Vol. 78 Thursday, 

No. 100 May 23, 2013 

Part V 

Department of Education 

34 CFR Chapter II 

Final Priorities, Requirement, Definitions, and Selection Criteria—Enhanced 

Assessment Instruments; Final Rule 

Applications for New Awards; Enhanced Assessment Instruments Grants 

Program—Enhanced Assessment Instruments—Kindergarten Entry 

Assessment Competition; Notice 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
31344 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter II 

[Docket ID: ED–2012–OESE–0033] 

Final Priorities, Requirement, 

Definitions, and Selection Criteria— 

Enhanced Assessment Instruments 

[CFDA Number: 84.368.] 

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Final priorities, requirement, 

definitions, and selection criteria. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

announces priorities, a requirement, 

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) 2013 

and later years. We take this action 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: These priorities, requirement, 

definitions, and selection criteria are 

effective June 24, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin 

Shackel, U.S. Department of Education, 

400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 

3W110, Washington, DC 20202. 

Telephone: (202) 453–6423 or by email: 

Erin.Shackel@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877– 

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose of Program: The purpose of 

the EAG program is to enhance the 

quality of assessment instruments and 

systems used by States for measuring 

the academic achievement of 

elementary and secondary school 

students. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7301a. We 

published a notice of proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria (NPP) for this program in the Federal 

Register on January 25, 2013 (78 FR 5337). 

The NPP contained background information 

and our reasons for proposing the particular 

priorities, requirement, definitions, and 

selection criteria. In response to comments 

we received on the NPP, we have made 

revisions to Priority 1—Kindergarten Entry 

Assessment (KEA priority), and selection 

criteria. 

• We revised the KEA priority to 

require that the purpose of a KEA 

developed or enhanced under the 

priority is to provide valid, reliable, and 

fair information on each child’s learning 

and development across the essential 

domains of school readiness (as defined 

in this notice) at the time of entry into 

kindergarten. Correspondingly, we also 

revised paragraph (d) of the KEA 

priority and selection criterion (h), to 

reflect activities that we anticipate 

would be informed by the results of a 

KEA. 

• We expanded the prohibition 

against inappropriate use of KEA 

results. 

• We also revised the selection 

criterion to ask applicants to describe 

how a proposed KEA would be included 

as a component of a State’s student 

assessment system and to include 

references to ‘‘early learning 

practitioners,’’ ‘‘experts in early learning 

and development standards,’’ ‘‘Early 

Learning Advisory Councils’’ and 

‘‘families’’ as examples of key 

stakeholders who may be involved the 

development of a KEA. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the NPP, 26 parties 

submitted comments on the proposed 

priorities, requirement, definitions, and 

selection criteria. 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—Kindergarten Entry 

Assessment 

Comment: Many commenters 

provided positive feedback about the 

potential of a Kindergarten Entry 

Assessment (KEA), as developed or 

enhanced according to the KEA priority, 

to improve instruction and children’s 

learning opportunities in the early 

years. All of these commenters 

expressed support for the KEA priority, 

stating that it would bring focus to the 

importance of early learning 

opportunities. Several commenters 

specifically agreed that valid and 

reliable assessments, such as those 

proposed under this priority, when used 

as one of multiple measures, help us 

know whether children are making 

progress and provide direction on how 

to improve instruction and information 

regarding necessary teacher support. 

One commenter stated that new 

assessments for young children, such as 

the ones the KEA priority would 

support, are important, especially if 

they help young children attain the 

skills they need to learn how to read. 

One commenter noted that the KEA 

priority is a natural extension of the 

Department’s past programmatic 

funding of evidence-based early 

education interventions. One 

commenter indicated that the 

development or enhancement of KEAs 

would be a meaningful step toward 

improving assessment practices. One 

commenter applauded the Department’s 

timeliness in proposing the KEA 

priority, stating the field wants to work 

on efforts like those the KEA priority 

would support but that States do not 

have sufficient funds to do so. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenters that the development or 

enhancement of a well-designed and 

properly implemented KEA, which the 

KEA priority would support, can help 

improve children’s learning outcomes. 

We also appreciate the commenters’ 

recognition of the multiple benefits that 

such a KEA can provide. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Many commenters 

expressed concerns about three 

potential uses of assessment data and 

how the results of a KEA developed or 

enhanced under the KEA priority may 

or may not be appropriate for these uses. 

First, many commenters articulated 

concerns that the KEA results would be 

used to evaluate the programs that 

children attend in the years prior to 

kindergarten. These commenters raised 

several different issues. A couple of 

commenters stated that while they 

believe that data resulting from the KEA 

would be beneficial to early childhood 

programs, the KEA should not be used 

as an accountability measure or a reason 

to stop funding specific early learning 

programs. Some commenters 

recommended that the priority 

explicitly state that KEA results not be 

used to penalize or remove funding 

from early learning programs. Some 

commenters stated that KEAs cannot be 

valid and reliable for the purposes of 

evaluating early childhood programs. 

One commenter stated that children are 

not randomly enrolled in early 

childhood programs and that this 

compromises the validity of KEA results 

for the purpose of evaluating the 

programs children attend. One 

commenter added that KEAs do not 

provide enough information to evaluate 

a program, and another said that proper 

evaluation of early childhood programs 

requires a more focused and higher 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 31345 

quality study. One commenter 

expressed concern that early learning 

programs would inappropriately change 

the work they do with children based on 

what the KEA assessed. 

Second, many commenters expressed 

concern about the use of KEA results to 

evaluate staff effectiveness. One 

commenter expressed concern that, 

even though the NPP stated the 

Department does not intend to use 

existing selection criterion (b) with the 

KEA priority, States would use the KEA 

results to measure teacher effectiveness 

in the absence of a comprehensive 

teacher evaluation system. One 

commenter stated using the KEA as part 

of high-stakes testing would lead to 

‘‘undue pressure on children.’’ Another 

commenter stated that test scores cannot 

be used to determine effectiveness of 

providers or teachers; and some other 

commenters added that results from the 

KEA should not be used to determine 

retention of, or incentives for, staff. One 

commenter stated that the Department 

clearly included in the proposed KEA 

priority that the results of the KEA may 

not be used to deny entry into 

kindergarten and suggested that the 

KEA priority also address other 

potential misuses of the KEA, such as 

teacher effectiveness evaluations. 

Another commenter recommended that 

misuses of the KEA results should be 

addressed in selection criterion (h)(4), 

which lists the intended uses of the 

data. One commenter offered that if a 

KEA developed or enhanced under the 

KEA priority is to be used for teacher 

evaluation, it must be designed to be 

valid and reliable for the purpose of 

evaluating teachers and that other 

measures such as reviews of a 

professional portfolio must be included 

in the teacher evaluation. Finally, one 

commenter stated that the uses of a KEA 

should be limited to the following: 

guiding instruction, promoting skills 

development, and closing learning gaps. 

Third, many commenters supported 

the language in the KEA priority stating 

that a KEA developed or enhanced 

under the priority must not be used to 

prevent children’s entry into 

kindergarten. Several commenters stated 

concern that results from a KEA could 

be used to penalize children. Several 

commenters praised the Department’s 

inclusion of language stating that a KEA 

must not be used to prohibit entry into 

kindergarten. 

Discussion: We appreciate these 

concerns but believe most of them are 

adequately addressed by the priority. A 

KEA developed or enhanced under the 

KEA priority would provide information 

on children’s learning and development 

at the time of kindergarten entry. Unless 

the KEA were designed to measure 

growth over time, which is not part of 

selection criterion (h) regarding the KEA 

design, results could not be validly used 

as a single measure to evaluate the 

effectiveness of a program or staff. 

Furthermore, as indicated in the 

proposed KEA priority, a KEA 

developed or enhanced under the 

priority must not be used to prevent 

children’s entry into kindergarten. We 

recognize that the results of a KEA 

should not be used to deny children’s 

entry into kindergarten and have 

included the language in the KEA 

priority prohibiting inappropriate uses 

of the KEA results for this reason. 

In response to these comments and 

the next, which state that the 

Department has identified too many 

purposes that a KEA developed or 

enhanced under the KEA priority must 

meet, we have revised the purpose 

section of the priority to specify that a 

KEA must focus on one key purpose: 

providing valid, reliable, and fair 

information on each child’s learning 

and development at kindergarten entry. 

We also have added to the KEA 

priority that a KEA developed or 

enhanced under this priority may not be 

used for purposes for which it has not 

been validated or as a single measure for 

high-stakes decisions. High-stakes 

decisions may include, but are not 

limited to, dismissal of or rewards for 

staff and closure of programs. However, 

we expect that the KEA will be part of 

a comprehensive assessment system, 

and a comprehensive assessment system 

may be used for various purposes and 

decisions. 

Changes: We have revised the KEA 

priority to state that the purpose of a 

KEA developed or enhanced under this 

priority must be to provide valid, 

reliable, and fair information on each 

child’s learning and development across 

the essential domains of school 

readiness at the time of entry into 

kindergarten. 

In addition, we have expanded the 

prohibition against inappropriate use of 

KEA results. The prohibition now states 

that a KEA developed or enhanced 

under this priority must not be used for 

purposes for which it has not been 

validated or as a single measure for 

high-stakes decisions. 

The data section of the KEA priority 

and selection criterion (h) regarding 

KEA design have been revised to reflect 

activities that we anticipate would be 

informed by the results of a KEA. 

Paragraph (a)(2) of the proposed KEA 

priority is now integrated into selection 

criterion (h)(4)(iii). Proposed paragraph 

(a)(1) is now integrated into selection 

criterion (h)(4)(iv). And, finally, 

proposed paragraph (a)(4) is now 

integrated into selection criterion 

(h)(4)(v). 

Comment: Many commenters 

addressed the multiple purposes 

included in the proposed KEA priority. 

