81 FR 22550 - Proposed Priorities-Enhanced Assessment Instruments

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 74 (April 18, 2016)

Page Range		22550-22555
FR Document		2016-08726
The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education proposes 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. Depending on the availability of funds and the use of other priorities under the EAG authority, the Assistant Secretary may also choose not to use one or more of these priorities for competitions using funds from FY 2016 and later years. These proposed priorities are designed to support projects to improve States' assessment systems.
Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 74 (Monday, April 18, 2016)
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 74 (Monday, April 18, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22550-22555]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08726]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter II

[Docket ID ED-2016-OESE-0004; CFDA Number: 84.368A.]


Proposed Priorities--Enhanced Assessment Instruments

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

ACTION: Proposed priorities.

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

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education 
proposes 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. 
Depending on the availability of funds and the use of other priorities 
under the EAG authority, the Assistant Secretary may also choose not to 
use one or more of these priorities for competitions using funds from 
FY 2016 and later years. These proposed priorities are designed to 
support projects to improve States' assessment systems.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before May 18, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not 
accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after 
the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, 
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 the ``Help'' tab.
     Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you 
mail or deliver your comments about these proposed priorities, 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 3e124, Washington, DC 20202-6132.

    Privacy Note: The Department of Education's (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: Donald Peasley. Telephone: (202) 453-
7982 or by email: [email protected].
    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: 
    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, we urge you to identify 
clearly the specific proposed priority that each comment addresses.
    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall 
requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these 
proposed priorities. Please let us know of any further ways we 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 these proposed priorities by accessing regulations.gov. 
You may also inspect the comments in room 3e124, 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 we will

[[Page 22551]]

provide an appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aid to 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.
    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).
    Proposed Priorities:
    This notice contains three proposed priorities.
    Background:
    Section 6112 of the ESEA, as amended by the NCLB, and section 
1203(b)(1) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, authorize the 
Department 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.\1\ Under these 
provisions, State grantees must meet at least one of the program's 
statutory priorities, including collaborating with organizations to 
improve the quality, validity, reliability, and efficiency of academic 
assessments; measuring student academic achievement using multiple 
measures from multiple sources; measuring student growth on State 
assessments; and evaluating student academic achievement through the 
development of comprehensive academic assessment instruments and 
methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Pub. L. 114-113) 
appropriated funds for the EAG program under section 6112 of the 
ESEA, as amended by the NCLB. As such, the upcoming EAG competition 
will be conducted under that authority. The Department is also 
establishing these priorities under the authority in section 
1203(b)(1) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, which, if funded, 
would replace the EAG program under section 6112. These priorities 
may also be used in any competition conducted after FY 2016 under 
that authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The grants awarded under this competitive grant award program in 
section 6112 will also lay the groundwork for some new opportunities in 
the recently reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act. For example, the 
reauthorization of ESEA, will allow up to seven States or consortia of 
States to receive an initial demonstration authority to establish an 
innovative assessment and accountability system for a new approach to 
assessment for a trial period of up to five years. This can provide 
SEAs with an opportunity to demonstrate what is possible when 
assessment systems are redesigned with student learning at the center. 
The EAG program provides SEAs with support to develop innovative 
assessment tools and approaches which have the potential to be used by 
all States, including those approved under the innovative assessment 
and accountability demonstration authority, and be more widely adopted 
at scale. In addition, the EAG program provides SEAs with support in 
developing innovative summative assessment tools and approaches that 
can be used within the broader context of the multiple measures of 
student achievement and school accountability of the new ESSA and the 
President's Testing Action Plan.
    Through this notice, the Department proposes three additional 
priorities for the EAG program that are designed to support States in 
continuously improving their assessment systems to measure college- and 
career-readiness. We believe that an essential part of educating 
students involves assessing students' progress toward meeting the high 
standards they need to be ready for college and the workplace. 
Assessments provide necessary information for States, districts, 
educators, families, the public, and students themselves to measure 
progress and improve outcomes for all learners. As such, we recognize 
the importance of continuously improving and innovating to ensure 
assessments are fair, of high quality and not duplicative, can be 
completed in the minimum necessary time while validly and reliably 
measuring a student's knowledge and skills, and reflect the expectation 
that students will be prepared for success in college and careers.
    Proposed Priority 1--Developing Innovative Assessment Item Types 
and Design Approaches.
    Background: The President's Testing Action Plan highlighted the 
need to reduce the time spent on unnecessary, duplicative, or low-
quality testing and improve assessment efficiency and quality to 
provide educators and parents with more timely and actionable data on 
students' progress. SEAs and LEAs need to continue developing new 
methods for collecting evidence about what students know and are able 
to do as it relates to State learning standards, including by creating 
innovative item types and design approaches, for example, by developing 
modular assessments that are given throughout the school year instead 
of a single summative assessment given at the end of the school year.
    Although traditional assessment items such as multiple-choice 
questions have advantages, innovative item types such as performance 
tasks, simulations, and interactive, multi-step, technology-rich items 
that support competency-based assessments or portfolio assessments 
which demonstrate applied skills, have the potential to provide a more 
comprehensive view of a student's knowledge and mastery of standards. 
Examples include: Items that provide multi-step mathematics problems 
where students demonstrate their approaches to solving each step; items 
that permit graphs or other visual response types; and simulated game 
environments where students interact with stimuli and interaction 
information is collected.
    As States implement more rigorous standards, it is important that 
assessment strategies are aligned with the higher-level cognitive 
skills students are expected to master.\2\ For example, performance 
tasks and simulations provide an opportunity for students to apply 
their understanding and demonstrate their abilities in real-world 
scenarios. Rather than simply requiring a student to select a response 
from a list of options, competency-based assessments can allow students 
to interact with material and concepts to formulate responses. 
Students' responses to, and performance on, such innovative item types 
provide insight into their higher-level thinking and problem-solving 
skills and allow educators to better understand students' mastery of 
content and concepts.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Darling-Hammond, Linda, et al. (2013). Criteria for High-
Quality Assessment (SCOPE, CRESST, LSRI Policy Brief). https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/criteria-higher-quality-assessment_1.pdf.
    \3\ Gorin, Joanna S. (2007). Test Design with Cognition in Mind.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe that good assessments should require the same kind of 
complex work that students do in an effective classroom or in the real 
world, including demonstration and application of knowledge and skills. 
Further, assessments should present information and questions that push 
students' critical thinking skills so that students gain valuable 
experience while taking them. The inclusion of new, innovative item 
types will help to ensure that taking an assessment is a worthwhile 
experience for students.

