2596 Federal Register / Vol. 5, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2000 / Notices

[FR Doc. 00–1002 Filed 1–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001–10–C

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

National Assessment Governing

Board; Information Collection Request

AGENCY: National Assessment

Governing Board; Department of

Education.

ACTION: Notice of Information

Collection Activity; Request for

Comment.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.), this notice announced a

proposed information collection request

(ICR) of the National Assessment

Governing Board (the Governing Board,

or NAGB). The information collection is

to conduct two research and validation

support studies related to test

development for the proposed

Voluntary National Test (VNT) during

Spring 2000. Before submitting the ICR

to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB), the Governing Board is

soliciting comments on the information

collection as described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before February 17, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments

identified by ‘‘ICR: VNT Research and

Validation Support Studies (Option

Year 2)’’ by mail or in person addressed

to: Ray Fields, Assistant Director,

National Assessment Governing Boards,

Suite 825, 800 North Capitol Street,

N.W., Washington, DC 20002.

Comments may also be submitted

electronically by sending electronic

mail (e-mail) to Rayl@FieldsED.GOV.

Electronic comments must be identified

by the title of the ICR. No confidential

business information should be

submitted through e-mail. Comments

sent by e-mail must be submitted as an

ASCII file avoiding the use of special

characters an any form of encryption.

Information submitted as a comment

concerning this document may be

claimed confidential by marking any

part or all of that information as

confidential business information (CBI).

Information so marked will not be

disclosed except in accordance with

procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2.

A copy of the comment that does not

contain CBI must be submitted for

inclusion in the public record.

Information not marked confidential

may be disclosed publicly by NAGB

without prior notice.

All written comments will be

available for public inspection at the

address given above from 8 a.m. to 4:30

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding

legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ray

Fields, Assistant Director, National

Assessment Governing Board, Suite 825,

800 North Capitol Street, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20002. Telephone (202)

357–0395; e-mail:RaylFields@ED.GOV.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copies of

this ICR may be obtained from the

contact person listed above.

I. Information Collection Request

The National Assessment Governing

Board is seeking comments on the

following Information Collection

Request (ICR).

Title: Voluntary National Tests (VNT):

Research and Validation Support

Studies (Option Year 2)

Affected Entities: Parties affected by

this information collection are

individuals and State, local, or Tribal

SEAs or LEAs.

Abstract: In order to comply with the

mandates of PL 105–78, the National

Assessment Governing Board (NAGB)

proposes to conduct two research and

validation support studies. Congress

vested exclusive authority in the

Governing Board for test development

for the proposed VNT. At the same time,

Congress prohibited pilot testing and

field testing of questions developed for

the proposed VNT. No test question

developed for the proposed VNT will be

used in these research studied. Instead,

test questions used for the National

Assessment of Education Progress

(NAEP) will be employed. This is to

ensure that the prohibition on pilot and

field testing is not violated, while still

providing for research needed to answer

questions related to test development.

The data collected will serve two

purposes: (a) Provide information on the

feasibility of a calibration linkage

between the proposed Voluntary

National Test (VNT) and the National

Assessment of Education Progress

(NAEP) (more specifically—between a

test designed to give individual results

and a survey designed to report group

results); and (b) provide information

needed to inform policy and practice

related to test accommodations for

students with limited English

proficiency, specifically, to help guide

the development of an 8th grade

mathematics test booklet in two

languages (i.e., a ‘‘dual language’’

booklet in this case in English and

Spanish).

The two research studies will also

assist NAGB in making three of the four

determination required by Congress: (1)

The extent to which test items selected

for use on the tests are free from racial,

cultural or gender bias; (2) whether the

test development process and test items

adequately assess student reading and

mathematics comprehension in the form

most likely to yield accurate

information regarding student

achievement in reading and

mathematics; and (3) whether the test

development process and test items take

into account the account the needs of

disadvantaged, limited English

proficient and disabled students.

The first study is directed toward

establishing the feasibility of a

calibration linkage between a test form

resembling an individual test and a

survey of group results—the National

Assessment. Research questions to be

answered include the following: What

are the effects on the measurement of

student performance of an individually

administered test that shares a

framework with NAEP but which differs

somewhat from NAEP in content

coverage, administration, and unit of

analysis? It is possible to establish a

strong link between the group-focused

results of NAEP and such an

individually administered test? What

inferences can be supported by such a

link?

