Proposed Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria-Enhanced Assessment Instruments, 5337-5345 [2013-01567]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules
knowledge through research and
development. Another benefit of these
proposed priorities and definitions is
that the establishment of new DRRPs
would improve the lives of individuals
with disabilities. The new DRRPs would
generate, disseminate, and promote the
use of new information that would
improve outcomes for individuals with
disabilities.
Intergovernmental Review: This
program is not subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34
CFR part 79.
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.
Dated: January 18, 2013.
Michael Yudin,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2013–01418 Filed 1–24–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter II
[Docket ID ED–2012–OESE–0033]
Proposed Priorities, Requirements,
Definitions, and Selection Criteria—
Enhanced Assessment Instruments
Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:46 Jan 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.368
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for
Elementary and Secondary Education
proposes priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria under
the Enhanced Assessment Instruments
Grant program, also called the Enhanced
Assessment Grants (EAG) program. The
Assistant Secretary may use one or more
of these priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria for
competitions using funds from fiscal
year (FY) 2012 and later years. The
Department takes these actions in order
to establish priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria that
are likely to recognize high-quality
proposals and to help focus Federal
financial assistance on the pressing
needs of, and promising developments
in, developing or enhancing
assessments under the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as
amended (ESEA).
We must receive your comments
on or before February 25, 2013, and we
encourage you to submit comments well
in advance of this date.
DATES:
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
we do not receive duplicate comments,
please submit your comments only
once. In addition, please include the
Docket ID and the term ‘‘Enhanced
Assessment Grants—Comments’’ at the
top of your comments.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
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 about these proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria, address them to the
Office of Elementary and Secondary
Education (Attention: Enhanced
Assessment Grants—Comments), U.S.
Department of Education, 400 Maryland
Avenue SW., room 3w110, Washington,
DC 20202–6132.
ADDRESSES:
Privacy Note: The Department’s policy is
to make all comments received from
members of the public available for public
viewing in their entirety on the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov.
Therefore, commenters should be careful to
include in their comments only information
that they wish to make publicly available.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5337
Erin
Shackel. Telephone: (202) 453–6423 or
by email: erin.shackel@ed.gov.
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:
Invitation to Comment: We invite you
to submit comments regarding this
notice. To ensure that your comments
have maximum effect in developing the
notice of final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria, we
urge you to identify clearly the specific
proposed priority, requirement,
definition, or selection criterion that
each comment addresses.
Please note that we have included
existing requirements and selection
criteria in this document to provide
context and to make it easier to
comment on the requirements and
selection criteria we are proposing. We
seek comment only on the proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria.
We invite you to assist us in
complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866
and its overall requirement of reducing
regulatory burden that might result from
these proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria. Please
let us know of any further ways the
Department could reduce potential costs
or increase potential benefits while
preserving the effective and efficient
administration of the program.
During and after the comment period,
you may inspect all public comments
about this notice in room 3W110, 400
Maryland Avenue SW., Washington,
DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and
4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time,
Monday through Friday of each week
except Federal holidays.
Assistance to Individuals with
Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request the
Department will provide an appropriate
accommodation or auxiliary to aid an
individual with a disability who needs
assistance to review the comments or
other documents in the public
rulemaking record for this notice. If you
want to schedule an appointment for
this type of accommodation or auxiliary
aid, please contact the person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Purpose of Program: The purpose of
the EAG program is to enhance the
quality of assessment instruments and
systems used by States for measuring
the academic achievement of
elementary and secondary school
students.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
E:\FR\FM\25JAP1.SGM
25JAP1
5338
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7301a.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with
Proposed Priorities:
This notice contains two proposed
priorities. The Department may apply
one or more of these priorities in any
year in which a competition for program
funds is held.
Background:
Section 6112 of the ESEA authorizes
the Department, through the EAG
program, to make competitive grant
awards to State educational agencies
(SEAs) and consortia of SEAs to help
them enhance the quality of their
assessment instruments and assessment
systems. The EAG program includes the
following four statutory priorities:
(a) Collaborating with institutions of
higher education, other research
institutions, or other organizations to
improve the quality, validity, and
reliability of State academic assessments
beyond the requirements for such
assessments described in section
1111(b)(3) of the ESEA;
(b) Measuring student academic
achievement using multiple measures of
student academic achievement from
multiple sources;
(c) Charting student progress over
time; and
(d) Evaluating student academic
achievement through the development
of comprehensive academic assessment
instruments, such as performance- and
technology-based academic
assessments.
An applicant for EAG funds must
address one or more of these statutory
priorities to be eligible for an award.
Through this notice, the Department
proposes two additional priorities that
are designed to support States’
assessment work in early learning. The
Department believes that a high-quality
State early learning system involves
several key components. These include,
among other elements, early learning
and development standards (as defined
in this notice) that reflect the essential
domains of school readiness (as defined
in this notice) and a comprehensive
early learning assessment system (as
defined in this notice). Such an
assessment system, when well-designed
and properly implemented, can inform
teaching and program improvement and
contribute to better outcomes for
children.1
1 National Research Council (2008). Early
Childhood Assessment: Why, What, and How.
Committee on Developmental Outcomes and
Assessments for Young Children, C.E. Snow and
S.B. Van Hemel, Editors. Board on Children, Youth,
and Families, Board on Testing and Assessment,
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press. Available at www.nap.edu/
catalog.php?record_id=12446.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:46 Jan 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
The priorities we propose in this
notice focus on one piece of a
comprehensive early learning
assessment system—the kindergarten
entry assessment (KEA). In particular,
these priorities will support the
development or enhancement of KEAs
and promote collaboration among States
in the development or enhancement of
a common KEA.
A KEA is a critical piece of a
comprehensive early learning
assessment system because it provides a
snapshot of children’s learning and
development at kindergarten entry. A
well-designed and properly
implemented KEA also can provide data
to suggest areas where children may
need interventions or additional
supports in order to be successful in the
early grades. Over time, when included
as part of a comprehensive early
learning assessment system, a KEA can
provide data that will inform State
efforts to improve child learning
outcomes and help close achievement
gaps.
Over the last decade, States have
demonstrated an increased interest in
understanding children’s learning and
development at kindergarten entry.
Approximately half of States have
instituted some form of early learning
assessment.2 However, these
assessments vary widely in their
alignment with early learning and
development standards, in the depth
and scope of the domains they address,
and in how the data generated are used.3
The priorities proposed in this notice
build on the Department’s efforts to
fund States collaborating to support
children and youth across the cradlethrough-college-to-career continuum.
Grants under three Department
programs, including the EAG program,
currently support State-led efforts to
develop common assessments among
States. The Department has funded two
EAG awards to support States
collaborating to develop English
language proficiency (ELP) assessment
systems. The assessments in the systems
developed under these EAG–ELP grants
must be aligned with English language
proficiency standards that correspond to
a common set of college- and careerready standards in English language arts
2 J. Stedron & A. Berger. 2010. NCSL Technical
Report: State Approaches to School Readiness
Assessment (updated August 2010). Denver, CO:
National Conference of State Legislators.
www.ncsl.org/documents/Educ/
KindergartenAssessment.pdf.
3 S. Daily, M. Burkhauser, & T. Halle. 2010. ‘‘A
Review of School Readiness Practices in the States:
Early Learning Guidelines and Assessments.’’ Early
Childhood Highlights 1 (3). Available at
www.childtrends.org/Files/Child_Trends2010_06_18_ECH_SchoolReadiness.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and mathematics. The Department also
is funding projects involving large
consortia of States through the Race to
the Top Assessment (RTTA) program
and companion projects through the
General Supervision Enhancement
Grants (GSEG) program under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) to develop both general and
alternate assessments that are aligned
with a common set of college- and
career-ready standards in English
language arts and mathematics.
In addition, the Department is
maintaining support for the beginning of
the cradle-through-college-to-career
continuum through the Race to the
Top—Early Learning Challenge (RTT–
ELC) program. Jointly administered with
the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, RTT–ELC reflects the
Departments’ commitment to supporting
America’s youngest learners in
developing the knowledge, skills, and
dispositions toward learning they need
to enter kindergarten ready to succeed
in school and in life. To date, 14 States
have been awarded RTT–ELC grants to
fund education reform through
developing or enhancing coordinated
State systems of early learning. These
RTT–ELC grants specifically support
States’ efforts to increase the number of
children with high needs enrolled in
high-quality early learning and
development programs.
Recipients of RTT–ELC grants are
eligible to apply for grants under the
EAG program, including competitions
(if any) using the KEA priority.
However, the Department expects that
these applicants will propose activities
that are consistent with but do not
duplicate activities included in their
RTT–ELC applications.
Proposed Priority 1—Kindergarten
Entry Assessment
Background: The Department believes
that a high-quality KEA should provide
critical information about children’s
learning and development across all the
essential domains of school readiness
(as defined in this notice), inform
instruction at kindergarten entry and
throughout the year, and support efforts
to close the school-readiness gap.
Families should be able to use this
information to provide support for
children at home. Teachers should be
able to use this information to modify
instruction at kindergarten entry and
throughout the year, adapt curricula,
and focus professional development
needs. In addition, a high-quality KEA
should provide information to support
effective programmatic decisions and
better target investments in the years
before kindergarten. Proposed Priority 1
E:\FR\FM\25JAP1.SGM
25JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with
would support the development or
enhancement of high-quality KEAs.
These assessments would be integrated
into States’ student assessment systems
and, if they exist, into the States’ early
learning assessment systems.
Under the proposed priority a KEA
would be administered to children soon
enough after their enrollment in
kindergarten so that results could be
used to inform instruction at
kindergarten entry and throughout the
year, adapt curricula, and focus
professional development to help close
any educational gaps.
The proposed priority also would
require that the KEA be aligned with
States’ high-quality early learning and
development standards (as defined in
this notice), which are aligned with the
States’ K–3 academic content standards
in, at a minimum, early literacy and
mathematics. In addition, KEAs
developed under the proposed priority
must measure each child’s development
across the full range of the essential
domains of school readiness (as defined
in this notice).
