Education Assessment and Accountability Review Subcommittee


Minutes of the<MeetNo1> 4th Meeting

of the 2005 Interim


<MeetMDY1> July 6, 2005


The<MeetNo2> fourth meeting of the Education Assessment and Accountability Review Subcommittee was held on<Day> Wednesday,<MeetMDY2> July 6, 2005, at<MeetTime> 10:00 AM, in<Room> Room 131 of the Capitol Annex. Senator Jack Westwood, Co-Chair, called the meeting to order, and the secretary called the roll.


Present were:


Members:<Members> Senator Jack Westwood, Co-Chair; Representative Harry Moberly Jr, Co-Chair; Senator Ed Worley; Representatives Jon Draud, Mary Lou Marzian, and Frank Rasche.


Guests:  Ms. Eleanor Mills, School Curriculum, Assessment, and Accountability Council; Clyde Caudill, Jefferson County Public Schools and the Kentucky Association of School Administrators; Velma P. Mills, Guston, Kentucky; Gail Wells, Northern Kentucky University; Mary Ann Blankenship, Kentucky Education Association; Gene Kirchner, Walton-Verona Schools; Ken Weidinger, Kenton County Schools; Wayne Young, Kentucky Association of School Administrators; Art Thacker, HumRRO; Ben Hicks, CTB McGraw-Hill; and Cindy Heine, Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence.


LRC Staff:   Audrey Carr, Jonathan Lowe, Janet Stevens, Sandy Deaton, and Lisa Moore.


Representative Moberly made a motion to approve the minutes from the June 6, 2005 meeting, and Representative Marzian seconded the motion. The motion was approved by voice vote.


Senator Westwood introduced Ms. Marcia Seiler, Director, Office of Education Accountability (OEA), and Mr. Mike Clark, Economist, Legislative Research Commission (LRC), who gave a presentation on the report on the study of the Commonwealth Accountability and Testing System (CATS) (SJR  156 - 2004 RS). He referred members to the memorandum in their folders from Ms. Seiler that addressed additional questions that were raised during the June 6, 2005 meeting of the Education Assessment and Accountability Review Subcommittee. The questions related to the draft report "Cost of the Commonwealth Accountability Testing System."


Mr. Clark said the first question dealt with local cost issues, and what conclusions could be drawn from data reported by local district and school officials regarding the costs they attributed to CATS. He said data received back from local districts varied a great deal.


He said assuming that the individual's completing the questionnaires accurately reported the figures, the responses should correctly represent the assessment of local school officials regarding the cost of CATS at the local level. The differences in responses may suggest that schools and districts interpret CATS in different ways. He said the CATS test provides an incentive for schools to adopt the teaching practices that will yield higher scores. Some might argue that the adoption of certain teaching practices is a cost of CATS as they might not otherwise be used. Others, however, might argue that these practices should be used regardless of CATS and consider them a regular cost of instruction rather than specific to CATS.


Mr. Clark discussed the presentation of information received about local costs from local school districts. The data that was received was presented to members in the form of a couple of statistics. The primary statistic was the average.  He said in the draft report, OEA calculated the average per student expenditures for several categories of costs. Included in these averages are schools and districts that reported no costs for some categories, which lowers the average.


Mr. Clark said half of schools that reported a cost for test incentives reported a cost below the average that included zeros. The results suggests that the cost levels where schools tend to cluster are relatively similar to or somewhat lower than the averages reported in the draft report. What this means in a statistical sense is that the effect of a relatively small number of schools that reported very large costs in each category were balanced by the schools that reported zero costs.


Mr. Clark said the second question dealt with the amount of time spend preparing for and taking the CATS tests that could have been used for instruction and how that time would be valued based on teacher salaries. He said time spent on CATS represents one type of resource that is allocated to CATS but could have been direct to any number of activities. He said the Department of Education (KDE) provided the amount of time it takes to complete each assessment as shown in the appendix in the back of the memorandum to see how long it takes to complete each CATS assessment.


Mr. Clark said to estimate the time allocated to the administration of CATS, the number of students assessed was divided by the state's student teacher ratio of 14.7, which yields an estimate of the number of teachers (approximately 32,500) who would likely have administered CATS. This figure multiplied by 4.5 hours, the average time spent administering the assessments. The result, 146,000 hours, is an estimate of the total amount of time that teachers spend administering CATS assuming that only the testing time is counted. He said to put this in perspective it is less than one-half percent of the total teacher time in the Commonwealth.


