Google Find us on Google+

Non-Common Core States Will Save Millions of Dollars

Sep 6, 2013 by

by Henry W. Burke

9.06.13  (Revised)

This short article deals with a very hypothetical situation!

We distributed an extensive report on 10.16.12 entitled “States’ Taxpayers Cannot Afford Common Core Standards,” by Henry W. Burke, 10.15.12.

http://educationviews.org/states-taxpayers-cannot-afford-common-core-standards-2/

The above report covered the cost for implementing the Common Core Standards (CCS) in the 46 states (45 states plus the District of Columbia) that adopted the CCS.

This article will address the five remaining states.  I commend the following five states for not committing to follow the Common Core Standards Initiative (CCSI): Alaska, Minnesota, Nebraska, Texas, and Virginia.

The five non-CCS states will not have to deal with the intrusive and objectionable aspects connected with the Common Core Standards.  These five states will not have to contend with nationalized curriculum standards, nationalized assessments, nationalized teacher evaluations, and nationalized database.

Also, the five non-CCS states will not be exposed to the huge expenses associated with implementing the Common Core Standards.  Accordingly, the taxpayers in these five states will not have to pick up the tab for the conversion to CCS. 

Both Texas and Alaska have firmly and officially stated that they will not adopt the Common Core Standards!  These two states have developed their own state standards and are proceeding in that direction.  I am not quite as certain about Minnesota, Nebraska and Virginia.  Could they be tempted by the federal money, paltry as it is?  I do not know.

I would like to pose a hypothetical and perhaps unrealistic question.  How much would it cost each of the five non-CCS states to implement the Common Core Standards?

I think it would be interesting, albeit unrealistic, to calculate the CCS implementation cost for the five non-CCS states.

Because the five non-CCS states are not implementing CCS, the Pioneer Institute excluded these states from their study.  This means that CCS costs were not included for the five-state group.  However, the Pioneer white paper did include the student enrollment and teacher numbers for the five states.

http://pioneerinstitute.org/download/national-cost-of-aligning-states-and-localities-to-the-common-core-standards/

In my report on the 46 states, I listed the “CCS Cost per Student” for each of the states in Table 2 — CCS Costs Per Student.  The cost per student varied from $337 (in Utah) to $433 (in Vermont).  The average cost per student for the 46 states was $379.

The following Table shows the five non-CCS states with their associated student enrollment numbers.  For each state, I used an estimated cost per student to calculate the total CCS cost for each of the five states.  The total cost is in millions of dollars.

Table NC — CCS Cost for the Five Non-CCS States

(Total Cost in $ Millions)

State

Abr.

State

Student

Enrollment

Estimated

Cost per

Student

Total CCS

Cost

($ Millions)

AK Alaska     131,661     $433       57.009
MN Minnesota     837,053     $380     318.080
NE Nebraska     295,368     $390     115.194
TX Texas  4,850,210     $350  1,697.574
VA Virginia  1,245,340     $390     485.683
      Totals  7,359,632     $363  2,673.540

This Table indicates the following:

 

State                              Total CCS Cost

 

Alaska                                $57 million

Minnesota                        $318 million

Nebraska                         $115 million

Texas                                      $1,698 million ($1.7 billion)

Virginia                            $486 million

The taxpayers in Alaska, Minnesota, Nebraska, Texas, and Virginia should be pleased that their state education officials have resisted the CCS Race to the Top scheme (RTTT).  As taxpayers, they should make their views known to the state education agency, State Board of Education, and the elected state representatives.  Thank them for refusing to go along with the CCS crowd.

The taxpayers in Alaska, Minnesota, Nebraska, Texas, and Virginia will not have to go through the financial pain that the CCS states will experience if they continue to implement the costly program.  Examples of the expensive pain include:  

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.

The taxpayers in Alaska, Minnesota, Nebraska, Texas, and Virginia should be thankful, indeed, that these states shunned the CCS!

Henry W. Burke
E-mail: hwburke@cox.net 

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookPin on PinterestShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUponPrint this pageEmail this to someone

Related Posts

Tags

Share This

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

UA-24036587-1