Assessment Consortia: When,
whether, and how to consort …
San Diego, CA
June 23, 2015
Scott E. Smith, Ph.D.
Kansas State Department of Education
1
“To the size of states [insert here consortia] there is a
limit, as there is to other things, plants, animals,
implements; for none of these retain their natural
power when they are too large or too small, but they
either wholly lose their nature, or are spoiled.”
Aristotle, Book 7 of Politics
In light of Aristotle’s assertion, we might ask, “How
does a state ensure that a consortium entered into
retains power, efficiency, and effectiveness.”
Chapter 16: “Towards a Theory of Large-Scale
Organization”
Nobody really likes large-scale organization; nobody
likes to take orders from a superior who takes
orders from a superior who takes orders…Even if
the rules devised by bureaucracy are outstandingly
humane, nobody likes to be ruled by rules, that is to
say, by people whose answer to every complaint is:
"I did not make the rules: I am merely applying
them."
Kansas over the last five years has moved from (1) being a
member of a large, national assessment consortia, to (2)
working alone, and finally to (3) consorting with a single
state, Alaska. Of the three arrangements, Kansas has found
the most value in working with a single state. The
advantages fall generally into four categories:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Communication
Assessment development decision-making
Legal/Organizational matters
Ownership



Reaching consensus on assessment development that
can be used in Kansas and Alaska has been relatively
simple.
Daily communication on critical issues in Kansas and
Alaska has occurred with simple email rather than
with WebEx, conference calls, or Doodle Polls.
Conversations with Kansas State Board of Education
regarding shared costs, joint assessment
development agreements, and future planning have
been well received and easily explained.



Shared content standards across Kansas and
Alaska have allowed CETE to fully measure
state-specific content standards … i.e., surf
content and turf content.
Kansas has access to an interim assessment
that it otherwise would not have been able to
develop on its own …
CETE has demonstrated the meeting the
needs of two states is possible.
Efficiency does exist as Kansas does share
items with Alaska
Customization exists as PLDs and cut scores
are developed just for Kansas
Score reports is a combination of shared +
customized.



Consorting with only Alaska rather than with
multiple other states has eased challenges of
drafting data-sharing agreements
Test-security concerns that might exist with
larger consortia are eased
Two-state MOU and contract allows for
targeted efficiencies and targeted assessment
development
Chapter 18: Ownership
“When we move from small-scale to medium-scale, the
connection between ownership and work already
becomes attenuated; private enterprise tends to become
impersonal …”
“In large-scale enterprise, private ownership is a fiction
for the purpose of enabling functionless owners to live
parasitically on the labor of others. It is not only unjust
but also an irrational element which distorts all
relationships within the enterprise.”



The KSDE and KSBOE “own” the state assessment as per
the authority vested in them through state law.
Ownership should not be deferred, and Kansas has been
able to preserve a sense of ownership of its assessments.
Local control in Kansas has been preserved and
recognized in particular with the Kansas Assessment
Advisory Council (36 Districts) working closely with CETE
on test design issues.
Educational stakeholders in Kansas want to see a Kansas
assessment that measures Kansas standards and are
willing to invest time and expertise along with the vendor
to create a desirable “product” … hence, pride of
ownership.


A vendor working with a small number of
states is able to balance (1) the desires of a
single state with (2) the reality of a common
blueprint.
CETE recognizes the importance of ensuring
that the input of Kansas educators is
reflected in their “product.”