[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 153 (Wednesday, August 10, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-19433]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: August 10, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Department of Education
_______________________________________________________________________
34 CFR Parts 200 and 201
Chapter 1 Program in Local Educational Agencies and Chapter 1--Migrant
Education Program; Final Rule
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Parts 200 and 201
RIN 1810-AA70
Chapter 1 Program in Local Educational Agencies and Chapter 1--
Migrant Education Program
AGENCY: Education.
ACTION: Final regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary amends the regulations governing Part A and Part
D, Subpart 1 of Chapter 1 of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965. Part A of Chapter 1 provides financial
assistance through State educational agencies (SEAs) to local
educational agencies (LEAs) to meet the special educational needs of
educationally deprived children in school attendance areas with high
concentrations of children from low-income families and children in
local institutions for neglected or delinquent children. Part D of
Chapter 1 authorizes a Migrant Education Program (MEP) that provides
financial assistance to SEAs to establish and improve programs to meet
the special educational needs of migratory children of migratory
agricultural workers or fishermen.
These amendments afford flexibility to States that have developed
assessment systems that support their systemic education reform efforts
but that are inconsistent with the national evaluation standards in
Subpart H of 34 CFR Part 200 and Subpart E of 34 CFR Part 201. These
regulations contain less prescriptive national standards that enable
States to request an exception to the generally applicable national
evaluation standards in order to use their own assessment systems to
evaluate the effectiveness of their Chapter 1 and MEP programs.
EFFECTIVE DATE: These regulations take effect either 45 days after
publication in the Federal Register or later if the Congress takes
certain adjournments, except that compliance is not required with the
information collection requirements in Sec. 200.90 until the
information collection requirements contained in that section have been
submitted by the Department of Education and approved by the Office of
Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. If you
want to know the effective date of these regulations, call or write the
Department of Education contact person. A document announcing the
effective date will be published in the Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Part 200, Wendy Jo New, U.S.
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue S.W., Portals Building,
Room 4400, Washington, D.C. 20202-6132. Telephone: (202) 260-0982. For
Part 201, James English, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland
Avenue S.W., Portals Building, Room 4104, Washington, D.C. 20202-6135.
Telephone: (202) 260-1394. Individuals who use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay
Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern
time, Monday through Friday.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 10, 1994, the Secretary published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register (59 FR
11444-46), that proposed conditions for granting exceptions to the
national evaluation standards in Subpart H of Part 200 and in Subpart E
of Part 201 to enable States that are implementing new assessment
systems that support statewide education reform to use those
assessments--under less prescriptive national standards--to measure the
effectiveness of their Chapter 1 and MEP programs. Under the NPRM, the
Secretary could have approved a State's request for an exception to the
generally applicable Chapter 1 national evaluation standards if the
State had an assessment system that had been developed to support the
State's education reform efforts, the assessment system provided
information about the yearly performance of each Chapter 1 school and
could be aggregated for the LEA as a whole, and that information was
from at least one grade level in each school, and measured student
achievement in basic and more advanced skills and challenging subject
matter. The same standards were proposed to apply to the MEP, except
that the assessment system would have to provide a statewide estimate
of the yearly performance of migratory children in the State, rather
than information on individual schools. The NPRM also proposed to
permit States to request exceptions for particular LEAs and operating
agencies that, absent State systems, have local assessment systems in
place that support their education reform efforts and meet these same
standards.
These final regulations make the following changes to the NPRM.
Most significantly, Secs. 200.90(b) and 201.57(b) have been revised to
require that, in addition to the conditions in the NPRM, a State
assessment system for which an exception is being requested (1) must
yield consistent results that accurately reflect what the assessment
system was designed to measure; and (2) does not impair an SEA's or
LEA's ability to account for results under Chapter 1 or the MEP. The
Secretary has added these standards to ensure that State assessment
systems being developed to support systemic education reform efforts
are of high quality and that exceptions under these regulations would
only be granted if evaluation results provide meaningful indicators
about the effectiveness of Chapter 1 and MEP programs.
In addition, Sec. 200.90(b) has been revised to make clear that a
State assessment system must provide information from at least one
grade level in each Chapter 1 school. Sections 200.90(c) and 201.57(c)
have also been revised to clarify that an SEA may seek an exception for
LEAs or operating agencies that have assessment systems linked to local
reform efforts that meet the same standards that apply to State
assessment systems. Finally, Sec. 200.80(a) has been revised to correct
an erroneous cross-reference.
