Contract No: ED-IES-12-C-0007

Supporting	Justification	for	OMB	Clearance	of	a	Study	of	Clinical	Practice	in	

Traditional	Teacher	Preparation	Programs	in	Missouri

Section	A

December 5, 2013

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Institute of Education Sciences REL Central at Marzano Research Laboratory

U.S. Department of Education 

555 New Jersey Ave., NW 9000 E. Nichols Ave., Ste. 112

Washington, DC 20208 Centennial, CO 80112

(202) 219-1385 (303) 766-9199

Project Officer: Project Director:

Sandra Garcia Stephen Meyer
1

Table	of	Contents

Section A. Justification..................................................................................................................................3

A1. Circumstances Necessitating Collection of Information.....................................................................3

Statement of Need................................................................................................................................ 3

Overview of the Study Design...............................................................................................................5

Overview of the Specific Data Collection Plan...................................................................................... 6

A2. How, by Whom, and for What Purpose Information is to Be Used ...................................................7

A3. Use of Automated, Electronic, Mechanical or Other Technological Collection Techniques..............8

A4. Efforts to Identify Duplication. ...........................................................................................................8

A5. Sensitivity to Burden on Small Entities............................................................................................... 8

A6. Consequence to Federal Program or Policy Activities if the Collection is Not Conducted or is 

Conducted Less Frequently....................................................................................................................... 8

A7. Special Circumstances ........................................................................................................................ 8

A8. Federal Register Announcement and Consultation............................................................................8

Federal Register Announcement ..........................................................................................................8

Consultations Outside the Agency........................................................................................................8

A9. Payment or Gift to Respondents........................................................................................................9

A10.Confidentiality of the Data ................................................................................................................9

A11. Additional Justification for Sensitive Questions.............................................................................10

A12. Estimates of Hour Burden...............................................................................................................11

A13. Estimate for the Total Annual Cost Burden to Respondents or Record Keepers...........................11

A14.Estimates of Annualized Costs to the Federal Government............................................................11

A15.Reasons for Program Changes or Adjustments...............................................................................11

A16. Plans for Tabulation and Publication..............................................................................................11

Tabulation Plans..................................................................................................................................12

Publication Plans.................................................................................................................................12

Timeline...............................................................................................................................................12

A17. Approval to Not Display the Expiration Date for OMB Approval ...................................................13

A18. Exception to the Certification Statement.......................................................................................13

References ..............................................................................................................................................14

Attachment A: Public Law 107-279-Nov. 5, 2002 Education Sciences Reform
2

Attachment B: Printed Copy of Online Survey

Attachment C: Affidavit of Nondisclosure

Attachment D: Text for Invitations and Reminders
3

Section	A.	Justification	

The U.S. Department of Education (ED) requests OMB clearance for data collection conducted by REL 

Central at Marzano Research Laboratory. ED, in consultation with REL Central under contract ED-IES-12-

C-0007, has planned a study of clinical practice in traditional teacher preparation programs in Missouri. 

OMB approval is being requested for administration of a survey to practicing first-year teachers.

A1.	Circumstances	Necessitating	Collection	of	Information

This data collection is authorized by the Educational Sciences Reform Act (ESRA) of 2002 (see 

Attachment A). Part D, Section 174(f)(2) of ESRA states that as part of their central mission and primary 

function, each regional educational laboratory “shall support applied research by . . . developing and 

widely disseminating, including through Internet-based means, scientifically valid research, information,

reports, and publications that are usable for improving academic achievement, closing achievement 

gaps, and encouraging and sustaining school improvement, to schools, districts, institutions of higher 

education, educators (including early childhood educators and librarians), parents, policymakers, and 

other constituencies, as appropriate, within the region in which the regional educational laboratory is 

located.”

Statement of Need 

Educator preparation1has been the focus of an increasing number of policymaker and practitioner 

conversations at the national and state levels in recent years. Recent emphasis on teacher effectiveness 

and accountability has led the education policy, research, and practitioner communities to take a closer 

look at teacher preparation and has raised concerns about program quality from researchers, policy 

analysts, teacher accreditation organizations, and teachers themselves (Alderman, Carey, Dillon, Miller, 

& Silva, 2011; Chesley & Jordan, 2012; Crowe, 2010; Ingersoll, Merrill, & May, 2012; National Council for 

Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2010). In 2011, the U.S. Department of Education released a Plan 

for Teacher Education Reform and Improvement (U.S. Department of Education, 2011) that emphasizes 

better reporting of program outcomes for accountability purposes; specifically, information about 

student achievement growth, teacher job placement and retention rates, and surveys of program 

graduates and their principals. 

In addition to the focus on increased accountability, policymakers and researchers have expressed 

increased interest in research about teacher preparation program2(TPP) design and implementation. In 

 

1

For the purposes of this proposal, “educator preparation” refers to formal pre-service training for classroom teachers and 

school administrators. This study focuses on the preparation of classroom teachers. 

2

For the purposes of this study, “teacher preparation program” reflects the U.S. Department of Education (2011) definition to 

include any state-approved course of study, the completion of which signifies that an enrollee has met all the states’

educational and/or training requirements for initial certification or licensure to teach in elementary, middle or secondary 

schools. Unless otherwise noted, the term “programs” is used in this proposal to refer to the institutions or entities that offer 

such a course of study (such as universities or other organizations). “Program types” refer to broad categories of approaches 

used within programs (such as “alternative” or “traditional”) and “certification tracks” refer to one of various types of subprograms designed to prepare teachers for different types of teaching positions (such as “elementary education”). 
4

response to a congressional mandate, the National Research Council (NRC) conducted a study for the 

Institute of Education Sciences (IES) to synthesize evidence on several key questions related to teacher 

preparation. Among its findings, the report (NRC, 2010) identified the need for research that improves 

understanding of the relationships between characteristics of teacher preparation and student learning. 

That type of research, however, depends on good information about the implementation of TPPs, which 

is scarce. With respect to the implementation of TPPs, the NRC (2010) report concluded: “There is very 

little systematic research regarding the specific ways teachers of reading, mathematics, and science are 

currently being prepared . . .” and “the limited information we found does not support conclusions 

about the current nature and content of teacher preparation programs” (p.4). Indeed, researchers have 

found substantial limitations related to the availability and quality of data related to questions about 

teacher preparation, including information about characteristics of students entering programs, their 

experiences in TPPs, teacher and student outcomes, and teaching context (Crowe, 2007; Voorhees, 

Barnes, & Rothman, 2003). 

Regional Priorities and Need. The seven states in the Central Region employ nearly 200,000 teachers 

and nearly 14,000 teacher candidates3complete an approved TPP at roughly 200 institutions of higher 

education each year. Constituents in all seven states have identified assessment of teacher preparation 

as a priority and are working to redefine systems for program assessment. Regional needs related to TPP 

evaluation and research were initially identified through a review of Statewide Longitudinal Data 

Systems (SLDS) grant program applications and conversations with state grant administrators in 2011, 

and were affirmed through conversations in 2012 with constituents throughout the Central Region who 

are participating in REL Central’s Educator Effectiveness Research Alliance (Teacher Preparation 

Workgroup). Participants in the alliance represent all states in the region and represent a range of 

constituents, including state education agency (SEA) administrators (for example, SLDS grant managers 

and those who oversee educator preparation and educator quality), institution of higher education (IHE) 

administrators (for example, education school deans), and IHE faculty (for example, researchers who 

study this and related topics). 

In particular, SEA staff and TPP administrators have interest in collecting and analyzing data that provide 

information about the relationship between TPP implementation and outcomes for teachers and their 

students. Colorado, for example, is seeking to identify the forms of teacher preparation and certification 

that correlate most closely with students’ academic growth in the classroom, to evaluate the 

effectiveness of TPPs, and to identify promising models and practices in educator preparation (Colorado 

Department of Education, 2009). As part of the development of a system to assess the effectiveness of 

TPPs, Missouri is focusing on analysis that relates value-added estimates of student achievement to 

teacher participation in preparation programs (Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary 

Education, 2008) and is developing standards (and associated indicators and measures) for educator 

preparation programs that align with the Missouri Standards for Preparation of Educators (MoSPE). Also, 

 

3

For the purposes of this study, a “candidate” is a participant enrolled in a teacher preparation program (who is a candidate to 

become a professional teacher upon completion). Count is based on 2011 Title II reports of the number of “prepared” teachers 

in the Central Region; available here: https://title2.ed.gov/Title2STRC/ChooseState.aspx?Type=Map&Year=2011.
5

in Missouri, TPP administrators expressed interest in conducting research that examines the impact of 

their program redesign efforts (C. Basile, personal communication, May 25, 2012). In Wyoming, the 

legislature recently commissioned a study that will use the state’s SLDS to examine the teacher labor 

market, including the relationship between aspects of teacher preparation and teacher effectiveness (L. 

Ballard, personal communication, June 25, 2011). South Dakota and Kansas are also working to align 

new educator effectiveness standards with expectations for newly trained teachers (R. Melmer, 

personal communication, May 9, 2012; P. Coleman, personal communication, July 16, 2012).

In conversations with REL Central staff, alliance members expressed an interest in conducting research 

about TPPs that relates elements of program design and implementation to outcomes. Because the 

ability to relate elements of TPP design and implementation to outcomes requires good data about 

design and implementation, alliance members also expressed the need for help in better understanding 

the variation in TPP implementation in the Central states, including how to measure alternative 

approaches and how to use these data to examine the relative effectiveness of different program 

elements. Among various elements of TPP design and implementation, clinical practice4emerged as a 

priority area for research among alliance members because:

1. Clinical practice is identified as a central and critical aspect of teacher preparation in 

professional standards (American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 2010; 

Association of Teacher Educators, 2008; National Council for Accreditation of Teacher 

Education, 2008) and in research (Greenberg, Pomerance, & Walsh, 2011).

2. The design and implementation of the clinical practice component varies widely across TPPs 

(NCATE, 2010);

3. Little information about the design and implementation of clinical practice in TPPs is currently 

available;

4. Clinical practice is an area in which Central states are planning to develop or are currently 

developing standards for TPPs;

5. Collecting good information about implementation of the clinical practice component of TPPs is 

perceived by alliance members as being difficult; and

6. Two states in the region, Colorado and Missouri, are members of the National Council for 

Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) Alliance for Clinical Teacher Preparation, which is 

focused on piloting diverse new approaches to clinical preparation (NCATE, 2010).

Overview of the Study Design

 

4

For the purposes of this proposal, “clinical practice” is defined to correspond with the National Council for the Accreditation of 

Teacher Education (NCATE, 2008) definition, including the following two primary elements: (1) student teaching (or internships) 

that provide candidates with an intensive and extensive culminating activity, immerse candidates in the learning community, 

and provide opportunities to develop and demonstrate competence in the professional roles for which they are preparing; and 

(2) field experiences that include various early and ongoing field-based opportunities in which candidates may observe, assist, 

tutor, instruct, and/or conduct research.
6

This study is designed to support needs in the region by providing descriptive information about clinical 

practice in TPPs. The study purpose is to document current practice and provide a data collection tool 

and an approach for collecting data from TPP graduates that can be adopted and adapted as part of 

future research to be conducted by the alliance. 

The study is designed to address the following research questions:

1. What are the characteristics of clinical practice in traditional teacher preparation programs 

completed by first-year public school teachers in Missouri?

2. How does clinical practice in traditional teacher preparation programs vary among certification 

tracks completed by first-year public school teachers in Missouri?

Survey data will be collected from a respondent pool of approximately 3,500 first-year public school 

teachers in Missouri. Based on an expected minimum response rate of 80%, REL Central at Marzano 

Research Laboratory expects to analyze data from a minimum of 2,800 completed surveys. 

The survey is designed to collect information about the following eight primary components of clinical 

practice experiences in teacher preparation programs: (1) clinical placement characteristics; (2) clinical 

placement curriculum; (3) clinical placement timing; (4) cooperating teacher characteristics; (5) 

supervisor characteristics; (6) IHE and P–12 school collaboration; (7) candidate evaluation and feedback; 

and (8) teacher preparation program evaluation. Descriptive analyses will be used to characterize survey 

responses for: states, certification tracks (distinguished by grade and subject area), and individual 

teacher preparation programs (results reported confidentially to program administrators).

Overview of the Specific Data Collection Plan

To answer the research questions, REL Central at Marzano Research Laboratory will collect survey data 

from first-year teachers in public schools in Missouri. Self-reported survey data was chosen as the data 

source to address the research questions, because it is the most cost-effective way to collect individuallevel information about experiences in TPPs. REL Central at Marzano Research Laboratory will work with 

the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (MO DESE) to collect contact 

information for teachers who graduated from traditional teacher preparation programs and who are 

teaching for the first time during the 2014–15 school year. Only teachers who graduated from a 

traditional teacher preparation program during the twelve months prior to their first teaching 

assignment will be included. Staff in the Educator Preparation Section at MO DESE have agreed to share 

contact information for first-year teachers, including the following data elements: teacher identifier5, 

teacher name, teacher email address, name of school in which they are teaching and physical address, 

 

5

To comply with MO DESE data sharing requirements unique teacher identifiers will be generated for REL Central, which are 

linked to state teacher identifiers in a data file maintained by MO DESE.
7

current teaching assignment, certification route, name of preparation program, teaching certification(s), 

gender, and race/ethnicity6.

Using the data provided by MO DESE, an invitation to complete an online survey will be sent via email7

(see Attachment B) to each first-year teacher who was prepared in a traditional program. The invitation 

will be sent by REL Central at Marzano Research Laboratory, describing the purpose of the study, the 

voluntary nature of participation, intended use of the data collected, methods for maintaining 

confidentiality, and the estimated amount of time needed to complete the survey (estimated to be 20–

30 minutes). Customized invitations will be used with respondent identifiers embedded in the emailed 

survey links to track survey response. Paper surveys mailed to respondents via USPS will contain unique 

identifiers for the same purpose. Up to seven reminders with increasingly persuasive language will be 

sent to respondents to increase response rates.

A2.	How,	by	Whom,	and	for	What	Purpose	Information	is	to	Be	Used

Data from the study may be used to understand the extent to which clinical practice components vary 

within and across programs. This will inform conversations about emerging state standards for TPPs, 

such as what constitutes minimum implementation of priority components. These data will also inform 

conversations about TPP reform or redesign by identifying areas in which programs have less or greater 

emphasis. 

By collecting data about the clinical practice component of TPPs from recent program graduates, 

descriptive analyses will highlight variation both within and across programs. Information about 

variation across certification tracks may reveal differences in the nature and extent of clinical 

experiences for students of different types (for example, elementary or high school level teacher 

candidates) that could inform changes in TPP design, policy, or requirements. For example, if survey 

data suggest weak implementation of particular clinical practice components, TPP administrators may 

choose to implement policies or practices designed to improve experiences or make them more 

consistent.

Descriptive data about clinical practice in TPPs in Missouri can be used as a baseline to monitor change 

over time at the state and program levels and as a basis for examining the impact of changes in policy or 

TPP reform activities. These data may also be used in future correlational research that relates TPP 

implementation to teacher and student outcomes (for example, teacher retention and value-added 

student achievement). The study will also provide a data collection tool that can be adopted and 

 

6

These latter five variables will be used to assess survey nonresponse bias (that is, to see the extent to which survey 

respondents represent the sampled population in terms of preparation program, teaching certifications, gender, and 

race/ethnicity).

7

If email addresses are not available, the study team will communicate with respondents via U.S. Postal Service mail sent to 

their school address. MO DESE indicated that email address information is typically missing for up to 5% of first-year teachers 

and that physical address information is available for all teachers in the sample. Follow-up data collection will be conducted via 

USPS for individuals who do not respond to two email requests.
8

adapted as part of future research on TPP design, implementation, and impact to be conducted by SEAs, 

TPPs, or the alliance. 

A3.	Use	of	Automated,	Electronic,	Mechanical	or	Other	Technological	Collection	Techniques

The survey will be administered online using survey software such as SurveyMonkey in order to reduce 

cost. Respondents will be sent a unique link via email that will lead them to the online survey. 

SurveyMonkey allows the creation of a unique link for each email address in the invite list that prevents 

duplicate responses, because the link cannot be used after the survey is completed. Reminders will also 

be sent via email using the survey software. Participants’ contact information (for sending the online 

survey) and their background information will be collected electronically from MO DESE using a secure 

file-sharing mechanism. 

A4.	Efforts	to	Identify	Duplication.

The survey data collects unique data that addresses the need for understanding the implementation of 

clinical practice components of teacher preparation programs. REL Central reviewed the literature and 

determined that there is no alternative source for the information to be collected through the survey. 

A5.	Sensitivity	to	Burden	on	Small	Entities

The data collection does not involve small entities. 

A6.	Consequence to	Federal	Program	or	Policy	Activities	if	the	Collection	is	Not	Conducted	or	

is	Conducted	Less	Frequently

If the proposed data were not collected, the alliance would not have timely and relevant research on 

clinical practice in traditional TPPs to understand the extent to which clinical practice components vary 

within and across programs and to inform conversations about emerging state standards for TPPs. 

Constituents in the region would not have descriptive data for comparison of the clinical practice 

components of particular traditional TPPs to state averages. The alliance would not have a descriptive 

dataset on which potential future studies might be based. The data will be collected only one time; thus,

there is no “frequency” component to the data collection.

A7.	Special	Circumstances

There are no special circumstances. 

A8.	Federal	Register	Announcement	and	Consultation

Federal Register Announcement

ED will publish Federal Register Notices to allow both a 60-day and 30-day public comment period. The 

REL will assist ED in addressing any public comments received. 

Consultations Outside the Agency
9

REL Central has consulted with research alliance members on the administration of the survey, the 

clarity of the instructions, and the survey instrument. Feedback on the survey was solicited via email and 

during a web conference hosted by REL Central in early 2013. We have also consulted with content and 

methods experts to develop the study. Table 1 lists the individuals who were consulted on the statistical, 

data collection, and analytic aspects of this study. These individuals include members of REL Central’s 

Educator Effectiveness Research Alliance and Technical Working Group (TWG). TWG members are 

experts in content and methodology and they provide consultation on the design, implementation, and 

analysis of the study. The research alliance members are educators and stakeholders in the Central 

Region who share a specific education concern. 

Table 1. Individuals Consulted as Part of Study Design and Development

Name Role Title Organization Contact Information

Gale Hairston Alliance Member Director, Educator 

Preparation 

Missouri Department 

of Elementary and 

Secondary Education 

(MO DESE)

Gale.Hairston@dese.mo.gov

Heather MacCleoud Alliance Member Assistant Director, 

Educator Preparation

MO DESE Heather.MacCleoud@dese.mo.gov

Michael Allen TWG Member Senior Research 

Consultant

Teacher Preparation 

Analytics

michael.allen@teacherprepanalytics.com

Bruce Randel TWG Member President Century Analytics bruce.randel@centuryanalytics.com

Carmelita Lamb Alliance Member Teacher Education 

Department Chair

Turtle Mountain 

Community College

lamb@tm.edu

Carole Basile Alliance Member Dean College of Education, 

University of Missouri -

St. Louis

basilec@umsl.edu

Mark Ehlert Alliance Member Assistant Research 

Professor

U. of Missouri -

Columbia, Department 

of Economics

ehlertm@missouri.edu

Leigh Anne TaylorKnightAlliance Member Executive Director Kansas City Area 

Education Research 

Consortium

lknight@kcaerc.org

As appropriate, we will consult with representatives of those organizations from whom information is to 

be obtained, such as research alliance members and TWG members to address any public comments 

received on burden. 

A9.	Payment	or	Gift	to	Respondents

No incentive will be provided to survey respondents. REL Central leadership, in consultation with REL 

Central’s Contracting Officer Representative (COR), advised against the use of incentives to reduce 

project cost.

A10.Confidentiality	of	the	Data

REL Central will be following the new policies and procedures required by the Education Sciences 

Reform Act of 2002, Title I, Part E, Section 183: "All collection, maintenance, use, and wide 

dissemination of data by the Institute" are required to "conform with the requirements of section 552 of 

title 5, United States Code, the confidentiality standards of subsection (c) of this section, and sections 

444 and 445 of the General Education Provision Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g, 1232h)." These citations refer to 
10

the Privacy Act, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, and the Protection of Pupil Rights 

Amendment. Subsection (c) of section 183 referenced above requires the Director of IES to "develop 

and enforce standards designed to protect the confidentiality of persons in the collection, reporting, and 

publication of data." Subsection (d) of section 183 prohibits the disclosure of individually identifiable 

information, and makes any publishing or communicating of individually identifiable information by 

employees or staff a felony.

REL Central will protect the confidentiality of all information collected for the study and will use it for 

research purposes only. No information that identifies any study participant will be released. 

Information from respondents will be presented at aggregate levels in reports. Unique identification 

numbers will be assigned to each participating teacher and used to identify all survey responses. The ID 

number/name association files will be kept secure in a confidential file separate from the data analysis 

file. No information that could be used to identify respondents or the TPPs from which they graduated 

will be included in the public use data files or reports8. Data from the online survey software system will 

be downloaded and deleted from the online system within one week after the survey window closes. 

REL Central implements semi-weekly downloads of all data stored online to protect against data loss.

These data files will then be stripped of any identifying information. Information will be reported in 

aggregate so that individual responses are not identifiable. All identification lists will be destroyed at the 

end of the project. The research team is trained to follow strict guidelines for soliciting consent, 

administering data collection instruments, and preserving respondent confidentiality. All members of 

the research team have successfully completed the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) 

course in the Protection of Human Research Subjects through Liberty IRB. A copy of the affidavit of nondisclosure is provided in Attachment C for each researcher who will have access to the data. Names of 

all REL staff with access to data will be submitted to the NCEE security officer, accounting for staff who 

leave REL Central and any newly hired staff who are granted data access. 

All study materials will include the following language:

Per the policies and procedures required by the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, Title I, Part E, 

Section 183, responses to this data collection will be used only for statistical purposes. The reports 

prepared for this study will summarize findings across the sample and will not associate responses with a 

specific district or individual. We will not provide information that identifies you or your district to 

anyone outside the study team, except as required by law. Any willful disclosure of such information for 

nonstatistical purposes, without the informed consent of the respondent, is a class E felony. 

A11. Additional	Justification	for	Sensitive	Questions

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

 

8

REL Central will include descriptive information about study participants (such as gender and certification type) in 

the public use data file to the extent possible, ensuring compliance with state of Missouri requirements and 

disclosure avoidance techniques recommended by the U.S. Department of Education’s Privacy Technical Assistance 

Center.
11

A12.	Estimates	of	Hour	Burden	

The total reporting burden associated with the data collection for the study is 1,176 hours (Table 2). An 

estimated respondent pool of 3,500 first-year teachers will be asked to participate via email in the 

online survey. Based on an expected 80% response rate, approximately 2,800 teachers will complete the 

survey, with an estimated burden (based on results of the survey pretest) of 25 minutes (0.42 hours) per 

teacher. The estimated total cost to respondents is $32,928, based on an average teacher hourly wage 

of $28 (Table 3).

Table 2. Estimated annualized burden hours 

Instrument

Person 

Incurring 

Burden

Number of 

Respondents

Responses per 

Respondent

Total 

Responses

Hours per 

Response

Total 

Burden 

Hours

Survey Teacher 2,800 1 2,800 .42 1,176

Table 3. Estimated annualized cost to respondents

Instrument Person Incurring Burden

Total Burden 

Hours Hourly Wage Rate

Total Respondent 

Costs

Survey Teacher 1,176 $28 $$32,928

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics, estimates Annual Teacher Salary to be $57,810. To calculate an 

hourly wage, a 40-hour work week was assumed, resulting in an average hourly wage of $27.79.

A13. Estimate	for	the	Total	Annual	Cost	Burden	to	Respondents	or	Record Keepers

There are no start-up costs for this collection. 

A14.Estimates	of	Annualized	Costs	to	the	Federal	Government.	

The total estimated cost for this study is $288,250 over three years. The average yearly cost is $96,083.

This cost represents the value of all services to perform activities associated with the proposed data 

collection including: data collection instrument development and testing; establishing and meeting with 

expert consultants; establishing and maintaining data security; collecting data; cleaning, coding, 

processing, and analyzing data; preparing project reports and data files; and disseminating reports and 

data. The estimated cost also reflects personnel costs of federal employees involved in the oversight and 

review of project plans and progress (estimated at a cost of $5,000 per year).

A15.Reasons	for	Program	Changes	or	Adjustments	

This is a new study.

A16. Plans	for Tabulation	and	Publication.
12

Tabulation Plans

For research question 1 (What are the characteristics of clinical practice in traditional teacher 

preparation programs completed by first-year public school teachers in Missouri?), REL Central will 

present descriptive statistics for all respondents in the sample. To provide context for interpreting 

findings, respondent counts, survey response rates, and descriptive information about survey 

respondents will be presented (that is, name of teacher preparation program, certification(s), current 

teaching assignment, gender, and race/ethnicity). These variables will also be used to assess 

nonresponse bias. For continuous variables (such as number of hours or weeks), means and standard 

deviations will be presented. For categorical variables, the proportion of respondents selecting each 

response category will be presented. For “check all that apply” responses (such as subject areas taught), 

means and standard deviations based on the total number of responses selected will be reported, as will 

the proportion of respondents selecting each response category. Frequencies (expressed as 

percentages) of response categories will be included all tables with categorical response options. 

To examine research question 2 (How does clinical practice in traditional teacher preparation programs 

vary among certification tracks completed by first-year public school teachers in Missouri?), descriptive 

statistics will be presented by grade level and subject. Specifically, results will be presented separately 

for early childhood, elementary school (Grades 1–6), middle-level (Grades 5–9), and high school (Grades 

9–12) certifications. Results will also be presented by subject (English/language arts, mathematics, 

science, and social science) separately for middle-level and high school certifications. For categorical 

variables, frequencies (expressed as percentages) of response categories will also be presented for each 

grade level and subject area. Response categories may be collapsed for ease of interpretation after 

reviewing how the data are distributed and inferential analyses to explore group differences will be 

considered.

Program-Level Analysis. Program-level analyses will be conducted that mirror the analyses described in 

plans to address research question 1, above. Program-level descriptive statistics for each survey item, 

along with the mean and standard deviation for the sample as a whole will be presented. Reports will be 

generated for each teacher preparation program. Consistent with MO DESE policy, reports will only be 

generated for programs for which data for a minimum of 15 respondents are available. Further, no data 

will be presented in any cell based on three or fewer respondents. Program-level reports will be treated 

confidentially and will be shared only with the dean, or their designee, of each teacher preparation 

program.

Publication Plans

Results for REL Central’s rigorous studies will be made available to the public through peer-reviewed 

evaluation reports that are published by IES on its website. The datasets from these rigorous studies will 

be turned over to the REL’s IES project officer. These data will become IES restricted use datasets 

requiring a user’s license that is applied for through the same process as NCES restricted use datasets. 

Even the REL contractor would be required to obtain a restricted use license to conduct any work with 

the data beyond the original study.

Timeline
13

The timeline for data collection, analysis and reporting is shown below (Table 4). If OMB approval is 

received in early spring 2014, REL Central will administer the survey in spring 2014. Otherwise, survey 

administration will take place at the beginning of the 2014–15 academic year.

Table 4: Schedule of activities

Activity Schedule

Administer survey instrument April 2014–June 2014

(or September 2014–November 2014)

Analyze and report July 2014–December 2014

(or January 2015–June 2015)

A17. Approval	to	Not	Display	the	Expiration	Date	for	OMB	Approval

No request is being made for exemption from displaying the expiration date.

A18. Exception	to	the	Certification	Statement	

No exceptions to the certification statement are requested or required.
14

References

Alderman, C., Carey, K., Dillon, E., Miller, B., & Silva, E. (2011). A measured approach to 

improving teacher preparation. Washington, DC: Education Sector.

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (2010). The clinical preparation of 

teachers—A policy brief. Washington, DC: Author. 

Association of Teacher Educators. (2008). Standards for teacher educators. Fairfax, VA: Author.

Ballard, L. (2011, June 25). E-mail correspondence. Chief Information and Data Officer & 

Director, Information Management Division, Wyoming Department of Education.

Basile, C. (2012, May 25). Telephone correspondence. Dean, College of Education, University of 

Missouri, St. Louis.

Chesley, G., & Jordan, J. (2012). What's missing from teacher prep? Educational Leadership. 

Washington, DC: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

Coleman, P. (2012, July 16). E-mail correspondence. Director of Teacher Education and 

Licensure, Kansas State Department of Education.

Colorado Department of Education (2009). Application for grants under the Statewide 

Longitudinal Data System Recovery Act Grants. Denver, CO: Author

Crowe, E. (2007). An effective system of data collection on teacher preparation. Paper prepared 

for the Committee on Teacher Preparation Programs, Division of Behavioral and Social 

Sciences and Education, National Research Council, Washington, DC. 

Crowe, E. (2010). Measuring what matters: A stronger accountability model for teacher 

education. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.

Greenberg, J., Pomerance, L., & Walsh, K. (2011). Student teaching in the United States. 

Washington, D.C., National Council on Teacher Quality.

Ingersoll, R., Merrill, L., & May, H. (2012). Retaining teachers: How preparation matters. 

Educational Leadership, 30–34. 

Melmer, R. (2012, May 9). Telephone correspondence. Dean, School of Education, University of 

South Dakota.

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (2008). Application for grants 

under the Statewide Longitudinal Data System Recovery Act Grants. Jefferson City, MO: 

Author.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (2008). Professional standards for the 

accreditation of teacher preparation institutions. Washington, DC: Author.
15

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010, November). Transforming 

teacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective 

teachers. Washington, DC: Author.

National Research Council. (2010). Preparing teachers: Building evidence for sound policy.

Committee on the Study of Teacher Preparation Programs in the United States, Center 

for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, 

DC: The National Academies Press. 

U.S. Department of Education. (2011). Our future, our teachers: The Obama administration’s 

plan for teacher education reform and improvement. Washington, D.C: Author.

Voorhees, R. A., Barnes, G. T., & Rothman, R. (2003, July). Data systems to enhance teacher 

quality. Boulder, CO: State Higher Education Executive Officers.