The Cost of Common Core Standards

This blog is re-posted from an article in Education Views posted on Oct. 16, 2012.  Taxpayers complain about the waste in government and the rising cost of public education.  What taxpayers need to know is WHERE that waste is going and why it is NOT going into the classroom to improve learning outcomes for our children.  

Louisiana has adopted the Common Core State Standards.  This article documents the costs.  How about asking your legislators to require a report from John White outlining all the contracts, expenditures and future costs of instituting the Common Core, its testing requirements and the data collection structure and process. 
Henry Burke is not an educator - he is an engineer.  He understands numbers. 

States’ Taxpayers Cannot Afford Common Core Standards

by Henry W. Burke
The total nationwide cost for 7 years of the Common Core Standards Initiative is $15.8 billion. This includes the cost to states of CCS Testing, Professional Development, Textbooks, and Technology. (Other costs not shown in this report would be the cost to set up and administer a nationalized teacher evaluation system and a national student/educator database.)
The taxpayers in each of the 45 states (and D. C.) that have committed to the Common Core Standards Initiative (CCSI) will be left “holding the bag” because our federal government with a national debt of $16 trillion cannot come in and alleviate the cost to the states.
Because it will cost California $2.2 billion to implement the Common Core Standards but California only received $104 million ($0.1 billion) from the federal government for competitive Stimulus awards, the taxpayers of California will have to come up with $2.1 billion out of their state coffers.
With California on the brink of bankruptcy, where would their taxpayers come up with $2.1 billion? (Please see Table 1 at the end of this report for a complete listing of CCS losses per state.)
Where would other states such as the ones listed below find the extra funding to implement the Common Core Standards?
Illinois — $733 million
Pennsylvania — $647 million
Michigan — $569 million
As a block, the states will spend $16 billion and get only $5 billion in federal grants. Why would the states change to a system that costs several times what they will receive in return? That does not sound like a very good deal to me.
The cost for CCS does not suddenly end at Year 7. The ongoing cost for Year 8 and after will be $801 million per year.
The up-front, one-time cost for CCS implementation is two-thirds (67%) of the Total Cost for 7 years.
This report will focus primarily on the cost of implementing the Common Core Standards in each of the 46 states (45 states plus D.C.).
*A very helpful compilation of Anti-CCSI Resources has recently been posted at:
Background on Common Core Standards and RTTT
Picture this scenario: You are the CEO of a large company. An outside company offered your company an incentive to persuade you to convert to their system. Would you change the main system in your company if you knew it would cost more money to convert than the amount of the incentive?
That is what 45 states (and the District of Columbia) did in adopting the Common Core Standards Initiative (CCSI). Under the U.S. Department of Education’s Race to the Top program (RTTT), states competed for $4.35 Billion in federal grants.
In exchange for the potential funds, states had to drop their own state education standards and adopt the Common Core Standards Initiative (a.k.a., CCS) — nationalized curriculum standards, nationalized curriculum, nationalized assessments, a nationalized teacher evaluation system, and a nationalized database.
Under the $787 billion Stimulus measure, money was set aside for RTTT funding. About $3.9 billion was awarded in Phase 1 and Phase 2 of RTTT in 2010; since then, an additional $1.5 billion has been granted. This brings the total competitive awards to $5.4 billion.
Cost to Implement CCS
How about the costs? One reliable estimate places the nationwide cost of implementing CCS at $15.8 billion. Another estimate pegs the total CCS cost at $30 billion.
As a block, the states will spend $16 billion and get $5 billion in federal grants. Why would the states change to a system that costs several times what they will receive in return? That does not sound like a very good deal to me.
When the states were competing for those coveted federal dollars, they were not calculating realistic costs for the conversion. Theodor Rebarber, CEO and founder of AccountabilityWorks, explained: “States did almost no costs analysis” when they signed on to adopt the Common Core standards. They sorely needed the money and viewed CCS through the proverbial “rose-colored glasses.”
If the RTTT grant money were the chief reason that states adopted the Common Core Standards Initiative (the nationalization of the public schools), would they drop out of CCS if the conversion costs were significantly higher than the RTTT funds received from the federal government? That is a good question.
This report will briefly cover the federal RTTT awards; however, the major emphasis will be on the cost side of the equation. I think many states will “get off the national standards train” once the real costs are known.
When I was searching for reliable cost estimates on implementing the Common Core Standards, I found an excellent White Paper report published by the Pioneer Institute entitled National Cost of Aligning States and Localities to the Common Core Standards by AccountabilityWorks, No. 82 – February 2012.
My report is based almost entirely on this outstanding Pioneer Institute White Paper.
Quality of the Standards
I think it is obvious that money was the chief reason that the states gave up their own state standards and adopted the Common Core Standards (CCS).
People might try to argue that the national standards are an improvement over the states’ standards. Numerous education experts certainly do not think the Common Core Standards are an improvement over the state standards.
Two of these experts are Dr. Sandra Stotsky and Ze’ev Wurman. The Pioneer Institute included these statements on page 4 of the report:
Pioneer Institute retained experts with knowledge of the subject matter to develop a series of white papers that provided specific recommendations for improvement and, ultimately, questioned whether states with highly regarded standards (e.g., Massachusetts and California) would benefit from replacing their current standards with the new Common Core standards.
Ze’ev Wurman and Sandra Stotsky questioned the academic rigor, as well as a perceived lack of transparency and the accelerated nature of the development process, charging that it didn’t permit sufficient time for public or other expert review and comment.
On 5.20.10, The Pacific Research Institute released its report on the national standards:
‘These proposed national standards are vague and lack the academic rigor of the standards in Massachusetts and a number of other states,’ said Pioneer Institute Executive Director Jim Stergios. ‘The new report shows that these weak standards will result in weak assessments. After so much progress and the investment of billions of tax dollars, it amounts to snatching mediocrity from the jaws of excellence.’
Dr. R. James Milgram and Dr. Sandra Stotsky issued another report on the national standards for math and English. The title best captures their overall sentiments: Fair to Middling: A National Standards Progress Report. Stotsky determined that the elements were too broadly worded, and explicit goals were not established. Also the literature standards were deemed to be very weak. Dr. Milgram made these comments about the Mathematics standards:
The proposed standards are, however, very uneven in quality and do not match up well either with the best state standards or with international expectations.
Texas wisely shunned the national standards movement and devoted considerable energy into writing its own standards. The Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) adopted excellent standards documents during the last four years for English / Language Arts / Reading (ELAR), Science, Social Studies, and Mathematics. Many experts deem these four standards documents to be the best in the country!
Pioneer Institute White Paper Report
National Cost of Aligning States and Localities to the Common Core Standards, A Pioneer Institute and American Principles Project White Paper, No. 82 – February 2012
The Pioneer white paper provides a thorough analysis of the cost of implementing the Common Core Standards. The report states:
The goal of this analysis was to develop a ‘middle of the road’ estimate of the ‘incremental’ (i.e., additional) cost of implementing the Common Core standards based, as much as possible, on actual state or local experience implementing similar initiatives.
Please note that the Pioneer Institute report gives the incremental or additional expenses borne by the states for implementing CCS during the 7-year period.
I strongly urge the readers to study the Pioneer Institute report. Also, a wealth of information is included in the Appendices to the Pioneer white paper. The Appendices provide enrollment numbers and detailed cost breakdowns for every state.
Analysis of the Pioneer CCS Information
My goal has been to utilize the research done by the Pioneer Institute but to go one step further by calculating (1) the cost for each CCS category in each state, and (2) the total CCS cost for each state.