These regulations support the efforts of those States that will be
voluntarily implementing reform plans under the Goals 2000: Educate
America Act (Goals 2000). Section 306(c) of Goals 2000 requires the
reform plans to include a description of the process States will use to
develop State assessments aligned with the State's content standards
and that the assessments be for all students, including students with
diverse learning needs. These regulations will allow States that have
assessment systems tied to statewide education reform, developed under
Goals 2000 or another reform effort, to avoid duplication by using
their statewide assessments for Chapter 1 and MEP purposes if they meet
less prescriptive national standards contained in these regulations.
In granting an exception, the Secretary will not be waiving any
statutory requirements. SEAs and LEAs will continue to evaluate the
effectiveness of their Chapter 1 programs under section 1019, in
accordance with less prescriptive standards contained in these
regulations. SEAs and LEAs will also continue to perform the annual
review required under section 1021(a), measure sustained program gains
under sections 1019(a)(3) and 1021(a)(2), identify schools and students
in need of program improvement under section 1021(b) and (f), and meet
schoolwide project accountability requirements under section 1015(e),
using the State assessment and any other sources of information deemed
appropriate. Similarly, under the MEP, SEAs will still need to ensure
that they and their operating agencies adhere to the requirements of
sections 1012(b), 1019(b), and 1202(a)(6) to use desired outcomes for
evaluating performance, to collect and report demographic and
performance data, and to examine sustained gains for formerly migratory
children.
The Secretary wishes to emphasize that no State is required to make
any changes in its Chapter 1 or MEP testing programs as a result of
these regulations. Rather, the exceptions are intended to provide
flexibility to enable States to use their own assessment systems for
Chapter 1 and MEP purposes if they wish to do so.
Analysis of Comments and Changes
In response to the Secretary's invitation in the NPRM, 17 parties
submitted comments on the proposed regulations. An analysis of the
comments is published as an appendix to this document.
Executive Order 12866
These final regulations have been reviewed in accordance with
Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order, the Secretary has
assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action.
The potential benefits associated with these regulations are clear.
Rather than continuing to operate multiple assessment systems for
Federal and State purposes, some States may use their State systems to
evaluate their Chapter 1 and MEP programs. Moreover, the potential
costs associated with these regulations are negligible. Because the
regulations permit States to use their own assessment systems, States
will incur few, if any, additional costs. To the contrary, these
regulations will result in reduced costs for States that might
otherwise have had to operate multiple assessment systems. The
Secretary has also determined that this regulatory action does not
unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980
Section 200.90 contains information collection requirements. As
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, the Department of
Education will submit a copy of these sections to the Office of
Management and Budget for its review. (44 U.S.C. 3504(h))
These proposed regulations would affect SEAs and LEAs that have
developed assessment systems that support their educational reform
efforts but that are inconsistent with the national evaluation
standards in Subpart H of Part 200 or Subpart E of Part 201. The
Department needs the information to grant exceptions to the national
evaluation standards.
A one-time public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
collection of information is estimated to average two hours per
response for a maximum of 52 respondents, including the time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information.
Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the
information collection requirements should direct them to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Room 10235, New Executive
Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20503; Attention: Daniel J. Chenok.
List of Subjects
34 CFR Part 200
Administrative practice and procedure, Education of disadvantaged,
Elementary and secondary education, Grant programs--education, Juvenile
delinquency, Neglected, Private schools, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, State-administered programs.
34 CFR Part 201
Children, Coordination, Education, Eligibility, Evaluation, Grant
programs--education, Identification and recruitment, Local educational
agencies, Migrant student record transfer system, Migratory children,
Migratory workers, Needs assessment, Priorities, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Special educational needs, State
educational agencies, Subgrants.
Dated: August 3, 1994.
Richard W. Riley,
Secretary of Education.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers: 84.010, Chapter 1
Program in Local Educational Agencies; 84.011, Migrant Education
Basic State Formula Grant Program; 84.012, Chapter 1 Programs--State
Administration)
The Secretary amends Parts 200 and 201 of Title 34 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 200--CHAPTER 1 PROGRAM IN LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES
1. The authority citation for Part 200 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 2701-2731, 2821-2838, 2851-2854, 2881-2901,
unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 200.80 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory
text to read as follows:
Sec. 200.80 How does an LEA evaluate student achievement?
