This thesis accompanies a multimedia project which is hosted at http://kaleyperkins.com/commoncore-private-enterprise-in-public-schools/.

1. 1
COMMON CORE:
BUSINESS INVADES PUBLIC EDUCATION
By KALEY PERKINS
A THESIS PRESENTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN NEW MEDIA JOURNALISM FULL SAIL
UNIVERSITY

2. 2
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................... 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION................................................................................ 7
PROBLEM STATEMENT.................................................................................................... 7
PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT............................................................................................. 7
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK............................................................................................. 8
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROJECT ...................................................................................... 8
DEFINITION OF TERMS .................................................................................................... 9
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................... 10
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 10
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE......................................................................................... 10
SUMMARY.................................................................................................................... 15
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS.............................................. 16
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................. 16
PROJECT DISTRIBUTION................................................................................................ 27
PROJECT RESULTS ...................................................................................................... 31
CHAPTER FOUR: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION............................................... 33
PROJECT SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 33
REFLECTION ................................................................................................................ 34
RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................................... 35
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 36
BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................................................... 38

3. 3
ABSTRACT
#CommonCore: Business Invades Public Education studies the legislative history
and business influence behind current, standards-based public school reform. The
purpose of the project is to expose the connection between corporate interests and the
authorship of a new, uniform set of national educational standards known as the
Common Core. A further investigation shows the process that public school teachers in
Washington state undergo to become proficient at applying the new standards in their
pre-kindergarten through twelfth-grade public classrooms. Interactive timelines, video,
podcasts, infographics, photos, a photo slideshow, and embedded links weave
throughout the text, providing evidence. After advanced promotion of #CommonCore:
Business Invades Public Education on various social networks, the entire project was
published to www.kaleyperkins.com. Google Analytics demonstrates that audience
engagement for the project, measured in duration of each visit to the website, increased
significantly over previously published content.

4. 4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This is the most ambitious multimedia project that I have created to date. It
challenged me to the core, and it woke a confidence inside me that I look forward to
developing further.
This year in school, culminating in this project, put unceasing pressure on my
children. More weekends than I care to admit, the three of them watched TV and played
video games while I researched, wrote and produced material for school. I fed them
perfunctory meals, drove them to practices, and answered stray homework questions;
other than that, they were largely left to occupy themselves. It was a joy to watch them
grow closer and learn to help each other. I could not have done this program without
their constant support and burgeoning independence. As a former homeschooling
mother, I intentionally exploited my homework to model learning as a lifelong endeavor.
I hope they remember a mom who invested in herself when it was a hardship to do so.
Chloe, Matt, and Zach, you are the best kids, and I love you unwaveringly.
In terms of the content of my capstone – and my blog for that matter – I owe the
world to my sister, Jo Perkins and her professional network in Longview, Washington.
She is a veteran special education teacher there and is now President of the Longview
teachers’ union. Jo kept me abreast of issues affecting the teachers she represents.
She provided me with context, perspective, and an invitation inside the fraternity of
teachers and administrators throughout her district. Many of her colleagues are featured
in my work.
Tracy Shroeder, Assistant Principal at Mark Morris High School spoke with me
about the challenges of administrators and the reality behind the TPEP, Washington’s
new teacher evaluation tool. The expertise that Certified Teacher Trainer for ESD 112,

5. 5
Marilyn Melville-Irvine, provided to me was invaluable. Marilyn spoke as a veteran
English language arts teacher and literacy specialist. She now teaches teachers how to
incorporate the standards. Marilyn opened the door to watching teacher trainings and to
talking to other wonderful instructional coaches: Travis Ruhter, Laura Hiatt, and Jodell
Allinger. Sue Edmunson is a friend, a teacher, and a sometime photography assistant,
teaches career and technology education. She is on the frontlines of preparing students
for graduation and career and college readiness. Sue allowed me to join her class’s
STEM field trip and introduced me to the staff at the local newspaper in Vancouver,
Washington. Rob McHattie shared his love of teaching, his knowledge of Longview
public education history, and his hopes and concerns about the future of public
education. Karen Keltz and Cecilia Dwiggins, former English teachers from my public
school days – and now friends - provided anecdotal stories and moral support
throughout this year.
The teachers at Mark Morris and R.A. Long High Schools allowed me to film
them during their Common Core training and spoke freely about the challenges and
rewards they saw in adoption of the standards. And teachers from all over Evergreen
School District where I have been a substitute teacher this year have shared their
classrooms, their experiences, their frustrations, and their joys with me. The depth of
insight these professionals have shared with me has given me context into today’s
public school environment that not only made this story possible, but also gave me
behind the scenes access to public education that will inform all future stories.
To Jamie Vollmer who has no idea what a big impact hearing him speak had on
me; to Diane Ravitch who curates anti-high stakes corporate reform articles with

6. 6
aplomb; to the scores of articles and bloggers I stumbled upon who expanded my
understanding and helped me clarify my thinking, thank you.
I have tremendous fondness for the online New Media Journalism program at
Full Sail University and the instructors who were part of my program. I wanted to gain
practical technical skills in digital media and to hone my writing skills. To Meredith
Cochie for encouraging me always; to Erika Barker for opening me up to photography;
to Jeff Sharon who pushed me beyond what I thought I could do; to David Painter who
walked through the final steps; and to Dr. Ron Thomas for reminding me that the only
thing better than “perfect” is “done,” you are appreciated forever.
To my ever-morphing cohort – those who finished and those who went different
directions. I hope we meet some day in person. Your conversations and interaction
personalized the online program, and I look forward to continued professional
interaction.
And finally to the adults in my personal life who helped me keep it together when
I really just wanted to eat candy and binge watch Netflix: my cousin, Erin Downey, Ph.D.,
adjunct professor at Tulane who walked me off the edge when the Capstone came
calling. To Mike, Rich, Megan, Annie, Debbie, Shannon, Tanya, and Tiffany, thank you
for your patient support and emotional reinforcement. Finally, a hearty thank you to my
sister, Sara, and niece, Molly, who babysit at critical times. My best to you all!

