U.S. Department of Education
The Department of Education (ED) is committed to serving and satisfying its customers. To this end, we have commissioned the CFI Group, an independent third-party research group, to conduct a survey that asks about your satisfaction with ED’s products and services and about ways that we can improve our service to you.
The CFI Group and the Department of Education will treat all information in a secure fashion and will only provide aggregate results to Department personnel. All information you provide will be combined with information from other respondents for research and reporting purposes. Your individual responses will not be released. This brief survey will take about 15 minutes of your time.
If you have any questions about this survey, please contact Jeanne Nathanson at Jeanne.Nathanson@ed.gov.
This interview is authorized by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget Control No. 1090-0007.
Please note that ALL questions on this survey (unless noted otherwise) refer to your experiences over the PAST 12 MONTHS.
Program
NOTE: THE FOLLOWING QUESTION WILL HAVE THE RESPONSE AUTOMATICALLY “PIPED IN” FROM THE RESPONDENT LIST. THE RESPONDENT WILL NOT SEE THE QUESTION Q1. THIS INFORMATION WILL DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE CORE AND CUSTOM QUESTIONS THAT THE RESPONDENT WILL RECEIVE.
Q1. PROGRAM ABOUT WHICH RESPONDENT WILL BE ANSWERING QUESTIONS:
Race to the Top
Race to the Top Assessment
State Fiscal Stabilization Fund
Education Jobs Fund
National Professional Development Program
Charter Schools Program (SEAs)
Investing in Innovation Program (i3)
Promise Neighborhoods Program
Transition to Teaching
TRIO: Student Support Services
TRIO: Talent Search
TRIO: Upward Bound
GEAR UP
FIPSE – Comprehensive
International: National Resources Centers
International: Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language
International: Centers for International Business Education
Physical Education Program (PEP)
Readiness and Emergency Management Service (REMS)
Safe Schools Healthy Students (SS/HS)
Lead Agency Early Intervention Coordinators
State Directors of Special Education
Adult Education and Family Literacy to the State Directors of Adult Ed
Carl D. Perkins Career & Technical Education Program to the State Directors of Career & Technical Ed
Grant Recipient Agencies that are at-risk or high-risk for all of the ED Grants
21st Century Community Learning Centers
Mathematics and Science Partnerships
Striving Readers
Improving Teacher Quality State Grants
Teacher Incentive Fund
Smaller Learning Communities/Fund for the Improvement of Education
Payments for Federal Property (Section 8002)
Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 8003)
Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies
High School Equivalency Program (HEP) - Migrant Education
Migrant Education Program (MEP) -- Title I, Part C
Education for Homeless Children and Youth Grants for State and Local Activities/ McKinney-Vento Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program
Neglected and Delinquent State and Local
Title I, Part A - Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies
English Language Acquisition State Grants/Title III State Formula Grant Program
School Improvement Fund
Enhancing Education Through Technology (Ed-Tech) State Program Education Technology State Grants
Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP)/Small, Rural School Grant Achievement (SRSA) program
Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers/Comprehensive Centers
Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP)/Rural and Low Income School Program
When answering the survey, please only think about your interactions with [ANSWER FROM Q1]
[INTRO IF Q1=1-9; 18-45]
Please think about the interactions you have had with senior ED officers (e.g. the Director of the Office that administers this grant program) and/or other ED staff.
PLEASE NOTE: This does not include ED-funded technical assistance providers, such as regional labs, national associations, contractors, etc.
[INTRO IF Q1=10-17]
Please think about the interactions you have had with senior ED officers (e.g. the Director of the Office that administers this grant program) and/or other ED staff.
PLEASE NOTE: This does not include ED-funded technical assistance providers, such as regional labs, national associations, contractors – including those that service G5, e-Grants, grants.gov, the OPE Field Reader System, etc.
[Q2-8 ALL PROGRAMS]
On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the senior ED officers’ and/or other ED staff’s:
If a question does not apply, please select “N/A”.
Q2. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures
Q3. Responsiveness to your questions
Q4. Accuracy of responses
Q5. Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses
Q6. Consistency of responses with ED staff from different program offices
Q7. Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in providing relevant services
(Ask Q8 only if Q7 is rated<6)
Q8. Please identify a good example of collaboration across programs and/or offices that you would offer as a model for ED.
[ASK Q9a IF Q1=1-9; 18-45]
Q9a. Do you have interaction with ED-funded providers of technical assistance (e.g., regional labs, comprehensive centers, equity assistance centers, national associations, U.S. Department of Education-funded contractors, etc.) separate from ED staff?
Yes
No (SKIP TO Q17)
Don’t know (SKIP TO Q17)
[ASK Q9b IF Q1=10-17]
Q9b. Do you have interaction with ED-funded providers of technical assistance (e.g., regional labs, comprehensive centers, equity assistance centers, national associations, U.S. Department of Education-funded contractors such as those that service G5, e-Grants, grants.gov, the OPE Field Reader System, etc.) separate from ED staff?
Yes
No (SKIP TO Q17)
Don’t know (SKIP TO Q17)
[Q10-16 ALL PROGRAMS]
Please think about your interactions with ED-funded providers of technical assistance. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate their:
If a question does not apply, please select “N/A”.
Q10. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures
Q11. Responsiveness to your questions
Q12. Accuracy of responses
Q13. Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses
Q14. Consistency of responses with ED staff
Q15. Collaboration with ED staff in providing relevant services
Q16. Collaboration with other ED-funded providers of technical assistance in providing relevant services.
[Q17-18 ALL PROGRAMS]
Please think about your experience using ED’s online resources. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the:
Q17. Ease of finding materials online
Q18. Ease of submitting information to ED via the Web (e.g., grant applications, annual reports, and accountability data)
[ASK Q18.1a-l, Q18.2a-l and Q18.3 IF Q1=10-17]
The following are online databases and Web sites that you may have used in your interactions with the Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE). Please rate your experience with each one that you have used on a scale from “1” to “10”, where “1” means “poor” and “10” means “excellent.”
If you have not used the resource, please select “N/A”.
Q18.1a. Field Reader System
Q18.1b. Grants.gov
Q18.1c. e-Grants
Q18.1d. G5
Q18.1e. FIPSE Online Database
Q18.1f. FIPSE Web Pages
Q18.1g. GEAR UP Database
Q18.1h. GEAR UP Web Pages
Q18.1i. IRIS (Used by International Programs – IFLE)
Q18.1j. IFLE Web Pages
Q18.1k. TRIO Online APR System
Q18.1l. TRIO Web Pages
How effective were contractors and/or staff in mitigating any problems you may have encountered with databases and Web sites?
Please rate your experience with each one that you have used on a scale from “1” to “10”, where “1” means “poor” and “10” means “excellent.”
If you have not used the resource, please select “N/A”.
Q18.2a. Field Reader System
Q18.2b. Grants.gov
Q18.2c. e-Grants
Q18.2d. G5
Q18.2e. FIPSE Online Database
Q18.2f. FIPSE Web Pages
Q18.2g. GEAR UP Database
Q18.2h. GEAR UP Web Pages
Q18.2i. IRIS (Used by International Programs – IFLE)
Q18.2j. IFLE Web Pages
Q18.2k. TRIO Online APR System
Q18.2l. TRIO Web Pages
Q18.3. Please provide suggestions on any of the databases or Web sites that you have used that would help us to improve your experience with them. (Open end)
[Q19-20 ALL PROGRAMS]
Q19. Now think about how ED uses technology (e.g., conference calls, video-conferencing, Web conferencing, listservs) to deliver its services to you. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Not very effective” and “10” is “Very effective,” please rate ED’s effectiveness in using technology to deliver its services.
(Ask Q20 only if Q19 is rated<6)
Q20. Please describe how ED could better use technology to deliver its services.
[ASK Q21-23b ONLY IF Q1=1-9; 18-45]
Q21. Think about how ED is working with the states and LEAs to develop an automated process to share accountability information. Please rate the quality of this assistance from ED. Use a 10-point scale where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent.”
Q22. How effective has this automated process been in improving your state/LEA reporting? Please use a 10-point scale where “1” is “Not very effective” and “10” is “Very effective.”
Q23a. What reporting system do you use for reporting accountability data?
EDEN/EDFacts
Other electronic system (Specify)
Do not use electronic system, submit hard copy
Q23b. How much of a reduction in federal paperwork do you expect over the next few years because of ED’s initiative to promote the use of technology in reporting accountability data (e.g. EDEN/EDFacts)? Please use a 10-point scale where “1” is “Not very significant” and “10” is “Very significant.”