A KEA developed or enhanced under
this proposed priority must be of high
technical quality and be consistent with
the guidelines on early childhood
assessments made by the National
Research Council.4 We propose to
require that these KEAs be consistent
with the National Research Council
guidelines in light of the direction we
received from Congress for the RTT–
ELC program that States receiving grants
under that program provide an
assurance that any use of early
childhood assessments conform to
National Research Council reports on
early childhood.5 We believe that
Congress would also expect that any
early learning assessments developed
under the EAG program would be
similarly aligned with the National
Research Council findings.
Further, a KEA developed or
enhanced under this proposed priority
must not be used to prevent children’s
entry into kindergarten.
In short, the proposed priority is
intended to produce KEAs that provide
a snapshot of information on children’s
learning and development across
multiple domains and can be integrated
into States’ student assessment systems,
and if they exist, included in a States’
comprehensive early learning
assessment systems. The data generated
from a KEA developed or enhanced
4 See www.nap.edu/
catalog.php?record_id=12446.
5 See Department of Defense and Full-Year
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, Division B,
§ 1832(b), Public Law 112–10 (April 15, 2011).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:46 Jan 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
through this grant would inform and
support educators in providing effective
learning opportunities to every child,
and prevent or close achievement gaps.
Proposed Priority 1: Kindergarten
Entry Assessment.
To meet this priority, an applicant
must propose a project that supports the
development or enhancement of a KEA
that meets the following requirements:
(a) Purpose. The KEA must—
(1) Yield information that enables
State and local agencies to effectively
target investments for early learning and
development systems serving children
in the years before kindergarten;
(2) Yield information that enables
programmatic decision-making at the
school level, such as identifying
individual children’s needs and
providing necessary supports to
children and teachers in order to meet
those needs at kindergarten entry and
throughout the year;
(3) Yield information to guide
individualized instruction for children
enrolled in kindergarten and throughout
the school year;
(4) Provide families with information
about their children’s learning and
development based on the essential
domains of school readiness (as defined
in this notice); and
(5) Not be used to prevent children’s
entry into kindergarten.
(b) Design. The KEA must—
(1) Be a component of a State’s
student assessment system, including, a
State’s comprehensive early learning
assessment system (as defined in this
notice) for each State included in an
application in which a comprehensive
early learning assessment system exists;
(2) Be aligned with a set of early
learning and development standards (as
defined in this notice);
(3) Measure the full range of learning
and development across the essential
domains of school readiness (as defined
in this notice);
(4) Measure children’s learning and
development against a set of levels of
performance where the levels of
performance encompass descriptors of
what a child knows and is able to do for
each level, are common statewide, and,
if the applicant State applies on behalf
of a consortium, are common across
States in the consortium;
(5) Provide a summative assessment
of each child’s learning and
development at kindergarten entry
across the essential domains of school
readiness (as defined in this notice);
(6) Be capable of assessing all
children in the applicant State, and if
the State applies as part of a consortium,
all children in the consortium;
(7) Be developed consistent with
universal design principles to be
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5339
accessible to all children, including
children with disabilities or
developmental delays and English
learners (as defined in this notice);
(8) As needed, provide appropriate
accommodations and supports for
children with disabilities or
developmental delays and English
learners (as defined in this notice) (e.g.,
augmentative communication devices
and assistive technologies);
(9) Be administered soon enough after
a child’s enrollment into kindergarten to
achieve the purposes for which the
assessment was developed, including
the purposes specified in paragraph (a)
of this priority;
(10) Use multiple methods (e.g.,
performance tasks, selected responses,
observational ratings) to measure
children’s performance and
development;
(11) Be administered by a trained
assessor or assessors;
(12) Be designed to incorporate
technology in the collection of student
data and in the process of assessing
children’s performance on learning and
development tasks; and
(13) Be cost-effective to administer,
maintain, and enhance during and after
the project period.
(c) Technical Quality. The KEA must
measure children’s learning and
development at kindergarten entry in
ways that—
(1) Are consistent with nationally
recognized professional and technical
standards for assessment;
(2) Are consistent with the
recommendations of the National
Research Council report on early
childhood assessments; 6
(3) Are valid, reliable, and appropriate
for their intended purposes;
(4) Provide a valid and reliable
measure across the performance
spectrum of each child’s learning and
development at kindergarten entry,
including children with disabilities or
developmental delays and English
learners.
(d) Data. The KEA must produce data
and information that—
(1) Allow, at kindergarten entry, for a
valid and reliable interpretation of each
child’s learning and development across
the essential domains of school
readiness (as defined in this notice)
with each domain making a significant
6 National Research Council. (2008). Early
Childhood Assessment: Why, What, and How.
Committee on Developmental Outcomes and
Assessments for Young Children, C.E. Snow and
S.B. Van Hemel, Editors. Board on Children, Youth,
and Families, Board on Testing and Assessment,
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press. Available at www.nap.edu/
catalog.php?record_id=12446.
E:\FR\FM\25JAP1.SGM
25JAP1
5340
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with
contribution to the overall
comprehensive score;
(2) Can be reported to and easily
understood and used by various
stakeholders, including families,
teachers, administrators, early learning
providers, and policy-makers, consistent
with requirements of Federal, State, and
local privacy laws; and
(3) Can be incorporated into a State’s
longitudinal data system (SLDS) and a
State’s early learning data system (if it
is separate from an SLDS), consistent
with requirements of Federal, State, and
local privacy laws.
(e) Compatibility. The KEA must use
approaches to assessment design and
implementation (e.g., use of technology,
assessment administration, scoring, and
reporting) that facilitate the integration
of the KEA with a State’s student
assessment system, including a State’s
comprehensive early learning
assessment system (as defined in this
notice) for each State included in an
application in which a comprehensive
early learning assessment system exists.
Proposed Priority 2—Early Learning
Collaborative Efforts Among States
Background: The Department values
the benefits derived from States working
together and, therefore, proposes
collaborative efforts among States as a
priority for the development or
enhancement of KEAs. As noted earlier,
States are working together in consortia
under the RTTA program to develop
new assessment systems that measure
student knowledge and skills against a
common set of college- and career-ready
standards in English language arts and
mathematics. States are also
collaborating under the GSEG program
to develop companion alternate
assessments based on alternate
achievement standards. With assistance
from the EAG program, States also are
working together to develop ELP
assessments aligned with common ELP
standards.
Similarly, because of the complexity
of developing or enhancing a KEA,
States in collaboration may yield better
results than those undertaking this effort
alone. States working in collaboration
can build on each State’s expertise and
experience and generate efficiencies in
development, costs, implementation,
and uses of results.
In addition, data produced by a KEA
administered across multiple States are
more meaningful when the early
learning and development standards (as
defined in this notice) are the same
across States, and can provide a
common framework for understanding
the level of children’s learning and
development at kindergarten entry.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:46 Jan 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
The Department is considering using
this priority as a competitive preference
priority in the FY 2013 competition. An
applicant would receive a higher
number of points based on the extent to
which it includes a greater number of
States in the consortium, with three to
four States representing a low number of
States, five to seven States representing
an intermediate number of States, and
eight or more States representing a high
number of States.
Proposed Priority 2: Early Learning
Collaborative Efforts Among States.
To meet this priority, an applicant
must—
(a) Include a minimum of three States
in the consortium and propose
developing or enhancing a common
KEA for those States. An applicant will
receive a greater number of points under
this priority based on the extent to
which it includes a greater number of
States in its consortium;
(b) Adopt or propose a plan for all
States in the consortium to adopt a set
of early learning and development
standards (as defined in this notice)
that, for at least the year prior to
kindergarten entry, are substantially
identical across all States in the
consortium;
(c) Adopt or propose a plan for all
States in the consortium to adopt the
common KEA; and
(d) Provide in the memorandum of
understanding or other binding
agreement executed by each State in the
consortium an assurance that, as a
condition of remaining in the
consortium, the State will, no later than
the end of the project period, adopt the
common KEA developed under this
priority and the set of early learning and
development standards (as defined in
this notice) upon which the KEA is
based.
Types of Priorities:
When inviting applications for a
competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each
priority as absolute, competitive
preference, or invitational through a
notice in the Federal Register. The
effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute
priority, the Department considers only
applications that meet the priority (34
CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority:
Under a competitive preference priority,
we give competitive preference to an
application by (1) awarding additional
points, depending on the extent to
which the application meets the priority
(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting
an application that meets the priority
over an application of comparable merit
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an
invitational priority, we are particularly
interested in applications that meet the
priority. However, we do not give an
application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34
CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Proposed Requirement:
Background: The proposed
requirement is designed to support the
transition to ongoing operational
administration of assessments
developed under the EAG program.
We would add this proposed
requirement to the existing
requirements for the EAG program
established on April 19, 2011 (76 FR
21986). We list the existing
requirements below to provide context
and make commenting on the proposed
requirement easier. We invite comment
on the proposed requirement only. The
existing requirements are that an
eligible applicant awarded a grant under
this program must:
(a) Evaluate the validity, reliability,
and fairness of any assessments or other
assessment-related instruments
developed under a grant from this
competition, and make available
documentation of evaluations of
technical quality through formal
mechanisms (e.g., peer-reviewed
journals) and informal mechanisms
(e.g., newsletters), both in print and
electronically;
(b) Actively participate in any
applicable technical assistance activities
conducted or facilitated by the
Department or its designees, coordinate
with the RTTA program in the
development of assessments under this
program, and participate in other
activities as determined by the
Department;
(c) Develop a strategy to make
student-level data that result from any
assessments or other assessment-related
instruments developed under a grant
from this competition available on an
ongoing basis for research, including for
prospective linking, validity, and
program improvement studies; 7
(d) Ensure that any assessments or
other assessment-related instruments
developed under a grant from this
competition will be operational (ready
for large-scale administration) at the end
of the project period;
(e) Ensure that funds awarded under
the EAG program are not used to
support the development of standards,
7 Eligible applicants awarded a grant under this
program must comply with the Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and 34 CFR Part
99, as well as State and local requirements
regarding privacy.
