1. Cost Estimate for the New Kentucky Assessment System Prepared for: Ken Draut Roger Ervin Jennifer Stafford Kentucky Department of Education Report Prepared by Assessment Solutions Group September 28, 2009

2. Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 2 Contents Report Overview Methodology 2012 Assessment System Key Elements and Assumptions Program Costs and Key Cost Components Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations Appendices

3. Report Overview Purpose/Scope Uses Potential range of bids Nature of the Kentucky assessment Methodology New Assessment System Key Elements and Assumptions Program Costs and Key Cost Components Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 3

4. Report Overview/Scope The purpose of this report is to provide the KDE assessment staff with a realistic estimate of the cost for their new assessment system. The assessment components studied, analyzed, and modeled by Assessment Solutions Group (ASG) included: A combined CRT/NRT assessment in the domains of math, reading, science and social studies A writing assessment A writing editing and mechanics exam ASG did not examine costs for other assessment components, including the ACT exams, Alternate Assessments, and English Language Proficiency Exams. ASG also did not model any interim or formative assessment components in this study. September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 4

5. Report Overview (cont.) For each assessment studied, assessment elements were identified at the individual cost component/work level and the associated costs then modeled and calculated using ASG’s proprietary cost modeling software. This allows for an accurate costing of the proposed, actual Kentucky assessment system for 2012. September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 5

6. Uses of the Report The primary use of this report is to provide the KDE with a realistic estimate of the cost of the key components of its new 2012 assessment system that can be used for budgeting and planning purposes. Modeling the costs of the new system using the actual design of the new assessment program will provide an accurate estimate of the costs KDE should expect to see from an efficient, realistically pricing vendor when it bids the program in 2010 ASG believes its costs are accurate to a level of +/- 8% to 10% although industry spreads on bids tends to be far greater than this range ASG’s model outputs also allow KDE to gain a deeper understanding of the costs of the various components of each assessment and therefore provides KDE the ability to make trade-offs in assessment program design prior to competitive bidding in order to develop the highest quality, cost-effective assessment for the budgeted dollars. September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 6

7. Potential Range of Actual Program Bids As stated previously, while ASG believes its cost projections are accurate to within 8%-10%, it is likely that KDE will see a much larger spread from vendors actually bidding on the program. This is due to several factors including: Nature of the Kentucky program (combined CRT/NRT, 6 different assessments) and potential bidders Past history of NCLB bids Vendor bidding strategies and cost structures Vendor understanding of the RFP ASG will address each of these factors briefly in the following pages. September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 7

8. Nature of the Kentucky Assessment The combined CRT/NRT assessments for reading, math, science, and social studies may narrow the field of bidders (to NRT owners) and reduce competition in bid pricing. Mitigating this somewhat is that the NRT owners may be willing to either partner with and/or license their content to other test companies. Two of the three NRTs are 4 color tests which are more expensive to produce than 2 color tests. The three NRT vendors are all in somewhat different competitive positions in the industry which can lead to different pricing strategies Information redacted September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 8

9. Nature of the Kentucky Assessment (cont.) The new Kentucky assessment is relatively large with 6 content areas to be tested, including 4 with a combined CRT/NRT. Experience has shown that the larger the assessment, the more moving parts and the greater potential range of prices. September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 9

10. NCLB Bid History Past bids on NCLB assessment programs have shown an extremely wide disparity. ASG believes the large spreads on bid pricing will decrease in the future and that prices, in general, will rise as vendors seek to improve profitability in this segment. ASG believes the disparity in NCLB bid pricing is due to several factors including differing vendor pricing strategies in the early years of NCLB and a lack of a clear understanding of program requirements. It can be difficult for States to write a good RFP that clearly outlines program requirements comprehensively and in sufficient detail Lack of RFP clarity results in vendors making assumptions as to how a program is to be developed, performed, and/or administered. The vendor tends to make assumptions based on the least cost alternative in order to arrive at the most competitive bid September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 10

11. NCLB Bid History (cont.) When developing the RFP for the new Kentucky assessment program, it will be critical to have a clearly written proposal that calls for the vendor to submit the metrics and specifications outlining their understanding of the program requirements with their response. September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 11

12. Report Overview Methodology ASG Cost Model Overview Data Gathering and Input Data Review and Analysis New Assessment System Key Elements and Assumptions Program Costs and Key Cost Components Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 12

13. Methodology – ASG Cost Model The ASG Cost Model was used to develop the cost of the new Kentucky assessment system components. The ASG Cost Model is a variable input, metric-based calculation output model. Specific assessment program variables are input to the model and applied against cost factors to derive assessment cost Several hundred variables are contained in the model. Numerous detailed input variables are assembled for each of the functions and elements involved in constructing an assessment (test development, production and manufacturing, logistics, editing and scoring, psychometrics, reporting, program management, quality assurance, information technology, etc.) These variables are input into the software and matched to metric based calculations/formulas and/or databases to convert the assessment program variables into dollar costs September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 13

14. September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 14 Methodology – ASG Cost Model (cont.) The cost for the entire assessment is built from the ground up, element by element, function by function. Proprietary functions and calculations have been developed based on ASG’s years of experience in the industry. Model outputs have been tested against real state data.

15. Methodology – Data Gathering The information required to develop the price for the new Kentucky assessment system consisted of the following steps: 1. ASG staff read the new state law, SB1, and various documents from the KDE summarizing the new state assessment 2. Several discussions with KDE management (Ken Draut, Roger Ervin, Jennifer Stafford) allowed ASG to gain a deeper understanding of the features of the new assessment system and details of the assessment system components 3. An ASG data input sheet consisting of the key elements required to be input to the ASG cost model was completed by KDE personnel 4. ASG held a meeting with KDE to review and understand all data input sheet elements and state assumptions 5. ASG submitted and KDE responded to a series of questions and clarifying assumptions after the initial data entry and data output review was done by ASG September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 15

16. Methodology – Data Input & Review 6. Initial, high level cost estimates were shared with KDE to insure both sides were in the same ballpark on cost expectations 7. ASG input the revised programmatic data into its cost model and generated various outputs and reports 8. The data was reviewed by Senior ASG consultants (Topol and Olson), assumptions were questioned/revised and the data were rerun. Four to five iterations of this process occurred before the data were finalized. 9. Final revisions were made and final outputs (data tables and charts) generated for inclusion in this report. 10. The cost estimate report and executive summary were written, reviewed, and revised several times until they reached their current, final state. September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 16

17. Report Overview Methodology New Assessment System Key Elements and Assumptions Program Costs and Key Cost Components Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 17

18. New Kentucky 2012 Assessment System – Elements & Assumptions The new 2012 Kentucky assessment system consists of the following elements: A combined CRT/NRT in Math grades 3-8, 11 Reading grades 3-8, 10 Science grades 4, 7, 11 Social Studies grades 5, 8, 11 A writing test grades 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 A writing editing & mechanics exam grades 4, 8, 12 Student counts are roughly 50,000 per grade (see the appendix for the exact student counts by grade and other assumptions). In order to have a valid number of responses to measure student performance on each of the 10 KY principles (standards) per domain, an assessment (combined CRT/NRT) of 91 questions will be required (7-10 items per principle). September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 18

19. New Kentucky 2012 Assessment System – Elements & Assumptions (cont.) The assessments will consist of both multiple choice and constructed response questions. Math, English, Science, and Social Studies assessments will each include 4 constructed response items (mix of short and extended response). The writing exam will include 2 extended response items and the writing editing and mechanics exam will include 1 constructed response item. Scoring for all open ended questions will be done on site Two forms of each assessment will be developed for year 1 (2012) and a new form developed each subsequent year. There will be a 3% item release rate per year, per assessment. Test books are assumed to be in 4 color to accommodate the current color formats of NRTs (Stanford and TerraNova). Testing will be done with paper and pencil. All reports (except for the parent report) will be posted online. September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 19

20. New Kentucky Assessment System – Elements & Assumptions (cont.) Assessments will be given to students during the last two weeks of the school year (May – early June). Results will be mailed to parents and posted online in August. Shipping will be to school districts using ground transportation. One large standard setting meeting will occur, concurrently for all content areas, in the first year of the new assessment. Assessments will be given to students during the last two weeks of the school year. September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 20

21. New Kentucky Assessment System – Elements & Assumptions (cont.) It is assumed the current vendor will conduct the field test of the new items during the 2011 administration. Either the new or current vendor can develop the items It is assumed that half of the CRT items required can be obtained from the existing item bank for use in 2011-2014 It also is assumed that the current vendor will have enough test forms in which to place all the field test items for the administration in the 2011 year Roughly 10% of the student count, or 5,000, will be sufficient to generate reliable and accurate statistics on the field test items. September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 21

