21986 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2011 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Notice of Final Priorities, 

Requirements, Definitions, and 

Selection Criteria 

Enhanced Assessment Instruments; 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

(CFDA) Number: 84.368. 

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Notice of final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

announces priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria under 

the Enhanced Assessment Instruments 

Grant program, also called the Enhanced 

Assessment Grants (EAG) program. The 

Assistant Secretary may use one or more 

of these priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria for 

competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2011 

and later years. We take these actions to 

focus Federal financial assistance on the 

pressing need to improve the 

assessment instruments and systems 

used by States to accurately measure 

student academic achievement and 

growth under the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 

amended (ESEA). 

DATES: Effective Date: These priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria are effective May 19, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Collette Roney, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

Room 3W210, Washington, DC 20202. 

Telephone: (202) 401–5245. E-mail: 

Collette.Roney@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), call the 

Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 

1–800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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: 20 U.S.C. 7301a. 

Public Comment: We published a 

notice of proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria for this program in the Federal 

Register on January 7, 2011 (76 FR 

1138). That notice contained 

background information and our reasons 

for proposing the particular priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria. In response to comments we 

received on the notice, we have made 

revisions to Priority 1—English 

Language Proficiency Assessment 

System (ELP Priority), Priority 2— 

Collaborative Efforts Among States 

(Collaborative Efforts Priority), and the 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the notice of proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria, 15 parties submitted 

comments. 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, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria since 

publication of the notice of proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria follows. 

Priority 1—English Language 

Proficiency (ELP) Assessment System 

Comment: Many commenters 

expressed support for the ELP Priority 

and its broad objective of promoting the 

development of high-quality ELP 

assessment systems. Commenters stated 

that the priority addresses assessment 

needs unique to English learners and 

that improvements in assessments used 

to measure English learners’ progress in 

and attainment of English proficiency 

will support improvements in 

curriculum and instruction for English 

learners, help raise their educational 

achievement, and help close 

achievement gaps between English 

learners and their English proficientpeers. Commenters also stated that the 

priority promotes innovative, highquality assessments that are aligned 

with common college- and career-ready 

standards, which will help prepare 

English learners for higher education 

and careers and ensure that English 

learners have access to the same 

rigorous academic content as all 

students. Another commenter stated 

that the use of multiple measures of 

both academic and English proficiency 

will provide more ongoing feedback to 

educators as well as students and their 

families and offers the promise of 

greater validity and reliability in 

assessments for the diverse population 

of English learners. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenters that the development of 

high-quality ELP assessments aligned 

with ELP standards that in turn 

correspond to a common set of collegeand career-ready standards in English 

language arts and mathematics are likely 

to contribute to improved teaching and 

learning for English learners. We 

appreciate the commenters’ recognition 

that we designed the ELP Priority to 

support the development of high-quality 

diagnostic and summative assessments 

that measure students’ abilities in each 

of the four language domains (reading, 

writing, speaking, and listening), in 

order to meet the significant need for 

ELP assessments that correspond to 

college- and career-ready standards held 

in common by multiple States. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Some commenters 

recommended that the ELP assessment 

system outlined in the ELP Priority be 

defined more explicitly and suggested 

that the priority explicitly support the 

development of benchmark and 

formative assessments as well as 

diagnostic and summative assessments. 

The commenters expressed concern that 

formative assessments may be underemphasized in the resulting ELP 

assessment systems if they are not 

explicitly included in the priority, and 

stated that many educators prefer an 

ELP assessment system that includes 

benchmark and formative assessments. 

One commenter stressed that the focus 

on assessments developed under this 

priority should be on measuring 

students’ progress towards English 

proficiency. Another commenter 

recommended that the limited amount 

of funds for the EAG program be 

focused on the development of 

summative assessments only. 

Discussion: We believe that two types 

of assessments are particularly 

important for English learners: (1) 

Diagnostic assessments (e.g., screener or 

placement tests), which can be used to 

determine whether a student should be 

classified as an English learner, and (2) 

summative assessments, which can be 

used to determine whether an English 

learner has made progress toward and 

achieved grade-level English proficiency 

and should no longer be classified as an 

English learner. The ELP Priority does 

not preclude an applicant from 

including benchmark or formative 

assessments in the ELP assessment 

system it proposes to develop. However, 

because of the importance of diagnostic 

and summative assessments to the 

implementation of Federal education 

programs such as Title III of the ESEA, 

and given the limited resources 

available, we decline to expand the ELP 

Priority to require more than the 

development of diagnostic and 

summative ELP assessments. 

We agree that clarification of the 

components for an ELP assessment 

system developed under the ELP 

Priority would be helpful and have 

added a definition of English language 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2011 / Notices 21987 

proficiency (ELP) assessment system, for 

purposes of the ELP Priority. 

Changes: We have added a definition 

of ELP assessment system to the final 

definitions. The definition specifies 

that, for purposes of the ELP Priority, 

ELP assessment system means a system 

of assessments that includes, at a 

minimum, diagnostic (e.g., screener or 

placement) and summative assessments 

at each grade level from kindergarten 

through grade 12 that cover the four 

language domains of reading, writing, 

speaking, and listening, as required by 

section 3113(b)(2) of the ESEA, and that 

meets all other requirements of the 

priority. Consistent with this change, we 

also have revised paragraphs (a)(2) and 

(a)(3) of the ELP priority to include both 

screener and placement assessments as 

examples of diagnostic assessments. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

schools implementing the ELP 

assessment systems developed under 

the ELP Priority will need time to 

transition to the new assessments and 

stated that the proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria did not address how an 

applicant would need to approach such 

a transition. 

Discussion: Given the four-year 

project period we are planning for 

grants under this program, we anticipate 

that some of the actions needed to 

support the transition to new ELP 

assessment systems may take place after 

the end of the project period, while 

other actions (e.g., developing 

professional capacity and outreach as 

described in the selection criteria) will 

occur during the project period. Because 

operational administration of the 

assessments is not required during the 

project period, we are not requiring a 

complete transition plan. Transition 

issues will be addressed by applicants, 

as necessary, in response to selection 

criterion (e), the professional capacity 

and outreach selection criterion, and we 

decline to add any additional 

requirements relating to transition, as 

some of these activities may occur 

outside the grant period. We note, in 

addition, that the Department routinely 

provides guidance to the field on 

current implementation issues and will 

continue to do so in the future. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Some commenters 

expressed concern that the ELP Priority 

does not adequately address 

coordination between the grants to be 

awarded under the EAG program and 

grants already awarded under the RTTA 

program. The commenters 

recommended that the ELP Priority 

require more specific coordination 

between EAG and RTTA grants. They 

also suggested that we ensure that ELP 

assessments developed under the EAG 

program be embedded in work on 

assessments under the RTTA program, 

particularly because of the academic 

language that students likely will need 

in order to access the assessments to be 

developed under the RTTA grants. 

Discussion: We understand the 

importance of ensuring that projects 

funded under the EAG program and 

other Department programs related to 

assessments coordinate efforts where 

appropriate. We plan to facilitate 

coordination and technical assistance, 

as needed, across newly awarded EAG 

projects and the RTTA grants. EAG and 

RTTA grantees will be required to 

participate in such technical assistance 

and other activities conducted or 

facilitated by the Department or its 

designees. We are clarifying this 

expectation for coordination by adding 

language to requirement (b) that will 

require EAG grantees to coordinate with 

the RTTA program. 

Changes: We have revised 

requirement (b) by adding a phrase that 

requires EAG grantees to coordinate 

with the RTTA program in the 

development of assessments under the 

EAG program. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

States will need guidance and technical 

support from the Department on such 

implementation issues as 

accountability, timeframes, and 

benchmarks for English learners’ 

linguistic and academic progress once 

States have developed their ELP 

assessments. The commenter also 

asserted that, if the reauthorization of 

the ESEA occurs prior to the 

development and implementation of 

ELP assessment systems funded under 

the EAG program, a reauthorized ESEA 

should not constrain such work. 

