Contract No.: ED-IES-12-C-0004

Supporting Justification

for OMB Clearance of a 

Needs Sensing Survey

under the Regional

Educational Laboratory

Program (REL)

Section A

June, 2012

Submitted to: Submitted by:

U.S. Department of Education American Institutes for Research

Institute of Education Sciences 1120 E. Diehl Road, Suite 200

555 New Jersey Ave., NW, Rm. 308 Naperville, IL 60563

Washington, DC 20208 (630) 649-6563

(202) 208-7078

Project Officer: Project Director:

Christopher Boccanfuso Matt Dawson, Ph.D.
CONTENTS

Page

A. JUSTIFICATION .........................................................................................................1

1. Circumstances Necessitating Collection of Information .....................................2

2. How, by Whom, and for What Purpose Information Is to Be Used ....................3

3. Use of Automated, Electronic, Mechanical or Other Technological

Collection Techniques .........................................................................................3

4. Efforts to Avoid Duplication of Effort .................................................................3

5. Sensitivity to Burden on Small Entities ...............................................................3

6. Consequences to Federal Program or Policy Activities if the Collection

is Not Conducted or Is Conducted Less Frequently than Proposed .....................4

7. Special Circumstances .........................................................................................4

8. Federal Register Announcement and Consultation ..............................................4

9. Payment or Gift to Respondents ..........................................................................4

10. Confidentiality of the Data ...................................................................................4

11. Additional Justification for Sensitive Questions ..................................................6

12. Estimates of Hour Burden ....................................................................................6

13. Estimate of Total Annual Cost Burden to Respondents or RecordKeepers ................................................................................................................7

14. Estimates of Annualized Cost to the Federal Government ..................................9

15. Reasons for Program Changes or Adjustments ...................................................9

16. Plan for Tabulation and Publication and Schedule for Project ............................9

17. Approval Not to Display the Expiration Date for OMB Approval ....................10

18. Exception to the Certification Statement ...........................................................10

APPENDIX A: SURVEY FOR SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS AND DISTRICT

ADMINISTRATORS ...................................................................................A-1

APPENDIX B: SURVEY FOR TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS ......................................B-1

APPENDIX C: ADVANCE LETTER TO RESPONDENTS ...............................................C-1

APPENDIX D: NONRESPONSE FOLLOW-UP EMAIL ...................................................D-1

APPENDIX E: CONFIDENTIALITY PLEDGE .................................................................. E-1
CONTENTS (continued)

TABLES AND FIGURES

Tables Page

1 Administration Times ...................................................................................................7

2 Annualized Cost ............................................................................................................8

3 Schedule of Activities .................................................................................................10
Pg 1

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

REQUEST FOR OMB CLEARANCE OF A NEEDS SENSING SURVEY 

UNDER THE REGIONAL EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY PROGRAM 

(REL)

The U.S. Department of Education (ED) requests OMB clearance for a survey related to 

the Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) Program. ED, in consultation with the American 

Institutes for Research (AIR) and NORC at the University of Chicago under contract ED-IES12-C-0004, has planned a needs assessment of educators in the seven states served by REL 

Midwest. OMB approval is being requested for an online survey of a sample of school board 

members, district administrators, principals, and teachers in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, 

Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

The survey consists of a set of items to be asked of all respondents, including questions 

about priority needs both within the four main topical areas (college and career readiness, early

childhood education, educator effectiveness, and low-performing schools and school 

improvement) and across a set of actual project concepts under consideration by REL Midwest

(see Appendix A). The survey varies somewhat by respondent category (school board member, 

district administrator, principal, and teacher) since only principals and teachers are in a position 

to provide feedback on priority needs at the level of the school (see Appendix B).

A. JUSTIFICATION

The purpose of the sample survey, which will encompass the first three years of the contract, 

is to assess:

 the importance these populations attach to the four issues identified in advance by REL 

Midwest as priorities for the region (i.e., educator effectiveness, college and career 
Pg 2

readiness, low-performing schools and school improvement, and early childhood 

education);

 for each issue, the types of data and analysis supports, and research and evaluation needs 

which respondents anticipate would be of particular value;

 what factors would increase the likelihood respondents and the populations they represent 

would turn to the REL for data and analysis supports, or research and evaluation needs in 

the future.

REL Midwest will use results of the survey to prioritize the assistance that REL Midwest 

provides to educators in the region for utilizing their longitudinal data systems, conducting high 

quality research and evaluation; learning about the best education research; and incorporating 

data into policy and practice.

More specifically, the survey will give respondents in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, 

Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin an opportunity to provide REL Midwest and ED with 

information on the priority needs of the region. This includes feedback from stakeholders in each 

of the seven states served by REL Midwest on current levels of interest in the four priority areas 

(described above) that are the focus of REL Midwest’s work, as well as stakeholder interest in 

important educational issues that fall under each of these four priority areas. Finally, respondents 

will be asked to provide feedback on a variety of specific activities that REL Midwest is 

planning to undertake over the next five years. Failure to collect this information might result in 

a misalignment of REL Midwest services and the needs of the educators they serve.