7. 7
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Problem Statement
American pre-kindergarten through twelfth grade students speak 381
different languages at home and they worship in more than 14 broad categories of
religions (Pew, 2007; Ryan, 2013). Forty-five per cent of these young people also live in
poor and low-income families (Addy, Engelhardt & Skinner, 2013). Clearly, these
students vary widely in family structures, cultural experiences, learning styles, cognitive
abilities, developmental readiness, talents, interests, physical development, nutritional
foundations, and attitudes toward learning. Based on these differences, two children
who were born with the same native intelligence can enter kindergarten at the age of
five with a vocabulary differential of 6,000 words (Perkins, 2014b). Put simply: There is
no typical American public school student. Yet, since 2010, 45 of the 50 states adopted
a unified code of academic standards called the Common Core State Standards, or
Common Core the purpose of which is to prepare these young people for future career
and college readiness.
Purpose of the Project
American public education is a sprawling organism that serves 50.1 million
students; employees 3.3 million full-time equivalent teachers; and costs $591 billion per
year to host (Institute of Educational Sciences, 2013). The Institute of Educational
Sciences (2013) reports that there are nearly 13,600 local school districts with 98,800
public schools across the 50 states. Traditionally, states have been responsible for
setting standards and local school boards have set curriculum, allowing local
communities to customize instruction to their specific needs. Now, a small fraternity of

8. 8
companies directs a uniform set of standards and curriculum for 90% of the states
(Perkins, 2014a). The question of whether a a small group of people with a single
educational philosophy can create a uniform set of standards that meets the educational
needs of such a diverse population of students must be asked. In exposing the private
business interests behind Common Core, the public will be able to decide collectively if
it is optimum for the long-term health of American society to weave this standards-
based reform into the fabric of public instruction.
Conceptual Framework
This 2013-14 school year was the original deadline for adoption of the Common
Core State Standards and the new assessments. Originally 45 states signed up to be
part of Race to the Top, of which Common Core standards are but a portion. Lately,
many are delaying implementation based on concerns about fiscal feasibility, privacy
concerns, and high-stakes testing (Truth in American education, 2014). Common Core
is one of four components of the Race to the Top initiative. The expectation is that
Common Core-aligned standardized tests and teacher evaluations will be fully
integrated into the educational process by the end of the 2014-15 school year. Once the
standardized tests become a fixture of the school year, the collection of data about
students will begin. Collecting such a comprehensive set of data points will require an
information technology infrastructure. Thus, there are costs to Common Core.
Significance of the Project
Preparing the next generation for success is the solemn responsibility of parents,
communities, and schools. Public education is the common experience for public school
students in America, laying the academic and basic skills foundation for the next
generation of citizens. Educational policies have long term ramifications for society, ant

9. 9
they need to be informed by parents, teachers, and professionals in childhood
development and not predominantly by individuals and organizations that have a profit
motive. The public is largely unaware of the standards-based national education reform
(Maxwell, 2013). According to Bill Gates, Common Core is just the beginning; his vision
includes “a massive, uniform market of people buying educational products.” (Gates,
2009) The wider public may not agree that the purpose of public education is to create a
market for Bill Gates’s Microsoft and other educational services. Public discussion
needs to transpire before these reforms have become institutionalized.
Definition of Terms
Race to the Top is a national educational reform initiative designed to encourage
states to heavily invest in standards-based educational reform. Standards-based refers
to an educational philosophy that believes that effective learning can be broken into
individual learning objectives. Common Core is a uniform set of standards that the 45
states that have agreed to participate in Race to the Top initiative have agreed to adopt.
High-stakes testing refers to standardized assessments, the results of which determine
the acceptability of students into institutes of higher learning as well as affecting
professional teacher evaluations (Perkins, 2013b). Privatization describes the trend
toward businesses becoming involved in public education. Charter schools are an
example of privatization, as is the outsourcing of key functions to private enterprise. In
many locales, for example, school bus services are privatized (National School
Transportation Association, n.d.).

