Response to OMB Passback

Attachment G-Response to questions from OMB.docx

Annual Mandatory Collection of Elementary and Secondary Education Data for EDFacts

Response to OMB Passback

OMB: 1875-0240

Document [docx]
Download: docx | pdf

Paperwork Reduction Act Submission Supporting Statement



Annual Mandatory Collection of Elementary and Secondary

Education Data through EDFacts



August 2010



Attachment G









Response to Questions

from Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
















Introduction

This attachment contains the responses to the questions from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) sent to ED on August 12, 2010.



Questions from OMB

  1. Most of the student achievement/drop-out data are collected at the school level. Can the General Education Provision Act Section 424 (GEPA)/funding data be collected at the school level?


We have struggled with the issue of GEPA/funding data at the school level since the beginning of this project. At this time, we do not recommend collecting school level GEPA or funding data.


First, collecting the data would be difficult. The LEA is the grantee or subgrantee for most programs. The LEA is responsible for allocating the grant resources to the schools. Some resources cannot be associated with a specific school, for example, a district-wide training program. While the LEA could allocate the grant funding to the schools, any allocation would be based on assumptions that could vary from LEA to LEA and from state to state.


Second, we believe that associating the grant funding with the LEA is appropriate and can serve to emphasize the LEA’s accountability for operating the grant including allocating the resources. The data as currently collected can be used to analyze the grants available to the LEA and the results of that LEA’s schools.


Third, we are currently studying school-level education resources and should wait for the outcome of that study before making decisions on the collection of these data. The Study of School-Level Expenditures (OMB 1875-0255) is examining the extent to which school-level education resources are distributed equitably within and across school districts.



  1. Do all states provide achievement data at the school level? If not, where are the data gaps?


For SY 2008-09, the 52 SEAs provided academic achievement data at the school level with two exceptions: Alabama and Alaska provided data at the school level for mathematics and reading/language arts but not for science. Appendix A contains the reports on the data submitted at the school level for academic achievement for SY 2008-09.



  1. Does EDFacts collect data for all of ED’s competitive grants, in addition to the formula grants? If not, could ED provide a list of the competitive grants for which it collects GEPA data?


EDFacts does not collect GEPA data for all of ED’s competitive grants. For each fiscal year, we identify the programs for which the state receives funds that are distributed to local education agencies (LEAs). We collect the GEPA data for those programs through the EDEN Submission System (ESS). For the GEPA report, we combine the data collected using ESS with data from the Department’s Grants Administration and Payment System (GAPS) on programs where funds are distributed by the Department directly to LEAs.


Currently, we are collecting the data for FY 2007. The data collection is always delayed because SEAs have the fiscal year as well as the 27 month period allowed by the Tydings Amendment to expend the funds.


Appendix B contains a list of the programs included in the FY 2007 GEPA collection through ESS. We have not sorted the list into competitive grants and formula grants but will do so if requested by OMB.



  1. In the future, could EDFacts collect total school and district level funding (federal, state, and local)? What would it take to do that? This kind of data could be used to assist states and districts with maintenance of effort (MOE) and comparability reporting.


The technology used by the EDFacts system is capable of collecting data on funding.


We believe before any data on funding is collected by EDFacts we would need to study how the data to be collected relates to NCES’ Common Core of Data (CCD), National Public Education Financial Survey (NPEFS) and Census Bureau’s Survey of Local Government Finances: School Systems (F-33). As noted under question #1, we would also advise waiting on the outcome of the study of school-level expenditures which is looking specifically at whether resources are distributed equitably within and across school districts.


We would recommend working with the National Education Forum, NCES and Census Bureau to define what, if any, funding data should be collected through EDFacts or what, if any, data collected through NPEFS or F-33 should be combined with the EDFacts data set.



  1. How does EDFacts interact with Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS)? Are SLDS grants increasing state ability to provide EDFacts data? How do these two efforts coordinate and work together?


Longitudinal Data Systems are indirectly supporting states’ capacity to report EDFacts data by moving states toward more centralized collection and storage of data. This centralization can simplify the creation of data marts and/or automated extracts that can be used in preparing data files for EDFacts. In addition, student level data systems should greatly improve the quality of data available from the states.


When the SLDS grants were being created, top level ED officials wanted to ensure that the new grants would produce data that would be reported to ED but the wording in the final grant announcements contained only weak requirements for that capability. Since that time ED staff in OPEPD and NCES have worked more closely together to ensure that the data systems being developed under these grants would also provide more complete, accurate, and timely data to ED through EDFacts.


A new state education information support services contract in OPEPD contains provisions to magnify the current coordination efforts. That contract will be put into place in September 2010.



  1. As we look at the 2012 budget, what issues should we keep in mind as we review Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS) and EDFacts?


The success of both the SLDS grant program and the EDFacts Initiative depend upon effective data management, including data quality and usage, within and among states and the federal government. In recent years, ED has utilized a portion of the SLDS appropriation for data coordination. Activities have ranged from supporting EDFacts Coordinators to establishing systems and processes which lead to greater automation for public and federal reporting to establishing a Privacy Technology Assistance Center within NCES. Other efforts, such as the National Forum on Education Statistics, also support effective data management and coordination.1 In addition, projects like the Common Data Standards and the National Education Data Model promote effective data management. As the futures of EDFacts and SLDS are considered through the upcoming budget requests, it will be important for ED to continue supporting activities which increase coordination and improve data management.


