Request for Information To Gather Technical Expertise Pertaining to Testing Integrity, 2280-2282 [2012-753]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2280-2282]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-753]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Docket ID: ED-2012-OESE-0003]


Request for Information To Gather Technical Expertise Pertaining 
to Testing Integrity

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of 
Education.

ACTION: Request for information.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In light of recent, high-profile reports of misconduct by 
school officials in the test administration process, the U.S. 
Department of Education (``the Department'' or ``we'') is seeking to 
collect and share information about best practices that have been used 
to prevent, detect, and respond to irregularities in academic testing. 
To that end, the Department is taking several steps, described below, 
to collect information and gather suggestions to assist State 
educational agencies (SEAs), local educational agencies (LEAs), and the 
testing-integrity-focused organizations that service them. The 
Department anticipates making use of this information to facilitate 
further dialogue and to help SEAs and LEAs identify, share, and 
implement best practices for preventing, detecting, and investigating 
irregularities in academic testing.
    First, the Department is issuing this request for information (RFI) 
to collect information about the integrity of academic testing. We pose 
a series of questions to which we invite interested members of the 
public to respond. Second, the Department will host a symposium where 
external experts can engage in further discussion and probe these 
issues in greater depth.
    Third, the Department will publish a document that contains a 
summary of the recommendations that were developed as a result of the 
RFI and the symposium, as well as other resources identified by 
external experts participating in the symposium.

DATES: Written submissions must be received by the Department on or 
before 5 p.m., Washington, DC time, on February 16, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not 
accept comments by fax or by email. To ensure that we do not receive 
duplicate copies, please submit your comments only one time. In 
addition, please include the Docket ID and the term ``Testing Integrity 
response'' at the top of your comments.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov to submit your comments electronically. Information 
on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency 
documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on 
the site under ``How To Use This Site.''
     Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you 
mail or deliver your comments, address them to Carlos Martinez, Office 
of Elementary and Secondary Education, Attention: Testing Integrity 
RFI, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 3W104, 
Washington, DC 20202-6132.
     Privacy Note: The Department's policy for comments 
received from members of the public (including comments submitted by 
mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery)

[[Page 2281]]

is to make these submissions available for public viewing in their 
entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include 
in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly 
available on the Internet.
    Given the subject matter, some comments may include proprietary 
information as it relates to confidential commercial information. The 
Freedom of Information Act defines ``confidential commercial 
information'' as information the disclosure of which could reasonably 
be expected to cause substantial competitive harm. You may wish to 
request that we not disclose what you regard as confidential commercial 
information.
    To assist us in making a determination on your request, we 
encourage you to identify any specific information in your comments 
that you consider confidential commercial information. Please list the 
information by page and paragraph numbers.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carlos Martinez, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3W104, Washington, DC 20202-
6132 by phone at (202) 260-1440.
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the 
Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-(800) 877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Introduction

    The Department is seeking information about testing integrity that 
may help SEAs and LEAs ensure the integrity of the data used to measure 
student achievement and to ensure meaningful educational accountability 
in SEAs and LEAs. This is a request for information only. This RFI is 
specifically inquiring into best practices regarding: (1) Preventing 
and reducing testing irregularities in State academic assessments; (2) 
detecting and analyzing testing irregularities; (3) reviewing and 
investigating alleged testing irregularities; and (4) for assessments 
that are increasingly delivered online and by computer, how responses 
to the first three issues described above might be different from those 
that apply to assessments administered through more traditional means.
    For the purposes of this RFI, a testing irregularity includes any 
occurrence that may inappropriately influence a student's performance 
on a State academic assessment, provide the appearance of impropriety, 
or otherwise constitute a breach in test security or improper 
administration of State academic testing.
    This RFI is issued solely for information and planning purposes and 
is not a request for proposals (RFP) or a promise to issue an RFP or a 
notice inviting applications (NIA). This RFI does not commit the 
Department to contract for any supply or service whatsoever. Further, 
the Department is not now seeking proposals and will not accept 
unsolicited proposals. The Department will not pay for any information 
or administrative costs that you may incur in responding to this RFI.
    If you do not respond to this RFI, you may still apply for future 
contracts and grants. The Department posts RFPs on the Federal Business 
Opportunities Web site (https://www.fbo.gov). The Department announces 
grant competitions in the Federal Register (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys). 
It is your responsibility to monitor these sites to determine whether 
the Department issues an RFP or NIA after considering the information 
received in response to this RFI.
    The documents and information submitted in response to this RFI 
become the property of the U.S. Government and will not be returned.

2. Background

    Educators, parents, and the public in general rely on accurate, 
reliable, and timely information on student academic performance to 
improve instruction and help all students reach and maintain high 
levels of achievement. Indeed, the availability of valid, reliable, and 
timely data on student performance is essential in informing 
instruction, identifying professional development needs, helping ensure 
meaningful accountability, and implementing effective education 
reforms.
    Accordingly, SEAs and LEAs must ensure the integrity of the data 
they use to measure student achievement and ensure meaningful 
educational accountability. Under section 1111(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, (ESEA) and 
34 CFR 200.1-200.24, States must establish and maintain assessment 
systems that are valid, reliable, and consistent with nationally 
recognized professional and technical standards. Even the slightest 
appearance of impropriety in the test administration process can 
undermine State accountability systems--painstakingly built over the 
past decade--and damage the credibility of reform efforts underway 
across the country.
    Accordingly, State and local officials have an interest in, and 
share responsibility for defending against, security breaches and 
threats to educational data integrity. States have a long history of 
stewardship of academic assessments, and many States have made great 
efforts to ensure that their assessments and other data collection 
instruments are properly administered and that data security 
requirements are clearly specified and followed.
    The Department also has a role in this area. Under Title I of the 
ESEA, the Department is required to review and approve each State's 
assessment system. Accordingly, the Department examines evidence 
compiled and submitted by each State about its process for monitoring 
and improving the technical quality of its system. During the review of 
State assessment systems, the Department specifically examines 
procedures and policies for test security and data quality, including 
the training and monitoring of staff.
    For these reasons, this RFI seeks solutions; advice; technical 
information; legal, regulatory, and policy approaches; and other input 
from the public regarding best practices for the prevention, detection, 
and investigation of alleged or actual testing irregularities. Through 
this RFI, the Department also seeks to gather information and 
suggestions for SEAs and LEAs on how they can address these issues.
    In addition, as noted earlier, the Department will host a symposium 
where external experts can engage in further discussion and probe these 
issues in greater depth. Responses to the RFI will be shared with the 
external experts, to inform their planning for the symposium. A summary 
of the recommendations that are developed as a result of the RFI and 
the symposium, as well as other resources identified by external 
experts participating in the symposium, will be published shortly 
thereafter to help inform the field.

3. Context for Responses

    3.1 The primary goal of this RFI is to gather information that will 
help SEAs and LEAs better understand existing best practices for 
preventing, detecting, and investigating testing irregularities. To 
that end, the Department welcomes responses that address SEA and LEA 
policies and practices related to these areas and to State laws and 
regulations. To help focus our consideration of the responses provided, 
we have developed several questions. Because the questions are only 
guides to helping us better understand the issues surrounding testing 
integrity, respondents do not have to respond to any specific question, 
and may provide comments in a format that is convenient to them. 
Commenters may also provide relevant

[[Page 2282]]

information that is not responsive to a particular question but may, 
nevertheless, be helpful.
    3.2 Questions Regarding the Prevention of Testing Irregularities.
    3.2.1 Best Practices and Policies. Describe the best practices and 
policies that SEAs and LEAs have implemented to prevent testing 
irregularities. What evidence exists that these are best practices? 
Where have these best practices been adopted? What are the general 
lessons learned from those adoptions? How might such best practices be 
effectively used in the future? Are there barriers to the adoption of 
these best practices at the SEA or LEA level? What controls are most 
effective in preventing testing irregularities?
    3.2.2 School Culture. What role does school culture play in test 
security? For example, how has professional development been used to 
train school officials to help prepare students and parents for 
academic testing? What are SEAs and LEAs doing to ensure that educators 
are prepared? Are SEAs providing sufficient information to LEAs about 
their expectations regarding the integrity of academic testing? Have 
the consequences for misconduct during the testing process been clearly 
communicated to school officials?
    3.2.3 Contractual Provisions. For those States that have assessment 
contracts, what provisions are included in these contracts to help 
prevent testing irregularities? What contractual provisions have been 
effective in preventing testing irregularities? What evidence exists 
that these provisions are effective? What provisions have States 
included in their quality assurance contracts to help analyze risks?
    3.2.4 Federal, State, and Local Roles. What are the most 
appropriate roles for the Department, SEAs, and LEAs in preventing 
testing irregularities?

Questions Regarding the Detection of Testing Irregularities

    3.2.5 Detection Analyses. How are testing irregularities generally 
detected? What are the different types of analyses that can be used to 
detect testing irregularities? What are the best practices and policies 
that SEAs and LEAs have used to detect testing irregularities? What is 
each type of analysis used for? How should the results of these 
analyses be interpreted? Can different types of analyses be used in 
conjunction with one another or to complement one another? What 
evidence exists that these are best practices? What is the appropriate 
sequence of events when seeking to determine whether testing 
irregularities have occurred? Specifically, what steps should be taken 
and in what order?

Questions Regarding the Review and Investigation of Alleged Testing 
Irregularities

    3.2.6 Contractual Provisions. What provisions have States included 
in their assessment contracts to help detect irregularities (e.g., 
provisions related to the use of high-quality control plans)? What 
contractual provisions have been most effective in detecting testing 
irregularities?
    3.2.7 Federal, State, and Local Roles. What are the appropriate 
roles for the Department, SEAs, and LEAs in responding to allegations 
of testing irregularities? Who are the parties involved in an 
investigation at the SEA and LEA levels?
    3.2.8 Responses to Alleged Testing Irregularities. If testing 
irregularities are detected, what are the best practices for 
investigating them? What forensic analyses should be used? What 
cooperative practices between SEAs and LEAs have yielded positive 
outcomes? What are barriers to investigating testing irregularities?
    3.2.9 Managing Wrongdoing. If alleged testing irregularities are a 
result of wrongdoing, under what circumstances is it appropriate to 
impose strict and meaningful sanctions against wrongdoers? Are 
educators subject to standards of professional conduct, laws, or 
regulations that dictate the type of sanctions that might be imposed on 
an individual who violates the law or compromises professional 
standards? How should intent of wrongdoing be determined, and by what 
entity? What can be done to restore the credibility of a school system 
that has been tarnished by alleged or actual wrongdoing?

Questions Regarding Online and Computer-Based Assessments

    3.2.10 Changes in Technology. In a world where academic assessments 
are increasingly delivered online and by computer, how do responses to 
the questions listed above change when applied to online and computer-
based assessments?
    3.2.11 Computer-based Assessment Protection. What mechanisms or 
processes exist to ensure that the results of computer-based 
assessments are accurate and free from tampering? What are the best 
practices and policies that SEAs and LEAs have implemented in this 
area? What evidence exists that these are best practices? What are the 
potential threats to, and weak points in, computer-based assessment 
systems? Where are there likely opportunities for tampering and testing 
irregularities within the context of computer-based assessments?
    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this 
document in an accessible format (e.g., Braille, large print, 
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person 
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Electronic Access to This Document

    The official version of this document is the document published in 
the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of 
the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available 
via the Federal Digital System at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 
can view this document, as well as all other documents of this 
Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable 
Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, 
which is available free at the site.
    You may also access documents of the Department published in the 
Federal Register by using the article search feature at: 
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.

    Program Authority:  20 U.S.C. 6771.

    Dated: January 11, 2012.
Michael Yudin,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2012-753 Filed 1-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P