10. 10
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
“Abandon the urge to simplify everything, to look for formulas and easy answers, and to
begin to think multidimensionally, to glory in the mystery and paradoxes of life, not to be
dismayed by the multitude of causes and consequences that are inherent in each
experience -- to appreciate the fact that life is complex.”
M. Scott Peck
It is tempting to apply a one-size-fits-all model to public education because of the
administrative advantages that model would allow. States would benefit from an
economy of scale in the purchase of educational materials. A plug-and-play curriculum
would make sense for a mobile society where teachers and families sometimes need to
relocate. With meaningful metrics, policymakers could allocate resources more
effectively. Exposure to a shared curriculum would create a common vocabulary and
shared values across a diverse student population. Additionally, teachers could
amortize their efforts at lesson creation as they share ideas across state lines.
On the other hand, streamlining the product eliminates diversity. Standardized
assessments act as gatekeepers into post-secondary education. Subjecting all students
to tests based on physical age and grade level assumes a similarity in developmental
readiness that simply does not exist. It does, though, create vendor preference
monopolies for the companies that author the educational resources that the nation’s
schools adopt. Moreover, tying teachers’ evaluations to students’ performance puts
additional pressure on students (Dutro & Selland, 2012).
Review of the Literature
Educational Reformers. Diane Ravitch is former Assistant Secretary of
Education under George W. Bush. She was once an advocate of standardized testing

11. 11
and the privatization of schools. “I was wrong,” Ravitch writes of her former philosophy
in her newest book, Reign of Error (2013). Like Ravitch, Jamie Vollmer used to be a
proponent of the privatization of public schools. Vollmer (2010) told returning Kelso and
Longview teachers his “Blueberry Story” in fall of 2013. According to his narrative, he
used to own an award-winning ice cream company. As part of a media campaign, he
had been advocating school choice before a group of educators. During the
presentation, a veteran teacher asked Vollmer a question that made him reconsider his
position on running schools like businesses. “What happens when you get a bad batch
of blueberries?” the teacher asked him. Vollmer began to see that the diverse student
population could not be compared with an order of quality-controlled, Grade AAA
blueberries he used in his ice cream.
Neither Vollmer nor Ravitch believe high-stakes standardized testing will solve
the problems facing America’s education system. Vollmer contends that the “failing
school system” is a misnomer. He believes that systemic poverty, and not a failure of
the educational system, is to blame for students who graduate high school not prepared
to compete in the new market (Perkins, 2014b). In his book, Schools Can’t Do It Alone,
Vollmer (2010) argues that the current educational system is archaic, built on an
agrarian model that prepared graduates for careers in labor fields that no longer exist.
Legislation & Educational Research. Since President Johnson declared a War
on Poverty and passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965,
educational research has linked projections of America’s future success with its ability to
educate its children well (Farkas & Hall, 2000). Education has been seen as the vehicle
for social mobility (Vollmer, 2013). The 1983 No Child Left Behind study found that
America’s students lagged behind other nations’ students and introduced international

12. 12
benchmarking (The National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). According
to Ravitch (2010), this report shifted blame for the outsourcing of jobs away from "short-
sighted corporate leadership to the public schools" (p.2) David M. Heise (1994) writes
in The Fordham Review, "The Nation at Risk report alerted the public to the need for
educational reform and provided initiative for federal leadership" (p. 346). President
Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” study in 1994 codified standardized testing for the
nation’s public schools No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The "Ready or Not" report
published by Achieve, Inc, The Fordham Institute, and The Education Trust initiates
"Career and College Ready" as the goal for high school graduates (The American
Diploma Project, 2004).
The 2007 “Innovation” study commissioned by the National Governors
Association and published in conjunction with the Pew Charitable Trust, posits that the
best model of innovation in any endeavor, including education, results from strategic
alliances among governmental leadership, high education research and development,
and the support of private enterprise. This administrative model of Innovation is the
model that was used to create the Race to the Top initiative (NGA/Pew, 2007). The
“Benchmarking” (2008) study published by the NGA, CCSSO, and Achieve, Inc. lays the
foundation for creating benchmarks that are tied to international standards.
Corporate Influence. The studies and publications listed previously laid the
foundation for the “Race to the Top” initiative and the standards-based Common Core.
Ravitch refers to this educational reform as “corporate reform” (Stern 2013). The
National Governors Association published the list of authors for the English language
arts and math standards, and aside from one or two subject matter experts, employees
of five companies dominated the development of the Common Core (NGA & CCSSO,

13. 13
2009). Each of these five companies also benefit financially from the adoption of
Common Core standards (Perkins, 2014). This financial link between Microsoft, The
Gates Foundation, GE Foundation, Achieve, Inc., The College Board, ACT, Inc.,
Student Achievement Partners, and Pearson creates a potential conflict of interest
(Perkins, 2014a).
The Role of Poverty. Vollmer (Perkins, 2014 b) states that American students
rank seventeenth out of 26 industrialized nations in academic comparisons, with Finland
at number one. Again, Vollmer cites poverty, and not a failure of the American
educational system, as the reason for America’s poor showing in the comparisons.
Finland has a 1% poverty rate. At 26.3%, America’s students rank the highest among
industrialized nations in poverty (Perkins, 2014b). The National Center for Children in
Poverty at Columbia University (2013) cites a more conservative poverty rate of 22%.
By adding low-income students to those in actual poverty, Addy, Engelhardt, & Skinner
(2013) posit that 45% of American students live in financial situations that challenge
their ability to learn on pace with children from families with more favorable financial
situations.
Dutro & Selland (2012) conducted research to determine how “children make
sense of assessment policies.” They found a strong correlation between poverty and
test anxiety. Students who know they do not perform well against their peers on
standardized tests feel tremendous anxiety. Additional pressure is added to these
students when they realize that their test results affect their teachers’ professional
evaluations (Dutro & Selland, 2012).
Supporters of Common Core advocate for a strong set of uniform standards so
that all students will have equal access to a rigorous education. The tests attached to

