+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Contract No.: ED-06-CO-0029                                           |
| ![](media/image1.png){width="1.573611111111111in"                     |
| height="0.9847222222222223in"} Lab Internal Ref No.:                  |
|                                                                       |
| > **Mapping the Adopted Core Curriculum in the Mid-Atlantic Region**  |
| >                                                                     |
| > **Supporting Statement A for Request for OMB Approval of**          |
| > Announcement Letter                                                 |
| >                                                                     |
| > ***May 13, 2008***                                                  |
| >                                                                     |
| > ***Claudia Burzichelli***                                           |
| >                                                                     |
| > ***William Morrill***                                               |
|                                                                       |
| +------------------------------------+----------------------------+   |
| | Submitted to:                      | Submitted by:              |   |
| |                                    |                            |   |
| | Institute of Education Sciences    | Regional Educational       |   |
| |                                    | Laboratory-                |   |
| | > 555 New Jersey Ave., NW Room     |                            |   |
| | > 504E                             | Mid-Atlantic               |   |
| | >                                  |                            |   |
| | > Washington, DC 20208-5500        | > Penn State University    |   |
| |                                    | >                          |   |
| | Project Officer:                   | > 108 Rackley Building     |   |
| |                                    | >                          |   |
| | > Ray Valdivieso                   | > University Park, PA      |   |
| |                                    | > 16802                    |   |
| |                                    |                            |   |
| |                                    | Project Director:          |   |
| |                                    |                            |   |
| |                                    | > Kyle Peck                |   |
| +------------------------------------+----------------------------+   |
| |                                    |                            |   |
| +------------------------------------+----------------------------+   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

> **TABLE OF CONTENTS**

INTRODUCTION 4

A. JUSTIFICATION 5

1\. Circumstances That Make Data Collection Necessary
...........................5

2\. How, by Whom, and for What Purpose the Information Is To Be Used?
......9

3\. Use of Information Technology
......................................................9

4\. Efforts to Identify and Avoid Duplication
.......................................10

5\. Impacts on Small Businesses and Other Small Entities
........................10

6\. Consequences to Federal Programs or Policies if Data Collection is
Not Conducted... ... 10

7\. Special Circumstances
...............................................................10

8\. Solicitation of Public Comments and Consultation with People Outside
the Lab....... 10

9\. Justification for Respondent Payments
..........................................11

10\. Confidentiality Assurances
.........................................................11

11\. Additional Justification for Sensitive Questions
.................................11

12\. Estimate of Total Annual Hour Burden
..........................................12

13\. Estimate of Total Cost Burden to Respondents
..............................12

14\. Estimate of Total Costs to the Government
.................................13

15\. Program Changes or Adjustments
.............................................13

16\. Tabulation, Analysis and Publication of Results
...........................13

17\. Approval Not to Display the Expiration Date for OMB Approval
.........15

18\. Exception to the Certification
Statement....................................\......15

**LIST OF EXHIBITS**

Exhibit A. Announcement Letter

Exhibit B. Illustrative Example of On-Line Report

Exhibit C. Affidavit of Non-Disclosure

Exhibit D. Federal Register Notices

# INTRODUCTION {#introduction .OMB}

This document presents the Supporting Statement requesting approval for
a plan to collect data to identify the adopted curricula in the
Mid-Atlantic Region. The project is sponsored by the Institute of
Education Sciences in the U.S. Department of Education. We request
approval to collect data from school districts in the Mid-Atlantic
region on curricula adoption for specific grades and subjects.

The advent of the *No Child Left Behind Act* (NCLB) of 2001 (P.L. No.
107-110) made clear the need to align standards, curriculum,
instruction, and assessment goals with proven instructional curriculum
in mathematics, language arts literacy, and science that address the
needs of all subgroups. This need has been identified consistently
throughout the Mid-Atlantic region, yet no mechanism exists to identify
alignment issues at the state and local level. The What Works
Clearinghouse has begun to identify curricula that might address
achievements goals; however, there is no published record of adopted
curricula that districts are currently using. Without a reliable and
continuing source of information about current curricula usage, and
future adoption plans, it is difficult, if not impossible, to address
alignment in a realistic and systematic fashion. This data collection
begins to address this problem and provides an on-going documentation of
certain adopted curricula in all districts in the Mid-Atlantic Region in
mathematics, language arts literacy, and science.

