Title III Native American and Alaska Native Children

Title III Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program Grantee Performance Reporting June 19, 2014 Prepared under the Data Quality Initiative contract (ED-PEP-11 -C-0062) for the Policy and Program Studies Service, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, U. S. Department of Education

Overview of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) • A law passed in 1993 requiring all federally funded agencies to develop and implement an accountability system based on performance measurement. • Program Offices collect data for GPRA performance measures through the grantee performance report grantees complete. • Program Offices use GPRA data to help make decisions about grantee continuation funding and to show overall program progress by aggregating data across grantees. • Congress may also use GPRA data to determine future program funding. 2

Types of Reports • Grantees provide data within three types of performance reports. Type of Report Contains Due Annual Performance Report (APR) Target GPRA performance data specific to each budget period Each Spring Complete Data Report (CDR) Actual GPRA performance data specific to each budget period Each Fall Final Performance Report (FPR) Actual GPRA performance data for the Due within 90 days after the end of the final budget period project period (including any period of no-cost extension) • All reports use the Grantee Performance Report Form. 3

NAM Grantee Budget and Reporting Dates Grantee Budget Period APR Reporting Period APR Report Due CDR Reporting Period CDR Report Due FY 2011 and FY 2013 July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014 July 1, 2013 to Mar 31, 2014 April 30, 2014 July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014 Oct 15, 2014 4

NAM GPRA Measures Objective: To improve the quality of teachers of LEP students. • Measure 1. 1: The percentage of ELs served who scored proficient or above on, as applicable, valid and reliable State and/or local district reading assessments. • Measure 1. 2: The percentage of ELs served who made progress in English as measured by the State-approved English language proficiency (ELP) assessment. • Measure 1. 3: The percentage of ELs served who attained proficiency in English as measured by the State-approved ELP assessment. 5

Grantee Reporting for GPRA and Project Measures • Grantees are expected to provide targets for project measures and GPRA measures in the APR due in the spring and actual performance data in the CDR due in the fall. • Grantees must report on GPRA measures in a standardized way on the data report (e. g. , grantees should use the exact GPRA measure language as stated above and should not modify the text). • The assessment instruments used to measure performance for the three measures are the State reading assessment and the State ELP assessment. 6

Explanation of Progress Section • Data discrepancies (e. g. , a discrepancy between the number tested and the number served) • How targets were determined • Grade levels assessed and total number of students served, tested, scored proficient or above, made progress, and attained proficiency by grade • Assessment timelines • An explanation if progress was not made and steps for addressing the issue 7

Explanation of Progress Section (continued) • How data and information were used to make improvements in the project • Any other information that would help to explain the information given under the three GPRA measures • Grantees should indicate if the State reading assessment changed since the last project year and, if so, list the names of the new and old assessments in the Explanation of Progress for Measure 1. 1. • Grantees should also indicate if the State ELP assessment changed since the last project year and, if so, describe how the State plans to measure progress in the Explanation of Progress for Measure 1. 2. 8

Using the Project Status Chart on the ED 534 B GPRA Measure 1. 1 Example 1. 1 Performance Measure The percentage of ELs served who scored proficient or above on, as applicable, valid and reliable State and/or local district reading assessment. Measure Type GPRA Target Quantitative Data Actual Performance Data Raw Number Ratio % 425 300/425 71 425 326/425 77 9

Using the “Optional Table” GPRA Measure 1. 1 Example Grade 3 # of ELs served 50 # of students in ESEA-tested grades 50 # of students tested 50 # of students proficient or above 35 4 62 62 62 44 5 55 55 55 44 6 60 60 60 50 7 40 40 40 25 8 43 43 43 31 Total 310 310 229 10

Using the “Optional Table” GPRA Measure 1. 1 Example (continued) Grade K # of ELs served 20 # of students tested 20 # of students proficient or above 15 1 40 40 32 2 55 55 50 Total 115 97 11

