market analysis on common core

8/12/2019 Market Analysis On Common Core

1/19

Onvia Market Analysis:How Common Core is ShapingPublic Sector Education Contracts

Written by:

Paul IrbyMarket Analystwww.onvia.com


2/19

TABLE

OF CONTENTS

3

5

6

7

10

11

12

14

16

17

18

Overview

Industry Trends

Finding the Active States

Types of Projects

Types of Buyers

Average Contract Values

Example of a Full State Implementation

Expected Future Spending

IT Opportunities in Common Core

Keywords of the Common Core

Conclusion

ONVIA MARKET ANALYSIS: HOW COMMON CORE IS SHAPING PUBLIC SECTOR EDUCATION CONTRACTS


3/19

32014 Onvia, Inc. All rights reserved.


Market Analysis: How Common Core is

Shaping Public Sector Education Contracts

While there have been

political challengesat the statelevel in continuing to support

and authorize the rollout of

Common Core2, along with

controversyover its

appropriateness and

effectiveness3, the adoption by

states of the initial program was

nearly unanimous. Since 2010,

governors from 45 out of the 50

statesplus the District of

Columbia4have made a

commitment to adopt the

Common Core national standards

which their individual school

districts have to gure out how

to implement. Common Coresets the agreed-upon standards

for teaching but doesnt control

the details of the curriculum or

textbooks that a state uses, which

allows for state and

district-specic customization.

While the vast majority of states

have signed on, their levels of

implementation vary widely.

Some states have barely started

while others have already made

major investments.

OVERVIEW

As a national school reform movement, Common Coreis positioned to completely

re-shape the delivery of K-12 education. The fundamental nature of these changes

creates opportunities for qualified vendors to assist state agencies and school districts

in a diverse range of areas from curriculum planning and instructional materials to

teacher training, testing and online learning.

1Putting a Price Tag on the Common Core: How Much Will Smart Implementation Cost? Patrick Murphy and Elliot Regenstein with Keith McNamara, Thomas B. FordhamInstitute, May 2012 (les.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED532509.pdf )2The Politics of Common Core, Allie Bidwell, U.S. News & World Report, March 6, 20143Common Questions on Common Core Part 1: About the new school standards Margaret Sessa-Hawkins, Maryland Reporter, April 21, 2014. The far-right generally objects toCommon Core because they believe that it is a federally mandated curriculumMany on the left object to the uniform teaching standards and to using standardized tests for studentand teacher evaluation.4The Politics of Common Core, Allie Bidwell, U.S. News & World Report, March 6, 20145Putting a Price Tag on the Common Core: H ow Much Will Smart Implementation Cost? Patrick Murphy and Elliot Regenstein with Keith McNamara, Thomas B. FordhamInstitute, May 2012 (les.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED532509.pdf )

The [Common Core

Standards] are intended not

only to raise the level of rigor

in instruction but also to

focus anew on the knowledgeand skills that all students

must master to succeed in

college and/or career. These

changes will likely require

that curriculum, instruction,

and assessment, as we now

know them, undergo

signicant transformation1.

- Thomas B. Fordham Institute,2012

Adoption was the easypart. Implementation iswhere things get real

and really challenging.

Some states are busily

attending to their

implementation checklists

while others amble at a

turtles pace5.

- Thomas B. Fordham

Institute, 2012
http://www.usnews.com/news/special-reports/a-guide-to-common-core/articles/2014/03/06/the-politics-of-common-corehttp://marylandreporter.com/2014/04/21/common-questions-on-common-core-part-1-about-the-new-school-standards/http://www.usnews.com/news/special-reports/a-guide-to-common-core/articles/2014/03/06/the-politics-of-common-corehttp://www.usnews.com/news/special-reports/a-guide-to-common-core/articles/2014/03/06/the-politics-of-common-corehttp://www.corestandards.org/http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED532509.pdfhttp://eric.ed.gov/?q=Common+Core+Fordham+Institute&id=ED532509http://eric.ed.gov/?q=Common+Core+Fordham+Institute&id=ED532509http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED532509.pdfhttp://www.corestandards.org/http://www.usnews.com/news/special-reports/a-guide-to-common-core/articles/2014/03/06/the-politics-of-common-corehttp://www.usnews.com/news/special-reports/a-guide-to-common-core/articles/2014/03/06/the-politics-of-common-corehttp://marylandreporter.com/2014/04/21/common-questions-on-common-core-part-1-about-the-new-school-standards/http://www.usnews.com/news/special-reports/a-guide-to-common-core/articles/2014/03/06/the-politics-of-common-core


4/19


ONVIA MARKET ANALYSIS: HOW COMMON CORE IS SHAPING PUBLIC SECTOR EDUCATION CONTRACTS OVERVIEW

Funding appears to be an issue

with some states and commonly

cited estimates by the Fordham

Institute expect that Common

Core could potentially cost up to$12 Billionin total

spending for all states, not

including technology spending6.