14. 14
these standards, however, create more learning anxiety for the students whose
academic performance the standards were created to improve (Dutro & Selland (2012).
Classroom Teachers. Marilyn Melville-Irvine is a 25-year veteran English
language arts teacher who trains teachers in 30 Washington districts in the Common
Core standards. In an interview, Melville-Irvine noted that veteran teachers have been
through sweeping curriculum changes before. According to Melville, veteran teachers
tend to be skeptical that the changes will not be abandoned for the next ‘flavor of the
month reform.’ Nevertheless, Melville-Irvine advocates for the standards. “Kids need to
have rigorous expectations. They need to dig deeply into text” (Perkins, 2013a). Rob
McHattie agrees with Melville-Irvine. McHattie is a 35-year veteran of public schools,
serving as history teacher, high school principal, and now Director of Special Education
at Longview School District in Longview, Washington. McHattie said he embraces the
standards themselves. “It’s just teaching the way we used to teach,” he said (Perkins,
2014a). What he does not like about Common Core implementation is the link between
teachers’ professional evaluations and students’ performances. “It is too much stick and
not enough carrot. We are being asked to interact with students in a dynamic and
collaborative way, but teachers feel like they have a threat hanging over them,”
McHattie said (Perkins, 2014a).
In the capacity of substitute teacher, I had conversations with teachers across
grade levels and disciplines. Responses were varied. New teachers do not seem to
have a negative reaction to the standards. “They are research based. I don’t see what
everyone is worked up about. I just want a job,” said Alexis Murray, student teacher at
Sunset Elementary School in Vancouver, Washington (personal correspondence,
February 24, 2014).

15. 15
Summary
The American public school system is sprawling and diverse. Its charge is to
prepare the 50.1 million students it serves for success in a post-secondary world (IES,
2013). The disappearance of labor jobs and international competition for those that
remain require the system to educate today’s students for an information age. However,
the current model is based on an agrarian model (Vollmer, 2010). Advocates of
standards-based education reform believe that creating a uniform, internationally
benchmarked set of standards is the way to instruct students, evaluate their teachers,
and measure the overall effectiveness of the system. Opponents of standards-based
reform fear that homogenous standards and high-stakes testing will replace curiosity
and open-inquiry with a conformity that will sabotage the drive toward innovation that
the United States requires in order to compete and be able to thrive as a nation (Ravitch,
2013; Vollmer, 2010). Ravitch and Vollmer deny the validity of international
benchmarking as a criterion to include in meaningful educational reform (Perkins,
2014b). Teachers fall somewhere in the middle, not generally resisting the standards
themselves but concerned about the unintended consequences that adherence to them
will create (Perkins, 2014a).

16. 16
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
Project Development
In 2009 and to promote innovation in educational reform, President Obama
announced the “Race to the Top” contest to the nation. In exchange for adopting the
four-part criteria of the contest, states were promised a piece of a $4.35 billion
Department of Education grant. The initiative requires states to adopt a national
curriculum and standardized testing; a teacher training and evaluation system;
longitudinal data collection; and a commitment to turning around under-permforming
schools. By 2012, 45 of 50 states plus the Department of Defense school system had
agreed to adopt the national standards. This is the first time that the United States has
had a national curriculum. The key components of the initiative were defined by
corporate leaders and educational think tanks; the standards themselves were written
by employees of five companies who stand to financially benefit from the adoption of
national standards. #CommonCore: Business Invades Public Education traces how
business interests have gained strategic influence over the nation’s public schools.
Classroom teachers will be responsible for implementing Common Core, and
their professional evaluations will be based on their students’ performances even
though teachers do not control the academic skills, native language proficiency, special
education and behavioral needs, or percentages of children living in poverty who will
make up their incoming classes. Yet their input and the contribution of educational
psychologists were absent from the establishment of a national curriculum.

17. 17
Project Execution
#CommonCore: Business Invades Public
Education is a multimedia history of the Common Core,
the unveiling of its private-enterprise authors, and the
effects of its implementation on schoolteachers in
Washington state. A variety of audio-visual and textual
elements inform the audience so that viewers can
discuss Common Core with understanding. To begin, the
first element presented is a
picture of a school bus
(Figure 1) heading off to
school filled with elementary
school students. The sky in
the photo is grey and not blue,
signifying a pending storm.
Flanking the article
column, in sidebars, are two
curated social media
elements, demonstrating the
nature of social engagement
that is present on the Internet
Figure 3. Twitter
Widget
Figure 2.
Pinterest Widget
Figure 1. Photo A

18. 18
with the topic. A Pinterest board curated by Edutopia (Figure 2), a reputable resource
for teaching resources, is on the left. And on the right is a Twitter feed (Figure 3), based
on the hashtag #CommonCore. The Twitter widget content is primarily negative, and the
Pinterest board is supportive so that a reader who is either for or against the national
standards will find familiar as well as dissenting content and will conclude that the
coverage is balanced. In addition to providing live information and resources regarding
Common Core, these three elements are designed to offer enough visual material to
interest the reader while the most content-dense and resource-rich element loads.
To be able to contribute to the discourse about Common Core, it is necessary for
the reader to know the educational research and legislation that is the underpinning of
the Race to the Top initiative. States have been reliant on federal money to fund
educational programs since President Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act into legislation in 1965. President George W. Bush passed the No Child
Left Behind legislation. An interactive timeline (Figure 4) is a multimedia element that
displays the key legislative and policy cornerstones upon which the Common Core is
built. The timeline includes links to source documents, historically relevant photos, and
embedded video content that introduce the people, organizations, policy, and legislation
that have resulted in the Race to the Top initiative and the Common Core state
standards.

19. 19
For the sake of fair coverage, it is necessary
to demonstrating that the Common Core is a state
led initiative. Political conservatives balk at the idea
of the federal government having undue influence
over public education. Eliminating a violation of the
Tenth Amendment does not solve the issue of
whether the Common Core is benign, however. The
infographic to the right (Figure 5) demonstrates the
disproportionate relationship between the one-time
Race to the Top fund (red dot) compared to the
Figure 4. Interactive Timeline
Figure 5. Infographic A

20. 20
annual educational budget. Some opponents consider the Race to the Top initiative a
way to bribe states into accepting federal oversight over public education. Figure 5
shows that Race to the Top grant money is statistically insignificant when compared to
annual and recurring expenses.
The thesis of #CommonCore: business invades education maintains that
business interests have usurped control over public educational policy and that the
control over that policy rests in the hands of too few influencers. This creates a conflict
of interest. To counteract the dominant voice of business, two articulate and credible
voices raise concerns against privatization and standards-based reform. To date, the
elements have been visual but also information dense. A series of narrated clips vary
the reading experience by introducing sound. National critic of privatization, Jamie
Vollmer, addresses three salient topics: privatization, international benchmarking, and
the profit motive. These clips also introduce teachers from the local districts who will
show up later in the story. In the first clip (Figure 6), Vollmer appeals to the audience
with a humorous story about how a veteran teacher challenged him to quit thinking
about students as quality-controlled commodities.
Figure 6. Podcast A

21. 21
To justify standardized testing, Common Core advocates draw comparisons
between test scores of American students to students from around the world, coming to
the conclusion that America’s schools are failing their students. In Vollmer’s opinion, the
culprit is systemic poverty and not a failure of public schools (Figure 7).
Figure 7. Podcast B
In Vollmer’s final clip, he addresses the business motivation behind public reform. The
thumbnail for this podcast shows local school teachers mingling and was selected to
help transition the narrative to the local level.
Figure 8. Podcast C

22. 22
After a sound-rich section on Jamie Vollmer and his Common Core criticisms, the
narration turns toward Diane Ravitch. Ravitch was Assistant Secretary of Education
under George W. Bush and is also a former advocate for standards-based education
and testing. Ravitch adds high stakes testing and the role of business interests as
criticisms. This narrative section includes is densely linked to content from an online
community that Ravitch manages. Ravitch calls Common Core “corporate reform.”
The next two infographics (Figures 9
& 10) display the inherent conflict of interest
in the selection of authors for the Common
Core standards. Figure 9 shows the
companies for which the authors of the
math standards work. Figure 10 shows the
companies for whom the authors of the
English language arts standards work.
The five companies indicated are well-
established educational material suppliers
that are poised to financially benefit from the
adoption of the standards. With these
infographics, the audience sees that the
number of subject matter experts (in white) is
comparatively few. The reader is left to ask if
Figure 9. Infographic B
Figure 10. Infographic C

23. 23
the crafting of national
standards should involve a
more diverse set of opinions.
To further demonstrate
the business influence in
educational reform, an
infographic (Figure 11) tracks
the grants from The Gates
Foundation and GE Foundation
to these five companies. For
these two foundations to invest
in education is surely commendable, but to give a fair view of what motivates these
companies, it is necessary to see what their agendas are. In the following video element
(Figure 12), Bill Gates explains his vision for education.
If someone
other than The
Gates Foundation
had hosted the
video clip to the
right (Figure 12), its
credibility might be
questioned. One
could argue it had
Figure 11. Video A
Figure 11. Infographic D

24. 24
been taken out of context. Instead, hosted on The Gates Foundation’s YouTube
channel we hear Bill Gates tell state legislators that he believes Common Core is just
the beginning. Gates anticipates aligned curriculum, aligned testing, and then the
creation of a “massive uniform market ready to consume material created by companies
that make educational resources” of which Microsoft is one.
To present a comprehensive overview of Common Core, it is necessary to
personalize the story by visiting the people whom it affects: classroom teachers. Rod
McHattie (Figure 13) is the Director of Special
Education at a local school district in southwest
Washington. He spent 35 years in the schools, teaching
and being a principal before moving up to Longview
School District. With years of teaching and managing
teachers, McHattie has seen many sweeping shifts in
educational philosophy and practice. While McHattie
welcomes robust standards, he is skeptical about the
role that high-stakes testing will have on both students
and teachers. Text in this section features quotes from
veteran teachers. The teachers speak positively about
the robust standards of the Common Core while they
speak disparagingly against high-stakes testing.
Figure 13. Photo B

25. 25
With McHattie, the
audience heard from a veteran
teacher and former administrator.
In this colorful slideshow (Figure
14), the audience sees student
teacher, Alexis Murray, applying
the lessons she has learned as
part of her teacher preparation
program with a group of students
at a local elementary school.
While privacy issues
necessitated care in dealing with
students’ faces, photographs
show backs of heads and
students in action in the classroom. The lesson shown is a science lesson in which
Murray has applied Common Core teaching methodologies.
The overview of Common Core ends with a story of its implementation.
Washington State is one of the 45 states that originally signed up to adopt the Race to
the Top criteria. It is actively incorporating the standards into its classrooms and teacher
preparation programs. Marilyn Melville-Irvine, is the Certified Teacher Trainer who is
responsible for making sure that the teachers is the 30 districts that local Educational
Service District 112 services have the standards fully incorporated by the 2014-15
school year. She and three other instructional coaches and teacher trainers held a
training in Longview, Washington in February of 2014.
Figure 14. Slideshow

