[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2012)]

[Notices]

[Pages 2280-2282]

From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[FR Doc No: 2012-753]

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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Docket ID: ED-2012-OESE-0003]

Request for Information To Gather Technical Expertise Pertaining 

to Testing Integrity

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of 

Education.

ACTION: Request for information.

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

SUMMARY: In light of recent, high-profile reports of misconduct by 

school officials in the test administration process, the U.S. 

Department of Education (``the Department'' or ``we'') is seeking to 

collect and share information about best practices that have been used 

to prevent, detect, and respond to irregularities in academic testing. 

To that end, the Department is taking several steps, described below, 

to collect information and gather suggestions to assist State 

educational agencies (SEAs), local educational agencies (LEAs), and the 

testing-integrity-focused organizations that service them. The 

Department anticipates making use of this information to facilitate 

further dialogue and to help SEAs and LEAs identify, share, and 

implement best practices for preventing, detecting, and investigating 

irregularities in academic testing.

 First, the Department is issuing this request for information (RFI) 

to collect information about the integrity of academic testing. We pose 

a series of questions to which we invite interested members of the 

public to respond. Second, the Department will host a symposium where 

external experts can engage in further discussion and probe these 

issues in greater depth.

 Third, the Department will publish a document that contains a 

summary of the recommendations that were developed as a result of the 

RFI and the symposium, as well as other resources identified by 

external experts participating in the symposium.

DATES: Written submissions must be received by the Department on or 

before 5 p.m., Washington, DC time, on February 16, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not 

accept comments by fax or by email. To ensure that we do not receive 

duplicate copies, please submit your comments only one time. In 

addition, please include the Docket ID and the term ``Testing Integrity 

response'' at the top of your comments.

 Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov to submit your comments electronical

on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency 

documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on 

the site under ``How To Use This Site.''

 Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you 

mail or deliver your comments, address them to Carlos Martinez, Office 

Federal Register, Volume 77 Issue 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2012) Page 1 of 5

file://C:\Program Files\Documentum\CTS\docbases\ProDocbase\config\temp_sessions\4286012022855158522\E... 1/20/2012
of Elementary and Secondary Education, Attention: Testing Integrity 

RFI, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 3W104, 

Washington, DC 20202-6132.

 Privacy Note: The Department's policy for comments 

received from members of the public (including comments submitted by 

mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery)

[[Page 2281]]

is to make these submissions available for public viewing in their 

entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should 

in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly 

available on the Internet.

 Given the subject matter, some comments may include proprietary 

information as it relates to confidential commercial information. The 

Freedom of Information Act defines ``confidential commercial 

information'' as information the disclosure of which could reasonably 

be expected to cause substantial competitive harm. You may wish to 

request that we not disclose what you regard as confidential commercial 

information.

 To assist us in making a determination on your request, we 

encourage you to identify any specific information in your comments 

that you consider confidential commercial information. Please list the 

information by page and paragraph numbers.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carlos Martinez, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3W104, Washington, DC 20202-

6132 by phone at (202) 260-1440.

 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:

1. Introduction

 The Department is seeking information about testing integrity that 

may help SEAs and LEAs ensure the integrity of the data used to measure 

student achievement and to ensure meaningful educational accountability 

in SEAs and LEAs. This is a request for information only. This RFI is 

specifically inquiring into best practices regarding: (1) Preventing 

and reducing testing irregularities in State academic assessments; (2) 

detecting and analyzing testing irregularities; (3) reviewing and 

investigating alleged testing irregularities; and (4) for assessments 

that are increasingly delivered online and by computer, how responses 

to the first three issues described above might be different from those 

that apply to assessments administered through more traditional means.

 For the purposes of this RFI, a testing irregularity includes any 

occurrence that may inappropriately influence a student's performance 

on a State academic assessment, provide the appearance of impropriety, 

or otherwise constitute a breach in test security or improper 

administration of State academic testing.

 This RFI is issued solely for information and planning purposes and 

is not a request for proposals (RFP) or a promise to issue an RFP or a 

notice inviting applications (NIA). This RFI does not commit the 

Department to contract for any supply or service whatsoever. Further, 

the Department is not now seeking proposals and will not accept 

unsolicited proposals. The Department will not pay for any information 

or administrative costs that you may incur in responding to this RFI.

