### Supporting Statement for Paperw**ork Reduction A ct 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 poi nts 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/schoo ls 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 implementa tion 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 urbanand rural settings, wh ich 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 stud ent 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, inst ructional 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 Micros oft 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 fo r 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 parti cipants 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 p rogram evaluations). Thestudy 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 wi ll 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 an d 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 p reventing 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. Withou t this understanding, ED will be unable to provide HSGI grantees with a series of user
friendly 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 hind er 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 Coll **ection** 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 distr ict 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 mathe matics 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 onenominated by the corresponding LEA mathematics expert serv ing as a district- level representative

in the TWG. TWG members will represent vario us 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. A**ssurance 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 us e 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 co llection 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. R espondents’ 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 s ites, 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 an d 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 re search 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 de scription 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 activitie s. 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 advanc e of the focus group. No information that identifies any study participant will be released. Furthermore, the research team will use pseudonym s 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 d ata 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 acce ss 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 contracto rs’ strong password polic ies . 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 fil es 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 ind ividual 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 total s an estimated cost of $5,558.63 based on the average hourly wage of participants. The table below summarizes the estimate s 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 i nterviews;  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 inte rviews 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 mathe matics 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 Math ematics;  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 D istrict 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 Departme nt 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 $145.30Total for Professional Development Data Collection 34 -- 34 -- 34 -- $1,270.10 Curricular Alignment State Official for

Mathematics Curriculum Interview 2 100% 2 1 2 57.69 $115.38
Associate Superintendent or Superintendent Interview 2 100% 2 1 2 61.56 $123.12

District Math Leaders Interview 4 100% 4 1 4 39.46 $157.84 District Professional Development Administrators Interview 2 100% 2 1 2 39.46 $78.92
Focus Group for Teachers who teach classes prior to Algebra I (Elementary, across schools) 6 100% 6 1 6 26.46 $158.76

Focus Group for Teachers who teach classes prior to Algebra I (middle, across schools) 8 100% 8 1 8 26.46 $211.68

Focus Groups for Teachers who teach Algebra I (cross
- schools) 8 100% 8 1 8 26.46 $211.68
Focus Group of Math Coordinators (or Math Department Chairs) from different schools 5 100% 5 1 5 26.46 $132.3
Total for Curricular Alignment Data Collection 37 -- 37 -- 37 -- $1,189.68

Instructional Coaching District Mathematics

Coordinator Interview 2 100% 2 1 2 39.46 $78.92 District Official for Math Coaching Interview 2 100% 2 1 2 39.46 $78.92 Math Coaches (in each school) Interviews 4 100% 4 1 4 26.46 $105.84 Principal (in each school) Interviews 4 100% 4 1 4 43.36 $173.44 Math Department Chair or Teacher Leader (in each school) Interviews 4 100% 4 4 4 29.06 $116.24 Focus Groups with Math Teachers (in each 20 100% 20 4 20 26.46 $529.2School) 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 respo n dents (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 estima ted 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 fo **r 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 audience
appropriate overview of th eoretical 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 plannin g, 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 det ail below and shown in Exh ibit 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 c ase 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 thedata and begin analyzing the data as described in the analytic approach sect ion 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 describe d 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 J uly2 8, 2014. The final draft of the rep orts 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) develo ped 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 presentation s at an algebra or mathematics
related 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 onli ne 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 alge b ra 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 d ata 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.