22. ASG Pricing Philosophy & Key Assumptions ASG adopted a relatively conservative philosophy/ methodology to arrive at the price of the Kentucky assessment system First, ASG believes prices in the industry will be increasing Information redacted September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 22

23. High Level Assumptions and Cost Considerations (cont.) Second, competition for the new Kentucky program could be somewhat limited due to the NRT component of the exam While ASG does not expect this to result in a higher price to KDE, it could have a limiting impact on the potential number of bidders (excluding the partnering/licensing issues) Third, the purpose of this exercise is to provide an estimate that KDE can use for budgeting purposes so conservatism is key Due to the above factors, ASG assumes vendors will price new programs at profit margins between 20% - 40%, after covering all overhead For year 0 activities, ASG assumes a 50% margin,which is typical of “transition year” programs September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 23

24. Report Overview Methodology ASG Cost Model Overview Data Gathering and Input Key Assumptions Data Review and Analysis New Assessment System Key Elements and Assumptions Program Costs and Key Cost Components Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org Confidential 24

25. Program Costs and Key Cost Components ASG calculated the costs of the assessment program for years 0, 1, 2, and 3 (2011, 2012, 2013, 2014) Activities in year 0 primarily include development and field testing of the items required to create two new forms of the assessment for 2012 Some psychometric work is also required Year 0 costs represent the incremental costs (in addition to the regular 2011 assessment costs) and are possibly subject to greater variability as the exact details of the current contract were not included in the scope for this report. Therefore, the item development plan for 2011 is open to further discussion on its design and implementation. However, costs for this work are included in the report. September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 25

26. Program Costs and Key Cost Components The first year of administration is 2012 (year 1) and consists of all activities to conduct an operational administration of the new assessment and for development of new items to create a new form in 2013. One large standard setting meeting will be held in year 1 (2012). Thereafter, the program remains fairly constant in the following two years (2013 and 2014). ASG has assumed a 4% price escalator for years 2-4. September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 26

27. Year 0 (2011) Costs September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org

28. Year 0 Costs by Function Costs of activities related to Year 0 by functional area – includes estimates with 50% and 30% margin September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 28

29. Year 0 Cost by Functional Area September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 29 Cost by functional area for Year 0 (2011) Note that ASG’s base case assumes year 0 work is priced at a 50% margin, which is typical of “transition year” programs. Year 0 work also is shown at a 30% margin.

30. Year 1 (2012) Costs Years 2-3 (2013-2014) Costs and Total Costs September 28, 200930 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org

31. Costs by Functional Area & Cost per Student Year 1 (2012) cost for each functional area and cost per student September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 31

32. Total Program Costs Total program costs for 2011 - 2014 September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 32

33. Additional Assumptions and Considerations – NRT Cost Impact The impact on costs of a combined CRT/NRT is not expected to result in a higher price for the state vs. use of a CRT only assessment. While there are only 3 NRT vendors, ASG has talked to two of the three and has determined: Information redacted Riverside’s NRT (ITBS) is in black and white (2 color) and tends to be priced below either Stanford or TerraNova which are both in 4 color. Information redacted September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 33

34. Additional Assumptions and Considerations – Test/Scoring Window Kentucky’s tight scoring window is not expected to result in increased assessment costs, however any significant testing delay in a number of schools could pose some problems. ASG calculates roughly a 3 week scoring window for the vendor Such a scoring window is tight but ASG does not view it as being out of the reasonable range of performance for a major test vendor. Furthermore, the scoring window for the Kentucky assessment will fall outside the busiest scoring period for most contractors thereby easing the strain on them, provided other states do not move their administration and scoring dates to later in the school year. ASG has run a case to estimate the cost impact of a compressed scoring window and included it in the range of outcomes (see pp 52) September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 34

35. Additional Cost Data for New Assessment Program Costs by Functional Area Cost per Student Cost by Content Area Cost by Grade Cost by Content Area and Grade Total Costs and Key Metrics September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 35

36. Kentucky Assessment Program Cost Data Costs for the Kentucky program by functional area for 2012 - 2014 September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 36

37. Cost per Student Cost per student for the Kentucky assessment program for the years 2012-2014 September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 37

38. Cost by Content Area 2012 total cost by content area for the Kentucky assessment program September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 38

39. Cost by Content Area Cost by content area for the years 2012 - 2014 September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 39

40. Cost by Grade Costs for the Kentucky assessment program by grade for 2012 - 2014. Note: grades 4 and 8 are tested more often; grade 3 uses consumable test books September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 40

