### January **1 6**  **, 2013** 

# High School Longitudinal Study of **2009 (HSLS:09) 2013**  **Update and Transcript Main**  **Study (201**  **3 )**  **Supporting Statement**

**Part A Request for OMB Review**  **OMB# 1850 -**  **0852 v.**  **1 1** 

Submitted by **National Center for Education Statistics**

**U.S. Department of Education**i 

### TABLE **OF CONTENTS Section**  **Page** A. Justification ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 1 A.1 Circumstances Necessitating Collection of Information ................................ .......... 1 A.1.a Purpose of This Submission ................................ ................................ ...... 1 A.1.b Legislative Authorization ................................ ................................ .......... 4 A.1.c Prior and Related Studies ................................ ................................ .......... 4 A.2 Purpose and Use of Information Collection ................................ ............................. 4 A.2.a Content Justifications: 2013 Update Questionnaire and High School Transcripts ................................ ................................ .................... 5 A.3 Use of Improved Information Technology and Burden Reduction .......................... 9 A.3.a 2013 Update ................................ ................................ ................................ . 9 A.3.b High School Transcripts ................................ ................................ ......... 10 A.5 Impact on Small Businesses or Other Small Entities ................................ ............. 13 A.6 Consequences of Collecting the Information Less Frequently .............................. 14 A.7 Special Circumstances Relating to Guidelines of 5 CFR 1320.5 ........................... 14 A.8 Consultations Outside NCES ................................ ................................ ................. 14 A.9 Explanation of Pay ment or Gift to Respondents ................................ .................... 17 A.10 Assurance of Confidentiality Provided to Respondents ................................ ......... 22 A.11 Justification for Sensitive Questions ................................ ................................ ...... 24 A.12 Estimates of Annualized Burden Hours and Their Cost to Respondents ............... 24 A.13 Estimates of Total Annual Cost Burden to Respondents ................................ ....... 25 A.14 Annualized Cost to the Federal Government ................................ ......................... 25 A.15 Reasons for Program Changes ................................ ................................ ............... 25 A.16 Publication Plans and Project Schedule ................................ ................................ . 26 A.17 Reason(s) Display

of OMB Expiration Date Is Inappropriate ............................... 26 A.18 Exceptions to Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Statement .................... 26 References ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 27ii 

### EXHIBITS **Number Page**  Exhibit A - 1. HSL S:09 Data Security Plan Outline ................................ ...................... 23 Exhibit A - 2. Estimated Burden for HSLS:09 2013 Update and Transcript

Main Study 25 Exhibit A - 3. Total Costs to NCES ................................ ................................ ............... 25 Exhibit A - 4. Operational Schedule for HSL S:09 ................................ ........................ 26 

### TAB **LES Number**  **Page** Table 1. Projected costs and response rate for 2013 Update ................................ ........................ 20 Table 2. Proposed variables to include in model to identify target cases ................................ ..... 21 

### ATTACHMENTS Appendix 1 Data Collection Communication Materials Appendix 2 2013 Update Interview Questionnaire Appendix 3 High School Transcript Component Data Elements1 

### High School Longitudinal **Study of 2009** This document has been submitted to request clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and 5 CFR 1320 for the High School L ongitudinal Study of 2009 (HSL S:09). The study is being conducted by the National Center for Education Statis tics (NCES), with the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) International as the main contractor, and the American Institutes for Research (AIR), Windwalker Corporation, Horizon Research Inc., Research Support Services (RSS), and MPR Associates (MPR) as subcontractors , under contract to the U.S. Department of Education ( Contract number ED - IES10C0033). The submission requests clearance for the HSLS:09 High School Transcript and 201 3 Update collections and the second follow - up panel maintenance . The materials to be used in the main study do not differ substantivel y from th os e that were approved in April 2012 for the field test data collections , and the 60 - day

Federal register comment period was wai ved for this submission as part of the field test clearance (OMB# 1850 - 0852 v.10) . This submission contains a description of the H igh School Transcript collection, along with the 2013 Update questionnaire , which can be completed by either students or their parent/guardian. It should be noted that at the time of the fi eld test, the study was referred to as the “College Update.” However, given that students who do not go on immediately (or at all) to college are of the same importance to the study as those who did enroll, it would seem that the name “2013 Update” will be more appropriate for the main study . It should be noted that the 2013 Update is, in fact, an update and should not be confused with the s econd follow - up study , scheduled to be conducted in 2016. **A .**  **JUSTIFICATION A.1**  **Circumstances Necessitating Collection of Information A.1.a**  **Purpose of This Submission** The materials in this document support a request for clearance for the 2013 Update and High School Transcript collection for HSL S:09. The basic compo nents and key design features of HSL S:09 are summarized below . Base Year  survey and math assessment administered to more than 21,000 high school 9th graders in 944 schools during fall 2009;  survey s of 9 th - graders’ parents, mathematics and science teachers , school administrators, and school counselors in fall 2009 ; First Follow - up  follow - up in spring 2012, when sample members are high school juniors, have dropped out , or are in other grades;  survey

of school administrators, school counselors, and subsample of parents in 2012;  return to the same schools but separate following of transfer students and dropouts ;2

2013 Update  a 2013 Update with parents or students in the summer/fall after modal senior year ( 2012 - 2013); High School Transcript  high school transcript component in the 2013 - 2014 academic year (records data for grades 9

– 12) ; and Future Follow - ups  post - high school follow - ups by web survey

and computer- assisted telephone interview (CATI ; second follow - up scheduled for 201 6 and a third follow - up in 2021 ) . HSL S:09 will provide information in support of several goals of the President’s agenda and the American Co mpetitiveness Initiative (ACI): 1) S trengthening math and science education ; 2) Improving the high school experience in the United States ; 3 ) Expanding access to postsecondary education . First, HSL S:09 brings a new and special emphasis to the study of youth transition by

exploring the path s that students pursue in the fields of science, technology , engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Second , the 2013 Update takes a snapshot of the cohort at a key transition point between high school and postsecondary

education or work. The HSL S:09 data will help anal ys ts examine how high school experiences influence this transition. Third, HSLS:09 will pro vide policy makers with data about the factors that promote or inhibit postsecondary access and matriculation. Indeed, before reaching postsecondary education, students must complete secondary education, an attainment which eludes a large fraction of the student population. High schools that do not graduate at least 60% of their students have been labeled ‘dropout factories’ (Balfanz and L egters, 2004). Yet, the decision to drop out is made on several levels, from the individual to the parent and family , among peers, and within high schools. HSL S:09 provides data to illuminate the multi - level factors involved in students’ decisions to depart high school without a diploma. Eventually , a percentage of dropouts will obtain alternative credential s such as the GED , and the timing and means of earning these alternative credentials will be captured in the HSL S:09 data. All students, including dropouts and holders of alternative diplomas, may pursue some form of postsecondary education at some point, so their p ostsecondary

educational aspirations, plans, and expectations should be understood as well. The HSL S:09 survey

collects s tudent - level factors, such as expectations and academic preparation, which may

combine with background characteristics to facilitate or inhibit enrollment at a postsecondary institution . The choice set of postsecondary education includes ty pe of institution attended, whether it was a first - choice institution, the level of intensity (full - or part - time), and the means to fund the choice s , among other matters . This choice is also related to such considerations as institution ty pes, offered programs, provided aid, and other institutional characteristics, such as reputation, size, cost, and social environment.3

Once students matriculate at postsecondary institutions, additional issues that HSL S:09 can address include rate of return on sub - baccalaureate and baccalaureate education, postsecondary educational persistence, patterns of transfer, and baccalaureate attainment. Brock (2010) points out that changes in federal policy and public attitudes have opened up higher education to women, minorities, and nontraditional students, who are overrepresented in sub - baccalaureate programs and in community colleges (Provasnik and Planty 2008). Stud ents at two - ye ar colleges, however, are less likel y than those at four- ye ar institutions to complete a bachelor’s degree, even when they plan and expect to do so (Brock 2010; Provasnik and Planty 2008). With the increased prevalence and importance of community college comes the need to understand better who attends, for what reasons, under what circumstances, and to what outcomes. Success in community college reflects the combined influence of opportunity structures, institutional practices, and the social, economic, and academic attributes students bring to college (Goldrick - Rab 2010). With more nontraditional and underprepared students in community college, it is important to understand nontraditional pathway s into and through higher education. As Adelm an observes , “the complexity

of student postsecondary enrollment patterns has accelerated” (Adelman 2006). Issues such as pattern s of transfer are particularl y important, as exemplified by purposeful migration from two - year to four- ye ar institutions versu s “swirling” (wandering from one school to another