It is also important to keep in mind the extensive impact that new or reauthorizing legislation might have on data management efforts. Such changes are expected to affect the education community, its resources and systems, as well as private industry, which has worked closely with the education community to provide tools and methods for managing and sharing education data. Even small policy changes can require changes in all systems and processes across the nation.



  1. How does EDFacts support …

    1. Race to the Top (RTT) data collections? Will LEAs and schools be identified as having received RTT funding?


Information about which schools and LEAs receive funding under RTT is gathered within the application process by the RTT program office. The EDFacts team will work with the program office to determine what information needs they may have that could be served by adding an indication of a school or district receiving RTT funds in the EDFacts data warehouse. If the benefits of adding the data to the warehouse are determined to be high enough, we will work with the program office, as the steward of the data, to properly load the data into the warehouse where it can be used in conjunction with the rest of the EDFacts data.


    1. Investing in Innovation (“i3”) data collections? Will LEAs and schools be identified as having received “i3” funding?


Information about which schools and LEAs receive funding under i3 is gathered within the application process by the i3 program office, and within the GAPS system (which administers the distribution of funds to the grantees). The EDFacts team will work with the program office to determine what information needs they may have that could be served by adding an indication of a school or district receiving i3 funds in the EDFacts data warehouse. If the benefits of adding the data to the warehouse are determined to be high enough, we will work with the program office, as the steward of the data, to properly load the data into the warehouse where it can be used in conjunction with the rest of the EDFacts data.


    1. Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) data collections? Will LEAs and schools be identified as having received TIF funding?


Information about which schools and LEAs receive funding under TIF is gathered within the application process by the TIF program office, and within the GAPS system (which administers the distribution of funds to the grantees). The EDFacts team will work with the program office to determine what information needs they may have that could be served by adding an indication of a school or district receiving TIF funds in the EDFacts data warehouse. If the benefits of adding the data to the warehouse are determined to be high enough, we will work with the program office, as the steward of the data, to properly load the data into the warehouse where it can be used in conjunction with the rest of the EDFacts data.



  1. Access to EDFacts data – We appreciate ED’s willingness to work with OMB to allow us to gain access to EDFacts data.  Specifically, we’d like to develop a plan to:


  1. Train one or two OMB staff in the use of EDFacts.


We have a series of training modules. The modules start with basic information on how EDFacts data are structured and include lessons on how to pull and use data from the EDFacts Reporting System. We propose two half day training sessions about one or two weeks apart. During the first session, we would cover the first training modules on the data and the basic functionality of the system. A week or two later, we would cover the more advanced topics. This would allow the OMB staff to have some time to “play” with the system between the training sessions.


We would add the OMB staff to our listserv so that they would be notified of any system changes.


We propose that the OMB staff would send any questions that they have to the EDFacts Partner Support Center so that the questions can be logged into our tracking system. Most likely, the questions would need to be escalated by the Partner Support Center to ED staff. While this is an additional step, it is important for us to maintain accurate and complete records of the questions that rise about EDFacts.

We also propose that the OMB staff with EDFacts reporting system access meet with PIMS quarterly to discuss data usage.



  1. Gain access to the data at the same level and manner as ED staff who have been trained to use EDFacts.


Access to the EDFacts system at the level ED staff have is currently managed through the Department’s “active directory” which means that a person must have an “ed.gov” mail box. We are requesting OCIO to provide approved OMB staff “ed.gov” mail boxes so that they can access the EDFacts system.


Once we receive approval from OCIO on how the OMB staff will obtain an “ed.gov” mailbox, we will work with OMB to provide selected OMB staff with access to the EDFacts reporting system.



c. Have access to ready-made reports. Can ED provide a list of the available reports?


OMB staff with access to the system will be able to run all ready-made reports. A list of ready-made reports that are currently available in the system is in Appendix C.


  1. Can ED provide a plan and timeline for making EDFacts data available to the public?

    1. For states


Our approach to making data available to SEAs is to provide multiple views of the data that the SEA submitted. We are not planning to provide SEA specific access to the full database. In other words, the SEA in Ohio will have multiple views of Ohio’s data but not Missouri’s data. We believe that an SEA’s access to another state’s data should be through the public access or through access provided to researchers.


SEAs have access to the data that they submit for their state. SEAs can review the data in “raw” form through the ESS.


We created reports that look similar to the legacy collection forms, which we call “pre-fill” reports. These pre-fill reports allow SEAs to see the data as they have always seen it. Pre-fill reports are available for the IDEA Section 618 tables and the CSPR. We will be building pre-fill reports for Perkins Consolidated Annual Report (CAR).


We are currently building data quality reports which will provide a better tool for SEAs to validate the data that they submit at the LEA and school levels.


    1. For districts



We are not planning to provide district specific access. Districts would be able to see the data through views provided to the general public and researchers.



