A quick shared starting point

• Briefly describe your role and primary responsibility for assessments and instruction
• On a typical semester, how frequently does your district run interim or benchmark assessments Options: Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, Twice per year, Once per year, No consistent cadence
• Which grade bands and subjects are highest priority for earlier intervention in your district Options: K-2 literacy, 3-5 literacy, 6-8 literacy, 9-12 literacy, K-5 math, 6-8 math, 9-12 math, Science, Other
• Who on your team owns assessment scheduling, vendor integrations, and teacher training Options: Assessment director, Chief academic officer, IT or SIS lead, Curriculum coordinator, Principals, Teacher leaders, Other
• Tell me about a recent assessment cycle that went well and one that did not, and why

Where your current assessment process falls short

• What single result from your current interim testing would make you conclude the program is failing and prompt you to stop it
• How long does it currently take from test administration to teacher-facing, student-level results and reports Options: Same day, 24 to 48 hours, 3 to 7 days, 2+ weeks, Irregular or unclear
• When results arrive late, which instructional decisions are most affected and how does that show up in classrooms
• Which parts of assessment data do teachers trust least, standards alignment, item clarity, scoring, or subgroup reporting Options: Standards alignment, Item clarity, Student-level scoring, Subgroup disaggregation, Other
• If your current approach could not report subgroup results by the start of the next grading period, would that stop your adoption Options: Yes, we would pause, No, we could proceed, Depends on other factors

Hidden costs and the student impact you miss

• How many students each year do you estimate fall through the cracks because interim data arrives too late to change instruction Options: Fewer than 50, 50 to 200, 200 to 500, 500+, We do not know
• Describe the most common equity gap you discover only after state tests and what it costs in interventions or remediation
• Who bears the budget or staffing burden when late or low-quality assessment data creates remediation needs Options: District central office, Individual schools, Title funds, Special programs, Combination of the above
• What are the compliance or reputational consequences when achievement gaps go unnoticed until state results arrive
• If a new interim program reduced late-identified students by 50 percent, what internal barrier would still prevent you from adopting it immediately

How decisions actually get made here

• Which stakeholder on your team has a veto over assessment programs, and why Options: Board member or district leader, Chief academic officer, Assessment director, IT/SIS lead, Legal/Privacy, No single veto
• Who has final sign-off on budget, procurement, and data sharing agreements Options: Board or CFO, Chief academic officer, Procurement office, Legal counsel, Multiple sign-offs required
• Walk me through the last time you selected an assessment vendor, who influenced the choice, and what swung the decision
• How do teachers and principals get involved in pilot and adoption decisions, if at all Options: Active pilots with teacher input, Advisory feedback only, Minimal teacher involvement, Principals lead adoption, Other
• If the steering committee required a pilot, would a six week pilot that produces teacher adoption and usage metrics be sufficient to move to contract Options: Yes, No, Maybe, depending on results

Technical and data practicalities that make or break rollout

• Which integration failure — SIS, gradebook, authentication, or reporting — would kill the timeline for delivery Options: SIS integration, Gradebook sync, Authentication/SSO, Automated scoring pipeline, Reporting export
• What student information systems, gradebook, and LMS endpoints must we integrate with for a minimal viable rollout Options: Primary SIS, Primary LMS, State reporting endpoint, SFTP or data warehouse, Other
• How accessible and clean are your student demographic, enrollment, and historical assessment records for mapping Options: Ready and clean, Mostly usable with cleanup, Fragmented across systems, Not currently accessible
• Who owns API access, SFTP credentials, and data extracts in your organization Options: IT/SIS team, Data warehouse/BI team, Assessment team, Third party vendor, Not sure yet
• If API access is not available and we must rely on nightly file drops, would that extend your minimum acceptable go-live date beyond your target window Options: Yes, significantly, Yes, slightly, No, Unsure

The alternatives you are weighing

• What would have to be true about your current approach for you to keep it instead of moving to an external assessment platform
• Which other solutions or internal options are you actively evaluating Options: Another vendor, Incumbent provider, Build in-house, State tools, No alternatives
• Who is the incumbent for interim assessments and analytics today Options: An external vendor, An internal team, No incumbent
• What price, timeline, or proof point would make you choose the internal build instead of a vendor
• If the incumbent committed to a two week delivery of a new reporting dashboard, would that stop your procurement Options: Yes, No, Depends on capabilities