— swirling has a significant negative association with degree completion [Adelman 2006]). Stopping out, dropping in, and auditing are additional patterns of attendance that must be delineated and understood and that may be tied to the relativel y low baccalaureate attainment rate. Even when low - SES and first - generation college students begin in 4 - ye ar institutions, they are disproportionately

likel y to engage in “reverse” movement from 4 - ye ar to 2 - ye ar schoo ls, which in turn is associated with much lower odds of completion (Goldrick - Rab and Pfeffer 2009). The HSL S:09 2013 Update and subsequent follow - up s will examine these complexities of postsecondary educational access , choice, and success. In sum, the HSL S:09 design, with its carefully- selected points of data collection, captures the ever- longer and more branching path to adulthood. The in - school rounds capture the transition into high school, the bulk of the high school experience, algebraic reasoning achievement gain expected in the high school years, and the transition out of high school, from earl y plans and expectations to actual choice. The two high school assessment and survey points are complemented b y the continuous data from 9 th grade through 12 th grade that will be supplied by high school transcripts. The 2013 Update collects the evolved plans and decisions of students at the very transition point out of high school and onto a postsecondary

pathway and opens a window onto issues of access and c hoice. Subsequent rounds of data collection will explore patterns of postsecondary attendance, as well as the transition of the non - college -4

going young adults into the labor market, postsecondary education persistence, intensity of enrollment, remediation , transfer , and attainment. **A.1.b Legislative Authorization**  HSL S:09 is sponsored by NCES, within the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), in close consultation with other offices and organizations within and outside the U.S. Department of Education (ED). HSL S:09 is authorized by the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 ( 20 U.S. C . Section 954 3 ) . **A.1.c Prior and Related Studies**  In 1970, NCES initiated a program of longitudinal high school studies. Its purpose was to gather time - series data on national ly representative samples of high school students that would be pertinent to the formulation and evaluation of education polices. Starting with the National L ongitudinal Study of the High School Class of 1972 (NL S:72), NCES began providing education policy makers and researchers with longitudinal data that linked education experiences with later outcomes. Almost 10 years later, in 1980, High School and Beyond (HS&B) included one cohort of high school seniors comparable to the seniors in NLS:72. The third lo ngitudinal study of students was the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NEL S:88), which began with a cohort of 8 th - graders. The Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002) started with a 10 th grade cohort in 2002, with follow - ups in 2004, 2006, a third follow - up questionnaire administration in 2012 , and EL S:2002 postsecondary transcript collection scheduled for 201 3 - 2014 . These studies have investigated the education al , personal, and vocational deve lopment of students and the school, familial, community , personal, and cultural factors that affect this development. Each of these studies has provided rich information about the critical transition from high school to postsecondary education and the workforce. HSLS:09 continue s on the path of its predecessors while also creating a new focus on factors associated with choosing, persisting in, and succeeding in STEM course - taking and careers. **A.2 Purpose and Use of Information Collection**  HSL S:09 is intended to be a general - purpose dataset; that is, it is designed to serve multiple policy objectives. Policy

issues studied through HSLS:09 include the identification of school attributes associated with mathematics achievement, college entry , and career choice; the relationship between parent and peer inv olvement and student achievement , activities, plans, decisions, and development; the factors associated with dropping out of the education sy stem; and the transition of different groups ( e.g. ,5

racial and ethnic, gender, and socioeconomic status groups) from high school to postsecondary institutions and the labor market, and especiall y into STEM curricula and careers. The objectives of HSLS:09 also encompass the need to support both longitudinal and cross - cohort anal ys es and to provide a basis for important descriptive cross - sectional analy ses. HSLS:09 is first and foremost a longitudinal study ; hence survey items are chosen for their usefulness in predicting future outcomes as measured in later survey waves. Comp ared to its earlier counterparts, there are considerable changes to the design of HSL S:09

– specifically , changes in the grade at which data are collected in the in school rounds

—that will need to be considered when doing trend comparisons. NEL S:88 began wi th an eighth - grade cohort in the spring term; although this cohort is not markedly different from the fall - term 9th - grade cohort of HSLS:09 in terms of student knowledge base, it differs at the school level . The HSL S:09 time point represents the beginning of high school rather than the point of departure from middle school. Unlike its predecessor studies , HSLS:09 includes a spring - term 11th - grade follow - up because onl y modest gains have been seen on assessments in the final year of high school, and the 11th grade follow - up minimizes unit response problems associated with testing in the spring term of the senior ye ar. The design of HSLS:09 calls for information to be collected from parents of (modal) 11th - graders and the use of a parent/student 2013 Update survey . The collection of transcripts will provide continuous term - by- term data for 9 th through 12 th grades , which will relate achievement gain to coursetaking choice s. All of these data will allow trend comparisons of coursetaking patterns and other common high school policy

issues with HS&B, NEL S:88, and ELS:2002. The HSL S:09 2013 Update allows anal ys ts to understand students’ plans for after high school, including their potential college plans, preparation, and information - seeking behavior. In terms of students planning for college, the survey questions will tap if and where students applied, if and where they were accepted, and with what financial aid (if any); what work they expect to take in the fall after their intended high school graduation date ; a s well as parental resources and support. Inaddition to potential college plans, the 2013 Update collects information for plans for employ ment and other post secondary options such as military

and family

formation. Traditionally , past studies have waited for retrospective data on these critical topics, but these issues, given today ’s policy interests , are too important to tolerate inaccuracies from post - hoc recall. The 2013 Update will provide data at the most critical time period to predict , for example , postsecondary matriculation and to track how students’ plans evolve from the beginning to the end of high school. **A.2.a Content Justifications**  **: 2013 Update**  **Questionnaire and High School Transcripts**  **2013 Update**6

The 2013 Update is a 15 - minute questionnaire to be answered b y either the student or the parent. The questions will be largel y objective since a student or a parent must have the same information to provide consistent answers across respondent types . The 2013 Update instrument anchors responses to November 1, when college - bound students should be enrolled in postsecondary education and most of the cohort will have completed high school. Main study cohort members will not be interviewed again until 201 6 , when most will be three ye ars beyond high s chool, and when information about postsecondary plans, choice sets, and decision processes would be stale and subject to recall bias and ex post facto rationalization. The questionnaire is organized in five substantive sections : (1) high school attendance and completion status ; (2) general plans for fall 2013; (3) postsecondary applications and programs of study ; ( 4 ) cost and financial aid of attending postsecondary education ; and ( 5 ) employ ment experiences and plans. The 2013 Update marks another stage for tracing and measuring the evolution of postsecondary plans, including STEM - related plans, and for connecting plans to outcomes. Each topic in the questionnaire contributes to the fuller understanding of the factors affecting postsecondary educ ational access and choice, or to employ ment outcomes. **High School Attendance and Completion Status**  . Since high school completion is a critical defining event for this cohort, four distinct ty pes of completion status will be discerned: 1) earl y completio n (ahead of the modal completion time for the cohort); 2) on - time completion (the mode for the cohort); 3) non - completion (still in high school or in homeschool); and 4) non - completion (dropout). The survey will map these four critical pathway s. Because o f differences in the quality of educational experience that each represents, it is also important to know the ty pe of high school credential obtained. If a high school credential has not yet been earned, respondents will be asked about plans to do so. Addi tionally , names of high schools attended since last interviewed will be collected, which will be valuable in the high school transcript collection. The interview will also gather information o n enrollment in Advance Placement ( AP ) , International Baccalaure ate ( IB ) , and dual enrollment courses by subject area (math, science, other) . Finally , respondents will be asked about meetings with high school counselors and who they consider to have been the most influential people in the student’s decisions regarding college, financial aid, and careers. **General Plans for**  **F all**  **2013 .**  The questionnaire asks respondents to report their plans on November 1, 201 3 , when the majority of the cohort will be entering postsecondary education, entering the workforce, serving in the military , starting a family , or a combination of these or other activities. Respondents who will be continuing their educ ation and working will be asked which of these activities7

