Along with Michelle Rhee’s gravy train of hypocrisy, public education in the U.S. is under assault from the gravy train of profit driven by Common Core:

The College Board is redesigning four of its testing programs so they reflect the Common Core State Standards and can be used for accountability, a project that adds yet another player to the list of companies seeking to take on new roles in a shifting nationwide assessment landscape. (College Board Enters Expanding Common-Test Market, August 14, 2013)

One comment from “Peter” on this EdWeek story nails the key concern: “And Coleman laughs all the way to the bank.”

If we take the long view and consider the College Board’s contribution to education even before Coleman’s tenure and CC-based goals, what has the College Board overwhelmingly contributed to education?

Inequity.

Every year the SAT has been administered, males have outperformed females in the math and verbal sections (females have excelled in only the new writing section, which is nearly absent in any high-stakes uses of the SAT):

And every year the SAT has been administered, student scores are powerfully correlated with the income of their parents and the level of education of their parents:

Even the College Board’s Advanced Placement program has primarily been about selectivity, creating a curriculum within the curriculum for privileged students.*

The Common Core era of the larger standards and high-stakes testing era is more of a failed policy commitment since we have no evidence that the existence or quality of standards and high-stakes tests contribute positively to teaching or learning.

None.

We do, however, have abundant evidence that the standards/testing movement feeds the profits of those driving the argument that we need new standards and new tests.

Coleman, Rhee, Duncan, the College Board, Pearson, and a growing list of people and companies stand to gain power and money from this movement—all at the expense of teaching, learning, children, communities, and the larger democracy.

So let me end with another comment from the EdWeek story, an important question in fact from “Michael P Goldenberg”: “Anyone else think this borders on an outright con game, a sort of Ponzi scheme with David Coleman and his backers as the Bernie Madoffs?”

I say, yes.

* As full disclosure, I taught AP Literature for most of my 18 years as a high school teacher, but my school had an open-door, not selective, policy for student access to the courses. My students tended to score below the “passing” level of 3, but appreciated the challenge of the course and tended to flourish in college because of the opportunity.