This document describes the planned data collection and an estimate of
associated respondent burden.

**[A. JUSTIFICATION]{.underline}**

***A1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information
necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that
necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of
each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of
information.***

*The Knowledge Gap of Adopted Curriculum in the Mid-Atlantic Region*

Curriculum adoption has come under increased scrutiny with the passing
of the NCLB Act. The act is perceived as a locus for change when schools
or districts are labeled "In Need of Improvement" due to insufficient
student subgroup achievement (Goertz, 2005). Problems arise when the
staff assigned to evaluate potential curriculum are not trained in
evaluation processes, are not familiar with current relevant research,
do not have sufficient time to conduct the evaluation, and rely on
insufficiently rigorous publisher supplied data and research (Stein,
Stuen, Carnine, & Long, 2001) and anecdotal evidence. The problem is
further complicated by the absence of systematic and current data about
district choices and processes so that supporting state agencies,
technical assistance and research organizations can assess choices,
problems and trends to offer appropriate advice and assistance.

The Chief State School Officers of our region made clear in the first
governing board meeting that a database identifying adopted curricula
was a high priority need which they would like the REL Mid-Atlantic to
satisfy. However, as confirmed through regional needs assessments,
neither the states and District of Columbia (DC) in the Mid-Atlantic
region nor the Lab possess any comprehensive or continuing information
about certain core and supplemental curricula in the areas of
mathematics, language arts and science in use within the region's school
districts; or on related matters of curriculum adoption and professional
development. Thus, it stands to reason that states lack information to
systematically assess current curriculum adoption status, analyze
curriculum adoption trends, and strategically develop appropriate
research and evaluation agendas on curriculum-based interventions; and,
the Lab is not able assist them in such efforts.

*Research Questions to Understand Curriculum Adoption and Related
Activities*

This data collection will provide important and useful information to
the educational leaders and policy makers in the Mid-Atlantic region. It
does so by addressing the following research questions in mathematics,
science, and language arts literacy at the elementary, middle, and high
school grades:

• What core and supplemental curricula has been adopted across the
Mid-Atlantic region?

• When was the curriculum adopted?

> • What training and professional development in support of curriculum
> implementation is provided?
>
> • What assessments are used (e.g., homegrown, publisher, other)?

Defined here, "core curriculum" refers to the primary set of resources
used to teach a given content area; typically, it is commercially
purchased (e.g., Harcourt, Macmillan, Houghton Mifflin,
Glencoe/McGraw-Hill), but also can be homegrown or a combination of the
two. A "supplemental curriculum" refers to additional texts and
resources designed to supplement or complement the adopted core
curriculum.

Overview of Study Design

This data collection will occur over 3 years. Figure 1 presents a
summary of the flow for the data collection by year (see page 7).
Corresponding steps in the data collection process are described as
follows.

[A. Design and Dispatch of Data Request to Districts]{.underline}

In the first year, curricula data will be collected in a census format.
Every school district in the Mid-Atlantic region (DC, DE, MD, NJ, PA)
will be contacted to identify adopted curricula in three content areas:
math, science, and language arts literacy. In subsequent years, each
jurisdiction with a small number of districts (DC, DE, MD) will continue
to be involved in the census data collection. However, a sample of
districts in NJ and PA (the states with the largest number of districts
in the region, with 600+ each) will be conducted if analysis of year 1
data reveals that it is possible to develop a sampling design will yield
representative results (in which case the Lab will submit an addendum to
the current data collection request that reflects that change).
Otherwise, the census approach will continue for all districts in years
2 and 3.