will be the main focus, allowing for the possibility th at both may

receive equal attention. Those who will be taking classes or working will be asked if they will be pursuing these activities full - time or part - time. Respondents who plan to serve in the military will be asked which branch they will enlist in. **Postsecondary Applications and Programs of Study**  **.** Respondents planning to continue their education or training will be asked to report their chosen postsecondary institution, the ty

pe of program, expected major field of study , and where they will live whi le enrolled . The 2013 Update supplies an invaluable opportunity to take a snapshot of the cohort’s plans at a key transition point. All respondents, regardless of fall plans, will be asked the names of at most two postsecondary

institution s to which they applied , in addition to the institution they will attend, if applicable. Admiss ion status for each of these schools will be collected and respondents then will be requested to indicate which of the schools in the application set and acceptan ce set was or is their first choice. Those who will be taking classes will be asked which characteristics were important in their selection of their postsecondary institution. **C ost and**  **F inancial**  **A id of**  **A ttending**  **Pos tsecondary**  **E ducation**  . College choice is sensitive to cost, and cost can be mitigated b y financial aid. The 2013 Update instrument asks all respondents, regardless of postsecondary plans whether financial aid was applied for and whether financial aid was received. The instrument ascertains the ty pe of financial aid offered by the institution to be attended on November 1 , as well as financial aid offered by the institution designated as the respondent’s first choice among the institutions where accepted. Those students (and families) who did not apply for financial aid will be surveyed for reasons for not appl ying. The information collected in this section of the questionnaire will be complemented by federal financial aid data from the Central Processing System (FAFSA) and the National Student L o an Data S ys tem for federal loans (Stafford, Perkins) and federal grants (Pell) which will be acquired later through administrative records matching . Cost

—actual or perceived

—is important information for modeling choice. Information is gathered about cost, relative to the first - choice institution and the school that the student will actually attend. Those who chose not to continue their education or training will be asked about their rationale for deciding not to extend their education after high school . **Em ployment**  **Experiences and Plans** . The 2013 Update also collects information on employ ment at the time of the interview. Questions will include the job title and duties, compensation and hours worked, relation to career goals, whether the job is an apprenticeship , when the job began, and whether the high school assisted the student in getting the job . Respondents who hold more than one job at the time of the interview will be asked about additional hours worked and earnings from all other jobs.8

Those who have plans to work on November 1 st are asked if their current main job is the one they plan to hold at that time. I f not, they are asked for their expected job title and duties as of November 1 st

. **Locating Information .**  The 2013 Update also collects locating information to assist in tracking the cohort as it disperses at this key transition point. In formation collected includes name, address es , telephone numbers, email address es , and social security numbers for the teenager and a parent. For students who will still be enrolled in high school in the fall, the name and location of their school for the 2013 - 2014 school year is collected. **High School Transcripts** In addition to the 2013 Update, HSL S:09 will be collecting high school transcripts. High scho ol transcript studies have been conducted b y NCES as part of the Secondary Longitudinal Studies Program and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) High School Transcript Studies (HSTS) program since 1982. Transcripts include the official a nd fixed record of student coursetaking. When collected from students, a part from increased burden, students find it difficult to recall accurate information about the number and types of courses taken, the date taken, and the grades received over the four- ye ar period. As such, transcripts are considered to be more accurate than students’ self - reported information. While the collection of administrative records from schools presents a number of challenges and has its own set of limitations (e.g., uncooperative schools, incomplete records), transcripts offer an objective, reliable, cost - effective means for obtaining information about crucial aspects of students’ educational experiences. Course catalogs will be collected, and a course offerings file will b e created in addition to a transcript file. In HSL S:09, s pecific content requested in the High School Transcript component includes : Student - level information :  Ty pe of diploma awarded ;  Date diploma awarded ;  Date student left school (for students who did not graduate) ;  Reason student left school (graduated, transferred, etc.) ;  Cumulative GPA ;  Dual (concurrent) enrollment ; and  Standardized test scores for the PSAT, SAT, ACT, and Advanced Placement tests . Coursetaking histories for grades 9 through 12 (plus high - school - level courses such as algebra taken before 9 th grade and inclusive of high school summer courses in 2013 ):  Course title and number ;  Year, grade level, and term course taken ;  Number of credits earned ; and  Grade assigned .9

S chool - level information:  Grade scale ;  Course grade weighting system used, if any ;  Availability

of student - level information ;  GPA formula ;  Carnegie unit conversion information ;  Term sy stem used ;  Course catalogs (if not collected previousl y) ;  Ty pes of diplomas granted ; and  Credits required for different ty pes of diplomas . The immense value of high school transcripts as objective, reliable measures of crucial aspects of students’ educational experiences is widely recognized. Inthe course of the first major NCES transcript study (in High School and Beyond, 1982), a methodological comparison was made of student self - reports and school records. This comparison (Fetters, Stowe and Owings, 1984) established that with respect to level of detail, accuracy , and completeness, trans cript data are vastly superior to student self

- reports of exposure to learning si tuations and grades received. When coupled with data on students’ family backgrounds and demographic characteristics, school environments, and standardized achievement and outcome measures, transcripts permit the specification of complex models of educational processes. Moreover, transcript components of longitudinal studies such as HS&B, NELS:88, EL S:2002 , and HSLS:09 permit the measurement of the association between high school program and course s and post - high school outcomes in labor force and postsecondary education. The data are invaluable for intra - cohort analy sis, such as measuring the relationship between mathematics coursetaking and achievement gains (Bozick and Ingels 2008). Prior studies such as NEL S:88 and ELS:2002 supported trend comparisons (both with each other and NAEP high school transcripts), but this was possible only because of freshening at 12 th grade to provide a representative sample of high school s eniors. The HSL S:09 transcripts pertain to a 9 th grade cohort onl y. However, successor studies to HSLS:09, with a fall ninth - grade starting point, are anticipated in the future and would make inter- cohort transcript comparisons possible. **A.3 Use of Impr**  **oved Information Technology and Burden Reduction A.3.a**  **2013 Update** With few exceptions, 2013 Update questionnaire data collected for the HSLS:09 2013 Update will be limited to electronic media. Student sample members and their parents will be given a us ername and password and will be asked to have one of the two (either student or parent) complete the 2013 Update via the Internet. There will be a computer - assisted telephone interview (CATI) follow - up for student sample10

members and their parents who do n ot complete the web questionnaire b y s elf - administration. Computer control of interviewing efficientl y manages survey activities, including scheduling of calls, generation of reports on sample disposition, data quality monitoring, interviewer performance, and flow of information between telephone and field operations. Additional features of the CATI s ys tem include: 1) online help for each screen to assist interviewers in question administration; 2) full documentation of all instrument components, including variable ranges, formats, record layouts, labels, question wording, and flow logic; 3) capability for creating and processing hierarchical data structures to eliminate data redundancy and conserve computer resources; 4) a scheduler sy stem to manage the f low and assignment of cases to interviewers by time zone, case status, appointment information , and prior cases disposition; 5) an integrated case - level control sy stem to track the status of each sample member across the various data collection activities; 6) automatic audit file creation and timed backup to ensure that, if an interview is terminated prematurely and later restarted, all data entered during the earlier portion of the interview can be retrieved; and 7) a screen library

containing the survey

instrument as displayed to the interviewer. **A.3.b High School Transcripts**  As a first step in the high school transcript collection, RTIcollected course catalogs, when and where possible, during the first follow - up in - school survey administration for the academic ye ars 200 9

– 10 to 201 2

– 1 3 . To the extent that the catalogs we re available in electronic format, we collected catalogs electronically

via e - mail or upload to the study website. Any

schools whose catalogs c ould not be obtained in that manner were asked to provide hard copy course catalogs via an express delivery service. At the time of the transcript collection, any outstanding school catalogs will be requested. High school transcripts will be requested for the cohort from the schools from which the students were sampled as part of HSL S:09 base ye ar, as well as all additional schools attended by the students since then. A complete transcript will be requested for each sample member. Several methods will be used for obtaining the transcript data inc luding: 1. Asking school staff to upload electronic transcripts for sampled students to a secure study website; 2. Asking school staff to send electronic transcripts for sampled students by s ecure File Transfer Protocol; 3. Asking school staff to send electronic transcripts via e - mail with encry pted attachments; 4. Obtaining transcripts directly using a dedicated server at the University of Texas at Austin (described in more detail below) for those schools participating in the program;11