Discussion: We recognize that the 

Department will need to work with 

grantees and provide technical 

assistance on implementing new ELP 

assessment systems. If a reauthorized 

ESEA requires changes to the projects 

awarded under the EAG program, we 

will work with grantees to make the 

necessary changes and provide guidance 

to the field, as appropriate. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A few commenters 

expressed concern with the examples of 

linguistic components of language 

included in paragraph (a)(7) of the 

proposed ELP Priority. One commenter 

suggested adding ‘‘semantics and 

graphophonemic’’ to the list of 

examples. Another commenter 

suggested removing the list of examples. 

One commenter stated that the 

linguistic components should be 

embedded within ELP standards and 

that determinations of students’ English 

proficiency should not be limited to the 

sum of students’ abilities on any group 

of specific linguistic components of 

language. This commenter expressed 

concern that the ELP Priority could be 

interpreted as requiring the ELP 

assessment systems to provide 

subscores on discrete linguistic 

components. Another commenter stated 

that the ELP Priority should specify that 

measurement of any linguistic 

component should be driven by the 

functions of comprehension and 

expression. This commenter suggested 

revising the priority to require the 

assessments to reflect the linguistic 

components of language or demonstrate 

students’ control over linguistic 

components of language. 

Discussion: Based on consideration of 

the comments and our further review of 

this issue prompted by the comments, 

we revised the list of the examples of 

linguistic components of language by 

removing ‘‘vocabulary’’ from the list. Use 

of the abbreviation ‘‘e.g.’’ in the 

parenthetical indicates that the list is 

not exhaustive or definitive. 

While a valid and reliable ELP 

assessment system should consider 

students’ control over the linguistic 

components of language, we do not 

intend to require that the ELP 

assessment systems generate subscores 

for the linguistic components of 

language. However, we do intend to 

require that the ELP assessment systems 

generate a valid and reliable measure of 

students’ abilities in each of the four 

language domains and are revising the 

priority accordingly. 

Changes: We have revised paragraph 

(a)(7) of the ELP Priority to indicate that 

the ELP assessment systems must 

ensure that the measures of students’ 

English proficiency consider students’ 

control over the linguistic components 

of language (e.g., phonology, syntax, 

morphology). We also have revised 

paragraph (c)(2) of the ELP Priority to 

state that ELP assessment systems 

developed under the priority must 

provide a valid and reliable measure of 

students’ abilities in each of the four 

language domains and a comprehensive 

ELP score based on all four domains, 

with each language domain score 

making a significant contribution to the 

comprehensive ELP score, at each 

proficiency level. To be consistent with 

revisions to paragraph (c)(2) of the ELP 

Priority, we have revised paragraph 

(a)(9) of the ELP Priority to list the four 

language domains. 

Comment: Some commenters 

expressed concern about references to 

the uses of data from the ELP 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES3
21988 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2011 / Notices 

assessment systems for evaluations of 

teacher and principal effectiveness. A 

few commenters outlined several 

concerns that may limit the usefulness 

of ELP assessments in evaluating 

teacher and principal effectiveness, for 

example: Limitations of current testing 

instruments; difficulty in isolating the 

effects of a teacher or principal on an 

individual student’s scores, especially 

when multiple teachers are involved in 

a student’s instruction; a limited 

knowledge base about growth in English 

learners’ acquisition of English and how 

to use measures of growth; and the 

complexities of using longitudinal data, 

especially for English learners who tend 

to have high mobility rates. One 

commenter noted that States could 

misinterpret the ELP Priority as 

requiring student learning on an ELP 

assessment to be the only measure of 

teacher effectiveness. 

A few commenters suggested revising 

the ELP Priority to require the use of 

multiple measures for evaluations of 

teacher and principal effectiveness, as 

opposed to using ELP assessments as 

the sole measure to evaluate teacher and 

principal effectiveness. One commenter 

suggested removing the provisions of 

the ELP Priority that refer to the use of 

ELP assessment data for informing 

evaluations of teacher and principal 

effectiveness. A few commenters stated 

that ELP assessments should be used for 

evaluations of teacher and principal 

effectiveness only after a research base 

has been established to support the use 

of the assessments for such purposes. 

Discussion: The ELP Priority does not 

require that States or other entities use 

data from ELP assessment systems 

developed under the priority as the 

single measure of teacher and principal 

effectiveness. The ELP Priority, in 

combination with the assessment design 

selection criterion, is intended to signal 

that ELP assessment systems should be 

developed so that, as appropriate, the 

data that they provide can be used as 

one of multiple measures for teacher 

and principal evaluation. We have 

revised the language in the ELP Priority 

and the assessment design selection 

criterion to more clearly reflect that 

intent. 

Changes: We have revised paragraph 

(c) of the ELP Priority to distinguish 

those circumstances in which ELP 

assessment data can be used as a single 

measure (paragraph (c)(3)) and those 

circumstances in which ELP assessment 

data can be one measure along with 

other appropriate measures (paragraph 

(c)(4)). We have included evaluations of 

principal and teacher effectiveness in 

paragraph (c)(4). We have also revised 

the assessment design selection 

criterion in paragraph (b)(6)(i) to 

indicate that data from the assessments 

developed under the EAG program 

should be used only as appropriate as 

one of multiple measures for 

determinations of individual principal 

and teacher effectiveness. 

Comment: Many commenters raised 

questions about the references in the 

ELP Priority to a ‘‘common definition of 

‘English learner’.’’ One commenter 

expressed support for the general 

approach of requiring a common 

definition, noting that a common 

definition would ensure that the data 

States provide on the total number of 

English learners being served would be 

more accurate and consistent across the 

nation, thereby allowing parents, 

educators, and other stakeholders to 

make comparisons across States and the 

nation. Multiple commenters requested 

that the Department clarify the meaning 

of the term ‘‘common’’ and had diverging 

views on whether ‘‘common’’ should be 

defined as ‘‘identical’’ or ‘‘similar’’ (e.g., 

comparable and consistent). 

Commenters also asked for clarification 

as to whether the reference to a 

‘‘common definition’’ applies to home 

language surveys, screening 

instruments, procedures for identifying 

and classifying English learners, 

definitions of language proficiency 

levels, and criteria for determining the 

English proficiency of students and 

student exit from English learner status. 

Several commenters provided specific 

suggestions for how the term ‘‘common’’ 

should be interpreted when used in the 

phrase ‘‘common definition of English 

learner.’’ One commenter recommended 

that the common definition of English 

learner, including classification and exit 

criteria, be based solely on the ELP 

assessment system and not on academic 

performance. The commenter noted that 

excluding academic performance 

measures would avoid problems of 

construct validity and avoid confusing 

the ‘‘English learner’’ classification with 

non-language-related criteria. Another 

commenter recommended that an 

assessment of students’ proficiency in 

their first language be considered in the 

common definition of English learner. 

Another commenter asked how 

subgroups of English learners would fit 

within a common definition and how 

data on these subgroups would be 

collected, disaggregated, reported, and 

used. 

One commenter stated that requiring 

multiple States to change their 

definition of English learner to a 

common definition would be an 

unreasonable Federal administrative 

requirement that goes beyond the intent 

of the ESEA. This commenter 

recommended removing paragraph 

(a)(2) from the ELP Priority, which calls 

for States to adopt a common definition 

of English learner. 

Discussion: The term ‘‘common,’’ as 

used in a ‘‘common definition of English 

learner’’ in paragraph (a)(2) of the ELP 

Priority, means an identical definition 

of English learner with respect to certain 

criteria, specifically: The diagnostic 

assessments and associated achievement 

standards used to classify students as 

English learners, as well as the 

summative assessments and associated 

achievement standards used to exit 

students from English learner status. 

This definition is the same for all 

subgroups of English learners, with the 

exception of English learners with the 

most significant cognitive disabilities 

who are eligible to participate in 

alternate assessments based on alternate 

academic achievement standards in 

accordance with 34 CFR 200.6(a)(2). 

Assessment of students’ proficiency in 

their first language is beyond the scope 

of the ELP Priority. 