26. 26
The video below (Figure 15) completes #CommonCore: Business Invades Public
Education by featuring local schoolteachers and trainers from Longview and Kelso
school districts. In the video, Melville-Irvine guides teachers through a model lesson that
includes text based questions and group discussion. The video completes the project
with a personalized, local perspective of the challenges included in adopting Common
Core.
Figure 15. Video B

27. 27
Project Distribution
The chart below itemizes the hosting platforms of the fifteen multimedia elements
that were employed in the Capstone.
Element
Number
Subject Hosting Platform
1 Photo A WP Media Library
2 Pinterest Widget - Edutopia Pinterest and website embed
3 Twitter Widget - #CommonCore Twitter and website embed
4 Interactive Timeline Knightlab and website embed
5 Infographic A Imgur and WP Media Library
6 Podcast A SoundCloud and website embed
7 Podcast B SoundCloud and website embed
8 Podcast C SoundCloud and website embed
9 Infographic B Imgur and WP Media Library
10 Infographic C Imgur and WP Media Library
11 Infographic D Imgur and WP Media Library
12 Video A The Gates Foundation YouTube
channel and website embed
13 Photo B WP Media Library
14 Slideshow Imgur and website embed
15 Video B Vimeo and website embed

28. 28
Project Promotion
Because www.kaleyperkins.com is relatively new blog, with a small but growing
readership, it is critical to cross-promote all social media elements. Each element
hosted on third-party platforms contains search engine optimization keywords and a link
back to the original website on which the #CommonCore: Business Invades Public
Education is published. In the time leading up to the story, the following teasers were
distributed to the digital network of the producer.
Figure 16. Screenshot A
Pre-publication announcement posted to Twitter
on March 23, 2014 by Kaley Perkins.
Figure 17. Screenshot B
Pre-publication announcement posted to
Google+ on March 29, 2014 by Kaley Perkins.

29. 29
After publication of the story on www.kaleyperkins.com, a simultaneous
announcement was broadcast via Hootsuite to the Google+ account, Twitter account,
LinkedIn account, Facebook fan page, and personal Facebook profile of the producer.
An email was sent to the President of the Longview Educational Association President
to be shared with teachers who were featured in the article.
Figure 18. Screenshot C
Pre-publication announcement posted to Twitter
on March 29, 2014 by Kaley Perkins.
Figure 19. Screenshot D
Publication announcement posted to LinkedIn
on March 30, 2014 by Kaley Perkins.

30. 30
Figure 20. Screenshot E
Publication announcement posted to
Google+ on March 30, 2014 by Kaley
Perkins.
Figure 21. Screenshot F
Publication announcement posted to Twitter on
March 30, 2014 by Kaley Perkins.
Figure 22. Screenshot G
Second publication announcement posted to
Twitter on March 30, 2014 by Kaley Perkins.

31. 31
Project Results
The following Google Analytics chart shows visitors, page views, and duration of
visit to www.kaleyperkins.com from March 6 – April 8, 2014. Peaks relate directly to
publication of articles. Prior to publication of #CommonCore: Business Invades Public
Education, promotion for articles included a simultaneous broadcast via Hootsuite to
Facebook personal, Facebook fan page, LinkedIn, Twitter, and Google+ accounts.
Figure 24. Screenshot I
Google Analytics for March 8 – April 8, 2014 on www.kaleyperkins.com
Figure 23. Screenshot H
Post publication email to President of
Longview Education Association on March
31, 2014 by Kaley Perkins.

32. 32
What is noteworthy in the following Google Analytics graph is that it tracks the
same time period; but instead of reporting on the number of visits, Figure 25 analyzes
how many pages were viewed per visit. The following chart displays a spike in pages
viewed per visit on March 29, 2014. This spike signifies an uncharacteristic increase in
engagement with #CommonCore: Business Invades Public Education compared to
previously published articles.
Figure 25. Screenshot J
Google Analytics for March 8 – April 8, 2014 on www.kaleyperkins.com

33. 33
CHAPTER FOUR
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Project Summary
#CommonCore: Business Invades Public Education is a multimedia presentation
that investigates the insinuation of business interests into the American public
educational system. The Common Core is a new set of national standards designed to
satisfy one criteria of the national Race to the Top standards-based educational reform.
Adoption of the standards creates a uniform market of consumers who use educational
resources. There is an inherent conflict of interest when the providers of these
resources are the very companies whose employees authored both the research to
support the Race to the Top initiative and the Common Core standards themselves.
The #CommonCore: Business Invades Public Education multimedia project
provides historical context necessary to enable the reader to see how the companies
who stand to benefit from adoption of the Common Core are the ones that designed it
and that created the policy that made its introduction possible. Interactive timelines spell
out the history behind the initiative. Podcasts capture national school reformer, Jamie
Vollmer as he debuns the assumptions on which standards-based reform is built.
Infographics analyze the flow of money and, thus, influence between business interests
and the companies involved in the Common Core’s creation. Photos and videos show
the standards being taught to teachers and implemented in local public schools. Text
interviews capture the voices of public school teachers who were largely unrepresented
in the genesis of the Common Core. #CommonCore: Business Invades Public
Education will familiarize its audience with the history and business influencers behind
the Common Core initiative.

