[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 100 (Thursday, May 23, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31344-31358]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12216]



[[Page 31343]]

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

  Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 31344]]


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

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: [email protected].
    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

[[Page 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

[[Page 31346]]

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

[[Page 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 well-designed 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 well-designed 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 high-stakes 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

[[Page 31348]]

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, non-governing, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Barnett, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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 one-on-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.

[[Page 31350]]

    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

[[Page 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

[[Page 31352]]

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

[[Page 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 non-EAG 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 follow-up 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

[[Page 31354]]

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

[[Page 31355]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ National 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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

[[Page 31356]]

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ National 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 follow-up 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

[[Page 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 decision-making 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 wide-scale 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., 
evidence-centered 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,

[[Page 31358]]

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