Pricing the Common Core: Notes from Fordham Institute Panel Discussion

Overview:

The Fordham Institute recently released “Pricing the Common Core: How Much Will Smart Implementation Cost?”, a report analyzing different methods of adopting the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and how much each would cost.

Panelists

  • Patrick J. Murphy, professor and chair, Department of Politics, University of San Francisco, co-author of the report
  • Ze'ev Wurman, former senior policy adviser, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, U.S. Department of Education
  • Michael Cohen, president, Achieve
  • Eric J. Smith, fellow in education policy, George W. Bush Institute and former commissioner, Florida Department of Education

Moderator: Checker Finn, Jr., president, The Thomas B. Fordham Institute

Opening Statements

Patrick J. Murphy spoke about the report’s findings. He said there are not currently many estimates of how much adoption of CCSS will cost states, but that any estimate ought to ask questions: 1) Are there cheaper and/or more effective ways of adopting this new curriculum? 2) What are we spending in this area already? How much will really be new spending?

Murphy said that there will be significant costs of instructional material, assessments, and professional development, but that the most costly period will be a one-time only transition period. He outlined three scenarios: a “business as usual scenario,” using hardcopy texts, paper assessments, and in-person professional development; a “bare bones” scenario, using online open source materials, computer assessments, and online professional development; and “balanced implementation,” using a blend of each. The business as usual model would be the most costly, the bare bones the least, and the blended implementation would fall between the two.

Both gross and per pupil costs would vary state by state, but Murphy claimed that “common-ness changes the marketplace” and opens the door to new methods for providing materials, assessment, and professional development that may save money and be more effective.

A PowerPoint presentation of Murphy’s findings can be downloaded here.

Eric J. Smith said the report shows that adoption of CCSS is a process, not a one off event. He said the private sector ought to be considered as a partner in the process to help drive down costs, and that foundations should be major players as well. He also spoke about the power of collaboration between states (i.e. ability to leverage purchasing power).

Michael Cohen said that it is important to remember that CCSS is not the only major policy issue at the moment. He spoke about the large scale technology and infrastructure shift in education, and that many of the CCSS technology costs shouldn’t be counted as only for CCSS adoption but as a part of a changing landscape in education.

Cohen also questioned whether states should be working independently, or whether they should be deciding how to implement CCSS together. He said that it is important to remember that the quality of materials ought to remain high – that cost is not the sole factor.

Ze’ev Wurman warned that much of the cost of implementing CCSS will be ongoing. He said that the business as usual model would be barely sufficient, the bare bones model is an outlandish idea, and the balanced implementation model is unrealistic. He claimed that costs would be much higher than the report anticipates.

There was a general consensus on the panel that a repurposing of existing funds was necessary to prevent costs from getting out of hand.

Question and Answer

Checker Finn asked what the next step is in CCSS implementation.

Patrick J. Murphy responded that states needed to have real conversations with real numbers and strategies. He said he hoped states would work systematically for the most efficiency.

Michael Cohen said that districts always underestimate the costs of professional development. He said we should look next at what is really going on in professional development and if it aligns with best practices.

Finn asked what policy makers can do to help CCSS implementation.

Cohen responded that the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium / the Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (SBAC/PARCC) have developed tools to help states figure out their status of readiness for technology updates.

An audience member from the National Council of Teachers of English stated that more time during the school day will be required for professional development, and asked how that was factored in.

Murphy responded that teachers are in charge of structuring professional development.

Finn suggested they use time outside of the school day.

An audience member from College Board asked what the tradeoffs would be in the bare bones model in terms of efficacy.

Eliot Regenstein, an author of the report, responded that while budgetary concerns were huge, the report tried to look at what the most efficient system with the biggest impact would look like. He said that states and districts should use the report to look at which of the systems would work best for them.