 If you do not respond to this RFI, you may still apply for future 

contracts and grants. The Department posts RFPs on the Federal Business 

Opportunities Web site (http://www.fbo.gov). The Department announces 

grant competitions in the Federal Register (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys). 

It is your responsibility to monitor these sites to determine whether 

Federal Register, Volume 77 Issue 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2012) Page 2 of 5

file://C:\Program Files\Documentum\CTS\docbases\ProDocbase\config\temp_sessions\4286012022855158522\E... 1/20/2012
the Department issues an RFP or NIA after considering the information 

received in response to this RFI.

 The documents and information submitted in response to this RFI 

become the property of the U.S. Government and will not be returned.

2. Background

 Educators, parents, and the public in general rely on accurate, 

reliable, and timely information on student academic performance to 

improve instruction and help all students reach and maintain high 

levels of achievement. Indeed, the availability of valid, reliable, and 

timely data on student performance is essential in informing 

instruction, identifying professional development needs, helping ensure 

meaningful accountability, and implementing effective education 

reforms.

 Accordingly, SEAs and LEAs must ensure the integrity of the data 

they use to measure student achievement and ensure meaningful 

educational accountability. Under section 1111(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, (ESEA) and 

34 CFR 200.1-200.24, States must establish and maintain assessment 

systems that are valid, reliable, and consistent with nationally 

recognized professional and technical standards. Even the slightest 

appearance of impropriety in the test administration process can 

undermine State accountability systems--painstakingly built over the 

past decade--and damage the credibility of reform efforts underway 

across the country.

 Accordingly, State and local officials have an interest in, and 

share responsibility for defending against, security breaches and 

threats to educational data integrity. States have a long history of 

stewardship of academic assessments, and many States have made great 

efforts to ensure that their assessments and other data collection 

instruments are properly administered and that data security 

requirements are clearly specified and followed.

 The Department also has a role in this area. Under Title I of the 

ESEA, the Department is required to review and approve each State's 

assessment system. Accordingly, the Department examines evidence 

compiled and submitted by each State about its process for monitoring 

and improving the technical quality of its system. During the review of 

State assessment systems, the Department specifically examines 

procedures and policies for test security and data quality, including 

the training and monitoring of staff.

 For these reasons, this RFI seeks solutions; advice; technical 

information; legal, regulatory, and policy approaches; and other input 

from the public regarding best practices for the prevention, detection, 

and investigation of alleged or actual testing irregularities. Through 

this RFI, the Department also seeks to gather information and 

suggestions for SEAs and LEAs on how they can address these issues.

 In addition, as noted earlier, the Department will host a symposium 

where external experts can engage in further discussion and probe these 

issues in greater depth. Responses to the RFI will be shared with the 

external experts, to inform their planning for the symposium. A summary 

of the recommendations that are developed as a result of the RFI and 

the symposium, as well as other resources identified by external 

experts participating in the symposium, will be published shortly 

thereafter to help inform the field.

3. Context for Responses

 3.1 The primary goal of this RFI is to gather information that will 

help SEAs and LEAs better understand existing best practices for 

preventing, detecting, and investigating testing irregularities. To 

that end, the Department welcomes responses that address SEA and LEA 

policies and practices related to these areas and to State laws and 

Federal Register, Volume 77 Issue 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2012) Page 3 of 5

file://C:\Program Files\Documentum\CTS\docbases\ProDocbase\config\temp_sessions\4286012022855158522\E... 1/20/2012
regulations. To help focus our consideration of the responses provided, 

we have developed several questions. Because the questions are only 

guides to helping us better understand the issues surrounding testing 

integrity, respondents do not have to respond to any specific question, 

and may provide comments in a format that is convenient to them. 

Commenters may also provide relevant

[[Page 2282]]

information that is not responsive to a particular question but may, 

nevertheless, be helpful.

 3.2 Questions Regarding the Prevention of Testing Irregularities.

 3.2.1 Best Practices and Policies. Describe the best practices and 

policies that SEAs and LEAs have implemented to prevent testing 

irregularities. What evidence exists that these are best practices? 

Where have these best practices been adopted? What are the general 

lessons learned from those adoptions? How might such best practices be 

effectively used in the future? Are there barriers to the adoption of 

these best practices at the SEA or LEA level? What controls are most 

effective in preventing testing irregularities?