1. Circumstances Necessitating Collection of Information

This data collection is authorized by the Educational Sciences Reform Act (ESRA) of 

2002. Part D, Section 174(f)(3) of ESRA states that as part of their central mission and primary
Pg 3

function, each regional educational laboratory “shall support applied research, development, 

wide dissemination, and technical assistance activities by...developing a plan for identifying and 

serving the needs of the region by conducting a continuing survey of the educational needs, 

strengths, and weaknesses within the region.”

2. How, by Whom, and for What Purpose Information Is to Be Used

Results of the survey will be used by REL Midwest to help refine its understanding of 

regional needs and inform its future research, technical assistance, and dissemination work.

Aggregate results also will be provided in reports to the U.S. Department of Education to inform 

ongoing efforts to identify and address high priority needs of educators across the nation.

3. Use of Automated, Electronic, Mechanical or Other Technological Collection 

Techniques

The data collection plan reflects sensitivity to issues of efficiency, accuracy, and 

respondent burden. Specifically, the survey is being conducted via the Web in order to reduce 

burden on respondents (i.e., completion of online surveys is less time intensive than completion 

of pencil-and-paper mail-out/mail-back surveys) and to increase response rates and facilitate 

analysis of the data collected (e.g., precoding items reduces time required to prepare data files).

4. Efforts to Avoid Duplication of Effort

This effort will yield unique data to identify and address the most pressing needs of 

educators in the Midwest region. There are no similar evaluations being conducted and there is 

no alternative source for the information to be collected. 

5. Sensitivity to Burden on Small Entities

Sampling plans do not target specific schools or other small entities.
Pg 4

6. Consequences to Federal Program or Policy Activities if the Collection is Not 

Conducted or Is Conducted Less Frequently than Proposed

If the proposed data were not collected, IES would fail to fulfill its mandate in ESRA 2002 

to identify and serve the educational needs of the Midwest region by conducting a continuing 

survey. Thus, federal resources would be allocated and program decisions would be made in the 

absence of valid evidence of the need for products and activities provided by REL Midwest to 

educators in the region.

7. Special Circumstances

There are no special circumstances.

8. Federal Register Announcement and Consultation

a. Federal Register Announcement

We will publish Federal Register Notices to allow both a 60-day and 30-day public 

comment period.

b. Consultations Outside the Agency

None.

c. Unresolved Issues

None.

9. Payment or Gift to Respondents

None.

10. Confidentiality of the Data

The data collection efforts that are the focus of this clearance package will be conducted in

accordance with all relevant federal regulations and requirements. These include the Education
Pg 5

Sciences Reform Act of 2002, Title I, Part E, Section 183 that requires “All collection,

maintenance, use, and wise dissemination of data by the Institute: to “conform with the

requirements of section 552 of Title 5, United States Code, the confidentiality standards of

subsections (c) of this section, and sections 444 and 445 of the General Education Provisions Act

(20 U.S.C. 1232 g, 1232h).” These citations refer to the Privacy Act, the Family Educational

Rights and Privacy Act, and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment.

Data to be collected will not be released with individual identifiers. Data will be presented 

in aggregate statistical form only. A statement to this effect is included in all advance materials 

and in the opening screen of the survey. The following safeguards are routinely employed by

NORC to ensure confidentiality:

 All employees at NORC sign a confidentiality pledge (Appendix E) emphasizing its 

importance and describing their obligation.

 Access to sample selection data is limited to those who have direct responsibility for 

providing and maintaining sample locating information. At the conclusion of the 

research, these data are destroyed.

 Identifying information is maintained on separate forms and files, which are linked only

by sample identification number.

 Access to the file linking sample identification numbers with the respondents’ ID and 

contact information is limited to a small number of individuals who have a need to know 

this information.

 Access to the hard copy documents is strictly limited. Documents are stored in locked 

files and cabinets. Discarded material is shredded.
Pg 6

 Computer data files are protected with passwords and access is limited to specific users. 

With especially sensitive data, the data are maintained on removable storage devices that 

are kept physically secure when not in use.

The Privacy Act of 1974 applies to this data collection. NORC will make certain that all 

surveys are held strictly confidential, as described above, and that in no instance will responses 

be made available except in tabular form. 

11. Additional Justification for Sensitive Questions

No questions of a highly sensitive nature are included in the survey.