The use of a common definition of 

‘‘English learner’’ and common criteria 

for exiting a student from English 

learner status will help ensure 

consistency in identifying English 

learners across the States in a 

consortium. However, the term 

‘‘common’’ for purposes of the ELP 

Priority does not apply to other areas 

such as home language surveys, 

program placement and instruction for 

students, and the duration of program 

and support services for students. To 

clarify the scope of the ELP Priority, we 

have added language to paragraph (a)(2) 

to indicate that ‘‘common’’ means 

identical for purposes of the diagnostic 

assessments and associated achievement 

standards used to classify students as 

English learners as well as the 

summative assessments and associated 

achievement standards used to exit 

students from English learner status. To 

provide further clarity, we also 

substituted the word ‘‘common’’ for the 

word ‘‘uniform’’ in the definition of 

English learner. 

We agree with the commenter that a 

common definition of English learner 

should be based on the ELP assessments 

to be developed under the priority, as 

reflected in paragraph (c)(3) of the ELP 

Priority. We also agree that the priority 

should specifically reference subgroups 

of English learners and, therefore, are 

adding language to paragraph (c)(1) of 

the ELP Priority to require that the ELP 

assessment system provide data that can 

be disaggregated by key English learner 

subgroups. 

Because participation in a grant under 

the EAG program is voluntary and no 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2011 / Notices 21989 

entity is required to participate and 

adopt a common definition of English 

learner, we do not believe the 

requirement in the ELP Priority 

regarding a common definition of 

English learner represents an 

unreasonable Federal administrative 

requirement and therefore decline to 

remove this provision from the priority. 

Changes: We have revised paragraph 

(a)(2) of the ELP Priority to indicate that 

‘‘common’’ means identical for purposes 

of the diagnostic and summative 

assessments and the associated 

achievement standards used to classify 

students as English learners and exit 

students from English learner status. We 

also substituted the word ‘‘common’’ for 

the word ‘‘uniform’’ in the definition of 

English learner. We have revised 

paragraph (c)(1) of the ELP Priority to 

require that the ELP assessment system 

provide data that can be disaggregated 

by key English learner subgroups and to 

provide examples of those subgroups. 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed concern that the proposed 

ELP Priority did not adequately address 

the development of ELP standards with 

which assessments developed under the 

priority must be aligned. The 

commenters recommended that the 

Department revise the priority to 

provide that the ELP standards be of 

high quality. One commenter also stated 

that the language of the proposed ELP 

Priority was unclear regarding whether 

EAG applicants would be required to 

develop the ELP standards to which 

assessments under the priority must be 

aligned as an activity under a grant. A 

few commenters specifically 

recommended that we require grantees 

to submit a detailed plan for developing 

and implementing the ELP standards on 

which they would base their ELP 

assessments. Another commenter 

recommended including in the ELP 

Priority a provision requiring the 

development of ELP standards or a 

requirement that all members of a 

consortium agree to the adoption and 

implementation of common ELP 

standards as a requirement for joining a 

consortium. These commenters stated 

that it would be impossible for a 

consortium to successfully develop 

common ELP assessments if each State 

in the consortium had its own ELP 

standards. 

One commenter noted that linguistic 

components of language embedded 

within ELP standards may be necessary, 

but are not sufficient, to measure the 

extent to which English learners can 

process and use language for specified 

purposes or situations. This commenter 

stated that it is the discourse level of 

language that carries the ‘‘semantic load’’ 

supportive of communication that is 

needed for college- and careerreadiness. 

Another commenter stated that the 

ELP assessments developed under the 

ELP Priority should be aligned with ELP 

standards that correspond to content 

standards not only in English language 

arts but also in other subject areas. 

Another commenter noted the 

importance of effectively implementing 

ELP standards, stating that, in an 

aligned assessment system, standards 

are the reference point for designing 

proficiency measures, interpreting and 

communicating assessment results, and 

using assessment results to improve 

teaching and learning. 

Discussion: We agree that high-quality 

ELP standards and their implementation 

are a crucial foundation for the ELP 

assessment systems to be developed 

under the ELP Priority. Section 6112 of 

the ESEA, which authorizes the EAG 

program, does not authorize EAG funds 

to be used for developing standards. 

Therefore, the Department can make 

awards under the EAG program only to 

develop assessments. We are adding a 

program requirement clarifying this 

limitation. 

We expect that the assessments 

developed under the ELP Priority will 

be aligned with high-quality ELP 

standards, and are revising the ELP 

Priority to more specifically define the 

characteristics of high-quality ELP 

standards to which the ELP assessments 

should align. 

Grants under the RTTA program, 

which the ELP Priority is designed to 

complement, are focused on 

assessments that are aligned with 

college- and career-ready standards in 

English language arts and mathematics 

that are held in common by a multiple 

States. Hence, we are providing that the 

assessments developed under the ELP 

Priority must be aligned with ELP 

standards that correspond to common, 

college- and career-ready standards in 

English language arts and mathematics. 

The ELP Priority does not preclude an 

applicant from proposing to align the 

ELP assessments with ELP standards 

that include the academic language 

necessary for college- and careerreadiness in subjects in addition to 

English language arts and mathematics. 

We also expect that rigorous ELP 

standards that correspond to a set of 

college- and career-ready standards in 

English language arts and mathematics 

that are held in common by multiple 

States and that are developed with 

broad stakeholder involvement will 

attend not only to the linguistic 

components of language but also to the 

discourse level of language. 

Changes: We have revised paragraph 

(a)(5) of the ELP Priority to more 

specifically define the characteristics of 

the ELP standards to which the ELP 

assessments developed under the 

program must align. Specifically, we 

have indicated that those standards 

must correspond to a common set of 

college- and career-ready standards in 

English language arts and mathematics, 

and be rigorous, developed with broad 

stakeholder involvement, and vetted 

with experts and practitioners. The 

standards also must be standards for 

which external evaluations have 

documented rigor and correspondence 

to a common set of college- and careerready standards in English language arts 

and mathematics. 

We removed the reference to States 

adopting or utilizing any standards 

developed under a proposed project 

from paragraph (d) of the Collaborative 

Efforts Priority in order to clarify that 

EAG program funds may not be used to 

develop standards. We also have added 

a new requirement (e), which requires 

grantees to ensure that EAG funds are 

not used to support the development of 

standards, such as under the ELP 

Priority or any other priority. The 

subsequent requirements have been renumbered accordingly. 

Comment: Two commenters 

expressed support for our approach to 

ELP assessments for students with the 

most significant cognitive disabilities. 

One commenter suggested removing 

paragraph (e) of the ELP Priority, which 

requires applicants to include in their 

applications the strategies the applicant 

State or, if the applicant is part of a 

consortium, all States in the consortium, 

would use to assess the English 

proficiency of English learners with the 

most significant cognitive disabilities. 

The commenter suggested replacing this 

provision with a requirement that 

grantees under the EAG program 

coordinate with existing grantees 

funded under the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 

including the General Supervision 

Enhancement Grant (GSEG) program, to 

address the needs of English learners 

with the most significant cognitive 

disabilities. One commenter suggested 

that we require applicants to indicate 

how they would coordinate work under 

an EAG grant awarded under the ELP 

Priority with grants awarded under the 

GSEG program. 

Discussion: Recent awards under the 

GSEG program are supporting the 

development of alternate assessments 

based on alternate achievement 

standards that measure student 

knowledge and skills against academic 

content standards in English language 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES3
21990 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2011 / Notices 

arts and mathematics held in common 

by multiple States; these grants are not 

supporting the development of alternate 

ELP assessments for students with the 

most significant cognitive disabilities. 

We acknowledge the importance of 

developing alternate ELP assessments 

for English learners with the most 

significant cognitive disabilities but, 

due to limited resources, are not 

including them in the ELP Priority. 

There will be limited overlap in the 

focus of the projects awarded under the 

ELP Priority and the projects awarded 

under the GSEG program because the 

EAG grants will not be supporting the 

development of alternate assessments 

and because the GSEG awards, which 

focus only on alternate assessments, are 

not supporting the development of ELP 

assessments. Accordingly, we decline to 

require that EAG grantees coordinate 

with GSEG grantees. 

