New Mexico’s purchasing agent approved the award of a contract to Pearson to develop the Common Core PARCC tests, despite the absence of competitive bidding. AIR had lodged a complaint against the process since Pearson was the only bidder. The New Mexico contract covers testing of 6-10 million students in 14 states. It is worth about $1 billion to Pearson.
“Last December, the Washington DC-based American Institute for Research filed a protest with the state purchasing agent arguing that the bid for the contract was written favorably for Pearson. Namely, AIR’s takes issue with how the bid required the winner of the contract—whether it was Pearson or a different company—to use Pearson’s online testing system for the first year of testing.
“Such requirements were uncompetitive to other companies, AIR argued. Indeed, only Pearson responded to the request for proposal for the PARCC contract.”
AIR is deciding whether to appeal the decision to the judicial system or drop their appeal.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
AIR is a non-profit holding company for intellectual talent in the social sciences…at least that is how I have come to view it. AIR is a major subcontract for USDEs programs, including the promotion of key aspects of RttT as a national agenda, including teacher evaluations that include test scores and measures of gains in these scores, marketed as “growth” measures. AIR also provides services connected with the NAEP database, including secondary analyses and training for scholars who want to mine that data. This to say that the contract for PARCC tests probably represents a huge recapture of funds in writing the proposal and if awarded, the contract would also give many at AIR who work in education some respite from the major task of writing grant proposals.
Create a weakness, Create a solution to that weakness, Sell the solution for millions. What a success story. What suckers we are.
Hi Dianne: Keep fight! As you know I’m an advocate of public education. This Top Down … BS makes me sick. “If” we cannot take such power(s) away from (incompetent) state “officials” — Then, I will advocate (help-help-help) improve/establish (privatize) for profit entities. So, please continue to address “state(s)” … Perhaps an alternative to Peason (i.e. counter balance) may provide U.S. with another option. I know that you have posted many critical comments regarding for profit entities (admirably) — However, (may) I pose this Question?
Should “we” continue to “waste” OUR resources via … state purchasing agreements (and the salaries of … agents) OR might a modest profit taken in by private (functional) educational “centers” be more sensible/cost effective? Visit my Blog (for more practical advice) @ http://kennethfetterman.wordpress.com