January 16, 2013

High School Longitudinal Study of 

2009 (HSLS:09)

2013 Update and Transcript Main 

Study (2013) 

Supporting Statement

Part A

Request for OMB Review

OMB# 1850-0852 v.11

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 Payment 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............................................................................................................................... 27
ii

EXHIBITS

Number Page

Exhibit A-1. HSLS: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 HSLS:09 ........................................................26

TABLES

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 Elements
1

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 Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09). The study is being 

conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (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 2013 Update

collections and the second follow-up panel maintenance. The materials to be used in the main study do 

not differ substantively from those that were approved in April 2012 for the field test data collections, and 

the 60-day Federal register comment period was waived for this submission as part of the field test 

clearance (OMB# 1850-0852 v.10). This submission contains a description of the High 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 field 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 second 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 HSLS:09. The basic components and key design features of HSLS: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;

 surveys of 9th-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 2016 and a third follow-up in 2021).

HSLS:09 will provide information in support of several goals of the President’s agenda and the

American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI): 1) Strengthening math and science education; 2) Improving 

the high school experience in the United States; 3) Expanding access to postsecondary education. First, 

HSLS:09 brings a new and special emphasis to the study of youth transition by exploring the paths 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 HSLS:09 data will help analysts examine how high school 

experiences influence this transition. Third, HSLS:09 will provide policymakers 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 Legters, 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. HSLS: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 credentials such as the GED, and the timing and means of earning these alternative 

credentials will be captured in the HSLS:09 data. All students, including dropouts and holders of 

alternative diplomas, may pursue some form of postsecondary education at some point, so their 

postsecondary educational aspirations, plans, and expectations should be understood as well. 

The HSLS:09 survey collects student-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 type of institution attended, whether it 

was a first-choice institution, the level of intensity (full- or part-time), and the means to fund the choices, 

among other matters. This choice is also related to such considerations as institution types, 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 HSLS: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). Students at two-year colleges, however, are less likely than those 

at four-year 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 pathways into and through higher education. As Adelman observes, “the 

complexity of student postsecondary enrollment patterns has accelerated” (Adelman 2006). Issues such 

as patterns of transfer are particularly important, as exemplified by purposeful migration from two-year to 

four-year institutions versus “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 

relatively low baccalaureate attainment rate. Even when low-SES and first-generation college students 

begin in 4-year institutions, they are disproportionately likely to engage in “reverse” movement from 4-

year to 2-year schools, which in turn is associated with much lower odds of completion (Goldrick-Rab 

and Pfeffer 2009). The HSLS:09 2013 Update and subsequent follow-ups will examine these 

complexities of postsecondary educational access, choice, and success.

In sum, the HSLS: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 early plans and expectations to actual choice. 

The two high school assessment and survey points are complemented by the continuous data from 9th

grade through 12th 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 choice. 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

HSLS: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). HSLS:09 is authorized by the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (20 U.S.C. Section 9543).

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 nationally representative samples of high school students that would be pertinent to 

the formulation and evaluation of education polices.

Starting with the National Longitudinal Study of the High School Class of 1972 (NLS:72), NCES 

began providing education policymakers 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 longitudinal 

study of students was the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88), which began with a 

cohort of 8th-graders. The Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002) started with a 10th grade 

cohort in 2002, with follow-ups in 2004, 2006, a third follow-up questionnaire administration in 2012,

and ELS:2002 postsecondary transcript collection scheduled for 2013-2014. 

These studies have investigated the educational, personal, and vocational development 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 continues 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

HSLS: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 involvement and student achievement, activities, plans, decisions, and development; the 

factors associated with dropping out of the education system; 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 especially into STEM curricula and careers. 

The objectives of HSLS:09 also encompass the need to support both longitudinal and cross-cohort 

analyses and to provide a basis for important descriptive cross-sectional analyses. 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. Compared to its earlier counterparts, there are considerable 

changes to the design of HSLS:09 –specifically, changes in the grade at which data are collected in the inschool rounds—that will need to be considered when doing trend comparisons. NELS:88 began with 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 

HSLS: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 only modest gains have been seen on assessments in the final year of high school, and the 11thgrade follow-up minimizes unit response problems associated with testing in the spring term of the senior 

year. 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 9th through 12th grades, which will relate achievement gain to coursetaking 

choices. All of these data will allow trend comparisons of coursetaking patterns and other common high 

school policy issues with HS&B, NELS:88, and ELS:2002. 

The HSLS:09 2013 Update allows analysts 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; as well as parental resources and support. In addition to 

potential college plans, the 2013 Update collects information for plans for employment and other postsecondary 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 by either the student or the parent. 

The questions will be largely 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 

2016, when most will be three years beyond high school, 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) employment 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 educational 

access and choice, or to employment outcomes. 

High School Attendance and Completion Status. Since high school completion is a critical 

defining event for this cohort, four distinct types of completion status will be discerned: 1) early 

completion (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 pathways. Because of differences in the quality of educational 

experience that each represents, it is also important to know the type of high school credential obtained. If 

a high school credential has not yet been earned, respondents will be asked about plans to do so. 

Additionally, 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 on enrollment 

in Advance Placement (AP), International Baccalaureate (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 Fall 2013. The questionnaire asks respondents to report their plans on 

November 1, 2013, 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 education and working will be asked which of these activities 
7

will be the main focus, allowing for the possibility that 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 type of program,

expected major field of study, and where they will live while 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 institutions to which they applied, in addition to the institution they will attend, if 

applicable. Admission 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 acceptance 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.

Cost and Financial Aid of Attending Postsecondary Education. College choice is sensitive to 

cost, and cost can be mitigated by 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 type 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 applying. 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 Loan Data System 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.

Employment Experiences and Plans. The 2013 Update also collects information on 

employment 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 1st are asked if their current main job is the one they plan to 

hold at that time. If not, they are asked for their expected job title and duties as of November 1st.

Locating Information. The 2013 Update also collects locating information to assist in tracking 

the cohort as it disperses at this key transition point. Information collected includes name, addresses, 

telephone numbers, email addresses, 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, HSLS:09 will be collecting high school transcripts. High school 

transcript studies have been conducted by 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 and fixed record of student coursetaking. When 

collected from students, apart 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-year 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 be created in 

addition to a transcript file. In HSLS:09, specific content requested in the High School Transcript 

component includes:

Student-level information:

 Type 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 9th 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

School-level information:

 Grade scale;

 Course grade weighting system used, if any;

 Availability of student-level information;

 GPA formula;

 Carnegie unit conversion information;

 Term system used;

 Course catalogs (if not collected previously);

 Types of diplomas granted; and

 Credits required for different types of diplomas.

The immense value of high school transcripts as objective, reliable measures of crucial aspects of 

students’ educational experiences is widely recognized. In the 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, transcript data are vastly superior to student self-reports of 

exposure to learning situations 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, ELS:2002, and HSLS:09 permit the measurement of the association between 

high school program and courses and post-high school outcomes in labor force and postsecondary

education. The data are invaluable for intra-cohort analysis, such as measuring the relationship between 

mathematics coursetaking and achievement gains (Bozick and Ingels 2008). Prior studies such as 

NELS: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 12th grade to provide a representative 

sample of high school seniors. The HSLS:09 transcripts pertain to a 9th grade cohort only. 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 Improved 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 username 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 sample 
10

members and their parents who do not complete the web questionnaire by self-administration. Computer 

control of interviewing efficiently 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 system 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 system to manage the flow and assignment of cases to interviewers by time 

zone, case status, appointment information, and prior cases disposition; 5) an integrated case-level control 

system 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, RTI collected course catalogs, when and 

where possible, during the first follow-up in-school survey administration for the academic years 2009–10

to 2012–13. To the extent that the catalogs were available in electronic format, we collected catalogs 

electronically via e-mail or upload to the study website. Any schools whose catalogs could 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 HSLS:09 base year, 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 including: 

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 secure File Transfer 

Protocol;

3. Asking school staff to send electronic transcripts via e-mail with encrypted 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 express 

delivery service after redacting personally identifiable information. 