5. If none of the above methods is possible, school staff may send transcripts to a secure electronic fax at RTI(after sending a confirmed test page); or 6. If none of the above methods is possible, school staff may send the transcripts via an expres s delivery service after redacting personall y identifiable information. The fourth collection method listed above is a relatively new process. Approximately 100 high schools across the nation currentl y send academic transcripts in standardized electronic formats via a dedicated server at the University of Texas at Austin. The server now supports Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) and XMLformats. Based on RTI’s experience with the collection of postsecondary transcripts for the B&B:08/09 and BPS:04/09 trans cripts, it is likely that very few high schools will provide data via this server. However, providing schools with this option will reduce the burden of providing transcripts on those schools that do use it. After collecting the transcripts and catalogs, d ata from the transcripts will be keyed, when needed, and the courses coded. Courses will be coded using a course - coding taxonomy based on the Classification of Secondary

School Courses (CSSC) from the 200 9 NAEP High School Transcript Study . Because the CSS C is a modified version of the Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP), RTI will carefully review both the CSSC and the 2010 CIP to identify any updates that may

be beneficial to carry

over to the CSSC. Guidance will be provided b y NCES, technical review panel members, and other key personnel on refining and reviewing the taxonomy for transcript coding and new courses and fields of study . Verifications of transcript data keying and coding at the student level will be performed. Any errors will be re corded and corrected as needed. Once the transcripts for each school are keyed and coded, transcript course coding at the school level will be reviewed b y expert coders to ensure that: (1) coding taxonomies have been applied consistently and data elements of interest have been coded properl y within schools; (2) program information has been coded consistently according to the program area and sequence level indicators in course titles; (3) records of sample members who attended multiple schools do not have d uplicate entries for credits that transferred from one school to another; and (4) additional information has been noted and coded properly . **A .**  **3 .c**  **. Panel Maintenance.** Two panel maintenance collections are planned . The first will take place immediately upon receipt of OMB approval , in spring of 2013 , and will inform sample members that the next update begins in June 2013. Sample members will be asked to provide updated contact information via web or hardcopy reply form.12

A second panel maintenance collection will take place between the update round and the second follow - up study . To prepare for the second follow - up, s ample members will be given an online or hardcop y option to provide updated contact information. This panel maintenance mailing prior to the second follow - up is planned for both the field test and main study samples. The field test sample will only receive a single panel maintenance mailing in late 2013 to prepare for the second follow - up which is scheduled fo r spring 2015. This is because the field test update has already taken place. Panel maintenance would be performed on the main study sample in spring 2013 to prepare for the 2013 Update and in late 2014 to prepare for the second follow - up study . **A.4 Effor** **ts to Identify Duplication and Use of Similar Information** Since 1970, NCES has consulted with other federal offices to ensure that the data collected in this important series of longitudinal studies do not duplicate information from any other national data sources. In addition, NCES staff have regularl y consulted with nonfederal associations such as the College Board, American Educational Research Association, the National Association for College Admission Counseling, the American Association of Community C olleges, and other groups to confirm that the HSL S:09 data to be collected are not available from any other sources. These consultations also provide methodological and substantive insights from other studies of secondary and postsecondary

students and la bor force members . This openness to input and feedback ensures that the data collected through HSL S:09 will meet the needs of the federal government and other interes ted agencies and organizations. Within NCES, HSL S:09 builds on and extends past studies rather than duplicating them. First, the instrumentation and design of HSL S:09 explicitly complement the redesign of NPSAS and BPS. HSL S:09 staff ensure that the questions raised by NPSAS and BPS about what happens to their participants before they

enter the respective postsecondary studies are asked. Indeed, the postsecondary and secondary

longitudinal survey

staff collaborate extensively to align the foci of the research questions, the definition and meaning of study constructs, and the measurement of th ese constructs across survey programs. Such collaboration maximizes the possibility of producing an analy

tically valuable data product with interest to educators, researchers, and policy makers. Second, design articulation with prior NCES secondary longitudinal studies also show s coordination , and innovation , not duplication. These earlier studies were conducted during the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and the early 2000s and represent education, employ ment, and social experiences and environments different from th ose experienced b y the HSL S:09 student sample. While at a high level of generality HS LS :09 models the same basic transition through high school and beyond to postsecondary education and the world of work, grade - specific comparisons with the prior studies are not possible (none13

of the prior studies comprises a ninth - grade cohort). Rather than extending prior secondary longitudinal studies temporally

as a time series, HSL S:09 extends them conceptuall y. To a greater degree than the prior secondary

longitudinal studies, HSL S:09 provides data that are necessary to understand the role of different factors in the development of student commitment to attend higher education and the steps necessary to persist and succeed in college ( appl yi ng for financial aid, takin g courses in specific sequences, etc.). Further, HSL S:09 focuses on the factors associated with choosing and persisting in mathematics and science course - taking and STEM careers. These focal points present a marked difference between HSLS:09 and its prede cessor studies. The only other dataset that offers so large an opportunity to understand the key

transitions into postsecondary

institutions or the world of work is the Department of Labor ’s (Bureau of Labor Statistics) National L ongitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 and 1997 cohorts (NLSY79, NL SY97). However, the NL SY youth cohorts represent temporall y earlier cohorts than HSL S:09. There are also important design differences between NL SY79/ NL SY97 and HSLS:09 that render them more complementary than duplicative. NL SY is a household - based longitudinal survey ; HSL S:09 is school - based. For both NLSY cohorts, base - ye ar Armed Service Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) test data are available, but there is no longitudinal high school achievement measure. Although NL SY97 also gathers information from schools (including principal and teacher reports and high school transcripts), it cannot study school processes in the same way as HSL S:09, given its household sampling basis. Any given school contains at most just a few of NLSY97 sample members, a number that constitutes neither a representative sample of students in the school nor a sufficient number to provide within - school estimates. Thus, although both studies provide important information for understandi ng the transition from high school to the labor market, HSL S:09 is uniquely able to provide information about education processes and within - school dy namics and how these relate to both school achievement and ultimate labor market outcomes, including outco mes in STEM education and occupations. B oth NAEP and the secondary longitudinal studies sponsor periodic collections of transcripts, but the NAEP transcript data cannot be used longitudinally , since NAEP is a cross - sectional study . **A.5 Impact on Small Busi**  **nesses or Other Small Entities** Target respondents for HSL S:09 are individuals who ty picall y have recently completed high school . D ata collection activities will involve no burden to small businesses or entities.14

**A.6 Consequences of Collecting the**  **Information Less Frequently** This submission describes the main study data collection for the 2013 Update , which will take place in the summer/fall of 201 3 , and a high school transcript collection in the academic year of 2013 - 14 for the main study . A second follow - up collection is scheduled for the spring of 201 6 . The tentative design for the study calls for a final round at about age 26 (2021). Recent education and social welfare reform initiatives, changes in federal policy concerning postsecondary student support, and other interventions necessitate periodic studies. Important areas of change for which better information is needed include the increasing role of community colleges, the needs of demographic minorities, and of f irst - generation college - goers. Repeated survey s are also necessary because of rapid changes in the secondary and postsecondary

education environments and the world of work. Indeed, longitudinal information arguabl y provides better measures between program, policy , and environmental chan ges and long term outcomes than would multiple cross - sectional studies. The HSL S:09 cohort was first surveyed at the very beginning of high school to provide a baseline which also includes the full pool of potential high school dropouts. The F irst F ollow - up occur red in what was , for most, the spring of their junior year. The 2013 Update is a snapshot taken in the summer/fall after the cohort’s modal senior year and records sample members’ status in terms of the transition to higher education and the workfo rce, with an anchor in expected status as of November 1, 2013 , for the main study . The timing is important in that it provides a fresh and immediate look at the outcomes in relation to the cohort’s postsecondary planning. High school transcripts will be collected in the 2013 - 14 academic ye ar, when most cohort members have completed high school. Postsecondary follow - ups are tentatively planned for the modal three - ye ars - out of high school time point, the ideal juncture at which to study postsecondary