The commenters expressed concern that 

a KEA developed or enhanced under 

this priority would include too many 

purposes. Many of these commenters 

argued that too many purposes for the 

KEA would make the assessment 

invalid for many, if not all, of the 

required purposes. Several of these 

commenters recommended that we 

clarify the purpose(s) of the KEA to be 

developed under the priority. One 

commenter indicated that the proposed 

purposes for the KEA were clear. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenters that the proposed priority 

included too many purposes for a KEA 

developed or enhanced using funds 

from this grant program. We are revising 

the KEA priority to provide that a KEA 

developed or enhanced under the 

priority must focus on the single 

purpose of providing, at the time of 

entry into kindergarten, valid, reliable 

and fair information on each child’s 

learning and development across the 

essential domains of school readiness. 

We also are revising paragraph (d) of the 

KEA priority and selection criterion (h), 

regarding KEA design, to reflect 

activities that we anticipate would be 

informed by the results of a KEA. 

Changes: We have revised the 

language in the KEA priority and 

selection criteria by: 

(1) Stating that the purpose of a KEA 

developed or enhanced under the 

priority must be to provide, at 

kindergarten entry, valid, reliable, and 

fair information on each child’s learning 

and development across the essential 

domains of school readiness; 

(2) moving paragraph (a)(5) of the 

proposed KEA priority to paragraph 

(a)(2)(i) of the final KEA priority; 

(3) moving paragraph (a)(3) of the 

proposed KEA priority to paragraph (d) 

of the KEA priority as well as to 

selection criterion (h)(4)(i); 

(4) integrating proposed paragraph 

(a)(2) of the KEA priority into selection 

criterion (h)(4)(iii); 

(5) integrating proposed paragraph 

(a)(1) of the KEA priority into selection 

criterion (h)(4)(iv); 

(6) integrating proposed paragraph 

(a)(4) of the KEA priority into selection 

criterion (h)(4)(v); and 

(7) removing proposed selection 

criterion (h)(4)(i). 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that we revise the 

priority to state one of the purposes of 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
31346 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

a KEA is to close the achievement gap 

before children enter kindergarten. 

Discussion: The Department is 

funding this priority to develop or 

enhance KEAs as part of an EAG 

competition because we believe that, 

over time, the KEA, when used as part 

of a comprehensive early learning 

assessment system (as defined in this 

notice), will provide data that inform 

State and local efforts to improve child 

learning outcomes and help close 

achievement gaps. We wish to focus on 

the purpose of a KEA providing, at 

kindergarten entry, valid, reliable, and 

fair information on each child’s learning 

and development across the essential 

domains of school readiness; thus, we 

decline to make the change 

recommended by this commenter. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asserted 

that passage of an amended Universal 

Prekindergarten Act must come before 

the creation of KEAs and that 

assessments must be administered to 

children and the results used in the 

years prior to kindergarten in order for 

the assessments to affect the learning 

and development of children. 

Discussion: We agree that data 

obtained from assessments and 

screenings are helpful before 

kindergarten, and we believe that their 

use should be continued by early 

learning and development programs to 

identify special needs and guide 

children’s learning and development. 

For example, it is particularly helpful to 

kindergarten programs when preschool 

programs use assessment tools to 

generate data and anecdotal information 

that can be shared about incoming 

students. While high-quality universal 

preschool would help to prepare 

children for success in school and in 

life, its absence does not negate the 

importance of the development and use 

of a KEA. Therefore, we do not believe 

that passage of an amended Universal 

Prekindergarten Act, or any other 

legislation calling for universal 

preschool, need be in place before 

assessments such as a KEA can be used 

to collect information about children’s 

learning and development. Regardless of 

whether children attend preschool, 

knowing the status of children’s 

learning and development when they 

enter kindergarten is important for 

helping to guide instruction for children 

and informing decision-makers on the 

allocation of resources. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A few commenters 

suggested that we use a different term to 

refer to a KEA. One commenter 

expressed concern that the word 

‘‘entry’’ in the title suggests that the 

assessment could be used to deny or 

grant entry to kindergarten programs. 

Another commenter proposed not using 

the word ‘‘entry’’ so that a KEA also 

could be used for on-going formative 

assessment purposes. Finally, a third 

commenter suggested the terms 

‘‘kindergarten preparedness 

assessment’’ or ‘‘kindergarten readiness 

assessment’’ as alternatives. 

Discussion: While we appreciate the 

commenters’ concerns and suggestions 

for alternate names, we do not agree to 

make the change. At this time, 14 States 

are currently receiving funding through 

Race to the Top—Early Learning 

Challenge (RTT–ELC), and KEAs were 

an element of that competition. Altering 

the Department’s terminology could 

cause confusion in the field. Using the 

name ‘‘KEA’’ promotes consistency 

across Department programs. 

As to denying admission to 

kindergarten, an assessment developed 

or enhanced under the KEA priority 

must be administered soon enough after 

a child’s enrollment into kindergarten to 

achieve the purposes for which the 

assessment was developed. The KEA 

priority specifically prohibits a KEA 

from being used to prevent a child’s 

entry into kindergarten. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Some commenters asked if 

a one-time screening tool developed or 

enhanced under the KEA priority would 

be the most appropriate tool to meet the 

intended purpose of a KEA. These 

commenters recommended the use of 

the KEA as an on-going formative 

assessment. 

Discussion: A KEA developed or 

enhanced under the KEA priority must 

provide information on each child’s 

learning and development across the 

essential domains of school readiness at 

kindergarten entry. A KEA is merely one 

part of a comprehensive early learning 

assessment system; and we 

acknowledge the importance of the 

other components, including formative 

assessments (as defined in this notice), 

that are included in a comprehensive 

early learning assessment system. 

Furthermore, the KEA priority does 

not prohibit the administration of the 

KEA multiple times during the year. For 

example, a grant applicant may propose 

to administer the KEA once soon 

enough after enrollment to achieve the 

purposes for which the assessment was 

developed; or plan to use the KEA, or 

elements of the KEA, multiple times 

throughout the kindergarten year. To 

preserve focus on the purpose of the 

KEA priority, and because we believe 

that the KEA can be part of on-going 

formative assessments, we decline to 

make the recommended changes. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Many commenters 

addressed the type or form of the 

assessment that would be developed or 

enhanced under the KEA priority. 

Several commenters suggested that the 

priority emphasize formative 

assessments to strengthen and support 

instruction throughout the kindergarten 

year. One commenter suggested 

expanding the KEA priority to include 

formative assessments across infant, 

toddler, preschool, and kindergarten 

programs, as well as early elementary 

school grades. One commenter 

recommended expanding the KEA 

priority to include formative 

assessments for either ages three 

through five or kindergarten through 

third grade. One commenter suggested 

revising the proposed KEA priority to 

allow for the development of formative 

assessments that would produce data for 

multiple uses including: Enabling 

teachers to describe each child’s 

progress in early learning programs or in 

kindergarten through third grade 

classrooms; illuminating the extent to 

which kindergarten through third grade 

strategies are successful in improving 

student performance over time; and 

allowing State policy leaders to 

understand the extent to which 

investments in different types of early 

care and education programs are 

associated with patterns of progress. 

One commenter suggested that a KEA 

developed or enhanced under the KEA 

priority could be administered multiple 

times throughout the kindergarten year 

to guide instruction. 

Discussion: We agree that formative 

assessments are important and have 

defined a comprehensive early learning 

assessment system to include both 

formative assessments and a KEA. 

However, we have designed the KEA 

priority to focus on one part of a 

comprehensive early learning 

assessment system—specifically, an 

assessment at kindergarten entry. The 

skills and knowledge a KEA assesses at 

this early stage are the foundations for 

subsequent learning in a kindergarten 

through twelfth grade educational 

career. We note that the KEA priority 

does not prohibit an applicant from 

proposing to use the KEA multiple 

times throughout the kindergarten year, 

when useful and appropriate. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we give priority to existing 

assessment tools or ongoing efforts to 

enhance or adapt existing assessment 

tools. 

Discussion: The statutory purpose of 

the EAG program is to enhance the 

quality of assessment instruments and 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 31347 

systems used by States for measuring 

the academic achievement of 

elementary and secondary school 

students; and thus we focus the program 

activities, and the KEA priority, on 

student assessment. Applicants may 

propose to enhance existing tools, but 

we will not give such work any 

additional priority over proposals to 

develop new assessments or tools. To 

meet the KEA priority, existing 

assessment tools would need to be 

enhanced to meet all of the 

requirements of the KEA priority and 

would need to be made freely available 

per program requirements. While we 

understand the value of tools to improve 

teaching and learning, in light of the 

statutory program purpose and our 

efforts to strategically target resources, 

we decline to add a priority, revise the 

KEA priority, or award more points for 

the enhancement or adaption of tools 

beyond those described in the KEA 

priority. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

expanding the KEA priority to support 

the development or enhancement of an 

assessment for students entering first 

grade. The commenter noted that such 

an expanded priority may be more 

relevant for States with laws defining 

the age in which compulsory education 

begins later than kindergarten. 

Discussion: While assessments at 

every grade can be useful, the 

Department has chosen to develop a 

KEA priority because of the critical 

nature of this type of assessment in a 

comprehensive early learning 

assessment system. Though only eight 

States, the District of Columbia, and 

Puerto Rico require compulsory 

education beginning at age five 

(www.ncsl.org/documents/educ/ 

ECSCompulsoryAge.pdf), over 92 

percent of five year-olds in the United 

States attend kindergarten 

(www.census.gov/hhes/school/data/cps/ 

2010/tables.html). Therefore, all States 

can benefit from the data generated by 

a KEA. Additionally, due to limited 

resources available to the EAG program, 

we decline to expand the KEA priority. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters did 

not support the proposed KEA priority 

for various reasons. One commenter 

questioned whether assessments 

developed according to the KEA priority 

would be useful for teachers in 

improving instruction. A couple of 

commenters stated that they did not 

believe KEAs developed or enhanced 

under this priority would be useful 

generally. One commenter expressed 

concern that KEA results would 

contribute to students with disabilities 

being separated from other students and 

classes. One commenter stated that 

school-readiness benchmarks are 

artificial and do not take into account 

kindergarteners’ development or growth 

in areas such as creativity, learning to 

share, taking turns, and being respectful. 

Finally, one commenter stated that the 

KEA would just be a standardized test 

for kindergartners. 