34. 34
Reflection
I found four particular challenges as I conceived of and produced
#CommonCore: Business Invades Public Education: determining an effective scope;
deciding upon a niche audience; eliminating editorial slant; and publishing the piece with
a timeliness that would have maximized promotional efforts. Instead of choosing a
solitary angle to present to a specific audience, I presented too much information to too
broad an audience. The variety of the information found in #CommonCore: Business
Invades Public Education is consistent with the scope of a complete book. Course
Director, Dr. Ron Thomas advised me to structure the final project as though I were
writing a book. He suggested, however, that I use subheadings to summarize the
sections that would be chapters if I were writing a book. While the strategy for
organizing my many topics made sense, doing so created a dense multimedia
experience that I fear that few people had the inclination to digest. Breaking the project
into a three- or four-part series may have attracted a wider audience.
The challenges described above created an identity crisis for #CommonCore:
Business Invades Public Education. Was the project intended to be a broad explanation
or a detailed analysis? I feel it did neither with particular grace. Combined with scope
and audience challenges, my first draft was biased against to the point of being
unprofessional. This combination created the need for substantial rewrites that impeded
the timely publication of the project. By not publishing the project in a timely manner, I
did not avail myself of meaningful statistics that would have given me more familiarity
with the relationship between project promotion and audience behavior.
As a result of completing #CommonCore: Business Invades Public Education, I
understand the workflow and marketing effort that is required to be an independent

35. 35
journalist who sells feature-length productions. To be successful, I will need to create
high quality projects of digestible size for a well-defined market. This process needs to
be executed expeditiously and professionally.
Recommendations
Completing the #CommonCore: Business Invades Public Education has informed
my approach to producing feature-length multimedia content. For subsequent projects, I
will focus my topic and direct it at a more specific audience. To limit my topic, I will resist
the temptation to be encyclopedic in my coverage. Different audiences will want
different information about Common Core. Teachers would benefit from information
about how local school unions are negotiating with their districts about the Common
Core. The public might be curious to know if their taxes will be affected by the new
legislation. Parents will want to know about the impacts of standards-based education
upon their children. Directing smaller bites of information to the people who would be
most interested in those bites will be a primary goal.
Because I did substantial rewrites of #CommonCore: Business Invades Public
Education, I squandered time that would have been better invested in promotional
efforts. By producing more targeted content, I will also be able to execute a more
strategic promotional campaign. Stories of interest to teachers can be aggressively
marketed to local educational unions; and more streamlined content will appeal to local
newspapers. A more strategic application of targeted keywords and more interlinks
among my articles will attract more traffic. I will be more structured in subsequent
projects so that their execution is more a matter of filling in the blanks and less a matter
of chaotic discovery.

36. 36
Finally, I will rely on facts and expert voices to inform my content. I will be able to
engage more proactively with specific audiences if articles are highly targeted. I began
with an agenda with this story, and letting go of that agenda to create a more
professional and cohesive piece of writing created a significant amount of unnecessary
heartache and workload for me. I will excise my editorial voice out of my journalistic
writings in order to develop my professional reputation more effectively.
Conclusion
The process through which the Common Core standards were conceived,
authored, and adopted sets a precedence for business interests to be the dominant
voice in setting policy for the nation’s public schools. It is concerning that business is
driving educational policy. The fact that the initiative was justified by research reports
published by companies who designed the final standards and who also stand to benefit
financially from their implementation creates a national conflict of interest. If such a
trend is to overtake a system as complex as public education in the United States, more
than just five companies and the federal government need to be part of its conception
and creation. Any educational reform affects the 50.1 million students in schools this
year, their parents, the 340,000 teachers who teach them, and the wider society into
which our school system is preparing to induct those students as citizens. Adoption of
the Common Core and its accompanying assessments has the potential to entrench a
standards-based philosophy into the public education policy in a way that may preclude
a return to a non-standards-based way of teaching and learning.
#CommonCore: Business Invades Public Education provides the content and
evidence to inform the American population about the insinuation of business interests
into public education. As of this writing, resistance to the educational reform is growing.

37. 37
Arne Duncan, the Secretary of Education with whom President Obama announced the
Race to the Top recently stood before the House appropriations subcommittee and
distanced himself from the legislation (McNeil, 2014). That implementation of the
Common Core is being interrupted by state-level legislative action indicates that
grassroots efforts and media coverage like #CommonCore: Business Invades Public
Education are beginning to have an effect on the national dialogue.

38. 38
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Achieve, Inc. (2004). Ready or not: Creating a high school diploma that counts.
Retrieved from: http://www.scribd.com/doc/21934426/Ready-or-Not-Creating-a-
High-School-Diploma-That-Counts
Addy, S., Engelhardt, W., & Skinner, C. (2013). Basic facts about low income
children. (Master's thesis, Columbia University, Mailman School of Public
Health) Retrieved from http://www.nccp.org/publications/pub_1074.html
The American Diploma Project. (2004). Ready or not: Creating a high school
diploma that counts. Retrieved from
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21934426/Ready-or-Not-Creating-a-High-School-
Diploma-That-Counts
Dutro, E., & Selland, M. (2012). 'I like to read, but I know I'm not good at it':
Children's perspectives on high-stakes testing in a high-poverty school.
Curriculum Inquiry, 42(3), 340-367. doi:10.1111/j.1467-873X.2012.00597.x
Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com.oclc.fullsail.edu:81/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h
&AN=76444706&site=ehost-live
Farkas, G., & Hall, S. (2000). Can Title I attain its goal? Brookings Papers on
Education Policy 2000, 2000, 59-103. Retrieved from
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/brookings_papers_on_education_policy/v2000/200
0.1farkas.html
Gates, B. (Speaker). (2009). Bill Gates at the national conference of state legislators
(clip 5). [Video file]. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtTK_6VKpf4
Heise, M. (1994). Goals 2000: Educate America Act. Fordham Law Review, 63(2),
345-381. Retrieved from
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3133&context=flr
Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2013).
Fast facts. Retrieved from website:
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372
Krashen, S. (2014). The common core. (Cover story). Knowledge Quest, 42(3), 36-
45. Retrieved from
http://web.b.ebscohost.com.oclc.fullsail.edu:81/ehost/detail?sid=34b330d3-
d127-4c1e-a737-
f8b2d68d7b78%40sessionmgr115&vid=1&hid=125&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3
QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=93298916

39. 39
Maxwell, L. (2013, 08 21). Most Americans unaware of common core, PDK/Gallup
poll finds. Education Week. Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/08/21/02pdk_ep.h33.html
McNeil, M. (2014, 04 08). In testimony, Arne Duncan continues to distance himself
from Common Core. Education Week. Retrieved from
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-
12/2014/04/in_a_hearing_before_a.html
NGA/CCSSO (2009, 07 01). [Webpage] Common core state standards development
work group and feedback group announced. Retrieved from
http://www.nga.org/cms/home/news-room/news-releases/page_2009/col2-
content/main-content-list/title_common-core-state-standards-development-work-
group-and-feedback-group-announced.html
NGA/CCSSO/Achieve, Inc. (2008). Benchmarking for success: Ensuring U.S.
students receive a world-class education. Retrieved from:
http://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/0812BENCHMARKING.PDF
NGA/Pew Center (2007). Investing in innovation. Retrieved from:
http://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/0707INNOVATIONINVEST.PDF
The National Commission on Excellence in Education, (1983). “A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform.” Retrieved from website:
http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html
National School Transportation Association. (n.d.) Case studies.Retrieved from
http://www.yellowbuses.org/school-administrator/case-studies/
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, H.R. 1, 107th Cong. (2001). Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf
Perkins, K. (2013a, 12 05). [Web log message]. Common Core implementation in
Washington state: Marilyn Melville-Irvine. Retrieved from
http://kaleyperkins.com/common-core-implementation-in-wa
Perkins, K. (2013b, 07 21). [Web log message]. Longview education leaders advise
teachers to “relax, but get familiar” with new evaluation system. Retrieved from
http://kaleyperkins.com/lonview-education-leaders-advise-teachers-to-relax-but-
get-familiar-with-new-evaluation-system.
Perkins, K. (2014a, 03 31). [Web log message]. #CommonCore: Business Invades
Public Education. Retrieved from http://kaleyperkins.com/commoncore-private-
enterprise-in-public-schools/
Perkins, K. (Producer). (2014b, March 30) International benchmarking [Audio
podcast]. Retrieved from http://soundcloud.com/kaley-perkins/international-
benchmarking.

40. 40
Perkins, K. (Producer). (2014c, March 30) Jamie Vollmer: I would send back the
blueberries [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from http://soundcloud.com/kaley-
perkins/jamie-vollmer-i-would-send.
Perkins, K. (Producer). (2014d, March 30) Vollmer on privatization and profit [Audio
podcast]. Retrieved from http://soundcloud.com/kaley-perkins/vollmer-on-
privatization-and.
Pew Research Center (2008). U.S. religious landscape survey. Retrieved from:
http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf
Ravitch, D. (2013). The reign of error. Knopf. [Kindle Edition.] (Ch.2, P.2)
Ryan, C. (2013). Language use in the United States: 2011. Retrieved from American
Community Survey Reports website: http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acs-
22.pdf
Stern, S. (2013). The closing of Diane Ravitch’s mind. Retrieved from
http://www.city-journal.org/2013/23_4_diane-ravitch.html
Strauss, V. (2013, Sept. 18.) Diane Ravitch’s new education book — an excerpt.
The Washington Post. Retrieved from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/09/18/diane-
ravitchs-new-education-book-an-excerpt/
Truth in American Education, (2014). States fight back! [Infographic]. Retrieved from
http://truthinamericaneducation.com/
U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). 2011 language mapper [Web Infographic]. Retrieved
from http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/language/data/language_map.html
U.S. Department of Education, (2002). The no child left behind act of 2001.
Retrieved from website: https://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.pdf
Uecker, R., Kelly, S., & Napierala, M. (2014). Implementing the common core state
standards. . Knowledge Quest, 42(3), 48-51. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com.oclc.fullsail.edu:81/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h
&AN=93298918&site=ehost-live
Vollmer, J. (2010). Schools cannot do it alone. Enlightenment Press, Kindle Edition.