E:\FR\FM\25JAP1.SGM
25JAP1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules
such as under the English language
proficiency assessment system priority
or any other priority;
(f) Maximize the interoperability of
any assessments and other assessmentrelated instruments developed with
funds from this competition across
technology platforms and the ability for
States to move their assessments from
one technology platform to another by
doing the following, as applicable, for
any assessments developed with funds
from this competition by—
(1) Developing all assessment items in
accordance with an industry-recognized
open-licensed interoperability standard
that is approved by the Department
during the grant period, without nonstandard extensions or additions; and
(2) Producing all student-level data in
a manner consistent with an industryrecognized open-licensed
interoperability standard that is
approved by the Department during the
grant period;
(g) Unless otherwise protected by law
or agreement as proprietary information,
make any assessment content (i.e.,
assessments and assessment items) and
other assessment-related instruments
developed with funds from this
competition freely available to States,
technology platform providers, and
others that request it for purposes of
administering assessments, provided
that those parties receiving assessment
content comply with consortium or
State requirements for test or item
security; and
(h) For any assessments and other
assessment-related instruments
developed with funds from this
competition, use technology to the
maximum extent appropriate to
develop, administer, and score the
assessments and report results.
Proposed Requirement:
The Assistant Secretary proposes the
following requirement for this program.
The Department may apply this
requirement in any year in which this
program is in effect:
(i) Adopt and implement any
assessments, other assessment-related
instruments developed or enhanced
under the proposed project, and any
standards upon which they are based. In
addition, if the applicant State applies
as, or on behalf of a consortium of
States, it must provide in any
memorandum of understanding or other
binding agreement executed by each
State in the consortium an assurance
that, to remain in the consortium, the
State will adopt and implement any
assessments or other assessment-related
instruments developed or enhanced
under the proposed project and any
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:46 Jan 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
standards upon which they are based by
the end of the project period.
Proposed Definitions:
Background:
Several important terms associated
with the priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria
proposed in this notice are not defined
in the EAG statute. We would add the
proposed definitions to the existing
definitions for the EAG program
established on April 19, 2011 (76 FR
21986), though we are proposing to
modify the definition of ‘‘English
learner’’ established in 2011 in order to
broaden the definition to include young
children.
Proposed Definitions:
The Assistant Secretary proposes
definitions for the EAG program. The
Department may apply one or more of
these new definitions, and any
previously established definitions, in
any year in which this program is in
effect.
Comprehensive early learning
assessment system means a coordinated
and comprehensive system of multiple
assessments, each of which is valid and
reliable for its specified purpose and for
the population with which it will be
used, that organizes information about
the process and context of young
children’s learning and development in
order to help teachers make informed
instructional and programmatic
decisions and that conforms with the
recommendations of the National
Research Council report on early
childhood assessments 8 by including, at
a minimum: (a) Screening measures (as
defined in this notice); (b) formative
assessments; (c) measures of
environmental quality (as defined in
this notice); (d) measures of the quality
of adult-child interactions (as defined in
this notice); and (e) a kindergarten entry
assessment (KEA).
Early learning and development
standards means a set of expectations,
guidelines, or developmental milestones
that—
(a) Describe what all children from
birth to kindergarten entry should know
and be able to do and their dispositions
toward learning;
(b) Are appropriate for each age group
(e.g., infants, toddlers, and
preschoolers); for English learners; and
8 National Research Council (2008). Early
Childhood Assessment: Why, What, and How.
Committee on Developmental Outcomes and
Assessments for Young Children, C.E. Snow and
S.B. Van Hemel, Editors. Board on Children, Youth,
and Families, Board on Testing and Assessment,
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press. Available at www.nap.edu/
catalog.php?record_id=12446.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5341
for children with disabilities or
developmental delays;
(c) Cover all essential domains of
school readiness (as defined in this
notice);
(d) Are universally designed and
developmentally, culturally, and
linguistically appropriate; and
(e) Are aligned with the State’s K–3
academic standards in, at a minimum,
early literacy and mathematics.
English learner means a child,
including a child aged three and
younger, who is an English learner
consistent with the definition of a child
who is ‘‘limited English proficient,’’ as
applicable, in section 9101(25) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965, as amended.
Essential domains of school readiness
means the domains of language and
literacy development, cognition and
general knowledge (including early
mathematics and early scientific
development), approaches toward
learning, physical well-being and motor
development (including adaptive skills),
and social and emotional development.
Formative assessment (also known as
a classroom-based or ongoing
assessment) means assessment
questions, tools, and processes—
(a) That are—
(1) Specifically designed to monitor
children’s progress;
(2) Valid and reliable for their
intended purposes and their target
populations; and
(3) Linked directly to the curriculum;
and
(b) The results of which are used to
guide and improve instructional
practices.
Measures of environmental quality
means valid and reliable indicators of
the overall quality of the early learning
environment.
Measures of the quality of adult-child
interactions means the measures
obtained through valid and reliable
processes for observing how teachers
and caregivers interact with children,
where such processes are designed to
promote child learning and to identify
strengths and areas for improvement for
early learning professionals.
Screening measures means age and
developmentally appropriate, valid, and
reliable instruments that are used to
identify children who may need followup services to address developmental,
learning, or health needs in, at a
minimum, the areas of physical health,
behavioral health, oral health, child
development, vision, and hearing.
Proposed Selection Criteria:
Background: The Department intends
that the selection criteria used for
competitions for EAG funds will ensure
E:\FR\FM\25JAP1.SGM
25JAP1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with
5342
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules
that EAG projects address the most
critical needs of education. The
Department also expects that the
selection criteria used for competitions
for EAG funds will ensure that any
assessments funded under this program
will be of high technical quality. We
established selection criteria for the
EAG program on April 19, 2011 (76 FR
21986), and April 30, 2012 (77 FR
25470). The 2011 selection criteria
addressed the assessment design and
the assessment development plan;
however, those criteria are not
appropriate for entry assessments
within a KEA. Therefore, we are
proposing two new selection criteria
that address similar issues but with a
focus on kindergarten children.
The proposed selection criteria (h)
and (i) would be used in combination
with the selection criteria that have
already been established. The
Department notes that the 2011
assessment design selection criterion (b)
is inconsistent with both the proposed
kindergarten entry assessment design
criterion (h) and the purposes of the
proposed KEA priority, and the
Department does not intend to use
selection criterion (b) with the proposed
KEA priority.
The Department also notes that the
2011 assessment development plan
selection criterion (c) is inconsistent
with both the proposed kindergarten
entry assessment development plan
selection criterion (i) and the purposes
of the proposed KEA priority, and the
Department does not intend to use the
2011 selection criterion (c) with the
proposed KEA priority.
We list the existing selection criteria
below to provide context and to make
commenting on the proposed selection
criteria easier. We invite comments on
the proposed selection criteria only.
The existing selection criteria are:
(a) Theory of action. The Secretary
reviews each application to determine
the extent to which the eligible
applicant’s theory of action is logical,
coherent, and credible, and will result
in improved student outcomes. In
determining the extent to which the
theory of action has these attributes, we
will consider the description of, and
rationale for—
(1) How the assessment results will be
used (e.g., at the State, local educational
agency, school, classroom, and student
levels);
(2) How the assessments and
assessment results will be incorporated
into coherent educational systems (i.e.,
systems that include standards,
assessments, curriculum, instruction,
and professional development) of the
State(s) participating in the grant; and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:46 Jan 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
(3) How those educational systems as
a whole will improve student
achievement.
(b) Assessment design. The Secretary
reviews each application to determine
the extent to which the design of the
eligible applicant’s proposed
assessments is innovative, feasible, and
consistent with the theory of action. In
determining the extent to which the
design has these attributes, we will
consider—
(1) The number and types of
assessments, as appropriate (e.g.,
diagnostic assessments, summative
assessments);
(2) How the assessments will measure
student knowledge and skills against the
full range of the relevant standards,
including the standards against which
student achievement has traditionally
been difficult to measure, provide an
accurate measure of student proficiency
on those standards, including for
students who are high- and lowperforming in academic areas, and
provide an accurate measure of student
progress in the relevant area over a full
academic year;
(3) How the assessments will produce
the required student performance data,
as described in the priority;
(4) How and when during the
academic year different types of student
data will be available to inform and
guide instruction, interventions, and
professional development;
(5) The types of data that will be
produced by the assessments, which
must include student achievement data
and other data specified in the relevant
priority;
(6) The uses of the data that will be
produced by the assessments, including
(but not limited to)—
(i) Determining individual student
achievement and student progress;
determining, as appropriate and as one
of multiple measures, individual
principal and teacher effectiveness, if
applicable; and professional
development and support needs;
(ii) Informing teaching, learning, and
program improvement; and
(7) The frequency and timing of
administration of the assessments, and
the rationale for these;
(8) The number and types of items
(e.g., performance tasks, selected
responses, observational rating, brief or
extended constructed responses) and
the distribution of item types within the
assessments, including the extent to
which the items will be varied and elicit
complex student demonstrations or
applications of knowledge, skills, and
approaches to learning, as appropriate
(descriptions should include a concrete
example of each item type proposed);
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and the rationale for using these item
types and their distributions;
(9) The assessments’ administration
mode (e.g., paper-and-pencil, teacher
rating, computer-based, or other
electronic device), and the rationale for
the mode;
(10) The methods for scoring student
performance on the assessments, the
estimated turnaround times for scoring,
and the rationale for these; and
(11) The reports that will be produced
based on the assessments, and for each
report: the key data it will present; its
intended use; target audience (e.g.,
students, parents, teachers,
administrators, policymakers); and its
presentation in an understandable and
uniform format and, to the extent
practicable, in a language that parents
can understand.
(c) Assessment development plan.
The Secretary reviews each application
to determine the extent to which the
eligible applicant’s plan for developing
the proposed assessments will ensure
that the assessments are ready by the
end of the grant period for wide-scale
administration in a manner that is
timely, cost-effective, and consistent
with the proposed design and
incorporates a process for ongoing
feedback and improvement. In
determining the extent to which the
assessment development plan has these
attributes, the Department will
consider—
(1)(i) The approaches for developing
assessment items (e.g., evidencecentered design, universal design) and
the rationale for using those approaches;
and the development phases and
processes to be implemented consistent
with the approaches; and
(ii) The types of personnel (e.g.,
practitioners, content experts,
assessment experts, experts in assessing
English learners, linguists, experts in
second language acquisition, experts in
assessing students with disabilities,
psychometricians, cognitive scientists,
institution of higher education
representatives, experts on career
readiness standards, and other key
stakeholders) involved in each
development phase and process;
(2) The approach and strategy for
designing and developing
accommodations, accommodation
policies, and methods for standardizing
the use of those accommodations for
students with disabilities;
(3) The approach and strategy for
ensuring scalable, accurate, and
consistent scoring of items, including
the approach and moderation system for
any human-scored items and the extent
to which teachers are trained and
E:\FR\FM\25JAP1.SGM
25JAP1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules
involved in the administration and
scoring of assessments;
(4) The approach and strategy for
developing the reporting system; and
(5) The overall approach to quality
control and the strategy for field-testing
assessment items, accommodations,
scoring systems, and reporting systems,
including, with respect to assessment
items and accommodations, the use of
representative sampling of all types of
student populations, taking into
particular account high- and lowperforming students, different types of
English learners (e.g., recently arrived
English learners, former English
learners, migratory English learners, and
English learners with disabilities), and
students with disabilities.