To clarify the reference to English 

learners with the most significant 

cognitive disabilities who are eligible to 

participate in alternate assessments 

based on alternate academic 

achievement standards, we added the 

relevant regulatory citation to 

paragraphs (a)(10) and (a)(11) of the ELP 

Priority. 

Changes: We have added the relevant 

regulatory citation, 34 CFR 200.6(a)(2), 

to paragraphs (a)(10) and (a)(11) of the 

ELP Priority. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that we consider adding 

a priority to support the development of 

assessments to measure proficiency in a 

second language other than English for 

States that support bilingual education 

and bi-literacy. 

Discussion: We recognize that 

measuring student proficiency in a 

second language other than English can 

provide useful data to educators of such 

students. States already have the 

flexibility to develop such assessments, 

which under certain circumstances may 

be supported by ESEA funds in 

accordance with section 6111 of the 

ESEA. 

We decline to make the suggested 

change because we believe that 

developing new ELP assessments is a 

more pressing need than developing 

assessments that measure student 

proficiency in a second language other 

than English. The Department has 

provided funding under the RTTA 

program to consortia that together 

include 44 States and the District of 

Columbia to develop new assessment 

systems that measure student 

knowledge and skills against a common 

set of college- and career-ready 

standards in English language arts and 

mathematics. ELP assessments 

corresponding to such common 

standards will be needed when the 

RTTA assessments are implemented, 

and such assessments have not been 

developed. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

addressing issues such as the 

assessment of students whose education 

has been interrupted might be more 

appropriately addressed by the GSEG 

program. 

Discussion: The ELP Priority requires 

that ELP assessment systems developed 

under the priority accurately assess 

English learners with limited or no 

formal education, including students 

whose education has been interrupted. 

Data on the English proficiency of these 

students can support efforts to improve 

their instruction. The GSEG program 

focuses on assessment for students with 

disabilities, who may or may not be 

English learners. We decline to make a 

change in response to this comment, 

because it is beyond the scope of the 

program to make changes to other 

programs, such as the GSEG program, 

and because the GSEG program focuses 

on assessments for students with 

disabilities, only some of whom are 

English learners and not necessarily 

English learners with interrupted 

education. 

Changes: None. 

Priority 2—Collaborative Efforts Among 

States 

Comment: We received a variety of 

comments on the paragraph in the 

Collaborative Efforts Priority that 

requires a consortium to include a 

minimum of 15 States. One commenter 

stated that providing grants to sizeable 

consortia of States would maximize the 

impact of program funds. Another 

commenter suggested that the 

Department establish an eligibility 

restriction under which only consortia 

would be eligible to apply and require 

that a consortium include a minimum of 

15 States that represent at least 30% of 

the nation’s English learners. Another 

commenter expressed concern that the 

approach to consortia may result in 

grants that do not include all States, 

including some States with sizable 

English learner populations. Two 

additional commenters recommended 

removing the proposed minimum 

number of States in a consortium, 

suggesting that a minimum of 15 States 

would impose an unfair obstacle to 

States and that improvement in 

assessment quality will be achieved 

through competition in the marketplace. 

Discussion: States have indicated to 

the Department their interest in working 

together in consortia to develop 

assessments aligned with common 

standards. Because of the complexity of 

developing and implementing 

assessments and assessment-related 

instruments, collaborative efforts 

between and among States can yield 

approaches that build on each State’s 

expertise and experience, as well as 

approaches that generate substantial 

efficiencies in development, 

administration, costs, and uses of 

results. We believe that larger consortia 

will make more effective use of EAG 

funds by drawing on the expertise and 

experience of more States, increasing 

the potential impact across States, and 

increasing the degree to which common 

assessment tools are available to States 

nationwide. However, we do not want 

to limit States’ flexibility in forming 

consortia by adding requirements in the 

Collaborative Efforts Priority, such as a 

requirement that a certain percentage of 

English learners be represented by the 

population of consortium member 

States. We do not have the authority to 

require all States to participate, and we 

decline to prohibit individual States 

from applying for an award under the 

EAG program; as a result, we decline to 

make the suggested changes in these 

areas. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: While expressing general 

support for the Collaborative Efforts 

Priority, one commenter expressed 

concern regarding the requirement to 

have States sign a binding memorandum 

of understanding to use assessments not 

yet developed. The commenter 

suggested that requiring a strong and 

exclusive letter of support for one 

consortium proposal would be a more 

reasonable requirement. 

Discussion: Under Department 

regulations, all members of a 

consortium applying for a grant must 

enter into an agreement that (1) details 

the activities that each member of the 

consortium plans to perform; and (2) 

binds each member of the consortium to 

every statement and assurance made by 

the applicant in its application. (34 CFR 

75.128). In response to the commenters’ 

concerns that States may decide to leave 

a consortium after receiving the grant, 

we are revising paragraph (c)(3) of the 

Collaborative Efforts Priority to require 

applicants to include in their 

applications protocols for member 

States to leave a consortium and for new 

member States to join a consortium. A 

consortium of States applying for a grant 

would have flexibility in determining 

the roles that member States may play. 

In addition, a State could enter or leave 

a consortium according to the protocols 

the consortium has established for this 

purpose. In light of the Department’s 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2011 / Notices 21991 

regulations and the changes being made 

to provide flexibility to States, we 

decline to require a strong and exclusive 

letter of support rather than a binding 

memorandum of understanding. 

Changes: We have revised paragraph 

(c)(3) of the Collaborative Efforts 

Priority to require that applications from 

consortia include protocols to allow 

States to leave the consortium and for 

new member States to join the 

consortium. We also revised paragraph 

(d) of the Collaborative Efforts Priority 

to indicate that, to remain in the 

consortium, a State must adopt or use 

any instrument, including to the extent 

applicable, assessments, developed 

under the proposed project no later than 

the end of the project period. 

Selection Criteria 

Comment: One commenter, 

expressing support for the selection 

criteria, observed that the criteria 

include all the essential principles 

needed to govern the development and 

implementation of high-quality, 

rigorous, research-based assessment 

practices. 

Discussion: We agree that the 

selection criteria should address the key 

aspects of developing high-quality 

assessments and that the selection 

criteria, as designed, address those key 

aspects. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

revising paragraph (5) of the assessment 

design selection criterion, which 

specifies the types of data that must be 

provided by the assessments. The 

commenter suggested adding the 

following categories of data: types of 

English learner program services, length 

of time in the English learner program, 

and level of English proficiency. 

Discussion: Students’ levels of English 

proficiency are already included among 

the data the ELP assessments developed 

under the ELP Priority must provide. 

However, because the selection criteria 

in this notice may be used in future 

competitions, which may or may not 

include the ELP Priority, we decline to 

revise the selection criteria in a manner 

that relates specifically to the ELP 

Priority. For this same reason, we 

decline to include in the selection 

criteria the other types of data the 

commenter suggested (i.e., English 

learner program services, length of time 

in the English learner program). In 

addition, data regarding services 

provided by English learner programs 

and the length of time students are in 

such programs are data that help assess 

program effectiveness; they are not data 

that ELP assessments provide. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we revise paragraph (b)(10) of the 

assessment design selection criterion, 

which addresses methods of scoring, to 

allow for self-scoring of student 

performance on assessments in order to 

shorten the turnaround time for scoring. 

Discussion: The selection criteria do 

not specify the scoring methods that 

grantees must use. Applicants may 

propose to use a self-scoring approach, 

as the commenter suggests, so long as 

the approach is consistent with the 

technical quality requirements for the 

assessments. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that paragraph (11) of the 

assessment design selection criterion, 

which addresses reports to be produced 

based on the assessments, be revised to 

include the provision of reports in a 

language and format that parents can 

understand. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenter that reports of assessment 

data should be provided to parents in an 

understandable and uniform format and, 

to the extent practicable, in a language 

that parents can understand, and have 

revised this paragraph accordingly. 

