Supporting Justification for Revising OMB Clearance for “The 

Evaluation of Ramp-Up to Readiness Under the Regional 

Educational Laboratory Program” (OMB 1850-0907)

Section A

May 2014

Submitted to

Joelle Lastica, Ed.D.

Contracting Officer’s Representative

Institute of Education Sciences

U.S. Department of Education

Submitted by

Dean Gerdeman, Ph.D., Director

1120 East Diehl Road, Suite 200

Naperville, IL 60563-1486

866-730-6735

www.relmidwest.org

This publication was prepared for the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) under contract ED-IES-12-C-0004 

by Regional Educational Laboratory Midwest, administered by American Institutes for Research. The content 

of the publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of IES or the U.S. Department of Education,

nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S.

government. The publication is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce in whole or in part for 

educational purposes is granted.

_01/14
Contents

Page

Introduction......................................................................................................................................1

A. Justification .................................................................................................................................6

1. Circumstances Necessitating Collection of Information ...................................................... 6

2. How, by Whom, and for What Purpose Information Is to Be Used ..................................... 9

3. Use of Automated, Electronic, Mechanical, or Other Technological Collection 

Techniques.......................................................................................................................... 17

4. Efforts to Avoid Duplication of Effort................................................................................ 18

5. Sensitivity to Burden on Small Entities.............................................................................. 18

6. Consequences to Federal Program or Policy Activities if the Collection Is Not 

Conducted or Is Conducted Less Frequently Than Proposed............................................. 18

7. Special Circumstances........................................................................................................ 19

8. Federal Register Announcement and Consultation............................................................. 19

9. Payment or Gift to Respondents......................................................................................... 20

10. Data Confidentiality.......................................................................................................... 20

11. Additional Justification for Sensitive Questions............................................................... 21

12. Estimates of Hour Burden................................................................................................. 22

13. Estimate of Total Annual Cost Burden to Respondents or Record Keepers .................... 22

14. Estimates of Annualized Cost to the Federal Government............................................... 22

15. Reasons for Program Changes or Adjustments ................................................................ 22

16. Plan for Tabulation and Publication and Schedule for Project......................................... 26

17. Approval Not to Display the Expiration Date for OMB Approval................................... 31

18. Exception to the Certification Statement .......................................................................... 31

References......................................................................................................................................34

Attachment A-1. Administrative Data Request .............................................................................36

Attachment A-2. Student Fall Survey............................................................................................38

Attachment A-3. Student Spring Survey .......................................................................................46

Attachment A-4. Consent Documents ...........................................................................................54

Parent Information Letter and Consent Withholding Form.................................................... 54

Staff Consent Form................................................................................................................. 56

Attachment A-5. Instructional Log for Ramp-Up Workshop........................................................58

Attachment A-6. Fall Staff Survey ................................................................................................64
Attachment A-7. Spring Staff Survey............................................................................................73

Attachment A-8. Educational Sciences Reform Act (ESRA)........................................................92

Attachment A-9. Federal Register Notices....................................................................................93

Attachment A-10. Confidentiality Form and Affidavits................................................................94

Attachment A-11. Assumptions and Results for the Power Analyses...........................................97

Attachment A-12. Components of Implementation Fidelity and Their Indicators........................99

Attachment A-13. Rubric for Assessing Students’ Exposure to Ramp-Up.................................111

Attachment A-14. Rubric for Comparing College-Readiness Supports in Treatment and Control 

Schools...................................................................................................................................114
Figure

Figure 1. Ramp-Up to Readiness Logic Model .............................................................................. 8
Tables

Table 1. Revised Data Collection Timeline.................................................................................. 11

Table 2. Alignment Between Data Collection Activities and the Research Questions Underlying 

Both Phases of this Project. .......................................................................................................... 13

Table 3. Revised Estimates of Respondent Burdent Included Phase 1 and 2............................... 23

of the Ramp-Up Evaluation Project.............................................................................................. 23

Table 4. Revised Estimates of Annualized Costs for Respondents Involved ............................... 25

in Phase 1 and Phase 2.................................................................................................................. 25

Table 5. Description of Statistical Models for Confirmatory Analyses........................................ 27

Table 6. Description of Models for Exploratory Analyses........................................................... 28

Table 7. Schedule of Activities for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Ramp-Up Evaluation ...................... 32

Table A-11.1 Minimum Detectable Effect Sizes Based on Numbers of Schools, Teachers, and 

Students......................................................................................................................................... 98

Table A-12.1 Components and Indicators Associated With Ramp-Up Implementation.............. 99

Table A-13.1 Rubric for Assessing Students’ Exposure to Ramp-Up........................................ 111

Table A-14.1 Rubric for Comparing College-Readiness Supports in Treatment and Control 

Schools........................................................................................................................................ 114
REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Phase 2 of Ramp-Up Evaluation—1

Introduction

The U.S. Department of Education (ED) requests clearance for a revision of a currently approved 

data collection under the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance agreement (OMB 

1850-0907) for activities related to the Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) program. For the 

previous clearance, ED, in consultation with American Institutes for Research (AIR), obtained 

approval to study the implementation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program (“Ramp-Up”) in 

Minnesota public schools. This revised application for clearance includes a second phase of the 

existing project involving examination of Ramp-Up’s impact. For this second phase, data will be 

collected from 54 additional schools in Minnesota and Wisconsin, resulting in a collection in 76 

schools total.

Ramp-Up, developed by the College Readiness Consortium at the University of Minnesota, is a 

schoolwide guidance program that aims to increase students’ likelihood of college enrollment 

and completion by promoting multiple dimensions of college readiness (academic, admissions, 

financial, career, and personal and social). It is an intensive and comprehensive approach to 

college preparation (compared with many other college-access programs) in which all students 

within a school meet repeatedly with an advisor in groups over multiple years and receive 

detailed instruction and assistance related to dimensions of college readiness. Phase 1 on the 

project—the phase for which clearance has already been obtained—involves the gathering of 

data for an in-depth examination of the degree to which schools are able to implement Ramp-Up 

with fidelity and the contrast between Ramp-Up and other schools’ approaches to college 

readiness. The research questions being addressed by Phase 1 are:

RQ1. What are the characteristics of the student populations, geographical settings, and 

historical performance for the schools implementing Ramp-Up to Readiness? 

RQ2. Among students enrolled in schools implementing Ramp-Up, how do students’ 

academic achievement, college enrollment actions, and college enrollment differ for 

students eligible versus not eligible to receive free or reduced price lunch and for 

students enrolled in rural versus nonrural high schools?

RQ3. To what extent do (a) schools implement the core components of Ramp-Up (i.e., 

structural supports, curriculum and tools, and professional development) as intended by

the program developer, and (b) students in Ramp-Up schools receive the program 

exposure that the College Readiness Consortium believes is necessary to produce 

impacts? 

RQ4. How does Ramp-Up differ from college-related supports (i.e., programs, services, 

activities, and resources) in schools not implementing Ramp-Up? 

RQ5. What do school staff members (e.g., teachers, counselors, administrators) who are 

involved in implementing the Ramp-Up program perceive as the strengths and 

weaknesses of its curriculum, tools, and professional development? According to 

school staff, which aspects of Ramp-Up were more difficult to implement and why?
REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Phase 2 of Ramp-Up Evaluation—2

RQ6. To what extent are measures of personal readiness on ACT’s Engage survey (i.e., the 

Commitment to College and Goal Striving scales) valid? That is, to what extent do the 

Engage scales indicate concurrent and predictive validity within a high school sample? 

Phase 2 of the project will involve gathering the same types of data, only from an expanded set 

of schools during another academic year (2014-2015). Three data collection activities will not be 

continued in Phase 2, so as to lessen the burden on respondents and reduce the cost for the 

project. 

Phase 2 of the study will contribute strong experimental evidence about the efficacy of Ramp-Up

as a college-readiness intervention. Schools randomly assigned to implement Ramp-Up will be

compared to high schools that offer other college-readiness activities, services, and supports. 

The expanded project has the potential to inform policymakers who focus on K-12 education, 

policymakers who focus on postsecondary education, researchers, and practitioners more 

broadly. Despite significant state and federal interest in increasing students’ college readiness 

(e.g., Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010; U.S. Department of Education, 2010), there 

is little rigorous evidence on the effectiveness of college-readiness interventions (Tierney, 

Bailey, Constantine, Finkelstein, & Hurd, 2009). And although empirical support exists on the 

individual dimensions of Ramp-Up, the program as a whole has not been evaluated. Phase 2 of 

this project will contribute strong experimental evidence about the efficacy of the Ramp-Up 

program on key college-readiness outcomes. Moreover, the program involves a specific 

curriculum and tools that could be adopted more widely if the program is found to be effective. 

Ramp-Up’s program design and practices also may be of particular interest to practitioners and 

researchers because Ramp-Up aims to serve all students in a school rather than a select 

subgroup; it is a data-driven approach to assess and track students’ college preparation; and its 

group advisory approach may be more cost effective than a similarly intense one-on-one 

counseling approach. Findings from Phase 2 will be helpful for informing educators and 

policymakers about the impact of Ramp-Up on college readiness outcomes and informing the 

continued development and implementation of Ramp-Up and other college-readiness programs. 

This expanded project will build evidence on early outcomes of the intervention in the domains 

of college enrollment actions, personal readiness, and advanced coursework after one year of 

program exposure. It will not examine the program’s complete theory of action (specified in the 

Justification section, Figure 1, following). The confirmatory research questions (CRQs) are as 

follows: 

CRQ1. What is the effect of Ramp-Up on the likelihood of Grade 12 students completing 

FAFSA? 

CRQ2. What is the effect of Ramp-Up on students’ personal college readiness for students in 

Grades 10, 11, and 12? 

Phase 2 also will address three exploratory research questions (ERQs) to better understand the 

relationship between attending a Ramp-Up school and college readiness outcomes.1First, 

 

1 These analyses seek to explore—rather than confirm—relationships, and so no power estimates were calculated 

for these analyses. Thus, these impact estimates may be underpowered. Per IES/NCEE guidance, exploratory 

analyses should be limited in number, require no additional data collection, and help with the interpretation of 
REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Phase 2 of Ramp-Up Evaluation—3

according to the developer, the short duration of the Ramp-Up intervention in this study should 

impact more immediate outcomes (those listed in CRQ1-2) but also may impact longer-term 

outcomes for which data will be available. The first exploratory question examines whether there 

is evidence that Ramp-Up produces those longer term impacts.

ERQ1: What is the effect of Ramp-Up on three additional (longer-term) outcomes of interest:

(a) enrollment in advanced coursework2, after accounting for the number of advanced 

courses offered; (b) the likelihood of a student in grade 11 taking the ACT or SAT 

exam3, and (c) the likelihood of a student in grade 12 submitting at least one college 

application? 4

ERQ2: What is the effect of Ramp-Up on the two confirmatory and three exploratory

outcomes for two subgroups of interest: (1) students who scored in the middle or 

upper third of 8

th grade standardized test scores, and (2) students who are eligible for 

free or reduced price lunch?

5

These impact questions address the short-term effects of the program (after one year). CRQ1 and 

CRQ2 examine outcomes considered key to the success of Ramp-Up and that the program 

developers believe can be brought about within one year of implementation. The developers 

believe that these outcomes can be impacted after one year because prior research indicates that 

other interventions have impacted these outcomes in one year or less and Ramp-Up is a 

relatively intense approach to improving college readiness. ERQ1 and ERQ2 will provide 

additional exploratory information about the relationship between Ramp-Up and college 

readiness.

As is standard for ED-sponsored research projects, data from Phase 2 also will examine the 

implementation of Ramp-Up in the expanded set of schools. The implementation-related

research questions (IRQs) are:

 

findings for the confirmatory analyses. The data for these two questions come from the same data draws as the 

covariates to be analyzed to address CRQ1 and 2, and so no new data are being collected. Findings will help 

determine whether Ramp-Up affects students in different groups equally and whether the impacts are seen with 

longer-term outcomes.

2 Minnesota schools are required to classify all local course offerings using the Minnesota Common Course 

Catalogue. This statewide classification system indicates whether a class is an enriched, honors, or advanced class; a 

dual/concurrent enrollment class; a class with an articulated curriculum agreement (such classes align high school 

and college curricula); or a class leading to an industry/occupation certification (Minnesota Department of 

Education [MDE], 2012). These classes are generally perceived to be relatively rigorous and, for purposes of this 

evaluation, will all be considered “advanced.” See Appendix D for further information on the classification system. 

Wisconsin does not have a common course catalogue and the two schools from Wisconsin will not be included in 

this analysis. 

3

If Minnesota requires all students to take the ACT, then this part of the ERQ will be dropped.

4 Enrollment in advanced coursework and personal readiness will be examined for students in Grades 10, 11, and 12. 

Taking the ACT or SAT exam will be examined for students in Grade 11, and the remaining college actions 

(submitting at least one college application and completing the FAFSA) will be examined for students in Grade 12.

5

Prior research suggests that low-income students or those whose parents did not attend college have greater needs 

for assistance in the college enrollment process and less access to academic opportunities to prepare them for 

college. However, Ramp-Up aims to improve college readiness among all students, not just those born into 

financially-secure families. The second subgroup analysis will provide evidence of whether Ramp-Up does improve 

college readiness for all students, regardless of family income. 
REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Phase 2 of Ramp-Up Evaluation—4

IRQ1. To what extent do Phase 2 schools implement the core components of Ramp-Up (i.e., 

structural supports, curriculum and tools, and professional development) as intended 

by the program developer?

IRQ2. Do students in Ramp-Up schools receive the amount of program exposure that the 

College Readiness Consortium believes is necessary to produce impacts? 

IRQ3. How does Ramp-Up differ from college-related supports (i.e., programs, services, 

activities, and resources) in other schools? 

IRQ4. What do school staff members (e.g., teachers, counselors, administrators) who are 

involved in implementing the Ramp-Up program perceive as the strengths and 

weaknesses of its curriculum, tools, and professional development? According to 

school staff, which aspects of Ramp-Up were more difficult to implement and why?

IRQ5. Is the degree of fidelity of implementation among schools in the early Ramp-Up group 

similar to that of schools that implemented Ramp-Up to Readiness during Phase 1 of 

this project?

Fifty-four high schools have submitted applications with the Consortium to implement the 

program during the next two academic years, with half of the high schools implementing RampUp in the 2014–15 school year (early implementing schools) and the remaining schools delaying 

implementation by one year (later implementing schools). The Consortium has agreed to partner 

with REL Midwest and will allow REL Midwest to use a systematic random assignment process 

to determine which schools implement early and which schools implement later. The random 

assignment that occurs as part of Phase 2 will allow for estimation of program impacts on the 

early outcomes of the intervention. 

Phase 2 will require the following data collections:

 Existing student-level and school-level data gathered through requests for extant data 

from participating schools, school districts, the Minnesota Department of Education

(MDE), and the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (WDPI)

 An assessment of students’ personal college readiness (i.e., ACT’s ENGAGE®

assessment for Grades 10–12) to be administered in fall 2014 and spring 2015

 A student survey to collect information about students’ experiences with school collegereadiness supports, which will be administered once in the fall of 2014 and again in 

spring 2015

 Extant documents from the program developers, including schools’ participation in 

professional development and use of resources, to be collected in the fall of 2014 and 

spring 2015

 Informed consent documents from (1) parents or guardians who want to withhold 

permission for their child(ren)’s data to be gathered for the project, and (2) from school 

staff from whom survey data and instructional log data are to be collected 

 Instructional logs on which teachers implementing Ramp-Up during the 2014–15 school 

year record the activities conducted during advisory sessions and five workshops 

provided to students
REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Phase 2 of Ramp-Up Evaluation—5

 A survey of school staff to collect information about college readiness activities in fall 

2014

 A survey of school staff in early implementing Ramp-Up schools to be administered in 

spring 2015

Nearly all of the data to be collected during Phase 2 of the project also are being collected during 

Phase 1. The exceptions are the baseline data collections that will occur in the fall of 2014 (i.e., 

administration of ACT’s ENGAGE to students, administration of the fall survey to students, 

administration of the fall survey with school staff, and the collection of administrative extant 

data from schools). The research team also will be collecting extant documents from the 

Consortium which will be working with schools to implement the program.

Through this revision, ED is requesting expansion of the present clearance to include collection 

of these data from the 54 high schools that will implement Ramp-Up during 2014-15 academic 

year or during the 2015-16 academic year. Phase 2 will not examine implementation during 

2015–16, when the later implementing schools begin to implement Ramp-Up. ED believes that 

the data collections for which clearance is being requested represent the bare minimum necessary

to assess the efficacy of Ramp-Up on short-term student outcomes.
REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—6

A. Justification

Education stakeholders, including state and federal policymakers, have made college and career 

readiness one of the major goals of education reform (Council of Chief State School Officers, 

2010; ED, 2010). Although many interventions have been developed to help students continue 

their education to the postsecondary level (e.g., Career Beginnings, Talent Search, Upward 

Bound), rigorous evidence on these programs’ effectiveness is limited and shows mixed 

impacts.

6

Ramp-Up to Readiness attempts to amalgamate strategies for improving college readiness 

recommended in previous research (nonexperimental evidence) into 28 half-hour activities, five 

workshops, and professional development. Currently, 56 high schools in Minnesota are 

implementing Ramp-Up, and the developers intend to make the intervention available to a much 

larger set of Minnesota schools. Few impact studies have rigorously examined factors or 

interventions that influence improved college enrollment, persistence, or completion. This

evaluation will contribute strong experimental evidence about the efficacy of a college-readiness 

intervention. This project will attempt to gather such evidence through the least burdensome 

means.

Phase 2 will examine 54 schools for one year. REL Midwest will randomly assign 27 of the 

schools to implement the program beginning in 2014–15. The other 27 schools will continue 

their present college-readiness activities and supports and will delay implementation of RampUp until 2015–16.

ED seeks to use impact findings from Phase 2 to inform the educators and policymakers about 

the impact of Ramp-Up on students’ college readiness and to inform the continued development 

and implementation of Ramp-Up and other college-readiness programs. more generally as well 

as the impact of similar programs on early college success outcomes. This proposed evaluation 

will: (1) produce rigorous estimates of the program’s impact on completing the FAFSA and 

personal college readiness after one year of program implementation; (2) explore the relationship 

between attending a Ramp-Up high school and other short-term college-readiness outcomes, as 

well as personal college-readiness outcomes for a subgroup of students who qualify for free or 

reduced-price lunch; and (3) understand schools’ experiences with program implementation, 

including the degree to which schools implement the intervention with fidelity, and how the 

Ramp-Up intervention compares with college-readiness supports in other high schools. 

1. Circumstances Necessitating Collection of Information

ED requests clearance for the collection of data under the OMB clearance agreement (OMB 

number [IES to complete]) for activities related to the REL program.

Almost all graduating high school seniors (97 percent) plan to enroll in college (Berkner & 

Chavez, 1997), but they encounter obstacles on the path to college completion. A variety of 

 

6

In a What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) review of college access programs, Tierney et al. (2009) found that only 

16 of more than 500 studies met the WWC standards for evidence.
REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Phase 2 of Ramp-Up Evaluation—7

interventions have emerged to support students as they make themselves ready for college, enroll 

in college, finance their college education, and complete college. However, evidence on the 

effectiveness of these programs is scarce (Tierney et al., 2009).

Ramp-Up is an intervention that aims to increase students’ college readiness and college success. 

The intervention consists of a guidance curriculum differentiated by grade level, a set of tools to 

help students set postsecondary goals and track progress toward their achievement, and 

professional development to support the curriculum and tools. It is a standardized program that 

was developed by the College Readiness Consortium at the University of Minnesota (“the 

Consortium”) over six years (2006–12) through extensive review of scholarly research, intensive 

engagement in Minnesota secondary schools, and formative program evaluation in partnership 

with University of Minnesota’s Center for Applied Research on Educational Improvement. To 

date, 56 Minnesota schools have implemented Ramp-Up or will be implementing Ramp-Up in 

2014–15.7The 54 schools participating in this impact part of this evaluation will represent two 

additional waves of schools to implement Ramp-Up. One wave of 27 schools (the intervention 

schools) will implement Ramp-Up in 2014–15, and the other 27 schools (i.e., comparison 

schools) will delay implementation of Ramp-Up until the 2015–16 school year.

The logic model shown in Figure 1 illustrates the theoretical links between the key Ramp-Up 

program resources and activities (i.e., inputs), the five dimensions of college readiness (i.e., 

outputs), and high school and college outcomes (i.e., outcomes). According to the logic model 

that underlies the intervention, Ramp-Up is expected to increase students’ academic 

achievement, the likelihood that students enroll in advanced courses and complete key

enrollment actions, and students’ personal readiness for college. The model indicates that 

improving those student outcomes in high school will produce better outcomes at the college 

level, such as an increased likelihood of going to college, decreased likelihood of remediation, 

and higher rates of college persistence.

Through its contractor for REL Midwest, ED is responding to requests of education stakeholders 

who have come together around the desired goal of improving college and career readiness of 

students (formally, the Midwest College and Career Success Research Alliance). These 

stakeholders believe that Ramp-Up is a promising intervention. The program incorporates 

research-based strategies within a single group of lessons and resources and has empirical 

support, based on correlational studies, for each of the Ramp-Up dimensions. Few impact studies 

have rigorously examined factors or interventions that lead to college readiness. Phase 2 of this 

evaluation will contribute strong experimental evidence about the efficacy of the program. ED 

and its contractor are authorized to conduct studies of this nature, with the expectation that any

information to be collected from groups of nine or more people be justified as necessary for the 

overall program goals.

 

7 Of these 56 schools, 22 are participating in another study being conducted by the REL program. Half of the 22 

schools (11 schools) are implementing Ramp-Up in 2013–2014, and the other half will implement Ramp-Up in 

2014–15. These 22 schools are not part of the sample to be studied in the impact study described in this OMB 

application.
REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—8

Figure 1. Ramp-Up to Readiness Logic Model

Long-Term 

College 

Outcomes

 Greater

likelihood of 

college 

enrollment

 Lesser

likelihood of 

remediation

 Greater

likelihood of 

persisting in 

college

Inputs Outputs Outcomes

Resources

Provided by

College 

Readiness 

Consortium

 Guidance 

curriculum

 Tools for 

goal setting 

and progress 

monitoring

 Ramp-Up 

training

Activities

Within 

Schools

 Group 

advisory 

taught once 

per week

 Five 

readiness 

workshops

 Progress 

monitoring

 Staff 

professional 

development

Dimensions 

of College 

Readiness

 Academic

readiness

 Admissions 

readiness

 Career 

readiness

 Financial 

readiness

 Personal and 

social 

readiness

Intermediate 

High School 

Outcomes

 Increase in

academic 

achievement

Short-Term 

High School 

Outcomes

 Greater

likelihood of 

enrolling in 

advanced 

coursework

 Greater

likelihood of 

completing 

key college 

enrollment 

actions

 Greater

personal 

readiness
REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—9

Table 1 shows the revised timeline for all data collection activity in Phase 1 and Phase 2. It 

includes three data collections that do not require OMB clearance but which are included in the 

table to provide context for the study. Collecting administrative data from MDE and the WDPI

does not require OMB clearance because providing data to researchers is part of staff’s regular 

practice at these organizations. In addition, the collection of extant documents from the program 

developers (data collection 5) does not require OMB clearance because it is the collection of 

existing documents without any modifications from the program developers. These documents 

are provided by Ramp-Up schools to the program developers as part of the Ramp-Up 

intervention.