(a) An LEA shall evaluate student achievement under
Sec. 200.35(a)(1)(i)(B) as follows:
* * * * *
3. An undesignated heading entitled ``Exception'' and a new
Sec. 200.90 are added to Subpart H to read as follows:
Exception
Sec. 200.90 May an SEA request an exception to the requirements in
this subpart?
(a) An SEA may request, in writing, an exception to the
requirements in other sections of this subpart if the SEA desires to
use a State assessment system developed to support its education reform
efforts for the purpose of evaluating the effectiveness of its Chapter
1 programs.
(b) The Secretary may grant an SEA's request if the State
assessment system meets the following national standards:
(1) The State system provides information that can be aggregated
for each LEA as a whole about the yearly performance of each Chapter 1
school. This information must be from at least one grade level in each
Chapter 1 school and must be based on student achievement in basic and
more advanced skills and challenging subject matter.
(2) The State system yields consistent results that accurately
reflect what the assessment system was designed to measure.
(3) The State system does not impair an SEA's or LEA's ability to
account for results under Chapter 1.
(c) An SEA may request an exception for an LEA that has a local
assessment system that meets the national standards in paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 2729(a), 2835)
PART 201--CHAPTER 1--MIGRANT EDUCATION PROGRAM
4. The authority citation for Part 201 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 2781-2782, unless otherwise noted.
5. Section 201.57 is added to Subpart E to read as follows:
Sec. 201.57 Exception to evaluation requirements.
(a) An SEA may request, in writing, an exception to the
requirements in Secs. 201.51(a)(1)(ii), 201.52(b)(1), 201.53, and
201.55 of this subpart if the SEA desires to use a State assessment
system, developed to support its education reform efforts, for the
purpose of evaluating the effectiveness of its Chapter 1 Migrant
Education Program.
(b) The Secretary may grant an SEA's request if the State
assessment system meets the following national standards:
(1) The State system provides a statewide estimate of the yearly
performance of migratory children in the State. This information must
be from at least one grade level and must be based on student
achievement in basic and more advanced skills and challenging subject
matter.
(2) The State system yields consistent results that accurately
reflect what the assessment system was designed to measure.
(3) The State system does not impair an SEA's or operating agency's
ability to account for results under the MEP.
(c) An SEA may request an exception for an operating agency that
has an assessment system that meets the national standards in
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 2722, 2729, 2782, 2835)
Appendix to This Final Rule--Analysis of Comments and Changes
(Note: This appendix will not be codified in the Code of Federal
Regulations)
The Department received comments on these regulations from 17
commenters, 13 of whom supported the regulations.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department used the word
``exception'' in the proposed regulations because the Department cannot
grant waivers. The commenter argued that there is no meaningful
distinction between ``exception'' and ``waiver'' and, therefore, the
Secretary lacks the authority to grant ``exceptions'' to requirements
that evaluations of Chapter 1 and MEP programs be based on the current
national standards.
Discussion: It is, of course, true that the Secretary cannot waive
statutory or regulatory requirements absent specific authority. As a
result, the Secretary is engaging in formal rulemaking to make
exceptions to the generally applicable standards by adopting less
prescriptive standards that would apply in the case of States that
request authority to use testing tied to State systemic reform efforts
in lieu of separate Chapter 1 evaluations. It is important to recognize
that the Secretary would not be granting exceptions to any statutory
requirements. Rather, he would be granting exceptions to particular
regulatory provisions that were initially promulgated and have now been
revisited through the appropriate rulemaking process. By authorizing
the Secretary to grant ``exceptions,'' the regulations clarify that the
generally applicable national evaluation standards are still the
primary provisions governing Chapter 1 and MEP evaluations. The
Secretary recognizes, however, that some States, as part of their
systemic State education reform efforts, have developed new assessment
systems that may be inconsistent with these standards because, for
example, they are not based on national norms or do not test children
in every grade. These regulations contain less prescriptive national
standards that permit these States to use their own assessment systems
to evaluate the effectiveness of their Chapter 1 and MEP programs,
rather than requiring these States to administer separate tests purely
for Chapter 1 and MEP purposes.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asserted that the regulations do not comply
with the Chapter 1 statute. According to the commenter, the Secretary
is ``waiving all Chapter 1 testing requirements * * * without adopting
any substitute that can equally ensure compliance with the statute.''
In particular, the commenter contended that the regulations would
eliminate the requirement to use ``objective measurements'' of
``individual student achievement,'' thereby shifting the focus away
from individual students. The commenter also argued that the proposed
regulations would undermine the statutory requirement that improved
student performance be sustained for more than one year.
Discussion: These regulations neither waive nor are inconsistent
with any statutory requirements. For example, the basic evaluation
requirement in section 1019(a) of Chapter 1 requires an LEA to evaluate
the effectiveness of programs assisted under Chapter 1. The LEA must
use ``objective measurement of individual student achievement in basic
skills and more advanced skills, aggregated for the LEA as a whole'' as
an indicator of the impact of the program. Under the type of State
assessment system to which the exception would apply, all of these
requirements would have to be met. The assessments would have to--use
objective measures; measure basic and more advanced skills; assess the
achievement of individual children; and be capable of being aggregated
for each LEA as a whole. Nothing in section 1019(a), however, requires
these assessment systems to assess each child served in Chapter 1 or to
be based on national norms; rather, the Secretary imposed these
requirements through the current national standards. Moreover, contrary
to the commenter's interpretation, the requirement in section
1019(a)(3) regarding ``sustained gains'' relates to improved
performance of the program over a period of more than one year, not to
individual student performance.
As the preamble indicates, under these final regulations SEAs and
LEAs must continue to meet all statutory assessment requirements. In
particular, SEAs and LEAs must still evaluate the effectiveness of
their Chapter 1 programs under section 1019, perform the annual review
required under section 1021(a), measure sustained program gains under
sections 1019(a)(3) and 1021(a)(2), identify schools and students in
need of program improvement under section 1021 (b) and (f), and meet
schoolwide project accountability requirements under section 1015(e).
Similarly, under the MEP, SEAs must ensure that they and their
operating agencies adhere to the requirements of sections 1012(b),
1019(b), and 1202(a)(6) to use desired outcomes for evaluating
performance, to collect and report demographic and performance data,
and to examine sustained gains for formerly migratory children. If the
Secretary grants an exception under these final regulations, these
requirements may be met using the State assessment and any other
sources of information deemed appropriate. Thus, if a State assessment
system does not provide sufficient information to meet one or more of
these requirements, the SEA, LEA, or operating agency would have to
supplement that system with other appropriate information.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asserted that the proposed regulations did
not satisfy the Administrative Procedure Act. The commenter
specifically argued that the proposed regulations should contain the
criteria on which exceptions would be based so that commenters could
adequately respond.
Discussion: In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act,
the proposed regulations contained adequate notice of the standards
that States would have to meet to be excepted from the generally
applicable national evaluation standards. Those standards were--the
assessment system has been developed to support a State's education
reform efforts; the system provides information about the yearly
performance of each Chapter 1 school; and the information provided is
from at least one grade level, measures student achievement in basic
and more advanced skills and challenging subject matter, and can be
aggregated for the LEA as a whole.
However, in response to several comments, the Secretary has added
two additional standards and one clarification. The assessment system
must yield consistent results that accurately reflect what the
assessment system was designed to measure. The use of the assessment
system may not impair an SEA's or LEA's ability to account for results
under Chapter 1. The information from the assessment system must be
from at least one grade level in each Chapter 1 school. Similar
standards apply to the MEP, except that the system must provide a
statewide estimate of the yearly performance of migratory children in
the State, rather than information on individual schools.
Changes: Two additional standards have been added to
Secs. 200.90(b) and 201.57(b). The State assessment system must yield
consistent results that accurately reflect what the assessment system
was designed to measure, and use of the system may not impair an SEA's
or LEA's ability to account for results under Chapter 1 or the MEP. In
addition, Sec. 200.90(b)(1) has been revised to make clear that the
assessment system must provide information from at least one grade
level in each Chapter 1 school.
