## Middle	Grades	Longitudinal	Study	of **2016 –**  **17 (MGLS:2017)**  **Recruitment for**  **2016 Item	Validation**  **and Operational	Field	Test** **s**

Request	for	OMB	Clearance OMB# 1850
- 0911	v.3 

## Supporting **Statement	Part	A**

National	Center	for	Education	Statistics U.S.	Department	of	Education Institute	of	Education	Sciences Washington,	DC

February 20151 

## Table	of	Contents

Preface
................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 2 A.	Justification
................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 2 A.1	Importance	of	Information
................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 2 A.2	Purposes	and	Uses	of	Data
................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 4 A.3	Improved	Information	Technology	(Reduction	of	Burden)
................................ ................................ ......................... 8 A.4	Efforts	to	Identify	Duplication
................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 8 A.5	Minimizing	Burden	for	Small	Entities
................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 9 A.6	Frequency	of	Data	Collection
................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 9 A.7	Special	Circumstances
................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 9 A.8	Consultations	Outside	NCES
................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 9 A.9	Payments	or	Gifts	to	Respondents
................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 11 A.10	Assurance	of	Confidentiality
................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 15 A. 11	Sensitive	Questions ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 15 A.12	Estimates	of	Burden
................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 15 A.13	Total Annual	Cost	Burden
................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 16 A.14	Annualized	Cost	to	Federal	Government
................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 16 A.15	Program	Changes	or	Adjustments
................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 16 A.16	Plans	for	Tabulatio n	and	Publication
................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 17 A.17	Display	OMB	Expiration	Date
................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 17 A.18	Exceptions	to	Certification	Statement
................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 172 

## Preface T he MGLS:2017	will	be	the	first	study sponsored	by	the	National	Center	for	Education	Statistics	(NCES), within	the	Institute	of	Education	Scien ces	(IES) of	the	U.S.	Department	of	Education,	to	follow	a	nationally representative	sample	of	students	as	they enter	and	move	through	the	middle	grades	(grades	6
– 8 ). In preparation for the main study,	the data	collection	instruments	and procedures	must	be	field	tested.	This submission	describes	the	overarching	plan	for	the	recruitment	of	s chools , school districts, and	parents	to participate	in	the	MGLS:2017	Item	Validation	Field	Test	and	the	MGLS:2017	Operational	Field	Test.	A separate	OMB	clearance	request	for	the	field	test	data	collection	will	be	submitted	that	more	specifically covers	the	field	test	data	collection	methodology	and	provides	more	technical	detail	on	sampling. This	package	requests	clearance	to	recruit schools and participants for	two	field	tests	for	the	Middle	Grades Longitudinal	Study	of 2016
– 17 (MGLS:2017):	(1) the Item	Validation	Field	Test and (2) the Operational	Field Test.	The	primary	purpose	of	the Item	Validation	Field	Test is	to determine the	psychometric	properties	of items	and the predictive	potential	of assessment	and	survey	items so	that valid,	reliable, and	useful assessment	and survey instruments can	be	composed for	the	main	study.	The	primary	purpose s of	the Operational F

ield T est are to	obtain	information	on	recruiting,	particularly	for	the	targeted	disability	groups ; on	obtaining	a	tracking	sample	that	can	be	used	to	study mobility patterns in	subsequent	years ; and	on administrative	procedures
. Part	A	of	this	submission	presents	information on the	basic	design	of	the Item	Validation	Field	Test and	the Operational	Field	Test. Part	B presents	information	on	the	collection	of information	employing	statistical methods .	In	addition	to	the	supporting	statements in Parts A and	B, Appendices	A	through T provide	field test	recruitment and	student	roster	collection materials,	consisting	of	letters	to	state	and	district	officials, scho ol	principals, and	parents ,	as well	as text	for	a n MGLS:2017	brochure,	frequently	asked	questions, and website.	Additionally,	as	some	schools	and/or	districts	may	require	a	submission	of	a	research	application that	requests	detailed	information	on	the	prop osed	assessments	and	surveys, Appendices K through R provide	content	summaries of	the	proposed	assessments	and surveys,	and	Appendix	U	provides	the current drafts	of	the survey	instruments.	The	final	versions	of	the	surveys to be	used	in	the 2016 field	tes ts	will	be provided	later	in	2015	in	the request	for	the	field	test	data	collection
. A change	request may follow	this submission. The	data	collection	contractor,	upon	anticipated	award	in	June 2015	of	the	MGLS:2017 contract that covers	the	2016	field	tests	through	the	main	study’s 7th
- grade collection,	may propose	revisions to	the	recruitment	effort	in	July	or	August	of	2015. 

## A. **Justification A.1**  **Importance	of	Information** The MGLS:2017	will	be	the	first	study sponsored	by NCES to	follow	a	nationally representative	sample	of students	as	they	enter	and	move	through	the	middle	grades	(grades	6
– 8 ).	A study	of	the middle	grades will complement NCES’s	plans	for	implementing	a	multi
- cohort	sequence	for	its	longitudinal	studies	series.	This means	that the Early	Childhood	Longitudinal	Study,	Kindergarten	Class	of	2010
– 11 (ECLS
- K:2011), the MGLS :2017,	and	the	High	School	Longitudinal	Study	of	2020	( HSLS : 2020) will	synchronize, and within	a given	10 - year	span, collect	the	full	range	of	data	on	students’	school	experiences	as	they	transition from elementary	school	into	high	school. The	federal	government	is	uniquely	positioned	to	undertake	the	needed c omprehensive	large
- scale	longitudinal	study	of	a	nationally	representative sample	of middle
- grade youth that	includes	measures	of	known	critical	influences	on adolescents’	academic	and	socioemotional3