Changes: We have revised paragraph 

(11) of the assessment design selection 

criterion to provide for the 

consideration of the extent to which, 

reports produced based on the 

assessments will be presented in an 

understandable and uniform format, and 

to the extent practicable, in a language 

that parents can understand. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

paragraph (1)(ii) of the proposed 

assessment development plan selection 

criterion, which described the types of 

personnel to be involved in each 

assessment development phase and 

provided some examples of such 

personnel, did not include references to 

advocates for English learners or parents 

of English learners. The commenter 

suggested that the Department revise 

this paragraph to include such 

stakeholders in the examples provided. 

Discussion: We agree that the list of 

examples should include a reference to 

other key stakeholders and have revised 

the selection criterion accordingly. 

However, because the selection criteria 

may be used in future competitions, 

which may or may not include the ELP 

Priority, we decline to revise the 

selection criteria in a manner that 

relates specifically to the ELP Priority, 

such as listing stakeholder groups 

specific to English learners. 

Changes: We have revised paragraph 

(1)(ii) of the assessment development 

plan selection criterion to include ‘‘other 

key stakeholders’’ in the list of examples 

provided. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

support for the Department’s reference 

to the use of representative sampling for 

field testing in paragraph (5) of the 

assessment development plan selection 

criterion. This commenter suggested 

that we revise this paragraph to specify 

certain subgroups of English learners 

that may be considered in a 

representative sample. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

suggestion that the student populations 

that should be considered for 

representative sampling include highand low-performing students, different 

types of English learners, and students 

with disabilities, and that it would be 

helpful for applicants to have examples 

of subgroups of English learners that 

may be considered. We have revised 

this paragraph to provide examples of 

the subgroups of English learners that 

may be considered in a representative 

sample. 

Changes: We have revised paragraph 

(5) of the assessment development plan 

selection criterion to include the 

following examples of subgroups of 

English learners that may be considered 

in a representative sample: recently 

arrived English learners, former English 

learners, migratory English learners, and 

English learners with disabilities. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

support for the emphasis on research 

and evaluation in the selection criteria. 

Discussion: The Department agrees 

that the selection criteria should include 

a research and evaluation component 

and believes that the selection criteria, 

as designed, adequately consider 

whether an applicant’s research and 

evaluation plan will ensure that the 

assessments developed are valid, 

reliable, and fair for their intended 

purposes. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter, while 

expressing support for the emphasis on 

professional capacity and outreach in 

the selection criteria, stated that 

mainstream and content-area teachers, 

as well as English-as-a-second language 

and bilingual program educators and 

administrators, should be included in 

professional capacity and outreach 

plans. The commenter also suggested 

that such plans should address 

additional factors relating to ELP 

assessments, including the definition of 

English learners, language proficiency 

levels, exit criteria for programs and 

services, and professional development 

on the use of the assessments and 

assessment results to inform and 

improve instruction. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES3
21992 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2011 / Notices 

Discussion: The activities suggested 

by the commenter are allowable under 

the requirements for this program. 

However, because the selection criteria 

may be used in future competitions that 

may or may not involve the ELP 

Priority, we decline to make the 

recommended changes to the selection 

criterion. 

Changes: None. 

Requirements 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the requirement 

related to evaluation be revised to 

mandate that evidence from evaluation 

activities be posted on a specific Web 

site used by professionals who 

specialize in issues related to English 

learners in order to improve 

dissemination of findings. 

Discussion: The EAG requirements do 

not preclude grantees from posting 

information related to grant activities on 

Web sites (provided that the appropriate 

disclaimers are included). However, we 

believe that specifying the manner in 

which grantees make information 

available would be unnecessarily 

prescriptive. Therefore, we decline to 

make the suggested change in order to 

provide grantees with flexibility in how 

they meet the requirement to make 

information related to grant activities 

available to the public. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A couple of commenters 

expressed concern regarding the 

requirement that grantees develop a 

strategy to make student-level data that 

result from any assessments or other 

assessment-related instruments 

developed under the ELP Priority 

available on an ongoing basis for 

research, including for prospective 

linking, validity, and program 

improvement studies. One commenter 

recommended that the requirements 

affirmatively address the applicable 

privacy safeguards under the ESEA and 

the Family Educational Rights and 

Privacy Act (FERPA) to ensure that 

disaggregated data used to report 

achievement results for subgroups 

cannot be traced back to an identifiable 

student. Another commenter suggested 

removing the requirement due to 

concerns about privacy issues and a 

concern that limited funds for the grants 

might be diverted to research or other 

entities that have separate access to 

governmental and non-governmental 

funding sources. The commenter also 

stated that the proposed requirements 

included all necessary considerations 

for validity, reliability, and fairness, 

thereby making the need for further 

research duplicative and superfluous. 

Discussion: Eligible applicants 

awarded a grant under the EAG program 

must comply with FERPA and 34 CFR 

Part 99, as well as State and local 

requirements regarding privacy; we are 

adding a footnote to the notice 

reminding applicants that they must 

comply with these requirements. With 

regard to the concern that limited funds 

for the grants might be diverted to 

research, we note that the requirement 

states that grant recipients must make 

data available for further research, and 

that grant recipients may only use grant 

funds on research and evaluation 

activities that fall within the scope of 

the activities proposed in their 

approved applications. In order to allow 

for additional research that may prove 

useful, we decline to remove the 

requirement. 

Changes: We have added a footnote to 

requirement (c) (making student-level 

data available for further research) 

reminding applicants that they must 

comply with FERPA and State and local 

privacy requirements should they 

receive an award under this program. 

Comment: Two commenters 

expressed concern regarding the 

requirement that grantees, unless 

otherwise protected by law or agreement 

as proprietary information, make any 

assessment content and other 

assessment-related instruments 

developed with EAG funds freely 

available to States, technology platform 

providers, and others that request it for 

purposes of administering assessments, 

provided that those parties receiving 

assessment content comply with 

consortium or State requirements for 

test or item security. One commenter 

reiterated that all instruments 

developed with EAG funding must be 

open-source and available to any State 

requesting the use of the tools and 

instruments. The other commenter 

requested that we clarify that 

assessments would be freely available to 

States and others, including local 

educational agencies. This commenter 

recommended removing the phrase 

‘‘unless otherwise protected by law or 

agreement as proprietary information’’ 

from the requirement, and adding a 

reference to making the information 

available to local educational agencies. 

Discussion: We cannot make a change 

to protections of proprietary information 

guaranteed by existing laws. In addition, 

for work funded by the EAG program 

and other Department-funded 

discretionary grant programs, the 

Department reserves a royalty-free, 

nonexclusive, and irrevocable license 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 from the EAG program; and any 

rights of copyright to which a grantee or 

a contractor purchases ownership with 

grant support. (34 CFR 80.34). At this 

time we do not intend to exercise this 

license with respect to any products 

produced with EAG funds. If a grantee 

develops a product but fails to make it 

reasonably available to interested 

entities, however, we may exercise our 

license if doing so would further the 

interests of the Federal Government. We 

believe the requirement as originally 

stated, coupled with our license with 

respect to any products produced with 

EAG funds, will serve to make 

adequately available products produced 

with EAG funds. Additionally, we note 

that this requirement is consistent with 

requirements of the RTTA program (see 

program requirement 6 ‘‘Making Work 

Available,’’ in the RTTA program notice 

inviting applications, 75 FR 18175 

(April 9, 2010)). As a result, we decline 

to make the suggested changes. 

Changes: None. 

Definitions 

Comment: With regard to the 

definition of a common set of collegeand career-ready standards, one 

commenter suggested revising the 

definition to specify what constitutes a 

‘‘significant number of States.’’ 

Discussion: In using the term 

significant, we intended to indicate 

multiple States rather than to refer to a 

specific number of States. We agree that 

the ELP Priority should be more specific 

and have replaced the phrase 

‘‘significant number of’’ with the term 

‘‘multiple.’’ 

Changes: In the definition of common 

set of college- and career-ready 

standards, we have replaced the phrase 

‘‘significant number of’’ with the term 

‘‘multiple.’’ 

