Final Priorities-Enhanced Assessment Instruments, 52341-52346 [2016-18530]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
(a) Location. The following area is a
Safety Zone: All navigable waters, from
surface to bottom, of Lake Champlain,
Burlington, VT, within an aeronautical
box extending to and including the
breakwater bounded by the following
coordinates: 44°29′24″ N./073°14′44″
W.; 44°29′24″ N./073°14′03″ W.;
44°28′56″ N./073°14′03″ W.; 44°28′50″
N./073°13′48″ W.; 44°28′12″ N./
073°13′33″ W.; 44°27′47″ N./073°14′03″
W.; 44°27′25″ N./073°14′03″ W.;
44°27′25″ N./073°14′44″ W.
(b) Enforcement period. This safety
zone described in paragraph (a) above
will be enforced from 9 a.m. until 6 p.m.
on August 12–14, 2016.
(c) Regulations. (1) The general
regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.23
apply. During the enforcement period,
entry into, transiting, mooring,
anchoring or remaining within this
safety zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port or
his designated representatives.
(2) Vessel operators given permission
to enter or operate in the safety zone
must comply with all directions given to
them by the Captain of the Port or his
designated representatives.
(3) Persons and vessels may request
permission to enter the safety zone by
contacting the COTP or the COTP’s
designated representative on VHF–16 or
via phone at 207–767–0303.
(4) The ‘‘designated representative’’ is
any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer who has been
designated by the Captain of the Port to
act on his behalf. The on-scene
representative may be on a Coast Guard
vessel, a Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel,
or onboard a local or state agency vessel
that is authorized to act in support of
the Coast Guard. Additionally, the Coast
Guard Auxiliary may be present to
inform vessel operators of this
regulation.
(5) Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast
Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing
light or other means, the operator of the
vessel must proceed as directed.
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
§ 165.T01–1127 Safety Zone; 2016 Wings
Over Vermont Air Show, Lake Champlain;
Burlington, VT.
[Docket ID ED–2016–OESE–0004; CFDA
Number: 84.368A.]
Dated: July 13, 2016.
M.A. Baroody,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port, Sector Northern New England.
[FR Doc. 2016–18535 Filed 8–5–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:12 Aug 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
34 CFR Chapter II
Final Priorities—Enhanced
Assessment Instruments
Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Final priorities.
AGENCY:
The Assistant Secretary for
Elementary and Secondary Education
announces priorities 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 for competitions using
funds from fiscal year (FY) 2016 and
later years. These priorities are designed
to support projects to improve States’
assessment systems.
DATES: These priorities are effective
September 7, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donald Peasley, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW.,
Room 3E124, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: (202) 453–7982 or by email:
donald.peasley@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay
Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–
8339.
SUMMARY:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose of Program: The purpose of
the EAG program is to enhance the
quality of assessment instruments and
assessment systems used by States for
measuring the academic achievement of
elementary and secondary school
students.
Program Authority: Section 6112 of
the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as
amended by the No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001 (NCLB), and section
1203(b)(1) of the ESEA, as amended by
the Every Student Succeeds Act (Pub. L.
114–95) (ESSA).
We published a notice of proposed
priorities for this program in the Federal
Register on April 18, 2016 (81 FR
22550) (NPP). That notice contained
background information and our reasons
for proposing the particular priorities.
Except for minor revisions, there are
no differences between the proposed
priorities and these final priorities.
These priorities are for use in addition
to those published in the 2011 notice of
final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria (76 FR
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
52341
21985) (2011 NFP) and the 2013 notice
of final priorities, requirement,
definitions, and selection criteria for
this program (78 FR 31343) (2013 NFP).
Public Comment: In response to our
invitation in the NPP, eight parties
submitted comments on the proposed
priorities.
We group major issues according to
subject. Generally, we do not address
technical and other minor changes.
Analysis of Comments and Changes:
An analysis of the comments and of any
changes in the priorities since
publication of the NPP follows.
General
Comment: Five commenters
expressed support for the proposed
priorities and noted the potential for
grants awarded under the EAG program
to improve State assessment systems.
Three commenters expressed views on
how the Department should distribute
awards across priorities under the EAG
program. One commenter strongly
recommended that Priority 2 be
designated as an absolute priority in the
EAG competition.
Discussion: We appreciate the support
for these priorities and agree that
projects funded under them will
support States in continuously
improving their assessment systems to
measure college- and career-readiness.
This notice establishes priorities that
can be used in any future competition,
but does not establish how those
priorities are designated in any
particular competition. For the
competition funded with FY 2016
funds, as announced in the notice
inviting applications published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register, Priorities 1, 2, and 3 will be
competitive preference priorities. The
grant application and competition
process will determine the number and
types of projects funded under each
priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
encouraged the Department to consider
requiring content developed under
proposed projects to be made freely
available to others. This commenter
noted that, even if content is made
publicly available, it is not always
accessible due to the use of proprietary
software or applications.
Discussion: We recognize the benefit
of sharing work developed under the
EAG program to serve as models and
resources for other States, which is why
Priorities 1 and 2 require an applicant
responding to them to provide a
dissemination plan. Sharing resources
and lessons learned from grantees is a
key goal of the grant program.
E:\FR\FM\08AUR1.SGM
08AUR1
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
52342
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Additionally, the notice of final
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria for this program
published in the Federal Register on
April 19, 2011 (76 FR 21985) (2011
NFP) includes a requirement that,
unless otherwise protected by law or
agreement as proprietary information,
an eligible applicant awarded a grant
under this program must 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 the purposes of
administering assessments, provided
that those parties receiving assessment
content comply with consortium or
State requirements for test or test item
security.
Further, as with any grant, and
consistent with 2 CFR 200.315, the
Department reserves a royalty-free,
nonexclusive, and irrevocable right to
reproduce, publish, or otherwise use,
and to authorize others to use, for
Federal government purposes, the
copyright in any work developed under
a grant (or contract under a grant) in this
program, and any rights of copyright to
which a grantee or contractor purchases
ownership with grant support.