The Pioneer Institute white paper includes costs for four categories: Testing, Professional Development, Textbooks, and Technology. The Appendices to the Pioneer Institute report provide dollar figures for Textbooks and Technology for each state. I derived the Testing costs and Professional Development costs for each state from the Pioneer white paper Figure 2B (Table 5) and the Pioneer report’s assumptions.
Highlights from CCS Tables
CCS Loss Per State (Please refer to Table 1)
1. California will lose $2,084 million ($2.084 billion) on CCS implementation. (Translation: California taxpayers will have to take $2.1 billion from their state coffers to pay for CCS.)
2. Illinois will lose $733 million on CCS implementation.
(Translation: Illinois taxpayers will have to take $733 million out of their state coffers to pay for CCS.)
3. Pennsylvania will lose $647 million on CCS implementation.
4. Michigan will lose $569 million on CCS implementation.
5. New Jersey will lose $564 million on CCS implementation.
6. Indiana will lose $387 million on CCS implementation.
7. Arizona will lose $349 million on CCS implementation.
8. Missouri will lose $336 million on CCS implementation.
9. Washington will lose $331 million on CCS implementation.
10. Wisconsin will lose $313 million on CCS implementation.
11. Six states show a gain (the federal awards are more than the expenditures for CCS implementation and administration).
12. Tennessee has the largest CCS gain, with $145 million; the District of Columbia has the second largest gain, at $76 million.
13. Maryland has the smallest gain, with $7 million.
CCS Cost Per Student (Please refer to Table 2)
1. In Vermont, the cost per student to implement and administer CCS will be $433.
2. In the District of Columbia, the CCS Cost per Student will be $425.
3. In North Dakota, the CCS Cost per Student will be $424.
4. In New Jersey, the CCS Cost per Student will be $419.
5. In Maine, the CCS Cost per Student will be $418.
6. In New York, the CCS Cost per Student will be $411.
7. In Wyoming, the CCS Cost per Student will be $410.
8. In Rhode Island, the CCS Cost per Student will be $406.
9. In New Hampshire, the CCS Cost per Student will be $404.
10. In Arkansas, the CCS Cost per Student will be $403.
11. The CCS Cost per Student varies from $337 (in Utah) to $433 (in Vermont); the average CCS Cost per Student for the 46 states is $379.
Nationwide CCS Costs and Percentages (Please refer to Table 4)
1. The largest category is Technology, at $6.9 billion; this is 43% of the $15.8 billion Total Cost.
2. The second largest category is Professional Development, at $5.3 billion; this is 33% of the Total Cost.
3. The third largest category is Textbooks, at $2.5 billion; this is 16% of the Total Cost.
4. The smallest category is Testing, at $1.2 billion; this is 8% of the Total Cost.
Nationwide CCS Cost (Please refer to Table 5)
1. The Total Nationwide Cost for 7 years of CCS implementation is $15.835 billion.
2. The up-front, one-time cost for CCS implementation is $10.5 billion; this is two-thirds (67%) of the Total Cost of $15.8 billion for 7 years.
3. The cost for Year 1 operations is $503 million.
4. The ongoing annual operational costs for Years 2-7 are $801.5 million. [$801.5 million x 6 years = $4.809 billion]
5. The cost for CCS does not suddenly end at Year 7. The ongoing cost for Year 8 and after will be $801 million per year.
Competitive Stimulus Awards (Please refer to Table 8)
1. Average Grant per State (51 States) = $105,430,332
2. Average Grant per State (First 41 States) = $131,145,047
3. Average Grant per Student (51 States) = $109
4. Average Grant per Student (First 41 States) = $121
5. Median Grant per Student (51 States) = $24
6. Median Grant per Student (First 41 States) = $33
Description Total Awarded Enrollment Grant Per Student
Total for 51 States $5,376,946,918 49,181,237 $109
Total for First 41 States $5,376,946,918 44,522,237 $121
The main reason that the states gave up their standards and adopted the Common Core Standards was the potential money offered under the Race to the Top program. Unfortunately, that federal ploy of the “carrot and stick” has worked wonderfully; 45 states (plus D. C.) have signed on to the national standards.
The quality of the national standards is questionable and unproven. The Common Core Standards have not been piloted under controlled research standards and have not been internationally benchmarked. No one knows whether or not students will actually increase their academic achievement by being taught the CCS.
The 45 states (and D. C.) committed to adopt the CCS before the standards documents (English and Math) were even completed and made public. Several states blindly dropped their stellar standards in favor of the mediocre national standards.
The Pioneer Institute published a commendable breakdown of the cost to implement CCS.
I expanded upon Pioneer’s work to produce detailed CCS costs for every state.