[ASK Q24-28 ONLY IF Q1=1-9; 18-45]
Think about the documents (e.g., publications, guidance, memoranda, and frequently asked questions) you receive from ED.
On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent, please rate the documents’:
Q24. Clarity
Q25. Organization of information
Q26. Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs
Q27. Relevance to your areas of need
Q28. Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues that you face
[ASK Q28.1a-l IF Q1=10-17]
When you were preparing your application, how easy was it for you to locate and understand the information in the application package? Please rate the following on a scale from “1” to “10”, where “1” is “very difficult” and “10” is “very easy”.
Q28.1 Program Purpose
Q28.2 Program Priorities
Q28.3 Selection Criteria
Q28.4 Review Process
Q28.5 Budget Information and Forms
Q28.6 Deadline for Submission
Q28.7 Dollar Limit on Awards
Q28.8 Page Limitation Instructions
Q28.9 Formatting Instructions
Q28.10 Program Contact
[ASK Q29-32 ONLY TO ALL TO ALL OESE PROGRAMS Q1 = 26 – 45]
Q29. How effective have the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education’s (OESE’s) technical assistance services been in helping you learn to implement your OESE-funded grant programs? Please use a 10-point scale where “1” is “not very effective” and “10” is “very effective.”
Q30. How useful have OESE’s technical assistance services been in serving as a model that you can replicate with your subgrantees? Please use a 10-point scale where “1” is “not very useful” and “10” is “very useful.” If you do not have subgrantees or this does not apply, please select “not applicable.”
Q31. Describe your best customer service experience during the past 12 months with the U.S. Department of Education staff who work on this program. (Open end)
Q32. Describe your worst customer service experience during the past 12 months with the U.S. Department of Education staff who work on this program. (Open end)
[Q33-Q38 ALL PROGRAMS]
Now we are going to ask you to please consider ALL of ED’s products and services and not only those we just asked about.
Q33. Using a 10-point scale on which “1” means “Very Dissatisfied” and “10” means “Very Satisfied,” how satisfied are you with ED’s products and services?
Q34. Now please rate the extent to which the products and services offered by ED have fallen short of or exceeded your expectations. Please use a 10-point scale on which "1" now means "Falls Short of Your Expectations" and "10" means "Exceeds Your Expectations."
Q35. Now forget for a moment about the products and services offered by ED, and imagine the ideal products and services. How well do you think ED compares with that ideal? Please use a 10-point scale on which "1" means "Not Very Close to the Ideal" and "10" means "Very Close to the Ideal."
Now please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statement.
Q36. Overall, when I think of all of ED’s products and services, I am satisfied with their quality.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Does Not Apply
Q37. In the past 6 months, have you issued a formal complaint to ED to express your dissatisfaction with the assistance you’ve received from an ED staff member?
Yes
No
Q38. Finally, please describe how ED can improve its service to you.
Thank you again for your time. To complete the survey and submit the results, please hit the “Finish” button below. Have a good day!
NOTE: EACH RESPONDENT WILL ONLY RECEIVE 1 SET OF APPROXIMATELY 8-12 CUSTOM QUESTIONS CONCERNING THEIR PROGRAM
ONLY IF Q1= 1 Race to the Top, 2 Race to the Top Assessment, 3 State Fiscal Stabilization Fund or 4 Education Jobs Fund ASK 1-7 BELOW
Please rate the following using a 10-point scale, where 1 means “poor” and 10 means “excellent.”
Accessibility of the ISU staff.
Responsiveness of the ISU staff.
Your working relationship with the ISU staff.
The clarity of information provided by the ISU staff.
The usefulness of information provided by the ISU staff.
Through web-based and other means, the support provided to you by ISU staff in developing and implementing a high-quality program.
Please share any comments on how the ISU can better support your work.
ONLY IF Q1= 5 National Professional Development Program ASK 1-7 BELOW
Please rate the following using a 10-point scale where “1” means “not very useful” and “10” means “very useful.” If a question does not apply, please select “N/A”.
How useful were grantee meetings in providing you with information to carry out your grant?
How useful were application materials in assisting you in preparing an application?
How useful was the 2011 Webinar for prospective applicants in assisting you in preparing an application?
How timely is your NPD program specialist in responding to your inquiries? Please use a 10-point scale where “1” means “not very timely” and “10” means “very timely.”
How helpful is the technical assistance from your discretionary grant program specialist on grantee requirements? Please use a 10-point scale where “1” means “not very helpful” and “10” means “very helpful.”
How helpful is the NCELA website in assisting you and/or NPD participant students with resources related to English language learners? Please use a 10-point scale where “1” means “not very helpful” and “10” means “very helpful.”
What recommendations would you make for improving OELA’s technical assistance to or grantee meeting with NPD applicants? NPD grantees? (Open ended)
ONLY IF Q1= 6 Charter Schools Program (SEAs) ASK 1-10 BELOW
Please rate the Charter Schools Program (CSP) staff on the following three factors. Use a 10-point scale, where “1” means “poor” and “10” means “excellent.”
1. Ease of reaching the person who could address your concern
2. Timeliness of CSP staff response
3. Ability to resolve your issue
4. How would you describe your working relationship with the Charter Schools Program staff? Use a 10-point scale, where “1” means “poor” and “10” means “excellent.”
5. Please provide specific suggestions for how the Charter Schools Program staff can improve their working relationships with grantees and improve customer service. (Open end)
6. What additional service(s) could the Charter Schools Program provide that would help meet your technical assistance and program improvement needs? (For example, information posted on-line, webinars, analysis tools, etc.) (Open end)
7. How useful is the annual project directors meeting for Charter Schools Program State Education Agency grantees? Please rate the usefulness of the meeting on a 10-point scale, where “1” is “not very useful” and “10” is “very useful.”
8. What could the Charter Schools Program staff do to improve the annual project directors meeting for Charter Schools Program State Education Agency grantees? (open end)
If you were monitored by WestEd, the Charter Schools Program monitoring contractor, during the past 12 months, think about the federal monitoring process as it relates to your CSP grant. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “not very effective” and “10” is “very effective,” please rate the effectiveness of the federal monitoring process in:
9. Identifying and correcting compliance issues in your state
10. Helping you to improve program quality
ONLY IF Q1= 7 Investing in Innovation Program (i3) ASK 1-10 BELOW
Think about the technical support Program Officers from the Investing in Innovation (i3) Program provided you. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the staff’s:
1. Responsiveness to answering questions
2. Dissemination of accurate information
3. Dissemination of information in a timely manner
4. Supportiveness in helping you complete your required quarterly ARRA reporting
5. Supportiveness in helping you with the private sector match requirements
6. Added value of the monthly monitoring calls to your project
7. What can the i3 Team do over the next year to meet your technical assistance and program improvement needs? (Open end)
Think about the evaluation Technical Assistance provided by Abt Associates Inc. related to your independent project evaluation. In consultation with your independent evaluator, on a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate Abt’s:
8. Responsiveness to answering questions
9. Support to positively impact on your project’s evaluation design and performance objectives
10. What can Abt do over the next year to help you improve your project’s performance results? (Open end)
ONLY IF Q1=8 Promise Neighborhoods Program ASK 1-14 BELOW
Does ED staff do a good job in communicating their expectations of grantees?
Yes
No
How useful is ED staff technical assistance as a model for your program? Please use a 10-point scale where “1” is “not very useful” and “10” means “very useful”.
Which best describes how often you interact with ED staff?
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
A few times a year
Once a year or less
About which topics or purposes do you most often contact ED staff? (Open end)
Is technical assistance customer-focused and responsive to your needs?
Yes
No
How useful are webinars as a format for providing technical assistance? Please use a 10-point scale where “1” is “not very useful” and “10” means “very useful”.
What additional formats would you prefer technical assistance be provided? (Open end)
How useful was the Promise Neighborhoods (PN) New Grantee Meeting in November 2010? Please use a 10-point scale where “1” is “not very useful” and “10” means “very useful”.
How useful are quarterly calls with PN staff? Please use a 10-point scale where “1” is “not very useful” and “10” means “very useful”.
What additional topics would you like to have discussed during meetings and conferences, either in-person or by phone? (Open end)
What could PN do to improve the structure of meetings and conferences, either in-person or by phone? (Open end)
How useful is the PN information you receive from ED? Please use a 10-point scale where “1” is “not very useful” and “10” means “very useful”.
Share your suggestions on technical assistance topics that would be most helpful in implementing or managing your project? (Open end)
What type of additional information would you like to receive from the PN staff or office? (Open end)
ONLY IF Q1=9 Transition to Teaching ASK 1-15 BELOW
Think about the one-on-one consultations you have had with program officers. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Not very effective” and “10” is “Very effective,” please rate the effectiveness of the one-on-one consultations in …
If a particular question does not apply, please select “N/A”.