Comment: One commenter contended that the Secretary's explanation
for why these regulations are needed was inadequate. In the commenter's
view, the Secretary offered only ``an assortment of unsubstantiated
policy-oriented statements in lieu of hard, objective facts.'' The
commenter concluded that the Secretary is trying to change the national
evaluation standards by ``administrative fiat,'' without any
explanation of the reasons and supporting evidence for the changes.
Discussion: The Secretary has articulated quite clearly in the
preamble to both the proposed and final regulations why he is taking
this action. The national evaluation standards were adopted in 1989 and
represented the best thinking at that time about how to implement the
statutory evaluation requirements. They were predicated largely on the
perceived need to use a measure that would provide data that could be
aggregated for the Nation--i.e., nationally normed tests or tests
equated with national norms--even though the statute itself does not
require aggregation to either the State or national level.
Since then, two developments of national significance have required
a change in those national standards. First, a number of States have
developed new assessment systems, linked to their statewide education
reform efforts, to improve the quality of education in their States.
These assessment systems are tied to high State standards for what
children should know and be able to do, but in some instances are
inconsistent with the national evaluation standards because they do not
routinely rely on nationally normed tests and typically only assess
children in certain grades. As a result, these States must operate
separate assessment systems: ones that they use to make informed
decisions about the effectiveness of education programs in their State;
and ones that they use only for Chapter 1 or MEP purposes.
As a related matter, major educational reform legislation, the
Goals 2000: Educate America Act (Pub. L. 103-227), became law on March
31, 1994. Section 306(c) of Goals 2000 requires reform plans developed
under the statute to include a description of the process a State will
use to develop State assessments aligned with the State's content
standards and that the assessments be for all students, including
students with diverse learning needs. These regulations will allow
States that have assessment systems tied to statewide education reform,
developed under Goals 2000 or another effort, to obtain exceptions from
existing Chapter 1 and MEP evaluation requirements and, subject to less
prescriptive standards in these regulations, use their statewide
assessments for Chapter 1 and MEP purposes. By allowing those States
that already have developed assessment systems tied to statewide
education reform efforts to obtain exceptions from existing Chapter 1
and MEP evaluation requirements, these regulations permit those States
to focus their energies on the new assessments without having to
implement a separate assessment system for Chapter 1 and MEP that may
not support reform efforts. The Secretary believes that requiring these
States to operate separate assessment systems for Chapter 1 and MEP
purposes serves neither the interests of participating children nor the
Federal programs involved.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter contended that these regulations are
fundamentally flawed because the ``need'' for the exception is wholly
without merit. Defending nationally normed tests, the commenter
disputed that new State assessment systems would provide more
meaningful data and asserted that new and traditional assessment
systems are not mutually exclusive.
Discussion: The commenter may have missed the point of these
regulations. The regulations do not require any State to make changes
in its Chapter 1 or MEP testing programs. Even a State that has
developed an assessment system to support its education reform efforts
will not be required to use that system to evaluate its Chapter 1 or
MEP programs. At the same time, however, the Secretary does not want
the current national evaluation standards to stand in the way of a
State's efforts, in reforming its educational system, to define what
all students should be expected to know, train instructional staff to
teach those subjects, and assess whether students, in fact, have
learned what they should know. In particular, the Secretary believes
that States that are pursuing this kind of reform, and that have
already developed their own measures for assessing what all children
should know, should be free to use those assessments to evaluate their
States' Chapter 1 and MEP programs if they are satisfied that these
measures provide more meaningful information on the progress of
participating children than does use of the current national standards.
The current national evaluation standards preclude a State from making
this choice. To the extent that a State's assessment system does not
rely on a nationally normed test or fails to assess every participating
child in grades 2 through 12, it is inconsistent with, and therefore
cannot be used to satisfy, the current national evaluation standards.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter interpreted the Secretary's desire to
eliminate dual testing as a determination that multiple measures are
inconsistent with the current Chapter 1 evaluation requirements. The
commenter asserted that a rationale for the proposed exception premised
on a single assessment theory is inconsistent with current law.
Discussion: The commenter may have misinterpreted the Secretary's
rationale for proposing an exception to the national evaluation
standards. The Secretary is not requiring use of a sole assessment
criterion. Rather, like the commenter, the Secretary encourages
multiple assessment measures and anticipates that most, if not all,
State assessment systems qualifying for an exception would consist of
multiple measures. On the other hand, the Secretary is trying to
eliminate the need for a State to administer dual tests, i.e.,
administering a particular type of test merely to satisfy the Chapter 1
national evaluation standards while administering an acceptable
alternative assessment system for the State's own purposes.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that, instead of granting
exceptions, the Secretary revise the regulations to require the use of
multiple measures, including norm-referenced tests. According to the
commenter, although it is appropriate to use additional assessments
that could provide critical evidence of whether children are performing
at an appropriate level, norm-referenced tests should also be used
because they meet the technical standards of reliability and validity.
Discussion: As noted above, the Secretary encourages the use of
multiple assessment measures. The Secretary does not agree that norm-
referenced tests should be required as one measure.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked whether it would be possible for an
SEA or LEA to have a mixed system--for example, norm-referenced tests
to measure sustained effects; alternative measures for assessing math
and reading.
Discussion: The regulations permit States to use any assessment
measures or combination of measures that are appropriate and that meet
new, less prescriptive national standards.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that, if an exception is granted,
the eligibility standards for entry into Chapter 1 programs would be
relaxed to the point that subjective teacher recommendations would
determine participation.
Discussion: These regulations do not alter the criteria for
identifying and selecting children for participation in Chapter 1 or
MEP programs. Under Chapter 1, for example, children must still be
identified as educationally deprived ``on the basis of educationally
related objective criteria established by the [LEA] which include
written or oral testing instruments.'' This requirement, however, does
not mandate a specific type of assessment, particularly one that uses a
nationally normed test. An LEA may use whatever educationally related
objective criteria it deems appropriate. Thus, to the extent the State
assessment system meets the LEA's needs, it may also serve to identify
and select children for participation in Chapter 1. On the other hand,
to the extent the State assessment system does not provide sufficient
information on specific children, the LEA would need to use additional
measures to select children for participation in Chapter 1 programs.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter felt that accountability could be skewed if
test results are obtained only from a single grade level. Another
commenter feared that information from only one grade level would not
provide adequate evidence of school effectiveness.
Discussion: There is no statutory or regulatory requirement that a
State limit its assessment of its Chapter 1 or MEP programs to a single
grade level per school. Indeed, if a State believes that one grade does
not adequately represent the progress of children in Chapter 1 or MEP
or the effectiveness of a school, it should assess children in other
grades to achieve an adequate picture of their progress.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters suggested that, if an exception is granted,
there would be no comparative data on student achievement as there now
are with pre- and post-norm-referenced test scores.
Discussion: It is true that comparative data on individual children
would not be required under an exception just as it is not required
under the statute. However, regardless of whether a State assessment
system includes comparative data, nothing would prevent an LEA from
augmenting the State assessment system to obtain comparative data if
the LEA believes the data would be useful.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters suggested that the basic technical
standards contained in Sec. 200.81 of the Chapter 1 regulations be
maintained.
Discussion: The Chapter 1 statute does not mandate that specific
technical standards be prescribed. Moreover, exceptions granted under
these regulations would govern a limited period from the present until
the reauthorization of Chapter 1 takes effect. The Secretary does not
want to prescribe technical standards for this limited period that may
run counter to standards that may be required under reauthorization. In
addition, these regulations come at a time when the testing community,
in general, is grappling with new forms of assessments that better
measure what children should know and be able to do and redefining what
technical standards best meet the needs of those assessments. The
technical standards in Sec. 200.81 of the current regulations are often
construed as prohibiting assessments other than those that are
nationally normed or those that are modeled after these tests.
The Secretary is very concerned, however, that State assessment
systems being developed to support systemic education reform efforts
are of high quality and useful and that exceptions under these
regulations only would be granted where evaluation results under
Chapter 1 and the MEP provide meaningful indicators about the progress
under Chapter 1 and MEP. The Secretary, therefore, is requiring under
these regulations the following basic technical standards for the
assessment system: (1) that the system yields consistent results and
(2) that those results accurately reflect what the assessment system
was designed to measure. The Secretary has determined that to impose
any additional technical standards on new assessment measures for the
Chapter 1 and MEP programs is not necessary to ensure that the results
of evaluations of these programs are sufficiently meaningful and
useful. The Secretary is confident that the other requirements of these
regulations ensure that a State would not implement a new assessment
system and make educational judgments based on results from that system
until the State has determined that the assessment accurately measures
what children are expected to know and be able to do.
