**Evalua tion of Sta** **te E** **xpanded Learning Time (ELT)**  Section A April 3, 2013Contract Number: ED- IES- 12 -C -0086 Mathematica Reference Number: 40166 - 300 Submitted to: Institute of Education Sciences IES/NCEE U. S.Department of Education 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20208 Project Officer: Erica Johnson Submitted by: Mathematica Policy Research 600 Alexander Park Suite 100 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (609) 799 - 3535 Facsimile: (609) 799 -0005 Project Director: Phil Gleason **Evalua tion of Sta** **te E** **xpanded Learning Time (ELT)**  Section A April 3 , 2013ii **CONTENTS** PART A: SU PPORTING STATEMENT FOR PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT

SUBMISSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 1 JUSTIFICATION ................................ ................................ ............................... 1 1. Circumstances Necessitating the Collection of Information ................ 1 2. Purposes and Us es of Data ................................ ................................ 3 3. Us e of Technology to Reduce Burden ................................ ................. 4 4. Efforts to Avoid Duplication of Effort ................................ ................. 4 5. Met hods to Minimize Burden on Small Entities ................................ ... 4 6. Consequences of Not Collecting Data ................................ ................ 5 7. Special Circumstances ................................ ................................ ....... 5 8. Federal Register Announcement and Consultation ............................. 5 9. Payment s or Gifts ................................ ................................ .............. 5 10. Assurances of Confidentiality ................................ ............................ 5 11. Addit ional Justification for Sensitive Questions ................................ .. 6 12. Estimates of Hours Burden ................................ ................................ 6 13. Estimates of CostBurden to Respondents ................................ .......... 7 14. Estimates of Annual Costs to the Federal Government ....................... 7 15. Reasons for Program Chang es or Adjust ments ................................ .. 7 16. Plan for Tabulation and Publication of Results ................................ ... 7 17. Approval Not to Display the OMB Expiratio n Date .............................. 7 18. Explanation of Exceptions ................................ ................................ . 8 APPENDIX A: STATE ELT PLANS RE PORT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL APPENDIX B: STATE ELT PLANS REPORT INTERVIEW ADVANCED LETTER APPENDIX C : MATH EMATICA CONFID ENTIALITY PLEDGE**PART A: SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR PAPERW** **ORK RE**  **DU CTION**  **ACT SUBMISSION** This OMB package requests clearance to conduct semi

-structured interviews with 21 st Century Community Learning Centers (21 st CCLC) state coordinators. The state coordinator interviews will be used to produce a State Expanded Learning Time (ELT ) Plans Report. The purpose of this data collection is to provide early State Education Agency (SEA) implementation information for the states that have received the optional Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Flexibility to use 21 st CCLC funds to support ELT. In addition, the information will be used by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) to guide potential future impact studies in this area. The report will summarize these states’ ELT plans and focus on how they plan to use these funds to support ELT, the level of their support, and how they will monitor subgrantees’ ELT implementation. Included in this request is the State ELT Plans Report interview protocol (Appendix A ), State ELT Plans Report interview advanced letter (Appendix B) and Mathematica’s internal confidentiality pledge (Appendix C) . The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) within the Department of Education (ED) has contracted with Mathematica Policy Research and its partners Abt Associates, Synergy Enterprises (SEI), and Evidence

-Based Education Research & Evaluation (EBERE), to conduct the interviews and write the report. **JU STIFICATION**  **1. Circumstances**  **Necessitating the Collection of Information**  **a. Statement of Need for ELT**  **Data Collection** The specific legislation authorizing this data collection is Title IV, Part B, Sections 4201

-4206 of the ESEA, as amended by No Child Left Behind (NCLB), which allow community learning centers to establish or expand activities which provide opportunities f or academic enrichment beyond the normal school day and also allow for an evaluation of such activities. Section 9401 of ESEA gives2

the Secretary of Education the authority to grant flexibility to states regarding the provisions of ESEA. As part of the ESEA f lexibility, states may opt to request a waiver “to permit community learning centers that receive funds under the Twenty

-First Century Community Learning Centers (21 st CCLC) program to use those funds to support expanded learning time during the school day in addition to activities during nonschool hours or periods when school is not in session (that is, before and after school or during summer recess).” The federal government is also actively promoting ELT through other initiat ives, including Race to the Top and School Improvement Grants, and a growing number of schools have adopted ELT programs. Although there are no comprehensive national data on the current number of ELT schools, the National Center on Time & Learning (NCTL) has identified 1,026 schools in 36 states and the District of Columbia that provided substantially more learning time than surrounding public schools in school year (SY) 2011

–2012. These initiatives are distributed widely across the country. This State ELT Plans Report will provide valuable information to states and the federal government on states’ use of the optional ESEA Flexibility to use 21 st CCLC funds to fund and encourage the adoption of ELT. The report will also describe the features of the ELT programs adopted, the challenges that states have encountered, and the strategies used to meet those challenges. **b. Research**  **Questions** The State ELT Plans Report will address the following research questions:

 How do the states plan to use 21 st CCLC funds to support ELT?  How do states define eligible ELT programs?  What is the process for awarding 21 st CCLC funds to districts?  How do the states plan to monitor districts’ use of ELT funds? **c .**  **Data Collection Plan**3

To address the study research questions and to obtain consistent information on each ESEA Flexibility state’s ELT plans, we will conduct semi

-structured interviews with the 21 st CCLC coordinators of the 22 states that have applied for and received the optional 21 st CCLC ESEAFlexibility to obtain information for the State ELT Plans Report. These calls will occur in summer 2013. If additional states receive optional 21 st CCLC Flexibility approval, or if the fiscal year (FY ) 2013 budget includes ELT as an allowable use of 21 st CCLC funds, we may conduct interviews with these additional states. The interviews will be conducted by individuals who will be specifically trained to conduct these interviews. Prior to the interview, respondents will receive an advanced letter (Appendix B) that describes the data collection. Amember of the research team will then follow

-up and request copies of relevant documents, such as the state Request for Proposals (RFP) for the 21 st CCLC grant competition (if released) and any documentation the state has shared with prospective grantees, which will be used to tailor the interview and reduce burden on the respondent. **d .**  **Study Activities and Time Line** The interview and report are expected to be completed in 13 months. We will conduct interviews in summer 2013 once we have received OMB clearance, and prepare the State ELT Plans Report in the fall 2013. **2. Purposes and Uses of Data**  The purpose of this study is to document states’ use of the optional ESEA Flexibility to use 21 st CCLC funds to support ELT. ELT is increasingly being regarded as an important education policy to promote improved instruction; however, adopting ELT presents many challenges for states, districts and schools. This report will provide policymakers and practitioners with important insight into approaches to support and encourage ELT and describe the features of state-supported ELT programs. The State ELT Plans Report will summarize the information obtained from the interviews with 21 st CCLC state coordinators.4

**3. Use of Technology to Reduce**  **Burden** The coordinator interviews are designed to obtain reliable information in an efficient way that minimizes respondent burden. The semi

-structured interviews with the 21 st CCLC state coordinators will be conducted over the telephone. Prior to conducting interviews, we will review state RFPs for 21 st CCLC subgrants, if available, and any other publicly available sources. We will use a protocol to ensure that we collect the required information efficiently and we will avoid asking for information during the interviews that we are able to obtain from the state RFP or from other public sources, such as state websites. **4. Efforts to Avoid Duplication of Effort**  The 21 st CCLC state coordinator interviews avoid unnecessary collection of information from multiple sources. For example, the study will obtain preliminary information about state ELT programs from state RFPs, state and district websites, and grant applications, if available. No other national study has been conducted (or is underway ) to address the research questions included in this study. The Policy and Program Studies Service (PPSS) has recently completed data collection for a study of 21 st CCLC state competitions. The PPSS study includes case studies of nine states (some of which have the optional ESEA Flexibility to use 21 st CCLC funds to support ELT and some of which do not) and nine districts within those states. However, the timing of the PPSS data collection did not allow for inclusion of information about the upcoming 21 st CCLC competitions in most states since spring 2013 is the first opportunity for most states to incorporate ELT into their 21 st CCLC competitions. The IES study of ELT will include all states which receive the optional ESEA Flexibility to use 21 st CCLC funds to support ELT and will collect in

-depth information about the ELT aspect of their 21 st CCLC state competitions. **5. Methods to Minimize Burden on Small Entities**  The entities for the study are 21 st CCLC state coordinators. Burden is minimized for all respondents by requesting only the minimum data required to meet study objectives.5

**6. Consequences of Not Collecting Data**  The interviews with 21 st CCLC state coordinators are necessary to produce the State ELT Plans Report. This report will provide important information for ED, policymakers and practitioners on the use of 21 st CCLC funds to support ELT as well as information to guide potential future impact studies in this area. Without the data collected for this study, ED will have less information to guide potential future evaluation efforts in this area and will not know how its investment in ELT, through 21 st CCLC grants, can help promote and support the adoption of ELT. **7. Special Circumstances**  There are no special circumstances associated with the school recruiting effort. **8. Federal** **Register Announcement and Consultation**  **a. Federal Register** **Announcement** The 60

-day notice to solicit public comments was published in Volume 78, Number 18, pages 5793

-5794 of the Federal Register on January 28, 2013. **b. Consultations Outside of the Agency**  The interview protocol has been reviewed internally within ED. **c. Unresolved Issues**  None. **9. Payments or Gifts**  The study does not plan to give gifts to 21 st CCLC state coordinators for participating in the interviews. **10. Assurances of Confidentiality**  The interviews with the 21 st CCLC state coordinators will be conducted in accordance with all relevant regulations and requirements. These include the Education Sciences Institute Reform Act of 2002, Title I, Part E, Section 183, that requires “[a]ll collection, maintenance, use, and wide dissemination of data by the Institute ... to conform with the requirements of section 552 of Title 5,6

United States Code, the confidentiality standards of subsections (c) of this section, and Sections 444 and 445 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232 g, 1232h).” These citations refer to the Privacy Act, the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act, and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment. The study will also adhere to requirements of subsection (d) of section 183 prohibiting disclosure of individually identifiable information as well as making the publishing or inappropriate communication of individually identifiable information by employees or staff a felony. All members of the study team with access to the data will be trained and certified on the importance of confidentiality and data security. All data will be kept in secured locations and identifiers will be destroyed as soon as they are no longer required. The following safeguards are routinely employed by Mathematica to carry out confidentiality assurances during the study:

 All Mathematica employees sign a confidentiality pledge ( Appendix C) emphasizing its importance and describing their obligation.  Identifying information is maintained on separate forms and files, which are linked only by sample identification number.  Access to hard copy documents is strictly limited. Documents are stored in locked files and cabinets. Discarded materials are shredded.  Computer data files are protected w ith passwords and access is limited to specific users.  Especially sensitive data are maintained on removable storage devices that are kept physically secure when not in use. **11. Additional Justification for Sensitive Questions**  The state ELT protocol will not contain items considered to be of a sensitive nature. **12. Estimates of Hours Burden**  Currently, 22 states have received the optional ESEA Flexibility to use 21 st CCLC funds to support ELT. We will conduct interviews with each of the 21 st CCLC state coordinators in these states. The interview and supplying of any relevant documents (e.g., 21 st CCLC grant competitions RFPs) will take approximately one hour. Therefore, the estimated burden hours for interviews with7

the 21 st CCLC coordinators and providing of relevant documents is 22 hours, or approximately 7.3 hours per year for three years. **13. Estimates of Cost Burden to Respondents**  There are no start

-up costs for respondents. **14. Estimates of Annual Costs to the Federal Government**  The total cost to the Federal government of carrying out this study is $1,720,373, to be expended over the study period of thirteen months. **15. Reasons for Program Changes or Adjustments**  This is a new data collection. **16. Plan for Tabulation and Publicat** **ion of Results** We will prepare a State ELT Plans Report that will document all 21 st CCLC Flexibility states’ plans for ELT by providing a description of the range of ELT policies and their implementation. The projected release date for this report is w inter 2014. The State ELT Plans Report will present findings from interviews with information to states and the federal government on states’ use of the ESEA Flexiblity to use 21 st CCLC funds. The report will address how states plan to use 21 st CCLC funds to support ELT, how they define ELT, as well as the process for awarding and monitoring the use of funds. The report will also describe the features of the ELT programs adopted, the challenges that states have encountered, and the strategies used to meet those challenges. In presenting results from the State ELT interviews, we will tabulate the number of states falling into different categories with respect to these topics or, where appropriate, the mean values of particular characteristics across responding states. The report will be written in a style and format accessible to policymakers and practitioners, and will comply fully with the standards set by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). **17. Approval**  **Not to Display the OMB Expiration Date** The study will display the OMB expiration date.8

**18. Explanation of Exceptions**  No exceptions are being sought.9 **www.mathematica -** **mpr.com**

Improving public well - being by conducting high -quality, objective research and surveys Princeton, NJ ■ Ann Arbor, MI ■ Cambridge, MA ■ Chicago, IL ■ Oakland, CA ■ Was hington, DC

Mathematica® is a registered trademark of Mathematica Policy Research