41. Cost by Content Area & Grade Costs for the Kentucky assessment program by content area & grade for 2012 – 2014 September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 41

42. Total Costs and Key Metrics by Year Total program costs and key metrics by year for 2012 - 2014 September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 42

43. Programmatic Cost Variables Impact ASG calculated the impact on total costs for various changes in the following program components A margin change of +/- 10% Impact of using a 2 color vs. a 4 color format Impact of item bank usage to populate the CRT items. The calculated percentages include 100%, 50% (level assumed for costing), and 0% Impact of halving the number of constructed response questions Impact of having a 25% item release rate vs. a 3% rate (level for costing) Impact of lower shipping rates Impact of using distributed scoring for CR items Impact of a 10% cost adjustment imposed due to the tight scoring window Note that the items above are not ASG recommendations but are presented to provide valuable programmatic cost information September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 43

44. Summary of Impact of Options/Changes in Costs September 28, 200944 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org Chart shows cost savings or increases related to various options/changes to the program for 2012 - 2014

45. Impact of Vendor Margin Change Impact on annual and total costs of a 10% change in contractor margin September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 45

46. Impact of Using 2 Color vs. 4 Color Impact of producing the test in 2 color vs. 4 color (base case). Note: this will require psychometric approval and perhaps some equating studies for the NRT component. September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 46

47. Impact of Use of the Existing Item Bank For CRT Items – Year 0 Chart reflects total cost in year zero based on usage of the existing item bank to generate 100%, 50%, or 0% of the CRT items. September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 47

48. Impact of halving the number of constructed response items on total costs Impact on total costs of halving the number of constructed response items in Years 1, 2, and 3 September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 48

49. Impact of a 25% Item Release Plan Impact on total costs of a 25% item release rate vs. the current 3% rate September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 49

50. Impact of Reduced Shipping Rates Impact of lower vendor shipping rates on costs vs. standard UPS rates assumed in the model September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 50

51. Impact of Distributed Scoring For CR Items Impact of using “work from home” readers in distributed scoring September 28, 200951 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org

52. Impact of Cost Adjustment for Tight Scoring Window Impact of 10% adjustment in applicable labor costs for processing/scoring September 28, 200952 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org

53. Summary, Conclusions, & Recommendations ASG performed a special study analyzing the costs of the new Kentucky assessment system Year 0 (2011) activities – development and field testing Years 1 – 3 (2012-2014) – full administration of new assessment A vendor performing efficiently is expected to price the year 0 activities at $3.2M and the total program costs for years 2012- 2014 at $12.5M, $12.7M, and $13.2M respectively ASG performed a number of scenarios to consider what could change the cost picture significantly Consistent with other NCLB state programs, the highest costs are in the item development, scoring, and printing areas Metrics and benchmarks used in the analysis represent those of an efficient contractor realistically bidding on the program September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 53

54. Summary, Conclusions & Recommendations ASG adopted a relatively conservative methodology to arrive at the price of the Kentucky assessment system using fully burdened costs and reasonable margin assumptions. ASG’s analysis finds the total cost and cost per student of the new Kentucky assessment system appear to be in a reasonable range for a high stakes, NCLB-type state assessment. Kentucky’s new assessment itself is more comprehensive than many other state assessments that ASG has seen. Combining this assessment with other testing elements (ACT), as well as with interim or formative assessments, should result in a well-balanced and comprehensive assessment system. September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 54

55. Summary, Conclusions & Recommendations September 28, 200955 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org The proposed item release rate and use of NRT components require only one form per year which significantly controls costs. The impact on costs of a combined CRT/NRT is not expected to result in a higher price for the state vs. use of a CRT-only assessment. ASG assumes that Kentucky’s tight scoring window should not result in increased assessment costs, however this depends on the vendor’s master schedule and other factors. A significant testing delay in a number of schools and late return of materials could pose some problems.

