|
 |
|
|
 |
|
||||||||||
| CFDA Numbers: |
84.332A
- ESEA Comprehensive School Reform 84.332B - Comprehensive School Reform Quality Initiatives |
| Program Goal: To enable low-performing students to improve their achievement to meet challenging standards |
| Objective 1 of 2: Student achievement in core subjects generally will show marked improvement in Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) program schools. |
| Indicator 1.1 of 1: AYP results: The percentage of Comprehensive School Reform schools that have or have had a CSR grant and made achieved adequate yearly progress (AYP). |
Source: No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Consolidated State Report, PBDMI Frequency: Annually. Next Data Available: June 2006 Explanation: The FY 2004 data were used as the baseline. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Objective 2 of 2: School Improvement: Decreasing numbers of CSR program schools will be designated as schools in need of improvement. |
| Indicator 2.1 of 4: Usefulness of products and services developed through Technical Assistance: The percentage of all products and services that are deemed to be of high usefulness to education policy or practice by target audiences |
Source: Grantee performance report based on a survey of ratings of products and services Frequency: Annually. Next Data Available: December 2006 Explanation: The FY 2006 target is to establish a baseline. |
||||||||||||
| Indicator 2.2 of 4: Capacity building: The percentage of new research projects funded by the CSR Quality Initiatives program that are deemed to be of high relevance to education practice |
Source: Grantee performance report based on project rating by review panel of practitioners Frequency: Annually. Next Data Available: December 2006 Explanation: The FY 2006 target is to establish a baseline. |
||||||||||||
| Indicator 2.3 of 4: Impact on School Improvement: No schools that have received CSR program funds will be designated as in need of improvement, while CSR funds continue to be targeted on the lowest achieving schools |
Source: Grantee performance data Frequency: Annually. Explanation: The FY 2004 data were used as the baseline. |
|||||||||||||||||
| Indicator 2.4 of 4: Research based school reform model: The percentage of principals in Title I schools reporting that they are implementing a research-based school reform model. |
Source: National Longitudinal Survey of Schools, (NCES) Frequency: Annually. Next Data Available: June 2006 Limitations: Data are taken from a nationally representative sample of Title I schools; data are not available for all Title I schools. Because data are based on self-reports, it is difficult to judge the extent to which reform programs are comprehensive and research based. An examination of school documents on a subsample of Title I schools will allow some indication of the quality of comprehensive school reform efforts in Title I schools in general. Explanation: Increasing numbers of Title I schools are implementing research-based school reform models to improve curriculum and instruction. The Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program is meeting its purpose of increasing awareness of and support for comprehensive school reform among states, districts and schools, and acts as a catalyst for how Title I funds can be used in schoolwide programs to support the adoption of research-based comprehensive school reform programs. The student achievement data at CSR schools collected for 2002 and 2003 were found to be incomplete and inconsistent, and were not used. A contractor worked with states to complete the data collection process for 2004-06, and to provide quality assurance. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