Providing you with an interpretation of the Transition to Teaching (TTT) Authorizing Legislation
Assisting with completing your Annual Performance Reports
Assisting with completing your Interim Evaluation Report
(If applicable), assisting with completing your Interim Online Survey
(If applicable), assisting with completing your Final Evaluation Report
(If applicable), assisting with completing your Final Online Survey
Providing you with targeted assistance and support to better meet your project’s goals and objectives
What can TTT do over the next year to meet your project’s technical assistance and program improvement needs?
Think about your experience completing and submitting Annual Performance Reports. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Not very user-friendly” and “10” is “Very user-friendly,” please rate the user-friendliness of the APR and Data Verification documents in …
Reporting GPRA measures and project specific objectives using the ED 524B form
Reporting budgetary information using the ED 524 Budget Summary form
Verifying previously reported data using the Data Verification Sheet
Think about your experiences seeking information at the TTT website (http://www2.ed.gov/programs/transitionteach/index.html). On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Not very effective” and “10” is “Very effective,” please rate the effectiveness of the Web site in…
Providing you with the information needed to inform your work and better understand the program
What can TTT do over the next year to improve the TTT website to better meet your needs? (Open end)
Think about your experiences receiving information from the TTT listserv. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Not very useful” and “10” is “Very useful,” please rate the usefulness of the information shared through the TTT listserv in …
Providing you with information that is relevant and useful to meeting your project’s goals and objectives
Informing you of recent developments in the area of Teacher Quality
ONLY IF Q1= 10 TRIO: Student Support Service (SSS) ASK 1-10 BELOW
In interacting with the U.S. Department of Education (ED) Student Support Services (SSS) program specialist responsible for overseeing your grant, please indicate whether service/support in the following areas.
(1) Exceeds expectations – provides greater than anticipated levels of support
(2) Meets expectations – provides anticipated levels of support
(3) Does not meet expectations – provides lower than anticipated levels of support
If a service area does not apply, please select “N/A”.
Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures, including updated programmatic knowledge as necessitated by HEOA
Responsiveness to your inquiries (by email, telephone, letter, etc.)
Ability to assist you in interacting with institutional officials, if necessary, in the resolution of critical internal SSS program issues
Ability to interpret legislation and regulations, specifically, on the administration (including calculation of correct institutional match, if applicable) and assistance with procedures for distribution of grant aid monies
Knowledge of the SSS annual performance report and ability to assist with questions about the completion and submission of the report
Ability to conduct the post-award conference in a competent and collegial manner
Providing a successful resolution of program and other issues encountered during and after the post-award conference
Processing of administrative action requests, including change in key personnel and budget revisions, within 30 days
Ability to respond to all issues raised based solely on interpretation of laws, regulations and Department policies without personal bias or administrative preference
Please provide any additional comments on your assigned SSS program specialist. (Open end)
ONLY IF Q1= 11 TRIO: Talent Search ASK 1-7 BELOW
In interacting with the U.S. Department of Education (ED) Student Talent Search (TS) program specialist responsible for overseeing your grant, please indicate whether service/support in the following areas.
(1) Exceeds expectations – provides greater than anticipated levels of support
(2) Meets expectations – provides anticipated levels of support
(3) Does not meet expectations – provides lower than anticipated levels of support
If a service area does not apply, please select “N/A”.
Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures, including updated programmatic knowledge as necessitated by HEOA
Responsiveness to your inquiries (by email, telephone, letter, etc.)
Ability to assist you in interacting with institutional officials, if necessary, in the resolution of critical internal programmatic issues
Knowledge of the annual performance report and ability to assist with questions about the completion and submission of the report
Processing of administrative action requests, including change in key personnel and budget revisions, within 30 days.
Ability to respond to all issues raised based solely on interpretation of laws, regulations and Department policies without personal bias or administrative preference
Please provide any additional comments on the Talent Search program specialist who worked with you. (Open end)
ONLY IF Q1= 12 TRIO: Upward Bound ASK 1-7 BELOW
In interacting with the U.S. Department of Education (ED) Upward Bound (UB) program specialist responsible for overseeing your grant, please indicate whether service/support in the following areas.
(1) Exceeds expectations – provides greater than anticipated levels of support
(2) Meets expectations – provides anticipated levels of support
(3) Does not meet expectations – provides lower than anticipated levels of support
If a service area does not apply, please select “N/A”.
Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures, including updated programmatic knowledge as necessitated by HEOA
Responsiveness to your inquiries (by email, telephone, letter, etc.)
Ability to assist you in interacting with institutional officials, if necessary, in the resolution of critical internal programmatic issues
Knowledge of the annual performance report and ability to assist with questions about the completion and submission of the report
Processing of administrative action requests, including change in key personnel and budget revisions, within 30 days.
Ability to respond to all issues raised based solely on interpretation of laws, regulations and Department policies without personal bias or administrative preference
Please provide any additional comments on the Upward Bound program specialist who worked with you. (Open end)
ONLY IF Q1= 13 GEAR UP ASK 1-4 BELOW
In interacting with the U.S. Department of Education (ED) GEAR UP program specialist responsible for overseeing your grant, please indicate whether service/support in the following areas.
(1) Exceeds expectations – provides greater than anticipated levels of support
(2) Meets expectations – provides anticipated levels of support
(3) Does not meet expectations – provides lower than anticipated levels of support
If a service area does not apply, please select “N/A”.
Your working relationship with GEAR UP program staff
The level of accessibility you have to GEAR UP program staff
The responsiveness of the GEAR UP program staff to your inquiries
The quality of information or feedback received from GEAR UP program staff over the next year
ONLY IF Q1= 14 FIPSE - COMPREHENSIVE ASK 1-14 BELOW
1. In the course of preparing your successful application to FIPSE, which of the following did you do? (Please check all that apply.)
I read the guidelines.
I consulted with a FIPSE program officer by e-mail.
I consulted with a FIPSE program officer over the telephone.
I met with a FIPSE program officer in person.
I consulted with prior FIPSE grantees.
I consulted with faculty at my institution regarding the purpose and/or design of the project.
I consulted with administrators at my institution regarding the purpose and/or design of the project.
I consulted with leadership at my institution regarding the purpose and/or design of the project.
I consulted the FIPSE Web site for information on past awards.
I consulted the FIPSE database for information on past awards.
I conducted a literature review to see if my project would be considered innovative.
I asked a colleague to review and give me feedback on my grant proposal before I submitted it.
I reviewed the readers' comments from a previously unsuccessful application.
Other (please specify)
2. Please react to the following statement: "The program specific guidelines were clear and helpful." Use a 10-point scale, where “1” means “strongly disagree” and “10” means “strongly agree.”
During the past year, how would you characterize the quality of the information and/or feedback that you've received from FIPSE staff in the following areas? Please use the following answer categories:
Exceeds expectations – provides greater than anticipated levels of support
Meets expectations – provides anticipated levels of support
Does not meet expectations – provides lower than anticipated levels of support
It is not useful – provides no support
If you did not receive information or feedback in an area please select “N/A”.
Compliance Issues
Fiscal Issues
Grant Management Issues
Evaluation Issues
No-cost Extensions
Annual Report
Final Report
Project Directors' Meeting
Please think about the outside evaluator that you hired to advise you on your FIPSE Comprehensive Grant. Please rate the usefulness of evaluator’s advice on the following using a 10-point scale with “1” being "Not very useful" and “10” being "Very useful." If you did not receive advice in an area please select “N/A”.
Advice on Evaluation Design
Advice on Data Collection
Data-driven Feedback to Help You Fine-tune the Project
Overall
ONLY IF Q1= 15 International: National Resources Centers ASK 1-14 BELOW
In considering the support you have received from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) National Resource Center (NRC) program staff, please indicate whether service/support in the following areas…
Exceeds expectations—provides greater than anticipated levels of support
Meets expectations—provides anticipated levels of support
Does not meet expectations—provides lower than anticipated levels of support
If Not applicable—services not requested, please select “N/A”
Timeliness to answering questions
Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures
Ability to resolve your issue
Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication
Providing reliable and accurate technical assistance
International Resource Information System (IRIS) System Help Desk response
IRIS System User Manuals
IRIS Frequently Asked Questions
9. Have you utilized the NRC performance data that is publically available on the IRIS website (https://iris.ed.gov)?
Yes
No
(If Q 9 = yes, ask Q10: If Q9 = No, skip to Q11)
If yes, the quality of the data …
Exceeds expectations—provides greater than anticipated levels of support
Meets expectations—provides anticipated levels of support
Does not meet expectations—provides lower than anticipated levels of support
Is not useful—provides no support
Please address the following items regarding the Program Administrative Manuel (PAM): Usefulness of document, clarity of information provided for NRC project administration, relevance to all prospective users (directors, administrators, fiscal offers), and describe any other information you would like to see explained in the PAM. (Open end)
12. What additional service could the program provide that would help you? (Check all that apply)
Post more information online
Post sample applications online
Post frequently asked questions online
Offer webinars with technical assistance on program requirements
Offer webinars on reporting through IRIS
Share more program performance data from other centers
Other [Please specify]
Are the NRC selection criteria still relevant for identifying centers that strengthen U.S. capacity for language, area and international studies training?