The fourth collection method listed above is a relatively new process. Approximately 100 high 

schools across the nation currently 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 XML formats. Based on RTI’s experience with the collection of postsecondary

transcripts for the B&B:08/09 and BPS:04/09 transcripts, 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, data 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 2009 NAEP High School Transcript Study. Because the 

CSSC 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 by 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 recorded and corrected as needed. Once the transcripts for each school are keyed and coded, 

transcript course coding at the school level will be reviewed by expert coders to ensure that: (1) coding 

taxonomies have been applied consistently and data elements of interest have been coded properly 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 

duplicate 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, sample members will be given an online or 

hardcopy 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 for 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 Efforts 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 regularly 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 Colleges, and other groups to confirm that the 

HSLS: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 

labor force members. This openness to input and feedback ensures that the data collected through 

HSLS:09 will meet the needs of the federal government and other interested agencies and organizations.

Within NCES, HSLS:09 builds on and extends past studies rather than duplicating them. First, the 

instrumentation and design of HSLS:09 explicitly complement the redesign of NPSAS and BPS.

HSLS: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 these constructs across survey

programs. Such collaboration maximizes the possibility of producing an analytically valuable data 

product with interest to educators, researchers, and policymakers.

Second, design articulation with prior NCES secondary longitudinal studies also shows

coordination, and innovation, not duplication. These earlier studies were conducted during the 1970s, 

1980s, 1990s, and the early 2000s and represent education, employment, and social experiences and 

environments different from those experienced by the HSLS:09 student sample. While at a high level of 

generality HSLS: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 (none 
13

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

studies temporally as a time series, HSLS:09 extends them conceptually. To a greater degree than the 

prior secondary longitudinal studies, HSLS: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 (applying for financial aid, taking courses in specific 

sequences, etc.). Further, HSLS: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 predecessor 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 Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 and 1997 cohorts (NLSY79, NLSY97). However, the 

NLSY youth cohorts represent temporally earlier cohorts than HSLS:09. There are also important design 

differences between NLSY79/ NLSY97 and HSLS:09 that render them more complementary than 

duplicative. NLSY is a household-based longitudinal survey; HSLS:09 is school-based. For both NLSY 

cohorts, base-year Armed Service Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) test data are available, but there 

is no longitudinal high school achievement measure. Although NLSY97 also gathers information from 

schools (including principal and teacher reports and high school transcripts), it cannot study school 

processes in the same way as HSLS: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 understanding the transition from high school to the labor 

market, HSLS:09 is uniquely able to provide information about education processes and within-school 

dynamics and how these relate to both school achievement and ultimate labor market outcomes, including 

outcomes in STEM education and occupations.

Both 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 Businesses or Other Small Entities

Target respondents for HSLS:09 are individuals who typically have recently completed high 

school. Data 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 2013, 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 2016. 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 

first-generation college-goers. Repeated surveys are also necessary because of rapid changes in the 

secondary and postsecondary education environments and the world of work. Indeed, longitudinal 

information arguably provides better measures between program, policy, and environmental changes and 

long term outcomes than would multiple cross-sectional studies.

The HSLS: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 First Follow-up occurred 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 workforce, 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 

year, when most cohort members have completed high school. Postsecondary follow-ups are tentatively

planned for the modal three-years-out of high school time point, the ideal juncture at which to study

postsecondary access and choice, and for eight-years-out of high school, to capture final outcomes. While 

an argument could be made for additional data points, less frequent collection would adversely affect the 

study’s ability to meet its goals.

A.7 Special Circumstances Relating 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 HSLS:09, there were many efforts to obtain 

critical review and to acquire comments regarding project plans and interim and final products. The first 
15

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 specifically to make recommendations on the

data elements to be included in the 2013 Update and the high school transcript component of HSLS:09.