To constrain the data collection and increase specificity, data will be
collected on a sample of content areas including math, science, and
language arts literature. Because even within those content areas there
are many topical areas covered across grade levels, the collection is
constrained even further. In mathematics, the data to be collected will
be constrained to grade 4, Algebra I, and Pre-calculus. In science, the
data to be collected will be constrained to grade 4, Earth Science, and
Physics. In language arts literacy, the data to be collected will be
constrained to grade 1, grade 4, and grade 8. Table 1 presents the
specific curricula to be collected by content area.

Table 1. Data to be collected by content area.

  ------------------------ ------------------------ ----------------------
  Math                     Science                  Language Arts Literacy

  Grade 4                  Grade 4                  Grade 1

  Algebra 1                Earth Science            Grade 4

  Pre-Calculus             Physics                  Grade 8
  ------------------------ ------------------------ ----------------------

In year 1, for each of the content areas, we will collect the following
pieces of information for core and supplemental curricula:

-   Name

-   Publisher

-   Date adopted

-   Date due for re-adoption

-   Benchmark assessment, if any

In years 2 and 3, we intend to ask additional questions related to
curriculum adoption processes including:

> 1\) What sources of information are used for selection (select
> predominant one)?

a)  publisher presentations \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

b)  colleague recommendation\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

c)  research evidence\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

d)  other\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> 2\) How much training, if any, is typically provided for teachers when
> major new curriculum is introduced? (select one)

a)  None \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

b)  Less than 6 hours \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

c)  Six or more hours \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> 3\) If staff development is provided, who provides (check all that
> apply)?

a)  Publisher \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

b)  Internal staff \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

c)  Consultant \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

d)  University \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

e)  Professional Organization \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

f)  Other \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

[B. Collect Requested Data]{.underline}

In follow up to the initial announcement letter (see Exhibit A), the
laboratory extension specialists (LES)---internal REL outreach
staff---will contact the districts to encourage their cooperation with
the request. For the region's smaller states with smaller numbers of
school districts (DC with 1, Delaware with 9 and Maryland with 27) and
no formal public adoption information, the LES will collect all the
needed information via telephone or in person as needed.

[C. Screen and Enter Data]{.underline}

All materials will be reviewed and coded centrally to identify which
data elements from the list match each curricular category (core,
supplemental, assessment) and all data will be entered into a centrally
managed database. In subsequent data collection years, we intend to
explore electronic entry by LES and possibly by respondents to reduce
burden.

Changes will be documented and entered into the Curriculum Mapping
Database annually. Each annual database will be distinct. In the first
year, the full database will be developed. In the second and subsequent
years, an initial roll-over of all prior year's data will occur; then
all changes/updates will be incorporated into the database. The NCES
district identifying code will be used to match data from year to year.
When the first year's data is collected we will examine the timeline for
district approval of curriculum throughout the region to determine the
most appropriate time for collection and release of an annual updated
report.

[D. Disseminate Core Data]{.underline}

A database, a user's guide, and descriptive report will provide a full
range of adopted curricula in math, language arts, and science by state
(DE, MD, NJ, PA DC), and by grade span (elementary, middle, high).
Moreover, the searchable database will allow educators to identify the
adopted curricula for districts with similar characteristics. Exhibit B
provides an illustrative example of a report generated through the use
of the on-line tool. Note that although the on-line user interface has
yet to be developed, the variables in the far left column represent a
set of filters that users can select to identify districts' curricular
adoptions. For example, districts could be examined by the number of
students, by their urbanicity, by their student demographics etc. The
database will assist educational leaders as they assess and improve the
quality of the curricula they are providing to students in each state.

***A2. Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to
be used. Except for new collection, indicate the actual use the agency
has made of the information received from the current collection.***

The data will be used by local and state level educators, researchers,
and policymakers for identifying commonly adopted curricula in the
Mid-Atlantic region at a given period. A secondary purpose is to compare
these cross-sections over time to determine whether and how curricula
adoption changes over time in a given state.