As states will otherwise spend

around $4 Billion7, this means

around $8 Billion in possible

additional spend for the

agencies on the high side,

although for vendors the total

$12 billion gross number would

represent the new potential

market size. On the low end, the

Fordham Institute study

estimated a scenario with every

state using online methods that

cost no more than what is

already spent. Responding to

these estimates back in 2012,

Education Weekobserved,

States face key decisions as they

implement the Common Core

State Standards8 referring to

the scale of the potential costs

as well as the uncertainty in the

funding scenarios. The large

differences in potential spending

by states depend on factors such

as whether electronic versions of

traditional textbooks are used,

whether teachers can be trainedthrough online modules or

in-person and whether

technology upgrades are needed

to support minimum

recommended technical

guidelines for Common Core

online testing. Decisions about

the use and importance of

technology will clearly affect the

types and cost of educational

projects that are offered for bid

to the vendor business

community.

With all of the activity

happening around Common

Core, we wanted to bring

additional insight to the

discussion. Our goal was to

uncover trends in types of

projects, which government

agencies are offering them,

award values and what the

typical pattern of implementation

looks like.

6Putting a Price Tag on the Common Core: How Much Will Smart Implementation Cost? Patrick Murphy and Elliot Regenstein with Keith McNamara, Thomas B. FordhamInstitute, May 2012 (les.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED532509.pdf )7Ibid.8How Much Will the Common Core Cost? Catherine Gewertz, Education Week, May 30, 2012

Decisions about the use and importance oftechnology will clearly affect the types and costof educational projects that are offered for bid

to the vendor business community.
http://eric.ed.gov/?q=Common+Core+Fordham+Institute&id=ED532509http://eric.ed.gov/?q=Common+Core+Fordham+Institute&id=ED532509http://eric.ed.gov/?q=Common+Core+Fordham+Institute&id=ED532509http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/05/30/33cost.h31.htmlhttp://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED532509.pdfhttp://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED532509.pdfhttp://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/05/30/33cost.h31.htmlhttp://eric.ed.gov/?q=Common+Core+Fordham+Institute&id=ED532509http://eric.ed.gov/?q=Common+Core+Fordham+Institute&id=ED532509http://eric.ed.gov/?q=Common+Core+Fordham+Institute&id=ED532509


5/19



Uncovering Industry Trends with

Actual Contracting DataWe examined Onvias

comprehensive database of

contracting activity

representing state and local

government agencies across the

nation and searched for terms

related to Common Core. The

database returned over 4,000

results for projects mentioning

Common Core in project

documents and close to 600

projects that mentioned

Common Core in the project

titles or project descriptions. Its

important to note that these

opportunities are all above the

minimum threshold where an

agency has to advertise for acompetitive bid or RFP and this

will vary from state to state. This

group of close to 600 projects

was the basis for our detailed

research as they

represented those projects most

likely to be primarily focused on

the implementation and

transition to Common Core.

The larger gure of 4,000

projects represent projects

mentioning Common Core

somewhere in bid documents

or supplemental materials. This

larger group of projects can be a

resource for vendors, but is not

necessarily an indicator of actual

projects focused on the

implementation of Common

Core.

Even though Common Core

ofcially kicked off in 2010, we

found that most of the contract

activity began in 2012 and the

volume picked up somewhatin 2013, with a 20% growth in

the number of opportunities. It

remains to be seen how 2014

and 2015 will stack up as more

participating states nd their

funding, move out of the

preliminary planning stage and

work toward full implementation.

INDUSTRY TRENDS

20%+

Growth in Number of Opportunitiesin 2013

Onvias databasereturned over

4,000 resultsforprojects mentioning

Common Core inproject documents.


6/19



Finding the Active States

When we studied the nearly 600

Common Core-related

contracting opportunities, the

projects seem to be concentrated

in a limited number of states. We

saw little activity in many states,

other than a few preliminary

consulting contracts to provide

basic planning and keep the door

open for full implementation at

some point.