Yes
No
(IF Q13 = NO, ask Q 14).
14. Please list suggestions for future selection criteria (Open end).
ONLY IF Q1= 16 International: Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language ASK 1-12 BELOW
In considering the support you have received from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language (UISFL) program staff, please indicate whether service/support in the following areas…
Exceeds expectations—provides greater than anticipated levels of support
Meets expectations—provides anticipated levels of support
Does not meet expectations—provides lower than anticipated levels of support
If Not applicable—services not requested, please select “N/A”
Timeliness to answering questions
Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures
Ability to resolve your issue
Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication
Providing reliable and accurate technical assistance
Usefulness of documents in the award package – “Congratulatory Memo”, “How to Administer Your UISFL Grant”, “Expanded Authorities” and “Reviewers’ Comments” for UISFL project administration.
What additional services could the program provide that would help you? (check all that apply)
Post more information online
Post sample applications online
Post frequently asked questions online
Offer webinars with technical assistance on program requirements
Offer webinars on reporting through IRIS (International Resource Information System)
Other [Specify]
Please note the extent to which the following:
Exceeds expectations – provides greater than anticipated levels of support
Meets expectations – provides anticipated levels of support
Does not meet expectations – provides lower than anticipated levels of support
Is not useful – provides no support
IRIS Help Desk
IRIS User Manuals
How relevant are the UISFL IRIS reporting screens in helping you “recapture” your accomplishments and challenges during the life of the project? [Open end]
How useful is the annual project directors’ meeting? Why? [Open end]
Why is UISFL funding so important to the internationalization of your undergraduate program? [Open end]
ONLY IF Q1= 17 International: Centers for International Business Education ASK 1-13 BELOW
In considering the support you have received from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) CIBE staff responsible for overseeing your grant, please indicate whether service/support in the following areas…
Exceeds expectations—provides greater than anticipated levels of support
Meets expectations—provides anticipated levels of support
Does not meet expectations—provides lower than anticipated levels of support
If Not applicable—services not requested, please select “N/A”
Timeliness to answering questions
Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures
Ability to resolve your issue
Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication
Providing reliable and accurate technical assistance
International Resource Information System (IRIS) Help Desk response
IRIS System User Manuals
IRIS Frequently Asked Questions
9. Have you utilized the CIBE performance data that is publically available on the IRIS website (https://iris.ed.gov)?
Yes
No
(If Q 9 = yes, ask Q10: If Q9 = No, skip to Q11)
If yes, the quality of the data …
Exceeds expectations—provides greater than anticipated levels of support
Meets expectations—provides anticipated levels of support
Does not meet expectations—provides lower than anticipated levels of support
Is not useful—provides no support
11. What additional service could the program provide that would help you? (Check all that apply)
Post more information online
Post sample applications online
Post frequently asked questions online
Offer webinars with technical assistance on program requirements
Offer webinars on reporting through IRIS
Share more program performance data from other centers
Other [please specify]
Are the CIBE selection criteria still relevant for identifying schools of business that strengthen curriculum development, research, and training on issues of importance to U.S. trade and competitiveness?
Yes
No
(If Q12=No, ask Q 13)
Please list suggestions for future selection criteria. (Open end)
ONLY IF Q1= 18 Physical Education Program (PEP) ASK 1-10 BELOW
Think about the one-on-one communications (via phone or email) with your Federal Project Officer. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Not very effective” and “10” is “Very effective,” please rate your FPO’s:
1. Responsiveness to questions about PEP program requirements
2. Responsiveness to questions about applicable Department of Education (EDGAR) and other Federal regulations
3. Timeliness in returning phone calls and responding to emails
4. Effectiveness in providing technical assistance or instructions regarding annual performance reports
5. Effectiveness in providing technical assistance or guidance regarding budget development, revisions, and reporting
6. Frequency of communication regarding grant information, deadlines, expectations, requirements, or other pertinent information
Think about the written guidance, meetings, webinars, conference calls, and presentations from the PEP Federal Team. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Not Very Effective” and “10” is “Very Effective,” please rate the following:
7. Instructions and guidance regarding GPRA data collection and reporting
8. Relevance and usefulness to your program and program activities
9. Relevance and usefulness to your program’s sustainability
10. How important is it that your Federal Project Officer conducts a site visit of your program to observe grant activities and monitor grant compliance and progress. Please base your response on a 10-point scale, where “1” is, “Not Very Important” and “10” is “Very Important.”
ONLY IF Q1= 19 Readiness and Emergency Management Service (REMS) ASK 1-10 BELOW
1. Knowledge of relevant regulations, policies, and procedures
2. Timely responsiveness to your questions (e.g., within 30 days)
3. Accuracy of responses
4. Helping you to improve performance results
5. Quality of documents (e.g., publications, listserv messages, guidance, memoranda) you receive from ED.
6. Do you have interaction with ED-funded providers of technical assistance (i.e., REMS Technical Assistance Center and/or American Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities)?
Yes (CONTINUE TO Q7)
No (SKIP TO END)
Please think about your interactions with ED-funded providers of technical assistance. On a 10-point scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate them on the following:
7. Responsiveness to your questions
8. Accuracy of responses
9. Ease of finding materials on their Web sites
10. Quality and usefulness of materials on their Web sites
ONLY IF Q1= 20 Safe Schools Healthy Students (SS/HS) ASK 1-10 BELOW
Think about the one-on-one communications (via phone or email) with your Federal Project Officer (FPO). On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate your FPO’s:
1. Responsiveness to answering questions about Safe Schools Healthy Students (SS/HS) program requirements and applicable Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) and other federal regulations
2. Timeliness in returning phone calls and responding to emails
3. Usefulness of feedback on annual performance reports
Think about the written guidance, webinars, and presentations from the SS/HS Federal Team. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Not Very Effective” and “10” is “Very Effective,” please rate the following:
4. Instructions regarding annual performance reports
5. Guidance regarding budget development, tracking, and reporting
6. If your Federal Project Officer has conducted a site visit for the purpose of monitoring grant compliance and progress, think about the site visit outcome and how it contributed to program or grant administration improvement. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is, “did not contribute to improvement” and “10” is “contributed a great deal to improvement,” please rate how much the site visit contributed to program or grant administration improvement.
7. Is your Federal Project Officer a Department of Education employee?
Yes
No
Think about the technical assistance you receive from the SS/HS TA providers. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Not Very Effective” and “10” is “Very Effective,” please rate how effectively the following technical assistance providers addressed the needs of your SS/HS project:
8. The National Center
9. The Communications Group
10. Think about the guidance and assistance received by the National Evaluation Team related to submitting data for the SS/HS National Evaluation (this includes GPRA data). On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Not Very Useful” and “10” is “Very Useful,” please rate the usefulness of the guidance and assistance.
ONLY IF Q1= 21 Lead Agency Early Intervention Coordinators ASK 1-8 BELOW
Think about the technical support provided by State Contacts from the Monitoring and State Improvement Planning Division of the Office of Special Education Programs. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the staff’s:
1. Responsiveness to answering questions
2. Supportiveness in helping you complete your state’s federally required performance plans, reports and applications
3. Accuracy of information
4. Dissemination of information in a timely manner
Think about the Technical Assistance and Dissemination Centers from OSEP. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the centers’:
5. Responsiveness to answering questions
6. Usefulness of information
7. Support to positively impact on your State’s SPP improvement targets
8. What technical assistance can OSEP provide over the next year to meet your state’s program improvement needs? (Open end)
ONLY IF Q1= 22 State Directors of Special Education ASK 1-8 BELOW
Think about the technical support State Contacts from the Monitoring and State Improvement Planning Division of the Office of Special Education Programs provided. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the staff’s:
1. Responsiveness to answering questions
2. Supportiveness in helping you complete your state’s federally required performance plans, reports and applications
3. Accuracy of information
4. Dissemination of information in a timely manner
Think about the Technical Assistance and Dissemination Centers from OSEP. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the centers’:
5. Responsiveness to answering questions
6. Usefulness of information
7. Support to positively impact on your State’s SPP improvement targets
8. What technical assistance can OSEP provide over the next year to meet your state’s program improvement needs? (Open end)
.
ONLY IF Q1= 23 Adult Education and Family Literacy to the State Directors of Adult Ed ASK 1-12 BELOW
1. Think about the National Reporting System as a way to report your state’s performance data to OVAE. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the NRS’s ease of reporting using the NRS Web-based system.
2. Think about the training offered by OVAE through its contract to support the National Reporting System (NRS). On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the usefulness of the training.
If you have been monitored, think about the federal monitoring process as it relates to your AEFLA grant. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is,” Not Very Effective” and “10” is “Very effective,” please rate the effectiveness of the federal monitoring process on the following:
3. Being well-organized
4. Providing pre-planning adequate guidance
5. Setting expectations for the visit
6. Using state peer reviewers in the federal monitoring process
Think about the national meetings and conference offered by OVAE. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent”, please rate the information provided at these conference and institutes on the following:
7. Being up-to-date
8. Relevance of information
9. Usefulness to your program
Think about the national activities offered by DAEL. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is,” Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the activities on the following:
10. Usefulness of the products in helping your state meet AEFLA program priorities.
11. How well the technical assistance provided through the national activities address your program priorities and needs? Please use a 10-point scale where “1” means “does not address needs very well” and “10” means “addresses needs very well.”
12. What can DAEL do over the next year to meet your state’s technical assistance/program improvement needs? (Open end)
ONLY IF Q1= 24 Carl D. Perkins Career & Technical Education Program to the State Directors of Career & Technical Ed ASK 1-9 BELOW
Think about the Consolidated Annual Report (CAR) as a way to report your state’s performance data to OVAE. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the CAR’s:
1. User-friendliness
2. Compatibility with state reporting systems
If you were monitored by OVAE within the last year, think about the federal monitoring process as it relates to your Perkins grant. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Not very effective” and “10” is “Very effective,” please rate the effectiveness of the federal monitoring process in:
3. Identifying and correcting compliance issues in your state
4. Helping you to improve program quality
5. Think about the national leadership conferences and institutes offered by OVAE last year (i.e., NASDCTEc/OVAE Joint Spring Leadership Meeting in Washington, DC; Rigorous Programs of Study Grantee Meeting in Washington, DC; Quarterly State Director’s Webinars). On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the effectiveness of these sessions on helping you to improve the quality of your career and technical education programs and accountability systems.
6. Think about the Perkins Collaborative Resource Network (PCRN) administered by OVAE. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate PCRN’s usefulness to your program.
If you used the state plan submission database last year, think about this process as a way of submitting your five-year state plan to OVAE. (If you did not use the state plan submission database please select “N/A.”) On a 10 point scale, where “1” is Poor” and “10” is Excellent,” please rate the database on its:
7. User-friendliness
8. Compatibility with state reporting systems
9. What can OVAE do over the next year to meet your state’s technical assistance and program improvement needs? (Open end)
ONLY IF Q1= 25 Grant Recipient Agencies that are at-risk or high-risk for all of the ED Grants ASK 1-11 BELOW
Please use a 10-point, where “1” means “poor” and “10” means “excellent” to rate the Risk Management Service Management Improvement Team (RMS/MIT) staff on the following…
Accessibility of the RMS/MIT staff
General responsiveness of the RMS/MIT staff
Your working relationship with RMS/MIT staff
If your State received a site visit by the RMS/MIT in fiscal year 2011 (which started October 1, 2010), please rate the usefulness of the technical assistance provided. Use a 10-point scale, where “1” means “not very useful” and “10” means “very useful”. If you were not visited, please select “N/A”.
Overall, how would you rate the customer service you have received from the RMS/MIT in the past year? Please use a 10-point scale, where “1” means “poor” and “10” means “excellent”.
Now, how would you rate the customer service you have received from the RMS/MIT in the past three years? Please use a 10-point scale, where “1” means “poor” and “10” means “excellent”. If this question does not apply, please select “N/A”.
How has your understanding of internal controls and enterprise risk management increased as a result of working with members of the Department’s Risk Management Service Management Improvement Team (RMS/MIT)? (open-ended)
Are there any instances where the RMS/MIT has NOT been helpful? If so, please explain. (open-ended)
To what extent has your work with RMS/MIT positively impacted the following …
Please use a 10-point scale where “1” means “not very much” and “10” means “very much.”
Grants administration and fiscal management of Federal financial assistance at the State-level
Grants administration and fiscal management of Federal financial assistance at the Local-level (sub-recipients)
What can the RMS/MIT do over the next year to help your State or LEAs/school districts improve its fiscal management and grants administration? (open-ended)
ONLY IF Q1= 26 21st Century Community Learning Centers ASK 1-9 BELOW
1. We are specifically contacting two types of SEA State 21st CCLC coordinators: new 21st CCLC coordinators (less than 18 months in the position), and SEA State 21st CCLC coordinators with more than 18 months of experience in the position.
Please indicate if you are the following:
A new 21st CCLC SEA State coordinator (less than 18 months in the position)
A new SEA State 21st CCLC coordinators with more than 18 months of experience in the position.
2. Have you or any of the 21st CCLC State staff, received technical assistance or individualized support during the past year?
Yes
No
IF 2=1 YES ASK 3
3. Where and how the technical assistance or support take place? (Select all that apply)
Project Directors’ meeting sponsored by the Education Department
Conference call/email exchange with your Project Officer
Project Officer
Other Program (or other Department) staff site visit
Monitoring contractor (Please specify)
National association meeting (Please specify)
Other (Please specify)
4. How would you rate the quality of the technical assistance you received? Please use a 10-point scale where “1” means “poor” and “10” means “excellent”.
5. Please name the area(s) that the technical assistance or individualized support received helped you improve. (Open end)
6. Describe any concerns about the quality of the technical assistance received by your program officer. (Open end)
7. Did you receive timely and accurate feedback from your current Program Officer?
Yes
No
8. How would you rate your current Program Officer’s knowledge of applicable statutes, regulations, and policies? Please use a 10-point scale where “1” is “not very knowledgeable” and “10” is “very knowledgeable.”
9. How would you rate your current Program Officer’s knowledge of grant fiscal matters? Please use a 10-point scale where “1” is “not very knowledgeable” and “10” is “very knowledgeable.”
ONLY IF Q1= 27 Mathematics and Science Partnerships ASK 1-10 BELOW
Please rate the responsiveness of the U.S. Department of Education staff. Please use a 10-point scale with “1” being “poor” and “10” being “excellent.”
Please rate the knowledge of the U.S. Department of Education staff on math and science issues and on program administration issues as they assist the states. Please use a 10-point scale with “1” being “poor” and “10” being “excellent.”
How helpful are the annual meetings for MSP state coordinators and project directors? Please use a 10-point scale with “1” being “not very helpful” and “10” being “very helpful.”
How helpful is the information on the MSP website? Please use a 10-point scale with “1” being “not very helpful” and “10” being “very helpful.”
How easy to navigate is the MSP website? Please use a 10-point scale with “1” being “not very easy” and “10” being “very easy.”
How helpful is the information on the web-based annual performance report? Please use a 10-point scale with “1” being “not very helpful” and “10” being “very helpful.”
How easy to navigate is the web-based annual performance report process? Please use a 10-point scale with “1” being “not very easy” and “10” being “very easy.”
Do you have suggestions for improving the annual performance report process? (Open-ended)
How helpful and knowledgeable is the contractor support for the program? Please use a 10-point scale with “1” being “poor” and “10” being “excellent.”
What can OESE do in the next year to support the states more effectively? (Open-ended)
ONLY IF Q1= 28 Striving Readers ASK 1-14 BELOW
1. Please indicate your role.
1. Project Director (ASK Q9-14)
2. Evaluator (ASK Q2-9)
Think about the evaluation technical assistance provided by Abt Associates, the contractor overseen by the Department’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES). On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the contractor’s:
Technical assistance on the design of your study
Technical assistance on your analyses of impact and implementation data
Written guidance and input on evaluation report preparation
Technical assistance provided through annual Striving Readers meetings
Overall helpfulness with solving evaluation challenges and issues
Assistance in communicating with ED and grantee staff when appropriate
Overall helpfulness in building your organization’s capacity to do high-quality impact and implementation studies
On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” how would you rate the extent to which Department of Education Program Officers, IES staff, and Abt Associates coordinated their efforts?