We believe that it is more appropriate for the SEAs to provide the access to the districts because that approach encourages the data steward relationship between the SEAs and the LEAs that is essential to high quality data throughout the education system.


    1. For researchers


We currently provide data for evaluations and studies conducted by ED. Beyond the CRDC and CCD data sets, we do not currently provide data to outside researchers.


    1. For the general public


We currently support all the reporting of data to the general public that existed under the legacy collections. NCES continues to report the Common Core of Data (CCD). OESE posts each state’s Consolidated State Performance Reports (CSPR). OSEP continues to report the IDEA section 618 tables.2


We have not been able to expand significantly beyond the legacy collection reporting because of concerns about privacy. The concerns about privacy are not new. For example, complete reports on the Gun-Free Schools Act (GFSA) data have not been published for several years because of concerns about student privacy. We are working within ED (OPEPD, NCES, FPCO, and OGC) to develop uniform data privacy policies and quality control procedures that will allow data to be published in a manner that meets the standards of each ED program. For example, for the GFSA reports, we are working on an approach involving redacting data so that previous school year reports can be issued without compromising student privacy.


While we have not expanded significantly beyond the legacy collection reporting, we have made some progress. For several years we have published state profiles and congressional district profiles. The profiles contain an array of data that were never previously reported in a single venue. We worked with OESE on ED Data Express, a recently launched, interactive web site that hosts K-12 data. Previous to ED Data Express, OESE posted the CSPRs as pdf documents. ED Data Express allows access to the data in table format making the data more available to users. Finally, NCES is reviewing data obtained for other program purposes (e.g., more detailed data on dropouts and membership) for purposes of expanding the CCD. The expanded variables will need to go through NCES review before NCES could choose to report them.



  1. What are ED’s future plans for EDFacts and the collection of 0-5 years and post-secondary data, including workforce data? Has ED considered collecting data from non-SEAs (IDEA Part C can be administered outside of the SEA)?


The OPEPD/PIMS team is working with ED program offices and other federal agencies to lay the foundation for coordinating the multiple data collections that currently collect data on 0-5, post-secondary, and workforce data.


In most cases, data on 0-5, post-secondary, and workforce will come from state agencies other than the SEA that currently submit data to EDFacts. With some modifications, the ESS would be able to collect data from these state agencies. To ensure an audit trail, we would need to open multiple accounts for each state so that we could trace the data submitted to the state agency.



11. States report free and reduced price lunch (FRPL) data through EDFacts. The current reauthorization of the child nutrition programs includes changes in eligibility for free meals, specifically, some schools may adopt an approach that allows all students in a school to receive free meals, even if all do not qualify, in exchange for reductions in reporting burden. How is ED planning for potential changes in FRPL requirements and definitions?


The proposed changes in eligibility appear to build on the current regulations for provisions 1, 2 and 3 schools. Under provisions 1, 2 and 3, schools with significant percentages of students who are eligible for free and reduced price meals certify the students for more than one school year. Under provisions 2 and 3, schools are allowed to simplify the reimbursement using methods other than the daily meal counts.


Currently provision 1, 2, and 3 schools report student counts for free and reduced price lunch based on available data which could be reporting a certain percentage of the school as eligible.


We are assuming that schools would be eligible for this new approach because the schools have a significant percentage of the students eligible for free or reduced price lunches. We would encourage SEAs to report the free and reduced price lunch data using a reasonable method to estimate the number of students eligible. We would not expect the schools to determine the eligibility of individual students if that was not required by USDA as such a position would defeat what USDA is attempting to achieve.



12. For the new School Improvement Grants (SIG) data, in addition to identifying Tier I and Tier II schools,3 will the following schools also be identified:

a. All persistently lowest achieving (PLA) schools on the State’s PLA list, regardless of whether the school receives SIG funds


Yes. All persistently lowest achieving schools should be reported by each SEAs through the data group Persistently lowest achieving schools status (DG741). This data group was included in Attachment B-7. This data group is used for SFSF indicators (d)(3), (d)(4), (d)(5) and (d)(6).


b. Tier III schools


No. The EDFacts data set does not include collecting which schools are Tier III schools.


13. In the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) data elements, which elements are the three descriptors and how will information on those be collected?


Not all indicators and descriptors for the SFSF program are being proposed for inclusion within the EDFacts data collection at this time. With its authorization under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the SFSF program exists only for a specific period of time (all funds are to be spent by 9/20/2011). For this reason, we identified only a subset of indicators which are being proposed for addition to the EDFacts data collection due to their alignment with the policy directions for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act which were outlined in the Blueprint earlier this year. Data on the remaining indicators and all descriptors under SFSF will be reported directly to the program office. If a determination is made that there are information needs of the program office, or of policy leaders, that would be best met by loading these data into the EDFacts data warehouse, there are no technical reasons that it could not be done. Discussion of the collection of the full set of indicators and descriptors for SFSF was discussed in an OMB clearance and public comment period in the fall of 2009 (OMB # 1810-0690)



14. A fair amount of state-level grantee reporting does not flow through EDFacts. Is the goal to eventually use EDFacts for all state reporting, or are there some programs that will always ask for separate reports from states? Similarly, how does ED, as a whole, decide which collections are ripe for inclusion in EDFacts?