These data will help educators make informed decisions about their own
curriculum planning and adoption by identifying adopted curricula that
have been systematically reviewed by the WWC and, as a result, have been
evaluated for effectiveness in improving student achievement.

Policymakers, parents, business and community members may use the data
to determine which districts use "homegrown" curricula or may have
adopted curriculum with evidence of effectiveness.

Researchers and policymakers may use the data as the basis for mounting
new randomized control trials or other studies to assess curriculum
effectiveness around alignment with educational goals. For example, when
REL Mid-Atlantic was planning the recruitment for the randomized
experiment to test the effectiveness of Connected Math Project 2, the
lack of this data made it difficult for the Lab to determine how many
districts and schools in each state were ineligible for the trials
because they were already using the intervention.

A3. ***Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of
information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses, and the
basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also
describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce
burden.***

The data collection process will be structured to reduce overall burden
for the district staff and to reduce the overall cost of the data
collection. On-line submittal of data by district personnel was
considered, but ruled out for year 1 to ensure valid responses. In years
2 and 3 we will evaluate the extent to which electronic entry by
stakeholders is feasible.

A4. ***Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why
any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for
use for the purposes described in item 2 above.***

Careful reviews of known federal (NCES, NCEE) and state databases (state
department of education websites) were conducted to identify related
data collections of district level adopted curricula. None were found.
Thus, this data collection effort is unique and fills an important void
in the K-12 curriculum landscape.

***A5. If the collection of information impacts small businesses or
other small entities (Item 5 of OMB Form 83-I), describe any methods
used to minimize burden.***

To reduce the burden of data collection to districts, a minimum number
of questions will be asked on adopted curricula and benchmark
assessments in school districts.

A6. ***Describe the consequences to Federal program or policy activities
if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as
well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.***

Absent this data collection, Mid-Atlantic region state education
agencies have severely limited knowledge and understanding of curricula
adoption patterns across the region.

If the expected interest in and use of the data is realized, annual
updates to the database will be planned around the district level
adoption cycles (typically 3-5 years). Adoption cycles are included in
the data collection to gather this data empirically. The proposed data
collection serves as an important baseline and will be carefully
monitored to ensure reliability and accuracy. In subsequent collections
according to empirically determined curriculum adoption cycles,
expansion of grade levels and courses may be included if feasible.

Our federally sponsored lab has experienced the impact that a lack of
knowledge on district patterns of curriculum adoption can have when
planning for randomized experiments. This knowledge is critical for
planning randomized experiments to test the effectiveness of a K-12
curriculum. For example, when planning to recruit enough districts and
schools to achieve statistical power in one lab experiment, it was
critical to know how many districts were not eligible for the experiment
because they were already using the K-12 curriculum being tested as the
experimental intervention. Without the curriculum mapping data, the lab
had no choice but to rely on expert opinion and anecdotal information.

A7. ***Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information
collection to be conducted in a manner inconsistent with usual
policy.***

None of the detailed issues listed in the OMB as inconsistent with usual
policy for this section are relevant in the proposed study.

A8. ***If applicable, provide a copy and identify the data and page
number of publication in the Federal Register of the agency's notice,
required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on the information
collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments
received in response to that notice and describe actions taken by the
agency in response to these comments. Specifically address comments
received on cost and hour burden.***

The Department of Ed will submit the 60-day notice and if there are any
comments, we will respond appropriately (see Exhibit D).

***A9. Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to
respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees.***

No incentives will be provided with this data collection.

***A10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to
respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or
agency policy.***

[Respondent information]{.underline}. No information that identifies
individual district respondents will be disclosed.  All individual-level
identifiable information will be kept in secured locations and
identifiers will be deleted as soon as they are no longer required.

[Curricula information]{.underline}. With respect to this data
collection, all districts and their curricula will be explicitly
identified in reports and the searchable database.