For base-year and first follow-up assessment development, a mathematics advisory panel 

comprising the following experts was formed:

 Hyman 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-year and first follow-up Technical

Review Panels include the following individuals: 

Base-Year Technical Review Panel and NCES Research Consultants

Dr. Clifford Adelman

The Institute for Higher Education Policy 

1320 19th Street, NW, Suite 400

Washington, DC 20036

Phone: (202) 861-8223 ext. 228

Fax: (202) 861-9307

E-mail: cadelman@ihelp.org

Dr. Kathy Borman

Department of Anthropology, SOC 107 

University of South Florida 

4202 Fowler Avenue 

Tampa, FL 33620 

Phone: (813) 974-9058

E-mail: 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. Jeremy Finn

State University of New York at Buffalo 

Graduate School of Education

409 Baldy Hall

Buffalo, NY 14260

Phone: (716) 645-2484

E-mail: finn@buffalo.edu

Dr. Thomas Hoffer

NORC

1155 E. 60th Street

Chicago, IL 60637

Phone: (773) 256-6097

E-mail: 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-mail: 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-mail: DonaldR706@aol.com

Dr. James Rosenbaum

Institute for Policy Research

Education and Social Policy

Annenberg Hall 110 EV2610

Evanston, IL 60204

Phone: (847) 491-3795

E-mail: j-rosenbaum@northwestern.edu
16

Dr. Russ Rumberger

Gevirtz Graduate School of Education

University of California 

Santa Barbara, CA 93106

Phone: (805) 893-3385

E-mail: 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-mail: 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-mail: 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-mail: 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-mail: eric.bettinger@case.edu

Dr. Audrey Champagne

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-mail: sdeluca@jhu.edu

Dr. Laura Hamilton

RAND Corporation

4570 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600

Pittsburgh, PA 15213

Phone: (412) 683-2300 ext. 4403

E-mail: laura_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-mail: 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-mail: jmk35@psu.edu

Dr. Daniel McCaffrey

RAND Corporation

4570 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600

Pittsburgh, PA 15213

Phone: (412) 683-2300 ext. 4919

E-mail: daniel_ccaffrey@rand.org

Dr. Jeylan Mortimer

University of Minnesota—Dept. of Sociology

909 Social Sciences Building

267 19th Avenue South

Room 1014a Social Sciences

Minneapolis, MN 55455 

Phone: (612) 624-4064

E-mail: morti002@atlas.socsci.umn.edu

Dr. Aaron Pallas

Teachers College

Columbia University

New York, NY 10027

Phone: (646) 228-7414

E-mail: amp155@columbia.edu
17

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-mail: 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-Amen

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

Jeremy 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

Amaury 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 School of Public Policy

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 the HSLS: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

embark 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 HSLS: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 BTLS 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 year 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 HSLS: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, students still enrolled at the base year 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 HSLS 

followed the field test sample with a 2012 Update. In the field test 2012 Update 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, obtaining responses from either parents or students was difficult due to a variety 

of factors that included high student mobility during the summer between completion of high school and 

the beginning of postsecondary education.

2013 Update Incentive Plan

Similar to the field test, for 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 immediately targets students identified as analytically important (i.e., most different 

from the average response on several key estimates). Specifically, the design targets sample members who 

have ever dropped out1and those sample members identified via a statistical model that uses the 

Mahalanobis distance function (described below) to identify nonresponding cases most unlike the 

responding cases on selected characteristics. The four phases are the following: 

 

1

Students 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 of data collection, 

each of the parents and students in the 2013 Update sample2 will receive a letter asking them 

to log onto the web to complete the questionnaire. The only incentive in phase one is for 

students 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 CATI data collection period. The addition in phase 2 is the 

CATI component. 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 $20 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 incentives 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 cases 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-up period if 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 only be 

used if deemed necessary, and will be deployed 2 weeks before close of data collection.

Table 1 shows the expected cost and response rate of this incentive proposal. Based on experience

with HSLS:09 parent- and out-of-school student- data collections, we estimate approximately 43 percent 

of sample members without an incentive will participate by the end of the 8-week early data collection 

period (phases 1 and 2 listed above). During the third and fourth phase, we estimate that an incentive will 

be offered to approximately 7,500 cases, of which we estimate obtaining responses from 81 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 $166,036