The basic concept of EDFacts is that all stable universal, annual, objective, numeric data will be collected through the ESS while subjective narratives will be submitted to ED through other reports. The development of the EMAPS data collection process enables ED to collect and link subjective narratives to the EDFacts data. OPEPD/PIMS has established the EDFacts Data Governance Board to guide the decision-making for all EDFacts data-related issues. The Board brings together representatives from all offices in ED related to Elementary and Secondary education data to discuss and make recommendations regarding current and planned federal program data collections that might be incorporated into EDFacts.


There have been examples where the decision to use EDFacts was not left up to ED. Specifically the quarterly reporting under ARRA, Section 1512, is required to be collected through a centralized tool used by all Federal agencies for recipient and sub-recipient reporting during each quarter that ARRA funds are being actively spent. In this case, and in future cases where a single tool is used across all Federal agencies, it is not possible for ED to consider using EDFacts for state reporting.






Appendix A - Academic Achievement Data at the School Level

This appendix contains reports on the submission of data on the SY 2008-09 statewide assessments in mathematics, reading/language arts and science.


Mathematics


The following table is the report on submissions at the school level for SY 2008-09 for mathematics. As shown in the report all 52 SEAs submitted school level data. In some cases, the submissions received are less than or more than the submissions expected as estimated by the SEAs at the beginning of the school year. While SEAs may update the estimates, they are not required to do so.


DG

File

State

Submission Type

School Submissions Expected

School Submissions Received

% Received over Expected

583

N075

AK

Student Performance Table - Math

498

498

100%

583

N075

AL

Student Performance Table - Math

1,352

1,335

99%

583

N075

AR

Student Performance Table - Math

1,048

1,048

100%

583

N075

AZ

Student Performance Table - Math

2,186

1,888

86%

583

N075

CA

Student Performance Table - Math

9,675

9,662

100%

583

N075

CO

Student Performance Table - Math

1,709

1,709

100%

583

N075

CT

Student Performance Table - Math

985

985

100%

583

N075

DC

Student Performance Table - Math

206

200

97%

583

N075

DE

Student Performance Table - Math

216

216

100%

583

N075

FL

Student Performance Table - Math

3,588

3,588

100%

583

N075

GA

Student Performance Table - Math

2,232

2,141

96%

583

N075

HI

Student Performance Table - Math

287

287

100%

583

N075

IA

Student Performance Table - Math

1,400

1,400

100%

583

N075

ID

Student Performance Table - Math

649

649

100%

583

N075

IL

Student Performance Table - Math

3,713

3,713

100%

583

N075

IN

Student Performance Table - Math

1,866

1,863

100%

583

N075

KS

Student Performance Table - Math

1,357

1,357

100%

583

N075

KY

Student Performance Table - Math

1,167

1,167

100%

583

N075

LA

Student Performance Table - Math

1,643

1,361

83%

583

N075

MA

Student Performance Table - Math

1,698

1,698

100%

583

N075

MD

Student Performance Table - Math

1,381

1,381

100%

583

N075

ME

Student Performance Table - Math

591

591

100%

583

N075

MI

Student Performance Table - Math

3,534

3,531

100%

583

N075

MN

Student Performance Table - Math

1,857

2,054

111%

583

N075

MO

Student Performance Table - Math

2,127

2,127

100%

583

N075

MS

Student Performance Table - Math

1,076

848

79%

583

N075

MT

Student Performance Table - Math

823

823

100%

583

N075

NC

Student Performance Table - Math

2,446

2,446

100%

583

N075

ND

Student Performance Table - Math

473

473

100%

583

N075

NE

Student Performance Table - Math

1,041

1,041

100%

583

N075

NH

Student Performance Table - Math

456

458

100%

583

N075

NJ

Student Performance Table - Math

2,489

2,220

89%

583

N075

NM

Student Performance Table - Math

863

790

92%

583

N075

NV

Student Performance Table - Math

607

607

100%

583

N075

NY

Student Performance Table - Math

4,630

4,336

94%

583

N075

OH

Student Performance Table - Math

3,546

3,546

100%

583

N075

OK

Student Performance Table - Math

1,791

1,729

97%

583

N075

OR

Student Performance Table - Math

1,273

1,273

100%

583

N075

PA

Student Performance Table - Math

3,024

3,024

100%

583

N075

PR

Student Performance Table - Math

1,494

1,494

100%

583

N075

RI

Student Performance Table - Math

250

294

118%

583

N075

SC

Student Performance Table - Math

1,075

1,088

101%

583

N075

SD

Student Performance Table - Math

674

674

100%

583

N075

TN

Student Performance Table - Math

1,630

1,662

102%

583

N075

TX

Student Performance Table - Math

7,523

7,523

100%

583

N075

UT

Student Performance Table - Math

951

877

92%

583

N075

VA

Student Performance Table - Math

1,860

1,853

100%

583

N075

VT

Student Performance Table - Math

305

305

100%

583

N075

WA

Student Performance Table - Math

2,110

2,110

100%

583

N075

WI

Student Performance Table - Math

2,060

2,060

100%

583

N075

WV

Student Performance Table - Math

733

763

104%

583

N075

WY

Student Performance Table - Math

337

337

100%



Reading/language arts


The following table is the report on submissions at the school level for SY 2008-09 for reading / language arts. As shown in the report 52 SEAs submitted school level data. In some cases, the submissions received are less than or more than the submissions expected as estimated by the SEA at the beginning of the school year. While SEAs may update the estimates, they are not required to do so.


