Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS 2023) Field Test Sampling and Recruitment
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Department of Education wants people to share their thoughts on a study that checks how well kids around the world do in math and science. They want to make sure collecting this information isn't too hard for people, and want ideas on making it better.
Summary AI
The Department of Education is inviting public comments on a proposed revision to its information collection related to the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS 2023). This study measures the mathematics and science achievements of fourth and eighth-grade students and involves around 65 countries. The Department is interested in feedback on the necessity and processing of the data, and ways to reduce the burden on respondents. Comments are due by March 16, 2021, and must be submitted via the regulations.gov website.
Abstract
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing revision of a currently approved information collection.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Register, submitted by the Department of Education's Institute of Educational Sciences, seeks public comment on proposed changes to a data collection effort related to the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) for 2023. This international assessment compares the mathematics and science capabilities of fourth and eighth graders from approximately 65 countries, including the United States.
General Summary
This proposed revision follows the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, aiming to fine-tune its current collection methods to ensure that the data mined from this study is both accurate and non-burdensome to those participating. The Department of Education is specifically interested in public input on the importance of the information being collected, the timeliness of its processing, and strategies for enhancing clarity and reducing respondent burden.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several issues arise from the document's current form. First, the language used might come across as overly complex, particularly for those not well-versed in governmental or educational jargon. Acronyms like PRA, IES, and NCES are applied without explanation, which could confuse readers unfamiliar with these terms.
Additionally, the document outlines the intention to revise information collection, but it lacks specificity regarding what these revisions entail. There is an assumption that readers already understand why these changes may be necessary.
Impact on the Public
This action may broadly affect various public sectors, particularly educational institutions and households with children in the stated grade levels. Schools participating in the study will need to dedicate time and resources to facilitate student participation, which could impact daily routines. Households may find themselves involved if the study requires additional student information or input from parents.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For educators and school administrators, the document represents both an opportunity and a challenge. Successful participation may yield important insights into student achievement and instructional effectiveness, potentially guiding future teaching strategies and educational policies.
However, the revision's unclear nature may instill uncertainty among these stakeholders. The burden levels reported in the document could be seen as understated, especially by those directly involved in preparing and administrating the assessments.
Conclusion
In summary, while the document proposes modifications aimed to improve data collection efficiency, it leaves a gap in accessibility and clarity for a general audience. The potential effects on schools and the households they serve make it crucial to address these concerns before implementing changes to ensure all stakeholders are adequately informed and prepared. The public has been invited to comment on these aspects, offering a chance for broader insights into the proposed revisions' real-world implications.
Issues
• No specific details on any potential wasteful spending are provided within the document.
• The document does not mention any particular organizations or individuals being favored by the spending.
• The language used to outline the process for commenting and reviewing the information collection may be complex and difficult for general public understanding.
• The purpose and necessity of the revision to the information collection is stated, but lack specificity on the exact revisions being made.
• The document assumes a level of familiarity with the procedures and acronyms (e.g., PRA, IES, NCES) that may not be clear to all readers.