Funding 

Comment: Some commenters 

expressed concern about the amount of 

funds anticipated to be available for 

awards under a competition for EAG 

funds involving the ELP Priority. Two 

commenters stated that the information 

they had from interviews and press 

reports suggested that funding for the 

development of ELP assessment systems 

under the ELP Priority would be 

limited, especially when compared to 

funds available for recent Department 

grants awarded under the RTTA and 

GSEG programs. Another commenter 

expressed concern that the amount of 

funding that would be available for an 

EAG competition involving the ELP 

Priority would be too small, especially 

in comparison with the RTTA and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2011 / Notices 21993 

GSEG programs that the new priorities 

for the EAG program are designed to 

complement. Some commenters 

recommended that the Department 

consider making additional funds 

available to support the development of 

ELP assessment systems under the EAG 

program. Another commenter noted 

that, based on its experience in 

developing assessments, the cost of 

accomplishing the scope and scale of 

work proposed in the notice of proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria would require more 

than the $10.7 million appropriated for 

the EAG in FY 2010 to be awarded in 

2011. The commenter encouraged the 

Department to provide funding for 

grants under the EAG program 

comparable to the amounts awarded 

under the RTTA and GSEG programs. 

Another commenter stated that $10.7 

million would be inadequate to address 

the needs of English learners through 

the EAG program. Another commenter 

recommended that the Department 

provide awards of $30 million, and 

suggested decreasing the estimated 

number of awards if necessary to fund 

grantees at this amount. None of the 

commenters outlined specific 

anticipated costs for the various 

components of developing an ELP 

assessment system, and only one 

commenter suggested a specific amount 

for awards. 

Discussion: We cannot alter the 

amount of funding that Congress 

appropriated for the EAG program in the 

FY 2010 budget. In developing our 

estimates for the average size and range 

of awards included in the FY 2011 

notice inviting applications for new 

awards for FY 2010 funds, published 

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 

Register, we considered the costs of 

efforts to develop ELP assessment 

systems that the Department has 

previously funded, the cost estimates for 

activities under programs with similar 

goals, and other information available 

for estimating the costs of developing 

assessment systems. 

Changes: None. 

Final Priorities: 

English Language Proficiency 

Assessment System. The Department 

establishes a priority under the EAG 

program for an English language 

proficiency assessment system. To meet 

this priority, an applicant must propose 

a comprehensive plan to develop an 

English language proficiency assessment 

system that is valid, reliable, and fair for 

its intended purpose. Such a plan must 

include the following features: 

(a) Design. The assessment system 

must— 

(1) Be designed for implementation in 

multiple States; 

(2) Be based on a common definition 

of English learner adopted by the 

applicant State and, if the applicant 

applies as part of a consortium, adopted 

and held in common by all States in the 

consortium, where common with 

respect to the definition of ‘‘English 

learner’’ means identical for purposes of 

the diagnostic (e.g., screener or 

placement) assessments and associated 

achievement standards used to classify 

students as English learners as well as 

the summative assessments and 

associated achievement standards used 

to exit students from English learner 

status; 

(3) At a minimum, include diagnostic 

(e.g., screener or placement) and 

summative assessments; 

(4) Measure students’ English 

proficiency against a set of English 

language proficiency standards held by 

the applicant State and, if the applicant 

applies as part of a consortium, held in 

common by all States in the consortium; 

(5) Measure students’ English 

proficiency against a set of English 

language proficiency standards that 

correspond to a common set of collegeand career-ready standards (as defined 

in this notice) in English language arts 

and mathematics, are rigorous, are 

developed with broad stakeholder 

involvement, are vetted with experts 

and practitioners, and for which 

external evaluations have documented 

rigor and correspondence with a 

common set of college- and career-ready 

standards in English language arts and 

mathematics; 

(6) Cover the full range of the English 

language proficiency standards across 

the four language domains of reading, 

writing, speaking, and listening, as 

required by section 3113(b)(2) of the 

ESEA; 

(7) Ensure that the measures of 

students’ English proficiency consider 

the students’ control over the linguistic 

components of language (e.g., 

phonology, syntax, morphology); 

(8) Produce results that indicate 

whether individual students have 

attained the English proficiency 

necessary to participate fully in 

academic instruction in English and 

meet or exceed college- and career-ready 

standards; 

(9) Provide at least an annual measure 

of English proficiency and student 

progress in learning English for English 

learners in kindergarten through grade 

12 in each of the four language domains 

of reading, writing, speaking, and 

listening; 

(10) Assess all English learners, 

including English learners who are also 

students with disabilities and students 

with limited or no formal education, 

except for English learners with the 

most significant cognitive disabilities 

who are eligible to participate in 

alternate assessments based on alternate 

academic achievement standards in 

accordance with 34 CFR 200.6(a)(2); and 

(11) Be accessible to all English 

learners, including by providing 

appropriate accommodations for English 

learners with disabilities, except for 

English learners with the most 

significant cognitive disabilities who are 

eligible to participate in alternate 

assessments based on alternate 

academic achievement standards in 

accordance with 34 CFR 200.6(a)(2). 

(b) Technical quality. The assessment 

system must measure students’ English 

proficiency in ways that— 

(1) Are consistent with nationally 

recognized professional and technical 

standards; and 

(2) As appropriate, elicit complex 

student demonstrations of 

comprehension and production of 

academic English (e.g., performance 

tasks, selected responses, brief or 

extended constructed responses). 

(c) Data. The assessment system must 

produce data that— 

(1) Include student attainment of 

English proficiency and student 

progress in learning English (including 

data disaggregated by English learner 

subgroups such as English learners by 

years in a language instruction 

educational program; English learners 

whose formal education has been 

interrupted; students who were formerly 

English learners by years out of the 

language instruction educational 

program; English learners by level of 

English proficiency, such as those who 

initially scored proficient on the English 

language proficiency assessment; 

English learners by disability status; and 

English learners by native language); 

(2) Provide a valid and reliable 

measure of students’ abilities in each of 

the four language domains (reading, 

writing, speaking, and listening) and a 

comprehensive English proficiency 

score based on all four domains, with 

each language domain score making a 

significant contribution to the 

comprehensive ELP score, at each 

proficiency level; and 

(3) Can be used for the— 

(i) Identification of students as 

English learners; 

(ii) Decisions about whether a student 

should exit from English language 

instruction educational programs; 

(iii) Determinations of school, local 

educational agency, and State 

effectiveness for the purposes of 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES3
21994 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2011 / Notices 

1 In selecting a proposed project management 

partner, an eligible applicant must comply with the 

requirements for procurement in 34 CFR 80.36. 

2Eligible applicants awarded a grant under this 

program must comply with the Family Educational 

Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and 34 CFR Part 

99, as well as State and local requirements 

regarding privacy. 

accountability under Title I and Title III 

of the ESEA; 

(4) Can be used, as appropriate, as one 

of multiple measures, to inform— 

(i) Evaluations of individual 

principals and teachers in order to 

determine their effectiveness; 

(ii) Determinations of principal and 

teacher professional development and 

support needs; and 

(iii) Strategies to improve teaching, 

learning, and language instruction 

education programs. 

(d) Compatibility. The assessment 

system must use compatible approaches 

to technology, assessment 

administration, scoring, reporting, and 

other factors that facilitate the coherent 

inclusion of the assessments within 

States’ student assessment systems. 

(e) Students with the most significant 

cognitive disabilities. The 

comprehensive plan to develop an 

English language proficiency assessment 

system must include the strategies the 

applicant State and, if the applicant is 

part of a consortium, all States in the 

consortium, plans to use to assess the 

English proficiency of English learners 

with the most significant cognitive 

disabilities who are eligible to 

participate in alternate assessments 

based on alternate academic 

achievement standards in accordance 

with 34 CFR 200.6(a)(2) in lieu of 

including those students in the 

operational administration of the 

assessments developed for other English 

learners under a grant from this 

competition. 

Collaborative Efforts Among States. 

