Att_NTLS rev Supporting Statement Part A NTLS Baseline

Att_NTLS rev Supporting Statement Part A NTLS Baseline.docx

National Educational Study of Transition

OMB: 1850-0882

⚠️ Notice: This form may be outdated. More recent filings and information on OMB 1850-0882 can be found here:

Document [docx]

Download: docx | pdf

Supporting Statement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submission National Longitudinal Transition Study 2012 Baseline Data Collection

Part A

October 11, 2011

Contract Number:

ED-IES-10-C-0073

Mathematica Reference Number:

06876.381

Submitted to:

Institute of Education Sciences

U.S. Department of Education

555 New Jersey Ave., NW, Suite 502K

Washington, DC 20208

Project Officer: Amanda DeGraff, Ph.D.

Submitted by:

Mathematica Policy Research

P.O. Box 2393

Princeton, NJ 08543-2393

Telephone: (609) 799-3535

Facsimile: (609) 799-0005

Project Director: John Burghardt

Supporting Statement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submission National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) 2012

Part A

October 11, 2011

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

RESEARCH QUESTIONS 1

OVERVIEW 2

A. JUSTIFICATION 4

1. Circumstances Necessitating Collection of Information 4

2. How, by Whom, and for What Purpose the Information Is to Be Used 5

3. Use of Technology to Reduce Burden 11

4. Efforts to Avoid Duplication of Effort 12

5. Methods of Minimizing Burden on Small Entities 12

6. Consequences of Not Collecting Data 13

7. Special Circumstances 13

8. Federal Register Announcement and Consultation 13

9. Payment or Gift to Respondents 15

10. Confidentiality of the Data 17

11. Additional Justification for Sensitive Questions 19

12. Estimates of Hours Burden 19

13. Estimate of Total Annual Cost Burden to Respondents or Recordkeepers 20

14. Estimates of Annualized Cost to the Federal Government 20

15. Reasons for Program Changes or Adjustments 20

16. Tabulation, Publication Plans, and Time Schedules 20

17. Approval Not to Display the Expiration Date for OMB Approval 24

18. Exception to the Certification Statement 24

APPENDICES

Appendix A	Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, Section 664(e)
Appendix B	Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, Section 664(a)
Appendix C	Federal Register Notice
Appendix D	Advance Mailing (Letter and Brochure) for Parent, Math/Language Arts Teacher, Principal, and School Program Respondent
Appendix E	Consent Form from Districts Requiring Active Consent of Parents
Appendix F	Thank You Letters for Parent, Student, Math/Language Arts Teacher, Principal, and School Program Respondent
Appendix G	Documentation of Consent/Assent for Parent and Student
Appendix H	Mathematica Confidentiality Pledge
Appendix I	School Characteristics Survey Instrument (Principal)
Appendix J	Math or Language Arts Teacher Survey Instrument
Appendix K	School Program Survey Instrument (Special Education Teacher)
Appendix L	Baseline Parent Survey Instrument
Appendix L	Baseline Student Survey Instrument
Appendix M	Variables Measuring Student Characteristics, School Resources and Student Experiences, and Perceived Barriers

TABLES

A.1. NLTS 2010 Phase I Data Collection Plan 3

A.2. Key Academic, Social, and Economic Outcomes for NLTS 2012 9

A.3. Baseline Data Collection Summary by Instrument 15

A.4. 2012 Burden Associated with Baseline Data Collection Activities to Be Completed 19

A.5. Characteristics, School Programs, and School Outcomes at Baseline for Students with an IEP by Age Group 21

A.6. Characteristics, School Programs, Outcomes, and Perceived Challenges at Baseline of Students with an IEP and Students with No IEP 22

A.7. Characteristics, School Experiences, and Outcomes of Students with an IEP in 1987, 2001, and 2010 23

A.8. NLTS Timeline for Data Collection and Reporting 24

INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Department of Education (ED) is requesting Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for baseline data collection as part of the National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) 2012, Phase I. NLTS 2012 is a longitudinal study focused on the educational experiences and transition from school of youth with disabilities between the ages of 13 and 21.