As the Department has these tools
available to require grantees to make
publicly available work developed
under the EAG program, we do not
believe any related change to the
priorities is necessary.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
encouraged the Department to explicitly
advocate for innovative, efficient,
accessible, and fair testing for English
learners in each priority, including by:
Including English language proficiency
assessments in Priority 1; requiring
grantees implementing projects under
Priority 1 to include English learners
and their families as a representative
sample in any research and
development activities and gather
evidence that innovative item types are
accessible to English learners; requiring
projects under Priority 2 to include
representation from English learners,
parents of English learners, and teachers
of English learners. The commenter
expressed support for the requirement
in Priority 3 that SEAs ensure tests are
fair for all students and particularly
commended the reference to English
learners. The commenter also
recommended requiring States
proposing projects under Priority 3 to
ensure that tests are fully transparent to
English learners and their parents and to
solicit feedback on the usefulness of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:12 Aug 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
assessments from English learners and
their parents.
Discussion: The Department
recognizes the unique needs of English
learners and the importance of ensuring
that they are included in State
assessment systems and assessed fairly.
Having an assessment system that
validly, reliably, and fairly measures the
academic achievement of all elementary
and secondary school students is vital to
providing necessary information to
inform instructional decisions and
program evaluation, and to improve
outcomes for all students. These
priorities are intended to benefit all
students, including English learners and
students with disabilities, by enhancing
the quality of assessment instruments
and systems used by States for
measuring the academic achievement of
all elementary and secondary school
students.
For example, paragraph (a)(2) of
Priority 1 requires applicants to ensure
the validity, reliability, and fairness of
the assessments and the comparability
of student data; to meet this
requirement, applicants will need to
address how they will evaluate the
fairness of their innovative item types
for all students, including English
learners. The Department believes that
strong assessment audits, as required
under Priority 3, will ensure that tests
are fully transparent to all students and
their parents and will include
mechanisms for soliciting feedback from
all students and their parents, including
English learners.
Additionally, in the past, the
Department has funded several projects
that targeted improving the assessment
of English language proficiency (see
www2.ed.gov/programs/eag/
awards.html for a complete listing of
past awards made under this authority).
Given that these grants are still active
and the first English language
proficiency assessments developed
under these grants were administered
for the first time in the 2015–2016
school year, the Department does not
think it necessary to include a specific
reference to English language
proficiency assessments. Items for
summative assessments in reading/
language arts, mathematics, and science
are the focus of this competition.
However, there is nothing that would
preclude the submission of a proposal
under these priorities that specifically
addresses the assessment of English
learners.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: The Department
recognizes the benefit of sharing work
developed under the EAG program with
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
other States, which is why Priorities 1
and 2 require an applicant responding
to them to provide a dissemination plan.
However, the NPP did not include
information regarding the content of
such a dissemination plan. The
Department believes that it is important
to clarify for applicants the expectations
of such a dissemination plan.
Changes: The Department added
language to Priorities 1 and 2 to specify
that applicants must propose
dissemination plans to share lessons
learned and best practices.
Priority 1—Developing Innovative
Assessment Item Types and Design
Approaches
Comment: Two commenters proposed
including additional innovative
assessment item types in this priority.
One commenter suggested that
obtaining information on students’
English language proficiency through a
content assessment could be listed as an
example of an innovation. Another
commenter recommended that the
Department include assessments that
measure student behaviors and goals
(e.g., persistence or dependability) in
this priority, in addition to mastery of
academic content.
Discussion: While the Department
included examples of new innovative
item types, such as performance tasks,
simulations, and interactive, multi-step,
technology-rich items, applicants may
propose projects to develop other kinds
of innovative item types as long as they
meet the requirements of the priority.
As such, we do not include a
comprehensive list of innovative item
types or design approaches a State could
choose to develop. The statutory
authority for this program specifically
references the assessment of academic
achievement, and the assessment
systems developed by States to meet the
requirements under title I, part A of the
ESEA must measure the academic
achievement of students in, at a
minimum, reading/language arts,
mathematics, and science. As a result,
the Department believes it would not be
appropriate to exclusively focus on
innovative assessments that focused on
non-academic skills.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
adding a requirement to this priority
that applicants articulate a theory of
action for how innovative assessment
systems and design approaches will
support deeper student learning.
Discussion: The Department believes
that innovative item types and modular
assessment approaches allow students
to gain valuable experience by
demonstrating complex work and
E:\FR\FM\08AUR1.SGM
08AUR1
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
critical thinking skills. Assessments can
improve student learning by providing
data that can support and inform
instruction, particularly if the data are
timely and targeted. However, the
primary focus of the priority is
developing new methods for measuring
student knowledge and skills to
determine college- and career-readiness.
As such, the Department believes it is
important for applicants to focus their
proposals on the complex tasks of
developing, evaluating, and
implementing new, innovative item
types or developing approaches to
transforming traditional summative
assessment forms into a series of
modular assessment forms. The
Department agrees with the commenter
that developing a sound theory of action
for any large research and development
proposal in educational assessment is a
good project planning tool, but does not
believe it is necessary to explicitly make
this a priority or requirement.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
clarify the meaning of the term
‘‘competency-based assessment’’ to
communicate that such an assessment
supports competency-based
determinations and is not a type of
assessment.
Discussion: The Department
appreciates this recommendation, but
believes that clarification of the term
‘‘competency-based assessment’’ is not
needed in the priority itself. The
priority indicates that innovative item
types may include those item types that
can support competency-based
assessments. This term, also used in the
President’s Testing Action Plan (see
www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/factsheet-testing-action-plan), is used to
describe a system of assessments that
allows students to demonstrate their
learning throughout the school year and
focuses on the application of skills and
knowledge. The Department believes
that innovative item types, including
performance tasks, can be useful as part
of a competency-based assessment. In
addition, the Department believes that
the term is recognized by experts in the
field but that there may be variations in
how it is applied and that proposals
should define this type of assessment in
the context of the proposed design and
plan of work.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that the design of technology-based
items, interactive tools, and user
interfaces proposed in projects under
this priority be based on a Principled
Assessment Design framework that takes
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:12 Aug 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
into account principles of universal
design for learning.
