Extent to Which Centers Addressed State Priorities

The perceptions of senior managers in state education agencies, who are involved in identifying state needs and priorities for technical assistance, provide a relevant perspective on the outputs of the program. Because the Centers had a mandated focus on the states, the extent to which state managers perceived that Center technical assistance served state purposes is one way of gauging the program's attainment of its objectives. Capacity building for states is also a focus of this evaluation, because it was prominent as a goal for the Comprehensive Centers program. The first priority for all Centers, articulated by ED in the Notice Inviting Applications, included "helping states build the capacity to help school districts and schools implement NCLB provisions and programs."⁸

An increasing percentage of state managers (weighted) over three years reported that the Centers' technical assistance "served the state's purposes completely" (exhibit ES.2). Thirty-six percent of the state managers, weighted, chose this response for 2006–07, 47 percent for 2007–08, and 56 percent for 2008–09.

Among the managers who said their state's purposes were not completely served, a larger proportion in each year reported that they wanted more interaction with the Centers. The percent of weighted state managers saying, "Center staff are not able to spend as much time working with the state as we would like" was 17 percent of those who did not say the state's purposes were "completely" served in 2006–07. The corresponding figures for subsequent years were 27 percent in 2007–08 and 43 percent in 2008–09.⁹ (These respondents were 9 percent, 10 percent, and 16 percent, respectively, of all state managers, weighted.)

State managers in a high proportion of states reported that Centers delivered assistance on "statewide systems of support or school support teams," which was the most widespread priority among areas of technical assistance for state managers. In 2007–08 and 2008–09, more than 90 percent of state managers, weighted, identified this area of state responsibility as a major or moderate priority for technical assistance (95 percent in 2007–08, 94 percent in 2008–09). Of this group of state managers that reported this priority¹⁰, more than 90 percent reported that the Centers delivered assistance related to this responsibility (94 percent in 2007–08, 91 percent in 2008–09).

Looking at state reported capacity building across areas of major or moderate state priority for technical assistance, the highest percentage of state managers reported Center assistance to have expanded their agency's capacity to a "great" or "moderate" extent in statewide systems of support or school support teams¹¹ (72 percent in of those who rated the area as a state priority in 2007–08 and 82 percent in 2008–09) (exhibit ES.3). The next-highest in both 2007–08 and 2008–09 was "development or dissemination of research-based curriculum, instruction, or professional development programs in academic subject(s)" (64 percent in 2007–08 and 77 percent in 2008–09). In both years, the lowest was "administration of supplemental educational services and choice provisions" (44 percent and 39 percent, respectively, of those who rated the area as a priority), which was an area rated as a priority by the fewest state managers (49 percent and 48 percent, respectively).

Top