[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: [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:
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