Changes: As noted above, Secs. 200.90(b) and 201.57(b) have been
revised to require that an assessment system for which an exception has
been requested must yield consistent results that accurately reflect
what the assessment system was designed to measure and may not impair
the SEA's or LEA's ability to account for results under Chapter 1 or
the MEP.
Comment: One commenter asked whether the feeder pattern concept
would be acceptable in LEAs with schools that do not contain a grade in
which the State administers an assessment. For example, if a State
assessment consists of a test in third grade, the commenter asked
whether it would be permissible for schools with only grades K-2 to be
considered part of a K-6 grade span. Another commenter suggested adding
clarifying language that information be available from at least one
grade ``in each Chapter 1 school.''
Discussion: The proposed regulations stated that a State assessment
system must provide information about the yearly performance of each
Chapter 1 school and that this information must be from at least one
grade level. It was the Secretary's assumption that, to meet this
requirement, a State's assessment system would have to provide
information from at least one grade level in each Chapter 1 school. To
clarify this assumption, however, the regulations have been revised
accordingly.
Changes: Section 200.90(b) has been revised to clarify that
assessment information must be collected from at least one grade level
in each Chapter 1 school.
Comment: One commenter asserted that ``achievement of basic and
more advanced skills all children are expected to master'' is clearer
than ``and challenging subject matter'' and suggested that the
regulations be revised to state that the assessment must provide an
assessment of the degree to which Chapter 1 students have mastered the
basic and more advanced skills all children are expected to master.
Discussion: The Secretary believes that in the context of these
regulatory amendments ``basic and more advanced skills all children are
expected to master'' implies that, for Chapter 1 purposes, lower
standards may be established for all children. The Secretary believes
it is essential that Chapter 1 participants as well as other children
be taught challenging subject matter and assessed to determine whether
that subject matter has been learned.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked whether an LEA could be granted an
exception to use a local assessment system or whether an exception
could only apply to a State assessment system. The commenter believed
the regulations to be unclear in this area.
Discussion: The Secretary intends that an SEA may request an
exception either for a State assessment system that supports statewide
systemic education reform efforts or for an individual LEA that has a
local assessment system that supports its local reform efforts.
Changes: Sections 200.90(c) and 201.57(c) have been revised to
clarify that an SEA may request an exception for an LEA that has an
assessment system that supports its local systemic education reform
efforts and meets the other standards in the regulations.
Comment: One commenter asked whether, if an exception is granted,
the alternative assessment measures may be used for determining
aggregate performance under the local annual review for program
improvement as well as for local evaluation.
Discussion: If an exception is granted, the alternative assessment
measures may be used for any purposes for which they are appropriate.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the definition of desired
outcomes in Sec. 200.6 be changed or deleted, consistent with the
intent of the NPRM. The commenter objected to that portion of the
definition linking desired outcomes to aggregate performance and, thus,
to scores on norm-referenced tests. The commenter also contended that
this definition will frustrate the intent of these final regulations
because LEAs would still be required to set their desired outcomes in
terms of scores on norm-referenced tests.
Discussion: Changing the definition of ``desired outcomes'' in
Sec. 200.6 is outside the scope of this rulemaking. To make the changes
the commenter has suggested would require the Secretary to first
publish an additional NPRM. The Secretary does not believe, however,
that this definition will frustrate the intent of these final
regulations. If a State or LEA is granted an exception to the current
national evaluation standards, the alternative assessment may be used
for any appropriate purposes, including determining aggregate
performance. Thus, if nationally normed tests are not part of the
alternative assessment, scores on those tests would not be used to
determine aggregate performance or to define desired outcomes.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the cross-reference
contained in Sec. 200.80(a) to Sec. 200.35(a)(1)(ii), which relates to
assessment of students' progress in the regular program, be corrected
to refer to Sec. 200.35(a)(1)(i)(B), which relates to assessment of
student achievement, aggregated for the LEA as a whole, in accordance
with the national standards in Subpart H.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees with the commenter.
Changes: Section 200.80(a) has been revised to correctly reference
Sec. 200.35(a)(1)(i)(B).
[FR Doc. 94-19433 Filed 8-9-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