Discussion: The priority requires
applicants to ensure the quality,
validity, reliability, and fairness of the
assessment or assessment items and
comparability of student data. The
Department acknowledges that
universal design for learning is a
nationally recognized method for taking
into account the needs of all students
when designing an assessment item,
test, or system and that this method can
help to promote fairness in assessment,
and also notes that assessments
administered to fulfill the requirements
of title I, part A of the ESEA, recently
reauthorized by the ESSA, must address
universal design for learning.
Changes: We revised this priority to
include a reference to universal design
for learning.
Priority 2—Improving Assessment
Scoring and Score Reporting
Comment: One commenter suggested
that we require applicants to present a
high-quality plan for leveraging other
Federal funds to improve educators’
assessment literacy and support
parental engagement.
Discussion: The Department agrees
that assessment literacy and parent
engagement in assessment systems are
important goals. We also support States’
efforts to carefully examine how Federal
and other funding sources can best be
leveraged to support their goals and to
sustain work supported by time-limited
grant funding. As part of the President’s
Testing Action Plan, the Department
released a Dear Colleague Letter in
February 2016 (see www2.ed.gov/
admins/lead/account/saa/160002signedcsso222016ltr.pdf) that
provides examples of how funds under
titles I, II, III, and VI of the ESEA can
be used to increase assessment literacy
and parent engagement. However, in
order to allow applicants flexibility to
use appropriate funds to best meet their
needs, we decline to prescribe that
States use other Federal funding, in
addition to any EAG funding awarded,
for these purposes.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that assessment reporting
be focused on ‘‘stakeholders closest to
students’’ who can use the data to
improve student learning.
Discussion: The Department agrees
that it is important for information on
student performance to be made
available to stakeholders close to
students, such as educators and parents,
in a timely fashion and in a format that
provides actionable information to
guide instruction and supports for
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
52343
students. In paragraph (b) of Priority 2,
the Department requires that States
include educators and parents in the
development of score reports and
paragraph (b)(1)(ii) focuses on
educators’ and parents’ assessment
literacy.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters
recommended that the Department
require States to develop both enhanced
score reporting templates and digital
mechanisms for communicating
assessment results.
Discussion: The Department
appreciates the support for this priority
and agrees that it is important to
improve the utility of information about
student performance included in reports
of assessment results. However, because
we recognize that States have different
goals and may already have initiatives
underway to develop score reporting
templates or digital mechanisms to
communicate assessment results, we do
not think it is appropriate to make both
activities required under Priority 2.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters provided
several recommendations for how States
could improve score reporting,
particularly to meet parents’ needs. For
example, both commenters
recommended that States share
contextual information with parents
through a cover letter accompanying the
score report. One commenter also
suggested that States: Include clear,
actionable next steps for parents; ensure
that information is communicated in
parent-friendly language; prioritize the
content of the score report to avoid
overwhelming parents; seek parent
feedback on score reporting materials;
and ensure that reports are personalized
and culturally sensitive.
Discussion: The Department believes
that these comments provide helpful
examples of how an applicant might
address needs related to score reporting
and improve the utility of information
about student performance included in
score reports.
Changes: We have revised this
priority to include the commenters’
suggestions regarding clear and
actionable next steps for parents as an
example.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that the Department require or strongly
incentivize States to provide training for
educators on data and using data to
inform instruction.
Discussion: The Department agrees
that ensuring educators understand
assessment data and can use that
information to guide instruction and
supports for students is an important
part of making assessments worth
E:\FR\FM\08AUR1.SGM
08AUR1
52344
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
taking. The President’s Testing Action
Plan also highlights this as a key area of
focus for States and districts. For this
reason, we have included improving
assessment literacy of educators and
parents as one of the activities
applicants could choose to include in
projects proposed under this priority.
However, because we recognize that
States have different goals and may
already have initiatives underway to
support assessment literacy, we do not
think it is appropriate to make this a
required component of projects
proposed under Priority 2.
Changes: We have included in
Priority 2 examples of how applicants
might improve assessment literacy by
providing training on test development
and interpretation of test scores.
Priority 3—Inventory of State and Local
Assessment Systems
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
remove Proposed Priority 3, given that
States may use other Federal funds to
conduct assessment audit activities.
Discussion: The Department agrees
that there may be opportunities for
States and local educational agencies
(LEAs) to leverage other Federal funds
to conduct assessment audit activities
beginning with FY 2017, such as the
State assessment grant funds authorized
under section 1201 of the ESEA, as
amended by the ESSA, and the
dedicated funds for assessment audit
work authorized under section 1202 of
the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. For
this reason, the Department has: limited
the amount of grant funding an
applicant could receive under this
priority; required that projects under
Priority 3 be no longer than 12 months;
and required that projects include a
longer-term plan for implementation
using other funding sources. However,
the Department believes that funding
grants under this priority presents a
valuable opportunity for applicants to
lay the groundwork for activities in this
area and begin the important work of
evaluating all assessments administered
in the State and its LEAs.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that the Department reframe the priority
to focus on assessment systems and
clarify that the goal of assessment
inventories is to ensure that States’
balanced systems of assessments work
together to provide information to
relevant stakeholders.
Discussion: The Department believes
that this priority, as written, already
emphasizes the importance of analyzing
entire assessment systems, rather than
individual assessments. Assessment
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:12 Aug 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
inventories proposed by applicants
must include a review of all assessments
at the Federal, State, and local levels
and must include feedback from
stakeholders on the entire assessment
system.
The Department agrees that
assessments should provide clear and
actionable information about students’
knowledge and skills to stakeholders.
However, consistent with the
President’s Testing Action plan, we
believe that assessment inventories
should not be focused only on whether
assessments provide feedback to
stakeholders, but should also ensure
that tests are high quality, worth taking,
time limited, fair for all students, and
tied to improved student learning.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter proposed
that the Department remove the
requirement that State educational
agencies (SEAs) review State and LEA
activities related to test preparation to
make sure those activities are focused
on academic content and not on testtaking skills.
Discussion: The Department believes
that low-quality test preparation
strategies are a poor use of students’
time and that students perform best on
high-quality assessments that measure
critical thinking and complex skills
when they have been exposed to strong
instruction. As such, we maintain that
ensuring that test preparation strategies
and activities are focused on academic
content instead of test-taking skills is an
important part of reviewing and
improving assessment systems.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: In the NPP, paragraph
(a)(2) of Priority 3 indicated that the
purpose of assessments is to help
schools meet their goals. Although we
believe that assessments provide
valuable information about school
performance and can help schools to
assess progress toward their goals, the
Department believes that assessments
have other purposes that are important
for applicants to consider as they
address Priority 3.