REL Mid-Atlantic will be following the new policies and procedures
required by the Education Sciences reform Act of 2002, Title I, Part E,
Section 183 requires "All collection, maintenance, use, and wide
dissemination of data by the Institute" to "conform with the
requirements of section 552 of title 5, United States Code, the
confidentiality standards of subsection (c) of this section, and section
444 and 445 of the General Education Provision Act (20 U.S.C 1232g,
1232h)." These citations refer to the Privacy Act, the Family Education
Rights and Privacy Act, and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment.

REL Mid-Atlantic will protect the confidentiality of all respondent
information. No information that identifies any study participant will
be released. All individually identifiable information will be kept in
secured locations and identifiers will be destroyed as soon as they are
no longer needed. In addition, all REL personnel involved in the project
will sign an Affidavit of Nondisclosure (See Exhibit C).

**A11. *Provide additional justification for any questions of a
sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious
beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This
justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the
questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information,
the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is
requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.***

This data collection will not include any questions of a sensitive
nature. Participation in all data collection activities is completely
voluntary, with no sanctions or penalties being applied for respondents
who choose not to provide information or who do not answer specific
questions.

**A12. *Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of
information. This statement should:***

-   ***Indicate the number of respondents, frequency of response, annual
    hour burden, and an explanation of how the burden was estimated.
    Unless directed to do so, agencies should not conduct special
    surveys to obtain information on which to base hour burden
    estimates.***

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ***Consultation with a sample (fewer than 10) of potential
    respondents is desirable. If the hour burden on respondents is
    expected to vary widely because of differences in activity, size, or
    complexity, show the range of estimated hour burden and explain the
    reasons for the variance. Generally, estimates should not include
    burden hours for customary and usual business practices.***

Each district represents a respondent unit. Because all curricula must
be approved every year by local school boards, public records that list
all currently adopted curricula are kept in central offices for each
district. Although the actual title of the person who responds to this
census may vary considerably across districts---depending on the size
and organizational structure of the district---the data requested for
this project is expected to be readily available.

A pre-test was conducted with eight districts across the region to
determine the actual time burden for respondents and includes time spent
speaking to extra staff (e.g., secretaries) needed to identify which
district level person(s) would be able to provide the relevant data.
Table 1 presents this estimated respondent burden for the data
collection which is 0.50 hours.

Table 1

RESPONDENT BURDEN ESTIMATES

For Response to Questionnaire

  ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------- ------------ ------------- ----------------
  Informant   Number of   Number of    Average Time  Total        Estimated     Estimated Cost
              Responses   Response     per           Respondent   Hourly Wage   Burden to
                          Activities   Respondent    Time (Hours) (Dollars)     Respondents
                                       (Hours)                                  (Dollars)

  School      1496        1            0.50          748          \$10.02[^1]   \$7,494.96
  District                                                                      
  Staff                                                                         
  ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------- ------------ ------------- ----------------

**A13. *Provide an estimate for the total annual cost burden to
respondents or record keepers resulting from the collection of
information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden shown in Items
12 and 14).***

There are no start-up or direct costs to respondents. Burden hour costs
to respondents are discussed above in Section A. 12 of this document.

**A14. *Provide estimates of annualized costs to the Federal government.
Also, provide a description of the method used to estimate cost, which
should include quantification of hours, operational expenses (such as
equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and any other
expenses that would not have been incurred without this collection of
information. Agencies may also aggregate cost estimates from items 12,
13, and 14 in a single table.***

For the data collection activities for which OMB approval is currently
being requested, the overall cost to the government is \$125,000. This
includes:

-   \$15,000 for study design, OMB clearance, and planning

-   \$15,000 for pre-testing, additional training, and monitoring during
    the course of the study year

-   \$95,000 for data collection, data analysis, database development,
    report preparation and dissemination

***A15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments
reported in items 13 or 14 of the OMB Form 83-I.***

This is a new data collection.

**A16. *For collections of information whose results will be published,
outline plans for tabulation and publication. Address any complex
analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for
the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the
collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and
other actions.***

Table 2 DATA COLLECTION PLAN

+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Data Sources and Products          | Timeline for Each Year          |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Curricula Data Collection          | 7 Months, to begin after OMB    |
|                                    | approval-                       |
| From Districts                     |                                 |
|                                    | Approx Dec 2008                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Demographic Data collected from    | 1 Month, to begin after OMB     |
| Common Core of Data                | approval-                       |
|                                    |                                 |
| Database development               | Approx Dec 2008                 |
|                                    |                                 |
| Descriptive Report                 | 7 months                        |
|                                    |                                 |
| On-Line Database                   | 1.5 months after database is    |
|                                    | completed                       |
|                                    |                                 |
|                                    | 1.5 months after database is    |
|                                    | completed                       |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| []{.mark}                          | []{.mark}                       |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+

We will use a database that includes district-level data. We anticipate
that this data will be organized in one file in a relational database,
with a single record for each curriculum at each grade span and content
area in each district. Although it is likely that some districts will
have multiple curricula for a given content area and grade level, we
will only be reporting the most predominately adopted one. We anticipate
that those "curricula records" will have the following fields:

• District name

• NCES code

• Grade

> • Content area (math, language arts literacy, science)
>
> • Core curriculum
>
> • Supplemental curriculum
>
> • Benchmark assessments

To organize and report the data in our Annual Descriptive Report and
Searchable Database, we will use additional demographic data on each
district, which will be collected from other data sets and stored in a
separate data file within the relational database, with a record for
each district in the region including the following fields:

• NCES District Code (key field for joining data in district demographic
relation)

> • District Type, using the NCES' 8 levels ((Large Central City,
> Mid-size Central City, Urban Fringe of Large City, Urban Fringe of
> Mid-Size City, Large Town, Small Town, Rural inside metropolitan
> statistical area (MSA), and Rural outside MSA).

-   District level (elementary, middle, high)

-   Grades Included in district

-   State (DC, DE, MD, NJ, PA)

-   Percentage of Students from low-income families

-   Number and percentage of students in each of the following
    categories:

    -   White

    -   Black

    -   Latino/Hispanic

    -   Asian/Pacific Islander

    -   American Indian/ Native Alaskan

    -   Multi-racial/ethnic

    -   Male

    -   Female

    -   IEP -- Special Education

    -   Limited English Proficiency

    -   Economically Disadvantaged.

These data are collected as data files provided by the National Center
for Educational Statistics and/or State Education Agencies, and are
reformatted as needed under the supervision of the project PIs by our
REL Mid-Atlantic database expert, Chris Magarelli, at Rutgers
University.

• **Annual Descriptive Reports.** This report will present state-level
data on core and supplemental curricula adopted across the Mid-Atlantic
region by grade span and content area (math, language arts, and
science). This report will indicate:

\(1\) range and frequency of core adopted curricula,

\(2\) proportion of districts which utilize supplemental curricula,

\(3\) range and frequency of assessment use,

\(4\) categories of adoption processes,

\(5\) amount of professional development in support of the adopted
curriculum, and

\(6\) patterns of curricula adoption by demographic characteristics.

Following a presentation of the data for the most recent year, data
representing changes from year to year for each state will be presented.

• **On-line Searchable Database**. We will develop an on-line tool that
regional constituents can access that will provide information about the
adopted curricula by content area, grade span, and state (PA, NJ, DC,
DE, MD). Such characteristics will include, for example, rural and urban
patterns, proportions of racial/ethnic groups, and proportion
economically disadvantaged. Indicators regarding whether evidence exists
as to the curricular effectiveness and descriptive characteristics of
the districts will also be provided. For example, if a curriculum has
been reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse a link to that site will be
provided.

***A17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB
approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display
would be inappropriate.***

No exceptions are sought.

**A18. *Explain each exception to the certification statement identified
in Item 19, "Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions," of
OMB Form 83-I.***

No exceptions are sought.

[^1]: 2003 Statistical Abstract of the U.S.  Table No. 251:  Average
    Salary and Wages Paid in Public School Systems: 1980-2002 (estimate
    in table is for 2002).