[[Page 22552]]

    Modular assessment approaches also can help SEAs and LEAs support 
students and educators in a number of significant ways by breaking down 
large, summative assessment forms with many items into smaller forms 
with fewer items (e.g., testing only one mathematics or reading 
competency). This will allow students to be assessed on specific 
competencies when they are ready and capable of demonstrating 
proficiency. This can allow advanced students to move ahead rapidly 
while providing students who need extra support the flexibility and 
additional time they need to learn and succeed, as well as the 
opportunity to demonstrate competence in the areas they have mastered.
    Modules can also provide educators with more individualized, 
easily-integrated assessments which are used together to provide a 
summative analysis of each learner.
    Proposed Priority: 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 
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.
    (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 learners.
    (c) Applicants proposing projects under either paragraph (a) or (b) 
must provide a dissemination plan such that their projects can serve as 
models and resources that can be shared with States across the Nation.
    Proposed Priority 2--Improving Assessment Scoring and Score 
Reporting.
    Background: By improving assessment scoring and score reporting, 
SEAs can enhance the testing experience for students and provide more 
timely and relevant information to parents and educators. While 
developing high-quality assessments that measure student knowledge and 
skills against States' standards is an essential part of building 
strong assessment systems, ensuring that assessment results are 
available sooner, and provide clear and actionable information is also 
critically important.
    With continued advancements in technology to support and enhance 
education in the classroom, it is also becoming possible to improve the 
testing experience for students by using technology to automatically 
score non-multiple choice assessment items. Automated scoring can 
decrease the time needed for scoring and releasing results, lower 
costs, improve score consistency, and reduce the need for training of, 
and coordination among, human scorers.\4\ Recent research has examined 
existing automated scoring systems for short and extended constructed 
responses and found these automated scoring systems to be similar to 
human scorers.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Williamson, David M., Xiaoming Xi, and F. Jay Breyer. 
(2012). A Framework for Evaluation and Use of Automated Scoring. 
Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. Volume 31, Issue 1, 
Pages 2-13.
    \5\ Shermis, Mark D., and Ben Hamner. (2012). Contrasting State-
of-the-Art Automated Scoring of Essays: Analysis, National Council 
on Measurement in Education. www.scoreright.org/NCME_2012_Paper3_29_12.pdf; Shermis, Mark D. (2013). Contrasting 
State-of-the-Art in the Machine Scoring of Short-Form Constructed 
Responses. Educational Assessment. www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10627197.2015.997617.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Building on the work done to date and developing better 
technological tools to score assessments would be advantageous to SEAs, 
LEAs, educators, and students. Automated scoring would allow SEAs to 
incorporate more non-multiple choice items, such as essays and 
constructed responses, in assessments while not adding significantly to 
the time or cost to score the tests. Assessment results could be 
returned more quickly to students and educators, who could in turn 
respond to the results data through timely implementation of additional 
teaching, supports, or interventions that would help students master 
content.\6\ The inclusion of additional non-multiple choice items can 
also enhance the testing experience for students by requiring more 
engaging and complex demonstrations of knowledge. To improve scoring, 
applicants responding to this priority could propose projects to build, 
test, or enhance automated scoring systems for use with non-multiple 
choice items in reading/language arts, mathematics, and science. For 
example, an applicant could propose to build, test, or improve a system 
for reviewing brief or extended student-constructed responses. 
Applicants could propose projects that will research, build, or test 
systems that can score assessments and provide diagnostic information 
to educators and parents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For example, the Institute of Education Sciences has 
recently invested in projects that are promising examples of how 
technology can be leveraged to improve scoring. The aim of one such 
project is to develop a computerized oral reading fluency assessment 
(see https://ies.ed.gov/funding/grantsearch/details.asp?ID=1492). 
Traditional oral reading fluency assessments require one-on-one 
administration and hand-scoring, a time-consuming and resource-
intensive process that is prone to scoring errors. The assessment 
under development uses speech recognition software to record and 
score students' oral reading fluency, making processes more 
efficient and less prone to scoring errors. Another such project is 
aimed at developing a new assessment tool to measure the science and 
math skills of middle school English learners (see https://ies.ed.gov/funding/grantsearch/details.asp?ID=1475). It features 
auto-scoring to give immediate feedback to teachers and students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Score reporting, when done well, provides valuable feedback to 
educators that can be used to guide instruction and supports for 
students. This feedback is most relevant when it is available soon 
after the assessment is administered and when it is actionable for 
students, parents, and educators. The Department also recognizes a need 
to improve the design and content of the reports such that they clearly 
communicate information to stakeholders.
    Efforts to improve the usefulness of score reports could include: 
Incorporating information about what students' results mean; including 
multiple levels of information (e.g., overall proficiency, mastery of 
different standards or skills); \7\ providing examples of questions 
that were likely to be answered correctly or incorrectly (and why); and 
connecting students and their families to useful resources or aids to 
address identified areas for improvement. Improving communications 
related to score reporting could include: Presenting information in 
easily comprehensible formats (e.g., graphically or numerically); 
tailoring reporting formats to different audiences or for different 
modes of dissemination; making results available in a timelier manner 
(i.e., delivered to teachers and parents as

