1. 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

2. 2 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.

3. Types of Reports Grantees provide data within three types of performance reports. All reports use the Grantee Performance Report Form. 3 Type of ReportContainsDue 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 final budget period Due within 90 days after the end of the project period (including any period of no-cost extension)

4. NAM Grantee Budget and Reporting Dates 4 GranteeBudget Period APR Reporting Period APR Report Due CDR Reporting Period CDR Report Due FY2011 and FY2013 July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014July 1, 2013 to Mar 31, 2014April 30, 2014July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014Oct 15, 2014

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. Using the Project Status Chart on the ED534B GPRA Measure 1.1 Example 1.1 Performance MeasureMeasure TypeQuantitative Data The percentage of ELs served who scored proficient or above on, as applicable, valid and reliable State and/or local district reading assessment. GPRA TargetActual Performance Data Raw NumberRatio% Raw NumberRatio% 425300/42571425326/42577 9

10. Using the “Optional Table” GPRA Measure 1.1 Example Grade# of ELs served # of students in ESEA-tested grades# of students tested # of students proficient or above 350 35 462 44 555 44 660 50 740 25 843 31 Total310 229 10

11. Using the “Optional Table” GPRA Measure 1.1 Example (continued) 11 Grade# of ELs served# of students tested # of students proficient or above K20 15 140 32 255 50 Total115 97

12. 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

13. Using the Project Status Chart on the ED534B GPRA Measure 1.2 Example 13 1.2 Performance MeasureMeasure TypeQuantitative Data The percentage of ELs served who made progress in English as measured by the State- approved English language proficiency (ELP) assessment. GPRA TargetActual Performance Data Raw NumberRatio% Raw NumberRatio% 300/42571 354/40587

14. Using the “Optional Table” GPRA Measure 1.2 Example Grade# of ELs served # of students tested at least two times # of students who made progress only (i.e., and did not attain proficiency) # of students who made progress and attained proficiency K200n/a 140 3010 255 4010 350 3512 462 4015 555 400 660 450 740 2512 843 3010 Total42540528569 14

15. 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

16. Using the Project Status Chart on the ED534B GPRA Measure 1.3 Example 16 1.3 Performance MeasureMeasure TypeQuantitative Data The percentage of ELs served who attained proficiency in English as measured by the State- approved ELP assessment. GPRA TargetActual Performance Data Raw NumberRatio% Raw NumberRatio% 60/42514 75/42518

17. Using the “Optional Table” GPRA Measure 1.3 Example 17 Grade# of ELs served # of students tested at least once # of students who attained proficiency only (i.e., and did not make progress) # of students who made progress and attained proficiency K20 6n/a 140 010 255 010 350 012 462 015 555 00 660 00 740 012 843 010 Total425 669

18. 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

19. FY2011 Grantee Summary and Fall 2013 CDR Submission Update There are 13 FY2011 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. Questions 22

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