Changes: The Department adjusted
the language in paragraph (a)(2) of
Priority 3 to reflect that assessments are
intended to measure student
achievement and identify gaps in
students’ knowledge and skills.
Final Priorities
Priority 1—Developing Innovative
Assessment Item Types and Design
Approaches
Under this priority, SEAs must:
(a) Develop, evaluate, and implement
new, innovative item types for use in
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
summative assessments in reading/
language arts, mathematics, or science;
(1) Development of innovative item
types under paragraph (a) may include,
for example, performance tasks;
simulations; or interactive, multi-step,
technology-rich items that can support
competency-based assessments or
portfolio projects;
(2) Projects under this priority must
be designed to develop new methods for
collecting evidence about a student’s
knowledge and abilities and ensure the
quality, validity, reliability, and fairness
(such as by incorporating principles of
universal design for learning) of the
assessment and comparability of student
data; or
(b) Develop new approaches to
transform traditional, end-of-year
summative assessment forms with many
items into a series of modular
assessment forms, each with fewer items
than the end-of-year summative
assessment.
(1) To respond to paragraph (b),
applicants must develop modular
assessment approaches which can be
used to provide timely feedback to
educators and parents as well as be
combined to provide a valid, reliable,
and fair summative assessment of
individual students.
(c) Applicants proposing projects
under either paragraph (a) or (b) must
provide a dissemination plan to share
lessons learned and best practices such
that their projects can serve as models
and resources that can be shared with
other States.
Priority 2—Improving Assessment
Scoring and Score Reporting
Under this priority, SEAs must:
(a) Develop innovative tools that
leverage technology to score
assessments;
(1) To respond to paragraph (a),
applicants must propose projects to
reduce the time it takes to provide test
results to educators, parents, and
students and to make it more costeffective to include non-multiple choice
items on assessments. These innovative
tools must improve automated scoring
of student assessments, in particular
non-multiple choice items in reading/
language arts, mathematics, or science;
or
(b) Propose projects, in consultation
with organizations representing parents
(including parents of English learners
and parents of students with
disabilities), students, teachers,
counselors, and school administrators to
address needs related to score reporting
and improve the utility of information
about student performance included in
reports of assessment results and
E:\FR\FM\08AUR1.SGM
08AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
provide better and more timely
information to educators and parents;
(1) To respond to paragraph (b),
applicants must include one or more of
the following in their projects:
(i) Developing enhanced score
reporting templates or digital
mechanisms for communicating
assessment results and their meaning
(such as by providing clear and
actionable next steps for parents);
(ii) Improving the assessment literacy
of educators and parents to help them
interpret test results and to support
teaching and learning in the classroom
(such as by providing training on test
development and interpretation of test
scores); and
(iii) Developing mechanisms for
secure transmission and individual use
of assessment results by teachers,
students, and parents.
(c) Applicants proposing projects
under either paragraph (a) or (b) must
provide a dissemination plan for sharing
lessons learned and best practices such
that their projects can serve as models
and resources that can be shared with
other States.
Priority 3—Inventory of State and Local
Assessment Systems
(a) Under this priority, SEAs must—
(1) Review statewide and local
assessments to ensure that each test is
of high quality, maximizes instructional
goals, has a clear purpose and utility,
and is designed to help students
demonstrate mastery of State standards;
(2) Determine whether assessments
are serving their intended purpose to
measure student achievement and
identify gaps in students’ knowledge
and skills and to eliminate redundant
and unnecessary testing; and
(3) Review State and LEA strategies
and activities related to test preparation
to make sure those strategies and
activities are focused on academic
content and not on test-taking skills.
(b) To meet the requirements in
paragraph (a), SEAs must ensure that
tests, including statewide and local
assessments are—
(1) Worth taking, meaning that
assessments are a component of good
instruction and require students to
perform the same kind of complex work
they do in an effective classroom and
the real world;
(2) High quality, resulting in
actionable, objective information about
students’ knowledge and skills,
including by assessing the full range of
relevant State standards, eliciting
complex student demonstrations or
applications of knowledge, providing an
accurate measure of student
achievement, and producing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:12 Aug 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
information that can be used to measure
student growth accurately over time;
(3) Time-limited, in order to balance
instructional time and the need for
assessments, for example, by
eliminating duplicative assessments and
assessments that incentivize low-quality
test preparation strategies that consume
valuable classroom time;
(4) Fair for all students and used to
support equity in educational
opportunity by ensuring that
accessibility features and
accommodations level the playing field
so tests accurately reflect what all
students, including students with
disabilities and English learners, know
and can do;
(5) Fully transparent to students and
parents, so that States and districts can
clearly explain to parents the purpose,
the source of the requirement (if
appropriate), and the use by teachers
and schools, and provide feedback to
parents and students on student
performance; and
(6) Tied to improving student learning
as tools in the broader work of teaching
and learning.
(c) Approaches to assessment
inventories under paragraph (a) must
include:
(1) Review of the schedule for
administration of all assessments
required at the Federal, State, and local
levels;
(2) Review of the purpose of, and legal
authority for, administration of all
assessments required at the Federal,
State, and local levels; and
(3) Feedback on the assessment
system from stakeholders, which could
include information on how teachers,
principals, other school leaders, and
administrators use assessment data to
inform and differentiate instruction,
how much time teachers spend on
assessment preparation and
administration, and the assessments that
administrators, teachers, principals,
other school leaders, parents, and
students do and do not find useful.
(d) Projects under this priority—
(1) Must be no longer than 12 months;
(2) Must include a longer-term project
plan, understanding that, beginning
with FY 2017, there may be dedicated
Federal funds for assessment audit work
as authorized under section 1202 of the
ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, and
understanding that States and LEAs may
use other Federal funds, such as the
State assessment grant funds, authorized
under section 1201 of the ESEA, as
amended by the ESSA, consistent with
the purposes for those funds, to
implement such plans; and
(3) Must have a budget of $200,000 or
less.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
52345
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, we consider 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)).