4800 students from Grade 4 and 4800

students from Grade 8 are expected to

participate in this study. The 9600

students will be divided equally across

three conditions.

Students in the first condition will

take a ‘‘NAEP Special Form’’ booklet,

consisting of NAEP items constructed to

be as parallel as possible to the

proposed VNT forms. This parallelism

would include content coverage, timing,

and shape of the test information

function (TIF), which has been

proposed to be flatter than the TIF for

NAEP. Because empirical information

on each item is needed to construct a

form with a specified TIF, the items

would come from the previous NAEP

administration in the respective

subjects.

Students in the second condition

would take ‘‘Extended NAEP’’ booklets,

which are based on blocks of items from

the 2000 NAEP administration and

would be constructed to be

representative of the content and

statistical specifications (TIF) of NAEP.

The forms for Grade 8 mathematics

would consist of six intact 15-minute

blocks administered in two 45-minute

sessions. The forms for Grade 4 reading

would consist of four NAEP reading

blocks, also administered in two 45-

minute sessions. (Because the reading

blocks are timed at 25 minutes each,

some items will have to be deleted to fit

into the reduced testing time.) The

administration of these forms would be

Federal Register / Vol. 5, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2000 / Notices 2597

under conditions proposed for the VNT.

To avoid the circularity of linking the

same items to themselves, the items

used in the extended-NAEP forms

should be distinct from those used in

the NAEP Special Forms.

In the first two conditions of this

proposed study, the two types of forms

would be spiraled together and

administered to equivalent samples of

students. Because the NAEP Special

Forms and the Extended-NAEP forms

would be administered under the same

conditions, issues of administration,

timing, and motivation become moot. If

the content match between the NAEP

Special forms and the simulated VNT

forms could be made sufficiently close,

a linking study between the two types

of forms would approximate a linkage

study between actual VNT forms and

Extended-NAEP. If a calibration were

successful, the resulting linkage

interpretations would be in terms of

student performance on NAEP when

NAEP is given under VNT conditions.

Students in the third condition differ

from the other two in that they would

be taking the ‘‘NAEP Special Form’’

under motivated circumstances. It is

quite plausible that the same student

would perform at a higher level under

a motivated situation such as the VNT,

where individual scores are obtained

under a low motivation situation such

as the NAEP. This differential effect of

motivation could impact achievement

level cut-points (among other things) in

ways that cannot be assessed in the two

conditions described above.

Consequently, the third condition of

this study involves paying students $1

for every item they answer correctly.

This procedure is directly modeled after

research conducted on motivational

interventions for the NAEP. A

comparison of item parameters and test

characteristic curves for the NAEP

Special Forms under motivated and

unmotivated conditions would provide

information on the differential impact of

motivation and how to adjust results for

any subsequent linking study between

the VNT and NAEP.

The second study involves a series of

subtasks directed toward informing

NAGB’s inclusion and accommodation

policies regarding LEP students. These

tasks are:

Subtask A. Writing an issues paper

covering theory and research related to

the development of a dual language test.

This paper would inform procedures to

be used in the translation of items into

the second language (i.e., Spanish)

(Subtask B).

Subtask B. Using released and secure

NAEP 8th grade mathematics items to

construct simulated VNT–M test

booklets (dual language and Englishonly versions). The English language

version of this booklet will be the same

as the one for the ‘‘NAEP Special Form

described earlier.

Subtask C. Evaluating the

psychometric equivalence of the dual

language and English-only booklets via

traditional quantitative analyses. Six

hundred bilingual and LEP students

will be recruited and randomly assigned

to complete either the dual language or

English-only version of the test booklet.

Quantitative analyses will be conducted

to examine the psychometric

equivalence of the two test versions

(mean differences; differential item

functioning; correlations).

Subtask D. Conducting focus groups

of students immediately after they take

the VNT–M to document students’

overall experience with the two types of

booklets. Sixty students will be

recruited to do these focus groups, in

order to obtain their insights and

general reactions to the booklets.

