Detailed Information on the
Rural Education Assessment

Collect performance data to gauge the program's impact on improving student proficiency in reading/language arts and mathematics in rural districts.

Evaluate the Rural and Low-Income School program to examine the types of activities and academic progress that these funds support.

Work with Congress on correcting statutory design flaws during the upcoming reauthorization.

Measure: Percentage of students enrolled in LEAs participating in the Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program who score proficient or better on States' assessments in reading/language arts in each year through the 2013-2014 academic year.

Explanation:Section 6202 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Baseline student achievement data will be available in October 2006.

Measure: Percentage of students enrolled in LEAs participating in the Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program who score proficient or better on States' assessments in mathematics in each year through the 2013-2014 academic year.

Explanation:Section 6202 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Baseline student achievement data will be available in October 2006.

Measure: Percentage of students enrolled in LEAs participating in the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program who score proficient or better on States' assessments in reading/language arts in each year through the 2013-2014 academic year.

Explanation:Section 6202 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Baseline student achievement data will be available in October 2006.

Measure: Percentage of students enrolled in LEAs participating in the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program who score proficient or better on States' assessments in mathematics in each year through the 2013-2014 academic year.

Explanation:Section 6202 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Baseline student achievement data will be available in October 2006.

Measure: Percentage of LEAs participating in the Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program that make adequate yearly progress (AYP) after three years of participating in the program.

Explanation:The modified text is consistent with the language used in ED's Virtual Performance Suite (VPS) program management system.

Measure: Percentage of LEAs participating in the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program that make adequate yearly progress (AYP) after three years of participating in the program.

Explanation:The modified text is consistent with the language used in ED's Virtual Performance Suite (VPS) program management system. In addition, the program office changed the targets for 2012 and 2013 to reflect an incremental increase of 2 percentage points per year between 2012 and 2014.

Measure: Use of the Rural Education Achievement Program flexibility authority will remain high, if not increase.

Explanation:Only districts eligible for the Small Rural Schools Achievement (SRSA) program are eligible to utilize the Rural Education Achievement Program flexibility authority. The actual data represent the percentage of eligible school districts that notify States of their intent to use the authority.

Measure: The Department obligates 80 percent of SRSA funds to participating LEAs by August 30 of each fiscal year.

Explanation:

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of the Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP) is to provide additional formula grant allocations to meet the needs of local educational agencies (LEAs) that (1) because of their rural location, may have difficulty obtaining the personnel and resources necessary to achieve their States' definition of adequate yearly progress (AYP); (2) receive formula grants from other Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) programs in amounts too small to be effective in meeting their intended purposes; or (3) seldom apply for or receive ED competitive grants. REAP consists of two separate grant programs: the Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program and the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program. The SRSA program provides formula grant awards to small, rural LEAs for a broad array of activities to support academic achievement. In addition, LEAs eligible for the SRSA program may use the "REAP-Flex" authority to consolidate the formula grant funds they receive under certain ESEA programs to support local activities and better address their specific needs. The RLIS program authorizes formula grant awards to State educational agencies (SEAs), which in turn make subgrants to eligible rural LEAs that serve concentrations of low-income students, regardless of an LEA's size.

Evidence: Section 6202 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).

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

Explanation: Significant and compounding factors make it difficult for rural school districts to provide a high-quality education to the students they serve. More than 37 percent of students in rural schools throughout the U.S. qualify for subsidized meal programs. Many rural districts struggle to recruit and retain highly qualified teachers. For example, a study of rural teacher attrition in Kansas found that more than 20 percent of teachers in the study did not return the following school year, with more than 70 percent of those teachers accepting positions in non-rural school districts. Teacher attrition rates can climb as high as 50 percent in high-poverty rural areas. These high rates of attrition may be do in part to the fact that the average rural teacher makes 86 cents for every dollar earned by urban and suburban teachers. In addition, many rural teachers must teach multiple courses or courses outside their area of expertise and [consequently may require additional professional development.] Rural districts must also assume comparatively higher fixed costs per student than non-rural districts, which significantly compromise per-pupil investment. For example, rural districts in West Virginia spend as much as 6.6 percent of total current expenditures on transportation, compared with LEAs spending a national average of 4.3 percent.

Evidence: Why Rural Matters 2005: The Facts About Rural Education in the 50 States (May 2005) at http://files.ruraledu.org/whyruralmatters/WRM2005.pdf. Critical Issues in Rural Education: Position Paper I. National Rural Education Association (2004) at http://www.nrea.net/awards%20&%20other/NREA%20Position%20Paper%20I.doc. Recruiting and Retaining High-Quality Teachers in Rural Areas (December 2003) at http://www.aasa.org/files/PDFs/Policy/PBRuralTeachers1.pdf. Leaving Rural Children Behind (March 2003) at http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2003/03/26/28tompkins.h22.html?qs=leaving+rural+behind+rural&levelId=1000. ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education & Small Schools (October 2000) at http://www.newcollaborativeschools.com/eric/page.cfm?&scope=re&id=242&pub=x. Factors Associated with the Provision of Special Education to Students with Disabilities in Rural Districts at http://www.ed.gov/pubs/OSEP95AnlRpt/ch7c.html.

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

Explanation: REAP represents the single Federal mechanism that addresses the disparity between what rural LEAs receive in State and Federal funding and what they need to fund local activities that support quality instruction and help them meet their States' definition of adequate yearly progress (AYP). While both the SRSA and RLIS programs augment the funds that eligible LEAs receive under the other ESEA formula programs, the additional funds these programs provide ensure that rural LEAs receive sufficient funding to carry out meaningful reform and improvement activities and to make AYP. For example, each LEA eligible to receive an RLIS grant is also eligible to receive funds under Part A of Title I. In order to guarantee funding from the SRSA program is not duplicative of other specified Federal funding streams, the funding formula for SRSA grants takes into account the amount allocated by formula to an LEA in the prior fiscal year under four other ESEA programs when determining the funding for that LEA. In addition, although some States have a weighted formula for funding that may assist districts that are small, rural, and/or losing population, such funding (where available) does not represent the dedicated stream of funding for rural districts that REAP provides and does not specifically focus on rural LEAs ability to make AYP.

Evidence: Section 6202 and 6212 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).

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

Explanation: The program has two flaws. (1) The formula used to determine SRSA awards often yields allocations that are disproportionate to the size and subsequent need of many LEAs. By statute, LEAs receive initial allocations equal to $20,000 plus $100 for each child with an average daily attendance (ADA) above 50, up to $60,000. From that initial allocation, ED subtracts the amount allocated by formula to an LEA in the prior fiscal year under four other ESEA programs: Improving Teacher Quality State Grants, Educational Technology State Grants, State Grants for Innovative Programs, and Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants. As a consequence, the formula overcompensates many very small LEAs (e.g., 1 or 2 students) that do not receive awards under the other four formula grant programs or receive relatively small allocations, while larger LEAs, particularly those that serve concentrations of low-income students, receive relatively small per-pupil SRSA allocations. (2) Under SRSA, the statute requires rural LEAs to report eligibility and allocation data to ED directly. However, many participating LEAs lack the knowledge and administrative and support staff to fulfill this statutory obligation. Many of the SRSA LEAs have never received funding directly from ED and lack the capacity to deal with ED directly. In order to overcome this problem, ED requires States to collect eligibility and allocation data to assist rural LEAs in reporting these data to ED. As a result, both ED and LEAs must rely on SEAs to act as an intermediary, but the statute does not provide SEAs with any funding with which to carry out this role. In reauthorization, responsibility (and funding) for administering the program in the States might be given to SEAs.