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 we choose
to use one or more of these priorities, we
invite applications through a notice in the
Federal Register.
Executive Orders 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,
E:\FR\FM\08AUR1.SGM
08AUR1
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
52346
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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
stated in the Executive order.
This final 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 final
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
(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 final priorities
only on a reasoned determination that
their benefits justify their costs. In
choosing among alternative regulatory
approaches, we selected those
approaches that maximize net benefits.
Based on the analysis that follows, the
Department believes that this regulatory
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:12 Aug 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
action is consistent with the principles
in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this
regulatory action does 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 priorities included in this notice
would benefit students, parents,
educators, administrators, and other
stakeholders by improving the quality of
State assessment instruments and
systems. Priority 1 will yield new, more
authentic methods for collecting
evidence about what students know and
are able to do and provide educators
with more individualized, easily
integrated assessments that can support
competency-based learning and other
forms of personalized instruction.
Priority 2 will allow for States to score
non-multiple choice assessment items
more quickly and at a lower cost and
ensure that assessments provide timely,
actionable feedback to students, parents,
and educators. Priority 3 will encourage
States to ensure that assessments are of
high quality, maximize instructional
goals, and have clear purpose and
utility. Further, it will encourage States
to eliminate unnecessary or redundant
tests.
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 and
actions for 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
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 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: August 1, 2016.
Ann Whalen,
Senior Advisor to the Secretary, Delegated
the Duties of Assistant, Secretary for
Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2016–18530 Filed 8–5–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234; FRL–9950–31–
OAR]
40 CFR Parts 60 and 63
Reconsideration on the Mercury and
Air Toxics Standards (MATS) and the
Utility New Source Performance
Standards Startup and Shutdown
Provisions; Final Action
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of final action denying
petitions for reconsideration.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is providing
notice that it has responded to two
petitions for reconsideration of the final
rule titled ‘‘Reconsideration of Certain
Startup/Shutdown Issues: National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) From Coal- and
Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam
Generating Units and Standards of
Performance (NSPS) for Fossil-FuelFired Electric Utility, IndustrialCommercial-Institutional, and Small
Industrial-Commercial-Institutional
Steam Generating Units,’’ published in
the Federal Register on November 19,
2014. The Administrator denied the
requests for reconsideration in separate
letters to the petitioners. The letters and
a document providing a full explanation
of the agency’s rationale for each denial
is in the docket for these rules.
DATES: August 8, 2016.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\08AUR1.SGM
08AUR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 152 (Monday, August 8, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52341-52346]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18530]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter II
[Docket ID ED-2016-OESE-0004; CFDA Number: 84.368A.]
Final Priorities--Enhanced Assessment Instruments
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Final priorities.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education
announces priorities 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 for
competitions using funds from fiscal year (FY) 2016 and later years.
These priorities are designed to support projects to improve States'
assessment systems.
DATES: These priorities are effective September 7, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Peasley, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E124, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: (202) 453-7982 or by email: donald.peasley@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose of Program: The purpose of the EAG program is to enhance
the quality of assessment instruments and assessment systems used by
States for measuring the academic achievement of elementary and
secondary school students.
Program Authority: Section 6112 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001 (NCLB), and section 1203(b)(1) of the ESEA, as amended by
the Every Student Succeeds Act (Pub. L. 114-95) (ESSA).
We published a notice of proposed priorities for this program in
the Federal Register on April 18, 2016 (81 FR 22550) (NPP). That notice
contained background information and our reasons for proposing the
particular priorities.
Except for minor revisions, there are no differences between the
proposed priorities and these final priorities.
These priorities are for use in addition to those published in the
2011 notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria (76 FR 21985) (2011 NFP) and the 2013 notice of
final priorities, requirement, definitions, and selection criteria for
this program (78 FR 31343) (2013 NFP).
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, eight
parties submitted comments on the proposed priorities.
We group major issues according to subject. Generally, we do not
address technical and other minor changes.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
of any changes in the priorities since publication of the NPP follows.
General
Comment: Five commenters expressed support for the proposed
priorities and noted the potential for grants awarded under the EAG
program to improve State assessment systems. Three commenters expressed
views on how the Department should distribute awards across priorities
under the EAG program. One commenter strongly recommended that Priority
2 be designated as an absolute priority in the EAG competition.
Discussion: We appreciate the support for these priorities and
agree that projects funded under them will support States in
continuously improving their assessment systems to measure college- and
career-readiness. This notice establishes priorities that can be used
in any future competition, but does not establish how those priorities
are designated in any particular competition. For the competition
funded with FY 2016 funds, as announced in the notice inviting
applications published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register,
Priorities 1, 2, and 3 will be competitive preference priorities. The
grant application and competition process will determine the number and
types of projects funded under each priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter encouraged the Department to consider
requiring content developed under proposed projects to be made freely
available to others. This commenter noted that, even if content is made
publicly available, it is not always accessible due to the use of
proprietary software or applications.
Discussion: We recognize the benefit of sharing work developed
under the EAG program to serve as models and resources for other
States, which is why Priorities 1 and 2 require an applicant responding
to them to provide a dissemination plan. Sharing resources and lessons
learned from grantees is a key goal of the grant program.
[[Page 52342]]
Additionally, the notice of final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria for this program published in the
Federal Register on April 19, 2011 (76 FR 21985) (2011 NFP) includes a
requirement that, unless otherwise protected by law or agreement as
proprietary information, an eligible applicant awarded a grant under
this program must 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 the purposes of
administering assessments, provided that those parties receiving
assessment content comply with consortium or State requirements for
test or test item security.
Further, as with any grant, and consistent with 2 CFR 200.315, the
Department reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable right
to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use, and to authorize others to
use, for Federal government purposes, the copyright in any work
developed under a grant (or contract under a grant) in this program,
and any rights of copyright to which a grantee or contractor purchases
ownership with grant support.