[[Page 22553]]

soon as possible after the assessments are administered).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Zapata-Rivera, Diego, and Rebecca Zwick. (2011). Improving 
Test Score Reporting: Perspectives from the ETS Score Reporting 
Conference. www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-11-45.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Priority: 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, and 
science; or
    (b) Propose projects, in consultation with organizations 
representing parents, students, and teachers, to address needs related 
to score reporting and improve the utility of information about student 
performance included in reports of assessment results and 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;
    (ii) Improving the assessment literacy of educators and parents to 
improve the interpretation of test results to support teaching and 
learning in the classroom; and
    (iii) Developing mechanisms for secure transmission and individual 
use of assessment results by students and parents.
    (c) Applicants proposing projects under either paragraph (a) or (b) 
must provide a dissemination plan such that their projects can serve as 
models and resources that can be shared with States across the Nation.
    Proposed Priority 3--Inventory of State and Local Assessment 
Systems.
    Background: Recently, there has been significant discussion about 
the amount of time students spend in formal testing, including 
classroom, district, and State assessments. While the Department 
believes that assessments are important tools for measuring progress 
and improving outcomes for all students, we also recognize that too 
much testing, or unnecessary testing, takes valuable time away from 
teaching and learning in the classroom.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ As a part of the President's Testing Action Plan, The 
Department has recently released a Dear Colleague Letter to State 
Chief School Officers providing examples of existing Federal funding 
streams, and best practices, which can be utilized at the State and 
local levels to improve assessment systems and reduce unnecessary 
testing: http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/saa/16-0002signedcsso222016ltr.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to this issue, some SEAs, local educational agencies 
(LEAs), and schools are currently in the process of reviewing 
assessments administered to students in kindergarten through grade 12 
to better understand if each assessment is of high quality, maximizes 
instructional goals, has clear purpose and utility, and is designed to 
provide information on students' progress toward achieving proficiency 
on State standards. To support such efforts, the Department made the 
development of tools to inventory State and local assessment systems an 
invitational priority in the FY 2015 EAG competition. Through this 
proposed priority, the Department would fund States that are reviewing 
and streamlining their statewide assessments and working with some or 
all of their LEAs to review and streamline local assessments, including 
eliminating redundant and unnecessary assessments.
    This priority would support the identification of promising 
practices that could be followed by other SEAs, LEAs, and schools to 
maximize the utility of their assessments to parents, educators, and 
students.
    Proposed Priority:
    (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 help schools meet their goals and to eliminate redundant and 
unnecessary testing; and
    (3) 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.
    (b) To meet the requirements in paragraph (a), SEAs must ensure 
that tests 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

[[Page 22554]]

    (3) Are eligible to receive a maximum award of $200,000.
    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)).
    Final Priorities:
    We will announce the final priorities in a notice in the Federal 
Register. We will determine the final priorities 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 we choose to use these priorities, we invite applications 
through a notice in the Federal Register.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent 
burden, the Department provides the general public and Federal agencies 
with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections 
of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps ensure that: the public 
understands the Department's collection instructions, respondents can 
provide the requested data in the desired format, reporting burden 
(time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are 
clearly understood, and the Department can properly assess the impact 
of collection requirements on respondents.
    These proposed priorities contain information collection 
requirements that are approved by OMB under the Departmental 
application control number 1894-0006; this proposed regulation does not 
affect the currently approved data collection.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether 
this proposed 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 stated 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
    (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 only on a reasoned 
determination that their benefits would justify their costs. In 
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we 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 priorities included in this notice would benefit 
students, parents, educators, administrators, and other stakeholders by 
improving the quality of State assessment instruments and systems. The 
proposed priority for an inventory of State and local assessment 
systems would encourage States to ensure that assessments are of high 
quality, maximize instructional goals, and have clear purpose and 
utility. Further, it would encourage States to eliminate unnecessary or 
redundant tests. The proposed priority for improving assessment scoring 
and score reporting would allow for States to score non-multiple choice 
assessment items more quickly and at a lower cost

[[Page 22555]]

and ensure that assessments provide timely, actionable feedback to 
students, parents, and educators. The proposed priority for developing 
innovative assessment item types and design approaches, including the 
development of modular assessments, would 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.
    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.thefederalregister.org/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: April 12, 2016.
Ann Whalen,
Senior Advisor to the Secretary Delegated the Duties of Assistant 
Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2016-08726 Filed 4-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
22550 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules

SUMMARY: This document provides a entrance, 1111 Constitution Avenue • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
notice of public hearing on proposed NW., Washington, DC 20224. www.regulations.gov to submit your
regulations that would require annual Because of access restrictions, the IRS comments electronically. Information
country-by-country reporting by certain will not admit visitors beyond the on using Regulations.gov, including
United States persons that are the immediate entrance area more than 30 instructions for accessing agency
ultimate parent entity of a multinational minutes before the hearing starts. For documents, submitting comments, and
enterprise group. information about having your name viewing the docket, is available on the
DATES: The public hearing is being held placed on the building access list to site under the ‘‘Help’’ tab.
on Friday, May 13, 2016, at 10 a.m. The attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER • Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery,
IRS must receive outlines of the topics INFORMATION CONTACT section of this or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver
to be discussed at the public hearing by document. your comments about these proposed
Friday, April 29, 2016. priorities, address them to the Office of
Martin V. Franks,
ADDRESSES: The public hearing is being Elementary and Secondary Education,
Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Attention: Enhanced Assessment
held in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief
Revenue Service Building, 1111 Counsel, (Procedure and Administration).
Grants—Comments, U.S. Department of
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW.,
[FR Doc. 2016–08882 Filed 4–15–16; 8:45 am]
DC 20224. Due to building security Room 3e124, Washington, DC 20202–
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
procedures, visitors must enter at the 6132.
Constitution Avenue entrance. In Privacy Note: The Department of
addition, all visitors must present photo Education’s (Department’s) policy is to make
identification to enter the building. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION all comments received from members of the
Send Submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR public available for public viewing in their
(REG–109822–15), Room 5205, Internal 34 CFR Chapter II entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters
[Docket ID ED–2016–OESE–0004; CFDA should be careful to include in their
Franklin Station, Washington, DC Number: 84.368A.] comments only information that they wish to
20044. Submissions may be hand- make publicly available.
delivered Monday through Friday to Proposed Priorities—Enhanced
CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–109822–15), Assessment Instruments FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Couriers Desk, Internal Revenue Donald Peasley. Telephone: (202) 453–
Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., AGENCY: Office of Elementary and 7982 or by email: donald.peasley@
Washington, DC 20224 or sent Secondary Education, Department of ed.gov.
electronically via the Federal Education. If you use a telecommunications
eRulemaking Portal at ACTION: Proposed priorities. device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
www.regulations.gov (IRS REG–109822– telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–
15).
Elementary and Secondary Education 8339.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: proposes priorities under the Enhanced
Concerning the proposed regulations, Assessment Instruments Grant program, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Melinda Harvey at (202) 317–6934; also called the Enhanced Assessment Invitation to Comment: We invite you
concerning submissions of comments, Grants (EAG) program. The Assistant to submit comments regarding this
the hearing and/or to be placed on the Secretary may use one or more of these notice. To ensure that your comments
building access list to attend the hearing priorities for competitions using funds have maximum effect in developing the
Oluwafunmilayo Taylor at (202) 317– from fiscal year (FY) 2016 and later notice of final priorities, we urge you to
6901 (not toll-free numbers). years. Depending on the availability of identify clearly the specific proposed
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The funds and the use of other priorities priority that each comment addresses.
subject of the public hearing is the under the EAG authority, the Assistant We invite you to assist us in
notice of proposed rulemaking (REG– Secretary may also choose not to use complying with the specific
109822–15) that was published in the one or more of these priorities for requirements of Executive Orders 12866
Federal Register on Wednesday, competitions using funds from FY 2016 and 13563 and their overall requirement
December 23, 2015 (80 FR 79795). and later years. These proposed of reducing regulatory burden that
The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) priorities are designed to support might result from these proposed
apply to the hearing. Persons who wish projects to improve States’ assessment priorities. Please let us know of any
to present oral comments at the hearing systems. further ways we could reduce potential
that submitted written comments by costs or increase potential benefits
March 22, 2016, must submit an outline DATES: We must receive your comments while preserving the effective and
of the topics to be addressed and the on or before May 18, 2016. efficient administration of the program.
amount of time to be denoted to each ADDRESSES: Submit your comments During and after the comment period,
topic by Friday, April 29, 2016. through the Federal eRulemaking Portal you may inspect all public comments
A period of 10 minutes is allotted to or via postal mail, commercial delivery, about these proposed priorities by
each person for presenting oral or hand delivery. We will not accept accessing regulations.gov. You may also
comments. After the deadline for comments submitted by fax or by email inspect the comments in room 3e124,
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

receiving outlines has passed, the IRS or those submitted after the comment 400 Maryland Avenue SW.,
will prepare an agenda containing the period. To ensure that we do not receive Washington, DC, between the hours of
schedule of speakers. Copies of the duplicate copies, please submit your 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington,
agenda will be made available, free of comments only once. In addition, please DC time, Monday through Friday of
charge, at the hearing or in the Freedom include the Docket ID and the term each week except Federal holidays.
of Information Reading Room (FOIA RR) ‘‘Enhanced Assessment Grants— Assistance to Individuals with
(Room 1621) which is located at the Comments’’ at the top of your Disabilities in Reviewing the
11th and Pennsylvania Avenue NW., comments. Rulemaking Record: On request we will