The main objectives of the study are to describe the background, secondary school, transition, postsecondary experiences, and outcomes of youth who currently have an individualized education plan (IEP) (and therefore receive special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)). The study will compare this group with three other groups: (1) youth who have no identified disability, (2) youth who do not have an IEP but who have a condition that qualifies them for accommodation under Section 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and (3) similar cohorts of youth with an IEP who were studied in the past.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The study will obtain information on three broad areas important for understanding the experiences of transition-age youth: (1) the characteristics of youth and their families; (2) the experiences of youth in high school (including their academic program and the services they receive to support acquisition of academic proficiencies as well as transition); and (3) youth outcomes (high school completion status, access to postsecondary education and employment, persistence in postsecondary education and employment, independent living and integration into the community, and access to and use of services to support positive outcomes). NLTS 2012 will address the following research questions under the three broad objectives:

Describe Transition-Age Students with an IEP

What are the personal, family, and school characteristics of this group?
What are their courses of study, services and accommodations to support learning, and preparation for transition? What barriers and challenges do they encounter?
What are the key academic, social, and economic outcomes in school and after leaving school for youth with disabilities?
How do services, courses of study, barriers, and outcomes vary for subgroups defined by the nature of the youth’s disability, age, sex, race/ethnicity or characteristics of the student’s school or community?
How do academic, social, and economic outcomes for youth with disabilities vary by their course of study and receipt of services and accommodations, accounting for preexisting youth characteristics?

Compare Current Transition-Age Students with an IEP to Their Peers in Prior Cohorts

How does receipt of services and accommodations and youth outcomes of the current cohort of special education students differ from those of previous cohorts of special education students?

Compare Transition-Age Students with an IEP to Their Peers Who Do Not Have an IEP

What are the characteristics, school and transition experiences, and postsecondary outcomes of youth with plans that provide accommodations under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973?
How do characteristics, courses of study, receipt of services and accommodations, and key outcomes for transition-age youth with an IEP differ from students with Section 504 plans and from students with no Section 504 Plan and no IEP?

In NLTS 2012 Phase I, a sample of school districts and nationally representative sample of students will be selected and recruited for the study, and baseline data collection and first follow-up data collection will be completed. ED has not finalized the plan for Phase II. This Supporting Statement requests OMB clearance for securing consent and assent of students and their parents for participation in the study and conducting the baseline data collection. The next section provides an overview of Phase I of NLTS 2012.

OVERVIEW

The study will provide policymakers and educators with critical information that is not available from other sources. The study will provide up-to-date information on the barriers and challenges youth with disabilities encounter during and after high school; the services and support they receive to help them overcome these barriers from their families, community service providers, secondary and postsecondary schools, and employers; and the extent to which youth make a successful transition to postsecondary education, employment, and independent living. The study will examine these issues from multiple perspectives, including those of school staff, parents, and the youth themselves. By comparing the experiences of a current cohort to those of previous cohorts, the study will be able to describe changes in the composition of students with disabilities over time as well as changes in their school experiences and outcomes.

A nationally representative sample of 15,000 students who are between the ages of 13 and 21 in December 2011 and enrolled in public school districts with grades 7–12 will be selected and recruited in two stages. The study team will first select and recruit a nationally representative sample of approximately 500 local education agencies (school districts, charter schools, and special schools). Using student lists provided by participating districts, the team will sample and recruit students. The student sample is designed to provide precision for describing all IEP students and all students with no IEP, as well as for important subgroups, including each of the 12 IDEA disability categories in which transition-age students are served and students who have a Section 504 plan but do not have an IEP.

The first wave of data collection will begin in January 2012 and the second in January 2014, when sample members will be between 13 and 21 years old and 15 and 23 years old, respectively. Table A.1 summarizes the Phase I data collection design.

Table A.1. NLTS 2010 Phase I Data Collection Plan

Respondent	Mode	Timeline	Key Data
Parents	Telephone survey	Spring 2012	Characteristics of youth and educational expectations for child, involvement in transition planning
Students	Telephone survey (all) Academic assessment (16 and older)	Spring 2012	Experiences and perceptions of school career and educational expectations, engagement in school, community, self‑determination and work Assess academic skills
Student’s School Principal	Web survey with telephone follow-up	Spring 2012	Policies, programs, staffing, and resources at student’s school
Student’s Math or Language Arts Teacher	Web survey with telephone follow-up	Spring 2012	Class and teacher characteristics, instructional practices, services supports and accommodations, student engagement
Student’s Special Education Teacher	Web survey with telephone follow-up (students with IEP)	Spring 2012	School program and supports for students with IEP
Student School Information	School records	Winter 2012	Student characteristics
Parent	Telephone survey	Spring 2014	Youth’s experiences in school and postsecondary
Student	Telephone survey (all) Academic assessment (16 and older)	Spring 2014 Spring 2014 (if not done in Spring 2012)	Youth’s experiences in school and postsecondary Academic skills
Student’s Special Education Teacher	Telephone survey	Spring 2014	School program and supports for students with IEP
Student School Information	School records	Spring 2014	Attendance, transcripts

The study design and data collections for NLTS 2012 Phase I are similar to prior longitudinal studies of students with disabilities in order to address the third broad objective of comparing the characteristics, experiences, and outcomes of students with an IEP over time. However, ED seeks to improve on these prior studies in three important ways: (1) by using innovative methods of securing parental consent for youth participation to increase rates of sample participation, (2) by including students with no IEP (both students who have a condition that qualifies them for a Section 504 plan and students with no identified disability), and (3) by seeking more information on student barriers and activities that support transition.