Subtask E. Conducting cognitive

laboratory studies to obtain in-depth

information on the validity of the

translation and about how students use

the dual language test. An additional

nine LEP and nine English-speaking

students will be asked to participate in

this study, in order to explore the

performance of both Anglo and

Hispanic LEP students to identify

solution pathways that students choose

to use.

Subtask C through E will allow for a

thorough investigation into the

cognitive processes that bilingual and

limited English proficient (LEP)

students employ when using the dual

language version of the VNT–M. In

addition, they will provide information

about factors other than mathematical

knowledge and problem-solving ability

that may have an effect on their

performance on the test.

The five subtasks listed above will

offer answers to the following research

questions to examine the quality of the

dual language test, taking into account

several features of the items:

Cognitive: Do students understand the

native language version of the test

questions as a vehicle for assessing

mathematics? (Subtasks C, D, E)

Content: Is the content of the native

language version of the test questions

the same as the English version?

(Subtasks B, C, D, E)

Format: What considerations should

be given to how the test questions

appear on the pages of the test booklet?

(Subtasks A, B)

Cultural: Is the native language

version clear and acceptable to the

various communities in the United

States for whom this is the native

language? (Subtasks A, B, C, D, E)

Academic: Are the grammar and

language structure used in the native

language version correct? (Subtasks B,

D, E)

Scoring: What considerations need to

be made for scoring dual langauge test

booklets?

(Subtask A)

Psychometric Equivalence: Is there a

psychometric equivalence between the

dual language version and the English

only versions of the test? (Subtask C)

A total of 10,128 students is expected

to participate in the two studies (4800

4th graders and 4800 8th graders in the

calibration linkage feasibility study; 510

LEP and bilingual students taking the

dual language or English-only math test

(from which there will be 60 focus

group participants); and 18 cognitive

laboratory participants). These students

will be recruited from 300 schools.

Students in the motivated condition of

the calibration linkage study, focus

group participants and cognitive

laboratory participants will receive a

token monetary incentive. Also under

consideration is a modest monetary

inventive for each participating school.

Burden Statement: Assuming a 2 hour

burden for each of the 10,128 students

expected to participate in the two

studies, a total of 20,376 hours is

estimated. An additional 300 hours of

school burden (one hour per

participating school) is expected,

reflecting the time it would take to

collect student background data for our

research purposes. Participation in this

study is voluntary. State, local, and nonpublic education agencies will not be

mandated or required to participate.

II Request for Comments

The National Assessment Governing

Board solicits comments to assist it:

(a) Evaluate whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the Governing Board,

including whether the information will

have practical utility;

(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the

Governing Board’s estimates of the

burden of the proposed collection of

information;

(c) Enhance the quality, utility and

clarity of the information to be

collected;

(d) Minimize the burden of the

collection of the information on those

who are to respond, including through

the use of appropriate automated,

mechanical or other technological

collection techniques or other forms of

2598 Federal Register / Vol. 5, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2000 / Notices

information technology, e.g., permitting

electronic submission of responses.

III. Public Record

A record has been established for this

action. A public version of this record,

including printed, paper versions of

electronic comments, is available for

inspection from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays. The public record is

maintained at the National Assessment

Governing Board, 800 North Capitol

Street NW, Suite 825, Washington DC,

20002.

Dated: January 12, 2000.

Roy Truby,

Executive Director, National Assessment

Governing Board.

[FR Doc. 00–1072 Filed 1–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Recognition of Accrediting Agencies,

State Agencies for Approval of Public

Postsecondary Vocational Education,

and State Agencies for Approval of

Nurse Education

AGENCY: National Advisory Committee

on Institutional Quality and Integrity,

Department of Education (The Advisory

Committee).

What Is the Purpose of This Notice?

The purpose of this notice is to invite

written comments on accrediting

agencies whose applications to the

Secretary for initial or renewed

recognition will be reviewed at the

Advisory Committee meeting to be held

on May 24–26, 2000. The notice also

invites written comments on agencies

submitting interim reports that will be

reviewed at the May meeting.

Where Should I Submit My Comments?

Please submit your written comments

by March 3, 2000, to Karen

Kershenstein, Director, Accreditation

and State Liaison. You may contact her

at the U.S. Department of Education,

1990 K Street, NW, 8th Floor, Room

8131, Washington, DC 20006, telephone:

(202) 708–7417. Individuals who use a

telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD) may call the Federal Information

Relay Service at 1–800–877–8339

between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m., Eastern time,

Monday through Friday.

What Is the Authority for the Advisory

Committee?

The National Advisory Committee on

Institutional Quality and Integrity is

established under Section 114 of the

Higher Education Act (HEA), as

amended, 20 U.S.C. 1011. One of the

purposes of the Advisory Committee is

to advise the Secretary of Education on

the recognition of accrediting agencies

and State approval agencies.

Will This Be My Only Opportunity To

Submit Written Comments?

Yes, this notice announces the only

opportunity you will have to submit

written comments. However, a

subsequent Federal Register notice will

announce the meeting and invite

individuals and/or groups to submit

requests to make oral presentations

before the Advisory Committee on the

agencies that the Committee will

review. That notice, however, does not

offer a second opportunity to submit

written comment.

What Happens to the Comments That I

Submit?

We will review your comments, in

response to this notice, as part of our

evaluation of the agencies’ compliance

with the Secretary’s Criteria for

Recognition of Accrediting Agencies.

The Criteria are regulations found in 34

CFR Part 602.

We will also include your comments

in the staff analyses that we present to

the Advisory Committee at its May 2000

meeting. Therefore, in order for us to

give full consideration to the comments

we receive, it is important that we

receive your comments on all agencies

by March 3, 2000. In all instances, your

comments about agencies seeking initial

or continued recognition must relate to

the Criteria for the Recognition. In

addition, your comments for any agency

whose interim report is scheduled for

review must relate to the issues raised

and the Criteria for Recognition in the

Secretary’s letter that requested the

interim report.

What Happens to Comments Received

After the Deadline?

We will review comments received

after the deadline as complaints. If such

comments upon investigation reveal

that the accrediting agency is not acting

in accordance with the Criteria for

Recognition, we will take action either

before or after the meeting, as

appropriate. We will notify the

commentors of the disposition of those

comments.

What Agencies Are on the Agenda for

the Meeting?

The Secretary of Education recognizes

accrediting agencies and State approval

agencies for public postsecondary

vocational education and nurse

education if he determines that they

meet the Criteria for Recognition.

Recognition means that the Secretary

considers the agency to be a reliable

authority as to the quality of education

offered by institutions or programs that

are encompassed within the scope of

recognition he grants to the agency. The

following agencies will be reviewed

during the May 2000 meeting of the

Advisory Committee:

Nationally Recognized Accrediting

Agencies

Petition for Initial Recognition

1. Midwifery Education Accreditation

Commission (Requested scope of

recognition: to accredit and preaccredit

direct-entry (non-nurse) midwifery

certificate and undergraduate and

graduate degree educational programs

and institutions).

Petitions for Renewal of Recognition

1. American Association for Marriage

and Family Therapy, Commission on

Accreditation for Marriage and Family

Therapy Education (Requested scope of

recognition: the accreditation of clinical

training programs in marriage and

family therapy at the master’s, doctoral,

and postgraduate levels. The agency

also requests that its recognition include

its preaccreditation status

[‘‘Candidacy’’])

2. American Bar Association, Council

of the Section of Legal Education and

Admissions to the Bar (Requested scope

of recognition: The accreditation of

programs in legal education that lead to

the first professional degree in law, as

well as freestanding law schools offering

such programs).

3. Accreditation Commission for

Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine

(Requested scope of recognition: the

accreditation of first-professional

master’s degree and professional

master’s level certificate and diploma

programs in acupuncture and Oriental

medicine).

4. Accrediting Commission on

Education for Health Services

Administration (Requested scope of

recognition: The accreditation of

graduate programs in health services

administration).

5. American Osteopathic Association,

Bureau of Professional Education

(Requested scope of recognition: The

accreditation and preaccreditation

[’’Provisional Accreditation’’] of

freestanding institutions of osteopathic

medicine and programs leading to the

degree of Doctor of Osteopathy or

Doctor of Osteopathic medicine)

6. American Podiatric Medical

Association, Council on Podiatric

Medical Education (Requested scope of

recognition: The accreditation and