DG

File

State

Submission Type

School Submissions Expected

School Submissions Received

% Received over Expected

584

N078

AK

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

498

498

100%

584

N078

AL

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

1,352

1,335

99%

584

N078

AR

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

1,046

1,046

100%

584

N078

AZ

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

2,186

1,883

86%

584

N078

CA

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

9,675

9,671

100%

584

N078

CO

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

1,709

1,709

100%

584

N078

CT

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

985

985

100%

584

N078

DC

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

206

200

97%

584

N078

DE

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

215

215

100%

584

N078

FL

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

3,534

3,588

102%

584

N078

GA

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

2,232

2,141

96%

584

N078

HI

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

287

287

100%

584

N078

IA

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

1,400

1,400

100%

584

N078

ID

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

650

650

100%

584

N078

IL

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

3,712

3,712

100%

584

N078

IN

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

1,866

1,862

100%

584

N078

KS

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

1,357

1,357

100%

584

N078

KY

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

1,167

1,167

100%

584

N078

LA

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

1,643

1,361

83%

584

N078

MA

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

1,698

1,697

100%

584

N078

MD

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

1,381

1,381

100%

584

N078

ME

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

590

590

100%

584

N078

MI

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

3,534

3,533

100%

584

N078

MN

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

1,855

2,042

110%

584

N078

MO

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

2,122

2,122

100%

584

N078

MS

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

1,076

843

78%

584

N078

MT

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

823

823

100%

584

N078

NC

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

2,441

2,441

100%

584

N078

ND

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

473

473

100%

584

N078

NE

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

1,041

1,041

100%

584

N078

NH

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

456

458

100%

584

N078

NJ

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

2,489

2,220

89%

584

N078

NM

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

863

790

92%

584

N078

NV

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

607

607

100%

584

N078

NY

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

4,630

4,332

94%

584

N078

OH

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

3,546

3,546

100%

584

N078

OK

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

1,791

1,728

96%

584

N078

OR

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

1,273

1,273

100%

584

N078

PA

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

3,024

3,024

100%

584

N078

PR

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

1,494

1,494

100%

584

N078

RI

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

250

294

118%

584

N078

SC

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

1,075

1,088

101%

584

N078

SD

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

674

674

100%

584

N078

TN

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

1,630

1,659

102%

584

N078

TX

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

7,539

7,539

100%

584

N078

UT

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

951

880

93%

584

N078

VA

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

1,860

1,853

100%

584

N078

VT

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

305

305

100%

584

N078

WA

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

2,117

2,117

100%

584

N078

WI

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

2,060

2,060

100%

584

N078

WV

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

733

761

104%

584

N078

WY

Student Performance Table - Reading/Language Arts

337

337

100%


Science


The following table is the report on submissions at the school level for SY 2008-09 for science. As shown in the report 50 SEAs submitted school level data. AL and AZ did not submit data at the school level. In some cases, the submissions received are less than or more than the submissions expected as estimated by the SEA at the beginning of the school year. While SEAs may update the estimates, they are not required to do so.