As noted, this Supporting Statement requests OMB clearance to obtain parental consent and student assent to participate in the study, and to collect baseline data. OMB has approved a prior request to select and recruit districts and acquire lists of students for selecting the student sample (OMB 1850-0882). A future submission will request clearance for conducting first follow-up data collection.

A. JUSTIFICATION

1. Circumstances Necessitating Collection of Information

More than 2.7 million youth with disabilities between the ages of 13 and 21 receive special education services funded under Part B of IDEA. In addition to the challenges all youth encounter as they leave high school and become young adults, this group sometimes faces barriers related to health, social isolation, service needs, and access to supports.

The 2004 authorization of IDEA was signed into law (P.L. 108-446) on December 3, 2004. Section 664(e) of IDEA 2004 authorizes studies and evaluations of transitional services and results, including postsecondary placement and employment, for individuals with disabilities identified for services under IDEA (Appendix A). Section 664(a) of IDEA 2004 instructs the Secretary of Education to delegate responsibility for such studies to the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) (Appendix B). The findings from this study will complement those from other IES studies initiated under Section 664 of IDEA 2004 as well as previous studies supported by ED. The study will provide critical information on the characteristics of youth receiving special education services under IDEA, their courses of study, the transition and other services and accommodations they receive, the barriers and challenges they face, and their postsecondary education and employment outcomes. Findings will help to address a national goal of significantly increasing the number of students entering and completing postsecondary education.

In addition to describing a current cohort of transition-age students receiving special education, the study will achieve three other objectives: (1) It will provide the only available information specifically on the characteristics, transition experiences, and outcomes of students with Section 504 plans. (2) Information on a national probability sample of transition-age students without disabilities from the same school districts as the special education student sample will provide a benchmark for assessing national progress in meeting the academic and other needs of all students, and a base of information for better understanding the pathways youth follow as they move from high school to young adulthood. (3) The comparisons between a current cohort of special education students and a prior cohort who were transition-age in 2001 provide a basis for assessing how the experiences and outcomes of youth with disabilities are changing, gauging the effectiveness of efforts over the last decade to ensure that all students have access to a rigorous academic program, and developing new programs and policies to support national goals.

A major challenge in developing policies and improving practice to assist transition-age youth is securing reliable and complete information on their diverse needs, school experiences, and postsecondary paths. The primary data sources to date have been the longitudinal surveys of special education students funded by ED, the NLTS and NLTS2.² The current study will focus on a new cohort of special education students to assess their needs and determine how much progress has been made addressing them. While the focus of the study will be similar in some respects to NLTS2, the study will also address new policy priorities.

The 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was intended to improve the education of disadvantaged students, including those with disabilities, by holding districts accountable for their academic proficiency. The 2004 amendments to IDEA continued the emphasis on access to the general curriculum and accountability standards for students with disabilities. The IDEA amendments were part of a broader disability policy reform effort to support independent living and employment, reflecting the intent of the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act, including implementation of the 1999 Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act and new disability provisions in the Workforce Investment Act. The emphasis these policies place on preparing students for postsecondary education and employment has heightened the interest in understanding and addressing the array of barriers students face as they leave high school and consider various educational and career options. New data are needed to understand the challenges youth encounter as they prepare for postsecondary education and careers. The study will examine the school experiences and outcomes of special education students and how they are changing. The study will allow federal and state policymakers to gauge progress in meeting the goals of NCLB and IDEA and the needs of transition-age youth with disabilities, and it will inform their efforts to improve programs and services. It will also inform the efforts of special educators and other service providers charged with assisting out-of-school youth with disabilities, as well as youth and their parents, to understand needs and improve practices.

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

The information will collected by Mathematica Policy Research and its subcontractor Decision Information Resources (DIR), and analyzed by Mathematica and its subcontractor the Institute on Community Integration, University of Minnesota, under contract with ED (contract number ED-IES-10-C-0073). Below we first describe how the baseline data summarized in Table A.1 will be collected and then describe how, by whom, and for what purpose it will be used.

a. Baseline Data Collection Overview

Parent/Student Consent and Assent and Baseline Interviews

All of the baseline data collection will be completed between January and June 2012 (spring 2012). As the first step in data collection, Mathematica will obtain oral, digitally recorded consent by telephone from parents and, depending on their age, assent or consent from the students. A script will be read (Appendix G), and the reading and consent (or refusal of consent) will be digitally recorded. Written documentation of the oral consent will be sent to participants for their records. Parents or students will be able to change their minds about participation after they examine the written document or at any time during the study. If a district’s research procedures do not allow digitally recorded oral consent and they require written parental consent, we will work out with the district a procedure for accomplishing this. We anticipate that the process will include (1) mailing a description of the study and consent form to the parents, (2) contacting the parent by telephone to explain the study and answer any questions the parent may have, and (3) receipt of the signed consent form via mail from the parent.

The parent interview (Appendix L) is expected to take 40 minutes, and the student interview (Appendix L) is expected to take about 30 minutes. When agreeable to the parent and student, the parent and student interviews will be conducted in succession during a single session.

All questions will be designed to be answered by persons with disabilities. Questions will avoid high-frequency sounds, offer simple probes if the respondent does not understand the main questions, and accept ranges if exact response categories are unknown. Interviewers will assess the respondent’s emotional and physical state to offer breaks if necessary. If a student’s disability prohibits self-response, interviewers will ask the parent or guardian to proxy for nonsubjective questions.

Parents will be asked to provide information about the student’s disability profile, services related to a disability, expectations for the student in the future, barriers or challenges the student faces, and household characteristics. Youth will be asked about their experiences in and out of school (including classroom engagement, paid employment, and extracurricular activities), as well as their goals and expectations for their future. Both youth who have an IEP and their parents will be asked about their involvement in the IEP process, as well as questions to gather contact information for the next round of data collection in 2014. All students will be asked to complete a brief scale based on the ARC Self-Determination Scale and the Adolescent Self-Determination Assessment. Self-determination refers to the conscious exercise of intention and choice. People who are self determined engage in goal-directed, self-regulated, autonomous behavior. A growing literature has 1) established that students with intellectual disability, learning disabilities, emotional and behavioral disabilities, and autism are less self determined than their non-disabled peers, 2) demonstrated that instruction can promote self-determination, and 3) revealed associations between higher levels of self-determination and more positive outcomes for students in the disability groups with low self-determination. By including the planned measure of self-determination, NLTS 2012 will build on work begun with NLTS2 to build a base of information to better understand the relationship of self-determination and youth outcomes.

We considered completing the student survey as part of the in-person session at which the direct assessment is conducted, but we do not recommend this approach. We believe it is less burdensome and more efficient to complete the student survey by telephone at the time we obtain consent and complete the parent survey. Our reasoning is that (1) the in-person assessments can take a class period or more for many students and, like schools and parents, we want the students to miss as little class time as possible; (2) because the assessment will only be given to students when they are 16 years or older, we will not be able to interview the entire sample at baseline if the interview is linked to the academic assessment; and (3) some students who try the student interview may need assistance from an adult in responding to some questions, and the parent is a more appropriate person for this role given the nature of some of the questions. However, if we have not completed the student interview by phone when the in-person assessment is being administered, we will either ask the student to complete the interview after completing the assessment if time permits or set up an appointment to contact the youth to complete the interview. Information relating to appointments would then be immediately transferred to the telephone center to log the appointment in the electronic call management system.

School Staff Baseline Surveys

Baseline surveys will be conducted with the principal or a designee of the sample member’s school, the sample member’s math or language arts teacher, and, if the student has an IEP, a special education teacher or other person who is most familiar with the student’s overall program. Each of these school staff will be asked to complete a web survey, with telephone follow-up of respondents who do not complete the self-administered web survey. Respondents will also be offered the option of completing a hard copy, which is mailed or faxed. In each of these school staff surveys, the elements of informed consent will be presented upon log-in to the web survey (introduction). Their consent to participate will be captured electronically by having the respondent respond to a yes/no question, confirming their intent. Those completing the instrument by fax or mail will demonstrate passive consent by returning their completed instrument and those completing by phone will provide verbal consent prior to administration.

The School Characteristics Survey (completed by the principal or designee) will furnish data on school programs, policies, and resources. The survey of principals will focus on the characteristics of the school and school environment. (Appendix I)
The Mathematics/Language Arts Teacher Survey (Mathematica will randomly select whether the math or language arts teacher will respond; if the selected teacher does not respond, the other will be asked to substitute.) The survey will focus on classroom characteristics; instructional practices; services, supports, and accommodations; school engagement and parent communications; and teacher characteristics. (Appendix J)
In the School Program Survey, the special education teacher most familiar with the sample member’s program will provide additional information about the student’s school program; supports and accommodations; barriers the student may face in pursuit of postsecondary education, competitive employment, or independent living; and transition services provided. (Appendix K)
In addition to the surveys with school staff, the baseline data collection effort will also include acquisition of school records for each selected student. At the start of the study, schools or districts will be asked to provide for each sample member (1) the student’s free or reduced-price lunch status, (2) whether the student receives instruction as an English language learner, and (3) whether the student has received out-of-school suspension or been expelled in the current school year.

