the ESEA, as reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB Act

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest or need?

Explanation: The assessments are key to the measuring schools' adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward the statutory goal of ensuring that all students are proficient in reading and mathematics by the 2013-2014 school, and to the development of LEA and school improvement plans for LEAs and schools that are not making AYP. Many States have identified the development and implementation of the additional assessments required by NCLB as a cost for which they need assistance in covering.

Evidence: Sections 1111(b)(B) and section 1116(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. GAO report on State Assessments (get cite).

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: States may also use regular Title I, Part A funds to support development and implementation of assessments required under NCLB. ESEA Title III and IDEA State Grants funding may be used to support activities related to the inclusion of limited English proficient (LEP) students and students with disabilities (SWD) in the assessments. However, this is the only program devoted solely to funding assessments and reporting systems and was authorized in response to needs expressed by State for a program that could help ensure that this key component of NCLB is implemented.

Evidence: Titles I and III of ESEA and Part B of IDEA.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: There is no evidence that the structure of the program is flawed.

Evidence: Sections 6111(2) and 6113(b) of the ESEA.

Is the program effectively targeted, so that resources will reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: There is no evidence that the program is not effectively targeted. The program's formula determines State allocations. States have considerable flexibility in the expenditure of program funds, which is appropriate in view of the fact that some States already have most of the assessments required by the NCLB Act in place, while others are still working to comply fully with the 1994 assessment requirements.

Evidence: Section 6113(b) of the ESEA.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The three long-term performance measures included in the ED Strategic Plan are specifically linked to the statutory requirement that all States put in place the additional reading and math assessments by the 2005-2006 school year and the new science assessments by the 2007-2008 school year.

Evidence: ED FY05 Strategic Plan

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The targets are statutorily determined.

Evidence: See Measures tab for specific targets.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: The program office has established a set of performance measures that address attainment of significant milestones in the development of the statutorily required assessments. Attainment of measures demonstrates progress toward the program's long-term goals in the Department's strategic plan.

Evidence: Consolidated State applications and reports.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: The program has determined baselines for the measures mentioned in 2.3, along with ambitious targets for attainment of these milestones.

Evidence: See Measures tab for specific targets. (PLEASE NOTE that while there is general agreement between ED and OMB on establishing key milestone measures for this program, we are working to develop a more succinct method of portraying them. In addition, we are considering developing a measure on State data collection systems since they are a key piece of infrastructure for NCLB accountability. We believe this work will be complete by November.)

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: All States have submitted to the Department their plans for developing and implementing assessment systems. Those plans are negotiated with ED and are included in the Consolidated State Applications, and approved accountability plans. They are the basis for State monitoring.

Evidence: Consolidated State Applications, State ESEA accountability plans and related State submissions.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The Department is conducting a study that will examine implementation of State assessments by the statutory deadline and the impact of State accountability systems on student achievement.

Evidence: Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under NCLB. First report scheduled for Summer 2005.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: Budget requests are based solely on the 'trigger amounts' required by ESEA section 1111(b)(3)(D).

Evidence:  

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: No strategic planning deficiencies have been identified for this program.

Evidence:  

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The Department regularly monitors grantee activities to ensure States continue development of required assessments by the statutory deadlines. This information is used to provide technical assistance to recipients, inform policy decisions and issue program regulations. ED has placed particular emphasis on ensuring States meet assessment requirements for English Language Learners (ELL) and students with disabilities.

Evidence: Consolidated State Applications, accountability plan submissions, accountability peer review guidance, regulations on inclusion of ELL students and students with disabilities.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: ED staff review grantee activities to ensure program partners (States) are on schedule in meeting significant deadlines for implementing the required assessment systems. This program is one of only a few at ED that takes concrete steps to hold partners accountable through monitoring, warnings, and ultimately the withholding of administrative funds for missing key deadlines. However, agency-wide, ED cannot demonstrate how federal managers are held accountable for program goals, but is in the process of improving manager accountability. ED is working to implement EDPAS plans -- which link employee performance to relevant Strategic Plan goals and action steps ' to hold Department employees accountable for specific actions tied to improving program performance. ED is also revising performance agreements for its SES staff to link performance appraisals to specific actions tied to program performance. Even though ED is still in the process of implementing employee accountability plans, the program received a "yes" due to strong program partner accountability.

Evidence: Notification to Georgia of witholding of funds for failing to meet timeline waiver schedule; warning letter to Ohio regarding failure to meet timeline waiver schedule; monitoring schedule and monitoring instrument; site visit reports and state responses.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: Funds are obligated within the timeframes set out by Department schedules and used for the purposes intended.

Evidence: States appear to be drawing down funds at an acceptable rate. ED personnel review grantee activities to ensure program funds are being used in accordance to recipient's approved plans.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: To date, the Department has not established procedures for this program to measure and achieve efficiencies in program operations. However, ED is in the process of developing its competitive sourcing Green Plan, and is working to improve the efficiency of its grantmaking activities. The Department has also established a strengthened Investment Review Board to review and approve information technology purchases agency-wide. Funding is formula-based, linked to specific statutory goals, and awarded to States starting from widely varying baselines.

Evidence:  

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The program coordinates and collaborates frequently with the Office of Special Education Programs and the Office of English Language Acquisition Programs on issues pertaining to assessment requirements. The Department has developed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), which will include activities under this program.

Evidence: December 9, 2003 regulation on assessment of SWD; draft regulation on assessment of LEP students; MOA between ED and BIA.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: Recent agency-wide audits have not identified deficiencies in the financial management of this program.

Evidence:  

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: ED staff meet regularly to discuss recipient progress and identify program challenges. Concerns are reported to ED leadership, used by program managers to allocate resources and prioritize technical assistance for recipients, and used to inform policy deliberations.

Evidence: Option papers and decision memos (eg, minimum cell size for AYP determinations); site visit reports; monitoring schedule and travel orders; peer review guidance for assessment systems under NCLB (updated in part as a response to ED's analysis of IASA assessment systems review process).

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: The Department regularly monitors grantee activities to ensure States continue development of required assessments by the statutory deadlines.

Evidence: Monitoring schedule, monitoring instrument, peer review guidance, monitoring/site-visit reports.

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: The program collects grantee performance data regularly, but such data is not systematically available to the public. Education is developing a department-wide approach to improve the way programs provide performance information to the public. In 2004, Education will conduct pilots with selected programs to assess effective and efficient strategies to share meaningful and transparent information.

Evidence: Monitoring/site-visit reports, ED webpage on standards, assessments and accountability

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: 18 States are on track to meet the deadline of having state assessments in place by 2005-06

Evidence: See Measures tab for measures and data.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: About 1/3 of States have met their annual milestones in 2003

Evidence: See Measures tab for measures and data.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: See 3.4.

Evidence:  

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: While other programs allow funds to be used for assessments, none of the others are likely to devote more than a very small portion to assessment activities. Therefore, there are no other programs to which this one can be compared on the basis of performance. The State Assessment Grants program is the only program devoted to paying for the costs of developing and implementing, on a specified timeline, the additional State assessments required by NCLB.

Evidence:  

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: There is no data currently available from the ongoing study.

Evidence: