Supporting Statement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submission

Justification (Part A)

A1. Circumstances Making Collection of Information Necessary

High school dropout is a national crisis with graduation rates across the United States averaging 

74.9 percent (Stillwell, 2010)—that is, about one in four high school students fails to graduate from 

high school. The dropout problem is worst among students of color and students with disabilities 

(Greene & Winters, 2005; Stillwell, 2010; U.S. Department of Education, 2006). According to 

multiple estimates, a single cohort of dropouts costs the nation more than $300 billion in lost wages 

and taxes (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2007; Rouse, 2005) and billions more in costs for public 

health, crime and justice, and public assistance (Levin, Belfield, Muennig, & Rouse, 2007). In 

addition, high school dropouts earn, on average, $9,200 less per year than high school graduates, 

and their lifetime earnings are $1 million less than those of college graduates (Bridgeland, DiIulio, & 

Morison, 2006). 

ED has recognized this crisis for many years and most recently, through the High School Graduation 

Initiative (HSGI), provided significant amounts of funding for state and local education agencies 

(SEAs, LEAs) to develop comprehensive programs to attack the dropout problem. Although many 

factors contribute to the dropout crisis and no “silver bullet” exists, research points to Algebra I as a 

potentially fruitful area of study. Students who fail this gateway course by the end of grade 9 are 

much more likely to drop out than students who successfully complete it (Orihuela, 2006; Silver, 

Saunders, & Zarate, 2008). Worse yet, failure rates in Algebra I are often high. For example, 20 to 30 

percent of ninth graders in Michigan fail Algebra I (Higgins, 2008), and the percentages are similarly 

high in urban districts. More than five years after an “Algebra for All” initiative was implemented in 

Milwaukee, failure rates for freshmen were 47 percent (Ham & Walker, 1999), with similar failure 

rates (44 percent) in Los Angeles (Helfand, 2006). Accordingly, understanding how to promote 

success in Algebra I for all students is a highly relevant issue for policymakers and education 

practitioners, particularly as 45 states and the District of Columbia prepare to implement the 

Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM).

The Promoting Student Success in Algebra I Study builds on ED’s recent funding of high school 

dropout prevention and reentry programs by focusing on providing state and local education 

agencies greater insight into the knowledge and resources required to enable student success in 

mathematics between grades 6 through 9, with an emphasis on Algebra I. Much of the research to 

date on practices to support student success in Algebra I has either documented an impact on 

student achievement, without detailed attention to the challenges and supports needed for 

districts/schools to engage in these practices, or has been studied on a small scale, with small 

groups of teachers and/or students. The series of case studies that are the focus of this OMB 

clearance request will provide descriptive information regarding the implementation and 

sustainability of practices that have been identified as effective for promoting student success in 

Algebra I. They will investigate the ways in which districts developed and/or planned for 

implementation of a practice to support student success, the structures that were needed to 

sustain these practices, and the ways in which they were able to overcome challenges associated 

with implementation. Collectively, the series of case studies will explore these issues within urban 
and rural settings, which will, in turn, provide information regarding implementation and 

sustainability that may be unique to each setting. Ultimately, the case studies will serve as a guide 

to help districts who are considering one or more of these practices to improve student success in 

Algebra I make informed decisions about supporting their implementation.

A2. Use of Information

The case study data collection associated with PSSA will be of immediate interest and significance 

for policymakers and practitioners as it will offer actionable information on how to promote 

student success in Algebra I, particularly as districts and schools face increasing demands on teacher 

effectiveness and student performance in preparation for the Common Core State Standards for 

Mathematics (CCSSM). Building on the study’s literature reviews and focus groups with district and 

school practitioners, PSSA’s case studies component will provide an in-depth examination of how 

exemplary, research-supported practices in professional development, instructional coaching, 

instructional practices, curricular alignment, and double-dose algebra are developed, implemented, 

evaluated, and sustained in real-world contexts. The case study investigations will culminate in a 

series of clear, user-friendly reports that showcase best practices from high-quality programs or 

initiatives representing each topical area. These reports will serve as technical assistance resources 

and feature detailed, step-by-step guides for how practitioners and policymakers can develop and 

implement promising practices similar to those examined in the case studies.

A3. Use of Improved Technology to Reduce Burden

The recruitment and data collection plans for the case study component of this study reflect 

sensitivity to issues of efficiency and respondent burden. Beginning with site selection, the study 

team will utilize internet searches and existing Algebra I listservs to pinpoint ongoing programs or 

initiatives related to each topic area, and will enter relevant information into a Microsoft Access 

database that will track each program/site, its characteristics, and its progression through the 

selection process. Once potential sites are identified, the study team will use online materials 

available to determine the extent to which each program has undergone internal or external 

evaluation and corresponding evidence for effectiveness. It will conduct screening interviews via 

telephone to reduce respondent burden and allow for a more flexible screening process. As data 

collection protocols for case studies are developed moving forward, technology to reduce burden 

will be included whenever possible. 

 Interviews and focus groups will be audiotaped and then transcribed at a later date using 

Microsoft Word so as to reduce the amount of time participants will have to engage in data 

collection activities.

 A toll-free number and email address will be provided to study participants, allowing them 

to contact research staff directly with any questions they have. The number and email 

address will be provided in all respondent communication. 

A4. Efforts to Avoid Duplication of Effort

The study team will avoid duplication of effort by using pre-existing data whenever possible (e.g., 

program information available on school or district websites, published program evaluations). The 
study team also will determine whether any of the proposed data collection elements for the case 

studies can be addressed through pre-existing policy documents. This will reduce the number of 

questions asked in the case study interviews and focus groups, thus limiting respondent burden and 

minimizing duplication of previous data collection efforts and information.

A5. Efforts to Minimize Burden on Small Businesses and Other Small Entities

No small business or other small entities will be involved in this study.

A6. Consequences of Not Collecting the Data

The data to be collected through PSSA’s case study component are necessary to support ED’s 

ongoing effort to help state and local education agencies implement comprehensive programs to 

address the issue of high school dropout. Through the High School Graduation Initiative (HSGI), 

authorized under Title I, Part H of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (20 U.S.C. 6551), ED 

has invested significant amounts of funding for state and local education agencies (SEAs, LEAs) to 

implement effective and sustainable approaches to reducing high school dropout. 

Failure to collect the data proposed through these case studies would inhibit ED from fulfilling its 

technical assistance role by preventing ED from gaining and disseminating insights into how 

exemplary programs that hold promise for improving student success in Algebra I—a pivotal course 

for students’ high school completion and college attendance—are developed and implemented. 

Without this understanding, ED will be unable to provide HSGI grantees with a series of userfriendly technical assistance resources that detail important considerations and step-by-step 

processes for implementing similar programs in other schools and districts. Additionally, ED would 

not have these resources to share with the community of practice (CoP) established for LEAs 

participating in the federal School Improvement Grant (SIG) program or other policymakers and 

practitioners across the nation. This may hinder state-, district-, and school stakeholders’ ability to 

make careful and informed decisions about promising strategies to bolster students’ success in 

Algebra and high school completion.

A7. Special Circumstances Causing Particular Anomalies in Data Collection

None of the special circumstances listed apply to this data collection.

A8. Federal Register Announcement and Consultation

a. Federal Register Announcement

ED acknowledges the need to publish a 60-day Federal Register Notice allowing public comment on 

this request for OMB clearance and intends to address any public comments received. 

b. Consultations Outside the Agency

A “Technical Working Group” (TWG) of district officials and teachers will be convened as part of this 

study to provide input on research findings related to the five topical areas and thereby inform the 

design and collection for the case studies. The TWG will consist of seven district-level mathematics 

administrators from a selection of the 100 largest local education agencies (LEAs) (five members) 

and rural LEAs (two members) as well as seven mathematics teachers from Grades 6–9, each one 
nominated by the corresponding LEA mathematics expert serving as a district-level representative 

in the TWG. TWG members will represent various regions of the United States.

A9. Payment or Gift to Respondents

Respondents will not receive a payment or a gift as a result of their participation in this study.

A10. Assurance of Confidentiality

As researchers, the study team is vitally concerned with maintaining the confidentiality and security 

of its records. The team will ensure the confidentiality of the data to the extent possible through a 

variety of measures. The contractors’ project staff has extensive experience collecting information 

and maintaining confidentiality, security, and integrity of interview, focus group, and observation 

data. All members of the study team have obtained their certification on the use of human subjects 

in research as well as federal security clearances. The team has also worked with the Institutional 

Review Board (IRB) at the American Institutes for Research to seek and receive approval of this 

study, thereby ensuring that the data collection complies with professional standards and 

government regulations designed to safeguard research participants. 

The following confidentiality and data protection procedures will be in place:

The study team will protect the confidentiality of all information collected for the study and will use 

it for research purposes only. Respondents’ names will be used for data collection purposes only

and will be disassociated from the data prior to analysis. As information is gathered from 

respondents or from sites, each respondent will be assigned a unique identification number, which 

will be used in analysis files as well as printout listings on which data are displayed. Information on 

respondents may be linked to their institution but not to any individually identifiable information. 

Respondents’ unique identification number also will be used for data linkage across sources (e.g., 

interview and observation data). 

Study team members will be educated about the confidentiality assurances given to respondents 

and to the sensitive nature of materials and data to be handled. Each researcher assigned to the 

study will be cautioned not to discuss confidential data. In addition, prior to beginning interviews, 

focus groups or classroom observations, a member of the research staff will explain to participants 

what will be discussed, how the data will be used and stored, and how confidentiality will be 

maintained. Participants will be instructed that they can stop participating at any time. The goals 

of the study, a description of the data collection activities, the risks and benefits to participation, 

and a synopsis of how the data are to be used will be detailed in a consent form that all participants 

will read and sign prior to beginning any data collection activities. Signed consent forms will be 

collected from site visitors and stored in secure file cabinets at the contractors’ offices. For student 

focus groups, respondents under the age of 18 will only participate if their parents provide written 

consent in advance of the focus group. 

No information that identifies any study participant will be released. Furthermore, the research 

team will use pseudonyms when referring to sites in study reports, and efforts will be made to mask 

distinguishing characteristics, as appropriate. All institution-level identifiable information will be 

kept in secured locations, and identifiers will be destroyed as soon as they are no longer required. 
Additionally, the study team will shred all interview protocols, observation rubrics, forms, and other 

hardcopy documents containing identifiable data as soon as the need for the hard copies no longer 

exists. 

All electronic data will be protected using several methods. The contractors’ internal networks are 

protected from unauthorized access utilizing defense-in-depth best practices, which incorporate 

firewalls and intrusion detection and prevention systems. Access to computer systems are

password protected, and network passwords must be changed on regular basis and conform to the 

contractors’ strong password policies. The networks are also configured so that each user has a 

tailored set of rights, granted by the network administrator, to files approved for access and stored 

on the local area network (LAN). Access to all electronic data files and workbooks associated with 

this study will be limited to researchers on the case study data collection and analysis team. Any 

files that are saved outside of these secure folders (for example, in order to transmit data files 

between study team members at the American Institutes for Research and at its partner 

organization, Windwalker Corporation) will be encrypted and require a strong password to access. 

All project staff assigned to tasks involving sensitive data will be required to provide specific 

assurance of confidentiality.

A11. Sensitive Questions

This study will not include the collection of sensitive information. The only data to be collected 

directly from case study participants will focus on schools’ policies and practices rather than on 

individual people. School documents and policies/practices are data within the public domain (e.g., 

schools communicate their policies and programs to their students and parents in a variety of 

ways). In this sense, the data are not sensitive in nature.

A12. Estimated Response Burden

It is estimated that the total hour burden for the data collections for the study is 207.7 hours. This 

totals an estimated cost of $5,558.63 based on the average hourly wage of participants. The table 

below summarizes the estimates of respondent burden for the various study activities for each 

topic area.
The estimated burden associated with the Instructional Strategies topic area is 30 hours. This figure 

includes: 

 2 one-hour interviews with district officials for mathematics interviews;

 10 one-hour interviews with Algebra I teachers;

 2 one hour interviews with principals;

 2 one-hour interviews with math department chair interviews;

 2 one-hour interviews with school instructional coach in 2 schools;

 2 one-hour interviews with district math coordinators;

 2 one-hour focus groups with current Algebra I students (6 students in each of the 2 focus 

groups).

The estimated burden associated with the Professional Development topic area is 34 hours. This 

figure includes: 

 2 one-hour interviews with state officials for professional development;

 4 one-hour interviews with district math coordinators;

 4 one-hour interviews with district professional development coordinators;

 2 one-hour interviews with district officials for curriculum and instructional; 

 2 one-hour interviews with external professional development providers; 

 1 one-hour focus group with five elementary school principals;

 1 one-hour focus group with five secondary school principals;

 1 one-hour focus group with five school mathematics coordinators;

 1 one-hour focus group with five high school mathematics department chairs.

The estimated burden associated with the Curricular Alignment topic area is 37 hours. This figure 

includes: 

 2 one-hour interviews with State Official for Mathematics;

 2 one-hour interviews with Associate Superintendent or Superintendent Interview;

 4 one-hour interviews with District Math Leaders Interview;

 2 one-hour interviews with District Professional Development Administrators Interview;

 1 one-hour focus group with 6 Teachers who teach classes prior to Algebra I (Elementary, 

across schools);

 1 one-hour focus group with 8 Teachers who teach classes prior to Algebra I (middle, across 

schools);

 1 one-hour focus group with 8 Teachers who teach Algebra I (cross-schools);

 1 one-hour focus group with 5 Math Coordinators (or Math Department Chairs) from 

different schools.

The estimated burden associated with the Instructional Coaching topic area is 36 hours. This figure 

includes: 

 2 one-hour interviews with District Mathematics Coordinator;

 2 one-hour interviews with District Official for Math Coaching;

 4 one-hour interviews with a Math Coaches in each school;
 4 one-hour interviews with the Principal in each school;

 4 one-hour interviews with the Math Department Chair or Teacher Leader in each school;

 4 one-hour focus groups with up to 5 Math Teachers in each school.

The estimated burden associated with the Extended Learning topic area is 64 hours. This figure 

includes: 

 2 one-hour interviews with district math coordinators;

 2 one-hour interviews with district officials who oversee curriculum and instruction;

 4 one-hour interviews with high school principals (1 from each of the 4 schools);

 4 one-hour interviews with Math Department Chairs or Teacher Leaders (1 from each of the 

4 schools);

 4 one-hour focus groups with double-dose algebra teachers (up to 5 teachers in in a focus 

group for each of the 4 schools);

 4 one-hour focus groups with double-dose algebra students (up to 8 students in a focus 

group for each of the 4 schools).
Topical Area Task

Total 

Sample 

Size

Estimated 

Response 

Rate

Number of 

Respondents

Time 

Estimate

(in 

hours)

Total 

Hour 

Burden

Hourly 

Rate

Estimated 

Monetary 

Cost of 

Burden

Instructional 

Strategies

District Official for 

Mathematics Interview

2 100% 2 1 2 39.46 $78.92

Algebra I Teacher 

Interview

10 100% 10 1 10 26.46 $264.6

Principal Interview 2 100% 2 1 2 43.36 $86.72

Math Department Chair 

or Algebra Team 

Lead Interview

2 100% 2 1 2 29.06 $58.12

Instructional Coach 

Interview

2 100% 2 1 2 26.46 $52.92

Focus Groups of 

Students 

(approximately 6 

students)

12 100% 12 1 12 7.25 $87.00

Total for Instructional 

Strategies Data 

Collection

30 -- 30 -- 30 -- $628.28

Professional 

Development

State Official for 

Professional 

Development Interview

2 100% 2 1 2 57.69 $115.38

District Math 

Coordinator 

(Elementary, 

Secondary) Interview

4 100% 4 1 4 39.46 $157.84

District PD Coordinator 

(Elementary, 

Secondary) Interview

4 100% 4 1 4 39.46 $157.84

District Official for 

Curriculum and 

Instruction Interview

2 100% 2 1 2 39.46 $78.92

External PD Provider 

Interview

2 100% 2 1 2 24.46 $48.92

Focus Group of 

Principals (Elementary 

Schools)

5 100% 5 1 5 43.36 $216.80

Focus Group of 

Principals (Secondary 

Schools)

5 100% 5 1 5 43.36 $216.80

Focus Group of School 

Mathematics 

Coordinators 

(Elementary)

5 100% 5 1 5 26.46 $132.30

Focus Group of High 

School Mathematics 

Department Chairs

5 100% 5 1 5 29.06 $145.30
Total for Professional 

Development Data 

Collection

34 -- 34 -- 34 -- $1,270.10

Curricular 

Alignment

State Official for 

Mathematics 

Curriculum Interview

2 100%212 57.69 $115.38

Associate 

Superintendent or 

Superintendent 

Interview

2 100%212 61.56 $123.12

District Math Leaders 

Interview

4 100%414 39.46 $157.84

District Professional 

Development 

Administrators 

Interview

2 100%212 39.46 $78.92

Focus Group for 

Teachers who teach 

classes prior to Algebra 

I (Elementary, across 

schools)

6 100%616 26.46 $158.76

Focus Group for 

Teachers who teach 

classes prior to Algebra 

I (middle, across 

schools)

8 100%818 26.46 $211.68

Focus Groups for 

Teachers who teach 

Algebra I (cross-

schools)

8 100%818 26.46 $211.68

Focus Group of Math 

Coordinators (or Math 

Department Chairs) 

from different schools

5 100%515 26.46 $132.3

Total for Curricular 

Alignment Data 

Collection

37 -- 37 -- 37 -- $1,189.68

Instructional 

Coaching

District Mathematics 

Coordinator Interview

2 100%212 39.46 $78.92

District Official for 

Math Coaching 

Interview

2 100%212 39.46 $78.92

Math Coaches (in each 

school) Interviews

4 100%414 26.46 $105.84

Principal (in each 

school) Interviews

4 100%414 43.36 $173.44

Math Department Chair 

or Teacher Leader (in 

each school) Interviews

4 100%444 29.06 $116.24

Focus Groups with 

Math Teachers (in each 

20 100% 204 20 26.46 $529.2
School)

Total for Instructional 

Coaching Data 

Collection

36 -- 36 -- 36 -- $1,082.56

Double-Dose 

Algebra 

(Expanded 

Learning)

District Math 

Coordinator

2 100% 2 1 2 39.46 $78.92

District Official for 

Oversight of Curriculum 

and Instruction

2 100% 2 1 2 39.46 $78.92

Principal Interview 

(High School)

4 100% 4 1 4 43.36 $173.44

Math Department 

Chair/Teacher Leader 

Interview

4 100% 4 1 4 29.06 $116.24

Focus Group of Double 

Dose Algebra Teachers 

(up to 5 teachers in 

each school)

20 100% 20 4 20 26.46 $529.20

Focus Group of 

Students (up to 8 

students in each 

school)

32 100% 32 4 32 7.25 $232.00

Total for Extended 

Learning Data 

Collection

64 -- 64 -- 64 -- $1,208.72

TOTAL for Topical Areas: 201 -- 201 -- 201 -- $5,379.34

Consent 

Forms Task

Total 

Sample 

Size

Estimated 

Response 

Rate

Number of 

Respondents

Time 

Estimate

(in 

minutes)

Total

Burden

(in 

minutes)

Hourly 

Rate*

Estimated 

Monetary 

Cost of 

Burden

Consent Forms Read and Sign Consent 

Form

201 100% 201 2 402 or 

6.7 

hours

 26.76 $179.29

TOTAL for Topical Areas and Consent 

Forms:

201 201 207.7 $5,558.63

*The hourly rate is an average rate, which was calculated by dividing the total monetary cost of burden ($5,379.34) by the total 

number of respondents (201).

A13. Estimate of Annualized Cost for Data Collection Activities

There are no additional annualized costs for data collection activities associated with this data 

collection beyond the hour burden estimated in item A12.

A14. Estimate of Annualized Cost to Federal Government

The estimated cost to the federal government for the PSSA case studies, including development of 

the case study research plan and data collection instruments as well as data collection, data 

analysis, and report preparation, is $819,046 for the two years of the study, or approximately 

$409,523 per year. 
A15. Reasons for Changes in Estimated Burden

This is a new request, thus no program changes or adjustments are reported.

A16. Plans for Tabulation and Publication

Data collected for each case/site will be analyzed and included in five case study reports, one for 

each topical area. Each report will begin with an introductory section that (1) features an audienceappropriate overview of theoretical framework and (2) outlines common themes that emerged 

from the data analysis. This introduction will be followed by short (1-2 page) descriptions of the two 

case sites’ (a) state, district, and school contexts; (b) stakeholder experiences planning, 

implementing, evaluating, and sustaining the initiative or program explored in the case study; and 

(c) short- and long-term outcomes associated with the implementation of the program or initiative. 

These site descriptions will provide illustrative descriptions of practice to provide readers with 

context for interpreting the following section of the reports: a step-by-step guide detailing how 

practitioners in other schools and districts can develop and implement similar programs. Finally, 

each report will also include a short textbox that offers a non-technical overview of the data 

sources and methodologies used to generate the report.

The proposed timeline for data collection activities and data dissemination are described in detail 

below and shown in Exhibit A.1.

Exhibit A.1.: Timeline for Data Collection Activities and Reporting

Activity Scheduled Date

Case study kickoff meeting December 2012

Draft of case study research plan and OMB package February 2013

Draft of data collection instruments February 2013

Final draft of case study research plan and OMB 

package

February 2013

Submission of Case Study OMB Package March 2013

Case study site visitor training August 2013

Case study data collection begins September 2013

Case study data collection ends December 2013

Data analysis begins October 2013

First draft of case study reports to ED March 2014

Second draft of case study reports to ED May 2014

Third draft of case study reports to ED July 2014

Final draft of case study reports to ED August 2014

ED approval of final case study reports September 2014

Dissemination of case study reports September 2014

Study preparation efforts began with the case study research team kick off meeting on December 

15, 2012, followed by the team’s development of a case study research plan, interview and focus 

group protocols, and classroom observation rubrics for the varied respondents targeted in the PSSA

case studies. Case study data collection will begin in September 2013 and is expected to end in 

December 2013. During this time, members of the research team will travel to selected sites to 

conduct interviews, focus groups, and observations. The research team will ensure accuracy of the 
data and begin analyzing the data as described in the analytic approach section of this submission. 

Data analysis will begin in October 2013, shortly after data collection starts, once interview 

transcripts and observations notes are ready for coding.

The study contractors will submit drafts of the five case study reports described above to ED for 

review and comment, with the expectation that ED will review and provide feedback on three drafts 

before the final version is approved. The first draft of the reports will be presented to ED on March 

21, 2014 with ED feedback expected on April 18, 2014. This will be followed by the second draft 

presented to ED on May 30, 2014 with ED feedback expected on June 20, 2014, and the third draft 

delivered to ED on July 14, 2014 with feedback expected on July28, 2014. The final draft of the 

reports will be delivered to ED on August 18, 2014, with final approval expected on September 2, 

2014. Activities to disseminate the final case study reports will begin shortly thereafter.

In addition to releasing the five Case Study Reports, the findings will also be disseminated by way of 

hosted moderated discussions within the community of practice (CoP) developed by Jobs of the 

Future (JFF) for the School Turnaround Learning Community discussion group for secondary schools. 

Additional efforts include a social media campaign and presentations at an algebra or mathematicsrelated conference. The 72-hour moderated discussions will incorporate 250-word summaries of 

each report and questions to stimulate conversation. These will be conducted within the online 

CoP developed by JFF for each of the reports. The first draft of the CoP dissemination plan will be 

completed by March 1, 2013, and the final CoP dissemination plan will be completed by March 29, 

2013, with approval from ED expected on April 5, 2013.

Additionally, AIR has developed connections with thousands of education leaders and front-line 

educators through Connected Educator Month, which will be used to disseminate findings. Further, 

study findings will be presented at a conference focused on algebra or mathematics for Grades 6-9, 

such as the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) national or regional meetings. 

The timetable for such presentations will be scheduled at a later date.

A17. Display of Expiration Date for OMB Approval

All data collection instruments will display the OMB approval expiration date.

A18. Exceptions to Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions

No exceptions to the certification statement identified in Item 19, "Certification for Paperwork 

Reduction Act Submissions," of OMB Form 83-I are requested.