acces s and choice, and for eight - ye ars - out of high school, to capture final outcomes. While an argument could be made for additional data points, less frequent collection would adversel y affect the study ’s ability

to meet its goals. **A.7 Special Circumstances R** **elating to Guidelines of 5 CFR 1320.5** All data collection guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.5 are being followed. No special circumstances of data collection are anticipated. **A.8 Consultations Outside NCES**  Consultations with persons and organizations both internal and external to NCES and the federal government have been pursued. In the planning stage for HSL S:09, there were many efforts to obtain critical review and to acquire comments regarding project plans and interim and final products. The first15

follow - up Technical Review Panel (TRP) has also been convened and serves as the major vehicle through which future consultation will be achieved in the course of the project. The TRP met in September of 2010 and in June of 2011 . It met again in December 2012 specificall y to make recommendations on the data elements to be included in the 2013 Update and the high school transcript component of HSL S:09 . For base - ye ar and first follow - up assessment development, a mathematics advisory panel comprising the followin g experts was formed:  Hy man Bass, Professor of Mathematics, University of Michigan;  Katherine Halvorsen, Professor of Mathematics and Statistics, Smith College;  Joan Leitzel, President Emeritus, University of New Hampshire and Professor of Mathematics (retired), Ohio State University ;  Mark Saul, Mathematics Teacher (retired), Bronxville High School, NY; and  Ann Shannon, Mathematics Education Consultant, Oakland, CA. Additional consultants outside ED and members of the base - ye ar and first follow - up Technical Review Panels include the following individuals: Base - Year Technical Review Panel and NCES Research Consultants **Dr. Clifford Adelm an**  The Institute for Higher Education Policy 1320 19th Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 2 0036 Phone: (202) 861 - 8223 ext. 228 Fax: (202) 861 - 9307 E - ma il: cadelman@ihelp.org **Dr. Kathy Borm an**  Department of Anthropology, SOC 107 University of South Florida 4202 Fowler Avenue Tam pa, FL 33620 Phone: (813) 974 - 9058 E - ma il: kborman@cas.usf.edu **Dr. Daryl E. Chubin** Director Center for Advancing Science & Engineering Capacity American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) 1200 New

York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005 **Dr. Jerem y Finn**  State University of New York at Buffalo Graduate School of Education 409 Baldy Hall Buffalo, NY 14260 Phone: (716) 645 - 2484 E - ma il: finn@buffalo.edu **Dr. Thomas Hoffer** NORC 1155 E. 60th Street Chicago, IL 60637 Phone : (773) 256 - 6097 E - ma il: Hoffer - Tom@NORC.org **Dr. Vinetta Jones** Howard University 525 Bryant Street NW Academic Support Building Washington, DC 20059 Phone: (202) 806 - 7340 or (301) 395 - 5335 E - ma il: vcjones729@aol.com **Dr. Donald Rock** Before 10/15: K11 Shirley Lane Trenton NJ 08648 Phone: 609 - 896 - 2659 After 10/15: 9357 Blind Pass Rd, #503 St. Pete Beach, FL 33706 Phone: (727) 363 - 3717 E - ma il: DonaldR706@aol.com **Dr. Jam es Rosenbaum**  Institute for Policy Research Education and Social Policy Annen berg Hall 110 EV2610 Evanston, IL 60204 Phone: (847) 491 - 3795 E - ma il: j - rosenbaum@northwestern.edu16

**Dr. Russ Rumberger** Gevirtz Graduate School of Education University of California Santa Barbara, CA 93106 Phone: (805) 893 - 338 5 E - ma il: russ@education.ucsb.edu **Dr. Philip Sadler** Harvard - Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics 60 Garden St. , MS 71 Office D - 315 Cambridge, MA 02138. Phone: (617) 496 - 4709 Fax: (617) 496 - 5405 E - ma il: psadler@cfa.harvard.edu **Dr. Sharon Senk** Department of Mathematics Division of Science and Mathematics Education D320 Wells Hall East Lansing, MI 48824 Phone: (517) 353 - 4691 (office) E - ma il: senk@math.msu.edu **Dr. Timothy Urdan** Santa Clara University Department of Psychology 500 El Camino Real Santa Clara, CA 95053 Phone: (408) 554 - 4495 Fax: (408) 554 - 5241 E - ma il: turdan@scu.edu Other Consultants Outside ED **Dr. Eric Bettinger** Associate Professor, Economics Case Western Reserve University Weatherhead School of Management 10900 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, OH 44106 Phone: (216) 386 - 2184 E - ma il: eric.bettinger@case.edu **Dr. Audrey Champ agne**  Professor Emerita University of Albany Educational Theory and Practice Education 119 1400 Washington Avenue Albany, NY 12222 Phone: (518) 442 - 5982 **Dr. Stefanie DeLuca** Assistant Professor Johns Hopkins University School of Arts and Sciences Department of Sociology 532 Mergenthaler Hall 3400 North Charles Street Baltimore, MD 21218 Phone: (410) 516 - 7629 E - ma il: sdeluca@jhu.edu **Dr. Laura Ham ilton**  RAND Corporation 4570 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600 Pittsburgh, PA 15213 Phone: (412) 683 - 2300 ext. 4403 E - ma il: l aura_Hamilton@rand.org **Dr. Jacqueline King** Director for Policy Analysis Division of Programs and Analysis American Council for Education Center for Policy Analysis One Dupont Circle, NW Washington, DC, 20036 Phone: (202) 939 - 9551 Fax: 202 - 785 - 2990 E - ma il: jacqueline_king@ace.nche.edu **Dr. Joanna Kulikowich** Professor of Education The Pennsylvania State University 232 CEDAR Building University Park, PA 16802 - 3108 Phone: (814) 863 - 2261 E - ma il: jm

k35@psu.edu **Dr. Daniel McC affrey**  RAND Corporation 4570 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600 Pittsburgh, PA 15213 Phone: (412) 683 - 2300 ext. 4919 E - ma il: daniel_ccaffrey@rand.org **Dr. Jeylan Mortim er**  University of Minnesota

—Dept. of Sociology 909 Social Sciences Building 267 19th Avenue South Roo m 1014a Social Sciences Minneapolis, MN 55455 Phone: (612) 624 - 4064 E - ma il: mo rti002@atlas.socsci.umn.edu **Dr. Aaron Pallas** Teachers College Columbia University New York, NY 10027 Phone: (646) 228 - 7414 E - ma il: am

p155@columbia.edu17

**Ms. Senta Raizen** Director WestEd National Center For Improving Science Education 1840 Wilson Blvd., Suite 201A Arlington, VA 22201 - 3000 Phone: (703) 875 - 0496 Fax: (703) 875 - 0479 E - ma il: sraizen@wested.org Technical Review Panel

—First Follow - Up (includes Update and Transcript study reviews) **Brian Cook** American Council on Education One Dupont Circle NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 Voice: (202) 939 - 9381 Email: bryan_cook@ace.nche.edu **Regina Deil -**  **Am en**  Center for the Study of Higher Education University of Arizona 1430 E. Second Street Tucson, AZ 85721 Voice: (520) 621 - 8468, or (520) 444 - 7441 Email: reginad1@email. arizona.edu **Jerem y Finn**  State University of New York at Buffalo Graduate School of Education 409 Baldy Hall Buffalo, NY 14260 Voice: (716) 645 - 6116, or (716) 645 - 2484 x1071 Email: finn@buffalo.edu **Thomas Hoffer** National Opinion Research Center (NORC) 1155 E. 60th Street Chicago, IL 60637 Voice: (773) 256 - 6097 Email: hoffer - tom@norc.org **Vinetta Jones** Howard University 525 Bryant Street NW Academic Support Building Washingon, DC 20059 Voice: (202) 806 - 4947, or (301) 395 - 5335 Email: vcjones729@aol.com **Am aury**  **Nora** University of Texas at San Antonio College of Education and Human Development One UTSA Circle San Antonio, Texas 78294 Voice: (210) 458 - 5436, or (210) 458 - 7394 Email: amaury.nora@utsa.edu **Jesse Rothstein** Richard and Rhoda Goldman Sch o ol of Public Poli cy University of California, Berkeley 2607 Hearst Avenue Berkeley, CA 94720 - 7320 Voice: (510) 643 - 8561 Email: rothstein@berkeley.edu **Russ Rumberger** University of California, Santa Barbara Gevirtz Graduate School of Education 2329 Phelps Hall Santa Barbara, CA 93106 Voice: (805) 451 - 6091 Email: russ@education.ucsb.edu **Sarah E. Turner** Department of Leadership, Foundations and Policy 294 Ruffner Hall University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA 22903 - 2495 Voice: (434) 982 - 2383 Email: sturner@virginia.edu **Timothy Urdan**  Santa Clara University Department of Psychology 500 El Camino Real Santa Clara, CA 95053 Voice: (408) 554 - 4495 Email: turdan@scu.edu **A.9 Explanation of Payment or Gift to Respondents**  The objective of the 2013 Update phase of th e HSL S:09 data collection is to gather information about students’ plans following high school. The data collection period begins on June 1, 2013 , immediately

after most students have graduated from high school, and continues through October as they embar k on their post high school endeavors. Because the study will occur during a time of high student mobility, the questionnaire can be completed by either a student or a parent.18

