91制片厂视频

Most of the biggest contracts being awarded by the two main consortia creating online common-core assessments鈥攑erhaps the most ambitious and complex testing projects in U.S. history鈥攁re flowing to some of the education industry鈥檚 most familiar and entrenched players.

Testing companies and organizations such as Pearson, McGraw-Hill 91制片厂视频 CTB, and the 91制片厂视频al Testing Service are among the top winners of prime assessment contracts awarded through those state consortia with federal money鈥攁wards worth more than $300 million combined so far.

Some assessment experts say that even large companies could be stretched by heaping the demands of the common-core tests on top of other contracts, and fear that chances for new ideas and innovation in testing will be lost.

But the success of the big players in securing the lucrative new work is not surprising, given the sheer scale of the effort, industry observers point out.

鈥淭he scope of this endeavor is so much bigger than the kind of state bids that were available during the pre-common-core days,鈥� said Gregory J. Cizek, a professor of educational measurement and evaluation at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Mr. Cizek, who is on the technical-advisory committee for one of the consortia, the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, likened the work of designing assessments for states and districts to that of building a house with a team of carpenters.

鈥淣ow, you need someone who can build a skyscraper,鈥� he said. 鈥淵ou need a construction firm.鈥�

Relatively few companies and organizations have the staff and expertise to carry out the broad work demanded by either of the main consortia overseeing the creation of assessments aligned with the Common Core State Standards, according to many who know the industry argue. Those tests of English/language arts and math will be in place in participating states this school year.

The contractors are handling tasks such as developing test questions; designing technology platforms, and providing support for either Smarter Balanced, which is creating tests being given in 17 states, and the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, or PARCC, which is giving exams in nine states plus the District of Columbia.

Even if companies across the industry don鈥檛 land prime contracts directly through the two consortia, other financial opportunities in testing abound.

The prime contracts awarded through Smarter Balanced and PARCC with federal money do not include the potentially huge flow of money from 24 other states that are either not giving tests through the two consortia or are undecided about what tests to give. In addition, the two consortia鈥檚 federal grant awards do not include a separate wave of contracts being issued by Smarter Balanced states to administer their tests鈥攚ork that the consortium chose to leave to those states.

Big Winners

While no firm estimate exists of the total value of those nonconsortia, or test-administration contracts, states responding to an 91制片厂视频 Week inquiry reported having made awards worth anywhere between a few million to tens of millions of dollars. Some states are planning to spend much more than that鈥擣lorida, for instance, recently agreed to hire the American Institutes for Research, a Washington-based nonprofit, for an estimated $220 million over six years for an array of state testing work.

The contracts awarded through Smarter Balanced and PARCC derive from a pool of $360 million in federal Race to the Top funding, and the two consortia to date have awarded roughly $305 million. The remainder has covered a variety of expenses, including administrative costs and salaries, additional test-development work, and consulting for Smarter Balanced; and support for staff in the states, meetings and travel, and the costs for states acting as fiscal agents for PARCC.

The federally funded contracts went through competitive procurement processes overseen by the consortia鈥檚 different state fiscal agents, and additionally, in PARCC鈥檚 case, by PARCC Inc., a nonprofit. Both Smarter Balanced and PARCC provided 91制片厂视频 Week with lists of prime contractors hired with federal money, and with broad descriptions of the work that contractors were asked to do.

Much of the work for the two consortia is already complete, though some is ongoing, the consortia鈥檚 records show. The list does not include subcontractors, which in some cases are being heavily relied on to carry out the work.

One of the biggest winners has been McGraw-Hill 91制片厂视频 CTB, a Monterey, Calif.-based testing company, which has collected $72 million as a prime contractor for Smarter Balanced to carry out a long list of tasks, including test-item development and review, test scoring, and project management.

Some test-makers secured prime contracting work with both consortia. The ETS, a Lawrenceville, N.J.-based nonprofit, has won a combined $43 million, with $32 million coming from PARCC for test-item development, and $10.6 million from Smarter Balanced for three separate prime contracts associated with testing services and development.

Another familiar player in the industry, Pearson, has won awards worth about $63 million, almost entirely through PARCC.

But the giant New York- and London-based education services provider, which has 40,000 employees worldwide, also could reap a much greater windfall through a separate PARCC contract for a range of testing services鈥攁 deal that a rival vendor has argued is potentially worth more than 1 billion. The contract to Pearson would not come from federal money; it was issued though New Mexico, and it would leave it up to individual states to decide whether to hire the company through a price agreement.

The rival, the American Institutes for Research, is fighting the award in court.

The size of the work required by the two consortia鈥攚hich, for many awards, involves much more work than a typical state-assessment contract鈥攇ives the major players an even greater advantage, according to those familiar with the testing industry. Larger companies, they say, have the resources to craft better proposals and carry out the work.

David Connerty-Marin, a spokesman for PARCC, argued that while big players like Pearson and ETS had secured the biggest contracts from the consortium, the awards list in fact reveals a diversity of winners, with smaller players getting hired for more modestly sized jobs, and subcontractors getting work, too.

Having a group of states working together in crafting tests has also given those states more leverage to set high demands on contractors than any individual state would be able to do on its own, he added.

鈥淭he power of working with multiple states [means] we鈥檙e pushing the industry in new directions,鈥� Mr. Connerty-Marin said.