DG

File

State

Submission Type

School Submissions Expected

School Submissions Received

% Received over Expected

585

N079

AK

Student Performance Table - Science

490

490

100%

585

N079

AL

Student Performance Table - Science

1,352

0

0%

585

N079

AR

Student Performance Table - Science

894

894

100%

585

N079

AZ

Student Performance Table - Science

2,186

0

0%

585

N079

CA

Student Performance Table - Science

9,675

9,358

97%

585

N079

CO

Student Performance Table - Science

1,670

1,670

100%

585

N079

CT

Student Performance Table - Science

883

883

100%

585

N079

DC

Student Performance Table - Science

206

162

79%

585

N079

DE

Student Performance Table - Science

205

205

100%

585

N079

FL

Student Performance Table - Science

3,520

3,520

100%

585

N079

GA

Student Performance Table - Science

2,140

2,140

100%

585

N079

HI

Student Performance Table - Science

285

285

100%

585

N079

IA

Student Performance Table - Science

1,400

1,400

100%

585

N079

ID

Student Performance Table - Science

603

603

100%

585

N079

IL

Student Performance Table - Science

3,542

3,542

100%

585

N079

IN

Student Performance Table - Science

1,435

1,435

100%

585

N079

KS

Student Performance Table - Science

1,357

1,357

100%

585

N079

KY

Student Performance Table - Science

1,163

1,163

100%

585

N079

LA

Student Performance Table - Science

1,643

1,359

83%

585

N079

MA

Student Performance Table - Science

1,487

1,487

100%

585

N079

MD

Student Performance Table - Science

1,360

1,360

100%

585

N079

ME

Student Performance Table - Science

522

522

100%

585

N079

MI

Student Performance Table - Science

3,534

3,267

92%

585

N079

MN

Student Performance Table - Science

1,610

1,868

116%

585

N079

MO

Student Performance Table - Science

1,945

1,945

100%

585

N079

MS

Student Performance Table - Science

1,076

754

70%

585

N079

MT

Student Performance Table - Science

823

823

100%

585

N079

NC

Student Performance Table - Science

2,161

2,161

100%

585

N079

ND

Student Performance Table - Science

469

469

100%

585

N079

NE

Student Performance Table - Science

1,041

1,041

100%

585

N079

NH

Student Performance Table - Science

456

441

97%

585

N079

NJ

Student Performance Table - Science

2,489

1,751

70%

585

N079

NM

Student Performance Table - Science

863

790

92%

585

N079

NV

Student Performance Table - Science

590

590

100%

585

N079

NY

Student Performance Table - Science

4,630

3,458

75%

585

N079

OH

Student Performance Table - Science

3,158

3,158

100%

585

N079

OK

Student Performance Table - Science

1,791

1,623

91%

585

N079

OR

Student Performance Table - Science

1,231

1,231

100%

585

N079

PA

Student Performance Table - Science

2,899

2,899

100%

585

N079

PR

Student Performance Table - Science

1,466

1,466

100%

585

N079

RI

Student Performance Table - Science

250

286

114%

585

N079

SC

Student Performance Table - Science

875

886

101%

585

N079

SD

Student Performance Table - Science

653

653

100%

585

N079

TN

Student Performance Table - Science

1,630

1,660

102%

585

N079

TX

Student Performance Table - Science

6,820

6,820

100%

585

N079

UT

Student Performance Table - Science

951

870

91%

585

N079

VA

Student Performance Table - Science

1,860

1,845

99%

585

N079

VT

Student Performance Table - Science

305

305

100%

585

N079

WA

Student Performance Table - Science

2,013

2,013

100%

585

N079

WI

Student Performance Table - Science

2,010

2,010

100%

585

N079

WV

Student Performance Table - Science

733

761

104%

585

N079

WY

Student Performance Table - Science

312

312

100%




Appendix B – Programs Included in the GEPA Collection Through ESS

The table below lists all programs included in the GEPA collection through ESS for fiscal year 2007. This list includes competitive and formula programs.

Federal Program Code

Title of the Federal Program

84.002

Adult Education State Grant Program

84.010

Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies

84.011

Migrant Education – Basic State Grant Program

84.013

Title I Program for Neglected and Delinquent, or at Risk

84.027

Special Education - Grants to States

84.048A

Vocational Education - Basic Grants to States

84.083

Women's Educational Equity

84.128G

Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers Program

84.128J

Recreational Programs

84.144A

Migrant Education--Coordination Program

84.144F

MEP Consortium Incentive Grant

84.173

Special Education Preschool Grants

84.186A

Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities

84.195

Bilingual Education Professional Development

84.196

Education for Homeless Children and Youth

84.206A

Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program

84.213

Even Start - State Education Agencies

84.214A

Migrant Education Even Start

84.215M

Grants for the Integration of Schools and Mental Health Systems

84.215S

The Partnerships in Character Education Project Program

84.243

Tech-Prep Education

84.282

Charter Schools Program

84.287

21st Century Community Learning Centers

84.298

State Grants for Innovative Programs

84.299A

Indian Education—Demonstration Grants for Indian Children

84.299B

Indian Education Professional Development

84.305

Education Research

84.318

Enhancing Education Through Technology

84.323A

State Program Improvement Grants

84.325

Special Education--Personnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities

84.326

Special Education--National Activities-Technical Assistance and Dissemination

84.327

Special Education--National Activities--Technology and Media Services

84.330C

Advanced Placement Incentive Program Grants

84.331A

Grants to States for Workplace and Community Transition Training for Incarcerated Youth Offenders

84.332A

Comprehensive School Reform Program

84.334

Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs

84.336

Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants

84.350

Transition to Teaching

84.356A

Alaska Native Education Equity

84.357

Reading First

84.358B

Rural and Low-Income School Program

84.359A

Early Reading First

84.359B

Early Reading First

84.360

School Dropout Prevention Program

84.361

Voluntary Public School Choice

84.362A

Native Hawaiian Education

84.362K

Hawaii 3R's - Repair Remodel Restore

84.363A

Expanding Hawaii's Pathways to Leadership

84.365A

English Language Acquisition, State Grants

84.366B

Mathematics and Science Partnerships

84.367

Improving Teacher Quality State Grants

84.369

Grants for State Assessments

84.374A

Teacher Incentive Fund

84.377

School Improvement Grants

84.902

National Assessment of Educational Progress

84.925

Advanced Certification or Advanced Credentialing

84.938A

Immediate Aid to Restart School Operations

84.938B

Assistance for Homeless Children and Youth

84.938C

Temporary Emergency Impact Aid for Displaced Students

84.938K

Hurricane Educator Assistance Program



Appendix C – Ready-Made Reports in the EDFacts Reporting System

The table below list the ready-made reports in EDFacts Reporting System available to ED staff as of August 1, 2010. Reports are added to the system periodically. The columns in the table indicate the content of the ready-made reports:


  • Outcomes - The report contains data on educational outcomes such as AYP status.