Success signals and acceptance criteria

• What single measurable outcome from a pilot would make your executive team sign a full contract within 30 days
• Which metrics do you require for teacher adoption and instructional use during a pilot Options: Teacher logins and frequency, Percent of students with mastery reports, Time from admin to report, Usage in PLCs or lesson planning, Other
• How soon after administration must teachers see item-level and standard-level results to consider them useful Options: Same day, Within 24 hours, 1 to 3 days, More than 3 days
• Who must sign acceptance of data mapping, integration, and security before configuration begins Options: IT/SIS, Assessment director, Legal/privacy, Chief academic officer, Multiple parties
• If the pilot meets targets but legal delays data sharing for eight weeks, would you proceed to full deployment Options: Proceed anyway, Pause until resolved, Depends on severity

Timeline, resources, and concrete next steps

• Name the calendar event that would force you to delay a fall deployment Options: State assessment window, Report card weeks, Budget approval cycle, Teacher contract days, Other
• How many full time equivalents can your team commit to configuration, training, and data validation during deployment Options: None available, 0.5 to 1 FTE, 1 to 3 FTE, 3+ FTE
• Which district calendars or assessment windows are non negotiable and must be respected in the assessment calendar Options: State test window, Universal screening weeks, Report card periods, Local benchmarks, Other
• Who will be the named owners for configuration, data extracts, and teacher training during rollout Options: Assessment director, IT/SIS lead, Curriculum coordinator, School principals, Teacher leaders
• If you could get a guaranteed configuration slot within six weeks, would you be ready to sign commercial terms within two weeks Options: Yes, No, Maybe, with a short follow up

• Solution Experience Session — Assessments to Instruction

• Confirm the current state and its cost
• You confirm the demonstrated workflow would have identified the students you said were off-track and enabled next-day targeted instruction.
• Seller to run a sample assessment using the buyer's referenced grade and standards and deliver the resulting teacher-level analytics report before the follow-up meeting.
• Orientation: end-to-end assessment-to-instruction flow
• You agree on the pilot scope, acceptance criteria, and the specific evidence needed to move toward a decision.
• Seller to draft a one-page pilot plan with timeline, success metrics, and minimal data requirements for an initial roll out.
• Proof: run a real scenario using your context
• Buyer to provide a representative student roster, one recent assessment result file, and the list of priority grades and subjects for the pilot.
• You confirm the data access and roster details required for an accurate pilot and deployment plan.
• Buyer to identify a named pilot owner and confirm the preferred assessment window dates for the pilot.
• Show SIS/LMS integration and equity disaggregation
• Validate the fit to your need
• Agree remaining evidence and pilot acceptance criteria

• Solution Experience Session
• Solution Experience Deck
• Solution Brief

• meeting
• slides
• document

• Provision standards-aligned item bank
• Create custom interim and benchmark assessments
• Deliver online test administration
• Provide paper-based test materials and scanning
• Automated scoring with item-level results
• Setup teacher dashboards with specific item analytics
• Configure standards mastery tracking
• Generate student growth measurement reports
• Produce equity-disaggregated student and subgroup reports
• Integrate assessment data with SIS and LMS
• Enable API and data export feeds
• Deliver teacher training on data-informed instruction
• Configure assessment calendar and release windows

Provision standards-aligned item bank

• Which specific set of learning standards should items be aligned to (name the adopted state standards or standards set and provide the file if available)?
• How many test items do you require per standard or reporting cluster (for example, 6 items per standard or 20 items per reporting cluster)? Options: 1-3 items per standard, 4-6 items per standard, 7+ items per standard, Unsure — need recommendation
• Do items need to be tagged with depth-of-knowledge (DOK) level and item type (selected response, short answer, constructed response)? Options: Yes, DOK and item type required, Only item type required, No, tagging not required
• Provide the format and filename of your existing blueprint or mapping file (for example, CSV with columns standard_id,item_id,depth) or indicate if we should build the mapping from scratch.
• Which grade bands and course codes must be included in the provisioned bank (list grades and course identifiers as they appear in your curriculum guides)?

Create custom interim and benchmark assessments

• List the assessment windows and target grades for each custom interim or benchmark (for example, Fall window: Grade 3-5 ELA; Winter window: Grade 6-8 Math).
• How many distinct forms do you expect per window (for example, 1 benchmark form and up to 3 curriculum-check forms)? Options: 1 form, 2-3 forms, 4+ forms, Undecided
• Do you require the test blueprints to enforce items-per-standard ratios or percentage distributions across standard strands? Options: Enforce items-per-standard, Enforce percentage distribution, No enforcement needed
• Provide the maximum student test length in minutes for each grade band and the maximum number of items per student per administration.
• Identify any content constraints for custom assessments (for example, no items referencing district-specific textbooks, items must avoid culturally sensitive contexts in these standards).

Deliver online test administration

• Select the online delivery modes required for this engagement (secure browser, standard browser with proctoring, mobile-responsive browser, offline app). Options: Secure browser, Browser with proctoring, Mobile-responsive browser, Offline app
• What is the expected peak concurrent student session count you need the platform to support during a single administration? Options: Less than 100, 100-500, 500-2,000, 2,000+
• List the permitted student device types and OS versions for online delivery (for example, Chromebook build X, Windows 10, iPad iOS 14).
• State the required turnaround SLA for item-level scoring availability after student submission (hours or days) for both selected-response and constructed-response items. Options: Immediate, Same day, Next day, 2-3 days, Custom (specify)
• Indicate whether remote proctoring, live proctor monitoring, or local proctor authentication is required and provide the proctoring protocol document if available. Options: Remote proctoring required, Live proctor monitoring required, Local proctor authentication only, No proctoring required

Provide paper-based test materials and scanning

• Estimate the number of paper copies needed per form and per testing site for each administration window. Options: Less than 100 copies per site, 100-500 copies per site, 500-2,000 copies per site, 2,000+ copies per site
• Specify the scan template format required for your current OMR/scanner processes (OMR template ID, CSV mapping, or image-based scanning), and attach a sample if available. Options: OMR template, CSV mapping, Image-based scanning, Unsure — need guidance
• Identify the logistics documents you require with shipments (packing lists, school ID sheets, chain-of-custody forms) and provide example filenames or templates where possible.
• What is your expected scanner turnaround time for scanned forms to be uploaded and available in the platform (hours/days) after scanning at the district site? Options: Within 4 hours, Same day, Next day, 2-3 days
• List any special accommodations for paper materials (large-print, Braille, read-aloud directions) and identify which forms require those accommodations.

Automated scoring with item-level results

• Indicate which item types will use automated scoring and which require human scoring (for example, selected response automated, extended response human/hybrid). Options: Selected response automated, Short answer automated, Constructed response human, Hybrid review workflow
• How will you provide rubrics and scoring guides for constructed responses (upload rubric files, enter into an online rubric builder, or provide PDF scored exemplars)? Options: Upload rubric file (CSV/PDF), Use online rubric builder, Provide scored exemplar PDFs, Other
• What acceptance criteria will validate automated scoring accuracy for constructed responses (for example, 95% agreement with human scorers on a 200-sample validation set)?
• Who will supply exemplar responses for calibration and how many exemplars per score point do you commit to provide (for example, 10 exemplars per rubric level)?
• Are audit logs required for scoring decisions at the item and student level for compliance or appeals, and if so what retention period is required (months/years)? Options: Audit logs required — retain 1 year, Audit logs required — retain 3 years, Audit logs required — retain 7 years, No audit logs required

Setup teacher dashboards with specific item analytics

• Specify which educator roles should have dashboard access (classroom teacher, interventionist, curriculum coordinator, principal) and any role-based data restrictions.
• How quickly after administration do teachers need to view item-level performance data (real-time, same day, next day) to inform instruction? Options: Real-time, Same day, Next day, Within 48 hours
• What filters and cross-tabs must be available on dashboards (standard, student subgroup flags such as FRPL/IEP/ELL, previous intervention history, mastery band)?
• Select the visualizations you want on teacher dashboards to support instruction (item-response heatmap, mastery ladder, student diagnostic list, recommended next lessons). Options: Item-response heatmap, Mastery ladder, Student diagnostic list, Recommended next lessons, Other
• Indicate whether professional development microcontent should be embedded directly in the dashboard for each standard or item (yes/no) and what format (video, quick guide, exemplar lesson). Options: Yes — video, Yes — quick guide, Yes — exemplar lesson, No

Configure standards mastery tracking

• Choose the mastery calculation model you prefer for standards (percent-correct threshold, IRT/Rasch mastery rule, or custom band thresholds) and provide any district thresholds. Options: Percent-correct threshold, IRT/Rasch mastery, Custom band thresholds
• How often should mastery status refresh for each student (after each administration, nightly batch update, or real-time rolling calculation)? Options: After each administration, Nightly batch, Real-time rolling calculation
• What numerical thresholds define mastery for the grade and subject (for example, Grade 3 ELA mastery = 80% correct on standard-aligned items)?
• Provide the reporting view required for PLCs to monitor mastery over time (for example, standards-to-student trend over last 3 administrations) and the export format needed. Options: Standards-to-student trend, Cohort trend by grade, Export CSV, Export PDF
• Identify any standards or sub-standards that should be excluded from automated mastery calculations (for example, elective standards or locally maintained standards).

Generate student growth measurement reports

• Which growth metric do you require (student growth percentile, value-added, scaled-score gain) and for which grades/subjects should it be calculated? Options: Student growth percentile, Value-added, Scaled-score gain, Other
• How many historical administrations are available for growth baselining (for example, prior two years of interim data or only last year)? Options: No historical data, 1 prior administration, 2 prior administrations, 3+ prior administrations
• Provide details of any state or district growth models that must be honored (model name, formula, or specification document), or confirm if a vendor-recommended model is acceptable. Options: State/district model provided, Vendor-recommended model acceptable, Need discussion
• What reporting cadence and delivery format do you need for growth reports (weekly dashboards, quarterly PDFs, CSV exports for SIS ingestion)? Options: Weekly dashboard, Quarterly PDF, CSV export, On-demand
• Identify any student groups that must be excluded from growth calculations for fairness or policy reasons (for example, newly enrolled students within 30 days).

Produce equity-disaggregated student and subgroup reports

• Which subgroup flags from your SIS must be included for disaggregation (for example, FRPL, IEP, ELL, race/ethnicity) and provide the exact field names used in your SIS export.
• How many subgroup cross-tabs are required on reports (for example, school x FRPL x grade) and which are highest priority? Options: Basic (1 subgroup), Moderate (2 subgroups), Complex (3+ subgroups)
• What minimum cell size threshold must be enforced to suppress small-n subgroup reporting for privacy (for example, hide cells <10 students)? Options: No suppression, Suppress <5, Suppress <10, Custom (specify)
• Provide any equity-focused success signals or targets that reports should measure against (for example, reduce proficiency gap between FRPL and non-FRPL by 10 percentage points).
• List the export formats and frequencies required for equity reports to be shared with district leadership (for example, monthly PDF, CSV for data warehouse). Options: Monthly PDF, CSV export, Real-time dashboard, Other

Integrate assessment data with SIS and LMS

• Provide the SIS and LMS names and API protocols you currently use and the export file examples (for example, OneRoster CSV, SIS export with columns student_id,school_id,grade).
• What exact SIS fields must map to platform fields for rostering and demographics (for example, local_student_id, state_student_identifier, FRPL_flag, IEP_flag)?
• What acceptance criteria will confirm a successful SIS integration (for example, 99% student match rate, nightly roster sync completed within 2 hours)?
• Which gradebook or LMS gradebook mapping is required (pass/fail, percent score, item-level entries) and provide a sample gradebook schema if available. Options: Pass/Fail sync, Percent score sync, Item-level gradebook entries, No gradebook sync
• Identify any compliance constraints for data sharing (FERPA-required fields, local privacy agreements, or district data-sharing addenda) and attach the controlling document if available. Options: FERPA constraints apply, Local data-sharing addendum required, No special constraints

Enable API and data export feeds

• Specify the export feeds you require (student-level CSV, item-level response JSON, aggregated dashboard API) and the delivery cadence (real-time, nightly, weekly). Options: Real-time API, Nightly export, Weekly export, On-demand export
• What authentication protocol must the API support for your environment (for example, OAuth2, API key, SAML-based token) and who will provide access credentials? Options: OAuth2, API key, SAML token, Other — specify
• How many destination endpoints must we configure for exports (for example, SIS, district data warehouse, third-party analytics) and provide endpoint URLs and required field mappings.
• What throughput and latency SLAs do you require for exports or API responses during peak load (for example, under 5 seconds for dashboard API, nightly export completed within 2 hours)?
• Indicate your retention and archive requirements for exported data and API logs (retention in months/years and archival storage format). Options: 90 days, 1 year, 3 years, Custom (specify)

Deliver teacher training on data-informed instruction

• Which teacher cohorts need training by role and grade (for example, Grade 3 classroom teachers, K-2 interventionists, principals) and how many participants per cohort?
• What training delivery models do you prefer (live in-person workshop, live virtual session, asynchronous microlearning modules) and which standards should be emphasized? Options: In-person workshop, Live virtual, Asynchronous modules, Blended
• How will training acceptance be measured for sign-off (for example, teacher competency checklist completion, demonstrated use of dashboard in 3 lessons)?
• List the artifacts you expect at training completion (for example, teacher competency checklist, sample lesson plans aligned to item analytics, go-live checklist).
• Identify any out-of-scope items for training under a fixed-fee engagement (for example, ongoing coaching, classroom modeling, custom content creation) so expectations are clear. Options: Ongoing coaching out of scope, Classroom modeling out of scope, Custom content creation out of scope, None — include all

• Master Services Agreement (MSA)
• Statement of Work (SOW)
• Subscription Order Form
• Data Processing Agreement (DPA)
• Integration and Data Transfer Addendum
• Acceptance Criteria & Go/No-Go Checklist
• Public Sector Procurement and Security Rider
• Change Order Agreement

• Go-live Health Check
• First Measurement Review
• Acceptance Gate Review (90-day)
• Quarterly Success Review

• Create a training refresh plan for schools below adoption target and schedule completion milestones.
• Produce a documented acceptance record that lists pass/fail status for each Solution Scope criterion.
• Capture a buyer signatory or documented buyer decision for the acceptance outcome where enterprise sign-off is required.
• Agree remediation items and dates for any unmet criteria so a close-out path exists.
• Publish the acceptance record with pass/fail status for each criterion and the documented buyer decision.
• Open remediation tickets for failed criteria with clear verification steps and target resolution dates.
• Schedule a follow-up verification check to confirm remediation completion within the agreed timeline.
• Adoption and usage trends
• Confirm adoption remains at or moves toward the teacher weekly active users target recorded in Solution Scope.
• Verify whether equity gaps are closing or widening and agree concrete interventions where gaps persist.
• Prioritize the top 3 operational or product improvements to address before the next quarterly review.
• Produce and circulate the quarterly metrics report with disaggregated results and trend charts.
• Add prioritized enhancement and remediation tasks to the backlog with target delivery dates.
• Re-confirm success criteria and owners
• Confirm deployment integrity and that integrations are passing expected data into the platform.
• Identify and document the top 3 onboarding or technical blockers that would prevent meaningful measurement.
• Agree immediate remediation steps and deadlines to prepare for the first measurement meeting.
• Publish a deployment validation report that lists integration endpoints, data samples verified, and any data gaps.
• Open tickets for each blocker with target resolution dates and required test steps.
• Schedule the First Measurement Review within the agreed 4-10 week window.
• Present first-data snapshot against Solution Scope targets
• Determine whether assessment scoring turnaround and teacher weekly active users are on track to meet Solution Scope targets.
• Document root causes for each shortfall and commit to corrective actions with target dates.
• Confirm the timeline and preconditions required to reach the Acceptance Gate at day 90.
• Deliver a data extract and short analysis showing per-school and per-grade values for the named metrics.
• Implement prioritized remediation steps for integration or training gaps and report progress before the acceptance gate.
• Update the acceptance gate timeline and circulate to stakeholders.
• Restate acceptance criteria and numeric targets
• Deployment and data migration validation
• Present outcome data for each criterion
• Outcome and equity-disaggregated results
• Diagnose root causes for any gaps
• Open issues, defects, and enhancement backlog
• Agree corrective actions, owners, and dates
• Early adoption signals and onboarding status
• Document pass or fail per criterion and capture decision
• Confirm readiness criteria for Acceptance Gate
• Agree remediation plan and resolution timeline for any failed criteria
• Agree next-quarter actions and verification steps
• Open technical and operational blockers
• Agree immediate remediation actions