Mr. Clark said applying the hourly salary to the estimate of time allocated to administer CATS yields a valuation of approximately $4.5 million, or $9.38 per assessed student. It should be noted that while these figures represent one valuation of the time allocated to CATS, the expense would not likely be recouped in the absence of CATS, as teachers would likely continue to work these hours but spend the time on other types of activities.


Mr. Clark said it is also possible that additional time is taken from classroom activities as the students and teacher move from classroom activities to testing and back again. This would suggest that the amount of classroom time lost might be greater than the average time allocated to testing. As it is not known how much additional time might be used, staff interviewed 15 school principals to obtain a general sense of the extent to which additional classroom time might be lost during the administration of CATS. He said while the information obtained form these interviews is useful for understanding this issue, the results should not be generalized to all schools.


Mr. Clark said the responses from most principals suggest that teachers and students generally return to their usual classroom activities after the tests are completed, and very little additional time is lost. Other schools indicated that the two-week testing window can be somewhat hectic, and there is some additional time lost. He said some schools indicated that instruction continued, but the quality of instruction might have been affected. In addition, some principals indicated that after the two-week testing window the instruction tended to fall off as well. Some principals however, attributed the effect to a combination of completing CATS, nearing the end of the school year, and the usual end-of-year activities.


Mr. Clark said to reflect the fact that there does tend to be some additional lost time outside of the test administration, staff developed a second alternative estimate based on the assumption that students would lose one day for each assessment. This assumption will likely result in an over-estimate for some schools and an under-estimate for others. He said that by using this assumption, it is estimated that schools would allocate 2.7 days per teacher, which would be valued at $18.8 million or $39.41 per assessed student.


Mr. Clark said in addition to the time spent taking the tests, additional classroom time can be allocated to preparing students for the tests that is not related to instruction of the core content. OEA surveyed teachers about the percentage of their time during the year they spent preparing students for CATS, not including teaching the core content or time spent on writing portfolios. He said on average, the teachers indicated that they spend 29 percent of their time preparing students for CATS. This result is based on responses from 281 teachers. While the number of responses is sufficient to develop an estimate, approximately two-thirds of the teachers who were mailed a survey did not respond. It is not known whether the responses of those who did not respond would differ from those who did.


Mr. Clark said multiplying the number of teachers by the average teacher salary and taking 29 percent yields an estimate of the value for this time. That is, 29 percent of total teachers' salaries or $373 million, would be attributed to preparing students for CATS. He said this amount is $783 per assessed student.


Mr. Clark said the final question dealt with the cost of the Kentucky Core Content Test (KCCT) versus the norm-referenced test (NRT). He said all the costs that were reported in the OEA study can be assigned into one of four categories: costs that are clearly attributable to the KCCT, costs that are clearly attributable to the NRT, costs that are attributable to both the KCCT and the NRT, and costs that are not attributable to either the KCCT or the NRT. He also said there are costs that are not part of the assessment, but may be a part of CATS such as the highly skilled educator program, and the Commonwealth School Improvement Fund, which are programs that are based on the scores received from these assessments, but are not actually a cost of the assessments themselves.


Mr. Clark noted that only state level costs were divided into the four categories. The local costs were not included because they could not be reliably allocated into the four categories. He said the cost for the NRT is about $275,000 in costs per assessed student that amounts to $1.78 per student. He said there is $9.5 million in expenses for the KCCT, which is $29.49 per assessed student. There were approximately $1.7 million in costs for activities that could likely be attributable to both the KCCT and NRT. These costs can include such things as services for the National Technical Advisory Panel on Assessment and Accountability (NTAPAA), and the Division of Validation of Research, which likely deal with both types of assessments. Mr. Clark said if it were assumed that all of these costs were attributable to the KCCT, this would add approximately $5.40 per assessed pupil to the cost of the KCCT, so instead of $29.49 it would be $34.89.

Mr. Clark said the differences in the cost per pupil of the NRT and the cost per pupil of the KCCT are likely the result of several factors. One factor has to do with the design of the assessments. The KCCT uses a custom design that is only used in Kentucky. The fixed cost associated with developing an assessment for the KCCT will only be spread across Kentucky students, whereas those same type of fixed costs might not be much different on a NRT, but they might be spread across multiple states, which results in a lower student cost. He said the other issue is the types of questions or assessments involved with the KCCT, and those costs include the open-response questions and the writing portfolios, which take more time to score than multiple-choice questions. This could result in a higher cost associated with the KCCT.


