THE PARTHENON GROUPBoston • London • Mumbai • San Francisco

January 13, 2010

Race to the Top Assessment ProgramProject and Consortium Management

THE PARTHENON GROUP

2

Strategic planning Organizational structure

and redesign Instructional alignment and

investment strategies ELL and SPED program evaluations Strategies for overage and off-track

students populations Portfolio definition and optimization

Business / strategic planning and implementation

Theory of Action and Theoryof Change

School and program designand evaluation

Investment requirementsand prioritization

Organizational structureand redesign

Education Companies Business unit strategy Organizational structure

and redesign Customer segmentation Acquisition strategy Merger integration New product launch Cost rationalization

Large U.S. urban school districts, including:

- Austin- Boston- Chicago- Charlotte-Mecklenburg- New York City

State Departments of Education Foreign governments

Collaborations with dozens of education organizations both in the U.S. and abroad:

- CMOs, district supported intermediaries, school networks, individual schools, etc.

National, regional and local scope of project work

Pre-K, K-12, higher education,corporate training

Domestic and international Instruction, content, technology and

integrated services Broad ranging client portfolio

About Parthenon’s Education Center of Excellence:Diverse Sector and Analytical Expertise

Districts, Statesand Foundations

School Networksand Intermediaries

THE PARTHENON GROUP

3

Consortia Feature Clear Guiding PrinciplesBut Face Numerous Competing Pressures

What are the non-negotiables?What are the non-negotiables?

Standards linked to college and career readiness for all students, including ELLs and students with

disabilities

Standards linked to college and career readiness for all students, including ELLs and students with

disabilities

Outcomes that are comparable across states

Outcomes that are comparable across states

SpeedHow quickly can it be done?

SpeedHow quickly can it be done?

ConsensusHow many states are on board?

ConsensusHow many states are on board?

CostWhat are the fiscal constraints?

CostWhat are the fiscal constraints?

Effective consortium design and management must enable key objectives while finding the best balance of competing pressures

Effective consortium design and management must enable key objectives while finding the best balance of competing pressures

1 2

THE PARTHENON GROUP

4

States must be aligned regarding objectives for assessments and associated timeframe

Common philosophy on assessment design is also critical

Disparity in resources or infrastructure would constrain development options (e.g. technology for adaptive tests)

State demographics affect ease of collaboration as well as important procedural issues (e.g. bias reviews)

Successful Consortia Require Alignment along Four Key Dimensions

Assessment DesignAdaptive vs. fixed, computer,

balanced, etc.

Assessment DesignAdaptive vs. fixed, computer,

balanced, etc.

Infrastructure & Fiscal FlexibilityTechnology in-place, resources available

Infrastructure & Fiscal FlexibilityTechnology in-place, resources available

State DemographicsSize, diversity, culture

State DemographicsSize, diversity, culture

Key Dimensions for State Collaboration

Several, smaller but aligned consortia are likely to workmore effectively and quickly than a single large consortium

Several, smaller but aligned consortia are likely to workmore effectively and quickly than a single large consortium

ObjectivesPriorities for use of data and

associated timeframe

ObjectivesPriorities for use of data and

associated timeframe

THE PARTHENON GROUP

5

Technical Oversight Board Is Critical to Ensure Comparability of Outcomes across States

Technical Oversight Board

Technical Oversight Board

Consortia #1Consortia #1 Consortia #2Consortia #2 Consortia #3…Consortia #3…

Each consortia would have:

– Member states

– Lead states by issue (including procurement, etc.)

– Third party management organization as partner

– Technical advisory committee (potential for consortium to nominate members to serve at the consortia level)

– Clarity regarding:• Objectives and scope• Decisions to be made by consensus vs. majority

Objective: ensure comparability of outcomes across states

Membership: 3-5 people (mix of US ED leadership and external technical experts)

THE PARTHENON GROUP

6

Third-party project management is needed to provide much more than facilitation and logistical support

Key responsibilities should include:

– Decision-making processes should start with establishing best practices as a foundation; third-party independent voice is critical for this

– Management and enforcement of a highly detailed timeline for progress and achievement of milestones

– Tactical problem-solving and technical assistance for ad hoc state issues (e.g. procurement challenges)

– Facilitation of disagreements between states (consensus on all key decisions is unlikely)

– Knowledge management on ongoing basis within and across consortia

Role of Third-Party Consortium Management Is Central to Success and Efficiency

THE PARTHENON GROUP

7

States sign up for only one consortium

Clear agreement on objectives, scope, assessment philosophy, and end goals

Commitment to:– Fair and open procurement

process

– Common definition of proficiency

Timeline and Key Milestones to Achieve Success

Pre-Application

Pre-Application Six MonthsSix Months Twelve MonthsTwelve Months Year Two+Year Two+

Confirmation of assessment priorities

Identification of lead roles by area

Internal governance rules for consortium discussion agreed upon:– Initial analysis of best

practices

– Selection of technical advisory committee

Each state identifies key capacity gaps to resolve

Identification and plan for resolution of variation in state procurement law

Establishment of blueprint of requirements, including:– Detailed mapping of each

activity area

– Single point of authority for each area

– Necessary infrastructure in place or with a plan

– Identification of cross-state conflicts (and potential for resolution)

Roles and responsibilities divided according to blueprint

States largely divide work according to areas of expertise / greatest concern

Target to pilot exam in year three

More state level coordination pre-application in conjunction with staged “planning” and “implementation” grants would lessen risks and increase chance of success

More state level coordination pre-application in conjunction with staged “planning” and “implementation” grants would lessen risks and increase chance of success

“Planning” Grants “Implementation” Grants

THE PARTHENON GROUP

8

Governance and Leadership Are Important to Mitigate Several Primary Risks

Lack of Comparability Emerges Across Consortia

Lack of Comparability Emerges Across Consortia

“Do-It-Yourself” Approach Costs Time and Money

“Do-It-Yourself” Approach Costs Time and Money

Process Slows Due to Lack of Consensus

Process Slows Due to Lack of Consensus

Separate governance mechanism – combining Dept. officials with outside experts – should have oversight across consortia to monitor key outcomes and ensure comparability

Subsequent rounds of incentives should encourage states to join or merge with the “best” consortia – a market mechanism

States should be encouraged to build new, common systems for key procedural functions that each now does alone (item development, bias review, etc.)

Vendors should be engaged early to leverage expertise and pre-existing content to greatest extent possible

Project management must be strong in establishing timeframes and criteria for decision upfront, and holding participants accountable

Consortia should establish “technical advisory committees” (pulled from each state’s own committees) to weigh in on important questions

“Failure” of a consortium may not always be bad, IF:•Funding can be appropriately phased to minimize losses•Mechanisms exist so that states gradually converge around the “best” emerging partnerships and products

“Failure” of a consortium may not always be bad, IF:•Funding can be appropriately phased to minimize losses•Mechanisms exist so that states gradually converge around the “best” emerging partnerships and products

THE PARTHENON GROUPBoston • London • Mumbai • San Francisco

January 13, 2010

Race to the Top Assessment ProgramProject and Consortium Management

THE PARTHENON GROUP

10

BACKUP

THE PARTHENON GROUP

11

Education sector experience is highly relevant and unmatched in both depth and diversity

– K-12 Public Sector• States, Districts, Networks & Schools

• District and School Turnaround

• Performance Management

• Data Systems

• Teacher Effectiveness

– Post-Secondary• Data Systems

• Non- and For-Profit Universities

• Certification Organizations

– Private Sector• Textbook Publishing

• Professional Certification

• Consumer/ Retail Education

• Education Technology

• Education Tutoring and Testing

About ParthenonBreadth and Depth of Education Expertise

First management consulting firm with a dedicated education practice

Explicit mission and visionto be the leading strategy advisor to the global education industry

Unparalleled team of professionals committed to your success

Depth of education experience reflected across all levels of Parthenon teams

Deep relationships across public, private and nonprofit education sectors

Customized analytical and strategic support generate measurable outcomes and help garner broader public and private resources

Our team members work collaboratively across all levels of client organizations

Parthenon is the “partner-of-choice” for our clients, as reflected by ongoing multi-project relationships

Dedicated EducationPractice and Team

Proven Record ofSuccessful Partnerships

Breadth of Experience in Education Strategy

THE PARTHENON GROUP

12

Education Center of ExcellenceRepresentative Education Clients

For-ProfitEducation Companies

University of theState of New York

Districts, Governmentand Foundations

Schools, School Networks and Intermediaries