## Supporting Statement for Paperw **ork Reduction Submission**

**Mathematics and Science Partnerships Program**

**An nual Performance Report**  **OMB #**  **1810 -**  **06 6**  **9**2



## Mathematics and Science Partnership Program, OMB # **1810 -**  **06 6**  **9 Table of Contents**  **Section A: Justification ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **........................ 3**  Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 3 A.1. Circumstances Requiring the Collection of Data ................................ .......................... 3 A.2. Purposes and Uses of the Data ................................ ................................ ...................... 3 A.3. Use of Information Technology to Reduce Burden ................................ ....................... 4 A.4. Efforts to Identify Duplication ................................ ................................ ...................... 4 A.5. Methods to Minimize Burden on Small Business Entities ................................ ............ 4 A.6. Consequences of Not Collecting the Information ................................ ......................... 4 A.7. Special Circumstances Justifying Inconsistencies with Guidelines in .......................... 5 A.8. Federal Register Comments and Persons Consulted Outside the Agency .................... 5 A.9. Payments or Gifts to Respondents ................................ ................................ ................. 5 A.10. Assurance of Confidentiality ................................ ................................ ......................... 5 A.11. Questions of a Sensitive Nature ................................ ................................ .................... 5 A.12. Estimates of Response Burden ................................ ................................ ...................... 5 A.13. Estimates of Cost Burden to Respondents ................................ ................................ ..... 6 A.14. Estimates of Costs to the Federal Government ................................ ............................. 6 A.15. Program Changes or Adjustments ................................ ................................ ................. 6 A.16. Plans for Tabulation and Publication of Results ................................ ........................... 7 A.17. Approval to Not Display Expiration Date ................................ ................................ ..... 7 A.18. Exceptions to Items 19 of OMB Form 83
- I ................................ ................................ ... 73



## Section **A: Justification**  **Introduction** The Department of Education (ED) seeks to renew the Mathematics and Science Partnerships Annual Performance Report, currently approved under OMB control number 1810 - 06 6 9 . Implemented under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Title II, Part B, the Mathematics and Science Partnerships (MSP) program is a formula grant program strategi cally designed to improve the content knowledge of teachers and the academic performance of students in mathematics and science. By f unding collaborative partnerships between science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) departments at instituti ons of higher education (IHEs), and high
-need school districts, the MSP program enables the delivery of intensive, content-rich professional development intended to improve classroom instruction and, ultimately, to raise student achievement in math and science. Because MSP is a formula grant program, the size of individual state awards is based on student population and poverty rates, with no state receiving less than one half of one percent of the total appropriation. E ach s tate is then responsible for administering a competitive grant making process to determine the distribution of funds across proposed MSP projects. 

### A. **1. Circumstances Requiring the Collection of Data**  Current legislation requires ED to collect impact information annually from each of the projects funded by the States (Appendix A: Title II, Part B, Section 2202 (f) of the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965 as amended) . E ach funded MSP project is required to develop an evaluation and accountability p lan to measure the impact of funde d activities, defined by me asurable objectives to increase teacher content knowledge and student achievement. Partnerships m ust report annually to ED on their progress toward achieving these objectives. Each year , approximately 600 projects report on their progress toward achieving MSP goals , helping to document the program’s impact on increasing teacher learning and student achievement . Other annual reporting requirements include standard descriptive information on the MSP projects ; the professional development participants; the professional development models, content, and processes; the evaluation plan s ; and lessons learned. By structuring the reporting so that all MSPs are required to provide standardized data, the program office is better able to examine outcomes across funded partnerships. In 2006 , OMB approved MSP’s program- specific online Annual Performance Report (APR) data collection system ( 1810 - 0669 ) , standardized to facilitate the process by which MSP pro jects meet reporting requirements . An updated version of this system was approved in 2010 . This supporting statement seeks OMB approval to continue to collect the MSP APRs using this online APR data collection system. 

### A. **2. Purposes and Uses of the Data**  MSP program data are collected to measure the program’s impact on improving math and science teachers’ content knowledge and improving the academic performance of students , as well as to describe the MSP projects across the country . Reporting is structured to require MSP project s to provide standardized data, allowing ED to examine outc omes at the project, state, and national levels. The 20 10 OMB - approved APR online data collection tool provides funded projects with the opportunity to describe the structure and scope of each partnership, document impact on te achers and students , and share4

professional development models. Information collected is sent directly to the project’s State C oordinator for review before final submission. Additionally, the APR provi des a streamlined process to collect and aggregate program information, allowing for more effective analysis of the range of program activities across all MSP projects. The APR collects both quantitative and narrative data which are used to report regularly on the implementation and impacts of the MSP program . MSP program staff utilize both the quantitative and narrative data provided in the APR to report on the implementation and impacts of the MSP program. A ggregate d APR data are analyzed to provide descriptive statistics (e.g., frequencies and means) on the characteristics of MSP projects and participants , providing a complete picture of the MS P program at the national level. Selected dimensions include the number of teachers served and students taught by those teachers, the amount of funding of the MSP program, methods of professional development delivery, and teacher and student achievement results. Where possible, trend data is also provided, comparing data from the current performance period to da ta from previous periods. Narrative data further enhance our understanding of the MSP projects. 

### A. **3. Use of Information Technology**  **to Reduce Burden** The MSP program employs information technology to maximize the efficiency and completeness of the information gathered for this evaluation and to minimize the burden the data collection places on the MSP projects . MSP projects complete their reporting requirements through the online APR data collection system . The online system enables project staff and State MSP coordinators to track the data submissions as the MSPs fill in the forms. Additionally , the online APR forms are prepopulated with relevant information from previous APRs , in order to reduce time burden on respondents. When the users log onto the system, they will be allowed to update this information but will not need to provide it as part of their submission. 

### A. **4. Efforts to Identify Duplication**  Through regular communication with MSP State Coordinators, ED, and representatives from various MSP projects, the MSP Program Office is able to maintain an active and collaborative relationship with the full range of MSP stakeholders. By reporting on project findings , successful implementation and evaluation methods , and tools developed through annual rep orting, the project website, and annual regional conferences, MSP projects are able to learn from each other and avoid duplicating efforts. Additionally, the OMB - approved APR online data collection system was customized for the MSPs and is the only federal data collection effort of the MSPs . 

### A. **5 .**  **Methods to Minimize Burden on Small Business Entities** This collection of information does not impact small businesses. Under EDGAR regulations, requirements for small entities are minimized. 

### A. **6. Consequences**  **of Not Collecting the Information** Each eligible partnership receiving a grant or subgrant through the MSP Program is required to report annually to the Secretary regarding the eligible partnership's progress in meeting the objectives described in the accountability plan of the partnership (Title II, Part B, section 2202 (f) of ESEA) . I f MSP projects did not report regularly through the APR system, it would effectively prevent ED from meeting this5

requirement. Additionally , this data collection standardizes the required reporting across all MSPs. This greatly enhances the quality and comparability of the resulting data. 

### A. **7. Special Circumstances**  **Justify ing Inconsistencies with Guidelines in**  There are no special circumstances associated with t his data collection. The data collection will comply with 5 CFR 1320.6, which authorizes OMB to approve information collections. 

### A. **8. Federal Register Comments and Persons Consulted Outside the A** **gency** Central to the effective implementation of the MSP pro gram are the MSP State Coordinators, who work to administer the program within each of their respective states. On an ongoing basis, the MSP Program staff and its contractor work closely with S tate Coordinators to provide technical support and collaboratively review and revise the APR data collection instrument in effort to reduce undue reporting burden while still meeting the reporting requirements of ED . To this end, we recently convened a series of webinars with several MSP S tate C oordinators . The purpose of these meetings was to review the proposed revisions for the data collection instrument , elicit ideas for additional changes, and obtain feedback from the S tate C oordinators. Revisions to the OMB
- approved data collection instrument are based, in large part, on the discussions in these meetings . The primary objective in revising the APR, as described above, is to reduce burden on reporting entities while ensuring that needed data continue to be collected . Additionally, ED holds annual re gional meetings with MSP State Coordinators, project directors , and evaluators. Beyond offering a valuable venue for projects to share important progress and insights, the regional meetings serve as a forum for MSP projects to offer feedback about the data being requested and the process through which it is collected. 

### A. **9. Pay**  **ments or Gifts to Respondents** No payment or gift will be provided to respondents. 

### A. **10. As**  **surance of Confidentiality** There is no assurance of confidentiality. 

### A. **11. Questions of**  **a Sensitive Nature** There are no questions of a sensitive nature. 

### A. **12. Estimates of Response Burden**  Annually, all funded MSPs are asked to complete the OMB
- approved APR online data collection instrument. We estimate , based on initial and ongoing feedback from respondents, that the APR takes an average of **1 3**  hours for the project directors and/or evaluators to complete. The estimated total average burden for completing the APR form across the approximately **600** partnerships is **7, 8**  **00** hours.6



### A. **13. Estimates**  **of Cost Burden to Respondents** The cost to respondents is estimated to be 43 dollars per hour , 1 for a total estimated cost burden of approximately **$ 335,400**  across all respondents for each year of data collection . **Exhibit 1: Estimated A** **nnualized Cost Burden to Respondents Hourly Salary**  **Estimate Time per** 

**Response (hours)**  **Estimated Cost**

**per Respondent**  **Ap proximate**  **Number of Respondents**  **Estimated**

**An nual Cost**  **Across A ll**  **Respondents** $43 1 3 $ 559 600 $ 335,400 

### A. **14. Estimates of**  **Costs to the Federal Government** The total annualized cost to the federal government is fixed at **$361,146** , as shown in Exhibit 2 . **Exhibit 2: Estimated Cost to the Federal Government** 

**Total Collect Online A**  **PR Data**  **Web -**  **based System**

**Ma intenance**  **An aly** **ze A PR Da**  **ta**

**and Prepare Reports** $ 361,146 $204,486 $39,607 $117,053 

### A. **15. Program Changes or A** **djustments** As described in section A.8 above, ongoing communication with MSP State Coordinators and project staff has informed the process of refining the APR data collection system to reduce response burden. In addition to incorporating this feedback, ED has worked to streamline the APR instrument by eliminating items that collect information not used in regular rep orting , combining repetitive items, and providing clarification to the reporting instructions in some areas. Itis estimated that these changes have reduced the total burden per project by one hour . Examples of some of the more significant changes to the APR are listed below.
 Projects no longer need to enter name and contact information for each partner organization .  Projects that focus on providing schoolwide professional development no longer need to enter information for each school (other projects never entered this information) .  Aligned list of content and practices more closely with Common Core Math Standards and Next Generation Science Standards.
 Projects will enter the primary goal rather than the primary target of the professional development.

1 Hourly salary estimate based on US Bureau of Labor Statistics data on Occupationa l Em ployment and Wages, May 2011: 11 - 9032 Education Administrators, Elementary and Secondary School : http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes119032.htm#(4) . The estimate of $43 per hour was cal culated by averaging the annual wages for administrators at the school, district, and state levels

– which comprise the majority of the MSP respondent universe. Hourly rate was derived assuming a 40 hour work week.7

 Projects no longer need to list each of the s tudent a ssessments used ; although they will continue to enter proficiency levels on state assessment s .  States no longer need to include length of award and year of implementation. Instead states will enter their definition of a high
-need LEA and projects will list whether their partner LEAs meet their state definition.
 Clarified what should be included in each abstract so that they will be more consistent across projects. 

### A. **16. Plans for**  **Tabulation and Publication**  **of Results** There are no plans to formally publish the results of this data collection. Rather, the data obtained through this data collection will be used by ED to monitor the funded MSPs , to share the professional development work and findings across grantees, and to inform the Department’s Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) indicators. The information collected for GPRA reporting includes the percentage of MSP teachers who significantly increase their content knowledge, as reflected in project
- level pre
- and post
- assessments, and the percentage of students in classrooms of MSP teachers who score at the proficient level or above in State assessments of mathematics and science. Additionally, the APR collects information describing the MSP projects; the professional development participants; the professional development models, content, and processes; the evaluation plan; and lessons learned . The MSP Annual Report , which includes aggregate information across grantees, is completed annually in late September and submitted to the Secretary . This report is also posted on the MSP public website. 

### A. **17. Ap**  **proval to Not Display Expiration Date**  All data collection instruments will include the OMB expiration date. 

### A. **18. Exceptions to Items 19 of OMB Form 83**  **- I**  No exceptions are sought.