REVISED October 8, 2014

Fourth Draft OMB Package, Version Two – Part A

Revised

PPSS TO 10: Studies of Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP) Grantees

Subtask 3.5: Prepare Fourth Draft OMB Clearance Package

Contract Number GS-10F-0554N; Order Number ED-PEP-11-O-0090

SRI Project #P21494

Submitted to:

Andrew Abrams

Policy and Program Studies Service

U.S. Department of Education

400 Maryland Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20202

Prepared by:

SRI International

Kyra Caspary, Chris Padilla, Nancy Adelman, Rebecca Schmidt, Erica Harbatkin, and Kaily Yee
P21494, Task 3.1: Revised Third Draft OMB Package 1

Contents

A. Justification

A.1. Circumstances Requiring the Collection of Data

A.2. Purposes and Use of Data

A.3. Use of Technology to Reduce Burden

A.4. Efforts to Identify and Avoid Duplication

A.5. Efforts to Minimize Burden on Small Businesses or Other Entities

A.6. Consequence If the Information Is Not Collected or Collected Less Frequently

A.7. Special Circumstances

A.8. Federal Register Comments and Persons Consulted Outside of Agency

A.9. Payment to Respondents

A.10. Assurances of Confidentiality

A.11. Justification for Questions of a Sensitive Nature

A.12. Estimate of Information Collection Burden

A.13. Estimate of Cost Burden to Respondents

A.14. Estimate of Annualized Costs

A.15. Change in Annual Reporting Burden

A.16. Plans for Tabulation and Publication of Results

A.17. Expiration Date Omission Approval

A.18. Exceptions to Certification Statement

References

B. Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods

B.1. Sampling Design

B.2. Procedures for the Collection of Information

B.3. Methods for Maximizing Response Rate and Dealing with Nonresponse

B.4. Test of Procedures and Methods

B.5. Consultations on Statistical Aspects of the Design

References

Appendix A: Survey of SRSA Grantee and RLIS Subgrantee Districts

Appendix B: Interview Protocols

Appendix C: Participant Phone Interview Verbal Consent

Appendix D: Copy of Federal Register Notice (Pending)

Appendix E: Study Notification Letters

Appendix F: State REAP Coordinator Data Collection Request
P21494, Task 3.1: Revised Third Draft OMB Package 2

SUPPORTING STATEMENT, PART A

PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION

A. Justification

This request for OMB review asks for clearance to collect data through surveys and individual interviews

that will provide a descriptive report on how grantees and subgrantees of the U.S. Department of 

Education’s (the Department) Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP) experience various aspects 

of the program, including eligibility, planning, and use of funds, as well as any technical assistance needs 

regarding both administrative and programmatic issues. SRI International (SRI) and Impaq International, 

under contract with the Department, are conducting the research to prepare the report. Pending 

clearance, the research team will administer a survey of a nationally representative sample of the 

approximately 6,000 total Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) grantees and Rural and Low-Income 

Schools (RLIS) subgrantees, telephone interviews of a purposively selected sample of district 

administrators in SRSA grantee districts and RLIS subgrantee districts, and telephone interviews of REAP 

coordinators in all states receiving REAP funds.

A.1. Circumstances Requiring the Collection of Data 

Rural school districts in the United States face many challenges unique to their circumstances, such as 

shortages of qualified educators, geographic isolation, limited availability of rigorous classes to prepare 

students for college (e.g., Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate), and underdeveloped 

technology systems. As such, educational approaches that are effective in urban and suburban schools 

may not be as effective in rural schools. In addition, the increased focus at the federal level on 

competitive funding, such as the Investing in Innovation (i3) grants puts rural schools at a disadvantage, 

due to their smaller staff and infrastructure. (Patterson, 2010).

The rural education sector in America is quite large. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) data 

show that nearly one-third of all traditional elementary and secondary schools were in rural locations in 

2010-11, serving 20 percent of all K–12 students (The Rural School and Community Trust, 2014). 

Changes in the numbers and types of rural students over the past decade have only served to intensify 

the challenges of educating these students. Nationwide, rural enrollment increased from school year 

1999–2000 through 2008–09 by more than 22 percent, compared to a 1.7 percent enrollment increase 

among all nonrural districts, with a net national gain of more than 1.7 million rural students for that 

period (The Rural School and Community Trust, 2012). The same report found that the level of rural 

student poverty, as measured by eligibility for free or reduced-price meals, also increased over this time 

period, from 31 to 41 percent, while enrollment of Hispanic students in rural districts increased by 150 

percent. For student poverty, this mirrored trends for the nation as a whole, while the increased

enrollment for rural Hispanic students outpaced growth in Hispanic student enrollment nationwide.

1

The Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP), authorized by Title VI, Part B of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, was 

created to help address the special challenges faced by rural school districts. The two REAP programs —

the SRSA program and the RLIS program — increase the funding for rural districts to help them 

effectively serve students in rural settings. An evaluation conducted by the Berkeley Policy Associates 

 

1

The percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price meals increased from 34 to 44 percent (National Center 

for Education Statistics, 2010) and the percent of Hispanic students increased 36 percent over approximately the 

same time period (2000–01 to 2008–09) (National Center for Education Statistics, 2012).
P21494, Task 3.1: Revised Third Draft OMB Package 3

(BPA) to examine the implementation of the RLIS program found that rural school districts most often 

used RLIS funds to purchase and use educational technology, offer pay for teachers and persons who 

provide supplemental services, and find innovative ways to provide professional development to 

geographically isolated teachers (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). Both state- and district-level 

respondents in this study reported that they coordinated their efforts with those responsible for 

implementing Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities, 21st Century Community Learning Centers, 

and other federal education programs (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). A study conducted in 

2005–06 of SRSA grantees exercising the REAP Flexibility option focused on how districts used their 

REAP Flex authority. This study found that approximately half of the eligible SRSA grantee districts used 

REAP Flexibility. The primary reason for non-participation was a lack of information. Those who did 

exercise their REAP Flex authority used it to target low-performing student groups, improve technology 

and teacher quality (U.S. Department of Education, 2007). Unlike the earlier studies, which focused on 

RLIS subgrantees and SRSA REAP Flex users, respectively, this study will document the practices and 

strategies of all grantees receiving REAP funding. 

More information about how grantees use REAP funds, the challenges associated with using these 

funds, and districts’ technical assistance needs related to the funds will help inform policymakers as they 

consider the reauthorization of ESEA and provide timely and practical information to school and district 

personnel receiving REAP funds. To collect this information, the Department contracted with SRI to 

conduct a study, Study of Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP) Grantees. The results of the 

research can be used to inform future policy and federal programs targeted to rural schools and to 

design technical assistance supports.

This study aims to inform future policy and federal programs targeted at rural schools and to assist in 

designing future technical assistance. The research is descriptive in nature; it is not a program evaluation 

and does not purport to assess program outcomes. By surveying a randomly selected representative 

sample of SRSA grantees and RLIS subgrantees, the study will for the first time offer a comprehensive 

description of REAP as experienced by its constituents. 

The following presents an overview of the study design, beginning with the research questions guiding 

the study, and then briefly describes the data collection process and plans for the final report 

Research Questions

To better understand key program strategies and practices that may help other practitioners and 

policymakers refine their own programs, the Department established the following research questions 

to guide the study:

1. What are REAP grantees’ experiences of grant eligibility determination? To what extent do 

districts contact, or are they contacted by, the state regarding eligibility?

2. On what types of activities are REAP funds spent? What are grantees’ experiences of deciding 

how to target funds (e.g., processes and factors, personnel and stakeholders involved, 

integration in larger spending decisions)? Do districts perceive a need for greater flexibility in 

the use of federal Title funds? How does this vary by grantee characteristic? 

3. How do grantees use REAP funds in combination with other federal program funds? To what 

extent are other Department or other federal programs (e.g., E-Rate, USDA Rural 

Development grants) considered or integrated? What are the challenges in spending REAP 

funds?
P21494, Task 3.1: Revised Third Draft OMB Package 4

4. How many SRSA-eligible grantees use REAP Flexibility? Does the use of Flexibility differ by 

grantee characteristics? If Flexibility is not used, why not? Exactly how do SRSA grantees tend 

to use Flexibility?

5. What are the major challenges and technical assistance needs that REAP grantees face (e.g., 

eligibility determination and compliance with program requirements or other)? Are there 

technical assistance needs that grantees perceive to be unaddressed? For what? What is the 

frequency of technical assistance use by grantees? By whom? For what?

6. Is there anything that districts or states would recommend changing about the REAP program 

administration or design?

Surveys and Phone Interviews

The Department is requesting OMB clearance for the following two data collection activities: (1) a 

survey of a nationally representative sample of the approximately 6,000 SRSA grantees and RLIS 

subgrantees that receive REAP funds in the 2014–15 school year; and (2) telephone interviews with 

REAP coordinators in all states receiving REAP funds2and a sample of 30 district SRSA or RLIS 

coordinators. The survey and the telephone interviews will provide data in the following areas: (1) how 

the program functions operationally; (2) how districts are using REAP funds; (3) how districts use REAP 

program funds in conjunction with other federal program funds; and (4) the major technical assistance 

needs that districts perceive having related to REAP.

The study will use a stratified random sample to select districts for the surveys and interviews. The 

survey will provide representative information for all REAP grantees. Since the study includes interviews 

with REAP coordinators from all states receiving funds, the state coordinator interviews will also provide 

representative information on the population of state coordinators. As appropriate, the research team 

will quantify the qualitative data gathered in the state coordinator interviews. The sample of districts 

selected for the district coordinator interviews will not be large enough for responses to be considered 

representative of the universe of REAP grantees. Instead, they will provide examples and context to 

illustrate the survey results.

Reporting

A publicly available report will integrate the results from all data collection activities. It will include 

descriptive statistics from the survey data about REAP grantee needs and experiences, as well as 

qualitative data from the state and district coordinator telephone interviews to provide context for the 

quantitative data through concrete examples of survey findings. The report will also quantify qualitative 

data from the interviews with state REAP coordinators when this can be done reliably to provide counts 

of the number of states that have certain practices or procedures or report particular challenges. The 

Department can use the findings from this study to identify REAP-related practices and policies that 

might warrant further study and, eventually, further discussion within and among other grantees around 

the country. The Department can also use this study to identify grantee technical assistance needs.

Information about the challenges districts face in using REAP funds, alone or in combination with other 

funds, will be useful to the Department and to policymakers as they consider reauthorizing ESEA. To be 

useful to policymakers, the report will need to be practical, user-friendly, and pithy, with highlighted 

 

2

All but two states (Hawaii and Vermont) had districts that received REAP funds in the 2013–14 school year. The 

research team anticipates that the number of states with REAP districts in 2014–15 will be close to 48.
P21494, Task 3.1: Revised Third Draft OMB Package 5

findings, graphics, illustrative quotations, and easily accessible bullets. Finally, this report may be useful 

to REAP grantees and subgrantees as they plan for the most appropriate ways to use their funds.

A.2. Purposes and Use of Data

The study will document and analyze grantee and subgrantee experiences with the REAP program and 

the various practices funded by REAP — by itself or in combination with other federal funds — as well as 

how the components of the program work to help address the challenges faced by rural districts. 

Department staff can use this data to identify implementation challenges and technical assistance 

needs. A better understanding of REAP grantee and subgrantee needs and experiences will also be 

useful to policymakers as they consider ESEA reauthorization, and to REAP grantees and subgrantees as 

they plan for the most appropriate ways to use their funds.

A.3. Use of Technology to Reduce Burden

The research team will use information technology to reduce burden on state education agency and 

school district staff in several different ways. 

The research team will communicate with potential survey respondents primarily via email. In addition, 

the research team will administer the surveys using an online platform that allows for automated 

branching and skip patterns so respondents only see items that are relevant to them, based on program 

type and their previous responses. 

To schedule telephone interviews, researchers will communicate with state REAP coordinators and 

district SRSA or RLIS coordinators primarily via email, and will digitally record the interviews. The 

recordings will reduce errors in field notes by capturing respondents’ verbatim responses, thereby 

minimizing researcher requests for clarifications after the interviews.

A.4. Efforts to Identify and Avoid Duplication

The Department will make all efforts to avoid duplicating other federally funded projects. The proposed 

study does not duplicate any other federally funded studies, and the Department of Education does not 

currently have plans to study REAP beyond the current study. 

There has been limited research on the administration of REAP grants and how SRSA grantees and RLIS 

subgrantees experience various aspects of the program, including eligibility, planning, and use of funds, 

as well as technical assistance needs they may have regarding both administrative and programmatic 

issues. The last federally funded studies of REAP grantees were conducted in 2005 and 2007–09 (U.S. 

Department of Education, 2007, 2010) and focused exclusively on the REAP Flex provision and RLIS 

subgrantees, respectively. 

In addition, researchers will work closely with the REAP office to collect any data relevant to the study 

that may already be submitted to them by the grantees, thereby ensuring that researchers do not 

duplicate data collection efforts. For example, researchers will sample districts using the grantee data 

the REAP office posts on its website. These data include average daily attendance (ADA) figures

submitted by the states, poverty measures, and information on state rural designations. Researchers will 

only collect data from states and districts that the REAP office does not collect. 
P21494, Task 3.1: Revised Third Draft OMB Package 6

A.5. Efforts to Minimize Burden on Small Businesses or Other Entities

The research team anticipates no burden on small businesses, as data collection will be limited to state 

and local education agencies.

A.6. Consequence If the Information Is Not Collected or Collected Less Frequently

If the proposed information is not collected, the federal government will miss the opportunity to 

provide timely and practical information to school and district personnel and policymakers on the 

administration of RLIS and SRSA grants, practices funded by REAP alone and in combination with other 

federal funds, and how the components of the program work to help address the challenges faced by 

rural districts. Approximately 6,000 school districts received REAP funds through the RLIS and SRSA

programs in the 2012–13 school year — more than 40 percent of school districts in the United States. 

Gathering, synthesizing, and sharing information about grantees’ use of funds, their challenges in using 

funds, and their technical assistance needs will inform future policy and federal programs and assist in 

designing future technical assistance for these districts.

A.7. Special Circumstances

No special circumstances are anticipated. The data collection will comply with 5 CFR 1320.6.

A.8. Federal Register Comments and Persons Consulted Outside of Agency

a. Federal Register Announcement. A 60-day notice to solicit public comments was published in 

the Federal Register on June 25, 2014 (Volume 79, No. 122, p. 36026-36027. No comments have 

been received to date.

b. Consultation Outside the Agency. Five national experts, two state coordinators, six district 

administrators overseeing SRSA or RLIS grants, and one regional education service center 

coordinator overseeing REAP grant administration have provided expert advice to guide this 

study (see Exhibit 1). These experts’ knowledge of the REAP program has been a valuable 

resource in developing data collection plans and instruments.
P21494, Task 3.1: Revised Third Draft OMB Package 7

Exhibit 1. Expert Panel Members

Name Professional Affiliation

Susan Sheridan Director, National Center for Research on Rural Education, University of Nebraska, Lincoln

Doug Christensen Former Nebraska Commissioner of Education

Hobart Harmon Independent Consultant and Editorial Board Member of the Journal of Research in Rural 

Education

Julie Bartsch Rural Faculty, The Rural School and Community Trust

Brenda Williams Director, Office of Instructional Technology, West Virginia Department of Education

Didi Garcia Division of Federal and State Education Policy, Texas Education Agency

Ed Peltz Education Consultant, Office of Federal Programs, Ohio Department of Education

William Hatfield Superintendent, Massac Unit District 1, Illinois, RLIS

Nancy Crowell Superintendent, Elkhart USD 218, Kansas, SRSA (non-Flex)

Jim Guetter Superintendent, Red Lake County School District, Minnesota, SRSA (Flex)

Patricia Dubois Superintendent, Glocestor School Department, Rhode Island, SRSA (Flex)

Vickie Ansley Coordinator Title I/SCE, Region 16 Service Center, Texas, RLIS

Kathy Lee Assistant Superintendent, Wynne Public Schools, Arkansas, RLIS

Diane Neal Director of Secondary Curriculum/Federal Programs/Grants, Chillicothe City School District, 

Ohio, RLIS

A.9. Payment to Respondents

No payment to respondents will be offered.

A.10. Assurances of Confidentiality

As the lead in the data collection for the study, SRI will have its Institutional Review Board (IRB) review 

and approve all research protocols and data collection materials, including consent forms (included in

Appendices A,B, and C). Protocols and materials will adhere to the Multiple Projects Assurance with the 

Office of Protection from Research Risks (OPRR) maintained by SRI. SRI’s Assurance number is M-1088. 

SRI’s Human Subjects Committee is its official IRB charged with responsibility for the review and 

approval of all research involving human subjects. SRI clears all data collection protocols through its 

internal Human Subjects Committee as a safeguard to protect the rights of research subjects.

The research team has established a set of standards and procedures to safeguard the privacy of 

participants and the confidentiality of data as they are collected, processed, stored, and reported. The 

following provisions will apply on this project.

All Data Collections

The research team will protect the privacy and confidentiality of REAP interview and survey respondents

to the extent possible. Researchers will make every attempt to keep confidential the names and any 

other identifying information about respondents. The contractor will not provide information that 

associates responses or findings with a respondent to anyone outside the study team. Individual 

responses will be kept confidential, to the extent possible, except as may be required by law.
P21494, Task 3.1: Revised Third Draft OMB Package 8

Access to SRI’s secure servers are password protected, with required changes at regular intervals and 

strong password elements. Each user’s access is limited, determined by the network administrator.

Researchers will not report data in such a way that it would be possible to identify states, districts, or 

individuals. In reporting, the study will not disaggregate data to such a degree that it would be possible 

to identify individual school districts or individuals. The study will use pseudonyms for any individual 

state or school district. The study team may refer to the generic title of an individual (e.g., 

"superintendent”), but no state, district, or individual name will be used. 

District Administrator Surveys

The research team will maintain a tracking database with names and contact information for 

respondents separate from the survey responses. The database will be used for survey administration 

and follow-up. The research team will assign a unique identification number to each school to be used 

for raw data, printout listings that display the data, and analysis files. The survey response file will not 

contain names or addresses. 

A.11. Justification for Questions of a Sensitive Nature

The surveys and interview protocols do not ask sensitive questions. However, given that the RLIS 

program targets districts with high child poverty rates, it is possible that information on students’ 

financial, family, and social needs may arise during data collection. In SRI’s experience, administrators 

are very careful not to disclose confidential information as they deal with student privacy concerns daily. 

Researchers will remind them at the beginning of interviews not to provide sensitive information about 

themselves or others by name.

A.12. Estimate of Information Collection Burden

As described previously, this request relates to a sample of up to 1,000 surveys divided among SRSA and 

RLIS school district grant coordinators, and telephone interviews with REAP coordinators in all states 

receiving REAP funds in the 2014–15 school year3, and 30 school district grant coordinators around the 

country (10 RLIS, 10 SRSA REAP Flex, 10 SRSA non-Flex). (In addition to the telephone interviews with 

REAP coordinators in all states is a request for their assistance with providing contact information for 

the sample of survey respondents located in their respective states, as shown in the first row in Exhibit 

2). Total annual response is therefore 326, and annual burden, 184 hours. Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3 display 

the projected time burdens placed on the various survey and interview respondents, with state REAP 

coordinators shown in both exhibits, to cover both of their distinct roles described above.

 

3

All but two states (Hawaii and Vermont) had districts that received REAP funds in the 2013–14 school year. The 

research team anticipates that the number of states with REAP districts in 2014–15 will be close to 48.
P21494, Task 3.1: Revised Third Draft OMB Package 9

Exhibit 2. Number of Respondents and Burden Hours Expected for Surveys

Role

Number of 

Respondents Time per Person

Total Time Burden 

Across All 

Respondents

State REAP Coordinator 48a60 minutes 48 hours

District RLIS or SRSA

Grant Coordinators

853

b

30 minutes 427 hours

Total 475 hours

Annualized Basis 300 158 hours

a State REAP coordinators will be asked to provide contact information for sampled districts (see Appendix F).

b

The survey will be sent to approximately 1,004 district coordinators. The response rate is expected to be 

85 percent. This results in 853 total respondents.