After the 2011–2012 school year, we will request transcripts and attendance information for students who have completed school, are not expected to return, or who have reported in the parent or student interview that they have left school. We anticipate that some sample members will graduate or drop out between the point of sample selection in fall 2011 and the end of the 2011–2012 school year. At the first follow-up interview (and each subsequent round of follow-up data collection), transcripts, performance on state-mandated tests, and attendance information will be requested for students who have left school since the prior round of data collection.

Direct Assessment of Students

Student’s academic proficiencies and ability to act on their own behalf in a self-determined way are major student outcomes and may condition the opportunities youth will have for postsecondary education, employment, community involvement, and independent living. To better understand academic proficiency of students with and without disabilities and to examine trends over time in the average proficiencies of youth with disabilities, the study will conduct direct assessments of students’ academic proficiencies. We considered using state assessments for this purpose, but based on advice from the study’s technical work group, we concluded that direct assessment was necessary to ensure consistent measurement across all sample members and comparability with NLTS2.

The in-person, direct assessments will be conducted by either school psychologists or professionally trained staff from Mathematica, depending on what can be arranged through the school district. Sample members who are 16 to 21 years old at baseline will be asked to complete the direct assessment in spring 2012. Direct assessment of sample members who are 13 to 15 years old at baseline will be conducted at the first follow-up in spring 2014 when most will be 16 to 17 years old. We will conduct the assessment primarily on school campuses, but we will remain open to using other public spaces (such as libraries, community centers) as alternatives. The Woodcock-Johnson III Normative Update will be used to allow comparison with NLTS2. Students who would not be able to participate in such an academic assessment will receive the Learning Characteristics Inventory, completed as part of their special education teacher’s survey (approximately 10 percent of the sample).

We have not included completion of the Learning Characteristics Inventory by the teachers of students unable to complete the Woodcock-Johnson III Normative Update, or completetion of Woodcock-Johnson III Normative Update in our estimate of burdent as these are all measures of student proficiency or aptitude, and therefore, not required by OMB to be part of the burden estimates.

b. How the Information Will Be Used

NLTS 2012 will provide up-to-date information on the characteristics, transition experiences, and transition outcomes of youth with disabilities that will help policymakers, educators, and parents improve policy and education practice to support successful outcomes. It will describe the secondary and postsecondary trajectories of youth with IEPs and how they differ from those of youth with Section 504 plans and youth with no identified disability. The study will inform policy, practice, and future research by examining the needs of various subgroups of youth with disabilities; how those needs are being addressed by schools and other organizations; barriers perceived by youth, parents, and school staff; and how youth outcomes are related to specific competencies, school experiences, and the services and supports youth receive. The study will also examine the extent to which school experiences and outcomes are changing in ways consistent with the goals of IDEA. In addition to supporting the specific analyses planned as part of NLTS 2012 Phase I, the data will be made available to other researchers and practitioners through well-documented restricted use files.

Table A.2 summarizes the main youth outcomes that will be captured in the NLTS 2012 data. Appendix Tables M.1, M.2, and M.3 list the main variables relating to student characteristics, school resources and experiences, and perceived barriers.

Table A.2. Key Academic, Social, and Economic Outcomes for NLTS 2012

Outcome for Youth			Data Source
Academic Skills and School Engagement
		Math and language arts competencies	Direct Assessment
		Scores on state academic assessments	Transcript
		Grade point average	Transcript
		Whether math/language arts class is at, above, or below grade level	Math/LEA Teacher Survey
		High school credits by subject and by level for math	Transcript
		Student effort and participation in class	Math/LEA Teacher Survey
		Typical homework hours per week	Youth
		Repeating current grade level^	Parent
		Ever expelled; suspended out of school^*	Parent
		Out-of-school suspension^*	Parent
		School attendance	Transcript, Youth

Social Skills, Self-Determination Skills, and Problem Behaviors
	Social Skills Improvement System subscales (communication, engagement, responsibility, externalizing)		Youth
	Self-Determination Scales (autonomous function, psychological empowerment, self realization)		Youth
	Takes part in social activities (school, out-of-school group, volunteer)		Youth
	Days/week get together with friends		Youth
	Means of communicating with friends (phone, text, IM, email, social media)		Youth

High School Completion
	Whether obtained diploma and type (regular diploma, GED, certificate of completion)^*		Youth, Parent

Postsecondary Education Enrollment
	Enrollment by type of program (two-year, four-year, vocational certificate and degree completion by type of credential)^*		Youth, Parent

Employment
	Unpaid or school-sponsored employment		Youth
	Paid employment		Youth
	Wages		Youth
	Hours		Youth
	Type of job		Youth
	Fired from a job in last two years		Youth
	Job search activities		Youth

Independence
	Living arrangement (independent living, with family members, supervised setting)		Youth, Parent
	Has health insurance		Parent
	Has an allowance or money can spend; has checking/savings accounts; credit/debit care in name; gets bills in own name		Youth
	Registered to vote		Youth
	Has/expects to get driver’s license		Youth, Parent

The NLTS 2012 study team will undertake three main types of analyses: (1) comparisons among subgroups, (2) description and decomposition of intercohort trends, (3) and identification of barriers and facilitators. We briefly describe these three kinds of analyses below. Section A.16 contains additional detail on the kinds of tabulations planned.