2. How, by Whom, and for What Purpose Information Is to Be Used

The data collections that will be conducted by ED’s contractor for REL Midwest for Phase 1 and 

Phase 2 of the project are directly linked to the research questions of interest to members of the 

Midwest College and Career Success Alliance and policymakers, practitioners, and education 

researchers. The alignment between data collection activities and the research questions for both 

project phases are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. 

ED’s contractor’s proposed analytic models and procedures for the data collected during both 

phases of the project have been preapproved by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES). The 

contractor will summarize project findings in two technical reports (one for each phase) and two 

research briefs (one for each phase). The latter types of products will contain condensed 

summaries of the projects’ main findings which are written in a 2-5 page practitioner-friendly

document. These four reports will undergo review for quality and relevance by an external 

review contractor for the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance 

(NCEE). After the reports have undergone IES review, findings will be disseminated to the 

relevant audiences. The stakeholder groups for whom the information is most important are: 

1. State education agencies seeking strategies and programs to endorse as a potential means 

to improve students’ college readiness and college enrollment

2. Local education agencies that are considering adopting programs to improve students 

college readiness and enrollment rates and are considering Ramp-Up to Readiness as one 

possible option

3. The developer of this intervention (the Consortium) and developers of other collegereadiness interventions that continually seek to improve their programs by using 

information from such studies because this study will reveal obstacles to implementation 

and provide information on the usefulness of a personal readiness assessment 

Without the data to be collected in this study, local education agencies and schools will be 

unable to determine whether Ramp-Up produces impacts on students’ college readiness. The 

data also will enable educators to better understand the factors that facilitate or impede 

implementation of this or similar whole-school approaches to improving college readiness and 

the degree to which impact estimates are related the schools’ implementation scores.
REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Phase 2 of Ramp-Up Evaluation—10

For policymakers, the project findings will help inform decisions on whether to adopt Ramp-Up 

and whether to fund the implementation of Ramp-Up in schools. Finally, the results of the 

proposed data collection activities will provide The College Readiness Consortium with 

diagnostic information on which components of Ramp-Up are being implemented well and 

which components require additional work.

The purposes of the data collection are described for each data instrument for which OMB 

approval is being sought:

1. Extant administrative school and student data from schools and districts 

To answer the primary questions related to implementation and impact, REL Midwest 

will obtain extant student-level and school-level administrative data from schools and 

districts.

8 OMB already has approved clearance for the collection of administrative data 

during the Spring of 2014. These data will address implementation-related questions 

posed for Phase 1 of the project. 

Additional extant data will be requested from schools participating in Phase 2 of the 

project. In October 2014 and June 2015, the following student-level data will be 

requested by student’s state identification number (for matching with the state 

longitudinal data system):9grade level; cumulative GPA; ACT and SAT scores; dates on 

which the student took the ACT and SAT; and student’s enrollment in advanced courses 

by term. These data will be collected directly from schools and districts because schools 

either do not report these student-level variables to the state or may have more reliable 

information.10 Also in October 2014, REL Midwest will request previous-year schoollevel data on average PLAN, ACT, and SAT scores; the percentage of students 

submitting a college application based on transcript requests for college applications; and 

the percentage of students enrolling in advanced coursework by grade and the number of 

advanced courses offered by term. The data collected in October 2014 will provide 

baseline information to be used as covariates in statistical models of impact, and the data 

collected in June 2015 will provide data for the outcomes examined in ERQ1–ERQ2. 

This request for expanded OMB clearance will cover collection of data elements 

presented in Attachment A-1. Administrative data will be acquired through secure file 

transfer protocols. These and all other data collected for this evaluation will be 

safeguarded through protocols approved by the contractor’s federally approved 

institutional review board, including adherence to Family Educational Rights and Privacy

Act regulations.

 

8

Individual students and schools will not be described. Student- and school-level data will be aggregated to describe 

the early and later implementing groups of schools or student subgroups. 

9

In Minnesota, the student unique identification number is the student Minnesota Automated Reporting Student 

System (MARSS) number. In Wisconsin, the identification number is the Wisconsin Student Number (WSN).

10 Although MDE collects some ACT and SAT information at the student level, staff at MDE recommended that 

schools or districts provide these data because schools or districts may be more reliable sources of this information.
REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—11

Table 1. Revised Data Collection Timeline

Data Collection Purpose

Schools 

Involved in 

Data Collection

Phase 1 

(22 Schools)

Phase 2 

(54 Schools)

Spring 2014 Fall 2014 Spring 2015

1.Extant administrative school 

and student data from schools 

or districts

 Description of Phase 1 schools and student subgroups 

(Phase 1: RQ1, RQ2)

 Assessment of implementation fidelity for Phase 1 

schools (Phase 1: RQ3)

 Understanding ENGAGE measures of personal 

readiness (Phase 1: RQ 6)

 Baseline and outcome data 

(Phase 2: CRQ1, CRQ2, ERQ1, ERQ2)

All Phase 1 and 

Phase 2 Schools

X X X

2.Extant administrative student 

data from Minnesota 

Department of Education 

(MDE), Minnesota Office of 

Higher Education (MOHE),

and Wisconsin Department of 

Public Instruction (WDPI)

 Description of Phase 1 schools and student subgroups 

(Phase 1 RQ1, RQ2)

 Baseline and outcome data 

(Phase 2: CRQ1, CRQ2, ERQ1, ERQ2)

All Phase 1 and 

Phase 2 Schools

X X X

3. Student survey  Assessment of implementation fidelity 

(Phase 1, RQ3; Phase 2, IRQ2)

 Contrast in college readiness activities in early 

implementing and later implementing schools 

(Phase 1, RQ4; Phase 2, IRQ3)

 Outcome measures (Phase 2, CRQ1, ERQ2)

All Phase 1 and 

Phase 2 Schools

X X X

4. Student personal readiness 

assessment (i.e., ENGAGE)

 Understanding of measures of personal readiness 

(Phase 1, RQ6)

 Outcome measure (Phase 2, CRQ2)

 Description of student subgroups (Phase 2, IRQ2)

All Phase 1 and 

Phase 2 schools

X X X

5.Extant documents from 

schools

 Comparison of college-readiness activities for earlyimplementing and later-implementing schools 

(Phase 1, RQ4)

Phase 1: All 

schools X
REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Phase 2 of Ramp-Up Evaluation—12

Data Collection Purpose

Schools 

Involved in 

Data Collection

Phase 1 

(22 Schools)

Phase 2 

(54 Schools)

Spring 2014 Fall 2014 Spring 2015

6.Extant documents from 

program developers 

 Assessment of implementation fidelity

(Phase 1, RQ3; Phase 2, IRQ1)

None X X

7.Interviews of school staff  Comparison of college-readiness activities of Phase1 

early implementing and later implementing schools 

(Phase 1, RQ4)

Phase 1: All 

schools X

8. Focus groups  Assessment of implementation fidelity 

(Phase 1, RQ3)

 Comparison of college-readiness activities of Phase1 

early implementing and later implementing schools 

(Phase 1, RQ4)

 Program improvement (Phase 1, RQ5)

Phase 1: All 

schools

X

9.Teacher instructional logs 

from teachers in Ramp-Up 

schools for each of five 

workshops

 Assessment of implementation 

(Phase 1: RQ3; Phase2, IRQ3)

 Program improvement 

(Phase 1, RQ5; Phase 2 IRQ1and IRQ 2)

Phase 1: Early 

implementing 

schools

Phase 2: Early 

Implementing 

Schools

X X X

10. Fall staff survey  Contrast in college readiness activities in early 

implementing and later implementing schools (Phase 

2, IRQ3)

Phase 2: All 

schools X

11. Spring staff survey  Assessment of implementation

(Phase 1, RQ3; Phase 2: IRQ1, IRQ2, IRQ3, IRQ4, 

IRQ5))

 Program improvement (Phase 1, RQ5)

Phase 1: Early 

implementing 

schools

Phase 2: Early 

Implementing 

Schools

X X
REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Phase 2 of Ramp-Up Evaluation—13

Table 2. Alignment Between Data Collection Activities and the Research Questions Underlying Both Phases of this Project.

Data Collection Activities

Phase 1: Implementation of Ramp-Up

in Sample of 22 Schools

Phase 2: Impact and Implementation of Ramp-Up

in 54 Additional Schools

RQ1 RQ2 RQ3 RQ4 RQ5 RQ6 CRQ1 CRQ2 ERQ1 ERQ2 IRQ1 IRQ2 IRQ3 IRQ4 IRQ5

1. Extant administrative school and 

student data from schools or 

districts

• • • • • • • • •

2. Extant administrative student data 

from MDE, MOHE, and WDPI • • • • • •

3. Student survey • • • • • • •

4. Student personal readiness 

assessment (i.e., ENGAGE) • • •

5. Extant documents from schools •

6. Extant documents from program 

developers • • •

7. Interviews of school staff •

8. Focus groups • • •

9. Teacher instructional logs from 

teachers in Ramp-Up schools for 

each of five workshops

• • • • • •

10. Fall staff survey •

11. Spring staff survey • • • • • • •
REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—14

2. Extant administrative school and student data from MDE and the WDPI

Collection of extant data from state education agencies does not require OMB approval 

because staff members at those agencies are expected to provide such data to researchers 

as part of their regular practices. However these data collection activities are described 

here to indicate how such data will be used. During Phase 1 of the project, these state 

data will help REL Midwest to describe the sample of schools and students within the 

sample of 22 schools. 

In October 2014, REL Midwest also will collect the following extant administrative data 

from MDE and WDPI: student-level demographic characteristics (e.g., race or ethnicity, 

gender, free or reduced-price lunch status, individualized education program [IEP] status, 

and English-language learner [ELL] status), student-level state standardized test scores, 

and school-level data from the previous year on high school graduation rates, average 

state standardized test scores, and the demographic composition of schools (e.g., the 

percentages of free or reduced-price lunch, African-American, and Latino students). 

School-level FAFSA completion rates from the previous year will be obtained from ED. 

These data will be used to describe the schools participating in the study and may be 

included as control variables in impact analyses. Most of these data to be collected from 

state education agencies for Phase 2 will serve as covariates in statistical models of 

impact of variables for identifying student subgroups (i.e., help address CRQ1, CRQ2, 

ERQ1, ERQ2).

3. A student survey on college readiness

OMB granted clearance to REL Midwest to collect survey data from students in grades 

10-12 for the purposes of addressing questions during Phase 1 of the project. Students’ 

perceptions will help address questions on their exposure to Ramp-Up (RQ3) and the 

contrast between college readiness activities in Ramp-Up schools and non-Ramp-Up 

schools (RQ4).

For Phase 2, REL Midwest will gather information from students in early implementing 

schools (i.e., those implementing in 2014–15) and later implementing schools (i.e., those 

implementing in 2015–16) using a student survey. Thirty randomly selected students in 

grade 10, 30 randomly selected students in grade 11, and all students in Grade 12 from 

each school will take the survey in the fall. These same students will be asked to 

participate in the spring survey. Data from the 10- to 15-minute student surveys will 

provide the source of information for two outcomes: completion of the FAFSA and 

submission of a college application. As with the data collected from students in Phase 1 

schools, the survey data will help the research team to better understand schools’ fidelity

of implementation and the contrast between Ramp-Up and college-readiness supports 

offered in other schools. The fall survey will ask fewer questions than the spring survey, 

since the latter also records information about college readiness activities during the 
REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Phase 2 of Ramp-Up Evaluation—15

current school year. See Attachment A-2 and Attachment A-3 for the questionnaires and 

Attachment A-4 for the parental information letter and consent form.

11

4. A student personal readiness assessment (ENGAGE)

OMB has provided clearance to gather personal readiness data from students (ACT’s 

ENGAGE assessment) during Phase 1. These data will help determine whether the 

ENGAGE scales have sufficient validity and reliability to be used as a Phase 2 outcome.

Clearance is requested to administer ACT’s ENGAGE assessment for Phase 2 during the 

fall and spring of the 2014–15 school year. The 30 students from grade 10 and 11 within 

each grade and school who are selected to complete the student survey also will complete 

the ENGAGE. The research team will randomly select 30 Grade 12 students from each 

school to complete the ENGAGE. ENGAGE measures student factors associated with 

academic success, such as student motivation and skills, their social engagement, and 

self-regulation. ENGAGE’s Grades 10–12 version has 108 items and 10 scales. Analysis 

for the impact study will focus on two of 10 scales on the ENGAGE, Commitment to 

College and Goal Striving, which the program developers consider measures of personal 

college readiness. 

The Commitment to College scale has 10 items that measure a student’s commitment to 

enrolling in and completing college, and ACT reports that the scale has good internal 

reliability (alpha = 0.89; ACT, 2012) when used with college student samples.

12 The 

Goal Striving scale also consists of 10 items that measure the “strength of [a student’s] 

efforts to achieve [his or her] objectives and end goals” (ACT, 2012, p. 2).13 This scale,

too, has good internal reliability (alpha = 0.87) with college student samples. Students’ 

scale scores on the two measures show a correlation of r = 0.60 (ACT, 2012). Because 

the ENGAGE assessment is proprietary to ACT, the specific questions cannot be 

provided in this OMB package.14

There is some validity information available on these two scales as well. The two scales 

have a moderate correlation with high school GPA (0.3 and 0.4 for goal striving and 

commitment to college, respectively [ACT, 2012]), and with college GPA (0.3 for both 

goal striving and commitment to college [Peterson, Casillas, & Robbins, 2006]). In 

addition, commitment to college predicts college retention at two- and four-year colleges 

controlling for institutional characteristics, student demographics, and prior academic 

achievement (Robbins, Allen, Casillas, Peterson, & Le, 2006).15 Farrington et al. (2012) 

 

11 The fall questionnaire will not ask about completion of the FAFSA because students will not have had the 

opportunity to complete this action yet..

12 Sample items in this scale include: “A college education will help me achieve my goals” and “I am committed to 

attend and finish college regardless of obstacles” (ACT, 2012, p. 33).

13 Sample items in this scale include: “Once I set a goal, I do my best to achieve it” and “I bounce back after facing 

disappointment or failure” (ACT, 2012, p. 34).

14ACT has provided some sample items. Sample items in the Commitment to College scale include: “A college 

education will help me achieve my goals” and “I am committed to attend and finish college regardless of obstacles.”

Sample items in the Goal Striving scale are “Once I set a goal, I do my best to achieve it” and “I bounce back after 

facing disappointment or failure” (ACT, 2012, pp. 33–34).

15 These studies examine the predictive validity of an earlier version of the ENGAGE assessment known as the 

Student Readiness Inventory among two- and four-year college students. 
REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Phase 2 of Ramp-Up Evaluation—16

concluded that interventions can impact academic perseverance, which relates to both 

scales.

5. Collection of Extant Documents from Schools. 

OMB provided clearance for ED’s contractor to collect extant documents or artifacts that 

document scheduled college readiness activities within Phase 1 schools. The collection of 

artifacts will not be continued for Phase 2 of the project.

As in Phase 1, ED’s contractor will continue to collect extant documents that indicate 

schools’ participation in Ramp-Up training from the program developer. This data 

collection activity does not require OMB clearance.

6. Interviews

For Phase 1, OMB provided clearance to conduct interviews with individuals from the 22 

schools who are most knowledgeable about the schools’ current college readiness 

activities. ED’s contractor will not be collecting interview data as part of Phase 2.

7. Focus Groups

For Phase 1, OMB provided clearance to conduct focus groups in each of the 22 high 

schools with school leaders and counselors who understand the initiatives going on 

within the school to make students college-ready. Focus groups will not be necessary to 

address research questions for Phase 2 of the project. 

8. Instructional logs

For Phase 1, OMB has provided clearance to administer brief, 10-minute instructional 

logs to teachers in the 22 schools following their final two Ramp-Up workshops.

For Phase 2, instructional logs from Ramp-Up advisors will be collected after each of the 

five workshops that advisors deliver to students. To better understand the extent to which 

students in the treatment schools receive the program as intended, Ramp-Up advisors will 

complete the logs that ask about the content, time, and quality of workshops (Attachment

A-5). These instructional logs also ask teachers about the number and topics of weekly 

advisories that they have taught, the time devoted to the advisories, and the number of 

students who attend the advisories. Instructional logs will be collected from all teachers or 

school staff members (e.g., counselors) who deliver the workshops or a weekly

advisory.

16

9. A fall staff survey 

Phase 1 of the Ramp-Up evaluation did not include a fall staff survey. Data from staff 

were not necessary to for the study of Ramp-Up implementation.

 

16 The study team considered whether it would be possible to collect this type of data in observations of workshops 

and advisories. To collect reliable information would require multiple observations, and the cost of this type of data 

collection exceeds the project resources. The study team plans informal observations of some professional 

development training and potentially some workshops or advisories. However, because these data will be collected 

informally, it will not factor into the measures of implementation, and its use in any reporting will be limited only to 

providing anecdotal evidence to support a point (the report will note that the information is anecdotal).
REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Phase 2 of Ramp-Up Evaluation—17

For Phase 2, however, school staff in the 27 early-implementing and 27 laterimplementing schools will be asked to complete a survey during October, 2014. The 

survey will be conducted on-line and will last 20 to 30 minutes. Survey items focus on 

the college-readiness supports offered in Ramp-Up schools and those in control schools 

(IRQ3). Teachers for Grades 10–12 and counselors will be asked about the formal or 

informal programs (e.g., Upward Bound), services (e.g., college counseling), activities 

(e.g., college tours), and resources (e.g., college software) available to students through 

their schools and designed to support college readiness. The survey also will include 

questions about teachers’ expectations for students’ postsecondary pathways. See 

Attachment A-6 for the survey.

10. A spring staff survey

OMB approved clearance for a 20-30 minute staff survey to be administered to school 

staff in the 11 Phase 1 schools that were implementing Ramp-Up in 2013-14. That survey

was to be administered in the spring of 2014.

ED requests clearance to administer a similar 20-30 minute survey to staff in Phase 2 

Ramp-Up schools during the spring of 2015. This survey will ask staff about their 

perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of the Ramp-Up program’s curriculum, tools, 

and professional development. It also will gather information about whether school staff 

implemented the intervention as intended. Surveys will be administered to members of 

schools’ Ramp-Up leadership team, the Ramp-Up coordinator, and teachers for Grades 

10–12 (who presumably deliver Ramp-Up advisories). The surveys will include questions 

with scaled responses, as well as two open-ended questions asking about the strengths 

and the weaknesses of Ramp-Up (see Attachment A-7). Results from administration of 

the survey to Phase 1 schools will provide useful information about whether any 

revisions should be made to the survey for Phase 2.

After data are analyzed and summarized, ED’s contractor will sanitize the data files of any 

information that can be linked to individual students, teachers, schools, or districts. Data files 

will then be submitted to IES and made available to other researchers as restricted-use files.

3. Use of Automated, Electronic, Mechanical, or Other Technological 

Collection Techniques

The data collection plan for Phase 1 and Phase 2 reflects sensitivity to issues of efficiency, 

accuracy, and respondent burden. To address the study’s research questions, the contractor will 

collect data using electronic data collection tools when possible. The electronic tools include the 

following: 

 A secure electronic file transfer protocol site that allows MDE, WDPI, schools, and 

districts to transfer administrative records to ED’s contractor in an efficient manner

 Online data collection tools (e.g., Vovici) that allow for the secure collection of 

instructional logs from teachers in early Ramp-Up schools. The tool will give 

respondents the opportunity to complete the survey during noninstructional hours and 

eliminates the need for third-party data entry
REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Phase 2 of Ramp-Up Evaluation—18

 An online data collection tool (e.g., Vovici) that allows for the secure collection of survey

data from staff in early implementing and later implementing Ramp-Up schools. The tool 

gives respondents the opportunity to complete the survey during noninstructional hours 

and eliminates the need for data entry. 

 E-mail systems maintained by schools or districts and the contractor that allow for 

transfer of electronic documents (docx, .xlsx, or .pdf files) rather than printed copies of 

documents.

 An electronic data collection system used by ACT to administer the personal readiness 

assessment (in conjunction with the student survey). The use of ACT’s system also 

eliminates the need for data entry.

4. Efforts to Avoid Duplication of Effort

To the extent possible, the two phases of this project will rely on extant administrative data that 

are available on students, teachers, schools, or programs, rather than asking individuals to 

provide the data for study purposes. While other studies have examined college-readiness 

programs, Ramp-Up takes a relatively unique approach to improving college readiness by 

involving all teachers within a middle or high school in the presentation of program content to all 

students. Phase 2 of the project (the investigation of program impact) will build on Phase 1 (the 

investigation into implementation of Ramp-Up). Phase 2, for which OMB clearance is requested,

will yield unique data necessary to estimate the impact of the Ramp-Up program and to interpret 

the impact study findings. No other systematic effort has been made or is currently under way to 

collect such information, and there is no alternative source of this information.

5. Sensitivity to Burden on Small Entities

It is likely that one or more of the 54 schools that participates in Phase 2 will be small (possibly

serving Grades 7–12 in one building, with 30 or fewer students per high school grade). The 

contractor has developed its data collection plan with this assumption and intentionally has 

capped the collection of instructional logs at no more than five and the length of time to 

complete the instructional logs at 10 minutes. Further, five of the seven data collections requiring 

OMB clearance (i.e., extant administrative school and student data, instructional logs from 

teachers, the online survey of school staff, and the student survey and personal readiness 

assessment) will be electronic to reduce the length of time it takes respondents to comply. These 

data collection activities represent the absolute minimum amount of information required to meet 

the study objectives.

6. Consequences to Federal Program or Policy Activities if the Collection Is 

Not Conducted or Is Conducted Less Frequently Than Proposed

The Education Science Reform Act of 2002 states that the central mission and primary function 

of the RELs includes supporting applied research and providing technical assistance to state and 

local education agencies within their region (ESRA, Part D, section 174[f]; see Attachment A-9

for the text). Failure to approve the data collections related Phase 2 (the investigation of Ramp-
REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Phase 2 of Ramp-Up Evaluation—19

Up’s impact) will jeopardize this attempt to study this intervention and thereby prevent the REL 

Midwest contractor from fulfilling its mission.

This project also has the potential to inform researchers, practitioners, and policymakers more 

broadly. Ramp-Up’s program design and practices may be of particular interest for several 

reasons: (1) Ramp-Up aims to serve all students in a school rather than a select subgroup; (2) it is 

a data-driven approach to assess and track students’ college preparation; (3) it incorporates the 

practices recommended by ED’s What Works Clearinghouse for college preparation programs 

(see Tierney et al., 2009 for the recommended practices); and (4) its group advisory approach

may be more cost effective than a similarly intense one-on-one counseling approach. Findings 

from Phase 2 will inform practitioners about the efficacy of Ramp-Up as a whole-school reform.

Without this study, practitioners and policymakers will have less information on which to base 

decisions about adopting whole-school college-readiness interventions.

7. Special Circumstances

This request for OMB clearance does not include any of the stipulated special circumstances and 

thereby fully complies with regulations.

8. Federal Register Announcement and Consultation

a. Federal Register Announcement

A 60-day notice will be published in the Federal Register, providing an opportunity for 

public comments. A 30-day notice will be published to further solicit comments. ED will 

respond to both public and OMB questions, if any, and summarize the responses under 

8a. A placeholder (Attachment A-10) for the notices is attached.

b. Consultations Outside the Agency

ED or the REL Midwest contractor have consulted with the following groups on the 

availability of data, the soundness of the evaluation design for addressing evaluation 

questions, and the clarity of measures.

 A technical working group (TWG) made up of experts in research methodology and 

REL Midwest’s core areas of emphasis, which was assembled by the REL Midwest 

contractor: The TWG met on October 23, 2012, to discuss the Ramp-Up to Readiness 

program, the evaluation methodology, and measures. The contractor was required to 

submit to ED the TWG comments and the contractors’ plan for addressing those 

comments.

 Former educators or staff with content and technical expertise within the REL

Midwest contractor (i.e., AIR) about online surveys and instructional logs. These 

former educators or staff with content expertise reviewed the instruments, interview 

questions, and focus group protocols for clarity of wording, for loadedness of 

questions (i.e., whether questions are written to elicit only one type of response), and 

appropriateness of response options.

 An external review contractor to examine the reasonableness of the logic model 

underlying the intervention (whether it is reasonable to expect that the intervention is 
REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Phase 2 of Ramp-Up Evaluation—20

capable of producing impacts), the analytic approach for determining fidelity of 

implementation, and the degree to which findings address the research questions and 

conclusions are supported by the data. The external review contractor has 

recommended the project plan for approval, and the REL Contract Officer’s 

Representative gave approval in May of 2014. 

9. Payment or Gift to Respondents

As with Phase 1, Phase 2 will require a $1,500 incentive to be given to each school that 

participates in the project but delays implementation until the 2015–16 school year. Schools in 

this group may feel discouraged by the results of the random assignment, and the promise of 

delayed implementation (after the study period has ended) may not be sufficient incentive to 

continue participation in this study, which requires data collection prior to implementing the 

program (for the later implementing schools). To prevent attrition among the later implementing 

schools (which would jeopardize the validity of the study), the REL Midwest contractor will 

offer these schools a single payment of $1,500 at the end of the study year. This amount was 

determined by consulting NCEE’s “Proposed Incentives and Payments,” which suggests annual 

payments of $2,500 to control schools. Because the data burden on schools, teachers, and 

students in this study is lower than in other types of studies, the amount was reduced in what was 

deemed a commensurate manner.

As is being done for Phase 1, the REL Midwest contractor also will offer teachers and other 

school staff participating in Phase 2 (i.e., administrators and counselors) in both early and later

implementing schools a $25 Amazon.com gift card for each data collection activity that they

perform. For some teachers in early implementing Ramp-Up schools, the total might amount to 

$75 in gift cards ($25 for completion of all instructional logs and for completing the fall and 

spring staff surveys). School staff members in the later implementing group will not be asked to 

complete instructional logs or the spring staff survey and will receive a $25 gift card for 

participating in the fall survey (fall 2014). The monetary amount of the gift cards was determined 

by the average salary of Minnesota teachers. When the average salary is converted into an 

average hourly rate, the result is approximately $25 per hour. Teachers in the early implementing 

Ramp-Up schools can anticipate no more than four hours for completing the fall and spring 

online surveys and instructional logs. Other school staff members, such as administrators and 

counselors, participating in the fall and spring can anticipate spending no more than one hour for 

participation in data collection activities.

10. Data Confidentiality

ED’s contractor for REL Midwest will follow the policies and procedures required by ESRA of 

2002, Title I, Part E, Section 183. This requires “All collection, maintenance, use, and wide 

dissemination of data by the Institute” 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 the Privacy Act, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, and the Protection of 

Pupil Rights Amendment.

In addition, for student information, ESRA states:
REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Phase 2 of Ramp-Up Evaluation—21

The Director shall ensure that all individually identifiable information about students, 

their academic achievements, their families, and information with respect to 

individual schools, shall remain confidential in accordance with section 552a 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.

Subsection (c) of section 183 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 disclosure of individually identifiable information as well 

as making the publishing or communicating of individually identifiable information by

employees or staff members a felony.

The contractor for REL Midwest will protect the confidentiality of all information collected 

during both project phases and will use the information for research purposes only. To protect 

confidential data, only the contractor’s data management staff, investigators, and research staff 

will have access to the data files on a “need-to-know” basis. Any identifiable variables, raw data, 

or derived variables will be stored in encrypted files on a secure data management site. Access to 

this site will be limited to staff assigned to the project. Any data obtained for this study will be 

used only for statistical and descriptive analyses. All identifiers will be destroyed as soon as they

are no longer required. Study reports will not identify the name of any specific analysis unit (e.g., 

students, school staff members, or schools). In no case will information be reported when the 

total number for a quantity represents fewer than four cases. Moreover, any data that permit 

identity disclosure, when used in combination with other known data, will not be published or 

made available in restricted-use files. 

All members of the study team have obtained their certification on the protection of human 

subjects in research, and REL Midwest staff members also have obtained federal security 

clearances. The REL project team will submit to the NCEE security officer a list of the names of 

all people who will have access to respondents and data. All staff members working on the 

project who have access to the data or to respondents will be required to sign a confidentiality 

pledge and affidavits of nondisclosure (see copies of the forms in Attachment A-11; ED will 

obtain the appropriate signatures). The project team will track new staff and staff who have left 

the project and ensure that additional signatures will be obtained or clearances will be revoked. 

Respondents to the instructional logs and surveys will be informed of the voluntary nature of the 

data collection and the confidentiality provision.

11. Additional Justification for Sensitive Questions

No questions of a highly sensitive nature appear in any instrument, including the protocols for 

focus groups, the instructional logs, and the surveys. In addition, participants will be informed 

that their responses are voluntary, and they may decline to answer any question.
REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Phase 2 of Ramp-Up Evaluation—22

12. Estimates of Hour Burden

OMB clearance for Phase 1 was granted for 17,837 respondents and a total of 3,635 burden 

hours. The addition of 54 schools for examination of program impact (Phase 2) increases the 

number of respondents to 62,711 respondents and total burden estimate to 18,178 hours (see 

Table 3). For each data collection, the burden was estimated from the contractor’s performance 

of similar collections and from time needed to complete data collections from Phase 1. To be 

conservative, the burden estimates assume response rates of 100 percent.

13. Estimate of Total Annual Cost Burden to Respondents or Record Keepers

The total cost to respondents is estimated to be $128,199 (Table 4). The annualized cost across 

three years is $42,733. On average, the burden for completing the various pieces of data 

collection will be 0.29 hours per respondent (i.e., the total hours divided by the total number of 

respondents). 

14. Estimates of Annualized Cost to the Federal Government

The total cost to the federal government for the contractor’s activities for Phase 1 and Phase 2 is 

$1,639,113. The annualized cost is $546,371. The costs cited in the approved clearance for Phase 

1 were $862,544 total and $287,515 for each year. 

15. Reasons for Program Changes or Adjustments

ED and its contractor wants the evaluation of Ramp-Up to Readiness to examine not just 

implementation of the program but impact as well. Expansion of the current evaluation to 

examine questions of impact (i.e., Phase 2) requires the random assignment and collection of 

data in at least 48 additional schools in order to detect impacts similar to those found in other 

studies. The data collections for Phase 2 remain unchanged from what was already approved 

through OMB clearance 1850-0709 (expiration date 4/30/2017).
REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Phase 2 of Ramp-Up Evaluation—23

Table 3. Revised Estimates of Respondent Burdent Included Phase 1 and 2 

of the Ramp-Up Evaluation Project.

Instrument

Person 

Incurring 

Burden

Number of 

Respondents

Responses 

per 

Respondent

Hours 

per 

Response

Total 

Burden 

(Hours)

1. Staff consent forms

School 

staff 1,701 1 0.08 136

Explanation: Adding 54 schools to the sample being studied will require consent from 1,215 more staff 

members (present clearance for Phase 1 is for 486 staff members). The number of additional respondents 

is based on: 

 Six staff members from each of the 27 later implementing schools (162 staff members, total)

 Three nonteaching staff members from each early implementing schools (81 respondents, total)

 An additional 36 teachers from each early implementing school (972 teachers)

1 

2. Parent information letter 

and consent withholding 

form

Parent 33,744 1 0.08 2,700

Explanation: Adding 54 schools requires informing 23,976 additional parents or guardians of students in 

Grades 10–12 of the study and allowing them to withhold consent for their child to be in the study. The 

extra parental information and consent forms represent 148 students per grade, totaling 444 parents per 

school. Present clearance for Phase 1 is for 9,768 parents/guardians to receive the letter and form.

3. Student personal readiness 

assessment (ENGAGE)

Student 6,840 1 (Phase 1)

2 (Phase 2)

0.50 5,850

Explanation: With 54 more schools for Phase 2, 90 students per each additional school will complete the

personal readiness assessment twice (in the fall and spring) of the 2014-15 school year. Thus, 4,860 more 

students will respond to the ENGAGE than planned for the Phase 1 investigation alone. (Present 

clearance is for 1,980 students, each completing the assessment once). 

4. Student survey Student 15,808

1 (Phase 1)

2 (Phase 2)

0.25 6,760

Explanation: The addition of 208 students for each of the 54 schools (30 in Grade 10; 30 in Grade 11; and 

an estimated 148 in Grade 12) results in a total of 11,232 additional students, and each of these students 

will take the survey twice. As a result, Phase 2 increases the number of respondents to 15,808 and time 

burden to 6,760. Previously, the number of students was 4,576 and time burden was 1,144 hours.

5. Administrative data request School 

Administrator 76 2 1.5 228

Explanation: An additional 54 school staff members will need to gather extant student-level and schoollevel data (one per school). The total number of respondents then is 76 (22 for Phase 1, 54 for Phase 2).

Time burden associated with each data extraction is approximately 90 minutes per staff member. This 

includes 30 minutes per staff member for phone conversation with project staff about data request and 

one hour to extract the data. The previous burden estimate of 88 hours for 22 schools was based on the 

assumption that fulfillment of the data request would require 2 hours per request. Information obtained 

from school administrators who are fulfilling this request presently for Phase 1 state that each request 

requires only 1.5 hours to fulfill. 
REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Phase 2 of Ramp-Up Evaluation—24

1There is an estimated average of 36 teachers per school (based on the average within Minnesota public high schools 

from the Common Core of Data).

2This is the average number of 12th graders among schools that had expressed interest in Ramp-Up by January 

2012.

3The total number of respondents in this table is the sum of the number of respondents for each data collection 

activity. Because some individuals will participate in more than one data collection activity, the total number of 

respondents listed here exceeds the total number of individuals from whom data will be collected.

Note. The hours per response was rounded to the second decimal place for display only. Therefore, the total burden 

may not equal the product of the displayed hours per response, number of respondents, and number of respondents. 

.

6. March Interviews School Staff 22 1 1.0 22

The time burden estimate for interviews is for Phase 1 only. Interviews will not be conducted as part of 

Phase 2. 

7. Extant Document Collection 

 Request

School 

Administrator 22 2 .5 22

The time burden estimate for extant document request from schools is for Phase 1 only. Extant documents

will not be requested from schools as part of Phase 2. 

8. Instructional Logs Teachers 776 2 (Phase 1)

5 (Phase 2)

0.17 457

Explanation: 378 additional teachers (14 randomly selected teachers from each of the 27 early

implementing schools) will complete an instructional log for each of the five workshops conducted 

during Phase 2. Teachers will be randomly selected to complete the instructional logs as a means of 

minimizing burden yet maintaining the project team’s ability to detect statistical relationships. The 

previous time burden estimate of 135.2 hours was based on the completion of just 2 logs by 398 teachers 

from the 11 early implementing Phase 1 schools.

9. May Focus Group School 

Staff 132 1 1.5 198

The time burden estimate for focus groups is for Phase 1 only. Interviews will not be conducted as part of 

Phase 2.

7. Fall staff survey School 

staff

2,106 1 0.50 1,053

Explanation: 1,053 staff members from early implementing schools (972 teachers and 81 nonteaching 

staff) and 1,053 staff members from later-implementing schools will complete the fall survey. 

This data collection activity was not proposed as part of ED’s application for OMB clearance for Phase 1.

8. Spring staff survey School 

staff

1,484 1 0.50 742

Explanation: Adding 54 schools for Phase 2 results in 1,053 additional respondents from the 27 new 

early implementing schools (972 teachers and 81 nonteaching staff) to complete the spring survey. This is 

in addition to the 431 school staff members in Phase 1 schools for whom clearance has already been 

obtained.

TOTALS 62,7113

18,178
REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Phase 2 of Ramp-Up Evaluation—25

Table 4. Revised Estimates of Annualized Costs for Respondents Involved 

in Phase 1 and Phase 2.

Tasks Type of 

Respondent

Total 

Burden 

Hours 

(Phase 1)

Total 

Burden 

Hours 

(Phase 1 & 2) 

Hourly 

Wage 

Rate1

Total 

Monetary 

Burden 

Costs

Annualized 

Burden 

Costs

Staff consent form School staff 38.9 136 $24 $3,264 $1,088

Parent information 

letter with consent 

form

Parent or 

guardian 781.4 2,700 $22 $59,389 $19,796 

Student personal 

readiness 

assessment

Students 990 5,850 $0 $0 $0 

Student surveys Students 1,144 6,760 $0 $0 $0 

Extant 

administrative 

student and school 

data collection

School 

administrator 88 228 $24 $5,472 $1,824 

Interviews School staff 22 22 $24 $528 $176 

Extant document 

collection

School 

Administrator 22 22 $24 $528 $176 

Instructional logs Teachers 135.2 457 $24 $10,968 $3,656

Focus groups School staff 198 198 $24 $4,752 $1,584 

Fall staff survey School staff -- 1,053 $24 $25,272 $8,424 

Spring staff survey School staff 215.5 742 $24 $17,808 $5,936 

TOTAL 3,635 18,178 $128,199 $42,733

1The hourly wage rates for parents and school staff are based on mean wage rates in Minnesota reported by the Bureau 

of Labor Statistics (2013). For parents, the overall mean wage rate in Minnesota is used ($22.42), and for school staff,

the mean wage for education, training, and library occupations is used ($24.37). Because students will take the survey 

and assessment during school hours, it is assumed that no costs will result from students participating in the data 

collection.

Note. The total burden hours and wage rates were rounded for display only. Therefore, the total monetary cost may 

not equal the product of the displayed burden hours and the wage rate. 
REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Phase 2 of Ramp-Up Evaluation—26

16. Plan for Tabulation and Publication and Schedule for Project

All results for REL studies are made available to the public through peer-reviewed reports that 

are published by IES. The data sets from these studies will be turned over to REL’s IES project 

officer. These data may become IES restricted-use data sets requiring a user’s license that is 

applied for through the same process as National Center for Education Statistics restricted-use 

data sets (see http://nces.ed.gov/pubs96/96860rev.pdf for procedures related to obtaining and 

using restricted-use data sets). The REL contractor also would be required to obtain a restricteduse license to conduct any work with the data beyond the original report.

The evaluation team will be conduct confirmatory and exploratory analyses beginning in the 

summer of 2015. Analyses for confirmatory questions are adequately powered to detect 5 

percentage point differences for FAFSA completion and differences of 0.17 standard deviations 

for measures of personal readiness. Exploratory analyses have not been powered to detect 

effects. See Attachment A-11 for power analyses.

Confirmatory Impact Analyses

Confirmatory analyses will assess the effects of the Ramp-Up program on measures in two

outcome domains: enrollment actions and personal readiness. Corresponding to CRQ1 and 

CRQ2, three intent-to-treat impact models will be estimated. Table 4 shows the variables to be 

included in each hierarchical linear model.

Each confirmatory model will be a two-level nested model (students nested within schools). The 

models will assume a constant treatment effect across blocks and include a dummy variable for 

each block at Level 2. The block variable will indicate the stratum within which schools were 

randomly assigned. The treatment indicator will be included at the school level to indicate 

whether a student attended a Ramp-Up school. At Level 2, the models will include a prior 

school-level measure of the dependent variable (e.g., the prior high school FAFSA completion

rate in the model predicting FAFSA completion). For the binary variable (FAFSA completion), a

logit link function will be used to transform the dependent variable into the odds of achieving a 

particular outcome. 
REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Phase 2 of Ramp-Up Evaluation—27

Table 5. Description of Statistical Models for Confirmatory Analyses

Model

Dependent

Variable

Student 

Grade Level 

in Fall

Level-1 (Student Level) 

Covariates

Level-2 (School Level) 

Covariates

CRQ1 Submitted the 

FAFSA 

(binary)

12 Indicators of race or ethnicity, 

gender, free or reduced-price

lunch status, IEP status, ELL 

status, state standardized 

mathematics and reading test 

score composite, EXPLORE 

or PLAN scores, GPA

Indicator of treatment status, 

indicator of block 

membership, percentage of 

students completing the 

FAFSA in 2013–14

CRQ2a Commitment 

to College 

(continuous)

10, 11, and 

12

Indicators of race/ethnicity, 

gender, FRPL status, IEP 

status, EL status, state 

standardized math and reading 

test score composite, 

EXPLORE or PLAN scores, 

GPA, commitment to college 

score from fall 2014–15, 

grade level

Indicator of treatment status, 

indicator of block 

membership, average 

commitment to college score 

for 10th–12th graders from 

fall 2014–15

CRQ2b Goal striving 

(continuous)

10, 11, and 

12

Indicators of race/ethnicity, 

gender, FRPL status, IEP 

status, EL status, state 

standardized math and reading 

test score composite, 

EXPLORE or PLAN scores, 

GPA, goal striving score from 

fall 2014–15, grade level

Indicator of treatment status, 

indicator of block 

membership, average goal 

striving score for 10th–12th

graders from fall 2014–15

Exploratory Analyses

Phase 2 also will include exploratory analyses to better understand impacts on longer-term

outcomes and impacts on specific subgroups (ERQ1 and ERQ2). Analyses for ERQ1 will

examine whether Ramp-Up has an impact on three other longer-term outcomes: (a) enrollment in 

advanced coursework; (b) the likelihood of taking the ACT or SAT; and (c) the likelihood of 

submitting at least one college application. ERQ2 examines whether impacts differ for (a) 

students in the upper and middle tertiles of achievement from 8th grade tests; and (b) students 

having different FRPL statuses. These analytic models to be used to address the exploratory

research questions are similar to those for the confirmatory research questions, except for 

changes in the outcome being examined and specific subgroups on which the statistical models 

are conducted (see Table 6). 

The outcomes in ERQ1 are classified as exploratory rather than confirmatory because some 

schools may not offer students the opportunity to take advanced courses, some schools require 

all students to complete a college application (whether the schools that participate in this study

require this is not known at this time), and some schools or states (i.e., Wisconsin) require all 

students to take the ACT. Because these analyses may potentially include only a subgroup of 

randomly assigned schools, they can only be exploratory. Unlike the confirmatory analyses, 
REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Phase 2 of Ramp-Up Evaluation—28

these exploratory analyses are not designed to evaluate the intervention per se; rather, they

attempt to show how the program may have affected outcome not considered central to its 

success and impacts for student subgroups of interest. Table 4 shows models for the exploratory

analyses, and the text following the table describes the models in more detail.

Table 6. Description of Models for Exploratory Analyses.

Model Dependent 

Variable

Student 

Subgroup

Level-1 Covariates

(Student Level)

Level-2 Covariates (School 

Level)

ERQ1a Enrolled in at 

least one 

advanced course 

(binary)

Students in 

Grades 10, 

11, and 12

Students’ race/ethnicity, 

gender, FRPL status, IEP 

status, EL status, average 

academic achievement test 

score(s)a, EXPLORE and 

PLAN scores

b

, GPA

Number of advanced courses 

offered in 2013–14, block 

membership, percentage of 

10th–12th graders 

completing an advanced 

course in 2013–14

ERQ1b Took the ACT or 

SAT (binary)

Students in 

Grades 10, 

11, or 12

Students’ race/ethnicity, 

gender, FRPL status, IEP 

status, EL status, average 

academic achievement test 

score(s)a, EXPLORE and 

PLAN scores

b

, GPA

Block membership, 

percentage of students taking 

ACT or SAT in 2013–14

ERQ1c Submitted a 

college 

application 

(binary)

Students in 

grade 12

Students’ race/ethnicity, 

gender, FRPL status, IEP 

status, EL status, average 

academic achievement test 

score(s)a, EXPLORE and 

PLAN scores

b

, GPA

Block membership, 

percentage of 11th graders 

submitting a college 

application in 2013–14

ERQ2 Outcomes 

listed in 

CRQ1, CRQ2, 

ERQ1

Students in: 

(a) middle 3rd

on 8th grade 

tests; 

(b) upper 3rd

on 8th grade 

tests

(c) students 

eligible for 

FRPL.

Students’ race/ethnicity, 

gender, FRPL status, IEP 

status, EL status, average 

academic achievement test 

score(s)a, EXPLORE and 

PLAN scores

b

, GPA

Block membership;, School 

percentages for : (1) students 

taking advanced courses in 

2013-14

(2)students in 2013-14 who 

completed the ACT or SAT

(3) students who submitted a 

college application in 2013-

14.

Notes: FRPL is eligibility for free or reduced price lunch (a proxy for whether student lives in an impoverished family); IEP is 

individualized education plan (an indicator of whether student receives special education services); EL status is English language 

status (whether student is a native speaker of English); GPA is grade point average.

aTo combine state standardized test scores, each score will be standardized (based on the statewide mean and standard deviation), 

the two standardized scores will be summed, and the sum will be standardized. 

b

For models including Grades 10–12, PLAN scores (for 11th and 12th graders) will be combined with EXPLORE scores (for 

10th graders) by first standardizing scores separately, then summing scores, and finally standardizing the sum.
REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Phase 2 of Ramp-Up Evaluation—29

Analyses Involving Implementation Study Data

Both phases of the project involve examination of schools’ implementation of Ramp-Up. The 

data collection during Phase 1 allows for a more in-depth look at schools’ success at 

implementing the intervention. Implementation also will be examined for schools participating in 

Phase 2 in order to aid in the interpretation of impact findings. To assess the fidelity of 

implementation during Phase 2, ED’s contractor for REL Midwest will systematically examine 

the degree to which staff members within the Ramp-Up schools implement the key components 

of the program (IRQ1). These key components, according the Consortium are: 

1. Structural supports. For Ramp-Up to increase the likelihood of students enrolling and 

succeeding in college, school leaders need to establish the necessary structural supports 

for the program. These supports include: establishing a Ramp-Up leadership team; 

appointing a Ramp-Up coordinator; obtaining the active participation of faculty

(including having them lead advisories); establishing advanced courses; providing the 

opportunity and time for professional development, coordination, and preparation related 

to Ramp-Up; and implementing a technology platform for students, staff, and parents to 

access or store college-related information (e.g., the Postsecondary Plan and Readiness 

Rubric). 

2. Professional development. Ramp-Up involves professional development for the 

leadership team and coordinator who receive training from the College Readiness 

Consortium prior to the beginning of the school year for eight hours and four hours, 

respectively. The leadership team and coordinator then provide training to school staff 

during a four-hour session at the beginning of the school year and for 20 minutes each 

month. 

3. Curriculum delivery. The College Readiness Consortium requires that students receive 28 

weekly lessons lasting 30 minutes each and participate in five workshops lasting one 

hour. For teachers to lead advisories and workshops effectively, they need access to 

curriculum materials and sufficient information about the college enrollment process to 

deliver the content. 

4. Curriculum content. Ramp-Up addresses five dimensions of college readiness: academic 

readiness, admissions readiness, career readiness, financial readiness, and personal and 

social readiness.

5. Postsecondary planning tools. Teachers use the Postsecondary Plan and the Readiness 

Rubric to assist students in developing realistic postsecondary plans for achieving 

students’ educational and career aspirations. Teachers share information from these tools 

with parents in two-way communication. 

Multiple indicators of each implementation component are embedded in the student and staff 

surveys, extant documents and data, and instructional logs. Across the six implementation 

components, REL Midwest has identified 80 indicators (see Attachment A-12). After completing 

the data-coding procedures (see section C.1), a two-step process will be followed to create an 

implementation index for each early-implementing school. First, for every school, a score will 
REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Phase 2 of Ramp-Up Evaluation—30

be calculated for each component of implementation. To calculate a component score, a schoollevel score for each indicator will be created,17 and the school-level scores for each indicator will 

be averaged within a component. To illustrate variation in implementation across the five 

components, the report will present the range, average, and standard deviation of the component 

scores across schools. Second, the school-level component scores will be averaged to create the 

fidelity index.18 The College Readiness Consortium will help REL Midwest establish a cut-point 

on the fidelity index that signifies “adequate” for improving the college readiness of students. 

This cut-point will be established prior to the collection of data. The report will indicate the 

distribution of the fidelity index across early implementing schools (see Table 9).

Analysis for IRQ2 will examine the extent to which students receive the program. A measure of

students’ exposure to Ramp-Up within a school is a function of three factors: (1) the number of 

students who participate in a Ramp-Up activity (i.e., advisories or workshops); (2) the frequency

with which the activity occurs; and (3) the duration of the activity. Measures for participation, 

frequency, and duration will be based on the average teacher response to questions on the 

instructional logs and on extant documents from the College Readiness Consortium (see 

Attachment A-13 for the items corresponding to these factors and how they will be transformed 

for use in this analysis). The College Readiness Consortium will help REL Midwest establish a 

cut-point on the exposure index that signifies “adequate” for improving the college readiness of 

students. This cut-point will be established prior to the collection of data.

The three exposure factors will be calculated by grade (for Grades 10 through 12) and by school. 

Students’ Ramp-Up exposure by grade level and for the school overall will be the product of 

participation, frequency, and duration. 

The findings presented in the Phase 1 and Phase 2 reports will summarize the gradewide and 

schoolwide participation rate, frequency, duration, and student exposure across implementing 

schools. The summary will include the average and standard deviation of each of these measures. 

Contrast in college-readiness supports between treatment and control schools

The contrast in college-readiness activities and early implementing schools and later 

implementing schools is being examined as part of Phase 1 and will be examined as part of 

Phase 2. Program-specific fidelity indexes gauge whether an intervention is being implemented 

as intended. The indexes do not necessarily indicate the impact of the intervention, which can 

only be determined in comparison with nonimplementing schools. Prior research and observation 

indicate that high schools provide a range of college-readiness supports (i.e., college-related 

programs, services, activities, and resources) that may differ in participation, frequency, and 

intensity from Ramp-Up supports (McDonough, 1997; Hill, 2008). Students in schools without 

Ramp-Up who take advantage of these supports may demonstrate increased college readiness. 

Information collected in the student surveys, fall staff survey, and administrative data will be 

 

17 In some cases (e.g., for staff surveys), creating a school-level indicator score will require averaging responses for 

all staff within a school. 

18 REL Midwest will consult with the program developers to determine whether this will be a straight average or 

whether some components should receive a higher weight. This decision will be made prior to data collection.
REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Phase 2 of Ramp-Up Evaluation—31

used to understand the strength of Ramp-Up (IRQ3) by comparing college-readiness supports in 

the treatment and control schools. 

Timeline for Project

Data collection for Phase 1 is currently underway and will continue through June, 2014. Data 

collection for Phase 2 of the project will begin in October of 2014 and end in the schools in May

of 2015. Additional extant documents will be requested of program developers (i.e., does not 

require OMB clearance) in June of 2015 (see Timeline, Table 7). 

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

Approval not to display the expiration date for OMB approval is not requested.

18. Exception to the Certification Statement

No exceptions to the certification statement are being sought.
REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Phase 2 of Ramp-Up Evaluation—32

Table 7. Schedule of Activities for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Ramp-Up Evaluation

Activity Project 

Phase Expected Date

Draft Office of Management and Budget (OMB) package 1 September 2013

Final proposal approved by ED 1 October 2013

Documentation of institutional review board approval 1 October 2013

Submit 60 day Federal Register Notice 1 November 2013

Submit 30 day Federal Register Notice 1 January 2014

Expected OMB clearance data 1 May 2014

Collect extant administrative school and student data from 

schools and districts 1

April 2014;

June 2014

Collect extant administrative school and student data from 

MDE and MOHE 1 June 2014

Conduct interviews with Ramp-Up and later-implementing 

schools 1 April 2014

Collect extant documents from Ramp-Up and laterimplementing schools 1 May 2014

Collect extant documents from the program developers 1 June 2014

Administer instructional logs to Ramp-Up teachers after the 

last two workshops 1 April-May 2014

Conduct Spring focus groups in Ramp-Up and laterimplementing schools 1 May 2014

Administer survey to Ramp-Up school staff 1 May 2014

Administer student personal readiness assessment in RampUp and later-implementing schools 1 May 2014

Administer student survey 1 May 2014

Collect administrative data from SLEDS 1 July-August 2014

Conduct data analysis 1

AugustSeptember 2014

Submit technical report draft on Ramp-Up Implementation

for IES review 1 October 2014
REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Phase 2 of Ramp-Up Evaluation—33

Activity Project 

Phase Expected Date

Submit research brief on Ramp-Up Implementation 1 December 2014

Final proposal for Phase 2 approved by ED 2 April 2014

Revision to OMB package submitted 2 May 2014

Obtain approval from institutional review board for Phase 2 2 June 2014

Submit 60-day Federal Register Notice 2 May 2014

Submit 30-day Federal Register Notice 2 July 2014

Expected OMB clearance data 2 September 2014

Collect extant administrative school and student data from 

schools and districts 2

October 2014; 

June 2015

Collect extant documents from the program developers 2 June 2015

Administer instructional logs to Ramp-Up teachers after each 

of five workshops 2

October 2014 - 

May 2015

Administer student personal readiness assessment in RampUp and later implementing schools 2October 2014 - 

May 2015

Administer student survey 2

October 2014 - 

May 2015

Administer fall staff survey (early and later implementing 

schools) 2 October 2014

Administer spring staff survey (early implementing schools) 2 May 2015

Submit first draft of technical report on Ramp-Up impact for 

IES review 2 August 2015

Submit first draft of research brief on Ramp-Up impact for 

IES review. 2 October 2015
REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Phase 2 of Ramp-Up Evaluation—34

References

ACT, Inc. (2012). ENGAGETM grades 10–12 user’s guide. Iowa City, IA: Author. Retrieved 

from http://www.act.org/engage/pdf/10-12_user_guide.pdf

Berkner, L., & Chavez, L. (1997). Access to postsecondary education for the 1992 high school

graduates (NCES 98-105). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National 

Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/98105.pdf

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013). May 2012 state occupational employment and wage 

estimates: Minnesota. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from 

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_mn.htm#00-0000

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). ESEA reauthorization principles and 

recommendations. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from

http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2009/ESEA_Task_Force_Policy_Statement_2010.pdf

Durlack, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). 

The impact of enhancing students' social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of 

school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405–432.

Farrington, C. A., Roderick, M., Allensworth, E., Nagaoka, J., Keyes, T. S., Johnson, D. W., &

Beechum, N. O. (2012). Teaching adolescents to become learners: The role of 

noncognitive factors in shaping school performance. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago 

Consortium on Chicago School Research.

Hill, D. H. (2008). School strategies and the “college-linking” process: Reconsidering the effects 

of high schools on college enrollment. Sociology of Education, 81(1), 53-76.

McDonough, P. M. (1997). Choosing colleges: How social class and schools structure 

opportunity. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Peterson, C. H., Casillas, A., & Robbins, S. B. (2006). The student readiness inventory and the 

Big Five: Examining social desirability and college academic performance. Personality 

and Individual Differences, 41, 663–673.

Robbins, S. B., Allen, J., Casillas, A., Peterson, C. H., & Le, H. (2006). Unraveling the 

differential effects of motivational and skills, social and self-management measures from 

traditional predictors of college outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 598–

616.

Schochet, P. Z. (2013). Statistical power for school-based RCTs with binary outcomes. Journal 

of Research on Educational Effectiveness,6(3), 263-294.

Tierney, W. G., Bailey, T., Constantine, J., Finkelstein, N., & Hurd, N. F. (2009). Helping 

students navigate the path to college: What high schools can do (NCEE #2009-4066). 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, 
REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Phase 2 of Ramp-Up Evaluation—35

National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/practiceguide.aspx?sid=11

U.S. Department of Education. (2010). A blueprint for reform: The reauthorization of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/blueprint.pdf
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—36

Attachment A-1. Administrative Data Request

August xx, 2014

Dear [SCHOOL/DISTRICT STAFF MEMBER]:

Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) Midwest at American Institutes for Research (AIR) is 

the evaluator of the Ramp-Up to Readiness program at [SCHOOL]. REL Midwest is one of 10 

regional educational laboratories funded by the Institute of Education Sciences at the U.S. 

Department of Education and tasked with providing technical assistance and research support to 

topic-focused groups of education-related stakeholders with the ultimate aim of learning what 

works for improving student academic outcomes 

In [MONTH/YEAR], our research team received approval from [SCHOOL/DISTRICT] to 

conduct this study. REL Midwest is beginning the data collection process. As a first step, we are 

sharing with you a list of student- and school-level data that we will need to collect for the study.

The data that you share with our project team, in combination with data from the Minnesota 

Department of Education, will allow us to understand schools’ experience with implementing 

Ramp-Up.

A data request for this project is on the second page of this letter. It provides a general 

description of the data elements needed for this part of the project. You will see that the data 

request is organized according to these levels of data (i.e., student data and school data). We are 

requesting student-level data only for students enrolled in 10th, 11th, or 12th grade in fall 2014.

We have found that an initial phone discussion about the data elements being requested can help 

prevent misunderstandings about data availability and quality. That said, we would like to find a 

30-minute window of time next week, [DATES], when we can discuss the data request. Please 

let me know of your availability (or the availability of someone else who is familiar with the 

data), and we will arrange a phone conference.

We appreciate your support for this study. Please let me know when you are available next week. 

In the meantime, if there are other questions you have, feel free to contact me at the phone 

number below my name.

Best regards,

Jim Lindsay, Ph.D.

Principal Investigator, REL Midwest

630-649-6591
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—37

REL Midwest Study of Ramp-Up to Readiness: Request for Student-Level Data

Students Grade Level Fall 2014–15

Student-Level Variables 10th 11th 12th

Student MARSS ID in fall 2014–15   

Grade level in fall 2014–15   

Student leave code (e.g., to indicate transfer, dropout)   

Cumulative unweighted and weighted GPA in spring 2014   

EXPLORE score and date of administration   

PLAN score and date of administration  

Indicator of whether student took the ACT or SAT in 2013–14  

ACT composite scores with dates of administration  

SAT reading and mathematics scores with dates of administration  

Number of E-level courses enrolled in 2013–14 and fall 2014–15   

Number of D-level courses enrolled in 2013–14 and fall 2014–15   

Number of A-level courses enrolled in 2013–14 and fall 2014–15   

Number of C-level courses enrolled in 2013–14 and fall 2014–15   

Number of transcripts requested in fall 2014–15 

School-Level Variables 

School ID 

Number of 10th, 11th, and 12th graders (separately) in 2013–14

Percentages of 10th, 11th, and 12th graders (separately) who took an E-level course in 2013–14

Percentages of 10th, 11th, and 12th graders (separately) who took a D-level course in 2013–14

Percentages of 10th, 11th, and 12th graders (separately) who took an A-level course in 2013–14

Percentages of 10th, 11th, and 12th graders (separately) who took a C-level course in 2013–14

School average PLAN composite score in 2013–14

Percentages of 11th and 12th graders (separately) who took the ACT during 2013–14

Percentages of 11th and 12th graders (separately) who took the SAT during 2013–14

School average ACT composite score in 2013–14

School average SAT critical reading and mathematics scores in 2013–14

Percentage of 12th graders who submitted a college application in 2013–14

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid 

OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is XXXX.XXXX, OMB expiration date is XXXX, XX, 2014. 

The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 90 minutes per respondent, including the time to review 

instructions, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information collected. If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the 

time estimate(s) or suggestions for improving this form, please write to: U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC 20202. If you have 

comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, write directly to: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of 

Education Sciences, 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20208. 
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—38

Attachment A-2. Student Fall Survey19

Purpose. We want to learn about your experiences at school with planning and preparing for life 

after high school. The questions on this survey ask about preparing for college and a career. The 

information you provide will help schools provide better information and assistance to students 

so that they can prepare for the future. This study is being conducted through the Regional 

Educational Laboratory (REL) Midwest.

Your answers will be kept confidential. All data collected will be kept confidential. We will 

not provide information that identifies you or your school to anyone outside the study team, 

except as required by law. Your answers will be combined with the answers of other students to 

describe what students think about the ways schools prepare them for life after high school. 

Risks. There are no known risks related to participating in this survey. 

Your answers are voluntary. You have the right to stop participating in this survey at any time 

without consequences. We hope you will answer all the questions, but if there is a question you 

do not wish to answer, simply skip it. Also, there are no right or wrong answers to these 

questions—we really just want to learn about your experiences at your school.

Procedure. This survey will take about 10 to 15 minutes.

Contact Information. If you have questions or concerns about this study, please contact Jim 

Lindsay at jlindsay@air.org or 630-649-6591. If you have concerns or questions about your 

rights as a participant, contact the chair of AIR’s Institutional Review Board (which is 

responsible for the protection of study participants) using the following contact information:

E-Mail: IRBChair@air.org

Phone: 1-800-634-0797 (toll free)

Mail: IRB Chair

c/o AIR

1000 Thomas Jefferson Street NW

Washington, DC 20007

If you want to take the survey, please continue. If you prefer not to participate, please check 

the “do not” box below and inform your survey administrator. Thank you for your help!

 I want to continue with the survey  I do not want to complete the survey

 

19 For most students, this survey will be administered in conjunction with ACT’s ENGAGE assessment. Because 

ACT’s technology does not allow for skip patterns when questions are added to their assessment, this questionnaire 

does not use skips. Instead, response categories indicating that a question does not apply to a student have been 

included when needed.

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid 

OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is XXXX.XXXX, OMB expiration date is XXXX, XX, 

2014. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 15 minutes per respondent, including the time to review 

instructions, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information collected. If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the 

time estimate(s) or suggestions for improving this form, please write to: U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC 20202. If you have 

comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, write directly to: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of 

Education Sciences, 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20208. 
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—39

Background Information

What grade are you currently in?

 9th

 10th

 11th

 12th

Postsecondary Plans

The following set of questions asks about your plans after high school. When this survey says 

“college,” it means any kind of college, including two-year colleges, four-year colleges, 

universities, community colleges, and career or technical colleges (such as a culinary school or a 

cosmetology school).

At this time, what is your plan for next year? (Check all that apply.)

 Attend a four-year college or university 

 Attend a community college

 Attend a career or technical college

 Get a job

 Enter the military

 Take a year off

 Other

 I don’t know.

So far this school year, how often have you talked to a counselor, teacher, or other adult at 

school about planning for college?

 Never

 One or two times

 More than two times but less than once a week

 Once a week

 More than once a week
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—40

This school year, have you developed a written plan for achieving your educational or career 

goals after high school?

 Yes

 No

 I’m not sure.

Is your plan stored electronically (for example, in the Minnesota Career Information System, the 

Wisconsin Career Information System, or Naviance)?

 Yes

 No

 I’m not sure.

 I have not developed a written postsecondary plan with a counselor, teacher, or other 

adult at my school.

At the last registration time, did school staff help you in choosing classes that you need to reach 

your goals for after high school?*

 Yes

 No

So far this school year, how many times have you discussed your progress toward attaining the

goals on your plan with a counselor, teacher, or other adult in your school?

 Never

 Once

 Twice

 Three times

 More than three times

 I’m not sure.

 I have not developed a written postsecondary plan with a counselor, teacher, or other 

adult at my school.

To what extent do you disagree or agree with the following statements?

At my school, all students are expected to go to some type of college.* 

 Strongly disagree 

 Disagree

 Agree

 Strongly agree 
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—41

I know the skills that I need to work on if I am going to graduate from high school ready for 

success in college.* 20

 Strongly disagree 

 Disagree

 Agree

 Strongly agree 

 I don’t plan to attend college.

Students’ Academic Readiness

The following set of questions asks about your academic preparation for college. 

So far this school year, has an adult at your school encouraged you to take an honors course or a 

course for college credit, such as an Advanced Placement (AP), International Baccalaureate (IB), 

Postsecondary Enrollment Options (PSEO), or College in the Schools course?*

 Yes

 No

So far this school year, how often has an adult at your high school discussed with you your 

likelihood to succeed academically in college-level classes?**

 Never

 Once

 Twice

 Three to five times

 More than five times

Students’ Admissions Readiness

The following questions ask about developing college plans. 

To what extent do you disagree or agree with the following statement?

 

20 An * indicates that this question is based on a question included on a survey from the Center for Applied Research 

and Educational Improvement (CAREI) at the University of Minnesota. ** indicates that this question is based on a 

question included on the Consortium on Chicago School Research 2009 12th-grade student survey 

(http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/downloads/23532009_my_voice_senior_student_codebook.pdf). Some questions have 

been reworded slightly to accommodate this study. 
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—42

I know which type of college (for example a four-year college, a community college, a career or 

technical college) would help me reach my goals after high school.

 Strongly disagree 

 Disagree

 Agree

 Strongly agree 

 I don’t plan to attend college.

So far this school year, how often has an adult at your high school discussed with you the steps 

that you need to take to apply to the type of college that you want to attend?*

 Never

 One or two times

 Three to five times

 More than five times

 I don’t plan to attend college.

So far this school year, how often has an adult at your high school discussed with you your 

likelihood of being accepted at different types of colleges?**

 Never

 One or two times

 Three to five times

 More than five times

 I don’t plan to attend college.

Students’ Career Readiness

The following questions ask about developing career plans. 

To what extent do you disagree or agree with the following statements?

I know the kinds of careers that would best fit my strengths and skills.*

 Strongly disagree 

 Disagree

 Agree

 Strongly agree 
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—43

I know the level of education required for the career I am most interested in.*

 Strongly disagree 

 Disagree

 Agree

 Strongly agree 

So far this school year, how helpful has your high school been to you in assessing your career 

interests and abilities? **

 Not at all helpful

 Somewhat helpful

 Helpful

 Very helpful

How helpful has your high school been to you in developing a career plan?**

 Not at all helpful

 Somewhat helpful

 Helpful

 Very helpful

 I do not have a career plan.

Students’ Financial Readiness

The following questions ask about paying for college. 

So far this school year, how often has an adult at your school talked to you about how to pay for 

tuition or other college expenses?**

 Never

 Once

 Twice

 Three to five times

 More than five times
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—44

Do you have a plan for paying for college?*

 Yes

 No

 I don’t plan to attend college.

Students’ College Actions

The following questions ask about some college-related actions you may have taken or plan to 

take. 

Have you ever taken the ACT or SAT test?

 Yes

 No, but I plan to take the ACT or SAT.

 No, I do not plan to take the ACT or SAT.

How many college applications, if any, have you submitted so far this school year?

 None

 One

 Two or three

 Four or five

 More than five

So far this school year, how much have your teachers, counselors, or other school staff helped 

you with a college application essay or personal statement?**

 Not at all

 A little

 Some

 A lot

 I do not plan to graduate from high school this school year.
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—45

So far this school year, how much have your teachers, counselors, or other school staff helped 

you find scholarships to apply for?**

 Not at all

 A little

 Some

 A lot

 I do not plan to graduate from high school this school year.

Wrap-Up

These last questions ask for some general information.

So far this school year, who has helped you most to prepare for college? (Check only one.) 

 Counselors

 Teachers

 Dean 

 Other adults in my school

 Parents or guardians

 Other family members

 Other adults aside from my school or family

 Friends

 No one

Do you have at least one parent or guardian who has completed a college degree?*

 Yes

 No

 I’m not sure.

Thank you for participating in this survey!
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—46

Attachment A-3. Student Spring Survey21

Assent Form

Purpose. We want to learn about your experiences at school with planning and preparing for life 

after high school. The questions on this survey ask about preparing for college and a career. The 

information you provide will help schools provide better information and assistance to students 

so that they can prepare for the future. This study is being conducted through the Regional 

Educational Laboratory (REL) Midwest.

Your answers will be kept confidential. All data collected will be kept confidential. We will 

not provide information that identifies you or your school to anyone outside the study team, 

except as required by law. Your answers will be combined with the answers of other students to 

describe what students think about the ways schools prepare them for life after high school. 

Risks. There are no known risks related to participating in this survey. 

Your answers are voluntary. You have the right to stop participating in this survey at any time 

without consequences. We hope you will answer all the questions, but if there is a question you 

do not wish to answer, simply skip it. Also, there are no right or wrong answers to these 

questions—we really just want to learn about your experiences at your school.

Procedure. This survey will take about 10 to 15 minutes.

Contact Information. If you have questions or concerns about this study, please contact Jim 

Lindsay at jlindsay@air.org or 630-649-6591. If you have concerns or questions about your 

rights as a participant, contact the chair of AIR’s Institutional Review Board (which is 

responsible for the protection of study participants) using the following contact information:

E-Mail: IRBChair@air.org

Phone: 1-800-634-0797 (toll free)

Mail: IRB Chair

c/o AIR

1000 Thomas Jefferson Street NW

Washington, DC 20007

If you want to take the survey, please continue. If you prefer not to participate, please check 

the “do not” box below and inform your survey administrator. Thank you for your help!

 I want to continue with the survey  I do not want to complete the survey

 

21 For most students, this survey will be administered in conjunction with ACT’s ENGAGE assessment. Because 

ACT’s technology does not allow for skip patterns when questions are added to their assessment, this questionnaire 

does not use skips. Instead, response categories indicating that a question does not apply to a student have been 

included when needed.

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid 

OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is XXXX.XXXX, OMB expiration date is XXXX, XX,

2014. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 15 minutes per respondent, including the time to review 

instructions, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information collected. If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the 

time estimate(s) or suggestions for improving this form, please write to: U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC 20202. If you have 

comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, write directly to: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of 

Education Sciences, 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20208. 
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—47

Background Information

What grade are you currently in?