Discussion: While we understand 

these concerns, we have designed the 

KEA priority in ways we believe will 

support the appropriate use of the 

assessments. The revised priority 

specifies that a KEA designed under this 

priority must provide valid, reliable, 

and fair information on each child’s 

learning and development across the 

essential domains of school readiness, 

with each domain making a significant 

contribution to the overall 

comprehensive score. Part of a welldesigned assessment is its ability to 

accommodate children across varying 

developmental levels and standardizing 

interpretation of results. We believe that 

appropriately using the results of a welldesigned KEA will assist teachers in 

improving instruction for all children by 

including all developmental levels, 

children with disabilities, and English 

learners (as defined in this notice). The 

KEA must not be used to prevent 

children’s entry into kindergarten and 

must not by itself be used to make highstakes decisions. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters stated 

they do not believe that investing in 

developing a KEA is a good use of 

funds. One commenter asserted that the 

results from KEAs would not be useful 

by the time the data generated by the 

KEA are available. One commenter 

stated that a KEA would disrupt the 

quality of education and that funds 

should be used for other educational 

purposes. The third commenter 

expressed concern that a KEA would 

generate a single ideal profile of ‘‘school 

readiness.’’ 

Discussion: Our goal for the KEA 

priority is to fund the development or 

enhancement of well-designed KEAs 

that will provide valid, reliable, and fair 

information on each child’s learning 

and development across the essential 

domains of school readiness. When 

included as part of a comprehensive 

early learning assessment system, we 

believe that KEAs developed or 

enhanced under the KEA priority will 

provide data that can inform States’ 

efforts to improve child learning 

outcomes and help close achievement 

gaps. Providing funding for the 

development of this tool is one way the 

Department is supporting quality 

schools and instruction. In establishing 

this priority, we are responding to 

interest from the field for a KEA, as 

evidenced by the number of States that 

committed in their RTT–ELC 

applications to implement a statewide 

KEA. 

Furthermore, we believe the KEA 

priority will produce useful data in a 

timely manner. In paragraph (d)(1) of 

the KEA priority, as well as selection 

criterion (h)(4)(i), we ask applicants to 

explain how the proposed KEA will 

produce data and information that may 

be used to guide individualized 

instruction for children enrolled in 

kindergarten and throughout the school 

year. Additionally, paragraph (b)(9) of 

the KEA priority requires that a KEA 

developed or enhanced under the 

priority be administered soon enough 

after a child’s enrollment in 

kindergarten to achieve its purpose. In 

paragraph (b)(5) of the KEA priority, we 

ask applicants to design a KEA that will 

provide a summative assessment of each 

child’s learning and development at 

kindergarten entry across the essential 

domains of school readiness. We believe 

that assessments of young children 

should address the full range of early 

learning and development; and 

accordingly have included, in the 

definition of ‘‘essential domains of 

school readiness,’’ five domains adapted 

from the National Education Goals 

Panel (http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/ 

negp/reports/prinrec.pdf), to provide a 

comprehensive interpretation of school 

readiness. Therefore, we disagree that 

the KEA would produce a single ideal 

of school readiness and accordingly 

decline to make any changes. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

children’s enrollment in kindergarten 

programs varies, such as from half-day 

to full-day or the number of school days 

in a year, and expressed concern that 

results from a KEA developed or 

enhanced under the KEA priority could 

be corrupted if linked to other 

summative assessment results at a 

future point in time. 

Discussion: We agree that it would be 

improper to link results in this way. A 

KEA that would be developed or 

enhanced under the KEA priority would 

be an assessment given at the beginning 

of the kindergarten school year and 

must be aligned to early learning and 

development standards (as defined in 

this notice). Subsequent kindergarten 

assessments designed by States or 

groups of States should be aligned to 

kindergarten standards of those States. 

Since a KEA supported by the priority 

and an assessment at a later point in 

time would be aligned to different 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
31348 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

1Barnett, W.S., Carolan, M.E., Fitzgerald, J., & 

Squires, J.H. (2011). The state of preschool 2011: 

State preschool yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: 

National Institute for Early Education Research. 

standards, comparability of these 

assessments would be questionable. 

Considering that any assessment after 

kindergarten entry would be aligned to 

different content standards, the KEA 

developed or enhanced under the KEA 

priority would be a static assessment 

that does not measure progress on 

standards at higher grade levels. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

discussed the importance of a KEA 

fitting within a more comprehensive 

assessment or educational system. A 

couple of these commenters added that 

KEAs developed or enhanced under the 

priority should be based on a broader 

set of factors, such as curriculum, 

instructional strategies, ongoing 

assessment, and professional 

development. One of these commenters 

also suggested awarding extra points to 

applicants that plan to develop a KEA 

based on such broader factors. Finally, 

one commenter expressed concern 

about uncoordinated policies and 

initiatives and noted that policies need 

to come together coherently in the 

classroom. 

Discussion: We agree that KEAs 

developed or enhanced under the 

priority should be part of States’ larger 

assessment and educational systems, 

and we added selection criterion (h)(10) 

to address this issue. In paragraph (b)(1) 

of the KEA priority, we require that a 

KEA developed or enhanced under the 

KEA priority be a component of a State’s 

student assessment system, including a 

State’s comprehensive early learning 

assessment system. We now go further 

and have added a similar factor to the 

KEA design selection criteria in order to 

award points based on the quality of an 

applicant’s plans in this area. Finally, 

we note that other requirements and 

factors can support the integration of a 

KEA developed or enhanced under the 

priority into larger systems. For 

example, a KEA must: be aligned with 

early learning and development 

standards (as defined in this notice) 

(KEA priority paragraph (b)(2)); and 

provide for broad reporting of results 

(KEA priority paragraph (d)(2) and 

selection criterion (h)(9)). 

Changes: We have added factor 

(h)(10) to the KEA design selection 

criterion, which asks each applicant to 

describe how the KEA it proposes to 

develop or enhance will be included as 

a component of a State’s, or States’, 

student assessment systems, and how 

the KEA it proposes to develop or 

enhance will be included as a 

component of a State’s, or States’, 

comprehensive early assessment system 

(as defined in this notice), if a 

comprehensive early learning 

assessment system exists. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: In reviewing paragraph 

(b)(1) of the proposed KEA priority, 

which states that a KEA must be a 

component of a State’s student 

assessment system, and its reference to 

‘‘each State included in an application,’’ 

we have determined that the language 

does not adequately distinguish 

between applicant States, consortium 

member States, and States that may be 

included in an application in another 

capacity (e.g., as a collaborating, nongoverning, or observing State). As a 

result, we have revised this paragraph to 

provide clarification. 

Changes: We have revised paragraph 

(b)(1) of the KEA priority to clarify that 

it applies to the applicant State and, if 

the State applies as part of a consortium, 

each State in the consortium in which 

a comprehensive early learning 

assessment system exists. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

adding language to the KEA priority 

design element and to factors in the 

KEA design selection criteria indicating 

that the KEA must be included in the 

continuous review and evaluation of the 

State longitudinal data system (SLDS) so 

that the early learning and development 

standards are both attainable and not 

pushed down from higher grades. 

Discussion: We believe that early 

learning and development standards, as 

defined in this notice, reflect reasonable 

and attainable expectations for children. 

The levels of performance for the KEA 

would be based on those standards, not 

merely pushed down from higher 

grades. The Department is purposely 

giving flexibility to States to decide how 

they want to develop the assessment 

framework, and nothing prohibits an 

applicant from proposing what the 

commenters suggests. 

Changes: None. 

Comments: Many commenters 

expressed concern that most States do 

not have established standards for 

kindergarten through the early 

elementary grades that include all of the 

essential domains of school readiness 

and that such standards would need to 

be established before a KEA could be 

developed or enhanced. A couple of 

commenters suggested requiring an 

assurance or adding a requirement that 

States awarded a grant under this 

priority revise their standards in the 

early grades to include all of the 

essential domains of school readiness. 

One commenter stated that a KEA 

should not be developed or 

implemented until kindergarten 

standards covering all of the essential 

domains of school readiness are 

established. 

Discussion: Most States have early 

learning and development standards for 

the year prior to kindergarten that 

include all of the essential domains of 

school readiness.1 The KEA, which 

must be aligned to the State’s early 

learning and development standards, 

would be administered at the beginning 

of kindergarten and would not be 

designed to assess students’ 

performance against kindergarten 

standards. Supporting the development 

of kindergarten through third grade 

standards that address all of the 

domains is beyond the scope of this 

priority, and we believe an assurance 

requiring States to revise their 

kindergarten or primary grade standards 

would be unnecessarily burdensome. 

Based on these considerations, we 

decline to make the changes requested. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Many commenters agreed 

that the KEA should address multiple 

domains, not just the cognitive domain. 

They expressed concern that, without 

including multiple domains in the 

standards that are used to assess 

children at the end of kindergarten, 

teachers would focus on the cognitive 

domain, including literacy and 

mathematics, and minimize the other 

domains, such as social, emotional, and 

physical learning. One commenter 

pointed out that research links 

emotional competence to cognitive 

performance. Another commenter stated 

that a KEA addressing all of the 

essential domains will help move the 

emphasis in kindergarten through third 

grade beyond literacy and mathematics 

and provide a better connection to 

preschool programs. 

Discussion: We agree, and this is why 

the priority requires that the early 

learning and development standards 

cover all of the essential domains of 

school readiness, not just the cognitive 

domain. As defined in this notice, these 

domains include: language and literacy 

development, cognition and general 

knowledge (including early 

mathematics and early scientific 

development), approaches toward 

learning, physical well-being and motor 

development (including adaptive skills), 

and social and emotional development. 

While the Department believes that all 

domains are important to learning and 

that the KEA must be aligned with early 

learning and development standards 

that address the essential domains of 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 31349 

school readiness, supporting the 

development of kindergarten and 

primary grade standards that address all 

of these domains is beyond the scope of 

this program. We agree, however, that 

implementing a KEA addressing all of 

the essential domains will likely 

contribute to standards used for 

kindergarten through third grade that 

emphasize multiple domains. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A couple of commenters 

suggested including additional areas in 

the essential domains of school 

readiness, specifically creative arts, 

social studies, and play. One commenter 

applauded the Department for requiring 

that the standards used for the KEA be 

aligned to the essential domains of 

school readiness. 

Discussion: We do not believe that the 

suggested change is necessary. Our 

definition of the essential domains of 

school readiness is based on that of the 

National Education Goals Panel, which 

developed five domains that are widely 

accepted and utilized by the early 

learning field. Most States have already 

included these domains in their early 

learning and development standards. 

Moreover, the additional areas 

suggested by commenters are already 

included within the essential domains 

of school readiness. Specifically, 

creative arts expression is part of the 

Approaches to Learning domain, and 

social studies is part of the Cognition 

and General Knowledge domain. Play is 

not a domain but rather a method by 

which children learn. Finally, it is 

important to note that the KEA priority 

does not limit States from including 

additional domains. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

we add the phrase ‘‘reasonable and 

attainable expectations’’ of what a child 

should know and be able to do in 

paragraph (b)(4) of the KEA priority. 

Another commenter expressed concern 

about standards being pushed down 

from higher grades rather than 

scaffolding the standards for each age 

group, as the commenter noted sound 

science would suggest be done. 

Discussion: Our definition of early 

learning and development standards 

requires these standards to be a set of 

expectations, guidelines, or 

developmental milestones that, along 

with other specifications, describe what 

all children from birth to kindergarten 

entry should know and be able to do, 

and be appropriate for each age group 

(e.g., infants, toddlers, and preschoolers) 

rather than pushed down from 

kindergarten through twelfth grade. 

These standards must also be 

universally designed and 

developmentally, culturally, and 

linguistically appropriate, including for 

English learners and for children with 

disabilities or developmental delays. 

The early learning and development 

standards are based on the essential 

domains of school readiness as adapted 

from the National Education Goals 

Panel. The levels of performance will be 

based on those standards. We believe 

that early learning and development 

standards that meet this definition 

would be reasonable and attainable 

expectations for all children and that it 

is not necessary to include the phrase 

suggested by the commenter. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we require KEA administrators to 

be certified or credentialed early 

childhood educators with three or more 

years teaching experience. 

Discussion: Paragraph (b)(11) of the 

KEA priority specifically requires that a 

KEA developed or enhanced under this 

priority be administered by a trained 

assessor or assessors. Beyond this 

requirement, we do not think it is 

appropriate to be more prescriptive in 

the qualifications that KEA 

administrators should meet and believe 

States are in the best position to make 

these decisions. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A couple of commenters 

suggested revising the language of the 

KEA priority to emphasize that a KEA 

should be developed or enhanced in 

such a way that its administration does 

not burden teachers or unduly detract 

from instructional time. One of these 

commenters specifically suggested that 

we add this requirement to paragraph 

(b)(10) of the KEA priority. 

Discussion: In paragraph (b)(13) of the 

KEA priority, we require that the 

development and implementation of the 

KEA be cost-effective; and in paragraph 

(b)(11) we require that the KEA be 

administered by a trained assessor. If 

States decide that having teachers 

conduct the assessments is burdensome 

or detracts from instructional time, they 

may use trained assessors other than the 

classroom teacher. Other States may see 

the value in having teachers work oneon-one with students in conducting 

assessments and not see it as a burden, 

but instead as a good use of classroom 

time. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A couple of commenters 

applauded the Department for explicitly 

requiring the inclusion of English 

Learners and children with disabilities 

or development delays in paragraph (b) 

of the KEA priority. 

Discussion: The Department agrees 

that assessments, such as a KEA, should 

be designed to include all students, 

including English Learners and children 

with disabilities or developmental 

delays. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the KEA priority include a focus on 

instruction for students with 

disabilities, including assessing the 

impact of instruction related to social 

emotional learning for students with 

disabilities. 

Discussion: We believe the KEA 

priority adequately addresses the stated 

concerns. An assessment developed 

according to the KEA priority would be 

aligned to early learning and 

development standards that address the 

essential domains of school readiness. 

Social and emotional learning is one of 

the essential domains of school 

readiness, and paragraph (b)(5) of the 

KEA priority requires that a KEA 

provide a summative assessment of each 

child’s learning across these domains. In 

addition, paragraphs (b)(7) and (b)(8) of 

the KEA priority require that any KEA 

developed or enhanced under the 

priority be developed to include 

children with disabilities. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A couple of commenters 

stated that research is needed to support 

work under the KEA priority. One of 

these commenters stated that the KEA 

priority gives appropriate attention to 

the need for adequate research-based 

early learning assessment practices. The 

other commenter stated that more 

research and guidance are needed in 

order for States to develop a KEA that 

would meet the requirements of the 

KEA priority. 

Discussion: We agree that the design 

and development of a KEA should be 

research-based and believe that 

paragraph (c) of the KEA priority 

ensures this will occur. The National 

Research Council report on early 

childhood assessments, as referenced, 

provides a sufficient research base and 

guidance in order for States to develop 

a KEA that would meet the 

requirements of the KEA priority. In 

addition, the Department has provided 

funding for the Regional and National 

Comprehensive Centers, particularly the 

Center on Enhancing Early Learning 

Outcomes and the Center on Standards 

and Assessments Implementation, to 

provide technical assistance to States. 

The assistance includes support to 

States as they develop and implement 

early learning assessments such as the 

KEA. In light of this requirement and 

these resources, we decline to make 

changes. 

Changes: None. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
31350 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed support for paragraph (c)(2) of 

the KEA priority that requires a KEA 

developed or enhanced under the KEA 

priority to be consistent with the 

recommendations of the National 

Research Council (NRC) report on early 

assessment. A couple of commenters 

recommended that, in addition to the 

NRC report, the KEA also be consistent 

with the recommendations in the 

National Association for the Education 

of Young Children’s report ‘‘Developing 

Kindergarten Readiness and Other 

Large-Scale Assessment Systems’’ 

(www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/ 

research/Assessment_Systems.pdf). 

Another commenter suggested that we 

add the National Academy of Science 

report, ‘‘Early Childhood Assessment: 

Why, What and How?’’ to the list of 

referenced reports. Another commenter 

suggested we revise the KEA priority to 

require that a KEA developed or 

enhanced under the priority be 

consistent with the Head Start 

Outcomes Framework. 

Discussion: We agree that resources 

on good practices are helpful when 

developing or enhancing a KEA and 

comprehensive assessment system. As 

outlined in the NPP and included in the 

final priorities, requirement, definitions, 

and selection criteria in this notice, we 

require that KEAs developed or 

enhanced under this priority be 

consistent with the NRC guidelines in 

order to be consistent with the direction 

we received from Congress that States 

receiving grants under the RTT–ELC 

program provide an assurance that any 

use of early childhood assessments 

conform to the NRC report. We decline 

to require applicants to develop KEAs 

consistent with any other report without 

a similar directive from Congress. 

While we consider the Head Start 

Outcomes Framework helpful in 

guiding instruction in Head Start 

classrooms, we believe, consistent with 

the requirements of the RTT–ELC 

program, that the KEA must be aligned 

with the State’s early learning and 

development standards and that it 

would be a burden for States to align the 

KEA with both the State early learning 

and development standards and the 

Head Start Outcomes Framework. The 

early learning and development 

standards cover the essential domains of 

school readiness, are the standards used 

across early learning and development 

programs, and are sufficient to be the 

standards to which the KEA is aligned. 

Based on these considerations, we 

added additional language to paragraph 

(c)(2) of the KEA priority that the KEA 

must measure children’s learning and 

development at kindergarten entry in 

ways that are consistent with current 

research and best practices in the field. 

Changes: We added language to 

paragraph (c)(2) of the KEA priority that 

the KEA must measure children’s 

learning and development at 

kindergarten entry in ways that are 

consistent with current research and 

best practices in the field, which may 

include the resources the commenter 

has cited. 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested that the Department 

coordinate with the U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS) on 

the application and the awarding of 

grants in competitions that use the KEA 

priority. 

Discussion: The Department of 

Education and HHS have worked 

closely together over the last four years 

on the Early Learning Interagency Policy 

Board and in developing and 

implementing the RTT–ELC program. 

Much of the language used in the KEA 

priority was informed by the FY 2011 

Notice Inviting Applications for the 

jointly administered RTT–ELC program. 

We will continue to work with HHS to 

support early learning, including, where 

appropriate, early learning efforts 

funded under an EAG priority. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Many commenters 

expressed concern about possible 

misuses of the KEA results. One 

commenter expressed concern that 

potential uses of a KEA developed or 

enhanced under the KEA priority could 

be unfair to certain groups of students 

and warned about potential biases in a 

KEA and KEA results being 

misinterpreted and misused. One 

commenter stated that results should 

not be used to label children. Another 

commenter pointed to the limited value 

of a single point in time evaluation of 

students. One commenter expressed 

concern that excessive focus on testing 

can distort the education process. 

Another commenter suggested including 

safeguards against outcomes of narrow 

assessments, restricting innovation, and 

data driven curricula. Finally, a 

commenter expressed concern about 

possible misuses of the results of the 

KEAs and applauded the Department for 

including safeguard language. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenters’ concerns regarding 

fairness and in order to help ensure the 

misuses cited by commenters do not 

occur and to emphasize fairness, we are 

making several changes to the priority. 

We note that existing requirement (a), as 

well as selection criterion (d), require 

that the KEA developed under this 

priority be fair for its intended use. We 

are adding the word ‘‘fair’’ to paragraph 

(a)(1) of the KEA priority, which was 

originally proposed as paragraph (d)(1). 

We are adding the word ‘‘fair’’ to 

paragraphs (a)(1), (c)(3), and (c)(4) of the 

KEA priority and to and selection 

criterion (h)(8). In addition, we note that 

the first paragraph of the KEA priority 

has been changed to state that the KEA 

should not be used for purposes for 

which it has not been validated or as a 

single measure for high-stakes 

decisions. 

In response to the comment about the 

limited value of a single point in time 

evaluation, any assessment 

administered after kindergarten entry 

would need to focus on kindergarten 

standards. The KEA focuses on early 

learning standards. 

Changes: We have revised paragraph 

(a)(1) of the KEA priority, which was 

originally proposed as paragraph (d)(1), 

to include the word ‘‘fair.’’ We also have 

revised paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4) of 

the KEA priority and selection criterion 

(h)(8) to include the word ‘‘fair.’’ 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that a KEA developed or enhanced 

under the KEA priority should be linked 

to early learning programs. 