  • Programs/Services – The report contains data on services provided by federal programs, for example, the number of students served by Title I.

  • Students – The report contains data about students.

  • Teachers/Staff – The report contains data about teachers or staff in SEAs, LEAs, or schools.

  • Financial Data – The report contains financial data.

  • Grants – The report contains data about grants.

  • Education Technology – The report contains data about technology integration in LEAs and schools.

  • Submission Data – The report contains data about what data SEAs have submitted to EDFacts.

  • Educational level – The last three columns indicate what level(s) of data is in the report

    • SEA

    • LEA

    • School



Report Name (Report ID)

Outcomes

Programs/ Services

Students

Teachers/ Staff

Financial Data

Grants

Education Technology

Submission Data

SEA

LEA

School

CSPR Prompted Report (CSPR017)

X

X

X

X

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Public School Choice (CSPR001)

X

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Supplemental Educational Services (CSPR002)

X

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Core Academic Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers (CSPR003)

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

High Quality Professional Development (CSPR004)

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

State Assessment Data for Mathematics (CSPR006)

X

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

State Assessment Data for Reading/Language Arts (CSPR007)

X

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Schools in Need of Improvement (CSPR008)

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Districts in Need of Improvement (CSPR009)

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

Student Academic Achievement (CSPR010)

X

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

State Reported Graduation and Dropout Rates (CSPR011)

X

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Schools Making AYP (CSPR012)

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Student Participation in Test Administration (CSPR013)

X

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Participation of Students with Disabilities in State Assessments (CSPR014)

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

School Directory Extract (EDEN017)

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

X

Persistently Dangerous Schools (EDEN016)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

X

Participation in State Assessments - CSPR 1.2 (EDEN001)

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Student Academic Achievement - CSPR 1.3 (EDEN002)

X

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

School and District Accountability - CSPR 1.4.1-1.4.8 (EDEN003)

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Public School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services - CSPR 1.4.9 (EDEN004)

X

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Teacher Quality - CSPR 1.5 (EDEN005a)

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Title III and Language Instructional Programs - CSPR 1.6 (EDEN006)

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Persistently Dangerous Schools - CSPR 1.7 (EDEN007)

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Education for Homeless and Youths Program - CSPR 1.9 (EDEN009a)

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Migrant Child Counts - CSPR 1.10 (EDEN010)

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Education of Migrant Children (Title I, Part C) - CSPR 2.3 (EDEN014a)

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Education of Migrant Children (Title I, Part C) - CSPR 2.3 (EDEN014b)

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Prevention And Intervention Programs For Children And Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At Risk (Title I, Part D, Subparts 1 And 2) (EDEN015)

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

ESS Submission Status Report for CSPR SY 2008-09 - Part I (CSPR016a)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

 

 

Graduation Rates - CSPR 1.8.1 (EDEN008)

X

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Improving Basic Programs Operated By Local Educational Agencies (Title I, Part A) (EDEN013)

X

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

ESS Submission Status Report for CSPR SY 2008-09 Part II (CSPR016b)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

 

 

Indian Education Formula Grant Personnel Budget Report (OIE002)

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

X

Indian Education Formula Grant Student Count and Budget Report (OIE003)

 

 

X

 

 

X

 

 

 

X

X

Grants Risk Dashboard (TRAN003)

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

Grants Management Dashboard (MGMT009)

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

Indian Education Formula Grant Personnel Budget Report (OIE002)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indian Education Formula Grant Student Count and Budget Report (OIE003)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Award Transaction Summary by Payee DUNS (TRAN001)

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

Awards Transaction Details by Payee DUNS (TRAN002)

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

Grantee Obligated Amounts by Fiscal Year (MGMT001)

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

Grantee Annual Award Balances by Program Office (MGMT002)

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

Grantee Annual Award Balances by DUNS (MGMT003)

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

Grantee Awards - Top 20% of Grantees by Obligated Award Amount (MGMT004)

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

Grantee Look Up by Name (MGMT005)

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

Grantee Look Up by DUNS (MGMT006)

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

Grantees by State and Congressional District (MGMT007)

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

X

 

 

Grants Manager Awards (MGMT008)

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

Planned Awards vs. Actual Awards (MGMT010)

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

Excessive/Insufficient Drawdown Indicator (RISK003)

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

Unexpended Funds by Program Office (RISK004)

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

Awards in Close Out Status by State (RISK005)

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

X

 

 

Unexpended Funds by State (RISK006)

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

X

 

 

Fiscal Year Unexpended Funds for Part B, Sections 611 and 619 and Part C of IDEA (OSEP013)

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

X

 

 

Five-Year View of Unexpended Funds for Part B, Sections 611 and 619, and Part C of IDEA (OSEP014)

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

X

 

 

Report of Student Enrollment Data for Mathematics Assessment (OSEP040)

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Report of the Participation of Students with Disabilities on Mathematics Assessment (OSEP041)

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Report of the Performance of Students with Disabilities on Mathematics Assessment (OSEP042)