trajectories.	NCES	is	authorized	to	conduct	the	MGLS: 201 7	under	the Education	Sciences	Reform	Act	of	2002 (20	U.S.	Code,	Section	9543 ). Baseline	data	for	the	MGLS :2017	will	be	collected	from	a	nationally	representative	sample	of 6th
- grade students	in January	through	March	of winter 2017,	with	annual	follow
- ups	in the winters of 2018	and of 2019,	when	most	of	the	students	in	the	sample	will	be	in	grades	7	and	8,	respectively.	The	MGLS:2017 will provide	a	rich	descriptive	picture	of	the	academic	experiences	and	development	of	students	during	these critical	years	and	will	allow	researchers	to	examine	associations	between	contextual	factors	and	student outcomes.	There	is	a	wealth	of	research	highlighting	the	importance	of	mathematics	and	literacy	skills	for success	in	high	school	and	subsequent	association s with	later education	and	career	opportunities
. Thus , the study	will	focus	on	student	achievement	in	these	areas, along	with	measures	of	stu dent	socioemotional	well
being	and	other	outcomes. The	study	will	also	include	a sample	of	students	with	different	types	of	disabilities that	will	provide descriptive	information	on	their	outcomes,	educational	experiences,	and	special	education services. T he MGLS:2017 will	rely	on	a set	of	longitudinal	and	complementary	instruments to	collect	data across several	types of	respondents to provide	information	on	the	outcomes,	experiences,	and	perspectives	of students	across	grades	6,	7,	and	8;	their	families	an d	home	lives;	their	teachers,	classrooms,	and	instruction; and	the	school	settings,	programs,	and	services	available	to	them. At	each	wave	of	data collection in	the main study,	students’ mathematics	and	reading skills ,	socioemotional	development,	and	executive	function	will	be assessed.	Students will	also	complete	a	survey	that	asks	about	their	engagement	in	school,	out
- of
- school experiences,	peer	group	relationships,	and	identity	development.	Parents	will	be	asked	about	their background,	family	resources, and	involvement	with	their	child’s	education	and	their	school.	Students’ mathematics	teachers	will	complete	a	two
- part	survey:	In	part	1,	they	will	be	asked	about	their	background and	classroom	instruction.	In	part	2,	they	will	be	asked	to	report	on	the	academic	behavior,	mathematics performance,	and	classroom conduct	of	each	study	child	in	their classroom.	For	students	receiving	special education services, their	special	education	teacher	or	provider will	also	complete	a	survey	questionnaire similar	in	stru cture to	the	two
- part	mathematics	teacher	instrument,	consisting	of	a	teacher
- level questionnaire	and	student
- level	questionnaire,	but	with	questions	specific	to	the	special	education experiences and services	of	the	study child .	School	administrators	will be	asked	to	report	on	school programs	and services,	as	well	as on school	climate. In	short,	the	MGLS:2017	aims	to	obtain	an	understanding	of the development	and	learning	that	occur during students’ middle
- grade	years	(grades	6
– 8)	and	that are predictive	of	future	success,	along	with	the individual,	social,	and	contextual	factors that	are related	to successful development.	A	key	goal	of	the	study	is to	provide	research ers	and	policymakers	with	the	information they	need to	better	understand	the	s chool	and non school	influences	associated	with mathematics	and	reading	success,	socioemotional	health,	and	positive life	development	during the	middle
- grade	years and	beyond. To	support	the development	of the	study,	the MGLS:2017	is conducting	two	field	te sts:	(1) **Item	Validation	Field	Test** and	(2)	an **Operational	Field	Test**
. The	study’s	success	is	dependent	on	the	development	of	reliable,	valid	measures.	Therefore	the	importance of	the **Item	Validation	Field	Test** is	to	collect data	to	support	examination	of the	mathematics	assessment, reading	assessment,	executive	function	assessment,	student	survey,	parent	survey,	and	school	staff	surveys
. T he	Item	Validation	Field	Test	will	provide	the data	needed	to	determine the	psychometric	properties	of items	and the predictive	potential	of assessment	and	survey	items so	that	valid,	reliable,	and	useful assessment	and	survey instruments	can	be	composed	for	the	main	study. As	the	focus	of	the	Item	Validation Field	Test	is	the	analyses	of	the	psychometric	properties	of	the	survey	items	and	assessments,	the	Item Validation	Field	Test	requires	a	large,	diverse	field	test	sample,	though	not	a	nationally	representative	one.4

Gaining	schools’	cooperation	in	voluntary	research	is	increasingly	challenging. Therefore,	the importan ce	of the **Operational	Field	Test** is	to	gain	a	deeper	understanding	of	effective	recruitment	strategies	that	lead	to higher	response	rates,	which	in	turn	improve	the	quality	of	the	data.	This	will	include	a	responsive	design approach	for	non
- responders.	Additionally,	the	Operational	Field	Test	will	tighten	the	understanding	of assessment	and	survey	timing,	providing	crucial	information	in	terms	of	overall	functionality	of	the assessments	and	surveys	and the	time	it	takes	for	respondents	to	complete	the m . I n turn,	this	will	inform potential	modifications	to	be	made	to	the	main	study data	collection	instruments
. With	the	focus	of	the Operational	Field	Test	on	recruitment	strategies,	tactics	for	retention	of the sample	within	the	study,	and	the operational	administration	of	the	surveys	and	assessments,	the	Operational	Field	Test	requires	a	close	to nationally	representative	sample.	However,	because	the	analyses	of	the	survey	and	assessment	items	are	the purpose	of	the	Item	Validation	Field	Test,	the	Operational	F ield	Test	does	not	require	a	sample	as	large	in number	of student participants . 

### A.2 **Purposes	and	Uses	of	Data** The **Item	Validation	Field	Test** will take place in January through March 2016 . Its purpose	is to	evaluate	a battery	of	student	assessments	(i.e.,	mathematics	and	reading skills and	executive	function)	and	survey instruments	(i.e. ,	student	survey, parent	survey, and school	staff	surveys )	for	use	in	the	MGLS:2017 main study. The	Item	Validation	Fiel d	Test	will provide	the	much	needed	information to	establish	the validity	and reliability	of	the	direct	assessments	and	surveys .	T he	Item	Validation	Field	Test	will	collect	data	from children	enrolled	in 5 th through 8 th grade	in	January	of	2016. The **Operational	Field	Test** will	run	concurrently to	the	Item	Validation	Field	Test,	also	taking	place	in January	through	March	of	2016.	Unlike	the	cross
- sectional,	one	time	administration	of	the	Item	Validation Field	Test,	the	Operational	Field	Test	is	longitu dinal	in	nature.	The	purpose	of	the	Operational	Field	Test	is	to recruit	an	approximately	nationally	representative	sample	of	6 th - graders;	field	a	simulated	version	of	the final 6 th- grade assessments	and	surveys;	and	then	track	these 6 th- graders across	the next	2	years,	whether they	stay	within	their 6 th- grade school	or	move	to	another	school. The	sample	will	be	followe d up	in the winter	of	2017	and	of	2018;	however,	as	stated,	the	Operational	Field	Test	is	not	currently	designed	to	field the	assessments	an d	surveys	past	the	6 th
- grade	collection	in	2016.	In	2017	and	of	2018,	the	Operational Field	Test will	be	solely a tracing	and	tracking	effort. The	Operational	Field	Test	will	be	used to	better understand	the	recruitment	strategies	necessary	for	a	large
- scale	nationally	representative	effort,	the response	rates	during	recruitment	and	associated	with	a 6 th- grade data	collection,	and	the	effort	involved	in the	subsequent	tracking	of	the	sample	from	the	base	year	(when	the	children	will	be	in	the	6 th grade)	to the first	follow
- up	(when	most	of	the	children	will	be	in	the	7 th grade)	and	the	second	follow
- up	(when	most	of the	children	will	be	in	the	8 th grade). The	Operational	Field	Test	is	distinct	from	the	Item	Validation	Field	Test,	whose	primary	purpose	is	to obtain information	on	the	psychometric	properties	of	items	so	that	valid	and	reliable	test	instruments	can	be composed	for	the	main	study. **Field	Test	Components** Both	the	Item	Validation	Field	Test	and	the	Operational	Field	Test	involve	the	same	basic	compo nents. The differen ce in	the	two	field	tests	is	in	their	purpose, their	sample,	and	the	analyses	that	will	follow.	The **Item Validation	Field	Test**  is	a	purposive	sample	of 5 th through 8 th grade	students selected	to	support	the collection	of	data	to	establis h	and	analyze	the	validity	and	reliability	of	the	surveys	and	assessments.	The **Operational	Field	Test** is	close	to	a	nationally	representative	sample	selected	to	support	a	deeper5

understanding	of	the	main	study’ s	operations	in	terms	of	recruitment	of	the	sa mple	and	operational considerations	in	fielding	the	assessments	and	surveys (see	Part	B,	section	B.1.1 - B.2.1 for	sample	details)
. **Student	Assessment s**  **and	Student	Survey .**  S tudents	will participate	in	assessments	and	a	survey,	designed to take	approximately 90	minutes	per	student

 **Mathematics	Assessment .**  The MGLS:2017 main study	mathematics	assessment	will	be	a	30
- minute, two - stage adaptive	assessment	that	students	will	take	on	a tablet computer .	The	focus	will	be	on domains of	mathematics that	are	most	likely to	be	the	central	focus	of	middle	school	learning	now and in	the	future:	the	Number	System,	Ratios	and	Proportional	Relationships,	Expressions	and	Equations, and	Functions
. To	ensure	that	we	are	sensitive	to the	variation	in	students’	mathematics ability, the assessment	will	include	items with	appropriately	varying cognitive	demand.	The	MGLS :2017 math ematics assessment	will	provide	valuable	information	about	the	development	of middle
- grade students’	knowledge of	mathematics	and	their	ability	to	use	that	kn owledge	to	solve	problems,	moving toward	stronger	reasoning	and	understanding	of	more	advanced	mathematics.
 **Reading	Assessment .**  The	MGLS:2017	reading	assessment	will use a	two - stage	adaptive	assessment design	consisting	of	a	brief	routing	block	(first	stage:	approximately	10	minutes)	followed	by	a	skill
based	block	(second	stage:	approximately	20	minutes),	for	a	total	of	30	minutes.	The	routing	block	will include	items	that	measure	foundational	components	of	reading that	are important	for	comprehension: Voc abulary,	Morphological	Awareness,	and	Sentence	Processing.	Performance	on	the	routing	block	will direct students	to	one	of	three types of skill
- based reading blocks (basic components, basic comprehension , or scenario - based comprehension ) within	the	second stage. The second
- stage basic	components skill	block	will	be	used	to	gather	more	information	on	the foundation al	reading	component skills , including	those	measured	in	the	first	stage	as	well	as	word recognition	and	decoding	skills.	The	basic	components	blo ck	will	also	capture information	about students’	efficiency at basic	reading	comprehension	and	ability	to	comprehend	short	passages. The second
- stage basic	comprehension skill	block	is	designed	to	gather	information	about	students’ efficiency at basic reading comprehension	and	their	ability	to	comprehend	short	passages.	This	skill
based	block	will	measure	comprehension	in	a	traditional	design	where	unrelated	passages	and corresponding	questions	are	presented.	The	second
- stage scenario - based	comprehension skill block	is designed	to	gather	information	about	students’	ability	to	comprehend	informational	text	and	reason more	deeply	about	text	and	to	apply	what	they	learn	from	passages. The	scenario
- based	block will include	a	scenario	or	a	purpose	for	reading	(e. g.,	preparing	for	a	classroom	discussion	or	creating	a website	on	a	topic).
 **Executive	Function	Measures .**  Executive	function,	a	set	of	capacities	and	processes	originating	in	the prefrontal	cortex	of	the	brain,	permits	individuals	to	self
- regulate,	engage	in	purposeful	and	goal
directed	behaviors,	and	conduct	themselves	in	a	socially	appropriate	manner.	Self
- r egulation	is	needed for	social	success,	academic	and	career	success,	and	good	health	outcomes.	Executive	function	includes capacities	such	as	shifting	(cognitive	and	attention	flexibility),	inhibitory	control,	and	working	memory. Four	different executive	f unction	measures	will	be	included	in	the	field tests : Stop	Signal	(inhibitory control), 3 - Back with	verbal	stimulus	(working	memory), 2 - Back	with	nonverbal	stimulus	(working memory),	and	the Hearts	and	Flowers	task	(shifting	or cognitive	flexibility). As	the	Item	Validation	Field Test’s	purpose	is	to	inform	the	reliability	and	validity	of	the	measures,	all	four executive	function measures will	be	included	in	the	Item	Validation	Field	Test;	whereas	current	design	is	that	two measures will	be	selected	for	inclusion	in	the	Operational	Field	Test.6

 **Student	Survey**

**.** The	purpose	of	the	student survey is	to	collect	information	on	students’	attitudes	and behaviors;	out
- of

- school	time	use;	and	family,	school,	and	classroom	environments.	The	student survey will	also	serve	as	a	source	for	information	about	socioemotional	outcomes	having	to	do	with	social relationships , support, and	school	engagement. **Parent	Survey**

**.** The	parent survey will	take	30	minutes	to	complete via	a self
- administered	web
- based questionnaire ; a	telephone	interview	follow
- up will	be	available for	respondents who	do	not	complete the questionnaire	via	the web.	The	parent survey will focus	on	supplementing the information	collected	from students	and	teachers	about	the	students’	educational	experien ces and on learning about	parents’ expectations	for	their	children’s	academic	attainment	in	high	school	and	beyond. It will also collect information about	family	involvement	in the children’s	education	and about family	characteristics	that	are key	predicto rs	of	academic	achievement	and	other	student	outcomes. **Mathematics Teacher**  **Survey /Teacher	Student	Report**  **.** The	mathematics	teacher	survey will	consist	of two	parts :	a	teacher survey and	a	series	of	teacher	student	reports (TSRs).	Both the	mathematics	teache r survey and the TSR	will	be web
- based,	self
- administered surveys, with	a phone	interview option	available. The	mathematics	teacher survey	is	expected	to	take	approximately	20	minutes	to	complete,	and	the	TSR	will take	5	to	10	minutes	for	each	student that	is	rated .	The	mathematics	teacher	survey will	collect	data	on potential	classroom
- level	correlates	of	students’	mathematics	achievement	as	well	as	school
- level	services and	factors	such	as	special	programs,	school	climate,	and	instructional	leadershi p. Teacher	responses	to	the TSR	will	capture	information	specific	to	the	sampled	student	and	his	or	her mathematics	class.	It	will	provide	information	on the classroom	attendance	and	performance	of	individual students,	which	will	augment	direct	student	ass essments,	transcript	information,	and	student	and	parent reports.	The	TSR	will	also	serve	as an	additional source	for data	on	student socioemotional	outcomes	related to	regulation,	school engagement, and externalizing	behaviors.	In	the	web	version	of	this instrument, teachers	will	be	given	a	list	of	the	students	for whom they	should	complete	a	TSR	and	will	click	on	each student’s	name	to	launch	the	TSR	for that specific	student.	If	a	teacher opts not	to	complete	the	web
- based survey, a	follow
- up	phone	interview	will	be	conducted
. **Special	Education	Teacher	Survey/Teacher	Student	Report .**  Like	the	mathematics	teacher	survey,	the special	education	teacher/service	provider	survey will consist	of two	parts . The	first	part consists	of	the teacher	questionnaire,	whi ch	asks	questions	about the	teacher’s	background	and	experiences	working	with students	with	disabilities.	The	second	part contains the	TSR,	which	contains	specific	questions about	special education	services	and	other	contextual	variables	for	sampled	children	with	an	Individualized	Education Program	( IEP) as	well as	ratings	of	individual	academic and	life skills (the	special	educator	rating	scale, SPERS)
. The	special	education teacher survey will	be web based and self
- administered, with	a phone	interview option available
. The first	part of	the survey will take	approximately	10	minutes	to	complete, and the second part will	take about 2 5 minutes	for	each	student. In	the	second	pa rt	of	the	web	version	of	this	instrument, teachers	will	be	given	a	list	of	the	students	for	whom	they	should	complete	the	survey	and	will	click	on	each student’s	name	to	launch	this	part	for	that	specific	student. **School	Administrator Survey**  **.** The	school	administrator survey will	be web based	and	self
- administered, with a telephone	option	available,	and	will	take	the	administrator	(generally,	the	principal	or	principal’s designee)	approximately	20	minutes	to	complete.	The school administrator su rvey will collect information about a	school’s	characteristics	and	staffing (specifically,	the	school’s	structure	and	climate,	including	safety,7

organization,	and	support) .	It	will	also	collect	information	on the	student	population,	student	conduct, academ ic	culture,	course	offerings,	and	extended	learning	opportunities	(e.g.,	extracurricular	activities, summer	school,	or	supports	for	struggling	students ). **Administration	of	Assessments	and	Survey	Components Item	Validation	Field	Test** **.** In	the	Item	Validation Field	Test,	students’	parents,	math	teachers,	special education	providers	(as	applicable) ,	and	school	administrators	will	be	asked	to	complete	surveys	as described	above. To	keep student participation	to	approximately	90	minutes and	gain	as	much	informati on on	as	many	assessment	and	survey	items	as	possible,	the	Item	Validation	Field	Test	will	employ	a	spiral design	in	which	not	all	students will receive	the	same	assessments	and	survey	items.	Table	1	below	presents a	summary	of	the	student	assessment	and	survey	booklet spiral design. **Table	1. Item	Validation	Field	Test**  **Student	Assessment	and Spiral**  **Design** Booklet	1 Booklet	2 Booklet	3 Booklet	4 Bo oklet	5 Booklet	6 Math	assessment Math	assessment Math	assessment Math	assessment Math	assessment Math	assessment Demographic	items Executive	function