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:23 Apr 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18APP1.SGM 18APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22551

provide an appropriate accommodation as amended by the Every Student State learning standards, including by
or auxiliary aid to an individual with a Succeeds Act. For example, the creating innovative item types and
disability who needs assistance to reauthorization of ESEA, will allow up design approaches, for example, by
review the comments or other to seven States or consortia of States to developing modular assessments that
documents in the public rulemaking receive an initial demonstration are given throughout the school year
record for this notice. If you want to authority to establish an innovative instead of a single summative
schedule an appointment for this type of assessment and accountability system assessment given at the end of the
accommodation or auxiliary aid, please for a new approach to assessment for a school year.
contact the person listed under FOR trial period of up to five years. This can Although traditional assessment items
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. provide SEAs with an opportunity to such as multiple-choice questions have
Purpose of Program: The purpose of demonstrate what is possible when advantages, innovative item types such
the EAG program is to enhance the assessment systems are redesigned with as performance tasks, simulations, and
quality of assessment instruments and student learning at the center. The EAG interactive, multi-step, technology-rich
systems used by States for measuring program provides SEAs with support to items that support competency-based
the academic achievement of develop innovative assessment tools assessments or portfolio assessments
elementary and secondary school and approaches which have the which demonstrate applied skills, have
students. potential to be used by all States, the potential to provide a more
Program Authority: Section 6112 of including those approved under the comprehensive view of a student’s
the Elementary and Secondary innovative assessment and knowledge and mastery of standards.
Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as accountability demonstration authority, Examples include: Items that provide
amended by the No Child Left Behind and be more widely adopted at scale. In multi-step mathematics problems where
Act of 2001 (NCLB), and section addition, the EAG program provides students demonstrate their approaches
1203(b)(1) of the ESEA, as amended by SEAs with support in developing to solving each step; items that permit
the Every Student Succeeds Act (Pub. L. innovative summative assessment tools graphs or other visual response types;
114–95) (ESSA). and approaches that can be used within and simulated game environments
Proposed Priorities: the broader context of the multiple where students interact with stimuli
This notice contains three proposed measures of student achievement and and interaction information is collected.
priorities. school accountability of the new ESSA As States implement more rigorous
Background: and the President’s Testing Action Plan. standards, it is important that
Section 6112 of the ESEA, as Through this notice, the Department assessment strategies are aligned with
amended by the NCLB, and section proposes three additional priorities for the higher-level cognitive skills students
1203(b)(1) of the ESEA, as amended by the EAG program that are designed to are expected to master.2 For example,
the ESSA, authorize the Department to support States in continuously performance tasks and simulations
make competitive grant awards to State improving their assessment systems to provide an opportunity for students to
educational agencies (SEAs) and measure college- and career-readiness. apply their understanding and
consortia of SEAs to help them enhance We believe that an essential part of demonstrate their abilities in real-world
the quality of their assessment educating students involves assessing scenarios. Rather than simply requiring
instruments and assessment systems.1 students’ progress toward meeting the a student to select a response from a list
Under these provisions, State grantees high standards they need to be ready for of options, competency-based
must meet at least one of the program’s college and the workplace. Assessments assessments can allow students to
statutory priorities, including provide necessary information for interact with material and concepts to
collaborating with organizations to States, districts, educators, families, the formulate responses. Students’
improve the quality, validity, reliability, public, and students themselves to responses to, and performance on, such
and efficiency of academic assessments; measure progress and improve innovative item types provide insight
measuring student academic outcomes for all learners. As such, we into their higher-level thinking and
achievement using multiple measures recognize the importance of problem-solving skills and allow
from multiple sources; measuring continuously improving and innovating educators to better understand students’
student growth on State assessments; to ensure assessments are fair, of high mastery of content and concepts.3
and evaluating student academic quality and not duplicative, can be We believe that good assessments
achievement through the development completed in the minimum necessary should require the same kind of
of comprehensive academic assessment time while validly and reliably complex work that students do in an
instruments and methods. measuring a student’s knowledge and effective classroom or in the real world,
The grants awarded under this skills, and reflect the expectation that including demonstration and
competitive grant award program in students will be prepared for success in application of knowledge and skills.
section 6112 will also lay the college and careers. Further, assessments should present
groundwork for some new opportunities Proposed Priority 1—Developing information and questions that push
in the recently reauthorized Elementary Innovative Assessment Item Types and students’ critical thinking skills so that
and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Design Approaches. students gain valuable experience while
Background: The President’s Testing taking them. The inclusion of new,
1 The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 Action Plan highlighted the need to innovative item types will help to
reduce the time spent on unnecessary,
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

(Pub. L. 114–113) appropriated funds for the EAG ensure that taking an assessment is a
program under section 6112 of the ESEA, as duplicative, or low-quality testing and
amended by the NCLB. As such, the upcoming EAG
worthwhile experience for students.
competition will be conducted under that authority.
improve assessment efficiency and
The Department is also establishing these priorities quality to provide educators and parents 2 Darling-Hammond, Linda, et al. (2013). Criteria

under the authority in section 1203(b)(1) of the with more timely and actionable data on for High-Quality Assessment (SCOPE, CRESST,
ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, which, if funded, students’ progress. SEAs and LEAs need LSRI Policy Brief). https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/
would replace the EAG program under section sites/default/files/publications/criteria-higher-
6112. These priorities may also be used in any
to continue developing new methods for quality-assessment_1.pdf.
competition conducted after FY 2016 under that collecting evidence about what students 3 Gorin, Joanna S. (2007). Test Design with

authority. know and are able to do as it relates to Cognition in Mind.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:23 Apr 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18APP1.SGM 18APP1
22552 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules

Modular assessment approaches also SEAs can enhance the testing inclusion of additional non-multiple
can help SEAs and LEAs support experience for students and provide choice items can also enhance the
students and educators in a number of more timely and relevant information to testing experience for students by
significant ways by breaking down parents and educators. While requiring more engaging and complex
large, summative assessment forms with developing high-quality assessments demonstrations of knowledge. To
many items into smaller forms with that measure student knowledge and improve scoring, applicants responding
fewer items (e.g., testing only one skills against States’ standards is an to this priority could propose projects to
mathematics or reading competency). essential part of building strong build, test, or enhance automated
This will allow students to be assessed assessment systems, ensuring that scoring systems for use with non-
on specific competencies when they are assessment results are available sooner, multiple choice items in reading/
ready and capable of demonstrating and provide clear and actionable language arts, mathematics, and science.
proficiency. This can allow advanced information is also critically important. For example, an applicant could
students to move ahead rapidly while With continued advancements in propose to build, test, or improve a
providing students who need extra technology to support and enhance system for reviewing brief or extended
support the flexibility and additional education in the classroom, it is also student-constructed responses.
time they need to learn and succeed, as becoming possible to improve the Applicants could propose projects that
well as the opportunity to demonstrate testing experience for students by using will research, build, or test systems that
competence in the areas they have technology to automatically score non- can score assessments and provide
mastered. multiple choice assessment items. diagnostic information to educators and
Modules can also provide educators Automated scoring can decrease the parents.
with more individualized, easily- time needed for scoring and releasing Score reporting, when done well,
integrated assessments which are used results, lower costs, improve score provides valuable feedback to educators
together to provide a summative consistency, and reduce the need for that can be used to guide instruction
analysis of each learner. training of, and coordination among, and supports for students. This feedback
Proposed Priority: Under this priority, human scorers.4 Recent research has is most relevant when it is available
SEAs must: examined existing automated scoring soon after the assessment is
(a) Develop, evaluate, and implement systems for short and extended administered and when it is actionable
new, innovative item types for use in constructed responses and found these for students, parents, and educators.
summative assessments in reading/ automated scoring systems to be similar The Department also recognizes a need
language arts, mathematics, or science; to human scorers.5
(1) Development of innovative item to improve the design and content of the
Building on the work done to date reports such that they clearly
types under paragraph (a) may include, and developing better technological
for example, performance tasks; communicate information to
tools to score assessments would be stakeholders.
simulations; or interactive, multi-step, advantageous to SEAs, LEAs, educators,
technology-rich items that can support and students. Automated scoring would Efforts to improve the usefulness of
competency-based assessments or allow SEAs to incorporate more non- score reports could include:
portfolio projects; multiple choice items, such as essays Incorporating information about what
(2) Projects under this priority must and constructed responses, in students’ results mean; including
be designed to develop new methods for assessments while not adding multiple levels of information (e.g.,
collecting evidence about a student’s significantly to the time or cost to score overall proficiency, mastery of different
knowledge and abilities and ensure the the tests. Assessment results could be standards or skills); 7 providing
quality, validity, reliability, and fairness returned more quickly to students and examples of questions that were likely
of the assessment and comparability of educators, who could in turn respond to to be answered correctly or incorrectly
student data; or the results data through timely (and why); and connecting students and
(b) Develop new approaches to implementation of additional teaching, their families to useful resources or aids
transform traditional, end-of-year supports, or interventions that would to address identified areas for
summative assessment forms with many help students master content.6 The improvement. Improving
items into a series of modular communications related to score
assessment forms, each with fewer 4 Williamson, David M., Xiaoming Xi, and F. Jay reporting could include: Presenting
items. Breyer. (2012). A Framework for Evaluation and information in easily comprehensible
(1) To respond to paragraph (b), Use of Automated Scoring. Educational formats (e.g., graphically or
applicants must develop modular Measurement: Issues and Practice. Volume 31, Issue
1, Pages 2–13.
numerically); tailoring reporting formats
assessment approaches which can be 5 Shermis, Mark D., and Ben Hamner. (2012). to different audiences or for different
used to provide timely feedback to Contrasting State-of-the-Art Automated Scoring of modes of dissemination; making results
educators and parents as well as be Essays: Analysis, National Council on Measurement available in a timelier manner (i.e.,
combined to provide a valid, reliable, in Education. www.scoreright.org/NCME_2012_ delivered to teachers and parents as
and fair summative assessment of Paper3_29_12.pdf; Shermis, Mark D. (2013).
Contrasting State-of-the-Art in the Machine Scoring
individual learners. of Short-Form Constructed Responses. Educational uses speech recognition software to record and
(c) Applicants proposing projects Assessment. www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/ score students’ oral reading fluency, making
under either paragraph (a) or (b) must 10.1080/10627197.2015.997617. processes more efficient and less prone to scoring
errors. Another such project is aimed at developing
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

6 For example, the Institute of Education Sciences
provide a dissemination plan such that
has recently invested in projects that are promising a new assessment tool to measure the science and
their projects can serve as models and examples of how technology can be leveraged to math skills of middle school English learners (see
resources that can be shared with States improve scoring. The aim of one such project is to https://ies.ed.gov/funding/grantsearch/
across the Nation. develop a computerized oral reading fluency details.asp?ID=1475). It features auto-scoring to give
Proposed Priority 2—Improving assessment (see https://ies.ed.gov/funding/ immediate feedback to teachers and students.
Assessment Scoring and Score grantsearch/details.asp?ID=1492). Traditional oral 7 Zapata-Rivera, Diego, and Rebecca Zwick.

reading fluency assessments require one-on-one (2011). Improving Test Score Reporting:
Reporting. administration and hand-scoring, a time-consuming Perspectives from the ETS Score Reporting
Background: By improving and resource-intensive process that is prone to Conference. www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-
assessment scoring and score reporting, scoring errors. The assessment under development 11-45.pdf.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:23 Apr 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18APP1.SGM 18APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22553

soon as possible after the assessments In response to this issue, some SEAs, accurate measure of student
are administered). local educational agencies (LEAs), and achievement, and producing
Proposed Priority: Under this priority, schools are currently in the process of information that can be used to measure
SEAs must: reviewing assessments administered to student growth accurately over time;
(a) Develop innovative tools that students in kindergarten through grade (3) Time-limited, in order to balance
leverage technology to score 12 to better understand if each instructional time and the need for
assessments; assessment is of high quality, maximizes assessments, for example, by
(1) To respond to paragraph (a), instructional goals, has clear purpose eliminating duplicative assessments and
applicants must propose projects to and utility, and is designed to provide assessments that incentivize low-quality
reduce the time it takes to provide test information on students’ progress test preparation strategies that consume
results to educators, parents, and toward achieving proficiency on State valuable classroom time;
students and to make it more cost- standards. To support such efforts, the (4) Fair for all students and used to
effective to include non-multiple choice Department made the development of support equity in educational
items on assessments. These innovative tools to inventory State and local opportunity by ensuring that
tools must improve automated scoring assessment systems an invitational accessibility features and
of student assessments, in particular priority in the FY 2015 EAG accommodations level the playing field
non-multiple choice items in reading/ competition. Through this proposed so tests accurately reflect what all
language arts, mathematics, and science; priority, the Department would fund students, including students with
or States that are reviewing and disabilities and English learners, know
(b) Propose projects, in consultation streamlining their statewide and can do;
with organizations representing parents, assessments and working with some or (5) Fully transparent to students and
students, and teachers, to address needs all of their LEAs to review and parents, so that States and districts can
related to score reporting and improve streamline local assessments, including clearly explain to parents the purpose,
the utility of information about student eliminating redundant and unnecessary the source of the requirement (if
performance included in reports of assessments. appropriate), and the use by teachers
assessment results and provide better This priority would support the and schools, and provide feedback to
and more timely information to identification of promising practices parents and students on student
educators and parents; that could be followed by other SEAs, performance; and
(1) To respond to paragraph (b), LEAs, and schools to maximize the (6) Tied to improving student learning
applicants must include one or more of utility of their assessments to parents, as tools in the broader work of teaching
the following in their projects: educators, and students. and learning.
(i) Developing enhanced score Proposed Priority: (c) Approaches to assessment
reporting templates or digital (a) Under this priority, SEAs must— inventories under paragraph (a) must
(1) Review statewide and local include:
mechanisms for communicating
assessments to ensure that each test is (1) Review of the schedule for
assessment results and their meaning;
of high quality, maximizes instructional administration of all assessments
(ii) Improving the assessment literacy
goals, has a clear purpose and utility, required at the Federal, State, and local
of educators and parents to improve the
and is designed to help students levels;
interpretation of test results to support
demonstrate mastery of State standards; (2) Review of the purpose of, and legal
teaching and learning in the classroom; (2) Determine whether assessments authority for, administration of all
and are serving their intended purpose to
(iii) Developing mechanisms for assessments required at the Federal,
help schools meet their goals and to State, and local levels; and
secure transmission and individual use
eliminate redundant and unnecessary (3) Feedback on the assessment
of assessment results by students and
testing; and system from stakeholders, which could
parents. (3) Review State and LEA activities include information on how teachers,
(c) Applicants proposing projects related to test preparation to make sure principals, other school leaders, and
under either paragraph (a) or (b) must those activities are focused on academic administrators use assessment data to
provide a dissemination plan such that content and not on test-taking skills. inform and differentiate instruction,
their projects can serve as models and (b) To meet the requirements in how much time teachers spend on
resources that can be shared with States paragraph (a), SEAs must ensure that assessment preparation and
across the Nation. tests are— administration, and the assessments that
Proposed Priority 3—Inventory of (1) Worth taking, meaning that administrators, teachers, principals,
State and Local Assessment Systems. assessments are a component of good other school leaders, parents, and
Background: Recently, there has been instruction and require students to students do and do not find useful.
significant discussion about the amount perform the same kind of complex work (d) Projects under this priority—
of time students spend in formal testing, they do in an effective classroom and (1) Must be no longer than 12 months;
including classroom, district, and State the real world; (2) Must include a longer-term project
assessments. While the Department (2) High quality, resulting in plan, understanding that, beginning
believes that assessments are important actionable, objective information about with FY 2017, there may be dedicated
tools for measuring progress and students’ knowledge and skills, Federal funds for assessment audit work
improving outcomes for all students, we including by assessing the full range of as authorized under section 1202 of the
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

also recognize that too much testing, or relevant State standards, eliciting ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, and
unnecessary testing, takes valuable time complex student demonstrations or understanding that States and LEAs may
away from teaching and learning in the applications of knowledge, providing an use other Federal funds, such as the
classroom.8 State assessment grant funds, authorized
streams, and best practices, which can be utilized under section 1201 of the ESEA, as
8 Asa part of the President’s Testing Action Plan, at the State and local levels to improve assessment
The Department has recently released a Dear systems and reduce unnecessary testing: http://
amended by the ESSA, consistent with
Colleague Letter to State Chief School Officers www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/saa/16- the purposes for those funds, to
providing examples of existing Federal funding 0002signedcsso222016ltr.pdf. implement such plans; and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:23 Apr 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18APP1.SGM 18APP1
22554 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules

(3) Are eligible to receive a maximum are approved by OMB under the and other advantages; distributive
award of $200,000. Departmental application control impacts; and equity);
Types of Priorities: number 1894–0006; this proposed (4) To the extent feasible, specify
When inviting applications for a regulation does not affect the currently performance objectives, rather than the
competition using one or more approved data collection. behavior or manner of compliance a
priorities, we designate the type of each regulated entity must adopt; and
priority as absolute, competitive Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (5) Identify and assess available
preference, or invitational through a Regulatory Impact Analysis alternatives to direct regulation,
notice in the Federal Register. The including economic incentives—such as
Under Executive Order 12866, the
effect of each type of priority follows: user fees or marketable permits—to
Absolute priority: Under an absolute Secretary must determine whether this
encourage the desired behavior, or
priority, we consider only applications proposed regulatory action is
provide information that enables the
that meet the priority (34 CFR ‘‘significant’’ and, therefore, subject to public to make choices.
75.105(c)(3)). the requirements of the Executive order Executive Order 13563 also requires
Competitive preference priority: and subject to review by the Office of an agency ‘‘to use the best available
Under a competitive preference priority, Management and Budget (OMB). techniques to quantify anticipated
we give competitive preference to an Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 present and future benefits and costs as
application by (1) awarding additional defines a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ accurately as possible.’’ The Office of
points, depending on the extent to as an action likely to result in a rule that Information and Regulatory Affairs of
which the application meets the priority may— OMB has emphasized that these
(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting (1) Have an annual effect on the techniques may include ‘‘identifying
an application that meets the priority economy of $100 million or more, or changing future compliance costs that
over an application of comparable merit adversely affect a sector of the economy, might result from technological
that does not meet the priority (34 CFR productivity, competition, jobs, the innovation or anticipated behavioral
75.105(c)(2)(ii)). environment, public health or safety, or changes.’’
Invitational priority: Under an State, local, or tribal governments or We are issuing these proposed
invitational priority, we are particularly communities in a material way (also priorities only on a reasoned
interested in applications that meet the referred to as an ‘‘economically determination that their benefits would
priority. However, we do not give an significant’’ rule); justify their costs. In choosing among
application that meets the priority a (2) Create serious inconsistency or alternative regulatory approaches, we
preference over other applications (34 otherwise interfere with an action taken selected those approaches that would
CFR 75.105(c)(1)). or planned by another agency; maximize net benefits. Based on the
Final Priorities: (3) Materially alter the budgetary analysis that follows, the Department
We will announce the final priorities impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, believes that this regulatory action is
in a notice in the Federal Register. We or loan programs or the rights and consistent with the principles in
will determine the final priorities after obligations of recipients thereof; or Executive Order 13563.
considering responses to this notice and (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues We also have determined that this
other information available to the arising out of legal mandates, the regulatory action would not unduly
Department. This notice does not President’s priorities, or the principles interfere with State, local, and tribal
preclude us from proposing additional stated in the Executive order. governments in the exercise of their
priorities, requirements, definitions, or This proposed regulatory action is not governmental functions.
selection criteria, subject to meeting a significant regulatory action subject to In accordance with both Executive
applicable rulemaking requirements. review by OMB under section 3(f) of orders, the Department has assessed the
Note: This notice does not solicit Executive Order 12866. potential costs and benefits, both
applications. In any year in which we choose We have also reviewed this proposed quantitative and qualitative, of this
to use these priorities, we invite applications regulatory action under Executive Order regulatory action. The potential costs
through a notice in the Federal Register. 13563, which supplements and are those resulting from statutory
explicitly reaffirms the principles, requirements and those we have
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 structures, and definitions governing determined as necessary for
As part of its continuing effort to regulatory review established in administering the Department’s
reduce paperwork and respondent Executive Order 12866. To the extent programs and activities.
burden, the Department provides the permitted by law, Executive Order The proposed priorities included in
general public and Federal agencies 13563 requires that an agency— this notice would benefit students,
with an opportunity to comment on (1) Propose or adopt regulations only parents, educators, administrators, and
proposed and continuing collections of upon a reasoned determination that other stakeholders by improving the
information in accordance with the their benefits justify their costs quality of State assessment instruments
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (recognizing that some benefits and and systems. The proposed priority for
(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps costs are difficult to quantify); an inventory of State and local
ensure that: the public understands the (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the assessment systems would encourage
Department’s collection instructions, least burden on society, consistent with States to ensure that assessments are of
respondents can provide the requested obtaining regulatory objectives and high quality, maximize instructional
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

data in the desired format, reporting taking into account—among other things goals, and have clear purpose and
burden (time and financial resources) is and to the extent practicable—the costs utility. Further, it would encourage
minimized, collection instruments are of cumulative regulations; States to eliminate unnecessary or
clearly understood, and the Department (3) In choosing among alternative redundant tests. The proposed priority
can properly assess the impact of regulatory approaches, select those for improving assessment scoring and
collection requirements on respondents. approaches that maximize net benefits score reporting would allow for States to
These proposed priorities contain (including potential economic, score non-multiple choice assessment
information collection requirements that environmental, public health and safety, items more quickly and at a lower cost

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:23 Apr 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18APP1.SGM 18APP1
Document Created: 2016-04-16 01:46:15
Document Modified: 2016-04-16 01:46:15
Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Proposed Rules
Action		Proposed priorities.
Dates		We must receive your comments on or before May 18, 2016.
Contact		Donald Peasley. Telephone: (202) 453- 7982 or by email: [email protected]
FR Citation		81 FR 22550