Discussion: We agree that there 

should be a link between a KEA 

developed or enhanced under the KEA 

and early learning programs. We have 

included a requirement in paragraph 

(b)(2) of the KEA priority that the KEA 

be aligned with a set of early learning 

and development standards. Further we 

require in the data section of the KEA 

priority, paragraph (d)(3), that the data 

generated be incorporated into the SLDS 

for each State (and the State’s early 

learning data system if it is separate 

from its SLDS), consistent with 

requirements of Federal, State, and local 

privacy laws. We also require, in 

paragraph (e) of the KEA priority, that 

the KEA use approaches to assessment 

design and implementation (e.g., use of 

technology, assessment administration, 

scoring, and reporting) that facilitate the 

integration of the KEA into a State’s 

student assessment system, including a 

State’s comprehensive early learning 

assessment system if a comprehensive 

early learning assessment system exists. 

Finally, in the KEA design selection 

criterion (h)(4), we require applicants to 

describe how the KEA will produce data 

and information that may be used to 

identify teacher professional 

development and support needs, as well 

as support State and local agencies in 

effectively targeting investments for 

early learning and development 

systems. As we believe these provisions 

help to ensure that KEAs developed 

under this priority will be adequately 

linked with early learning programs, we 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 31351 

decline to make the changes suggested 

by the commenter. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

a KEA should include the continuum of 

a child’s learning and development that 

is above or below typical growth and 

development at a particular 

chronological age. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

comment and have already provided for 

this in paragraph (c)(4) of the KEA 

priority, which requires that a KEA 

developed or enhanced under the 

priority provide valid, reliable, and fair 

measures of children’s learning and 

development across the performance 

spectrum. This would allow for 

variation in learning and development 

that is above or below typical growth 

and development at a particular 

chronological age. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that a KEA developed or 

enhanced under the priority might 

involve commercial or propriety 

products in ways that may compel their 

use, restrict innovation, and limit State 

educational agency (SEA) access to, and 

choices among, assessments. This 

commenter recommended that the 

Department limit the involvement of 

commercial vendors in the development 

of KEAs by adding the phrase 

‘‘commercially neutral’’ to paragraphs 

(a)(6) and (c)(4) of the KEA priority; 

paragraph (a) of the Early Learning 

Collaborative Efforts priority; 

requirement (i) in the definitions of 

‘‘comprehensive early learning 

assessment system’’ and ‘‘formative 

assessment;’’ and selection criterion 

(h)(3). The commenter also suggested 

that a KEA supported by the priority 

should be built independent of any 

commercial product that currently 

exists. 

Discussion: Any KEA developed or 

enhanced under the EAG program must 

meet all of the requirements outlined in 

the KEA priority, as well as any other 

requirements applicable to the program 

and competition. Any State or 

consortium of States awarded a grant 

will be responsible for ensuring that 

such requirements are met over the 

period of the grant. Though only SEAs, 

or consortia of SEAs, are eligible 

applicants, we acknowledge that 

applicants may contract with 

commercial vendors for goods and 

services that support the activities or 

products of this grant, provided they 

also comply with applicable State and 

local procurement laws. The 

Department does not wish to limit the 

resources available to SEAs in 

developing a KEA beyond the 

requirements included in the priority, 

requirements that apply to EAGs, and 

any other requirements that we may 

apply to an EAG grant. Furthermore, as 

a general matter, program requirement 

(g) requires a grantee to make any 

assessments developed with funds from 

this competition freely available to 

States, technology platform providers, 

and others that request it for purposes 

of administering assessments. We 

intend to apply this requirement to any 

competition involving the KEA priority. 

We believe the requirements under the 

KEA priority and the additional 

program requirement regarding 

availability of products developed with 

grant funds provide adequate safeguards 

relative to the concerns expressed by the 

commenter, and we decline to make 

changes. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Some commenters noted 

that children naturally learn at different 

paces and will exhibit different skills at 

kindergarten entry. Another commenter 

suggested that assessment takes away 

from natural discovery and passions of 

children. 

Discussion: We agree that children’s 

learning paces vary, and also believe 

that the results of a KEA developed or 

enhanced under this priority can help 

teachers individualize instruction by 

providing them with insight into each 

child’s pace of learning. We also believe 

that the results of a KEA developed or 

enhanced under this priority can be 

helpful to teachers in thoughtfully and 

intentionally designing appropriate and 

engaging activities for children based on 

that knowledge. Paragraph (d)(1) of the 

KEA priority, (originally proposed as 

paragraph (a)(3)), requires that a KEA 

developed under this priority produce 

data and information that guides 

individualized instruction for children 

enrolled in kindergarten and throughout 

the school year. Because we believe the 

concerns are adequately addressed, we 

decline to make changes. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that States be required to 

describe a plan for working with 

schools, families, and community-level 

agencies, such as early childhood 

programs, to analyze KEA data. 

Discussion: We agree that States 

should develop a plan for the use of 

data from a KEA developed or enhanced 

under the KEA priority. In selection 

criterion (h)(4), applicants must 

describe how the KEA will produce data 

and information that may be used to 

provide families with information about 

their children’s learning and 

development based on the essential 

domains of school readiness and engage 

them in the early learning of their 

children. Therefore, we do not believe 

that changes are necessary to address 

the commenter’s concern. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

KEAs can provide useful information to 

kindergarten teachers and encouraged 

the sharing of such information with 

early learning programs in order to 

promote programs’ continuous 

improvement. 

Discussion: We agree that KEA results 

can be used to support and improve 

teaching and learning. Paragraph (d)(2) 

of the KEA priority requires the KEA to 

be developed or enhanced to allow for 

such sharing, consistent with Federal, 

State, and local privacy laws. We 

believe this requirement addresses the 

concern expressed by the commenter 

and therefore decline to make any 

changes. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Some commenters inquired 

about coordination among KEA grantees 

and existing assessment development 

activities. A few commenters asked 

questions about the relationship of the 

proposed KEA priority to the RTT–ELC 

grants. A couple of commenters asked 

how a State that has received a grant 

under the RTT–ELC program may 

participate in an EAG program grant. 

Another commenter encouraged the 

Department to use the priority to 

facilitate States’ ability to learn from the 

results of RTT–ELC grants. One 

commenter suggested that the KEA 

priority be written to support existing 

KEA efforts, including efforts among 

States that have begun working together 

through the RTT–ELC program and 

other similar programs. 

Discussion: We appreciate that RTT– 

ELC grantees and other States that have 

begun developing or implementing 

KEAs have valuable experience related 

to the development and implementation 

of KEAs as described in this priority. A 

State receiving funds under RTT–ELC is 

eligible to apply for an EAG program 

grant, and an RTT–ELC State may be 

able to receive funding under the EAG 

competition as part of a consortium in 

order to expand its RTT–ELC work to 

the States within the consortium. 

However, we note that the 

Department is prohibited from funding 

duplicative activities, and grantees may 

not receive funding to support activities 

already supported through another 

grant. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

encouraged the Department to clarify 

the expected relationship between the 

KEA priority for the EAG program and 

other efforts such as the work of the two 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
31352 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

consortia developing assessments under 

the Race-to-the-Top Assessment (RTTA) 

program. 

Discussion: We agree that 

coordination across programs and 

consortia of States is important to 

ensure that assessment systems are 

coordinated and aligned in ways that 

best serve students. For this reason, we 

included in paragraph (b)(2) of the KEA 

priority a requirement that any KEA 

developed or enhanced under the 

priority be aligned with a set of early 

learning and development standards 

that are aligned with the State’s 

kindergarten through third grade 

academic standards in, at a minimum, 

early literacy and mathematics. In 

addition, the program has an existing 

requirement that any grantee actively 

participating in any applicable technical 

assistance activities conducted or 

facilitated by the Department or its 

designees must coordinate with the 

RTTA program in the development of 

assessments under this program and 

participate in other activities as 

determined by the Department. We 

believe this requirement will help 

ensure that key assessment development 

efforts do not occur in isolation of one 

another. 

Changes: None. 

Priority 2—Early Learning 

Collaborative Efforts Among States 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed support for the Early Learning 

Collaborative Effort Among States 

priority. One commenter noted that the 

benefits of collaboration include States 

building on one another’s experience 

and expertise; developing efficiencies in 

providing professional development 

support; containing costs; and 

facilitating implementation. A couple of 

commenters also emphasized that, in 

evaluating proposals, the quality of the 

assessment proposed by a consortium 

and the nature of a consortium need to 

be balanced against the size of the 

consortium. 

Discussion: We appreciate the support 

the commenters expressed. Further, we 

have designed the selection criteria to 

identify the highest quality proposals 

and, as a result, do not believe 

additional changes are needed to the 

KEA or Early Learning Collaborative 

Efforts Among States priorities. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that, to promote collaboration among 

existing assessment consortia, such as 

those developing RTTA and EAG 

English language proficiency assessment 

systems (ELP), the Early Learning 

Collaborative Efforts Among States 

priority be revised to require applicants 

to address how they would coordinate 

with existing State educational 

improvement efforts. 

Discussion: As noted previously in 

our discussion of comments on the KEA 

priority, we agree that coordination 

across various development efforts is 

important to ensure that assessment 

systems are well coordinated. As also 

explained in the previous section, we 

have included a requirement that, when 

applied to a competition, requires any 

grantee to 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. We believe this 

requirement will help ensure that key 

assessment development efforts do not 

occur in isolation. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A couple of commenters 

raised questions about the three-State 

minimum for consortia under the Early 

Learning Collaborative Efforts Among 

States priority. One commenter asked if 

a single State could apply when the 

priority is used for a competition. 

Another commenter expressed concern 

that a priority that defines a consortium 

for the purposes of the priority as 

including a minimum of three States 

would discourage current two-State 

partnerships and their efforts to enhance 

and validate existing tools for broader 

use. 

Discussion: Because of the complexity 

of developing or enhancing a KEA, 

multiple States collaborating with each 

other may yield better results than those 

undertaking this effort alone. States 

working in collaboration can build on 

each other’s expertise and experience, 

and they can generate efficiencies in 

development, costs, implementation, 

and uses of results. For this reason, we 

strongly encourage consortia with 

multiple States, and therefore consider 

a consortium to be a group of three or 

more States, rather than just two States. 

In addition, data produced by a KEA 

administered across multiple States are 

more meaningful when the early 

learning and development standards are 

the same across States, and can provide 

a common framework for understanding 

the level of children’s learning and 

development at kindergarten entry. 

Though we have included the 

Collaborative Efforts Among States 

priority, a single State may apply. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter questioned 

whether, given their governance 

structures, some States, at the time of 

application, would be able to commit to 

the adoption of the common KEA 

developed under the grant and the set 

of early learning and development 

standards upon which the KEA is based. 

Discussion: Requirements similar to 

this one have been included in 

competitions for RTTA grants and EAG– 

ELP grants, and there is no evidence 

that these requirements have been 

barriers for applicants. In addition, 

should this be a barrier, there are 

alternate ways for a State to participate 

in a grant other than as a consortium 

member. For example, a State may 

participate as a collaborator, and the 

applicant State or consortium may 

define what such collaboration means. 

Because of these options and the 

success of past collaborative efforts, we 

decline to make a change to this 

priority. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

support for the language in the Early 

Learning Collaborative Efforts Among 

States priority that consortia adopt or 

propose a plan for all States in the 

consortium to adopt a set of early 

learning and development standards 

that, for at least the year prior to 

kindergarten entry, are substantially 

identical across all States in the 

consortium. However, this commenter 

expressed concern about whether there 

is enough time or sufficient resources 

for this adoption to be done in a 

meaningful way, including alignment to 

kindergarten through third grade 

standards, prior to KEA development. 

This commenter suggested States be 

given more time to develop standards as 

they implement this grant. 

Discussion: We agree that the 

establishment of the early learning and 

development standards to which a KEA 

would be aligned is a critical first step 

in any successful KEA development 

collaboration. Under section 6112 of the 

ESEA, the purpose of the EAG program 

is the development and enhancement of 

assessment instruments, not the 

development of standards. Thus, 

program requirement (e) does not allow 

the use of program funds to support the 

development of standards. As specified 

in requirement (e), grantees must ensure 

that funds awarded under the EAG 

program are not used to support the 

development of standards. This 

prohibition includes the development of 

early learning and development 

standards under the KEA priority or 

standards under any other priority. 

However, there are likely alignment 

activities that will be beneficial or 

necessary in order to develop a KEA 

that do not constitute standards 

development and would likely be 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 31353 

allowable under the EAG program. For 

example, an EAG grantee would not be 

allowed to use EAG funds to support an 

analysis of alignment of early learning 

and development standards across 

States in a consortium. However, a 

grantee would be allowed to use EAG 

funds to study the alignment of a KEA 

being developed or enhanced under an 

EAG to the early learning and 

development standards, and use funds 

to make revisions to the early learning 

and development standards if such a 

study indicates some revisions to the 

standards would strengthen the 

standards with respect to the 

assessment. In addition, an applicant 

may propose standards development 

activities as part of an EAG project, if 

the applicant also clearly provides for 

supporting those activities with nonEAG program funds. 

We understand the commenters’ 

concern that time be provided for a 

consortium to adopt a set of early 

learning and development standards 

that, for at least the year prior to 

kindergarten entry, are substantially 

identical across all States in the 

consortium. We will take this 

consideration into account when 

establishing periods of performance for 

grant competitions. 

Changes: None. 

Requirements 

Comment: One commenter 

encouraged the appropriate sharing of 

information from KEAs in ways that 

protect the privacy of individual 

children and families. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

importance of protecting the privacy of 

individual children and families and 

believe the KEA priority, as written, 

adequately provides for such 

protections. States must follow Federal, 

State, and local privacy laws when 

reporting the results of any KEA and 

incorporating such data into a State’s 

SLDS and early learning data system. 

We highlight these legal obligations by 

including them in the KEA priority. In 

addition, existing program requirement 

(c) requires that a grantee under this 

program develop a strategy to make sure 

student-level data that result from any 

assessments or other assessment-related 

instruments developed under a grant 

from this competition are available on 

an ongoing basis for research. Part of 

this strategy must be a plan to comply 

with Federal privacy laws, including the 

Family Educational Rights and Privacy 

Act (FERPA), as well as with State and 

local privacy laws. 

Changes: None. 

Definitions 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

adding the phrase ‘‘reasonable and 

attainable expectations’’ to part (a) of 

the definition of early learning and 

development standards. 

Discussion: We have used the same 

definition of early learning and 

development standards as that used in 

the RTT–ELC program. We have found 

that it meets the needs of the early 

learning field, and we believe early 

learning and development standards 

that meet our definition reflect 

reasonable and set attainable 

expectations for children and decline to 

make any changes. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter applauded 

us for basing the essential domains of 

school readiness definition on the 

recommendations of the National 

Education Goals Panel. 

Discussion: We are pleased to use this 

definition as a consistent base for 

continuing the work already begun in 

the early learning community. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the phrase ‘‘social and emotional’’ 

should be added to the definition of 

‘‘screening measures.’’ Another 

commenter suggested that the word 

‘‘linguistically’’ be added to the phrase 

‘‘age and developmentally’’ appropriate 

in the definition of ‘‘screening 

measures.’’ 

Discussion: The definition of 

‘‘screening measures’’ is the same as 

that used for the RTT–ELC program. The 

definition of ‘‘screening measures’’ 

includes instruments that are used to 

identify children who may need followup services to address developmental, 

learning, or health needs in, at a 

minimum, a number of areas, including 

‘‘behavior health,’’ which we believe is 

inclusive of ‘‘social and emotional.’’ 

Further, in the definition of 

‘‘comprehensive early learning system’’ 

we specify that this ‘‘means a 

coordinated system of multiple 

assessments, each of which is valid and 

reliable for its specified purpose and for 

the population with which it will be 

used.’’ For the assessment to be valid 

and reliable for the population it must 

include linguistically appropriate 

measures. We believe the definition 

addresses the commenters’ concerns. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

including a definition of ‘‘universal 

design.’’ The commenter suggested 

using the definition of universal design 

for learning in the Higher Education 

Act. 

Discussion: We agree a definition is 

necessary. We believe that assessments 

incorporating universal design (as 

defined in this notice) principles 

increase the chance of obtaining valid 

test results for all students, including 

young children with disabilities or who 

may have disabilities not yet recognized 

because of the lack of educational 

experience or prior testing or 

evaluation. A fundamental principle of 

universal design in assessment is the 

precise definition of the competencies 

(test constructs) to be measured so as to 

minimize the effects of any factors not 

related to these competencies. Although 

the test constructs must be clearly 

defined, universal design permits the 

design, mode of presentation, and 

setting in which an assessment is given 

to vary according to the needs of 

students, so that the requirements for 

accommodations may be reduced. For 

very young children who have taken a 

unique initial assessment, the need for 

accommodations will not have been 

documented. Children with recognized 

disabilities should be provided 

accommodations to allow them to 

demonstrate their competencies, 

including accommodations or 

allowances in observational 

assessments. 

We have included a definition of 

‘‘universal design’’ in the priority. The 

commenter referred to the definition in 

the Higher Education Act, which was 

adapted from the Assistive Technology 

Act of 1998. However, the language 

used in the KEA priority, requirement, 

definitions, and selection criteria refers 

to ‘‘universal design,’’ not ‘‘universal 

design for learning,’’ as used in the 

Higher Education Act. Therefore, we 

have added the definition of ‘‘universal 

design’’ taken from section 3 of the 

Assistive Technology Act of 1998. 

Changes: We have added the 

definition for ‘‘universal design’’ from 

the Assistive Technology Act of 1998, 

which reads: ‘‘The term ‘universal 

design’ means a concept or philosophy 

for designing and delivering products 

and services that are usable by people 

with the widest possible range of 

functional capabilities, which include 

products and services that are directly 

usable (without requiring assistive 

technologies) and products and services 

that are made usable with assistive 

technologies.’’ 

Selection Criteria 

Comment: Many commenters wrote 

about professional development for 

teachers. Several commenters asked that 

professional development be required 

by the KEA priority. A couple of 

commenters suggested that data 

resulting from the KEA be used to direct 

professional development. One 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
31354 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

commenter pointed out that the target 

audience for professional development 

should be kindergarten teachers and 

education providers in the years before 

and after kindergarten. One commenter 

asked if funds from an EAG award 

involving the KEA priority could be 

used for professional development. 

Multiple commenters recommended 

that an EAG award involving the KEA 

priority provide for the use of funds to 

support professional development for 

teachers on interpreting and using 

results. Finally, one commenter 

applauded our inclusion of selection 

criterion (e)(1). 

Discussion: Selection criterion (e)(1) 

asks applicants to provide a 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. Pursuant 

to these selection criteria, applicants 

may include a plan to use EAG funds to 

support professional development on 

the implementation of the KEA and the 

use of the data. As a result, we decline 

to make changes or add language to the 

priority. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we revise the KEA priority to 

require alignment between preschool 

and kindergarten assessments. Another 

commenter suggested that we add 

language to both the KEA priority and 

the selection criteria that would support 

alignment of preschool and 

kindergarten, as well as student 

transition from preschool to 

kindergarten. 

Discussion: Assessments given in 

preschool ideally are aligned with 

States’ high-quality early learning and 

development standards (as defined in 

this notice). We believe that requiring 

such alignment, however, is beyond the 

scope of the KEA priority. We note that 

the KEA priority requires KEAs 

developed or enhanced under it to be 

aligned with States’ early learning and 

development standards, which are to be 

aligned with the States’ kindergarten 

through third grade academic content 

standards in, at a minimum, early 

literacy and mathematics. We note that 

paragraph (b)(1) of the KEA priority 

requires that a KEA developed or 

enhanced under this priority be 

designed to be a component of a State’s 

student assessment system including a 

State’s comprehensive early learning 

assessment system for each State 

included in an application in which a 

comprehensive early learning 

assessment system exists. We agree with 

the commenters that this alignment 

between preschool and kindergarten 

assessments must be more thoroughly 

thought through by applicants. 

Accordingly, we have added a factor to 

selection criterion (h) to further address 

this issue. 

Changes: We have added (h)(10) to 

the KEA design selection criteria, that 

asks applicants to describe how a 

proposed KEA would be included as a 

component of a State’s student 

assessment system, including a State’s 

comprehensive early assessment system 

(as defined in this notice) for each State 

included in an application in which a 

comprehensive early learning 

assessment system exists. 

Comment: A couple of commenters 

advocated for the inclusion of early 

childhood educators’ input in the 

design of the KEA. One commenter 

specifically recommended requiring the 

involvement of the Early Learning 

Advisory Councils, which were 

established in the Head Start Act of 

2007. One commenter stated that 

stakeholders should be engaged in the 

continuous review of and evaluation of 

the SLDS, the early learning 

comprehensive assessment system, and 

the early learning and development 

standards. 

Discussion: The KEA development 

plan selection criterion (i)(1)(ii) asks 

applicants to list the types of personnel 

involved in each development phase 

and process. We agree that it would be 

best practice to include Early Learning 

Advisory Councils and other early 

learning coordinating bodies and 

resources as appropriate; however, we 

do not want to be overly prescriptive in 

this area. Though we do not want to 

prescribe for States the groups that must 

be involved in KEA development, we 

revised the list of examples of personnel 

in selection criterion (i)(1)(ii) to include 

‘‘early learning practitioner’’ and 

‘‘experts in early learning and 

development standards.’’ We also 

included ‘‘Early Learning Advisory 

Councils’’ as an example of a key 

stakeholder in the same list of examples. 

Changes: We have revised selection 

criterion (i)(1)(ii) to include references 

to ‘‘early learning practitioners,’’ 

‘‘experts in early learning and 

development standards,’’ and ‘‘Early 

Learning Advisory Councils.’’ 

Comment: We received a number of 

comments about families’ roles in the 

development, interpretation, and use of 

results from a KEA. One commenter 

suggested that the KEA priority require 

the information resulting from the KEA 

be provided to families in an accessible 

and transparent format, such as sharing 

information resulting from the KEA to 

families who do not speak or read 

English. A couple of commenters 

suggested a grantee be required to do 

more than just provide information to 

the families of the children assessed but 

engage the families in using the data 

and in developing the KEA. One 

commenter recommended that we 

expand this priority to include family 

engagement in preparing children for 

school readiness. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenters that providing KEA results 

to families is important in supporting 

children’s learning and development. 

We also agree that information 

generated by the assessments should be 

accessible to families whose first 

language is not English. That is why 

selection criterion (h)(9) provides for the 

reports and interpretation guides that 

will be produced based on the 

assessments: the key data the guide will 

present; the guides’ intended use; the 

guides’ target audience (e.g., families, 

teachers, administrators, policymakers, 

and other stakeholders); and how 

presentation of the guide will be in an 

understandable and uniform format and, 

to the extent practicable, in a language 

that families can understand. With 

regard to the suggestion to include 

family engagement in the priority, the 

Department has provided in selection 

criterion (h)(4)(v) that we will consider 

how the KEA will produce data and 

information that may be used to provide 

families with information about their 

children’s learning and development 

based on the essential domains of 

school readiness and engage families in 

the early learning of their children. 

Finally, we have included ‘‘families’’ as 

an example of key stakeholders in the 

types of personnel involved in each 

development phase and process of the 

KEA in selection criterion (i)(1)(ii). 

Changes: We have added ‘‘families’’ 

as an example of key stakeholders 

involved in each development phase 

and process of the KEA in selection 

criterion (i)(1)(ii). 

Funding 

Comment: One commenter asked for 

clarification on whether EAG funds may 

be used to strengthen standards or to 

work on standards alignment. 

Discussion: The purpose of the EAG 

program, under section 6112 of the 

ESEA, is the development and 

enhancement of assessment 

instruments, not standards 

development. As specified in 

requirement (e), grantees must ensure 

that funds awarded under the EAG 

program are not used to support the 

development of standards. This 

prohibition includes the development of 

early learning and development 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 31355 

2National Research Council. (2008). Early 

Childhood Assessment: Why, What, and How. 

Committee on Developmental Outcomes and 

Assessments for Young Children, C.E. Snow and 

S.B. Van Hemel, Editors. Board on Children, Youth, 

and Families, Board on Testing and Assessment, 

Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and 

Education. Washington, DC: The National 

Academies Press. Available at www.nap.edu/ 

catalog.php?record_id=12446. 

standards under the KEA priority or 

standards under any other priority. 

However, there are likely alignment 

activities that will be beneficial or 

necessary in order to develop a KEA 

that do not constitute standards 

development and would likely be 

allowable under the EAG program. For 

example, an EAG grantee would not be 

allowed to use EAG funds to support an 

analysis of alignment of early learning 

and development standards across 

States in a consortium prior to adoption. 

However, a grantee would be allowed to 

use EAG funds to study the alignment 

of a KEA being developed or enhanced 

under an EAG to the early learning and 

development standards. A grantee could 

also use funds to make revisions to the 

early learning and development 

standards if such a study indicates some 

revisions to the standards would 

strengthen the standards with respect to 

alignment to the assessment. 

Changes: None. 

Final Priorities: 

Priority 1—Kindergarten Entry 

Assessment. 

To meet this priority, an applicant 

must propose a project that supports the 

development or enhancement of a KEA 

that meets the following requirements: 

(a) Purpose. The KEA must— 

(1) Provide, at kindergarten entry, 

valid, reliable, and fair information on 

each child’s learning and development 

across the essential domains of school 

readiness (as defined in this notice) 

with each domain making a significant 

contribution to the overall 

comprehensive score. 

(2) Not be used— 

(i) To prevent children’s entry into 

kindergarten; or 

(ii) For purposes for which it has not 

been validated or as a single measure for 

high-stakes decisions. 

(b) Design. The KEA must— 

(1) Be a component of a State’s 

student assessment system, including, a 

State’s comprehensive early learning 

assessment system (as defined in this 

notice) for the applicant State and, if the 

State applies as part of a consortium, 

each State in the consortium, in which 

a comprehensive early learning 

assessment system exists; 

(2) Be aligned with a set of early 

learning and development standards (as 

defined in this notice); 

(3) Measure the full range of learning 

and development across the essential 

domains of school readiness (as defined 

in this notice); 

(4) Measure children’s learning and 

development against a set of levels of 

performance where the levels of 

performance encompass descriptors of 

what a child knows and is able to do for 

each level, are common statewide, and, 

if the applicant State applies on behalf 

of a consortium, are common across 

States in the consortium; 

(5) Provide a summative assessment 

of each child’s learning and 

development at kindergarten entry 

across the essential domains of school 

readiness (as defined in this notice); 

(6) Be capable of assessing all 

children in the applicant State, and if 

the State applies as part of a consortium, 

all children in the consortium; 

(7) Be developed consistent with 

universal design (as defined in this 

notice) principles to be accessible to all 

children, including children with 

disabilities or developmental delays and 

English learners (as defined in this 

notice); 

(8) As needed, provide appropriate 

accommodations and supports for 

children with disabilities or 

developmental delays and English 

learners (as defined in this notice) (e.g., 

augmentative communication devices 

and assistive technologies); 

(9) Be administered soon enough after 

a child’s enrollment into kindergarten to 

achieve the purposes for which the 

assessment was developed, including 

the purpose specified in paragraph (a) of 

this priority; 

(10) Use multiple methods (e.g., 

performance tasks, selected responses, 

observational ratings) to measure 

children’s performance and 

development; 

(11) Be administered by a trained 

assessor or assessors; 

(12) Be designed to incorporate 

technology in the collection of student 

data and in the process of assessing 

children’s performance on learning and 

development tasks; and 

(13) Be cost-effective to administer, 

maintain, and enhance during and after 

the project period. 

(c) Technical Quality. The KEA must 

measure children’s learning and 

development at kindergarten entry in 

ways that— 

(1) Are consistent with nationally 

recognized professional and technical 

standards for assessment; 

(2) Are consistent with current 

research and best-practices in the field, 

and the recommendations of the 

National Research Council report on 

early childhood assessments; 2

(3) Are valid, reliable, fair, and 

appropriate for their intended purposes; 

(4) Provide a valid, reliable, and fair 

measure across the performance 

spectrum of each child’s learning and 

development at kindergarten entry, 

including children with disabilities or 

developmental delays and English 

learners (as defined in this notice). 

(d) Data. The KEA must produce data 

and information that— 

(1) Can guide individualized 

instruction for children enrolled in 

kindergarten and throughout the school 

year; 

(2) Can be reported to and easily 

understood and used by various 

stakeholders, including families, 

teachers, administrators, early learning 

providers, and policy-makers, consistent 

with requirements of Federal, State, and 

local privacy laws; and 

(3) Can be incorporated into a State’s 

longitudinal data system (SLDS) and a 

State’s early learning data system (if it 

is separate from an SLDS), consistent 

with requirements of Federal, State, and 

local privacy laws. 

(e) Compatibility. The KEA must use 

approaches to assessment design and 

implementation (e.g., use of technology, 

assessment administration, scoring, and 

reporting) that facilitate the integration 

of the KEA with a State’s student 

assessment system, including a State’s 

comprehensive early learning 

assessment system (as defined in this 

notice) for each State included in an 

application in which a comprehensive 

early learning assessment system exists. 

Priority 2—Early Learning 

Collaborative Efforts Among States. 

To meet this priority, an applicant 

must— 

(a) Include a minimum of three States 

in the consortium and propose 

developing or enhancing a common 

KEA for those States. An applicant will 

receive a greater number of points under 

this priority based on the extent to 

which it includes a greater number of 

States in its consortium; 

(b) Adopt or propose a plan for all 

States in the consortium to adopt a set 

of early learning and development 

standards (as defined in this notice) 

that, for at least the year prior to 

kindergarten entry, are substantially 

identical across all States in the 

consortium; 

(c) Adopt or propose a plan for all 

States in the consortium to adopt the 

common KEA; and 

(d) Provide in the memorandum of 

understanding or other binding 

agreement executed by each State in the 

consortium an assurance that, as a 

condition of remaining in the 

consortium, the State will, no later than 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
31356 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

3National Research Council (2008). Early 

Childhood Assessment: Why, What, and How. 