Evidence: (1) In FY 2005, one LEA with a reported ADA of .89 students received an SRSA allocation of $18,869 (or $20,999 per student). In addition, 10 other LEAs received more than $9,000 per student, which was more than the national average for total per-pupil expenditure during the 2001-02 school year. In contrast, an LEA with over 400 students and a poverty rate of 22 percent received an SRSA allocation of $352, or $0.85 per pupil. (2) In the first year that SRSA funds were allocated, two-thirds of participating LEAs had never received a grant from ED before and had no identification numbers for ED's Grants Administration and Payment System (GAPS), which provides financial management support services for planning grant awards, obligating award authorizations, disbursing funds, and executing final grant closeouts. Without the assistance of SEAs, it is unlikely that LEAs eligible to receive SRSA funds would apply for such awards. Moreover, preliminary findings for the independent evaluation conducted by the Urban Institute reveal that States represent the most useful source of information about REAP-Flex for rural LEAs. ED continues to rely on States to encourage LEA participation in REAP programs and to remind them to drawdown available funds.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: The Department awards SRSA grants directly to eligible LEAs on a formula basis that meet the following criteria: (1) have an average daily attendance of fewer than 600 students OR serve only schools located in counties with a population density of fewer than 10 persons per square mile; AND (2) serve only schools with a National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) locale code of 7 (rural) or 8 (rural near an urban area) OR are located in an area of the State defined as rural by a State governmental agency. The Department awards RLIS grants by formula to SEAs, which in turn make subgrants either by formula or competitively to LEAs that (1) have a Census child-poverty rate of at least 20 percent AND (2) serve only schools that have an NCES locale code of 6 (small town), 7 (rural), or 8 (rural near an urban area). Statutorily, very few LEAs in the South are eligible for the SRSA program. The inclusion of the NCES locale code of 6 (which covers 682 of the 1,287 RLIS districts) allows the RLIS program to reach small, isolated, and poor rural schools in the South that are in LEAs too large to allow eligibility under the SRSA program. Both programs effectively target rural LEAs and assist their ongoing efforts to ensure that all students receive quality instruction and meet academic achievement standards as measured by the definition of adequate yearly progress (AYP) in each State's accountability system. LEAs that are eligible to receive SRSA funds may also use the "REAP-Flex" authority to consolidate the formula grant funds they receive under certain ESEA programs; in 2005, 56 percent of districts defined as rural used REAP-Flex authority.

Evidence: Program grant application guidance and requirements. For SRSA, http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/announcements/2006-1/031306c.html, For RLIS, http://www.ed.gov/programs/reaprlisp/eligible05ayp/index.html. Also, see Performance Measures tab.

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 Department has adopted two long-term measures for the program: (1) the percentage of students enrolled in LEAs participating in REAP programs meeting State proficiency standards in reading/language arts and mathematics; and (2) the percentage of participating LEAs meeting their State's definition of adequate yearly progress (AYP). These long-term outcome measures reflect both the overall objectives of the NCLB Act (ensuring that all students achieve proficiency in reading/language arts and math) and the specific structure of the REAP program (helping rural districts make AYP).

Evidence: Planning and Performance Management Database (PPMD). Also see Performance Measures tab and data at http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/2005plan/edlite-esea-ruraled.html.

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

Explanation: The Department has established ambitious targets and timeframes for the program's long-term measures. For the measure of the percentage of students in REAP LEAs nationally who score proficient or better on States' assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics, the long-term targets--100% by 2014-- reflect the program's goal that all students enrolled in districts participating in REAP programs will be proficient by 2013-14. These targets are based on the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act's goal that 100 percent of students demonstrate proficiency in reading/language arts and mathematics by 2014. ED is currently processing student achievement data from the 2003-04 school year to establish the baseline for this measure. For the measure of the percentage of LEAs participating in REAP programs making AYP, the long-term targets reflect the program's goal that 100 percent of participating LEAs make AYP in each year through 2013-14. Data from the 2004-05 school year were used to establish the baseline for this measure, as the statutory accountability provisions place restrictions on the uses of REAP program funds by LEAs that have not met their State's definition of AYP after the third year.

Evidence: In 2005, the baseline year, 95 percent of participating SRSA LEAs made AYP and 58 percent of participating RLIS LEAs made AYP. Baseline AYP data for the 2004-05 school year are available at http://www.ed.gov/programs/reapsrsa/eligible06/al.xls. The baseline data for student proficiency will be available in October of 2006. Other: PPMD or data at http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/2005plan/edlite-esea-ruraled.html; annual REAP data collection from States; Performance Measures tab.

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: Annual performance measures for the program are the same as the long-term performance measures and track the program's annual progress toward meeting its long-term goals. They are (1) the percentage of students enrolled in LEAs participating in REAP programs meeting State proficiency standards in reading/language arts and mathematics; and (2) the percentage of participating LEAs meeting their State's definition of AYP. These long-term outcome measures reflect both the overall objectives of the NCLB Act (ensuring that all students achieve proficiency in reading/language arts and math) and the specific structure of the REAP program (helping rural districts make AYP).

