Upload
loren-charles
View
215
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
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