Mr. Clark said finally, it should be noted that CTB McGraw-Hill has informed staff that the contracted price of the NRT was reduced in consideration of the additional contracts that KDE has with CTB. Therefore, in the absence of these additional contracts, the cost of the NRT might be higher. He said the extent to which each of these factors contributed to the cost differences is not known.


Representative Moberly asked if the NRT that Mr. Clark was referring to was the one that Kentucky had been using for several years, or was he referring to the augmented NRT that was required by the No Child Left Behind Act. Mr. Clark said it was the cost of the NRT that Kentucky had been using in the past, and it did not reflect the cost of an augmented NRT.


Representative Moberly asked how many teachers answered the question on OEA's survey about the amount of time spent during the year preparing the students for CATS in respect to the 29 percent figure that Mr. Clark reported in his presentation. Mr. Clark said 281 teachers responded. Representative Moberly asked if it was taken into consideration that any test would take time to administer and was there a statement in the document to reflect that issue. Mr. Clark said this issue was not explored in great detail, but certainly this was discussed in the original report to the extent that test taking technique issues affect all assessments to some degree. Representative Moberly commented that any test preparation would almost have to be related to the core content.


Representative Draud asked how much time was spent gathering all of this data. Mr. Clark said it took several months of conducting focus groups with parents, teachers, principals, school superintendents, and students. Representative Draud asked if the number of respondents was typically low for a survey. Mr. Clark said it is low, but for a mail survey it is about what was expected. He said mail surveys usually have about a 30 percent response rate.


Representative Draud asked for the state cost of CATS. Mr. Clark said the state cost, including the highly skilled educators and the Commonwealth Improvement Fund, was $20.8 million.


Senator Westwood said he is shocked at the 30 percent figure teachers reported for time in preparing students for the CATS test. He asked if teachers were misinterpreting the question and if in fact were teaching the core content, which is what they should be doing all year, or is this a true representation of how much time Kentucky teachers are using to prepare students to take the test. Mr. Clark said Senator Westwood's concerns are valid, and maybe this would be an area for further investigation. He said teachers generally feel that they are spending a great deal of time preparing students for the test. He said there was also consensus from principals and superintendents who also felt that teachers were spending too much time preparing students for the test. Senator Westwood said he does not know if it would be worth it to go back and study the issue any further or not. The cost of the study is now starting to add to the cost of the test, but if the 30 percent figure is accurate, can it be attributed to the fact that Kentucky utilizes a high stakes test. Mr. Clark said this is possible because anytime there is an assessment in place with incentives there is pressure to get the scores up, and not necessarily to teach the core content.


Representative Marzian commented on the small number of teachers responding to the survey considering the fact that Kentucky employs 40,000 teachers. She asked what activities the teachers were doing to prepare students for the CATS test that are not related to instruction or core content. Mr. Clark said they do not have that type of data. Representative Marzian said probably the highly motivated teachers who feel strongly one way or the other about CATS responded, and she wondered if the results were a true representation of  how most teachers felt.


Senator Worley asked how the teachers were chosen who received the survey. Mr. Clark said a computer picked 1,000 teachers randomly. Senator Worley said he feels the survey was worthwhile because it keeps the issue in the forefront of talking about spending too much time preparing for the CATS test, but he also believes that 281 teachers is too small a sample to draw any valid conclusions.


Senator Westwood asked for a motion to accept the report from the OEA.  Representative Moberly made a motion to accept the report as originally submitted by the OEA, and Representative Draud seconded the motion. The motion was approved on a roll call vote of 6 yeas, 0 nays, and 0 passes.


Senator Westwood introduced Ms. Eleanor Mills, Chair, School Curriculum, Assessment, and Accountability Council (SCAAC), and Assistant Superintendent, Murray Independent Schools, who provided comments on the Kentucky Board of Education's (KBE) proposed changes to the CATS.


Ms. Mills said SCAAC had a concern about individual accountability of students particularly at the high school level. They said that most schools reported that high school students do not take their classes seriously, and would like to see the issue addressed in the new Request for Proposal (RFP) to redesign CATS.


Ms. Mills said that SCAAC would like more useful information in a timely manner. She said data needs to be current in order to make useful decisions concerning instruction for students. She said SCAAC also had concerns with the writing portfolio and the amount of time it was consuming.