Evidence: Planning and Performance Management Database (PPMD). Also see Performance Measures tab and data at http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/2005plan/edlite-esea-ruraled.html.

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

Explanation: For the measure of the percentage of students in REAP LEAs nationally who score proficient or better on States' assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics, ED is currently processing student achievement data from the 2003-04 school year to establish the baseline for this measure. Targets will reflect incremental steps on a linear basis toward reaching the goal that all students enrolled in districts participating in REAP programs are proficient in each year through 2013-14. For the measure of the percentage of LEAs participating in REAP programs will make AYP in each year through 2013-14, data from the 2004-05 school year were used to establish the baseline for this measure. Targets reflect the program's goal that 100 percent of participating LEAs make AYP in each year through 2013-14.

Evidence: In 2005, the baseline year, 95 percent of participating SRSA LEAs made AYP and 58 percent of participating RLIS LEAs made AYP. Baseline AYP data for the 2004-05 school year are available at http://www.ed.gov/programs/reapsrsa/eligible06/al.xls. The baseline data for student proficiency will be available in October of 2006. Other: PPMD or data at http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/2005plan/edlite-esea-ruraled.html; annual REAP data collection from States; Performance Measures tab.

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: Each year that an LEA receives a grant or exercises REAP-Flex authority, the LEA must administer an achievement assessment as required by the ESEA. In addition, the LEA must maintain records demonstrating whether it transferred funds under the REAP-Flex authority and how it used those funds. Once an LEA has received three or more years of funding under either REAP grant program or has exercised REAP-Flex authority for three or more years, or a combination thereof, an SEA must examine whether the participating LEA is making adequate yearly progress (AYP) as defined by the ESEA. In addition, States often assist rural LEAs in the grant application process, electronically drawing down funds, and identifying opportunities to effectively use funds to address specific needs. States also report directly to ED the activities and uses of funds for LEAs participating in the RLIS program and the Department works with all States to help them understand the eligibility and other requirements of the REAP programs. All participating LEAs collect program performance data and, in doing so, exhibit their commitment to tracking student achievement. Moreover, most participating LEAs use REAP funds to focus on activities and academic outcomes directly related to student achievement and making AYP, which reflects their dedication to the program's annual and long-term goals. The Department determines how well partners are meeting the program's goals through conference calls with State rural coordinators, monitoring calls with State rural directors and SRSA grantees, virtual site visits with REAP State coordinators, and the annual data collection by ED from States to establish eligibility and determine allocations.

Evidence: Consolidated State performance reports; annual REAP data collection from States; section 6213 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).

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: As part of a larger study of flexibility authorizations, the Urban Institute is currently conducting a national, independent evaluation of the REAP-Flex authority that also describes the uses of REAP grants. The study uses survey and interview data collected between October 2005 and February 2006 to characterize REAP-Flex program participants and non-participants. The evaluation details the uses of SRSA funds, the characteristics of districts participating in the REAP-Flex and SRSA programs, how districts exercise REAP-Flex authority, the types of activities that receive additional support as a result of the reallocation of eligible funds through REAP-Flex, and the factors that affect the participation of districts exercising REAP-Flex authority. The Department expects to release the study in December of 2006. The Department has included in the 2008 budget request funding to evaluate the RLIS program. The evaluation would examine the education goals or objectives that LEAs target with RLIS funds, the types of activities that RLIS funds support, and the academic progress of students enrolled in LEAs that receive RLIS funds. The evaluation would also analyze the types of improvement activities supported by program funds in LEAs that failed to meet their States' definition of AYP. The Department is also required to submit annually a report to Congress on the implementation of the RLIS grant program. This report will be available in December of 2006.

Evidence: "REAP-FLex: Implementing Flexibility in Rural School Districts," The Urban Institute, 2006. 2006 Report to Congress.

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: ED has not satisfied the first part of the question because program performance changes are not identified with changes in funding levels. However, ED has satisfied the second part of this question in that ED's budget submissions show the full cost of the program (including S&E).

Evidence:

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

Explanation: In order to enable better understanding of the extent to which grantees are reaching program goals, the Department has developed long-term and annual performance measures, has collected AYP data from States and is using those data to establish targets for program performance. AYP data for the 2004-05 school year are now available on the ED website. Baselines and targets for student achievement data will be available in October 2006. The Department intends to require States to report student achievement data using the Department's EDEN/EDFacts data system in the 2006-07 school year (pending the approval and publication of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking declaring this data system a mandatory collection instrument). Once approved, all States will be required to provide AYP and student achievement data through EDEN/EDFacts, which will allow ED to (1) identify the AYP status of rural LEAs that are eligible for REAP programs; and (2) link student achievement on State assessments to REAP eligibility.

Evidence: AYP data for the 2004-05 school year are available at http://www.ed.gov/programs/reapsrsa/eligible06/al.xls.

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 annually collects AYP and proficiency data from States. In addition, ED program staff conduct conference calls with State rural coordinators to gather information about the administration and implementation of awards by LEAs. The program staff also make monitoring calls to SRSA grantees to help ensure that they are using funds only for authorized activities and collect data on the RLIS grant program through the consolidated State performance reports. These reports include information on the number of LEAs that use funds for each of the activities authorized by the statute and provide brief descriptions of the progress LEAs make toward States' goals for the program. The Department intends to require States to report student achievement data using the Department's EDEN/EDFacts data system in the 2006-07 school year (pending the approval and publication of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking declaring this data system a mandatory collection instrument). Once approved, all States will be required to provide AYP and student achievement data through EDEN/EDFacts, which will allow ED to (1) identify the AYP status of rural LEAs that are eligible for REAP programs; and (2) link student achievement on State assessments to REAP eligibility.

Evidence: The Department is currently collecting student achievement data for LEAs that should capture the status of 32 States and more than 8,000 LEAs in the 2003-04 school year and the status of 24 States and more than 5,800 LEAs in the 2004-05 school year. AYP data for the 2004-05 school year are available at http://www.ed.gov/programs/reapsrsa/eligible06/al.xls. Other: Monitoring and conference calls; consolidated State performance reports; annual REAP data collection from States; EDEN/ED Facts.

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 managers are held accountable through Education Department Performance Appraisal System (EDPAS), which links employee performance to relevant REAP program and Strategic Plan goals and action steps. EDPAS is designed to measure the degree to which a manager contributes to improving program performance. Specifically, program staff are held accountable for meeting essential deadlines and commitments, particularly pertaining to grants and monitoring for performance results and outcomes. Grantees are further held accountable through regular monitoring calls and virtual site visits that evaluate grantee progress towards achieving AYP, program goals, and objectives. Importantly, if an eligible LEA is not making AYP after the third year of its participation in REAP, the statute requires that the LEA may continue to receive a REAP grant or exercise REAP-Flex authority only if it uses the funds to carry out the activities required of a school identified as in need of improvement under the ESEA. Also, to continue participating in REAP, the LEA must examine and report the cause of its failure to make AYP, and all future REAP funds and any exercise of REAP-Flex authority must support activities that address specific weaknesses so that the LEA will make AYP.

Evidence: EDPAS agreements; ED monitoring plan; grant schedule; consolidated State performance reports; section 6213 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).

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

Explanation: Funds for both SRSA and RLIS are obligated within the timeframes set out by Department schedules and used for the purposes intended. Year-end spending reports indicate that funds are being obligated in a timely manner, and no audit of the program has yielded findings that suggest inappropriate or ineligible expenditures.

Evidence: GAPS; single State audits reports; consolidated State performance report; virtual site visits; monitoring calls with SRSA LEAs.

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: The Department has established the following efficiency measure for the program: Obligating 80% of SRSA funds to participating LEAs by August 30th of each fiscal year. The program has also developed the following procedures to achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution. First, ED does not require an LEA that has applied for an SRSA grant in a prior fiscal year to reapply each year that the LEA is eligible to receive SRSA funds. Second, the Department begins the SRSA application process prior to establishing eligibility for the program, which allows ED to contact and encourage the application of LEAs that were eligible in the previous year but did not apply for funds. As a result, these LEAs complete the application early in the grant-making process, which expedites the allocation of funds. Third, beginning in FY 2006, the Department is publishing an "opening date" application notice in the Federal Register rather than a "closing date" notice. In previous fiscal years, States occasionally provided incorrect data indicating the ineligibility of a few LEAs that were, in fact, eligible to receive SRSA grants. In those instances, the Department had to publish a new "closing date" application notice in the Federal Register to provide LEAs that were incorrectly identified as ineligible an opportunity to apply for SRSA program funds. By publishing an "opening date" notice, the Department has the flexibility to allow misidentified LEAs to apply without hindering the grant-making process. Fourth, beginning in FY 2006, ED will begin collecting data through EDEN, which will enable the programs to collect more effectively data from States. Moreover, the efficiency measure for the SRSA program is indirectly related to the administrative efficiency of awarding RLIS funds. An LEA is not eligible for funding under the RLIS program if it is eligible to receive funds under the SRSA program. As a result, by determining LEAs' eligibility for the SRSA program, the Department also determines the LEAs' eligibility for the RLIS program. In 2006, the Department met its efficiency measure target of obligating 80 percent of SRSA awards by August 30th. In doing so, the Department was also able to obligate RLIS awards by July 1st - the most efficient schedule to date.

Evidence: Program grant application guidance and requirements; grant schedule; Federal Register notices at http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/announcements/2006-1/031306c.html.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: Collaboration and coordination takes place at the Federal, State, and local levels with several programs. The program office works with Title I to interpret and implement the accountability provisions for REAP and collaborates with the NCES to determine, verify, and comply with rural locale codes. The program staff maintain a membership on the Department's Rural Task Force, works with the Rural Research Center that is funded by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), and collaborates with the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) and other outside interest groups that have a rural component to share and disseminate information in the rural education community. The Department also works with the program offices for those ED programs that are affected by the SRSA grant program and REAP-Flex authority to ensure that LEAs are using allocated funds consistent with statutory requirements.

Evidence: The program staff worked in collaboration with Title I programs to develop the guidance that addresses how to assist rural LEAs that do not meet States' definition of AYP. In addition, the program staff coordinates its efforts with other programs, such as Educational Technology State Grants and Safe and Drug-Free Schools, to disseminate information to rural LEAs that directly affects them. The Department continues to work with the AASA on rural issues, which has resulted in an increase in the number of eligible LEAs applying for funding and participating in REAP programs.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: Recent agency-wide audits have not identified deficiencies in the financial management of this program. Through monitoring protocols, the Department is working with the States and LEAs to resolve any data, carryover, or allocation problems that arise. In addition, the Department does fiduciary monitoring of States, including monitoring of the GAPS system for drawdowns [please describe GAPS system for layperson].

Evidence: Monitoring calls; virtual site visits; LEA drawdown reports.

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

Explanation: While material internal management deficiencies have not been identified for this program, the Department has implemented a system to identify potential problems. The program staff have increased the number of monitoring calls to LEAs and developed a new monitoring protocol for the SRSA program and developed a relational database to communicate with States and to improve the efficiency of awarding grants for the RLIS program. Additionally, the program staff have instituted performance measures that assess whether participating SRSA and RLIS LEAs make AYP after three years and have taken steps to ensure that quality data are collected and reported through both monitoring and State reporting. Due to the administrative challenges faced by rural LEAs participating in the SRSA program, the program office now uses an "opening date" application notice in the Federal Register to encourage the full participation of all eligible districts and, to ease the burden of reapplying, now allows default applications for previously participating districts.

Evidence: The program staff monitor excessive and deficient drawdowns of funds to prevent high-risk situations. ED also monitors program activities through conference calls, virtual site visits, collaboration with SEAs to help ensure both efficient practices by participating LEAs and adherence to GPRA measures. Other: Federal Register notices at http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/announcements/2006-1/031306c.html.

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

Explanation: The Department maintains information on grantee activities through monitoring and conference calls, virtual site visits, and technical assistance activities. In particular, ED has conducted an evaluation of the SRSA program (including the REAP-Flex authority), collects annual data to ensure the eligibility of participating LEAs, and conducts regular calls to State rural directors to ensure that the programs are being implemented correctly. Because States are responsible for monitoring participating RLIS LEAs, States report to the Department the number of LEAs that use funds for each of the activities authorized by the statute and provide a brief description of the progress made by LEAs toward States' goals for the program. The Department uses this information to track changes in the uses of funds over time and to monitor the progress of participating RLIS LEAs in making AYP.

Evidence: Monitoring calls to SRSA grantees and State REAP coordinators (for RLIS); virtual site visits; consolidated State performance reports; annual data collection reports from States; 2006 Report to Congress on the RLIS program.

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 2006 Report to Congress on the implementation of the RLIS grant program and all data collected from States to establish eligibility for and calculate allocations under the REAP programs will be available on the Department's website in the fall of 2006. The report will provide information on how LEAs used RLIS funds, as well as descriptions of LEAs' progress toward States' goals for the program. In addition, AYP data for all participating LEAS for the 2004-05 school year are now available on the ED website. Baselines and targets for student achievement data will be available in October 2006.

Evidence: AYP data for the 2004-05 school year are available at http://www.ed.gov/programs/reapsrsa/eligible06/al.xls; 2006 Report to Congress on the RLIS program.

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

Explanation: The Department has collected AYP data from States to measure long-term program performance. Under the SRSA program, 96 percent of participating LEAs reporting data made AYP in the 2004-05 school year. Under the RLIS program, 58 percent of program-eligible LEAs made AYP in the 2004-05 school year. Baselines and targets for student achievement data will be available in October 2006.

Evidence: AYP data for the 2004-05 school year are available at http://www.ed.gov/programs/reapsrsa/eligible06/al.xls.

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

Explanation: The Department has collected AYP data from States to measure annual program performance. Under the SRSA program, 96 percent of participating LEAs reporting data made AYP in the 2004-05 school year. Under the RLIS program, 58 percent of program-eligible LEAs made AYP in the 2004-05 school year. Baselines and targets for student achievement data will be available in October 2006.

Evidence: AYP data for the 2004-05 school year are available at http://www.ed.gov/programs/reapsrsa/eligible06/al.xls.

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

Explanation: The Department aims to obligate 80 percent of SRSA funds to participating LEAs by August 30th of each fiscal year. In FY 2002, the program had a significant number of LEAs contend that they either were not able to apply by the deadline or did not receive enough funds. In FY 2003, the program staff added new procedures to verify the eligibility and encourage the application of LEAs to reduce the number of errors from FY 2002. In addition, the data source for rural locale codes switched from the 1990 Census to the 2000 Census in FY 2004. As a result, the locale codes for a large number of districts changed, and NCES required more time to confirm new locale codes as requested by States. In FY 2005, NCES locale codes were made available much later than usual because there were states that had not submitted data to establish their rural classifications. However, in 2006, improved administrative efficiency resulted in the Department obligating 80 percent of SRSA funds by August 23rd and all RLIS funds by July 1st.

Evidence: See Performance Measures tab for target and actual data.

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

Explanation: Currently, there are no programs that specifically target rural LEAs or focus on their ability to make AYP. Though some States have a weighted formula for funding that may assist districts that are small, rural, and/or losing population, such funding (where available) does not represent the dedicated stream of funding for rural districts that REAP provides.

Evidence:

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

Explanation: Preliminary findings from the first draft of the national study conducted by the Urban Institute suggest that REAP-Flex authority enables rural LEAs to target particular student groups and academic outcomes through improvements in technology and teacher quality. LEAs also exercise REAP-Flex authority in order to maintain a stable level of effort for on-going activities that have been affected by budgetary constraints and to increase the amount of Federal funds available for high-priority programs. Citing a common focus on student achievement in math and literacy, the study also found that LEAs use both SRSA awards and REAP-flex authority in pursuit of similar goals.

Evidence: Rural LEAs that exercise REAP-Flex authority direct these funds toward math and English initiatives consistent with the NCLB focus on those two core subjects. Moreover, 50% of respondents to the study reported using SRSA grant awards for technology programs, and 36% reported using SRSA grant awards for teacher quality initiatives.