[Recruiter]

[Title, Organization]

[Date]

[RTT/ELC - MPRID]

[Contact Name]

[Title]

[Address]

[Additional contact(s) if appropriate.]

Dear [Dr./Mr./Ms.] [Contact(s)]: 

Thank you for speaking with me about the Race to the Top—Early Learning Challenge: 

Descriptive Study of Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement Systems in Nine Round 1 States. As 

you know, the evaluation is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and is being 

conducted by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (Mathematica). 

The purpose of this letter is to summarize our communication thus far and to describe the 

responsibilities of both the Mathematica research team and [District] [(abbreviation if appropriate)] 

over the course of the study. If you feel that any aspect of the plan described in this letter is 

inconsistent with your understanding of the study, please contact me at [recruiter phone] or 

[recruiter email] to explore possible revisions. 

Study Background. The Race to the Top—Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC) grants program 

is a joint effort by the U.S. Departments of Education (ED) and Health and Human Services (HHS) 

to strengthen the quality of early learning and development programs, and to increase access to 

high quality programs for all children, particularly low-income and disadvantaged children. The 

states that were awarded RTT-ELC grants were required to commit to integrating resources and 

aligning policies across the various state agencies that administer public funds related to early 

learning and development. RTT-ELC seeks to improve early learning and development programs 

by supporting reforms in five areas: (1) integrating state early care and education systems; (2) 

increasing access to high-quality, accountable programs; (3) promoting early learning and 

development outcomes through statewide standards and comprehensive assessment systems; (4) 

developing and supporting the early childhood workforce; and (5) building early learning data 

systems to measure child outcomes and progress.

A key aspect of the RTT-ELC program is the development and implementation of tiered quality 

rating and improvement systems (TQRIS) under the second reform area noted above (that is, 

increasing access to high quality, accountable programs). Through TQRIS, states use a set of 

standards to evaluate the quality of early learning and development programs and promote 

program improvement. TQRIS aim to improve program quality and child outcomes by

promulgating rigorous standards, rating providers based on those standards, and publicizing the

ratings of individual providers. 
LETTER TO: [District contact(s)]

FROM: [Recruiter]

DATE: [Date]

PAGE: 2

To better understand the TQRIS that RTT-ELC grantees are developing, ED’s Institute of 

Education Sciences (IES) has launched a descriptive study of the TQRIS funded under RTT-ELC. 

This study will collect information from Round 1 RTT-ELC grantee states to examine the structure 

and characteristics of TQRIS. The study is also examining the relationship between characteristics 

of center-based early care and education programs, as captured in TQRIS ratings, and child 

outcome measures at kindergarten entry in select states. The study’s primary research questions 

are: 

 How are TQRIS ratings defined, collected, and generated in the nine Round 1 RTTELC states and how might the structure and implementation of the rating system 

influence the reliability and validity of the ratings?

 What is the relationship between TQRIS ratings and kindergarten readiness outcomes 

for programs that serve preschool-age children in select RTT-ELC states?

Data Collection. To answer the first study research question, Mathematica interviewed state

representatives and conducted a targeted review of publicly available documents. To answer the 

second research question, Mathematica will collect and analyze TQRIS and kindergarten entry 

assessment (KEA) administrative data. This agreement outlines district activities only. 

Specifically, the study will collect the following data from [District]:

 Administrative data. To examine the relationship between TQRIS ratings and 

kindergarten readiness outcomes, the research team will electronically collect 

administrative data on TQRIS ratings for school year 2014-2015 and kindergarten 

entry assessment test scores for all kindergarten students for school year 2015–2016. 

The team will also collect data for all previous years during which the TQRIS and 

KEA being used were identical to those used in 2015–2016. Specifically, we are 

requesting data for [years]. We will obtain relevant administrative data from [State 

Education Agency], where possible. [District] will provide only those data elements 

which the state is unable to provide. Before collecting data, Mathematica will provide 

[District] with a complete list of required data elements. 

Administrative data files should be sent to Mathematica in electronic format. Prior to construction 

of these files, Mathematica staff will provide the appropriate contact person at [District] with 

detailed directions on formatting and procedures for securely transmitting the files. 
LETTER TO: [District contact(s)]

FROM: [Recruiter]

DATE: [Date]

PAGE: 3

Study Timeline. Mathematica plans to collect administrative data beginning in fall 2015. Specific 

dates will be determined by Mathematica and the district once we coordinate calendars.