Ms. Mills said a survey was distributed from the writing focus group. The writing focus group allowed many people to express their opinions and give input on the writing portfolio including changing the weight that it carries in the CATS assessment. She said SCAAC does feel that writing is very important not only in a literary sense, but in a technical sense. She said open-response questions were critical for students in order to be successful later in life. SCAAC is not encouraging backing off of the writing piece for students.


Ms. Mills discussed the augmented norm-referenced test (NRT). She said SCAAC supports the Seven Steps Forward in Assessment, and believes it will take Kentucky forward. SCAAC was very strong in its support of practical living vocational studies, and the individual graduation plan (IGP) which is mandated, but has not been utilized to its maximum. She said students need advisors and leaders that give students the tools and guidance they need as they prepare for their career tracks. Students need to have adequate skills whether they are entering into college, the workforce, or the military.


Ms. Mills said SCAAC feels very strongly that KBE and KDE have heard information from the field and know the appropriate changes that need to be made in the RFP for Kentucky's assessment system to make sure that the students are tested and will reach proficiency by 2014. She told members she would be glad to entertain any questions.


Representative Draud asked Ms. Mills if SCAAC was in support of the assessment changes that KBE proposed. Ms. Mills said yes. Representative Draud discussed the proposed bills coming up in the 2006 session that completely eliminate the writing portfolio, and how SCAAC felt on that issue. Ms. Mills said there are strong opinions on both sides, but SCAAC's main feeling is that Kentucky must produce good writers. She said there have been a few isolated incidents where the writing portfolio has not been treated professionally or instructionally in a significant manner. She said SCAAC feels that the writing portfolio can be an excellent resource and provide excellent instruction, but it is also the most contentious portion of the accountability and assessment system. SCAAC wants to ensure that teachers are provided the time and the experience and professional development to ensure the inaccuracies that have occurred with the writing portfolio will stop. She noted as long as Kentucky has a high stakes accountability system, the writing portfolio will always be contentious because it is one of the most controlled areas in the school. She said this does not make it bad, it just means Kentucky needs the best professionals and teachers to make sure it is addressed in the appropriate manner and the concept needs support from the top down all across Kentucky schools.


Representative Draud asked if SCAAC was comfortable with the writing changes proposed by KBE. Ms. Mills said yes, that Kentucky needed to go beyond literary writing and incorporate some technical writing. She said it was probably there before, but not as specific as the KBE has made it.


Senator Westwood said the writing portfolios have been manipulated sometimes positively and sometimes negatively. He believes there are legitimate concerns about teachers or parents giving undue help to students. He feels there is a skewed version of a student's actual writing ability with all these aides, whether it is the opportunity to rewrite, teacher input, parent input, or peer input.


Senator Westwood discussed the legislation eliminating the writing portfolio altogether. He understood the intent of the legislation to remove the portfolios from the high stakes accountability system and put it back into the classroom as a teaching tool to prepare the students for the time when they are going to take the CATS and be given open-response questions. This will be a much easier and faster process, and may not be the best writing a student ever does, but will be a good representation of how the schools are doing.


Senator Westwood said one thing that came about out of OEA's report is that Kentucky is looking to maintain and improve the validity and reliability especially if these assessments are going to start determining individual student accountability. He asked if SCAAC was comfortable with the writing portfolios in place as it is now, and even with the proposed changes to the portfolio, to use it as an evaluation of the student individually.


Ms. Mills said SCAAC was going to ask for NTAPAA to come back and talk to them about the validity and reliability of the writing portfolio in looking at individual accountability. She said SCAAC wants more information on this subject. She said the Commissioner of Education, Mr. Gene Wilhoit, and the Deputy Commissioner of Education, Ms. Linda France, communicated to SCAAC that they have had these conversations with NTAPAA. She does not feel comfortable giving an answer for SCAAC on validity and reliability because it is still under discussion.


 Senator Worley asked Ms. Mills if SCAAC felt that Kentucky has produced better writers since the implementation of the writing portfolio. Ms. Mill said yes. Senator Worley asked if the significance of the writing portfolio was de-emphasized if Kentucky would still see the same achievements by its students in writing. Ms. Mills said the main focus of anything that is happening in the school with high stakes accountability is going to be what is tested. She said the program of studies is what is mandated by law that Kentucky teach, and writing is included in the program of studies. She said KBE's policy decisions have enlarged and extended the mission of the writing portfolio by adding technical writing to the literary writing, and are responsive to the field's concerns.


Senator Westwood asked if SCAAC would agree that Kentucky students are doing better in math skills since the implementation of CATS. Ms. Mills said yes, but Kentucky has changed its approach in teaching to where students are having to demonstrate math not only in computation, but in linguistic and non-linguistic representation. If students can demonstrate their math skills linguistically or non-linguistically, then they understand the process therefore being better able to do their math. She said CATS has opened Kentucky up to making students express themselves in more than one way.


Senator Westwood said the reason students are doing better is because it is being taught in the classroom, not necessarily because it is being tested. He said would Kentucky students have improved in writing if it was being taught, but not necessarily assessed through the writing portfolio? He believes it would have, but can Kentucky trust its teachers to do the right thing in the classroom.


Representative Draud said testing drives the curriculum. If writing is removed from the assessment, there will be a decrease in the instruction in writing, and a decrease in the emphasis on writing, and students will suffer for it.


Representative Moberly said the writing portfolio needs changes, but it needs to remain intact in the accountability. He believes KBE's changes are a good balance, and a good direction for Kentucky to take. He does not believe the writing portfolio should be completely eliminated.


Senator Westwood introduced Mr. Ken Weidinger, Secondary Curriculum and Instruction Consultant, Kenton County; Mr. Gene Kirchner, Deputy Superintendent, Walton-Verona Independent Schools; and Dr. Gail W. Wells, Vice President and Provost, Northern Kentucky University, who discussed the Northern Kentucky Council of Partners recent assessment forum. Representatives from 17 school districts and university personnel talked about what they need from assessment. The group summarized the needs in three categories: 1) measures of individual progress; 2) measure of the effectiveness of instruction; and 3) readiness for transition to education and employment.


Dr. Wells said Northern Kentucky's P-16 Council was the first one in the state and has served as a model for the Commonwealth. She said they have identified many of the important characteristics that would be successful in a testing system. She said the only way for Kentucky to reach the goal of doubling the number of college graduates in the Commonwealth by 2020 is for postsecondary education to collaborate with the P-12 Council.


Dr. Wells said other categories which the assessment forum identified as critical areas were: 1) implications for students (student accountability); 2) effectiveness of programs; 3) teacher effectiveness; 4) how subgroups perform; and 5) effectiveness of schools and districts. She said throughout the various categories, the following common threads of need emerged: 1) longitudinal data on individual students; 2) timely and frequent data reporting to guide instruction; 3) standards-based assessment of critical content; and 4) predictive measures of post-secondary success.


Dr. Wells said the postsecondary education community identifies two critical points in the educational process that plays into students being ready for college. These points are: 1) the eighth grade is a critical point for students to be tested for longitudinal data; and 2) students need to take their senior year of high school seriously, and have a diagnostic test in the tenth or eleventh grade to show deficiencies.


Dr. Wells said they are strongly encouraging the incorporation of the Educational Planning and Assessment System (E-PAS) testing system based upon needs identified in the forum. The E-PAS system has student achievement assessment at the eighth, tenth, and eleventh grades. She said this test provides longitudinal and diagnostic data, as well as a planning process for students to plan their high school curriculums and their careers. She said it provides instructional support for the teachers by giving them  diagnostic profiles for students and suggested curriculums. The longitudinal data is critical and provides feedback for students, teachers, parents, and counselors, and provides national comparisons as well. It focuses on life after high school, and would improve the student's senior year. She said it is also aligned with postsecondary and workforce expectations.


Dr. Wells said E-PAS should provide a real cost advantage as well. She said Oklahoma has adopted this plan and reported a cost of $750,000 to implement the system for 80,000 Oklahoma students. She said it is $7.00 for the explorer, $9.00 for the planner, and $29.00 for the ACT. She said it is economically feasible, and would definitely work to invigorate the high school students in preparing them for college. She said it also incorporates student accountability.


Representative Draud commended the Northern Kentucky P-16 council on their wonderful success, and commended the Executive Director, Barbara Stonewater, who is a paid employee and is accountable for the whole process. He said if the state would invest a small amount of money to hire these directors in other regions, it would pay off in big dividends. He said Ms. Stonewater has applied for and received several grants to enhance the opportunities for students in the Northern Kentucky area.


Mr. Kirchner said that Ms. Stonewater is heading the American Diploma Project, and this project will impact the entire state. He said it is a modest investment to hire these directors, and a wonderful asset. He referred to the handout that showed local costs for assessment by the 17 different school districts. He said these figures are probably more accurate of local costs than what was reported in the OEA surveys. He said over $800,000 was spent each year locally on assessment for individual students just between these 17 participating school districts.


Mr.Weidinger said the spirit of the forum was for local school districts to share among districts what assessments were being used in individual districts that were not part of the state assessment, and the funding sources for those assessments. It was a sharing session for other districts to build upon others successes.


Senator Westwood asked Dr. Wells if she has shared the E-PAS testing system with the KDE and the KBE. Dr. Wells said it was discussed at the P-16 council and those entities were present at the meeting. Senator Westwood asked Dr. Wells if she wanted E-PAS to be a part of the new RFP and assessment package. Dr. Wells said it is the Northern Kentucky Council of Partners recommendation that it be included as part of the assessment package.


Senator Westwood said KBE's recommendations include improving longitudinal data, and equating and pre-testing. He said it seems that their goals and the E-PAS goals coordinate nicely. Dr. Wells said the only problem area is the KBE recommendation says "if possible", the state should pursue an embedded NRT for a longitudinal measure in reading and mathematics. She said E-PAS is definitely a national norm-referenced test.


Representative Moberly commended Dr. Wells on the P-16 council's success. He asked Dr. Wells if professors from Northern were out in the public schools, or is there an effort to get them into the public schools to assist teachers, particularly first and second year teachers, to help them better instruct their students in different subjects. Dr. Wells said yes, this a primary mission for instructors to work with the P-12 schools.


Representative Moberly asked if Dr. Wells was suggesting that E-PAS replace CATS, or act as a supplement to CATS. Dr. Wells said it should be a core component of the assessment system. She said Kentucky does not need to pile test upon test for its schools. She said E-PAS meets the goals that the assessment forum identified as being important in a testing system. She said the ACT provides a writing component, but it could be that an additional writing component be incorporated in the entire testing program also. She said many states are using E-PAS as their core testing component.


Representative Moberly asked the extent to which the ACT aligns with the Kentucky Core Content. Dr. Wells said it aligns relatively well with the core content, and aligns very well with college readiness. The core content is also currently under revision so it could align very well with the revised core content. Representative Moberly said most universities use the ACT to determine the status of the student with respect to remediation. He has heard criticism of this from educators at the universities saying that is alright to use it as one factor, but other factors should be included as well. Dr. Wells said public universities got together and determined essential skills for students to have in mathematics, reading, and writing. She said there is also a standard policy if students score at least 18 on the ACT then they are placed in a college level course, if students do not get 18, they are offered another placement test, or colleges will look at the high school transcript.


Representative Moberly said before he can evaluate the recommendation on E-PAS he would have to know how it relates to CATS. He said the state P-16 council could take notes from the Northern Kentucky P-16 council and learn to collaborate in a more efficient manner.


Dr. Wells said she was not an expert on E-PAS, and suggested bringing in an expert to explain it. She said a representative from Oklahoma presented on the E-PAS testing system to the P-16 council and demonstrated the wonderful effect that it had in their state.


Mr. Weidinger noted that the ACT mathematics and language arts areas do align with the core content, but the ACT does not test all areas of the core content.


Representative Moberly asked about the ACT format that Kentucky students take. Is it mostly multiple-choice questions, or does it contain open-response questions as well? Mr. Kirchner said it was all multiple-choice questions with a writing component that has been added just recently.


Mr. Kirchner said the assessments can all be augmented to fit local needs or state core content. This is happening in all of the other states that are using the E-PAS testing system. Representative Moberly asked if E-PAS uses the ACT as the accountability test in high school. Should E-PAS replace the CATS, or should Kentucky utilize some of its concepts for the next round of changes in CATS. He asked exactly what the group was recommending for the E-PAS testing system. Dr. Wells said she is recommending that it be required by all students in helping them plan for college in high school. She said it could be supplemented to test the arts and humanities.


Representative Draud said the early math testing program has been very successful in the state. He said Dr. Wells was instrumental in this program, and Representative Rasche came up with a creative way of putting it on the internet.


Senator Westwood thanked the presenters and said he would like additional information on the E-PAS testing system. He will let members know when the next EAARS meeting date is determined.


With no further business before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m.