As the Department has these tools available to require grantees to
make publicly available work developed under the EAG program, we do not
believe any related change to the priorities is necessary.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter encouraged the Department to explicitly
advocate for innovative, efficient, accessible, and fair testing for
English learners in each priority, including by: Including English
language proficiency assessments in Priority 1; requiring grantees
implementing projects under Priority 1 to include English learners and
their families as a representative sample in any research and
development activities and gather evidence that innovative item types
are accessible to English learners; requiring projects under Priority 2
to include representation from English learners, parents of English
learners, and teachers of English learners. The commenter expressed
support for the requirement in Priority 3 that SEAs ensure tests are
fair for all students and particularly commended the reference to
English learners. The commenter also recommended requiring States
proposing projects under Priority 3 to ensure that tests are fully
transparent to English learners and their parents and to solicit
feedback on the usefulness of assessments from English learners and
their parents.
Discussion: The Department recognizes the unique needs of English
learners and the importance of ensuring that they are included in State
assessment systems and assessed fairly. Having an assessment system
that validly, reliably, and fairly measures the academic achievement of
all elementary and secondary school students is vital to providing
necessary information to inform instructional decisions and program
evaluation, and to improve outcomes for all students. These priorities
are intended to benefit all students, including English learners and
students with disabilities, by enhancing the quality of assessment
instruments and systems used by States for measuring the academic
achievement of all elementary and secondary school students.
For example, paragraph (a)(2) of Priority 1 requires applicants to
ensure the validity, reliability, and fairness of the assessments and
the comparability of student data; to meet this requirement, applicants
will need to address how they will evaluate the fairness of their
innovative item types for all students, including English learners. The
Department believes that strong assessment audits, as required under
Priority 3, will ensure that tests are fully transparent to all
students and their parents and will include mechanisms for soliciting
feedback from all students and their parents, including English
learners.
Additionally, in the past, the Department has funded several
projects that targeted improving the assessment of English language
proficiency (see www2.ed.gov/programs/eag/awards.html for a complete
listing of past awards made under this authority). Given that these
grants are still active and the first English language proficiency
assessments developed under these grants were administered for the
first time in the 2015-2016 school year, the Department does not think
it necessary to include a specific reference to English language
proficiency assessments. Items for summative assessments in reading/
language arts, mathematics, and science are the focus of this
competition.
However, there is nothing that would preclude the submission of a
proposal under these priorities that specifically addresses the
assessment of English learners.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: The Department recognizes the benefit of sharing work
developed under the EAG program with other States, which is why
Priorities 1 and 2 require an applicant responding to them to provide a
dissemination plan. However, the NPP did not include information
regarding the content of such a dissemination plan. The Department
believes that it is important to clarify for applicants the
expectations of such a dissemination plan.
Changes: The Department added language to Priorities 1 and 2 to
specify that applicants must propose dissemination plans to share
lessons learned and best practices.
Priority 1--Developing Innovative Assessment Item Types and Design
Approaches
Comment: Two commenters proposed including additional innovative
assessment item types in this priority. One commenter suggested that
obtaining information on students' English language proficiency through
a content assessment could be listed as an example of an innovation.
Another commenter recommended that the Department include assessments
that measure student behaviors and goals (e.g., persistence or
dependability) in this priority, in addition to mastery of academic
content.
Discussion: While the Department included examples of new
innovative item types, such as performance tasks, simulations, and
interactive, multi-step, technology-rich items, applicants may propose
projects to develop other kinds of innovative item types as long as
they meet the requirements of the priority. As such, we do not include
a comprehensive list of innovative item types or design approaches a
State could choose to develop. The statutory authority for this program
specifically references the assessment of academic achievement, and the
assessment systems developed by States to meet the requirements under
title I, part A of the ESEA must measure the academic achievement of
students in, at a minimum, reading/language arts, mathematics, and
science. As a result, the Department believes it would not be
appropriate to exclusively focus on innovative assessments that focused
on non-academic skills.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested adding a requirement to this
priority that applicants articulate a theory of action for how
innovative assessment systems and design approaches will support deeper
student learning.
Discussion: The Department believes that innovative item types and
modular assessment approaches allow students to gain valuable
experience by demonstrating complex work and
[[Page 52343]]
critical thinking skills. Assessments can improve student learning by
providing data that can support and inform instruction, particularly if
the data are timely and targeted. However, the primary focus of the
priority is developing new methods for measuring student knowledge and
skills to determine college- and career-readiness. As such, the
Department believes it is important for applicants to focus their
proposals on the complex tasks of developing, evaluating, and
implementing new, innovative item types or developing approaches to
transforming traditional summative assessment forms into a series of
modular assessment forms. The Department agrees with the commenter that
developing a sound theory of action for any large research and
development proposal in educational assessment is a good project
planning tool, but does not believe it is necessary to explicitly make
this a priority or requirement.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department clarify the
meaning of the term ``competency-based assessment'' to communicate that
such an assessment supports competency-based determinations and is not
a type of assessment.
Discussion: The Department appreciates this recommendation, but
believes that clarification of the term ``competency-based assessment''
is not needed in the priority itself. The priority indicates that
innovative item types may include those item types that can support
competency-based assessments. This term, also used in the President's
Testing Action Plan (see www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/fact-sheet-testing-action-plan), is used to describe a system of assessments that
allows students to demonstrate their learning throughout the school
year and focuses on the application of skills and knowledge. The
Department believes that innovative item types, including performance
tasks, can be useful as part of a competency-based assessment. In
addition, the Department believes that the term is recognized by
experts in the field but that there may be variations in how it is
applied and that proposals should define this type of assessment in the
context of the proposed design and plan of work.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the design of technology-
based items, interactive tools, and user interfaces proposed in
projects under this priority be based on a Principled Assessment Design
framework that takes into account principles of universal design for
learning.
Discussion: The priority requires applicants to ensure the quality,
validity, reliability, and fairness of the assessment or assessment
items and comparability of student data. The Department acknowledges
that universal design for learning is a nationally recognized method
for taking into account the needs of all students when designing an
assessment item, test, or system and that this method can help to
promote fairness in assessment, and also notes that assessments
administered to fulfill the requirements of title I, part A of the
ESEA, recently reauthorized by the ESSA, must address universal design
for learning.
Changes: We revised this priority to include a reference to
universal design for learning.
Priority 2--Improving Assessment Scoring and Score Reporting
Comment: One commenter suggested that we require applicants to
present a high-quality plan for leveraging other Federal funds to
improve educators' assessment literacy and support parental engagement.