Exhibit 3. Number of Respondents and Burden Hours Expected for Telephone Interviews

Role

Number of 

Respondents Time per Person

Total Time Burden

Across All 

Interviews

State REAP Coordinator 48

a

 1 hour 48 hours

District SRSA or RLIS Grant

Coordinators

30 1 hour 30 hours

Total 78 hours

Annualized Basis 26 26 hours

a

Researchers will update this number when 2014–15 REAP allocations and awards are available from the REAP 

Office.

While respondents suffer no direct monetary costs for this activity, their time is valuable, as estimated in 

Error! Reference source not found.. The salary used to calculate hourly rates for each group of 

respondents is based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data from May 2012. 

Exhibit 4. Estimated Cost of Respondents’ Time

Role

Time Needed Hourly Wage

(Estimated)4Total Cost5

State REAP Coordinators a96 hours $45.00 $4,320

District RLIS or SRSA Coordinators 457 hours $45.00 $20,565

Total 529 hours - $24,885

Annualized Basis 176 hours $8,295

a

Researchers will update this number when 2014–15 REAP allocations and awards are available from the REAP 

Office.

A.13. Estimate of Cost Burden to Respondents

There is no capital or start-up cost component to these data collection activities, nor is there a total 

operation, maintenance, or purchase cost associated with the study.

 

4

All estimates are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), http://www.bls.gov/data/, retrieved on 

March 10, 2014. The State REAP Coordinator and District RLIS or SRSA Coordinator were all derived from BLS 

occupation code 11-9032 – “Education Administrators, Elementary and Secondary Schools.” 

5

Costs are rounded to the nearest dollar.
P21494, Task 3.1: Revised Third Draft OMB Package 10

A.14. Estimate of Annualized Costs

The estimated annualized cost of the study to the federal government is $271,742. This estimate is 

based on the total contract cost of $837,874, amortized over a 37-month performance period. It 

includes costs already invoiced, plus budgeted future costs that will be charged to the government for 

the study redesign, sampling, data collection, analysis, and reporting.

A.15. Change in Annual Reporting Burden

This is a new study and new data collection. The new collection generates a program change of 184

burden hours.

A.16. Plans for Tabulation and Publication of Results

A final report will contain integrated analysis of the survey and interview data.

Timeline

The survey data collection period will begin in February 2015, pending OMB approval. The planned 

schedule for the study, assuming receipt of OMB clearance by November 17, 2014, is shown in Exhibit 5.

Exhibit 5. Planned Data Collection and Reporting Schedule 

Project Activity Dates

Collect district contact information December 2014 – January 2015

Administer survey February 2015 – April 2015

Begin interviews with state coordinators February 2015

Begin interviews with district administrators February 2015

Prepare data files, analyze data, prepare briefing May – July 2015

Prepare Final Report July 2015 – January 2016

Researchers will draw a stratified random sample of REAP districts. Once the study has determined the 

random sample of 1,000 districts for the survey, the research team will ask the REAP coordinator in each 

state to identify and provide the phone number and email address for a contact for the REAP grant in 

each sampled district. The research team will email a link to a secure web-based version of the survey to 

these individuals in February 2015. The survey will remain open through April 2015. The research team 

will then tabulate and analyze results from the district survey after the survey closes. Appendix A 

contains a draft survey instrument, and Appendix F contains a template for collecting the contact 

information from the states needed to administer the instruments.

Training for state interviewers will occur prior to January 2015 so the research team will be ready to 

contact state REAP coordinators shortly after OMB approval. Training for district interviewers will occur 

prior to February 2015 so the research team can begin outreach to district coordinators sampled for a 

survey as soon as possible after the districts complete their surveys. The research team will select 

districts for the interviews out of those sampled for the survey. The research team will begin setting up 

district telephone interviews in late February, after sampled district administrators have had a chance to 

respond to the survey. Appendix B contains draft interview protocols.

Analysis and Tabulations

The research team will tabulate survey results by item and grant type. For some items, the report will 

present both the overall and the program specific results in one table. The tabulations will take this form
P21494, Task 3.1: Revised Third Draft OMB Package 11

for questions where the question text and response options are the same for both program types. For 

example, the researchers will report the percent of districts using REAP funds to pay for each kind of 

activity overall and for each program type (see
P21494, Task 3.1: Revised Third Draft OMB Package 12

Exhibit 6). One section of the survey, addressing the use of REAP Flex, applies only to SRSA grantees. 

These questions will be tabulated just for SRSA respondents. An appendix to the report will contain 

standard errors of all reported percentages.
P21494, Task 3.1: Revised Third Draft OMB Package 13

Exhibit 6. Sample Table Shell: Percent of Respondent Districts Using REAP Funds 

to Pay for Each Activity Type

Overall

(n=XX)

SRSA

(n=XX)

RLIS

(n=XX)

Improve academic achievement xx% xx% xx%

Improve teacher retention and/or recruitment xx% xx% xx%

Provide professional development for teachers or 

administrators

xx% xx% xx%

Improve or expand access to technology xx% xx% xx%

Address drug abuse and/or violence in your community xx% xx% xx%

Address English language acquisition xx% xx% xx%

Increase parental involvement xx% xx% xx%

The study team will also analyze the state and district interview data to identify themes that are 

common across states, as well as within each program type or common across the RLIS and SRSA 

districts. Researchers will quantify the state interview data, where possible, and aggregate and tabulate 

the results. For example, the researchers will count the number of state respondents who review the 

accuracy of the eligibility data for their districts. These tables will include both the percent of states that 

respond “Yes” to this question and the number of states that responded to the question (“Number of 

Respondents”; see Exhibit 7).

Exhibit 7. Sample Table Shell: State Review of Eligibility Data 

Percent Number of 

Respondents

State reviews eligibility data xx% XX

State encourages districts to review eligibility data xx% XX

Additionally, the research team will use qualitative responses from the state and district interviews to 

illustrate quantitative findings from the survey and interviews. 

Reporting

A publicly available report will integrate the results from all data collection activities, including the tables 

and illustrative quotes discussed above. In addition to this easily accessible written report that will be 

posted on the Department website, the Department and research team will identify other possible 

venues for dissemination. The final report will be approved by the end of the period of performance, 

October 26, 2015. The report will be structured as follows:

I. Introduction: brief description of the REAP program and study design

II. REAP eligibility determination process 

III. Planning and use of REAP funds, including coordination with other federal funds

IV. REAP Flexibility provision

V. Technical assistance needs, providers and perceived usefulness

VI. Summary of respondent satisfaction and recommended changes 
P21494, Task 3.1: Revised Third Draft OMB Package 14

VII. Conclusion

Appendix A: Methodology

i. District survey: sampling methodology, description of sample and response rate

ii. State and district interviews: sampling methodology and description of samples

Appendix B: Standard error tables

Appendix C: District administrator survey

Appendix D: District interview protocol

Appendix E: State interview protocol

A.17. Expiration Date Omission Approval

Not applicable. All data collection instruments will include the OMB data control number and data 

collection expiration date.

A.18. Exceptions to Certification Statement

Not applicable. No exceptions are requested.
P21494, Task 3.1: Revised Third Draft OMB Package 1

References

National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Table 1. Percent of Students Eligible for Free or 

Reduced-price Lunch by State and Eligibility Status: School Years 1999–2000 through 2009–2010. 

Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/tables/2000_schoollunch_01.asp

National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). Enrollment and percentage distribution of enrollment in 

public elementary and secondary schools, by race/ethnicity and region: Selected years, fall 1995 

through fall 2021. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_044.asp

Patterson, K. (2010). Rural Schools: Federal Expenditures & State Perspectives –Lessons from No Child 

Left Behind and Considerations for Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

for Rural Areas. The Council of State Governments. Washington, D.C.

The Rural School and Community Trust (2012). Why Rural Matters 2011-12: The Condition of Rural 

Education in the 50 States. Retrieved from www.ruraledu.org.

The Rural School and Community Trust (2014). Why Rural Matters 2013-14: The Condition of Rural 

Education in the 50 States. Retrieved from www.ruraledu.org.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and 

Program Studies Service. (2007). Evaluation of Flexibility under No Child Left Behind: Volume III—The 

Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP Flex). Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and 

Program Studies Service. (2009). Evaluation of the Implementation of the Rural and Low-Income 

School (RLIS) Program: Interim Report. Washington, D.C. (unpublished).

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and 

Program Studies Service (2010). Evaluation of the Implementation of the Rural and Low-Income 

School (RLIS) Program: Final Report. Washington, D.C.