task: Hearts	&	Flowers Executive	function

task: 3 - Back Demographic	items Demographic	items Demographic	items Reading assessment (two - stage) No	reading

assessment No	reading

Assessment Reading

assessment (two - stage) Reading

assessment (two - stage) Reading

assessment (two - stage) Executive	function task: Stop	Signal Demographic	items Demographic	items Executive	function task: 2 - Back No	executive

function	task No	executive

function	task Theories	of Intelligence (general) Student

Questionnaire Student

Questionnaire No	student

questionnaire No	student

questionnaire No	student

questionnaire **Operational	Field	Test.** Similar	to	the	Item	Validation	Field	Test,	students’	parents,	math	teachers,	special education	providers	(as	applicable) ,	and	school	administrators	will	be	asked	to	complete	surveys	as described	above. The	Operational	Field	Test	will	not	employ	a	spiral	design	for	the	student	assessments	and student	survey	items.	The	purpose	of	the	Operational	Field	Test	is	to, as	closely	as	possibl e, mirror	the	main study	approach;	therefore, each	student	will	receive a	portion	of	the	math	assessment	(30	minutes);	reading assessment	(30	minutes);	two	of	the	executive	function	assessments	(10	minutes);	and	the	student	survey (20	minutes)	(approximately	90	minutes	total). **School Recruitment	Approach**  The	student	sample	for the **Item	Validation	Field	Test**,	while	not	required	to	be	nationally	representative for psychometric	analysis, will include	students in	the typical age	range found in	grades 5
– 8 in	the United States ;	these students will likely	demonstrate	a	range	of	ability	on	the	constructs	being	measured	by	the MGLS	item	pool .	The	sample	will also include a	subset	of	students	from the	three	focal disability groups (learning	disability,	autism,	and	emotional	disturbance) who	are	able	to	take standardized	tests	using accommodations.	Schools	will	be	recruited	both	directly	and	at	the	district	level. The **Operational	Field	Test** will	require	a n	approximately nationally	representative	sample	of	6 th- graders	in two	groups:	Group	1	is	s tudents who	are	found	on	the	rosters	of	general	education	schools 1 that	are	sampled

1 Such	students	may	or	may	not	have	an	IEP.	There	will	be	an	effort	to	include	all	students	who	fall	into	the	Group	1	sample	re gardless	of	IEP	status.8

into	the	study, and	Group	2	is a	purposive	sample	of students who have	a	primary	disability	categorization in their IEP of	either emotional	disturbance	or	autism. The	universe	for	the	MGLS:2017	Operational	Field	T est includes	all	children	enrolled	in	6 th grade	in	the	2015
– 16	school	year	in	the	50	states	and	the	District	of Columbia.	Schools	will	be	recruited	both	directly	and	at	the	district	level. For	more	information	on	the recruitment	approach,	see	Part	B ,	secti ons B.1 and	B.2. 

### A.3 **Improved	Information	Technology	(Reduction	of	Burden)** Where	feasible,	available	technology	will	be	used	to	reduce	burden	and	improve	efficiency	and	accuracy.	For example,	if	districts	can	provide	information	linking	students	to	their	mathematics	teachers	or	students with disabilities	to	their	special	education	teachers	electronically,	we	will	use	this	information	rather	than	asking for it at	the	school	level. The burden	of recruitment	on districts and	school s will	be minimal, with most information	gathered	over	the	telephone.	Districts	will	primarily	be	asked	to	provide	confirmation	of	data gathered	from	other	sources,	including	school	universe	files	and	district and	school	websites. Our collection of student	lists	will	accommodate	whatever	form at districts and	schools find	to	be	the	least	burdensome.	The study	will	utilize	the	information	in any format	it	is	provided. 

### A.4 **Efforts	to	Identify	Duplication** The	MGLS: 2017	will	not	be	duplicative	of	other	studies.	While	NCES	longitudinal	studies	have	contributed	to our	understanding	of	the	factors	that	influence	student	success	and	failure	in	school,	the	middle	grades (grades	6
– 8)	are	noticeably	absent	from	the	studies conducted	to	date.	A majority of	national ly representative longitudinal	studies	have	focused	on	high	school	students	and	on	the	transition	from secondary	to	postsecondary	education : e.g. , the High	School	and	Beyond Longitudinal	Study ( HS&B ) and	the Educati on	Longitudinal	Study	of	2002 ( ELS:2002).	The	Early	Childhood	Longitudinal	Study,	Kindergarten Class	of	1998
– 99	(ECLS
- K) , and	the	National	Education	Longitudinal	Study	of	1988	(NELS:88)	collected	data on	students in grade	8,	but	neither	included a data	collection in grades	6	and	7.	The	ECLS
- K:2011	will	not follow	students	beyond	grade	5 , and	the	High	School	Longitudinal	Study	of	2009	(HSLS:09)	began	with	a national	sample of	students	in	grade	9. Thus, there	is little information	at	the	national	level	about	the learning	that	occurs	during	grades	6
– 8	and	about	the	rates	of	learning	for	different	groups	of	students	who may	experience	diverse	school	environments	and	opportunities. The	MGLS:2017	is	unique	in	that	it	will	assess	students ’	mathematics	and	r eading	achievement,	as	well	as other	student	outcomes	(e.g. ,	executive	function	and	socioemotional	development) , for	the	same	group	of students	over	a 3 - year	period.	In	addition	to	the	ECLS
- K	and	NELS:88, other national studies have	assessed some	of	these outcomes	for	students	in	grade	8,	including	the	National	Assessment	of	Education al Progress (NAEP)	and the Trends	in	International	Mathematics	and	Science	Study	(TIMSS ).	These	studies, however, are cross - sectional	and	do	not	include	repeated	measures	of	achievement or assess	multiple	subjects	and	areas of	development	for	the	same	sample	of	students.	Therefore, they cannot	answer	questions	about	students’ growth	in	mathematics	and	reading	over the middle
- grade	years, about differences	in	the	rates	of	growth for different	populations	( e.g.,	differences	by	gender, by race / ethnicity,	and	for	students	attending	public	and private	schools),	and about the	school	and	nonschool	factors	that	may	facilitate	or	hinder	this	growth.	Nor can	they	explore	questions	about	th e	relationships	between	student	achievement	and	other	school	outcomes and	executive	functions	(e.g. ,	working	memory,	attention,	and	inhibitory	control)	that	work	to	regulate	and orchestrate	cognition,	emotion,	and	behavior	to	enable	a	student	to	learn	in	the	classroom. The	MGLS:2017 will	also	be	unique	in	its	focus	on	obtaining	a	sample	of	students	in	three	disability	categories	that	can	be studied	on	their	own	or	compared	to	general	education	students	over	the	three	middle	level	years.9

Other	adolescent	development	studies	have	been	conducted,	but they often	do	not	include	a	grade	6	sample. For	example,	the	youngest children	in	the	National	Longitudinal	Study	of	Adolescent Health (Add	Health) and the	Maryland	Adolescent	Development	in	Context	Study	(MADICS ) were	in	grade	7	at	baseline.	Many	of	these studies	collected	data	on	local	samples,	had	a	primary	focus	on	family	and	ch ild	processes,	and	were	started in	the	1990s : e.g. ,	MADICS	and	the	Michigan	Study	of	Adolescent	and	Adult	Life	Transitions ( MSALT).	As s uch,	they	do	not	provide	a	contemporary	picture of U.S. students	in grade s 6
– 8 . 

