1

Paperwork Reduction Act Submission Supporting Statement

Title	II,	Part	D	(Ed	Tech)	Evaluation	Reports

Introduction 

A major purpose of Title II, Part D, Subpart 1 of the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA) is to conduct rigorous evaluation of the 

effectiveness of Title II, Part D formula and competitive grant-funded activities in 

integrating technology into curricula and instruction and improving student achievement, 

and on the basis of those evaluations widely disseminate what has been learned about 

effective technology-infused practice to State and local education agencies (SEAs and 

LEAs). 

This submission requests approval to require States to submit to the U.S. Department of 

Education (the Department) an annual written report on the process, measures and results 

of SEA evaluations of activities funded under Title II, Part D (Ed Tech), including 

activities funded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). 

The report will be due on September 30 of each year, beginning on September 30, 2010. 

The State Ed Tech Evaluation Report will include evaluation of Ed Tech funded 

activities (including ARRA funded activities) that were initiated during school year (SY) 

2009-2010 using fiscal year (FY) 2009 funds, and activities that were continued from 

prior year awards using FY 2009 funding. In general, the evaluation report will,

 Detail the activities being evaluated,

 Explain the process and measures used to evaluate the effectiveness of the 

activities,

 Present findings and conclusions supported by evidence about the effectiveness of 

activities,

 Propose concrete and usable recommendations for disseminating, replicating and 

scaling of effective projects, activities and practice, as appropriate, based on the

evidence and lessons learned.

Qualification: The Department recognizes that for the first evaluation report due by

September 30, 2010, evaluations of FY 2009 Ed Tech funded activities may not have 

produced sufficient evaluative data to report findings, conclusions and recommendations. 

Nonetheless, States are expected to have planned and initiated evaluations of FY 2009 Ed 

Tech funded activities well in advance of the report due date. States should report on the 

details and status of their evaluations as of the report due date. In addition, evaluations of 

activities begun in a prior year and continued with FY 2009 funds should be at a stage in 

their implementation to, at minimum, produce preliminary findings, conclusions and 

recommendations. 

A. Justification
2

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. 

Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. 

A major purpose of Title II, D (Section 2402(a)(7) of the ESEA) is to support the 

rigorous evaluation of projects, activities and strategies funded under the program, 

particularly regarding the impact of such programs on student academic achievement; 

and from those evaluations identify effective practices that can be widely replicated 

by State educational agencies and by local educational agencies in the State and in 

other States.

To that end, section 2413(b)(4) of the ESEA requires that SEAs that receive Ed Tech 

funds establish a process and accountability measures to evaluate the extent to which

activities funded under the program are effective in integrating technology into 

curricula and instruction. 

This requested collection would require each SEA that receives Ed Tech funds to 

submit to the Department a report on the methods and results of the SEA’s evaluation 

of Ed Tech funded activities consistent with the requirements of the statute.

2. Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. 

The Department will use the information to: (1) assess the impact of Ed Tech-funded 

activities, particularly the impact on student achievement; (2) identify innovative 

strategies that infuse technology with curriculum and instruction that can be 

replicated by SEAs and LEAs in the State and in other States; (3) disseminate widely 

models of effective practice in technology integration; and (4) monitor the State’s 

compliance with Title II, Part D requirements and, as warranted, provide technical 

assistance to help States improve their evaluation processes and measures.

Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the 

information received from the current collection.

This is a new collection.

3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the 

use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection 

techniques or forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic 

submission of responses, and the basis for the decision of adopting this means of 

collection. Also describe any consideration of using information technology to 

reduce burden.

The Department will collect the reports electronically through e-mail. Electronic 

transmission through e-mail is consistent with the Federal paperless policies and 

allows for the transmission of both word and pdf signature files.

4. Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar 

information already available cannot be used or modified for use of the purposes 

described in Item 2 above.

The Department has not collected evaluation reports or evaluation data from SEA-
3

conducted evaluations of Ed Tech funded activities. Studies conducted by the 

Department of Ed Tech programs have explored and described various components of 

the Ed Tech program. However, by design, these studies did not systematically assess 

the effectiveness of Ed Tech activities in meeting Title II, D goals in each State.

5. If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities 

(Item 8b of IC Data Part 2), describe any methods used to minimize burden.

Neither small businesses nor small entities are affected by this collection.

6. Describe the consequences to Federal program or policy activities if the 

collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any 

technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.

If the information is not collected through this reporting instrument, the Department 

will not have the means to identify and disseminate evidence-based models of 

technology-infused educational practices and therefore will have the means to achieve 

one of the primary purposes of the ESEA, Title II, Part D.

7. Explain any special circumstances affecting how the information will be 

collected.

No special circumstances exist that would cause the information collection to be 

conducted under any of the circumstance described above.

8. Describe efforts to consult with persons outside the agency to obtain their views 

on the availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instruction and 

recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting format (if any), and on the data elements 

to be recorded, disclosed, or reported.

The program office consults extensively with State officials, including SEA 

leadership and educational technology program directors. Consultations occur 

through ongoing program monitoring and technical assistance activities, State 

educational directors’ meetings, professional association meetings and conferences, 

and Webinars and teleconferences. These activities have enabled the Department to 

ascertain the SEAs’ evaluation capacity, the current status of evaluation activity in 

each SEA, and the capacity of SEAs to meet the specific reporting requirements of 

this collection. 

In addition, the information collection was published in the Federal Register Notice 

here October 7, 2009, page 51571 for a 60-day comment period. The Department 

received comments and made changes were made as a result of the comments. A 

table is provided in a separate file that identifies the comments and the changes that 

were made.

9. Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than 

remuneration of contractors or grantees.

No payment or gift of any kind will be provided to respondents.

10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis 

for the assurance in statute, regulations, or agency policy.
4

As a matter of policy, the Department assures respondents that in reporting data to the 

public, no n-size will be reported that can readily identify individuals. The number 

used for each State is the n-size that the State provided to the Department in its 

accountability workbooks. State accountability workbooks can be found on the 

Department’s Web site at: 

http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplans03/index.html

11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as 

sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are 

commonly considered private. This justification should include the reason why 

the agency considers the questions necessary; the specific uses to be made of the 

information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information 

is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.

The information collection does not include questions of a sensitive nature, such as 

sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly

considered private. The education data collected will only consist of information 

about States, school districts, and schools.

12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information and the 

annualized cost to respondents of the hour burdens for collections of 

information, identifying and using appropriate wage rate categories. 

The total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for the collection is estimated to 

be 1560 hours. Burden hours for this collection are calculated on the assumption that 

the information for this collection is collected and compiled by the SEA as a part of 

the SEA’s required evaluation of Ed Tech-funded activities and that States already 

have in place evaluation processes (including data collection methods and 

instruments) and measures to conduct the evaluations. The burden for this collection 

covers the burden associated with analyzing and reporting information consistent with 

the detailed report instructions for this collection. The annual burden to each of 52 

SEA respondents for this Evaluation Report collection is estimated to be 30 hours for 

a total of 1560 burden hours.

SEA Burden hours Evaluation Report

Approximate # of agencies 52

Average burden per agency 30 hours 

Total for Evaluation Report 1560 hours

The average hourly rate for staff in each of the SEAs to prepare the responses to this 

information full collection, including proposed amendments is estimated to be 

$24.00. Therefore, the total cost of the collection is estimated as $37,440.00, which is 

equivalent to 1560 X $24.00. 

13. Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to respondents or record 

keepers for capital expenses resulting from the collection of information. 

This information collection does not require the use of any capital equipment, start-up 
5

costs or record keeping not included in the response to question # 12.

14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Also, provide a 

description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include 

quantification of hours, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, 

printing, and support staff), and any other expense that would not have been 

incurred without this collection of information. Agencies also may aggregate 

cost estimates from Items 12, 13, and 14 in a single table.

The annual cost to the Federal government for data collection, analysis, and 

dissemination is estimated at $25,000 program staff time [.5 FTE at $50,000 per 

FTE], including related technical assistance to States. 

15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in Items 

16 of IC Data Part 1. 

The program change is due to this being a new collection. 

16. For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for 

tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will 

be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning 

and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, 

publication dates, and other actions.

The State reports on the evaluation of Ed Tech-funded activities will be due on 

September 30 of each year beginning on September 30, 2010, and will report on Ed 

Tech-activities funded during the previous school year. 

After State submissions are received, the Department will review reports, consult 

with States as needed for clarifications, identify from reported evaluation results 

effective models of practice, compile the information obtained into meaningful 

categorizations of practice; produce and disseminate summary products, including 

compendiums of promising practices and lessons learned. 

The Department will post State-submitted evaluation reports and Departmentproduced summary products on the Ed Tech home page of www.ed.gov. 

17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the 

information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.

Approval to not display expiration date has not been requested.

18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in the 

“Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions.”

No exceptions were identified.

B. Collections of Information Employing Statistical Methods

There are no statistical methods being use in this collection.