X

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Report of the Student Enrollment Data for Reading/Language Arts Assessment (OSEP043)

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Report of the Participation of Students with Disabilities on Reading/Language Arts Assessment (OSEP044)

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Report of Performance of Students with Disabilities on Reading/Language Arts Assessment (OSEP045)

X

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Report of Children with Disabilities (IDEA) Ages 3 through 5 Age by Disability for SY 2009-10 (OSEP004C)

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Report of Children with Disabilities (IDEA) Ages 3 through 5 Race/Ethnicity by Disability for SY 2009-10 (OSEP005C)

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Report of Children with Disabilities (IDEA) Ages 6 through 21 by Age and Disability for SY 2009-10 (OSEP006D)

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Report of Children with Disabilities (IDEA) Ages 6 through 21 Race/Ethnicity by Disability for SY 2009-10 (OSEP007D)

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Report of Children with Disabilities Subject to Disciplinary Removal by Disability Category (OSEP030A)

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Report of Children with Disabilities Subject to Disciplinary Removal by Race/Ethnicity (OSEP031A)

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Report of Children with Disabilities Subject to Disciplinary Removal by Sex (OSEP032A)

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Report of Children with Disabilities Subject to Disciplinary Removal by Limited English Proficiency Category (OSEP033A)

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Report of Educational Services During Expulsion (OSEP034A)

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Report of Children with Disabilities (IDEA) Ages 3 through 5 Age by Early Childhood Environment for SY 2009-10 (OSEP008C)

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Report of Children with Disabilities (IDEA) Ages 3 through 5 Disability Category by Early Childhood Environment for SY 2009-10 (OSEP009C)

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Report of Children with Disabilities (IDEA) Ages 6 through 21 by Disability, Educational Environment, and Age Group for SY 2009-10 (OSEP010D)

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Report of Children with Disabilities (IDEA) Ages 3 through 5 Race/Ethnicity by Early Childhood Environment for SY 2009-10 (OSEP011C)

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Report of Children with Disabilities (IDEA) Ages 6 through 21 Race Ethnicity by Educational Environment for SY 2009-10 (OSEP012D)

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Report of Children with Disabilities (IDEA) Ages 3 through 5 Early Childhood Environment by Sex (Membership) for SY 2009-10 (OSEP015A)

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Report of Children with Disabilities Ages 3 through 5 by Early Childhood Environment and Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Status for SY 2009-10 (OSEP016A)

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Report of Children with Disabilities (IDEA) Ages 6 through 21 by Educational Environment and Sex (Membership) for SY 2009-10 (OSEP017A)

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Report of Children with Disabilities Ages 6 through 21 by Educational Environment and Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Status for SY 2009-10 (OSEP018A)

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Report of Children with Disabilities Exiting Special Education by Disability Category and Age for SY 2008-09 (OSEP001C)

X

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Report of Children with Disabilities Exiting Special Education by Basis of Exit and Age for SY 2008-09 (OSEP002C)

X

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Report of Children with Disabilities Exiting Special Education by Basis of Exit and Race/Ethnicity for SY 2008-09 (OSEP003C)

X

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Report of Children with Disabilities Exiting Special Education by Basis of Exit and Sex for SY 2008-09 (OSEP050)

X

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Report of Children with Disabilities Exiting Special Education by Basis of Exit and LEP Status for SY 2008-09 (OSEP051)

X

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Report of Special Education Teachers Serving Children with Disabilities (OSEP020A)

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Report of Special Education Paraprofessionals Serving Children with Disabilities (OSEP021A)

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Report of Related Services Personnel Serving Children with Disabilities Ages 3-21 (OSEP022A)

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

CSPR Comment Viewer Report

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Indian Education Regular Formula Grantees' Progress on Their Objectives (OIE005)

 

X

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

X

X

Indian Education Formula Funding and Student Performance (OIE001)

X

 

X

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

X

Comparison of EDEN Data and EASIE Data for Indian Education Formula Grantees (OIE004)

X

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

X

X

National Submission Plan Execution Report (LEAD005)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

 

 

State Submission Plan Execution Report (LEAD004)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

 

 

State Submission Status Timeliness and Completeness Report (LEAD015)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

 

 

State Education Data Exchange Network Submission System (ESS) Bar Chart (LEAD012)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

 

 



1 For example, in July 2009, the EDFacts Data Governance Board presented to the Forum recommendations for the Forum’s guide on discipline data that would result in improvements to federal reporting. This month, the Forum returned to the EDFacts Data Governance Board a draft guide that includes those recommendations.

2 As explained in Attachment B-1, EDFacts currently provides data for Tables 1 through 6. States have to achieve congruency before the state submits data only through EDFacts.

3 To clarify, while we will be able to identify the Tier I and Tier II schools, we are not requesting that SEAs differentiate between Tier I and Tier II. In other words, we will know that a school is a Tier I or Tier II school but we will not know if the school is Tier I or if the school is Tier II.

File Typeapplication/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
File TitleG - Questions from OMB and responses from ED
Authorkimberly.goodwin
File Modified0000-00-00
File Created2021-01-31

© 2024 OMB.report | Privacy Policy