2280 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Notices 

arbitration panel was convened on 

December 8 and December 9, 2009. 

Synopsis of the Arbitration Panel 

Decision 

After reviewing all of the testimony 

and evidence, the panel found that most 

of the grievances were time barred, 

either by operation of the 15-day time 

limit set forth in the New Jersey 

Administrative Code, the doctrine of 

latches, or both. The panel further 

determined that Complainant did not 

show that the SLA had violated the Act 

or the Federal and State implementing 

regulations. Accordingly, the panel 

majority concluded that Complainant 

was not entitled to any remedy with the 

exception of Complainant’s claim for 

the costs, including reasonable 

attorney’s fees, he incurred in the State 

evidentiary hearing. 

However, with respect to the State fair 

hearing, the panel majority concluded 

that the SLA knew, or had reason to 

know, prior to the commencement of 

the ALJ hearing, that Complainant’s case 

would require the ALJ to interpret two 

potentially conflicting Federal statutes 

and, as a result, that the ALJ might lack 

subject matter jurisdiction. Yet, the SLA 

allowed the ALJ hearing to take place 

and asked the ALJ to return the case 

after Complainant had submitted his 

post-hearing brief requiring significant 

time and resources to no avail. Thus, the 

panel majority ruled that fundamental 

principles of fairness require that the 

SLA reimburse Complainant for the 

costs expended by Complainant in the 

State fair hearing, including reasonable 

attorney’s fees. 

The panel also retained jurisdiction of 

this matter for the sole purpose of 

resolving any disputes regarding the 

amount the SLA must pay Complainant 

for those costs. 

One panel member dissented in part 

and concurred in part. This panel 

member dissented from the panel’s 

determination that the commission 

payment was neither timely protested 

by Complainant nor a violation of the 

Act but concurred with the panel 

majority regarding the SLA’s 

reimbursement to Complainant for costs 

incurred in the State fair hearing, 

including reasonable attorney’s fees. 

On January 11, 2011, the SLA sought 

reconsideration of the portion of the 

panel’s award granting Complainant the 

costs he incurred in the State fair 

hearing, including reasonable attorney’s 

fees. 

The panel agreed to consider the 

SLA’s motion and granted Complainant 

the opportunity to reply, which he did 

on or about March 2, 2011. 

On March 25, 2011, the panel 

conferred via conference call. After 

reviewing the parties’ motions including 

the legal authority cited, the panel 

unanimously denied the SLA’s motion 

for reconsideration on the merits and 

affirmed its initial decision of 

September 18, 2010, to award 

Complainant his costs for the State fair 

hearing, including reasonable attorney’s 

fees. 

The views and opinions expressed by 

the panel do not necessarily represent 

the views and opinions of the 

Department. 

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. 

Dated: January 11, 2012. 

Alexa Posny, 

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2012–749 Filed 1–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

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 electronically. 

Information 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 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) 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Notices 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 be careful to 

include 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 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 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
2282 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Notices 

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 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 computer-based 

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 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Environmental Management SiteSpecific Advisory Board, Paducah 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of cancellation of open 

meeting. 

SUMMARY: On December 23, 2011, the 

Department of Energy (DOE) published 

a notice of open meeting announcing a 

meeting on January 19, 2012, of the 

Environmental Management SiteSpecific Advisory Board, Paducah. This 

notice announces the cancellation of 

this meeting. The meeting is being 

cancelled because the board will not 

have a quorum due to scheduling 

conflicts by members. The next regular 

meeting will be held on February 16, 

2012. 

DATES: The meeting scheduled for 

January 19, 2012, announced in the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES