[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 47 (Thursday, March 11, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12156-12160]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-6023]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
National Assessment Governing Board; Hearings
AGENCY: National Assessment Governing Board; Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of Hearings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Assessment Governing Board is announcing four
public hearings related to proposed voluntary national tests. The
purpose of the hearings is to obtain public comment to inform the
development, by the Governing Board, of a report required under the
Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (the Act).
Section 305 (c)(1) of the Act states that ``The National Assessment
Governing shall determine and clearly articulate in a report the
purpose and intended use of any proposed federally sponsored national
test. Such report shall also include:
(A) a definition of the term ``voluntary'' in regards to the
administration of any national test; and
(B) a description of the achievement levels and reporting methods
to be used in grading any national test.''
The Act states that the report is to be submitted to the White
House and to the cognizant Senate and House authorizing and
appropriations committees by September 30, 1999. However, the Governing
Board intends to submit the report by June 30, 1999.
Interested individuals and organizations are invited to provide
written and/or oral testimony to the Governing Board. In order to
assist the public, the Governing Board has developed two possible
scenarios related to the proposed voluntary national tests. These
scenarios, explanatory information, and issues to consider are included
in ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, below.
The Governing Board has contracted with the American Institutes for
[[Page 12157]]
Research to assist in the conduct and reporting of the public hearings.
Public Law 105-78 and the Act vest exclusive authority to develop
the voluntary national tests in the Governing Board. Section 447 of the
General Education Provisions Act prohibits the use of federal funds for
pilot testing, field testing, implementation, administration, or
distribution of voluntary national tests.
SCHEDULE OF DATES AND LOCATIONS: The schedules of dates and locations
of the four public hearings have been set as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cities Dates Locations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago, IL................. March 29, 1999 Chicago Marriott
Register by March Downtown 540 North
25, 1999. Michigan Avenue.
Atlanta, GA................. March 30, 1999 Westin Peachtree
Register by March Plaza 210 Peachtree
26, 1999. Street, N.W.
Washington, DC.............. April 7, 1999 The Charles Sumner
Register by April School, The Great
5, 1999. Hall, 1201 17th
Street NW.
San Francisco, CA........... April 12, 1999 The Argent Hotel 50
Register by April Third Street.
8, 1999.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing schedule for each site will be as follows: 10:00 am--
12:00 noon and 1:00 pm--3:00 pm.
Indivduals wishing to present oral testimony should register in
advance by the registration date indicated above in the schedule for
the specific hearings. To register in advance, contact Ms. Molly
Pescador at American Institutes for Research at 1-888-944-5001
extension 5313 from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard time.
Requests to speak will be accommodated until all time slots are filled.
Individuals who do not register in advance will be permitted to
register and speak at the meeting in order of registration, if time
permits. Each speaker is intended to have fifteen minutes; however, the
actual time available will be determined in part by the volume of
registered speakers. While it is anticipated that all persons who
desire will have an opportunity to speak, time limits may not allow
this to occur.
Written testimony is invited and welcomed. All testimony will
become part of the public record and will be considered by the
Governing Board in preparing the report to the White House and the
Congress on the purpose, intended use, definition of ``voluntary,'' and
reporting for the proposed voluntary national tests.
WRITTEN STATEMENTS: Written statements submitted for the public record
should be postmarked by April 12, 1999 and mailed to the following
address: Mark D. Musick, Chairman, (Attention: Ray Fields), National
Assessment Governing Board, 800 North Capitol Street NW, Suite 825,
Washington, DC 20002-4233.
Written statements also may be submitted electronically by sending
electronic mail (e-mail) [email protected] by April 12, 1999. Comments
sent by e-mail must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of
special characters and any form of encryption. Inclusion in the public
record cannot be guaranteed for written statements, whether sent by
mail or electronically, submitted after April 12, 1999.
One or more members of the Governing Board will preside at each
hearing. The proceedings will be recorded for print transcription. The
hearings also can be signed for the hearing-impaired, upon advance
request.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Overview: Determining the Purpose, Intended Use, Definition of the
Term Voluntary, and Reporting for the Proposed Voluntary National
Test
Background
Following below are materials designed to prompt public discussion
about the proposed voluntary national tests. The public discussion of
these materials is intended to assist the National Assessment Governing
Board complete an assignment it received in legislation passed by
Congress, enacted in October 1998. The assignment Congress gave the
Board is to determine the purpose and intended use of the proposed
voluntary national test (VNT), defined the term voluntary, and
described the means for reporting results. The Governing Board is
required to report to Congress and the President by September 30, 1999.
The Governing Board intends to submit its report by June 30, 1999.
The materials, described in more detail below, consist of the
following:
Two draft scenarios for the VNT.
Appendix: Implementation and other issues related to the
VNT.
Related questions to help focus public comment.
Voluntary National Tests and the National Assessment of Educational
Progress
In November 1997, as part of a compromise with the President,
Congress passed legislation giving the Governing Board the task of
developing the voluntary national tests that had been proposed by
President Clinton and subsequently were being developed by the
Department of Education. This included reviewing the test development
contract awarded by the Department and revising it as the Board deemed
appropriate. In assuming this task, the Governing Board stated publicly
that it neither supported nor opposed the voluntary national test
initiative, but would work diligently to develop good tests. The Board
also would ensure that VNT development was effectively coordinated with
policy developed for the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP), developing NAEP policy being the board's primary mission. This
coordination is important because Congress directed the Board to base
the VNT on the content and the performance standards used for NAEP and
to link the VNT to NAEP to the maximum extent possible.
Neutral Role
The Governing board is well aware of the fact that this current
assignment to determine the purpose, intended use, definition of
voluntary and reporting methods has the potential of being perceived by
some as advocacy for the VNT initiative. The questions the Board was
given, and is attempting to answer, are IF through the political
process an agreement is reached to proceed with the voluntary national
test initiative: What should be the purpose of the tests? What should
be the intended uses? How should the VNT be reported? What should be
the definition of the term ``voluntary'' in the context of the VNT?
Thus, underlying the Board's work in this regard is the assumption
of agreement on the initiative. The Board understands that such an
agreement does not exist and may not be reached. Written into law is a
prohibition against pilot testing and filed testing the questions for
the VNT that the Governing Board is developing. While not advocating
for or against the initiative, the Board interprets the
[[Page 12158]]
congressional assignment to involve presenting the ``best case'' that
can be made about the potential purpose and use of the voluntary
national tests, if there is to be such a test.
The Draft Scenarios
Two Draft scenarios are presented below. They are intended to
prompt discussion to assist in determining the purposes, intended use,
definition of voluntary, and reporting approaches for the proposed
voluntary national tests. The two scenarios were developed based on who
makes the decision to volunteer to participate--either parents or
school authorities. Other scenarios are possible and are expected to
surface through public comment and Governing Board deliberation will be
conducted between the March 4-6 and June 23, 1999 meetings of the
Governing Board.
The scenarios are presented in table format with bulleted text for
ease of presentation and comparison. Some elements or attributes in the
table apply to both scenarios, some only to one, and are displayed
accordingly.
Public Policy Model
One element in the draft scenarios needs explanation: what is
referred to as the ``Public Policy Model.'' This model describes how
decisions to participate would be made by public and private school
authorities. It is hierarchical. For public schools, its first
principle is to rely on state/local law and policy in determining the
appropriate level for making the decision to participate in the VNT.
Under this model, the decision passes from state, to district, to
school. States decide first whether they will volunteer to participate.
If they do, then state law and/or policy determines whether district
participation is mandatory or discretionary.
If states do not volunteer, or volunteer but don't require district
participation, then school districts decide whether to volunteer. If a
school district volunteers, local policy determines whether school
participation is mandatory or discretionary. If school participation is
not mandatory, then each school determines whether it will volunteer.
At each level, state/local law and policy will determine whether
parents have the right to have their child ``opt out'' of testing.
For the non-public sector, appropriate private school authorities
would decide whether to volunteer.
Statement of Purpose: Focus on 4th Grade Reading and 8th Grade
Mathematics
In reviewing the test development contract for the voluntary
national test, the Governing Board considered the subjects and grades
to be covered. The legislation vesting the Board with responsibility
for VNT test development does not specify or limit the subjects and
grades to be tested. However, the accompanying conference report does
direct that the VNT be based on NAEP content and NAEP performances
standards and be linked to NAEP to the maximum extent possible. The
Governing Board in August 1996 had adopted a policy on NAEP redesign.
The redesign policy provides for testing at grades 4, 8, and 12 at the
national level in 10 subjects and, based on the needs and interests
expressed by states, at grades 4 and 8 at the state level in reading,
writing, mathematics and science. Grades 4, 8, and 12 are transition
points in American Schooling. Consistent with the NAEP redesign policy
and the congressional directive to parallel NAEP. the Governing Board
limited the test development contract to cover grade 4 reading and
grade 8 mathematics. Proficiency in these subjects, by these grades, is
considered to be fundamental to academic success.
Appendix: Implementation and Other Issues
In making its assignment, Congress did not ask the Governing Board
to address implementation procedures for the VNT. Likewise, the
assignment does not include defining the VNT by describing what it is
not intended to do. However, the Governing Board believes that these
matters inevitably will be raised throughout the deliberative process;
that they afford a necessary context for discussing purpose, intended
use, definition of voluntary, and reporting; and that it would be naive
to ignore these matters. As a result, the draft scenarios are
accompanied by an appendix that addresses delivery models, possible
uses of the VNT by others, test administration considerations, and
possible unintended consequences. This information is to serve as a
backdrop for the discussion. The Board's primary goal remains: to
prepare the required report to Congress and the President for
submission by June 30.
Related Questions
The last part of these materials are questions and issues about the
draft scenarios. They are intended to aid in discussion about the
scenarios. They are organized according to the four required components
of the report: purpose, intended use, definition of voluntary, and
reporting. The questions will be a basis for organizing comments
received from the public. However, the public is encouraged to address
other issues as well, as they see fit.
Draft Scenarios for the Proposed Voluntary National Test
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual decision
Public policy model model
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purpose..................... To measure individual student achievement
in 4th grade reading and 8th grade
mathematics, based on the rigorous
content and rigorous performance
standards of the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP), as set by
the National Assessment Governing Board
(NAGB).
Voluntary (Federal Role).... The federal government shall not require
participation by any state, district,
public or private school, organization or
individual in voluntary national tests or
require participants to report voluntary
national test results to the federal
government.
Voluntary (Who decides)..... Public and Parents
private school decide whether
authorizes student
volunteer. participates.
State and/
or local law and
policy determines
decision level
(i.e., public
policy model begins
at the state level,
then proceeds
through district,
and school--see
Overview for
description).
Parents
``opt out'' as
determined by state/
local law and
policy.
Inteded Use................. To provide To provide
information to information to
parents, students, parents and
and authorized students about the
educators about the child's achievement
achievement of the in relation to
individual student rigorous content
in relation to and rigorous
rigorous content performance
and rigorous standards based on
performance NAEP, as set by
standards based on NAGB.
NAEP, as set by
NAGB.
[[Page 12159]]
Reporting................... Results reported by NAEP
performance standards (i.e., achievement
levels--Basic, Proficient, Advanced)
Explanation of achievement levels
in light of test questions taken by
student
All test questions, student
answers, and answer key returned in
timely fashion
Easy to understand, readable
Parents, Parents and
students, and students received
authorized reports.
educators received Some norm-
reports. referenced
Some norm- information (e.g.,
referenced percent of students
information (e.g., nationally at each
percent of students achievement level
nationally at each taken from the
achievement level, field test
taken from the results), but no
filed test results). comparisons at
class, schools,
district, or state
levels.
No
aggregate data will
be provided
automatically
(i.e., by class,
school, district,
and state), but
individual data can
be compiled by
state/local
participants, who
will bear
responsibility for
suing resulting
data in valid,
appropriate ways.
Guidance
provided on
technical criteria
for aggregate
reporting if done
by participants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix: Implementation and Other Issues
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual decision
Public policy model model
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Possible uses by others*.... General indicator of individual
achievement against rigorous external
standards established through a national
consensus process.
Parent/ Follow up with
teacher follow up school/teacher is
recommended but up to the parent.
decided at state/
district/school as
appropriate.
Results can
be compared to
student performance
on state and/or
local tests as a
basis for examining
the content of
state/local
standards.
Local
decision to use as
one of several
criteria about
individual student;
should be validated.
States may
want to use as an
external anchor to
their state tests.
Since only
one grade/two
subjects, not much
information for use
as part of school
accountability
system; any such
use should be
validated.
The VNT is Not.............. It is NOT tied to a preferred
curriculum, teaching method or approach.
It is NOT intended for diagnosing
specific learning problems or English
language proficiency.
It is NOT intended as sole
criterion in high stakes decision about
individual student.
It is NOT intended for evaluating
instructional practices, programs, or
school effectiveness.
Possible Test Delivery Central Management and Oversight: A
Models. federal agency takes the VNT as developed
by the Governing Board; develops policies
for quality control, security and
reporting; contracts for printing,
testing, scoring and reporting services;
disseminates information about the test
schedule; handles the ``sign-up'' of
participants; monitors the testing; and
ensures the quality control of results.
Free Market Model: The VNT is developed by
NAGB, licensed for marketing by
commercial test publishers, and marketed
like any commercial test for use by any
appropriate public or private educational
agency, testing center, or individual.
Parents may ``opt out'' as determined by
state law and policy and may ``opt in''
by purchasing private testing services if
the test is not offered at their child's
school. Quality control monitoring, rigor
of test security, training of test
administrators, content of reports,
development of ``non-standard'' versions
of tests, use of norms, etc., determined
by costs and market.
Administration.............. Disseminati Similar to
on strategy to SAT/ACT ``Self-
public and private select'' model.
education decision
makers.
Testing in Disseminati
participating on strategy to
schools. parents.
Training of Parents
test administrators. sign-up at
cooperating schools/
test centers.
Testing Testing at
during specified cooperating schools/
date in March. test centers.
Quality Testing
control monitoring during specified
of testing. date in March.
Guidance to Quality
teachers on control monitoring
appropriate test of testing.
preparation
practices.
Reports Reports
sent to states, sent to parents.
districts, schools, Q&A system
teachers and available for
parents per state/ parents.
local policy.
Who Pays: Three Options..... Option 1: Federal Gov't pays all costs:
test development, testing, scoring &
reporting.
Option 2: Fed. Gov't pays for test
development; volunteer (whether state
district, school, or parent) pays for
testing, scoring & reporting.
Option 3: Fed. Gov't pays all costs
initially; volunteer pays for all costs
but development after year 1.
Possible Consequences Parents become more involved with
Positive: child's education.
Students study harder and learn
more.
Teachers work more to emphasize
important skills and knowledge in the
subjects tested.
Parents, students, and teachers
have a means for better communications
about the child's achievement.
Negative:................... VNT test-preparation ``industry''
for economically advantaged students.
Inappropriarte test preparation
practices and over-emphasis on test-
taking techniques.
Misuse of test results.
[[Page 12160]]
Cheating scandals; security
breaches.
Litigation against NAGB.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive, of uses that
can be imagined that others may want to make of the VNT. Any use of
the VNT beyond the intended use described in the draft scenarios
should be validated for its applicability and appropriateness by the
respective user.
The Draft VNT Scenarios: Questions and Issues
Purpose
1. What are the pros and cons of defining the purpose of the VNT as
follows:
To measure individual student achievement in 4th grade and reading
and 8th grade mathematics, based on the rigorous content and rigorous
performance standards of the National Assessment of Educational
Progress, as set by the National Assessment Governing Board.
2. What changes to this definition of purpose of the VNT follow
from your analysis of the pros and cons?
Voluntary (federal role)
3. The draft scenarios state that the federal government will not
require any individual or organization to participate in the VNT for
any reason and will not require the reporting of VNT results to the
federal government.
Please discuss the implications and pros and cons of this position.
Voluntary (who decides)
4. What are the pros and cons, and practical implications of the
scenario in which parents make the decision about whether their
children participate in the VNT (i.e., the Individual Decision Model)?
5. What are the pros, cons, and practical implications of placing
the decision to participate in the VNT with public and private school
authorities (i.e., the Public Policy Model)?
(The Public Policy Model is hierarchical. Its first principle is to
rely on state/local law and policy in determining the appropriate level
for making the decision to participate in the VNT. Under this model,
the decision passes from state, to district, to school. States decide
first whether they will volunteer to participate. If they do, then
state law and/or policy determines whether district participation is
mandatory or discretionary.
If states do no volunteer, or volunteer but don't require district
participation, then school districts decide whether to volunteer. If a
school district volunteers, local policy determines whether school
participation is mandatory or discretionary. If school participation is
not mandatory, then each school determines whether it will volunteer.
At each level, state/local law and policy will determine whether
parents have the right to have their child ``opt out'' of testing.
An analogous approach would apply to private schools.)
6. If, under the Public Policy Model, the state, district or school
decides not to participate in the VNT, how important is it to provide
parents an opportunity to decide whether their children will
participate in the VNT?
Intended Use
7. What are the pros and cons of defining the only intended use of
the VNT as follows:
To provide information to parents, students, and authorized
educators about the achievement of the individual student in relation
to rigorous content and rigorous performance standards based on the
National Assessment of Educational Progress, as set by the National
Assessment Governing Board.
8. What other uses of the VNT should be considered? By what
criteria and evidence should they be approved? What authority should
grant such approval?
9. What should be done
(a) to prevent inappropriate uses of the VNT?
(b) in response to inappropriate uses of the VNT?
Reporting
Under both the Public Policy Model and the Individual Decision
Model scenarios, reports would be provided for individual students
only. Results would be reported according to the performance standards
used by the National Assessment of Educational Progress--Basic,
Proficient, and Advanced. It may be possible to return the student's
test booklet and answer sheet, along with an answer key, so that the
recipients can see how the student performed on each test item.
No aggregate data would be provided automatically. There will be no
national results collected or reported. State, district, school, or
class level results would be possible to report under the Public Policy
Model if states, districts, or schools elect to aggregate and analyze
the data themselves. However, the validity and technical quality of the
analyses would be the responsibility of the state, district, or school.
The Governing Board would provide technical guidelines describing the
criteria for such aggregation and analyses. Student results would not
be aggregated under the Individual Decision Model.
10. What is the most meaningful way to report student results using
performance standards?
11. What should be done about reporting results for students whose
performance is below the Basic level?
12. What specific guidance should be given to states, districts,
and schools on technical criteria for aggregating VNT data, for those
that make the decision to do so?
13. No test is perfectly accurate. If students could be tested
again on the same test, they may not get exactly the same score. How
can this variability in test scores best be communicated to parents,
students, and teachers?
Steps After Hearings: A transcript will be prepared for each
hearing as well as a written summary of the testimony. After the four
hearings have been completed, a report will be prepared synthesizing
the testimony presented at all of the hearings. The Governing Board
will consider this information in preparing the report required under
the Act.
Public Record: A record of all Governing Board proceedings with
respect to the public hearings will be available for inspection from 8
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays, in
Suite 825, 800 North Capitol Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20002.
Dated: March 8, 1999.
Roy Truby,
Executive Director, National Assessment Governing Board.
[FR Doc. 99-6023 Filed 3-10-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-M
