Common Core Origins: How $200 Million and a Billionaire Bypassed Validation
The Summer Meeting That Changed American Education—Without a Single Vote or Pilot Test
Bottom Line Up Front
Common Core was not developed by teachers, child development specialists, or education researchers using validated methods. It was designed by a small group of corporate consultants (David Coleman, Jason Zimba, Susan Pimentel) under funding from Bill Gates, who provided $200+ million to promote adoption across states. The process bypassed traditional validation: there was no pilot testing in schools before nationwide implementation, no randomized controlled trials, and no independent evidence of effectiveness before 45 states adopted the standards within two years. The system that was eventually "validated" through student test score declines.
The Summer of 2008: A Billionaire's Pitch
In the summer of 2008, two men—Gene Wilhoit (director of the Council of Chief State School Officers) and David Coleman (an education consultant)—sat across from Bill Gates at his "sleek headquarters near Seattle" and asked him to fund a national education standards initiative.
Their pitch was straightforward: academic standards varied wildly between states, high school diplomas had lost meaning, 40 percent of college freshmen needed remedial classes, and American students were falling behind foreign competitors. The fragmented education system, they argued, also prevented innovation because textbook publishers and software developers had to cater to many small markets instead of developing "breakthrough products."
This argument resonated with a man who had built the world's dominant computer operating system. Gates wanted to know if they could deliver. Wilhoit recalled being asked: "Is there any proof that states are serious about this, because they haven't been in the past?" Wilhoit's honest answer: no guarantees, but "we were going to give it the best shot we could."
Weeks passed with no word. Then Wilhoit got a call: Gates was in.
What Happened Next: The Fastest Policy Transformation in U.S. History
What followed was, as reported by the Washington Post and verified by multiple sources, one of the swiftest and most remarkable shifts in education policy in U.S. history. Here's the timeline:
- Summer 2008 Gates agrees to fund the Common Core initiative. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation commits over $200 million.
- Late 2008 The National Governors Association (NGA) convenes a small working group to develop the standards. The team includes David Coleman, William McCallum (University of Arizona), Phil Daro, Douglas Clements, and Student Achievement Partners founders Jason Zimba and Susan Pimentel. The name of the initiative is changed from ADP (America Diploma Project) to Common Core State Standards (CCSS).
- 2008-2009 Student Achievement Partners (founded 2007) becomes the lead contractor for writing the standards. David Coleman and Susan Pimentel are the lead writers for English Language Arts; Jason Zimba and Phil Daro lead math standards development.
- July 24, 2009 President Obama and U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan announce Race to the Top competitive grants. To be eligible, states must adopt "internationally benchmarked standards and assessments." States adopting Common Core by August 2, 2010 receive extra points in funding applications. The Obama administration heavily staffed with Gates Foundation associates.
- August 2010 (Deadline) 41 states apply for Race to the Top and commit to adopting Common Core by the deadline to secure extra grant points. Kentucky becomes the first state to roll out new math and English curricula based on Common Core—before the final draft had been made public.
- Within Two Years of 2008 Meeting 45 states and the District of Columbia fully adopted Common Core. The adoption happened with no single vote by an elected lawmaker in many states. States were responding to "a common belief system supported by widespread investments," according to one anonymous Gates Foundation employee.
Who Actually Wrote Common Core?
This is where the story becomes crucial to understanding what went wrong. Common Core was not written by thousands of teachers, curriculum specialists, or child development experts through a democratic, peer-reviewed process. It was written by a handful of corporate consultants.
David Coleman: An education consultant and "emerging evangelist for the standards movement" with limited prior classroom experience. Coleman became the chief architect of the English Language Arts standards and, later, president of the College Board (which administers the SAT). Critics note that Coleman had almost no teaching experience.
Jason Zimba and Susan Pimentel: Founders of Student Achievement Partners. Zimba has a PhD in mathematics from Yale but limited K-12 classroom experience. Pimentel's background includes education consulting. Together with Coleman, they led the standards-writing process.
Phil Daro and William McCallum: Contributing mathematicians with academic backgrounds but limited experience in K-12 pedagogical research or classroom implementation.
Gene Wilhoit: Director of the Council of Chief State School Officers. A former social studies teacher in Indiana and Ohio, Wilhoit provided the institutional channel for Gates funding to flow to the standards development process.
Notably absent from this core team: the thousands of experienced classroom teachers who understood how children actually learn; the child development psychologists with research on learning progressions; the mathematicians with K-12 implementation experience; the parents and educators who would actually have to implement these standards; and most importantly, any independent validators of the approach.
The Validation Question: How Was Common Core Tested Before Adoption?
Here is the critical gap that explains everything that came after: Common Core was not pilot tested in schools before nationwide adoption.
In established research methodology, before a complex intervention (especially one affecting millions of students) is deployed at scale, it undergoes pilot testing. A pilot study in education should:
- Test the intervention in a small sample of representative schools
- Collect data on implementation fidelity and feasibility
- Measure preliminary effects on student learning
- Identify and correct logistical and pedagogical problems
- Gather feedback from teachers, parents, and students
- Produce evidence that the intervention is ready for scaling before major investments are made
None of this happened with Common Core.
As noted in coverage from the University of Nebraska and multiple education policy analyses: "Whereas most businesses would conduct pilot testing of a major new product, there was no pilot testing of the Common Core." This is not speculation; it is the documented absence of a standard validation procedure.
Instead, what occurred was:
1. Rapid Adoption Without Evidence. States adopted the standards based on financial incentives (Race to the Top funding bonus points) and political pressure, not on evidence that the standards would improve student achievement. Some states, like Kentucky, adopted before the final draft was even public.
2. Marketing, Not Validation. The Gates Foundation funded organizations across the political spectrum—teachers unions (AFT, NEA), business groups (U.S. Chamber of Commerce), policy groups on the left and right—to promote Common Core. This created the appearance of grassroots support for standards that were actually designed by a handful of consultants and funded by one billionaire.
3. The Strongest Validation Was Financial Carrots and Sticks. The Obama administration and Gates Foundation used federal grant money and philanthropic pressure to create a system where it became nearly impossible for states to ignore Common Core. Private Catholic schools adopted Common Core because publishers and professional development vendors aligned their products with it, making it difficult to find materials that weren't Common Core-oriented. This is not validation; it is market capture.
What Actually Happened When Common Core Hit Classrooms
The real "pilot test" was not conducted before implementation. It was conducted on the entire nation's students for fifteen years.
The results, documented in NAEP scores and international assessments, tell the story:
• Math scores at 4th grade: Down 3 points from 2009
• Math scores at 8th grade: Down 9 points from 2009
• 2013-2015 (early implementation): Initial declines
• 2015-2019: Continued decline
• 2019-2024: Further declines despite pandemic recovery efforts
• Lowest-performing students hit hardest: Lost average of 8 points for math 2019-2024
• PISA (international): U.S. reading score up 5 points (2009-2018); math stagnant
Conclusion: The largest uncontrolled experiment on American schoolchildren found the standards ineffective.
If Common Core had been properly pilot tested with a small group of schools before adoption, these declines would have been a signal to pause, modify, or redirect. Instead, the rollout continued, locked in by state policy, textbook contracts, and teacher training that had all been reorganized around the standards.
The Conflict of Interest: Who Benefited?
One question demands asking: why did the Gates Foundation pour over $200 million into an unproven initiative?
Gates has stated publicly that his role was to "fund the research and development of new tools" and offer them to decision-makers. But the process bypassed the research part. There was no research demonstrating that these standards would work. There was only a theory, money to promote adoption, and a system of incentives that made it politically difficult for states to refuse.
Who benefited from Common Core adoption?
Textbook Publishers: New standards required new textbooks. Schools that had been using existing materials suddenly needed to buy Common Core-aligned versions. This represented billions in new textbook sales.
Testing Companies: New standards required new tests. PARCC and Smarter Balanced Assessments were developed specifically for Common Core. These tests required online administration, creating massive demand for school technology infrastructure and contracted testing services.
Technology Vendors: Schools had to buy computers, software, data management systems, and bandwidth to administer online tests and track student data. Critics note that Microsoft, a Gates company, stood to benefit from the technology requirements—a charge Gates vehemently denies but which remains central to the conflict-of-interest narrative.
Teacher Training Vendors: Teachers needed professional development on how to teach to new standards. This created a market for PD contractors and consultants.
All of this happened before anyone had evidence that the standards would improve student learning. In fact, the system was designed such that evidence (or lack thereof) became irrelevant once adoption was locked in.
The Federal Role: How the Department of Education Engineered Adoption
While it's technically true that Common Core was developed by states (through the National Governors Association and Council of Chief State School Officers) and funded by Bill Gates, this narrative obscures a critical reality: the Obama administration and the Department of Education under Arne Duncan were instrumental in making adoption nearly universal.
This happened not through direct mandate—which would have been illegal under federal law—but through a sophisticated system of financial incentives and conditional funding that made refusing Common Core adoption politically and fiscally untenable for states.
Arne Duncan and the Race to the Top Strategy
Arne Duncan served as the 9th United States Secretary of Education from 2009 to 2016 under President Barack Obama. His tenure was defined by his support for national learning standards and standardized tests, which he implemented through the Race to the Top program.
Duncan's role in his memoir "How Schools Work" described rolling out the widespread implementation of Common Core standards via the federal Race to the Top (RTT) grant program. But the mechanism was more sophisticated than a simple grant program.
How the Incentive System Worked:
Duncan's administration offered incentives over the first five years of Obama's presidency that convinced nearly every state to pledge adoption of the administration's preferred policy changes. First, 18 states and Washington, D.C., won grants from the $4 billion Race to the Top program for promising to adopt the policy changes. Then, nearly all states applied for a waiver allowing them to duck penalties for missing achievement targets of No Child Left Behind in exchange for signing up.
In other words: states weren't required by law to adopt Common Core, but they faced a choice between losing federal funding through No Child Left Behind penalties or agreeing to adopt the standards. This is functionally equivalent to a mandate.
Duncan helped convince 42 states to adopt education goals based on the Common Core, and 21 of them to use tests that directly align with those standards. By 2010, with little fanfare, Duncan had turned the Department of Education, traditionally a backwater federal agency, into an aggressive agent of education reform.
The Federal Funding Mechanism: Making Refusal Impossible
The genius of Duncan's strategy was that it avoided direct federal control while achieving de facto national standardization through financial pressure:
Race to the Top Grants ($4 billion): States that committed to Common Core adoption, expanded charter schools, and implemented teacher evaluation systems tied to test scores were eligible for competitive grants. This created perverse incentives: even states skeptical of the standards applied because they couldn't afford to leave federal money on the table while schools faced budget cuts from the Great Recession.
No Child Left Behind Waivers: Nearly all states applied for a waiver allowing them to duck penalties for missing achievement targets of No Child Left Behind in exchange for signing up for Common Core and related reforms. Schools and districts faced the choice: adopt Common Core or face federal sanctions and loss of Title I funding.
Federal Assessment Funding ($350 million): From the beginning, the Obama Administration directly funded national assessments that would be aligned with the standards, to the tune of $350 million. Secretary Arne Duncan said that he believed the "impact" of the federally-funded Common Core assessments will be "dramatic" and that the federally-funded assessments will help "drive the development" of curriculum.
The Legal Gray Zone: Circumventing Federal Law
Duncan's strategy was legally sophisticated precisely because it worked around federal restrictions on federal curriculum control.
The General Education Provisions Act of 1970 stipulates that "no provision of any applicable program shall be constructed to authorize" any federal agency or official "to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction" or selection of "instructional materials" by any school system. The 1979 law establishing the Education Department forbids it from exercising "any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum" or "program of instruction" of any school or school system.
Duncan never formally violated these laws because he never directly mandated curriculum or instructional materials. Instead, he used federal funding conditions and assessment design to create a system where states and schools felt compelled to adopt Common Core despite the legal prohibition on federal curriculum control. As one legal analysis concluded: "Here again laws are cobwebs. As government becomes bigger, it becomes more lawless."
The Administration's Defense: A Technical Truth
Duncan and Obama administration officials responded to criticism by pointing out a technical truth: The Obama administration did not create any curriculum, much less Common Core curriculum, and the federal government has long been barred by law from doing so. Secretary Duncan said in a 2014 speech that "Not a word, not a single semi-colon of curriculum will be created, encouraged, or prescribed by the federal government."
This defense is technically accurate but deliberately misleading. The federal government didn't write curriculum, but it used federal funding, assessment design, and conditional waivers to make adoption of Gates-designed standards the path of least resistance for states and districts. The effect was de facto national standardization without direct federal control over curriculum.
Duncan specifically advocated the use of Title I funding to aggressively push the administration's school reform agenda. This was the mechanism that made resistance untenable.
The Controversy Duncan Provoked
The aggressive federal role was not lost on critics across the political spectrum:
As the backlash grew, Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, the ranking Republican on the Senate Education Committee and a former secretary of education, began labeling Duncan's efforts to push states toward adopting standards as akin to creating a "national school board" and overstepping the boundaries of the federal government.
By 2014, even Duncan began to back away from his connection to the standards. When asked about states opting out at a House budget hearing in April 2014, Duncan denied that he particularly favored the Common Core. "I'm just a big proponent of high standards, and whether they're common or not is sort of secondary," he said. This represents a significant retreat from the aggressive promotion that had characterized his earlier tenure.
Eventually, Congress passed the "Every Student Succeeds Act," which replaced the Bush-era "No Child Left Behind" law. Included in the ESSA, at the behest of congressional Republicans, are several provisions that explicitly bar the federal Department of Education from attempting to "influence, incentivize or coerce" states to adopt standards such as the Common Core. This was essentially a direct rebuke of the Duncan strategy.
Duncan's Legacy: A Powerful Federal Education Chief
Duncan was described by one Washington Post education columnist as "the most powerful federal education chief in the department's history." Over his seven years in office, he aggressively implemented his vision for American education in a more comprehensive way than perhaps any cabinet officer in the Obama administration changed policy in his issue area.
Yet his aggressive federalization of education through conditional funding and assessment design was so controversial that Congress moved to explicitly restrict future education secretaries from using similar tactics. The irony: Duncan accomplished the de facto nationalization of education that legal restrictions were supposed to prevent, by using financial incentives rather than direct mandates.
The Bigger Picture: Gates Foundation + Federal Incentives = National Curriculum
The common narrative portrays Common Core as purely state-led and philanthropically funded. The reality is more complex: it was a partnership between Gates Foundation money, consultant-designed standards, and federal incentive structures that made adoption politically and fiscally impossible to resist.
Gates provided the funding and designed the standards. State education officials and consultants wrote them. But Arne Duncan and the Department of Education provided the enforcement mechanism: federal dollars tied to adoption. Together, these three forces created what functionally amounted to a nationally mandated curriculum while maintaining the legal fiction that states were exercising independent choice.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of Common Core adoption is this: in many states, the standards were adopted without a single vote by an elected lawmaker.
This violated basic principles of democratic governance:
No Public Debate: The movement happened so quickly and with so little public notice that opposition was initially almost nonexistent. By the time parents and educators understood what was happening, nearly every state had already committed.
No Local Control: States had always controlled education policy. The federal government had traditionally avoided curriculum decisions. Yet through a combination of philanthropic funding, federal incentives, and market pressures, a billionaire and his foundation essentially imposed a national curriculum that bypassed both federal law and state governance structures.
Unelected Authority: David Coleman, Jason Zimba, and Susan Pimentel were not elected by anyone. They were not appointed through democratic processes. Yet their decisions about what K-12 students should learn became binding policy in 45 states through a system of financial incentives and market capture that made dissent impractical.
Educational historian and critic Diane Ravitch described it as "the closest thing to an educational coup in the history of the United States." The characterization is not hyperbolic. An unelected junta—funded by one philanthropist and organized by education consultants with limited classroom experience—took control of K-12 curriculum across most of the country without pilot testing, without democratic deliberation, and without evidence that the standards would improve student learning.
How Should Common Core Have Been Validated?
If proper research procedures had been followed, here is what would have happened:
Phase 1: Pilot Study (2 years, 2008-2010): Test the standards in 50-100 schools across geographically and demographically diverse regions. Collect data on implementation feasibility, teacher satisfaction, student learning, and unintended consequences. Refine the standards based on what you learn.
Phase 2: Effectiveness Trial (3-5 years): Conduct a randomized controlled trial comparing schools using Common Core to schools using other high-quality standards (e.g., Massachusetts standards, Singapore Math). Measure student achievement, teaching quality, parent satisfaction, and cost-effectiveness.
Phase 3: Limited Rollout (2-3 years): If evidence supports adoption, begin with 5-10 states that volunteer and are prepared to support implementation. Monitor outcomes closely.
Phase 4: Scale (5+ years): Only after evidence of positive outcomes in multiple contexts, proceed with wider adoption. Allow states to maintain local control and to adopt alternatives if they choose.
Total time to validated adoption: 12-15 years. This is standard for major educational interventions in developed countries.
Instead, the actual timeline was: decision in summer 2008, adoption by 45 states within two years, full implementation by 2014. No pilot. No trials. No alternative options.
Conclusion: The Problem Was Never Just the Standards
The failure of Common Core was not inevitable. Well-designed standards, properly developed through inclusive processes, piloted with real teachers and students, and revised based on evidence, can improve education. Massachusetts had developed strong standards in the 1990s and maintained them successfully until the Gates pressure to adopt Common Core.
The problem was the process: a small group of consultants, funded by a billionaire, designed standards without consulting experienced educators, without piloting them in schools, without gathering evidence of effectiveness, and without allowing democratic deliberation. The system was then imposed on millions of students through financial incentives and market capture rather than through votes, evidence, or consent.
When it failed (as measured by NAEP scores, teacher surveys, and parent frustration), the response was not to pause and investigate why. Instead, some states stayed locked in. Others slowly exited. But the damage—to student learning, teacher morale, and public trust in education—was already done.
The Irony: Gutting the Department That Centralized Control
There is a profound irony in what is happening now that deserves mention: the Department of Education that Arne Duncan used to nationalize curriculum through conditional funding is now itself being dismantled by the Trump administration.
On March 20, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education, while also urging Congress to abolish it outright. Education Secretary Linda McMahon stated soon after taking office that shrinking the department was in effect its "final mission."
Secretary McMahon is working within legal constraints to dismantle the department from the inside, following a strategy laid out in the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025: eliminate programs deemed ineffective or duplicative, shift functions to other federal agencies and transfer control over billions in funding to state and district authorities.
So what was once an instrument of federal centralization—using conditional funding and assessment design to impose national standards—is now being systematically dismantled, with its functions transferred to other agencies and its funding devolved to states.
What This Means for Common Core:
The irony is multilayered. Common Core was designed and funded by Bill Gates and consultants, promoted and enforced by the Department of Education under Arne Duncan through federal incentives and conditional funding, and locked into state law and textbooks for fifteen years. Now, the federal mechanism that enforced Common Core is being dismantled.
The Trump administration is considering requests from Indiana, Iowa and Oklahoma that would allow those states to spend their federal money with less government oversight, and has floated the idea of consolidating several smaller education programs into block grants.
This creates a practical problem: if Title I funding (which currently goes to low-income schools) becomes a block grant to states without federal oversight, what prevents states from defunding the poorest schools? And if special education funding is transferred to block grants without federal enforcement, what protects students with disabilities?
The answer is: nothing, at least not federally. The Department of Education, for all its flaws and overreach, has historically provided civil rights enforcement, data collection on school disparities, and protections for disabled students. Dismantling it doesn't just undo Common Core centralization—it also removes federal mechanisms for ensuring equitable access to education.
The Cycle:
- 1980-2008: Department of Education exists but has limited leverage over states.
- 2008-2015: Arne Duncan uses federal funding and Race to the Top to centralize curriculum through Common Core.
- 2016-2024: Every Student Succeeds Act explicitly restricts federal Department of Education from "influence, incentivize or coerce" state adoption of standards.
- 2025-present: Trump administration dismantles the Department of Education itself.
The pattern reveals something important: the federal government moved from laissez-faire to aggressive centralization to now aggressive decentralization. Each shift happened through executive action and conditional funding, not through democratic deliberation or legislative consensus.
For Your children's Education:
What does this mean practically? States now have more autonomy to choose their own standards, textbooks, and curricula—potentially freed from Common Core if they choose. But they also have less federal oversight and less federal funding per student. And the richest districts will be able to provide quality education; the poorest will struggle more.
The irony is that dismantling the Department of Education removes both the mechanism of federal overreach that forced Common Core adoption and the mechanism of federal enforcement of civil rights, special education protections, and equity requirements.
It's possible that this will allow states to adopt better standards than Common Core—to return to something like Massachusetts' pre-Common Core standards, or to develop rigorous alternatives. It's also possible that it will result in a patchwork of 50 different standards of wildly varying quality, with wealthy districts thriving and poor districts sliding further behind.
What's certain: the system that locked in Common Core—federal leverage through conditional funding—is now being dismantled. Whether that's good or bad for your grandchildren depends entirely on what states and districts choose to do with their newfound autonomy.
Comments
Post a Comment