The Department establishes a priority 

under the EAG program for 

collaborative efforts among States. To 

meet this priority, an applicant must— 

(a) Include a minimum of 15 States in 

the consortium; 

(b) Identify in its application a 

proposed project management partner 

and provide an assurance that the 

proposed project management partner is 

not partnered with any other eligible 

applicant applying for an award under 

this competition; 1

(c) Provide a description of the 

consortium’s structure and operation. 

The description must include— 

(1) The organizational structure of the 

consortium (e.g., differentiated roles 

that a member State may hold); 

(2) The consortium’s method and 

process (e.g., consensus, majority) for 

making different types of decisions (e.g., 

policy, operational); 

(3) The protocols by which the 

consortium will operate, including 

protocols for member States to change 

roles in the consortium, for member 

States to leave the consortium, and for 

new member States to join the 

consortium; 

(4) The consortium’s plan, including 

the process and timeline, for setting key 

policies and definitions for 

implementing the proposed project, 

including, for any assessments 

developed through a project funded by 

this grant, the common set of standards 

upon which to base the assessments, a 

common set of performance-level 

descriptors, a common set of 

achievement standards, common 

assessment administration procedures, 

common item-release and test-security 

policies, and a common set of policies 

and procedures for accommodations 

and student participation; and 

(5) The consortium’s plan for 

managing grant funds received under 

this competition; and 

(d) Provide a memorandum of 

understanding or other binding 

agreement executed by each State in the 

consortium that includes an assurance 

that, to remain in the consortium, the 

State will adopt or use any instrument, 

including to the extent applicable, 

assessments, developed under the 

proposed project no later than the end 

of the project period. 

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 Requirements: 

The Department establishes the 

following requirements for the 

Enhanced Assessment Grants program. 

We may apply one or more of these 

requirements in any year in which a 

competition for program funds is held. 

An eligible applicant awarded a grant 

under this program must: 

(a) Evaluate the validity, reliability, 

and fairness of any assessments or other 

assessment-related instruments 

developed under a grant from this 

competition, and make available 

documentation of evaluations of 

technical quality through formal 

mechanisms (e.g., peer-reviewed 

journals) and informal mechanisms 

(e.g., newsletters), both in print and 

electronically; 

(b) Actively participate in any 

applicable technical assistance activities 

conducted or facilitated by the 

Department or its designees, coordinate 

with the RTTA program in the 

development of assessments under this 

program, and participate in other 

activities as determined by the 

Department; 

(c) Develop a strategy to make 

student-level data that result from any 

assessments or other assessment-related 

instruments developed under a grant 

from this competition available on an 

ongoing basis for research, including for 

prospective linking, validity, and 

program improvement studies; 2

(d) Ensure that any assessments or 

other assessment-related instruments 

developed under a grant from this 

competition will be operational (ready 

for large-scale administration) at the end 

of the project period; 

(e) Ensure that funds awarded under 

the EAG program are not used to 

support the development of standards, 

such as under the English language 

proficiency assessment system priority 

or any other priority. 

(f) Maximize the interoperability of 

any assessments and other assessmentrelated instruments developed with 

funds from this competition across 

technology platforms and the ability for 

States to move their assessments from 

one technology platform to another by 

doing the following, as applicable, for 

any assessments developed with funds 

from this competition by— 

(1) Developing all assessment items in 

accordance with an industry-recognized 

open-licensed interoperability standard 

that is approved by the Department 

during the grant period, without nonstandard extensions or additions; and 

(2) Producing all student-level data in 

a manner consistent with an industryrecognized open-licensed 

interoperability standard that is 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2011 / Notices 21995 

approved by the Department during the 

grant period; 

(g) Unless otherwise protected by law 

or agreement as proprietary information, 

make any assessment content (i.e., 

assessments and assessment items) and 

other assessment-related instruments 

developed with funds from this 

competition freely available to States, 

technology platform providers, and 

others that request it for purposes of 

administering assessments, provided 

that those parties receiving assessment 

content comply with consortium or 

State requirements for test or item 

security; and 

(h) For any assessments and other 

assessment-related instruments 

developed with funds from this 

competition, use technology to the 

maximum extent appropriate to 

develop, administer, and score the 

assessments and report results. 

Final Definitions: 

The Department establishes the 

following definitions for the Enhanced 

Assessment Grants program. We may 

apply one or more of these definitions 

in any year in which a competition for 

program funds is held. 

Common set of college- and careerready standards means a set of 

academic content standards for grades 

K–12 held in common by multiple 

States, that (a) define what a student 

must know and be able to do at each 

grade level; (b) if mastered, would 

ensure that the student is college- and 

career-ready by the time of high school 

graduation; and (c) for any consortium 

of States applying under the EAG 

program, are substantially identical 

across all States in the consortium. 

A State in a consortium may 

supplement the common set of collegeand career-ready standards with 

additional content standards, provided 

that the additional standards do not 

comprise more than 15 percent of the 

State’s total standards for that content 

area. 

English language proficiency 

assessment system, for purposes of the 

English language proficiency assessment 

system priority, means a system of 

assessments that includes, at a 

minimum, diagnostic (e.g., screener or 

placement) and summative assessments 

at each grade level from kindergarten 

through grade 12 that cover the four 

language domains of reading, writing, 

speaking, and listening, as required by 

section 3113(b)(2) of the ESEA, and that 

meets all other requirements of the 

priority. 

English learner means a student who 

is an English learner as defined by the 

applicant consistent with the definition 

of a student who is ‘‘limited English 

proficient’’ as that term is defined in 

section 9101(25) of the ESEA. If the 

applicant submits an application on 

behalf of a consortium, member States 

must develop and adopt a common 

definition of the term during the period 

of the grant. 

Student with a disability means a 

student who has been identified as a 

child with a disability under the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act, as amended. 

Final Selection Criteria: 

The Department establishes the 

following selection criteria for the 

Enhanced Assessment Grant program. 

We may apply one or more of these 

selection criteria in any year in which 

a competition for program funds is held. 

(a) Theory of action. The Secretary 

reviews each application to determine 

the extent to which the eligible 

applicant’s theory of action is logical, 

coherent, and credible, and will result 

in improved student outcomes. In 

determining the extent to which the 

theory of action has these attributes, we 

will consider the description of, and 

rationale for— 

(1) How the assessment results will be 

used (e.g., at the State, local educational 

agency, school, classroom, and student 

levels); 

(2) How the assessments and 

assessment results will be incorporated 

into coherent educational systems (i.e., 

systems that include standards, 

assessments, curriculum, instruction, 

and professional development) of the 

State(s) participating in the grant; and 

(3) How those educational systems as 

a whole will improve student 

achievement. 

(b) Assessment design. The Secretary 

reviews each application to determine 

the extent to which the design of the 

eligible applicant’s proposed 

assessments is innovative, feasible, and 

consistent with the theory of action. In 

determining the extent to which the 

design has these attributes, we will 

consider— 

(1) The number and types of 

assessments, as appropriate (e.g., 

diagnostic assessments, summative 

assessments); 

(2) How the assessments will measure 

student knowledge and skills against the 

full range of the relevant standards, 

including the standards against which 

student achievement has traditionally 

been difficult to measure, provide an 

accurate measure of student proficiency 

on those standards, including for 

students who are high- and lowperforming in academic areas, and 

provide an accurate measure of student 

progress in the relevant area over a full 

academic year; 

(3) How the assessments will produce 

the required student performance data, 

as described in the priority; 

(4) How and when during the 

academic year different types of student 

data will be available to inform and 

guide instruction, interventions, and 

professional development; 

(5) The types of data that will be 

produced by the assessments, which 

must include student achievement data 

and other data specified in the relevant 

priority; 

(6) The uses of the data that will be 

produced by the assessments, including 

(but not limited to)— 

(i) Determining individual student 

achievement and student progress; 

determining, as appropriate and as one 

of multiple measures, individual 

principal and teacher effectiveness, if 

applicable; and professional 

development and support needs; 

(ii) Informing teaching, learning, and 

program improvement; and 

(7) The frequency and timing of 

administration of the assessments, and 

the rationale for these; 

(8) The number and types of items 

(e.g., performance tasks, selected 

responses, observational rating, brief or 

extended constructed responses) and 

the distribution of item types within the 

assessments, including the extent to 

which the items will be varied and elicit 

complex student demonstrations or 

applications of knowledge, skills, and 

approaches to learning, as appropriate 

(descriptions should include a concrete 

example of each item type proposed); 

and the rationale for using these item 

types and their distributions; 

(9) The assessments’ administration 

mode (e.g., paper-and-pencil, teacher 

rating, computer-based, or other 

electronic device), and the rationale for 

the mode; 

(10) The methods for scoring student 

performance on the assessments, the 

estimated turnaround times for scoring, 

and the rationale for these; and 

(11) The reports that will be produced 

based on the assessments, and for each 

report: The key data it will present; its 

intended use; target audience (e.g., 

students, parents, teachers, 

administrators, policymakers); and its 

presentation in an understandable and 

uniform format and, to the extent 

practicable, in a language that parents 

can understand. 