On a 10-point scale where “1” is “poor” and “10” is “excellent”, please rate the Department of Education Program Staff Skills, Knowledge and Responsiveness in the following areas:
Resolution of problems by your current Program Officer
Timeliness of response to questions or requests by your current Program Officer
Current Program Officer’s knowledge of applicable statutes, regulations, and policies
Current Program Officer’s knowledge of relevant program content.
Current Program Officer’s knowledge of program evaluation issues
ONLY IF Q1= 29 Improving Teacher Quality State Grants ASK 1-7 BELOW
Please rate the accessibility of the U.S. Department of Education Title II, Part A program staff. Use a scale from “1” to “10”, where “1” means “poor” and “10” means “excellent.”
Please rate the responsiveness of the U.S. Department of Education Title II, Part A program staff. Use a scale from “1” to “10”, where “1” means “poor” and “10” means “excellent.”
How would you describe your working relationship with ED’s Title II, Part A program staff? (Open end)
How useful is the annual meeting for Title II, Part A grantees? Please rate the usefulness of the meeting on a scale from “1” to “10”, where “1” is “not very useful” and “10” is “very useful.”
What could the Department of Education do to improve the annual meeting for Title II, Part A grantees? (Open end)
If your State received a Title II, Part A /HQT monitoring visit during the past year, please answer the following questions.
How useful was the technical assistance provided during the monitoring visit? Please rate the usefulness of the technical assistance on a scale from “1” to “10”, where “1” is “not very useful” and “10” is “very useful.”
How informative was the visit in terms of establishing and explaining compliance requirements? Please rate the visit on a scale from “1” to “10”, where “1” is “not very informative” and “10” is “very informative.”
ONLY IF Q1= 30 Teacher Incentive Fund ASK 1-12 BELOW
Think about your experience preparing and submitting your most recent Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) application.
Did you use the written instruction and guidance documents provided for the application?
Yes
No (SKIP TO Q3)
On a scale from “1” to “10”, where “1” is “not very effective” and “10” is “very effective” rate the effectiveness of the documents in helping you complete the application.
Did you contact the TIF program office for technical assistance?
Yes
No (SKIP TO Q7)
On a scale from “1” to 10, where 1 is “poor” and 10 is “excellent”; rate the TIF program staff’s:
Responsiveness to answering questions
Supportiveness in helping you complete your application
Knowledge about technical material
How would you rate the overall experience of preparing and submitting the TIF application? Please use a scale from “1” to “10”, where “1” is “poor” and “10” is “excellent.”
Do you have any suggestions for improving the e-application? (Open end)
Think about your contacts with the TIF Program over the past year that did not involve technical assistance. If you have not contacted the TIF Program for a reason other than technical assistance during that time please answer not applicable.
Please rate the Teacher Incentive Fund Program staff on the following. Use a scale from “1” to “10”, where “1” means “poor” and “10” means “excellent.”
Ease of reaching the person who could address your concern
Ability to resolve your issue
What additional service could the program provide that would help you? (For example, information posted on-line, webinars, analysis tools, etc.) (Open end)
Please provide specific suggestions for how the TIF program can improve customer service. (Open end)
ONLY IF Q1= 31 Smaller Learning Communities/Fund for the Improvement of Education ASK 1-14 BELOW
Please rate your Program Officer on the following. Use a scale from “1”to “10”, where “1” means “poor” and “10” means “excellent.”
Timeliness of responses to your requests by your current Program Officer
Resolution of problems by your current Program Officer
Current Program Officer’s knowledge of applicable statutes, regulations, and policies
Current Program Officer’s knowledge of relevant program content
Have you attended one or more national meetings sponsored by the SLC program, such as annual project director meetings?
Yes (Proceed to Q6)
No (Skip to Q9)
Don’t Know (Skip to Q9)
On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent”, please rate the information provided at these meetings on the following:
Being up-to-date
Relevance of information
Usefulness to you in managing and implementing your project
The SLC program requires grantees to collect and submit data on the percentage of high school graduates who enroll in postsecondary education. Using a rating scale from “1” to “10”, with “1” being “low need” and “10” being “high need,” please rate your need for technical assistance with the following activities:
Identifying sources of valid and reliable postsecondary placement data
Using postsecondary data to inform and guide your high school reform efforts
Communicating the implications of the postsecondary data to administrators, teachers, and the community
Building the capacity of your school leaders to analyze and use postsecondary data
Building the capacity of your teachers to analyze and use postsecondary data
The SLC program is planning the areas in which it will focus its technical assistance efforts. Please share your suggestions on technical assistance topics that would be most helpful in implementing and/or managing your project. (Open end)
ONLY IF Q1= 32 Payments for Federal Property (Section 8002) ASK 1-10 BELOW
Think about your experience preparing and submitting your most recent Impact Aid application, including gathering and organizing data and preparing the e-application.
Did you use the written instruction and guidance documents provided for the application?
Yes
No (SKIP TO Q3)
On a scale from “1” to “10”, where “1” is “not very effective” and “10” is “very effective” rate the effectiveness of the documents in helping you complete the application.
Did you contact the Impact Aid Program for technical assistance?
Yes
No
(SKIP TO Q7)
On a scale of “1” to “10”, where “1” is “poor” and “10” is “excellent”; rate the Impact Aid Program staff’s:
Responsiveness to answering questions
Supportiveness in helping you complete your application
Knowledge about technical material
Have you attended any Webinars or in person meetings where IAP staff provided you information on the Section 8002 program, application submission, or the review process?
Yes
No (SKIP TO Q9)
Did the presentation and/or materials prepared help you understand your responsibilities in submitting data?
Yes
No (ASK Q8a)
8a. Please explain. (Open end)
How was the quality of the interaction with Impact Aid program staff members during the review process? Please use a scale from “1” to “10”, where “1” is “poor” and “10” is “excellent.”
What additional communications would you like to receive regarding the status of your application, prior to receiving a payment? (Open end)
ONLY IF Q1= 33 Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 8003) ASK 1-17 BELOW
Think about your experience preparing and submitting your most recent Impact Aid application, including gathering and organizing data and preparing the e-application.
Did you use the written instruction and guidance documents provided for the application?
Yes
No (SKIP TO Q3)
On a scale from “1” to “10”, where “1” is “not very effective” and “10” is “very effective” rate the effectiveness of the documents in helping you complete the application.
Did you contact the Impact Aid Program for technical assistance?
Yes
No (SKIP TO Q5)
4. On a scale of “1” to “10”, where “1” is “poor” and “10” is “excellent”; rate the Impact Aid Program staff’s performance in answering your questions and helping you to complete your application.
5. Did you contact the G5 Helpdesk for technical assistance?
Yes
2. No (SKIP TO Q7)
6. On a scale of “1” to “10”, where “1” is “poor” and “10” is “excellent”; rate the G5 Helpdesk’s performance in resolving your problem.
7. Have you participated in any Webinars or meetings where IAP staff provided you information on the Section 8003 program and the review process?
1. Yes
No (SKIP TO Q9)
Did the presentation and/or materials prepared help you to understand your responsibilities in completing the application or submitting data?
1. Yes
No
Please explain. (Open end)
Has your school district been contacted by the Impact Aid Program in the past year regarding a monitoring or field review of your application?
Yes
No (SKIP TO Q13)
Did the letter you received provide sufficient explanation of what and how you need to prepare your documents for the review?
Yes
No (ASK Q12)
Please explain. (Open end)
Did you receive timely communications regarding the outcome of the review?
Yes
No (Ask Q14)
Please explain. (Open end)
Please use a scale from “1” to “10”, where “1” is “poor” and “10” is “excellent” to rate the Impact Aid staff members on the following.
15. Ease of reaching the person who could address your concern
16. Ability to resolve your issue
17. Please provide any additional specific suggestions for how the Impact Aid Program can improve customer service. (Open end)
ONLY IF Q1= 34 Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies ASK 1-13 BELOW
Think about the particular ways in which you have received technical support and/or assistance from the Office of Indian Education (OIE). On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Not Very Effective” and “10” is “Very Effective”, please rate the effectiveness of technical assistance in:
1. Helping you with your implementation of Title VII Formula grant program in your State/LEA
2. Responsiveness to answering questions and/or information requests
3. Disseminating accurate information
4. Timeliness of providing information to meet your application deadlines
5. Think about the guidance documents (E.g. Getting Started; Frequently Asked Questions; Additional Program Assurances, Web Sites) provided by OIE program office. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Not very useful” and “10” is “Very useful”; please rate the usefulness of the information in the guidance documents.
6. Think about your working relationship with the Title VII, Office of Indian Education program office. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Not Very Effective” and “10” is “Very Effective”, please rate the effectiveness of this relationship.
Think about the process for applying for a grant through the Electronic Application System for Indian Education (EASIE). On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent”, please rate the EASIE System on the following:
7. Ease of using system in applying for a grant
8. Disseminating information in a timely manner
9. Training provided on the EASIE system and grant application process
10. Overall user-friendliness of the EASIE application system
Think about the support and technical assistance provided by OIE during grant application process.
11. Please rate the support and technical assistance on a 10-point scale, where “1” means “poor” and “10” means “excellent”.
12. If you have been monitored, please comment on the effectiveness of the federal monitoring process in such areas as providing guidance and/or improving program quality. (Open end)
13. What can OIE do over the next year to better meet your school district’s technical assistance and program improvement needs? (Open end)
ONLY IF Q1= 35 High School Equivalency Program (HEP) - Migrant Education ASK 1-7 BELOW
Please rate the usefulness of the pre-application webinar for the purpose of preparing your organization’s HEP application. Use a scale from “1” to “10”, where “1” is “Not very useful” and “10” is “Very useful”. Select “N/A” is this question does not apply.
Please rate the usefulness of EMAPS for the purpose of submitting your project’s Annual Performance Report. Use a scale from “1” to “10”, where “1” is “Not very useful” and “10” is “Very useful”.
How essential is a fully-functioning electronic submission tool for HEP Annual Performance Report data to the management and analysis of APR data. Use a scale from “1” to “10”, where “1” is “Not very essential” and “10” is “Very essential”.
How useful was the Listserv for receiving important information regarding the HEP program. Use a scale from “1” to “10”, where “1” is “Not very useful” and “10” is “Very useful”.
Please provide at least one important informational topic that the Listserv provided to you, and also provide at least one important topic that you would like to see from the Listserv in the future. (Open end)
How have you received technical assistance during the past year? (Select all that apply)
OME-sponsored Directors Meeting
List serve
Telephone call
Association meeting
Webinar
Other (Specify)
Please provide at least one technical assistance topic that has been useful to you, and at least one technical assistance topic that you will need in the future, in order to improve the performance of your HEP project. (Open end)
ONLY IF Q1= 36 Migrant Education Program (MEP) -- Title I, Part C ASK 1-16 BELOW
Think about the Office of Migrant Education’s (OME) technical assistance efforts. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Not very effective” and “10” is “Very effective,” please rate the effectiveness of OME’s technical assistance efforts in helping you…
Meet program compliance requirements
Improve performance results
Meet Migrant Education Program (MEP) fiscal requirements
On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor”, and “10” is “Excellent,” how would you rate the usefulness of the following Technical Assistance activities:
If an area does not apply, please select “N/A”
Annual Directors Meeting
New Directors Meeting
OME Conference
MEP WebEx Workshops
MSIX Help Desk
REACTs Listserv
10. Please select two of the following six areas in which you would like technical assistance.
Child Eligibility/Identification & Recruitment
Provision of Services
Parental Involvement/Parent Advisory Committee
Comprehensive Needs Assessment/Service Delivery Plan
Program Evaluation
Fiscal Requirements
Think about the staff in OME. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” please rate your current program officer on his or her…
Resolution of problems
Accuracy of responses
Responsiveness to questions or requests
Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures
Knowledge of relevant program content
Think about the guidance documents (e.g., updates to the Non-Regulatory Guidance, the Technical Assistance Guide to Re-interviewing, New Directors Handbook) provided by OME. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Not very useful” and “10” is “Very useful,” please rate the usefulness of the information in the guidance documents.
ONLY IF Q1= 37 Education for Homeless Children and Youth Grants for State and Local Activities/ McKinney-Vento Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program ASK 1-10 BELOW
Think about the technical assistance (TA) you received from individual ED program staff for the McKinney-Vento Education for Homeless Children and Youth (EHCY) program, including coordination with activities arranged by the technical assistance contractor, the National Center for Homeless Education (NCHE), or independently.
On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “poor” and “10” is “excellent,” please rate the technical assistance provided by program staff on the following:
Responsiveness in answering questions
Knowledge of technical material
On a scale of 1 to 10, where “1” is “Not very effective” and “10” is “Very effective,” please rate the effectiveness of the office’s technical assistance efforts in helping you with the following:
Meet program compliance requirements
Improve performance results
Develop cross-program collaborations
What can the McKinney-Vento EHCY program office do over the next year to meet your State’s technical assistance, program improvement and coordination needs? (Open end)
The program office is revising its monitoring process. Please share any comments on how to improve the overall and onsite monitoring process. (Open end)
On a scale from “1” to “10”, where “1” is “poor” and 10 is “excellent,” please rate the following items concerning NCHE and its staff:
The courteousness and professionalism of NCHE staff
Your overall satisfaction with the TA provided to you by NCHE
Please comment on the quality of TA provided to you by NCHE and any suggestions for improvement. (Open end)
ONLY IF Q1= 38 Neglected and Delinquent State and Local ASK 1-10 BELOW
Think about the technical assistance (TA) you received from individual ED program staff for the Title I, Part D program, including coordination with activities arranged by the technical assistance contractor, Neglected or Delinquent Technical Assistance Center (NDTAC), or independently.
On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “poor” and “10” is “excellent,” please rate the technical assistance provided by program staff on the following:
Responsiveness in answering questions
Knowledge of technical material
On a scale of 1 to 10, where “1” is “Not very effective” and “10” is “Very effective,” please rate the effectiveness of the office’s technical assistance efforts in helping you with the following:
Meet program compliance requirements
Improve performance results
Develop cross-program collaborations
What can the Title I, Part D program office do over the next year to meet your State’s technical assistance, program improvement and coordination needs? (Open end)
The program office is revising its monitoring process. Please share any comments on how to improve the overall and onsite monitoring process. (Open end)
On a scale from “1” to “10”, where “1” is “poor” and 10 is “excellent,” please rate the following item concerning NDTAC and its staff:
The courteousness and professionalism of NDTAC staff
Your overall satisfaction with the TA provided to you by NDTAC
Please comment on the quality of TA provided to you by NDTAC and any suggestions for improvement. (Open end)
ONLY IF Q1= 39 Title I, Part A - Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies ASK 1-11 BELOW
Think about the technical assistance (TA) you have received from individual Title I program staff regarding specific questions that you have had regarding Title I, Part A. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “poor” and “10” is “excellent,” please rate the technical assistance provided by program staff on the following:
1. Timeliness
of response
2. Clarity of information
3. Knowledge of program
Think about the TA you have received from individual Title I staff. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “not very effective” and “10” is “very effective,” please rate the effectiveness of this TA in terms of:
4. Providing you an interpretation of the Title I statute and/or regulations
5. Helping with your implementation of Title I in your state
Think about the TA that you have received from Title I staff including monthly webinars, other activities including use of technology enhanced communications (for example, listservs). On a 10-point scale, where “1” is poor and “10” is excellent, please rate this type of TA on the following:
6. Relevance of information
7. Clarity of information
8. Usefulness to your program
9. What can the Title I program staff do over the next year to meet your State’s technical assistance and program improvement needs? (Open end)
10. What additional services could Title I staff provide that would help you? (For example, information posted on-line, etc.) (Open end)
11. Title I staff is revising the monitoring process. Please share any comments on how to improve the onsite monitoring process. (Open end)
ONLY IF Q1= 40 English Language Acquisition State Grants/Title III State Formula Grant Program
ASK 1-15 BELOW
Think about the technical assistance (TA) you have received from the Title III program staff. In particular, think about the individual TA you have received from the Title III program officer assigned to your state.
On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “poor” and “10” is “excellent,” please rate the technical assistance provided by the program officer assigned to your state on the following...
1. Timeliness
of response
2. Clarity of information
3. Usefulness to your program
Think about the one-on-one consultations, (including email, telephone, and other interactions), you have had with your Title III program officer over the last year. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “not very effective” and “10” is “very effective,” please rate the effectiveness of the one-on-one consultations in…
4. Providing you an interpretation of the Title III statute and/or regulations
5. Helping with your implementation of Title III in your state
Now think about all of the technical assistance you have received through Title III webinars, or other TA activities, including use of technology enhanced communications (e.g. listservs).
On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “poor” and “10” is “excellent,” please rate this type of technical assistance on the following...