Explanation of Progress Text GPRA Measure 1. 1 Example The State reading assessment was administered in May 2014 to students in grades 3 -8 only. Therefore, 115 students in grades K through 2 were not required to take the State reading assessment. Students in grades K-2 were administered a local district assessment in June to assess their progress in reading. The target for this measure was met. 12

Using the Project Status Chart on the ED 534 B GPRA Measure 1. 2 Example 1. 2 Performance Measure The percentage of ELs served who made progress in English as measured by the Stateapproved English language proficiency (ELP) assessment. Measure Type GPRA Target Raw Number Quantitative Data Actual Performance Data Ratio % Raw Number Ratio % 300/425 71 354/405 87 13

Using the “Optional Table” GPRA Measure 1. 2 Example Grade K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total # of ELs served 20 40 55 50 62 55 60 40 43 425 # of students tested at least two times 0 40 55 50 62 55 60 40 43 405 # of students who made progress only (i. e. , and did not attain proficiency) # of students who made progress and attained proficiency n/a 30 40 35 40 40 45 25 30 285 n/a 10 10 12 15 0 0 12 10 69 14

Explanation of Progress Text GPRA Measure 1. 2 Example The ELP assessment was administered in spring 2013 of the previous grant year to grades K through 8 and again in spring 2014 to grades K through 8. The kindergarten students took the ELP assessment for the first time in spring 2014, so these 20 students cannot be counted in this measure. Of the 405 students who participated in the two spring administrations of the ELP assessment, 285 students made progress, but did not attain proficiency. Another 69 of the 405 students made progress and attained proficiency. The target for this measure was met. 15

Using the Project Status Chart on the ED 534 B GPRA Measure 1. 3 Example 1. 3 Performance Measure The percentage of ELs served who attained proficiency in English as measured by the Stateapproved ELP assessment. Measure Type GPRA Target Raw Number Quantitative Data Actual Performance Data Ratio % Raw Number Ratio % 60/425 14 75/425 18 16

Using the “Optional Table” GPRA Measure 1. 3 Example Grade K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total # of ELs served 20 40 55 50 62 55 60 40 43 425 # of students tested at least once 20 40 55 50 62 55 60 40 43 425 # of students who attained proficiency only (i. e. , and did not make progress) 6 0 0 0 0 6 # of students who made progress and attained proficiency n/a 10 10 12 15 0 0 12 10 69 17

Explanation of Progress Text GPRA Measure 1. 3 Example The ELP assessment was administered in spring 2013 of the previous grant year to all ELs and again in spring 2014 to all ELs. All 425 students were tested at least once during the 2013 -14 grant year. Six kindergarten students attained proficiency on their first ELP assessment. Another 69 students made progress and attained proficiency. The target for this measure was met. 18

FY 2011 Grantee Summary and Fall 2013 CDR Submission Update • There are 13 FY 2011 grantees. • Almost all (12 of 13) grantees indicated in their application they would report on one or more of the three GPRA measures and provided the name of the assessment for all measures. • Ten grantees submitted a CDR. • Most (seven of 10) grantees that submitted a CDR used the “optional” reporting table to present their data. • Six grantees provided GPRA data for all three measures in their CDR. 19

Common Oversights in Fall 2013 CDRs • Indicate the number of English learners served by the grant in the Explanation of Progress. • Provide Explanation of Progress. • Explain data discrepancies. • Use the exact GPRA language. • Indicate whether the GPRA target was met. 20

Importance of Data Quality • In order for the Program Office to report NAM data to Congress, the Program Office needs to determine if the data were found to be: § Complete (i. e. , grantee provided the number of English learners served as well as results) § Consistent (i. e. , grantee used the exact GPRA language; tables and text agree) § Accurate (i. e. , grantee reported data that are correct) § Reasonable (i. e. , grantee past performance and program expectations agree) 21

Questions 22

Contact Information Presented by: : Karen Gray-Adams karengray-adams@westat. com Westat 23