 3.2.2 School Culture. What role does school culture play in test 

security? For example, how has professional development been used to 

train school officials to help prepare students and parents for 

academic testing? What are SEAs and LEAs doing to ensure that educators 

are prepared? Are SEAs providing sufficient information to LEAs about 

their expectations regarding the integrity of academic testing? Have 

the consequences for misconduct during the testing process been clearly 

communicated to school officials?

 3.2.3 Contractual Provisions. For those States that have assessment 

contracts, what provisions are included in these contracts to help 

prevent testing irregularities? What contractual provisions have been 

effective in preventing testing irregularities? What evidence exists 

that these provisions are effective? What provisions have States 

included in their quality assurance contracts to help analyze risks?

 3.2.4 Federal, State, and Local Roles. What are the most 

appropriate roles for the Department, SEAs, and LEAs in preventing 

testing irregularities?

Questions Regarding the Detection of Testing Irregularities

 3.2.5 Detection Analyses. How are testing irregularities generally 

detected? What are the different types of analyses that can be used to 

detect testing irregularities? What are the best practices and policies 

that SEAs and LEAs have used to detect testing irregularities? What is 

each type of analysis used for? How should the results of these 

analyses be interpreted? Can different types of analyses be used in 

conjunction with one another or to complement one another? What 

evidence exists that these are best practices? What is the appropriate 

sequence of events when seeking to determine whether testing 

irregularities have occurred? Specifically, what steps should be taken 

and in what order?

Questions Regarding the Review and Investigation of Alleged Testing 

Irregularities

 3.2.6 Contractual Provisions. What provisions have States included 

in their assessment contracts to help detect irregularities (e.g., 

provisions related to the use of high-quality control plans)? What 

contractual provisions have been most effective in detecting testing 

irregularities?

 3.2.7 Federal, State, and Local Roles. What are the appropriate 

roles for the Department, SEAs, and LEAs in responding to allegations 

of testing irregularities? Who are the parties involved in an 

Federal Register, Volume 77 Issue 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2012) Page 4 of 5

file://C:\Program Files\Documentum\CTS\docbases\ProDocbase\config\temp_sessions\4286012022855158522\E... 1/20/2012
investigation at the SEA and LEA levels?

 3.2.8 Responses to Alleged Testing Irregularities. If testing 

irregularities are detected, what are the best practices for 

investigating them? What forensic analyses should be used? What 

cooperative practices between SEAs and LEAs have yielded positive 

outcomes? What are barriers to investigating testing irregularities?

 3.2.9 Managing Wrongdoing. If alleged testing irregularities are a 

result of wrongdoing, under what circumstances is it appropriate to 

impose strict and meaningful sanctions against wrongdoers? Are 

educators subject to standards of professional conduct, laws, or 

regulations that dictate the type of sanctions that might be imposed on 

an individual who violates the law or compromises professional 

standards? How should intent of wrongdoing be determined, and by what 

entity? What can be done to restore the credibility of a school system 

that has been tarnished by alleged or actual wrongdoing?

Questions Regarding Online and Computer-Based Assessments

 3.2.10 Changes in Technology. In a world where academic assessments 

are increasingly delivered online and by computer, how do responses to 

the questions listed above change when applied to online and computerbased assessments?

 3.2.11 Computer-based Assessment Protection. What mechanisms or 

processes exist to ensure that the results of computer-based 

assessments are accurate and free from tampering? What are the best 

practices and policies that SEAs and LEAs have implemented in this 

area? What evidence exists that these are best practices? What are the 

potential threats to, and weak points in, computer-based assessment 

systems? Where are there likely opportunities for tampering and testing 

irregularities within the context of computer-based assessments?

 Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this 

document in an accessible format (e.g., Braille, large print, 

audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Electronic Access to This Document

 The official version of this document is the document published in 

the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of 

the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available 

via the Federal Digital System at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all other documents of this 

Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable 

Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, 

which is available free at the site.

 You may also access documents of the Department published in the 

Federal Register by using the article search feature at: 

www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 

feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 

by the Department.

 Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6771.

 Dated: January 11, 2012.

Michael Yudin,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.

[FR Doc. 2012-753 Filed 1-13-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000-01-P

Federal Register, Volume 77 Issue 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2012) Page 5 of 5

file://C:\Program Files\Documentum\CTS\docbases\ProDocbase\config\temp_sessions\4286012022855158522\E... 1/20/2012