6. Method
of delivery
7. Clarity of information
8. Usefulness to your program
9. What can the Title III program staff do over the next year to meet your State’s technical assistance needs? (Open end)
10. Have you received a Title III onsite monitoring visit in the past 2 years (e.g. 2009-10 or 2010-11)?
Yes (ASK Q11-12)
No (SKIP TO Q13)
Don’t know (SKIP TO Q13)
Please rate the effectiveness of the Title III monitoring process on a 10-point scale where “1” is “not very effective” and “10” is “very effective” with respect to…
11. Helping your State comply with Title III requirements
12. Helping your State improve programs for English learners
13. Please share any comments on how to improve the Title III onsite monitoring process. (Open end)
Think about your experiences seeking information at OELA’s National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition’s Web site (www.ncela.gwu.edu). On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Not very effective” and “10” is “Very effective,” please rate the effectiveness of the Web site in:
14. Providing you with the information you needed
15. Helping you inform programs serving ELLs in your state
ONLY IF Q1= 41 School Improvement Fund ASK 1-12 BELOW
Think about the technical assistance (TA) you have received from the Title I program staff regarding School Improvement Grants (SIG).
On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “poor” and “10” is “excellent,” please rate the technical assistance provided by program staff on the following...
1. Timeliness
of response
2. Clarity of information
3. Usefulness to your program
Think about the one-on-one consultations, (including email, telephone, and other interactions), you have had with Title I program staff regarding SIG. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “not very effective” and “10” is “very effective,” please rate the effectiveness of the one-on-one consultations in…
4. Providing you an interpretation of the SIG statute and/or regulations
5. Helping with your implementation of SIG in your state
6. What can the Title I program staff do over the next year to meet your State’s technical assistance needs regarding SIG? (Open end)
7. Think about the SIG application process. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is not easy to understand and “10” is very easy to understand, please rate the ease of the SIG application process.
8. What can ED do to improve the application process? (Open end)
9. Have you received a SIG onsite monitoring visit in the past year?
Yes (ASK Q10-11)
No (SKIP TO Q12)
Don’t know (SKIP TO Q12)
Please rate the effectiveness of the SIG monitoring process on a 10-point scale where “1” is “not very effective” and “10” is “very effective” with respect to…
10. Helping your State comply with SIG requirements
11. Helping your State improve SIG programs
12. Please share any comments on how to improve the SIG onsite monitoring process. (Open end)
ONLY IF Q1= 42 Enhancing Education Through Technology (Ed-Tech) State Program Education Technology State Grants ASK 1-9 BELOW
Think about the particular ways in which you have received technical assistance from the Enhancing Education Through Technology Program (EETT).
First, consider the one-on-one consultations with EETT program officers. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Not very effective” and “10” is “Very effective,” please rate the effectiveness of the one-on-one consultations in:
1. Providing you an interpretation of Title II, Part D (Enhancing Education Through Technology)
2. Helping you with your implementation of Title II, Part D (Enhancing Education Through Technology)
Think about the guidance document provided by the EETT program office.
3. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Not very useful” and “10” is “Very useful,” please rate its usefulness.
Think about the Educational Technology State Directors' national meetings (i.e., national technology conferences, SETDA meetings) where the EETT program office made a presentation
4. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Not very useful” and “10” is “Very useful,” please rate the usefulness of the information presented at these meetings.
Think about the federal monitoring process as it relates to the Enhancing Education Through Technology program office. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Not very effective” and “10” is “Very effective,” please rate the effectiveness of the federal monitoring process in:
5. Helping you with your compliance efforts
6. Helping you to improve performance results
Think about your working relationship with the Enhancing Education Through Technology program office.
7. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Not very effective” and “10” is “Very effective,” please rate the effectiveness of this relationship.
(Ask Q8 only if Q7 is scored <6)
8. Please describe how your working relationship with EETT could be improved. (Open end)
9. What can EETT do over the next year to meet your state’s technical assistance and program improvement needs? (Open end)
ONLY IF Q1= 43 Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP)/Small, Rural School Grant Achievement (SRSA) program ASK 1-16 BELOW
Think about the occasions when you have contacted the REAP program office for answers to your REAP/SRSA-related questions. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “poor” and “10” is “excellent”, please rate the REAP Program staff in:
If a question does not apply, please select “N/A”.
Being available to take your call/inquiry
Understanding the nature of your request(s)
Answering your question(s) correctly
Answering your questions in a timely manner
Please provide any comments about the REAP program office answering your REAP/SRSA-related questions.
Think about the one-on-one consultations you have had with individual REAP program officers. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “not very effective” and “10” is “very effective”, please rate the effectiveness of the REAP staff in:
If a question does not apply, please select “N/A”.
Providing you with an interpretation of REAP/SRSA legislation/regulations
Providing accurate guidance on SRSA eligibility, application, use of funds, or other program requirements
Helping you to fully participate in the REAP/SRSA Program
Please provide any comments about your one-on-one consultations with REAP program officers.(Open end)
Think about your experiences seeking information from the REAP/SRSA Program Website. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “poor” and “10” is “excellent”, please rate the website’s:
If a question does not apply, please select “N/A”.
Usefulness in providing the information you needed
Clarity and User friendliness
Relevance to your needs
Think about the monitoring outreach and targeted technical assistance provided to you, as an SRSA grantee, by the REAP Program Office. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “not very effective” and “10” is “very effective”, please rate the effectiveness of the REAP/SRSA in:
If a question does not apply, please select “N/A”.
Desk monitoring, as a means for you to describe/demonstrate your compliance with program requirements
Desk monitoring, as an opportunity to inform the Program Office of your district’s unique situation and needs
Available fund balance notices/telephone calls, as a means to ensure you access and draw your grant funds within the specified time frame
Please provide any comments about outreach and targeted technical assistance provided to you.(Open end)
ONLY IF Q1= 44 Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers/Comprehensive Centers ASK 1-12 BELOW
Please rate the accessibility of U.S. Department of Education (ED) Comprehensive Centers program staff. Use a 10-point scale, where “1” means “poor” and “10” means “excellent.”
Please rate the general responsiveness of ED Comprehensive Centers program staff. Use a 10-point scale, where “1” means “poor” and “10” means “excellent.”
Please rate the level of understanding ED’s Comprehensive Centers program staff has demonstrated regarding the technical assistance needs of States and the strategies your Center employs to address these needs. Use a 10-point scale, where “1” means “low” and “10” means “high.”
How would you rate your working relationship with ED’s Comprehensive Centers program staff? Use a 10-point scale, where “1” means “poor” and “10” means “excellent.”
Please provide any suggestions on ways to improve these relationships.(Open end)
How would you rate the usefulness of the following meetings? Please use a 10-point scale, where “1” means “not very useful” and “10” means “very useful.”
Semi-annual Directors meetings
Annual Leveraging Resources meeting
What steps could the ED Comprehensive Centers program office staff take to improve these meetings? (Open end)
Think about the services you have received from the ED Comprehensive Centers program. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “poor” and “10” is “excellent,” please rate the services provided by the Comprehensive Centers program office staff on the following:
Timeliness
Clarity of information
Usefulness to your Center
What additional services could the ED Comprehensive Center program office provide that would help meet your technical assistance and capacity building needs?
ONLY IF Q1= 45 Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP)/Rural and Low Income School Program ASK 1-15 BELOW
Think about the one-on-one consultations you have had with program officers. Using a 10-point scale, where “1” is “not very effective” and “10” is “very effective” please rate the effectiveness of the one-on-one consultations in:
Providing you with an interpretation of Rural Low Income Schools (RLIS) legislation/regulation
Providing guidance on eligibility and/or other reporting requirements
Helping you with the implementation of the Rural Low Income Schools Program
Think about the guidance document provided by the Rural Low Income Schools program office. Using a 10-point scale, where “1” is “not very useful” and “10” is “very useful” please rate the guidance documents on:
Helping you with compliance efforts
Helping you improve performance results
Helping you provide guidance and oversight to sub-recipients
Helping you provide technical assistance to sub-recipients
Think about your experiences seeking information from the Rural Low Income Schools Program Web Site http://www2.ed.gov/programs/reaprlisp/index.html. Using a 10-point scale, where “1” is “poor” and “10” is “excellent”; please rate the website on the following:
Usefulness in providing the information you needed.
User friendliness
Think about the monitoring and technical assistance provided by the program office. Using a 10-point scale, where “1” is “poor” and “10” is “excellent”; please rate the monitoring and technical assistance on the following:
Responsiveness to information requests
Helpfulness in resolving implementation/eligibility issues
Supportiveness in helping you complete eligibility spreadsheets
Supportiveness in helping you meet annual reporting requirements
Think about the REAP pre-award and post-award teleconferences as a mode of technical assistance. Using a 10-point scale, where “1” is “not very effective” and “10” is “very effective” please rate the effectiveness of the teleconferences in:
Helping you with program implementation for RLIS
Helping you complete and submit accurate eligibility spreadsheets for RLIS
| File Type | application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document |
| File Modified | 0000-00-00 |
| File Created | 2021-02-03 |