When contacting sample members outside of school, lower response rates are a concern. To address this concern, the HSL S:09 2013 Update includes plans to monitor response rates across the data collection period and to implement a four- phase adaptive incentive plan . The use of a pre - paid incentive has been demonstrated to be effective on studies such as BTL S and B&B:08/09 (BTLS Incentive Experiment OMB# 1850 - 0868 v . 1; Wine, Cominole, Janson, Socha 2010), and has shown to increase response rates up to 12% (Cantor, O’Hare, O’Connor 2008). In order to boost response rates, a monetary incentive will be offered to non - responding cases of interest. **HSLS:09 Past**  **Use of Incentives**  In both the base ye ar and first follow - up field tests , NCES offered students $10 to take the assessment and survey

during the school day

( in school ) . Students who had to participate outside of school hours ( out of school ) proved more elusive both to find and to convince to participate. For the first follow - up, the HSL S:09 conducted in - school sessions within the base year participating schools. Students not enrolled at the base year school at the time of the first follow - up study were asked to complete the assessment and the survey out of school and were offered $40 to complete the questionnaire. For the first follow - up, s tudents still enrolled at the base ye ar school were offered $15 to complete the questionnaire outside of school if they

missed the in - school session. After the first follow - up, as mentioned , the HSL S followed the field test sample with a 2012 Update. Inthe field test 2012 Updat e using a Mahalanobis distance function (described below) , 69 percent of nonresponding cases most unlike responding cases were offered a $5 prepaid incentive with the promise of an additional $ 10 incentive for participating in the 2012 Update . However, obt aining responses from either parents or students was difficult due to a variety of factors that include d high student mobility during the summer between completion of high school and the beginning of postsecondary education. **2013 Update Incentive Plan**  Si milar to the field test, f

or the main study 2013 Update, the data collection will selectively employ incentives in a responsive design aimed at reducing bias in the final estimates. We propose a 4 - phase approach that immediatel y targets students identifie d as analy tically important (i.e., most different from the average response on several key estimates) . Specificall y, the design targets sample members who have ever dropped out 1 and those sample members identified via a statistical model that uses the Mahalanobis distance f

unction (described below) to identify nonresponding cases most unlike the responding cases on selected characteristics . The four phases are the following :

1 Student s are identified as ever dropping out in 1 of 3 ways: (1) the school -provided status on the enrollment status update; (2) student -provided information on the first follow - up questionnaire; (3) parent -provided information on the first follow - up questionnaire.19

(1) Phase 1: A three - week web collection period . At the start of the first phase o f data collection, each of the parents and students in the 2013 Update sample 2 will receive a letter asking them to log onto the web to complete the questionnaire. The only incentive in phase one is for s tudents identified as ever dropping out of school . These students will be offered a $40 incentive for participating. (2) Phase 2: A five - week web plus CATIdata collection period . The addition in phase 2 is the CATIcomponent. After the three - week web data collection period (phase 1) , in addition to the web remaining an option, outbound calling to sample members will commence and continue for five weeks. The $40 incentive to students who had ever dropped out will continue to be offered. (3) Phase 3: First stage of a targeted nonresponse follow - up period . After phase 1 and phase 2 , cases will be targeted via a statistical model that identifies nonresponding cases most unlike the responding cases on selected characteristics. These cases will be offered $2 0 upon completion of the questionnaire. Those cases who have ever dropped out will continue to be offered $40. In this phase, no other cases receive an incentive. (4) Phase 4: Second stage of a targeted nonresponse follow - up period . Six weeks before the end of data collection, in addition to the aforementioned incentiv es for completion of the survey , a pre - paid $5 check will be sent by FedEx to all students identified as ever dropping out or as most unlike the responding cases. The statistical model implemented in phase 3 will be re - run to identify

whether additional ca ses should receive the incentive. It is anticipated that 20% of the cases not incentivized in phase 3 will be offered an incentive in phase 4. In addition to this four- phase strategy , we also have a two - pronged contingency plan for late - effort follow - u p period i f determined that additional effort is needed to convert nonrespondents . First , in this late stage of data collection we will reexamine the nonresponding cases. For those not already receiving an incentive, we will offer a $10 incentive for completion of the survey to those nonresponding cases most unlike the respondents . Secondly , if needed, we will offer to all nonrespondents an abbreviated questionnaire that can be completed in 5 minutes . This abbreviated questionnaire option would on ly be used if deemed necessary , and will be deplo yed 2 weeks before close of data collection . Table 1 shows the expected cost and response rate of this incentive proposal. Based on experience with HSL S:09 parent - and out - of - school student - data collection s , we estimate approximately 4 3 percent of sample members without an incentive will participate by the end of the 8 - week earl y data collection period (phases 1 and 2 listed above). During the third and fourth phase, we estimate that an incentive will be of fered to approximately

7,500 cases , of which we estimate obtaining responses from 8 1 percent. Of

2 The 2013 Update sample excludes 2,890 sample members who have withdrawn from the study, have deceased, have been determined to be study ineligible, have been determined to be questionnaire incapable (QI) in the first follow - up after being a nonrespondent or QI in the base year, or have participated in neither the base year study nor the first follow - up data collections.20

the projected 1,000 students who have ever dropped out of school , or parents of these students, we estimate 75 percent will respond given the $40 incentive. **Table 1. Projected costs and response rate for 2013 Update** Total Estimated

response rate Respondents Nonrespondents Cost of incentives Total 23,415 89% 20,896 2,519 $1 66 , 036 Ever dropped out 1 1,000 75% 750 250 $31,936 Most unlike respondents 2 7, 500 8 1 % 6, 375 1, 431 $1 34 , 100 No incentive 14, 915 9 4 % 1 4 , 076 839 $ 0 Phase 1 Ever dropped out 1 1,000 20% 200 800 $8,000 No incentive 22,415 25% 5,604 16,811 $0 Phase 2 Ever dropped out 1 800 20% 160 640 $6,400 No incentive 16,811 25% 4,203 12,608 $0 Phase 3 Ever dropped out 1 640 40% 256 384 $10,240 Most unlike respondents 2 7, 2 00 60% 4, 320 2,880 $ 86 , 4 00 No incentive 5, 4 08 60% 3, 245 2, 163 $0 Phase 4 Ever dropped out 1 ,3 384 35% 134 250 $7,296 Most unlike respondents 2 , 3 3, 180 55% 1, 749 1, 431 $ 47 , 700 No incentive 1,863 55% 1,025 839 $ 0 1 An incentive of $40 will be promised for completion of survey. 2 An incentive of $20 will be promised for completion of survey. 3 In addition to the promise of $20 or $40, a $5 prepaid incentive will be sent by FedEx. Note: N onrespondents most unlike respondents are determined using the Mahalanobis distance function . Incentives for the late stage contingency plan are not included in this table. **Mahalanobis Distance Function** The Mahalanobis distance function (MD) is a person - level measure and can be defined simpl y as the distance between a single case and the mean value for all responding cases , where l arger distance scores describe cases likely to be dissimilar from existing respondents. That is, because of the variables used in the calculation of M D (see Table 2 below), these cases would be characterized by notable differences, for example, in terms of student expected education, timing of Algebra 1 course taking, parent level of education, performance on the assessment, enrollment status, etc.21