### A.5 **Minimizing	Burden	for	Small	Entities** Although	small	entities	are	not	part	of	this	study, in	general, b urden	will	be	minimized	wherever	possible. For	example,	schools	will be	selected	so	as	to	avoid	overlap	with	other	NCES	assessments, such	as	the concurrently	run MGLS:2017	Operational	Field	Test. During	district	and	school recruitment,	we	will minimize	burden	by	training	recruitment	staff	to	make	their	contacts	as	straightf orward	and	concise	as possible.	The	recruitment	letters	and	materials	(e.g., the study	description	and	FAQs)	are	designed	to	be clear,	brief,	and	informative. In	addition,	contractor	staff	will	conduct	all	test	administration	and	will	assist with	parental notification,	sampling,	and	other study tasks	as	much	as	possible	within	each	school. 

### A.6 **Frequency	of	Data	Collection** The **Item	Validation	Field	Test** for the MGLS:2017 is	a	one - time	data	collection	that will take	place in January	through	March of winter 2016 . The **Operational	Field	Test** for the	MGLS:2017	is expected	to take place in	January	through	March of	winter	2016,	with	limited	follow
- ups	(as	described	in	section	A.2)	in January	through	March	of	winter	2017	and	2018. The	follow
- ups	will	focus	solely	o n	student	tracing	and tracking	and	will	not	re
- assess	students	or	re
- administer	any	survey	components. 

### A.7 **Special	Circumstances** There	are	no	special	circumstances	involved	with	the	recruitment. 

### A.8 **Consultations O**  **utside	NCES** As	part	of	the	MGLS:2017	des ign	contract, content experts were	consulted	in	the	development	of	the assessments	and	questionnaires. These	experts	are	listed	by	name,	affiliation,	and	expertise	in table	2
. **Table 2**  **. Members	of	the	MGLS:2017	Content	Review	Panels**  Name Affiliation Expertise Mathematics	Assessment Content	Review	Panel (June	18
– 19,	2013) Tom	Loveless Brookings	Institution Policy,	math	curriculum Linda Wilson Formerly	with

Project	2061 Math	education,	math	assessment,	middle	school	assessment,	author	of NCTM

Assessment	Standards	for	School	Mathematics	and	NAEP	math	framework, teacher Kathleen	Heid University	of	Florida Math	education,	use	of	technology,	teacher	knowledge,	NAEP	Grade	8 M athematics Standing C ommittee	member Edward	Nolan Montgomery	County

Schools ,	Maryland Math	curriculum	and	standards,	large
- scale	assessment of	middle
- grade students Lisa Keller University	of

Massachusetts, Amherst Psychometrics,	former	math	teacher Paul Sally University	of	Chicago Math	education,	mathematics	reasoning,	m athematically	talented	adolescents10

Margie Hill University	of	Kansas Co - author	of	Kansas	math ematics standards,	former	NAEP Mathematics Standing Committee	member,	former	district	math	supervisor Executive	Function Content	Review	Panel (July	18,	2013) Lisa	Jacobson Johns	Hopkins

University;	Kennedy Krieger	Institute D evelopment	of	executive	functioning	skills , attention,	neurodevelopmental

disorders, and parent	and	teacher	scaffolding Dan Romer University	of

Pennsylvania Adolescent	risk	taking James Byrnes Temple	University Self
- regulation,	decision	making,	cognitive	processes	in	mathematics	learning Socioemotional
- Student
- Family Content	Review	Panel (July	25
– 26,	2013) James	Byrnes Temple	University Self
- regulation,	decision	making,	cognitive processes	in	mathematics	learning Russell Rumberger University	of

California,	Santa Barbara School	dropouts,	ethnic	and	language	minority	student	achievement Tama Leventhal Tufts	University Family	context,	adolescence,	social	policy,	community	and neighborhood indicators Susan	Dauber Bluestocking

Research School	organization,	educational	transitions,	urban	education,	parent	involvement

and	family	processes Scott Gest Pennsylvania	State

University Social	networking,	social	skills,	longitudinal assessment	of	at
- risk	populations Kathryn Wentzel University	of

Maryland Social	and	academic	motivation,	self
- regulation,	school	adjustment,	peer relationships,	teacher
- student	relationships,	family
- school	linkages Richard Lerner Tufts	University Adolescent	development	and	relationships	with	peers,	families,	schools,	and communities School	Administrator Content	Review	Panel (August	16,	2013) Susan	Dauber Bluestocking

Research School	organization,	educational	transitions,	urban	education,	parent involvement

and	family	processes George	Farkas University	of

California,	Irvine Schooling	equity	and	human	resources Jeremy Finn State	University	of

New	York	at	Buffalo School	organization,	school	dropouts Edward	Nolan Montgomery	County

Schools , Maryland Large	urban	school	system	administrator Tom	Loveless Brookings Institution Policy,	math	curriculum Reading	Assessment Content	Review	Panel (	April	14,	2014) Donna Alvermann University	of	Georgia Adolescent	literacy,	online	literacy,	co director of	the	National	Reading	Research Center	(funded	by the	U.S.	Department	of	Education) Joseph Magliano Northern	Illinois

University Cognitive	processes	that	support	comprehension,	the	nature	of	memory

representations	for	events	depicted	in	text	and	film, strategies	to	detect	and	help struggling	readers Sheryl Lazarus University	of

Minnesota Education	policy	issues	related	to	the	inclusion	of	students	with	disabilities	in

assessments	used	for	accountability purposes,	student	participation	and accommodation s,	alternate	assessments,	technology
- enhanced	assessments, teacher	effectiveness,	large
- scale	assessments,	school	accountability,	research design	(including	cost	analyses),	data
- driven	decision making,	rural	education,	the economics	of	education Disabilities Content	Review	Panel (April	29,	2014) Jose Blackorby SRI	International Autism,	specific	learning	disabilities,	special	education,	curriculum	design, alternate	student	assessment,	large
- scale	studies	of	students	with	disabilities, co director of	the	Special	Education	Elementary	Longitudinal	Study (SEELS) Lynn Fuchs Vanderbilt	University Specific	learning	disabilities,	student	assessment,	mathematics	curriculum, psychometric	models Mitchell	L. Yell University	of	South

Carolina Autism, emotional	and	behavior	disorders,	specific	learning	disabilities,	pre
- K
– 12

instruction	and	curriculum,	special	education,	evidence
- based	intervention11

Sheryl Lazarus University	of

Minnesota Special	education	policy,	inclusion	of	students	with	disabilities in	assessments,

accommodations,	alternate	assessments,	technology
- enhanced	assessments, large
- scale	assessments,	school	accountability,	research	design	(including	cost analyses) Martha Thurlow University	of

Minnesota Specific	learning	disabilities, reading	assessment,	alternate	student	assessment,

early	childhood	education,	special	education,	curriculum,	large
- scale	studies Diane Pedrotty Bryant University	of	Texas,

Austin Educational	interventions	for	improving	the	mathematics	and	reading

performan ce	of	students	with	learning	disabilities,	the	use	of	assistive	technology for	individuals	with	disabilities,	interventions	for	students	with	learning disabilities	and	who	are	at risk	for	educational	difficulties 

### A.9 **Payments	or	Gifts	to	Respondents** High	levels	of	school	participation	are	critical	to	the	success of both the **Item	Validation	Field	Test** and	the **Operational	Field	Test**
. School administrator,	mathematics	teacher,	special education	teacher,	parent,	and student	data	collection	activities	are contingent	on	school	cooperation.	NCES	recognizes	that	the	burden level	of	the	study	is	one	of	the	factors	that	school	administrators	will	consider	when deciding	whether to participate.	To	offset	the	perceived	burden	of	participation,	NCES	intends	to	conti nue to use	strategies	that have	worked	successfully in other	major	NCES	studies	(e.g.,	ECLS
- K,	ECLS - K:2011,	HS&B,	NELS:88,	and ELS:2002),	including	offering both monetary	and	non
- monetary incentives. Table	3 summarizes the proposed incentive	amount for	each	instrument	and	activity along	with their estimated	administration time s ; a	brief	justification	for	each	incentive	amount follows	table	3
. **Table 3**  **. Item	Validation**  **and	Operational Field	Test	Instruments	and**  **Proposed	Incentive	Amounts Instrument/Activity**  **Administration	Time*** **Field	Test Incentive**  **s Item	Validation**  **Operational** Student	Assessments	and Survey (Math, Reading, Executive Function,	and Student	Survey) 90	minutes No	monetary	incentive Choic e	of	e.g.	1)	mechanical	pencil, 2 )	mobile	device	screen cleaner, 3)	suncatcher, 4)	slap	bracelet (average	value	$0.50	each) Parent	Survey 30	minutes None,	$20,	or	$40 $20 (with	possible	additional	amount	for targeted	cases	if	responsive	design	in nonresponse	follow
- up	is	utilized) Mathematics	Teacher Teacher	Survey 20	minutes $20 Teacher	Student	Report 10	minutes	per	student $7	per	TSR Special	Education	Teacher Teacher	Survey 10	minutes $20 Teacher	Student	Report 25	minutes	per	student $7	per	TSR School	Administrator	Survey 20	minutes No monetary	incentive School Participation School	Coordinator (logistics,	on
- site	visit,	consent forms,	administrative	records, etc.) 6	hours	for	consent	assistance 2	hours	to	schedule assessments 2	hours	to	set	up	web	access, coordinate	computer	labs 6 hours	to	provide administrative	records $200,	$400,	or	$400	in	material	or	services	for	school $150	for	coordinator

* Note	that	the	assessment	administration time	may	be	longer	for	students	with	disabilities. **Students** There	is	no	monetary	incentive	in	the **Item	Validation	Field	Test** for	students. In	the **Operational	Field Test** ,	we	plan	a	simple	experiment	on	Token	of	Appreciation	for	Student	Participation. To build	goodwill toward	the	study	on	the	part	of	students, in	the main	study MGLS:2017 plans	to offer	students	the	choice	of12

one	of	two	items	valued	at	$0.25	up	to	$1	each.	These	items	will	be	unbranded	with	any	MGLS	logo	in	order not	to	identify	the	student	as	having	participated	in	this	particular	study.	NCES	has	expe rience	with	the tastes	of	elementary	and	high	school	students	but	we	are	not	as	familiar	with	what	would	be	an	attractive reward	for	middle	grades	students.	By	giving	the	operational	field	test	students	the	choice	of	one	of	four items,	we	can determine whi ch	two	would likely be	more	attractive	in	the	national	data	collection. **Parents** Parent	survey	response	rates	have	declined	over	the	past	decade.	The	ECLS
- K:2011	baseline	(fall	2010) parent survey	response	rate	was	more	than	10	percentage	points lower ( 74 percent) 2 than	the	p arent survey rate in	the	corresponding 1998 wave	of	the	ECLS
- K ( 85 percent). 3 Additionally,	the 9 th grade parent	survey response	rate	for	the	HSLS:2009 baseline was	68	percent. 4 The	MGLS	p arent	survey is a	key	component	of the	data	being	collected. To	improve the chances of obtaining	higher	parent	participation	rates	in	a	school
- based	design, we will	work with	school	personnel	to	recruit sample	students’ parents	into	the MGLS:2017 and will conduct	an experiment in	the	Item	Validation	Fie ld	Test to	determine	the	effect	of	different	levels	of	monetary	incentives on	parent	participation. In	the **Item	Validation	Field	Test** ,	a n experiment will	be	used to	determine	the	effect on response	rates and on	the	cost	and	length	of	nonresponse	follow
- up of offering parents	of	middle
- grade	students a $0,	$20, or $40	incentive for	completing	the	parent	questionnaire
. Additionally,	the	experiment	will	also	evaluate whether	parents	of	children	with	disabilities,	who may	be	more reluctant to	engage	in	this	stu dy	and who may require more	frequent	and	extensive	nonresponse	follow
- up,	are	influenced	differently	by	the	offer	of	a monetary	incentive	than	parents	of	students	without	disabilities. In	the Item	Validation	Field	Test, each school	will	be	randomly assigned	to	one	of	the	three	experimental conditions. Therefore,	all	parents asked	to	complete	the	parent	survey within	a	school	will	be	assigned	to	the same	condition.	Parents	in	one
- third	of	the	schools	will	be	asked	to	complete	the	parent	survey,	but	wi ll	not be	offered	a	monetary	incentive	for	doing	so ; parents	in	another	one
- third	of	the	schools	will	be	offered	$20 to	complete the	survey; and	parents	in	the	remaining	one
- third	of	the	schools	will	be	offered	$40 to	complete the	survey.	We	will	monitor	the	response	rate	in	each	group	and	document	the	level	of	effort	needed	to obtain	the	response	rates	achieved	under	the	different	incentive/no
- incentive	options.	All	groups	will receive	similar	reminders	and	other	modes	of	follow
- up	contact.	The	number	of	c ontact	attempts	to	achieve the	final	response	rates	will	be	measured	to	compute the potential	resource	savings,	if	any, of	each	incentive payment relative	to no incentive	payment. For	the	Item	Validation	Field	Test,	as	shown	in	Part	B,	section	B.1.1	we	plan	for	3,950	participating	students. Assuming	an	80	percent	response	rate	from	students,	this	means	we	will	have	needed	to	consent	4,938 students.	Therefore,	within	the	Item	Validation	Field	Test,	we	will	be	seeking	parent	surveys	from	4,938

2 Tourangeau,	K.,	Nord,	C.,	Lê,	T.,	Sorongon,	A.G.,	Hagedorn,	M.C.,	Daly,	P.,	and	Najarian,	M.	(2012). Early	Childhood	Longitudinal	Study,	Kindergarten Class	of	2010
– 11	(ECLS
-K:2011),	User’s	Manual	for	the	ECLS
-K:2011	Kindergarten	Data	File	and	Electronic	Codebook (NCES	2013
- 061).	U.S.	Department of	Education.	Washington,	DC:	National	Center	for	Education	Statistics. 3 Tourangeau,	K.,	Nord,	C.,	Lê,	T.,	Sorongon,	A.G.,	Hagedorn,	M.C.,	Daly,	P.,	and	Najarian,	M.	(2001). Early	Childhood	Longitudinal	Study,	Kindergarten Class	of	1998
– 99	(ECLS
-K),	User’s	Manual	for	the	ECLS
-K	Base	Year	Public
- Use	Data	Files	and	Electronic	Codebook (NCES	2001
- 029).	U.S.	Department	of Education.	Washington,	DC:	National	Center	for	Education	Statistics. 4 Ingels,	S.J.,	Pratt,	D.J.,	Herget,	D.R.,	Burns,	L.J.,	Dever,	J.A.,	Ottem,	R.,	Rogers,	J.E.,	Jin,	Y.,	and	Leinwand,	S.	(2011). High	School	Longitudinal	Study	of 2009	(HSLS:09).	Base
- Year	Data	File	Documentation (NCES	2011
- 328). U.S.	Department	of	Education.	Washington,	DC:	National	Center	for	Education Statistics.13

students’	parents.	Assuming	4,938	are	split	approximately	equally	across	schools	and	conditions;	this would result	in approximately	1,646	cases	within	each	incentive	level. As	stated,	the	9 th grade	parent	survey	response	rate	for	the	HSLS:2009	baseline	was	68 % .	For	a	power	of 0 .80,	a	confi dence	level	of 95%,	and	1,646	cases	within	each	condition, in this	experiment a	4.5% point difference	in	response rate	should	be	detectable as	statistically	significant	( e.g., 68.0 %	vs. 72.5 % ).	Formula provided	below. 5 n	=	(Z α/2 +Z β) 2 *	(p 1 (1
- p 1 )+p 2 (1
- p 2 ))	/	(p 1 - p 2 ) 2 Where	Z α/2 is	the	critical	value	of	the	Normal	distribution	at	α/2	(e.g.	for	a	confidence	level	of	95%,	α	is	0.05 and the	critical	value	is	1.96); Z β is	the	critical	value	of	the	Normal	distribution	at	β	(e.g.	for	a	power	of	80%,	β	is	0.2 and	the	critical	value	is	0.84)	and	p 1 and	p 2 are	the	expected	sample	proportions	of	the	two	groups. However,	the	Item	Validation	Field	Test	has	a	clustered	design with	students	nested	in	schools.	Therefore, assuming	an	approximate	design	effect	of	4,	which	is	a	similar	design	effect	as	reported	by	the	HSLS:09	for parent	respondents 6,	which	also	had	a	clustered	design	with	students	nested	in	schools,	the	effective	sample size	for	any	condition	would	be	approximately	412	cases	(1,646/4).	For	a	power	of 0.80,	a	confidence	level	of 95 %,	and	412	cases	within	each	condition,	this	experiment	should	be	able	to	detect	approximately	an	8.5 % point	difference	in	response	as	statistically	significant	( e.g., 68.0 %	vs. 76.5 % ). In	the **Operational	Field	Test**,	given	that	we	will	not	yet	have	the	results	from	the	Item	Validation	Field	Test experiment,	to	try	to	achieve	desired	response	rates,	all	parents	will	be	offered	$20.00	for	compl eting	the parent	survey.	A	parent	incentive	responsive	design	may	also	be	employed	in	non
- response	follow
- up,	the details	of	which	would	be	provided	in	late	2015	as	part	of	the	field	test	data	collections	submission. In	September	through	December,	2015,	school	coordinators	will	distribute	to	sample	parents	a	letter	asking them	to	consent	to	their	child’s	participation	in	the	study	(where	explicit	consent	is	required)	and	to	provide either	their	email,	their	landline	phone	number,	or	their	cell	phone	number so	that	they	can	be	contacted	for the	parent	survey.	By	providing	this	information,	parents	will	indicate	that	they	are	willing	to	participate	in the	parent	survey.	The	consent	form	indicates	that	parents	will	receive	a	$20	incentive	upon	completing	the pa rent	survey. **Teachers** For	both	the **Item	Validation	Field	Test** and	the **Operational	Field	Test**,	the	incentive	proposed	for students’	teachers	is	$20	per	teacher survey, plus	$7	per	teacher student report (TSR) .	These	amounts	are consistent	with the amounts u sed in current	NCES studies, such	as	the	ECLS
- K:2011.	While it	is	estimated that the	mathematics	teacher survey will take	longer	to	complete (20	minutes) than	the	special	education teacher survey ( 10	minutes ) ,	the	reverse	is	true	for	the	individual	student	reports. The	individual	student reports	will	require	approximately	10	minutes	per	student	to	complete	for	mathematics	teachers	and	25 minutes	per	student	to	complete	for	special	education	teachers (including 5	minutes	for an	indirect assessment	of	student’s	skills,	the	SPERS ).

5 Retrieved from http://www.select
- statistics.co.uk/sample
- size
- calculator
-two -proportions. 6 Ingels,	S.J.,	Pratt,	D.J.,	Herget,	D.R.,	Burns,	L.J.,	Dever,	J.A.,	Ottem,	R.,	Rogers,	J.E.,	Jin,	Y.,	and	Leinwand,	S.	(2011). High	School	Longitudinal	Study	of 2009	(HSLS:09).	Base - Year	Data	File	Documentation (NCES	2011
- 328). U.S.	Department	of	Education.	Washington,	DC:	National	Center	for	Education Statistics.14

**School s**  **and	School	Coordinator s**  For	both	the **Item	Validation	Field	Test** and	the **Operational	Field	Test**,	we	propose	to conduct	an experiment	for	schools	that	works	across	both	field	te sts. Each	school	will	be	randomly	assigned	to	one	of the	three	experimental	conditions. In	Condition	1,	the	baseline	condition, we will offer	schools	a	$200 incentive	for their participation.	Given	the	many	demands	and	outside	pressures	that	schools already	face,	it is	essential	that	they	see	that	MGLS:2017	staff	understand	the	additional	burden	being	placed	on	school	staff when	requesting	their	participation.	The	study	asks	for	many	kinds	of	information	and	cooperation	from schools,	including	a	stude nt	roster	with	basic	demographic	information	(e.g.,	date	of	birth,	sex,	and race/ethnicity);	information	on	students’	IEP	status;	permission	for	field	staff	to	be	in	the	school	for	up	to	a week;	space	for	administering	student	assessments;	permission	for	s tudents	to	leave	their	normal	classes	for the	duration	of the assessments;	and	information	about	the	students ’	teachers	and	parents. For	sample	students	with	disabilities,	o n	average, 5 students	in	each	school	will be	selected	based	on disability category, and	many	will	require	accommodations	and	different	assessment	settings,	such	as individual	administration	and	smaller	group	sessions.	Working	with	the	data	collection	contractor	to	assess these	students	will	place even	more	of	a burden	on	the	participating	schools. A baseline school	incentive amount of	$200 is	consistent	with	the	amount that	NCES offers for	participation in	other studies, such	as	the ECLS - K,	ECLS - K:2011,	TIMSS,	and	the	Program	for	International	Student	Assessment	(PISA). However,	based on previous	difficulties	in	recruiting	schools	for	the originally	approved MGLS	field	test recruitment and	the general	decline	in	school	participation	in	NCES	longitudinal	studies	over	the	years, 7 we	propose	to also test offering	one	third	of	the	sample	schoo ls $400 (Condition	2) , an d	one third	of	schools a choice	of	one	of	seven non - monetary incentives equivalent	to	$400 (Condition	3) .	The list	of the non - monetary incentive	choices is provided in Table 4 . **Table 4**  **. Non**  **- Monetary	Incentive**  **Choices for	Schools**  **in	Experimental	Condition	3** Incentive Value Registration	for Association	for	Middle	Level	Education	(AMLE ) or	Regional Annual	Meeting $400 Two - Year School	Membership	in	AMLE $4 00 Membership	in	Regional	ML	Organization	plus Subscription s to	Professional Journals $400 Professional	Development	Webinar $400 Custom	Report	of	School	Results* $400 School	Supplies $400 Library	of	Middle	Level	Publications $400 * Report	type	will	depend	on	student	and	parent	response	rate	for	the	school
. School	coordinators will be	offered a $150 monetary	incentive.	They play	an	especially	important	role	in	the study	and	are	critical	to	its	success.	The	coordinator	in	each	participating	school	will	coordinate	logistics with	the	data	collection	contractor; compile	and	supply to	the	data	collection	contractor a	list	of	eligible students	for	sampling;	communicate	with	teachers,	students,	and	parents	about	the	study	to	encourage their participation;	distribute	and	collect parental consent	forms;	and	assist	the test	administrator	in	ensuring	that the	sampled	stude nts	attend	the	testing	sessions
.