Ever dropped out11,000 75% 750 250 $31,936

Most unlike respondents27,500 81% 6,375 1,431 $134,100

No incentive 14,915 94% 14,076 839 $0

Phase 1

Ever dropped out11,000 20% 200 800 $8,000

No incentive 22,415 25% 5,604 16,811 $0

Phase 2

Ever dropped out1800 20% 160 640 $6,400

No incentive 16,811 25% 4,203 12,608 $0

Phase 3

Ever dropped out1640 40% 256 384 $10,240

Most unlike respondents27,200 60% 4,320 2,880 $86,400

No incentive 5,408 60% 3,245 2,163 $0

Phase 4

Ever dropped out1,3 384 35% 134 250 $7,296

Most unlike respondents2, 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: Nonrespondents 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 simply as 

the distance between a single case and the mean value for all responding cases, where larger distance 

scores describe cases likely to be dissimilar from existing respondents. That is, because of the variables 

used in the calculation of MD (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

Sample frame data  School type

 Metro area 

Paradata  Whether sample member contacted the help desk

 Whether sample member logged in but did not complete the 2013Update 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 MD incorporates a measure of the likelihood of ultimate response among current 

nonrespondents. Therefore, in addition to survey variables and analytic variables, paradata are crucial to 

include with the substantive data in the case-selection process to optimize the case selection itself.

Using the MD, 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 nonrespondents 

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 follow-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 costs are incurred by the schools, RTI will reimburse 

such expenses to the extent that they are reasonable and properly 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 proposed to be conducted prior to the second follow-up 

study3for both the field test 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, respectively, 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 

ELS:2002/12. ELS: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. ELS:2002/12 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 ELS:2002/12 survey. We propose offering a $10 incentive to sample 

members for participating in the panel maintenance activity.

A.10 Assurance of Confidentiality Provided to Respondents

A data security plan (DSP) for HSLS: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 HSLS:09 plan represents best-practice survey systems and procedures for 

protecting respondent confidentiality and securing survey data. An outline of this plan is provided in 

Exhibit A-1. The HSLS: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 these approaches; and

 is supported by the implementation of data security controls recommended by the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology for protecting federal information systems.

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 responses 

may be used for statistical purposes only and may not be disclosed, or used, in identifiable form for any

other purpose except as required by law [Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (ESRA) 20 U.S.C., § 

 

3 The second follow-up as well as the associated panel maintenance activity being proposed is not in the current contract.
23

9573]. The material sent will also include a brochure 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

Physical 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: Disclosure 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, HSLS: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 individual identifiers. Each individual working in HSLS: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; built-in 

safeguards concerning status monitoring and receipt control systems; 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 system 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 personally identifying information (i.e., data protected 

under the Privacy Act or otherwise posing risk of disclosure). 

This secure server has been used successfully 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 system 

requires that both parties to the transfer be registered users of the NCES Members Site and that their 
24

Members Site privileges be set to allow use of the secure data transfer service. These privileges are set up 

and carefully controlled by NCES’ Chief Technology Officer (CTO). This service has been designed by 

ED/NCES specifically for the secure transfer of electronic files containing personally identifying 

information (i.e., data protected under the Privacy 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 the NCES 

project officer. The notification will 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 HSLS:09 2013 Update, transcript, and panel maintenance 

data collection activities are shown in Exhibit A-2. Also included are the estimates 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 website 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 developed from experience 

with the base-year and first follow-up HSLS:09 questionnaires, the high school transcript collection for 

ELS:2002, and from other education longitudinal studies (e.g., ELS:2002, NELS: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 complete 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 year 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 Sample

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 government 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.

Exhibit A-3. Total Costs to NCES

Costs to NCES Amount

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. Main 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 included burden for both the First Follow-up Full Scale Collection (OMB# 1850-0852 v.9) and 

the HSLS:09 High School Transcript Collection and College Update Field Test and Second Follow-up 
26

Panel Maintenance (OMB# 1850-0852 v.10), while this request only includes burden for the HSLS: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 HSLS: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 documentation for research data users in the form of both a restricteduse 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

school 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 date End date

Field test

College Update Jun. 2012 Oct. 2012

Transcript 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 Jun. 2013

2013 Update Jun. 2013 Oct. 2013

Transcript 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 Education: Washington, DC.

Balfanz, R., and Letgers, N. (2004). Locating the Dropout Crisis: Which High Schools Produce the 

Nation’s Dropouts? Where Are They 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 Longitudinal 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 Breakthroughs 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 Surveys.” Advances in Telephone Survey

Methodology. Copyright 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 Condition 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 Kathryn

Chandler, through Kashka 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.