Most states will lose money when they fully implement the national standards in their state. California stands to lose a whopping $2 billion on CCS! Illinois will lose $733 million; and Pennsylvania will lose $647 million. Those states’ taxpayers will have to make up for the differences from their state coffers.
The average cost per student for the implementation of CCS in the 45 CCS states (plus D. C.) is $379. The costs varied from a low of $337 to a high of $433 per student.
However, the average amount of federal funding granted to the states was $109 per student.
The decision by these 45 states (and D. C.) to adopt CCS will be terribly expensive indeed!
The Conclusion to the Pioneer Institute white paper provides these insights:
While a handful of states have begun to analyze these costs, most states have signed on to the initiative without a thorough, public vetting of the costs and benefits.
In particular, there has been very little attention to the potential technology infrastructure costs that currently cash-strapped districts may face in order to implement the Common Core assessments within a reasonable testing window.
I believe that when the states become aware of the high cost of implementing the Common Core Standards, they will seriously want to consider their options. If a state is truly concerned about protecting the taxpayers, the state will opt out of the costly national standards.
Table No. Description
Table 1 CCS Loss Per State
Table 2 CCS Cost Per Student
Table 3 Total CCS Cost
Table 4 Nationwide CCS Costs and Percentages
Table 5 Nationwide CCS Cost (Pioneer Figure 2B)
Table 6 Students and Teachers (CCS States)
Table 7 Students and Teachers (Non-CCS States)
Table 8 Competitive Stimulus Awards
Table 1– CCS Loss Per State
($ Millions)
The following table (in millions of dollars) shows the difference between the amount of RTTT grant funds a state received and the total cost of implementation of CCS. The states with the plus signs have a “gain” on cost minus awards. All of the other states have a loss and will have to make up the difference out of their state coffers.
State Loss
(Cost – Awards)
(+ = Gain)
ALAlabama 281.693 0 281.693
AZArizona 374.704 25.263 349.441
ARArkansas 193.529 9.833 183.696
CACalifornia 2,188.494 104.208 2,084.286
COColorado 304.494 73.779 230.715
CTConnecticut 226.215 4.473 221.742
DEDelaware 48.892 119.122 + 70.230
DCDistrict of Columbia 29.331 105.253 + 75.922
FLFlorida 1,024.163 905.838 118.325
GAGeorgia 646.622 404.691 241.931
HIHawaii 67.556 74.935 + 7.379
IDIdaho 99.246 3.700 95.546
ILIllinois 799.021 65.610 733.411
INIndiana 386.623 0 386.623
IAIowa 192.565 9.035 183.530
KSKansas 185.515 11.180 174.335
KYKentucky 256.754 4.999 251.755
LALouisiana 270.086 30.072 240.014
MEMaine 79.189 7.315 71.874
MDMaryland 327.234 334.284 + 7.050
MAMassachusetts 377.294 310.588 66.706
MIMichigan 591.593 22.730 568.863
MSMississippi 187.300 7.570 179.730
MOMissouri 362.058 26.531 335.527
MTMontana 56.208 0.520 55.688
NVNevada 151.051 0 151.051
NHNew Hampshire 79.715 0 79.715
NJNew Jersey 563.657 0 563.657
NMNew Mexico 128.751 10.727 118.024
NYNew York 1,088.436 845.659 242.777
NCNorth Carolina 576.903 427.081 149.822
NDNorth Dakota 40.281 0 40.281
OHOhio 662.048 468.320 193.728
OKOklahoma 246.387 15.466 230.921
OROregon 201.964 19.937 182.027
PAPennsylvania 705.985 58.840 647.145
RIRhode Island 58.883 75.000 + 16.117
SCSouth Carolina 273.045 22.122 250.923
SDSouth Dakota 49.301 19.684 29.617
TNTennessee 373.326 518.492 + 145.166
UTUtah 196.306 24.900 171.406
VTVermont 39.995 0 39.995
WAWashington 365.092 34.330 330.762
WVWest Virginia 109.957 0 109.957
WIWisconsin 331.092 17.952 313.140
WYWyoming 36.163 0 36.163
Table 2 — CCS Cost Per Student
(Total Cost in $ Millions) [Cost per Student in dollars as shown]
Total Cost
Cost per
ALAlabama 281.693 748,889 $376
AZArizona 374.704 1,077,660 348
ARArkansas 193.529 480,088 403
CACalifornia 2,188.494 6,257,082 350
COColorado 304.494 832,368 366
CTConnecticut 226.215 563,985 401
DEDelaware 48.892 126,801 386
DCDistrict of Columbia 29.331 68,984 425
FLFlorida 1,024.163 2,634,522 389
GAGeorgia 646.622 1,667,685 388
HIHawaii 67.556 180,008 375
IDIdaho 99.246 276,299 359
ILIllinois 799.021 2,104,175 380
INIndiana 386.623 1,046,661 369
IAIowa 192.565 491,842 392
KSKansas 185.515 470,057 395
KYKentucky 256.754 679,717 378
LALouisiana 270.086 690,915 391
MEMaine 79.189 189,225 418
MDMaryland 327.234 848,412 386
MAMassachusetts 377.294 956,231 395
MIMichigan 591.593 1,634,151 362
MSMississippi 187.300 484,467 387
MOMissouri 362.058 917,982 394
MTMontana 56.208 141,807 396
NVNevada 151.051 428,469 353
NHNew Hampshire 79.715 197,140 404
NJNew Jersey 563.657 1,344,785 419
NMNew Mexico 128.751 334,419 385
NYNew York 1,088.436 2,650,201 411
NCNorth Carolina 576.903 1,482,859 389
NDNorth Dakota 40.281 95,073 424
OHOhio 662.048 1,764,297 375
OKOklahoma 246.387 653,118 377
OROregon 201.964 582,839 347
PAPennsylvania 705.985 1,783,502 396
RIRhode Island 58.883 145,118 406
SCSouth Carolina 273.045 723,143 378
SDSouth Dakota 49.301 123,713 399
TNTennessee 373.326 972,549 384
UTUtah 196.306 582,793 337
VTVermont 39.995 92,431 433
WAWashington 365.092 1,035,347 353
WVWest Virginia 109.957 282,662 389
WIWisconsin 331.092 872,436 380
WYWyoming 36.163 88,155 410
Totals15,834.71741,805,062 $379
Table 3 — Total CCS Cost
($ Millions)
The column that is particularly significant is the far-right column — Total Cost. This is the Total Cost (in millions of dollars) that each state will have to bear to implement the CCS.
Prof. Dev.
AL 22.225 91.707 44.643 123.118 281.693
AZ 31.982 100.310 64.482 177.930 374.704
AR 14.247 71.910 28.151 79.221 193.529
CA 185.690 605.938 374.2951,022.571 2,188.494
CO 24.702 94.735 48.476 136.581 304.494
CT 16.737 84.178 33.132 92.168 226.215
DE 3.763 16.684 7.608 20.837 48.892
DC 2.047 12.300 3.647 11.337 29.331
FL 78.184 354.970 155.810 435.199 1,024.163
GA 49.492 223.838 97.932 275.360 646.622
HI 5.342 22.021 10.784 29.409 67.556
ID 8.200 29.353 16.515 45.178 99.246
IL 62.445 267.411 121.910 347.255 799.021
IN 31.062 120.220 62.427 172.914 386.623
IA 14.596 69.211 28.483 80.275 192.565
KS 13.950 67.006 27.758 76.801 185.515
KY 20.172 85.680 39.328 111.574 256.754
LA 20.504 95.866 39.771 113.945 270.086
ME 5.616 31.427 11.221 30.925 79.189
MD 25.178 112.452 49.594 140.010 327.234
MA 28.378 134.994 56.056 157.866 377.294
MI 48.496 178.986 97.181 266.930 591.593
MS 14.377 63.922 28.961 80.040 187.300
MO 27.243 130.914 53.930 149.971 362.058
MT 4.208 20.316 8.502 23.182 56.208
NV 12.716 42.683 25.557 70.095 151.051
NH 5.850 29.913 11.717 32.235 79.715
NJ 39.909 222.544 79.168 222.036 563.657
NM 9.924 43.880 19.729 55.218 128.751
NY 78.650 414.787 157.198 437.801 1,088.436
NC 44.007 202.844 87.607 242.445 576.903
ND 2.821 16.155 5.689 15.616 40.281
OH 52.359 215.071 104.702 289.916 662.048
OK 19.382 82.411 37.024 107.570 246.387
OR 17.297 55.518 33.932 95.217 201.964
PA 52.929 252.930 106.979 293.147 705.985
RI 4.307 21.946 8.655 23.975 58.883
SC 21.461 90.718 42.110 118.756 273.045
SD 3.671 18.009 7.409 20.212 49.301
TN 28.862 126.212 57.696 160.556 373.326
UT 17.295 49.190 34.563 95.258 196.306
VT 2.743 16.865 5.302 15.085 39.995
WA 30.726 103.208 61.909 169.249 365.092
WV 8.389 39.197 16.233 46.138 109.957
WI 25.891 112.821 50.023 142.357 331.092
WY 2.616 13.838 5.299 14.410 36.163
Notes on Table 3:
1. Testing — The Testing cost for each state was determined by multiplying the number of students in the state by $29.6768 per student. My total Testing cost of $1,240.641 million is identical to Table 5 (Pioneer’s Figure 2B).
2. Professional Development — The Professional Development cost for each state was determined by multiplying the number of teachers in the state by $1,931 per teacher. My total cost for Professional Development is consistent with the total number of teachers in the 46 CCS states (2,722,470 teachers). My total Professional Development cost of $5,257.089 million is slightly under the Table 5 amount (Pioneer Figure 2B).
3. Textbooks — The Textbook costs for each state were taken directly from the Pioneer report Appendix. My total Textbook cost of $2,469.098 million is identical to Table 5 (Pioneer Figure 2B).
4. Technology — The Technology costs for each state were obtained directly from the Pioneer Appendix. My total Technology cost of $6,867.889 million is identical to Table 5 (Pioneer Figure 2B).
Table 4 — Nationwide CCS Costs and Percentages
Cost Category
($ Millions)
Testing $1,240.641 8 %
Professional Development $5,257.089 33 %
Textbooks $2,469.098 16 %
Technology $6,867.889 43 %
Totals $15,834.717 100 %
Table 5 — Nationwide CCS Cost (Pioneer Figure 2B)
Overview of Projected Costs to Implement Common Core Standards
Year 1
Years 2-7 Ongoing Operations
Total of
One-Time &
7 Operational
Testing $0 $177,234,471 $177,234,471 $1,240,641,297
Profess. Dev. $5,257,492,417 $0 $0 $5,257,492,417
Textbooks $2,469,098,464 $0 $0 $2,469,098,464
Technology $2,796,294,147 $326,042,312 $624,258,785 $6,867,889,169
Total Costs$10,522,885,028 $503,276,783 $801,493,256$15,835,121,347
Source: Pioneer Institute report (page 2)
Table 6– Students and Teachers (CCS States)
Students per
ALAlabama 748,889 47,492 15.8
AZArizona 1,077,660 51,947 20.7
ARArkansas 480,088 37,240 12.9
CACalifornia 6,257,082 313,795 19.9
COColorado 832,368 49,060 17.0
CTConnecticut 563,985 43,593 12.9
DEDelaware 126,801 8,640 14.7
DCDistrict of Columbia 68,984 6,370 10.8
FLFlorida 2,634,522 183,827 14.3
GAGeorgia 1,667,685 115,918 14.4
HIHawaii 180,008 11,404 15.8
IDIdaho 276,299 15,201 18.2
ILIllinois 2,104,175 138,483 15.2
INIndiana 1,046,661 62,258 16.8
IAIowa 491,842 35,842 13.7
KSKansas 470,057 34,700 13.5
KYKentucky 679,717 44,371 15.3
LALouisiana 690,915 49,646 13.9
MEMaine 189,225 16,275 11.6
MDMaryland 848,412 58,235 14.6
MAMassachusetts 956,231 69,909 13.7
MIMichigan 1,634,151 92,691 17.6
MSMississippi 484,467 33,103 14.6
MOMissouri 917,982 67,796 13.5
MTMontana 141,807 10,521 13.5
NVNevada 428,469 22,104 19.4
NHNew Hampshire 197,140 15,491 12.7
NJNew Jersey 1,344,785 115,248 11.7
NMNew Mexico 334,419 22,724 14.7
NYNew York 2,650,201 214,804 12.3
NCNorth Carolina 1,482,859 105,046 14.1
NDNorth Dakota 95,073 8,366 11.4
OHOhio 1,764,297 111,378 15.8
OKOklahoma 653,118 42,678 15.3
OROregon 582,839 28,751 20.3
PAPennsylvania 1,783,502 130,984 13.6
RIRhode Island 145,118 11,365 12.8
SCSouth Carolina 723,143 46,980 15.4
SDSouth Dakota 123,713 9,326 13.3
TNTennessee 972,549 65,361 14.9
UTUtah 582,793 25,474 22.9
VTVermont 92,431 8,734 10.6
WAWashington 1,035,347 53,448 19.4
WVWest Virginia 282,662 20,299 13.9
WIWisconsin 872,436 58,426 14.9
WYWyoming 88,155 7,166 12.3
Totals41,805,0622,722,470 15.4
Notes on Table 6:
1. The Pioneer Institute report Appendix includes a table on student enrollment in each state. The information was obtained from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES); figures are for the 2009 – 2010 School Year.
2. The figures in Table 6 were taken from the Pioneer Appendix. The Appendix lists the Student enrollment for each grade and the total for all grades. The Appendix table also shows the number of teachers and the students-per-teacher ratio for each state.
Table 7– Students and Teachers (Non-CCS States)
To date, 45 states plus the District of Columbia have officially committed to follow the CCSI. The following states have not committed to the CCSI: Alaska, Minnesota, Nebraska, Texas, and Virginia.
per Teacher
AKAlaska 131,661 8,083 16.3
MNMinnesota 837,053 52,839 15.8
NENebraska 295,368 22,256 13.3
TXTexas 4,850,210 333,164 14.6
VAVirginia 1,245,340 70,827 17.6
Totals 7,359,632 487,169 15.1
Table 8 — Competitive Stimulus Awards
(States Ranked by Total Grants Awarded, Per Student)
Table 8 emphasizes the Grant per Student. Please notice how few dollars the states actually received per student; yet to receive the money, states completely aligned their education policies in accordance with the U. S. Department of Education’s requirements. In other words, for a pittance per student, states gave up control of their schools and put that control into the hands of the federal government.
Total Grants
Per Student
1.District of Colum.$105,253,403 68,681$1,533
2.Delaware$119,122,128 125,430 $950
3.Tennessee$518,492,264 971,950 $533
4.Rhode Island $75,000,000 145,342 $516
5.Hawaii $74,934,761 179,478 $418
6.Maryland$334,284,329 843,781 $396
7.Florida$905,838,2042,631,020 $344
8.Massachusetts$310,588,393 958,910 $324
9.New York$845,659,2322,740,805 $309
10.North Carolina$427,081,4231,488,645 $287
11.Ohio$468,320,0801,817,163 $258
12.Georgia$404,690,9651,655,792 $244
13.South Dakota $19,683,676 126,624 $155
14.Colorado $73,778,692 818,443 $90
15.Virginia $81,070,9621,235,795 $66
16.Utah $24,900,456 559,778 $44
17.Louisiana $30,072,268 684,873 $44
18.Maine $7,315,000 192,563 $38
19.Oregon $19,936,755 563,295 $35
20.Pennsylvania $58,840,4731,769,789 $33
21.Washington $34,329,6581,037,018 $33
22.New Mexico $10,727,264 330,245 $32
23.Illinois $65,609,9832,119,707 $31
24.South Carolina $22,121,832 718,113 $31
25.Missouri $26,530,835 917,871 $29
26.Oklahoma $15,465,616 645,108 $24
27.Kansas $11,180,442 471,060 $24
28.Arizona $25,262,8091,087,631 $23
29.Minnesota $17,411,488 836,048 $21
30.Wisconsin $17,952,005 873,750 $21
31.Arkansas $9,832,689 478,965 $21
32.Iowa $9,035,380 487,559 $19
33.California$104,207,6426,252,031 $17
34.Mississippi $7,569,716 491,962 $15
35.Michigan $22,730,4641,659,921 $14
36.Idaho $3,699,882 275,154 $13
37.Texas $57,586,8974,752,148 $12
38.Connecticut $4,473,481 567,198 $8
39.Kentucky $4,999,458 670,030 $7
40.Alaska $835,470 130,662 $6
41.Montana $520,443 141,899 $4
42.Wyoming $0 91,000 $0
43.West Virginia $0 282,000 $0
44.Vermont $0 89,000 $0
45.North Dakota $0 93,000 $0
46.New Jersey $01,373,000 $0
47.New Hampshire $0 190,000 $0
48.Nevada $0 458,000 $0
49.Nebraska $0 298,000 $0
50.Indiana $01,044,000 $0
51.Alabama $0 741,000 $0
Sources for this report: Education Week, “Competitive Stimulus Grants: Winners and Losers,” September 21, 2012; and U.S. Department of Education.
Table taken from “Do Not Let the DOE Nationalize the Schools in Your State,” by Henry W. Burke and Donna Garner, 9.23.12.
Bio for Henry W. Burke
Henry Burke is a Civil Engineer with a B.S.C.E. and M.S.C.E. He has been a Registered Professional Engineer (P.E.) for 37 years and has worked as a Civil Engineer in construction for over 40 years.
Mr. Burke had a successful 27-year career with a large construction contractor.
Henry Burke serves as a full-time volunteer to oversee various construction projects. He has written numerous articles on education, engineering, construction, politics, taxes, and the economy.
Henry W. Burke
Recommend to a friend

John White to Share Your Child's Confidential Data?

The following blog was posted by Tom Aswell on LouisianaVoice to which I recommend you all subscribe.  

 My first knowledge of the shared data plan came from an email to me from Leonie Haimson of Class Size Matters and Parents Across America - New York City. Before I agreed to publish or take action, I did some research regarding Louisiana's involvement in this plan.  I subsequently filed a FOIA (Freedom of Information Request) with the LDoE but received nothing until Tom threatened his lawsuit.  We both received the emails discussed in this blog by Tom.  If anyone would like to see those emails for their own edification, send me your contact information and I will send them as attachments. 

I recommend that parents submit a request to LDoE to remove their child's personal data from this system and to write their legislative representatives asking for an investigation into the intended and unintended consequences of Supt. White's contract with this data collection agency and the cost to taxpayers.


DOE emails reveal secretive programs, ties to Gates, Rupert Murdoch and Fox News Network; agency in general disarray

Copies of emails released to LouisianaVoice by the Department of Education (DOE) under threat of litigation reveal an agency over which there is little or no oversight, where escalating costs of expensive programs appear to be of no concern to administrators and a department that appears to be flailing about in search of some direction.

The electronic communications also unveil a cozy relationship between DOE, Rupert Murdoch and his company, News Corp., which apparently will be provided personal information on Louisiana public school students for use by a company affiliated with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
News Corp. is the parent company of Fox News Network. In 2011, News Corp. was implicated in a major phone hacking scandal in which private telephone records were compromised.

Despite the relationship with a national news organization, the emails also reveal a decision by DOE and Dave “Lefty” Lefkowith, director of the Office of Portfolio, to “forget” about communicating with the media or public about departmental plans to launch the DOE’s Course Choice program next month.

Lefkowith has a professional history that links him to former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, the now-defunct Enron Corp. and an outfit called Azurix Corp., through which a Bush appointee—with help from Lefkowith—sought unsuccessfully to corner the market on Florida drinking water and to auction blocks of water to the highest bidders.

As director of the Office of Portfolio at $146,000 per year, he is in charge of the course choice program whereby private contractors and public institutions will be allowed to offer—and set the prices for— computer courses to Louisiana students.

On Jan. 2 of this year, White emailed Lefkowith at 6:19 p.m., writing:

“How we doing on communications? We have a huge launch in two months.”

“We just decided amongst ourselves: ‘Forget it,’” Lefkowith responded an hour later, at 7:20 p.m. “Problem with that?”

“Fair,” White responded one minute later.

But at 6:53 p.m., 34 minutes after White’s email to Lefkowith and 27 minutes before Lefkowith’s response, White emailed Ken Bradford, assistant superintendent for the department’s Office of Content: “Okay. Time to start the blitz, as we roll up to launch.”

There are other curious emails, including one on July 18, 2012 to White from his $145,000-a-year Chief of Staff Kunjan Narechania which touched on a variety of subjects:

“We need to talk about what to do with David,” she wrote in apparent reference to Lefkowith who joined the department two days after that email was written. It would appear from her comment that even though White had decided to bring Lefkowith, who had been working as a contract consultant, onboard full time, he was still unsure in what capacity Lefkowith would serve.

In another paragraph, Narechania said, “Charlotte Danielson (the Danielson Group of Princeton, N.J., an organization of consultants on educational practice, leadership and research) is being a pain again. Apparently some reporter interviewed her about us using a version of her rubric for our system. She said she thinks it’s a bad idea for us to use an abridged version of her rubric and that we should have piloted for a year. So lame.”

Attempts to contact Danielson were initially unsuccessful but she returned a call Wednesday evening to express surprise at the content of the email and to explain that the Louisiana DOE cherry-picked only a few components of her teacher evaluation system. “No one likes to be called names and I’m no exception,” she said. “I don’t know what they mean by referring to be as ‘a pain,’ or as ‘lame.’”

She explained that her organization specializes in the design of teacher evaluation systems. “We have 22 components to our rubric,” she said. “I understand the Louisiana Department of Education used only about five components. While I have no idea which components they used, I can say that you cannot draw a reasonable conclusion from using only a few components.”

Less than three weeks before Narechania’s email critical of Danielson, Erin Bendily, assistant deputy superintendent for departmental support and former education policy adviser to Gov. Bobby Jindal emailed White:
“I think we need to start with a very strong introduction and embed more CCSS (Common Core State Standards) alignment/integration throughout. This sounds harsh, but we should show that our current/old educator evaluation system is crap and the new system is stellar.”

A paragraph that could attract considerable attention among the media was one that said, “We’re going to send the TimesPic (New Orleans Times-Picayune) reporter to a Monday/Tuesday training in NOLA (New Orleans, LA).”

The reporter was not identified nor was there any explanation on what “training” would be provided—or if the reporter was simply being sent to cover in-house DOE training. If the latter was the case, it would nevertheless seem unusual for a state agency to assign or “send” an otherwise independent news reporter to cover an event held under its auspices.

It was the spate of emails scattered throughout the 119 pages of documents referencing the Shared Learning Collaborative (SLC), a project of the Gates Foundation, however, that provided the link between the department and Murdoch and his News Corp. operation. Those emails confirmed the department’s intent to enter sensitive student and teacher information into a massive electronic data bank being built by Wireless Generation, a subsidiary of News Corp.

“Over the next few months, the Gates Foundation plans to turn over all this personal data to another, as yet unnamed corporation, headed by Iwan Streichenberger, former marketing director of a(n) (Atlanta) company called Promethean that sells whiteboard,” according to a news release by Class Size Matters, a non-profit organization that advocates for class size reduction of New York City’s public schools.

Class Size Matters last month released a copy of a 68-page contract between SLC and the New York State Educational Department which said in part that there would be no guarantee that data would not be susceptible to intrusion or hacking, though “reasonable and appropriate measures” would be taken to protect information.

The Gates contract also allows for the unrestricted subcontracting of duties and obligations covered under the agreement.

Class Size Matters, in an internet posting last month, said besides New York, Phase I of SLC included school districts in North Carolina, Illinois, Colorado and Massachusetts.

“Delaware, Georgia, Kentucky and Louisiana are in Phase II, according to the Gates Foundation, (and) intend to start piloting the system in 2013,” Class Size Matters said.

As recently as 13 months ago, however, White professed ignorance of any move toward participating in the SLC program.

A Jan. 21, 2012 email to state school superintendents that included an invitation to an SLC “cross-state convening” prompted an inter-agency email from Jessica Tucker, DOE policy advisor, to White which asked, “Do we participate in this for real?”

“Ok, I know what it is,” White responded 90 minutes later, “but I don’t know if we are really invested since I haven’t heard anyone mention it.”

White, meanwhile, deleted Tucker’s name and immediately forwarded that same email to Vicky Thomas, a DOE executive assistant who responded the following day, a Sunday:
“Yes, the DOE is participating in this. I’m not sure if we are part of Phase I or II, but Erin & Jim Wilson (DOE chief information officer) have been working on this through the Gates Foundation. Paul did not attend these kinds of things, but would send staff.”

Erin and Paul were not immediately identified by last name or by title.

Despite White’s disavowal of any knowledge of SLC, an email exchange three months earlier, in September of 2011, when White still had not been formally appointed State Superintendent by the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE), would seem to indicate otherwise.

At 7:42 p.m. on Sept. 8, 2011, Peter Gorman, only a month into his new position as senior vice president of Wireless Generation, the newly-formed education division of News Corp., emailed White:

“If you are available for dinner on Wednesday night, I would love to take you and discuss Broad (presumably the Broad Superintendents Academy where White trained to become an education superintendent in 2010), school reform and other issues but no pressure on that either. I know how precious an evening with family, time at the gym, or just a little down time can be to recharge your batteries.”

White responded at 9:49 a.m.:
“Dude—you are my recharger! Dinner it is, of course. Then let’s visit some schools Thursday. I’m really looking forward to it.”

All of which brings us to this one simple question:

Is this flurry of email activity somehow related to a comment by Murdoch in 2010 on the enormous business opportunity in public education awaiting corporate America:

“When it comes to K through 12 education, we see a $500 billion sector in the U.S.”?

Perhaps this is a question that legislators should be asking.

 Here are a few of the comments posted to this blog by LouisianaVoice:

  1. There is something we can do, Frank. Send an e-mail to and Kim.nesmith that they do not have permission to share your student’s personally identifable information under FERPA. Do not provide SSNs to school districts when enrolling your students/kids, they are not legally allowed to require them. Most schools don’t realize this so you will get pushback, but it’s true.

    on February 21, 2013 at 12:45 pm | ReplyLouisiana Shocker: Ties Between White, Murdoch, Gates « Diane Ravitch's blog[...] response to litigation, the Louisiana Department of Education released a trove of emails that shows a department obsessed with public relations while flailing about to impose new rules nd [...]on February 23, 2013 at 3:59 am | Reply Mary PorterHere’s a detailed explanation of the Gates/Murdoch personal data exploitation axis discussed in the emails. It’s truly chilling in its scope.
  1. “With $100M From The Gates Foundation & Others, inBloom Wants To Transform Education By Unleashing Its Data”
    “On top of that, nine states (representing over 11 million students) are currently participating in the development and pilot of its services, including Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New York and North Carolina. Five of those states have already selected districts to be part of the pilot testing.”