A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

Planning and Evaluation Service
Analysis and Highlights

Making Progress: An Update on State Implementation of
Federal Education Laws Enacted in 1994

BACKGROUND

"Making Progress: An Update on State Implementation of Federal Education Laws Enacted in 1994," focuses on the work of state administrators of federal education programs. It provides an analysis of state-level implementation of federal elementary and secondary education programs mandated by the Goals 2000: Educate America Act (P.L. 103-227) and the Improving America?s Schools Act (IASA) (P.L. 103-327) which amended the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1994.

The 1998 study follows up on baseline information collected during late fall 1996 and early winter 1997, analyzing the ways in which state administrators have continued to respond to the new law. Data for the follow-up study were collected by surveys administered in the summer and fall of 1998 to managers of the federal programs in all 51 state education agencies (including the District of Columbia), plus administrators knowledgeable about the Education Flexibility Partnership Demonstration Program (Ed-Flex). The programs included in the follow-up study are: Title I^[1] (Helping Disadvantaged Children Meet High Standards), Title II (Eisenhower Professional Development Program), Title III (Subpart 2: Technology Literacy Challenge Fund), Title IV (Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities), Title VI (Innovative Education Program Strategies), and the Goals 2000: Educate America Act.

The study focuses on changes in program administration four years after the 1994 enactment of Goals 2000 and ESEA reauthorization. Specifically, the study asks:

• how state program managers are implementing the laws? provisions,
• how implementation has changed when compared with state practices under the predecessor programs and what federal and state factors have influenced these changes.

The study explores the extent to which managers administered federal programs in ways that make use of increased flexibility across programs, make programs more accountable for student performance, and support improvements in teaching and learning.

KEY FINDINGS

The follow-up study found that a great deal of organizational learning was called for in order to respond to the challenges presented by the new and reauthorized laws placed before the state education agencies (SEAs) in 1994. The baseline and follow-up studies point to progress not only in initiating new administrative routines but also in developing a new outlook on program purposes and priorities. Although state administrators as of 1998 had not uniformly incorporated standards-based, data-driven reform in their daily work, these studies provide evidence that they had moved in that direction in some respects.

Flexibility: Do States and Districts Continue to Experience New Latitude in Implementing the Law?

States are experiencing greater flexibility and feel they have sufficient flexibility to implement their programs effectively.

• Two-thirds of state administrators of ESEA programs surveyed in 1998 believed that their own flexibility had increased in the four years after reauthorization, whereas in 1996-97, Title I was the only program in which a majority of administrators reported an increase in administrative flexibility.
• When asked whether they need additional flexibility, most administrators reported that the legislation provides them with sufficient flexibility.

States are conducting more of their administrative activities in coordination with other federal programs, but are still not taking full advantage of Ed-Flex authority or local consolidated plans.

• Most state administrators (81 percent) reported conducting specific administrative or operational activities in coordination with other federally funded education programs.
• Fewer states (18 in 1998 compared to 28 in 1996-97) reported that they consolidated administrative funds. The decline in the number of states consolidating funds may be explained, in part, by the significant turnover many SEAs experienced in the past few years; consequently, new program managers may simply not know whether their program?s administrative funds are part of a consolidation.
• Among the 12 states that received Ed-Flex authority most (8) say they believe that the Ed-Flex waiver authority furthers state reform efforts and improves the coordination of federal resources with state reform efforts. However, administrators reported that the local waiver provision was, at best, underused and at worst, ignored.
• The study showed an increase in the percentage of administrators who reported requiring?versus merely accepting?consolidated local plans or applications (30 percent in 1998 versus 22 percent in 1996-97).

Accountability: To What Extent Are States Implementing Standards-Based Accountability Systems?

Although state administrators said more in 1998 about their efforts to focus program operations and activities on raising student achievement, they still expressed reluctance to link program success to student achievement.

• Student performance data were not yet cited as a significant source of information for administrators when judging their program success and problems.
• 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.

More administrators in 1998 than in 1996-97 recognized that their programs needed to focus on student achievement and standards-based reform. 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.

• Few respondents (6 percent) said that standards are "not relevant" to the services their program provides or that the program staff does not have the time (14 percent) or the expertise (4 percent) "to communicate a new program purpose driven by state standards."
• More administrators said they are using information about compliance problems (45 percent versus 36 percent in the earlier survey) or student performance (21 percent versus 13 percent) to decide which subgrantees to visit.
• Integrated monitoring visits continue to be the trend among federally funded programs; about 38 states (up from 27 in 1996-97) conducted some form of integrated monitoring visits.
• However, most state program managers reported using a routine cycle for monitoring visits (61 percent).

Technical Assistance: Are States Working Strategically to Build Local Capacity in Support of Standards-Based Reform?

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.

• In 1998, program administrators showed greater coordination in the content of the technical assistance they provided than in 1996-97, and much of that content focused on a standards-based reform agenda.
• 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.
• When asked about technical assistance needs that have gone—to a greater or lesser extent—unmet, state administrators most often said they are unable to get to every district that needs or requests help or that they are unable to provide sustained assistance or follow-up.
• Increasing numbers of state administrators (81 percent, up from 72 percent in 1996-97) were relying on districts to know when they need help and how to ask for it, rather than actively assessing local need for assistance in implementing their programs.

Performance Indicators: Are States Collecting and Using Indicators Data to Inform Program Performance?

Program performance indicators appear to be on the rise among federally funded programs.

• In 1998, 55 percent of state administrators reported that their program either had developed (26 percent) or was in the process of developing (29 percent) state-level performance indicators; in 1996-97, the overall percentage was just 41 percent.
• State-developed performance indicators were found in significant majorities in state offices administering Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities (85 percent) and Eisenhower Professional Development (84 percent). 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. Of the 267 program administrators who were aware of the federal program performance indicators, 81 percent (217) also collected some or all data on them.
• Of the 217 program administrators who collect some or all data related to the federal program performance indicators, most administrators reported using the data to report to federal officials (81 percent).

Copies of this report are available by contacting the U.S. Department of Education's Publication Center in the following ways: Toll-free phone calls to 1-877-4ED-Pubs (1-877-433-7827), TTY/TDD call 1-877-576-7734. If 877 is not yet available in your area, call 1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327), TTY/TDD call 1-800-437-0833; via internet at http://www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html; via e-mail at edpubs@inet.ed.gov; via fax to 301-470-1244; and, via mail to ED Pubs, Education Publications Center, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398.

[Return to Planning and Evaluation pages]