**Table 2. Proposed variables to include in model to identify target cases** Source Potential Variables Survey variables  Student expected education level  Timing of Algebra I coursetaking  Base - year and first follow - up math assessment theta scores  Enrollment status  Parent level of education  Race  Gender  Whether sample member remained at base year school as of first follow - up Sam ple frame data  School type  Metro area Paradata  Whether sample member contacted the help desk  Whether sample member logged in but did not complete the 2013 Update questionnaire  Number of contact attempts in the early data collection period  Whether sample member made an appointment to complete the interview  Whether sample member told interviewer they would do the web interview  Student base year and first follow -up response outcomes  Parent base year and first follow - up response outcomes  Response in the panel maintenance update (s)  Student enrollment status at first follow - up  Reason for prior student nonresponse (refusal, absent) if applicable  Call counts in base year and first follow - up The M D incorporates a measure of the likelihood of ultimate re sponse among current nonrespondents. Therefore, in addition to survey variables and anal ytic variables, paradata are crucial to include with the substantive data in the case - selection process to optimize the case selection itself. Using the M D , which will incorporate multiple variables, is superior to simply monitoring response rates to identify target cases during nonresponse follow - up. Response rates, even within an important stratum, only

provide limited information in terms of who the respondents and n onrespondents are across many important variables. When targeting cases during nonresponse follow - up, it is most efficient to select nonrespondent cases that differ from respondents across many variables, rather than a single variable. This nonresponse fo llow - up approach will target cases that have the greatest potential for bias reduction; i.e. those that demonstrate the most differences from existing respondents. It is worth noting that there are certain nonrespondents (e.g., study withdrawals and cases having no contact information whatsoever) who will not participate regardless of the effort employed. **Transcript Reimbursement.** Schools will be reimbursed for the cost of preparing and sending transcripts at the school’s standard rate. If additional cos ts are incurred b y the schools, RTI will reimburse such expenses to the extent that they are reasonable and properl y documented. **Panel Maintenance.** As mentioned in section A . 3 . c, two panel maintenance activities are planned. The first is planned to occur prior to the 2013 Update. No incentive is planned for this activity due to the short duration between data collection rounds.22

The second panel maintenance mailing is propose d to be conduct ed prior to the second follow - up study 3 for both the field t est and main study samples. This panel maintenance activity would collect updated contact information at the halfway point between the end of the 2012 or 2013 Update for the field test and main study , respectivel y, and the start of the second follow - up data collection. Thus, the update would take place in the late fall 2013 for the field test and late fall of 2014 for the main study . Our proposal for the panel maintenance activities prior to the second follow - up is modeled after EL S:2002/12. EL S:2002 /12 conducted an experiment with its field test sample that demonstrated the effectiveness of a $10 incentive offer to increase participation in the panel maintenance. The $10 incentive offer was then implemented with the ELS:2002 /12 main study sample. EL S:20 02/12 is still ongoing. To date, 41 percent of the ELS sample participated in panel maintenance, and 95 percent of them to date have participated in the EL S:2002/12 survey . We propose offering a $10 incentive to sample members for participating in the pan el maintenance activity . **A.10 Assurance of Confidentiality Provided to Respondents**  A data security

plan (DSP) for HSL S:09 was approved by the IES Disclosure Review Board chair . The plan includes protocols for the base - year and first follow - up studies as well as the 2013 Update and Transcript collections. The HSL S:09 plan represents best - practice survey sy stems and procedures for protecting respondent confidentiality and securing survey

data. An outline of this plan is provided in Exhibit A - 1 . The HSL S :09 DSP  establishes clear responsibility and accountability

for data security and the protection of respondent confidentiality with corporate oversight to ensure adequate investment of resources;  details a structured approach for considering and addressing risk at each step in the survey process and establish mechanisms for monitoring performance and adapting to new security concerns;  includes technological and procedural solutions that mitigate risk and emphasize the necessary training to capitalize on th ese approaches; and  is supported by

the implementation of data security controls recommended by the National Institute of Standards and Technology for protecting federal information sy stems. Adhering to rules outlined in the DSP, invitation letters will be sent to sample members (students and parents). Respondents will be informed of the voluntary nature of the survey

and of the confidentiality

provision in the initial cover letter and on the questionnaires, stating that their respo nses may be used for statistical purposes only and may not be disclosed, or used, in identifiable form for any other purpose except as required b y law [Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (ESRA) 20 U.S.C., § 3 The second follow - up as well as the associated panel maintenance acti vity being proposed is not in the current contract.23

9573 ]. The material sent will also include a b rochure describing the study and the extent to which respondents and their responses will be kept confidential ( see Appendix A) . **Exhibit A -**  **1 .**  **HSLS:09 Data Security Plan Outline** HSLS:09 Data Security Plan Summary Maintaining the Data Security Plan Information Collection Request Our Promise to Secure Data and Protect Confidentiality Personally Identifying Information That We Collect and/or Manage Institutional Review Board Human Subject Protection Requirements Process for Addressing Survey Participant Concerns Computing System Summary General Description of the RTI Networks General Description of the Data Management, Data Collection, and Data Processing Systems Integrated Monitoring System Receipt Control System Instrument Development and Documentation System Data Collection System Document Archive and Data Library Employee - Level Controls Security Clearance Procedures Nondisclosure Affidavit Collection and Storage Security Awareness Training Staff Termination/Transfer Procedures Subcontractor Procedures Physic al Environment Protections System Access Controls Survey Data Collection/Management Procedures Protecting Electronic Media Encryption Data Transmission Storage/Archival/Destruction Protecting Hard - Copy Media Internal Hard - Copy Communications External Communications to Respondents Handling of Mail Returns, Hard - Copy Student Lists, and Parental Consent Forms Handling and Transfer of Data Collection Materials Tracing Operations Transcript Operations Software Security Controls Data File Development: Disclo sure Avoidance Plan Data Security Monitoring Survey Protocol Monitoring System/Data Access Monitoring Protocol for Reporting Potential Breaches of Confidentiality Specific Procedures for Field Staff Additionally , HSL S:09 will conform to NCES Restricted Use Data Procedures Manual and NCES Standards and Policies . The plan for maintaining confidentiality includes obtaining signed confidentiality

agreements and notarized nondisclosure affidavits from all personnel who will have access to individu al identifiers. Each individual working in HSL S:09 will complete the e - QIP clearance process. The plan includes annual personnel training regarding the meaning of confidentiality and the procedures associated with maintaining confidentiality , particularly as it relates to handling requests for information and providing assurance to respondents about the protection of their responses. The training will cover controlled and protected access to computer files under the control of a single database manager; bui lt - in safeguards concerning status monitoring and receipt control sy stems; and a secured and operator- manned in - house computing facility . All data transferred electronically for HSLS:09 will be transmitted through a secure server at NCES. The sy stem requires that both parties to the transfer be registered users of the NCES Members Site and also that their Members Site privileges be set to allow use of the new service. This service is designed for the secure transfer of electronic files containing personall y identifying information (i.e., data protected under the Privacy

Act or otherwise posing risk of disclosure). This secure server has been used successfull y and without incident on HSLS:09 and other NCES studies. Procedures have been put into place for using the server to transfer confidential data. The s ystem requires that both parties to the transfer be registered users of the NCES Members Site and that their24