9th

10th

11th

12th

Postsecondary Plans

The following set of questions asks about your plans after high school. When this survey says 

“college,” it means any kind of college, including two-year colleges, four-year colleges, 

universities, community colleges, and career or technical colleges (such as a culinary school or a 

cosmetology school).

At this time, what is your plan for next year? (Check all that apply)

 Attend a four-year college or university 

 Attend a community college

 Attend a career or technical college

 Get a job

 Enter the military

 Take a year off

 Other

 I don’t know.

So far this school year, how often have you talked to a counselor, teacher, or other adult at 

school about planning for college?

 Never

 One or two times

 More than two times but less than once a week

 Once a week

 More than once a week

This school year, have you developed a written plan for achieving your educational or career 

goals after high school?

 Yes

 No

 I’m not sure.
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—48

Is your plan stored electronically (for example, in the Minnesota Career Information System, the 

Wisconsin Career Information System, or Naviance)?

 Yes

 No

 I’m not sure.

 I have not developed a written postsecondary plan with a counselor, teacher, or other 

adult at my school.

At the last registration time, did school staff help you in choosing classes that you need to reach 

your goals for after high school?*

 Yes

 No

So far this school year, how many times have you discussed your progress toward attaining the 

goals on your plan with a counselor, teacher, or other adult in your school?

 Never

 Once

 Twice

 Three times

 More than three times

 I’m not sure.

 I have not developed a written postsecondary plan with a counselor, teacher, or other 

adult at my school.

To what extent do you disagree or agree with the following statements?

At my school, all students are expected to go to some type of college.* 

 Strongly disagree 

 Disagree

 Agree

 Strongly agree 
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—49

I know the skills that I need to work on if I am going to graduate from high school ready for 

success in college.*22

 Strongly disagree 

 Disagree

 Agree

 Strongly agree 

 I don’t plan to attend college.

Students’ Academic Readiness

The following questions ask about your academic preparation for college. 

So far this school year, has an adult at your school encouraged you to take an honors course or a 

course for college credit, such as an Advanced Placement (AP), International Baccalaureate (IB), 

Postsecondary Enrollment Options (PSEO), or College in the Schools course?*

 Yes

 No

So far this school year, how often has an adult at your high school discussed with you your 

likelihood to succeed academically in college-level classes?**

 Never

 Once

 Twice

 Three to five times

 More than five times

Students’ Admissions Readiness

The following questions ask about developing college plans. 

 

22 An * indicates that this question is based on a question included on a survey from the Center for Applied Research 

and Educational Improvement (CAREI) at the University of Minnesota. ** indicates that this question is based on a 

question included on the Consortium on Chicago School Research 2009 12th-grade student survey 

(http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/downloads/23532009_my_voice_senior_student_codebook.pdf). Some questions have 

been reworded slightly to accommodate this study. 
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—50

To what extent do you disagree or agree with the following statement?

I know which type of college (for example a four-year college, a community college, a career or 

technical college) would help me reach my goals after high school.

 Strongly disagree 

 Disagree

 Agree

 Strongly agree 

 I don’t plan to attend college.

So far this school year, how often has an adult at your high school discussed with you the steps 

that you need to take to apply to the type of college that you want to attend?*

 Never

 One or two times

 Three to five times

 More than five times

 I don’t plan to attend college.

So far this school year, how often has an adult at your high school discussed with you your 

likelihood of being accepted at different types of colleges?**

 Never

 One or two times

 Three to five times

 More than five times

 I don’t plan to attend college.

Students’ Career Readiness

The following questions ask about developing career plans. 

To what extent do you disagree or agree with the following statements?

I know the kinds of careers that would best fit my strengths and skills.*

 Strongly disagree 

 Disagree

 Agree

 Strongly agree 
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—51

I know the level of education required for the career I am most interested in.*

 Strongly disagree 

 Disagree

 Agree

 Strongly agree 

So far this school year, how helpful has your high school been to you in assessing your career 

interests and abilities? **

 Not at all helpful

 Somewhat helpful

 Helpful

 Very helpful

How helpful has your high school been to you in developing a career plan?**

 Not at all helpful

 Somewhat helpful

 Helpful

 Very helpful

 I do not have a career plan.

Students’ Financial Readiness

The following questions ask about paying for college. 

So far this school year, how often has an adult at your school talked to you about how to pay for 

tuition or other college expenses?**

 Never

 Once

 Twice

 Three to five times

 More than five times
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—52

Do you have a plan for paying for college?*

 Yes

 No

 I don’t plan to attend college.

Students’ College Actions

The following questions ask about some college-related actions you may have taken or plan to 

take. 

Have you ever taken the ACT or SAT test?

 Yes

 No, but I plan to take the ACT or SAT.

 No, I do not plan to take the ACT or SAT.

Have you submitted the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) so far this school 

year? 

 Yes

 No, but I plan to submit the FAFSA by the end of the summer.

 No, I do not plan to submit the FAFSA.

 I don’t know.

So far this school year, how much have your teachers, counselors, or other school staff helped 

you fill out the FAFSA?**

 Not at all

 A little

 Some

 A lot

How many college applications, if any, have you submitted so far this school year?

 None

 One

 Two or three

 Four or five

 More than five
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—53

So far this school year, how much have your teachers, counselors, or other school staff helped 

you with a college application essay or personal statement?**

 Not at all

 A little

 Some

 A lot

 I do not plan to graduate from high school this school year.

So far this school year, how much have your teachers, counselors, or other school staff helped 

you find scholarships to apply for?**

 Not at all

 A little

 Some

 A lot

 I do not plan to graduate from high school this school year.

Wrap-Up

These last questions ask for some general information.

So far this school year, who has helped you most to prepare for college? (Check only one.) 

 Counselors

 Teachers

 Dean 

 Other adults in my school

 Parents or guardians

 Other family members

 Other adults aside from my school or family

 Friends

 No one

Do you have at least one parent or guardian who has completed a college degree?*

 Yes

 No

 I’m not sure.

Thank you for participating in this survey!
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—54

Attachment A-4. Consent Documents

Parent Information Letter and Consent Withholding Form

[HIGH SCHOOL LETTERHEAD]

August XX, 2014

Dear Parent or Guardian:

[Insert high school] is committed to helping our students graduate college and career ready. As 

part of our commitment, we are working with the Regional Educational Laboratory (REL)

Midwest to study a schoolwide guidance program called Ramp-Up to Readiness (“Ramp-Up”). 

Scholars at the College Readiness Consortium at the University of Minnesota developed RampUp based on existing research.

The purpose of this letter is to let you know that we plan to release some information about the 

students in [high school] to REL Midwest and that your son or daughter may be asked to 

complete a survey and college-readiness assessment. The information provided to REL Midwest 

will not include student names or any other personally identifiable information about you or your 

child. In other words, the data will be anonymous to the researchers. 

Parents and students should understand the following:

This anonymous information will help the research team better understand the challenges that 

schools have in carrying out Ramp-Up and the experiences students have when participating in 

Ramp-Up activities. 

The anonymous information will include students’ grades, test scores, course enrollments, 

college enrollment activities, and the student identification number used by the Minnesota 

Department of Education. The researchers will be able to use your son’s or daughter’s 

identification number to obtain other information from state databases, such as test scores, but 

they will be unable to link that number with your child’s identity. 

As part of the study, your son or daughter may be asked to do the following:

 Take a survey this spring that asks about his or her experiences at school with planning 

and preparing for life after high school.

 Take an online college-readiness assessment (ACT’s ENGAGE assessment) in the 

spring. This assessment will measure students’ motivation and skills, social engagement, 

or self-regulation.

 No student has to answer questions on the survey or assessment that he or she does not 

want to answer.
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—55

 All information about your child will be anonymous. The information collected will only

be used for this research project, and the researchers will average the data for all students 

and all participating schools. They will report these averages in government reports and 

research articles, but readers will be unable link those findings with individual students, 

teachers, or schools.

 Risks: This study presents minimal risk to your child. That is, students do not experience 

any risks beyond what they experience every day at school. 

 Benefits: Study participation helps build knowledge about how to better support students 

to be college or career ready.

 Participation in the study is voluntary. Students do not have to participate if they do not 

want to, and they will experience no repercussions at school if they decide not to 

participate. Our school’s participation in this research study helps educators learn more 

about how schools can help students become college and career ready.

If you do not wish us to release anonymous information for your child or have your child 

complete the surveys and assessments, please fill in the form below and have your son or 

daughter return this letter to [return location] by [deadline]. 

If you have questions about this research project or about your child’s rights as a participant, 

please contact Jim Lindsay of REL Midwest at 630-649-6591.

Sincerely,

[insert district signatory]

By signing this form, you are indicating that you do not wish your child to participate in the 

study or for us to share your child’s information with the REL Midwest research team.

I do NOT want my child, __________________________________________,

Full Student Name

(Student ID # _____________________) to participate in the Ramp-Up evaluation being 

conducted by REL Midwest.

Your name: ______________________________________________________

Your signature: ___________________________________________________

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB 

control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is XXXX.XXXX, OMB expiration date is XXXX, XX, 2014. The time 

required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 5 minutes per respondent, including the time to review instructions, gather the 

data needed, and complete and review the information collected. If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate(s) or 

suggestions for improving this form, please write to: U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC 20202. If you have comments or concerns 

regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, write directly to: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, 555 

New Jersey Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20208. 
20 East Diehl Road, Suite 200 | Naperville, IL 60563-1486 | P: 866.730.6735 F: 630.649.6700

www.relmidwest.org

OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—56

Staff Consent Form

Purpose

Our school has partnered with the Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) Midwest to study the 

implementation of a schoolwide guidance program called Ramp-Up to Readiness (“Ramp-Up”) 

developed by the College Readiness Consortium at the University of Minnesota. REL Midwest, 

operated by American Institutes for Research, is sponsored by the Institute of Education Sciences 

(IES) at the U.S. Department of Education. The evaluation will examine how school staff 

members implement Ramp-Up and how the intervention compares with college-readiness 

supports in other high schools. The study has been submitted to IES for research approval. An 

application also will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review.

REL Midwest invites you and other school staff to participate in the study, which will begin this 

spring. The study involves the following data collection activities, in which you may be asked to 

participate:

 Two focus groups, one in February and one in May

 Short instructional logs following each of five Ramp-Up college workshops

 An online survey in the spring 2014

Voluntary Participation

Participation in the data collection activities is voluntary. You also can withdraw from the study 

at any time. Individuals who decline to participate or later withdraw from the study will face no 

personal or professional repercussions.

Risks 

There are few anticipated or known risks in participating in this study. Data collected and 

maintained by, or under the auspices of, IES under a pledge of confidentiality shall be treated in 

a manner that will ensure that individually identifiable data will be used only for statistical 

purposes and will be accessible only to authorized persons.

Benefits

Your participation in the evaluation will contribute to an understanding of a schoolwide college 

readiness program that seeks to improve the college readiness outcomes of all students. You will 

also receive a $25 gift card from Amazon.com for participating in the data collection activities.
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—57

Confidentiality

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 

any specific individual. The researchers will not provide information that identifies you or your 

school to anyone outside the study team, except as required by law.

More Information

If you would like more information about this study, you may contact Jim Lindsay of REL 

Midwest at 630-649-6591.

Informed Consent

By signing this form, you are indicating that you have read and understood the information 

provided to you about your participation.

Yes, I want to participate in this study.

No, I do not wish to participate in this study.

Print Name: _______________________________________________________________

Signature: ________________________________________________

Date: __________________

School Name: __________________________________________________________

Position at School: ___________________________________________________________

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid 

OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is XXXX.XXXX, OMB expiration date is XXXX, XX, 

2014. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 5 minutes per respondent, including the time to review 

instructions, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information collected. If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the 

time estimate(s) or suggestions for improving this form, please write to: U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC 20202. If you have 

comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, write directly to: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of 

Education Sciences, 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20208. 
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—58

Attachment A-5. Instructional Log for Ramp-Up Workshop

Purpose. We would like your feedback on the workshop you taught today and some information 

about the advisories that you have taught so far this year. Your opinions are useful for improving

the quality of the Ramp-Up program.

Confidentiality. Regional Educational Laboratory Midwest will keep all collected data 

confidential. 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 individual. We will not provide information that identifies 

you 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.

Risks. There are no known risks related to participating in this survey. 

Voluntary Participation. You have the right to discontinue your participation in this survey at 

any time without consequences. We hope you will answer all the questions, but if there is a 

question you do not wish to answer, simply skip it. 

Procedure. Completion of each log entry will take no longer than 10 minutes. If you complete 

all five logs, you will receive a $25 gift card for your participation.

Contact Information. If you have questions or concerns about this study, please contact Jim 

Lindsay at jlindsay@air.org or 630-649-6591. If you have concerns or questions about your 

rights as a participant, contact the chair of AIR’s Institutional Review Board (which is 

responsible for the protection of study participants) using the following contact information:

E-Mail: IRBChair@air.org

Phone: 1-800-634-0797 (toll free)

Mail: IRB Chair

c/o AIR

1000 Thomas Jefferson Street NW

Washington, DC 20007

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid 

OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is XXXX.XXXX, OMB expiration date is XXXX, XX, 

2014. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to be 10 minutes per respondent, including the time to review 

instructions, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information collected. If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the 

time estimate(s) or suggestions for improving this form, please write to: U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC 20202. If you have 

comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, write directly to: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of 

Education Sciences, 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20208. 
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—59

Background Information

1. What is your current position at this school? Check all that apply.

 Teacher

 Counselor

 Dean

 Principal 

 Assistant principal

 Other school staff

2. What is the name of your school? [text box]

Today’s Ramp-Up Workshop

The following questions ask about the Ramp-Up workshop that you taught today.

3. Did you teach or assist in teaching a Ramp-Up workshop today?

 Yes [continue to q4]

 No [skip to q19]

4. What topic(s) did you cover in today’s workshop? [text box]

5. How many students actually attended the workshop? [drop down box]

6. What percentage of your students attended the workshop? [drop down box]

7. In what grades are the students who attended the workshop that you taught today? Check all 

that apply.

 9th grade

 10th grade

 11th grade

 12th grade
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—60

8. How long did today’s workshop last?

 Less than 30 minutes

 30–45 minutes

 46–60 minutes

 More than 60 minutes

9. Select the college-readiness pillars that were discussed during today’s workshop? Check all 

that apply.

 Academic Readiness

 Admissions Readiness

 Career Readiness

 Financial Readiness

 Personal and Social Readiness

10. Did you adapt the instructional materials to suit the needs of your workshop?

 Yes [continue to q11]

 No [skip to q12]

11. Please describe how you adapted the instructional materials to suit the needs of your 

workshop. [text box]

12. What percentage of students who attended today’s workshop were actively engaged in the 

workshop’s activities?

 Less than 25 percent

 25 percent to 50 percent

 51 percent to 75 percent

 More than 75 percent

 I do not know.

13. I had enough time to prepare lesson content prior to teaching today’s workshop.

 Strongly disagree 

 Disagree

 Agree 

 Strongly agree 
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—61

14. I had enough information about the college selection and enrollment process to teach today’s 

workshop.

 Strongly disagree

 Disagree 

 Agree

 Strongly agree

15. I had enough information about the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in college to 

teach today’s workshop.

 Strongly disagree 

 Disagree

 Agree 

 Strongly agree 

16. What worked well in today’s workshop? [text box]

17. What could be improved about today’s workshop? [text box]

18. If you have any additional comments about today’s workshop, please enter them here: [text 

box]

Weekly Ramp-Up Advisories

The following questions ask about the weekly Ramp-Up advisories taught so far this year.

19. Have you taught at least one Ramp-Up advisory this school year?

 Yes [continue to q20]

 No [end survey]

20. Are you assigned to teach a ninth-grade Ramp-Up advisory?

 Yes [continue to q21]

 No [skip to q22]
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—62

21. Which lessons have you taught so far this year to ninth graders? Check all that apply. [insert 

names of each lesson taught to ninth graders]

22. Are you assigned to teach a 10th-grade Ramp-Up advisory?

 Yes [continue to q23]

 No [skip to q24]

23. Which lessons have you taught so far this year to 10th graders? Check all that apply. [insert 

names of each lesson taught to 10th graders]

24. Are you assigned to teach an 11th-grade Ramp-Up advisory?

 Yes [continue to q25]

 No [skip to q26]

25. Which lessons have you taught so far this year to 11th graders? Check all that apply. [insert 

names of each lesson taught to 11th graders]

26. Are you assigned to teach a 12th-grade Ramp-Up advisory?

 Yes [continue to q27]

 No [skip to q28]

27. Which lessons have you taught so far this year to 12th graders? Check all that apply. [insert 

names of each lesson taught to 12th graders]

28. On average, what percentage of students scheduled to attend your weekly advisory have

attended every session so far?

 Less than 25 percent

 25–50 percent

 51–75 percent

 More than 75 percent

 I do not know.
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—63

29. On average, how long have the weekly advisory sessions you’ve taught so far this year 

lasted?

 Less than 20 minutes

 20–29 minutes

 30 minutes

 I do not know.

30. So far this year, how often have you adapted the instructional materials to suit the needs of 

your advisory?

 Never

 Rarely

 Sometimes

 Often

 Always

31. On average, what percentage of students in your advisory actively engage in the advisory’s 

activities?

 Less than 25 percent

 25–50 percent

 51–75 percent

 More than 75 percent

 I do not know.

32. If you have any additional comments about the Ramp-Up advisories, please enter them here: 

[text box]

Thank you for completing this log!
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—64

Attachment A-6. Fall Staff Survey

(To Be Administered Over Internet)

Purpose. The Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) Midwest at American Institutes for 

Research is conducting this survey as part of its evaluation of Ramp-Up to Readiness (“RampUp”). We want to learn about your experiences with Ramp-Up overall and also how those 

experiences relate to the program’s curriculum, tools, and professional development. The 

information you provide will be used to improve Ramp-Up and other college-readiness 

programs. 

Confidentiality. REL Midwest will keep all collected data confidential. 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. 

Risks. There are no known risks related to participating in this survey. 

Voluntary Participation. You have the right to discontinue your participation in this survey at 

any time without consequences. We hope you will answer all the questions, but if there is a 

question you do not wish to answer, simply skip it. 

Procedure. This survey will take about 20 to 30 minutes, and you will receive a $25 gift card for 

your participation.

Contact Information. If you have questions or concerns about this study, please contact Jim 

Lindsay at jlindsay@air.org or 630-649-6591. If you have concerns or questions about your 

rights as a participant, contact the chair of AIR’s Institutional Review Board (which is 

responsible for the protection of study participants) using the following contact information:

E-Mail: IRBChair@air.org

Phone: 1-800-634-0797 (toll free)

Mail: IRB Chair

c/o AIR

1000 Thomas Jefferson Street NW

Washington, DC 20007

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid 

OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is XXXX.XXXX, OMB expiration date is XXXX, XX, 

2014. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 30 minutes per respondent, including the time to review 

instructions, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information collected. If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the 

time estimate(s) or suggestions for improving this form, please write to: U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC 20202. If you have 

comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, write directly to: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of 

Education Sciences, 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20208. 
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—65

Background Information

1. What is the name of your school? [text box]

2. What is your current position at this school? (Check all that apply.)

• Teacher

• Counselor

• Dean

• Principal 

• Assistant principal

• Other school staff

3. What grade-level are the majority of students you work with? (Check all that apply.)

• Grade 8 or lower

• Grade 9

• Grade 10

• Grade 11

• Grade 12

• I teach students in multiple grades.

Expectations and Beliefs

The following set of questions asks about your expectations and beliefs related to college

preparation. In this survey, “college” refers to all postsecondary educational opportunities, including 

two-year colleges, four-year colleges or universities, community colleges, and career or technical 

colleges. Please indicate to what extent you disagree or agree with the following statements:

4. I believe that our school should prepare all students to go on to college.*23

• Strongly disagree 

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree 

 

23 An * indicates that this question is based on a question included on a survey from the Center for Applied Research 

and Educational Improvement (CAREI) at the University of Minnesota. ** indicates that this question is based on a 

question included on the Consortium on Chicago School Research 2009 12th-grade student survey 

(http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/downloads/23532009_my_voice_senior_student_codebook.pdf). *** indicates that this 

question is based on a question included on a survey of counselors conducted by Northwestern University’s High 

School to College Transition Study (James E. Rosenbaum, principal investigator). Some questions have been 

reworded slightly to accommodate this study.
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—66

5. School personnel share a common goal to prepare all students for college.*

• Strongly disagree 

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree 

6. All teachers should be able to advise students on college options.*

• Strongly disagree 

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree 

7. College counseling is the job of school counselors, not teachers.*

• Strongly disagree 

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree 

College Knowledge

The following questions ask about your knowledge of college and career readiness. Please rate 

your own level of knowledge in the following areas:

8. The range of postsecondary options available to students*

• None

• Limited

• Basic

• Moderate

• Proficient

• Advanced
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—67

9. The level of academic skill (for example, reading, writing, mathematics) necessary for 

college work*

• None

• Limited

• Basic

• Moderate

• Proficient

• Advanced

10. Tests that students need for admission to college*

• None

• Limited

• Basic

• Moderate

• Proficient

• Advanced

11. The college application process*

• None

• Limited

• Basic

• Moderate

• Proficient

• Advanced

12. Financing a college education*

• None

• Limited

• Basic

• Moderate

• Proficient

• Advanced
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—68

13. The types of personal and social skills that students need to succeed in college

• None

• Limited

• Basic

• Moderate

• Proficient

• Advanced

14. So far this school year, have you received any professional development related to 

preparing students for college?

• Yes

• No

College-Readiness Supports

The following questions ask about any services, activities, and resources that your school offers 

to help students prepare to succeed in college. 

15. What percentage of students who graduate from your high school are prepared 

academically to succeed in nonremedial college classes?

• Less than 25 percent

• 25–50 percent

• 51–75 percent

• More than 75 percent

• I do not know.

16. Do all students at your school develop a written plan for achieving their educational or 

career goals after high school?

• Yes

• No

• Unsure

17. What percentage of students at your high school use a technology platform (e.g., 

Naviance, Minnesota Career Information System [MCIS], Wisconsin Career 

Information System [WCIS]) to support the development of their postsecondary plans?

• Less than 25 percent

• 25–50 percent

• 51–75 percent

• More than 75 percent

• I do not know.
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—69

18. Do staff members at your school provide feedback to students about whether they are on 

track academically for college?

• Yes [continue to Q18]

• No [skip to Q20]

• Unsure [skip to Q20]

19. How often do all students in Grades 10 through 12 receive feedback?

• All students in Grades 10 through 12 receive feedback at least once per school 

year.

• All students in Grades 10 through 12 receive feedback more than once per school 

year.

• Not all students receive feedback every year.

20. How do students receive feedback? (Check all that apply.)

• In mandatory discussions with a counselor or teacher (for example during course 

scheduling)

• In informal discussions with a counselor

• In informal discussions with a teacher or other school staff member

• In writing without discussion with a school staff member

• Other

21. What practices does your school offer to assist students with the transition to college?

(Check all that apply.)***

• Holding or participating in college fairs

• Consulting with college representatives about requirements

• Encouraging students to visit colleges

• Offering college visits organized by your school

• Offering programs that help students plan or prepare for college (such as Upward 

Bound, AVID, College Possible, etc.)

• Large assemblies or information sessions where students receive information 

about searching for, and applying to, college

• Large assemblies or information sessions where students receive information 

about paying for college

22. What percentage of seniors who plan to attend college take the necessary steps to enroll 

in college? 

• Less than 25 percent

• 25–50 percent

• 51–75 percent
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—70

• More than 75 percent

• I do not know.

23. What kinds of assistance does your school offer to help students complete college 

enrollment actions? (Check all that apply.)

• Assistance identifying colleges that match a student’s interests, goals, and level of 

preparation

• Assistance with college applications, individually or in small groups 

• Assistance with completing the Free Application for Federal Student Aid 

(FAFSA), individually or in small groups

• Assistance with identifying scholarship opportunities, individually or in small 

groups

• Assistance with completing scholarship applications, individually or in small 

groups

• Classes or workshops to prepare students to take college admissions exams

24. Does your school collect timely information about which students complete the following 

college enrollment actions?

Yes No

College applications

FAFSA application

Scholarship applications

Completion of a college admissions exam

25. What portion of your seniors receive school help with the following?*** 

Less 

than 25

percent

25–50

percent

51–75

percent

More 

than 75

percent

I 

don’t 

know

Completing college applications

Planning how to pay for college

Filling out financial aid forms

Identifying scholarship opportunities

Completing scholarship applications
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—71

26. What percentage of your students understand the requirements of different careers?

• Less than 25 percent

• 25–50 percent

• 51–75 percent

• More than 75 percent

• I do not know.

27. What percentage of your students understand which careers will match their personal 

goals and abilities?

• Less than 25 percent

• 25–50 percent

• 51–75 percent

• More than 75 percent

• I do not know.

28. What kinds of career exploration activities, if any, does your school offer to students?

(Check all that apply.)

• Assistance writing a resume 

• Speakers who discuss careers

• A career interest inventory

• Job shadowing

• Assistance in finding internships

• Information about educational and skill requirements of different careers

• Information about the earnings payoffs of different careers

29. Who at your school is responsible for delivering college-related programs, services, 

activities, and resources to students? (Check all that apply.)

• Counselors

• Teachers

• Administrators

30. For which of your students do you communicate with parents or guardians about their 

child’s readiness for college?

• None

• A few students

• Most students

• All students
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—72

31. How often do you communicate with parents or guardians about a child’s readiness for 

college?

• More than once per school year for all students

• At least once per school year for all students 

• At least once per school year for some students

• Other

Thank you for participating in this survey!
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—73

Attachment A-7. Spring Staff Survey 

Purpose. The Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) Midwest at American Institutes for 

Research is conducting this survey as part of its evaluation of Ramp-Up to Readiness. We want 

to learn about your experiences with Ramp-Up overall and also how your experiences relate to 

the program’s curriculum, tools, and professional development. The information you provide 

will be used to improve Ramp-Up and other college-readiness programs. 

Confidentiality. REL Midwest will keep all collected data confidential. 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. 

Risks. There are no known risks related to participating in this survey. 

Voluntary Participation. You have the right to discontinue your participation in this survey at 

any time without consequences. We hope you will answer all the questions, but if there is a 

question you do not wish to answer, simply skip it.

Procedure. This survey will take about 20 to 30 minutes, and you will receive a $25 gift card for 

your participation.

Contact Information. If you have questions or concerns about this study, please contact Jim 

Lindsay at jlindsay@air.org or 630-649-6591. If you have concerns or questions about your 

rights as a participant, contact the chair of AIR’s Institutional Review Board (which is 

responsible for the protection of study participants) using the following contact information:

E-Mail: IRBChair@air.org

Phone: 1-800-634-0797 (toll free)

Mail: IRB Chair

c/o AIR

1000 Thomas Jefferson Street NW

Washington, DC 20007

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid 

OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is XXXX.XXXX, OMB expiration date is XXXX, XX, 

2014. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 30 minutes per respondent, including the time to review 

instructions, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information collected. If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the 

time estimate(s) or suggestions for improving this form, please write to: U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC 20202. If you have 

comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, write directly to: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of 

Education Sciences, 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20208. 
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—74

Background Information

1. What is your current position at this school? (Check all that apply.)

• Teacher

• Counselor

• Dean

• Principal 

• Assistant principal

• Other school staff

2. What is your role in delivering the Ramp-Up to Readiness program? (Check all that 

apply.)

• I do not play any role in delivering the Ramp-Up to Readiness program. [end 

survey and display “Thank you for participating in this survey”] 

• Ramp-Up coordinator

• Member of the Ramp-Up leadership team

• Ramp-Up advisor (a teacher who facilitates Ramp-Up advisories)

• Other. Please indicate your role: [text box]

[If Q2=Ramp-Up advisor, ask Q3; else, skip to Q4]

3. What is the grade-level of students in your Ramp-Up advisory?

• Grade 9

• Grade 10

• Grade 11

• Grade 12

4. What is the name of your school? [text box]

Ramp-Up Goals, Components, and Roles

The following set of questions asks about your understanding of the goals of the Ramp-Up to 

Readiness program (“Ramp-Up”) and your role in it. Please indicate to what extent you disagree 

or agree with the following statements:

5. I understand the goals of Ramp-Up.

• Strongly disagree 

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree 
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—75

6. I understand Ramp-Up’s five pillars of readiness (academic, admissions, career, 

financial, and personal and social readiness).

• Strongly disagree 

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree 

7. I understand my role in delivering Ramp-Up.

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree 

8. Do you know who the Ramp-Up Coordinator at your school is?

• Yes

• No

• I’m not sure.

[If Q2=Ramp-Up advisor, ask Q9; else, skip to 10]

9. My school and district gives me enough time to implement the Ramp-Up program.

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree 

[If Q2=Ramp-Up coordinator or Member of the Ramp-Up leadership team, ask 10; else, skip 

to 11]

10. My school and district gives me enough time to coordinate the Ramp-Up program.

• Strongly disagree 

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree 
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—76

Expectations and Beliefs

The following questions ask about your expectations and beliefs related to college preparation. In this 

survey, “college” refers to all postsecondary educational opportunities, including two-year colleges, 

four-year colleges or universities, community colleges, and career or technical colleges. Please 

indicate to what extent you disagree or agree with the following statements:

11. I believe that our school should prepare all students to go on to college.*24

• Strongly disagree 

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree 

12. School personnel share a common goal to prepare all students for college.*

• Strongly disagree 

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree 

13. All teachers should be able to advise students on college options.*

• Strongly disagree 

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree 

14. College counseling is the job of school counselors, not teachers.*

• Strongly disagree 

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree 

 

24 An * indicates that this question is based on a question included on a survey from the Center for Applied Research 

and Educational Improvement (CAREI) at the University of Minnesota.
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—77

College Knowledge

The following questions ask about your knowledge of college and career readiness. Please rate 

your own level of knowledge in the following areas:

15. The range of postsecondary options available to students*

• None

• Limited

• Basic

• Moderate

• Proficient

• Advanced

16. The level of academic skill (for example, reading, writing, mathematics) necessary for 

college work*

• None

• Limited

• Basic

• Moderate

• Proficient

• Advanced

17. Tests that students need for admission to college*

• None

• Limited

• Basic

• Moderate

• Proficient

• Advanced

18. The college application process*

• None

• Limited

• Basic

• Moderate

• Proficient

• Advanced
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—78

19. Financing a college education*

• None

• Limited

• Basic

• Moderate

• Proficient

• Advanced

20. The types of personal and social skills that students need to succeed in college

• None

• Limited

• Basic

• Moderate

• Proficient

• Advanced

Ramp-Up Curriculum

The following questions ask about your perceptions of the Ramp-Up curriculum taught in 

advisories and workshops. 

21. How familiar are you with the Ramp-Up curriculum?

• Not at all familiar [skip to q33]

• Slightly familiar [continue to q22]

• Moderately familiar [continue to q22]

• Very familiar [continue to q22] 

Please indicate the extent to which you disagree or agree with the following statements: 

22. The Ramp-Up curriculum helps students develop postsecondary plans.

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—79

23. The Ramp-Up curriculum enables students to make informed decisions about preparing 

for college.

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

24. The Ramp-Up curriculum enables students to make informed decisions about preparing 

for a career.

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

25. The Ramp-Up curriculum helps students develop the belief that they can turn their 

postsecondary plans into reality.

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

26. The Ramp-Up curriculum helps students understand whether they are on or off track to 

reach college readiness by the end of high school.

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

27. The Ramp-Up curriculum provides students with clear information about what steps 

must be taken to enroll in college.

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—80

28. The Ramp-Up curriculum provides students with clear information about when key

steps in the enrollment process must occur.

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

29. The Ramp-Up curriculum covers appropriate topics on preparing for college.

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

30. The Ramp-Up curriculum spends the appropriate amount of time on each topic.

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

31. The Ramp-Up curriculum consists of a coherent sequence of concepts and ideas.

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

32. The Ramp-Up curriculum is engaging to students.

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

33. Have you taught at least one Ramp-Up advisory this school year?

• Yes [continue to q34]

• No [skip to q41]
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—81

34. How many of the Ramp-Up lessons did you teach this school year in your advisory?

• Fewer than five lessons [continue to q35]

• 5–10 lessons [continue to q35]

• 11–15 lessons [continue to q35]

• 16–20 lessons [continue to q35]

• 21–25 lessons [continue to q35]

• All 28 lessons [skip to q36]

• I don’t remember. [skip to q36]

35. Why did you teach fewer than 28 lessons? [text box]

36. Did you receive an Advisor Guide at the beginning of the school year that describes the 

lesson plan and activities for each weekly advisory? 

• Yes

• No

37. How often did you receive information from the Ramp-Up coordinator about a lesson 

prior to teaching it? 

• Never

• Rarely

• Sometimes

• Often

• Always

• I am not sure who the Ramp-Up coordinator in my school is.

38. Did you teach the Ramp-Up lessons as they were designed or did you modify them?

• I taught them without any modifications. 

• I modified some of the lessons.

• I modified most of the lessons.

• I modified all of the lessons.

39. How often did you provide the Ramp-Up instructional materials and resources to 

students at the time assigned for the advisory?

• Never

• Rarely

• Sometimes

• Often
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—82

• Always

40. Did you have enough time to prepare lesson content prior to teaching it?

• Never

• Rarely

• Sometimes

• Often 

• Always

Ramp-Up Tools 

The Ramp-Up program includes two tools to assist students with their plans after high school. 

These are the Postsecondary Plan and the Readiness Rubric.

The following questions ask about the Postsecondary Plan.

41. How familiar are you with the Postsecondary Plan?

• Not at all familiar [skip to q46]

• Slightly familiar [continue to q42]

• Moderately familiar [continue to q42]

• Very familiar [continue to q42] 

Thinking about the Postsecondary Plan and how students, parents, and school staff use it, please 

indicate the extent to which you disagree or agree with the following statements.

42. The Postsecondary Plan helps students to develop a plan for their life after high school.

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

43. I use the Postsecondary Plan when helping students develop plans for their life after high 

school.

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—83

44. How many students in your Ramp-Up advisory completed the Postsecondary Plan at 

least once this year?

• None

• A few students

• Most students

• All students

• I do not teach a Ramp-Up advisory.

45. For how many students in your Ramp-Up advisory have you discussed the

Postsecondary Plan with his or her parents?

• None

• A few students

• Most students

• All students

• I do not teach a Ramp-Up advisory.

The following questions ask about the Readiness Rubric.

46. How familiar are you with the Readiness Rubric?

• Not at all familiar [skip to q51]

• Slightly familiar [continue to q47]

• Moderately familiar [continue to q47]

• Very familiar [continue to q47] 

Thinking about the Readiness Rubric and how students, parents, and school staff use it, please 

indicate the extent to which you disagree or agree with the following statements.

47. The Readiness Rubric helps students to monitor their progress toward their 

postsecondary goals.

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

48. I use the Readiness Rubric to monitor students’ progress toward their postsecondary 

goals.

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—84

• Agree

• Strongly agree

49. How many students in your Ramp-Up advisory completed the Readiness Rubric at least 

twice this year?

• None

• A few students

• Most students

• All students

• I do not teach a Ramp-Up advisory.

50. For how many students in your Ramp-Up advisory have you discussed the Readiness 

Rubric with his or her parents? 

• None

• A few students

• Most students

• All students

• I do not teach a Ramp-Up advisory.

Ramp-Up Activity: Personal Readiness Evaluation for Postsecondary 

[If Q2=Ramp-Up advisor and Q3=Grade 10 ask Q51 – Q55; else, skip to Q56]

The following questions ask about the Personal Readiness Evaluation for Postsecondary (PREP) 

survey.

51. How familiar are you with the PREP survey?

• Not at all familiar [skip to q56]

• Slightly familiar [continue to q52]

• Moderately familiar [continue to q52]

• Very familiar [continue to q52] 

Thinking about the PREP survey and how students, parents, and school staff use it, please 

indicate the extent to which you disagree or agree with the following statements.

52. The PREP survey helps students to understand their personal readiness for college.

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—85

53. I use the PREP to understand students’ personal readiness for college.

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

54. How many students in your Ramp-Up advisory completed the PREP survey at least once 

this year?

• None

• A few students

• Most students

• All students

• I do not teach a Ramp-Up advisory.

55. For how many students in your Ramp-Up advisory have you discussed a student’s PREP 

survey results with his or her parents? 

• None

• A few students

• Most students

• All students 

• I do not teach a Ramp-Up advisory. 

Professional Development

The following questions ask about professional development related to Ramp-Up.

56. Are you a Ramp-Up coordinator or member of the Ramp-Up leadership team?

• Yes [continue to q57]

• No [skip to q62]

• Uncertain [skip to q62]

57. Have you received any training by the University of Minnesota’s College Readiness 

Consortium?

• Yes [continue to q58]

• No [skip to q62]

• Uncertain [skip to q62]
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—86

Please indicate the extent to which you disagree or agree with the following statements:

58. The training I received provided useful information to me about how to gain staff 

support for implementing a schoolwide college-readiness program. 

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

59. The training I received provided useful information to me about my role and 

responsibilities in delivering Ramp-Up. 

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

60. Staff members at the College Readiness Consortium have responded effectively to 

questions I have asked about the Ramp-Up program. 

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

• I have not asked the College Readiness Consortium any questions about RampUp.

61. Were the travel costs of your training at the University of Minnesota paid by your school 

or district?

• Yes

• No

62. Have you received any training about Ramp-Up at your school?

• Yes [continue to q63]

• No [skip to q72]

• Uncertain [skip to q72]

63. How many times this school year did you attend training on Ramp-Up?

• Not at all

• One time

• A couple of times
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—87

• Every month

• More than once a month

• Other: [text box to specify]

Please indicate the extent to which you disagree or agree with the following statements:

64. The training I received helped me to understand why my school has adopted a collegereadiness program.

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

65. The training I received helped me understand the Ramp-Up curriculum.

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

66. The training I received helped me understand the Ramp-Up tools (specifically, the 

Postsecondary Plan and the Readiness Rubric).

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

67. The training I received provided useful information to me about my role and 

responsibilities in delivering Ramp-Up. 

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

68. I have enough information about the college selection and enrollment process to teach 

the Ramp-Up curriculum.

• Strongly disagree [continue to q69]

• Disagree [continue to q69]

• Agree [skip to q70]
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—88

• Strongly agree [skip to q70]

• I do not teach the Ramp-Up curriculum.

69. What additional information would be useful? [text box]

70. I have enough information about the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in college 

to teach the Ramp-Up curriculum.

• Strongly disagree [continue to q71]

• Disagree [continue to q71]

• Agree [skip to q72]

• Strongly agree [skip to q72]

• I do not teach the Ramp-Up curriculum.

71. What additional information would be useful? [text box]

Perceptions of Program Effectiveness

The following questions ask about your perceptions of Ramp-Up’s effects. Please indicate the 

extent to which you disagree or agree with the following statements.

72. The Ramp-Up program increases students’ ability to set educational goals.

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

73. The Ramp-Up program increases students’ ability to make and monitor progress toward 

educational goals.

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

74. The Ramp-Up program increases students’ ability to create relationships to support their 

educational goals.

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—89

75. The Ramp-Up program increases students’ ability to meet admissions requirements at a 

range of colleges.

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

76. The Ramp-Up program increases students’ likelihood of succeeding academically at 

college.

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

77. The Ramp-Up program increases students’ ability to find a career that matches their 

goals and abilities.

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

78. The Ramp-Up program increases students’ understanding of ways to pay for college (for 

example, through savings, loans, financial aid).

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

79. The Ramp-Up program has increased my ability to help students prepare and plan for 

college.

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

80. I have more productive conversations with students about how to prepare for life after 

high school because of Ramp-Up.

• Strongly disagree
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—90

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

• I have not had conversations with students about how to prepare for life after high 

school.

81. I have more productive conversations with families about how to prepare their children 

for life after high school because of Ramp-Up.

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

• I have not had conversations with families about how to prepare their children for 

life after high school.

82. I have more productive conversations with colleagues about how to prepare students for 

life after high school because of Ramp-Up.

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

• I have not had conversations with colleagues about how to prepare students for 

life after high school.

83. Which students, if any, can benefit from Ramp-Up? (Check all that apply.)

• Students performing in the lower third of their class academically

• Students performing in the middle third of their class academically

• Students performing in the upper third of their class academically

• Students who would be the first in their families to attend college

• Students whose parents attended college

• All types of students

• No students 

• Uncertain

Final Thoughts

Finally, thinking about the Ramp-Up program overall...

84. What are the strengths of Ramp-Up? [text box]
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—91

85. What are the weaknesses of Ramp-Up? [text box]

86. What factors, if any, have made implementing Ramp-Up challenging at your school? 

[text box]

87. What factors, if any, have facilitated the implementation of Ramp-Up at your school? 

[text box]

Thank you for participating in this survey!
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—92

Attachment A-8. Educational Sciences Reform Act (ESRA)

This evaluation is authorized through provisions in the Education Sciences Reform Act (ESRA) 

of 2002. Specifically, ESRA Part D, Section 174 (4) describes the role of regional education 

laboratories and its mission and function. One aspect of that role is

(4) in the event such quality applied research does not exist as determined by the 

regional educational laboratory or the Department, carrying out applied research 

projects that are designed to serve the particular educational needs (in prekindergarten

through grade 16) of the region in which the regional educational laboratory is 

located, that reflect findings from scientifically valid research, and that result in userfriendly, replicable school-based classroom applications geared toward promoting 

increased student achievement, including using applied research to assist in solving 

site-specific problems and assisting in development activities (including high-quality

and on-going professional development and effective parental involvement strategies)

(ESRA, Part D, Section 174, f.4).
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—93

Attachment A-9. Federal Register Notices
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—94

Attachment A-10. Confidentiality Form and Affidavits

CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT

Ramp-Up to Readiness Implementation Study

(American Institutes for Research under Contract No. ED-IES-12-C-0004)

Safeguards for Individuals Against Invasion of Privacy: In accordance with the Privacy Act of 

1974 (5 United States Code 552a), the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-

279), the Federal Statistical Confidentiality Order of 1997, the E-Government Act of 2002 

(Public Law 107-347), and the Computer Security Act of 1987, American Institutes for Research 

(AIR) and all its subcontractors are required to comply with the applicable provisions of the 

legislation, regulations, and guidelines and to undertake all necessary safeguards for individuals 

against invasions of privacy.

To provide this assurance and these safeguards in performance of work on this project, all staff, 

consultants, and agents of AIR, and its subcontractors who have any access to study data, shall 

be bound by the following assurance.

Assurance of Confidentiality

1. In accordance with all applicable legislation, regulations, and guidelines, AIR assures all 

respondents that their responses may be used only for statistical purposes and may not be 

disclosed, or used, in identifiable form for any other purpose except as required by law 

[Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (ESRA 2002), 20 U.S. Code, § 9573].

2. The following safeguards will be implemented to assure that confidentiality is protected as 

allowable by law (20 U.S.C. § 9573) by all employees, consultants, agents, and 

representatives of AIR and all subcontractors and that physical security of the records is 

provided:

a. All staff with access to data will take an oath of nondisclosure and sign an affidavit to 

that effect.

b. At each site where these items are processed or maintained, all confidential records that 

will permit identification of individuals shall be kept in a safe, locked room when not in 

use or personally attended by project staff.

c. When confidential records are not locked, admittance to the room or area in which they

reside shall be restricted to staff sworn to confidentiality on this project.

d. All electronic data shall be maintained in secure and protected data files, and personally 

identifying information shall be maintained on separate files from statistical data 

collected under this contract.

e. All data files on network or multi-user systems shall be under strict control of a database 

manager with access restricted to project staff sworn to confidentiality, and then only on 

a need-to-know basis.

f. All data files on single-user computers shall be password protected and all such machines 

will be locked and maintained in a locked room when not attended by project staff sworn 

to confidentiality.
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—95

g. External electronically stored data files (e.g., tapes on diskettes) shall be maintained in a 

locked storage device in a locked room when not attended by project staff sworn to 

confidentiality.

h. Any data released to the general public shall be appropriately masked such that linkages 

to individually identifying information are protected to avoid individual identification in 

disclosed data.

i. Data or copies of data may not leave the authorized site for any reason.

3. Staff, consultants, agents, or AIR and all its subcontractors will take all necessary steps to 

ensure that the letter and intent of all applicable legislation, regulations, and guidelines are 

enforced at all times through appropriate qualifications standards for all personnel working 

on this project and through adequate training and periodic follow-up procedures.

By my signature affixed below, I hereby swear and affirm that I have carefully read this 

statement and fully understand the statement as well as legislative and regulatory assurances that 

pertain to the confidential nature of all records to be handled in regard to this project and will 

adhere to all safeguards that have been developed to provide such confidentiality. As an 

employee, consultant, agent, or representative of AIR or one of its subcontractors, consultants, 

agents, or representatives, I understand that I am prohibited by law from disclosing any such 

confidential information to anyone other than staff, consultant, agents, or representatives of AIR, 

its subcontractors, or agents, and Institutes of Education Science. I understand that any willful 

and knowing individual disclosure or allowance of disclosure in violation of the applicable 

legislation, regulations, and guidelines is punishable by law and would subject the violator to 

possible fine or imprisonment.

(Signature) (Date)
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—96

AFFIDAVIT OF NONDISCLOSURE

Ramp-Up to Readiness Implementation Study

(American Institutes for Research under Contract No. ED-IES-12-C-0004)

[insert name]

[insert position]

Date of Assignment to Ramp-Up to Readiness Implementation Study: January 2014

American Institutes for Research

1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW

Washington, DC 20007-3835

I, [insert name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that when given access to any Ramp-Up to 

Readiness Implementation Study databases or files containing individually identifiable 

information, I will not:

i. use or reveal any individually identifiable information furnished, acquired, retrieved or 

assembled by me or others, under the provisions of Section 183 of the Education 

Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (PL 107-279) and Title V, subtitle A of the E-Government 

Act of 2002 (PL 107-347) for any purpose other than statistical purposes specified in the 

NCES survey, project or contract;

ii. make any disclosure or publication whereby a sample unit or survey respondent could be 

identified or the data furnished by or related to any particular person under this section 

could be identified; or

iii. permit anyone other than the individuals authorized by the Commissioner of the National 

Center for Education Statistics to examine the individual reports.

(Signature)

(The penalty for unlawful disclosure is a fine of not more than $250,000 [under 18 U.S.C. 3571] 

or imprisonment for not more than five years [under 18 U.S.C. 3559], or both. The word “swear”

should be stricken out wherever it appears when a person elects to affirm the affidavit rather than 

to swear to it.)

State of _____________________________

County of _______________________________

Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me, ______________________, a Notary Public in and 

for ________________County, State of ________________________, on this date,

______________________.

___________________________________________

Notary Public

My commission expires: _____________________________.
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—97

Attachment A-11. Assumptions and Results for the Power Analyses

The impact study proposes a cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) with blocking to 

investigate the effect of Ramp-Up on three confirmatory outcomes: completion of the FAFSA 

and two measures in the domain of personal readiness, Commitment to College and Goal 

Striving. For these outcomes, power is estimated using a constant-effects blocked cluster random 

assignment design with the treatment occurring at Level 2 and block dummies as intercepts (no 

interaction with the treatment variable). 

The following power analyses use CRT-Power software to estimate the number of schools 

needed to have adequate statistical power (0.80) for detecting differences between students in the 

treatment and control schools for the confirmatory outcomes. The power analyses use a 

correction for multiple statistical tests to estimate power for the two outcomes within the domain 

of personal readiness. 

General Assumptions

REL Midwest researchers will randomly assign schools within blocks. Blocks will be created for 

each state, and quartiles of the standardized sum of two standardized school variables, 

percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and average MCA mathematics 

score.25 Half of the schools from each of the four blocks will be randomly assigned to receive the 

treatment. Statistical models examining program impacts will include a school-level covariate, 

which will be the baseline year’s school-level dependent variable (e.g., the percentage of 

students completing the FAFSA) when it is available. Unless otherwise stated, all analyses are 

based on the following assumptions: (1) 127 students per grade, which was the average number 

of students in Grade 12 in the high schools that implemented Ramp-Up in 2012–13 and planning 

to implement in 2013–14 (MOHE, 2012d); (2) the inclusion of a school-level covariate 

explaining 60 percent of the variance in the mean outcome for binary outcomes and 75 percent 

for continuous outcomes;

26 and (3) an alpha of 0.05 for FAFSA completion and 0.025 for the two 

personal readiness measures. Assumptions about the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for 

continuous outcomes may not translate well to analyses with binary outcomes. For each 

outcome, we make assumptions about the ICC level based on (1) the likely range of school-level 

outcomes in the study schools based on data for the 2012–13 cohort when available or discussion 

with the program developer and alliance members, and (2) a review of ICC’s for binary

outcomes in seven RCT’s that indicates that the median ICC for binary outcomes across studies 

was 0.05 (Schochet, 2013). Table A-11.1 shows the power associated with different numbers of 

 

25 Urbanicity will be considered as an additional blocking factor if the diversity of locale is greater in the final set of 

schools than in previous samples of schools that have volunteered for Ramp-Up to Readiness. 

26 Bloom, Richburg-Hayes, and Black (2007) estimate that the average proportion of school-level variance reduced 

by a pretest school-level covariate ranges from 0.91 to 0.97 for 10th graders in an analysis of reading and 

mathematics achievement. Similarly, Hedges and Hedberg (2007) estimate a reduction ranging from 0.87 to 0.98 in 

the school-level variance of reading or mathematics achievement with the use of a school-level pretest for high 

school students. Schochet (2013), however, concludes that the amount of variation explained by a binary schoollevel covariate is less than that from a continuous school-level covariate. We have not found estimates for the 

specific outcomes used in this analysis but have assumed a lower estimate of variance explained for all outcomes 

and even lower for binary outcomes. 
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—98

schools given the stated assumptions. Detailed discussion regarding each power analysis follows 

the table.

Table A-11.1 Minimum Detectable Effect Sizes Based on 

Numbers of Schools, Teachers, and Students

Domain Measure

Effect to 

Detect ICC

% Variation 

Explained by 

Level-2 

Covariate

Number 

of

Students

Estimated 

Power 

With 48 

Schools

Estimated 

Power 

With 54 

Schools

College 

actions

Completing 

the FAFSA

5 

percentage 

points

0.02 0.60 127 0.77 0.83

Personal 

readiness

Commitment 

to college

0.17 

standard 

deviations

0.10 0.75 90 0.79 0.86

Personal 

readiness

Goal striving 0.17 

standard 

deviations

0.10 0.75 90 0.79 0.86

Power analysis for college enrollment actions. The study will assess the impact of Ramp-Up 

on completing the FAFSA for students in Grade 12. In four studies with seven estimates of the 

impact of a college-readiness intervention on FAFSA completion, the treatment effect ranges 

from not significant to 24 percentage points. Among the 2013–14 Ramp-Up schools, the average 

FAFSA completion rate was 54 percent (calculations are based on the school-level FAFSA 

completions by July 2013 reported by the U.S. Department of Education and the total Grade 12 

enrollment for 2012–13 reported by MDE). The treatment effect to identify is 5 percentage 

points. The power analysis assumes that 95 percent of schools in the study cohort will have 

FAFSA completion rates ranging between 39.9 percent and 68.1 percent, which is consistent

with the actual range among 2013–14 Ramp-Up schools (i.e., 95 percent of schools had a 

FAFSA completion rate between 42 percent and 67 percent). This range translates into an ICC of 

0.02. This is similar to the ICC for college expectations (0.03) or always completes homework 

(0.04) reported in Schochet (2013).

Power analysis for personal readiness. The study will assess the impact of Ramp-Up on two 

measures of personal readiness—Commitment to College and Goal Striving—scales measured 

on ACT’s ENGAGE assessment. The study team has not found any evaluations using personal 

college readiness as an outcome, but other evaluations have looked at the impact of interventions 

on related constructs. In a meta-analysis of 68 social-emotional learning interventions aimed at 

improving social-emotional skills (which include goal setting) among K–12 students, the mean 

effect size was 0.57 standard deviations (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger,

2011). The power analysis assumes an ICC equal to 0.10 an effect size of 0.17 standard

deviations, and 90 students per school taking the assessment. Because there are two measures in 

the domain of personal readiness, power analyses assume an alpha of 0.025 to correct for 

multiple statistical tests.
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—99

Attachment A-12. Components of Implementation Fidelity and Their Indicators

Table A-12.1 Components and Indicators Associated With Ramp-Up Implementation

Implementation 

Component Subcomponent Data Source Indicator Definition of Adequate

Structural 

supports

Ramp-Up 

leadership team

Extant data 

from 

Consortium

When was the leadership team 

established?

1.0 = Before August 

0.5 = In August or September 

0.25 = Later than October 

0.0 = Never

Structural 

supports

Ramp-Up 

leadership team

Extant data 

from CRC

Does the leadership team identified in 

the annual plan consist of a principal, 

a counselor, and a teacher?

1.0 = The team consists of a principal, a 

counselor, and a teacher

0.5 = The team consists of three people with 

two of the following: the principal, a 

counselor, and a teacher

0.0 = Else

Structural 

supports

Ramp-Up 

leadership team

Extant data 

from CRC

When did the Ramp-Up leadership 

team complete a CRC-approved 

Annual Plan?

1.0 = Before August 

0.5 = In August or September 

0.25 = Later than October 

0.0 = Never

Structural 

supports

Ramp-Up 

leadership team

Extant data 

from CRC

When did the Ramp-Up leadership 

team complete a CRC-approved 

Implementation Calendar?

1.0 = Before September 

0.5 = In September 

0.25 = Later than September 

0.0 = Never

Structural 

supports

Ramp-Up 

leadership team

May focus 

group (2)

How often did the Ramp-Up 

leadership team meet this school year 

to guide and monitor Ramp-Up 

implementation in your school?

1.0 = The leadership team met at least four 

times.

0.5 = The leadership team met two or three 

times.

0.0 = The leadership team met once or not at 

all.
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—100

Implementation 

Component Subcomponent Data Source Indicator Definition of Adequate

Structural 

supports

Ramp-Up 

coordinator

Spring staff 

survey (2)

Someone at the school identifies 

himself or herself as the Ramp-Up 

coordinator.

1.0 = Yes

0.0 = No

Structural 

supports

Ramp-Up 

coordinator

Extant data 

from CRC

When was a Ramp-Up coordinator 

chosen? 

1.0 = Before August 

0.5 = In August or September 

0.25 = Later than October 

0.0 = Never

Structural 

supports

Ramp-Up 

coordinator

May focus 

group (1)

Have there been any changes over the 

school year in who serves as the 

Ramp-Up coordinator?

1.0 = No 

0.0 = Yes

Structural 

supports

Ramp-Up 

coordinator

Spring staff 

survey (8)

Do you know who the Ramp-Up 

coordinator at your school is?

1.0 = Yes

0.0 = Else

Structural 

supports

Ramp-Up 

advisors

Fall staff 

survey (28)

Who at your school is responsible for 

delivering college-related programs, 

services, activities, and resources to 

students?

1.0 = Includes all teachers; 

0.5 = Includes most teachers;

0.0 = Includes no teachers 

Structural 

supports

Ramp-Up 

advisors

Spring staff 

survey (1) and 

(2)

The percentage of teachers who teach 

advisories based on the number of 

staff who identify as a teacher in (1) 

and who report being a Ramp-Up 

advisor in (2)

1.0 = At least 90 percent of teachers 

0.5 = 75 percent to less than 90 percent of 

teachers

0.0 = Less than 75 percent

Structural 

supports

Advanced 

course offerings

Extant 

administrative 

data

Do students have the opportunity to 

take college-level courses (e.g., dualcredit, AP, IB, or College in the 

Schools)?

1.0 = Students have the opportunity to take 

dual-credit, AP, IB, and College in the Schools 

classes.

0.5 = Students have the opportunity to take 

some but not all of the specified college-credit 

coursework.

0.0 = Students do not have the opportunity to 

take any of these courses.
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—101

Implementation 

Component Subcomponent Data Source Indicator Definition of Adequate

Structural 

supports

Advanced 

course offerings

Extant 

administrative 

data

What kinds of students are eligible to 

participate in college-level courses?

1.0 = Sophomores, juniors, and seniors

0.5 = Juniors and seniors

0.0 = Else

Structural 

supports

Advanced 

course offerings

Extant 

administrative 

data

Do students have the opportunity to 

take honors courses?

1.0 = Yes

0.0 = No

Structural 

supports

Time Spring staff 

survey (9)

My school and district gives me 

enough time to implement the RampUp program.

1.0 = Agree or agree strongly

0.0 = Disagree or disagree strongly

Structural 

supports

Time Spring staff 

survey (2) and 

(10)

My school and district gives me 

enough time to coordinate the RampUp program. [applied to leadership 

team member]

1.0 = Agree or agree strongly

0.0 = Disagree or disagree strongly

Structural 

supports

Time Spring staff 

survey (2) and 

(10)

My school or district gives me 

enough time to coordinate the RampUp program. [applied to Ramp-Up 

coordinator]

1.0 = Agree or agree strongly

0.0 = Disagree or disagree strongly

Structural 

supports

Time Instructional 

log (13)

I had enough time to prepare lesson 

content prior to teaching today’s 

workshop.

1.0 = Agree or agree strongly

0.0 = Disagree or disagree strongly

Structural 

supports

Time Spring staff 

survey (40)

Did you have enough time to prepare 

lesson content prior to teaching it?

1.0 = Always

0.5 = Often or sometimes

0.0 = Rarely or never 
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—102

Implementation 

Component Subcomponent Data Source Indicator Definition of Adequate

Structural 

supports

Technology 

platform

Fall staff 

survey (16)

What percentage of students at your 

high school use a technology platform 

(e.g., Naviance, Minnesota Career 

Information System, Wisconsin 

Career Information System) to 

support the development of their 

postsecondary plans?

1.0 = More than 75 percent

0.5 = 51 percent to 75 percent

0.0 = Less than 51 percent

Structural 

supports

Technology 

platform

Fall student 

survey (5)

Is your postsecondary plan stored 

electronically?

1.0 = Yes

0.0 = Else

Structural 

supports

Technology 

platform

Spring student 

survey (5)

Is your postsecondary plan stored 

electronically?

1.0 = Yes

0.0 = Else

Professional 

development

For Ramp-Up 

leadership team 

or coordinator

Spring staff 

survey (2) and 

(57)

Have you received any training by the 

University of Minnesota’s College 

Readiness Consortium? [applied to 

Leadership Team members and 

Coordinator]

1.0 = Yes

0.0 = No

Professional 

development

For Ramp-Up 

leadership team 

or coordinator

Extant data 

from CRC

The percentage of ramp-up leadership 

team members present at the planning 

session

1.0 = 100 percent

0.5 = 66 percent

0.0 = Less than 66 percent

Professional 

development

For Ramp-Up 

leadership team 

or coordinator

Extant data 

from CRC

Did the Ramp-Up Coordinator attend 

the training?

1.0 = Yes

0.0 = No

Professional 

development

For Ramp-Up 

leadership team 

or coordinator

Spring staff 

survey (2) and 

(58)

The training I received provided 

useful information to me about how 

to gain staff support for implementing 

a schoolwide college-readiness 

program. [applies to Leadership Team 

and Coordinator]

1.0 = Agree or agree strongly

0.0 = Disagree or disagree strongly
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—103

Implementation 

Component Subcomponent Data Source Indicator Definition of Adequate

Professional 

development

For Ramp-Up 

leadership team 

or coordinator

Spring staff 

survey (59)

The training I received provided 

useful information to me about my 

role and responsibilities in delivering 

Ramp-Up.

1.0 = Agree or agree strongly

0.0 = Disagree or disagree strongly

Professional 

development

For Ramp-Up 

leadership team 

or coordinator

Spring staff 

survey (60)

Staff members at the College 

Readiness Consortium have 

responded effectively to questions I 

have asked about the Ramp-Up 

program.

1.0 = Agree or agree strongly

0.0 = Disagree or disagree strongly

Professional 

development

For teachers May focus 

group (10)

At the beginning of the school year, 

were four hours spent introducing 

staff to the Ramp-Up program?

1.0 = Yes

0.0 = No

Professional 

development

For teachers Spring staff 

survey (63)

How many times this school year did 

you attend training on Ramp-Up?

1.0 = Every month or more than once a month

0.5 = A couple of times

0.0 = One time or not at all

Professional 

development

For teachers Spring staff 

survey (64)

The training I received helped me to 

understand why my school has 

adopted a college-readiness program.

1.0 = Agree or agree strongly

0.0 = Disagree or disagree strongly

Professional 

development

For teachers Spring staff 

survey (65)

The training I received helped me 

understand the Ramp-Up curriculum.

1.0 = Agree or agree strongly

0.0 = Disagree or disagree strongly

Professional 

development

For teachers Spring staff 

survey (66)

The training I received helped me 

understand the Ramp-Up tools 

(specifically, the Postsecondary Plan 

and the Readiness Rubric).

1.0 = Agree or agree strongly

0.0 = Disagree or disagree strongly

Professional 

development

For teachers Spring staff 

survey (67)

The training I received provided 

useful information to me about my 

role and responsibilities in delivering 

Ramp-Up.

1.0 = Agree or agree strongly

0.0 = Disagree or disagree strongly
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—104

Implementation 

Component Subcomponent Data Source Indicator Definition of Adequate

Curriculum 

delivery

Materials Spring staff 

survey (36)

Did you receive an Advisor Guide at 

the beginning of the school year that 

describes the lesson plan and 

activities for each weekly advisory?

1.0 = Yes

0.0 = No

Curriculum 

delivery

Materials Spring staff 

survey (37)

How often did you receive 

information from the Ramp-Up 

coordinator about a lesson prior to 

teaching it? 

1.0 = Always

0.5 = Often or sometimes

0.0 = Rarely or never or Other

Curriculum 

delivery

Materials Spring staff 

survey (39)

How often did you provide the RampUp instructional materials and 

resources to students at the time 

assigned for the advisory?

1.0 = Always

0.5 = Often or sometimes

0.0 = Rarely or never 

Curriculum 

delivery

Sufficient 

information

Spring staff 

survey (68)

I have enough information about the 

college selection and enrollment 

process to teach the Ramp-Up 

curriculum.

1.0 = Agree or agree strongly

0.0 = Disagree or disagree strongly

Curriculum 

delivery

Sufficient 

information

Spring staff 

survey (70)

I have enough information about the 

knowledge and skills needed to 

succeed in college to teach the RampUp curriculum.

1.0 = Agree or agree strongly

0.0 = Disagree or disagree strongly

Curriculum 

delivery

Sufficient 

information

Instructional 

log (14)

I had enough information about the 

college selection and enrollment 

process to teach today’s workshop.

1.0 = Agree or agree strongly

0.0 = Disagree or disagree strongly

Curriculum 

delivery

Sufficient 

information

Instructional 

log (15)

I had enough information about the 

knowledge and skills needed to 

succeed in college to teach today’s 

workshop.

1.0 = Agree or agree strongly

0.0 = Disagree or disagree strongly
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—105

Implementation 

Component Subcomponent Data Source Indicator Definition of Adequate

Curriculum 

delivery

Sufficient 

information

Spring staff 

survey (1) and 

(21)

How familiar are you with the RampUp curriculum? [applied to Ramp-Up 

advisors]

1.0 = Very familiar

0.5 = Moderately familiar

0.0 = Slightly familiar or not at all familiar

Curriculum 

delivery

Advisories Spring staff 

survey (34)

How many of the Ramp-Up lessons 

did you teach this school year in your 

advisory?

1.0 = All 28 lessons

0.5 = 21–25 lessons

0.0 = Fewer than 21 lessons

Curriculum 

delivery

Advisories Spring Staff 

survey (2) and 

staff survey

(33)

Percentage of staff who self-identify 

as a Ramp-Up advisor and who 

indicated they taught at least one 

Ramp-Up advisory this school year

1.0 = 100 percent

0.5 = 80 to 90 percent

0.0 = Less than 80 percent

Curriculum 

delivery

Workshops May focus 

group (6a)

How many workshops were held over 

the course of the year?

1.0 = Five workshops

0.0 = Less than five workshops

Curriculum 

delivery

Workshops May focus 

group (6d)

On average, how long did these 

workshops last?

60.0 = More than 60 minutes

53.0 = 46–60 minutes

37.5 = 30–45 minutes

15.0 = Less than 30 minutes

Curriculum 

content

Academic 

readiness

Fall student 

survey (10)

So far this school year, has an adult at 

your school encouraged you to take 

an honors course or a course for 

college credit?

1.0 = Yes

0.0 = No

Curriculum 

content

Academic 

readiness

Spring student 

survey (10)

So far this school year, has an adult at 

your school encouraged you to take 

an honors course or a course for 

college credit?

1.0 = Yes

0.0 = No

Curriculum 

content

Academic 

readiness

Fall student 

survey (11)

So far this school year, how often has 

an adult at your high school discussed 

with you your academic readiness for 

college-level classes?

1.0 = Three or more times

0.5 = Once or twice

0.0 = Never
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—106

Implementation 

Component Subcomponent Data Source Indicator Definition of Adequate

Curriculum 

content

Academic 

readiness

Spring student 

survey (11)

So far this school year, how often has 

an adult at your high school discussed 

with you your academic readiness for 

college-level classes?

1.0 = Three or more times

0.5 = Once or twice

0.0 = Never

Curriculum 

content

Admissions 

readiness

Fall student 

survey (12) and 

(1)

I know which type of college would 

help me reach my goals after high 

school. [applied to Grade 11 and 

Grade 12 students]

1.0 = Agree or agree strongly

0.0 = Else

Curriculum 

content

Admissions 

readiness

Spring student 

survey (12) and 

(1)

I know which type of college would 

help me reach my goals after high 

school. [applied to Grade 11 and 

Grade 12 students]

1.0 = Agree or agree strongly

0.0 = Else

Curriculum 

content

Admissions 

readiness

Fall student 

survey (13) and 

(1)

So far this school year, how often has 

an adult at your high school discussed 

with you the steps that you need to 

take to apply to the type of college 

that you want to attend? [for Grade 11 

and Grade 12 students]

1.0 = Three or more times

0.5 = Once or twice

0.0 = Never

Curriculum 

content

Admissions 

readiness

Spring student 

survey (13) and 

(1)

So far this school year, how often has 

an adult at your high school discussed 

with you the steps that you need to 

take to apply to the type of college 

that you want to attend? [for Grade 11 

and Grade 12 students]

1.0 = Three or more times

0.5 = Once or twice

0.0 = Never

Curriculum 

content

Admissions 

readiness

Fall student 

survey (14) and 

(1)

So far this school year, how often has 

an adult at your high school discussed 

with you your likelihood of being 

accepted at different types of 

colleges? [applied to Grade 11 and 

Grade 12 students]

1.0 = Three or more times

0.5 = Once or twice

0.0 = Never
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—107

Implementation 

Component Subcomponent Data Source Indicator Definition of Adequate

Curriculum 

content

Admissions 

readiness

Spring student 

survey (14) and 

(1)

So far this school year, how often has 

an adult at your high school discussed 

with you your likelihood of being 

accepted at different types of 

colleges? [applied to Grade 11 and 

Grade 12 students]

1.0 = Three or more times

0.5 = Once or twice

0.0 = Never

Curriculum 

content

Admissions 

readiness

Fall student 

survey (23) and 

(1)

So far this school year, how much 

have your teachers, counselors, or 

other school staff helped you with a 

college application essay or personal 

statement? [applied to Grade 12 

students]

1.0 = A lot or some

0.5 = A little

0.0 = Not at all

Curriculum 

content

Admissions 

readiness

Spring student 

survey (24) and 

(1)

So far this school year, how much 

have your teachers, counselors, or 

other school staff helped you with a 

college application essay or personal 

statement? [applied to Grade 12 

students]

1.0 = A lot or some

0.5 = A little

0.0 = Not at all

Curriculum 

content

Career readiness Fall student 

survey (17)

So far this school year, how helpful 

has your high school been in helping 

you assess your career interests and 

abilities? 

1.0 = Very helpful or helpful

0.5 = Somewhat helpful

0.0 = Not at all helpful

Curriculum 

content

Career readiness Spring student 

survey (17)

So far this school year, how helpful 

has your high school been in helping 

you assess your career interests and 

abilities? 

1.0 = Very helpful or helpful

0.5 = Somewhat helpful

0.0 = Not at all helpful

Curriculum 

content

Career readiness Fall student 

survey (18)

How helpful has your high school 

been in helping you to develop a 

career plan? 

1.0 = Very helpful or helpful

0.5 = Somewhat helpful

0.0 = Not at all helpful/Other
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—108

Implementation 

Component Subcomponent Data Source Indicator Definition of Adequate

Curriculum 

content

Career readiness Spring student 

survey (18)

How helpful has your high school 

been in helping you to develop a 

career plan? 

1.0 = Very helpful or helpful

0.5 = Somewhat helpful

0.0 = Not at all helpful/Other

Curriculum 

content

Financial 

readiness

Fall student 

survey (19)

So far this school year, how often has 

an adult at your school talked to you 

about how to pay for tuition or other 

college expenses

1.0 = Three or more times

0.5 = Once or twice

0.0 = Never

Curriculum 

content

Financial 

readiness

Spring student 

survey (19)

So far this school year, how often has 

an adult at your school talked to you 

about how to pay for tuition or other 

college expenses

1.0 = Three or more times

0.5 = Once or twice

0.0 = Never

Curriculum 

content

Financial 

readiness

Spring student 

survey (26) and 

(1)

So far this school year, how much 

have your teachers, counselors, or 

other school staff helped you fill out 

the FAFSA? [applied to Grade 12 

students]

1.0 = A lot or some

0.5 = A little

0.0 = Not at all

Curriculum 

content

Personal and 

social readiness

Fall student 

survey (9)

I know the skills that I need to work 

on if I am going to graduate from 

high school ready for success in 

college.

1.0 = Agree or agree strongly

0.0 = Else

Curriculum 

content

Personal and 

social readiness

Spring student 

survey (9)

I know the skills that I need to work 

on if I am going to graduate from 

high school ready for success in 

college.

1.0 = Agree or agree strongly

0.0 = Else

Postsecondary 

planning tools

Use of 

Postsecondary 

Plan

Spring staff 

survey (41)

How familiar are you with the 

Postsecondary Plan?

1.0 = Very familiar

0.5 = Moderately familiar

0.0 = Slightly familiar or not at all familiar
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—109

Implementation 

Component Subcomponent Data Source Indicator Definition of Adequate

Postsecondary 

planning tools

Use of 

Postsecondary 

Plan

Spring staff 

survey (42)

The Postsecondary Plan helps 

students to develop a plan for their 

life after high school.

1.0 = Agree or agree strongly

0.0 = Disagree or disagree strongly

Postsecondary 

planning tools

Use of 

Postsecondary 

Plan

Spring staff 

survey (43)

I use the Postsecondary Plan when 

helping students develop plans for 

their life after high school.

1.0 = Agree or agree strongly

0.0 = Disagree or disagree strongly

Postsecondary 

planning tools

Use of 

Postsecondary 

Plan

Spring staff 

survey (44)

How many students in your Ramp-Up 

advisory completed the Postsecondary 

Plan at least once this year?

1.0 = All students

0.5 = Most students

0.0 = A few students or none

Postsecondary 

planning tools

Use of 

Postsecondary 

Plan

Spring student 

survey (6)

At last registration time, did school 

staff help you in choosing classes that 

you need to reach your goals for after 

high school?

1.0 = Yes

0.0 = No

Postsecondary 

planning tools

Use of 

Readiness 

Rubric

Spring staff 

survey (46)

How familiar are you with the 

Readiness Rubric?

1.0 = Very familiar

0.5 = Moderately familiar

0.0 = Slightly familiar or not at all familiar

Postsecondary 

planning tools

Use of 

Readiness 

Rubric

Spring staff 

survey (47)

The Readiness Rubric helps students 

to monitor their progress toward their 

postsecondary goals.

1.0 = Agree or agree strongly

0.0 = Disagree or disagree strongly

Postsecondary 

planning tools

Use of 

Readiness 

Rubric

Spring staff 

survey (48)

I use the Readiness Rubric to monitor 

students’ progress toward their 

postsecondary goals.

1.0 = Agree or agree strongly

0.0 = Disagree or disagree strongly

Postsecondary 

planning tools

Use of 

Readiness 

Rubric

Spring staff 

survey (49)

How many students in your Ramp-Up 

advisory completed the Readiness 

Rubric at least twice this year?

1.0 = All students

0.5 = Most students

0.0 = A few students or none
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—110

Implementation 

Component Subcomponent Data Source Indicator Definition of Adequate

Postsecondary 

planning tools

Use of 

Readiness 

Rubric

Fall student 

survey (7)

So far this school year, how many 

times have you discussed your 

progress towards attaining your 

postsecondary plan with a counselor, 

teacher, or other adult in your school?

1.0 = Three times or more

0.5 = Once or twice

0.0 = Else

Postsecondary 

planning tools

Use of 

Readiness 

Rubric

Spring student 

survey (7)

So far this school year, how many 

times have you discussed your 

progress toward attaining your 

postsecondary plan with a counselor, 

teacher, or other adult in your school?

1.0 = Three times or more

0.5 = Once or twice

0.0 = Else

Postsecondary 

planning tools

Communication 

with Parents 

Spring staff 

survey (45)

For how many students in your 

Ramp-Up advisory have you 

discussed a student’s Postsecondary 

Plan with his or her parents?

1.0 = All students

0.5 = Most students

0.0 = A few students or none

Postsecondary 

planning tools

Communication 

with parents 

Spring staff 

survey (50)

For how many students in your 

Ramp-Up advisory have you 

discussed a student’s Readiness 

Rubric with his or her parents? 

1.0 = All students

0.5 = Most students

0.0 = A few students or none
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—111

Attachment A-13. Rubric for Assessing Students’ Exposure to Ramp-Up

Table A-13.1 Rubric for Assessing Students’ Exposure to Ramp-Up

Activity Exposure 

Factor Data Source Indicator Recoded Indicator for Analysis

Further 

Transformations

Ramp-Up 

advisories

Participation 

of Grade 10 

students

Final 

instructional 

logs (22) and 

(28)

For teachers reporting that they are 

assigned to a Grade 10 advisory, their 

response to the question: on average, 

what percentage of students scheduled 

to attend your weekly advisory have

attended every session so far?

0.875 = More than 75 percent

0.630 = 51 to 75 percent

0.375 = 25 to 50 percent

0.125 = Less than 25 percent

None

Ramp-Up 

advisories

Participation 

of Grade 11 

students

Final 

instructional 

logs (24) and 

(28)

For teachers reporting that they are 

assigned to a Grade 11 advisory, their 

response to the question: on average, 

what percentage of students scheduled 

to attend your weekly advisory have

attended every session so far?

0.875 = More than 75 percent

0.630 = 51 to 75 percent

0.375 = 25 to 50 percent

0.125 = Less than 25 percent

None

Ramp-Up 

advisories

Participation 

of Grade 12 

students

Final 

instructional 

logs (26) and 

(28)

For teachers reporting that they are 

assigned to a Grade 12 advisory, their 

response to the question: on average, 

what percentage of students scheduled 

to attend your weekly advisory have

attended every session so far?

0.875 = More than 75 percent

0.630 = 51 to 75 percent

0.375 = 25 to 50 percent

0.125 = Less than 25 percent

None

Ramp-Up 

advisories

Frequency 

for Grade 10 

students

Final 

instructional 

logs (22) and 

(23)

Total number of lessons taught to Grade 

10 students

Number ranging from 0 to 28 None

Ramp-Up 

advisories

Frequency 

for Grade 11 

students

Final 

instructional 

logs (24) and 

(25)

Total number of lessons taught to Grade 

11 students

Number ranging from 0 to 28 None
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—112

Ramp-Up 

advisories

Frequency 

for Grade 12 

students

Final 

instructional 

logs (26) and 

(27)

Total number of lessons taught to Grade 

12 students

Number ranging from 0 to 28 None

Ramp-Up 

advisories

Duration for 

Grade 10 

students

Final 

instructional log 

(22) and (29)

For teachers reporting that they are 

assigned to a Grade 10 advisory, their 

response to the question: on average, 

how long have the weekly advisory 

sessions you’ve taught so far this year 

lasted?

30.0 = 30 minutes

24.5 = 20–29 minutes

10.0 = Less than 20 minutes

None

Ramp-Up 

advisories

Duration for 

Grade 11 

students

Final 

instructional log 

(24) and (29)

For teachers reporting that they are 

assigned to a Grade 11 advisory, their 

response to the question: on average, 

how long have the weekly advisory 

sessions you’ve taught so far this year 

lasted?

30.0 = 30 minutes

24.5 = 20–29 minutes

10.0 = Less than 20 minutes

None

Ramp-Up 

advisories

Duration for 

Grade 12 

students

Final 

instructional log 

(26) and (29)

For teachers reporting that they are 

assigned to a Grade 12 advisory, their 

response to the question: on average, 

how long have the weekly advisory 

sessions you’ve taught so far this year 

lasted?

30.0 = 30 minutes

24.5 = 20–29 minutes

10.0 = Less than 20 minutes

None

Ramp-Up 

workshops

Participation 

of Grade 10 

students

All instructional 

logs (6) and (7)

What percentage of your students 

attended the workshop? (based on 

responses from teachers who taught a 

workshop for Grade 10 students)

Number ranging from 0 to 1 Averaged across 

all instructional 

logs

Ramp-Up 

workshops

Participation 

for Grade 11 

students

All instructional 

logs (5) and (6)

What percentage of your students 

attended the workshop? (based on 

responses from teachers who taught a 

workshop for Grade 11 students)

Number ranging from 0 to 1 Averaged across 

all instructional 

logs
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—113

Ramp-Up 

workshops

Participation 

for Grade 12 

students

All instructional 

logs (5) and (6)

What percentage of your students 

attended the workshop? (for teachers 

who taught a workshop for Grade 12 

students)

Number ranging from 0 to 1 Averaged across 

all instructional 

logs

Ramp-Up 

workshops

Frequency 

for Grade 10 

students

May focus 

group (6a)

How many workshops were held over 

the course of the year? (for Grade 10 

students)

Number ranging from 0 to 5 None

Ramp-Up 

workshops

Frequency 

for Grade 11 

students

May focus 

group (6a)

How many workshops were held over 

the course of the year? (for Grade 11 

students)

Number ranging from 0 to 5 None

Ramp-Up 

workshops

Frequency 

for Grade 12 

students

May focus 

group (6a)

How many workshops were held over 

the course of the year? (for Grade 12 

students)

Number ranging from 0 to 5 None

Ramp-Up 

workshops

Duration for 

Grade 10 

students

All instructional 

logs (7) and (8)

How long did today’s workshop last? 

(based on responses from teachers who 

taught a workshop for Grade 10 

students)

60.0 = More than 60 minutes

53.0 = 46–60 minutes

37.5 = 30–45 minutes

15.0 = Less than 30 minutes

Averaged across 

all instructional 

logs

Ramp-Up 

workshops

Duration for 

Grade 11 

students

All instructional 

logs (7) and (8)

How long did today’s workshop last? 

(based on responses from teachers who 

taught a workshop for Grade 11 

students)

60.0 = More than 60 minutes

53.0 = 46–60 minutes

37.5 = 30–45 minutes

15.0 = Less than 30 minutes

Averaged across 

all instructional 

logs

Ramp-Up 

workshops

Duration for 

Grade 12 

students

All instructional 

logs (7) and (8)

How long did today’s workshop last? 

(based on responses from teachers who 

taught a workshop for Grade 12 

students)

60.0 = More than 60 minutes

53.0 = 46–60 minutes

37.5 = 30–45 minutes

15.0 = Less than 30 minutes

Averaged across 

all instructional 

logs
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—114

Attachment A-14. Rubric for Comparing College-Readiness Supports in Treatment and 

Control Schools

Table A-14.1 Rubric for Comparing College-Readiness Supports in Treatment and Control Schools

Component for 

Making 

Contrasts

Subcomponent Data Source Indicator Recoded Indicator for Analysis

Structural 

Supports

Advanced Course 

Offerings

Extant 

administrative 

data

Do students have the opportunity to 

take college-level courses (e.g., 

dual-credit, AP, IB, or College in 

the Schools)?

1.0 = Students have the opportunity to take 

dual-credit, AP, IB, and College in the Schools 

classes;

0.5 = Students have the opportunity to take 

some but not all of the specified college-credit 

coursework 

0.0 = Students do not have the opportunity to 

take any of these courses

Structural 

Supports

Advanced Course 

Offerings

Extant 

administrative 

data

What kinds of students are eligible 

to participate in college-level 

courses?

1.0 = Sophomores, juniors, and seniors

0.5 = Juniors and seniors

0.0 = Else

Structural 

Supports

Advanced Course 

Offerings

Extant 

administrative 

data

Do students have the opportunity to 

take honors courses?

1.0 = Yes

0.0 = No

Structural 

Supports

Technology 

Platform

Fall Staff 

Survey (16) What percentage of students at 

your high school use a 

technology platform (e.g., 

Naviance, MCIS, WCIS) to 

support the development of their 

postsecondary plans?

1.0 = More than 75 % 

0.5 = 51 – 75%

0.0 = Less than 51%

Structural 

Supports

Technology 

Platform

Fall Student 

Survey (5)

Is your postsecondary plan 

stored electronically?

1.0 = Yes

0.0 = Else

Structural 

Supports

Technology 

Platform

Spring Student 

Survey (5)

Is your postsecondary plan 

stored electronically?

1.0 = Yes

0.0 = Else
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—115

Professional 

Development

For Staff Fall Staff 

Survey (13) So far this school year, have you 

received any professional 

development related to preparing 

students for college?

1.0 = Yes

0.0 = No

Professional 

Development

For Staff Fall Staff 

Survey (2) and 

(13)

Calculate based on the number 

of teachers in a school, identified 

in (2), responded that they had

received professional 

development related to preparing 

students for college (13)

1.0 = All teachers

0.5 = Some teachers

0.0 = No teachers

Curriculum 

Content

Academic 

Readiness

Fall Student 

Survey (10)

So far this school year, has an 

adult at your school encouraged 

you to take an honors course or a 

course for college credit?

1.0 = Yes

0.0 = No

Curriculum 

Content

Academic 

Readiness

Spring Student 

Survey (10)

So far this school year, has an 

adult at your school encouraged 

you to take an honors course or a 

course for college credit?

1.0 = Yes

0.0 = No

Curriculum 

Content

Academic 

Readiness

Fall Student 

Survey (11)

So far this school year, how 

often has an adult at your high 

school discussed with you your 

academic readiness for collegelevel classes?

1.0 = 3 or more times

0.5 = Once or twice

0.0 = Never

Curriculum 

Content

Academic 

Readiness

Spring Student 

Survey (11)

So far this school year, how 

often has an adult at your high 

school discussed with you your 

academic readiness for collegelevel classes?

1.0 = 3 or more times

0.5 = Once or twice

0.0 = Never
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—116

Curriculum 

Content

Admissions 

Readiness

Fall Student 

Survey (12) and 

(1)

I know which type of college 

would help me reach my goals 

after high school [applied to 

Grade 11 and Grade 12 students]

1.0 = Agree or agree strongly

0.0 = Else

Curriculum 

Content

Admissions 

Readiness

Spring Student 

Survey (12) and 

(1)

I know which type of college 

would help me reach my goals 

after high school [applied to 

Grade 11 and Grade 12 students]

1.0 = Agree or agree strongly

0.0 = Else

Curriculum 

Content

Admissions 

Readiness

Fall Student 

Survey (13) and 

(1)

So far this school year, how 

often has an adult at your high 

school discussed with you the 

steps that you need to take to 

apply to the type of college that 

you want to attend (for Grade 11 

and Grade 12 students)

1.0 = 3 or more times

0.5 = Once or twice

0.0 = Never

Curriculum 

Content

Admissions 

Readiness

Spring Student 

Survey (13) and 

(1)

So far this school year, how 

often has an adult at your high 

school discussed with you the 

steps that you need to take to 

apply to the type of college that 

you want to attend (for Grade 11 

and Grade 12 students)

1.0 = 3 or more times

0.5 = Once or twice

0.0 = Never

Curriculum 

Content

Admissions 

Readiness

Fall Student 

Survey (14) and 

(1)

So far this school year, how 

often has an adult at your high 

school discussed with you your 

likelihood of being accepted at 

different types of colleges 

[applied to Grade 11 and Grade 

12 students]

1.0 = 3 or more times

0.5 = Once or twice

0.0 = Never
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—117

Curriculum 

Content

Admissions 

Readiness

Spring Student 

Survey (14) and 

(1)

So far this school year, how 

often has an adult at your high 

school discussed with you your 

likelihood of being accepted at 

different types of colleges 

[applied to Grade 11 and Grade 

12 students]

1.0 = 3 or more times

0.5 = Once or twice

0.0 = Never

Curriculum 

Content

Admissions 

Readiness

Fall Student 

Survey (23) and 

(1)

So far this school year, how 

much have your teachers, 

counselors, or other school staff 

helped you with a college 

application essay or personal 

statement? [applied to Grade 12 

students]

1.0 = A lot or some

0.5 = A little

0.0 = Not at all

Curriculum 

Content

Admissions 

Readiness

Spring Student 

Survey (24) and 

(1)

So far this school year, how 

much have your teachers, 

counselors, or other school staff 

helped you with a college 

application essay or personal 

statement? [applied to Grade 12 

students]

1.0 = A lot or some

0.5 = A little

0.0 = Not at all

Curriculum 

Content

Career Readiness Fall Student 

Survey (17)

So far this school year, how 

helpful has your high school 

been in helping you assess your 

career interests and abilities? 

1.0 = Very helpful or helpful

0.5 = Somewhat helpful

0.0 = Not at all helpful

Curriculum 

Content

Career Readiness Spring Student 

Survey (17)

So far this school year, how 

helpful has your high school 

been in helping you assess your 

career interests and abilities? 

1.0 = Very helpful or helpful

0.5 = Somewhat helpful

0.0 = Not at all helpful

Curriculum 

Content

Career Readiness Fall Student 

Survey (18)

How helpful has your high 

school been in helping you to 

develop a career plan? 

1.0 = Very helpful or helpful

0.5 = Somewhat helpful

0.0 = Not at all helpful/Other
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—118

Curriculum 

Content

Career Readiness Spring Student 

Survey (18)

How helpful has your high 

school been in helping you to 

develop a career plan? 

1.0 = Very helpful or helpful

0.5 = Somewhat helpful

0.0 = Not at all helpful/Other

Curriculum 

Content

Financial 

Readiness

Fall Student 

Survey (19)

So far this school year, how 

often has an adult at your school 

talked to you about how to pay

for tuition or other college 

expenses

1.0 = 3 or more times

0.5 = Once or twice

0.0 = Never

Curriculum 

Content

Financial 

Readiness

Spring Student 

Survey (19)

So far this school year, how 

often has an adult at your school 

talked to you about how to pay

for tuition or other college 

expenses

1.0 = 3 or more times

0.5 = Once or twice

0.0 = Never

Curriculum 

Content

Financial 

Readiness

Spring Student 

Survey (26) and 

(1)

So far this school year, how 

much have your teachers, 

counselors, or other school staff 

helped you fill out the FAFSA? 

[applied to Grade 12 students]

1.0 = A lot or some

0.5 = A little

0.0 = Not at all

Curriculum 

Content

Personal/Social 

Readiness

Fall Student 

Survey (9)

I know the skills that I need to 

work on if I am going to 

graduate from high school ready 

for success in college?

1.0 = Agree or agree strongly

0.0 = Else

Curriculum 

Content

Personal/Social 

Readiness

Spring Student 

Survey (9)

I know the skills that I need to 

work on if I am going to 

graduate from high school ready 

for success in college?

1.0 = Agree or agree strongly

0.0 = Else

Postsecondary 

Planning Tools

Plans and 

Monitoring

Fall Student 

Survey (4)

This school year, have you 

developed a written 

postsecondary plan with a 

counselor, teacher, or other adult 

in your school that describes 

your educational or career plans 

1.0 = Yes

0.0 = No/Other
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—119

for after high school?

Postsecondary 

Planning Tools

Plans and 

Monitoring

Spring Student 

Survey (4)

This school year, have you 

developed a written 

postsecondary plan with a 

counselor, teacher, or other adult 

in your school that describes 

your educational or career plans 

for after high school?

1.0 = Yes

0.0 = No/Other

Postsecondary 

Planning Tools

Use of Readiness 

Rubric

Fall Student 

Survey (7)

So far this school year, how 

many times have you discussed 

your progress towards attaining 

your postsecondary plan with a 

counselor, teacher, or other adult 

in your school?

1.0 = Three times or more

0.5 = Once or twice

0.0 = Else

Postsecondary 

Planning Tools

Use of Readiness 

Rubric

Spring Student 

Survey (7)

So far this school year, how 

many times have you discussed 

your progress towards attaining 

your postsecondary plan with a 

counselor, teacher, or other adult 

in your school?

1.0 = Three times or more

0.5 = Once or twice

0.0 = Else

Postsecondary 

Planning Tools

Plans and 

Monitoring

Fall Student 

Survey (6)

At last registration time, did 

school staff help you in choosing 

classes that you need to reach 

your goals for after high school?

1.0 = Yes

0.0 = No

Postsecondary 

Planning Tools

Plans and 

Monitoring

Spring Student 

Survey (6)

At last registration time, did 

school staff help you in choosing 

classes that you need to reach 

your goals for after high school?

1.0 = Yes

0.0 = No
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—120

Postsecondary 

Planning Tools

Plans and 

Monitoring

Fall Staff 

Survey (17) and 

(18)

For staff who indicate that staff 

at their school provide feedback 

to students about whether they

are on track academically for 

college. How often do all 

students receive feedback?

1.0 = All students in grades 10 through 12 

receive feedback multiple times per year

0.5 = All students in grades 10 through 12 

receive feedback at least once per year

0.0 = Else

Postsecondary 

Planning Tools

Plans and 

Monitoring

Fall Staff 

Survey (17) and 

(19)

How do students receive 

feedback?

1.0 = Feedback is discussed with the student

0.5 = Feedback is provided to the student but 

without discussion

0.0 = Else

Postsecondary 

Planning Tools

Plans and 

Monitoring

Fall Staff 

Survey (15) Do all students at your school 

develop a written plan for 

achieving their educational or 

career goals after high school? 

1.0 = Yes

0.0 = No

Postsecondary 

Planning Tools

Plans and 

Monitoring

Fall Staff 

Survey (23a) Does your school collect timely 

information about which students 

complete the following college 

enrollment actions: College 

applications

1.0 = Yes

0.0 = No

Postsecondary 

Planning Tools

Plans and 

Monitoring

Fall Staff 

Survey (23b) Does your school collect timely 

information about which students 

complete the following college 

enrollment actions: FAFSA 

application

1.0 = Yes

0.0 = No
OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX (Exp XX/XX)

REL Midwest Supporting Statement A: Impact Evaluation of the Ramp-Up to Readiness Program—121

Postsecondary 

Planning Tools

Plans and 

Monitoring

Fall Staff 

Survey (23a) Does your school collect timely 

information about which students 

complete the following college 

enrollment actions: Scholarship 

applications

1.0 = Yes

0.0 = No

Postsecondary 

Planning Tools

Plans and 

Monitoring

Fall Staff 

Survey (23a) Does your school collect timely 

information about which students 

complete the following college 

enrollment actions: Completion 

of a college admissions exam

1.0 = Yes

0.0 = No

Postsecondary 

Planning Tools

Communication 

with Parents Fall Staff 

Survey (29)

For which of your students do 

you communicate with 

parents/guardians about their 

children's readiness for college?

1.0 = All 

0.5 = Most

0.0 = Else

Postsecondary 

Planning Tools

Communication 

with Parents Fall Staff 

Survey (29)

How often do you communicate 

with parents/guardians about 

their children’s readiness for 

college?

1.0 = More than once per school year for 

all students

0.5 = At least once per school year for all students

0.0 = Else