(d) Research and evaluation. The
Secretary reviews each application to
determine the extent to which the
eligible applicant’s research and
evaluation plan will ensure that the
assessments developed are valid,
reliable, and fair for their intended
purposes. In determining the extent to
which the research and evaluation plan
has these attributes, we will consider—
(1) The plan for identifying and
employing psychometric techniques
suitable for verifying, as appropriate to
each assessment, its construct,
consequential, and predictive validity;
external validity; reliability; fairness;
precision across the full performance
continuum; and comparability within
and across grade levels; and
(2) The plan for determining whether
the assessments are being implemented
as designed and the theory of action is
being realized, including whether the
intended effects on individuals and
institutions are being achieved.
(e) Professional capacity and
outreach. The Secretary reviews each
application to determine the extent to
which the eligible applicant’s plan for
implementing the proposed assessments
is feasible, cost-effective, and consistent
with the theory of action. In
determining the extent to which the
implementation plan has these
attributes, we will consider—
(1) The plan for supporting teachers
and administrators in implementing the
assessments and for developing, in an
ongoing manner, their professional
capacity to use the assessments and
results to inform and improve
instructional practice; and
(2) The strategy and plan for
informing the public and key
stakeholders (including teachers,
administrators, families, legislators, and
policymakers) in each State or in each
member State within a consortium
about the assessments and for building
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:46 Jan 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
support from the public and those
stakeholders.
(f) Technology approach. The
Secretary reviews each application to
determine the extent to which the
eligible applicant would use technology
effectively to improve the quality,
accessibility, cost-effectiveness, and
efficiency of the proposed assessments.
In determining the extent to which the
eligible applicant is using technology
effectively, we will consider—
(1) The description of, and rationale
for, the ways in which technology will
be used in assessment design,
development, administration, scoring,
and reporting; the types of technology to
be used (including whether the
technology is existing and commercially
available or is being newly developed);
and how other States or organizations
can re-use in a cost-effective manner
any technology platforms and
technology components developed
under this grant; and
(2) How technology-related
implementation or deployment barriers
will be addressed (e.g., issues relating to
local access to internet-based
assessments).
(g) Project management. The
Secretary reviews each application to
determine the extent to which the
eligible applicant’s project management
plan will result in implementation of
the proposed assessments on time,
within budget, and in a manner that is
financially sustainable over time. In
determining the extent to which the
project management plan has these
attributes, we will consider—
(1) The project workplan and
timeline, including, for each key
deliverable (e.g., necessary
procurements and any needed approvals
for human subjects research,
assessment, scoring and moderation
system, professional development
activities), the major milestones,
deadlines, and entities responsible for
execution;
(2) The approach to identifying,
managing, and mitigating risks
associated with the project;
(3) The extent to which the eligible
applicant’s budget is adequate to
support the development of assessments
that meet the requirements of the
priority and includes costs that are
reasonable in relation to the objectives,
design, and significance of the proposed
project and the number of students to be
served;
(4) For each applicant State or for
each member State within a consortium,
the estimated costs for the ongoing
administration, maintenance, and
enhancement of the operational
assessments after the end of the project
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5343
period for the grant and a plan for how
the State will fund the assessments over
time (including by allocating to the
assessments funds for existing State or
local assessments that will be replaced
by the new assessments); and
(5) The quality and commitment of
the personnel who will carry out the
proposed project, including the
qualifications, relevant training, and
experience of the project director and
other key project personnel, and the
extent to which the time commitments
of the project director and other key
project personnel are appropriate and
adequate to meet the objectives of the
proposed project.
Proposed Selection Criteria:
The Assistant Secretary proposes the
following selection criteria for
evaluating an application under this
program. We may apply these criteria or
any of the existing selection criteria in
any year in which this program is in
effect. In the notice inviting applications
and the application package, the
Department will announce the selection
criteria to be applied and the maximum
possible points assigned to each
criterion.
(h) Kindergarten entry assessment
design.
The Secretary reviews each
application to determine the extent to
which the design of the eligible
applicant’s proposed assessment is
innovative, feasible, and consistent with
the theory of action. In determining the
extent to which the design has these
attributes, the Department will
consider—
(1) How the assessment will measure
child performance and development
against early learning and development
standards (as defined in this notice);
(2) The steps proposed for ensuring
that the assessment is aligned with the
specific early learning and development
standards on which the assessment is
based;
(3) The extent to which data from the
assessment can be incorporated into a
State’s longitudinal data system (SLDS)
and a State’s early learning data system
(if it is separate from an SLDS) through
the use of or connection to common
data elements and definitions, such as
the Common Education Data Standards
(https://ceds.ed.gov/), consistent with
requirements of Federal, State, and local
privacy laws;
(4) The intended uses of the data to
be generated by the assessment, which
must include, but need not be limited
to—
(i) Determining the level of individual
child learning and development;
(ii) Identifying teacher professional
development and support needs;
E:\FR\FM\25JAP1.SGM
25JAP1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with
5344
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules
(iii) Informing teaching, learning, and
program improvement; and
(iv) Engaging families in the early
learning of their children;
(5) The number and types of items
(e.g., performance tasks, selected
responses, observational ratings) and the
distribution of item types within the
assessment, including the variation of
the items and the rationale for using
these item types and their distributions;
(6) The assessment’s administration
mode(s) (e.g., direct, observation, or
administered using an electronic
device), and the rationale for the
mode(s);
(7) The methods for scoring child
performance on the assessments, the
estimated turnaround times for scoring,
and the rationale(s) for these;
(8) The applicant’s plan to set levels
of performance for the assessment,
where the levels of performance
encompass descriptors of what a child
knows and is able to do for each level,
and for how the applicant will
meaningfully engage and solicit
stakeholder input on the development
of levels of performance that are valid
and reliable for children’s learning and
development; and
(9) The reports and interpretation
guides that will be produced based on
the assessments, and for each report and
interpretation guide: the key data it will
present; its intended use; its target
audience (e.g., families, teachers,
administrators, policymakers, and other
stakeholders); and how its presentation
will be in an understandable and
uniform format and, to the extent
practicable, in a language that families
can understand.
(i) Kindergarten entry assessment
development plan. The Secretary
reviews each application to determine
the extent to which the eligible
applicant’s plan for developing the
proposed KEA will ensure that the
assessments are ready by the end of the
grant period for wide-scale
administration in a manner that is
timely, cost-effective, and consistent
with the proposed design and
incorporates a process for ongoing
feedback and improvement. In
determining the extent to which the
assessment development plan has these
attributes, the Department will
consider—
(1)(i) The approaches for developing
assessment items (e.g., evidencecentered design, universal design), the
rationale for using those approaches,
and the development phases and
processes to be implemented consistent
with the approaches;
(ii) The types of personnel involved in
each development phase and process
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:46 Jan 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
(e.g., practitioners, experts in early
learning and development, experts in
the assessment of young children,
content experts, assessment experts,
experts in assessing children with
disabilities or developmental delays and
English learners, psychometricians,
cognitive scientists, and other key
stakeholders);
(2) The approach and strategy for
designing and developing
accommodations, accommodation
policies, and methods for standardizing
the use of those accommodations for
children with disabilities or
developmental delays and English
learners (as defined in this notice);
(3) The approach and strategy for
ensuring scalable, accurate, and
consistent scoring of items, including
the approach and moderation system for
any items not scored by machine and
the extent to which teachers are trained
and involved in the administration and
scoring of assessments;
(4) The approach and strategy for
developing the reporting system; and
(5) The overall approach to quality
control, maintaining the integrity of the
assessment process, field-testing
assessment items, accommodations,
scoring systems, and reporting systems,
including, with respect to assessment
items and accommodations, the use of
representative sampling of all types of
child populations, taking into particular
account the full range of learning and
development across the essential
domains of school readiness (as defined
in this notice), and including children
with disabilities or developmental
delays and English learners (as defined
in this notice).
Final Priorities, Requirements,
Definitions, and Selection Criteria:
We will announce the final priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria in a notice in the Federal
Register. We will determine the final
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria after considering
responses to this notice and other
information available to the Department.
This notice does not preclude us from
proposing additional priorities,
requirements, definitions, or selection
criteria, subject to meeting applicable
rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit
applications. In any year in which the
Department chooses to use these priorities,
requirements, definitions, or selection
criteria, we invite applications through a
notice in the Federal Register.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Executive Order 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the
Secretary must determine whether this
regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and,
therefore, subject to the requirements of
the Executive Order and subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ as an action likely to
result in a rule that may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, or
adversely affect a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local or tribal governments or
communities in a material way (also
referred to as an ‘‘economically
significant’’ rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impacts of entitlement grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.
This proposed regulatory action is not
a significant regulatory action subject to
review by OMB under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed this proposed
regulatory action under Executive Order
13563, which supplements and
explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing
regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent
permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only
upon a reasoned determination that
their benefits justify their costs
(recognizing that some benefits and
costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the
least burden on society, consistent with
obtaining regulatory objectives and
taking into account—among other things
and to the extent practicable—the costs
of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, select those
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety,
and other advantages; distributive
impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than the
behavior or manner of compliance a
regulated entity must adopt; and
E:\FR\FM\25JAP1.SGM
25JAP1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules
(5) Identify and assess available
alternatives to direct regulation,
including economic incentives—such as
user fees or marketable permits—to
encourage the desired behavior, or
provide information that enables the
public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires
an agency ‘‘to use the best available
techniques to quantify anticipated
present and future benefits and costs as
accurately as possible.’’ The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of
OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ‘‘identifying
changing future compliance costs that
might result from technological
innovation or anticipated behavioral
changes.’’
We are issuing these proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria only on a reasoned
determination that their benefits would
justify their costs. In choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches, the
Department selected those approaches
that would maximize net benefits. Based
on the analysis that follows, the
Department believes that this regulatory
action is consistent with the principles
in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this
regulatory action would not unduly
interfere with State, local, and tribal
governments in the exercise of their
governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive
orders, the Department has assessed the
potential costs and benefits, both
quantitative and qualitative, of this
regulatory action. The potential costs
are those resulting from statutory
requirements and those we have
determined as necessary for
administering the Department’s
programs and activities.
The proposed priority for KEAs and
the other proposed priority, along with
the associated proposed requirement,
definitions, and selection criteria,
would benefit individual children by
supporting the development or
enhancement of KEAs that would
provide educators with timely and
useful information to guide
individualized instruction for children
at kindergarten entry and throughout
the year. In addition, the resulting
assessments would benefit educators,
administrators, and other stakeholders
by yielding information that can be used
to target investments for the education
systems serving children in the years
before kindergarten. A KEA would also
support the implementation of State
reform efforts in the area of early
learning.
The proposed priority for early
learning collaborative efforts among
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:46 Jan 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
States would encourage States to work
together on developing a common KEA
rather than developing or using separate
KEAs, thus pooling expertise and
experience while also creating
efficiencies, including cost-efficiencies.
The priority would also help ensure that
a KEA developed by a consortium is
made available for use by multiple
States. It also would support the
collection of comparable data regarding
the level of children’s learning and
development at kindergarten entry.
The proposed selection criteria would
help ensure that the assessments
developed by grantees are of high
quality, meet relevant technical
standards, and align with other
assessment work funded by the
Department.
Intergovernmental Review: This
program is subject to Executive Order
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR
part 79. One of the objectives of the
Executive Order is to foster an
intergovernmental partnership and a
strengthened federalism. The Executive
Order relies on processes developed by
State and local governments for
coordination and review of proposed
Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early
notification of our specific plans
regarding this program.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5345
Dated: January 22, 2013.
Deborah S. Delisle,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and
Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2013–01567 Filed 1–24–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
United States Copyright Office
37 CFR Parts 201 and 210
[Docket No. 2012–1]
Copyright Office Fees
U.S. Copyright Office, Library
of Congress.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking:
Extension of reply comment periods.
AGENCY:
The United States Copyright
Office is extending the deadline for
filing reply comments regarding its
notice of proposed rulemaking
concerning the establishment of a fee
schedule for filing cable and satellite
statements of account for use of the
statutory licenses that provide for the
secondary transmission of broadcast
programming by cable and satellite
companies.
SUMMARY:
Reply comments on the
proposed regulation must be received in
the Office of the General Counsel of the
Copyright Office no later than 5 p.m.
Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on
February 15, 2013.
ADDRESSES: The Copyright Office
strongly prefers that reply comments be
submitted electronically. A comment
submission page is posted on the
Copyright Office Web site at https://
www.copyright.gov/docs/newfees/
comments/. The Web site interface
requires submitters to complete a form
specifying name and other required
information, and to upload comments as
an attachment. To meet accessibility
standards, all comments must be
uploaded in a single file in either the
Adobe Portable Document File (PDF)
format that contains searchable,
accessible text (not an image); Microsoft
Word; WordPerfect; Rich Text Format
(RTF); or ASCII text file format (not a
scanned document). The maximum file
size is 6 megabytes (MB). The name of
the submitter and organization should
appear on both the form and the face of
the comments. All comments will be
posted publicly on the Copyright Office
Web site exactly as they are received,
along with names and organizations if
provided. If electronic submission of
comments is not feasible, please contact
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\25JAP1.SGM
25JAP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 17 (Friday, January 25, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5337-5345]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01567]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter II
[Docket ID ED-2012-OESE-0033]
Proposed Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection
Criteria--Enhanced Assessment Instruments
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.368
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education
proposes priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria
under the Enhanced Assessment Instruments Grant program, also called
the Enhanced Assessment Grants (EAG) program. The Assistant Secretary
may use one or more of these priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria for competitions using funds from fiscal year (FY)
2012 and later years. The Department takes these actions in order to
establish priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria
that are likely to recognize high-quality proposals and to help focus
Federal financial assistance on the pressing needs of, and promising
developments in, developing or enhancing assessments under the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA).
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before February 25, 2013,
and we encourage you to submit comments well in advance of this date.
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 we do not receive
duplicate comments, please submit your comments only once. In addition,
please include the Docket ID and the term ``Enhanced Assessment
Grants--Comments'' at the top of your comments.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 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 about these proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria, address them to the Office of
Elementary and Secondary Education (Attention: Enhanced Assessment
Grants--Comments), U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue
SW., room 3w110, Washington, DC 20202-6132.
Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to make all comments
received from members of the public available for public viewing in
their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to
include in their comments only information that they wish to make
publicly available.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin Shackel. Telephone: (202) 453-
6423 or by email: erin.shackel@ed.gov.
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:
Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding
this notice. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in
developing the notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions,
and selection criteria, we urge you to identify clearly the specific
proposed priority, requirement, definition, or selection criterion that
each comment addresses.
Please note that we have included existing requirements and
selection criteria in this document to provide context and to make it
easier to comment on the requirements and selection criteria we are
proposing. We seek comment only on the proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of
reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. Please
let us know of any further ways the Department could reduce potential
costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and
efficient administration of the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about this notice in room 3W110, 400 Maryland Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.,
Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal
holidays.
Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request the Department will provide an
appropriate accommodation or auxiliary to aid an individual with a
disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other
documents in the public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want
to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary
aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Purpose of Program: The purpose of the EAG program is to enhance
the quality of assessment instruments and systems used by States for
measuring the academic achievement of elementary and secondary school
students.
[[Page 5338]]
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7301a.
Proposed Priorities:
This notice contains two proposed priorities. The Department may
apply one or more of these priorities in any year in which a
competition for program funds is held.
Background:
Section 6112 of the ESEA authorizes the Department, through the EAG
program, to make competitive grant awards to State educational agencies
(SEAs) and consortia of SEAs to help them enhance the quality of their
assessment instruments and assessment systems. The EAG program includes
the following four statutory priorities:
(a) Collaborating with institutions of higher education, other
research institutions, or other organizations to improve the quality,
validity, and reliability of State academic assessments beyond the
requirements for such assessments described in section 1111(b)(3) of
the ESEA;
(b) Measuring student academic achievement using multiple measures
of student academic achievement from multiple sources;
(c) Charting student progress over time; and
(d) Evaluating student academic achievement through the development
of comprehensive academic assessment instruments, such as performance-
and technology-based academic assessments.
An applicant for EAG funds must address one or more of these
statutory priorities to be eligible for an award.
Through this notice, the Department proposes two additional
priorities that are designed to support States' assessment work in
early learning. The Department believes that a high-quality State early
learning system involves several key components. These include, among
other elements, early learning and development standards (as defined in
this notice) that reflect the essential domains of school readiness (as
defined in this notice) and a comprehensive early learning assessment
system (as defined in this notice). Such an assessment system, when
well-designed and properly implemented, can inform teaching and program
improvement and contribute to better outcomes for children.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Research Council (2008). Early Childhood
Assessment: Why, What, and How. Committee on Developmental Outcomes
and Assessments for Young Children, C.E. Snow and S.B. Van Hemel,
Editors. Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Board on Testing
and Assessment, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available
at www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12446.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The priorities we propose in this notice focus on one piece of a
comprehensive early learning assessment system--the kindergarten entry
assessment (KEA). In particular, these priorities will support the
development or enhancement of KEAs and promote collaboration among
States in the development or enhancement of a common KEA.
A KEA is a critical piece of a comprehensive early learning
assessment system because it provides a snapshot of children's learning
and development at kindergarten entry. A well-designed and properly
implemented KEA also can provide data to suggest areas where children
may need interventions or additional supports in order to be successful
in the early grades. Over time, when included as part of a
comprehensive early learning assessment system, a KEA can provide data
that will inform State efforts to improve child learning outcomes and
help close achievement gaps.
Over the last decade, States have demonstrated an increased
interest in understanding children's learning and development at
kindergarten entry. Approximately half of States have instituted some
form of early learning assessment.\2\ However, these assessments vary
widely in their alignment with early learning and development
standards, in the depth and scope of the domains they address, and in
how the data generated are used.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ J. Stedron & A. Berger. 2010. NCSL Technical Report: State
Approaches to School Readiness Assessment (updated August 2010).
Denver, CO: National Conference of State Legislators. www.ncsl.org/documents/Educ/KindergartenAssessment.pdf.
\3\ S. Daily, M. Burkhauser, & T. Halle. 2010. ``A Review of
School Readiness Practices in the States: Early Learning Guidelines
and Assessments.'' Early Childhood Highlights 1 (3). Available at
www.childtrends.org/Files/Child_Trends-2010_06_18_ECH_SchoolReadiness.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The priorities proposed in this notice build on the Department's
efforts to fund States collaborating to support children and youth
across the cradle-through-college-to-career continuum. Grants under
three Department programs, including the EAG program, currently support
State-led efforts to develop common assessments among States. The
Department has funded two EAG awards to support States collaborating to
develop English language proficiency (ELP) assessment systems. The
assessments in the systems developed under these EAG-ELP grants must be
aligned with English language proficiency standards that correspond to
a common set of college- and career-ready standards in English language
arts and mathematics. The Department also is funding projects involving
large consortia of States through the Race to the Top Assessment (RTTA)
program and companion projects through the General Supervision
Enhancement Grants (GSEG) program under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to develop both general and alternate
assessments that are aligned with a common set of college- and career-
ready standards in English language arts and mathematics.
In addition, the Department is maintaining support for the
beginning of the cradle-through-college-to-career continuum through the
Race to the Top--Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC) program. Jointly
administered with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
RTT-ELC reflects the Departments' commitment to supporting America's
youngest learners in developing the knowledge, skills, and dispositions
toward learning they need to enter kindergarten ready to succeed in
school and in life. To date, 14 States have been awarded RTT-ELC grants
to fund education reform through developing or enhancing coordinated
State systems of early learning. These RTT-ELC grants specifically
support States' efforts to increase the number of children with high
needs enrolled in high-quality early learning and development programs.
Recipients of RTT-ELC grants are eligible to apply for grants under
the EAG program, including competitions (if any) using the KEA
priority. However, the Department expects that these applicants will
propose activities that are consistent with but do not duplicate
activities included in their RTT-ELC applications.
Proposed Priority 1--Kindergarten Entry Assessment
Background: The Department believes that a high-quality KEA should
provide critical information about children's learning and development
across all the essential domains of school readiness (as defined in
this notice), inform instruction at kindergarten entry and throughout
the year, and support efforts to close the school-readiness gap.
Families should be able to use this information to provide support for
children at home. Teachers should be able to use this information to
modify instruction at kindergarten entry and throughout the year, adapt
curricula, and focus professional development needs. In addition, a
high-quality KEA should provide information to support effective
programmatic decisions and better target investments in the years
before kindergarten. Proposed Priority 1
[[Page 5339]]
would support the development or enhancement of high-quality KEAs.
These assessments would be integrated into States' student assessment
systems and, if they exist, into the States' early learning assessment
systems.
Under the proposed priority a KEA would be administered to children
soon enough after their enrollment in kindergarten so that results
could be used to inform instruction at kindergarten entry and
throughout the year, adapt curricula, and focus professional
development to help close any educational gaps.
The proposed priority also would require that the KEA be aligned
with States' high-quality early learning and development standards (as
defined in this notice), which are aligned with the States' K-3
academic content standards in, at a minimum, early literacy and
mathematics. In addition, KEAs developed under the proposed priority
must measure each child's development across the full range of the
essential domains of school readiness (as defined in this notice).
A KEA developed or enhanced under this proposed priority must be of
high technical quality and be consistent with the guidelines on early
childhood assessments made by the National Research Council.\4\ We
propose to require that these KEAs be consistent with the National
Research Council guidelines in light of the direction we received from
Congress for the RTT-ELC program that States receiving grants under
that program provide an assurance that any use of early childhood
assessments conform to National Research Council reports on early
childhood.\5\ We believe that Congress would also expect that any early
learning assessments developed under the EAG program would be similarly
aligned with the National Research Council findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12446.
\5\ See Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2011, Division B, Sec. 1832(b), Public Law 112-
10 (April 15, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, a KEA developed or enhanced under this proposed priority
must not be used to prevent children's entry into kindergarten.
In short, the proposed priority is intended to produce KEAs that
provide a snapshot of information on children's learning and
development across multiple domains and can be integrated into States'
student assessment systems, and if they exist, included in a States'
comprehensive early learning assessment systems. The data generated
from a KEA developed or enhanced through this grant would inform and
support educators in providing effective learning opportunities to
every child, and prevent or close achievement gaps.
Proposed Priority 1: Kindergarten Entry Assessment.
To meet this priority, an applicant must propose a project that
supports the development or enhancement of a KEA that meets the
following requirements:
(a) Purpose. The KEA must--
(1) Yield information that enables State and local agencies to
effectively target investments for early learning and development
systems serving children in the years before kindergarten;
(2) Yield information that enables programmatic decision-making at
the school level, such as identifying individual children's needs and
providing necessary supports to children and teachers in order to meet
those needs at kindergarten entry and throughout the year;
(3) Yield information to guide individualized instruction for
children enrolled in kindergarten and throughout the school year;
(4) Provide families with information about their children's
learning and development based on the essential domains of school
readiness (as defined in this notice); and
(5) Not be used to prevent children's entry into kindergarten.
(b) Design. The KEA must--
(1) Be a component of a State's student assessment system,
including, a State's comprehensive early learning assessment system (as
defined in this notice) for each State included in an application in
which a comprehensive early learning assessment system exists;
(2) Be aligned with a set of early learning and development
standards (as defined in this notice);
(3) Measure the full range of learning and development across the
essential domains of school readiness (as defined in this notice);
(4) Measure children's learning and development against a set of
levels of performance where the levels of performance encompass
descriptors of what a child knows and is able to do for each level, are
common statewide, and, if the applicant State applies on behalf of a
consortium, are common across States in the consortium;
(5) Provide a summative assessment of each child's learning and
development at kindergarten entry across the essential domains of
school readiness (as defined in this notice);
(6) Be capable of assessing all children in the applicant State,
and if the State applies as part of a consortium, all children in the
consortium;
(7) Be developed consistent with universal design principles to be
accessible to all children, including children with disabilities or
developmental delays and English learners (as defined in this notice);
(8) As needed, provide appropriate accommodations and supports for
children with disabilities or developmental delays and English learners
(as defined in this notice) (e.g., augmentative communication devices
and assistive technologies);
(9) Be administered soon enough after a child's enrollment into
kindergarten to achieve the purposes for which the assessment was
developed, including the purposes specified in paragraph (a) of this
priority;
(10) Use multiple methods (e.g., performance tasks, selected
responses, observational ratings) to measure children's performance and
development;
(11) Be administered by a trained assessor or assessors;
(12) Be designed to incorporate technology in the collection of
student data and in the process of assessing children's performance on
learning and development tasks; and
(13) Be cost-effective to administer, maintain, and enhance during
and after the project period.
(c) Technical Quality. The KEA must measure children's learning and
development at kindergarten entry in ways that--
(1) Are consistent with nationally recognized professional and
technical standards for assessment;
(2) Are consistent with the recommendations of the National
Research Council report on early childhood assessments; \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ National Research Council. (2008). Early Childhood
Assessment: Why, What, and How. Committee on Developmental Outcomes
and Assessments for Young Children, C.E. Snow and S.B. Van Hemel,
Editors. Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Board on Testing
and Assessment, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available
at www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12446.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Are valid, reliable, and appropriate for their intended
purposes;
(4) Provide a valid and reliable measure across the performance
spectrum of each child's learning and development at kindergarten
entry, including children with disabilities or developmental delays and
English learners.
(d) Data. The KEA must produce data and information that--
(1) Allow, at kindergarten entry, for a valid and reliable
interpretation of each child's learning and development across the
essential domains of school readiness (as defined in this notice) with
each domain making a significant
[[Page 5340]]
contribution to the overall comprehensive score;
(2) Can be reported to and easily understood and used by various
stakeholders, including families, teachers, administrators, early
learning providers, and policy-makers, consistent with requirements of
Federal, State, and local privacy laws; and
(3) Can be incorporated into a State's longitudinal data system
(SLDS) and a State's early learning data system (if it is separate from
an SLDS), consistent with requirements of Federal, State, and local
privacy laws.
(e) Compatibility. The KEA must use approaches to assessment design
and implementation (e.g., use of technology, assessment administration,
scoring, and reporting) that facilitate the integration of the KEA with
a State's student assessment system, including a State's comprehensive
early learning assessment system (as defined in this notice) for each
State included in an application in which a comprehensive early
learning assessment system exists.
Proposed Priority 2--Early Learning Collaborative Efforts Among States
Background: The Department values the benefits derived from States
working together and, therefore, proposes collaborative efforts among
States as a priority for the development or enhancement of KEAs. As
noted earlier, States are working together in consortia under the RTTA
program to develop new assessment systems that measure student
knowledge and skills against a common set of college- and career-ready
standards in English language arts and mathematics. States are also
collaborating under the GSEG program to develop companion alternate
assessments based on alternate achievement standards. With assistance
from the EAG program, States also are working together to develop ELP
assessments aligned with common ELP standards.
Similarly, because of the complexity of developing or enhancing a
KEA, States in collaboration may yield better results than those
undertaking this effort alone. States working in collaboration can
build on each State's expertise and experience and generate
efficiencies in development, costs, implementation, and uses of
results.
In addition, data produced by a KEA administered across multiple
States are more meaningful when the early learning and development
standards (as defined in this notice) are the same across States, and
can provide a common framework for understanding the level of
children's learning and development at kindergarten entry.
The Department is considering using this priority as a competitive
preference priority in the FY 2013 competition. An applicant would
receive a higher number of points based on the extent to which it
includes a greater number of States in the consortium, with three to
four States representing a low number of States, five to seven States
representing an intermediate number of States, and eight or more States
representing a high number of States.
Proposed Priority 2: Early Learning Collaborative Efforts Among
States.
To meet this priority, an applicant must--
(a) Include a minimum of three States in the consortium and propose
developing or enhancing a common KEA for those States. An applicant
will receive a greater number of points under this priority based on
the extent to which it includes a greater number of States in its
consortium;
(b) Adopt or propose a plan for all States in the consortium to
adopt a set of early learning and development standards (as defined in
this notice) that, for at least the year prior to kindergarten entry,
are substantially identical across all States in the consortium;
(c) Adopt or propose a plan for all States in the consortium to
adopt the common KEA; and
(d) Provide in the memorandum of understanding or other binding
agreement executed by each State in the consortium an assurance that,
as a condition of remaining in the consortium, the State will, no later
than the end of the project period, adopt the common KEA developed
under this priority and the set of early learning and development
standards (as defined in this notice) upon which the KEA is based.
Types of Priorities:
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, the Department
considers only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1)
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Proposed Requirement:
Background: The proposed requirement is designed to support the
transition to ongoing operational administration of assessments
developed under the EAG program.
We would add this proposed requirement to the existing requirements
for the EAG program established on April 19, 2011 (76 FR 21986). We
list the existing requirements below to provide context and make
commenting on the proposed requirement easier. We invite comment on the
proposed requirement only. The existing requirements are that an
eligible applicant awarded a grant under this program must:
(a) Evaluate the validity, reliability, and fairness of any
assessments or other assessment-related instruments developed under a
grant from this competition, and make available documentation of
evaluations of technical quality through formal mechanisms (e.g., peer-
reviewed journals) and informal mechanisms (e.g., newsletters), both in
print and electronically;
(b) Actively participate in any applicable technical assistance
activities conducted or facilitated by the Department or its designees,
coordinate with the RTTA program in the development of assessments
under this program, and participate in other activities as determined
by the Department;
(c) Develop a strategy to make student-level data that result from
any assessments or other assessment-related instruments developed under
a grant from this competition available on an ongoing basis for
research, including for prospective linking, validity, and program
improvement studies; \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Eligible applicants awarded a grant under this program must
comply with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)
and 34 CFR Part 99, as well as State and local requirements
regarding privacy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) Ensure that any assessments or other assessment-related
instruments developed under a grant from this competition will be
operational (ready for large-scale administration) at the end of the
project period;
(e) Ensure that funds awarded under the EAG program are not used to
support the development of standards,
[[Page 5341]]
such as under the English language proficiency assessment system
priority or any other priority;
(f) Maximize the interoperability of any assessments and other
assessment-related instruments developed with funds from this
competition across technology platforms and the ability for States to
move their assessments from one technology platform to another by doing
the following, as applicable, for any assessments developed with funds
from this competition by--
(1) Developing all assessment items in accordance with an industry-
recognized open-licensed interoperability standard that is approved by
the Department during the grant period, without non-standard extensions
or additions; and
(2) Producing all student-level data in a manner consistent with an
industry-recognized open-licensed interoperability standard that is
approved by the Department during the grant period;
(g) Unless otherwise protected by law or agreement as proprietary
information, make any assessment content (i.e., assessments and
assessment items) and other assessment-related instruments developed
with funds from this competition freely available to States, technology
platform providers, and others that request it for purposes of
administering assessments, provided that those parties receiving
assessment content comply with consortium or State requirements for
test or item security; and
(h) For any assessments and other assessment-related instruments
developed with funds from this competition, use technology to the
maximum extent appropriate to develop, administer, and score the
assessments and report results.
Proposed Requirement:
The Assistant Secretary proposes the following requirement for this
program. The Department may apply this requirement in any year in which
this program is in effect:
(i) Adopt and implement any assessments, other assessment-related
instruments developed or enhanced under the proposed project, and any
standards upon which they are based. In addition, if the applicant
State applies as, or on behalf of a consortium of States, it must
provide in any memorandum of understanding or other binding agreement
executed by each State in the consortium an assurance that, to remain
in the consortium, the State will adopt and implement any assessments
or other assessment-related instruments developed or enhanced under the
proposed project and any standards upon which they are based by the end
of the project period.
Proposed Definitions:
Background:
Several important terms associated with the priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria proposed in this
notice are not defined in the EAG statute. We would add the proposed
definitions to the existing definitions for the EAG program established
on April 19, 2011 (76 FR 21986), though we are proposing to modify the
definition of ``English learner'' established in 2011 in order to
broaden the definition to include young children.
Proposed Definitions:
The Assistant Secretary proposes definitions for the EAG program.
The Department may apply one or more of these new definitions, and any
previously established definitions, in any year in which this program
is in effect.
Comprehensive early learning assessment system means a coordinated
and comprehensive system of multiple assessments, each of which is
valid and reliable for its specified purpose and for the population
with which it will be used, that organizes information about the
process and context of young children's learning and development in
order to help teachers make informed instructional and programmatic
decisions and that conforms with the recommendations of the National
Research Council report on early childhood assessments \8\ by
including, at a minimum: (a) Screening measures (as defined in this
notice); (b) formative assessments; (c) measures of environmental
quality (as defined in this notice); (d) measures of the quality of
adult-child interactions (as defined in this notice); and (e) a
kindergarten entry assessment (KEA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ National Research Council (2008). Early Childhood
Assessment: Why, What, and How. Committee on Developmental Outcomes
and Assessments for Young Children, C.E. Snow and S.B. Van Hemel,
Editors. Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Board on Testing
and Assessment, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available
at www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12446.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Early learning and development standards means a set of
expectations, guidelines, or developmental milestones that--
(a) Describe what all children from birth to kindergarten entry
should know and be able to do and their dispositions toward learning;
(b) Are appropriate for each age group (e.g., infants, toddlers,
and preschoolers); for English learners; and for children with
disabilities or developmental delays;
(c) Cover all essential domains of school readiness (as defined in
this notice);
(d) Are universally designed and developmentally, culturally, and
linguistically appropriate; and
(e) Are aligned with the State's K-3 academic standards in, at a
minimum, early literacy and mathematics.
English learner means a child, including a child aged three and
younger, who is an English learner consistent with the definition of a
child who is ``limited English proficient,'' as applicable, in section
9101(25) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as
amended.
Essential domains of school readiness means the domains of language
and literacy development, cognition and general knowledge (including
early mathematics and early scientific development), approaches toward
learning, physical well-being and motor development (including adaptive
skills), and social and emotional development.
Formative assessment (also known as a classroom-based or ongoing
assessment) means assessment questions, tools, and processes--
(a) That are--
(1) Specifically designed to monitor children's progress;
(2) Valid and reliable for their intended purposes and their target
populations; and
(3) Linked directly to the curriculum; and
(b) The results of which are used to guide and improve
instructional practices.
Measures of environmental quality means valid and reliable
indicators of the overall quality of the early learning environment.
Measures of the quality of adult-child interactions means the
measures obtained through valid and reliable processes for observing
how teachers and caregivers interact with children, where such
processes are designed to promote child learning and to identify
strengths and areas for improvement for early learning professionals.
Screening measures means age and developmentally appropriate,
valid, and reliable instruments that are used to identify children who
may need follow-up services to address developmental, learning, or
health needs in, at a minimum, the areas of physical health, behavioral
health, oral health, child development, vision, and hearing.
Proposed Selection Criteria:
Background: The Department intends that the selection criteria used
for competitions for EAG funds will ensure
[[Page 5342]]
that EAG projects address the most critical needs of education. The
Department also expects that the selection criteria used for
competitions for EAG funds will ensure that any assessments funded
under this program will be of high technical quality. We established
selection criteria for the EAG program on April 19, 2011 (76 FR 21986),
and April 30, 2012 (77 FR 25470). The 2011 selection criteria addressed
the assessment design and the assessment development plan; however,
those criteria are not appropriate for entry assessments within a KEA.
Therefore, we are proposing two new selection criteria that address
similar issues but with a focus on kindergarten children.
The proposed selection criteria (h) and (i) would be used in
combination with the selection criteria that have already been
established. The Department notes that the 2011 assessment design
selection criterion (b) is inconsistent with both the proposed
kindergarten entry assessment design criterion (h) and the purposes of
the proposed KEA priority, and the Department does not intend to use
selection criterion (b) with the proposed KEA priority.
The Department also notes that the 2011 assessment development plan
selection criterion (c) is inconsistent with both the proposed
kindergarten entry assessment development plan selection criterion (i)
and the purposes of the proposed KEA priority, and the Department does
not intend to use the 2011 selection criterion (c) with the proposed
KEA priority.
We list the existing selection criteria below to provide context
and to make commenting on the proposed selection criteria easier. We
invite comments on the proposed selection criteria only.
The existing selection criteria are:
(a) Theory of action. The Secretary reviews each application to
determine the extent to which the eligible applicant's theory of action
is logical, coherent, and credible, and will result in improved student
outcomes. In determining the extent to which the theory of action has
these attributes, we will consider the description of, and rationale
for--
(1) How the assessment results will be used (e.g., at the State,
local educational agency, school, classroom, and student levels);
(2) How the assessments and assessment results will be incorporated
into coherent educational systems (i.e., systems that include
standards, assessments, curriculum, instruction, and professional
development) of the State(s) participating in the grant; and
(3) How those educational systems as a whole will improve student
achievement.
(b) Assessment design. The Secretary reviews each application to
determine the extent to which the design of the eligible applicant's
proposed assessments is innovative, feasible, and consistent with the
theory of action. In determining the extent to which the design has
these attributes, we will consider--
(1) The number and types of assessments, as appropriate (e.g.,
diagnostic assessments, summative assessments);
(2) How the assessments will measure student knowledge and skills
against the full range of the relevant standards, including the
standards against which student achievement has traditionally been
difficult to measure, provide an accurate measure of student
proficiency on those standards, including for students who are high-
and low-performing in academic areas, and provide an accurate measure
of student progress in the relevant area over a full academic year;
(3) How the assessments will produce the required student
performance data, as described in the priority;
(4) How and when during the academic year different types of
student data will be available to inform and guide instruction,
interventions, and professional development;
(5) The types of data that will be produced by the assessments,
which must include student achievement data and other data specified in
the relevant priority;
(6) The uses of the data that will be produced by the assessments,
including (but not limited to)--
(i) Determining individual student achievement and student
progress; determining, as appropriate and as one of multiple measures,
individual principal and teacher effectiveness, if applicable; and
professional development and support needs;
(ii) Informing teaching, learning, and program improvement; and
(7) The frequency and timing of administration of the assessments,
and the rationale for these;
(8) The number and types of items (e.g., performance tasks,
selected responses, observational rating, brief or extended constructed
responses) and the distribution of item types within the assessments,
including the extent to which the items will be varied and elicit
complex student demonstrations or applications of knowledge, skills,
and approaches to learning, as appropriate (descriptions should include
a concrete example of each item type proposed); and the rationale for
using these item types and their distributions;
(9) The assessments' administration mode (e.g., paper-and-pencil,
teacher rating, computer-based, or other electronic device), and the
rationale for the mode;
(10) The methods for scoring student performance on the
assessments, the estimated turnaround times for scoring, and the
rationale for these; and
(11) The reports that will be produced based on the assessments,
and for each report: the key data it will present; its intended use;
target audience (e.g., students, parents, teachers, administrators,
policymakers); and its presentation in an understandable and uniform
format and, to the extent practicable, in a language that parents can
understand.
(c) Assessment development plan. The Secretary reviews each
application to determine the extent to which the eligible applicant's
plan for developing the proposed assessments will ensure that the
assessments are ready by the end of the grant period for wide-scale
administration in a manner that is timely, cost-effective, and
consistent with the proposed design and incorporates a process for
ongoing feedback and improvement. In determining the extent to which
the assessment development plan has these attributes, the Department
will consider--
(1)(i) The approaches for developing assessment items (e.g.,
evidence-centered design, universal design) and the rationale for using
those approaches; and the development phases and processes to be
implemented consistent with the approaches; and
(ii) The types of personnel (e.g., practitioners, content experts,
assessment experts, experts in assessing English learners, linguists,
experts in second language acquisition, experts in assessing students
with disabilities, psychometricians, cognitive scientists, institution
of higher education representatives, experts on career readiness
standards, and other key stakeholders) involved in each development
phase and process;
(2) The approach and strategy for designing and developing
accommodations, accommodation policies, and methods for standardizing
the use of those accommodations for students with disabilities;
(3) The approach and strategy for ensuring scalable, accurate, and
consistent scoring of items, including the approach and moderation
system for any human-scored items and the extent to which teachers are
trained and
[[Page 5343]]
involved in the administration and scoring of assessments;
(4) The approach and strategy for developing the reporting system;
and
(5) The overall approach to quality control and the strategy for
field-testing assessment items, accommodations, scoring systems, and
reporting systems, including, with respect to assessment items and
accommodations, the use of representative sampling of all types of
student populations, taking into particular account high- and low-
performing students, different types of English learners (e.g.,
recently arrived English learners, former English learners, migratory
English learners, and English learners with disabilities), and students
with disabilities.
(d) Research and evaluation. The Secretary reviews each application
to determine the extent to which the eligible applicant's research and
evaluation plan will ensure that the assessments developed are valid,
reliable, and fair for their intended purposes. In determining the
extent to which the research and evaluation plan has these attributes,
we will consider--
(1) The plan for identifying and employing psychometric techniques
suitable for verifying, as appropriate to each assessment, its
construct, consequential, and predictive validity; external validity;
reliability; fairness; precision across the full performance continuum;
and comparability within and across grade levels; and
(2) The plan for determining whether the assessments are being
implemented as designed and the theory of action is being realized,
including whether the intended effects on individuals and institutions
are being achieved.
(e) Professional capacity and outreach. The Secretary reviews each
application to determine the extent to which the eligible applicant's
plan for implementing the proposed assessments is feasible, cost-
effective, and consistent with the theory of action. In determining the
extent to which the implementation plan has these attributes, we will
consider--
(1) The plan for supporting teachers and administrators in
implementing the assessments and for developing, in an ongoing manner,
their professional capacity to use the assessments and results to
inform and improve instructional practice; and
(2) The strategy and plan for informing the public and key
stakeholders (including teachers, administrators, families,
legislators, and policymakers) in each State or in each member State
within a consortium about the assessments and for building support from
the public and those stakeholders.
(f) Technology approach. The Secretary reviews each application to
determine the extent to which the eligible applicant would use
technology effectively to improve the quality, accessibility, cost-
effectiveness, and efficiency of the proposed assessments. In
determining the extent to which the eligible applicant is using
technology effectively, we will consider--
(1) The description of, and rationale for, the ways in which
technology will be used in assessment design, development,
administration, scoring, and reporting; the types of technology to be
used (including whether the technology is existing and commercially
available or is being newly developed); and how other States or
organizations can re-use in a cost-effective manner any technology
platforms and technology components developed under this grant; and
(2) How technology-related implementation or deployment barriers
will be addressed (e.g., issues relating to local access to internet-
based assessments).
(g) Project management. The Secretary reviews each application to
determine the extent to which the eligible applicant's project
management plan will result in implementation of the proposed
assessments on time, within budget, and in a manner that is financially
sustainable over time. In determining the extent to which the project
management plan has these attributes, we will consider--
(1) The project workplan and timeline, including, for each key
deliverable (e.g., necessary procurements and any needed approvals for
human subjects research, assessment, scoring and moderation system,
professional development activities), the major milestones, deadlines,
and entities responsible for execution;
(2) The approach to identifying, managing, and mitigating risks
associated with the project;
(3) The extent to which the eligible applicant's budget is adequate
to support the development of assessments that meet the requirements of
the priority and includes costs that are reasonable in relation to the
objectives, design, and significance of the proposed project and the
number of students to be served;
(4) For each applicant State or for each member State within a
consortium, the estimated costs for the ongoing administration,
maintenance, and enhancement of the operational assessments after the
end of the project period for the grant and a plan for how the State
will fund the assessments over time (including by allocating to the
assessments funds for existing State or local assessments that will be
replaced by the new assessments); and
(5) The quality and commitment of the personnel who will carry out
the proposed project, including the qualifications, relevant training,
and experience of the project director and other key project personnel,
and the extent to which the time commitments of the project director
and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet
the objectives of the proposed project.
Proposed Selection Criteria:
The Assistant Secretary proposes the following selection criteria
for evaluating an application under this program. We may apply these
criteria or any of the existing selection criteria in any year in which
this program is in effect. In the notice inviting applications and the
application package, the Department will announce the selection
criteria to be applied and the maximum possible points assigned to each
criterion.
(h) Kindergarten entry assessment design.
The Secretary reviews each application to determine the extent to
which the design of the eligible applicant's proposed assessment is
innovative, feasible, and consistent with the theory of action. In
determining the extent to which the design has these attributes, the
Department will consider--
(1) How the assessment will measure child performance and
development against early learning and development standards (as
defined in this notice);
(2) The steps proposed for ensuring that the assessment is aligned
with the specific early learning and development standards on which the
assessment is based;
(3) The extent to which data from the assessment can be
incorporated into a State's longitudinal data system (SLDS) and a
State's early learning data system (if it is separate from an SLDS)
through the use of or connection to common data elements and
definitions, such as the Common Education Data Standards (https://ceds.ed.gov/), consistent with requirements of Federal, State, and
local privacy laws;
(4) The intended uses of the data to be generated by the
assessment, which must include, but need not be limited to--
(i) Determining the level of individual child learning and
development;
(ii) Identifying teacher professional development and support
needs;
[[Page 5344]]
(iii) Informing teaching, learning, and program improvement; and
(iv) Engaging families in the early learning of their children;
(5) The number and types of items (e.g., performance tasks,
selected responses, observational ratings) and the distribution of item
types within the assessment, including the variation of the items and
the rationale for using these item types and their distributions;
(6) The assessment's administration mode(s) (e.g., direct,
observation, or administered using an electronic device), and the
rationale for the mode(s);
(7) The methods for scoring child performance on the assessments,
the estimated turnaround times for scoring, and the rationale(s) for
these;
(8) The applicant's plan to set levels of performance for the
assessment, where the levels of performance encompass descriptors of
what a child knows and is able to do for each level, and for how the
applicant will meaningfully engage and solicit stakeholder input on the
development of levels of performance that are valid and reliable for
children's learning and development; and
(9) The reports and interpretation guides that will be produced
based on the assessments, and for each report and interpretation guide:
the key data it will present; its intended use; its target audience
(e.g., families, teachers, administrators, policymakers, and other
stakeholders); and how its presentation will be in an understandable
and uniform format and, to the extent practicable, in a language that
families can understand.
(i) Kindergarten entry assessment development plan. The Secretary
reviews each application to determine the extent to which the eligible
applicant's plan for developing the proposed KEA will ensure that the
assessments are ready by the end of the grant period for wide-scale
administration in a manner that is timely, cost-effective, and
consistent with the proposed design and incorporates a process for
ongoing feedback and improvement. In determining the extent to which
the assessment development plan has these attributes, the Department
will consider--
(1)(i) The approaches for developing assessment items (e.g.,
evidence-centered design, universal design), the rationale for using
those approaches, and the development phases and processes to be
implemented consistent with the approaches;
(ii) The types of personnel involved in each development phase and
process (e.g., practitioners, experts in early learning and
development, experts in the assessment of young children, content
experts, assessment experts, experts in assessing children with
disabilities or developmental delays and English learners,
psychometricians, cognitive scientists, and other key stakeholders);
(2) The approach and strategy for designing and developing
accommodations, accommodation policies, and methods for standardizing
the use of those accommodations for children with disabilities or
developmental delays and English learners (as defined in this notice);
(3) The approach and strategy for ensuring scalable, accurate, and
consistent scoring of items, including the approach and moderation
system for any items not scored by machine and the extent to which
teachers are trained and involved in the administration and scoring of
assessments;
(4) The approach and strategy for developing the reporting system;
and
(5) The overall approach to quality control, maintaining the
integrity of the assessment process, field-testing assessment items,
accommodations, scoring systems, and reporting systems, including, with
respect to assessment items and accommodations, the use of
representative sampling of all types of child populations, taking into
particular account the full range of learning and development across
the essential domains of school readiness (as defined in this notice),
and including children with disabilities or developmental delays and
English learners (as defined in this notice).
Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection
Criteria:
We will announce the final priorities, requirements, definitions,
and selection criteria in a notice in the Federal Register. We will
determine the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria after considering responses to this notice and other
information available to the Department. This notice does not preclude
us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or
selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking
requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which the Department chooses to use these priorities, requirements,
definitions, or selection criteria, we invite applications through a
notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Order 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether
this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to
the requirements of the Executive Order and subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely
to result in a rule that may--
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or
tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory
action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866.
We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under
Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review
established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law,
Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
[[Page 5345]]
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are issuing these proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria only on a reasoned determination
that their benefits would justify their costs. In choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches, the Department selected those
approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that
follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is
consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action would not
unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
The proposed priority for KEAs and the other proposed priority,
along with the associated proposed requirement, definitions, and
selection criteria, would benefit individual children by supporting the
development or enhancement of KEAs that would provide educators with
timely and useful information to guide individualized instruction for
children at kindergarten entry and throughout the year. In addition,
the resulting assessments would benefit educators, administrators, and
other stakeholders by yielding information that can be used to target
investments for the education systems serving children in the years
before kindergarten. A KEA would also support the implementation of
State reform efforts in the area of early learning.
The proposed priority for early learning collaborative efforts
among States would encourage States to work together on developing a
common KEA rather than developing or using separate KEAs, thus pooling
expertise and experience while also creating efficiencies, including
cost-efficiencies. The priority would also help ensure that a KEA
developed by a consortium is made available for use by multiple States.
It also would support the collection of comparable data regarding the
level of children's learning and development at kindergarten entry.
The proposed selection criteria would help ensure that the
assessments developed by grantees are of high quality, meet relevant
technical standards, and align with other assessment work funded by the
Department.
Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the
objectives of the Executive Order is to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive Order relies
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans
regarding this program.
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.
Dated: January 22, 2013.
Deborah S. Delisle,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2013-01567 Filed 1-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P