Members Site privileges be set to allow use of the secure data transfer service. These privileges are set up and carefull y controlled by NCES’ Chief Technology Officer (CTO). This service has been designed by ED/NCES specificall y for the secure transfer of electronic files containing personall y identifying information (i.e., data protected under the P rivacy Act or otherwise posing risk of disclosure) and can be used for NCES - to - Contractor, Contractor- to - Subcontractor, Subcontractor- to - Contractor, and Contractorto - Other- Agency

data transfers. The party uploading the information onto the secure server at NCES is responsible for deleting the file(s) after the successful transfer has been confirmed. Data transfers using this system will include notification to IES, the NCES CTO, the NCES Chief Statistician , and th e NCES project officer. The notification wi ll include the names and affiliations of the parties in the data exchange/transfer and the nature and approximate size of the data to be transferred. **A.11 Justification for Sensitive Questions**  The 2013 Update asks no questions that normally would be deemed sensitive. **A.12 Estimates of Annualized Burden Hours and Their Cost to Respondents**  Estimates of response burden for the HSL S:09 2013 Update , transcript , and panel maintenance data collection activities are shown in Exhibit A - 2 . Also included are the estim ates for panel maintenance which will be conducted between the 2013 Update and second follow - up study . The field test panel maintenance will consist of a mailing to each sample member and his or her parent/guardian asking that they log onto the survey

webs ite to update contact information or that they complete a hardcopy

address update. The main study panel maintenance will be conducted as done in the field test, except for the inclusion of a $10 incentive for response. Estimates of response burden are dev eloped from experience with the b ase - ye ar and first follow - up HSL S:09 questionnaires, the high school transcript collection for EL S:2002, and from other education longitudinal studies ( e.g., EL S:2002, NEL S:88, HS&B). For the 2013 Update , assuming that 40 percent of the respondents are students and 60 percent are parents, and assuming an hourly rate of $7.25 per hour for students and $20 for parents, the total cost to participants is estimated at $19,239 for students and $ 79,611 for parents, for a total of $98,850. Included in the parent and student notification letters will be the following statement: According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number of this voluntary information collection is 1850 - 0852. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 15 minutes for the questionnaire including the time to review instructions and co mplete and review the information collection. If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate or suggestions for improving the interview, please write to: High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09), National Center for Education Statistics, 1990 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006.25

The cost to the school registrar is estimated at $20 per hour. The cost for the school registrar to prepare and submit transcripts is estimated at $15,963 for base ye ar schools and $30,974 for transfer schools, for a total of $46,937. The cost to panel maintenance participants is estimated at $20 per hour for a total of $7,805 for the main study panel maintenance, $377 for the field test panel maintenance, and $11,708 for the main study panel maintenance in advance of the second follow - up . The total cost to respondents is estimated at $165,677. **Exhibit A -**  **2 .**  **Estimated Burden for HSLS:09 2013 Update**  **and Transcript Main Study**

Respondents Sam ple Expected response rate Number of respondents Number of

responses Average time

per response (minutes) 1 Range of

response times (minutes) Total

burden (hours) Main study panel maintenance 23,415 20% 4,683 4,683 5 3 - 7 390 2013 Update: Students or Parents 23,415 85% 19,903 19,903 20 15 - 25 6,634 Transcripts: School registrar (BY) 939 85% 798 798 60 30 - 180 798 Transcripts: School registrar (transfer) 1,822 85% 1,549 1,549 60 30 - 90 1,549 Field test panel maintenance (2 FU) 754 30% 226 226 5 3 - 7 19 Main study panel maintenance (2 FU) 23,415 30% 7,025 7,025 5 3 - 7 585 **Total 22**  **, 476**  **34,184 9,975**  1 Transcript time is specified by school not by student. The higher burden per response is due to the greater number of transcripts to be processed by each school. **A.13 Estimates of Total Annual Cost Burden**  **to Respondents** There are no capital, startup, or operating costs to respondents for participation in the project. No equipment, printing, or postage charges will be incurred. **A.14 Annualized Cost to the Federal Government**  Estimated costs to the federal go vernment for HSLS:09 are shown in Exhibit A - 3 . Included in the contract estimates are all staff time, reproduction, postage, and telephone costs associated with the management, data collection, analysis, and reporting for which clearance is requested. **Exhi bit A** **- 3**  **. Total Costs to NCES**  **Costs to NCES Am**  **ount Main study**  **2013 Update ,**  **Transcripts (2013**  **- 14)**  **, and Panel Maintenance**  **$ 6,947,595** Salaries and expenses 150,000 Contract costs 6,797,595 NOTE: All costs quoted are exclusive of award fee . M ain study costs include tasks 5 and 6. The proposed panel maintenance activity is not included in the current contract. **A.15 Reasons for Program Changes**  The apparent decrease in respondent burden from that last approved is due to the fact that the last clearance in cluded burden for both the First Follow - up Full Scale Collection (OMB# 1850 - 0852 v.9) and the HSL S:09 High School Transcript Collection and College Update Field Test and Second Follow - up26

Panel Maintenance ( OMB# 1850 - 0852 v. 10 ) , while this request only includes burden for the HSL S:09 2013 Update and Transcript Main Study and Panel Maintenance . The primary real change associated with this submission is the shift from school - based student data collection to the 2013 Update collection to occur after students had graduated from high school . **A.16 Publication Plans and Project Schedule**  The formal contract for HSL S:09 requires the following reports, publications, and other public information releases in the main study : 1. a detailed methodological report describing all aspects of the 2013 Update and high school transcript main study

design and data collection procedures (a working paper detailing the methodological findings from the field test will also be produced); 2. complete data files and documentati on for research data users in the form of both a restricted use and public - use electronic codebook (ECB) and a public - use data tool (i.e., EDAT); and 3. a descriptive First Look Report, reporting initial findings on issues of interest to the secondary scho ol and higher education community, as determined by NCES. Exhibit A - 4 shows the schedule for the approved field test as well as the main study components included in this submission. **Exhibit A** **- 4**  **. Operational Schedule for HSLS:09**  **HSLS:09 activity Start dat**  **e End date**  Field test College Update Ju n. 2012 Oct. 2012 Tr anscript collection Sept. 2012 Jan. 2013 Panel maintenance (prior to second follow- up) Oct. 2013 Dec. 2013 Main study Panel maintenance (prior to 2013 Update) Mar . 2013 Ju n. 2013 2013 Update Ju n. 2013 Oct. 2013 Tr anscript collection Sept. 2013 May 2014 Panel maintenance (prior to second follow- up) Oct. 2014 Dec. 2014 **A.17 Reason(s) Display of OMB Expiration Date Is Inappropriate**  The expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection will be displayed on data collection instruments and materials. No special exception to this requirement is requested. **A.18 Exceptions to Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Statement**  There are no exceptions to the certification statement identified in the Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions of OMB Form 83 - I.27

**REFERENCES** Adelman. C. (2006). The Toolbox Revisited: Paths to Degree Completion from High School Through College . U.S. Department of Edu cation: Washington, DC. Balfanz, R., and Letgers, N. (2004). Locating the Dropout Crisis: W hich High Schools Produce the Nation’s Dropouts? W

here Are The

y Located? Who Attends Them? Report 70, Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk (CRESPAR), The Johns Hopkins University . Available: http:/www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/techReports/Report70.pdf Bozick, R., and Ingels, S.J. (2008). Mathematics Coursetaking and Achievement at the End of High School: Evidence from the Education L ongitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002). (NCES 2008 - 319). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S Department of Education: Washington, DC . Brock, T. (2010). “Young Adults and Higher Education: Barriers and Breakthro ughs to Success.” The Future of Children , 20(

1). Cantor, D., O’Hare, Barbara C., and Kathleen S. O’Connor. 2008. “The Use of Monetary Incentives to Reduce Nonresponse in Random Digit Dial Telephone Survey s.” Advances in Telephone Survey Methodology . Copy

right John Wiley

& Sons, Inc. Dillman , D . A. (2007). Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New York: Wiley . Fetters, W.B., Stowe, P.S., and Owings, J.A. (1984). Quality of Responses of High School Students to Questionnaire Items, High School and Beyond (NCES 84 - 216). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC. Goldrick - Rab, S. (2010). “Challenges and Opportunities for Improving Community College Student Outcomes.” Review of Educational Research , 80 (3). Goldrick - Rab, S., and Pfeffer, F. (2009). “Beyond Access: Explaining Social Class Differences In College Transfer.” Sociology of Education , 82 (2). Provasnik, S., and Planty, M. (2008). Community Colleges: Special Supplement to The Co ndition of Education 2008 (NCES 2008 - 033). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Memorandum of December 21, 2010, to Shelly Wilkie Martinez, OMB, from Freddie Cross and Kathry n Chandler, through Ka shka Kubzdela, NCES. Results of BLTS Incentives Experiment (OMB# 1850 - 0868 v1). Wine, J . , Cominole, M., Janson, N., Socha, T. 2010 “2008/09 Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study (B&B:08/09) Field Test Methodology Report.” Working Paper Series. NCES 2010 - 02.