How Much Will Common Core Cost Missouri School Districts?

The question on how much CCSS will cost school districts might just be the $64,000 question. In all reality, the bill will probably be in the $350 Million range (at the least) as districts have to comply with infrastructure, assessment, training and curricula mandates.

This is not new information on cost nor is it set in stone.  In fact, the bill to school districts will become much higher if the science and social studies standards (now being crafted) are adopted.  Don't forget the Art Common Core standards that may be imposed on districts as well!  The idea of creativity in the art room would go against the idea of common educational delivery and product.

Reality is setting in for some folks, however, and it is coming as quite a shock.  California (in the same consortia as Missouri) is more upfront on state/district costs than Missouri DESE has been.  Since we are in the same boat as California in terms of mandates, you can receive a foretaste of the reform to come in this article from edsource.org, Uncertainties and unknowns beneath the gloss of Common Core:

Listening to the people at the State Department of Education who are charged with California’s transition to the new Common Core K-12 learning standards, as I did (twice) earlier this month, you’d have to conclude that it’s all going pretty well.


Everything’s on schedule, local districts are moving ahead to “varying degrees” to get ready, teachers are champing at the bit to be liberated from the chains of rote learning and fill-in-the-bubble multiple-choice tests, and there’ll be materials to support the new focus on analytical skills, critical thinking, problem solving and essay writing.

By spring 2015, the state officials say, the kids will be ready – many of them anyway – for the “Smarter Balanced” computer-based test assessments that will measure how well they’re doing. (Yes, Virginia, “smarter balanced” is a test, not a shoe or a brand of margarine.) Anyway, they say, local districts will have a lot of flexibility on when to get on board. 

If all the foregoing resonates with a bit of skepticism, it’s meant to.

For state Department of Education officials, from Superintendent Tom Torlakson down, optimism is part of the job description. But California, one of some forty states that have signed up for Common Core, faces an enormous task not only because of the apparent magnitude of the change, but because its education system, and the state Department of Education itself, are so badly strapped in so many ways.

In the past few years we’ve laid off thousands of teachers; our average classes are among the largest in the nation; we have the fewest counselors and librarians per pupil; our per-pupil spending is near the bottom, even after Gov. Jerry Brown’s much-ballyhooed tax hike. And now we will take on this change as well.

The other day Torlakson estimated that it will cost $1 billion for California to make the change, and that, too, may turn out to be optimistic. So far most districts have been left dangling with little help other than the information – and there’s a fair amount of that – they can glean from the Department’s websites.

Even the optimism at the top – all of it from good people with good intentions – has some weasel wording. What does it mean that districts are getting ready to “varying degrees”? How many teachers are eager to change?

And a lot is left unsaid. The state may adopt texts and other classroom materials for Common Core, but the locals will have to buy them out of already strapped budgets. (emphasis added)

Missouri is not that different than California in that mandates will be coming to your school district that were never voted on by voters nor the Legislature. If "optimism is part of the job description" for Missouri Commissioner Chris Nicastro as it is for California Superintendent Tom Torkalson, she's doing a darn good job.  However, it is time for reality and truth to prevail and the tough questions must be answered in terms of cost and loss of local control.  The "weasel wording" is becoming suspect and the hard truth on the financial impact must be shared with the very taxpayers who are mandated to fund these standards.

The taxpayers and legislators require more documented evidence than DESE's statement that "CCSS won't cost Missouri any money" and regurgitated ed reform talking points.  Missouri has adopted standards/assessments that are unproven, untested and unfunded.  Legislative approval was never granted for this process and the Legislature was not informed of the additional cost needed for these mandates.  DESE needs to tell taxpayers and legislators how much they will cost the state (and local districts) and how they will restore local control.

We're waiting, Commissioner Nicastro.

  

Common Core Standards--They Won't Cost Anything to Implement... According to DESE. Let's Examine their Reasoning.

One of our state senators posted a document he received from DESE dated February 10, 2011 relating to questions on Common Core standards. We appreciate him looking into this matter and sharing the information with us quickly. He has raised questions about the implementation of these standards and we appreciate his concern.

You may read the DESE document here. It is entitled: "Frequently Asked Questions about Common Core Standards", and it is a sheet about the standards and information on how much the implementation will cost.

We would like to address the information DESE is disseminating to the legislators. From DESE:

The Common Core State Standards Initiative is a state‐led, not federal‐led, effort. The standards were developed in collaboration with teachers, school administrators, and experts, to provide a clear and consistent framework to prepare our children for college and the workforce. They built on the best “standards‐setting” work done at the state level, including Missouri’s ShowMe Standards.

There is disagreement about whether these standards are indeed state-led. Ed Week contains two articles about concern from states on the possibility of these common core standards being paid for by the Federal Government, (which apparently is illegal), and we hope our senator can help determine if this is what indeed is occurring:

Christopher T. Cross, who is a partner in the Washington-based education consulting firm Cross & Joftus, noted that the 1979 law that created the most recent iteration of the U.S. Department of Education prohibits the federal funding of curriculum. Cross helped write that law when he was the Republican staff director of the House committee on education and labor in 1978. (A brief overview of the history of the department is here, including mention of that law. The 1979 ban was prompted, knowledgeable sources tell me, by the National Science Foundation's controversial "Man: A Course of Study" curriculum.)

You can find the two Ed Week articles here and here. From "Can the Federal Government Fund Curriculum Materials":

The assessment consortia are doing more than just designing tests; they are both planning to design a range of curriculum and instructional materials reflecting the common standards. The consortia's plans to wade into designing curricular and instructional materials came up at the meeting, sparking immediate questions about what sorts of things they have in mind, and when folks in the states will be able to see it. But it also sparked this question: are you allowed to design curriculum using federal funds? (The work is being done with $31.6 million in supplemental funds above and beyond the $330 million in grants the two groups won in the Race to the Top assessment competition.)

Pascal "Pat" Forgione, the former Austin, Texas schools superintendent who is hosting this meeting as the head of ETS's Center for K-12 Assessment & Performance Management, said that this issue could be "the Achilles heel" of the consortia's work. Will that turn out to be the case?

It seems as if DESE's contention that these are state-led, not federal-led may not be accurate. If federal money is being used to craft curricula resources, that would lead one to believe these are, in fact, federal-led. Heck, the federal government is paying for them so it has a vested interest in what is contained in those resources.

DESE continues:

No additional costs are anticipated for revising and maintaining the standards in Missouri. The current department budget and staff have been involved in ongoing activities related to standards, assessments and support for schools since the first adoption of the ShowMe Standards in 1996. In states where curriculum development is centralized and textbooks or programs are chosen by the state, there probably would be a significant cost. However, that is not the case in Missouri. It is also true that states, where there are numerous differences between former state standards and the Common Core, may see a need to support a statewide initiative for professional development; however, the gap analysis conducted shows close alignment between the ShowMe Standards and the Common Core. The work to implement the 3rd edition of the ShowMe Standards will be part of the ongoing curriculum revision process that districts routinely conduct as part of business.

When DESE decided to apply for Race to the Top, it estimated it would cost the state approximately $743,000,000. Now the same goals we are chasing in the adoption of common core standards are determined by DESE to cost us nothing in the state:

"No additional costs are anticipated for revising and maintaining the standards in Missouri". DESE believes that Missouri does not need to "support a statewide initiative for professional development as the gap analysis conducted shows close alignment between the ShowMe Standards and the Common Core."

I would like to know which gap analysis DESE is referring to which shows close alignment between the ShowMe standards and the common core. Here you can find the Fordham Institute's report on Missouri (and other states) communication arts and math standards vs. the common core standards. States were rated as Clearly Superior to the Common Core, Too Close to Call, and Clearly Inferior to the Common Core. What does Fordham's report state for Missouri's grade? Missouri falls in the "clearly inferior to the Common Core" group:

English language arts: Missouri D Math: Missouri D

Perhaps DESE has another study it would like to produce to show close alignment to the ShowMe standards and the common core standards. The Fordham Institute's review panel was noted:

Reviews of ELA standards were led by Sheila Byrd Carmichael, former deputy executive director of the California Academic Standards Commission and founding director of the American Diploma Project. Math reviews were led by W. Stephen Wilson, professor of mathematics at Johns Hopkins University and former Advisor for Mathematics in the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education at the U.S. Department of Education.

DESE explains about the new assessments:

Missouri is a governing member of the SMARTER Balanced Consortium. The consortium (not Missouri) has received federal grants to develop an assessment system that all states can share and continue to build upon collaboratively. The new system will include assessments for grades 3‐8 (much like our current MAP), end‐of‐course tests (again, the same or similar to those we are currently using), and tools that all teachers can use to improve classroom instruction. The plan also calls for the system to include an end‐of‐high‐school assessment which will measure mastery of elementary and secondary content and assure that every child is ready to go on to post‐secondary training, education or employment. There is no cost to Missouri associated with the SMARTER‐development assessment system.

Pay attention to the last sentence. The new assessment system relies heavily on computer generated assessment answers from the students. This means districts will need computers for each student, or expanded computer labs at every school. We believe these assessments will be very different from the ShowMe standards and WILL require extensive professional and software development for districts. Again, who is going to pay for the computers needed by students required by the mandates? Where is the money to train the persons necessary to score these new on line assessments?

To the question of any increased cost to the data system, DESE states:

No additional state funding for this system has been requested....Additional funds for further developing Missouri’s comprehensive data system will be met through various state, federal and foundation programs as they become available.

The state has received as DESE noted a federal grant of $9,000,000 to help with this system. If and when additional funding is requested, exactly what state, federal and foundation programs will be able to financially back more spending? The state is broke, the districts are broke and the federal government is $14 Trillion dollars in debt. And I have to ask: Why if these same basic goals were thought to cost $743,000,000 in January 2010...why aren't they costing anything today? We have received some federal funding, and while I would like to know from DESE exactly how much we have received for implementation of all these goals, I would guess it's nowhere near $743,000,000 Million DESE initially thought it would cost the state.

Finally, DESE speaks to the question of any money needed for new assessments:

As stated earlier, the Department has not requested additional or new funding for the implementation or professional development associated with revised standards and assessments...Districts also should not have additional costs over and above their current investments in ongoing curriculum and professional development. These costs are built into current budgets and devoted to current activities related to instructional improvement.


There will be costs associated with professional development according the Ed Week article entitled "Common-Assessment Consortia Expand Plans":

SBAC also intends to work with states and professional groups to build teachers’ expertise in its assessment system and teach them how to score and analyze student responses to test items. It will create, among other resources, model curriculum and instructional units aligned to the common standards and training modules for teachers to help them focus instruction on the standards, according to the group’s plan.

"Working with states and professional groups to build teachers' expertise in its assessment system and teach them how to score and analyze student responses to test items" is called professional development and that costs either the state and/or the districts money.

"These costs are built into current budgets and devoted to current activities related to instructional improvement": Is DESE contending this type of training is already in a district's budget? If that is true, I imagine these costs are the most expendable from a district's budget in these financially difficult times. Districts would need to decide if they would cut their budgets with money set aside for assessment training, or firing teachers and other staff.

Read this comment from a reader in the Ed Week article "Common-Assessment Consortia Expand Plans":

9:14 AM on February 11, 2011

While it's great that new funds are available to provide support for the new learning and assessment of that learning resources use, may I suggest that such resources will be seen as prescriptive if indeed not presented / provided as being prescriptive. The new funds will not provide nearly enough support for all the situations that will arise but cannot be built into use.
It's very much like preparing for a cross-country auto trip. One can take lessons in how to drive and get a license, can get a route plan via a GPS unit or map (remember them??) service, and get a vehicle checked out and prepared for the trip. BUT if you think that's going to be sufficient for an enjoyable long trip, I have a bridge for sale as the saying goes. Experience consistent with the resources to be used and planning / communication with the suppliers and other experts are absolutely required to deal with unpredictable but guaranteed to happen situations that will arise.

Such is the problems with prescriptive solutions and their supplied materials ...

DESE's version of the cost of common core standards don't seem to make sense from the documentation we've been able to research from national sources. DESE's arguments are dubious and I hope the senator who forwarded this document and the other legislators press DESE for more direct answers.

Missouri Taxpayers Ask DESE--"How Much Will it Cost to Implement Common Core Standards"?

Are you concerned about the cost of common core standards? Do you know how much the standards are going to cost your state? If you live in Missouri, follow the directions below to contact the Commissioner of Education, your senator and representative, and ask them that question:

How much are the common core standards going to cost the taxpayers of Missouri?

If you are in another state and have concerns on the amount your state is spending on the standards, perhaps this letter will serve as a template and you can insert your own state's pertinent information.

*****************************************************

Here is a letter to send out asking about the cost of common core standards.

Chris Nicastro's address: commissioner@dese.mo.gov

To find your representative and senator go here. When you click on their names, their email addresses are displayed.

If you also want to send this to the Senate education committee, House education appropriation committee and House budget committee, you may click on the links for their names and email addresses.

****************************************************

To: Commissioner Chris Nicastro, DESE
RE: Common Core Standards Implementation Cost
CC: Senator
CC: Representative

Date:

Dear Commissioner Nicastro, Senator _________________ and Representative ________________________:

As a Missouri taxpayer, I want to know how much the implementation of Common Core standards will cost the state of Missouri and school districts. The state of California cost has been predicted to be $1.6 Billion ( from the nonprofit group EdSource, which estimates that California will incur costs of $800 million for new curriculum, $765 million for training teachers and $20 million for training principals, plus assorted minor costs, coming to a total of $1.6 billion).

Washington state's five year total costs are $182.6 million. $17.1 million of those costs are state level costs and $165.5 million of the costs will be the responsibility of the local school districts.

Missouri's prediction in January 2010 to implement Race to the Top was approximately $743,000,000. I realize we did not receive Race to the Top funding, however, our state is implementing the common core standards and the longitudinal data system that were present in this plan. Many of the common core standards implementations are similar to those in Race to the Top. Is this $743,000,000 figure for Race to the Top comparable to the amount it will require for Missouri common core standards implementation?

If you do not have this figure calculated at this time, when should this figure be available?

Cordially,

How Much Does it Cost to Implement Common Core Standards in Missouri? We Can Get an Inkling from California.

We have been wondering exactly how much the implementation the common core standards will cost in Missouri and have been making queries to find the answer.

We have heard figures that implementation cost of the standards range from approximately $750,000,000......to......zero. That's a large discrepancy and we hope to get a firm and accurate number fairly soon.

We will go out on a limb and predict the amount will certainly be more than zero. Let's look at California's unfunded debt it incurred when it signed onto common core standards. Like Missouri, it signed onto Race to the Top (in which common core standards must be adopted) but did not win any federal funding. Like Missouri, it nonetheless signed onto the standards and the projected unfunded cost to Californians because of that decision is $1.6 Billion.

What does $1.6 Billion buy for educational reform? Doug Laskey writes in "Let's Drop out of Race to the Top:

As a consultant for several educational institutes, including Fordham and Pioneer, I was involved in studying the wisdom of replacing individual state standards with one set of national standards. I studied all 50 states' standards in the area of language arts. Some were quite good and seemed in no great need of replacement, and some were rather shabby. I, and virtually everyone involved in this work, considered California's standards to be in the "no need to replace" category, first because they are among the best in the nation, and second because replacing them would be very expensive.

How expensive? There are a variety of estimates, but they all come to many millions of dollars. Consider that the Schiff-Bustamante bill passed in California in 1998 allocated $1 billion over four years to pay for textbooks aligned with the then-new California standards, in addition to the $70 million per year already allocated for textbooks. Grim projections come as well from the nonprofit group EdSource, which estimates that California will incur costs of $800 million for new curriculum, $765 million for training teachers and $20 million for training principals, plus assorted minor costs, coming to a total of $1.6 billion.

The costs California will incur for implementation will be the same type of cost Missouri will need to incur as well. Remember, these are for common core standards. That means common new curriculum for districts, training for teachers and principals and other costs...and how is this to be paid for?

Missouri school districts have no money, in fact, many are facing million dollar shortfalls and are reducing staff and services. The state has no money and has to cut $500,000,000 in the budget this year. If California's unfunded mandate is estimated at $1.6 Billion, the estimate I found (but haven't substantiated yet) of $750,000,000 for Missouri may not be out of line.

Whatever the cost is for implementation of this mandate is for Missouri, it will be costly in a time when the state, the districts and the taxpayers are out of financial resources for new programs. Mr. Laskey writes:

With the apparent collapse of funding for President Obama's Race to the Top education program, all states should look to California for guidance on how to react (or maybe how not to react).

Again, we ask the question, why are we signing onto a program that cedes state sovereignty and creates unfunded debt?