Discussion: The Department agrees that assessment literacy and
parent engagement in assessment systems are important goals. We also
support States' efforts to carefully examine how Federal and other
funding sources can best be leveraged to support their goals and to
sustain work supported by time-limited grant funding. As part of the
President's Testing Action Plan, the Department released a Dear
Colleague Letter in February 2016 (see www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/saa/16-0002signedcsso222016ltr.pdf) that provides examples of how funds
under titles I, II, III, and VI of the ESEA can be used to increase
assessment literacy and parent engagement. However, in order to allow
applicants flexibility to use appropriate funds to best meet their
needs, we decline to prescribe that States use other Federal funding,
in addition to any EAG funding awarded, for these purposes.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that assessment reporting be
focused on ``stakeholders closest to students'' who can use the data to
improve student learning.
Discussion: The Department agrees that it is important for
information on student performance to be made available to stakeholders
close to students, such as educators and parents, in a timely fashion
and in a format that provides actionable information to guide
instruction and supports for students. In paragraph (b) of Priority 2,
the Department requires that States include educators and parents in
the development of score reports and paragraph (b)(1)(ii) focuses on
educators' and parents' assessment literacy.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters recommended that the Department require
States to develop both enhanced score reporting templates and digital
mechanisms for communicating assessment results.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the support for this
priority and agrees that it is important to improve the utility of
information about student performance included in reports of assessment
results. However, because we recognize that States have different goals
and may already have initiatives underway to develop score reporting
templates or digital mechanisms to communicate assessment results, we
do not think it is appropriate to make both activities required under
Priority 2.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters provided several recommendations for how
States could improve score reporting, particularly to meet parents'
needs. For example, both commenters recommended that States share
contextual information with parents through a cover letter accompanying
the score report. One commenter also suggested that States: Include
clear, actionable next steps for parents; ensure that information is
communicated in parent-friendly language; prioritize the content of the
score report to avoid overwhelming parents; seek parent feedback on
score reporting materials; and ensure that reports are personalized and
culturally sensitive.
Discussion: The Department believes that these comments provide
helpful examples of how an applicant might address needs related to
score reporting and improve the utility of information about student
performance included in score reports.
Changes: We have revised this priority to include the commenters'
suggestions regarding clear and actionable next steps for parents as an
example.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department require or
strongly incentivize States to provide training for educators on data
and using data to inform instruction.
Discussion: The Department agrees that ensuring educators
understand assessment data and can use that information to guide
instruction and supports for students is an important part of making
assessments worth
[[Page 52344]]
taking. The President's Testing Action Plan also highlights this as a
key area of focus for States and districts. For this reason, we have
included improving assessment literacy of educators and parents as one
of the activities applicants could choose to include in projects
proposed under this priority. However, because we recognize that States
have different goals and may already have initiatives underway to
support assessment literacy, we do not think it is appropriate to make
this a required component of projects proposed under Priority 2.
Changes: We have included in Priority 2 examples of how applicants
might improve assessment literacy by providing training on test
development and interpretation of test scores.
Priority 3--Inventory of State and Local Assessment Systems
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department remove
Proposed Priority 3, given that States may use other Federal funds to
conduct assessment audit activities.
Discussion: The Department agrees that there may be opportunities
for States and local educational agencies (LEAs) to leverage other
Federal funds to conduct assessment audit activities beginning with FY
2017, such as the State assessment grant funds authorized under section
1201 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, and the dedicated funds for
assessment audit work authorized under section 1202 of the ESEA, as
amended by the ESSA. For this reason, the Department has: limited the
amount of grant funding an applicant could receive under this priority;
required that projects under Priority 3 be no longer than 12 months;
and required that projects include a longer-term plan for
implementation using other funding sources. However, the Department
believes that funding grants under this priority presents a valuable
opportunity for applicants to lay the groundwork for activities in this
area and begin the important work of evaluating all assessments
administered in the State and its LEAs.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department reframe the
priority to focus on assessment systems and clarify that the goal of
assessment inventories is to ensure that States' balanced systems of
assessments work together to provide information to relevant
stakeholders.
Discussion: The Department believes that this priority, as written,
already emphasizes the importance of analyzing entire assessment
systems, rather than individual assessments. Assessment inventories
proposed by applicants must include a review of all assessments at the
Federal, State, and local levels and must include feedback from
stakeholders on the entire assessment system.
The Department agrees that assessments should provide clear and
actionable information about students' knowledge and skills to
stakeholders. However, consistent with the President's Testing Action
plan, we believe that assessment inventories should not be focused only
on whether assessments provide feedback to stakeholders, but should
also ensure that tests are high quality, worth taking, time limited,
fair for all students, and tied to improved student learning.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter proposed that the Department remove the
requirement that State educational agencies (SEAs) review State and LEA
activities related to test preparation to make sure those activities
are focused on academic content and not on test-taking skills.
Discussion: The Department believes that low-quality test
preparation strategies are a poor use of students' time and that
students perform best on high-quality assessments that measure critical
thinking and complex skills when they have been exposed to strong
instruction. As such, we maintain that ensuring that test preparation
strategies and activities are focused on academic content instead of
test-taking skills is an important part of reviewing and improving
assessment systems.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: In the NPP, paragraph (a)(2) of Priority 3 indicated
that the purpose of assessments is to help schools meet their goals.
Although we believe that assessments provide valuable information about
school performance and can help schools to assess progress toward their
goals, the Department believes that assessments have other purposes
that are important for applicants to consider as they address Priority
3.
Changes: The Department adjusted the language in paragraph (a)(2)
of Priority 3 to reflect that assessments are intended to measure
student achievement and identify gaps in students' knowledge and
skills.
Final Priorities
Priority 1--Developing Innovative Assessment Item Types and Design
Approaches
Under this priority, SEAs must:
(a) Develop, evaluate, and implement new, innovative item types for
use in summative assessments in reading/language arts, mathematics, or
science;
(1) Development of innovative item types under paragraph (a) may
include, for example, performance tasks; simulations; or interactive,
multi-step, technology-rich items that can support competency-based
assessments or portfolio projects;
(2) Projects under this priority must be designed to develop new
methods for collecting evidence about a student's knowledge and
abilities and ensure the quality, validity, reliability, and fairness
(such as by incorporating principles of universal design for learning)
of the assessment and comparability of student data; or
(b) Develop new approaches to transform traditional, end-of-year
summative assessment forms with many items into a series of modular
assessment forms, each with fewer items than the end-of-year summative
assessment.
(1) To respond to paragraph (b), applicants must develop modular
assessment approaches which can be used to provide timely feedback to
educators and parents as well as be combined to provide a valid,
reliable, and fair summative assessment of individual students.
(c) Applicants proposing projects under either paragraph (a) or (b)
must provide a dissemination plan to share lessons learned and best
practices such that their projects can serve as models and resources
that can be shared with other States.
Priority 2--Improving Assessment Scoring and Score Reporting
Under this priority, SEAs must:
(a) Develop innovative tools that leverage technology to score
assessments;
(1) To respond to paragraph (a), applicants must propose projects
to reduce the time it takes to provide test results to educators,
parents, and students and to make it more cost-effective to include
non-multiple choice items on assessments. These innovative tools must
improve automated scoring of student assessments, in particular non-
multiple choice items in reading/language arts, mathematics, or
science; or
(b) Propose projects, in consultation with organizations
representing parents (including parents of English learners and parents
of students with disabilities), students, teachers, counselors, and
school administrators to address needs related to score reporting and
improve the utility of information about student performance included
in reports of assessment results and
[[Page 52345]]
provide better and more timely information to educators and parents;
(1) To respond to paragraph (b), applicants must include one or
more of the following in their projects:
(i) Developing enhanced score reporting templates or digital
mechanisms for communicating assessment results and their meaning (such
as by providing clear and actionable next steps for parents);
(ii) Improving the assessment literacy of educators and parents to
help them interpret test results and to support teaching and learning
in the classroom (such as by providing training on test development and
interpretation of test scores); and
(iii) Developing mechanisms for secure transmission and individual
use of assessment results by teachers, students, and parents.
(c) Applicants proposing projects under either paragraph (a) or (b)
must provide a dissemination plan for sharing lessons learned and best
practices such that their projects can serve as models and resources
that can be shared with other States.
Priority 3--Inventory of State and Local Assessment Systems
(a) Under this priority, SEAs must--
(1) Review statewide and local assessments to ensure that each test
is of high quality, maximizes instructional goals, has a clear purpose
and utility, and is designed to help students demonstrate mastery of
State standards;
(2) Determine whether assessments are serving their intended
purpose to measure student achievement and identify gaps in students'
knowledge and skills and to eliminate redundant and unnecessary
testing; and
(3) Review State and LEA strategies and activities related to test
preparation to make sure those strategies and activities are focused on
academic content and not on test-taking skills.
(b) To meet the requirements in paragraph (a), SEAs must ensure
that tests, including statewide and local assessments are--
(1) Worth taking, meaning that assessments are a component of good
instruction and require students to perform the same kind of complex
work they do in an effective classroom and the real world;
(2) High quality, resulting in actionable, objective information
about students' knowledge and skills, including by assessing the full
range of relevant State standards, eliciting complex student
demonstrations or applications of knowledge, providing an accurate
measure of student achievement, and producing information that can be
used to measure student growth accurately over time;
(3) Time-limited, in order to balance instructional time and the
need for assessments, for example, by eliminating duplicative
assessments and assessments that incentivize low-quality test
preparation strategies that consume valuable classroom time;
(4) Fair for all students and used to support equity in educational
opportunity by ensuring that accessibility features and accommodations
level the playing field so tests accurately reflect what all students,
including students with disabilities and English learners, know and can
do;
(5) Fully transparent to students and parents, so that States and
districts can clearly explain to parents the purpose, the source of the
requirement (if appropriate), and the use by teachers and schools, and
provide feedback to parents and students on student performance; and
(6) Tied to improving student learning as tools in the broader work
of teaching and learning.
(c) Approaches to assessment inventories under paragraph (a) must
include:
(1) Review of the schedule for administration of all assessments
required at the Federal, State, and local levels;
(2) Review of the purpose of, and legal authority for,
administration of all assessments required at the Federal, State, and
local levels; and
(3) Feedback on the assessment system from stakeholders, which
could include information on how teachers, principals, other school
leaders, and administrators use assessment data to inform and
differentiate instruction, how much time teachers spend on assessment
preparation and administration, and the assessments that
administrators, teachers, principals, other school leaders, parents,
and students do and do not find useful.
(d) Projects under this priority--
(1) Must be no longer than 12 months;
(2) Must include a longer-term project plan, understanding that,
beginning with FY 2017, there may be dedicated Federal funds for
assessment audit work as authorized under section 1202 of the ESEA, as
amended by the ESSA, and understanding that States and LEAs may use
other Federal funds, such as the State assessment grant funds,
authorized under section 1201 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA,
consistent with the purposes for those funds, to implement such plans;
and
(3) Must have a budget of $200,000 or less.
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, we consider 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)).
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 we choose to use one or more of these priorities, we invite
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 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,
[[Page 52346]]
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 stated in the
Executive order.
This final 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 final 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
(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 final priorities only on a reasoned
determination that their benefits justify their costs. In choosing
among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches
that 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 does 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 priorities included in this notice would benefit students,
parents, educators, administrators, and other stakeholders by improving
the quality of State assessment instruments and systems. Priority 1
will yield new, more authentic methods for collecting evidence about
what students know and are able to do and provide educators with more
individualized, easily integrated assessments that can support
competency-based learning and other forms of personalized instruction.
Priority 2 will allow for States to score non-multiple choice
assessment items more quickly and at a lower cost and ensure that
assessments provide timely, actionable feedback to students, parents,
and educators. Priority 3 will encourage States to ensure that
assessments are of high quality, maximize instructional goals, and have
clear purpose and utility. Further, it will encourage States to
eliminate unnecessary or redundant tests.
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 and
actions for 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 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: August 1, 2016.
Ann Whalen,
Senior Advisor to the Secretary, Delegated the Duties of Assistant,
Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2016-18530 Filed 8-5-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P