Overview
Title
Applications for New Authorities; Innovative Assessment Demonstration Authority
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Department of Education is telling states they can try out new ways of testing kids in school, and they want to pick up to seven states to start. States need to show they have a good plan that follows the rules to be chosen.
Summary AI
The Department of Education has announced an opportunity for states and state consortia to apply for a new authority under the Innovative Assessment Demonstration Authority (IADA) for fiscal year 2021. This authority allows states to develop and implement innovative assessment systems in public schools, which would be used alongside traditional academic assessments. States interested in participating must submit applications demonstrating specific requirements and selection criteria. A maximum of seven states can participate during this initial phase, with two new spots available for this competition.
Abstract
The Department of Education is issuing a notice inviting applications for new authorities for fiscal year (FY) 2021 under the Innovative Assessment Demonstration Authority (IADA).
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document under review is a notice from the Department of Education inviting applications for the Innovative Assessment Demonstration Authority (IADA) for the fiscal year 2021. This initiative offers state educational agencies (SEAs) the opportunity to develop and implement new forms of assessments in public schools. These could be used in conjunction with traditional academic assessments to better measure student performance.
General Summary
The IADA aims to grant SEAs the flexibility to design innovative assessment systems that can potentially provide a more comprehensive evaluation of student learning. The document specifies that a maximum of seven states can participate initially, with up to two new spots available through this competition round. In order to qualify, applicants must demonstrate compliance with a series of specific criteria and provide assurances for equitable and effective implementation.
Significant Issues and Concerns
The document contains highly technical and legal language, which might pose comprehension challenges for individuals not versed in educational policy and regulatory mechanisms. It also heavily relies on cross-references to other legal texts and regulations, such as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which could necessitate additional research to fully grasp all requirements.
There is a notable absence of detailed information on funding specifics or budget allocations for participating states. This lack of transparency about financial resources might raise concerns regarding potential inefficient use of funds. Furthermore, the criteria for participation and the continuation of authority are complex and might disadvantage SEAs with limited administrative capabilities.
Another area of potential concern is the absence of explicit details regarding the process and implications of failure to meet program requirements. Without clarity on how authority withdrawal decisions are made, stakeholders might question the fairness and transparency of the program's oversight.
Impact on the Public
This document could significantly influence educational outcomes by encouraging the adoption of more adaptive and individualized assessment systems. If successful, these innovative assessments could lead to improved student learning and better educational accountability.
However, the potential lack of clarity and the complexity of compliance could deter some states from participating, possibly limiting the program's reach and effectiveness. Additionally, without clear financial guidance, there is a risk of unequal implementation across different states, affecting the program's overall success and public benefit.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
SEAs interested in adopting novel assessment approaches stand to benefit from this initiative by gaining flexibility and potentially leading education reform in their states. Nevertheless, smaller SEAs or those with limited resources might face barriers due to the intricate requirements and the demand for robust administrative capacities.
Educators and students could benefit from more tailored assessments that better reflect student achievement and provide actionable insights for instruction. Conversely, there might be challenges in transitioning to new systems, particularly if proper training and support are not adequately provided.
Overall, while the initiative could drive meaningful changes in student assessment practices, careful consideration of its complexities and potential barriers is crucial for achieving its intended objectives.
Issues
• The document lacks detailed information on the estimated budget and spending specifics for the implementation of the IADA, making it difficult to assess potential wasteful spending.
• There is no explicit mention of potential conflicts of interest or favoritism towards particular organizations or individuals, but this could be explored further given the broad scope of eligible applicants.
• The language in the document is highly technical and dense, which may hinder understanding for stakeholders not familiar with the legislative and regulatory references.
• Some sections of the document rely heavily on cross-references to other documents and legislation (e.g., ESEA, 34 CFR), which can make it hard to understand the full requirements without additional context.
• The document outlines multiple complex conditions for participation and continuation in the program, which might create barriers for some SEAs, particularly those with less administrative capacity or resources.
• The potential consequences for an SEA's failure to meet the requirements (e.g., withdrawal of authority) lack detailed description of the procedure, raising concerns about transparency in the decision-making process.