In the map to the left, we

highlighted states with the

highest level of Common Core

activity from 2012 to 2013. We

started with 2012 as this was the

rst year that a largenumber of projects were

advertised or awarded. Each of

the orange highlighted states

had at least 10 Common Core

project opportunities over two

full years from 2012 to 2013 and

we saw major spending in areas

such as curriculum re-tooling and

teacher training. As the

population size leaders,

California had 109 and New York

had 73 opportunities. Texas was

notable in not joining this group

given its large population, but

after initially adopting Common

Core, state leaders opted to

create their own custom guide-

linesthat represent college- and

career-ready standards rather

than adopt the national stan-

dards9.

Education vendors should be

aware of the differences between

full implementation and wait

and study states that only havea limited number of recent

opportunities. In our database,

states highlighted in yellow had

a moderate volume of activity

(i.e. 5-9 in two years) which may

be meaningful for states with

a smaller population or limited

number of school

districts. At the bottom in level of

contracting volume, there were

a total of 20 states with either a

single above threshold

opportunity in our database or

none at all during the last two

full calendar years.

FINDING THE ACTIVE STATES

9The Politics of Common Core, Allie Bidwell, U.S. News & World Report, March 6, 2014

Most Active States for Common Core Contracting2012-2013

Range of Common Core Opportunities by State2012-2013

Source:Onvias database of state & local contracting opportunities

Reflects Common Core opportunities during 2012-13

10+ CA, NY, NJ, FL, OH, OK, PA, CT, AZ, IL, MD

5-9 WA, MS, NC, ME, MA, IA, TN, DC, NM, GA


7/197



Types of Projects

According to the original study

that estimated costs for Common

Core, conducted by the Thomas

B Fordham Institute10, states and

districts were told to consider

the following three categories of

spending as the foundation of

their budgets: instructional

materials, professional

development and tests.

Instructional Materials

The original Common Core study

authors predicted that national

implementation could lead to a

shift in the market for

instructional materials with more

opportunity for smallerpublishing companies:

TYPES OF PROJECTS

10 Putting a Price Tag on the Common Core: How Much Will Smart Im plementation Cost? Patrick Murphy and Elliot

Regenstein with Keith McNamara, Thomas B. Fordham Institute, May 2012 (les.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED532509.pdf )11 Ibid.

INSTRUCTIONAL

MATERIALS

PROFESSIONAL

DEVELOPMENT

TESTS

The evolution of instructionalmaterials is rapid and

ongoing. Some of that

change is technological, as

electronic devices replace

traditional paper textbooks.

But some is driven by the

expanding marketplace ofcontent providersno longer

limited to the monopoly of

traditional large publishers.

Thus the widespread

adoption of the Common

Core has the potential to

alter the market for

instructional materials

signifcantly11.

- Thomas B. Fordham

Institute, 2012


8/198



Within Onvias database, one

project example in the

instructional materials category

is the school district in Lewis

Center, Ohio that awarded a$712,600 contract for elementary

level mathematics textbook

materials to Great Source

Education Group, a part of

leading publisher Houghton Mif-

in Harcourt. Not all awards went

to traditional publishers though;

The Stockton Unied School

District in California ordered an

elementary math online learning

materials package for $2.6 million

from the Mind Research Institute,

a well-established online learning

company. Instructional materials

are estimated in the ofcial

Common Core study to cost

between $20 and $135 per

studentbased on the format of

the material (i.e. computer-based

versus more expensive traditional

textbooks).

Professional Development

There are a large number of

teacher training opportunities

every year in our database. Tulsa

Public Schools spent $388,800

last year to send teachers on a

ve-day training academy to

provide them with strategies to

use in implementing CommonCore along with professional

development. This was offered by

the well-established educational

rm Battelle for Kids. Another

professional development

contract for $228,000 was

awarded to A2Z Educational

Consultants, Inc. by the school

district in San Bernardino, CA,

which will help teachers to

develop a repertoire of

instructional strategies, broader

content knowledge, and reshape

their thinking and problem

solving capacity in order to

achieve greater student success

and transition to Common Core

State Standards12. Teacher

training in the original Common

Core study was estimated to

range from $200 to $2,00013per

teacherdepending on whether

online learning technology is

used or in-person training has to

be scheduled.

Testing

There were few testing or

assessment contracts in our

database, which suggests that

the vast majority ofcontracting will be with one of

the two federally-funded national

consortiums of states who are

handling testing development

and assessments. The decision

to test online is left up to each

state. However, there are many

states and districts who will want

to improve their IT infrastructure

and computer availability to

accommodate the recommended

system guidelinesof online

Common Core testing.

TYPES OF PROJECTS

12Onvias project database

13Putting a Price Tag on the Common Core: How Much Will Smart Implementation Cost? Patrick Murphy and Elliot Regenstein with Keith McNamara, Thomas B. FordhamInstitute, May 2012 (les.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED532509.pdf )

The Stockton Unified SchoolDistrict in Californiaordered anelementary math online learning

materials package for

$2.6 MILLION

from the Mind Research Institute
https://secure.greatsource.com/secure-rehand/gs_studentlogin.html?targeturl=/rehand/9-12/student/https://secure.greatsource.com/secure-rehand/gs_studentlogin.html?targeturl=/rehand/9-12/student/http://www.hmhco.com/shop/education-curriculum?atrkid=V1ADW6700B927-16512376132-k-houghton%20mifflin%20harcourt-41171115772-e-g-m-1t1&gclid=CMuo7paNor8CFZNffgodx38ASQhttp://www.hmhco.com/shop/education-curriculum?atrkid=V1ADW6700B927-16512376132-k-houghton%20mifflin%20harcourt-41171115772-e-g-m-1t1&gclid=CMuo7paNor8CFZNffgodx38ASQhttp://www.mindresearch.net/http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED532509http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED532509http://a2zec.net/http://a2zec.net/http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED532509http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED532509http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED532509http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED532509http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/03/13/25challenges.h33.html?qs=cavanagh+windows+microsofthttp://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/03/13/25challenges.h33.html?qs=cavanagh+windows+microsofthttp://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/03/13/25challenges.h33.html?qs=cavanagh+windows+microsofthttp://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/03/13/25challenges.h33.html?qs=cavanagh+windows+microsofthttp://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED532509http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED532509http://a2zec.net/http://a2zec.net/http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED532509http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED532509http://www.mindresearch.net/http://www.hmhco.com/shop/education-curriculum?atrkid=V1ADW6700B927-16512376132-k-houghton%20mifflin%20harcourt-41171115772-e-g-m-1t1&gclid=CMuo7paNor8CFZNffgodx38ASQhttp://www.hmhco.com/shop/education-curriculum?atrkid=V1ADW6700B927-16512376132-k-houghton%20mifflin%20harcourt-41171115772-e-g-m-1t1&gclid=CMuo7paNor8CFZNffgodx38ASQhttps://secure.greatsource.com/secure-rehand/gs_studentlogin.html?targeturl=/rehand/9-12/student/https://secure.greatsource.com/secure-rehand/gs_studentlogin.html?targeturl=/rehand/9-12/student/


9/19



In the original study, the

technology testing component

was not estimated since

capabilities differ between states.

Fordham study authors noted:

Testing costs for the actual

assessments were estimated in

the study to range between $20

and $45 per student, and the

method of testing can range

from a non-computer paper

and pen option to online testing

where sufcient school

bandwidth and availability of

computers with reasonableminimum capabilities (i.e.

Windows 7 recommended, etc.)

are needed15. Education Week

mentioned Oregon as an

example of a state that already

has a long history with online

testing16.

Other Areas of Spending

Related to the investments in

new textbooks and electronic

instructional materials, many

contracts in Onvias database

were in the area of curriculum

consulting. Leading educational

companies like Pearsonand

Scholasticoften compete for

major curriculum design/plan-

ning projects which end up

informing or inuencing the

development and production

of textbooks and materials. For

example, in Warren City, Ohio,

Scholastic won a $155,000

contract to deliver a curriculum

gap analysis/instructional review

that would involve partnering

with the district to redesign

curriculum maps for alignment to

Common Core State Standards

as well as conducting someteacher training. In addition to

being referred to as mapping

these consulting projects are

often talked about by agency

buyers using the term

alignment, meaning a vendor

will work to align the content

of the existing local curriculum

with the Common Core national

standards.

One of the dynamics of Common

Core is that it tends to encourage

a more extensive use of

technology in materials,

testing and teacher training.

Online or computer-based

learning and training can help

reduce costs while meeting the

overall goal of college and career

readiness.

TYPES OF PROJECTS

14Putting a Price Tag on the Common Core: How Much Will Smart I mplementation Cost? Patrick Murphy and Elliot Regenstein with Keith McNamara, Thomas B. FordhamInstitute, May 2012 (les.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED532509.pdf )

15Evaluating Schoo ls Tech. Readiness for Common-Core Testing, Sean Cavanagh, Education Week, March 10, 201416Ibid.

[Infrastructure costs of onlineassessments] include both

the hardware for students to

take the tests (e.g., desktop,

laptop, or tablet computers)

as well as internet

bandwidthFor many policy

makers, the decision to adoptcomputer-administered tests

will be inuenced by a states

or districts technology

capacity, and these vary

greatly. For instance, many

states already use computer-

administered tests or require

them14.

- Thomas B. Fordham

Institute, 2012T E C H N O L O G Y

in materials, testing andteacher training.

One dynamic of Common Coreis that it tends to encourage

a more extensive use of
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED532509http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED532509http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/03/13/25challenges.h33.html?qs=cavanagh+windows+microsofthttp://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/03/13/25challenges.h33.html?qs=cavanagh+windows+microsofthttp://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/03/13/25challenges.h33.html?qs=cavanagh+windows+microsofthttp://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/03/13/25challenges.h33.html?qs=cavanagh+windows+microsofthttp://www.pearsoned.com/http://www.scholastic.com/home/http://www.scholastic.com/home/http://www.pearsoned.com/http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/03/13/25challenges.h33.html?qs=cavanagh+windows+microsofthttp://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/03/13/25challenges.h33.html?qs=cavanagh+windows+microsofthttp://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/03/13/25challenges.h33.html?qs=cavanagh+windows+microsofthttp://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/03/13/25challenges.h33.html?qs=cavanagh+windows+microsofthttp://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED532509http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED532509


10/19



Types of Buyers

Common Core is state-driven in

its implementation but the

individual school districts and

their staff must gure out how to

put it into practice. State

education ofcials often take a

supporting role, allowing the

local agencies to make the

majority of investments inplanning, materials and

training. As a result, more than

six out of ten (61%) projects in

our database originated at the

local district level, compared to

two out of ten (24%) projects

offered by non-district state

agencies such as state

departments of education.Projects at the city and county

level were generally also public

schools that did not t under a

traditional school district agency

structure.

In looking closer at awards at

the state level, it appears that

many were about curriculum

consulting, such as mapping/

aligning statewide targets to the

new standards and working on

standardized parts of the K-12

curriculum to be used by

individual districts.

TYPES OF BUYERS

School Districts

61%

Other

3%

State

24%

Cities

6%

Counties

6%

Bids, RFPs and Awards by Type of Agency


11/19



Average

Contract ValuesWhile Common Core contracts

with vendors can reach into the

millions, the majority are below

$100,000. We calculated that the

median or mid-point value was

$35,205. However, due to the

impact of the few very large

contracts, the overall mean

average was $375,192. A reviewof the smaller contracts (under

$25,000) found that winning

vendors tended to be local or

regional rather than major

national companies, suggesting

there are considerable

opportunities for small

businesses. As values rise the

picture changes, and agencies

increasingly favor the large or

more well-known and established

vendors.

AVERAGE CONTRACT VALUES

Award Size Share of Projects

Less than $25K 42.1%

$25K - $100K 26.3%

$100K - $500K 21.1%

$500K - $1M 7.2%

$1M - $5M 1.9%

$5M - $10M 1.0%

Greater than $10M 0.5%

Median (mid-point) value $35,205

Overall (mean) average $375,192

Common Core Contract Values2010-2014


12/19



Example of a Full State

Implementation

With hundreds of opportunities

happening across the country,

we wanted to take a look at

how implementation takes place

within a state to provide further

guidance for vendors on what to

expect in these situations where

states adopt Common Core more

aggressively. As an earlyrecipient of a large federal

Common Core grant, Maryland is

one of the states furthest along

in their path of implementation.

Marylands early and strong start

led to a nearly complete

implementation process between

2010 and the 2013-14 school

year. As reported by CBS Balti-more, Maryland Counties have

been gradually adding elements

of the standards to their

curriculum since the state

adopted them in 2010. All of the

counties were required to fully

implement Common Core this

year (2013)17. Using Maryland

as a guide, were able to examine

what a full implementation looks

like.

After initial discussions in 2009,

the state adopted Common Core

in 2010 and also won a large

federal Race to the Top grant

for $250 million, intended tohelp with costs over a four-year

period. Recent media

mentions18indicate that leaders

are now calling for additional

spending on hardware

technology upgrades to support

the online standardized testing

for all students. However, the

basic educational infrastructurearound curriculum, materials and

teacher training has been built

and placed into operation.

Onvia examined 20 Maryland

projects ranging in size from

$100,000 to over $5 million.There

is likely to be a signicant

number of projects not put out

for bid and this represents a

source of opportunity for

vendors that have developed

direct relationships with

government buyers. We found

in our data that, generally, the

vendors obtaining the larger

competitive Maryland contractswere either major educational

companies, well-established

consultants, or experienced IT

companies.

EXAMPLE OF A FULL STATE IMPLEMENTATION

17Teachers, Parents Struggle with New Comm on Core State Standards,Allison Bourg, CBS Baltimore, December 15, 201318Maryland schools need $100 million f or online Common Core tests, says report,Valerie Strauss, Washington Post, January 17, 2014

Marylandis an early recipient of a large

federal Common Core grant andis one of the furthest along

in their path of implementation.
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2013/12/15/teachers-parents-struggle-with-new-common-core-state-standards/http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2013/12/15/teachers-parents-struggle-with-new-common-core-state-standards/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/01/17/maryland-schools-need-100-million-for-online-common-core-tests-says-report/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/01/17/maryland-schools-need-100-million-for-online-common-core-tests-says-report/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/01/17/maryland-schools-need-100-million-for-online-common-core-tests-says-report/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/01/17/maryland-schools-need-100-million-for-online-common-core-tests-says-report/http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2013/12/15/teachers-parents-struggle-with-new-common-core-state-standards/http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2013/12/15/teachers-parents-struggle-with-new-common-core-state-standards/


13/19



We found three awards to represent the key areas of opportunity mentioned in

the Fordham Institute study in order to provide vendors with specic examples

of implementation projects.

In the table below, the textbook contract is with leading publishing companyPearson. Both edCountand A P Venturesare smaller in size, but are

well-established within their niches of educational consulting and online

learning, respectfully. A P Ventures is a locally headquartered Maryland rm

already well-known in the state for online learning and IT services for a broad

range of government agencies, and edCount was a nationally recognized leader

in education consulting with education agency clients in 25 states. These

example contracts are on the larger end of spend, but highlight the breadth ofopportunities available and what it takes to be eligible for winning large awards

in this market.

EXAMPLE OF A FULL STATE IMPLEMENTATION

17Teachers, Parents Struggle with New Comm on Core State Standards,Allison Bourg, CBS Baltimore, December 15, 201318Maryland schools need $100 million f or online Common Core tests, says report,Valerie Strauss, Washington Post, January 17, 2014

World Class K-5 Language

Arts Curriculum DeveloperElementary Mathematics Textbooks

Develop online professional

development courses

Purchasing Agency:

Baltimore County Public Schools

Purchasing Agency:

Baltimore County Public Schools

Purchasing Agency:

Maryland Board of Public Works

Award Value: $5.4 million Award Value: $4.0 million Award Value:$425,000

Awarded to:edCount Awarded to:Pearson Education Awarded to:A P Ventures

Project Description:

Agency requests a partner to assist in the

development of a new world-class elementarycurriculum that complies with Common Core

state standards. The curriculum will be expected

to use assessment and technology to deliver

rigorous instruction for a wide range of student

needs.


Agency requests vendor to provide

instructional resources for Grades 1 and 2 totransition their current mathematics program

to the new Common Core state standards.

This is a 5 year term contract (expires in 2017)


Agency requests vendor to develop ve online

professional development courses for Englishand Mathematics to help educators master the

content and pedagogical changes required by

the Maryland Common Core State Curriculum.
http://edcount.com/http://www.apventures.biz/http://www.apventures.biz/http://edcount.com/


14/19



Expected Future Spending

The nal portion of our research

in Common Core involved

expected or future spending

based on Onvias Spending

Forecast Centertool. With the

exception of a few technology

upgrade projects in California,

Onvias dataset of past

opportunities didnt includesignicant IT-related contracting

activity. However, with this

forward looking view we

expected to be able to see higher

expenditures around online

learning, online professional

development and additional

hardware and IT spending

around standardized testing as-sociated with the later stages of

Common Core implementation.

Online learning (or e-Learning)

for students and online training

for teachers has been mentioned

as a way schools can invest to

save costs in the future while

helping students learn in

specialized content areas where

qualied local teachers may not

exist.

We utilized Onvias Spending

Forecast Centerusing the same

search terms related to

Common Core and found a

total of 1,369 state and localgovernment agency plans and

budget documents (both

proposed and adopted)

mentioning the terms. Its

important to note that many

mentions of Common Core are

in preliminary documents that

may not end up being approved

or may be signicantly modiedbefore being enacted.

Additionally, some will mention

Common Core indirectly but the

budget item listed may not be

primarily about implementation.

One example of potential

upcoming contracts was with the

City of Norwalk , Connecticuts

Board of Education, which is in

the middle of a multi-million

dollar re-tooling process for their

district curriculum to move it into

alignment with Common Core

standards. This included $2.1

million in work already

committed for the 2013-14school year, followed by $2.4

million approved for the 2014-15

year.

The Sacramento City Unied

School District recently adopted

a budget for Common Core

contracts related to Instructional

Materials/Supplies during thecurrent 2013-14 school year,

which involves $1.65 million in

spend. The districts 2013-14

Budget Book19 included a

paragraph of discussion and

context around Common Core,

and mentions that the state of

California will give $8.8 million to

EXPECTED FUTURE SPENDING

192013-14 Budget Book, Sacramento City Unied School District pg. 281

Upcoming Contract:City of Norwalk,

Connecticuts Board of Education

$2.1M

$2.4M
http://www.scusd.edu/pod/e-budget-bookhttp://www.scusd.edu/pod/e-budget-book


15/19



the district over the next two

scal years in one-time funds

that must be spent for

professional development,

instructional materials, and

technology. The district is

required to develop and adopt

an expenditure plan

detailing how the funds will bespent and hold a public

hearing. This represents an

excellent opportunity for

vendors focusing on the

California market to develop

relationships with agency

decision-makers and have an

impact on the outcome of this

important process.

A third example is the Irvine

Unied School District, which has

a Master Technology Plan with

detailed Common Core spending

components (see chart on left).

The top states to mention

Common Core in future

planning documents include

California, New York, Connecticut

and Michigan. The types of plans

that came up provide some

insight into the range of

potential projects represented.

There were 697 budgetdocuments, 87 capital

improvement documents and

585 technology plan documents

where Common Core was

mentioned. If future spending

was going to be entirely in

contracts for consulting or

training we wouldnt see

anything in the technology orcapital spend categories. We

believe the evidence is strongly

pointing to heavier tech

spending in the near future

around Common Core adoption

and implementation.

EXPECTED FUTURE SPENDING

$400,000 in upgrades for their computer labs in anticipation of

statewide online testing.

Upgrade and/or replace any Windows desktop and laptop systems not

meeting Common Core or Windows 7 minimum standards.

Planning for $1.7 million in technology projects to support the Common

Core transition and [the federally-funded Consortiums Common Core]

online tests. This amount will come from the larger $6 million given to

Irvine by the state of California in two-year Common Core funding (2013-

15) for a mix of professional development, instructional materials and

technology.

The Irvine Unified School Districtlistedthree project areas in their Master Technology Plan

(related to Common Core)


16/19



IT Opportunities in Common Core

To outline some of the impact

of Common Core on IT, we took

a look at available 3rd party

sources as well as Onvias own

database and reports. While the

Fordham Institute study didnt

include IT support for

standardized testing as a

universal category for spending,its clear that many

opportunities exist for

technology-related Common

Core contracts. The study did

point out that using electronic

materialsinstead of textbooks as

well as using e-learning modules

for teacher training and

professional development couldresult in signicant savings. In

addition, there is a huge

opportunity to help states

become functional in online

assessments, including providing

more computing devices,

upgrades to computer operating

systems and greater bandwidth

to support the increased user

load associated with content

delivery and testing. The Wash-

ington Post reported that one

Maryland-focused study found

there will be a 280% increase in

the number of students taking

the new standardized online tests

once the testing component islive, and currently 85% of the

schools are not ready for the

technical challenges of

accommodating all of these test

takers20. For example, in

Montgomery County, Maryland

there are estimates21of needing

$10 million in computer

purchases, $3 million in wirelessenhancements to the

infrastructure and $4 million in

other technological

improvements. In Prince George

County, Maryland the total

estimate for tech-related

improvements to help support

Common Core is $5 million22.

We know many schools are

already in the middle of

technological upgrades in areas

such as high speed Internet

access, new computers and

Voice-over-Internet-Protocol

(VoIP) digital phone service

throughout a districts schoolbuildings, which are not driven

by the technology needs of

Common Core. Some projects

will fall under E-Rate priorities,

reecting improvements

in bandwidth that are paid for by

federal grant funding for schools

and libraries. Some are likely to

be procured as typical IThardware, software and

networking contracts that

happen to be occurring at the

same time as Common Core

implementations. Hardware

vendors should note that nding

these type of opportunities will

require going after technology

improvement budgets in general

as they likely wont mention

Common Core as well as

looking into agencies where

Common Core is being

implemented and asking about

the timing for these types of tech

upgrades.

IT OPPORTUNITIES IN COMMON CORE

20Maryland schools need $100 million fo r online Common Core tests, says report, Valerie Strauss, Washington Post, January 17, 201421

Ibid.22Ibid.

There is ahuge opportunity

to help states becomefunctional in online

assessments.
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED532509http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED532509http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/01/17/maryland-schools-need-100-million-for-online-common-core-tests-says-report/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/01/17/maryland-schools-need-100-million-for-online-common-core-tests-says-report/http://www.onvia.com/blog/infographic-targeting-government-voip-markethttp://www.onvia.com/blog/infographic-targeting-government-voip-markethttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/01/17/maryland-schools-need-100-million-for-online-common-core-tests-says-report/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/01/17/maryland-schools-need-100-million-for-online-common-core-tests-says-report/http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED532509http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED532509


17/19



Keywords of the

Common Core

KEYWORDS OF THE COMMON CORE

The following word cloud using only the titles of each project in Onvias database provides a graphic

illustration of how agencies describe Common Core and the diversity of projects such as curriculum,

materials and professional development. Larger-sized terms were mentioned more frequently. Vendors

pursuing Common Core contract opportunities should consider using keywords below to rene searches

and ensure they discover relevant bidding opportunties

TrainingMath

State

School

Implementation

Curriculum

District

Support

Mathematics

Language

Practices

Literacy

Grades

Learning

Staff

Reading

English

Workshops

Student

Writing

Engagement

SoftwareAssessment

OnlineComputer

Monitoring

Modules

Web-based

Equipment Professional

DevelopmentStandards

Teacher


18/19



Conclusion

Common Core has been adopted

by 45 states across the country

but has not been evenly

implemented since 2010.

Maryland is a leader in recent

contracting activity around

Common Core, but we anticipate

procurement activity to grow

for all other states particularlyover the next 12 months as we

approach the scheduled launch

of online testing in the 2014-15

school year23. This is a large

initiative potentially worth up to

$12 billion nationally not

including IT upgrades24and we

expect to see signicant

spending in four key areasaround curriculum

development, educational

materials, teacher training and

technology. Because Common

Core is often implemented at the

district level - which can be

rather small - vendors should

expect many contracts related

to Common Core to fall under

threshold for public bidding.

Vendors pursuing these smaller

Common Core contracts should

consider using an electronic

database or platform such as

Onvia that will not only identify

thousands of above threshold

public agency bids and RFPs, butalso create buyer lists of target

agencies so they can pursue

marketing and relationship-

building campaigns with those

agencies and be well-positioned

to capture relevant bidding

opportunities.

CONCLUSION

23 Evaluating Schools Tech. Readiness for Common-Core Testing,Sean Cavanagh, Information Week, March 13 201424Putting a Price Tag on the Common Core: How Much Will Smart I mplementation Cost?Patrick Murphy and Elliot Regenstein with Keith McNamara, Thomas B. FordhamInstitute, May 2012 (les.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED532509.pdf )
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED532509.pdfhttp://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED532509.pdf


19/19

ABOUT ONVIA

Onvia specializes in providing business intelligence solutions to vendors to help

them grow their government business and get ahead of the bid and RFP process.

Active vendors in the government market that need timely, comprehensive and

unique insights in their industry vert ical, key buyers and competitive landscape

should visit www.onvia.com and request a demo to speak with a Business

Development Manager in their industry. Onvia helps clients strategically growtheir government business with solutions for project intelligence, agency

intelligence and vendor intelligence in the public sector.

Disclaimer:

The information contained in this Onvia publication has been obtained from

publicly available federal, state and local and government data sources. Onvia

disclaims all warranties as to the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of such

information. The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of

Onvias research organization or contributors and are subject to change.

For More Information

Onvia - www.onvia.com

(800) 575-1736


http://www.youtube.com/OnviaVideoshttps://plus.google.com/u/0/b/110334104421394496668/110334104421394496668http://www.facebook.com/onviainchttps://twitter.com/Onviahttp://www.linkedin.com/company/onvia

market analysis on common core

Documents