12. Estimates of Hour Burden

The total reporting burden associated with this data collection is 983 hours (See Table 1 

below). Approximately 2,800 respondents will be contacted with a target response rate of 80%, 

and the approximate time required for each respondent to complete the online survey is 0.33 

hours on average. An advance notification letter is estimated to add 3 minutes (0.05 hours) to 

participation in the survey (see Appendix C). There will also be one postcard and up to four 

email follow-ups (0.04 hours each) for individuals who do not respond to the initial letter (see 

Appendix D). For more detailed information on the sample, please refer to Table 3.
Pg 7

Table 1: Administration Times

Reporting 

Method

Number of 

Respondents

Average Time 

(hours)

Total Burden

(hours)

1. A simple random sample of 2,800 educators in 4 groups across 7 states will be drawn 

from approximately 584,000 records. Each prospective respondent will be sent a letter 

notifying him/her of this opportunity to participate in the survey. Respondents who 

choose to opt out of the study at this stage will be replaced in the sample. For the 

purposes of calculating burden hours, NORC estimates 280 replacements may be 

required. Each of these 3,080 (2,800+280) initial contacts require an estimated 3 minutes 

of burden (0.05 hour). 

Advance 

notification letter 3,080 .05 154

2. If 1,400 of the 3,080 initial contacts agree to participate in the survey, then an estimated 

1,400 contacts will require a postcard and email follow-up. Note again that this assumes 

280 replacements made to the initial sample of 2,800. Estimated 2.5 minutes (0.04 hour) 

of respondent burden for each additional contact.

 Postcard and 

email follow-up to 

advance letter

1,400 .04 56

3. Of the 1,400 follow-up contacts, an estimated 560 additional individuals will agree to 

participate in the survey. Thus an estimated 840 contacts may require up to 3 additional 

email prompts. Estimated 2.5 minutes (0.04 hour) of respondent burden for each 

additional contact, with an estimated average of 2 additional prompts sent.

 

 An average of two 

additional email 

prompts

840 .04 34

4. Of the 840 follow-up contacts, an estimated 280 additional individuals will agree to 

participate in the survey. This results in a total of 2,240 participants at an estimated 20 

minutes (0.33 hour) of respondent burden for completing the survey.

 Completion of 

online survey 2,240 .33 739

Total 983 hours

The annualized cost to respondents (see Table 2 below) is calculated from the previous table by 

summing across items 1-3 to obtain the burden hours for gaining cooperation. Thus the burden 

hours per respondent for gaining cooperation from the total sample of 3,080 is (154 + 56 + 34) / 

3,080 = 0.077. As shown in item 4 of Table 1, the burden hours for completing the survey are 

0.33 for each respondent.
Pg 8

Table 2: Annualized Cost

Task Respondents Time Estimate

Hourly 

rate

Estimated 

monetary 

cost of 

burden

Type of 

respondent

Number

Hours per 

respondent

Total 

hours

Gaining 

cooperation 

District 

administrators 

and principals

1,540 .08 122 $50 $6,100

School board 

members and 

teachers

1,540 .08 122 $30 $3,660

Total 3,080 .08 244 $40 $9,760

Survey

District 

administrators 

and principals

1,120 .33 370 $50 $18,500

School board 

members and 

teachers

1,120 .33 370 $30 $11,100

Total 2,240 .33 740 $40 $29,600

Total $39,360

13. Estimate of Total Annual Cost Burden to Respondents or Record-Keepers

There are no start-up costs for this collection.

14. Estimates of Annualized Cost to the Federal Government

Annualized costs to the federal government for developing, fielding, and analyzing the 

survey include $153,151 in Y1 (for developing the survey, obtaining OMB approval, and project 

management), $208,182 in Y2 (for fielding the survey, analyzing results, and project 

management), and $155,422 in Y3 (for analyzing results, drafting reports, and project 
Pg 9

management). Thus the average annual cost to the federal government for work conducted over 

all three years is $172,252.

15. Reasons for Program Changes or Adjustments

This is a new study.

16. Plan for Tabulation and Publication and Schedule for Project

a. Tabulation Plans

Responses to each closed-ended item in the survey will be compiled and reported

separately for school board members, superintendents, principles, and teachers across all seven 

states in order to identify differences in the demand for and use of REL services that are based on 

educator role. Data from common survey items will be analyzed by demographic characteristic 

as well, looking for significant differences in the responses of particular educators based on, e.g. 

whether they are located in urban vs. rural schools or districts. Survey responses also will be 

aggregated to the state level by educator role and demographic characteristic to determine how 

the demand for and use of REL services varies geographically within the Midwest region. 

Responses to the open-ended survey item will be reviewed to develop a topical coding scheme 

that captures the range of educator needs that go beyond those covered in the survey itself. Once 

coded, these items will also be analyzed by educator role, demographic characteristic, and state.

b. Publication Plans

The report is scheduled to be completed in April 2014, following the completion of data 

collection in Q2 and Q3 of 2013. A key objective of the report is to identify high priority needs 

and how these vary across educator roles and geographic regions (both among and within states). 
Pg 10

Analytic techniques will range from descriptive statistics and analysis of variance (ANOVA) to

qualitative analysis of open-ended items in the survey.

c. Time Schedule

The timeline for data collection, analysis, and reporting is shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Schedule of Activities

Activity Schedule

Field online survey April 2013-July 2013

Analysis and report August 2013-April 2014

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

Approval not to display the expiration date for OMB approval is not requested.

18. Exception to the Certification Statement

No exceptions to the certification statement are being sought.