Testing Capacity

Jon Cohen, the president of the assessment division for the AIR, said the testing industry is being altered by forces that go beyond the common core鈥攎ost notably, the overall transition from paper-and-pencil-based to online exams. That shift has opened up competition by reducing the need for organizations, including the AIR, to devote major resources to paper-processing costs, and the transition will ultimately benefit schools and students, he said.

鈥淚t鈥檚 one of the few places where you can get faster, cheaper, and better [tests] all rolled up,鈥� Mr. Cohen said.

Robert A. Schaeffer, the public education director for FairTest, the National Center for Fair & Open Testing, described the awarding of contracts to major vendors as inevitable, especially given recent test-industry consolidation. Yet he also said it was part of a 鈥渟ame-old, same-old鈥� cycle that will put the common-core states at risk.

Mr. Schaeffer, whose Boston-based group opposes what it sees as an overemphasis on standardized testing, said online-test disruptions on state assessments overseen by major vendors were a natural consequence of those companies鈥� scramble to land big contracts and their lack of necessary personnel or other resources to keep up.

With entire groups of states attempting to launch common-core tests this academic year, the prospects for disruptions soar, Mr. Schaeffer said, especially given districts鈥� well-documented technological shortcomings.

鈥淭he industry is somewhere between not-ready-for-prime-time and still-gearing-up,鈥� Mr. Schaeffer said. 鈥淚t takes time to test new technologies. And the pedal-to-the-metal approach doesn鈥檛 work.鈥�

Others agree that the tide of consortia and state testing work can put pressure on companies trying to juggle various jobs, and creates potential anxiety among states.

For a state relying on a major company for its testing, 鈥渋f they send out their A team, you鈥檙e going to be fine. The B and C team will be quite good,鈥� said Scott Marion, the associate director of the National Center for the Improvement of 91制片厂视频al Assessment, a Dover, N.H.-based organization that advises states and districts on testing. 鈥淲hen you get down to the D team, then that becomes a problem. The state doesn鈥檛 care if you [also] have a consortia contract. You have to be able to deliver.鈥�

Another risk in having a market dominated by major players is that companies devote so much time to pursuing and executing contracts that new ideas and innovative approaches get pushed aside, said Marianne Perie, the director of the Center for 91制片厂视频al Testing and Evaluation at the University of Kansas, in Lawrence. Her center has state testing contracts with Kansas and Alaska.

When requests for proposals are put forward, testing organizations 鈥渉ave to go as fast as they can to meet the deadline鈥攁nd that鈥檚 not conducive to innovation,鈥� Ms. Perie said.

Ms. Perie noted that with the pairing of prime contractors with subcontractors, it would be wrong to assume that too many companies are being shut out.

鈥淚f you鈥檙e a vendor and you鈥檙e doing good work, you will find business,鈥� Ms. Perie said.

McGraw-Hill 91制片厂视频 CTB, for instance, told 91制片厂视频 Week it is relying on seven subcontractors to help with a $53.7 million Smarter Balanced contract that includes test-item development, review of items, scoring, checking alignment with standards, and project management. The subcontractors include not only individuals providing consulting, but companies and organizations such as the AIR; the Data Recognition Corp., of Maple Grove, Minn.; and Measurement Incorporated, of Durham, N.C.

New Competitive Landscape

Other contracts connected to the two consortia鈥檚 work are flowing through the testing market in indirect ways.

Unlike PARCC, which is overseeing both the delivery and management of its tests, Smarter Balanced is leaving the administration of its exams to individual states, and many of those states have awarded contracts to companies or are reviewing multimillion-dollar bids for that work.

It made sense to 鈥渃entralize the things that are essential鈥� for the exams, while giving states flexibility to hire test administrators who could manage services, said Tony Alpert, Smarter Balanced鈥檚 chief operating officer.

By creating opportunities for states and vendors to administer Smarter Balanced tests as they see fit, the consortium is 鈥渙pening up a marketplace and trying to reduce the potential for a monopoly,鈥� Mr. Alpert said.

Those contracts, and other awards from states not tied to either consortium, represent a huge financial opportunity for testing companies for years to come, observers predict.

鈥淭hat is the next battleground where competition will occur,鈥� said Barry Topol, the managing partner of the Assessment Solutions Group, a Danville, Calif.-based company that consults with states. The flow of money will feed a 鈥渧ibrant market,鈥� he said.

Mr. Alpert, of Smarter Balanced, said he鈥檚 optimistic that the process his consortium used in hiring contractors to get its test off the ground will pay off for states and schools.

He pointed to Smarter Balanced鈥檚 administration of a field test to 4 million students earlier this year. That trial run, in the view of Mr. Alpert and by the measure of some observers, was not marred by major problems.

Smarter Balanced was keen on incorporating new testing concepts, Mr. Alpert said, but it also needed help from contractors in designing a reliable test. In coming up with a plan for the test, Smarter Balanced officials decided against incorporating some potentially impressive features鈥攕uch as the use of high-resolution video鈥攁nd focused on features they were confident they could execute.

鈥淚nnovation can be a double-edged sword,鈥� Mr. Alpert said.

There were additional ways 鈥渨e could have been innovative,鈥� he said, 鈥渂ut at the expense of success.鈥