| CFDA Number: | 84.215 - Fund for the Improvement of Education |
| Goal 8: To contribute to the achievement of the National Education Goals by supporting nationally significant and innovative projects for improving K-12 education. |
| Objective 8.1 of 1: Support the Department's strategic priorities in elementary and secondary education through nationally significant projects of high quality. |
| Indicator 8.1.1 of 3: Nationally significant projects are supportive of strategic priorities: Ninety percent of all FIE-funded projects will support the Department's strategic priorities in elementary and secondary education, and 90 percent of the peer-reviewed projects will receive at least an 80 percent rating for national significance. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Targets and Performance Data | Assessment of Progress | Sources and Data Quality | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Status: Target met
Explanation: Earmarked projects were not included in the analysis of national significance because their applications do not receive scores and are not peer-reviewed. These non-competitive projects are often locally focused and their significance cannot easily be assessed from their original applications. However, overall, many of the projects are expected to produce nationally significant results by the end of the project period. Character education is part of the Department's strategic plan and the unsolicited grants funded are all related to the Department's Strategic Plan. |
Additional Source Information: Peer-reviewer ratings of applications, 2002. Frequency: Annually. Collection Period: 2001 Data Available: September 2002 Validated By: No Formal Verification. Data collected from peer-reviewed instruments. Data will not be collected for this measure after 2002. Limitations: In FY 2002, the only competition under the FIE Program administered by OERI was the Partnerships in Character Education Partnerships. The selection criteria for this newly reauthorized program were based on the statute. There was not a specific criterion on national significance. However, there was a competitive preference prioity for a rigorous experimental or quasi-experimental evaluation design. All but one of the funded projects responded to this competitive preference priority. A rigorous evaluation of each project is likely to yield nationally significant findings on the effectiveness of the projects. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Indicator 8.1.2 of 3: High quality: Ninety percent of peer-reviewed projects will receive at least an 80 percent rating for quality of project design. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Targets and Performance Data | Assessment of Progress | Sources and Data Quality | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Status: Target not met
Progress: Earmarked projects were not included in the analysis of project design because their applications are not peer reviewed. Explanation: Only 37% of FY 2001 projects scored at least 80% for project design. In FY 2002, 100 percent of the character education projects scored 80 percent or above for project design. There was a positive trend for unsolicited projects as 60% met the indicator. In FY 2000, none met this indicator. In FY 2001, 35 percent met the target. |
Additional Source Information: Peer-reviewer ratings of applications, 2002. Frequency: Annually. Collection Period: 2001 Data Available: September 2002 Validated By: No Formal Verification. Data to be collected from peer review instruments. Data will no longer be collected for this measure. Improvements: The greatly increased number of eligible applicants for the character education competition made a difference in the scores of the top rated applications. Unsolicited applications scores are rising. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Indicator 8.1.3 of 3: Progress: Eighty percent of projects will be judged to have successfully implemented strategies or yielded results that can contribute to improving education. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Targets and Performance Data | Assessment of Progress | Sources and Data Quality | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Status: Unable to judge
Progress: In 2001, a sample of projects submitting final reports (all from the same competition) were identified and a review instrument designed. Explanation: Data not collected. It was determined that as grantees and contractors were not told about this review and were not provided the criteria prior to submitting final reports, that this would not be a fair nor adequate measure of their projects. |
Additional Source Information: Final reports, which will be externally reviewed. Data will no longer be collected on this measure. Frequency: Annually. Validated By: No Formal Verification. Final reports were collected but were not peer reviewed. Limitations: It was determined that in order to be fair to the project and to also obtain reliable data, applicants would need to know about this type of requirement from the very beginning so that an evaluation plan could be part of the original application. Under the new program authority in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, evaluations are to be incorporated into all projects. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