Data Confidentiality. Any student-level data provided to the study team will be kept strictly 

confidential, except as may be required by law, and will be used only for research purposes. The 

research team shall, as appropriate, comply with: The Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, 

Title I, Part E, Section 183; The Privacy Act of 1974, P.L. 93-579, 5 USC 552 a; the ‘Buckley 

Amendment,’ Family Educational and Privacy Act of 1974, 20 USC 1232 g; and related 

regulations, including but not limited to: 41 CFR Part 1-1 and 45 CFR Part 5b. Any student 

identifiers will be stripped from the data and replaced with randomly generated numbers prior to 

analyzing the data. In addition to these data safeguards, the study team will ensure that no students, 

schools, or districts are identified in publicly available reports or findings, and if necessary, the 

study team will mask distinguishing characteristics.

Staff working on this project will securely maintain all data files and access to data files will be 

tightly restricted to only those project staff who are specifically authorized to view the data.

A restricted-use dataset will be produced as part of this study to provide external researchers 

access to data analyzed by this study. The restricted-use dataset will not include any student, 

school, or district names. The data file submitted to National Center for Education Statistics 

(NCES) will be made up of the data files submitted to the study team by the state or district and 

any identifiable information will be removed from the file, per agreements with states or districts. 

Further, access to these data is limited to only those researchers licensed by the NCES to use the 

data for research purposes only. NCES loans restricted-use data only to qualified organizations in 

the United States. Individual researchers must apply through an organization (e.g., a university, a 

research institution, or company). To qualify, an organization must provide a justification for 

access to the restricted-use data, submit the required legal documents, agree to keep the data safe 

from unauthorized disclosures at all times, and to participate fully in unannounced, unscheduled

inspections of the researcher’s office to ensure compliance with the terms of the License and the 

Security Plan form. Licensed researchers are subject to NCES standards for conducting research 

and protecting data confidentiality. Specifically, the use of these data is protected by Federal 

statutes and regulations; authorized researchers are subject to the laws, regulations, and penalties 

that apply to use of confidential data held by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES, an office of 

ED). Researchers who utilize the data in ways contrary to these statutes and regulations, such as 

attempting to identify respondents, face penalties of fines and jail terms.
LETTER TO: [District contact(s)]

FROM: [Recruiter]

DATE: [Date]

PAGE: 4

Research Approval. Mathematica will comply with all federal and state requirements for 

participation in research. Mathematica’s study protocols have been submitted to the U.S. Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and New England Institutional Review Board (NEIRB) for 

approval. 

Communication. I will be your primary contact on the study team. Please do not hesitate to 

contact me by phone or e-mail if you have any questions about the evaluation. The [District] has 

named [contact person] as the primary contact for the evaluation.

[Recruiter name]

[Title]

[Organization]

[Address Line 1]

[Address Line 2]

[Phone]

[Fax]

[Email]

[District Contact]

[Title]

[Organization]

[Address Line 1]

[Address Line 2]

[Phone]

[Fax]

[Email]
LETTER TO: [District contact(s)]

FROM: [Recruiter]

DATE: [Date]

PAGE: 5

Agreement to Proceed. If the plan described in this letter is acceptable to you and consistent with 

your understanding of your district’s participation in the study, please sign the bottom of this letter, 

keep one copy for your files, and E-mail one signed PDF copy of the letter to me at [Recruiter Email] or fax it to me at [Recruiter fax]. We appreciate your assistance with this important study, 

and we look forward to working with you.

Sincerely, 

[Recruiter name]

[Title, Organization]

Signed: 

The plan described in 

this letter accurately 

describes our plan for 

including [District] in 

the Race to the Top—

Early Learning 

Challenge: Descriptive 

Study of Tiered Quality 

Rating and 

Improvement Systems 

in Nine Round 1 

States.

[Contact Name]

[Title]

[District]

[Additional contact name]

[Title]

[District]

[Delete if unnecessary.]

Irma Perez-Johnson

Project Director

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Julius Clark

Deputy Director of Contracts

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.