Subgroup Comparisons

The study will examine and compare the needs, barriers, experiences, and outcomes of various groups of students. First, to provide a high-level overview, the study will compare youth with an IEP with those with Section 504 plans as well as those with no identified disability. The inclusion of the latter two groups in the NLTS 2012 study sample is a significant enhancement relative to NLTS and NLTS2. Second, like the previous NLTS studies, the NLTS 2012 analysis will compare subgroups of youth with an IEP. The subgroups will include ones defined by the federal disability categories; the youth’s age, gender, race/ethnicity, and family income; and characteristics of the school and district the youth attends.

The study will contrast these groups in several ways. For example, the analysis of background characteristics will include comparisons of the groups’ living arrangements, household composition, parent education and employment, household income, receipt of government benefits, access to health coverage, and functional abilities. The study will also compare the outcomes of these groups, including their math and language arts test scores, social skills, self-determination, enrollment in and completion of postsecondary education, employment, and various dimensions of independence. The analysis will include statistical tests that measure the extent to which observed intergroup differences are statistically significant. (Table A.5 and A.6 in Section A.16 illustrate how the data will be displayed).

Description and Decomposition of Intercohort Trends

By combining the NLTS 2012 data with data from NLTS and NLTS2, the study will examine trends over time in the characteristics, school experiences, and outcomes of students with an IEP. The findings will increase understanding of the changing background, needs, and achievements of students with an IEP. For example, the findings will shed light on intercohort changes in family resources; the expectations of parents for their transition-age youth; and the academic achievement and functional abilities of youth as well as their social interactions with peers, postsecondary enrollment, and employment rates. The study will also examine the extent to which observed trends in outcomes appear to be partly attributable to intercohort changes in the background and characteristics of youth or their school experiences.

Identification of Barriers and Facilitators

Key to improving the outcomes of youth with disabilities is to understand both the barriers they face and the factors associated with success in education, jobs, and independent living. The barriers (or challenges) can include anything that may impede a youth’s successful transition to independent living as an adult. Some barriers pertain directly to the conditions that necessitate special education services, whereas others relate to broader social or family characteristics (such as household income or parental expectations for their child) and access to appropriate services, supports, and sources of information about opportunities. “Facilitators” are factors associated with success; they are often the flip side of barriers. For example, facilitators may include high levels of intellectual and social competencies, ambitious aspirations, and self-determination skills.

The data will support two different kinds of analyses of barriers and facilitators. First, drawing on the surveys, the study will describe transition challenges perceived by parents, youth, and school staff. The study will examine perceptions about the challenges youth face in several areas, including (1) developing post–high school plans, (2) selecting, applying to, enrolling in, and financing postsecondary education, (3) identifying and obtaining jobs, (4) engaging in social and recreational activities, and (5) living independently. Since parents, teachers, and youth may view these challenges differently, the study will examine and contrast the challenges described by each of these respondent groups.

Second, in addition to examining perceptions of challenges, the study will also examine the extent to which various factors are associated with negative or positive outcomes. After conducting both the baseline and first follow-up surveys, the study team will examine the relationship between (a) youth baseline competencies, background characteristics, expectations for the future, and high school experiences and (b) various outcomes, including postsecondary enrollment, employment and earnings, and the extent to which youth are living independently.

By identifying predictors of postsecondary outcomes, this analysis can help educators gauge which students are more or less likely to achieve specific outcomes. While the analysis cannot ascertain the causes of outcomes, it can inform hypotheses and future research about the kinds of efforts that might benefit youth. For example, gauging the extent to which specific competencies measured in high school are predictors of outcomes may shed light on the value of cultivating those skills.

3. Use of Technology to Reduce Burden

The study will use a combination of mechanical and electronic technology to collect data. For each data collection task, the study team has selected the form of technology that will provide reliable information while minimizing respondent burden. This submission focuses primarily on protocols for obtaining consent and collecting data from parents, students, and school staff. Information technology will be heavily used in data collection tasks. Examples include the following:

Electronic sample management database to track receipt of parental consent to efficiently monitor sample and ensure timely initiation of subsequent data collection activities. This database will also identify where more than one student attends a given school, ensuring only one principal survey is released.
Parent and student surveys will use computer-assisted telephone interviewing and digital recording to capture parent consent and student assent (or consent) conveyed verbally over the telephone. Written documentation of the consent will be sent to participants for their records (Appendix G).
Teachers and principals will participate in their surveys online using web-based surveys.
The study will have a website, hosted by IES, where interested parties can obtain more information. The study has a toll-free number, along with an email address, both of which are hosted by Mathematica. Staff from Mathematica will field inquiries to the toll-free number and study email account on a flow basis across the life of the study.
Acquisition of school records data pertaining to students participating in the study will be acquired in electronic format whenever possible to reduce burden on schools for processing or delivering such files.

4. Efforts to Avoid Duplication of Effort

Because the long-term follow-up for the NLTS2 (which followed a sample of students between 13 and 16 years of age who had IEPs in December 2001) ended in 2009, NLTS 2012 will be the only comprehensive source of data on students who are ages 13 to 21 and have IEPs in December 2011 that includes information collected from youth, their parents, and their teachers. It will also be the only source of information on a national probability sample of youth with and without disabilities in the same school districts.

5. Methods of Minimizing Burden on Small Entities

Some of the districts and schools from which the study team will collect information are small entities. The total district sample includes approximately 200 small districts in the base sample and 200 in the reserve sample or 400 total. The sample also includes approximately 60 charter school LEAs for 460 small entities. While we do not expect to collect data from all of them, we have added them all to the IC Data Form Part 2. Building on the experience of NLTS2 and High School Longitudinal Study 2009 (HSLS:2009), NLTS 2012 has been designed with an eye to minimizing the burden on small entities both by making the requests for data on individual students efficient and by distributing the student sample across schools in a manner designed to keep the burden on individual schools to the minimum necessary. In contrast to HSLS:2009 in which schools are the first stage of sample selection, the first stage sampling unit in NLTS 2012 will be the school district or, in the case of districts having fewer than 100 students with an IEP, groups of districts. Furthermore, we estimate that the student sample of 15,000 will be attending approximately 7,500 schools. We believe the small number of students per school will minimize burden on any individual school and increase the likelihood districts and school staff will agree to participate in the study. This approach also reduces overall burden of the study to the extent that using districts rather than schools as the first-stage sampling unit reduces the effects of clustering (and thereby improves precision).

Our strategy to exclude school districts and charter school agencies with fewer than 30 students with IEPs will exclude approximately 3 percent of students with IEPs. Stratifying the districts attended by the remaining 97 percent of students with IEPs based on district size, and selecting students from small districts at a lower rate and students from large districts at a slightly higher one will further reduce burden on small districts while still including many rural districts with modest numbers of students with IEPs.

Teacher and principal surveys take 30 minutes each, on average. To minimize burden, we will ask teachers and principals to complete their questionnaires after school hours; they will therefore be compensated for their time. Because the data collections are web based, respondents can complete the questionnaire at a time and place that is convenient. To avoid disrupting school routines, the study team will not conduct the student interviews in school. Student assessments will be scheduled for times when the student is not in class. Mathematica staff will make every effort to schedule their visits at the most convenient times of the day and minimize burden on the school by clustering the student assessments as much as possible within the school day.

6. Consequences of Not Collecting Data

The data collection described in this submission is essential to documenting, on a nationally representative scale, the experiences of youth as they transition from school to adulthood. This includes important details on the barriers they face with respect to pursuit of postsecondary education, competitive employment, and independent living. In addition, this study facilitates a comparison between the experiences of youth with and without disabilities on these important measures and outcomes over time.

Understanding the barriers that youth face and the ways service providers (including schools, community organizations, and postsecondary schools) and employers deal with them can inform efforts to improve special education services and help youth make successful transitions to adulthood. This study also provides important information about the prevalence and types of programs in place to support successful outcomes.

These data are essential for policymakers, as the analysis of practices, programs, and outcomes provides critical data used to shape education policy in the future and to increase the use of practices that can lead to successful outcomes for all students, especially those with disabilities. Improving postsecondary and employment outcomes for transition-age youth with disabilities is an important policy objective for many reasons. In addition to improving the quality of life of these youth and their families, it can reduce the levels of dependency on government-funded programs like Supplemental Security Income.

7. Special Circumstances

There are no special circumstances involved with baseline data collection activities for NLTS 2012.

8. Federal Register Announcement and Consultation

a. Federal Register Announcement

A 60-day notice to solicit public comments was published in the Federal Register, Volume 76, page 43995 on July 22, 2011. A copy of the notice is in Appendix C. We received public comment from 1 entity, the Michigan Department of Educaion, and responded by agreeing with their statements about the importance of the study beyond Indicator 14 and assuring them that the burden for the districts with regard to compiling student records would not be great.

b. Consultations Outside the Agency

During preparation of the study design and data collection plan for this evaluation, ED has sought professional counsel from a number of people. The following are the key study staff at Mathematica and the Institute on Community Integration:

John Burghardt, Ph.D.

Project director and coprincipal investigator

Respondent	Interview Length	Mode of Interview	Incentive
Principal	30 minutes	Self-administered: web (option of fax or phone)	$25
Math or language arts teacher	30 minutes	Self-administered: web (option of fax or phone)	$25 per student
Special education teacher	30 minutes	Self-administered: web (option of fax or phone)	$25 per student
Parent (interview)/ contact consent	40 minutes	Telephone	$20
Youth (Interview)	30 minutes	Telephone	$10 via prepaid card

Activities	Total N Responses^b	Average Burden Hours per Response	Total Burden Hours
Parent Survey	12,000	.67	8,000
Student Survey	12,000	.50	6,000
Math of Language Arts Teacher Survey	12,000	.50	6,000
School Program Survey (Special Education Teacher)	9,600	.50	4,800
School Characteristics Survey (Principals)^a	6,000	.50	3,000
Collection of School Records for Student (Administrative Data from School or District)	500	6.00	3,000
Woodcock Johnson III Normative Update Form C—Brief Battery (students)	N/A
Learning Characteristics Inventory (teachers)	N/A
Total	52,100		30,800

Year 1	2011	$1,869,149
Year 2	2012	$7,710,848
Year 3	2013	$1,416,380
Year 4	2014	$6,343,809
Year 5	2015	$1,183,799
Total		$18,523,985

	13–15	16–18	19–21	13–21
Youth and Family Characteristics
Youth characteristics
Household characteristics
Disability profiles
Functional abilities of youth
Daily living and social skills
Postsecondary expectations
School Program, Services, Accommodations
Education history
Types of school(s) attended
School policies, environment
Courses completed (subject, general education, special education)
Instructional approach, setting
Youth classroom participation
Extra-curricular activities
Services, supports, accommodations
IEP development, transition planning, career exploration
Assistance applying to postsecondary programs and jobs
Youth Outcomes
Attendance and engagement
Grades, test scores
High school completion
Postsecondary education, training
Employment and earnings
Receipt of Social Security Insurance, health insurance, other benefits
Social adjustment and independence
Arrests, incarceration
Unweighted Sample Size

	Students with an IEP Group A	Students with a Section 504 Group B	Students with No IEP and No Section 504 Plan Group C	All Students Not Identified for Special Education (Groups B & C Combined)
Youth and Family Characteristics
Youth characteristics
Household characteristics
Disability profiles
Functional abilities of youth
Daily living and social skills
Postsecondary expectations
School Program, Services, Accommodations
Education history
Types of school(s) attended
School policies, environment
Courses completed (subject, general education, special education)
Instructional approach, setting
Youth classroom participation
Extra-curricular activities
Services, supports, accommodations
IEP development, transition planning, career exploration
Assistance applying to postsecondary programs and jobs
Youth Outcomes
Attendance and engagement
Grades, test scores
High school completion
Postsecondary education, training
Employment and earnings
Receipt of Social Security Insurance, health insurance, other benefits
Social adjustment and independence
Arrests, incarceration
Perceived Barriers/Challenges Regarding:
Developing post–high school plans
Applying to and financing postsecondary education
Securing jobs
Engaging in social activities
Living independently
Unweighted Sample Size

	Students with an IEP Ages 13 to 16 in 1987	Students with an IEP Ages 13 to 16 in 2001	Students with an IEP Ages 13 to 16 in 2011
Youth and Family Characteristics
Youth characteristics
Household characteristics
Disability profiles
Functional abilities of youth
Daily living and social skills
Postsecondary expectations
School Program, Activities, Services, Accommodations
Education history
Types of school(s) attended
School policies, environment
Courses completed (subject, general education, special education)
Instructional approach, setting
Youth classroom participation
Extra-curricular activities
Services, supports, accommodations
IEP development, transition planning, career exploration
Assistance applying to postsecondary programs and jobs
Youth Outcomes
Attendance and engagement
Grades, test scores
High school completion
Postsecondary education, training
Employment and earnings
Receipt of Social Security Insurance, health insurance, other benefits
Social adjustment and independence
Arrests, incarceration
Unweighted Sample Size

Study Milestone	Milestone Date/Period of Activity
Submit OMB clearance for study and sample selection	February 1, 2011
Select and recruit districts	May 31, 2011–December 31, 2011
Select student samples	October 1, 2011–February 2012
Submit OMB clearance for baseline data collection	July 15, 2011
OMB approval	December 15, 2011
Secure consent; collect baseline data	January 15, 2012–June 30, 2012
Publish report on baseline data	July 31, 2013
Submit OMB clearance for first follow-up data collection	May 15, 2013
Collect first follow-up data	January 1, 2013–June 30, 2014
Publish first follow-up report	July 15, 2015

File Type	application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
File Title	Final Submission
Author	Dawn Patterson
File Modified	0000-00-00
File Created	2021-01-31