56. Summary, Conclusions & Recommendations ASG recommends that the KDE consider ways to improve the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of the new assessment system in the future. When developing the RFP for the new Kentucky assessment program it will be critical to have a clearly written scope of work that calls for the vendor to submit the metrics and specifications outlining their understanding of program requirements with their response. As Kentucky’s PC-to-student ratio improves, ASG recommends online testing be considered. September 28, 200956 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org

57. Appendix List of assumptions for new KY assessment program Other uses of the ASG cost model About ASG Contact Information References September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 57

58. List of Assumptions September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 58

59. Number of Students By Grade GradeNumber of Students 0350,000 0450,000 0549,000 0649,000 0749,500 0849,500 0951,000 1049,300 1144,500 1242,000 September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 59

60. Other Uses of the ASG Cost Model Once an RFP is let, the ASG model can be used to evaluate actual bids to ensure vendors understand the program and are submitting “apples to apples” responses ASG cost sheets included in the proposal provide key metrics that allow KDE to ensure all vendors understand the key elements of the program The cost sheets and metrics also provide a firm basis to negotiate with vendors on potential cost reductions The additional level of data ASG provides also allows KDE to work with vendors to make trade-offs in design elements without impacting program quality The model is also valuable in determining the correct amount to pay for future program scope changes September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 60

61. About ASG The Assessment Solutions Group (ASG) is a consulting organization with a mission of assisting state departments of education in adding value throughout assessment costing, procurement and management functions. ASG senior consultants and technical advisors have more than 100 years combined experience in the assessment industry and expertise in all areas of the assessment function, making ASG unique in the industry in being able to provide states with services in test development, psychometrics, IT, production and manufacturing, quality assurance, scoring operations, and logistics. ASG makes extensive use of its proprietary costing model in providing services to its customers in the areas of cost-effective and efficient assessment program design. The company’s other product offerings include RFP preparation and analysis, technical and cost proposal reviews, ongoing assessment program evaluation, and program management services. September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 61

62. John F. Olson, Ph.D. John F. Olson serves as senior consultant and partner in the Assessment Solutions Group (ASG), which he co-founded in 2008. Dr. Olson also is President of the consulting business he founded in 2006, Olson Educational Measurement & Assessment Services, which provides technical assistance and support to states, the U.S. Department of Education, and others. Previously, he served as Vice President for Psychometrics and Research Services at Harcourt Assessment, Inc. From 1998 to 2003, Dr. Olson was Director of Assessment for the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), where he worked with state leaders on an assortment of educational assessment projects. Prior to that, he was Deputy Director of the Center for Education Assessment at the American Institutes for Research where he managed the Voluntary National Tests program. From 1985 to 1995, he held several increasingly important positions at the Educational Testing Service (ETS), including Director of Operations, Director of State Services, and Director of Technical Assistance for NAEP. Dr. Olson has more than 25 years of experience providing professional services to state DOEs, the USED, testing companies, researchers, and others on a variety of measurement and statistical issues for international, national, state, and local assessment programs. In addition, he has an extensive research and publications record. His expertise in the areas of large-scale assessment, test design and development, testing program management and operations, psychometrics and analysis, NCLB, NAEP, and quality assurance is of much value to customers. Dr. Olson holds a Ph.D. in educational statistics and measurement from the University of Nebraska - Lincoln. September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 62

63. Barry Topol Barry Topol, CPA - Principal Barry Topol is a strategic and operationally oriented Financial Executive with over 25 years experience. He has worked in industry as a Chief Financial Officer for several major corporations and small companies and as an independent consultant. He is a co-founder of ASG. Mr. Topol has a broad business background with C-Level experience in educational publishing, high technology, internet and other industries. His expertise includes activity based costing, turnaround situations, detailed financial and operational analysis, strategic planning and leadership and team-building. Topol became interested in improving the educational assessment process during the period from 2005-2008 when he was the CFO for a major educational publishing company. He has developed numerous cost models for educational assessments and has experience creating new pricing frameworks for assessment services. He is a skilled negotiator and communicator, working effectively with management, vendors and other constituents on behalf of the represented entity. Mr. Topol has a BA in economics from UCLA where he graduated Summa Cum Laude and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. He earned an MBA from UCLA’s Anderson School of Business where he won the Charles Offer Foundation Fellowship and was an Edward W. Carter fellow. September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 63

64. Contact Information This report was written by Barry Topol and John Olson, ASG Co- founders and Senior Consultants For more information, contact Barry Topol, btopol@assessmentgroup.combtopol@assessmentgroup.com John Olson, jolson@assessmentgroup.comjolson@assessmentgroup.com September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 64

65. References Kentucky Senate Bill 1 (SB1, July 8, 2009) Kentucky Department of Education Office of Assessment and Accountability information and updates on SB1 (KDE website) Assessment Data Worksheet Kentucky Assumptions and Questions (memo transmitted Sept. 2, 2009) September 28, 2009 Assessment Solutions Group www.assessmentgroup.org 65