7 For	example,	in	1998
– 99,	the	Early	Childhood	Longitudinal	Study	had	a	weighted	school
- level	response	rate	of	74	percent,	whereas	12	years	later, the	complementary	ECLS
- K:2011	study	had	a	weighted	school
- level	response	rate	of	63	percent.15



### A.10 **Assurance	of	Confidentiality** NCES	is	authorized	to	conduct	this	study under	the	Education	Sciences	Reform	Act	of	2002 ( 20	U.S.	Code, Section 9543 ) .	By	law, the data	provided by	schools,	staff, parents, and	students 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	(20	U.S.	Code, Section 9573). The	laws	pertaining	to	the	co llection	and	use	of	personally identifiable	information	will	be	clearly	communicated in	correspondence	with	states,	districts,	schools, teachers,	students,	and	parents.	Letters	and	informational	materials	will	be	sent	to	parents	and	school administrators	d escribing	the	study,	its	voluntary	nature,	and	the	extent	to	which	respondents	and	their responses	will	be	kept	confidential. A	request	for	a	list	of	middle	grade	students	with	IEPs	will	be	requested from	school	districts and/or	schools under	FERPA excepti on ( 34	CFR Part 99.31 ).	This	information	will	be used	for	sampling	purposes	only and	will	be	securely	destroyed	once	student	samples	are	drawn
. The	confidentiality	plan developed	for	the	MGLS: 2017	requires	that all	contractor and	subcontractor personnel	and	field	workers	who	will	have	access	to	individual	identifiers sign	confidentiality	agreements and	notarized	nondisclosure	affidavits
. The	plan	also	requires	that all personnel receive	training regarding the	meaning	of	confid entiality,	particularly	as	it	relates	to	handling	requests	for	information	and	providing assurance	to	respondents	about	the	protection	of	their	responses. NCES	understands	the	legal	and	ethical need	to	protect	the	privacy	of	the MGLS:2017 respondents	and	h as	extensive	experience	in	developing	data files	for	release	that	meet	the	government’s	requirements	to	protect	individually	identifiable	data	from disclosure. The	data	files,	accompanying	software,	and	documentation	will	be	delivered	to	NCES by	the	data c ollection	contractor at	the	end	of	the	project.	Neither	names	nor	addresses	will	be	included	in	any	data	file. 

### A. **11 Sensitive	Questions**  The	recruitment	effort does	not	involve gathering	information	considered	to	be	of	a	sensitive	nature.	A	list	of middle
- grade	students	with	IEPs	will	be	requested	from	school	districts, or	schools	where	appropriate, under	FERPA	exception	( 34	CFR Part 99.31 ).	This	information	will	be	used	for	sampling	purposes	only and will	be	destroyed	once	student	samples	are	drawn .	All	d istrict	and	school	personnel	facilitating	the conduct of	the	study	and	developing	the	sampling	frame	will	be	informed	of	the	privacy	and	confidentiality	protocols required	for	the study,	including those	having	to	do	with the	sample	lists	of	schools	and students. 

### A.12 **Estimates	of	Burden** Table 5 shows	the	expected	burden for districts, schools , and	parents during	the	Item	Validation	Field	Test and	Operational	Field	Test recruitment	activities. For	the **Item	Validation	Field	Test**,	as shown in Part	B, secti on	B.1.1 we	anticipate	contacting	approximately 92 schools	to	reach	the	approximately	51	schools	needed	for	participation,	and contacting	the	parents	of approximately	6,172	students	to	yield	approximately	3,950	participating	students
. For	the **Operational Field	Test** ,	as	shown	in	Part	B ,	section	B.2.1,	we	anticipate	contacting	approximately	90	schools	to	reach	the approximately	50	schools	needed	for	participation,	and contacting	the	parents	of	approximately	1,750 students to	yield	approximately	1,120	partici pating students. In both	field	tests,	in order	to	draw	samples	of students	with	disabilities,	we	may	need	to	obtain	student	records	information	from	up	to	four	districts per field	test.	We anticipate	needing to	contact	up	to	12	districts	to	gain	participation	from four. We	estimate	that	it	will	take 1 0 minutes on	average for school and	district administrators to	review	the materials	and	either	agree	or	decline	to	participate .	For	those	participating,	we	estimate an additional 416

hours for the	provision	of student	rosters (including	information	about	students	for	sampling,	contact information	for	the	sample	students’	parents,	and	sample	students'	math	and	special	education	teachers; see Appendi ces S and	T)
. For	student’s	parents,	we	estimate that	it	will	take up	to 1 0 minutes	to	review	the recruitment	materials	and either	consent	or	refuse to	participate (on	behalf	of	their	student	an d	themselves)
. The	provision	of	student	rosters	and	the	parents ’ consent forms	will serve	as	sources	for	parents	contact information,	which	during	the	data	collection	period	can	be	used	for	nonresponse	follow
- up. **Table 5**  **. Recruitment	Burden**  **Estimates for**  **Schools	and	Parents**

**Recruitment Number**  **contacted Average** 

**burden	time (minutes)**  **Total	burden**

**(hours) Respondent** 

**average hourly**  **wage 1**  **Estimate	of**

**respondent labor	cost**  **Item	Validation	Field	Test** Nonparticipating	districts 8 10 2 $44.18 $88.36 Participating	districts 4 250 17 $44.18 $751.06 Nonparticipating	schools 41 10 7 $43.67 $305.69 Participating	schools 51 250 213 $43.67 $9,301.71 Students’	parents 6,172 10 1,029 $22.76 $23,420.04 **Total 6,276**  **- 1,268**  **- $33,866.86**  **Operational	Field	Test** Nonparticipating	districts 8 10 2 $44.18 $88.36 Participating	districts 4 250 17 $44.18 $751.06 Nonparticipating	schools 40 10 7 $43.67 $305.69 Participating	schools 50 250 208 $43.67 $9,083.36 Students’	parents 1,750 10 292 $22.76 $6,645.92 **Total 1,852**  **- 526**  **- $16,874.39**  **Total 8,128**  **- 1,794**  **- $50,741.25**  1 Average	wages	use	the	Bureau	of	Labor	Statistics	(BLS)	May	2013	National	Occupational	and	Employment	Wage	Estimates. S alaries	estimated	by	the BLS	are	computed	assuming	2,080	hours	per	year. 

### A.13 **Total	Annual	Cost	Burden** There	are	no	respondent	costs other	than	the cost	associated	with response time burden
. 

### A.14 **Annualized	Cost	to	Federal	Government** The	estimated	cost	to	the federal government for	contractor	and	subcontractor	work to conduct	the	Item Validation	Field	Test and	the	Operational	Field Test will	be	provided	by	early	May	2015
. 

### A.15 **Program	Changes	or	Adjustments** In	June	2014,	NCES	obtained	OMB	clearance	for	district and	school	recruitment	for	the MGLS:2017 I tem Validation F ield T est.	The	recruitment	was	scheduled	to	begin	in	the	summer of	2014	with	data	collection beginning	in	February	2015.	NCES	has	since	revised	the	schedule	and	plan	for	the	MGLS:2017	developmental work. B oth	the	item	validation	field	test	and	the	operational	field	test will	be	conducted starting	in	January 2016,	with school	recruitment	beginning	in	the	summer	of	2015,	as	soon	as	OMB approval is	received.	As	a result, NCES	requested	to	discontinue	the	original approval	for recruitment	( OMB# 1850
- 0911	v.1) ,	and	this submission seeks reinstatement	of	the	1850
- 0911	OMB	number with approval	for	recruitment	for	both MGLS:2017	field	tests.17



### A.16 **Plans	for	Tabulation	and	Publication** The results	from	the	Item	Validation	Field	Test	and	the	Operational	Field	Test	will	be	presented	in	a	single field	test	report	released	approximate ly	6	months	after	the	completion	of	the	field	tests. **Table	6.		Schedule	for	Item	Validation	Field	Test	and	Operational	Field	Test Activity**  **Start	date End	date**  Recruitment	of	school	and	districts June	2015 December	2015 Recruitment	of	students	and parents	through	requesting parent	consent	from	parents September	2015 December	2015 Item	Validation	Field	Test January	2015 March	2015 Operational	Field	Test January	2015 March	2015 Field	Test	Report
‒ September	2015 

### A.17 **Display	OMB	Expiration	Date** The	OMB	expiration	date	will	be	displayed	on	all recruitment materials. 

### A.18 **Exceptions	to	Certification	Statement** No	exceptions	to	the	certification	statement	are	requested	or	required.