(c) Assessment development plan. 

The Secretary reviews each application 

to determine the extent to which the 

eligible applicant’s plan for developing 

the proposed assessments will ensure 

that the assessments are ready by the 

end of the grant period for wide-scale 

administration in a manner that is 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES3
21996 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2011 / Notices 

timely, cost-effective, and consistent 

with the proposed design and 

incorporates a process for ongoing 

feedback and improvement. In 

determining the extent to which the 

assessment development plan has these 

attributes, we will consider— 

(1)(i) The approaches for developing 

assessment items (e.g., evidencecentered design, universal design) and 

the rationale for using those approaches; 

and the development phases and 

processes to be implemented consistent 

with the approaches; and 

(ii) The types of personnel (e.g., 

practitioners, content experts, 

assessment experts, experts in assessing 

English learners, linguists, experts in 

second language acquisition, experts in 

assessing students with disabilities, 

psychometricians, cognitive scientists, 

institution of higher education 

representatives, experts on career 

readiness standards, and other key 

stakeholders) involved in each 

development phase and process; 

(2) The approach and strategy for 

designing and developing 

accommodations, accommodation 

policies, and methods for standardizing 

the use of those accommodations for 

students with disabilities; 

(3) The approach and strategy for 

ensuring scalable, accurate, and 

consistent scoring of items, including 

the approach and moderation system for 

any human-scored items and the extent 

to which teachers are trained and 

involved in the administration and 

scoring of assessments; 

(4) The approach and strategy for 

developing the reporting system; and 

(5) The overall approach to quality 

control and the strategy for field-testing 

assessment items, accommodations, 

scoring systems, and reporting systems, 

including, with respect to assessment 

items and accommodations, the use of 

representative sampling of all types of 

student populations, taking into 

particular account high- and lowperforming students, different types of 

English learners (e.g., recently arrived 

English learners, former English 

learners, migratory English learners, and 

English learners with disabilities), and 

students with disabilities. 

(d) Research and evaluation. The 

Secretary reviews each application to 

determine the extent to which the 

eligible applicant’s research and 

evaluation plan will ensure that the 

assessments developed are valid, 

reliable, and fair for their intended 

purposes. In determining the extent to 

which the research and evaluation plan 

has these attributes, we will consider— 

(1) The plan for identifying and 

employing psychometric techniques 

suitable for verifying, as appropriate to 

each assessment, its construct, 

consequential, and predictive validity; 

external validity; reliability; fairness; 

precision across the full performance 

continuum; and comparability within 

and across grade levels; and 

(2) The plan for determining whether 

the assessments are being implemented 

as designed and the theory of action is 

being realized, including whether the 

intended effects on individuals and 

institutions are being achieved. 

(e) Professional capacity and 

outreach. The Secretary reviews each 

application to determine the extent to 

which the eligible applicant’s plan for 

implementing the proposed assessments 

is feasible, cost-effective, and consistent 

with the theory of action. In 

determining the extent to which the 

implementation plan has these 

attributes, we will consider— 

(1) The plan for supporting teachers 

and administrators in implementing the 

assessments and for developing, in an 

ongoing manner, their professional 

capacity to use the assessments and 

results to inform and improve 

instructional practice; and 

(2) The strategy and plan for 

informing the public and key 

stakeholders (including teachers, 

administrators, families, legislators, and 

policymakers) in each State or in each 

member State within a consortium 

about the assessments and for building 

support from the public and those 

stakeholders. 

(f) Technology approach. The 

Secretary reviews each application to 

determine the extent to which the 

eligible applicant would use technology 

effectively to improve the quality, 

accessibility, cost-effectiveness, and 

efficiency of the proposed assessments. 

In determining the extent to which the 

eligible applicant is using technology 

effectively, we will consider— 

(1) The description of, and rationale 

for, the ways in which technology will 

be used in assessment design, 

development, administration, scoring, 

and reporting; the types of technology to 

be used (including whether the 

technology is existing and commercially 

available or is being newly developed); 

and how other States or organizations 

can re-use in a cost-effective manner 

any technology platforms and 

technology components developed 

under this grant; and 

(2) How technology-related 

implementation or deployment barriers 

will be addressed (e.g., issues relating to 

local access to internet-based 

assessments). 

(g) Project management. The 

Secretary reviews each application to 

determine the extent to which the 

eligible applicant’s project management 

plan will result in implementation of 

the proposed assessments on time, 

within budget, and in a manner that is 

financially sustainable over time. In 

determining the extent to which the 

project management plan has these 

attributes, we will consider— 

(1) The project workplan and 

timeline, including, for each key 

deliverable (e.g., necessary 

procurements and any needed approvals 

for human subjects research, 

assessment, scoring and moderation 

system, professional development 

activities), the major milestones, 

deadlines, and entities responsible for 

execution; 

(2) The approach to identifying, 

managing, and mitigating risks 

associated with the project; 

(3) The extent to which the eligible 

applicant’s budget is adequate to 

support the development of assessments 

that meet the requirements of the 

priority and includes costs that are 

reasonable in relation to the objectives, 

design, and significance of the proposed 

project and the number of students to be 

served; 

(4) For each applicant State or for 

each member State within a consortium, 

the estimated costs for the ongoing 

administration, maintenance, and 

enhancement of the operational 

assessments after the end of the project 

period for the grant and a plan for how 

the State will fund the assessments over 

time (including by allocating to the 

assessments funds for existing State or 

local assessments that will be replaced 

by the new assessments); and 

(5) The quality and commitment of 

the personnel who will carry out the 

proposed project, including the 

qualifications, relevant training, and 

experience of the project director and 

other key project personnel, and the 

extent to which the time commitments 

of the project director and other key 

project personnel are appropriate and 

adequate to meet the objectives of the 

proposed project. 

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, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria, we invite 

applications through a notice in the Federal 

Register. 

Executive Order 12866: This notice 

has been reviewed in accordance with 

Executive Order 12866. Under the terms 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2011 / Notices 21997 

of the order, we have assessed the 

potential costs and benefits of this final 

regulatory action. 

The potential costs associated with 

this final regulatory action are those 

resulting from statutory requirements 

and those we have determined as 

necessary for administering this 

program effectively and efficiently. 

In assessing the potential costs and 

benefits—both quantitative and 

qualitative—of this final regulatory 

action, we have determined that the 

benefits of the final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria justify the costs. 

We have determined, also, that this 

final regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

We fully discussed the costs and 

benefits of this regulatory action in the 

notice of proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria. Elsewhere in this notice we 

discuss the potential costs and benefits, 

both quantitative and qualitative, of the 

final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria. 

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 computer diskette) 

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: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this 

site you can view this document, as well 

as all other documents of this 

Department published in the Federal 

Register, in text or Adobe Portable 

Document Format (PDF). To use PDF 

you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, 

which is available free at the site. 

Dated: April 14, 2011. 

Thelma Mele ́ndez de Santa Ana, 

Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 

Secondary Education. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9479 Filed 4–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES3