Market Analysis On Common Core

Onvia Market Analysis:
How Common Core is Shaping

Public Sector Education Contracts
Written by:
Paul Irby
Market Analyst
www.onvia.com
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
2014 Onvia, Inc. All rights reserved.
Market Analysis: How Common Core is
Shaping Public Sector Education Contracts
While there have been
political challenges at the state
level in continuing to support
and authorize the rollout of
Common Core
2
, along with
controversy over its
appropriateness and
effectiveness
3
, the adoption by
states of the initial program was
nearly unanimous. Since 2010,
governors from 45 out of the 50
states plus the District of
Columbia
4
have made a
commitment to adopt the
Common Core national standards
which their individual school
districts have to fgure out how
to implement. Common Core
sets 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-specifc 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 Core is 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.
1
Putting a Price Tag on the Common Core: How Much Will Smart Implementation Cost? Patrick Murphy and Elliot Regenstein with Keith McNamara, Thomas B. Fordham
Institute, May 2012 (fles.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED532509.pdf)
2
The Politics of Common Core, Allie Bidwell, U.S. News & World Report, March 6, 2014
3
Common Questions on Common Core Part 1: About the new school standards Margaret Sessa-Hawkins, Maryland Reporter, April 21, 2014. The far-right generally objects to
Common 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 student
and teacher evaluation.
4
5
The [Common Core
Standards] are intended not
only to raise the level of rigor
in instruction but also to
focus anew on the knowledge
and 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
signifcant transformation
1
.
- Thomas B. Fordham Institute,

2012
Adoption was the easy

part. Implementation is
where things get real
and really challenging.
Some states are busily
attending to their
implementation checklists
while others amble at a
turtles pace
5
.
- Thomas B. Fordham
Institute, 2012
4
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 Billion in total
spending for all states, not
including technology spending
6
.
As states will otherwise spend
around $4 Billion
7
, 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 Week observed,
States face key decisions as they
implement the Common Core
State Standards
8
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 trained
through 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.
6
7
Ibid.
8
How Much Will the Common Core Cost? Catherine Gewertz, Education Week, May 30, 2012
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.
5
Uncovering Industry Trends with
Actual Contracting Data
We 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 a
competitive 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 fgure 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
offcially kicked off in 2010, we
found that most of the contract
activity began in 2012 and the
volume picked up somewhat
in 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 fnd their
funding, move out of the
preliminary planning stage and
work toward full implementation.
INDUSTRY TRENDS
20%
+
Growth in Number of Opportunities
in 2013
Onvias database
returned over
4,000 results for
projects mentioning
Common Core in
project documents.
6
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
frst year that a large
number 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-
lines that represent college- and
career-ready standards rather
than adopt the national stan-
dards
9
.
Education vendors should be
aware of the differences between
full implementation and wait
and study states that only have
a 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
9
Most Active States for Common Core Contracting
2012-2013
Range of Common Core Opportunities by State
2012-2013
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
Types of Projects
According to the original study
that estimated costs for Common
Core, conducted by the Thomas
B Fordham Institute
10
, 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 smaller
publishing companies:
TYPES OF PROJECTS
10
Putting a Price Tag on the Common Core: How Much Will Smart Implementation Cost? Patrick Murphy and Elliot
Regenstein with Keith McNamara, Thomas B. Fordham Institute, May 2012 (fles.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED532509.pdf)
11
Ibid.
INSTRUCTIONAL
MATERIALS
PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
TESTS
The evolution of instructional

materials 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 of
content 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
signifcantly
11
.
- Thomas B. Fordham
Institute, 2012
8
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-
fin Harcourt. Not all awards went
to traditional publishers though;
The Stockton Unifed 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 offcial
Common Core study to cost
between $20 and $135 per
student based 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
fve-day training academy to
provide them with strategies to
use in implementing Common
Core along with professional
development. This was offered by
the well-established educational
frm 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 Standards
12
. Teacher
training in the original Common
Core study was estimated to
range from $200 to $2,000
13
per
teacher depending 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 of
contracting 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 guidelines of online
Common Core testing.
TYPES OF PROJECTS
12
Onvias project database
13
The Stockton Unified School
District in California ordered an
elementary math online learning
materials package for
$2.6 MILLION
from the Mind Research Institute
9
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 suffcient school
bandwidth and availability of
computers with reasonable
minimum capabilities (i.e.
Windows 7 recommended, etc.)
are needed
15
. Education Week
mentioned Oregon as an
example of a state that already
has a long history with online
testing
16
.

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 Pearson and
Scholastic often compete for
major curriculum design/plan-
ning projects which end up
informing or infuencing 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 some
teacher 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
14
15
Evaluating Schools Tech. Readiness for Common-Core Testing, Sean Cavanagh, Education Week, March 10, 2014
16
Ibid.
[Infrastructure costs of online

assessments] 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 adopt
computer-administered tests
will be infuenced by a states
or districts technology
capacity, and these vary
greatly. For instance, many
states already use computer-
administered tests or require
them
14
.
- Thomas B. Fordham
Institute, 2012 T E C H N O L O G Y
in materials, testing and
teacher training.
One dynamic of Common Core
is that it tends to encourage
a more extensive use of
10
Types of Buyers
Common Core is state-driven in
its implementation but the
individual school districts and
their staff must fgure out how to
put it into practice. State
education offcials often take a
supporting role, allowing the
local agencies to make the
majority of investments in
planning, 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 ft 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
Average
Contract Values
While 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 review
of 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 Values
2010-2014
12
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 early
recipient 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 to
help with costs over a four-year
period. Recent media
mentions
18
indicate 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 infrastructure
around 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 signifcant
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 contracts
were either major educational
companies, well-established
consultants, or experienced IT
companies.
EXAMPLE OF A FULL STATE IMPLEMENTATION
17
Teachers, Parents Struggle with New Common Core State Standards, Allison Bourg, CBS Baltimore, December 15, 2013
18
Maryland schools need $100 million for online Common Core tests, says report, Valerie Strauss, Washington Post, January 17, 2014
Maryland
is an early recipient of a large
federal Common Core grant and
is one of the furthest along
in their path of implementation.
13
We found three awards to represent the key areas of opportunity mentioned in
the Fordham Institute study in order to provide vendors with specifc examples
of implementation projects.
In the table below, the textbook contract is with leading publishing company
Pearson. Both edCount and A P Ventures are 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 frm
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 of
opportunities available and what it takes to be eligible for winning large awards
in this market.
EXAMPLE OF A FULL STATE IMPLEMENTATION
17
Teachers, Parents Struggle with New Common Core State Standards, Allison Bourg, CBS Baltimore, December 15, 2013
18
World Class K-5 Language
Arts Curriculum Developer
Elementary 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 elementary
curriculum 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 to
transition 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 fve online
professional development courses for English
and Mathematics to help educators master the
content and pedagogical changes required by
the Maryland Common Core State Curriculum.
14
Expected Future Spending
The fnal portion of our research
in Common Core involved
expected or future spending
based on Onvias Spending
Forecast Center tool. With the
exception of a few technology
upgrade projects in California,
Onvias dataset of past
opportunities didnt include
signifcant 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
qualifed local teachers may not
exist.
We utilized Onvias Spending
Forecast Center using the same
search terms related to
Common Core and found a
total of 1,369 state and local
government 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 signifcantly modifed
before 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 2013-14
school year, followed by $2.4
million approved for the 2014-15
year.
The Sacramento City Unifed
School District recently adopted
a budget for Common Core
contracts related to Instructional
Materials/Supplies during the
current 2013-14 school year,
which involves $1.65 million in
spend. The districts 2013-14
Budget Book
19
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
19
2013-14 Budget Book, Sacramento City Unifed School District pg. 281
Upcoming Contract:
City of Norwalk,
Connecticuts Board of Education
$2.1M
$2.4M
15
the district over the next two
fscal 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 be
spent 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
Unifed 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 budget
documents, 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 or
capital 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 District listed
three project areas in their Master Technology Plan
(related to Common Core)
16
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
materials instead of textbooks as
well as using e-learning modules
for teacher training and
professional development could
result in signifcant 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 is
live, and currently 85% of the
schools are not ready for the
technical challenges of
accommodating all of these test
takers
20
. For example, in
Montgomery County, Maryland
there are estimates
21
of needing
$10 million in computer
purchases, $3 million in wireless
enhancements 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 million
22
.
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 school
buildings, which are not driven
by the technology needs of
Common Core. Some projects
will fall under E-Rate priorities,
refecting improvements
in bandwidth that are paid for by
federal grant funding for schools
and libraries. Some are likely to
be procured as typical IT
hardware, software and
networking contracts that
happen to be occurring at the
same time as Common Core
implementations. Hardware
vendors should note that fnding
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
20
21
Ibid.
22
Ibid.
There is a
huge opportunity
to help states become
functional in online
assessments.
17
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 refne searches
and ensure they discover relevant bidding opportunties
Training
Math
State
School
Implementation
Curriculum
District
Support
Mathematics
Language
Practices
Literacy
Grades
Learning
Staff
Reading
English
Workshops
Student
Writing
Engagement
Software
Assessment
Online
Computer
Monitoring
Modules
Web-based
Equipment
Professional
Development
Standards
Teacher
18
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 particularly
over the next 12 months as we
approach the scheduled launch
of online testing in the 2014-15
school year
23
. This is a large
initiative potentially worth up to
$12 billion nationally not
including IT upgrades
24
and we
expect to see signifcant
spending in four key areas
around 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, but
also 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 2014
24
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 vertical, 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 grow
their 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

Market Analysis On Common Core

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Market Analysis On Common Core

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Onvia Market Analysis:

How Common Core is Shaping

- Thomas B. Fordham Institute,

Adoption was the easy

The evolution of instructional

[Infrastructure costs of online

You might also like