Committee on Developmental Outcomes and 

Assessments for Young Children, C.E. Snow and 

S.B. Van Hemel, Editors. Board on Children, Youth, 

and Families, Board on Testing and Assessment, 

Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and 

Education. Washington, DC: The National 

Academies Press. Available at: www.nap.edu/ 

catalog.php?record_id=12446. 

the end of the project period, adopt the 

common KEA developed under this 

priority and the set of early learning and 

development standards (as defined in 

this notice) upon which the KEA is 

based. 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 Requirement: The Assistant 

Secretary for Elementary and Secondary 

Education establishes the following 

requirement for the Enhanced 

Assessment Grants program. We may 

apply this requirement in any year in 

which a competition for program funds 

is held. An eligible applicant awarded a 

grant under this program must: 

(i) Adopt and implement any 

assessments, other assessment-related 

instruments developed or enhanced 

under the proposed project, and any 

standards upon which they are based. In 

addition, if the applicant State applies 

as, or on behalf of a consortium of 

States, it must provide in any 

memorandum of understanding or other 

binding agreement executed by each 

State in the consortium an assurance 

that, to remain in the consortium, the 

State will adopt and implement any 

assessments or other assessment-related 

instruments developed or enhanced 

under the proposed project and any 

standards upon which they are based by 

the end of the project period. 

Final Definitions: The Assistant 

Secretary for Elementary and Secondary 

Education 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. 

Comprehensive early learning 

assessment system means a coordinated 

and comprehensive system of multiple 

assessments, each of which is valid and 

reliable for its specified purpose and for 

the population with which it will be 

used, that organizes information about 

the process and context of young 

children’s learning and development in 

order to help teachers make informed 

instructional and programmatic 

decisions and that conforms with the 

recommendations of the National 

Research Council report on early 

childhood assessments 3 by including, at 

a minimum: (a) Screening measures (as 

defined in this notice); (b) formative 

assessments; (c) measures of 

environmental quality (as defined in 

this notice); (d) measures of the quality 

of adult-child interactions (as defined in 

this notice); and (e) a kindergarten entry 

assessment (KEA). 

Early learning and development 

standards means a set of expectations, 

guidelines, or developmental milestones 

that— 

(a) Describe what all children from 

birth to kindergarten entry should know 

and be able to do and their dispositions 

toward learning; 

(b) Are appropriate for each age group 

(e.g., infants, toddlers, and 

preschoolers); for English learners (as 

defined in this notice); and for children 

with disabilities or developmental 

delays; 

(c) Cover all essential domains of 

school readiness (as defined in this 

notice); 

(d) Are universally designed and 

developmentally, culturally, and 

linguistically appropriate; and 

(e) Are aligned with the State’s 

kindergarten through third grade 

academic standards in, at a minimum, 

early literacy and mathematics. 

English learner means a child, 

including a child aged three and 

younger, who is an English learner 

consistent with the definition of a child 

who is ‘‘limited English proficient,’’ as 

applicable, in section 9101(25) of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965, as amended. 

Essential domains of school readiness 

means the domains of language and 

literacy development, cognition and 

general knowledge (including early 

mathematics and early scientific 

development), approaches toward 

learning, physical well-being and motor 

development (including adaptive skills), 

and social and emotional development. 

Formative assessment (also known as 

a classroom-based or ongoing 

assessment) means assessment 

questions, tools, and processes— 

(a) That are— 

(1) Specifically designed to monitor 

children’s progress; 

(2) Valid and reliable for their 

intended purposes and their target 

populations; and 

(3) Linked directly to the curriculum; 

and 

(b) The results of which are used to 

guide and improve instructional 

practices. 

Measures of environmental quality 

means valid and reliable indicators of 

the overall quality of the early learning 

environment. 

Measures of the quality of adult-child 

interactions means the measures 

obtained through valid and reliable 

processes for observing how teachers 

and caregivers interact with children, 

where such processes are designed to 

promote child learning and to identify 

strengths and areas for improvement for 

early learning professionals. 

Screening measures means age and 

developmentally appropriate, valid, and 

reliable instruments that are used to 

identify children who may need followup services to address developmental, 

learning, or health needs in, at a 

minimum, the areas of physical health, 

behavioral health, oral health, child 

development, vision, and hearing. 

Universal design means a concept or 

philosophy for designing and delivering 

products and services that are usable by 

people with the widest possible range of 

functional capabilities, which include 

products and services that are directly 

usable (without requiring assistive 

technologies) and products and services 

that are made usable with assistive 

technologies. This meaning is given to 

the term in section 3 of the Assistive 

Technology Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 

3002). 

Final Selection Criteria: The Assistant 

Secretary for Elementary and Secondary 

Education 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. 

(h) Kindergarten entry assessment 

design. 

The Secretary reviews each 

application to determine the extent to 

which the design of the eligible 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 31357 

applicant’s proposed assessment is 

innovative, feasible, and consistent with 

the theory of action. In determining the 

extent to which the design has these 

attributes, the Department will 

consider— 

(1) How the assessment will measure 

child performance and development 

against early learning and development 

standards (as defined in this notice); 

(2) The steps proposed for ensuring 

that the assessment is aligned with the 

specific early learning and development 

standards on which the assessment is 

based; 

(3) The extent to which data from the 

assessment can be incorporated into a 

State’s longitudinal data system (SLDS) 

and a State’s early learning data system 

(if it is separate from an SLDS) through 

the use of or connection to common 

data elements and definitions, such as 

the Common Education Data Standards 

(), consistent with requirements of 

Federal, State, and local privacy laws; 

(4) How the KEA will produce data 

and information which may be used 

to— 

(i) Guide individualized instruction 

for children enrolled in kindergarten 

and throughout the school year; 

(ii) Identify teacher professional 

development and support needs; 

(iii) Support programmatic decisionmaking at the school level for informing 

teaching, learning, and program 

improvement; 

(iv) Support State and local agencies 

in effectively targeting investments for 

early learning and development systems 

serving children in the years before 

kindergarten; and 

(v) Provide families with information 

about their children’s learning and 

development based on the essential 

domains of school readiness (as defined 

in this notice) and engage them in the 

early learning of their children; and 

(5) The number and types of items 

(e.g., performance tasks, selected 

responses, observational ratings) and the 

distribution of item types within the 

assessment, including the variation of 

the items and the rationale for using 

these item types and their distributions; 

(6) The assessment’s administration 

mode(s) (e.g., direct, observation, or 

administered using an electronic 

device), and the rationale for the 

mode(s); 

(7) The methods for scoring child 

performance on the assessments, the 

estimated turnaround times for scoring, 

and the rationale(s) for these; 

(8) The applicant’s plan to set levels 

of performance for the assessment, 

where the levels of performance 

encompass descriptors of what a child 

knows and is able to do for each level, 

and for how the applicant will 

meaningfully engage and solicit 

stakeholder input on the development 

of levels of performance that are valid, 

reliable, and fair for children’s learning 

and development; 

(9) The reports and interpretation 

guides that will be produced based on 

the assessments, and for each report and 

interpretation guide: the key data it will 

present; its intended use; its target 

audience (e.g., families, teachers, 

administrators, policymakers, and other 

stakeholders); and how its presentation 

will be in an understandable and 

uniform format and, to the extent 

practicable, in a language that families 

can understand; and; 

(10) How the proposed KEA will be a 

component of a State’s student 

assessment system, including, a State’s 

comprehensive early learning 

assessment system (as defined in this 

notice) for each State included in an 

application in which a comprehensive 

early learning assessment system exists. 

(i) Kindergarten entry assessment 

development plan. 

The Secretary reviews each 

application to determine the extent to 

which the eligible applicant’s plan for 

developing the proposed KEA will 

ensure that the assessments are ready by 

the end of the grant period for widescale administration in a manner that is 

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, the Department will 

consider— 

(1)(i) The approaches for developing 

assessment items (e.g., evidencecentered design, universal design (as 

defined in this notice)), the rationale for 

using those approaches, and the 

development phases and processes to be 

implemented consistent with the 

approaches; 

(ii) The types of personnel involved in 

each development phase and process 

(e.g., early learning practitioners, 

experts in early learning and 

development, expert in early learning 

and development standards, experts in 

the assessment of young children, 

content experts, assessment experts, 

experts in assessing children with 

disabilities or developmental delays and 

English learners, psychometricians, 

cognitive scientists, and other key 

stakeholders, including families and 

Early Learning Advisory Councils); 

(2) The approach and strategy for 

designing and developing 

accommodations, accommodation 

policies, and methods for standardizing 

the use of those accommodations for 

children with disabilities or 

developmental delays and English 

learners (as defined in this notice); 

(3) The approach and strategy for 

ensuring scalable, accurate, and 

consistent scoring of items, including 

the approach and moderation system for 

any items not scored by machine 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, maintaining the integrity of the 

assessment process, 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 

child populations, taking into particular 

account the full range of learning and 

development across the essential 

domains of school readiness (as defined 

in this notice), and including children 

with disabilities or developmental 

delays and English learners (as defined 

in this notice). 

This notice does not preclude us from 

proposing additional priorities, 

requirements, definitions, or selection 

criteria, subject to meeting applicable 

rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use one or more of these priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria, we invite applications through a 

notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as an action likely to 

result in a rule that may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local or tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
31358 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

stated in the Executive order. 

This final regulatory action is not a 

significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

We have also reviewed this final 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

13563, which supplements and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 

Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing these final priorities, 

requirement, definitions, and selection 

criteria only on a reasoned 

determination that their benefits justify 

their costs. In choosing among 

alternative regulatory approaches, we 

selected those approaches that 

maximize net benefits. Based on the 

analysis that follows, the Department 

believes that this regulatory action is 

consistent with the principles in 

Executive Order 13563. 

We have determined, also, that this 

regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In accordance with both Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or 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: May 17, 2013. 

Deborah S. Delisle, 

Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 

Secondary Education. 

[FR Doc. 2013–12216 Filed 5–22–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES